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.
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.
Well if that’s what you meant, then no shit a “regime” is authoritarian – that’s basically true by definition. But that just means your comment was tautological and vacuous, so what was your point?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well if that’s what you meant, then no shit a “regime” is authoritarian – that’s basically true by definition. But that just means your comment was tautological and vacuous, so what was your point?
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.
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?
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.
All brain rot, got it
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