Cowbee

How?

The Communist Manifesto was written as an explicit response to capitalism. Marx's most important work is Capital. Returning to early cooperative societies is not what the Marxist position is, it's taking advantage of industrialization and instead collectivizing and planning society using what was created under conditions of capitalism as a base. Capitalism has indeed been monstrously damaging, but with the bad came the conditions for socialism.

You should read the Communist Manifesto, and history books as well.

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.

I don't really agree with replacing one country's capitalist big-tech with other capitalist big-tech. The FOSS alternatives I agree with, but not European big-tech.

All of the readers who have popped by seem to be siding with me, that's why I question your strategy here. Your arguments have fallen so flat they've legitimized me, if that's not a strategic failure I'm not sure what is.

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?

"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 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.

I actually agree with this, yes.

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.

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?

If everyone here is a communist, then again, which bystanders are you trying to convert? The rest of your comment is more dodging, and calling polls "cherry picked" even after proving that the data is actually towards the median sample size for high-confidence data. This is silly.

No, again, the original comment:

The majority of people that lived in the Soviet Union want it back.

Additionally, over 90% of Chinese citizens support their system.

No, again, the original comment:

The majority of people that lived in the Soviet Union want it back.

Additionally, over 90% of Chinese citizens support their system.

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.

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.