Since when do tankies care about authoritarianism? That’s shit liberals say
Pretty sure they’re all war criminals but who’s counting, right?
Technically Xi’s stuff is Crimes Against Humanity. Americas is more massive, historical, and ongoing War Crimes in the middle east… But both countries ramped up after 9/11, and are anti arab and anti Muslim in their victim selections. So… there’s that…
…I tell ya, the US quietly going into Syria had some stank on it. We focus on Iraq and Afghanistan, but boy the list of investors who were pushing for Syria… Here’s some from Genie Energy, the main oil concern:
Genie Energy’s Strategic advisory board is composed of: Dick Cheney since 2009 (former vice president of the United States),[3] Rupert Murdoch (media mogul and chairman of News Corp), James Woolsey (former CIA director), Larry Summers (former head of the US Treasury), Michael Steinhardt, Jacob Rothschild,[4][5] and Mary Landrieu, former United States Senator from Louisiana.
Syria (and the oil rich Golan Heights) is right next to Israel. So the whole thing had uber Capitalist millitary industrial finger prints all over it, and it was done pretty quietly. People just didn’t really notice the blood for oil that time. I imagine Israel annexed the whole region with Americas backing.
It’s good to be informed and kind of natural people will be more aware of systems they’re in and close to than they will be of systems from 1950s USSR or somewhere overseas that speaks another language.
It’s only bad when the war criminal doesn’t emotionally validate them specifically as an individual.
Bait? In my Christian shitposting community?
I would never!
It’s a Godric post. What else would you expect??
The downside of creating political shitposts in this community is feeling obligated to read the parapgraphs on paragraphs of seemingly serious political theory that no one asked for.
Godric is always asking for it in these posts. Their entire purpose is to bait MLs. And it’s not like we’re just going to let lies be spread, so it always works.
Praxis
JuSt ReAd tHeOry bRo!
I wish I had it saved but this one time a commenter basically said “I don’t have time to explain this to you” and then came back 6 hours later with 1000 word reply.
At some point, you have to lean into the shit part of shitpost and accept that you’re posting in a troll thread
Meanwhile the Anarchists are like…
Well, easier to overthrow one than the other.
Is it tho
Ah, yes, I forgot. Those two famously still in power people… checks notes… Barak Obama and Joe Biden.
They meant system, but I’ll bite, Mao “stepped down” after his failed cultural revolution
American pseudodemocracy is easier to overthrow than authoritarian state capitalism. Things are pretty awful in America, but a lot of folks underestimate the depths of how awful a system can get. They think their worst day is the worst day that ever happened. They’re sheltered.
I saw a lot of people on Reddit in 2016 saying that Trump would shake the system up and convince people to join the left and start a revolution. Did we do it? Did we shake the system up? Were they right?
Let’s be clear, accelerationism is a morally bankrupt strategy and never works to the degree its proponents think it will. But it is also undeniable that leftist ideologies have not been this popular in America since the 1920s.
It’s not entirely due to Trump, but rather the dialectical relationship between the capitalist mode of production and the innate human rejection of oppression.
Anarchism? Wasn’t that made illegal in the US after the Haymarket bombing?
Well you see the thing about Anarchists…
I wish I could create an alternate reality where anarchy reigns and transport all these “anarchists” to it and watch them drown the entire reality in their tears as they suffer and die.
Without the Government and Capitalism, everything would collapse and it would just be like Mad Max!
If Bosses and Cops are the only thing stopping anyone from going all Mad Max, then we would already be in that Anarchist Dystopia you’re imagining because the Mad Max Style Hooligans you imagine wouldn’t care about what the Law or some Rich Guy says.
If the only thing stopping you from going all Mad Max are cops and bosses, then I think you should examine why and maybe, perhaps, seek help, because the average person doesn’t go about going “I wanna kill people but the only thing stopping me is the Cops.”
For anarchism to work, there has to be similar enough values and cultures among different communities to trust each other. But the world is too diverse at the moment for that to happen. I mean, anarchism is possible like the Fremens in Dune, but it would take a long time for a planetary wide cultural convergence to allow anarchism to thrive.
Fremen aren’t anarchists. They’re more like a thousand tiny military dictatorships with each community picking a leader with absolute authority via trial by combat. Then Paul turns them into a theocracy.
I mean we have multicultural anarchism at the global scale, there is no single world government and international law is more a set of recommendations
It would also certainly have to be federated.
One could argue that most of the people who want to go all Mad Max do in fact break the law to do so, and are now in jail. Or do you think that disturbed people who want to do harm to the general populace don’t exist?
I think it’s a bit straw-man-y to say that people who argue that “without law there would be chaos” are saying they want chaos. In fact, it’s the opposite. There is clearly some minority slice of humanity that just wants to cause others harm, and we need some sort of structure/order to keep those people from causing harm. I find that most people advocating for anarchy don’t really have a good answer to how we handle antisocial behavior.
There is clearly some minority slice of humanity that just wants to cause others harm, and we need some sort of structure/order to keep those people from causing harm.
I work in a position that enables me to actually confirm this to be true. There are A LOT of criminals out there. And if society started collapsing a lot of previously good people would turn into criminals out of desperation or opportunity. I honestly don’t think the average person understands how many people there are out there that have no problem with the idea of taking advantage of others and even just the threat of law enforcement is what stops them.
I find that most people advocating for anarchy don’t really have a good answer to how we handle antisocial behavior.
No, they certainly do not. Every time I’ve gotten into an argument with an anarchist their ideology falls to pieces as soon as I start asking the difficult questions.
I mean it wouldn’t devolve into mad max (at least not for long) because people would naturally organize into some sort of structure (like a government). This happens every time IRL.
Not sure what you’re going on about. You seem to have quoted something I didn’t say.
I’m not sure if you thought I meant I actually want to kill anarchists using magic. Clearly I was being sarcastic and just want them to learn from suffering under the form of existence they appear to want so badly.
And to be crystal clear, while I do have many qualms with law enforcement, I promise you that if law enforcement ceased to exist tomorrow our society would very quickly begin to collapse. Because there are A LOT of criminals out there and way, way more normal people that would become criminals out of desperation or opportunity if society began collapsing. To disagree with that is an admission of not being remotely aware of how many criminals actually exist or any familiarity with the human condition.
No sane anarchist is advocating for the collapse of society, or for law enforcement to disappear overnight. Anarchists generally advocate for new anarchic systems to be built alongside our current system, so that if/when our current system begins to collapse, the new ones will already be in place to replace it. This idea is called “dual power”, or more generally, “prefigurative politics”. It is obviously not an easy thing to do, but I think it’s worth trying; we should always be trying to build a better world.
…there are A LOT of criminals out there…
This is absolutely the case, though I see this as an indictment on our current system more than anything. The anarchist position is that most crime is a result of people’s basic needs (food, shelter, physical or mental healthcare, etc.) not being met, rather than a result of that person being innately “bad”. You seem to at least partly agree with this position:
…way more normal people that would become criminals out of desperation or opportunity if society began collapsing.
Anarchists aim to have everyone’s basic needs met, regardless of how much or how little they contribute back to society. This of course won’t entirely eliminate antisocial behavior, so we will also need some form of anarchic community defence to intervene in such cases.
This is a society that is built around a system of forced for-profit market dependency that puts ownership enclosures over the land, commons, and productive forces into the hands of a small percentage of private capital owners then relies upon the forced dispossession of people from direct access to the means of subsistence (land, tools, resources) in order to create a class of individuals with no alternative but to sell their labor for a wage on the market so they can purchase the means of survival.
And that in order to enforce that requires a powerful state capable of using violence when necessary to uphold that.
So yeah, remove the enforcers and that system is likely to break down and a lot of people are going to try and loot and take what they need that they currently don’t have for survival in the short term.
It would also likely trigger our innate communal cooperative nature that has been key to our survival and evolution as a species.
I’m not personally an anarchist but I think you might be guilty of many of the things you accuse others of here.
From my first comment I have simply stated that anarchism is not the answer.
You don’t appear to necessarily be arguing against that. You do state that you think we can all come together and sing kumbaya if things fall apart. I’ll agree I think that could happen on an extremely small scale in very small communities, but not on a city/state/national level.
My vision for anarchy basically functions like an average friend group, there is no “leader” of the group, anyone can organize an event, whether its a hangout, a dinner, or asking for help with a project. Nobody is forced to go to any given event. If a conflict comes up, then we talk about it like adults, and come to a beneficial resolution. Each person chips in in their own ways. Honestly its pretty fucking awesome and I think the world would be a lot better place if we had this mentality.
What happens when someone selfishly refuses to contribute to the common good? Or worse, actively attempts to disrupt it?
Anarchism does not require everyone to be a doormat. If someone is a sabotaging asshole, nobody is compelled to associate with them, the problem person learns very quickly that you dont exactly do well if nobody likes you and won’t associate with you.
Or, they do super well by beating people up and taking their things? The person who happily takes from those weaker than them is often not terribly bothered by you giving them the cold shoulder. And they probably have their own coterie of hangers-on to provide them companionship. How do you handle such a person, since simple disfellowship is insufficient?
I’m not even an anarchist but this is pretty easy to simply look at history and answer
It would be like most tribal societies throughout human history. Where small to even very large societal level groups rely upon a economic and social system of mutualism/reciprocity, central planning, and social standing.
People that are able and refuse to contribute would receive little beyond their basic needs, likely socially pilloried, or in extreme cases be asked to leave. And violence against innocents would be punished like in any society.
Like the one thing almost every single human society we have had evidence for it’s social structure has had a version of the Golden Rule.
And violence against innocents would be punished like in any society.
I think this is the part I get hung up on. The way this has historically been handled is lynchings. The town thinks you murdered those kids? They lynch you. The town drunk says he saw you doing devil worship? Lynched. You piss off someone with more social capital than you? Another lynching.
While I agree that this is self-ordering in some sense, I don’t find it to be morally acceptable. Justice requires systematics that anarchy simply can’t provide. And while no justice system is perfect, I think we can all agree that going back to lynchings is probably not the right direction.
I don’t think lynchings have been the only way human groups have dealt with crimes against innocents though, historically or presently.
And most of what you are talking about is behavior under capitalist or feudalist systems.
And most crime under those systems is born out of poverty.
I have not heard of the Zapatista’s engaging in routine lynchings for example. The biggest threats to them have not been irrational lynch parties inside their society, it had been the capitalist forces outside of it trying to violently conquer them.
And again, I am not an anarchist, so I feel weird trying to speak too deeply past my own understanding of their positions or things I have some crossover beliefs in as well.
It’s worth noting that the Zapatistas aren’t an anarchist group and make no claim to being one. They do have a non-centralized leadership structure of elders who enforce a “restorative justice” system that forces people who perpetrate crimes to do community service. This does require a form of tribunal that local leaders manage.
But, to be clear, all this requires hierarchy, authority, and coercion in ways that most anarchists would reject. Which is the core of the issue.
mutualism
central planning
Hmmm. I wonder how you achieve those things in an incredibly diverse scenario with millions/billions of people with varying desires. It’s almost like you’d have to create some form of government that relied on citizens voting, potentially through elected representatives. Almost like a democracy of some sort. So, not anarchism.
I don’t think many anarchists are arguing for societies comprised of a billion people…Almost like they are explicitly wanting to go in the opposite direction and eliminate such a state.
And just again for clarity, I am not an anarchist, but I also think it’s silly to get this worked up over an ideology it’s not even clear people have ever spent any time trying to understand in good faith.
I don’t think many anarchists are arguing for societies comprised of a billion people
Well…too fucking bad. There’s 8+ billion of us. And these “anarchists” use society’s infrastructure and social services. So as long as they stay plugged in, they can take their anarchism and practice it inside their own homes, which are plugged into a non-anarchist infrastructure.
I’m not that worked up. About as worked up as any ignorant person can make me, which typically maxes out at moderate annoyance. And as far as I’m concerned, anarchists are some of the most potently ignorant people around.
Then their ideology completely falls apart. Lol.
Could you explain for me what you think that ideology is and what specifically I said would dismantle that and why?
I like words and their definitions. So what I think the anarchist ideology is is what the definition says it is.
Anarchism - Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that seeks to abolish institutional authority, coercion, and social hierarchies—most notably the state and capitalism—replacing them with stateless societies based on voluntary association, mutual aid, and free cooperation.
There’s pretty much nothing about anything in that definition that I agree with ideologically or think is reasonably possible to achieve.
They are cast away from the community. There’s no common ground. It’s impossible to meet their needs when their needs is going against everyone else’s needs.
They’re free to go elsewhere. Maybe they’ll like Japan.
Addendum: I personally see rehabilitatioe as the true path but you guys love strawmaning the shit out of that. As if rehabilitation is not worth it, even in our current political climate.
And if they refuse to leave? If they simply take your things by violence? What then?
Historically, the answer is to have them lynched, which does solve the problem, but I think most reasonable people would agree that isn’t something we want to bring back.
They the community moves on without them.
Historically Anarchists have not done that because anarchists have not had a societal opportunity to do their own thing away from other socioeconomial models, you’re thinking of tribal or even conservative communities.
I like how you had to invent a scenario to force your point across. You can do better, but it was a nice try. 6/10
You say “invent a scenario” as if people don’t use violence to get what they want all the time.
You can’t “move on without them” if they refuse to leave and continue recidivate. How do you deal with such a person in your ideal, anarchist society? It seems like your solution is to just pretend it wouldn’t be a problem, which is absurd on its face. You’re basically saying no one would decide to steal your food because everyone would just make their own instead. History shows that being incredibly unlikely.
How do you distinguish between tribal organization and anarchist society. Both are small communities that are “self governing.” What is the key difference in your mind?
Historically Anarchists have not done that because anarchists have not had a societal opportunity to do their own thing
Thank the gods. You just made it sound significantly more awful than I had already imagined.
While your version of anarchy works on a micro level amongst friends, unfortunately, it would not work on a macro national level. Or even state level. Or even city level.
You’re also basically describing voting. People come together and express their opinion and the opinion with the most support wins.
So, not anarchism.
Anarchists are allowed to vote. What are you talking about?
Anarchism - Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that seeks to abolish institutional authority, coercion, and social hierarchies—most notably the state and capitalism—replacing them with stateless societies based on voluntary association, mutual aid, and free cooperation.
Yes, in our NON-ANARCHIST society, anarchists are allowed to vote. If anarchists got what they wanted, then voting wouldn’t be a thing because the state wouldn’t be a thing.
They can vote to poll consensus but there is no mechanism to enforce a policy based on a vote; following the vote is voluntary. Not making a point here per se, just clarifying what we mean by “vote”. (Unless the above is wrong?)
All of anarchism is technically voluntary. The community would come up with a way to emforce it.
The community would come up with a way to emforce it.
Ah yes, the classic anarchist move. To simply state “we’d figure it out”, when presented with the difficult questions.
Wouldn’t having a decision enforced on you make following it not a voluntary choice?
If the community can enforce involuntary decisions on someone as the result of a vote, isn’t that democracy, not anarchy?
I mean I don’t want to watch people suffer and die, but yeah it wouldn’t go well. I wish we could simulate or otherwise test theories like this and get probable answers without, you know, condemning hundreds to die for their flawed views.
I don’t actually want them to die. That was obvious sarcasm as creating an alternate reality isn’t…real. But it’s not like I was saying we should send them to a concentration camp. I just want them to live under the conditions they desire so they can experience it utterly fail, because of course it would, and then come crawling back to contribute to society in a meaningful way.
Interesting how your first thought is murder, isn’t it?
We know exactly what anarchy looks like in human history, it’s how every human society worked before agriculture started consolidating power in the hands of sociopaths.
It’s how some steppe tribes lived. It’s how most North Americans lived before Columbus.
Anarchism is the natural state of humanity because it’s just decentralized tribes at the end of the day. The only difference now would be that you know what antibiotics and crop rotations are.
I think you have a VERY warped view of native american history. These people had entire cities, there was definitely tribal hierarchy and I’m gonna be real (although I blame the education system, not you) but the perception that they were just wandering around in structureless harmony is wrong and kinda racist.
Interesting how your first thought is murder, isn’t it?
Lol. My scenario included literal magic. Literal magic to create an alternate reality. I know people be dumb and that’s why you have to use /s when you’re being sarcastic on the internet, but I thought people would grasp that a literal magical scenario was sarcastic. Guess I gave you too much credit. To be clear, I want them to suffer under the conditions they want for everyone else so they can hopefully learn and be less ignorant going forward.
it’s how every human society worked before agriculture
So when people used to raid other settlements and rape, murder, and enslave the occupants and take their resources for their own and you’d be lucky to live to 40 and it was probably a pretty painful 40 years. Great example you’ve got there. Sounds like a sweet reality to live in. Pre-agriculture human life was short and largely comprised of suffering.
it’s just decentralized tribes at the end of the day.
Yes, modern civilization with 8+ billion people is just tribes. Very simple. It’s all just very simple in your mind, isn’t it?
The only difference now would be that you know what antibiotics and crop rotations are.
Yes, those are the only differences…
I think that you’re not wrong, but the historical way that these societies have handled antisocial behavior is via lynchings. I don’t know that this model works if you don’t bring back lynchings, which I personally find unpalatable.
Would you rather a small group of power hungry psychopath oligarchs be in charge of the lynchings according to their isolated, self-serving, sheltered, and privileged reasonings in order to maintain their status and authority? Or do you think there is some stupid super intelligence governor floating out there somewhere we need to appease for some stupid reason so it’ll invite us to the private party it’s throwing that doesn’t like it when we do that?
Would you rather a small group of power hungry psychopath oligarchs be in charge
This isn’t an either/or situation. It isn’t have anarchy or have psychopath oligarchs be in charge.
The fact that you need to create this obscene scenario to prove your point indicates how weak your point is.
“Everything I don’t like is CIA propaganda” is the usual argument.
Hey, there’s also “CNN talking mfer”. I was called that for recalling my literal personal experiences of interacting with Russians years before full scale war.
“fuckin nerds know stupid shit like facts. gaaaaaay”
Of course, the CIA and US Government does actually do propaganda campaigns. Whether via things like the Voice Of America radio station. Or like
Domestic Anti-Communist stuff:
Operation Mockingbird bird: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird,
The Crusade for Cultural Freedom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade_for_FreedomThe Congress for Cultural Freedom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_for_Cultural_Freedom
The Red Scare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare
More general fuckery:
Lavender Scare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavender_scare
The suppression of the PRISM information program. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM
Suppression of wartime massacres: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukaradeeb_wedding_party_massacre
The assassin of Fred Hampton (American communist)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Fred_HamptonThe killing of MLK (American Socialist).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Martin_Luther_King_Jr.And that’s just a small portion of the US government propaganda campaigns they’ve run ON AMERICAN CITIZENS AND CULTURE. Not including things like the outlawing of Anarchism, or whatever the hell people like Allen Dulles and George Bush Senior were up to…
…and all of this is before even asking about overseas propaganda campaigns.
So yes, the CIA has definitely been heavily involved in curbing American opinions, and massively suppressing support for Communism and Socialism in America.
American Free speech - but only to an extent, after that you’ll have to deal with government interference.
American Free speech - but only to an extent, after that you’ll have to deal with government interference.
solid list. reality check: do you think this kind of stuff happens exclusively in the US?
do you think other countries aren’t trying to influence the rest of the world?
When russia gives someone tea with polonium as sweetener?
I agree, the US has a ton of horrid shit in its history, and we don’t seem to be improving. but there’s a lot of space between “at some point or another, almost all nations do wretched and awful shit. because they’re ALL made of humans”
Yeah, the CIA is bad. So is the KG-FSB and Mossad and MI6 and everyone else.
All states have propaganda campaigns against specific things/areas of discussion.
America (like most western “liberal” democracies) heavily targets leftist causes, such as Communism, Anarchism, Socialism, Peace movements, and climate change activists.
Many of which threaten to protest big oil companies, the millitary industrial complex, domestic spying on citizens, big polluters, industries that want to under pay workers, tech billionaires and AI data centers.
As a Westerner I find that list of areas of concern and suppression to be much more representative of things I want addressed by democracy than I do the existence of tankies, communists, and socialists.
So my gripe is about proportionality. The powers that be would prefer we focus on tankies and the ills of soviet era communism - because that makes us divided and focused there rather than on modern corporate Capitalism and its corruption of our democracy.
That would be my reality check.
The powers that be would prefer we focus on tankies and the ills of soviet era communism -
lol.
I never consider the ills of soviet era communism until tankies show up trying to convince me they had a utopia.
I spend absolutely zero time pontificating about mao, or stalin, or communism, or collectivism, any of it, until some asshole slinks in and starts talking shit about ‘the west’ as if their own side never Holodomor’d a bunch of innocents the way we trail-of-tears’d people here.
you don’t think the people living in ‘the east’ lived some kind of perfect, ideal lives, do you? that would be silly. why would we expect it on either side?
we’re all fucking humans. none of us is better than any of the others based on geography or ideology, and a lot of us are wretched assholes when we get into a position of authority.
uniquely western? pfft
While they whole heartedly suck, it doesn’t mean they’re responsible for everything that sucks.
Tankies don’t look at the shitty things China and Russia do.
Tankies: “ACAB except for Chinese and Russian cops who wear the tastiest boots nom nom nom”
Yes, and anti-communists tend to overlook the shitty things Capitalism and the US government do.
The critique cuts both ways. I don’t think either side has much of a solution… But right now - in the west - it’s clear that too much Socialism is not the problem.
The West is Cappoed out right now. Kind of tired of it.
Hey kid, wanna buy us a new Data Center?
No thanks Sir, please leave me alone.
anti-communists tend to overlook the shitty things Capitalism and the US government do
I don’t think either side has much of a solution
You are conflating not being a tankie with being an anticommunist.
Being a communist shouldn’t stop you from ciritquing your own state. A healthy communist state allows for open critique and discussion of what works and what doesn’t. Otherwise you risk autocracy.
And I would hazard calling China and Russia communist states. Russia doesn’t even call itself communist anymore. And China is a one party autocracy with a free market. They’re only communists in name.
What’s your definition of communist? For me it implies a centrally planned economy to the exclusion of any free market and is definitely at great risk to fall into autocracy. I think that kind of project is doomed from the start, so I wouldn’t call identify myself as a communist.
Those are leninist/Maoist. If we’re being generous we could call them aspirationally communist. But not actually communist.
2 defining criteria for communism is being stateless. Ie not having an governing state elected or otherwise. Definitely not having a large hierarchical unanswerable centralized government. And the other being classlessness. Something that the large central politburos preclude.
The one thing Leninism shares in the most asinine and negative way with communism. In the actual vision of communism, Marx and others theorized that the workers of the factory, etc. Should own the factory. Social ownership. However, Leninism warps and twists it negatively in that the state owns everything, not the workers. They may claim that the workers are the state. But that’s bullshit as can easily be seen by any time they put down a citizen revolt. Roll out the tanks, etc. Like Tiananmen Square.
I am not sure. I’ve never given it a concrete thought. Communism as a whole is very nebulous. I particularly like the socialist aspects and the welfare for all goals of communism. I like the dream of not having to work to survive.
But I do not like the planned economy aspect of it. I haven’t seen anyone do planned economies well. This includes non communist countries that tried it. There’s something to say about how it is impossible to create a complex web of plans that accurately and adequately account for humanity’s ever-changing needs and wants. But economics is fairly complex and I have little authority over the subject matter to say anything with confidence.
Basically - Freemarket, multi-socialist-only party system, with four strong pillars of democracy acting as checks and balances, with welfare for all.
I don’t identify as a communist in the conventional sense or any other particular label per say. But I do lean left.
I’m not really interested in defining them or getting into that kind of argument here (not being a Communist, I don’t want to defend it).
…but I believe Market Socialism is a thing. Capitalism is (in Marxist doctrine) considered a stage of Communism, and that these discussions often overlook Vietnam…
…Vietnam also has a system of Market Socialism, they’ve just almost resolved homelessness and have no housing crisis because they have a land redistribution system for anyone who wants to go into farming.
… so like, whilst I don’t like Tankies AT ALL (they all demand you read a specific 1000 book list before even having a discussion)… I do think anti-communists are also annoying and often under cooked/biased on historical facts.
To use an analogy being anti-tankie often comes across as basically saying we need to reconsider what the alt-right are saying during the Trump era… And exceedingly often comes down to “a tankie once called me a name I don’t like”.
In short - in comes across as reactionary (rather than thoughtful/legitmate). I don’t like anti-tankies because they’re having a reactionary response rather than just going “those guys are dicks, but I understand within a Capitalist society”
Instead anti-tankies go, “those guys are dicks for calling me that of all people, I’m going to form a club to complain about it… Even though billionaire crony Capitalism is really the problem right now”.
So yeah, I don’t like either of them, but I understand uptight commies better than I do the reaction to them. I can hide and block the commies pretty easily.
so like, whilst I don’t like Tankies AT ALL (they all demand your read a specific 1000 book list before even having a discussion)… I do think anti-communists are also annoying and often under cooked/biased on historical facts.
I agree.
…Vietnam also has a system of Market Socialism, they’ve just almost resolved homelessness and have no housing crisis because they have a land redistribution system for anyone who wants to go into farming.
Always assumed they did what china did. They realized that the tool to stay in power was stability and growth, so they incentivized development on the local and national level for climbing the party ladder and good boy points. But it’s nice to see them actually follow through with the ideals as well.
In short - in comes across as reactionary (rather than thoughtful/legitmate).
I understand how that can be tiring. I’ve stopped talking to anyone who purports any fascist or anti-socialist ideals. They will never listen. They are too comfortable with the power they hold to reconsider. On lemmy, I have come across far too many tankies who confuse me to no end. They come off as religious nuts who pretend to like the same ideals I do. They are in my opinion just as worse as the anti-communists.
I don’t want to be associated with them. And I think the political spectrum is far too complicated to neatly divide people into simple categories. But it’s easier to do and who has the time to actually get to know strangers online. So, as a rule, I am against any tankie or fascist.
Don’t forget their chatbot!
Well, I’d need to be strapped to a bed in a Canadian mental home with a steady drip of LSD, and a tape on loop to forget CIA_chatbot… As the CIA discovered during their horrific MK-Ultra experiments on mental patients.
Hurtful, I’m like SUPER likable
So, ‘everyone I like, too’?
Aww thanks buddy, I’m not sure I’m allowed to talk to captchas though
Depends on if you’re a robot… hey, wait a minute
Ummm…/ I am a human //
Aww man, I put a TON of thought into my propaganda. At least give me some constructive criticism instead of just not liking it
Oh, great to see you here! I’ve been meaning to contact you regarding my latest propaganda paycheck delay.
Look, it’s not my fault that Trump funneled all our funding into his crypto scam. You’ll get paid when we do damnit!
19 XRAY KILO FOXTROT 28
Message received: drone strike on your location in 10
It’s enough to drive a man to anarchy
Makhno was right all along
I don’t think that was ever in doubt.
I had the same oddly sarcastic impulse - “oh, brave take”. But then I noticed that’s only because of how stridently leftist this space is. Then I wandered away, too unbothered to even finish replying
The problem with both anarchism and communism is that while they can work at the smaller scales, at the bigger ones they become more and more vulnerable. Both can pretty easily devolve into plain authoritarianism. I’m a big fan of anarchy as a concept, but i don’t see how it could work on a geopolitical scale.
I’d say anarchism has more self-checks against authoritarianism compared to capitalism or “communism” of the Soviet or Chinese variety. In the end, it’s all about reducing the reliance on hierarchies and there’s no single right way to do it.
Getting rid of hierarchies certainly helps, yeah… The problem is though, that a political power without a hierarchy will inherently lose to a hierarchical one at least in terms of military power, which is geopoliticianeese for “i’m free to take by whomever!”
I mean this is sort of backdooring itself into the trove of arguments and theory around why a communist revolution has to be an international liberation movement, and why you need a revolutionary vanguard cause you can’t hope to achieve communism while capitalist imperialism is still around.
Which is precisely why the question of socialism/communism or Anarchism and how to achieve it goes beyond just seizing control of the state or reorganizing production and the relationship with the state within national borders. It’s also became heavily about surviving and overcoming an international system of capitalist power that has both the material incentive and institutional capacity to prevent those alternatives from succeeding.
Except even the world revolution can’t solve the issue of degradation into a plain-old authoritarianism. Speaking in analogies, both communism and anarchism, as geopolitical regimes, create a power vacuum. A sterile room, ridden of all the bacteria, but neither of them has an answer on how to keep the room sterile after without having to overthrow yet another government.
[…] It’s also became heavily about surviving and overcoming an international system of capitalist power […]
As i said in my initial comment, both ideologies can work on smaller (than a geopolitical one) scales. Anarchism is already basically intrinsic to any friend/family group in some capacity. Help efforts, no matter whether they were started by ideological anarchists, exist, and nobody bats an eye about that. That’s just not what i’m discussing here. I’m discussing the realism of a communist and/or anarchist state.
“anarchist state” is a self contradiction
Hierarchy does not inherently translate to military power. Anarchism is simply a different form of organization, having enough people/resources/power isn’t dependent on specific form of organization.
No it doesn’t, but military is authoritarian by design, it will be much less effective without a strict hierarchy.
Case in point — greek polises. Each of them individually weren’t quite anarchist per se, but how they interacted with each other, and how they stopped being independent entities in the end is very illustrative of what happens to geopolitical entities without an established hierarchy.
The only implementation of communism that was actually tried long-term is Marxist-Leninism (aka Stalinism), which is both uniquely authoritarian and basically heretical. Everything else was crushed either by the capitalist West or by the USSR itself, so really the jury is out on what a more normal attempt at socialism would actually look like.
Yes, communism is yet to be ever implemented in reality, but i see no problem with mentally evaluating the idea before implementing it. After all, do you jump off the roof before looking down, or you look down before jumping? I’m sticking with the second one, and if you’re not, i suggest you call your local suicide prevention hotline.
Communism, no matter the flavor, will anyway be laying somewhere on a spectrum between centralization and decentralization, so it will be vulnerable in any case. If you can imagine an idea where it isn’t, i wholeheartedly ought you to share it.
Groups remain small
Small divided groups are inherently easier to subjugate. The saying “Divide and conquer” exists for a reason.
It’s the only option
Oh you’re not allowed to dislike both.
I’ll let my ignorance shine - what’s the b/w photo to the right?
Pretty sure it’s the 1990s DPRK famine
Nah, it’s Holodomor
Can’t tell you how many times these twats have called me a genocider.
It used to be a pretty serious word, but these losers are working overtime stripping it of all its meaning by using it on everyone that disagrees with them.
I’ve been called a zionist genocider for pointing out mass-murder is evil. People are fucking NUTS!
They sure are, and I think some of them are here to brigade this post.
The usual pattern: one, then two, then ten to defend the honor of Comrad Slaughterhouse and bury us all in bad-faith brigades.
I just respond I’m anti genocide, including, Russia’s kidnapping and trafficking Ukrainian children and China’s genocide of the Uyghars. It shuts them up or they immediately start defending them and then I call them genocides.
I don’t take sides because nobody is on my side.
[Edit: --Treebeard]
Can I be on your side?
But your name isn’t Treebeard…
Not to mention Treebeard discovered he was wrong to avoid getting involved once he understood what was going on.
Enlightened Centrism, then?
No, enlightened centrists have representation.
I’m a socialist in the United States and AOC is gonna vote for Hakeem Fucking Jeffries for Speaker, so who is really on my side at this moment?
But in the context of the US vs China, it seems like people are always explicitly making me pick a side. Almost all the China-bashing is motivated by wanting to keep the US hegemonic, and every time I say, “Hey, why are we saying China shouldn’t rule the world but never challenging why we allow the United States to rule the world?” I get called a tankie.
Ah gotcha, you’re a purity tester; my mistake.
Are simplistic stereotypes the only way you can understand the world?
No, I just try to figure out whence cometh ridiculous behavior so I can point it out and others can ignore it in peace.
I can see why your account is a throwaway.
I can see why yours is incoherent nonsense.
It really does feel like AOC is a career politician with too deep ties with super pacs that fund most of the “moderates” in democratic party.
Please vote her out as well.
Yes let’s eat ourselves guys, it’s the only solution am I right fellow comrades? Quickly let’s fuck ourselves as hard as we can, it’s ideological purity that people need, not results!
It’s not ideological purity. I don’t have anything against her, but if she votes Jefferies then the blue wave will have little effect imo.
If america had an actual multi-party system this wouldn’t have been a problem in the first place. You get your preferred candidate and I get my preferred one, most likely in a coalition together.
So you think if Jeffreys gets to keep his job, and bearing in mind I agree with you that he is a fucking waterproof teabag, you think that this entire election cycle and all of the new people brought into congress, will have “little effect”?
I mean it would be a blow, but don’t you think that this kind of hyperbolic overreaction is unhelpful? Like, if he does, are you gonna give up? I’m not in a competition to be the most leftist, I want to push our wins and recover from our losses.
They way you talk is defeatist.
Okay, you are right. All is not lost. I am not trying to be defeatist, there will be other chances.
I just think it’s rare to see so many non career politicians win elections. It’s a good moment to shore up and solidify that base before the two party rotating system rings back in.
The system disciplines everyone is the fuller answer.
And AOC is actually a very good case study in how this happens even if you aren’t explicitly bought and sold
Cause in fact she is not deeply rooted in corporate super pacs or propped up heavily by conditioned billionaire money. The popular narrative that seems to dominate.
Instead she was disciplined by the system itself and the people she has to work with inside that system and the systems of influence in and outside of the government.
So replacing her is not going to be the core fix for this problem. The next person will face the same pressures and the same disciplining forces.
If the DSA had 100 members in congress things would be different, but even then certain mechanisms of discipline will never fully go away until a more fundamental change in the relationship of the state and who it serves and how it is controlled changes.
Instead she was disciplined by the system itself and the people she has to work with inside that system and the systems of influence in and outside of the government.
You are right, it’s more the culture of the institution she’s a part of. That however doesn’t excuse it. She has the chance, with the new wave to stand with the right kind of people.
The next person will face the same pressures and the same disciplining forces.
Not if you vote the moderates out. I know it’s more complicated than this, but trump has set a fire in motion that might not burn again very soon.
This time I saw that wyoming, Montana, Nebraska and Idaho had independents running against the republicans for the senate. They were all blue collar working class military veterans. They had close races. I am not familiar with their elections but it seems like the people want a change, but they don’t want to vote for the same old guys who are supported by corporates and outside interests. This is the perfect time for change.
We have a real problem in that it’s relatively easy for establishment candidates to give off progressive signals and for the mainstream media to never challenge them, so people will happily pose as progressives and then go right back to the establishment.
Look to Susan Collins for a mirrored example of that. It’s very effective.
That said, I think we’re going to have a lot of angry primary voters in 2028 if things keep going how they’re going.
No True Progressive
If someone is a Progressive 99% of the time and fucks up 1% of the time, tHeYrE eStAbLiShMeNt NeOlIbS!!!
With this much purity testing, it’s no wonder the left has no ground to stand on in the US - the rug keeps getting pulled by people further left of whatever platform they’re on.
Meanwhile the conservatives and fascists are patting each other on the back for putting aside their differences.
Getting pissed off at voting for a house speaker with a history of opposing progressive causes after a once-in-century change election isn’t purist pique.
Dems have a chance to redefine the party into something people want to vote for. If we can’t do it, we’re giving racist Christofascism another shot at a permanent majority. We have a lot of work to do at every level and we can’t do it with a corpodem at the top of the hiearchy.
Getting pissed off at voting for a house speaker with a history of opposing progressive causes after a once-in-century change election isn’t purist pique.
It is when you try to argue that AOC is No True Progressive.
Dems have a chance to redefine the party into something people want to vote for. If we can’t do it, we’re giving racist Christofascism another shot at a permanent majority. We have a lot of work to do at every level and we can’t do it with a corpodem at the top of the hiearchy.
Cool soapbox, but I never said anything different; you’re acting like I disagree with you here.
Here’s to hoping.
I’ve heard a number of progressive reps say they’ve had positive conversations with Jeffries regarding the House policy agenda for the upcoming session. I’m interested to hear more. To Jeffries’ credit, he’s only been leader for 2 years in the minority, maybe let’s see how he does with a majority.
Have not heard the same about Schumer. We’re all ready for that guy to not be in charge
Isn’t Jefferies funded by the same super pacs that fund the other moderates? Things aren’t gonna change if he gets elected.
Trump was a good wakeup call to ditch these guys.
Just trust me, bro is not what I want to stake the future of the country on.
If Jeffries is Speaker and doesn’t deliver on progressive demands, the political situation is going to become very unstable. Expect more Democratic primary challenges and wilder swings in the electorate as people desperately look for someone who will finally actually do something, and maybe some solutions will be tried outside the ballot box.
We’re sitting on a powder keg.
I anticipate the next 2 years are going to be rough. I would not be surprised if the Trump Admin starts arresting legislators.
As far as the Democratic Party, I anticipate the progressive momentum from this election will carry over into 2028. What we’re witnessing is literally a generational shift, as all these 80 year olds finally start dying or losing power and Millennials are rapidly increasing their power in Congress
Counter-revolutionaries aren’t innocent. Check mate, lib /s
REACTIONARY, REACTIONARY, YOU’RE A CIA REACTIONARY
Millions killed in purges and policy created in cults of personality.
Yeah, need to make a whole identity sh*tting on imperfect democracies while touting systems that have always devolved into dictatorships.
Or you’re just not that familiar with Capitalist and Communist history.
Killed by the British East India company famines in India and Bengal: 10 - 15 million (the company exported ALL the grain, even the grain farmers were paid with and living off. Gotta get those profits!).
Killed by the Libertarian Congo Free State under King Leopald: 10 - 15 million (but the rubber business boomed).
That’s 20 million to 30 million dead from Capitalism right there.
Killed in the USSR Gulag system? 1.5 - 2 million. Most people survived the Gulag system (18 million went in, the majority walked out alive).
Outside of that Communism had a lot of undesired and unintended famines largely contributed to by one conman scientist fabricating results to keep his job:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko#Consequences_of_Lysenko’s_views
Capitalism has in all likelihood intentionally killed waaay more people than Communism (just by the numbers)… And if you know the history, this becomes more obvious. This comment doesn’t even cover the many wars by Capitalist nations pushed and carried out in the name of profit.
Devolved?
Which of the listed nations on the bottom were revolutions that overthrew functioning free and fair democratic systems?
Why the f does that matter? They existed as they did, killed multiple millons, so don’t butwhatabout and redirect.
Cause you said they all devolved into dictatorships and that is factually inaccurate.
Every example in the OP is from a revolution that occurred in response to an existing non-democratic, capitalist, authoritarian state.
So the revolutions took over states that were in fact not democratic. This is not a moral judgement but a clarification of fact.
Another clarification is the notion of “Have Always”
Do you think those listed are the only examples?
Care to explain the Paris Commune? Allende in Chile? The socialist republic in Spain? Arbenz in Guatemala? Lumumba and the pan african movement in Congo? Nicaragua? The PKI and Sukarmo in Indonesia? And then in East Timor? Just to name a few
It is not a whataboutism to challenge your assertions of factual ignorance.
Progressives, we have to get rid of billionaires and the wealth gap. Eat the rich.
Communists, we could put them through struggle sessions and beat them in the streets?
Neoliberals, nah, let’s see what billionaires want, let them into government.
Tank man, I have had a hell of a day and just want to get my shopping home, and now there’s a tank here. I’m gonna fuck with a millitary in the 80s.
The US: Our millitary would never Kent state, or Waco, or Ruby Ridge, or Ludlow Massacre, or Battle of Blair Mountain, or extraordinary rendition anyone! This is proof that communism is bad.
The difference between the two is getting narrower and narrower. Dystopian surveillance and murderous authorities? Check. Imperialist foreign policy built on multiple genocides? Check. Pogroms and oppression of minorities? Not only check, but the US is arguably worse than China or the USSR. Though I admit that may be due to the US having an extra century to do dirt. And don’t forget America’s the world leader in Gulags.
The idea that America is benevolent is stupid. The idea that she’s benevolent by comparison is running mighty thin.
Uhh, yeah, we don’t disagree that America often sucks. Pointing that out in response to criticism pointed at other authoritarian regimes doesn’t make them good. For example, talking about gulags is guaranteed to trigger someone to bring up America’s incarceration rate. Does that magically make gulags good? No, it’s whataboutism and deflection.
When people want to pretend that communism is worse than capitalism because of gulags, that’s not whataboutism.
Because when capitalism is imprisoning as many people as communism, and also leaving millions to live on the streets, starve, etc. then it’s very relevant since you’re comparing them.
When you criticize only one system for things done by both, pointing that out isn’t deflection - it’s simply showing the hypocrisy. When that’s your only argument in the comparison, that’s very relevant.
talking about gulags is guaranteed to trigger someone to bring up America’s incarceration rate.
I didn’t mean to imply the connection between America’s gulags and the Soviets. I meant to state it explicitly. And I also want to point out the meme itself is a whataboutism.
The difference between the two is getting narrower and narrower.
“I literally cannot tell the difference between Louis XVI and Robespierre” is a thing you can say from a very great historical distance.
