Cowbee

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

"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?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago (16 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 weeks ago (12 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (18 children)

Elections are not polls. Elections are more complex, driven by which party has a greater chance of making an impact. Smaller parties tend to get fewer votes not because their positions are unpopular, but because their capacity to make change is smaller. Furthermore, Marxists are, in general, against electoralism. This is fundamental to Marxism.

The sample size in the Czech poll was large enough for a coherent view of general opinions. Most professional polls are between 400 and 1000 samples:

sample size of 400 will give you a confidence interval of +/-5% 19 times out of 20 (95%)

A sample size of 1000 will give you a confidence interval of +/-3% 19 times out of 20 (95%)

This is basic statistics. If you aren't familiar enough with polling to understand degrees of confidence, then you aren't in a position to argue against the validity of polling based on sample size.

Finally, if you check the up/downvote ratios, it seems pretty much nobody is agreeing with you and everyone is agreeing with me. Your comments are having the opposite effect, they are legitimizing me. People on the fence seem to be siding with me.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

I think you're deeply confused, here. I'm a communist, I support socialism and working our way to communism. Life expectancy has dramatically improved from feudalism, and it isn't close. Socialist countries like Cuba, the PRC, and former USSR would never have existed had capitalism not come into existence yet, as industrialization is the base that allows for planned, collectivized production.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 weeks ago (12 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

Lmao, I wondered why all the comments disappeared

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 weeks ago (19 children)

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.

view more: ‹ prev next ›