• Sprinklebump@lemm.ee
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah some of them. I think im speaking to one right now.

    Pleae tell me your totally not tankie ideas.

    • robinn2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      deleted by creator

      • OKRainbowKid@lemmy.sdf.org
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • robinn2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          deleted by creator

      • 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?

            • 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.

      • Sprinklebump@lemm.ee
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you support authoritarian communism, you are a tankie.

        Do you know where the term comes from?

        • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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

          • Sprinklebump@lemm.ee
            ·
            1 year ago

            What is "authoritarian" communism?

            Why dont you google it?

            Lmao you acting like im making this word up is the most tankie shit i have ever seen.

            • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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 cope "Authoritarian" communism is not a real thing. Its some made political compass bullshit

              • Sprinklebump@lemm.ee
                ·
                1 year ago

                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?

                • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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

                  • Sprinklebump@lemm.ee
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I think your use of authoritarian is idealist nonsense

                    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.

            • GarbageShoot [he/him]
              ·
              1 year ago

              You lean really hard on Wikipedia and Google for your leftist theory, I must say

              • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                "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

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

          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.

          • Sprinklebump@lemm.ee
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

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

              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.

            • panopticon [comrade/them]
              ·
              1 year ago

              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

              you people

              spoiler

              :cracker:

              • Sprinklebump@lemm.ee
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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?