I am on hexbear because I like the memes. I consider myself a centrist, but I do agree with their general stance of a revolution that leads to the abolition of private property, there should be a dictatorship of the proletariat, and the complete dedication to elevating our marginalized comrades. I just try not to get political there, and it's fine really.
I believe the comrade is making a joke about our politics. Not everything we don't like is fascism, some of it is liberalism. But of course, we all know what bleeds when a liberal gets scratched.
As communists we're staunchly anti-NATO and against the US imperialist order. There's a degree of critical support for the Russian Federations struggle against NATO, but thats not really pro-russia, or at least how we would define being pro-russia.
Similarly we have critical support for Iran in its struggle against the US led imperial order, and we support when they do things like engaging in trade with AES like Venezuela. Thats not the same as direct support for the theocracy there or all their domestic policies for example
NATO aid and their not allowing Ukraine to negotiate peace is what is prolonging this war. We aren't arguing for all of Ukraine to become Russian territory, which hasn't been the position of the Russian Federation either.
We would like a negotiated peace that alllows the Donbas republics to leave Ukraine and join the Russian Federation as they've voted to do, and a promise for Ukraine to not become part of NATO. That senario is not the alternative you're talking about, or what you're implying we support.
We act as if the land wasnt invaded. The quickest way to achieve peace is for Putin yo withdraw. If the Ukrainians push into Russia after a withdraw, then we are having a different conversation.
You cant claim to believe in peace while in another territory.
No, if he didn't he would have been couped and the invasion launched anyway. Russia is a dictatorship of capital. Putin answers to the national bourgeoisie of Russia.
Also hypotheticals like that aren't really relevant to discussing actual exit strategies. Unless you've found a way to hop realities.
Then they deserve defeat at the hands of Ukraine. If they want to go into a war on their own volition, then they will have to face to consequences. If that requires NATO might, then so be it. Peace was always an option.
Okay, but it doesn't seem Ukraine is winning, even with NATO supporting them. So, that means a settlement is probably the best option to save lives all around.
I disagree. The fact that Russia (a supposed world super power) is still there means Ukraine is winning. Russia can't beat little ol' Ukraine in a war. I'd say they are in a better position than we think.
No, it means its getting increasingly bloody as more and more Russians and Ukrainians get thrown in the meat grinder without a path to victory for Ukraine. That isn't winning.
You understand that "they should behave like they should behave" isnt very useful in understanding politics and developing personally actionable solutions, right?
The fact that Russia (a supposed world super power) is still there means Ukraine is winning.
The fact that Russia didnt shock and awe it's way across a country that has the entirety of NATO backing it means Russia is losing? Lmao ok.
NATO is running out of equipment because it's supplying Ukraine. Russia is basically taking on NATO and winning, but go off
I disagree, but even if I agreed I'd accept the material reality that is that Ukraine is bleeding people. The have a volksturm going on, it's a meat grinder, I think they should stop this mindless slaughter
Your way of conceptializing this is so childlike as to be useless.
I want the war in Ukraine to end. I want them to negotiate the best and most obvious solution to this conflict for the parties involved. I want the war to end because then people will not be getting killed.
You want NATO to keep supporting Ukraine, to keep Ukraine away from negotiating. You want this, because... i don't know why.
I'm saying the Ukrainians should not be expected to negotiate, given that it is their land being invaded. If Putin doesn't like that, he can pound sand and leave.
If someone invades your house, you wouldn't just given them a room and bath to have them clam down.
There was an ethnic cleansing attempt going on prior to the Russuan invasion. The Azov battalion was shelling ethnic Russians (who make up the majority of people in the Dnbas and Eastern Ukraine)in the Donbas for the last 8 years.
So if the Ukrainians were shown to be persecuting jews, roma, russian-ukrainians or commies you'd be against Ukraine?
Well have I got some news for you
If Putin doesn't like that, he can pound sand and leave.
Or he can keep grinding Ukrainians that are poisoning their own soil with mines, cluster ammo and depleted uranium because I assure you Ukraine isn't winning this and even their NATO backers are announcing it now that the "spring counter-offensive" has failed.
If someone invades your house, you wouldn't just given them a room and bath to have them clam down.
I sure am glad that libs are aware that international relations are complex issues that cannot be boiled down to household analogies. It sure would be frustrating if they tried to make this into some simple black/white scenario with good guys and bad guys separated from material reality and historical context
do you sincerely think Ukraine will be like "it's all good you were a good sport we're gonna end the match here, everyone go home" if Russia suddenly decided to up and leave.
Even if Russia were to withdraw to pre-war borders, Ukraine would keep fighting because they insist on taking Crimea which is a large majority Russians who want to be part of Russia.
Crimea has never truly been Ukrainian. It was internally transferred to the Ukrainian SSR in the 1950s, but its population was Russian then and stayed Russian the whole time since. But Ukraine insists on having it back.
And if they did somehow get it back, they would start ethnically cleansing it of Russians. I hope you understand how that’s a bad thing.
Without NATO aid, Ukraine will just plainly be taken over by Purine Russia.
The war would end, a whole lot of people would stop getting killed, and it would open a sliver of space to organize on class lines instead of nationalist ones.
As it is, it is basically illegal to be a communist or an anarchist in Ukraine, and the country is under martial law with NATO-armed and trained fascist brigades doling out summary justice. Could it get worse? Why should the left advocate for people to die on the hill of a country which arrests communists, dismantles labor unions, and liquidates public infrastructure on internet auctions for foreign investors?
If you take the most vulgar Anarchist approach, all states are bad, full stop. Political practice doesn't even operate on that paradigm. You struggle to undermine oppressive hierarchical systems that you come in direct contact with through direct action. If you take the vulgar Leninist approach, the Proletariat should struggle for the overthrow of their Bourgeoisie (this would include the proletariat of Ukraine and Russia respectively, as well as the proletariat of Western countries which see this conflict only as a means to strengthen their military alliances and diplomatic positions). Of course, the situation is too nuanced to apply such a vulgar approach, but that should be the STARTING POINT for anybody who considers themselves anti-capitalists. You should be able to justify any deviation from those bedrock positions.
Im no fan of US imperialism, but you all conveniently leave out the alternative to NATO aid in Ukraine right now.
Nope it's mentioned all the time: diplomacy, peace talks, and to make that even possible, establish legitimacy by abiding by your own agreements. The undermining of all of these things has been discussed at length. They don't really need to be rehashed in our spaces for the benefit of new people that don't ask questions, though.
Without NATO aid, Ukraine will just plainly be taken over by Purine Russia.
lol RF could take over UA any time they wanted to if they took the NATO approach of completely destroying civilian life and essential resources via bombing. Military "aid" to Ukraine just keeps Ukrainian soldiers getting killed en masse, which is characterized by Russia as their compromise version of Denazification.
As far as Im concerned, Putins expansion is really helping NATOs by giving them a justification to exist
NATO obviously requires no credible justification to exist. This doesn't matter.
I find it completely unreasonable to request a peace talk whilst in a neighboring sovereign nation invading. That's lunacy to think Ukrainians are being the unreasonable ones here in regards to a peace talk.
Of course I do, I have family in Ukraine. I'd love to know how 2014 infringed on Russia's sovereignty, though, since that's the only way I could see it remotely justifying what Russia is doing today.
Is that your actual answer? That's all you think that happened in 2014? I'm asking because it's pretty impossible to gauge wether you're being a smug idiot or just an idiot right now.
Getting an answer out of a lib really is like pulling teeth, you're completely incapable of good faith discussion. Why is it so hard for you to answer a simple question? Why do you refuse to just engage in good faith with those that respond to you? Are you incapable of being a smugh shitheel?
You said Russia didn't unilaterally invade Ukraine, because of what happened in 2014. I poked fun at how ridiculous that was and now you refuse to explain what you meant. Now you're just projecting and insulting me instead of explaining what you mean and how Russia was threatened in any way that justifies Russia's actions.
I know what happened in 2014, again, I have family in Ukraine. Are you going to explain your reasoning or are you just going to get yourself off on how much smarter you are than me, and how great your argument/discussion skills are, without giving anything of substance?
You said Russia didn't unilaterally invade Ukraine, because of what happened in 2014.
I've so far said nothing about wether or not Russia invaded Ukraine. I've literally only asked you about what happened in 2014. So far you've failed to answer.
Now you're just projecting and insulting me instead of explaining what you mean
Yeah, like you've been doing all the way through. Answer the question.
I know what happened in 2014,
Then tell me. Why is it so hard to just answer a question? What happened in 2014?
You're the one making claims, you tell me what you think happened that justifies what Russia's doing, or even provoked them in some way
What claims have I made? Quote them to me please. I've literally only asked you to answer the question, WHICH YOU STILL HAVENT DONE. Why is it so difficult?
In response to someone saying Russia invaded unilaterally, you referenced what happened in 2014, as if that provoked or justified Russia's current actions. That is your argument, you should explain it. Unless you're just Just Asking Questions.
I'm open to actually discussing it with you if you'll actually explain what you mean and why you feel that way, because I've been following the situation for years and don't know how one would come to that conclusion.
you referenced what happened in 2014, as if that provoked or justified Russia's current actions.
I'm not the user that referenced it. Once again: I've literally only asked you to answer the question. Had I been the one to state the question initially, you still wouldn't be able to make that conclusion, it is a huge assumption that that would be the line of reasoning, angle of argument or anything else. It could just as easily have been a way to see where we disagree, create a common basis from which to have an argument, to help illustrate a point of larger context or something else entirely. It is common for a discussion to create a basis of shared understanding from which we can then diverge or argue.
Im open to actually discussing it with you if you'll actually explain what you mean and why you feel that way.
No thanks. Its pretty clear you're not capable of pleasant or good faith discussion, instead choosing weird debate tactics, condescention and strawmanning me. I've literally only asked you to answer a question, and you haven't been able to fulfill this simple request. It's pretty clear any extended conversation would just be even worse.
Maybe when you're less of an antagonistic debatelord.
I find it completely unreasonable to request a peace talk whilst in a neighboring sovereign nation invading.
You have a very funny idea about the realities of war. By your logic most could never end. Wars are resolved through diplomacy or full collapse and loss. Your sociopathic ideas about what is "reasonable" devalues the lives and well-being of Ukrainians living through war.
This is liberal "moral victory" nonsense that no serious person believes.
That's lunacy to think Ukrainians are being the unreasonable ones here in regards to a peace talk.
Thank you for conceding my point and implicitly retracting the claim I replied to.
When in the history of ever did a nation willingly withdraw from its enemy before even holding peace talks?
Did the US withdraw from Mexico before they started hashing out Guadalupe Hidalgo?
Did Germany withdraw from Russia before negotiating Brest-Litovsk?
Even the 'we do not negotiate with terrorists' US negotiated with the Taliban before leaving Afghanistan.
It’s a deal, and withdrawal is one of the terms. You don’t do it before the deal has been made. That gives up all leverage.
And Ukraine has already demanded they get absolutely everything, including Crimea. If you want a deal to be everything you want and nothing you don’t, you need an unconditional surrender, not peace talks. Good luck getting Ukrainian tanks into Moscow.
Putin has started multiple times that he does not consider Ukraine a legitimate country. If he does not think they should exist, where would the other portion of it go?
I think you are being reductive. One can simultaneously be anti Russia and Anti US imperialism.
Idk why America being bad means oligarchic Russia is good. There's no nuance in your ideology. The US generally sucks. They happen to be in the correct side of this conflict. They arent always, but here they are.
I think you are being reductive. One can simultaneously be anti Russia and Anti US imperialism.
Yes we agree.
Idk why America being bad means oligarchic Russia is good.
So pointing out American lies shouldn't be an issue, right? Pointing out propaganda shouldn't be an issue, right?
There's no nuance in your ideology.
I'm not the one boiling this down to good guys and bad guys being on "the right side".
I support Russia in this conflict insofar as a defeat of Ukraine would be a defeat of the American empire, which would help usher in a multi-polar world - as we are seeing now - which aids national self-determination (as we are starting to see around the world, from the west African countries throwing off the yoke of France and the IMF, south American countries collaborating and throwing out US stooges, and middle eastern countries seeking peace with each other).
The US generally sucks. They happen to be in the correct side of this conflict.
If the US sucks, and the us has been shown to lie, and the us continues to lie, then ask yourself why the us supports Ukraine and to what end. Ask yourself why NATO felt the need to sabotage peace talks. Ask yourself why NATO felt the need to make Zelensky maintain an idea that Ukraine would join NATO, after being told it wouldn't happen behind closed doors.
They arent always, but here they are.
Lmao is this your idea of nuance? "Well all the other times they were shown to be ghouls, but this time where I'm bought in, they're definitely not"
Are you implying NATO is just the US? That no other NATO nation has sway, and that they are all US puppet?
This isnt a US vs Russia issue. Its the majority of Europe as well. I tend to trust them as a collective before Id trust Russia.
Again. I think you are being reductive and turning this into a US bad issue when the US isnt even the most important player here. ID argue Ukraine is the most important player here.
The US is not the center of the world. Its a very American perspective
Are you implying NATO is just the US? That no other NATO nation has sway, and that they are all US puppet?
NATO is and has always been an extension of the US political apparatus. NATO is a void husk of ghouls initially staffed by ex-nazis like Adolph heusinger.
NATO is allegedly a defensive alliance but has so far only been involved offensively.
When has NATO ever gone against the will of the US?
This isnt a US vs Russia issue. Its the majority of Europe as well.
The current Ukrainian government was installed by the US, the US president and his predecessor are both embroiled in corruption scandals in Ukraine, and the US is sending an inordinate amount of resources to Ukraine. The US is fighting a proxy war.
tend to trust them as a collective before Id trust Russia.
Why would you trust what Europe does more than Russia? Why is your skepticism a one way street? I trust neither, I observe the material conditions and the verifiable facts. That is what should lie to grounds for your belief, not vibes about "slavs being untrustworthy" or whatever. Why exactly does it matter how many parts a population is parted up in? Would you trust the Russian federation more if it was The Russian federation and it's puppet states?
Besides - Far more countries are netural/pro-russia than opposed.
Again. I think you are being reductive and turning this into a US bad issue when the US isnt even the most important player here.
You keep coming back to this statement, this is now the third time I argue it. As before I do not think it is a question of "us bad", however it is striking to me that you 1. Part this up into "good" and "bad" sides 2. Insist you're on the "good" side 3. Discount any notion of nuance as wanting to make this about the us.
Seeing as how you keep returning to this way of dismissing me and seeing how you choose to avoid answering my questions It is clear you are not actually interested in a good faith discussion.
America centric.
As I've clearly illustrated it is about the US. You refusing to engage with this point does not make it less true.
Edit: you keep speaking of nuance, yet I see none from you. You reduce this to a question of right and wrong, good and bad, and then declare "were on the good side". How is this nuanced? How is it nuanced to complain about added context? The fact that I am unwilling to mindlessly go "putler bad, zlava Zelensky" somehow makes me the unnuanced one? The fact that I think questions of NATO encroachment, breaches of treaties and economic interests are relevant to the discussion is somehow unnuanced?
Your willingness to reduce it all to "invasion wrong, all other doesn't matter" is somehow nuanced? Please do some self-crit.
This is essentially what I used to think as well, until I spent more time there. There's some stock phrases busted out, and some users probably leave it at that and don't engage beyond it. However, they genuinely have a deeper framework for an analysis of the world than what you're going to see from conservatives.
Basically as part of their extremely liberal ideology, they analyze things through a materialist lens, even the non-marxist liberals there, and through that there is a lot of seeking out of what material causes and contradictions have lead to where we are which can be really neat.
There is probably some disagreement over what is fascist, what's not, blah blah. But it's really not as simple as "what I don't like is fascism".
They stay inside and rant and rave about how things SHOULD be while we are out there actually making the incremental changes to try to bring it about.
Incremental changes like allowing abortion bans, trans bans, the cost of living to skyrocket, drone striking workers around the world, doing nothing about the climate, allowing millions of avoidable covid deaths for the sake of the rich... Oh and presiding over the restoration of child labour? Those incremental changes? Anything I missed?
You're useless. You are projecting enormously when you say we socialists only talk when literally everything is going backwards even when you're in power.
What do you even do anyway? Are you organising? Or do you just vote every few years and act like that means you do something? We organise.
And brigading ain't fucking organising numbnuts, nor is anyone doing any brigading when it's at the top of our /all/ page right now. I'm talking about unions, salting, activist groups, direct action, REAL shit. Not fucking voting and posting on the internet. What do you do? Anything at all?
Completely skipped over the fact that ALL of the above things happen when liberals are in power too didn't ya? Just utterly sidestepped it. You ignore the reality happening in front of your eyes and only listen to meaningless words. You're naive as fuck and very easily fooled.
I can't speak for everyone but there are a lot of union members and organisers among the ranks of Hexbear. Before I went back to school I used to organise with my local Tennant Union personally, but trying to balance 2 jobs, school, and organising work came to be a bit much for me so I guess we really aren't that different
Once again, the moment someone whips this one out, all I gotta do is look at when they joined. And see yup, that's a reddit refugee. Works 100% of the time, every time.
You've been here two weeks, cool your jets and enjoy federation.
Me personally, I teach and make my students aware of the dictatorship of capital, imperialism, the profite motive.. Basically marxism-leninism 101 on a introductionary level.
Other than that, I'm active in the teachers union and volunteer in the local chapter of the Marxist leninist party tog et local projects of the ground, like extending the public transport network, social housing, and most important of all, talking with people about their problems, the rise of fascism where I live and how to counter it, as well as the current neoliberal line of thought in both local and federale government.
while we are out there actually making the incremental changes to try to bring it about.
lmao most of the activism by liberals here is voting every 2 - 4 years and posting, don't kid yourself. Just keep carrying water for an unrepentant segregationist and telling yourself that the incremental steps you are supporting are towards progress and not a third world war.
Sorry, I'm sure you'll get your anti-imperialism candidate on the Primary debate stage one day! They still can't win, but they'll be on the stage once. And to make sure that that day comes, it only makes sense to do the bidding of imperialists in the meantime.
You're not doing anything you're literally just actively promoting fascism. Congratulations, you beat the Republicans by becoming Republicans. So cool and very effective!
Incremental change doesn't work, but if it did we don't have time for it with the climate as it is, but if we did I'd still rather change something quick so we can stop people from dying in poverty and starvation.
China lifted 800 million people out of poverty by building healthcare, transport, housing, jobs, education and food security? Heh, but what about that time European settlers got richer by genociding Native Americans? Technically that was "poverty reduction" too, commie
Chinese poverty elimination didn’t come on the backs of any of those things you goober. “Well have you considered that sometimes OTHER countries did bad things to reduce domestic poverty, and therefore China doing so is inherently bad actually !?” Grow the fuck up, this isn’t a real argument.
Please watch this documentary co-produced by literally PBS on the poverty alleviation campaign. I'm sure you'll just dismiss it as all a charade and propaganda, but I hope you approach it with an open mind. What the Chinese have been able to accomplish (through sheer hard work and determination) is nothing short of incredible and it honestly pisses me off you would compare that to the literal genocide of Native Americans.
All governments are authoritiarian. They have the authority to tax you and can do that cuz they have a monopoly on violence. But if you have "HUMAN RIGHTS" written on a piece of paper in your capital building that basically makes you a democracy, right?
This argument is essentially "words have no real meaning". Having authority does not make a government authoritarian. The term authoritarianism is defined. The CCP is authoritarian, by definition, starting with (but not ending with) having only one political party.
maybe if more people voted for them they would be bigger parties does a party stop being a party because it's smaller than the dominant party? By that measure, Japan is authoritarian as they've been run by a single party (the LDP) for nearly 70 years!
Bluntly, the definition of authoritarianism as any exercise of authority is far too broad to be useful, and is not consistent with actual academic discourse regarding political systems.
Excerising authority does not make a government authoritarian. If the law says "thou shalt not commit murder", and the government enforces this law, would you label that as authoritarianism?
The Chinese government has much higher approval ratings from its people (consent of the governed) than the U.S. and most any other western “democracy”. It uses less violence against its citizens (US has the highest rate of incarceration in the world plus high rates of police murder and brutality) as well as internationally (China hasn’t bombed or invaded anybody in like 40 years while the U.S. does so daily over the same time period). Objectively, for the word to have any meaning at all the US is far more authoritarian. It uses its authority more violently and malevolently. If you can’t admit this you aren’t engaging with reality, you’re just afraid of challenging the propaganda you’ve been indoctrinated with.
What does the enforcement of this law entail? Police, prisons, arrests, all measures you could simply label authoritarian with no context, no matter how much we might agree on murder being bad, and laws against it being good.
America. This is America. It's the same picture. America does the same thing but in a different fashion. Please at least admit America is authoritiarian. Why not? I'm a principled maoist, but this makes me want to burn down Walmarts
its not whataboutism, Im saying a lake is a pond a pond is a lake. I watched john oliver in high school, but really tho would you have supported the entente in ww1 cuz the axis were "authoritarian"??? I know history, I know this shit is bullshit. I'll talk to you all day about the shortcomings of the USSR, or the PRC, or the DPRK, whatever the fuck, they all have valid criticism, but fuck if america aint some kinda authoritarian state, then idk what
Whataboutism is when you ignore a criticism of one party and instead say that another party is worse in some way, in order to distract from the original discussion. Hexbear users apparently love this underhanded tactic.
See that's the fundamental mistake you libs make. You project your childlike black and white worldview onto people with a broader understanding, like the christians who think that atheists hate god.
How much influence do the 6 other parties hold in the us?
Would you think china was more democratic if the 8 parties had a larger share of the votes, or would you find some other way to downcut it? Why would a larger share be better? If it was equal would that then be the best? Is democracy a function of how many parties are in government? Would it be a good thing if the president had a minority share of the vote?
Would you think china was more democratic if the 8 parties had a larger share of the votes
Yes, broader representation would literally be more democratic.
Why would a larger share be better?
Because that's how democracy works.
Is democracy a function of how many parties are in government?
Democracy is a function of broad representation in government, ideally complete representation, though this is difficult to achieve in practice.
Would it be a good thing if the president had a minority share of the vote?
In the PRC, only local officials are elected, and only candidates which are approved by the ruling party can be nominated for those elections. The president is not subject to direct popular election.
Under the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, the CCP is guaranteed a leadership role, and the National People's Congress therefore does not serve as a forum of debate between government and opposition parties as is the case with Western parliaments.[9] At the same time, the Constitution makes the Party subordinate to laws passed by the National People's Congress, and the NPC has been the forum for debates and conflict resolution between different interest groups. The CCP maintains control over the NPC by controlling delegate selection, maintaining control over the legislative agenda, and controlling the constitutional amendment process.[9]
The ruling party controls delegate selection, the legislative agenda, and constitutional amendments, which ensures that they can maintain their own control indefinitely. This is the opposite of democratic.
Yes, broader representation would literally be more democratic.
Okay so we should just redistribute some of the votes people cast for their choice of candidate? Ignoring who people voted for in order to get a more broad collection of parties would somehow be more democratic than following the will of the people? A broad selection in itself isn't inherently "more democratic". A broad representation is a symptom of a vibrant democracy, but it's not a rule.
Because that's how democracy works
I'm pretty sure democracy works by people voting for those they believe represent their values, but I guess I'm just misunderstanding things. Apparently the Democracymeter(tm) counts how many different parties are in a government, and the more there are the better it would be. I guess this at least means you're admitting China is a better democracy than the US, Canada, Australia and most european countries, which is something.
In the PRC, only local officials are elected, and only candidates which are approved by the ruling party can be nominated for those elections. The president is not subject to direct popular election
Thanks for not answering my question! I do actually already know this, but it's always nice to retread old ground. I'm gonna ask it again, since the point is to illustrate the absurdity of your statement. Would it be a good thing if the president had a minority share of the vote?
The ruling party controls delegate selection, the legislative agenda, and constitutional amendments, which ensures that they can maintain their own control indefinitely. This is the opposite of democratic.
Dawg you're quoting wikipedia. Please bring some actual sources if you want me to take this seriously Wikipedia is prone to ideological bias it's also a nazi cesspool Fact is that China has a very high voter approval - Now I already know what you're going to say "Oh they lie, oh they repress!" Cope. I have no reason to think that. China isn't the country with the largest prisoner population in the world. China isn't the country that is legalising child-workers. China isn't the country that is disappearing minority leaders China isn't the country with media constantly housing state employess lying in order to drum up warfervor.
He is using it as an insult, and as a way to convey that you do not comprehend the text you are reading. He does not mean it literally, but figuratively. This is really basic-level communication, but sometimes it can be difficult to parse tone - Please indicate if you need tone signifier for communication.
The word authoritarian has no meaning. Any definition that covers the PRC also covers every other country. Unless of course the definition is "non-white people are in the government" but at that point the definition is just madk-off
Any argument in favor of Ukraine surrendering territory to Russia is pro-Putin. It doesn't have to explicitly say "I support Putin". If the comment suggests that the invasion is in any way justified or that the conquest of Ukrainian territory should be legitimized, it is a pro-Putin argument.
It's only the most brainwashed liberals that turn into this kind of frothing cult of personality turning an entire country of hundreds of millions into a single figurehead.
Evidenced further by the reactionary stance "I'm not listening to a single fucking thing that doesn't 100% align with the most one sided propaganda that I exclusively seek out"
Real good way to not know a single thing you're talking about and look like an idiot when you try
Dumb fuck. You literally said that exact thing in your own words. Projection is something you can accuse someone of if you HAVEN'T completely walled yourself off from knowing the nature of their arguments.
My point and calling you a dumb fuck are one in the same. You need to be and deserve to be called a dumb fuck right now. Did you really read past my several valid criticisms of you and absorb nothing more from it than a pissy attitude?
Pro-Putin is when I want there to still be Ukranians after this. Pro-Ukranian is when I cheer on wave after wave of old men and young boys get mulched by artillery while a bald guy with a sonnenrad tattoo points a rifle at their backs to make sure they don't try to run.
Abstract principles really do matter more than human lives to you libs. Don't talk about "legitimate interest in fewer Ukrainians dying" when you wouldn't hesitate to sacrifice every last one of them for one inch of soil.
I don't actually think. I just know I'm right. Then whenever I'm in an argument I can just link the [word we're arguing about] wikipedia article. Since I'm right and wikipedia has objective information the argument is over every time and I win.
The conversation was you linking a Wikipedia article, I was at least hoping you'd link like a book or something. Like we could have a discussion if you were trying to argue against authoritarianiam as defined by say Bakunin or some other anarchist thinker.
Then I could respond with On Authority which argues that authority is a natural consequence of any organization and calling something authoritarian just means you're saying that it's a system that is able to successfully reproduce itself.
You could also try to link "authoritarianism" to fascism, but again that is pointless because there's already a term for fascism, which is Fascism.
If you would reread the thread you'd notice it begins with the hexbear user making a simple request, which the user could not fulfill. Any further questions in the discussion were met with derision, which is when the bad-faith behaviour was reciprocrated by the hexbear user. Please do better and hold yourself to at least half the standard you expect of others
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP),[3] officially the Communist Party of China (CPC),[4] is the founding and sole ruling party of the People's Republic of China (PRC).
I thought this exact thing, but the more I learned about them, it turned out to really not be true. While there is a kind of meme culture there of asking Xi to nuke the town they're currently residing in, and pointing out all of the white supremacist symbols used by the Ukraine's army or whatever, there is a deeper context for it.
They don't necessarily support every move these people make and particularly in regards to Putin there is a lot of criticism towards his social stances.
They're more looking at this through the lens of what a nato conflict is causing in terms of a more multi-polar world and also Russia turning away from the neoliberalism that has dominated it since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Not saying you have to agree with it. I'm more of a centrist myself, but it's really not fair to say this as a blanket statement with no context.
You should check out Vincent Bevins' book The Jakarta Method. He covers the genocide of leftists in Indonesia but throughout it talks to people who've been victims of the Jakarta Method, people who were ostensibly where you are, they were communists who were against the use of force. And do you know what happened to them and their friends? They had to flee for their lives while their friends got murdered because as it turns out Capitalists will absolutely use authority to squash and kill anything that even remotely threatens their power. They've since changed their mind.
I appreciate that you are being more reasonable than the others commenting to me. I will give it a read.
to be clear though, I'm not even opposed to revolution, but a society can't take one autocratic rule and replace it with another. I think, especially with this thread, that a lot of people here are taking their rightful hatred of capitalism and channeling it into the support of an oligarchic authoritarian (Putin and Russia). Oligarchic Russia should not be the model of communist nation. This is why I largely don't consider these commenters to be arguing in good faith. They are rooting for a Capitalist nation to win in a fight with a bunch of other capitalist nations.
I don't know a single communist who supports Russia or Putin. Why would they support a capitalist state? Do you mean that they argue why, in historical materialist terms, war between Russia and the West has been caused by western expansion? In that case, they are explaining geopolitical movements to our current situation, not supporting Russia if that makes sense. I can see how "critical support" against American imperialism (eg, support with heavy criticism) can come off as being "pro-Russia" from the outside, but it really is just explaining, contra the neoliberal take on geopolitical war, why war is happening. Communists don't approach international politics as good vs bad, they are far more nuanced which can be read as "pro" things they aren't. Does that make sense? I am inebriated
I think you're a really confused kid. I hope you read the Jakarta method, and hopefully at some point any book by an actual communist. Here's a good one by Engel's, its very short, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
If you're communist you should learn what that means. And probably not tell us what you think we believe. Just deciding you know what we believe and telling us that our whole ideology is about misplaced anger, and how we don't make sense is actually a little authoritarian to borrow your language
300 years after the revolution people who talk about 'communism' will be using your definition. For now when people say 'communism' they're talking about the ML(M) project of achieving that goal. This is a conversation that's been going on for 150 years now. Not only have people argued out what you're talking about, they've been able to see in real life what happens when you try to put principle to practice. You can't have communism without class war. And if you don't suppress the ruling class they will inevitably erode and destroy whatever victories you take from them. You have to use 'authority'.
Who gives a shot what you believe in, when your actions and ideology supports the dictatorship of the bourgeoise? It doesn't matter what esoteric strain you are, it matters what you do and it matters what the end of those actions are
Before "tankie" became such a popular term the difference was framed as a question of "socialism from above" versus "socialism from below," as discussed in this Hal Draper pamphlet.
Forget about Ukraine for a minute. I want you to explain to me your theory of democratic communism. What's the theory of change? What does a democratic comminist revolutuon look like? Is there a theoretical basis for these beliefs?
I'm a marxist leninist, i am someone you would call a tankie. I want you to explain to me you're version of communism
A) What makes you think we think the Russian Federation is "Communist"?
B) Why do you not also describe Ukraine as an oligarchy when it's entire reputation for the last 30 years is as one of the most ludicrously corrupt places on Earth?
And if you instate that "real" democracy in a world that is full of capitalists that will work towards destroying it (as you for example saw with the USSR in its infancy or Nicaragua or Cuba), how do you think your newfound democracy should defend itself?
So, someone who supports totalitarian rule to achieve communism? Like... A revolution vs voting? I'm asking in good faith btw, I am legit trying to understand
I mean, there's pretty clearly a difference between the Cuban approach of letting capitalists leave vs the Russian approach of imprisoning them.
There's also a difference between the Bolivian approach of arming and training the peasantry and the GDR approach of maintaining an armed military police into peace time.
There is a meaningful difference between methods of protecting working class power, and pretending there isn't serves more heavy handed approaches.
For those of us who are abolitionists, this is a central question.
I think the framing is off on that question. Communism is not a political system, its an economic one. Tankies are pro authoritarian, but just so happen to have a communist economic theory.
I believe in Democratic communism, preferably with a much smaller government.
How is human society organized? What do humans do? They create things and they consume things. What is politics? It is deciding who in a society resources are taken from and what they applied to.
Why do you draw a line between these things? Especially as a socialist who presumably wants to bring democracy to the workplace?
But you live in a world that does, and therefore you are forced to relate to it wether or not you believe in it.
It does not matter what you believe in, what.matters is the material reality in which we all exist
Communism is most definitely a political system as it has an inherent system of power relations, representation of workers, ownership of the means of production by the workers themselves, and distribution of decisions among the people until the state can be dissolved. Internationalism is a huge part of communism as is real politik, historical materialism, and other political approaches.
What I don't understand is what you mean by authoritarian? Do you mean a literal dictatorship like in Latin America? I don't know if a single communist country that has not had better representation than the USA as far as voting goes. I guess maybe the Khmer Rouge (I don't know anything beyond Wikipedia for that one)?
authoritarianism is when you do things and get results, the more results you get the more authoritarian it is
true democracy is when so much nothing is happening that everyone is stochastically dissolving into elementary particles like it's the heat death of the universe
There aren't that many Communist experiments, sadly. According to Marx, Communism as we think of it is post Capitalism. We just aren't there yet unfortunately. I think we are edging towards the socialist stage, then we can achieve communism, although I'd like it sooner.
Communism is indissociable from its three components, which includes a political system: dialectical materialism (the philosophical part), the labour theory of value (the economic part), and the class struggle (the social thus political part).
Anything other than Marxism is ineffectual in the real world and leads to nothing as exemplified by 200 years of history. "Tankies" don't "happen" to have an economic theory, it's an integral part to the whole of Marxism and Marxism could not exist without the economic basis for it. Why do we dislike capitalism? Because through math we can prove it is rife with contradictions and invariably leads to imperialism. Otherwise why would we want communism? Just because it's cool to be a communist? Just because it's a hobby? There has to be an actual justification for what we want.
I appreciate the attempt to engage in discussion about it, but it is an interesting position. Do you not think your position directly competes with assertions from The Communist Manifesto, or State and Revolution, or most communist texts?
I know Hexbear skews very, very liberal. I haven't spent much time in other lemmy places.
deleted by creator
I am on hexbear because I like the memes. I consider myself a centrist, but I do agree with their general stance of a revolution that leads to the abolition of private property, there should be a dictatorship of the proletariat, and the complete dedication to elevating our marginalized comrades. I just try not to get political there, and it's fine really.
I'm a centrist; Anarchists and Marxist-Leninists both make good points
Based
posting
You're such a centrist!
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Honestly this might be the best bit to genuinely convince centrists
banger
deleted by creator
Everyone left of me is red fascist and everyone right of me is normal fascist
LOL
Haha we were owned.
It's basically a mayor Pete fan club over there
Every time his face gets posted, a grocer in Canada gets the sudden urge to raise the price of bread.
Actually they're raising the price of meat now.
deleted by creator
BTW I use NixOS
I mailed him my dog, but he says he hasn't received it and that's why I can't have it back
I hate those hexbear shit libs.
me too man fr fr
deleted by creator
Liberal? They’re as extreme as conservatives who call communism everything they don’t like (cause they call everything they don’t like “fascist”)
the leftism understander has logged on
Maybe you don't understand what fascism is.
Or maybe you do, and you're a supporter of it.
I believe the comrade is making a joke about our politics. Not everything we don't like is fascism, some of it is liberalism. But of course, we all know what bleeds when a liberal gets scratched.
I like the communism talk. I don't like the pro russia talk on hexbear.
What exactly are you seeing as pro-russia?
As communists we're staunchly anti-NATO and against the US imperialist order. There's a degree of critical support for the Russian Federations struggle against NATO, but thats not really pro-russia, or at least how we would define being pro-russia.
Similarly we have critical support for Iran in its struggle against the US led imperial order, and we support when they do things like engaging in trade with AES like Venezuela. Thats not the same as direct support for the theocracy there or all their domestic policies for example
They want all the us state department propaganda included with the communism talk.
Im no fan of US imperialism, but you all conveniently leave out the alternative to NATO aid in Ukraine right now.
Without NATO aid, Ukraine will just plainly be taken over by Purine Russia.
If you think that end result is OK, then I don't know what to tell you.
As far as Im concerned, Putins expansion is really helping NATOs by giving them a justification to exist.
How does communism inform your perspective?
NATO aid and their not allowing Ukraine to negotiate peace is what is prolonging this war. We aren't arguing for all of Ukraine to become Russian territory, which hasn't been the position of the Russian Federation either.
We would like a negotiated peace that alllows the Donbas republics to leave Ukraine and join the Russian Federation as they've voted to do, and a promise for Ukraine to not become part of NATO. That senario is not the alternative you're talking about, or what you're implying we support.
We act as if the land wasnt invaded. The quickest way to achieve peace is for Putin yo withdraw. If the Ukrainians push into Russia after a withdraw, then we are having a different conversation.
You cant claim to believe in peace while in another territory.
And then get couped and have the war continue under the leadership of a right wing hardliner
Please look up critiques of great man theory as it seems relevant to your line of thinking on this matter.
So what you are saying is Putin messed up and is in too deep now, no? Seems like the easiest solution would have been to not invade UkrIne
No, if he didn't he would have been couped and the invasion launched anyway. Russia is a dictatorship of capital. Putin answers to the national bourgeoisie of Russia.
Also hypotheticals like that aren't really relevant to discussing actual exit strategies. Unless you've found a way to hop realities.
Then they deserve defeat at the hands of Ukraine. If they want to go into a war on their own volition, then they will have to face to consequences. If that requires NATO might, then so be it. Peace was always an option.
Okay, but it doesn't seem Ukraine is winning, even with NATO supporting them. So, that means a settlement is probably the best option to save lives all around.
I disagree. The fact that Russia (a supposed world super power) is still there means Ukraine is winning. Russia can't beat little ol' Ukraine in a war. I'd say they are in a better position than we think.
Lol.
No, it means its getting increasingly bloody as more and more Russians and Ukrainians get thrown in the meat grinder without a path to victory for Ukraine. That isn't winning.
Russia is making it bloody, correct. They should leave.
And Biden should give everyone a pony.
You understand that "they should behave like they should behave" isnt very useful in understanding politics and developing personally actionable solutions, right?
And Jeff Bezos should give me all of his money, but that's not gonna happen either
The fact that Russia didnt shock and awe it's way across a country that has the entirety of NATO backing it means Russia is losing? Lmao ok.
NATO is running out of equipment because it's supplying Ukraine. Russia is basically taking on NATO and winning, but go off
I disagree, but even if I agreed I'd accept the material reality that is that Ukraine is bleeding people. The have a volksturm going on, it's a meat grinder, I think they should stop this mindless slaughter
I don't even know what this means because it has no grounding in reality.
They can't negotiate peace because they are in a war? How is it possible to resolve this conflict in any realistic way if thats the criteria?
Ideally by standing down. Again, they arent in their own nation.
Lets change perspectives here. Lets go back in time to the British colonialist and the native Americans. Are the natives supposed to just do nothing?
The victims ought not be expected to let the perpetrators continue to harm them
Your way of conceptializing this is so childlike as to be useless.
I want the war in Ukraine to end. I want them to negotiate the best and most obvious solution to this conflict for the parties involved. I want the war to end because then people will not be getting killed.
You want NATO to keep supporting Ukraine, to keep Ukraine away from negotiating. You want this, because... i don't know why.
I'm saying the Ukrainians should not be expected to negotiate, given that it is their land being invaded. If Putin doesn't like that, he can pound sand and leave.
If someone invades your house, you wouldn't just given them a room and bath to have them clam down.
So in your mind they should not negotiate and fight to the last Ukrainian because your conception of geopolitics is a home invasion?
I'm saying Ukraine should take their aid and push Russia back, as they are doing quite well. Russia isn't doing too hot there right now.
deleted by creator
If there was an ethnic cleansing attempt of any kind, I would promote the greatest of sanctions against them. I dislike bullies.
This is an example of you justifying Russia's actions.
deleted by creator
There was an ethnic cleansing attempt going on prior to the Russuan invasion. The Azov battalion was shelling ethnic Russians (who make up the majority of people in the Dnbas and Eastern Ukraine)in the Donbas for the last 8 years.
deleted by creator
So if the Ukrainians were shown to be persecuting jews, roma, russian-ukrainians or commies you'd be against Ukraine?
Well have I got some news for you
Or he can keep grinding Ukrainians that are poisoning their own soil with mines, cluster ammo and depleted uranium because I assure you Ukraine isn't winning this and even their NATO backers are announcing it now that the "spring counter-offensive" has failed.
I sure am glad that libs are aware that international relations are complex issues that cannot be boiled down to household analogies. It sure would be frustrating if they tried to make this into some simple black/white scenario with good guys and bad guys separated from material reality and historical context
do you sincerely think Ukraine will be like "it's all good you were a good sport we're gonna end the match here, everyone go home" if Russia suddenly decided to up and leave.
Even if Russia were to withdraw to pre-war borders, Ukraine would keep fighting because they insist on taking Crimea which is a large majority Russians who want to be part of Russia.
Crimea has never truly been Ukrainian. It was internally transferred to the Ukrainian SSR in the 1950s, but its population was Russian then and stayed Russian the whole time since. But Ukraine insists on having it back.
And if they did somehow get it back, they would start ethnically cleansing it of Russians. I hope you understand how that’s a bad thing.
The war would end, a whole lot of people would stop getting killed, and it would open a sliver of space to organize on class lines instead of nationalist ones.
As it is, it is basically illegal to be a communist or an anarchist in Ukraine, and the country is under martial law with NATO-armed and trained fascist brigades doling out summary justice. Could it get worse? Why should the left advocate for people to die on the hill of a country which arrests communists, dismantles labor unions, and liquidates public infrastructure on internet auctions for foreign investors?
If you take the most vulgar Anarchist approach, all states are bad, full stop. Political practice doesn't even operate on that paradigm. You struggle to undermine oppressive hierarchical systems that you come in direct contact with through direct action. If you take the vulgar Leninist approach, the Proletariat should struggle for the overthrow of their Bourgeoisie (this would include the proletariat of Ukraine and Russia respectively, as well as the proletariat of Western countries which see this conflict only as a means to strengthen their military alliances and diplomatic positions). Of course, the situation is too nuanced to apply such a vulgar approach, but that should be the STARTING POINT for anybody who considers themselves anti-capitalists. You should be able to justify any deviation from those bedrock positions.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Nope it's mentioned all the time: diplomacy, peace talks, and to make that even possible, establish legitimacy by abiding by your own agreements. The undermining of all of these things has been discussed at length. They don't really need to be rehashed in our spaces for the benefit of new people that don't ask questions, though.
lol RF could take over UA any time they wanted to if they took the NATO approach of completely destroying civilian life and essential resources via bombing. Military "aid" to Ukraine just keeps Ukrainian soldiers getting killed en masse, which is characterized by Russia as their compromise version of Denazification.
NATO obviously requires no credible justification to exist. This doesn't matter.
I find it completely unreasonable to request a peace talk whilst in a neighboring sovereign nation invading. That's lunacy to think Ukrainians are being the unreasonable ones here in regards to a peace talk.
So, no peace talks during war time, got it.
No fighting in the war room either
A war that Russia unilaterally started. They are not reliable negotiators.
So no peace talks during war time.
deleted by creator
Ah yes, 2014, that was when Ukraine invaded Russia, right?
Answer the question, what happened in 2014?
For it to justify Russia invading Ukraine, it must have been something like Ukraine infringing on Russia's sovereignty, right?
You don't know? Yoruo speak with a lot of confidence on this conflict, surely you must know the details of it?
Of course I do, I have family in Ukraine. I'd love to know how 2014 infringed on Russia's sovereignty, though, since that's the only way I could see it remotely justifying what Russia is doing today.
Okay, then tell me what happened in 2014. You still haven't answered the question.
2014 is when Russia first invaded Ukraine.
I'd love to hear how you'll spin it to mean Russia was in anyway infringed against, and how it means Russia's invasions aren't unilateral.
Is that your actual answer? That's all you think that happened in 2014? I'm asking because it's pretty impossible to gauge wether you're being a smug idiot or just an idiot right now.
Getting an answer out of a lib really is like pulling teeth, you're completely incapable of good faith discussion. Why is it so hard for you to answer a simple question? Why do you refuse to just engage in good faith with those that respond to you? Are you incapable of being a smugh shitheel?
You said Russia didn't unilaterally invade Ukraine, because of what happened in 2014. I poked fun at how ridiculous that was and now you refuse to explain what you meant. Now you're just projecting and insulting me instead of explaining what you mean and how Russia was threatened in any way that justifies Russia's actions.
I know what happened in 2014, again, I have family in Ukraine. Are you going to explain your reasoning or are you just going to get yourself off on how much smarter you are than me, and how great your argument/discussion skills are, without giving anything of substance?
I've so far said nothing about wether or not Russia invaded Ukraine. I've literally only asked you about what happened in 2014. So far you've failed to answer.
Yeah, like you've been doing all the way through. Answer the question.
Then tell me. Why is it so hard to just answer a question? What happened in 2014?
Quote where I've insulted you.
You're the one making claims, you tell me what you think happened that justifies what Russia's doing, or even provoked them in some way.
I meant the projection.
What claims have I made? Quote them to me please. I've literally only asked you to answer the question, WHICH YOU STILL HAVENT DONE. Why is it so difficult?
In response to someone saying Russia invaded unilaterally, you referenced what happened in 2014, as if that provoked or justified Russia's current actions. That is your argument, you should explain it. Unless you're just Just Asking Questions.
I'm open to actually discussing it with you if you'll actually explain what you mean and why you feel that way, because I've been following the situation for years and don't know how one would come to that conclusion.
I'm not the user that referenced it. Once again: I've literally only asked you to answer the question. Had I been the one to state the question initially, you still wouldn't be able to make that conclusion, it is a huge assumption that that would be the line of reasoning, angle of argument or anything else. It could just as easily have been a way to see where we disagree, create a common basis from which to have an argument, to help illustrate a point of larger context or something else entirely. It is common for a discussion to create a basis of shared understanding from which we can then diverge or argue.
No thanks. Its pretty clear you're not capable of pleasant or good faith discussion, instead choosing weird debate tactics, condescention and strawmanning me. I've literally only asked you to answer a question, and you haven't been able to fulfill this simple request. It's pretty clear any extended conversation would just be even worse.
Maybe when you're less of an antagonistic debatelord.
"They started it" doesn't really work for diplomacy sadly.
Also who broke the Minsk II treaty?
You have a very funny idea about the realities of war. By your logic most could never end. Wars are resolved through diplomacy or full collapse and loss. Your sociopathic ideas about what is "reasonable" devalues the lives and well-being of Ukrainians living through war.
This is liberal "moral victory" nonsense that no serious person believes.
Thank you for conceding my point and implicitly retracting the claim I replied to.
When in the history of ever did a nation willingly withdraw from its enemy before even holding peace talks?
Did the US withdraw from Mexico before they started hashing out Guadalupe Hidalgo?
Did Germany withdraw from Russia before negotiating Brest-Litovsk?
Even the 'we do not negotiate with terrorists' US negotiated with the Taliban before leaving Afghanistan.
It’s a deal, and withdrawal is one of the terms. You don’t do it before the deal has been made. That gives up all leverage.
And Ukraine has already demanded they get absolutely everything, including Crimea. If you want a deal to be everything you want and nothing you don’t, you need an unconditional surrender, not peace talks. Good luck getting Ukrainian tanks into Moscow.
deleted by creator
Ukraine offered neutrality which was what Russia wanted and Russia rejected it. Then Ukraine accepted aid.
Ukraine also repeatedly broke Minsk II treaty
No it wouldn’t. At most they would take the southern half, Novorossiya. The rest they just want a guarantee won’t align with the West.
Putin has started multiple times that he does not consider Ukraine a legitimate country. If he does not think they should exist, where would the other portion of it go?
You have that backwards and are welcome to learn about the context behind the conflict, just ask
Ah, I think I've found the issue. Here at Hexbear we only support Pyrimidine Russia. We hate fuckin' cytosine, don't we folks?
Pointing out propaganda is not being pro-russia. Wanting an end to the American empire is not being pro-russia
I think you are being reductive. One can simultaneously be anti Russia and Anti US imperialism.
Idk why America being bad means oligarchic Russia is good. There's no nuance in your ideology. The US generally sucks. They happen to be in the correct side of this conflict. They arent always, but here they are.
Yes we agree.
So pointing out American lies shouldn't be an issue, right? Pointing out propaganda shouldn't be an issue, right?
I'm not the one boiling this down to good guys and bad guys being on "the right side".
I support Russia in this conflict insofar as a defeat of Ukraine would be a defeat of the American empire, which would help usher in a multi-polar world - as we are seeing now - which aids national self-determination (as we are starting to see around the world, from the west African countries throwing off the yoke of France and the IMF, south American countries collaborating and throwing out US stooges, and middle eastern countries seeking peace with each other).
If the US sucks, and the us has been shown to lie, and the us continues to lie, then ask yourself why the us supports Ukraine and to what end. Ask yourself why NATO felt the need to sabotage peace talks. Ask yourself why NATO felt the need to make Zelensky maintain an idea that Ukraine would join NATO, after being told it wouldn't happen behind closed doors.
Lmao is this your idea of nuance? "Well all the other times they were shown to be ghouls, but this time where I'm bought in, they're definitely not"
Are you implying NATO is just the US? That no other NATO nation has sway, and that they are all US puppet?
This isnt a US vs Russia issue. Its the majority of Europe as well. I tend to trust them as a collective before Id trust Russia.
Again. I think you are being reductive and turning this into a US bad issue when the US isnt even the most important player here. ID argue Ukraine is the most important player here.
The US is not the center of the world. Its a very American perspective
NATO is and has always been an extension of the US political apparatus. NATO is a void husk of ghouls initially staffed by ex-nazis like Adolph heusinger.
NATO is allegedly a defensive alliance but has so far only been involved offensively.
When has NATO ever gone against the will of the US?
The current Ukrainian government was installed by the US, the US president and his predecessor are both embroiled in corruption scandals in Ukraine, and the US is sending an inordinate amount of resources to Ukraine. The US is fighting a proxy war.
Why would you trust what Europe does more than Russia? Why is your skepticism a one way street? I trust neither, I observe the material conditions and the verifiable facts. That is what should lie to grounds for your belief, not vibes about "slavs being untrustworthy" or whatever. Why exactly does it matter how many parts a population is parted up in? Would you trust the Russian federation more if it was The Russian federation and it's puppet states?
Besides - Far more countries are netural/pro-russia than opposed.
You keep coming back to this statement, this is now the third time I argue it. As before I do not think it is a question of "us bad", however it is striking to me that you 1. Part this up into "good" and "bad" sides 2. Insist you're on the "good" side 3. Discount any notion of nuance as wanting to make this about the us.
Seeing as how you keep returning to this way of dismissing me and seeing how you choose to avoid answering my questions It is clear you are not actually interested in a good faith discussion.
As I've clearly illustrated it is about the US. You refusing to engage with this point does not make it less true.
Edit: you keep speaking of nuance, yet I see none from you. You reduce this to a question of right and wrong, good and bad, and then declare "were on the good side". How is this nuanced? How is it nuanced to complain about added context? The fact that I am unwilling to mindlessly go "putler bad, zlava Zelensky" somehow makes me the unnuanced one? The fact that I think questions of NATO encroachment, breaches of treaties and economic interests are relevant to the discussion is somehow unnuanced?
Your willingness to reduce it all to "invasion wrong, all other doesn't matter" is somehow nuanced? Please do some self-crit.
You don't know about anything you're talking about
Haven't liberals been the ones calling us fascists ever since we federated?
This is essentially what I used to think as well, until I spent more time there. There's some stock phrases busted out, and some users probably leave it at that and don't engage beyond it. However, they genuinely have a deeper framework for an analysis of the world than what you're going to see from conservatives.
Basically as part of their extremely liberal ideology, they analyze things through a materialist lens, even the non-marxist liberals there, and through that there is a lot of seeking out of what material causes and contradictions have lead to where we are which can be really neat.
There is probably some disagreement over what is fascist, what's not, blah blah. But it's really not as simple as "what I don't like is fascism".
Removed by mod
Incremental changes like allowing abortion bans, trans bans, the cost of living to skyrocket, drone striking workers around the world, doing nothing about the climate, allowing millions of avoidable covid deaths for the sake of the rich... Oh and presiding over the restoration of child labour? Those incremental changes? Anything I missed?
You're useless. You are projecting enormously when you say we socialists only talk when literally everything is going backwards even when you're in power.
What do you even do anyway? Are you organising? Or do you just vote every few years and act like that means you do something? We organise.
deleted by creator
Team? You're not on our fucking team you side with fascists every fucking chance you get. You're fake, full of shit and untrustworthy allies.
Comrade Patrick Stewart playing Lenin says it best.
And brigading ain't fucking organising numbnuts, nor is anyone doing any brigading when it's at the top of our /all/ page right now. I'm talking about unions, salting, activist groups, direct action, REAL shit. Not fucking voting and posting on the internet. What do you do? Anything at all?
Completely skipped over the fact that ALL of the above things happen when liberals are in power too didn't ya? Just utterly sidestepped it. You ignore the reality happening in front of your eyes and only listen to meaningless words. You're naive as fuck and very easily fooled.
😠
I'm sorry Civility I have failed you and will continue to do so.
😔
I can't speak for everyone but there are a lot of union members and organisers among the ranks of Hexbear. Before I went back to school I used to organise with my local Tennant Union personally, but trying to balance 2 jobs, school, and organising work came to be a bit much for me so I guess we really aren't that different
I'm a
deleted by creator
Brigading is when silly posts appear on my federated front page and I make fun of your bad opinions.
Here's something for you teammate
wait for it
Once again, the moment someone whips this one out, all I gotta do is look at when they joined. And see yup, that's a reddit refugee. Works 100% of the time, every time.
You've been here two weeks, cool your jets and enjoy federation.
deleted by creator
What organization have you done?
Me personally, I teach and make my students aware of the dictatorship of capital, imperialism, the profite motive.. Basically marxism-leninism 101 on a introductionary level.
Other than that, I'm active in the teachers union and volunteer in the local chapter of the Marxist leninist party tog et local projects of the ground, like extending the public transport network, social housing, and most important of all, talking with people about their problems, the rise of fascism where I live and how to counter it, as well as the current neoliberal line of thought in both local and federale government.
What have you done?
Whataboutism!!
deleted by creator
lmao most of the activism by liberals here is voting every 2 - 4 years and posting, don't kid yourself. Just keep carrying water for an unrepentant segregationist and telling yourself that the incremental steps you are supporting are towards progress and not a third world war.
deleted by creator
Sorry, I'm sure you'll get your anti-imperialism candidate on the Primary debate stage one day! They still can't win, but they'll be on the stage once. And to make sure that that day comes, it only makes sense to do the bidding of imperialists in the meantime.
I have no idea what point it is that you think was proved so well here
You're not doing anything you're literally just actively promoting fascism. Congratulations, you beat the Republicans by becoming Republicans. So cool and very effective!
Oh, like choosing between the fascist hog and the cryptofascist corpo hog?
Phonebanking for Biden doesn't count as doing shit btw
Exactly why I've been phone banking for Hilary since 2016. We will overcome. ✊
Can't wait for her rematch against drumpf. It's her turn!
Just like Rocky vs Ivan.
Ait lemme know when that incremental change actually changes something
Incremental change doesn't work, but if it did we don't have time for it with the climate as it is, but if we did I'd still rather change something quick so we can stop people from dying in poverty and starvation.
Hexbear also has a large number of Putin and CCP apologists. Authoritarian bootlicking isn't liberalism.
if supporting a project that lifts 800M out of extreme poverty is wrong, I don't wanna be right
deleted by creator
--
Pushing Native Americans onto reservations lifted a lot of European immigrants out of poverty.
Burning fossil fuels lifted entire nations out of poverty.
Campaigns against the barbarians lifted many Romans out of poverty.
If you think this "lift" is some example of public good in action that hasn't come at the cost of exploitation, you're delusional.
Chinese poverty elimination didn’t come on the backs of any of those things you goober. “Well have you considered that sometimes OTHER countries did bad things to reduce domestic poverty, and therefore China doing so is inherently bad actually !?” Grow the fuck up, this isn’t a real argument.
Yes that was a bad thing the us did. What does that have to do with china?
Typical whataboutism from a centrist liberal tankie!!
Please watch this documentary co-produced by literally PBS on the poverty alleviation campaign. I'm sure you'll just dismiss it as all a charade and propaganda, but I hope you approach it with an open mind. What the Chinese have been able to accomplish (through sheer hard work and determination) is nothing short of incredible and it honestly pisses me off you would compare that to the literal genocide of Native Americans.
All governments are authoritiarian. They have the authority to tax you and can do that cuz they have a monopoly on violence. But if you have "HUMAN RIGHTS" written on a piece of paper in your capital building that basically makes you a democracy, right?
Anarchy in the streets, MLM in the sheets
This argument is essentially "words have no real meaning". Having authority does not make a government authoritarian. The term authoritarianism is defined. The CCP is authoritarian, by definition, starting with (but not ending with) having only one political party.
China has 8 other political parties in its congress
also it's officially the CPC (Communist Party of China), not the CCP
Mmmhmm, and how many of those tiny parties have any functional political power? When was the last time that a non-CCP member led the PRC?
Oh right, never. These other parties are tokens. Period.
maybe if more people voted for them they would be bigger parties
does a party stop being a party because it's smaller than the dominant party? By that measure, Japan is authoritarian as they've been run by a single party (the LDP) for nearly 70 years!
I mean, maybe? I'm not particularly educated on Japanese politics, but they are a constitutional monarchy.
But as I noted above, being a single-party state is not the entire definition of authoritarianism, just one part of it. The Chinese political system is authoritarian.
Bluntly, the definition of authoritarianism as any exercise of authority is far too broad to be useful, and is not consistent with actual academic discourse regarding political systems.
Excerising authority does not make a government authoritarian. If the law says "thou shalt not commit murder", and the government enforces this law, would you label that as authoritarianism?
The Chinese government has much higher approval ratings from its people (consent of the governed) than the U.S. and most any other western “democracy”. It uses less violence against its citizens (US has the highest rate of incarceration in the world plus high rates of police murder and brutality) as well as internationally (China hasn’t bombed or invaded anybody in like 40 years while the U.S. does so daily over the same time period). Objectively, for the word to have any meaning at all the US is far more authoritarian. It uses its authority more violently and malevolently. If you can’t admit this you aren’t engaging with reality, you’re just afraid of challenging the propaganda you’ve been indoctrinated with.
What does the enforcement of this law entail? Police, prisons, arrests, all measures you could simply label authoritarian with no context, no matter how much we might agree on murder being bad, and laws against it being good.
Then present a definition that isn't too broad to be useful, because so far you haven't.
America. This is America. It's the same picture. America does the same thing but in a different fashion. Please at least admit America is authoritiarian. Why not? I'm a principled maoist, but this makes me want to burn down Walmarts
I'm not playing whataboutism games right now.
its not whataboutism, Im saying a lake is a pond a pond is a lake. I watched john oliver in high school, but really tho would you have supported the entente in ww1 cuz the axis were "authoritarian"??? I know history, I know this shit is bullshit. I'll talk to you all day about the shortcomings of the USSR, or the PRC, or the DPRK, whatever the fuck, they all have valid criticism, but fuck if america aint some kinda authoritarian state, then idk what
Whataboutism is when you hold two governments to the same standard.
If capitalist bootlickers didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any standards at all.
Whataboutism is when you ignore a criticism of one party and instead say that another party is worse in some way, in order to distract from the original discussion. Hexbear users apparently love this underhanded tactic.
See that's the fundamental mistake you libs make. You project your childlike black and white worldview onto people with a broader understanding, like the christians who think that atheists hate god.
These parties also haven't liftend millions of people out of poverty, that should help them get elected then
How much influence do the 6 other parties hold in the us?
Would you think china was more democratic if the 8 parties had a larger share of the votes, or would you find some other way to downcut it? Why would a larger share be better? If it was equal would that then be the best? Is democracy a function of how many parties are in government? Would it be a good thing if the president had a minority share of the vote?
Yes, broader representation would literally be more democratic.
Because that's how democracy works.
Democracy is a function of broad representation in government, ideally complete representation, though this is difficult to achieve in practice.
In the PRC, only local officials are elected, and only candidates which are approved by the ruling party can be nominated for those elections. The president is not subject to direct popular election.
ref
The ruling party controls delegate selection, the legislative agenda, and constitutional amendments, which ensures that they can maintain their own control indefinitely. This is the opposite of democratic.
Okay so we should just redistribute some of the votes people cast for their choice of candidate? Ignoring who people voted for in order to get a more broad collection of parties would somehow be more democratic than following the will of the people? A broad selection in itself isn't inherently "more democratic". A broad representation is a symptom of a vibrant democracy, but it's not a rule.
I'm pretty sure democracy works by people voting for those they believe represent their values, but I guess I'm just misunderstanding things. Apparently the Democracymeter(tm) counts how many different parties are in a government, and the more there are the better it would be. I guess this at least means you're admitting China is a better democracy than the US, Canada, Australia and most european countries, which is something.
Thanks for not answering my question! I do actually already know this, but it's always nice to retread old ground. I'm gonna ask it again, since the point is to illustrate the absurdity of your statement. Would it be a good thing if the president had a minority share of the vote?
Dawg you're quoting wikipedia. Please bring some actual sources if you want me to take this seriously Wikipedia is prone to ideological bias it's also a nazi cesspool Fact is that China has a very high voter approval - Now I already know what you're going to say "Oh they lie, oh they repress!" Cope. I have no reason to think that. China isn't the country with the largest prisoner population in the world. China isn't the country that is legalising child-workers. China isn't the country that is disappearing minority leaders China isn't the country with media constantly housing state employess lying in order to drum up warfervor.
deleted by creator
Since this is demonstrably not the case, I have to assume that you don't know what the word means, which is somewhat ironic...
He is using it as an insult, and as a way to convey that you do not comprehend the text you are reading. He does not mean it literally, but figuratively. This is really basic-level communication, but sometimes it can be difficult to parse tone - Please indicate if you need tone signifier for communication.
What I need is discussion with people who are mature enough to not feel the need to use insults when making their arguments.
Apparently there aren't many such people on hexbear.
Youd probably get a lot further if you engaged in good faith, instead of being snide
whoosh
You get what you give
Tell robinn2@hexbear.net, not me.
:pigpoop:
"The United States is also a one-party system, but in classic American extravagance, they have two of them"
-Julius Nyerere, first president of Tanzania
The word authoritarian has no meaning. Any definition that covers the PRC also covers every other country. Unless of course the definition is "non-white people are in the government" but at that point the definition is just madk-off
deleted by creator
Only the smug liberals are allowed to ask questions like that.
Any argument in favor of Ukraine surrendering territory to Russia is pro-Putin. It doesn't have to explicitly say "I support Putin". If the comment suggests that the invasion is in any way justified or that the conquest of Ukrainian territory should be legitimized, it is a pro-Putin argument.
It's only the most brainwashed liberals that turn into this kind of frothing cult of personality turning an entire country of hundreds of millions into a single figurehead.
Evidenced further by the reactionary stance "I'm not listening to a single fucking thing that doesn't 100% align with the most one sided propaganda that I exclusively seek out"
Real good way to not know a single thing you're talking about and look like an idiot when you try
Careful, your projection is showing.
Dumb fuck. You literally said that exact thing in your own words. Projection is something you can accuse someone of if you HAVEN'T completely walled yourself off from knowing the nature of their arguments.
I'm sorry, are you arguing that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is justified? Is that your point?
Also, if you can't make your point without insults then your point isn't worth making.
My point and calling you a dumb fuck are one in the same. You need to be and deserve to be called a dumb fuck right now. Did you really read past my several valid criticisms of you and absorb nothing more from it than a pissy attitude?
Pro-Putin is when I want there to still be Ukranians after this. Pro-Ukranian is when I cheer on wave after wave of old men and young boys get mulched by artillery while a bald guy with a sonnenrad tattoo points a rifle at their backs to make sure they don't try to run.
"Anyone who doesn't want to maximise the amount of dead Ukrainians is pro-Putin!"
You know what would keep more Ukrainians alive? If Russia stopped attacking them.
If you were legitimately interested in fewer Ukrainians dying you would be overtly critical of Russia's invasion.
Abstract principles really do matter more than human lives to you libs. Don't talk about "legitimate interest in fewer Ukrainians dying" when you wouldn't hesitate to sacrifice every last one of them for one inch of soil.
There is no "abstract principle" here. Russia started a war.
And that matters more to you than every single Ukrainian life put together.
Define 'Authoritarian'
How about you do some reading yourself.
I don't actually think. I just know I'm right. Then whenever I'm in an argument I can just link the [word we're arguing about] wikipedia article. Since I'm right and wikipedia has objective information the argument is over every time and I win.
Did you have something useful to add to the conversation?
The conversation was you linking a Wikipedia article, I was at least hoping you'd link like a book or something. Like we could have a discussion if you were trying to argue against authoritarianiam as defined by say Bakunin or some other anarchist thinker.
Then I could respond with On Authority which argues that authority is a natural consequence of any organization and calling something authoritarian just means you're saying that it's a system that is able to successfully reproduce itself.
You could also try to link "authoritarianism" to fascism, but again that is pointless because there's already a term for fascism, which is Fascism.
You may as well talk to a wall. It would be about as useful although probably less frustrating.
You man have more luck in talking to 'walls' or people in general if you were willing to engage in good faith discussion
Something most hexbear users do not do.
If you would reread the thread you'd notice it begins with the hexbear user making a simple request, which the user could not fulfill. Any further questions in the discussion were met with derision, which is when the bad-faith behaviour was reciprocrated by the hexbear user. Please do better and hold yourself to at least half the standard you expect of others
Lmao they linked to Wikipedia! And the definition is so broad it covers literally every country!
One of these days I hope you learn to be critical of the propaganda you've been enmeshed in
It's CPC you sound like a yokel
And why exactly are you so emotionally attached to CPC vs CCP that you felt the need to throw in a epithet? CCP is the common abbreviation.
Read the first fucking sentence of the link you just sent me
deleted by creator
POTUS -> TUSP (The United States President)
CIA -> CAI (Central Agency of Intelligence)
FBI -> BFI (Bureau of Federal Investigation)
It's fun to just change around acronyms for official governing bodies. I'm gonna go edit Wikipedia to include these as common abbreviations too
deleted by creator
Liberalism is bad, hope that helps clarify
I thought this exact thing, but the more I learned about them, it turned out to really not be true. While there is a kind of meme culture there of asking Xi to nuke the town they're currently residing in, and pointing out all of the white supremacist symbols used by the Ukraine's army or whatever, there is a deeper context for it.
They don't necessarily support every move these people make and particularly in regards to Putin there is a lot of criticism towards his social stances.
They're more looking at this through the lens of what a nato conflict is causing in terms of a more multi-polar world and also Russia turning away from the neoliberalism that has dominated it since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Not saying you have to agree with it. I'm more of a centrist myself, but it's really not fair to say this as a blanket statement with no context.
Show me the apologia.
Edit: incredible how asking libs for any proof is like a magic spell to make them disappear
It's the core of liberalism.
I say this as actual communist, hexbear is full of tankies.
And as an actual communist, that's a good thing
Tankieism is good? At least you are honest about it.
Yeah communism is great, or as you call it, "tankieism"
I believe in communism as an economic framework.
Authoritarianism paired with communism is just as bad as any other Authoritarinism.
So you support communism you just insist it exist within the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie
I don't even believe in money. So I'm not sure how that reading of my opinion would work.
You should check out Vincent Bevins' book The Jakarta Method. He covers the genocide of leftists in Indonesia but throughout it talks to people who've been victims of the Jakarta Method, people who were ostensibly where you are, they were communists who were against the use of force. And do you know what happened to them and their friends? They had to flee for their lives while their friends got murdered because as it turns out Capitalists will absolutely use authority to squash and kill anything that even remotely threatens their power. They've since changed their mind.
I appreciate that you are being more reasonable than the others commenting to me. I will give it a read.
to be clear though, I'm not even opposed to revolution, but a society can't take one autocratic rule and replace it with another. I think, especially with this thread, that a lot of people here are taking their rightful hatred of capitalism and channeling it into the support of an oligarchic authoritarian (Putin and Russia). Oligarchic Russia should not be the model of communist nation. This is why I largely don't consider these commenters to be arguing in good faith. They are rooting for a Capitalist nation to win in a fight with a bunch of other capitalist nations.
I don't know a single communist who supports Russia or Putin. Why would they support a capitalist state? Do you mean that they argue why, in historical materialist terms, war between Russia and the West has been caused by western expansion? In that case, they are explaining geopolitical movements to our current situation, not supporting Russia if that makes sense. I can see how "critical support" against American imperialism (eg, support with heavy criticism) can come off as being "pro-Russia" from the outside, but it really is just explaining, contra the neoliberal take on geopolitical war, why war is happening. Communists don't approach international politics as good vs bad, they are far more nuanced which can be read as "pro" things they aren't. Does that make sense? I am inebriated
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I think you're a really confused kid. I hope you read the Jakarta method, and hopefully at some point any book by an actual communist. Here's a good one by Engel's, its very short, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
If you're communist you should learn what that means. And probably not tell us what you think we believe. Just deciding you know what we believe and telling us that our whole ideology is about misplaced anger, and how we don't make sense is actually a little authoritarian to borrow your language
300 years after the revolution people who talk about 'communism' will be using your definition. For now when people say 'communism' they're talking about the ML(M) project of achieving that goal. This is a conversation that's been going on for 150 years now. Not only have people argued out what you're talking about, they've been able to see in real life what happens when you try to put principle to practice. You can't have communism without class war. And if you don't suppress the ruling class they will inevitably erode and destroy whatever victories you take from them. You have to use 'authority'.
Who gives a shot what you believe in, when your actions and ideology supports the dictatorship of the bourgeoise? It doesn't matter what esoteric strain you are, it matters what you do and it matters what the end of those actions are
Every government is authoritarian. The US is authoritarian.
Correct. That's why I'm a small government communist.
Cool. I'm a government that can exist in the world we live in communist.
Perhaps I'm an idealist, but I believe in the popularity of left leaning thought.
I don't know what you're trying to say but that sounds cool. If you are an idealist that's cool with me.
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific is required reading for any communist
deleted by creator
Define "tankieism"
Leave them a alone it's a good bit.
IMO, authoritarian communism.
I prefer a democratic communism. Communism is not a political framework, its an economic kne
Can you explain this new socialost tendency that you've created? What is "democratic" communism?
Before "tankie" became such a popular term the difference was framed as a question of "socialism from above" versus "socialism from below," as discussed in this Hal Draper pamphlet.
I don't this this person has any idea about any of this
I thought I'd err on the side of being charitable but that error just looks bigger and bigger, doesn't it?
Yeah it's a massive error unfortunately comrade
Communism, as in no private industry, run for the people and by the people (not the state).
Okay, you've described communism as a theoretical state that we as socialist want to arrive at as we resolve the contridictions within society.
How is this different than what people like me that you call tankies are talking about. What fo you know that we don't?
The difference is the support of oligarchic (not communist) Russia in the war against Ukraine, as a lot of hexbear users are advocating.
Forget about Ukraine for a minute. I want you to explain to me your theory of democratic communism. What's the theory of change? What does a democratic comminist revolutuon look like? Is there a theoretical basis for these beliefs?
I'm a marxist leninist, i am someone you would call a tankie. I want you to explain to me you're version of communism
A) What makes you think we think the Russian Federation is "Communist"?
B) Why do you not also describe Ukraine as an oligarchy when it's entire reputation for the last 30 years is as one of the most ludicrously corrupt places on Earth?
You sound like you heard what communism is through word of mouth in a country with 80 years of genocidal anticommunism
I've got to to disagree with your interpretation, sorry.
Don't apologize to me as if you're depriving me of something of value. Your opinion is of no value.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-6/mswv6_11.htm
And how do you envision that coming about in a world ruled by capitalists that are unwilling to let go of power?
Populist revolt? Nowhere did I say I dont support revolution. But you then need to instate a real democracy
And if you instate that "real" democracy in a world that is full of capitalists that will work towards destroying it (as you for example saw with the USSR in its infancy or Nicaragua or Cuba), how do you think your newfound democracy should defend itself?
How do you expect that to happen?
Check out this fed over here
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
What is a tankie
Communists who want to actually have a communist system instead of just pretending to.
A real communist instead of a fake, ineffective one that has no interest in communism succeeding anywhere.
Communist (not a problem) that supports totalitarian rule to achieve those means (a big problem)
So, someone who supports totalitarian rule to achieve communism? Like... A revolution vs voting? I'm asking in good faith btw, I am legit trying to understand
I mean, there's pretty clearly a difference between the Cuban approach of letting capitalists leave vs the Russian approach of imprisoning them.
There's also a difference between the Bolivian approach of arming and training the peasantry and the GDR approach of maintaining an armed military police into peace time.
There is a meaningful difference between methods of protecting working class power, and pretending there isn't serves more heavy handed approaches.
For those of us who are abolitionists, this is a central question.
I think the framing is off on that question. Communism is not a political system, its an economic one. Tankies are pro authoritarian, but just so happen to have a communist economic theory.
I believe in Democratic communism, preferably with a much smaller government.
Revolutions that are anti authoritarian is great.
The problem is authoritarianism, not communism
This distinction is pure capitalist ideology
Well that's unlikely since I don't even believe in currency.
How is human society organized? What do humans do? They create things and they consume things. What is politics? It is deciding who in a society resources are taken from and what they applied to.
Why do you draw a line between these things? Especially as a socialist who presumably wants to bring democracy to the workplace?
But you live in a world that does, and therefore you are forced to relate to it wether or not you believe in it.
It does not matter what you believe in, what.matters is the material reality in which we all exist
Communism is most definitely a political system as it has an inherent system of power relations, representation of workers, ownership of the means of production by the workers themselves, and distribution of decisions among the people until the state can be dissolved. Internationalism is a huge part of communism as is real politik, historical materialism, and other political approaches.
What I don't understand is what you mean by authoritarian? Do you mean a literal dictatorship like in Latin America? I don't know if a single communist country that has not had better representation than the USA as far as voting goes. I guess maybe the Khmer Rouge (I don't know anything beyond Wikipedia for that one)?
authoritarianism is when you do things and get results, the more results you get the more authoritarian it is
true democracy is when so much nothing is happening that everyone is stochastically dissolving into elementary particles like it's the heat death of the universe
Interesting! Are there any Communist countries that you would classify as non-authoritarian/tankie?
There aren't that many Communist experiments, sadly. According to Marx, Communism as we think of it is post Capitalism. We just aren't there yet unfortunately. I think we are edging towards the socialist stage, then we can achieve communism, although I'd like it sooner.
deleted by creator
The Russian citizenry could make Putin end the war.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
How? And since they aren't doing that, what actions would need to be taken to get them there?
Kibbutzism would fall under a non authoritarian communism, I think.
ooh, a "small government" communist
Yes sir. Communism's root word is "commune". Those are pretty small.
You're not getting all your theory from Websters, are you?
Fantastic bit
Communism is indissociable from its three components, which includes a political system: dialectical materialism (the philosophical part), the labour theory of value (the economic part), and the class struggle (the social thus political part).
Anything other than Marxism is ineffectual in the real world and leads to nothing as exemplified by 200 years of history. "Tankies" don't "happen" to have an economic theory, it's an integral part to the whole of Marxism and Marxism could not exist without the economic basis for it. Why do we dislike capitalism? Because through math we can prove it is rife with contradictions and invariably leads to imperialism. Otherwise why would we want communism? Just because it's cool to be a communist? Just because it's a hobby? There has to be an actual justification for what we want.
I appreciate the attempt to engage in discussion about it, but it is an interesting position. Do you not think your position directly competes with assertions from The Communist Manifesto, or State and Revolution, or most communist texts?
This commenter thinks that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves.
Amirite my fellow communists?
Please tell me about this actual communism?
No actual communist even uses that dumb term but sure bud you do you
Define Tankie without using the word authoritarian.
Then define authoritarian
No "actual communist" considers the word tankie meaningful