Some interesting racial stuff going on with that particular juxtaposition
Insert Micheal Parenti clip: “are there civil liberties for the fascists?”
Micheal Parenti clip: “are there civil liberties for the fascists?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn_RwIcL7cg
A YouTube link was detected in your comment. Here are links to the same video on Invidious, which is a YouTube frontend that protects your privacy:
TOLERATE MY HATE AND DISCRIMINATION.
I'm also an "anarcho-Communist" and no state is going to tell my Ayn Rand themed bunker HOA "commune" that we can't openly discriminate, beat, and starve what we think are undesirable traits to maintaining a pure community! 
maybe this is the wrong community, but i couldnt think of anywhere else to put it. i'm an ancom, and tankies perplex me so much. i feel like the whole point of leftism - the very concept of progressivism itself - is to strive for the best possible world. there is nothing on earth that can convince me tankies truly beleive that russian wars and false socialism and authoritarian states are at any level the best possible world. maybe theyre working toward communism? but if they want communism, they should be fighting for communism. communism will never come about through the state because no great state or power will ever or has ever willingly destroyed itself. am i stupid? am i just missing something big? for the life of me i cannot understand what these people actually want to acheive as an end goal. are they so fixated on defending their ideologies and the people that created them that they dont stop and think about what theyre actually trying to acheive?
if this is a quote from the R*ddit post, you should probably mention that for those who aren't familiar with your posting history
As you seem to be coming to this entirely in good faith, I will try to answer as such. Taking into account I am not the Pope of Communism.
that can convince me tankies truly beleive that russian wars and false socialism and authoritarian states are at any level the best possible world.
If you mean the current Russian war, none of us think it is objectively a good thing. We just tend to want the people most affected, the working class and those conscripted to fight in the wars, a peaceful resolution as soon as possible. Fighting to the last Ukrainian would not reach that. We do not think Russia is a great communist savior, at least in its current state.
False socialism, like the nordic model states in northern europe? Yes, I think we agree here.
Authoritarian states. My kneejerk response would be: read "On Authority", it won't take you long. Thing is basically a bookmark in length. ProleWiki has it in its entirety I believe.
communism will never come about through the state because no great state or power will ever or has ever willingly destroyed itself.
Are you familiar with the concept of the withering away of the state? The goal isn't for a state to suddenly "declare Communism" or any form of anti-statist anarchism. During a transitory period of socialism the state would gradually become less necessary. Engels and Lenin both talked about this in depth in some of their more popular writings. One might argue that Stalin-era soviet union really didn't support this idea, but Stalin himself wrote on the subject. He believed that capitalism would basically not let go without a fight, something we have seen firsthand. Thus he thought a strong socialist state was necessary to prevail against capitalism, before the wither away could occur. Personally, I am very much in agreement with this position.
I am obviously grossly simplifying things, but giving a quick overview that I am sure some of my better read comrades would be happy to elaborate on.
In case you don’t know, this person is joking. I belive they copied that from the Reddit post
Now I feel like an idiot, but appreciated.
I leave my comment anyway, maybe one day somebody stumbles across it.
I mean it was a very good comment. Just maybe not useful for that particular user
Great answer -- much better than I deserved, since I was doing a copypasta. (Probably should have indicated that).
It’s always good to have an answer for lurking libs who read (even though not many would be in SUS), so nobody can question why we’re dunking
...oops, but hey, maybe it will be useful to somebody. I am pretty sure I have seen your posting before, so should have known better.
Especially given the username.
my brain says it's this one
am i stupid?
my heart says it's this one
am i just missing something big?
"ARTICLE 125. In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law :
a) freedom of speech;
b) freedom of the press;
c) freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings;
d) freedom of street processions and demonstrations; These civil rights are ensured by placing at the disposal of the working people and their organizations printing presses, stocks of paper, public buildings, the streets, communications facilities and other material requisites for the exercise of these rights. "
I'm not a huge fan of how the Soviet Union dealt with Kronstadt or Makhnovia, and I'm especially not a fan of some of the policies in the later years of the Soviet Union. Also not a huge fan of some of the policies relating to science in the earlier years. That said, I don't think many of the practical limitations on freedom of speech in the Soviet Union were at all unique to it.
