This is my experience as well. It’s also laughable that they call themselves communists and love China and Russia. Those people aren’t communists, they are authoritarians.
That’s why I too am not a believer in horseshoe theory and actually agree that communism hasn’t been practiced properly before. A peaceful emancipation of the common person is still unpracticed. If this is all tankies said, I’d be fine with it. But they say communism has never been practiced before along side arguments that the Soviet Union and China are communist. They are parroting real modern communists without understanding them and mixing in their revisionist history to create a paradox they don’t seem too concerned about.
I think it’s more about rebelling against their Reagan loving, USSR hating dads than sound political theory.
Communism in practice is USSR and China type dictatorships. Fantasising about “real” “peaceful” communism ever existing is delusional.
If you want to abolish private property and there are people who disagree (and there will always be) the central power will need to “neutralize” them.
This is what Marx envisaged socialism as - the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.
Shame that every single time this has been attempted its been quashed externally or coopted internally by bad actors.
All communist regimes are authoritarian by nature
Is this a comment on the inevitably of human nature, or a misunderstanding of communism (which if done properly is stateless)?
Probably just that every rendition of communism so far has been authoritarian.
Hippie communes are a counterexample.
Every large scale rendition, then.
Goal posts successfully moved
The previous comments were specifically talking about communist “regimes,” and I clarified what I thought they meant to say. You shifted the framing to be pedantic, unless you genuinely count hippy communes as communist regimes.
Goal post was successfully moved when hippie communities were brought up as a “regime”.
Hippie communes are not countries and are dependent on the goodwill of everyone else around them.
I would argue that an authoritarian state cannot be communist, though plenty have called themselves so.
There can be no other rendition.
Communism if done properly is Stateless insofar as it means there is no Class, and therefore no aparatus like the Police that uphold the dominance of one class over another.
Communism was always, in Marxist tradition, meant to have a democratically accountable world republic.
You may or may not be referring to Anarcho-Communism, which rejects both the transitional state of Socialism and prefers more decentralized networks of Mutual Aid.
Anarcho-Communism
Yeah it’s like I said, communism done properly.
It’s fine to be an Anarcho-Communist, but I think it’s silly to claim that Marxism isn’t also “Communism done properly.” Communism done better can be argued, but both should be seen as proper.
Yeah that’s fair.
Is it better if I rephrase it as “all regimes founded on communist ideas and visions are authoritarian by nature”?
A truly communist “regime” is not something that should ever exist as communism is a stateless philosophy thus inherently not authoritarian by its very nature.
It’s the bit in between capitalism and communism that historically has been coopted by bad actors to create authoritarian regimes, these regimes tend to still call themselves communist because “lol fuck your revolution I’m in charge now” doesn’t have the same PR value.
In short: a true communism cannot exist.
Communism is authoritarian because it puts the needs of a social construct (a “commune” or “society”) over the needs, rights and freedoms of an individual. It doesn’t matter how you want to paint it, it’s always authoritarian.
I think that’s a gross misunderstanding on your part.
No, I think that’s a gross misunderstanding on YOUR part.
Well you would wouldn’t you, what with the whole gross misunderstanding part?
Are you talking to a mirror?
over the needs, rights and freedoms of an individual.
As should be the fucking case, you chimp. Otherwise, I am free to bash your head on the pavement as part of my “individual freedom”.
Oh look, Nazis are here.
Right, the famously Nazi Communists… can you make a single sensible remark, or is it all brain rot?
Come back when Commies start supporting human rights and freedoms.
Isn’t that pretty much exactly what a “Tankie” is? An authoritarian communist? One that believes the revolution can only occur through state violence?
I think it should be updated, as Russia and China are not communist and those people love them.
I feel like the “communism” was used, because “authoritarianism” sounds worse.
Communism is inherently authoritarian. Thus they’re Communists.
Removed by mod
To be fair. “that wasn’t true Communism” is true. The problem is dictatorships keep getting sold with its name. Ironically proving how hard it would be to actually achieve a world or country of communes.
Except those people prefer the Chinese and USSR style of social autocracies to actual socialist projects. Some of them even trash worker coops, although that was more true to the InfraHaz style lolcows than the tankies of lemmy…
Social Autocracy, oh wow that’s a new one on me. They’re just brutal dictatorships with a shiny veneer.
I call any dictatorships that barely does anything more than the Baltic states, while calling themselves as “socialists”.
I think it gives them too much credit. They might give you housing but they’ll kill you in the middle of the night because someone gave your name to stop the torture.
The only kind of Communism I’m willing to accept is the Star Trek Communism. Until then I’m pro Team “Social market economy”!
I’m with you there. If we get poop->food magic machines then all bets are off. Until then we need a democratic state to prevent abuse.
Fully Automated Gay Space Communism or bust!
The bolshivek revolution made it certain that any communist nation is a dictatorship. The menshiveks would have achieved better results.
The Mensheviks wouldn’t have been much more different than German and French socialdemocrats who accepted capitalism. But there were other relevant left-leaning political forces during the Russian Revolution that were neither Bolsheviks nor Mensheviks - I wonder what happened with them?
I wonder what happened with them?
Gulag happened to them.
Wait until you learn whatt the SPD did to the Spartactus League.
“Accepting capitalism” is a bit like like “accepting crime.”
It’s a natural byproduct of a series of extremely complex systems which exist in every society, and you either need to understand the right way to respond to it and restrain it, or you will become a dystopian hellscape trying to eliminate it entirely. This is pretty much the lesson we have learned from every ML experiment this far. They always seem to end up with an even worse form of capitalism, just like “tough on crime” societies always end up with an even worse form of crime.
Eliminating capitalism requires conditions which we should work towards, but will likely never exist in our lifetime. But in the meantime, there is a lot of good we can do to diminish the social ills we have now, within that context, without being otherwise distracted by something which is effectively impossible in the short term.
That’s the problem though. When you study revolutions you overwhelmingly find there is a group doing reforms in a civilized way after the previous government is removed. And they almost always get lined up against a wall by a power hungry asshole.
You have to remember that your slow and patient reforms can drag their feet to the point it becomes indistinguishable from malice. That’s what happened to e.g. the “socialists” who allied with the Russian provisional government and kept supporting the war against the will of the people.
Well that’s what the Bolsheviks claim at any rate. It’s always what the dictator claims.
The masses supported the Bolsheviks in the summer and fall of 1917 because they were the most radically and consistently antiwar party, regardless of their other faults. It was the most urgent issue in politics at the time for reasons that should be obvious. This is a pretty widely accepted narrative even among right wing historians.
I agree with that but it’s still just one issue that could have been solved with actual representation.
That’s also why I think people are too quick to reject pax America. It’s a locally stable region in which we can build. Reverting back to a revolutionary stance has a very real possibility of going quite far in the wrong direction before we can advance over the status quo.
Unless, of course, the path to post scarcity communism is just “21st century tech, 17th century population.” Which I suppose is probably valid.
Toussant would’ve been better for Haiti than Dessalines. But him being a tyrant doesnt make me not an abolitionist.
Communism is inherently authoritarian as it puts the needs of a social construct (in this case a “commune” or “society”) over the needs, rights and freedoms of an individual. It is hard to achieve anything good with communism, because totalitarian dictatorship is the only possible outcome for any advanced enough authoritarian ideology.
Communism is a classless, moneyless, stateless society.
Only in your imagination.
I thought that was the point. That actual communism only exists in the imagination. Until we get star trek tech as others have mentioned.
Well, that just confirms that Communists are lunatics.
This week in “didn’t understand the prompt”:
This week in “Nazis pretend they’re not Nazis”.
Whose going to take care of the utilities?
It ✨ d e p e n d s ✨ on what kind of communist answers.
Lmao, good point!
Oof the individualists didn’t like that. I don’t think it’s inevitable though. I just think it’s going to take some special people and circumstances we haven’t found yet. For example a George Washington like figure who refuses to become another king.
Actual braindead take. A monkey with a typrewriter would come up with something more sensible.
Right, the problem is they turn around and defend the dictatorship because obviously Marxism cannot survive less you continuously sanitize the marketplace of ideas.
Well their version can’t at any rate. I’d say Marxism can’t survive violence in the ideas market.
By that stupid definition there’s no true capitalism either, so what’s your point?
Oh? Are there no countries with private ownership of industry?
Oh? Are there no countries with state ownership of industry?
If that’s your criteria, then yes, there are both truly communist and truly capitalist countries.
Tell me which country claiming to be communist is not actually just a dictatorship with a veneer?
None? That was like 200% sarcasm. You used a single criteria to mark countries as truly capitalist, so I though I might as well do the same.
Oh good, this seems like a good place to ask something that’s been bothering me for a while.
I see the posts from Hexbear and Lemmygrad. I can understand why they are in favour of theoretically communist regimes like China. What I can’t for the life of me see is why they seem to unconditionally support modern Russia which is surely as far away from communism as you can get.
I must be missing something but not sure what?
“I hate the US”
“Oh Russia and Iran hate the US. I love Russia and Iran!”
Unfortunately sometimes people are actually as stupid as they make themselves out to be.
What is there to love about the U.S.?
European here. The US are far from being the great country that they are presented as in a lot of US media, but it’s also far from the terrible place that some people will claim it to be. Sure, it has some massive flaws, but it’s still “better” than a lot of other places. You can love plenty of things about it. It’s not just black or white.
American here. It’s not that the U.S. is a terrible place to live, it’s that a lot of America’s wealth comes from the extraction of wealth and resources from other countries:
On the backs of children: Why U.S. companies exploit foreign child labor and how to stop it
Mensch Hubi, dich hab ich hier aber nicht erwartet
Ich bin überall 👀
There’s lots of states where weed is legal.
The government doesn’t have a secret police force to blackbag me for what I say.
I live in a beautiful place near the mountains.
The elections aren’t rigged.
The people I know are here.
It’s impossible to stage an effective invasion.
There’s lots of things to love about the place I live. That doesn’t mean I think it’s perfect, and I still think about how to make life better. Throwing in with Russia is not an effective strategy to affect positive change, and so I think those who do so are foolish.
Now, imagine not being born in America. But in the Philippines or Iraq or Afghanistan. Would you still love the U.S. after seeing what it did to your people?
I don’t see how that’s relevant to the previous topic. You asked a question, and I answered. Before that, the discussion was about how naive lionizing Russia is when the motivation is counteracting U.S. imperialism. Frankly, it was the wrong question to ask.
Judging from your response, it was exactly the right question to ask. I was trying to give incite into how people might side with international interests against American imperialism.
Because they’re anti-west not pro-communist.
Anything critical of Russia is obvs western propaganda and as Russia is an enemy of the west, they will support them.
They see the enemy of their enemy as their friend, instead of realising it’s just another enemy.
They’re not actually communists, it’s just a facade for Kremlin and CCP propaganda.
Noo you don’t ._. Their train of thought is more often than not “USSR=Good. USSR hates USA. USA=Bad. Modern Russia hates USA. So Russia = Good.”
I bet they have never been to Russia
Its not even that, its more the USSR apologism that is horrifying to me, it is clear they have never interacted with someone who has lived through the USSR, especially non-russians. They keep parroting how bad most post-soviet economies are, conveniently leaving out what the USSR did to those same economies on its way out.
what the USSR did to those same economies on its way out.
you havent been listening. thats not our opinion about it at all.
Care to elaborate?
They dont unconditionally support Russia. I disagree with them but they see Ukraine and the US as even worse. Considering the prelavance of Nazi imagery in the Ukraine military, or how Ukraine banned leftist opposition parties, or how they removed minority language rights etc.
I think in their minds in a fight of two reactionary autocracies they prefer the one fighting against the west.
You can see on ProleWiki what Lemmygrad.ml’s stances are, in their words, and why. Their article on the Russian Federation backs up what you’ve said, they believe it is extremely reactionary with horrifying treatment of LGBTQ people and is currently ruled by the Nationalist party, but critically support Russia insofar as it opposes Western hedgemony and Imperialism, and no more than that.
Critically, Lemmygrad, Hexbear, and much of Lemmy.ml see Lenin’s definition of Imperialism as the number one obstacle in Socialism’s advance, that is, the state in Capitalism where Imperialist countries export machinery and finances to the third world in order to super-exploit outsider populations for super-profits domestically. This is a necessity within Capitalism to combat the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall. It’s the concept of unequal exchange.
Now, of course you do not have to agree with Lemmygrad or Hexbear or Lemmy.ml, but as someone who regularly sees these posts, there are no delusional posters who somehow think the Russian Federation is still Communist or that Putin is secretly rebuilding the USSR.
The delusional part comes from supporting countries that have a tendency to kill gay people and saying that they are against lgbtq oppression
But you see, Russia is just what is left of the glorious soviet union who got destroyed by the western evils. Whatever they do is totally justified in their bid to rebuild the union under a dictator, dont you know anything? And Ukraine is full with jewish nazis.
in those places you will usually see the term “critical support”. that means we are critical to most aspects of modern russia, but are supportive of their anti-us goals, simply because it helps us break free of their imperialism.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to try to break free of an imperialism enforced primarily by markets via support of an imperialism enforced primarily by mass genocidal violence and threats of disproportionate nuclear retaliation. Furthermore, Marx’s writing indicates that revolution needs to start in the most powerful industrial country on earth before global revolution can take root. Fighting against people trying to reform the U.S. and trying to destroy it without a revolutionary base goes directly against the strategy Marx recommended. That is to say, if all you do is counter one imperial power with another in hopes that the first will fall, all you get is a revolving door of imperialism.
marx’ (more like lenin’s in this case) writings say the opposite, revolution more easily happens in the more oppressed places, because people are actually seeing the problems of the system firsthand much more intensely. china was a prime example in the 50s. also according to lenin, anti-imperialism is the #1 priority when trying for global socialism, because it will alleviate suffering the most, and weaken the empire’s grip on the world.
nobody is expecting the revolution to simply just happen from russia resisting the us, by far, but burgeoise infighting will make the us hegemony weaker. the us is not even close to a reform where we can just wait for them to stop. maybe i’m wrong on this one but i dont think any empire was ever reformed in this sense.
africa is seeing some liberation movements right now that would probably be impossible if the us wasnt invested in spreading themselves thin with a few wars elsewhere. the BRICS are another example of something that would never happen with a strong us influence.
[lenin’s] writings say the opposite
Yeah, that’s part of the problem. This is why I don’t think MLs can form effective long-term coalitions with Socialists, Communists, and Anarchists. Lenin’s writings are (with the benefit of hindsight) transparently nothing more than an effort to garner support so that he could seize power. His words and actions contradict leftist writings, ideals, and practice. I don’t think anyone who looks at his actions though the clarity of hindsight and sees someone who we should study for what to do correctly should be taken seriously. I’m certain there’s a few diamonds in the rough we can find, but he shouldn’t ever be used as an authority.
burgeoise infighting will make the us hegemony weaker
We’re talking about innocent people (e.g. Ukrainians) being killed, taken, raped, or some combination thereof. It’s not “burgeoise infighting” it’s war. You can talk about the practical implications and how we can take advantage of tragedies without pretending that Russia is a force for good. And I say that because there is a contingent of self-proclaimed “leftists” who routinely act in such a fashion. Furthermore, Russian propaganda is pushing the United States towards fascism, which endangers the slowly building leftist movement that we need to let the world as a whole move past capitalism.
africa is seeing some liberation movements right now that would probably
I don’t think the numbers here are clear enough to claim positive Utility from this trade-off. Yes there’s the potential for the revolution to lead to better conditions (maybe even a truly left-wing society), but it’s extremely uncertain if that will be the case. Furthermore, if the dominant power in the world isn’t left-wing that makes that potential left-wing society’s chances of surviving absolutely bleak.
BRICS
Okay. You’ve used a mechanism of countering U.S. hegemony as an example of a benefit of when the thesis is that countering U.S. hegemony is a good thing. Do I need to explain why this is a really bad facet of your argument or is that enough for you to figure it out?
This is why I don’t think MLs can form effective long-term coalition
Material reality shows the exact opposite. Leninist-adjacent socialist experiments are the only ones to survive decades on a big scale, even if they still have (or had) faults, or needed adjustment over the years. You can’t have perfect from the get go, and these move slowly at a generational pace.
garner support so that he could seize power
You said it all but we don’t need hindsight to see its transparent, its exactly the stated intention behind a vanguard party. Without it you can’t really seize power in large country-wide scale, simply because success is very rare without it. Even the current liberation movements in Africa are seemingly led by vanguard groups, even if they turn out not to be marxist.
You can talk about the practical implications and how we can take advantage of tragedies without pretending that Russia is a force for good.
Thats exactly what I did. We cannot stop this war, period. But we can understand how it can help us. By burgeoise infighting I mean two capitalist states commanded by two different sets of competing oligarchs, of course. This was predicted by Marx, and happened many times before.
I don’t think the numbers here are clear enough to claim positive Utility from this trade-off
Key word here is probably. Also this is not a trade-off, kicking out imperialism is always good. Every single anti imperialist movement paves the way for them to start actually fixing things unimpeded. That of course depends on what they will do next, liberation from imperial powers is just the first (albeit not any less important) step. There is a reason anti-imperialism takes the forefront in the third world when it comes to this. But you can’t just say being under the boot of a brutal foreign power is any better.
BRICS
Read above about imperialism because it applies here. BRICS would not be allowed to advance as much as its doing now if the US still had a tight grip on us. You can take quite a lot of their military and political interventions around the world as an example. Every country in the past (that i know of, at least) had their shit beaten out of them for even trying to have wiggle room outside of the absurd demands of the imperial burgeoise and the IMF.
My own country was trying something similar before it was couped by the US and my own country was almost couped recently with their help, again, because we are slipping from their control just slightly. BRICS is one such motivator, if not one of the main ones.
You seem to have a very imperial core-centric view of the world, like most non-leninist leftists tend to do nowadays, moreso the ones from the imperial core. Things are not black and white, and every little victory helps when we barely have any space to move.
The better question is what are they missing.
It is a weird world where the Tankies align with Moscow Marjorie
It’s not surprising at all, they’re working for the same people.
I’m my experience, they tend to be authoritarian first and Leftist second at best. Note that I’m not talking about all M-Ls, just those that support military force and violence to quell dissent.
Leftist = authoritarian.
My additions:
- “Sealioning”
- That’s all a bunch of lies, you’re just blindly linking to a mouthpiece for US imperialism like Washington Post / BBC / Wikipedia
- Links to rt.com
- The answers you seek are in this 90 minute YouTube video
- You’ve unwittingly EXACTLY PROVEN MY POINT (refuses to elaborate)
I am sure there are more
Edit: More
- (this comment has been removed by the moderator)
- If Russia isn’t fantastic how are they winning so hard in Ukraine
(Comment Removed by Mod) made me LOL
The Gish Gallop is often used, although you’ve kind of covered it with point 2 and 3.
Extended Version:
Needs an “EU BAD” square
“Russian special military operation in Ukraine is an anti-imperialist project.”
“US military aid to Ukraine is an imperialist act.”
Statements made by the utterly deranged.
i don’t think “that wasn’t true communism” belongs with the rest. saying Russia good , USSR good and China good requires you to pretend they are true communism, isn’t that what tankies do?
i think this is more what actual leftie/communist people say about those countries because they think the authoritarian regimes don’t reflect communism, not to mention the fact that Russia and China are capitalist countries in everything but name.
saying Russia good , USSR good and China good requires you to pretend they are true communism
Russia hasn’t been anything resembling Communist since perestroika and the subsequent dismantling of the USSR. Might as well call France a monarchy or complain about Japanese Imperialism.
The long struggle session over “Is China Communist?” has been tilting back in the “Enthusiastic Yes!” column for years, as Xi’s abandoned the Dengist market integration strategy and increasingly put his chips on a new Third-World Export model for Chinese aid and trade (incidentally, much more in line with the USSR peace dividend strategy circa 1950s/60s). If nothing else, Xi’s proposal to have a housing sector that is 30% public (up from the current 5%) would be the AES guy’s wet dream.
Russia and China are capitalist countries in everything but name.
Russia after '91 spend a solid decade under the Shock Doctrine mass sell off of domestic assets. Its rapid transition to capitalism had more in common with a pillaging than any economic reform. The Russian state was never fully integrated into the European trade model. And it was always held at arms length by NATO military advisers, limiting the possibility of fully internationalized markets. After the second failed “Russian Reset” under Obama, the state has begun re-nationalized a host of traditionally private assets as multi-national industries abandoned the country.
Chinese single-party state administered economic policy - the Five Year Plan model that’s been building steam since the 1950s - is about as far away from the Western Laisse-Faire model of capitalism as you can get and still plausibly cling to the name. If China is capitalist, it is doing capitalism in a way wholly alien to any Chicago School economics professor or McKinsey consultant.
You might be able to shoehorn their economies into the broad definition of profit-seeking private ownership. But in both form and function, they look radically different from a US, German, or Japanese private economy.
I think you may have missed the word “pretend” there
They’ll make both arguments, but yeah you’re right otherwise
Welcome to fight night
in this corner is a poster who brought a lot* of links from sites you’ve never heard of! He thinks browbeating liberals with theory will help them “escape the mind prison of Western propaganda”, his special power: pigshit!
Heeeeereee’s TANKIE BROWN!!
crowd noises
Aaaaand in this corner!
Hailing from the mean streets of forums everywhere! He doesn’t like criticism of Dems, and has the links and the time to disprove you! Special power… Derision!
IiiiiiiiiiiiiIIIIT’s LIB-MASTER J!!
crowd: raaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Tonight, they’ll be performing, front and center, in your thread! Whether you like it or not! Taking up all the air! Watch with horror and wonder as the same arguments are trotted out and no one learns anything! Whose ego will be bruised? Who will get “owned”? Find out tonight (and every night) on lemmy.ml!
does the concession sell popcorn? cause I’m down for this.
I enjoyed this.
>thread about cakes
Tankie: This is US propaganda!
Source?
Red Devil cake
Someone says: USA Bad (with proof)
USApes: It must mean they think China and Russia are good.
¿Por Qué No Los Tres?
It’s usually * Russia/China does something horrific *
Normal People: Hey, this is pretty terrible.
Tankies: IT’S NOT TERRIBLE BECAUSE WHAT USA DID IS MUCH WORSE.
In 98% of my Encounter with Tankies, they are the one who try to steer the topic away from the horrible thing China/Russia has done and towards: LOOK USA BAD! Even if the USA has NOTHING to do with the topic at all. It’s like that’s their go-to argument. And of course: " Yeah, it’s not bad because the puppet States of China and/or Russia said it’s not bad. "
They usually skip the morality and jump straight to the whataboutism. They know that the thing is bad and won’t argue that, but they will try to sweep it under the rug and change the narrative to US doing something bad too.
At the end of the day they’re like kids in a playground justifying that they can do something bad because someone else did it too.
Oh and I can tell that someone will misinterpret my comment and think I’m downplaying the sh*t that the US did
Two wrongs always makes one right
Yep. If anyone doubts this, try telling them how Marx was an antisemite and watch their heads explode in an epic rage-filled whatabout rant.
Marx was of Jewish descent himself, and argued for the liberation of Jewish people. He brutally took down one of the most anti-semetic pieces of his time, The Jewish Question, in his essay On The Jewish Question. Bauer argued for forcing Jewish people to deconvert in The Jewish Question.
In On the Jewish Question, Marx argues that Religion has played a terrible role in supporting the ruling class, whether that be the aristocracy in Feudalism or the Bourgeoisie in Capitalism, but ultimately argues that this is not an issue of ethnicity, but Mode of Production, and that antisemitism is abhorant.
You don’t have to be a Marxist, but trying to paint a Jewish man as antisemetic, that argued against some of the most antisemetic contemporaries of his time, is historical revisionism.
Have you by chance read his letters to Engles?
“Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it?”
-Karl Marx
“Being in his quality as a hard R slur removed, a degree nearer to the rest of the animal kingdom than the rest of us, he is undoubtedly the most appropriate representative of that district.”
-Engles, regarding Marx’ son in law Paul LaFargue, who Engles said possessed “one eighth or one twelfth hard R slur removed blood.”
Bonus points:
“The Negro is indolent and lazy and spends his money on frivolities, whereas the European is forward-looking, organized and intelligent.”
-Che Guevara
Why idolize such virulent racists who say things that would make even Ted Cruz (Cruise? Kruz? Fuck it) blush? Seems like it may be a bad crowd to follow.
You’re being obtuse, they actively defend Russia/China.
Is not propaganda if it affects you /s
Yeah i like communism and all but can’t foe the life of me figure out why they like russiu and china . Is it because there used to be (a kind of) communism there ? I stand for the idea of communism not the people or places that are (kinda) associated with them .
Tbh I can see how communism is a pretty romantic ideal utopia but when you look at the people proposing communism it’s consistently been used as a sort of scam to take power and the freedom of the people that they rule over its like the geopolitical version of saying hey I’ve been trying to contact you about your cars extended warranty
Even when there are serious people reforming systems to provide more rights and equality they jump in and sell a more radical version to take power. It also doesn’t help that the KGB used that as a signature move to install pro soviet dictatorships. Personally I’ve always thought democracy would be the stable way to move to the left. But we need to have actual education and get past the neo liberals drip feeding us reforms.
i can understand if you hate china if all you know about it is western propaganda.
i dont think many tankies “love” modern day russia
Well care to cmv i am not tge one to act like i am very good at politics or know everything and i am open to changing my views if i am presented with information that proves me wrong .
i wrote this in this thread but basically we use the term “critical support”, meaning we dislike modern russia in general but support its current goals of pushing back US influence.
this helps us because every time the US interferes anywhere that isnt the west, we end up much worse off than before. this can be for a variety of economic and political reasons, but we generally call it imperialism or neocolonialism.
my own country was interfered with recently and we are still reeling from it.
China is basically still communist, though apparently they have mixed with capitalism as well, and so is Russia basically, with the Russian communist party still a party in Russia and is the 2nd largest party in the country.
Wut?
Russia sold off all of the publicly owned industries to their now plutocracy, and China having a mixed economy is exactly not communism.
The United States has a communist party and a mixed economy, no one would ever argue the US is Communist (expect maybe Republicans when a Democrat takes office.)
china is a market socialism or dengist, which means taking a couple of steps back from building socialism to be able to participate in the (capitalist) global markets until they have self sufficiency to fully cut back on the capitalist aspects currently pervading it, and survive the sanctions that will invariably come.
they currently have the goal of being a fully socialist economy by the 2050s. xi is already taking some action in this direction but we don’t expect it to happen overnight.
on the other hand, russia is currently fully capitalist, yes, but they dont kneel for the US hegemony which is why we support some of their goals.
Dengism as it really exists is not market socialism, it’s not even a proper social market economy (broadly speaking the EU model). Welfare is full of cracks people fall though, billionaires exist, arguably to a larger degree than in Europe. Neither is the case under market socialism which you should rather understand as “communism without central planning and councils relegate decision making to the market in certain areas” than the half state capitalist half private capitalist system China has going on.
Actually, France comes close: China is dirigisme without unions, worker’s, or generally human rights. And infinitely more corrupt.
im not 100% in agreement with it, but yes dengism is the doctrine that gave rise to the current market socialism in china, still very much in line with marxism if much slower than the transition in the ussr. very much on track to a fully socialist economy.
you trying to argue france is more socialist than china? what?? france is literally one of the most capitalist and imperialist nations on earth. are you aware africans have to be exploited for some of france’s nuclear reactors to be powered on right? shit, most of the continent is in as bad shape as it is largely because of france…
im sorry but im struggling to see much sense in what you said. are you just trolling? in any case let me just say “welfare state” or “assistentialism” isn’t what socialism is at all, and you should really look into how the so-called developed nations in the EU acquired their wealth…
you trying to argue france is more socialist than china?
France has, for European standards, a very large state sector. That’s what I was saying: They very much don’t shy away from taking state money and whipping it around in the economy to direct it – hence the term dirigisme. And no all those state-run nuclear power plants don’t need Nigerian uranium to run, they run on uranium from anywhere, and in fact do. Kazakhstan, Australia and Canada are all giant producers which don’t happen to be Russia or Nigeria.
By and large colonialism has been a net economical loss for France.
And don’t get me started on China and imperialism, just like Russia China, in its current form, is an imperial empire. France’s attitude towards its colonial history is a whole other topic but at least they don’t currently have a genocide going on.
Also France has better healthcare, pension, heck even housing and that’s despite of Banlieus.
a very large state sector
socialism doesnt have much to do with how big the state is, and aims ultimately to end it. thats a very common strawman for comparing apples to oranges though.
By and large colonialism has been a net economical loss for France.
ahahahahahahahahahahaha what the fuck. try to find out what european interests are doing to africa if you want to have a peek at actually real imperialism and genocide, happening right now. nothing about history here, this is still the present.
i was actually going to engage further but you are either trolling or need to seriously humble yourself and leave the bubble you are in, because the stuff you are saying is comically nonfactual.
China has a Socialist Market Economy post-Dengist reforms. Russia is a borgeois dictatorship, the Communist Party in Russia is behind the current ruling Nationalist Party, as you’ve said, so it is not Communist or even Socialist.
They are authoritarian yknow the exact opposite of communism ?
Russia is a Bourgeois Dictatorship so it cannot be Communist. China has a Socialist Market Economy, which is a transitional state towards Communism along traditional Marxist lines.
You may want to read Engels’ On Authority, strong government power isn’t enough to consider something anti-Communist, at least according to traditional Marxism.
Note: that doesn’t mean a strong government is good, necessarily, it just means that it is compatible with Socialism and thus not inherently anti-Communist.
But i do not thibk of mao or marxist as true communists as even tho they maybe considered as communists the things they did does not sit as good with me and seems a little anti-communist and i don’t value their ideals or words because of that . I know i may not be a real communist as while i do like some communist ideologies i do not like the people or places that are often associated with it
You don’t have to like or agree with Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Mao to still understand that they were truly Communists. At the same time, it’s absolutely fine to not be a Communist. You might be a Liberal or an Anarchist or even a Conservative, as long as you think deeply about your views and study them as much as you’re able, that’s enough.
Hmm maybe definetly not conservative tho hate like 99.99% of their views and ideologies but i do usually vote for communists and encourage others to do the same .
In that case, I suggest studying Marxism and Anarchism. Try reading Marx, Engels, even Lenin for Marxism, and try reading Kropotkin and Goldman for Anarchism.
Reading Principles of Communism by Engels, How Marxism Works by Chris Harman, and The Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin might be eye-opening for you.
Cowbee explains this.
You forgot a square for circle-jerking over reading theory.
You have a problem with educating yourself?
I hope you find your way out of this bullshit spiral you’re descending in, best of luck to you
They aren’t making fun of you for having read The Conquest of Bread.
They are making fun of you for thinking that was enough.
What do you suggest reading?
Currently I am reading the island of the day before by Umberto Eco.
Its pretty good, but not his best.
What did you think after reading The Conquest of Bread?
I’m not sure I thought just 1 thing about it when I finished it. Can you be more specific in your question?
Go easy on me now, I haven’t read it in probably 14 years. You would probably get more of asking me about “Red Victory!”, and its portion on the early months of famine.
I don’t know of Red Victory. Just wondering if you identified with the anarchist aspects of the book? Or, would you recommend The Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn instead?
You got downvoted for defending education. We truly live in “interesting” times.
These words also instantly make me lose respect for anyone who repeats them:
- Western imperialism
- Colonialism
- Neo-liberal
There has to be some memo that gets passed around and every ml comment is contractually obbligated to include these phrases.
Even in a historical context? Colonialism was absolutely real, 1930s neoliberalism was a real political movement, and the British Empire was absolutely a western imperialist system.
I never said they weren’t real, did I? I just said I don’t have to hear about it in every goddamn comment. Someone shits in the woods and an ml account will login to mention colonialism of neo-liberal policies influenced the color of my shit in the woods. It doesn’t have to be repeated. every. goddamn. time.
well when we are from those places and still suffer from the consequences, its reasonable to still be mad about it regardless of your feelings
Ok chief. Safe to say we’ve all been impacted in one way or another. Did y’all just wake up yesterday and discover Reaganomics or some shit? C’mon.
what makes you think we started hating neoliberalism yesterday?
Dunno. The fact that you guys bring it up incessantly in every conversation like it’s fresh news?
nah, we bring it up like most of you are ignoring it.
those are three things that actually materially destroyed my country.
You forgot “a meme response that is barely relevant to the discussion.”
