• Sprinklebump@lemm.ee
    ·
    1 year ago

    Am I a tankie? I like socialism but think communism (total state control) is too far.

    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

    • robinn2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      deleted by creator

      • Sprinklebump@lemm.ee
        ·
        1 year ago

        I was trolling

        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?

        • robinn2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          deleted by creator

          • Sprinklebump@lemm.ee
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • robinn2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              deleted by creator

              • Sprinklebump@lemm.ee
                ·
                1 year ago

                Communism is the absence of the state and the withering away of class distinctions.

                So is the USSR not communist by your definition?

                • robinn2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  deleted by creator

                  • Sprinklebump@lemm.ee
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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?

                    • robinn2
                      ·
                      edit-2
                      1 year ago

                      deleted by creator

                      • Sprinklebump@lemm.ee
                        ·
                        1 year ago

                        if you are referring to the method and work (aka. Marxism/ML), is something that you have asserted but not proven.

                        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

                        • robinn2
                          ·
                          edit-2
                          1 year ago

                          deleted by creator

                          • Sprinklebump@lemm.ee
                            ·
                            1 year ago

                            to the false narrative of Bolshevik betrayal and anarchist victimhood which she is attempting to create.

                            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.

                            • robinn2
                              ·
                              edit-2
                              1 year ago

                              deleted by creator

                              • Sprinklebump@lemm.ee
                                ·
                                1 year ago

                                God I hate that term.

                                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.

                                • robinn2
                                  ·
                                  edit-2
                                  1 year ago

                                  deleted by creator

        • GarbageShoot [he/him]
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

    • ShimmeringKoi [comrade/them]
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.