You're not a tankie. Tankies deny the oppressive nature of Russia, China, North Korea etc., deflecting all critique with whataboutism by pointing at shortcomings or atrocities of Western nations. Some like to call you Nazi or imperialist if you disagree with them, while in many aspects their ideology and that of their paragon countries is much closer to Nazism than that of liberal democracies like the ones you mentioned.
Your not doing very good job. Your just coming off as an idiot too me.
Do you think maybe he should have exercised more authority, better strengthened defenses and built up a stronger base for combatting imperialism, that he could have avoided this (I don't have an exact policy path, and it's not like Sankara didn't put down certain reactionary movements when necessary)?
Can you be more concise? Your run on sentences make me want to stop talking to you.
Im not here to go over the specifics of Sankaras's
Decisons: But From what I do know. He fought corruption, he pushed literacy programs and fought malnutrition. All While resistsing western imperialsm.
Im sure he made mistakes and did some problematic things. As an anarchist I can appreicate the good things he did and be open to the concept that he also did bad things as well.
Just like the USSR CPC and other communist governments.
I'm sympathetic to Sankara of course, but if your ideal system of resisting authority succumbs to counter-authority, then maybe you don't have grounds to condemn greater authority exercised to these ends.
Your going to have to rewrite, this i dont understand what you are saying. Are you referring to me or Sankara?
Other people understood that I was being sarcastic as well.
Well you got me. Maybe im not in the mood for jokes. I am so tired of having these conversation. It makes me so sad to see people supporting these countries.
Russia and china are not examples of a good government. Neither is the usa. I feel like im taking crazy pills.
Why did you single Sankara's Burkina Faso out when speaking of exceptions to authoritarian communism
Because i know about him and agree with many things that he did. Not everything, but he didnt build an imperialst nation. He fought for literacy and nutrition and anti corruption.
He didnt build a survelence network or invade another nation to my knowledge.
He fought for his people using the principles revolutionary communism and ML. This I support.
Just like i can recognize that the CPC does provide many valuable things to it citizens . While also recognizing that they are still authoritarnian.
Rephrased: If your one exception to "authoritarian communism" is a government that was overthrown by imperialism, what does this say about the use of authority in revolutionary states?
I dont know. Im not here to tell you how sankara could of avoided assassination. But I do feel that acting like Sankara is the same as the cpc/russia in any real way is kinda absurd.
Cuba is better example of communism than cpc. Once again they have problems.
Ultimately i am an anarchist, i dont think communism is the solution long term, but i would work with communists, As long as they didnt support large authoritarian governments.
but stating that “communism isn’t the solution long term” makes no sense. Do you understand the distinction?
I feel this is like syamtics. Anarchist are socialists as well. but if some told me "I dont think anarchy is the way foward"
I dont think it would be fair for me to say to " no you mean socialism, Anarchy is the
Goal! not the current situation"
It doesnt make sense to think that communism isnt the solution? This makes me feel like communists are unable to have real discussion with anarchists about the flaws within communism.
I feel anarchy is the only real way to gaurentee long term that people will be continually liberated.
I think that any real hierarchical system will enventually turn back into a police state. We saw this in the USSR. And we see in in the CPC too.
They once had revolutionary components which I support. But those begin to dwindle the minute they took power and likey before.
From the origins of revolutionary communism came a police state.
How do MLs deal with the flaws shown in
The USSR? By saying that it wasn't communist?
This is what I mean when I say i dont think communism is the solution long term. That communists governments have a tendency to turn toward police states. Call it what you want but lenin was a marxist from my understanding and marxist are considered communists. Right?
"But of all the revolutionary elements in Russia it is the Anarchists who now suffer the most ruthless and systematic persecution. Their suppression by the Bolsheviki began already in 1918, when — in the month of April of that year — the Communist Government attacked, without provocation or warning, the Anarchist Club of Moscow and by the use of machine guns and artillery “liquidated” the whole organisation."
Yeah the racist Republicans in the US use whataboutism all the time to skirt around actual critiques. They really hate it when you call them out on it
Did anarchist attack and kill communists during that time period? Yes. Does that make thier critiques about soviet authoritarianism invalid or make emma Goldman letters false. No. It just means there is nuance in history.
I dont categorically support emma goldman. And Im not surprised they said some racist things.
Thats why I am able to separate the good things they did while critizing the bad.
You should try it!
It is a known fact that the USSR consolidated power within russia after the october revolution.
They killed and jailed anarchists and many other opossing groups.
And when lenin died and stalin took over, he did it too. This is what large goverments must do to maintain power.
The fact that you can't admit that means you a defintiately a tankie.
By merely mentioning an informal fallacy I have torn your argument asunder! You are the one who has proven nothing.
You sound like a jackass when you write this way. imo.
The last part reads as being in reference to you, since the socialist states you hate took measures to survive whereas ones like Allende's Chile folded and their progress brutally reversed.
If Sankara had been more effective in protecting the revolution, you very likely would hate him too because he would be smeared just like Fidel and the rest as "authoritarian" etc. Imo this wouldn't be because of whatever specific measures he took, but the mere fact that he would have posed a more substantial ideological threat to the west for living and being able to keep making progress.
We've read plenty of Sankara, time you to to read a little Jakarta Method
This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask:
“Who was right?”
In Guatemala, was it Árbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?
Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead. They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit’s unarmed party didn’t survive. Allende’s democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the détente between the Soviets and Washington.
Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported—what the rich countries said, rather than what they did. That group was annihilated.
What is "authoritarian" communism? Sounds like some political compass bullshit that doesn't exist in the real world.
Yeah it comes from a disagreement amoung British socialists between people who correctly supported the USSR committing military force to safeguard Hungary from a coup, and some libs who were against it
I'm not acting like you made it up. I answered your question about where it came from accurately. But it gets thrown around today as a meaningless thought terminating cliche like "woke" is by american conservatives/fascists. So, if you're saying it, I'm going to ask you to clarify, because it doesn't mean anything, except that you don't like it.
Resorting to "google it" is such
"Authoritarian" communism is not a real thing. Its some made political compass bullshit
While the term was invented first to describe the event you have stated.
It is also used to describe the actions of the USSR toward the republic of spain during the spainish Civil war. Specifically how the USSR would not openly support the anarchist government fighting a facist coup backed by nazi germany.
Which is my whole point. The USSR was more freindly toward capitalist governments of Briton & USA at the time. Becuase they are a state and it was more benefical for the USSR to not support an active leftist revolution begging for their help.
This is why I use the term Tankie. Hierarchical goverments regaurdless of their economic principles will enevitablly trend toward fascism and authoritairnism. It is only a matter of time. The ussr cpc and other "communists" conuntries are no exception.
Communists have never truly support anarchist.
"Authoritarian" communism is not a real thing. Its some made political compass bullshit
Honestly reading this statement makes me so depressed. It makes me want to call more communist tankies because it fits so well.
Are you so foolish that you don't think a large government ran by a small group of people could not become authoritarian?
I think your use of authoritarian is idealist nonsense and has to basis in materialism. I'm a marxist so that is my veiwpoint. If you are a utopian socialist then we will disagree because your veiwpoint is not grounded in a materialist perspective
In fact I find it is a better measure of oppressive goverment than most indicators.
What you really mean to say is most goverments are oppressive and authoritarian.
Show me a country with a large prison population and I will show you an authoritarian country.
Please see the zapatistas. For non police state goverment.
If those are your beliefs then they are infantile, and its no wonder you are openly against AES and people who support real world projects in socialism. The new world will be built by people around the world while left anti-communists whine about how they are doing it wrong because they don't understand the theoretical basis communist are using in these states, and they refuse to understand the real material contexts in which these societies struggle to survive against the US imperialist world order.
There are many anarchist comrades on Hexbear who regularly get called "tankies" by people like you and are able to understand the difference between criticizing some AES without being anti-communist. We have a non-sectarian rule there so we don't argue about our specific tendencies. You should maybe soeak to some of them to form a more nuanced view of AES. As an ML i can't really do that, because i do have some fundamental theoretical differences, such as veiwing the term of authoritarian as kind of pointless, thst hoes back to Engels arguing with anarchists about the Paris Commune basically.
If you're open to a book about left anti-communism and how its driven a wedge between yourself and people you call tankies, i recommend Micheal Parenti's Blackshirts and Reds
https://mltheory.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/michael-parenti-blackshirts-and-reds_-rational-fascism-and-the-overthrow-of-communism-2001.pdf
"You see a simple search of reddit will clearly show that my point of view is the chad wojack, while you tankies are the soy wojack." -this lib probably
We aren't uncritical of the USSR, China, and the DPRK, we just think they broadly did (and do) much more good than bad.
Also, "CCP" isn't a country or even a party (CPC), it's China or the PRC. I assume when you say "Russia" you mean the Soviet Union that hasn't existed in thirty years as Russia is a capitalist country now.
Communist Party of China, CPC. The country that they are in is China (PRC). A billion people do not live in the "CCP", that's like saying Japanese people live in the LDP, and your imprecise use of these terms makes you look uninformed. Unless, of course, you just constantly say "CCP" because you don't want to recognize that they are the legitimate and popular government of China, you know, a country.
I speak of russia generally so I can include USSR and the current state of affairs. I realize they are different but they are both authoritarian. They be capitalist but they call themselves communists.
This is a meaningless statement. Any government that wields power to accomplish things is "authoritarian". It's silly to equate the USSR with the Russian Federation when they are two very different administrations with distinct ideology and policies. Russia for the past 30 years is a capitalist country with an administration originally installed by the US. Putin is a right-wing figure and an anti-communist. I don't like Putin and the other rightists in charge of Russia, but I hope NATO doesn't win out in the East because I don't want the US Empire ruling over the whole world.
You don't seem to support anything remotely called communism, except for comrade Sankara. He's great, but why is he the one good ML? How was he not "authoritarian" like the rest of us?
saying it like you do, the imperialist media/state department way, puts emphasis on the "Chinese" part, which we object to for reasons that should be obvious
Are the tankies in the room with us right now, shitlib?
Yeah some of them. I think im speaking to one right now.
Pleae tell me your totally not tankie ideas.
deleted by creator
This post is proof Tom Lehrer was wrong about exactly one thing
You're not a tankie. Tankies deny the oppressive nature of Russia, China, North Korea etc., deflecting all critique with whataboutism by pointing at shortcomings or atrocities of Western nations. Some like to call you Nazi or imperialist if you disagree with them, while in many aspects their ideology and that of their paragon countries is much closer to Nazism than that of liberal democracies like the ones you mentioned.
deleted by creator
No you are not a tankie. You are very painfully a liberal.
Please keep reading and understand there is a difference between authoritarian communism and communism
Please see Thomas Sankara.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sankara
deleted by creator
Your not doing very good job. Your just coming off as an idiot too me.
Can you be more concise? Your run on sentences make me want to stop talking to you.
Im not here to go over the specifics of Sankaras's Decisons: But From what I do know. He fought corruption, he pushed literacy programs and fought malnutrition. All While resistsing western imperialsm.
Im sure he made mistakes and did some problematic things. As an anarchist I can appreicate the good things he did and be open to the concept that he also did bad things as well.
Just like the USSR CPC and other communist governments.
Your going to have to rewrite, this i dont understand what you are saying. Are you referring to me or Sankara?
How could it be bad trolling if you fell for it
deleted by creator
Well you got me. Maybe im not in the mood for jokes. I am so tired of having these conversation. It makes me so sad to see people supporting these countries.
Russia and china are not examples of a good government. Neither is the usa. I feel like im taking crazy pills.
Because i know about him and agree with many things that he did. Not everything, but he didnt build an imperialst nation. He fought for literacy and nutrition and anti corruption.
He didnt build a survelence network or invade another nation to my knowledge.
He fought for his people using the principles revolutionary communism and ML. This I support.
Just like i can recognize that the CPC does provide many valuable things to it citizens . While also recognizing that they are still authoritarnian.
I dont know. Im not here to tell you how sankara could of avoided assassination. But I do feel that acting like Sankara is the same as the cpc/russia in any real way is kinda absurd.
Cuba is better example of communism than cpc. Once again they have problems.
Ultimately i am an anarchist, i dont think communism is the solution long term, but i would work with communists, As long as they didnt support large authoritarian governments.
deleted by creator
So is the USSR not communist by your definition?
deleted by creator
I feel this is like syamtics. Anarchist are socialists as well. but if some told me "I dont think anarchy is the way foward"
I dont think it would be fair for me to say to " no you mean socialism, Anarchy is the Goal! not the current situation"
It doesnt make sense to think that communism isnt the solution? This makes me feel like communists are unable to have real discussion with anarchists about the flaws within communism.
I feel anarchy is the only real way to gaurentee long term that people will be continually liberated. I think that any real hierarchical system will enventually turn back into a police state. We saw this in the USSR. And we see in in the CPC too.
They once had revolutionary components which I support. But those begin to dwindle the minute they took power and likey before.
From the origins of revolutionary communism came a police state. How do MLs deal with the flaws shown in The USSR? By saying that it wasn't communist?
This is what I mean when I say i dont think communism is the solution long term. That communists governments have a tendency to turn toward police states. Call it what you want but lenin was a marxist from my understanding and marxist are considered communists. Right?
deleted by creator
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-alexander-berkman-bolsheviks-shooting-anarchists
"But of all the revolutionary elements in Russia it is the Anarchists who now suffer the most ruthless and systematic persecution. Their suppression by the Bolsheviki began already in 1918, when — in the month of April of that year — the Communist Government attacked, without provocation or warning, the Anarchist Club of Moscow and by the use of machine guns and artillery “liquidated” the whole organisation."
Emma goldman
deleted by creator
Do you have any evidence that this is false or do you just not like it?
Alls I hear is a lot of what aboutism.
"Emma goldman is writing about anarchist being murdered but whatabout the the bad things anarchists did? "
Emma goldman was a russia born anarchist critiquing The USSR.
Are you going to respond the to claims they are making or are you going to cherry pick out the racist stuff?
We can stop honeslty. if you believe that anarchism is eurofacism we have very little to talk about.
deleted by creator
Yeah the racist Republicans in the US use whataboutism all the time to skirt around actual critiques. They really hate it when you call them out on it
Did anarchist attack and kill communists during that time period? Yes. Does that make thier critiques about soviet authoritarianism invalid or make emma Goldman letters false. No. It just means there is nuance in history.
I dont categorically support emma goldman. And Im not surprised they said some racist things. Thats why I am able to separate the good things they did while critizing the bad.
You should try it!
It is a known fact that the USSR consolidated power within russia after the october revolution. They killed and jailed anarchists and many other opossing groups.
And when lenin died and stalin took over, he did it too. This is what large goverments must do to maintain power.
The fact that you can't admit that means you a defintiately a tankie.
You sound like a jackass when you write this way. imo.
deleted by creator
Think on it until you do, because as of now you're useless
The last part reads as being in reference to you, since the socialist states you hate took measures to survive whereas ones like Allende's Chile folded and their progress brutally reversed.
If Sankara had been more effective in protecting the revolution, you very likely would hate him too because he would be smeared just like Fidel and the rest as "authoritarian" etc. Imo this wouldn't be because of whatever specific measures he took, but the mere fact that he would have posed a more substantial ideological threat to the west for living and being able to keep making progress.
Sankara was ML, like me and all the people you're calling "tankies" or "authoritarian" communists
We've read plenty of Sankara, time you to to read a little Jakarta Method
deleted by creator
What is a tankie? How would we know if we are according to you?
If you support authoritarian communism, you are a tankie.
Do you know where the term comes from?
What is "authoritarian" communism? Sounds like some political compass bullshit that doesn't exist in the real world.
Yeah it comes from a disagreement amoung British socialists between people who correctly supported the USSR committing military force to safeguard Hungary from a coup, and some libs who were against it
Why dont you google it?
Lmao you acting like im making this word up is the most tankie shit i have ever seen.
I'm not acting like you made it up. I answered your question about where it came from accurately. But it gets thrown around today as a meaningless thought terminating cliche like "woke" is by american conservatives/fascists. So, if you're saying it, I'm going to ask you to clarify, because it doesn't mean anything, except that you don't like it.
Resorting to "google it" is such
"Authoritarian" communism is not a real thing. Its some made political compass bullshit
While the term was invented first to describe the event you have stated.
It is also used to describe the actions of the USSR toward the republic of spain during the spainish Civil war. Specifically how the USSR would not openly support the anarchist government fighting a facist coup backed by nazi germany.
Which is my whole point. The USSR was more freindly toward capitalist governments of Briton & USA at the time. Becuase they are a state and it was more benefical for the USSR to not support an active leftist revolution begging for their help.
This is why I use the term Tankie. Hierarchical goverments regaurdless of their economic principles will enevitablly trend toward fascism and authoritairnism. It is only a matter of time. The ussr cpc and other "communists" conuntries are no exception.
Communists have never truly support anarchist.
Honestly reading this statement makes me so depressed. It makes me want to call more communist tankies because it fits so well.
Are you so foolish that you don't think a large government ran by a small group of people could not become authoritarian?
I think your use of authoritarian is idealist nonsense and has to basis in materialism. I'm a marxist so that is my veiwpoint. If you are a utopian socialist then we will disagree because your veiwpoint is not grounded in a materialist perspective
I disagree it has real implications usually the existence of a police state.
I am an anarchist . I am against police states.
China russia and the USA are all police states. They all suck. They all oppress their own people and others.
There is much nuance. But my beliefs boiled down to a sentence is this:
Fuck police States and fuck the people who support them.
All existing countries are police states, it's not a useful term.
Disagree.
In fact I find it is a better measure of oppressive goverment than most indicators.
What you really mean to say is most goverments are oppressive and authoritarian. Show me a country with a large prison population and I will show you an authoritarian country.
Please see the zapatistas. For non police state goverment.
How is it a useful measure of oppressive governments when it applies to all of them?
The Zapatistas are not a state government and they do police their territory.
If those are your beliefs then they are infantile, and its no wonder you are openly against AES and people who support real world projects in socialism. The new world will be built by people around the world while left anti-communists whine about how they are doing it wrong because they don't understand the theoretical basis communist are using in these states, and they refuse to understand the real material contexts in which these societies struggle to survive against the US imperialist world order.
There are many anarchist comrades on Hexbear who regularly get called "tankies" by people like you and are able to understand the difference between criticizing some AES without being anti-communist. We have a non-sectarian rule there so we don't argue about our specific tendencies. You should maybe soeak to some of them to form a more nuanced view of AES. As an ML i can't really do that, because i do have some fundamental theoretical differences, such as veiwing the term of authoritarian as kind of pointless, thst hoes back to Engels arguing with anarchists about the Paris Commune basically.
If you're open to a book about left anti-communism and how its driven a wedge between yourself and people you call tankies, i recommend Micheal Parenti's Blackshirts and Reds https://mltheory.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/michael-parenti-blackshirts-and-reds_-rational-fascism-and-the-overthrow-of-communism-2001.pdf
You lean really hard on Wikipedia and Google for your leftist theory, I must say
"You see a simple search of reddit will clearly show that my point of view is the chad wojack, while you tankies are the soy wojack." -this lib probably
You acting like I'm the one who made up this made-up word is such made-up word behavior 🤣
We aren't uncritical of the USSR, China, and the DPRK, we just think they broadly did (and do) much more good than bad.
Also, "CCP" isn't a country or even a party (CPC), it's China or the PRC. I assume when you say "Russia" you mean the Soviet Union that hasn't existed in thirty years as Russia is a capitalist country now.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Communist_Party
Do you people have internet?
I speak of russia generally so I can include USSR and the current state of affairs. I realize they are different but they are both authoritarian.
They be capitalist but they call themselves communists.
Communist Party of China, CPC. The country that they are in is China (PRC). A billion people do not live in the "CCP", that's like saying Japanese people live in the LDP, and your imprecise use of these terms makes you look uninformed. Unless, of course, you just constantly say "CCP" because you don't want to recognize that they are the legitimate and popular government of China, you know, a country.
This is a meaningless statement. Any government that wields power to accomplish things is "authoritarian". It's silly to equate the USSR with the Russian Federation when they are two very different administrations with distinct ideology and policies. Russia for the past 30 years is a capitalist country with an administration originally installed by the US. Putin is a right-wing figure and an anti-communist. I don't like Putin and the other rightists in charge of Russia, but I hope NATO doesn't win out in the East because I don't want the US Empire ruling over the whole world.
I get the vibe you're a big fan of le political compass
Nope. I am just not blindly supporting anyhting called communism.
You don't seem to support anything remotely called communism, except for comrade Sankara. He's great, but why is he the one good ML? How was he not "authoritarian" like the rest of us?
saying it like you do, the imperialist media/state department way, puts emphasis on the "Chinese" part, which we object to for reasons that should be obvious
spoiler
:cracker:
Lol you used the royal "we" In your original comment.
That's why I said you people.
Your really calling me racist for that?
I will change the way I type ccp to cpc. Thanks.