All states are authoritarian, I support the proletariat being in control of that authority, rather than the bourgeoisie. I don’t “support authoritarianism” any more or less than the vast majority of the communist movement, because use of authority isn’t really something that works on a linear scale. States wield their authority to represent whichever class controls them, and the extent that authority takes depends on the conditions the state finds itself in.
Nazi Germany, for example, has roughly the same mode of production as modern Germany. The difference in use of authority is because the German economy is not in the same conditions of crisis that existed in the 1930s and 1940s. The bourgeoisie was in control the whole time, that never changed, what did change was the decay of conditions leading to a need for the bourgeoisie to violently assert its control. Now, violent crackdowns on pro-Palestinian protestors is done by the state, because the bourgoeisie needs Israel to continue existing and protecting imperialist super-profits. They didn’t just decide to crackdown for fun, but because they needed to.
Rather than the bourgeoisie being in control, I support the proletariat. This is bog-standard communism, and I cannot imagine you’ll find any communists that want the bourgeoisie to remain in control.
I love how you completely avoided all of my points, only to say that you have a few communist friends so that makes you not an anti-communist. We have no way of knowing if your friends have views in line with the vast majority of communists, what tendency they follow, etc. It’s just a way for you to dodge the argument entirely and never need to question your preconcieved biases.
Nico198X (noun): a person who ties themselves in knots so they can feel good about supporting authoritarian despots while wearing a red scarf.
See? I can make lazy ad-hominems too, it doesn’t actually address the arguments at hand.
It’s absolutely an attack on my character, you opened this conversation attacking me with an anti-communist pejorative and have refused to engage with my points, preferring to just call them “divorced from reality” and “vacuous nonsense” as though those rhetorical attacks erase the points raised.
I backed up why I said all states are authoritarian: all are instruments by which the ruling class oppresses others and retains control, and the degree to which it oppresses is aligned with the degree to which it is opposed. I even used Germany as an example, Nazi Germany wasn’t more oppressive because they wanted to be, but because the bourgeoisie was responding to a crisis in their mode of production and needed to violently assert itself, but the mode of production fundamentally did not change.
it’s not an anti-communist pejorative. it’s an anti-authoritarian pejorative. but for you, it’s the same, because you’re an authoritarian who supports other authoritarians as long as they are red.
look, saying “all states are authoritarian” is something YOU assumed. you’d need to prove that first before we even get to anything else.
socailist thought, political parties, gatherings, etc, can all exist in liberal democracies. that’s not the mark of authoritarianism.
i suspect you will say they exist to the extent that they are not a threat to the capitalists, but will be crushed if they were to actually gain power.
then i’d say you’d still need to prove that also, but first, how about getting a populace to actually vote for your views and win elections before crying foul.
whereas in an authoritarian state, straight to the gulag or shot. ie. Stalin, Mao, Kim, your heroes.
“Tankie” is absolutely an anti-communist pejorative, it’s used for the same people that have been called “reds,” “pinkos,” “commies,” etc. It’s levied at supporters of existing socialist systems, which includes the likes of W.E.B. Dubois, Nelson Mandela, Fanon, Malcolm X, etc.
As for saying all states are authoritarian, I did prove it. Do you disagree with the notion that all states are elements of class oppression, and that whichever class controls the state oppresses the rest? That’s the standard Marxist position, which since you’re not a Marxist it’s understandable that you wouldn’t, but it would be best for you to be honest about your anti-communism.
i suspect you will say they exist to the extent that they are not a threat to the capitalists, but will be crushed if they were to actually gain power.
I actually agree with this, yes.
then i’d say you’d still need to prove that also, but first, how about getting a populace to actually vote for your views and win elections before crying foul.
Why would Marxists try to accomplish something proven to never work in theory nor in practice? The principles of Marxism are to unite unity and practice, learn from the past and apply it to the present. Why would we not learn from the failures of electoral socialism learned by the coup against Salvador Allende in Chile? Why would we not learn from the success of revolutionaries?
all you’ve shown is that you lack reading comprehension.
no one needs your approval or vetting, and you don’t define what a Leftist, Communist or Socialist is.
yes, i’m “biased” against authoritarian despots.
it’s not a lazy ad-hominem, it’s exactly what you are. you love despots that gulag ppl. you love that shit. just say it. Stalin, Mao, Kim dynasty, you love them.
The one who lacks reading comprehension is you. No one needs your approval or vetting. I am simply stating that if the broad majority of communists globally agree with me, then the specific issues you take with me that also apply to the broad majority of communists go hand in hand as you being anti-communist. It isn’t about definition, nor do I claim a higher authority, I claim that my views are very standard for communists and as such calling me a pejorative for communist makes you to an extent anti-communist.
It is lazy ad-hominem. You’re directly trying to undermine my points by attacking my character. That’s what you came here to do, attack my character to prevent people from responding. It’s childish, and now that it evidently isn’t working, you’re trying to get in a few quick jabs on your way out.
This is really getting sad, you’re starting to mald, cope, and seethe because nobody is agreeing with you. I hold similar views to the majority of Marxist-Leninists on Stalin, Mao, and the Kim family.
The US literally has a higher incarceration rate than China or than USSR did under Stalin, but do go on. Really highlighting the quality of your intellect here.
No we are literally talking about that right now because you’re braying about gulags here. Also, learn what ad hominem is if you’re going to use it. Ad hominem would be me saying your argument is wrong because you’re an imbecile. I’m addressing your argument directly on its own merits while highlighting the fact that you are in fact an imbecile. It’s perhaps too subtle a difference for you to grasp given the limitations.
All states are authoritarian, I support the proletariat being in control of that authority, rather than the bourgeoisie. I don’t “support authoritarianism” any more or less than the vast majority of the communist movement, because use of authority isn’t really something that works on a linear scale. States wield their authority to represent whichever class controls them, and the extent that authority takes depends on the conditions the state finds itself in.
Nazi Germany, for example, has roughly the same mode of production as modern Germany. The difference in use of authority is because the German economy is not in the same conditions of crisis that existed in the 1930s and 1940s. The bourgeoisie was in control the whole time, that never changed, what did change was the decay of conditions leading to a need for the bourgeoisie to violently assert its control. Now, violent crackdowns on pro-Palestinian protestors is done by the state, because the bourgoeisie needs Israel to continue existing and protecting imperialist super-profits. They didn’t just decide to crackdown for fun, but because they needed to.
Rather than the bourgeoisie being in control, I support the proletariat. This is bog-standard communism, and I cannot imagine you’ll find any communists that want the bourgeoisie to remain in control.
Thanks for proving my points to the onlookers.
thankfully, i know plenty of Communists in reality that aren’t terminally online tankies, or i’d completely give up on Socialism.
Tankie (noun): a person who ties themselves in knots so they can feel good about supporting authoritarian despots while wearing a red scarf.
I love how you completely avoided all of my points, only to say that you have a few communist friends so that makes you not an anti-communist. We have no way of knowing if your friends have views in line with the vast majority of communists, what tendency they follow, etc. It’s just a way for you to dodge the argument entirely and never need to question your preconcieved biases.
Nico198X (noun): a person who ties themselves in knots so they can feel good about supporting authoritarian despots while wearing a red scarf.
See? I can make lazy ad-hominems too, it doesn’t actually address the arguments at hand.
as for your “points,” they’re not points, just you declaring a bunch of bullshit. that’s why they’re not addressed.
More ad-hominem. Rather than explaining why the points are “bullshit,” you just attack me personally and make excuses for why you can’t respond.
it’s not an ad hominem, for goodness sake, get it right. it’s not an attack on your person or character.
i consider what you said non-sequitous poppycock. i reject your statements out of hand.
“all states are authoritarian.” this is the kind of vacuous nonsense you create to support your paradigm.
It’s absolutely an attack on my character, you opened this conversation attacking me with an anti-communist pejorative and have refused to engage with my points, preferring to just call them “divorced from reality” and “vacuous nonsense” as though those rhetorical attacks erase the points raised.
I backed up why I said all states are authoritarian: all are instruments by which the ruling class oppresses others and retains control, and the degree to which it oppresses is aligned with the degree to which it is opposed. I even used Germany as an example, Nazi Germany wasn’t more oppressive because they wanted to be, but because the bourgeoisie was responding to a crisis in their mode of production and needed to violently assert itself, but the mode of production fundamentally did not change.
it’s not an anti-communist pejorative. it’s an anti-authoritarian pejorative. but for you, it’s the same, because you’re an authoritarian who supports other authoritarians as long as they are red.
look, saying “all states are authoritarian” is something YOU assumed. you’d need to prove that first before we even get to anything else.
socailist thought, political parties, gatherings, etc, can all exist in liberal democracies. that’s not the mark of authoritarianism.
i suspect you will say they exist to the extent that they are not a threat to the capitalists, but will be crushed if they were to actually gain power.
then i’d say you’d still need to prove that also, but first, how about getting a populace to actually vote for your views and win elections before crying foul.
whereas in an authoritarian state, straight to the gulag or shot. ie. Stalin, Mao, Kim, your heroes.
“Tankie” is absolutely an anti-communist pejorative, it’s used for the same people that have been called “reds,” “pinkos,” “commies,” etc. It’s levied at supporters of existing socialist systems, which includes the likes of W.E.B. Dubois, Nelson Mandela, Fanon, Malcolm X, etc.
As for saying all states are authoritarian, I did prove it. Do you disagree with the notion that all states are elements of class oppression, and that whichever class controls the state oppresses the rest? That’s the standard Marxist position, which since you’re not a Marxist it’s understandable that you wouldn’t, but it would be best for you to be honest about your anti-communism.
I actually agree with this, yes.
Why would Marxists try to accomplish something proven to never work in theory nor in practice? The principles of Marxism are to unite unity and practice, learn from the past and apply it to the present. Why would we not learn from the failures of electoral socialism learned by the coup against Salvador Allende in Chile? Why would we not learn from the success of revolutionaries?
mUh AuThOrItHaRiAnIsM!!!11!
📕 On Authority by Engels
📺 We Need To Talk About “Authoritarianism” by Second Thought
all you’ve shown is that you lack reading comprehension.
no one needs your approval or vetting, and you don’t define what a Leftist, Communist or Socialist is.
yes, i’m “biased” against authoritarian despots.
it’s not a lazy ad-hominem, it’s exactly what you are. you love despots that gulag ppl. you love that shit. just say it. Stalin, Mao, Kim dynasty, you love them.
The one who lacks reading comprehension is you. No one needs your approval or vetting. I am simply stating that if the broad majority of communists globally agree with me, then the specific issues you take with me that also apply to the broad majority of communists go hand in hand as you being anti-communist. It isn’t about definition, nor do I claim a higher authority, I claim that my views are very standard for communists and as such calling me a pejorative for communist makes you to an extent anti-communist.
It is lazy ad-hominem. You’re directly trying to undermine my points by attacking my character. That’s what you came here to do, attack my character to prevent people from responding. It’s childish, and now that it evidently isn’t working, you’re trying to get in a few quick jabs on your way out.
it already worked. you are what you are. you show it every time you are pushed.
you love despots that gulag ppl. you love that shit. just say it. Stalin, Mao, Kim dynasty, you love them.
This is really getting sad, you’re starting to mald, cope, and seethe because nobody is agreeing with you. I hold similar views to the majority of Marxist-Leninists on Stalin, Mao, and the Kim family.
lol now THERE’S projection and ad hominem. you’re worse than i originally feared. that’s incredibly sad.
ok, all done here then.
Why do all you people talk in the same cringey pseudo-Joss Weadon loser speak?
I’m worse than you feared because I’m what I’ve said I was the entire time? A Marxist-Leninist? How is this not an admission of anti-communism?
The US literally has a higher incarceration rate than China or than USSR did under Stalin, but do go on. Really highlighting the quality of your intellect here.
thanks, we’re not talking about that right now. also, don’t let cowbee see your ad hominem, he really hates that.
No we are literally talking about that right now because you’re braying about gulags here. Also, learn what ad hominem is if you’re going to use it. Ad hominem would be me saying your argument is wrong because you’re an imbecile. I’m addressing your argument directly on its own merits while highlighting the fact that you are in fact an imbecile. It’s perhaps too subtle a difference for you to grasp given the limitations.
Western Marxist try not to side with the empire and believe their lies challenge (impossible)