this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2025
127 points (73.8% liked)
Memes
53102 readers
406 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I love how you completely avoided all of my points, only to say that you have a few communist friends so that makes you not an anti-communist. We have no way of knowing if your friends have views in line with the vast majority of communists, what tendency they follow, etc. It's just a way for you to dodge the argument entirely and never need to question your preconcieved biases.
Nico198X (noun): a person who ties themselves in knots so they can feel good about supporting authoritarian despots while wearing a red scarf.
See? I can make lazy ad-hominems too, it doesn't actually address the arguments at hand.
all you've shown is that you lack reading comprehension.
no one needs your approval or vetting, and you don't define what a Leftist, Communist or Socialist is.
yes, i'm "biased" against authoritarian despots.
it's not a lazy ad-hominem, it's exactly what you are. you love despots that gulag ppl. you love that shit. just say it. Stalin, Mao, Kim dynasty, you love them.
The one who lacks reading comprehension is you. No one needs your approval or vetting. I am simply stating that if the broad majority of communists globally agree with me, then the specific issues you take with me that also apply to the broad majority of communists go hand in hand as you being anti-communist. It isn't about definition, nor do I claim a higher authority, I claim that my views are very standard for communists and as such calling me a pejorative for communist makes you to an extent anti-communist.
It is lazy ad-hominem. You're directly trying to undermine my points by attacking my character. That's what you came here to do, attack my character to prevent people from responding. It's childish, and now that it evidently isn't working, you're trying to get in a few quick jabs on your way out.
it already worked. you are what you are. you show it every time you are pushed.
you love despots that gulag ppl. you love that shit. just say it. Stalin, Mao, Kim dynasty, you love them.
This is really getting sad, you're starting to mald, cope, and seethe because nobody is agreeing with you. I hold similar views to the majority of Marxist-Leninists on Stalin, Mao, and the Kim family.
lol now THERE'S projection and ad hominem. you're worse than i originally feared. that's incredibly sad.
ok, all done here then.
Why do all you people talk in the same cringey pseudo-Joss Weadon loser speak?
don't even know what you're talking about.
here are all your .ml "fence-sitting" buddies to pile on now, Cowbee.
this is so predictably tedious.
What a fucking loser
wow, you got me
I'm worse than you feared because I'm what I've said I was the entire time? A Marxist-Leninist? How is this not an admission of anti-communism?
no, because in your previous comment you became a tantruming child.
not everything is about you being a communist. XD are you seriously just fishing for persecution? come on, man.
How?
ugh. look, let's just focus on the other thread, ok? seems more productive. we need to wrap this up.
Fair.
No it isn't, not even remotely
I agree, but if at the end of this I can get them to reconsider their position I'll consider it a win. Different strategies work on different people, some genuinely learn after being called out on their bullshit aggressively, others need a gentle hand, I figure if I stick with being patient and others less so the net has fewer holes.
Edit: looks like it worked out this time, at least to a degree.
The US literally has a higher incarceration rate than China or than USSR did under Stalin, but do go on. Really highlighting the quality of your intellect here.
thanks, we're not talking about that right now. also, don't let cowbee see your ad hominem, he really hates that.
No we are literally talking about that right now because you're braying about gulags here. Also, learn what ad hominem is if you're going to use it. Ad hominem would be me saying your argument is wrong because you're an imbecile. I'm addressing your argument directly on its own merits while highlighting the fact that you are in fact an imbecile. It's perhaps too subtle a difference for you to grasp given the limitations.
no, literally not relevant to this conversation since they're not political prisoners.
muting you now since you have no idea what you're talking about.
It's absolutely adorable that somebody could be so utterly ignorant as to think that the west doesn't hold political prisoners.
as for your "points," they're not points, just you declaring a bunch of bullshit. that's why they're not addressed.
More ad-hominem. Rather than explaining why the points are "bullshit," you just attack me personally and make excuses for why you can't respond.
it's not an ad hominem, for goodness sake, get it right. it's not an attack on your person or character.
i consider what you said non-sequitous poppycock. i reject your statements out of hand.
"all states are authoritarian." this is the kind of vacuous nonsense you create to support your paradigm.
It's absolutely an attack on my character, you opened this conversation attacking me with an anti-communist pejorative and have refused to engage with my points, preferring to just call them "divorced from reality" and "vacuous nonsense" as though those rhetorical attacks erase the points raised.
I backed up why I said all states are authoritarian: all are instruments by which the ruling class oppresses others and retains control, and the degree to which it oppresses is aligned with the degree to which it is opposed. I even used Germany as an example, Nazi Germany wasn't more oppressive because they wanted to be, but because the bourgeoisie was responding to a crisis in their mode of production and needed to violently assert itself, but the mode of production fundamentally did not change.
it's not an anti-communist pejorative. it's an anti-authoritarian pejorative. but for you, it's the same, because you're an authoritarian who supports other authoritarians as long as they are red.
look, saying "all states are authoritarian" is something YOU assumed. you'd need to prove that first before we even get to anything else.
socailist thought, political parties, gatherings, etc, can all exist in liberal democracies. that's not the mark of authoritarianism.
i suspect you will say they exist to the extent that they are not a threat to the capitalists, but will be crushed if they were to actually gain power.
then i'd say you'd still need to prove that also, but first, how about getting a populace to actually vote for your views and win elections before crying foul.
whereas in an authoritarian state, straight to the gulag or shot. ie. Stalin, Mao, Kim, your heroes.
"Tankie" is absolutely an anti-communist pejorative, it's used for the same people that have been called "reds," "pinkos," "commies," etc. It's levied at supporters of existing socialist systems, which includes the likes of W.E.B. Dubois, Nelson Mandela, Fanon, Malcolm X, etc.
As for saying all states are authoritarian, I did prove it. Do you disagree with the notion that all states are elements of class oppression, and that whichever class controls the state oppresses the rest? That's the standard Marxist position, which since you're not a Marxist it's understandable that you wouldn't, but it would be best for you to be honest about your anti-communism.
I actually agree with this, yes.
Why would Marxists try to accomplish something proven to never work in theory nor in practice? The principles of Marxism are to unite unity and practice, learn from the past and apply it to the present. Why would we not learn from the failures of electoral socialism learned by the coup against Salvador Allende in Chile? Why would we not learn from the success of revolutionaries?
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tankie
not that UD is some kind of godly authority, but in my experience this is the common historical meaning, specifically in contrast of other communists. if ppl use it to deride all communists, i can't speak to that, but it would not be accurate. as i've said, i associate with non-tankie and former tankie Commies.
you never acknowledge this and prefer to wash it all away by claiming it's an empty slur against all Commies, which is pretty divorced from the overarching context.
re: authoritarian states
you didn't prove it, you made a claim and presented evidence.
i am not yet convinced of your (Marxist) claim that "all states are elements of class oppression, and that whichever class controls the state oppresses the rest."
if i were anti-communist, i'd just tell you. but you are correct that i am not communist, nor socialist. not yet at least, mostly due to tankies. we've had this discussion before, i don't particularly want to drag this on.
re: practice
then why not learn from the failings of the USSR, DPRK, PRC in their human rights violations? that would make we take your position more to heart, because when you can't do that, it makes everything else you say empty, because you remain inhuman in your willingness to oppress others.
red boots, blue boots, still boots.
The UD definition outright states that "tankies" are those who are inflexible and incapable of nuance or critique, so I am not a "tankie" according to your UD link. The vast majority of communists are supportive of AES states, while providing genuine critique, which is what I do as well. Your only rhetorical purpose in calling me a "tankie" is to erase the nuanced critique I provide of AES states and replace it with some dogmatic version of myself, one that doesn't exist anywhere except your mind.
You cling to this caricature because it's integral to your points, if it turns out that I am indeed capable of nuance and critique but just disagree with you, then you have to actually engage with my points. You use "tankie" as a thought-terminating cliché and a cover for you being blanketly anti-communist.
As for authoritarianism, you just dismissed my points out of hand and never engaged with them. As far as I know, this is the first time we've had this conversation, unless you've changed your username or something. I don't really remember everyone I talk to. If you have critique or a counter-argument, I'd appreciate that, as of now you just insult me for making a point and backing it with evidence.
You may not want to think of yourself as anti-communist, but if you oppose the vast majority of communists theoretically and in practice, then you're anti-communist. It isn't like you're just ambivalent, you have stances. It seems more likely that you just don't want to take on the label of anti-communist, while being an anti-communist in action.
As for critique, I do. I don't agree with the standard western narratives surrounding AES failures, but I do agree with real critiques based in material reality. Me dismissing bourgeois narratives and doing so with evidence doesn't mean I am incapable of critique, just that I believe the baseline for that critique is different in character. I find that it's usually Marxist-Leninists that are the most critical of AES along genuine lines, as we've done the due dilligence of sepparating fact from fiction so we can learn what went wrong and what went right.
As an example, early revolutionary Cuba was quite homophobic, based on machismo. Homosexuals were persecuted and jailed. Over time, this was seen as an error, and now Cuba has one of the most progressive family codes in the world, with Fidel himself recognizing it as a horrible mistake that needed to be rectified.
You don't see that critique, though. You've already invented a version of me in your head, and are arguing against it. It's dishonest.
re: tankie
i don't do any of that, but that is your go-to response for the term.
this has come of my lived experience of interacting with you. it has been what you have put forth to me in your full-throated support of, as you say, AES states.
NOW, having said that, if you have some examples to show me of your nuanced critique of the human rights abuses of these authoritarian states, i'd actually love to see them. they did not come up in our last interaction. maybe they will change my view of you and of your brand of communism.
re: authoritarianism
we have interacted in the past, and of course you wouldn't recall. no reason you would, and that's totally ok. but you are active enough i'm sure you realize that ppl remember you.
i'm ok with being anti-communist if that is indeed what i am. but because i am actively inquiring into Socialist thought to see if i can be Socialist, it's just not a category i am sure of yet (either pro/anti communism, socialism, insert-Leftist-ideology-here, etc). i do know i am anti-authoritarian, and that will not change.
re: critique
"I find that it's usually Marxist-Leninists that are the most critical of AES along genuine lines, as we've done the due dilligence of sepparating fact from fiction so we can learn what went wrong and what went right."
i've heard you say this before. it strikes me as a bit hubristic and if i were you i'd remain concerned about the accuracy of reports/data from AES states, same as i don't trust the US's opinion of itself.
nevertheless, i remain open and interested in what you can present of this.
Re: "tankies"
I support AES, like the overwhelming majority of Marxist-Leninists, who in turn make up the overwhelming majority of Marxists, to begin with. I don't know what you mean by "full-throated." Do you mean I am loudly supportive, or uncritically supportive? If it's the former, I should hope so! A better world is possible! I refuse to cede ground to those whose stances align more with bourgeois narratives about AES states than proletarian narratives.
If it's the latter, then I disagree vehemontly. Criticism and self-criticism are core principles of Marxism-Leninism. The CPC, the largest Marxist-Leninist party in the world at ~96 million members, paints both Stalin and Mao at "70% good, 30% bad." That's hardly uncritical support. What is opposed is dogmatic rejection of socialist leaders. Critique based on dogma cedes the narrative to the bourgeoisie.
As far as examples, I already noted early Cuba's homophobia, the same applies to the Soviet Union (though some areas like the GDR became more progressive over time, and the USSR in general was extremely progressive from a feminist point of view compared to its peers), and the PRC as well, as an example. Socially, the PRC is behind Cuba and Vietnam, despite having a better economic model. Things are improving steadily, but they have a long way to go.
Does that satisfy, or are you just going to endlessly move the goalposts?
Re: "authoritarianism"
Marxist-Leninists are anti-authoritarian too. Hear it straight from Lenin:
Since all states are authoritarian, we need to abolish the state. But, we can only do that once class ceases to exist, and we can only do so once everyone's social relation to production is interchangeable and the same, ie a classless society based on collectivization. The goal of socialism is to accomplish this, and until all property is sublimated there will be class, and as such until then the state will remain, as it must.
If you're actively inquiring into socialist thought, then you owe it to yourself to explore Marxism-Leninism. It's the most significant and largest branch of Marxism, which in turn is the most significant and largest umbrella under the "socialist" banner. Here's an introductory ML reading list I made, check it out if you wish. If you're "anti-authoritarian," then you should explore what that actually means, beyond just supporting systems when they aren't in crisis and going back on that when they are (see the Nazi Germany vs. Modern Germany example for what I mean, both are equally "authoritarian" in that their class structure is the same but the extent of oppression was based on circumstance)
Re: Critique
I don't purely trust data from AES, I trust data that has significant historical evidence. This is hard to prove without specific examples, but in absence of that, here's my critique of the Gang of Four period of the PRC:
That should cover it, I think?
"Does that satisfy, or are you just going to endlessly move the goalposts?"
don't do this. do you want to de-escalate or not? stay on topic.
is it satisfactory? not really, but i don't expect you to dump a treatise on a chat board.
i want particular looks into political persecutions in these states, cults of personalities, corruption and abuse of powers, imbalanced relationships between Russia and other USSR states, treatment of Uyghurs, China's social cred system, these kinds of items.
i do NOT expect you to address any of these items here, and i'm not asking you to.
you will say that my views are tainted by biased capitalist propaganda. if that's true, where would you suggest i go to get information on these topics? mind you, i will look very askance at anything that is coming from a socialist echo chamber, since they will also have their own biases.
re: authoritarianism
i hear what you're saying. good thoughts.
re: critique
yes, this is much better. deeper, more nuanced.
I'm not really trying to escalate or de-escalate. My goal is to either get you to walk away with a more nuanced understanding, one that adheres closer to reality, or to give onlookers good information. That's why I usually include a good amount of links and resources, even if I don't expect everyone I talk to to go in and read them. I've been directly thanked by other users for doing what I do and giving them new perspective or changing their minds, including users I have never spoken with previously, so I know my strategy has teeth to it. I may stumble in some conversations or do well in others, but as a net result, I can take pride in knowing thay my strategy is sound.
Either way, I would certainly hope you look at Marxist sources critically. All sources are biased, so it's better to be honest about it. One of Mao's more important texts that absolutely holds up today is Oppose Book Worship. A dogmatic comrade is more of an enemy than an ally, dogmatism leads to errors in judgement, and these errors in judgement lead to taking those who aren't actually enemies and are in fact potential allies as enemies.
For an example of this disastrous method in practice, see the Communist Party of Peru - Shining Path, who took the peasantry as reactionary and murdered 69 people in the Lucanamarca massacre due to the CPP-SP's adoption of the Gonzaloist tendency "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism." This is not to be confused with Marxism-Leninism/Mao Zedong Thought, which is the ideology of the CPC (or, currently, Marxism-Leninism/Xi Jinping Thought, which synthesizes Mao Zedong Thought with Deng Xiaoping Theory for Socialism With Chinese Characteristics), "Maoism" is an Ultraleft tendency. "Ultraleftism" is taken very seriously as a threat to the communist movement.
Either way, I recommend reading ProleWiki, Qiao Collective, Red Sails, Liberation News, Fight Back! News, Comrade's Library, and, of course, the theoretical texts written by Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. (here collected on ProleWiki). There are of course many more sources you can check, but these are all explicitly Marxist-Leninist sources, from theory to essays to news articles to encyclopedia entries from a leftist perspective.
Read them critically, but check the cited sources, look for holes and gaps, don't just blindly reject or accept them. Critical reading is important for everyone, not just leftists. Any reading where you aren't engaging with the text and just uncritically absorbing it is book worship, and should be opposed strongly.
we're hitting a good point here, just recognize that and don't ruin it.
good stuff here. thanks. i'll add them to my inquiry list.
let's stop here before it gets ruined. XD
until the next time!
Fair enough. As of the time I write this comment, I have actually expanded the comment and fleshed it out more with good articles to explain some nuances I left hanging that can be confusing without a background in Marxism, so I recommend re-checking it.