Don’t call them traitors or I’m gonna critically support

Bad

Edit: for all of the people praising “Taiwanese independence”, read this. Also, status quo is not “static” quo; we exist in the status quo where people are under the illusion of capitalism, of the propaganda of the capitalists and in this case of the US, which is continually provoking separatism, and which originally backed the KMT (for the continuation of semi-colonialism/feudalism) from which separatism stems (with the KMT performing numerous massacres against opposition); the visage of Chiang Kai-shek sits on physical Taiwan currency. Still, “臺灣民眾統獨立場趨勢分佈”, conducted by Taiwan’s National Chengchi University, an explicitly anti-CPC source, in 2022, showed the following results with regards to the perspective of Taiwanese citizens on independence and reunification: (Status Quo as Autonomous Part of China and Complete Unification Compiled [part of PRC] : 63.4%) (General Support for Independence Including Status Quo Moving Towards Independence [not part of PRC]: 30.3%) (Non-Response: 6.3%). Here we can see that in public opinion, remaining a part of the PRC has over double the support to becoming independent or pursuing independence at a later date, although support for total reunification is low, hence the policy of two systems being maintained to an even greater extent than with regards to Hong Kong, although accusations of military provocations by the mainland of China are alleged despite there being no examples of this.

You sound like a jackass when you write this way. imo.

Thx.

• On ‘whataboutism’ as nonsense

You didn’t address the connection between the racism in the anarchist critique of Bolshevism and fascism, which I linked a full explanation of. I already discredited Goldman by showing that the “martyr” she was praising was involved in an organization that was actively bombing communist institutions (she didn’t mention this, and pointing this out is not whataboutism but again, a basic call for consistency). You didn’t address this. And “authoritarianism” will never be a real concept; it’s just the ignorance of authority to which the accused movement is responding. No movement or world-historical system maintains itself without authority. I already mentioned the circumstances the Bolsheviks were under, why can’t you dispense with this idea? You know that if they let up authority for a second the white guards and imperialists would decapitate every revolutionary in sight, because revolutions are not a peaceful affair. A bombing is not slight, assassinations of revolutionaries (by SRs) could break apart the worker’s power. Anr I never said anarchist critiques of “Soviet authoritarianism” were discredited by their own use of authority (this is not authoritarian for some reason). I specifically critiqued anarchism in general as well as pointing out terrorism, which proves I never thought the latter refuted anarchist theory. Everyone recognizes that governments must use authority to maintain power, but this is exactly why the blanket opposition to authority is counterrevolutionary (it condemns the DOTB and DOTP on the same grounds and is neither revolutionary nor nuanced).

We can stop honeslty. if you believe that anarchism is eurofacism we have very little to talk about.

Great rebuttal. “Cherry pick about the racist stuff” yeah no, you clearly didn’t read what I linked about this or you would understand where this “cherrpicking” fits in.

Alls I hear is a lot of what aboutism.

God I hate that term. Demanding the mention of anarchist terrorism (including terrorism by the organization admitting several of the “victims” mentioned) rather than one-sided references to Bolshevik terrorism? A basic call for consistency? Whataboutism! By merely mentioning an informal fallacy I have torn your argument asunder! You are the one who has proven nothing.

Lenin’s warfare against Anarchist tendencies has assumed the most revolting Asiatic form of extermination […] it is for the Anarchists and AnarchoSyndicalists, in particular, imperative to take immediate action toward putting a stop to such Asiatic barbarism

Orientalism, plain and simple. Wonderful. I wasn’t able to find much information on the extolled Lev Tchorny, but his wiki states that: “On September 25, 1919, together with a number of leftist social revolutionaries, the Underground Anarchists bombed the headquarters of the Moscow Committee of the Communist Party during a plenary meeting. Twelve Communists were killed and fifty-five others were wounded, including among the wounded the eminent Bolshevik theorist and Pravda editor Nikolai Bukharin.” So the organization Tev (this wonderful anarchist martyr) was a part of was actively engaging in adventurist terrorism against the communists (and great that “rumors” are suitable for a mention in this article, classic wikipedia). Strange that Goldman adds no mention of anarchist terrorism in her letter, although perhaps this is suitable to the false narrative of Bolshevik betrayal and anarchist victimhood which she is attempting to create.

And let us assume the words of these bigoted children are true: does the undue prosecution of anarchists in the volatile beginning of the revolution when the bolsheviks were being terrorized at all sides from SR assassinations, imperialist-backed white guards, and the landed remnants of Tsardom indicate some foul and total condemnation of Marxism? Plus what relation does this have to the CPC?

the Communist Government attacked, without provocation or warning, the Anarchist Club of Moscow

No mention that the latter was mobilizing the Black Guard into a military force against the Bolsheviks. The anarchists are of course a real enemy of Marxism, in that their ultimate goal is to undermine the workers state and create a vacuum of power which may only be filled by the bourgeoisie and DOTB thereof. They are, then, the true enemy of the masses as well, since they deny the revolutionary character of the proletariat and present no alternate scientific historical framework for the inevitability of mass power, suiting themselves instead with taking up the role of the utopian socialists that Marx and Engels had banished into obscurity, then basking in their empty purity; anarchism also lends itself to Euro-fascism from this angle, which you demonstrated with your own source.

Syamtics lmao; What are the flaws within communism?

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.

Explain how we saw this; explain how you refute the question of class succession with regards to the state, or the necessity of the state in a revolutionary situation (of which we can point to numerous socialist/anarchist projects that failed due to reactionary intervention; ex. the second the Bolsheviks took power, the imperialist countries backed the white guard army to overthrow them).

I feel anarchy is the only real way to gaurentee long term that people will be continually liberated

We cannot simply look at the best potential system, but must instead analyze what trends exist and what society history is tending towards. This can only be done through the recognition of class struggle/underdevelopment as the motive force, from which it naturally follows that the proletariat will take hold of the state machinery and reconfigure/“smash” the old norms to form a truly mass “state” (which is differentiated from all former states in that it is headed by and protects the interests of the masses against the minority rather than the inverse); see Lenin’s State and Revolution.

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

I wonder why the CPC enjoys over 90% support by the people, has been able to eradicate extreme poverty, and may build a state which truly serves the people through the mass party (with ~10% as members) and mass line through all levels. Let’s talk specifics: tell me when these revolutionary components dwindled and in what way.

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?

The police perform a markedly different role under the DOTP [ex. “the behavior of the police in China was a revelation to me. They are there to protect and help the people, not to oppress them. Their courtesy was genuine; no division or suspicion exists between them and the citizens. This impressed me so much that when I returned to the United States and was met by the Tactical Squad at the San Francisco airport (they had been called out because nearly a thousand people came to the airport to welcome us back), it was brought home to me all over again that the police in our country are an occupying, repressive force” – Huey P. Newton (founder of the Black Panther Party), Revolutionary S–cide, p. 322]. Yes, Lenin was a communist, and Marxists are by definition communists, but “communism is not the answer”, if you are referring to the method and work (aka. Marxism/ML), is something that you have asserted but not proven. What holes have you exposed in the theory of Marxism? What errors in materialism and class struggle/the principle of state control have you pointed out?

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?

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.

Your just coming off as an idiot too me.

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?

what’s in good faith is citing a wikipedia article that in fact proves my point

1. It’s CPC, read a book.

2. Hexbear comments criticizing Russia and China (prepare for the goal posts to move lmao): [1] [2] [3]

Some like to call you Nazi or imperialist if you disagree with them, while in many aspects their ideology and that of their paragon countries is much closer to Nazism than that of liberal democracies like the ones you mentioned.

Unsure how this could be the case. Norway and Sweden both exploit the third world and have horribly racist attitudes towards immigration. And of course both cozy up to the United States, the country which inspired Nazi Germany in the first place [1] [2] [3].

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.

“Communist utopia” is the strawman of any support whatsoever for China and the DPRK, they’re arguing in bad faith. They know this but it will be fun to see their example (probably a shitpost from 2 years ago).

Am I a tankie? I like socialism but think communism (total state control) is too far. We need, as AOC said, “an end to unregulated capitalism”, but we can’t go the authoritarian route of China or North Korea. I envision socialism as Norway and Sweden, these nations that have achieved harmony through peace and cooperation with liberal capitalism; we need nations that don’t put down pro-democracy protests or have “socialist” attitudes around immigration/investment which restrict genuine freedom. I have seen several “tankies” (I hope I am using this right) say, verbatim, “North Korea is heaven on earth and a genuine utopia in every way”, which really worries me. I tried to show them Yeonmi Park videos and Human Rights in North Korea articles but they all just laugh at me. Honestly I’ve considered leaving this instance, since even anarchism seems too far to me (how will capitalism be regulated without a state?), plus a lot of anarchists here are tankies as well, and they have no regard for human rights or the genocide China is currently committing. My only shining light of hope is the people like you who check these attitudes with credible sources and expose these lies in detail. Slava ukraini and freedom to all!

“Economists have a singular method of procedure. There are only two kinds of institutions for them, artificial and natural. The institutions of feudalism are artificial institutions, those of the bourgeoisie are natural institutions. In this, they resemble the theologians, who likewise establish two kinds of religion. Every religion which is not theirs is an invention of men, while their own is an emanation from God. When the economists say that present-day relations – the relations of bourgeois production – are natural, they imply that these are the relations in which wealth is created and productive forces developed in conformity with the laws of nature. These relations therefore are themselves natural laws independent of the influence of time. They are eternal laws which must always govern society. Thus, there has been history, but there is no longer any” – Karl Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy

“The masses must be taught to understand the true function of prisons. Why do they exist in such numbers? What is the real underlying economic motive of crime and the official definition of types of offenders or victims? We must educate the people in the real causes of economic crimes. They must be made to realize even crimes of passion are psycho-social effects of an economic order that was decadent a hundred years ago” – George Jackson, Blood in My Eye

Police exist to uphold the status quo; the nature of the state apparatus (the police are its enforcers!) is the reconciliation of irreconcilable contradictions owing to a conflict between classes; the state apparatus is headed by the dominant class and suppresses the will of the subordinate class (the state is not an organ which sits above society but which arose from it and is alienating itself more and more from it). Which class heads the present state apparatus? Where campaign “lobbying” is a legally recognized tradition, where foreign policy is directed by corporate interests,—whether in the manner Smedley Butler describes in War is a Racket (that war is motivated by the paradoxical sale of facilitative materials for the profit of large corporations, although his solution and scale of analysis is limited), in consideration of the accompanying question of U.S. “territories” (colonies) of Guam and Puerto Rico and of integrated Hawaii which was seized in the first place for the benefit of U.S. businesses and which now has become a show place for wealthy tourists on the one hand and a platform for the suppression and empty commodification of native culture on the other, or finally in regards to the core question of imperialism, a supposedly obsolete convention really becoming more and more concentrated, that the seizure of resources and strategic positions motivated the U.S.-led wars and intervention in Afghanistan, Sudan, Libya, Chile, Nicaragua, Iraq, Somalia, Hait, etc., several of which (I am here noting Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia), can be directly traced back to a particular trust and its goals—and where the entire state machine runs (or purports to run) on the basis of a constitutional document fundamentally and explicitly favoring the creation of a civil authority working for rather than against the interests of wealth (in this vein, Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations that “civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all”), which class rules?

The police are not a force for the administration of “peace and order,” but unwitting organs employed to enforce the dominant social paradigm in the United States, which is based upon the subjugation of the proletariat and lumpenproletariat to the whim of cartels and trusts, whose aim is exploit domestic labor reserves, quell rebellion, and keep steady the flow of commodities. Everyone worships the cop/executioner who lifts murderers off of the street so that another set may take their place. The police do not exist to eliminate the underlying causes of violent crime (as well as property crime, whose motive force is more obvious), they exist to uphold the system that produces murderers while undermining disorder.

The parties represent interests separate from and under the CPC, which is one of the largest political parties on earth and comprises of a tenth of the eligible population in China. The CPC is the party which represents the majority interests of the population, of which mas multiparty organization would merely atomize and undermine socialization.

Also stop saying ‘CCP’; you are illiterate lmao.

and yet almost all of the userbase is jingoistic westerners