Skip Navigation
Remote View
the_dunk_tank @hexbear.net
Pili [any, any] @hexbear.net

(CW: Violence) Jlai.lu admin equates communists with fascists, and calls for the murder of Hexbear and Lemmygrad users. (translation in post)

Translation:

My personal opinion, for those who are interested, is that these two instances (Hexbear and Lemmygrad) are filled with what we call here nazbols, tankies, or even left-wing fascists.

They are primarily authoritarians who like to call themselves leftist, but use the same tools, have the same political vision, the same organization, and politically and historically tend to ally with “official” fascists as soon as a truly revolutionary leftist movement emerges.

I found it tolerable to “do nothing” as long as they stayed in their corners, but I had somewhat forgotten that an authoritarian remains an authoritarian and that the only place they deserve is down a well, not forgetting to strike the hands that try to escape with a big stick.

Source

You're viewing a single thread.

167 comments

  • "Leftists" who never read theory and live in the Global North inevitably side with Empire and Colonialism, and see people pushing for national liberation and revolution as dangerous to them personally. Anansi is the premier example of this, to the point of death threats against Communists.

    Let's analyze this.

    My personal opinion, for those who are interested, is that these two instances (Hexbear and Lemmygrad) are filled with what we call here nazbols, tankies, or even left-wing fascists.

    Extremely serious claims (among the ridiculous like the idea that there could be a "left-wing fascism), let's see how they justify it.

    They are primarily authoritarians who like to call themselves leftist, but use the same tools, have the same political vision, the same organization, and politically and historically tend to ally with “official” fascists as soon as a truly revolutionary leftist movement emerges.

    Primarily "authoritarians?" Who forms their political ideology around supporting use of authority, and not based on analysis of material conditions and who modern structures serve? This claim is left unsupported as though it is natural and obvious, as though people decide to be "authoritarian" by siding against Imperialism and colonialism, seeking power from siding with the people with less power. It's nonsense.

    Secondly, there is a claim of using the "same tools," as fascists, which is false. Communists are revolutionary, fascists work with the establishment. Communists support democracy via Democratic Centralism, fascists crush democracy. Communists are internationalists, fascists are nationalists. Communists support violence against oppressors as a tool of liberation, fascists support violence against the oppressed as a tool of submission. It's further nonsense.

    Finally, the idea that it is the Communists siding with fascists, and not the liberals and Social Democrats siding with the facsists against the Communists, is entirely absurd and historically revisionist. From the SPD siding against the KPD and with the NSDAP, to any major historical current, Communists have sided against the fascists.

    Anansi, read Blackshirts and Reds. You fundamentally have no idea what Communism and Fascism are, who the Communists and Fascists serve, and their adversarial relationship. This clouds your entire worldview.

    I found it tolerable to “do nothing” as long as they stayed in their corners, but I had somewhat forgotten that an authoritarian remains an authoritarian and that the only place they deserve is down a well, not forgetting to strike the hands that try to escape with a big stick.

    Ending it with a call to violence against Communists, a time-honored tradition amongst fascists. In context, Anansi was projecting their own tendencies towards authoritarianism and fascism on the antifascist Communists. Shocker!

    • These gentlemen think that because they have changed the name of things, that they have changed things

    • Extremely

      sir this is a tiny niche communist shitposting forum Wendy's

      Moment

    • This amount of projection is astounding, I'm genuinely impressed.

      • Explain. Defend yourself, you have the ability to, right here, explain how what I said was projection. If you can't, what's the point of acting smug here? Humiliation?

        • Finally, the idea that it is the Communists siding with fascists, and not the liberals and Social Democrats siding with the facsists against the Communists, is entirely absurd and historically revisionist. From the SPD siding against the KPD and with the NSDAP, to any major historical current, Communists have sided against the fascists.

          I think that you're ignoring once again on purpose that my critic is not against communists, but against people like you, tankies, that are as communist as the nazis were socialist.

          You tankies allied with the Nazis when you had an interest in doing so, saying the contrary is the actual revisionism. Ever heard of Ribbentrop-Molotov ?

          You also indirectly sided with Franco in Spain by only sending resources to sabotage revolutionary efforts by the anarchist because it was a threat to the communist illusion that you made. That's also why you purged actual communists, anarchists and other -ist whenever you could. Saying the contrary is also revisionism.

          Anansi, read Blackshirts and Reds. You fundamentally have no idea what Communism and Fascism are, who the Communists and Fascists serve, and their adversarial relationship. This clouds your entire worldview.

          No, I do, and I think you realize that's the problem.

          You just are not communists, you're cosplaying. 

           undefined
                  I found it tolerable to “do nothing” as long as they stayed in their corners, but I had somewhat forgotten that an authoritarian remains an authoritarian and that the only place they deserve is down a well, not forgetting to strike the hands that try to escape with a big stick.

          Ending it with a call to violence against Communists, a time-honored tradition amongst fascists. In context, Anansi was projecting their own tendencies towards authoritarianism and fascism on the antifascist Communists. Shocker!

          You'll find the explanation on this in the other comments, which you will chose to ignore or not believe because once again that shows your illiteracy and/or double standards.

          • You tankies allied with the Nazis when you had an interest in doing so, saying the contrary is the actual revisionism.

            … wait for it …

            Ever heard of Ribbentrop-Molotov ?

          • I think that you're ignoring once again on purpose that my critic is not against communists, but against people like you, tankies, that are as communist as the nazis were socialist.

            Yes, I'm ignoring it because you haven't demonstrated that there's a difference.

            You tankies allied with the Nazis when you had an interest in doing so, saying the contrary is the actual revisionism. Ever heard of Ribbentrop-Molotov ?

            Yep, fully aware that the Soviets bided their time while trying to get the Western Powers to form an alliance against the rising Nazi threat.

            You also indirectly sided with Franco in Spain by only sending resources to sabotage revolutionary efforts by the anarchist because it was a threat to the communist illusion that you made. That's also why you purged actual communists, anarchists and other -ist whenever you could. Saying the contrary is also revisionism.

            The Soviets supplied the Anarchists, and you say that helped Franco? Lmao. You're deeply unserious.

            No, I do, and I think you realize that's the problem. You just are not communists, you're cosplaying.

            Read the book, Anansi. You haven't made any points on us not being Communists and refuse to read literature disproving you.

            You'll find the explanation on this in the other comments, which you will chose to ignore or not believe because once again that shows your illiteracy and/or double standards.

            I've read your justification, it's more like obfuscation.

            • Yep, fully aware that the Soviets bided their time while trying to get the Western Powers to form an alliance against the rising Nazi threat.

              This part is so consistently annoying. "dae M-R pact?" Sure, buddy. *BUT WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE THAT? WHAT HAPPENED IN THE DECADE BEFORE THAT? WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES LEAD TO A SITUATION WHERE THE M-R PACT MADE SENSE AND WAS NECESSARY?

          • You tankies allied with the Nazis when you had an interest in doing so, saying the contrary is the actual revisionism. Ever heard of Ribbentrop-Molotov ?

            ayoo you can't be serious saying this 😂, you can try isolating that as much as you want but you should know how WW2 unfolded at this point. This is not different than israelis justifying everything because of Oct7, as if nothing else has happened since or before, get that metaphysical worldview outta here you clown.

          • people like you, tankies, that are as communist as the nazis were socialist.

            Lul.

            Fuck off. Don't make me drag out the chart showing that literally every other nation in Europe had some kind of agreement with the Nazis before the USSR finally concluded a non-aggression pact. Or the chart showing how the USSR spent most of the 30s trying to arrange any pact against the fascists with anyone only to be systematically shut out by a Europe that believed the fascists would attack the Soviets first and then the rest of Europe could swoop in and feast on the carcass.

            History happened. We remember even if no one else will. Take this fantasy fiction shit somewhere else, preferably to hell.

            Also, "authoritarianism" is a term with literally no semantic content beyond "Those guys are meanies". It's only meaning is to define another party as "bad people" in contrast to one's own party who are "good people". There are no definable or stable attributes that distinguish "authoritarians" from any "not-authoritarian" group except the relation of one's own group to another opposing group. And that opposing "authoritarian" group is often as not a simulacra or confabulation that exists no where but within the cultural views of the "Good guys".

        • Switching to an alt here since the thread was blocked in the other instance.

          explain how what I said was projection

          Sure, I'll just repeat myself here.

          "Leftists" who never read theory and live in the Global North inevitably side with Empire and Colonialism

          I think this is just projection because nothing in my history of posts defends empires and colonialism, and my whole point is that you actually do when you think it's the good guyses doing it.

          My whole point on the Xinjiang topic was that you all chose to ignore chinese history that goes pretty much as far as we have written history of it, explaining the whole way of dealing with minorities by forced assimilation, coming from the clanic and dynastic organization of Chinese provinces for millenias.

          You chose to ignore the continuation of such practices when it caused, amongst other issues, a big point of dissension in the sino-soviet wars.

          You chose to ignore the continuation of such practices in thi modern context still in Xinjiang, now also in Hong-Kong.

          You chose to ignore the whole area of study about sinicization, which is pretty much that subject, and you also chose to ignore how similar the situation is between the PRC and provinces that want to be independant, to what Israel is doing with Palestine, which stems from the same imperialistic logic.

          You chose to ignore the material reasons leading to China wanting to keep control over the Xinjiang province, for both natural resources, arable land, and the location for the BRI.

          You chose to ignore that the acceleration in the settlement and ethnic erasure of the Xinjiang province is strangely close to the acceleration of the BRI project.

          And when I, or other people, call you out about your performative leftism, you conclude that this is coming from people that, for some reason, are aligned with the US point of view, without one second thinking that people can agree with the goal of a country/people while still being critical of it.

          You are the one agreeing with colonization of provinces, settlements aimed at erasing whole cultures, accepting imperialist tactics when it comes from a country you like. You're projecting.

          and see people pushing for national liberation and revolution as dangerous to them personally

          No, I'm also pushing for the Xinjiang to reach the independence they're fighting for for almost a century now, the same way I push for Palestine to be free of the colonial power trying to erase them from the map and history.

          Being a tankie and openly excusing political organization that purged independence movements, helped fascists fight against independence movements lead by anarchists that you feel were threatening to you is materialistically fighting against revolution and liberation efforts.

          MLs and their children are far more responsible for the erasure of the revolutionary left from the international politic spectrum than any libshit or fascists.

          There is far less need for propaganda to sully the left when you call yourself communists, purge anything more left or revolutionary than you, install some fat cats into power and slowly liberalize your economy while "forgetting" to actually give back power to the people.

          Y'all are unable to see the obvious fact that there is no need for CIA plants when you do their job for free.

          Meanwhile, while you're being armchair leftists just spreading your ignorance online, people like me, actual leftists, are outside forming people in popular education associations, working in unions and syndicates to actually change the political discourse.

          Primarily "authoritarians?" Who forms their political ideology around supporting use of authority, and not based on analysis of material conditions and who modern structures serve?

          Yes.

          This claim is left unsupported as though it is natural and obvious, as though people decide to be "authoritarian" by siding against Imperialism and colonialism, seeking power from siding with the people with less power. It's nonsense.

          You side against western imperialism and colonialism, while siding for anything else that goes against it, because you're just contrarians with no political backbones.

          Also power is relative. By your logic you'd have sided with the nazis because they were fighting against most western countries while ignoring the fact that they were also kind of putting jews in ovens. Your stance is nonsense.

          Secondly, there is a claim of using the "same tools," as fascists, which is false. Communists are revolutionary, fascists work with the establishment.

          Communists yes, what you call communism no.

          You are only revolutionary until you seize power, then it's business as usual until you built enough capital for you and your friends that you can liberalize the economy until your "communist" state gets destroyed, have an excuse to leave the country to capitalists while you live your life in Cancùn.

          Communists support democracy via Democratic Centralism, fascists crush democracy.

          Democratic Centralism in practice in your MLs countries irremediably end up as a farce because actual democracy would challenge power structures, so you only allow partial democracy after you literally purged anybody that would not agree with what you want to be the result of the vote.

          Communists are internationalists, fascists are nationalists.

          Ever heard of Stalin take on communism ? Or the CCP one ?

          Your brand of communism is internationalist as long as it means colonizing and assimilating other countries lmao

          Communists support violence against oppressors as a tool of liberation, fascists support violence against the oppressed as a tool of submission.

          Sure, the nazis didn't justify their actions by saying they were fighting against a global elite that oppressed the poor german people.

          Also it's true that your tankies regime never had any way of putting any dissenting people into submission using the state apparatus.

          I can continue dunking on your ignorant asses all day if you want, but you should spend your time actually reading theory, but also academic literature so you can do your autocritic brother, because you're pretty cringe.

          • For starters, this is largely gish-gallop. You never back up any of your claims, and you strawman claims I have never made. These two logical fallicies make up the structure of your comment, gish-gallop a bunch of claims I never made and then "dunk" on them. I'll go section by section.

            I think this is just projection because nothing in my history of posts defends empires and colonialism, and my whole point is that you actually do when you think it's the good guyses doing it ... You are the one agreeing with colonization of provinces, settlements aimed at erasing whole cultures, accepting imperialist tactics when it comes from a country you like. You're projecting.

            This is the "China Bad" section. You begin by making racist claims that "Chinese assimilation" is so core to Chinese identity that it is an inevitability. You also at one point side with the British Empire with respect to Hong Kong, and again provided no evidence that the majority wish to break away from the PRC in any case.

            Anansi, I need you to carefully consider any subject that leads you to side with the worst Empire in the world in a way that you materially benefit from. Be hyper-skeptical, don't just side with the West and accept its narrative whole cloth, because you have every material reason to.

            No, I'm also pushing for the Xinjiang to reach the independence they're fighting for for almost a century now, the same way I push for Palestine to be free of the colonial power trying to erase them from the map and history ... Meanwhile, while you're being armchair leftists just spreading your ignorance online, people like me, actual leftists, are outside forming people in popular education associations, working in unions and syndicates to actually change the political discourse.

            This section is categorized by the running stream "Marxism bad." Anansi, you make it extremely clear that you have never read Marxist theory beyond perhaps the Manifesto, because you make numerous foundational errors in this section.

            1. Equating Xinjiang to Palestine when they are entirely different situations. Here's an idea: compare approval rates for the CPC and/or the PRC in Xinjiang and approval rates for Israel in Palestine.
            2. The claim that Communists have sided with fascists against Anarchists is unsubstantiated, when we know for a fact the USSR supplied the Spanish Anarchists materially.
            3. The idea that the State "withering away" means that at some point the government needs to dissolve itself and "give itself back to the people," when Marx's idea of Communism is a fully centrally planned publicly owned economy and that the Marxist idea of a State is different from the Anarchist idea of a State
            4. The claim that Anarchists are "more" left than Marxists, which is nonsense ideology measuring and has no materialist basis, both Marxism and Anarchism are left regardless
            5. The idea that we do not organize is false, many of us are members of Communist or Anarchist orgs and do good work on the ground

            All utterly nonsense and unbacked.

            Yes

            You fully believe that Marxists support Marxism because they are power-level scalers? Why then do they side with national liberation movements like in Palestine, Hawaii, the Sahel States, the Aztlan people, and more? This claim is additionally unsupported, an "I believe it so it's true" claim.

            You side against western imperialism and colonialism, while siding for anything else that goes against it, because you're just contrarians with no political backbones ... Also power is relative. By your logic you'd have sided with the nazis because they were fighting against most western countries while ignoring the fact that they were also kind of putting jews in ovens. Your stance is nonsense.

            See, that's not my stance. This is you, yet again, demonstrably failing to analyze Marxist positions. If you just pretend Marxists purely side against the West, you can make the false claim that Marxists would... support the west? It's farcical. Here's a hint: the Communists sided against the fascists committing the Holocaust and liberated Aushwitz, doing far more of the fighting than any Western nation that would have had the Nazis and Communists kill each other off.

            Communists yes, what you call communism no. You are only revolutionary until you seize power, then it's business as usual until you built enough capital for you and your friends that you can liberalize the economy until your "communist" state gets destroyed, have an excuse to leave the country to capitalists while you live your life in Cancùn.

            Remarkable, no actual analysis of Marxist history. The Soviets could have liberalized at any time, but did so later in their existence, why? The PRC is a mostly publicly owned economy with strong central planning despite reintroducing foreign Capital, why? Cuba is still Socialist despite brutal sanctions because of it, why? You have no analysis. Here's an excerpt from Engels with respect to Markets, from Principles of Communism:

            Question 17 : Will it be possible to abolish private property at one stroke?

            Answer : No, no more than the existing productive forces can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. Hence, the proletarian revolution, which in all probability is approaching, will be able gradually to transform existing society and abolish private property only when the necessary means of production have been created in sufficient quantity.

            Marxists don't advocate for Socialism because of any moral reason, but because Capitalism itself forms large monopolist syndicates ripe for central planning and public ownership. You cannot simply "will" these structures into existence, that's why Communists can't abolish Private Property outright. A good article on this is Why Public Property?

            Democratic Centralism in practice in your MLs countries irremediably end up as a farce because actual democracy would challenge power structures, so you only allow partial democracy after you literally purged anybody that would not agree with what you want to be the result of the vote.

            Democratic Centralism is not a "farce." It is not farcical to state that the group is bound to the results of democratic votes. Socialist states have made great democratic strides, even if they haven't been perfect immediately. A good article on this is Why Do Marxists Fail to Bring the "Worker's Paradise?" It goes over the materialist basis for democratic structures, and how they must be built, not simply commanded into existence.

            Ever heard of Stalin take on communism ? Or the CCP one ? Your brand of communism is internationalist as long as it means colonizing and assimilating other countries lmao

            You could read works like Marxism and the National Question or The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, or look at how the USSR supported national liberation movements in Palestine, Algeria, Cuba, Korea, and more. Or, you could just smugly gesture and make no points, I guess.

            Sure, the nazis didn't justify their actions by saying they were fighting against a global elite that oppressed the poor german people.

            You can look at history and see who was served by the Communists and who was served by the fascists. Again, read Blackshirts and Reds. Equating the Nazis with the Communists is fascist apologia.

            Also it's true that your tankies regime never had any way of putting any dissenting people into submission using the state apparatus.

            Socialist States have used starw power to continue to exist, yes.

            I can continue dunking on your ignorant asses all day if you want, but you should spend your time actually reading theory, but also academic literature so you can do your autocritic brother, because you're pretty cringe.

            You didn't "dunk" on anyone. You gish-galloped, acted smug, and offered no reading nor analysis. I have read roughly 3 dozen Marxist works and history books on the subject, including academic works. Smugly acting like I haven't and offering no theory or academic works you think would be helpful is worthless grandstanding.

            The fact is, I disagree with you because I've read academic literature, history books, and Marxist theory, and nothing you've said meaningfully challenges it.

            • The fact is, I disagree with you because I've read academic literature, history books, and Marxist theory, and nothing you've said meaningfully challenges it.

              Yes but have you considered that you don't know the Chinese story with the frog? Checkmate silly tankie.

            • Equating Xinjiang to Palestine when they are entirely different situations. Here's an idea: compare approval rates for the CPC and/or the PRC in Xinjiang and approval rates for Israel in Palestine.

              They'll just do the non-falsiable orthodoxy thing. If approval is high it's because the authoritarian government rigged the polls. If approval is low it shows the will of the people to resist their evil [Slurs but in French] tankie redfash oppressors.

            • For starters, this is largely gish-gallop. You never back up any of your claims, and you strawman claims I have never made. These two logical fallicies make up the structure of your comment, gish-gallop a bunch of claims I never made and then "dunk" on them. I'll go section by section.

              Yeah, projection again. Last time I've provided sources you told me that it was just gish galoping too lol

              I'm also trying to cite all your comments I'm responding to, to avoid such claims but well...

              This is the "China Bad" section.

              No, this is China not perfect section. Starting with a straw-man.

              You begin by making racist claims that "Chinese assimilation" is so core to Chinese identity that it is an inevitability.

              Yes, because historical materialism is now racism.

              It is also racist to consider that the history of power structures in a country/region will impact future power structures.

              You also at one point side with the British Empire with respect to Hong Kong, and again provided no evidence that the majority wish to break away from the PRC in any case.

              If you see me illustrating that this is still the way China handle other cultures/ethnicity by using the case of Hong-Kong as a support of english colonialism, you might need to also reflect again about straw-manning.

              and again provided no evidence that the majority wish to break away from the PRC in any case.

              There was and still is an HK independence movement, the "umbrella revolution" and the overall repression of dissent by mainland China during this time. Maybe they are a minority, but we'll never really know since there was no effort to ensure that the people of HK can actually decide for themselves.

              Anansi, I need you to carefully consider any subject that leads you to side with the worst Empire in the world in a way that you materially benefit from. Be hyper-skeptical, don't just side with the West and accept its narrative whole cloth, because you have every material reason to.

              See, I'd tell you to also carefully consider what you're willing to accept just because some country sides against another you don't like, to be hyper skeptical and not just side with China while accepting its narrative whole cloth, because you want to be right.

              China as a whole could do better, and should do better as probably the last country not yet completely gangrened by capitalism. While the BRI is probably the best policy that ever came up for international development and cooperation, especially since it's the only thing that can actually challenge the hegemony of the west, it doesn't excuse the fact that part of it come from ethnic cleansing/forced assimilation/genocide/whatever term you like.

              Taking this as an endorsement of western colonial and imperial politics is either fanaticism or bad faith.

              You acting like China doesn't have propaganda that is used to serve its interest. Accepting all their declaration as gospel is as naive as believing any propaganda about China coming from the west.

              You reducing this whole section as me dismissing all China did is on point for tankies, but missing the actual point.

              This section is categorized by the running stream "Marxism bad." Anansi, you make it extremely clear that you have never read Marxist theory beyond perhaps the Manifesto, because you make numerous foundational errors in this section.

              Sure bud.

              Equating Xinjiang to Palestine when they are entirely different situations. Here's an idea: compare approval rates for the CPC and/or the PRC in Xinjiang and approval rates for Israel in Palestine.

              I'm sure approval rates in one case or the other won't suffer from any kind of bias. I'd trust equally the measure of the approval rate taken by Israel in Palestine that I'll trust the one taken by the PRC in Xinjiang.

              I'd be glad to get the numbers though, especially if it's coming from a source that can be trusted and take into account the difference between settler votes and "native" population.

              What you're missing, is you completely dismissing the question of self determination when we're talking about Xinjiang, but not in the case of Palestine, which I again refer as performative due to the cognitive dissonance needed to have this standing.

              The claim that Communists have sided with fascists against Anarchists is unsubstantiated

              I mean, that could be my bad I guess for not providing sources, I thought this was part of history teaching everywhere. The purges in spain organized by the NKVD of anti-Stalinist factions and members, like Nin, Robles, Berneri or the overall POUM is not a secret nor was it ever even denied.

              This covers a bit more in depth the infighting between the "non Stalinian" front and the USSR lead militia, if you're actually interested. The author can't also really be seen as a CIA agent.

              I could also talk about the history of the spanish national front, the influence of the USSR lead comintern in its policies and alliances that created a climate of instability that was strong enough to make it possible for Franco to start shit, if you want, but that'll take quite a bit longer and is far more publicly documented.

              The idea that the State "withering away" means that at some point the government needs to dissolve itself and "give itself back to the people," when Marx's idea of Communism is a fully centrally planned publicly owned economy and that the Marxist idea of a State is different from the Anarchist idea of a State

              Yes, not sure we're disagreeing here? The democratic centralism comes not from Marx, but from Lenin in his own interpretation of Marx, though, unless you're equating socialism and democratic centralism, which is a bit far fetched.

              Marx himself did not really give any "plan" for what "communism" was, did not even really differentiate between "communism" and "socialism", and was pretty tame in his late life when writing his critique of the program of the german worker's party about their view of what communism was.

              The withering of the state is also nice and all, but was pretty much put into the backseat when Stalin adapted Lenin's work about Marx's work too, which he also did for anything related to auto-determination rights. This kinda started the split between classical/traditional marxism and state socialism, not sure why you're mixing up everything here, nor what point you're trying to make.

              The claim that Anarchists are "more" left than Marxists, which is nonsense ideology measuring and has no materialist basis, both Marxism and Anarchism are left regardless

              I'm not talking about "being more left", but about ruining other leftist revolutionary movements to cement yours as the only alternative, while at the same time destroying the core values of communism to end up an authoritarian state capitalist societies with as much exploitation as any other capitalist country, while in the meantime making "communism" a bad word.

              The idea that we do not organize is false, many of us are members of Communist or Anarchist orgs and do good work on the ground

              Sure.

              You fully believe that Marxists support Marxism because they are power-level scalers?

              That is not what you asked tho. "Who forms their political ideology around supporting use of authority, and not based on analysis of material conditions and who modern structures serve"

              I was also talking about tankies.

              You, indeed, tankies, support authoritarians regimes that lost what they could have of "communist" decades ago, while trying to paint any critic as propaganda or counter-revolutionaries.

              Why then do they side with national liberation movements like in Palestine, Hawaii, the Sahel States, the Aztlan people, and more?

              Tankies side with them because on the opposite side, it's the US, by contrarianism.

              When it's not the US or its allies, then it doesn't matter, which is my point, and what I called performative earlier.

              Actual marxists, trots, or even leninists would side with national liberation movements for what they are though, but would also side with the Xinjiang liberation movement. If I wanted to be funny, I'd say that even Staline was supporting Xinjiang independence, but we both know that was for control over the natural resources of the region, which is also why the PRC does not want it to secede.

              See, that's not my stance. This is you, yet again, demonstrably failing to analyze Marxist positions.

              This is you again thinking that tankies are actual marxists and not just cosplayers, and thinking I put both in the same bag.

              If you just pretend Marxists purely side against the West

              Same remark as above.

              (putting the rest in another comment)

              • Yes, because historical materialism is now racism.

                It is also racist to consider that the history of power structures in a country/region will impact future power structures.

                That isn't what you said. You said, and I quote

                My whole point on the Xinjiang topic was that you all chose to ignore chinese history that goes pretty much as far as we have written history of it, explaining the whole way of dealing with minorities by forced assimilation, coming from the clanic and dynastic organization of Chinese provinces for millenias.

                Which is pure bullshit and completely flies in the face of historical materialism. Not only have you failed to explain how "clanic and dynastic organisation of chinese provinces" is relevant to the forced assimilation of minorities, but you have also failed to explain how this "impacts future power structures". Are you saying that the PRC is organised on clan and dynastic lines?

                And furthermore, the idea that thousands of years of forced assimilation of minorities would be continued despite the transition of the mode of production from slavery all the way to primitive socialism is completely absurd and flies in the face of historical materialism. You have not posited a historically contingent/transient process, you have posited a static unchanging constant of Chinese culture, which is apparently to genocide minorities.

                You chose to ignore the whole area of study about sinicization, which is pretty much that subject, and you also chose to ignore how similar the situation is between the PRC and provinces that want to be independant, to what Israel is doing with Palestine, which stems from the same imperialistic logic. You chose to ignore that the acceleration in the settlement and ethnic erasure of the Xinjiang province is strangely close to the acceleration of the BRI project.

                You have not even considered that the so called "sinicization" occuring today in China amongst minorities is simply the natural result of economic integration. Any nation is constituted of community of people united by language, territory and economic life. When underdeveloped minority regions are integrated into the broader national economy, they gradually loose their minority character. How do you think France came to be? Did the French nation simply exist from the beginning of time? Or did it form after various minority groups were brought under the same government under one market?

                Furthermore, that you would compare palestine to xinjang betrays your lack of understand of either region's history and utterly privileged position as an imperialist, who cannot tell the difference between live streamed mass murder and economic development where God forbid, a people's culture is changing in ways you don't like.

              • Here's a hint: the Communists sided against the fascists committing the Holocaust and liberated Aushwitz, doing far more of the fighting than any Western nation that would have had the Nazis and Communists kill each other off.

                Yes, after negotiating a split of Europe with them, because it was in their material interest to do so.

                They were "biding their time" by sending german and austrians anti-fascists and communists to the Nazi regime, spreading in baltic territories and western europe, until they were themselves the target of the nazi regime.

                They had material interests in their alliance with the nazis, and they only broke that alliance because they were fucked over, not because of ideology, "biding their time", or wanting to liberate people.

                The "biding their time" excuse is also only used anymore by tankies due to the abundant proofs that the NKVD ignored all warnings about the Nazis maybe being bad people that were going to betray them, the most famous case being the one of Richard Sorge. This excuse was even said to be false by Gorbachev during the glasnost period, and the initial document made public.

                They did it because they didn't really have the option of doing nothing anymore, else they'd have both fascists and capitalist going against them. They allied by material interest.

                Remarkable, no actual analysis of Marxist history. The Soviets could have liberalized at any time, but did so later in their existence, why?

                I mean this is kind of the consequence of Stalin's death, nobody in the party really wanting to be associated with Stalinism and what he did anymore, Khrushchev openly admitting that capitalist countries had better standards of living and promising to reach parity, while slowly having the communist sphere of influence reducing due to the cold war efforts to undermine communist regimes.

                You cannot compete against a globalizing capitalist economy when you're not self sufficient and are losing allies, especially when your plan is to pretty much to build a modern country from the bottom.

                Alienating China was pretty much the last domino that lead to the USSR having to implode sooner or later. Their "liberalization" was the last breath of their agony.

                The PRC is a mostly publicly owned economy with strong central planning despite reintroducing foreign Capital, why?

                State owned, yes, not sure what is your underlying question.

                If you're asking why they are not a liberal capitalist country, I'd add "yet" to the question.

                The economical rise of China is pretty recent, and they're starting to produce billionaires that might still not have had the time to corrupt the whole political system like they did in western economies centuries ago.

                Also, saying "reintroducing foreign capital" is a pretty dishonest way to present it.

                The recent rise in economic power of China is born from the foreign capital of greedy western capitalists that saw China as an infinite source of cheap labor.

                I'd like for China to not become another imperialist capitalistic parasite but I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case in a few generations.

                Cuba is still Socialist despite brutal sanctions because of it, why?

                Mostly because they represent nothing as far as geopolitics are concerned, that they are an island that make them more able to isolate themselves from international interference compared to large coutries like the USSR or China, and also using the military to keep the current power structure intact.

                There is pretty much no will since the fall of the USSR to fuck even more with Cuba from the west, and no possibility to "leave" socialism if they ever wanted to, that's why. I'll also make clear that I'm not implying that Cubans want to change their government, just to defuse the incoming strawman, just that the material reality is that they can't.

                You have no analysis.

                Sure, not sure why you're then citing unrelated shit after that but you do you.

                Marxists don't advocate for Socialism because of any moral reason

                For someone that is proud to be knowledgeable about Marxism theory, I'm a bit surprised by that statement.

                The whole point of Marx's analysis is that socialism is a natural consequence of the power struggle linked to capitalist production, which will irremediably lead to a proletarian revolution.

                Marxists that want to accelerate this phenomenon absolutely do it for moral reason. Because they consider that capitalists exploit the proletariat, and that a change is required for more justice.

                but because Capitalism itself forms large monopolist syndicates ripe for central planning and public ownership

                Marxists see the use of socialism, as in the broader marxist definition, as a way to replace the capitalists in the control of these "monopolist syndicates", yes. Not because they just happen to be there, but to repair a social injustice.

                You cannot simply "will" these structures into existence, that's why Communists can't abolish Private Property outright

                Yes, and I never even implied that?

                Democratic Centralism is not a "farce."

                Indeed, which is why I specifically wrote "Democratic Centralism in practice in your MLs countries irremediably end up as a farce", which I though was pretty clear in saying that there is a stark difference between actual Democratic Centralism, and what ends up with this name.

                Socialist states have made great democratic strides, even if they haven't been perfect immediately.

                Yes, and again, I never even implied the contrary.

                You could read works like Marxism and the National Question or The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, or look at how the USSR supported national liberation movements in Palestine, Algeria, Cuba, Korea, and more.

                I could also point out that it strangely took Staline's death for that to happen, and that the differences between his early writings and what he actually did once in power are pretty stark.

                Guess what happened to actual internationalists from Trotsky or Lenine's school of thought when Staline got into power.

                Once again, seems that you think tankies are actual marxists, and that you'd rather take writing as material facts than actual material facts.

                The fact is, I disagree with you because I've read academic literature, history books, and Marxist theory, and nothing you've said meaningfully challenges it.

                Sure bud.

                • Yeah, projection again. Last time I've provided sources you told me that it was just gish galoping too lol. I'm also trying to cite all your comments I'm responding to, to avoid such claims but well...

                  How is me answering each of your points directly "gish-galloping?" How is me citing sources for my argument the same as your lack of citing evidence? I'm not talking about quoting me, but evidence.

                  No, this is China not perfect section. Starting with a straw-man.

                  It is not a strawman to say that you used this section to decry China. A strawman is making up an argument, not a disagreement in the implications of severity.

                  Yes, because historical materialism is now racism. It is also racist to consider that the history of power structures in a country/region will impact future power structures.

                  Claiming that China is assimilationist culturally makes no analysis of power structures, nor is this "Historical Materialism." Historical Materialism makes analysis of the mode of production and the class relations guiding society. Saying that China was assimilationist in the past, before Communist revolution and proletarian restructuring of society and claiming this assimilationism has economic ties to modern day China is wrong.

                  If you see me illustrating that this is still the way China handle other cultures/ethnicity by using the case of Hong-Kong as a support of english colonialism, you might need to also reflect again about straw-manning.

                  You were against China taking Hong Kong back, that implies you wished it remained with England. If you have a different stance, then make it.

                  What is a nation?

                  There was and still is an HK independence movement, the "umbrella revolution" and the overall repression of dissent by mainland China during this time. Maybe they are a minority, but we'll never really know since there was no effort to ensure that the people of HK can actually decide for themselves.

                  Yes, and there was and still is a pro-PRC movement in Hong Kong. See what people actually want before immediately siding with the Global North over the Global South.

                  See, I'd tell you to also carefully consider what you're willing to accept just because some country sides against another you don't like, to be hyper skeptical and not just side with China while accepting its narrative whole cloth, because you want to be right.

                  I have been careful, and hyper-skeptical. Only you have been oversimplifying.

                  China as a whole could do better, and should do better as probably the last country not yet completely gangrened by capitalism. While the BRI is probably the best policy that ever came up for international development and cooperation, especially since it's the only thing that can actually challenge the hegemony of the west, it doesn't excuse the fact that part of it come from ethnic cleansing/forced assimilation/genocide/whatever term you like.

                  You call it a fact and support it with nothing. You claim it's because the spooky Chinese are assimilationists and genocidal ethnically, and use that to support your narrative.

                  Taking this as an endorsement of western colonial and imperial politics is either fanaticism or bad faith. You acting like China doesn't have propaganda that is used to serve its interest. Accepting all their declaration as gospel is as naive as believing any propaganda about China coming from the west.

                  Good thing I don't accept everything good and everything bad about China!

                  You reducing this whole section as me dismissing all China did is on point for tankies, but missing the actual point.

                  To be clear, you dismissed China as ethnically assimilationist and never once praised anything about China, so it's not hard to see you as anti-China, period. I answered the points you raised, of course I didn't answer whatever occupies your mind-palace alone.

                  Sure bud.

                  Let's see how you defend the foundational errors you made with Marxism!

                  I'm sure approval rates in one case or the other won't suffer from any kind of bias. I'd trust equally the measure of the approval rate taken by Israel in Palestine that I'll trust the one taken by the PRC in Xinjiang.

                  Why? Israel is a settler-colonial ethno-state built on stolen land, the PRC is just China. Seems your own bias is showing.

                  I'd be glad to get the numbers though, especially if it's coming from a source that can be trusted and take into account the difference between settler votes and "native" population.

                  What would count as a source you trust?

                  What you're missing, is you completely dismissing the question of self determination when we're talking about Xinjiang, but not in the case of Palestine, which I again refer as performative due to the cognitive dissonance needed to have this standing.

                  I don't dismiss the question of self-determination. I question your determination for the residents of Xinjiang, rather than theirs. For Palestine we see daily slaughter, we just don't for Xinjiang, nor do we see large popular independence movements.

                  I mean, that could be my bad I guess for not providing sources, I thought this was part of history teaching everywhere. The purges in spain organized by the NKVD of anti-Stalinist factions and members, like Nin, Robles, Berneri or the overall POUM is not a secret nor was it ever even denied.

                  The Trotskyists allied with German and Francoist forces to kick off the May Day revolts, and the USSR stepped in. This has been documented via archival evidence. This is not a cut and dry case of the Communists siding against Anarchists with fascists, but a complicated instance of infighting. Why would the Soviets "switch sides?"

                  This covers a bit more in depth the infighting between the "non Stalinian" front and the USSR lead militia, if you're actually interested. The author can't also really be seen as a CIA agent.

                  Yes, the anti-Communists often worked against the USSR. This was counter-productive for the Spanish civil war.

                  I could also talk about the history of the spanish national front, the influence of the USSR lead comintern in its policies and alliances that created a climate of instability that was strong enough to make it possible for Franco to start shit, if you want, but that'll take quite a bit longer and is far more publicly documented.

                  Probably would take a lot longer.

                  Yes, not sure we're disagreeing here? The democratic centralism comes not from Marx, but from Lenin in his own interpretation of Marx, though, unless you're equating socialism and democratic centralism, which is a bit far fetched.

                  All "Democratic Centralism" means is that the whole is beholden to democratic decisions.

                  Marx himself did not really give any "plan" for what "communism" was, did not even really differentiate between "communism" and "socialism", and was pretty tame in his late life when writing his critique of the program of the german worker's party about their view of what communism was.

                  Marx predicted how it would function based on how Capitalism functioned and what it was leading towards, ie decentralized markets into central planning and public ownership. This is the entire point of Scientific Socialism, rather than Utopian. Socialism as a stage in evolution in mode of production, not as an ideal to implement. See Socialism: Utopian and Scientitic. Additionally, Marx did not soften his views in Critique of the Gotha Programme, rather, after the Paris Commune Marx learned that the previous state must be entirely dismantled and replaced.

                  Cont.

                  • The withering of the state is also nice and all, but was pretty much put into the backseat when Stalin adapted Lenin's work about Marx's work too, which he also did for anything related to auto-determination rights. This kinda started the split between classical/traditional marxism and state socialism, not sure why you're mixing up everything here, nor what point you're trying to make.

                    This is exactly why you have no idea what you're talking about. The State, in Marx's terms, is the structure that supports class oppression. It isn't the same as a government. Marx, Lenin, and so forth all operated on the same understanding of a state. From Engels, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientitic:

                    When ultimately it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself superfluous. As soon as there is no social class to be held in subjection any longer, as soon as class domination and the struggle for individual existence based on the anarchy of production existing up to now are eliminated together with the collisions and excesses arising from them, there is nothing more to repress, nothing necessitating a special repressive force, a state. The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society -- the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society -- is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase "a free people's state" with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.

                    It is frustratingly evident that you have mere cursory knowledge of Marxism, and haven't even read the basics. You should also read The State and Revolution.

                    I'm not talking about "being more left", but about ruining other leftist revolutionary movements to cement yours as the only alternative, while at the same time destroying the core values of communism to end up an authoritarian state capitalist societies with as much exploitation as any other capitalist country, while in the meantime making "communism" a bad word.

                    The USSR supported other revolutionary movements. It was a Socialist state upt until its dissolution, the idea that a centrally planned, democratically operated, publicly owned economy would be Capitalist beyond the NEP is perfect evidence of just how little you understand about Marxism.

                    Sure.

                    Do you doubt that Communists organize? That's core to Communist belief.

                    That is not what you asked tho. "Who forms their political ideology around supporting use of authority, and not based on analysis of material conditions and who modern structures serve"

                    I was also talking about tankies.

                    You, indeed, tankies, support authoritarians regimes that lost what they could have of "communist" decades ago, while trying to paint any critic as propaganda or counter-revolutionaries.

                    You have demonstrated fundental and critical misunderstandings of Marxism, which I have carefully and thoroughly pointed out, and yet you sit on a high horse believing yourself to know better. This is absurd. Pray tell, what do you believe a Marxist is, if not a supporter of Marxist movements and an applicant of Marxist theory and practice?

                    Tankies side with them because on the opposite side, it's the US, by contrarianism.

                    We have explained to you that Marxists side with oppressed groups, as is in line with the Marxist theory of National Liberation and self-determination. Your claim is that we are contratians, and that is the sole factor, but yet have nothing to say when we point you to what we actually believe and why.

                    When it's not the US or its allies, then it doesn't matter, which is my point, and what I called performative earlier.

                    It's performative because we use Marxist analysis and are consistent with our views? Nonsense.

                    Actual marxists, trots, or even leninists would side with national liberation movements for what they are though, but would also side with the Xinjiang liberation movement. If I wanted to be funny, I'd say that even Staline was supporting Xinjiang independence, but we both know that was for control over the natural resources of the region, which is also why the PRC does not want it to secede.

                    You, again, have no idea what the people of Xinjiang want. Independence and national liberation are not as simple as creating as many states as there are ethnic groups.

                    This is you again thinking that tankies are actual marxists and not just cosplayers, and thinking I put both in the same bag.

                    You have failed to demonstrate why we are not Marxists and Communists, and in fact showed that you have critical misunderstandings of Marxist theory.

                    Same remark as above.

                    Same remark as above.

                    Yes, after negotiating a split of Europe with them, because it was in their material interest to do so ... They did it because they didn't really have the option of doing nothing anymore, else they'd have both fascists and capitalist going against them. They allied by material interest.

                    For the, what, fourth time now? Read Blackshirts and Reds, if you aren't going to read Marx, at least read a short history book on how Communism and fascism were diametrically opposed since the beginning. The Nazis started attacking the Communists both inside and outside Germany, and the Soviets attacked the Nazis and tried to get thr Western Powers to notice the threat. During WWII, the Soviets were the largest anti-Nazi force, with 4/5ths of the total Nazi deaths at their hands.

                    I mean this is kind of the consequence of Stalin's death, nobody in the party really wanting to be associated with Stalinism and what he did anymore, Khrushchev openly admitting that capitalist countries had better standards of living and promising to reach parity, while slowly having the communist sphere of influence reducing due to the cold war efforts to undermine communist regimes.

                    It's famously known that Kruschev lied, confirmed with the opening of the Soviet Archives.

                    You cannot compete against a globalizing capitalist economy when you're not self sufficient and are losing allies, especially when your plan is to pretty much to build a modern country from the bottom.

                    Alienating China was pretty much the last domino that lead to the USSR having to implode sooner or later. Their "liberalization" was the last breath of their agony.

                    This is actually more correct analysis than anything else, though the USSR was not doomed, it was murdered from the top down in the final years.

                    State owned, yes, not sure what is your underlying question. If you're asking why they are not a liberal capitalist country, I'd add "yet" to the question.

                    I'm asking you to analyze the PRC from a Marxist lens.

                    The economical rise of China is pretty recent, and they're starting to produce billionaires that might still not have had the time to corrupt the whole political system like they did in western economies centuries ago.

                    The economic rise of China started under Mao. It stabilized under Deng. Read Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism.

                    Also, saying "reintroducing foreign capital" is a pretty dishonest way to present it.

                    Is it? That's what they did.

                    The recent rise in economic power of China is born from the foreign capital of greedy western capitalists that saw China as an infinite source of cheap labor.

                    Partially, yes. This was the strategy employed by Deng, while the PRC had favorable agreements and a birdcage model over Capital. Read The Long Game and its Contradictions.

                    I'd like for China to not become another imperialist capitalistic parasite but I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case in a few generations.

                    Why not? It's trending towards more public ownership and control. All this shows is that you aren't in touch with how China operates or where it is trending.

                    Mostly because they represent nothing as far as geopolitics are concerned, that they are an island that make them more able to isolate themselves from international interference compared to large coutries like the USSR or China, and also using the military to keep the current power structure intact.

                    It couldn't be the high government approval rates and democratization, could it?

                    There is pretty much no will since the fall of the USSR to fuck even more with Cuba from the west, and no possibility to "leave" socialism if they ever wanted to, that's why. I'll also make clear that I'm not implying that Cubans want to change their government, just to defuse the incoming strawman, just that the material reality is that they can't.

                    Cuba absolutely could pivot to a free market economy if they wanted. The US has continued to brutally sanction them to this very day.

                    Sure, not sure why you're then citing unrelated shit after that but you do you.

                    All of what I said is related.

                    For someone that is proud to be knowledgeable about Marxism theory, I'm a bit surprised by that statement.

                    Shocker, the one who doesn't understand Marxism is surprised when encountering a Marxist that takes theory seriously.

                    Cont.

                    • The whole point of Marx's analysis is that socialism is a natural consequence of the power struggle linked to capitalist production, which will irremediably lead to a proletarian revolution.

                      Bzzzzt WRONG. Marx's analysis is that Capitalism naturally forms monopolist syndicates over time, removing competition and replacing with association, prepping the capabilities of public ownership and central planning after revolution. From Marx himself:

                      The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

                      Capitalism prepares the ground for Socialism.

                      Marxists that want to accelerate this phenomenon absolutely do it for moral reason. Because they consider that capitalists exploit the proletariat, and that a change is required for more justice.

                      I didn't say there were no moral reasons for wanting to move onto Socialism. I said Marxists believe Socialism to be the next step out of critical examination of Capitalism. This is Marxism 101.

                      Marxists see the use of socialism, as in the broader marxist definition, as a way to replace the capitalists in the control of these "monopolist syndicates", yes. Not because they just happen to be there, but to repair a social injustice.

                      More than a simple reparation of injustice, it is the only way to progress forwards. Economic structures follow the level of development of the Productive Forces. This is the basis of Historical Materialism! Socialism is necessary once these monopolist syndicates are formed to even consider progressing on.

                      Yes, and I never even implied that?

                      You did, through the implication that introducing broader markets is a deviation away from Socialism.

                      Indeed, which is why I specifically wrote "Democratic Centralism in practice in your MLs countries irremediably end up as a farce", which I though was pretty clear in saying that there is a stark difference between actual Democratic Centralism, and what ends up with this name.

                      There isn't, just gesturing and chauvanism on your part. Read Why Do Marxists Fail to Bring the "Worker's Paradise?"

                      Yes, and again, I never even implied the contrary.

                      You did, in implying their democratic structures were farcical.

                      I could also point out that it strangely took Staline's death for that to happen, and that the differences between his early writings and what he actually did once in power are pretty stark.

                      I could also point out how these movements did not depend on Stalin.

                      Guess what happened to actual internationalists from Trotsky or Lenine's school of thought when Staline got into power.

                      Trotsky was actively hostile to the USSR, Stalin largely upheld Lenin's legacy. Stalin didn't make a stark departure from Lenin.

                      Once again, seems that you think tankies are actual marxists, and that you'd rather take writing as material facts than actual material facts.

                      I am a Marxist, you claim I am not, and in fact am a "tankie." You have no justification for this, only your own lack of understanding of Marxism, as I have time and time again explained and supported with writings. You have provided little in the way of material evidence, I have provided much.

                      Sure bud.

                      Indeed. If you don't even know what Scientific Socialism means or what Historical Materialism is, how can you claim authority over someone who has read several dozen essays, books, and more? You're deeply unserious.

                    • It's famously known that Kruschev lied, confirmed with the opening of the Soviet Archives.

                      Can you provide details/sources for this? It'd be useful for dealing with a Khrushchev stan I know.

                      • I have not read this book, fair warning, but Kruschev Lied is hosted over on Prolewiki.

                        While less directly related to Kruschev himself, Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend is another book hosted on Prolewiki, though again I have not yet read it.

                        From seeing individual debunks of Kruschev over time, I was confident enough to say he lied, but for sources I would like to see a specific claim about Kruschev that can be debunked. I have not seen significant debunkings of either book I listed either, just political disagreement with the authors.

                        I would also read the ProleWiki article on Kruschev himself, even ignoring the wrecking he did in the party, even if he was 100% honest about Stalin, he still made opportunist reforms that helped spell the beginning of the end of the USSR.

                        Let me know if that helps and answers your question!

                • Theses:

                  1. Anarchism, in the course of the 35 to 40 years (Bakunin and the International, 1866–) of its existence (and with Stirner included, in the course of many more years) has produced nothing but general platitudes against exploitation.

                  These phrases have been current for more than 2,000 years. What is missing is (alpha) an understanding of the causes of exploitation; (beta) an understanding of the development of society, which leads to socialism; (gamma) an understanding of the class struggle as the creative force for the realisation of socialism.

                  1. An understanding of the causes of exploitation. Private property as the basis of commodity economy. Social property in the means of production. In anarchism–nil.

                  Anarchism is bourgeois individualism in reverse. Individualism as the basis of the entire anarchist world outlook.

                  { Defence of petty property and petty economy on the land. Keine Majorität.[1] Negation of the unifying and organising power of the authority.}

                  1. Failure to understand the development of society–the role of large-scale production–the development of capitalism into socialism.

                  (Anarchism is a product of despair. The psychology of the unsettled intellectual or the vagabond and not of the proletarian.)

                  1. Failure to understand the class struggle of the proletariat.

                  Absurd negation of politics in bourgeois society.

                  Failure to understand the role of the organisation and the education of the workers.

                  Panaceas consisting of one-sided, disconnected means.

                  1. What has anarchism, at one time dominant in the Romance countries, contributed in recent European history?

                  – No doctrine, revolutionary teaching, or theory.

                  – Fragmentation of the working-class movement.

                  – Complete fiasco in the experiments of the revolutionary movement (Proudhonism, 1871; Bakuninism, 1873).

                  – Subordination of the working class to bourgeois politics in the guise of negation of politics.

          • This is a fascinating document that merits detailed research and discussion.

            My whole point on the Xinjiang topic was that you all chose to ignore chinese history that goes pretty much as far as we have written history of it, explaining the whole way of dealing with minorities by forced assimilation, coming from the clanic and dynastic organization of Chinese provinces for millenias.

            Ahh, yes, the devious Oriental and their ancient murderous ways. Come the fuck on, this is Klan shit. Contemporary Chinese people are genocidal because the fucking Yuan dynasty was genocidal? Because Cao Cao was a shithead? Because Kublai Khan was a jerk?

            I'm also pushing for the Xinjiang to reach the independence they're fighting for for almost a century now

            This is like the State Department's in-house version of the Chronicles of Narnia.

            Meanwhile, while you're being armchair leftists just spreading your ignorance online, people like me, actual leftists, are outside forming people in popular education associations, working in unions and syndicates to actually change the political discourse.

            We need to do research on how "I, the only true Lefists, actually goes outside while you, redfash-libero-tankie-jerklords, do not have any subjective understanding of the color green" and how people just develop this absolutely iron-clad believe that they or their in-group are the only people who do any kind of activism. This has to get down to some primal construction of in-group / out-group dynamics

            By your logic you'd have sided with the nazis because they were fighting against most western countries while ignoring the fact that they were also kind of putting jews in ovens. Your stance is nonsense.

            You guys are red-fash tankies just like the Soviets who bore the overwhelming brunt of fighting against the Hitlerites, liberated the death camps, and along with the Dominican Republic were the only country in the world that didn't establish quotas on Jewish refugees and accepted everyone who managed to reach the borders!

            Sure, the nazis didn't justify their actions by saying they were fighting against a global elite that oppressed the poor german people.

            Anti-Capitalism is exactly the same as Anti-semitism. I am a real leftist and I am very well read and have a good concept of theory

            I can continue dunking on your ignorant asses all day if you want

            Honestly, this is possibly the most fascinating thing every posted on Hexbear. This isn't just brainworms, this is like brain Shai-Hulud. This is the grandfather brainworms. Just reading this I've got a contact high of the awareness-spectrum narcotic the spice melange. I'm pretty sure I could drive to Chicago without GPS maps and without getting stuck in construction right now.

          • You "Bad word people!" --> you Bad word people , because you defend Geopolitcial Entity that did not declear war on Hitler instantly under special "HITLER" causus belli !!!!

            You are Not good people like i am !

            I am good person because i strongly condem every single thing that my offical geopolitical enemy did!!!

            Just name something that communist did , i will condem it! . thats why you are not communist , i am !

            you should all die !

            And if i say that , you really have to die , because i am good ! And even i want you to die , so you must be really bad.

            Also not Communist.

          • lmao nerd

      • I'm genuinely impressed.

        Reaction formation

      • What is the Third Estate? Everything.

        What has it been hitherto in the political order? Nothing.

        What does it desire to be? To become something.

167 comments