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
During World War I, Lenin advocated for a position called “Revolutionary Defeatism”, the idea that the working class does not benefit from sacrificing themselves for the sake of winning a bourgeois war, and that if the working class is organized, a war which is lost presents more of an opportunity for civil war to escalate into proletarian revolution than a war which is won.
I believe this is the stance of most people discussing Russia-Ukraine here, although delving into that seems like an easy way to get off topic.
I’ll second the Jakarta Method. It’s a very stark picture of what we are up against as people who believe in the abolition of money, among other things.
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)
Google “1993 constitutional crisis” to see where the correct channeling of hate for capitalism went.
FWIW similar fates for leftists have occurred in Iran, Palestine, Afghanistan, and other countries that hate the US but have ended up being run by highly reactionary factions.
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
I know this will sound patronising, but have you read Engels ‘Socialism: Scientific and Utopian’ and Lenin’s ‘State and Revolution’. If not, these would basically answer your implicit question as to why we can’t just wish a perfect society into existence.
“Authoritarian”, like so many other liberal concepts, is an idea that - while not completely without reality - is designed to obfuscate how power really operates. For example, non-authoritarian states have freedom of the press. But that press is owned by and will only give the point of view of the Bourgeoisie. The point of Communism is to put power into the hands of the proletariat rather than the parasitic Bourgeois.
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?
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
During World War I, Lenin advocated for a position called “Revolutionary Defeatism”, the idea that the working class does not benefit from sacrificing themselves for the sake of winning a bourgeois war, and that if the working class is organized, a war which is lost presents more of an opportunity for civil war to escalate into proletarian revolution than a war which is won.
I believe this is the stance of most people discussing Russia-Ukraine here, although delving into that seems like an easy way to get off topic.
I’ll second the Jakarta Method. It’s a very stark picture of what we are up against as people who believe in the abolition of money, among other things.
Google “1993 constitutional crisis” to see where the correct channeling of hate for capitalism went.
FWIW similar fates for leftists have occurred in Iran, Palestine, Afghanistan, and other countries that hate the US but have ended up being run by highly reactionary factions.
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
I know this will sound patronising, but have you read Engels ‘Socialism: Scientific and Utopian’ and Lenin’s ‘State and Revolution’. If not, these would basically answer your implicit question as to why we can’t just wish a perfect society into existence.
“Authoritarian”, like so many other liberal concepts, is an idea that - while not completely without reality - is designed to obfuscate how power really operates. For example, non-authoritarian states have freedom of the press. But that press is owned by and will only give the point of view of the Bourgeoisie. The point of Communism is to put power into the hands of the proletariat rather than the parasitic Bourgeois.
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).
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
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?
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?
tankie is just a prejorative the neolibs throw at anyone left of the fine oligarchic capitalism we currently enjoy. I’m fine with it
I don’t think you should let a neoliberal define you. But I also think its inaccurate to act like I, a literal communist, am a neoliberal.
I just don’t think its ok to be down with authoritarianism, and I don’t see authoritarianism as a prerequisite for communism.
I’m not saying you’re a lib bro, I’m saying they’re the ones missing the term