Apologies to the mods.
this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2025
605 points (90.6% liked)
Fediverse memes
1190 readers
407 users here now
Memes about the Fediverse.
Rules
General
- Be respectful
- Post on topic
- No bigotry or hate speech
Specific
- We are not YPTB. If you have a problem with the way an instance or community is run, then take it up over at [email protected].
- Addendum: Yes we know that you think ml/hexbear/grad are tankies and or .world are a bunch of liberals but it gets old quickly. Try and come up with new material.
Elsewhere in the Fediverse
Other relevant communities:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
founded 6 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I would never call a leftist a "tankie" because they are a leftist. People who do that are idiots. The important part of the word is the support of authoritarian regimes.
Which is pretty weird nowadays because neither Russia, China nor North Korea are even communist/leftist anymore.
China and the DPRK are still Socialist, though different forms. China has a Socialist Market Economy, the DPRK is closer to the Soviet model. Russia is no longer Socialist, that is correct, but is occasionally seen as a temporary ally as they seek to destabilize US Hegemony, a goal they seek for profit and Leftists seek so that Socialism has a better chance worldwide.
If you define leftism as a pure economy model, then you could call right-wing authoritarian countries with state-controlled economies "socialist" which makes no sense.
I don't know what you mean by a "pure economy model" or how a fully publicly owned economy would be right wing, unless it's a different form of ownership like Monarchism.
That isn't true though: the Nordic countries are undeniably authoritarian from a leftist perspective, but you never see Nordic model socdems being called "tankies". Failed leftist projects like Catalonia or the Paris Commune were also undeniably "authoritarian" by the definition applied to more successful projects, but supporters of them are never called tankies. The Black Panthers, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, all supported "authoritarian regimes"
What it really boils down to is serious opposition to Western liberalism.
China is communist, and there's a reason authoritarianism exists in those spaces. That reason is the US, which spends unlimited amounts of money to upkeep their war economy that they haven't cooled off since ww2.
Absent constant attacks there's a good chance authoritarianism wouldn't have ever developed in those spaces. But since someone keeps funding scorned previously rich fucks to start counterrevolutions, it has to exist. A necessary evil until the us and west kill themselves.
China isnt communist, not with their actions, not with their economy, not with their society, not with their diplomacy and not even with their politics, communist in name and propaganda only
China is Socialist, and is still trying to build Communism. I am not sure what you are referring to by their "actions."
Their economy has large firms firmly in the public sector, with the private sector being made up primarily of sole proprietorships and small businesses or cooperatives. This is classical Marxism, you can't kill an economy into being developed enough for public ownership nor can you outlaw small businesses into large ones. Marx believed markets were the key to laying the foundations for public ownership, and here we are.
Not sure what you mean by "their society," if I were being dishonest I would say that smells of Western Exceptionalist chauvanism.
Their diplomacy is pretty damn peaceful, they have only a handful of millitary bases worldwide, and instead go for multilateralism.
I don't know what you mean by "politics," here, this is more vagueness.
60% of the economy being owned by the people exclusively for the benefit of the people isn't communist?
Please point out where in the manifesto you dozed off.
No
Percentage wise doesn't determine it, correct, but China is Socialist because the vast majority of its large firms and key industries are Publicly Owned, and the private sector is mainly cooperatives, sole proprietorships, and small businesses. Marx believed markets centralize themselves, meaning over time more can be publicly planned in an efficient manner.
Marx believed that Socialism means that the workers own the means of production.
In China the communist party owns 60% of the economy, and the rest of the economy is hosting 406 billionaires.
I want you to look at the bolded word. Why did Marx say by degree? Did he think on day 1, businesses named A-C are nationalized, day 2 businesses D-E, etc etc? No. Marx believed that it is through nationalizing of the large firms that would be done immediately, and gradually as the small firms develop, they too can be folded into the public sector. The path to eliminated Private Property isn't to make it illegal, but to develop out of it.
This is why, in the previous paragraph, Marx described public seizure in degrees, but raising the level of the productive forces as rapidly as possible.
China does have Billionaires, but these billionaires do not control key industries, nor vast megacorps. The number of billionaires is actually shrinking in the last few years. Instead, large firms and key industries are publicly owned, and small firms are privately owned. This is Marxism.
ask me for citations if you want to see why I think this
Communism is a classless stateless society. China has a vanguard party, and any attempts to protest. Run against it, or run outside it will result in torture, imprisonment, and death. The vanguard and their oligarch pals are a separate class from a Chinese citizen. Not classless, not communist. China is a state. Literally not stateless, literally not communist.
The reason authoritarianism exists there is because the military overthrew the emperor/tsar and put themselves in power. And militaries function via authority. It's got nothing to do with WWII or western powers. They did it to themselves.
It's funny how leninist etc clutch their pearls and bemoan the wests trepidation towards them. When they're perfectly innocent. After all, who doesn't forcefully annex much of Eastern Europe?
Not saying the west has never overstepped it's bounds or fucked up. Not at all. Just that leninist are the wests hypocritical equal.
Of course, China is not a "communist country" in the sense that it has achieved communism - in that sense, "communist country" is a contradiction in terms and no country could ever be communist, because communism is stateless. When people describe countries as communist, what they mean is that the leaders profess belief in communist ideology, that is, a country that is run by communists.
China has not achieved a global, publicly owned and planned economy, no, but is still working towards that, as Marxists would, through Socialism.
First of all, the state and government are not the same thing, and parties are not classes either. The State is the aspect of society that enforces class distinctions, classes themselves being relations to ownership. The way Marx believed we could get to statelessness is by nationalizing the large industries and firms that are already built up enough for central planning to work, and let the small firms compete and grow until they reach that point. This is what China's economy looks like.
I think if you listened more to what Marxists believe, you'd be more likely to succeed in leftist organizing in real life (if you do any).
Stop. Bad radlib.
Read chinese history. Try again. When you can't even use wikipedia to support your ridiculous misconception of history I don't care about anything else you say.
I'm a communist / anarchist. Try again? Or are strawman all you have?
Cool. So you'd support a popular, citizen lead uprising that had to convince illiterate farmers to take up arms against western funded and armed authoritarian monarchists and then establishing a state to deal with the now 1 billion people that statistically knew nothing but farming while introducing them to higher level concepts like the existence of police or government they can participate in or what their taxes even do, right?
Hell if you were a communist you'd have some response to how to deal with an international, infinitely funded threat actor right?
You wouldn't be stuck at the idea that you can go from agrarian subsistence farmers to post scarcity mutual aid communes, right? You wouldn't be dumb enough to think that you even have the capability to defend yourself and you local community, much less a revolution, without a clear state hierarchy in place for mass coordination and communication, right? You'd be smart enough to know why stateless communities cannot exist in any world where a single stated capitalist actor exists, right?
There was no strawman, by the way, cosplayer. You repeat the empires propaganda like a lib, you repeat their ideology word for word, it doesn't matter what you call yourself.
A citizen military is still a citizen military. The military is not a democracy. They didn't win with luck dragons and unicorns. And did not disband to Institute actual democracy. Whether or not they started out as Citizens doesn't disprove what I said. It's a red herring.
No one asked my response, least of all you. Again with more red herrings and straw man attacks. Anyhow I've got better things to do then toy further with you.
China has actual democracy, you can watch their fucking votes for fucks sake. Bye bye radlib. Hope you get over your programming someday.