• Sprinklebump@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    No you are not a tankie. You are very painfully a liberal.

    Please keep reading and understand there is a difference between authoritarian communism and communism

    Please see Thomas Sankara.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sankara

    • robinn2 [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I was trolling. Thomas Sankara was executed in a U.S.-backed coup. Do you think maybe he should have exercised more authority, better strengthened defenses and built up a stronger base for combatting imperialism, that he could have avoided this (I don’t have an exact policy path, and it’s not like Sankara didn’t put down certain reactionary movements when necessary)? I’m sympathetic to Sankara of course, but if your ideal system of resisting authority succumbs to counter-authority, then maybe you don’t have grounds to condemn greater authority exercised to these ends. I don’t know how a “communist” could see authority in a vacuum to the point of accepting “authoritarianism” as anything other than the singling out of the authority of certain systems over others in safeguarding and expanding interests.

      • Sprinklebump@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I was trolling

        Your not doing very good job. Your just coming off as an idiot too me.

        Do you think maybe he should have exercised more authority, better strengthened defenses and built up a stronger base for combatting imperialism, that he could have avoided this (I don’t have an exact policy path, and it’s not like Sankara didn’t put down certain reactionary movements when necessary)?

        Can you be more concise? Your run on sentences make me want to stop talking to you.

        Im not here to go over the specifics of Sankaras’s Decisons: But From what I do know. He fought corruption, he pushed literacy programs and fought malnutrition. All While resistsing western imperialsm.

        Im sure he made mistakes and did some problematic things. As an anarchist I can appreicate the good things he did and be open to the concept that he also did bad things as well.

        Just like the USSR CPC and other communist governments.

        I’m sympathetic to Sankara of course, but if your ideal system of resisting authority succumbs to counter-authority, then maybe you don’t have grounds to condemn greater authority exercised to these ends.

        Your going to have to rewrite, this i dont understand what you are saying. Are you referring to me or Sankara?

        • robinn2 [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Your just coming off as an idiot too me.

          speech-r clueless

          Other people understood that I was being sarcastic as well.

          Can you be more concise? Your run on sentences make me want to stop talking to you.

          And you dishonestly dismissing my direct response proving you were incorrect about Hexbear critiquing Russia/China makes me want to stop talking to you, yet here we are.

          Im not here to go over the specifics of Sankaras’s Decisons: But From what I do know. He fought corruption, he pushed literacy programs and fought malnutrition. All While resistsing western imperialsm. Im sure he made mistakes and did some problematic things. As an anarchist I can appreicate the good things he did and be open to the concept that he also did bad things as well. Just like the USSR CPC and other communist governments.

          Why did you single Sankara’s Burkina Faso out when speaking of exceptions to authoritarian communism, yet now defend your position by tying it into the CPC, which you specifically called “authoritarian”?

          Your going to have to rewrite, this i dont understand what you are saying. Are you referring to me or Sankara?

          Rephrased: If your one exception to “authoritarian communism” is a government that was overthrown by imperialism, what does this say about the use of authority in revolutionary states?

          • Sprinklebump@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Other people understood that I was being sarcastic as well.

            Well you got me. Maybe im not in the mood for jokes. I am so tired of having these conversation. It makes me so sad to see people supporting these countries.

            Russia and china are not examples of a good government. Neither is the usa. I feel like im taking crazy pills.

            Why did you single Sankara’s Burkina Faso out when speaking of exceptions to authoritarian communism

            Because i know about him and agree with many things that he did. Not everything, but he didnt build an imperialst nation. He fought for literacy and nutrition and anti corruption.

            He didnt build a survelence network or invade another nation to my knowledge.

            He fought for his people using the principles revolutionary communism and ML. This I support.

            Just like i can recognize that the CPC does provide many valuable things to it citizens . While also recognizing that they are still authoritarnian.

            Rephrased: If your one exception to “authoritarian communism” is a government that was overthrown by imperialism, what does this say about the use of authority in revolutionary states?

            I dont know. Im not here to tell you how sankara could of avoided assassination. But I do feel that acting like Sankara is the same as the cpc/russia in any real way is kinda absurd.

            Cuba is better example of communism than cpc. Once again they have problems.

            Ultimately i am an anarchist, i dont think communism is the solution long term, but i would work with communists, As long as they didnt support large authoritarian governments.

            • robinn2 [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              But I do feel that acting like Sankara is the same as the cpc/russia in any real way is kinda absurd.

              What are your specific critiques of the CPC? What abuses of authority do you point out?

              Ultimately i am an anarchist, i dont think communism is the solution long term

              Do you mean socialism? Communism is the absence of the state and the withering away of class distinctions.

              • Sprinklebump@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

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

                So is the USSR not communist by your definition?

                • robinn2 [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It was communist in the sense that it was commanded by a communist party and was oriented towards communism (some would say socialist-oriented rather than socialist), but it had not achieved “communism”, and was squarely in the socialist camp with the proletarian monopoly on capital (USSR literally means United Socialist Workers Republics). I would have no issue with you stating the USSR was communist in the same way Vietnam could be called socialist (in goal and in guidance), but stating that “communism isn’t the solution long term” makes no sense. Do you understand the distinction?

                  • Sprinklebump@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    but stating that “communism isn’t the solution long term” makes no sense. Do you understand the distinction?

                    I feel this is like syamtics. Anarchist are socialists as well. but if some told me “I dont think anarchy is the way foward”

                    I dont think it would be fair for me to say to " no you mean socialism, Anarchy is the Goal! not the current situation"

                    It doesnt make sense to think that communism isnt the solution? This makes me feel like communists are unable to have real discussion with anarchists about the flaws within communism.

                    I feel anarchy is the only real way to gaurentee long term that people will be continually liberated. I think that any real hierarchical system will enventually turn back into a police state. We saw this in the USSR. And we see in in the CPC too.

                    They once had revolutionary components which I support. But those begin to dwindle the minute they took power and likey before.

                    From the origins of revolutionary communism came a police state. How do MLs deal with the flaws shown in The USSR? By saying that it wasn’t communist?

                    This is what I mean when I say i dont think communism is the solution long term. That communists governments have a tendency to turn toward police states. Call it what you want but lenin was a marxist from my understanding and marxist are considered communists. Right?

                  • Catweazle@social.vivaldi.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    @robinn2 @Sprinklebump, it is because it is so easy to deceive people with labels, be it socialism, communism or democracy. All of them have been or are dictatorships ruled by an elite. It does not matter a “communism” where an elite of supposed representatives governs or a democracy where these representatives of lobbies govern instead of the people.
                    A country where there is no sovereignty of the people is still a feudal dictatorship of capital, that sooner or later always fails.

        • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The last part reads as being in reference to you, since the socialist states you hate took measures to survive whereas ones like Allende’s Chile folded and their progress brutally reversed.

          If Sankara had been more effective in protecting the revolution, you very likely would hate him too because he would be smeared just like Fidel and the rest as “authoritarian” etc. Imo this wouldn’t be because of whatever specific measures he took, but the mere fact that he would have posed a more substantial ideological threat to the west for living and being able to keep making progress.

    • ShimmeringKoi [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      We’ve read plenty of Sankara, time you to to read a little Jakarta Method

      This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask:

      “Who was right?”

      In Guatemala, was it Árbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?

      Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead. They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit’s unarmed party didn’t survive. Allende’s democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the détente between the Soviets and Washington.

      Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported—what the rich countries said, rather than what they did. That group was annihilated.