Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Riley wrote (edited )

No bro c'mon bro china will be socialist soon bro just wait bro what about dialectical materialism bro

26

karl_mags wrote

Its all good guys, clearly all these things are necessary so China can be perfectly communist at x point in the unspecified future

9

hogposting wrote

China does a lot of bad shit that should be condemned, but a lot of mainstream criticism of China has obviously racist undertones and/or follows in the grand tradition of holding socialist projects to a far higher standard than capitalist projects. That latter point -- and again, I'm talking about mainstream criticism of China -- involves:

  1. Repeated focus on the negatives in a way you'd never see with a capitalist country, often involving terrible sourcing, exaggerations, and rampant (negative) speculation;
  2. Ignoring all positives (again, in a way you'd never see with a capitalist country);
  3. Ignoring intent and how realistic other options were/are; and
  4. Pretending everyone is blameless except the target (again, you'd never see a capitalist country treated this way).

Because the overall media environment is dominated by non-leftist sources, it's easy to fall into this propaganda. Criticize China for all the shit it deserves criticism for, but be skeptical of anti-China hysteria and ask yourself if your criticism is making the same lazy (at best) errors mainstream criticism makes.

14

celebratedrecluse wrote

sure, that sounds reasonable. but it is kind of non specific.

for example, do you believe the uighurs are going through a genocide and colonization process which is being specifically planned from the central leadership of the CCP? I have found people online which dispute this, so I'm wondering where you stand on this specifically.

In my best judgement, this is a real thing which is truly horrific and deserves broad international left & anarchist opposition.

2

hogposting wrote

do you believe the uighurs are going through a genocide and colonization process

Let's start the conversation with these two facts:

  1. The U.S. State Department -- one of the most anti-China institutions on the planet -- estimates that a maximum of 3 million Uyghurs have been imprisoned.
  2. As a direct result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq -- which was sold to the public on lies about WMDs -- resulted in around 2.4 million Iraqi deaths.

It would make a mockery of the term "genocide" to apply that term to 3 million people in prison but not seriously consider applying that term to 2.4 million people in the ground.

Now I would bet anything that you aren't going to start defending the Iraq War anytime soon, and you may even be willing to call it a genocide, too. I'm sure we agree almost entirely on how terrible the Iraq War is. The point is that if you search through U.S. media it's very easy to find instances where one of these events is labeled a genocide, and it's very difficult to find instances where the other is labeled a genocide. That alone should make anyone incredibly skeptical of how whatever is happening in Xinjiang is being reported. This skepticism should only be increased by the fact that one of the "academic" sources underpinning much of the news about China is a far-right Christian fundamentalist who thinks god sent him to oppose communism in China, and by the fact that Western academics exaggerated and mischaracterized the Soviet penal system.

With that heavy lens of skepticism in place, consider these additional facts:

  1. By far the loudest voice that's taken up the "China is genociding Muslim Uyghurs" narrative is the U.S. Republican Party, which is openly anti-Islamic.
  2. Diplomats from 12 largely-Muslim countries -- who presumably aren't anti-Islamic -- visited Xinjiang in 2019, and to the degree their governments are criticizing China's actions at all, I'm not aware of any of those governments labeling the situation "genocide."
  3. China has about 166 mosques per 100,000 Muslims; for comparison, the U.S. has about 61 mosques per 100,000 Muslims.

If there's actually a genocide happening, I find it hard to believe the anti-Islamic GOP is the group that's most concerned about Muslims in China. If there's actually a genocide happening, I find it hard to believe that countries with large Muslim populations aren't equally concerned, or even more concerned. If there's actually a genocide happening, I find it hard to believe that China still has almost three times as many mosques-per-worshipper as the U.S., which (despite its many faults) is pretty open about allowing mosques to be built.

There's plenty to criticize China over -- shit, non-genocidal mass incarceration is worthy of criticism -- but a lot here seems like propaganda, especially in context of the larger "gobunism killed 48,090,111 bazillion people!1!1!!!" propaganda narrative.

−1

celebratedrecluse wrote

So your analysis is that there is no genocide of uyghur people under the CCP's state?

2

hogposting wrote

You're really going to respond to a detailed opinion supported by numerous sources with that? What are you trying to accomplish here?

1

[deleted] wrote

2

hogposting wrote

Picking stats and putting them together isn't making an informed opinion.

I don't know what type of lazy bullshit you're accustomed to, but reading up on a situation, typing out your opinion, and supporting that opinion with the information you found is the definition of an informed opinion.

Showing reporters speak to Muslims in china and hearing a consensus that they were not under attack from the government would be sufficient.

As I pointed out in my comment, diplomats from a dozen largely-Muslim countries visited Xinjiang in 2019 and they (and their governments) aren't calling the situation genocide.

Is it really so hard to believe that the State Department might be lying about a foreign government?

1

celebratedrecluse wrote

The entire post was an argument to make the point i reiterated, i was confirming that i understood it because the author was not blunt about their perspective.

1

jyajay wrote

The CCP and private Chinese enterprises also do a lot of imperial(ish) shit, particularly in Africa

11

FungalDysentaryGothLLCLTD wrote

The pro-china zealots will cite very basic information about Mao but nothing about day-to-day life in China. Do you have a Weibo account? What's your favorite Chinese band? Do you see the Chinese as human beings or solely as a prop for your larp?

8

safinotullah wrote

Fun fact, the CCP backed Nepalese monarchists against Nepalese maoists in the Nepali civil war

6

yaosio wrote

I was told that china will be socialist in 2035, so only 15 more years to go.

5

Amorphous wrote

Why is it that when I go to "tankie" internet spaces I see genuine respect for other viewpoints and an interest in discussing and working with everyone willing to unite against the ruling class, but when I go to "anarchist" internet spaces all I see is a bunch of punching left and people calling MLs fascists and so on?

Exaggeration of course, there are some actual principled anarchists in these places, but the radlibs (that's all you fuckers who use the term "red fash" by the way) clearly own the place. I wish that weren't the case.

−2

ziq OP wrote (edited )

https://old.reddit.com/r/MoreTankieChapo/comments/caoyap/anarkiddies_can_suck_my_pp_lol/

https://old.reddit.com/r/MoreTankieChapo/comments/cb44ly/trots_and_anarkiddies_btfo/

https://old.reddit.com/r/MoreTankieChapo/comments/cubthh/the_last_thing_anarkiddies_ever_see/

https://old.reddit.com/r/MoreTankieChapo/comments/d0mff1/in_response_to_any_anarkiddies_uncritically/

https://old.reddit.com/r/MoreTankieChapo/comments/ctb3e7/anarkiddie_bingo/

https://old.reddit.com/r/MoreTankieChapo/comments/f186oy/sigh/

https://old.reddit.com/r/MoreTankieChapo/comments/ch5mgc/anarkiddies_are_just_suffering_from_a_bad_case_of/

https://old.reddit.com/r/MoreTankieChapo/comments/dfh37u/remember_when_hong_kong_and_rojava_proved_that/

https://old.reddit.com/r/MoreTankieChapo/comments/c8ecjp/1_theory_a_day_keeps_anarkiddies_at_bay/

https://old.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/c2o7fj/not_gonna_lie_im_genuinely_starting_to_hate/

https://old.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/bigh5p/im_tired_of_anarchists/

https://old.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/cco5j5/ever_notice_how_happy_and_proud_anarchists_are_to/

https://old.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/cldwz1/i_feel_like_anarchists_are_too_un_realstic_and/

https://old.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/c9f0w4/anarchists_are_worse_than_you_think/

https://old.reddit.com/r/MoreTankieChapo/comments/hj0qfv/how_do_anarchist_fight_for_oppressed_people_when/

https://old.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/hdmakj/please_forgive_me_for_my_bad_articulation_really/

https://old.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/c1bgho/why_are_anarchists_such_fucking_scum_sometimes/

https://old.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/c25pmj/another_reminder_that_anarchists_are_not_our/

https://old.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/bxf6no/shitliberalssay_banned_me_for_saying_that/

https://old.reddit.com/r/MoreTankieChapo/comments/fxup61/you_know_youre_an_anarchist_when/

https://old.reddit.com/r/MoreTankieChapo/comments/c85wk6/typical_anarkiddies/

https://old.reddit.com/r/MoreTankieChapo/comments/bz0jbo/lol_rbreadtube_is_full_of_dumbass_anarkiddies/

https://old.reddit.com/r/FULLCOMMUNISM/comments/g2fkdf/how_anarchists_think_crime_is_stopped/

https://old.reddit.com/r/FULLCOMMUNISM/comments/eq9yat/anarchists_be_like_ideology/

https://old.reddit.com/r/FULLCOMMUNISM/comments/emg7jw/anarchists/

https://old.reddit.com/r/FULLCOMMUNISM/comments/ebwcoa/anarchists_suck/

https://old.reddit.com/r/GenZedong/comments/d2vigj/when_the_anarkiddies_start_talking_about_hong_kong/

https://old.reddit.com/r/FULLCOMMUNISM/comments/dukwxc/anarchists_irl/

https://old.reddit.com/r/FULLCOMMUNISM/comments/d6m71m/best_take_ive_seen_on_anarchists/

https://old.reddit.com/r/FULLCOMMUNISM/comments/cjk2wk/must_be_a_total_coincidence_that_every_anarchist/

https://old.reddit.com/r/FULLCOMMUNISM/comments/7qykhp/anarchists_irl/

https://old.reddit.com/r/FULLCOMMUNISM/comments/bi8jod/anarkiddies_be_like/

https://old.reddit.com/r/FULLCOMMUNISM/comments/cii7fn/anarchistspng/

https://old.reddit.com/r/FULLCOMMUNISM/comments/a3q2ho/fuck_anarchists/

https://old.reddit.com/r/FULLCOMMUNISM/comments/8pulxw/anarchists_dont_look_at_this_part_2/

https://old.reddit.com/r/GenZedong/comments/ej79lu/lets_clean_up_anarkiddies/

https://old.reddit.com/r/GenZedong/comments/ge9sn4/i_fucking_warned_you_dude_i_told_you_bro_prolly/

https://old.reddit.com/r/FULLCOMMUNISM/comments/ehwea1/its_true/

https://old.reddit.com/r/FULLCOMMUNISM/comments/9wtdqe/a_reminder_to_all_anarchists_and_libertarian/

https://old.reddit.com/r/FULLCOMMUNISM/comments/8dq6n9/anarchists_irl/

https://old.reddit.com/r/FULLCOMMUNISM/comments/8pft3s/anarchists_dont_look_at_this/

https://old.reddit.com/r/FULLCOMMUNISM/comments/d2haqe/anarkiddies_of_the_world_unite_you_have_nothing/

https://old.reddit.com/r/FULLCOMMUNISM/comments/8tvq0a/why_dont_anarchists_read_theory/

https://old.reddit.com/r/GenZedong/comments/dp4kmw/impoverished_people_are_exploitable_people_and/

https://old.reddit.com/r/GenZedong/comments/e5oxw5/fixed_anarkiddie_meme/

9

hogposting wrote (edited )

About two hours before this comment you flipped out at a good-faith suggestion that destruction of stuff like police stations should be followed up with a plan to improve society. Glass houses and all.

−1

ziq OP wrote (edited )

that's not me flipping out, that's me having a grand old time poking holes in your "we can't just burn the police/corporations, we need to think up intricate systems to replace them with, you guys" liberalism

4

hogposting wrote

You think this lib is gonna get their hands dirty growing carrots when they can just buy a bigmac?

Real detailed critique right there.

−1

ziq OP wrote

this is a meme forum, not f/debate_a_tank

2

hogposting wrote

see I was carefully poking holes in your argument

jk actually I was just pretending to be dumb

It's a forum about a broadly leftist (and broadly in favor of a socialist state) podcast and you're insisting it's for anarchists only.

0

ziq OP wrote

I've never said only anarchists can use this forum and I've never listened to that podcast, I'm not an American.

4

hogposting wrote

Come on, you're pulling the "you're not even a real anarchist, are you" card in this very thread:

Either you haven't spent much time around tankies or you're not an anarchist and are doing some entryism.

Why would it matter whether someone (who never claimed to be an anarchist) is an anarchist unless you're trying to make this an anarchist-only space?

2

ziq OP wrote

Because they're trying to tell me what the anarchist experience is when they're not one, obviously.

1

Amorphous wrote

Can't be fucked opening more than a few of those, but mostly they're just being silly. The vast majority of the people in the comments of the first few I opened up are just making serious criticisms of perceived flaws in anarchist ideology. I mean, they're also circlejerking about it, but surely you can see the world of difference between a comment like this and a comment like this.

−2

ziq OP wrote (edited )

that cognitive dissonance fam

how are those any more "silly" than my OP?

making serious criticisms of perceived flaws in anarchist ideology

You mean what I do every day?

8

Amorphous wrote

I wasn't really directing my rant toward your OP, that kind of thing is to be expected among disagreements. It's lighthearted enough. I was talking about the comments, like the one I linked just now.

1

ziq OP wrote

I mean plenty of the comments in the posts I linked are just "lol anarkiddies" so I'm not sure what selectively linking to one comment proves.

9

Amorphous wrote

Do you not see the difference between calling someone an "anarkiddie" and calling someone a fascist?

I'm not sure why I'd need to explain this to you, but you realize a fascist is one of the worst things you can possibly be, right? I hope I won't be criticized for saying that I believe fascists should literally be executed openly. Being a fascist is, in my mind, like being a child molester or a murderer or a slave owner. It is something which completely invalidates any right you might have to continue living your life peacefully. To be a fascist is to be an active threat to all good people in the world.

When an ML calls you "anarkiddie" they mean that they think you are immature / not well read / idealist.

I don't understand how you could consider those things comparable.

2

kinshavo wrote

If u want there are plenty of material about China being a fascist state, but I dont know if you are even interested in that...

3

Amorphous wrote

I'd need to see some damn good evidence of that. Even the US, a country built on genocide, which is currently engaging in genocide, is hardly fascist. There's an increasingly strong fascist wing in American politics, certainly, but I don't think I'd go so far as to say it has yet got there.

How has China excelled at fascism so much as to overtake the US in this regard? What definition of fascism are you using that China could meet it?

−2

kinshavo wrote

How fascist is fascist enough? So to be able to get your fascist state award plaque do you need to exceed your excelency in totalitarian practices? Maybe raise your death toll? Maybe six million is enough? It is like a competition between States, and the ones who break the Axis record will be recognized as fascist. Look around, China, USA, Russia, India all the Big players are playin by the book, hypercapitalism is already Fascism.

Go ask any Cantonese, Tibetan, Uyghur, or any real Marxist in CCP China. Sorry but defending China make you an allie to Capitalism.

5

Amorphous wrote

I see, we're at the stage where we post "list of massacres in china" on wikipedia, a list which starts in the year 760, instead of actually answering any questions. Disappointing. I'll still be here if you want to take a real shot at responding to my comment.

−4

celebratedrecluse wrote (edited )

There are many massacres on that list you could read about from the 20th century too, which are obviously relevant to this discussion. it is an encyclopedia so it has a lot of information grouped together, so this reply is both condescending and a clear deflection from discussing it.

what this signals to me is that you are not desiring to do so, which means that if you were to engage you are aware that you might feel obliged to defend or justify some of these actions, and so you wish to retain deniability about this by not directly talking about it.

If I am just way off mark here, by all means, let's discuss some of specifics. Here are some which seem particularly upsetting from that list, but i am curious your point of view. CW genocide, of course:

5

ziq OP wrote

Words don't maintain the same meaning for 100 years. The material conditions on the ground change and fascism changes with them.

2

Amorphous wrote

Okay, so explain what definition of fascism you're using.

1

ziq OP wrote (edited )

The only thing that's changed is fascism has adapted to no longer require one-party rule, instead turning the two-parties of liberal democracies into separate wings of the same (fascist) party. Everything else is the same:

Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society and of the economy

All of this continues to be true, except the dictatorial part where the power has shifted slightly. 2 party rule is still a dictatorship, but with rotating reps who all represent the same political class. The ruling class as a whole is the new dictator, while the presidents are just there to create spectacle and keep people convinced they have a say in the political process when they vote for one of the dictator class's two pre-approved showmen.

5

ziq OP wrote (edited )

and btw, china still meets the original definition since it's far-right (i.e. extreme nationalist, nativist and authoritarian) and has a direct dictator, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation.

But even China pretends to be democratic much like the USA does, so the distinction is barely there.

4

Amorphous wrote

How in the world am I supposed to engage you in a serious discussion when you say absolute nonsense like "China has a direct dictator" lmao

Have you ever in your life read a book

−1

ziq OP wrote

fuck of you giant bootlick

1

Amorphous wrote

If you're not getting paid by the CIA to spread nonsense about its enemies, you're really fucking stupid.

−1

celebratedrecluse wrote

what would you critique about the claims and assertions made in the meme?

4

Amorphous wrote

I have no interest in discussing the meme, that's not what any of this conversation has been about.

0

celebratedrecluse wrote

That's quite strange, because this comment thread started with you complaining about the meme as synecdoche for what you described as

radlibs owning the place

So, what was your problem with the meme?

I also noticed you do not think China has a dictator. Fair enough, dictator is a western Roman-imperial term, I can see how you would find that culturally tone deaf to apply cross culturally. however it is self-represented by the Communist Party itself that Xi is the Paramount Leader of China, who simultaneously holds both head of state, head of government, civil and military offices of the highest order within the party (which holds these powers privately, outside of the purview of general elections), in much a similar manner as the unitary and unaccountable executive of the United States...except that the means of choosing this leader is somehow even more abstracted and removed from the average person's control than in a hellhole like USA. While in USA there is an illusion of choice, this does not really exist under the Communist Party's statecraft.

So, there is an unaccountable unitary executive who directs simultaneously economic, civil, political, and cultural force within the country. Can you forgive someone who is unfriendly to such a centralized system, for calling it a dictatorship? Even if you support the government, it seems difficult to argue that it is not a centrally organized and hierarchical system with a single Paramount Leader.

6

Amorphous wrote

this comment thread started with you complaining about the meme

You're an entire week out of date.

As for the rest of the comment, it simply does not seem to me that Xi is a man with total and unquestionable power over his country. I'd need to see some good evidence that this is, in fact, the case before I would believe it.

−2

celebratedrecluse wrote

Ok, I mean that seems like you walked it back later though, but this is irrelevant and I'm not going to hassle you about it.

He's literally called the Paramount Leader, he has all the most major positions and titles of governance in the government of mainland China, simultaneously holding all of them. So what evidence would you want, specifically, before you would accept my assertion as true?

5

Amorphous wrote

Well, first of all I'd need to see evidence that he holds "all the most major positions and titles of governance" because this sounds a lot like what you often hear about the DPRK, and I know quite well that it isn't true in the case of that country. Unfortunately, it's difficult to be well-versed in the democratic and political systems of every single enemy of the US, so some of them I've still not got to.

Anyway, after that, I'd need to see good evidence that there is no accountability. No way for him to be removed from his position if he should start taking actions that the majority of people don't approve of.

−1

celebratedrecluse wrote

This seems pedantic and evasive, Xi is the Paramount Leader of mainland China, it is a position of incredible centralized power. He has, as Paramount Leader, engaged in purges of corruption in order to consolidate the power of his position within the party. I doubt anyone in China would really dispute this.

4

Amorphous wrote

You can repeat that all day long but I'd still need to actually see evidence of it.

−1

celebratedrecluse wrote

Okay, I'll do the work of providing you the evidence, but you'll need to first define what exactly you're looking for ahead of time

4

Amorphous wrote

I ... already did?

This is a strange line of discussion.

−2

celebratedrecluse wrote (edited )

i re-read the whole thread, all 102 comments, there is nothing that i understand as a direct response to my request in the entire thread.

Please re-state, or at least link to, your qualified requirements for an answer. I've done research papers for online tankies before, and they've come back with "well acktually i wanted X" and i'm not doing that this week. State clearly what you want, or your order will not be filled.

Regards,

a worker

4

celebratedrecluse wrote

...this is what we call, vagueposting. it is easy for you to move the goalposts, be specific or your order will not be filled.

3

Amorphous wrote

I don't understand. I don't understand how I could be more specific than that. I want you to identify what you think are the "highest positions of power" or whatever and demonstrate that Xi holds all of them and cannot be removed from them.

−1

celebratedrecluse wrote

i'm asking you to define what evidence you want. What sources count. Do you understand now?

3

Amorphous wrote

I mean I think it should be obvious that anything directly owned or funded by the government of the US, UK, Germany, etc is unreliable. Other than that I don't really care.

0

celebratedrecluse wrote

so...private publications from various countries, these are ok? Or no? Because you were saying you wouldn't take any of that seriously either. So I'm just trying to establish what exactly your goalpost is, for "prove it". I don't know why you're being obtuse still.

3

Amorphous wrote

And I don't understand why you're being so hostile lol I'm not being obtuse. I just don't understand what you want from me.

Private publications, sure, but they'll of course be subject to scrutiny. I'm not gonna believe anything I read from anyone associated with the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation obviously, or any open neo-nazis. Again, I feel all of that should be obvious.

−1

celebratedrecluse wrote

all of that is obvious. i'm asking you to be more specific, which publications are what you want?

i'm hostile because i'm offering to do work for you, and you're making it difficult.

4

ziq OP wrote (edited )

If MLs don't want to be called fascists they shouldn't stan for rulers who put gays and sex workers in gulags, displaced millions of indigenous people in order to colonize their land (i.e. genocide) and murdered all their (left wing) political opponents - including - shock - anarchists.

In other words, they should stop calling themselves MLs.

You can't detach a political ideology from its creators, especially when ML rulers continue to enact homophobic and colonial policies today, showing that modern MLs haven't reformed in any quantifiable way. And you certainly can't expect anarchists who have been murdered throughout history by MLs to not think of MLs as fascists.

Anarkiddies is a very paternalistic insult and it makes perfect sense that tankies would come up with it. It says a lot more about MLs that it says about us.

1

MarxWasTheMessiah wrote (edited )

I can't believe pee pull are being mean on the internet! Everyone who has ever said "redfash" needs to go to their rooms and think about what they've done.

1

ziq OP wrote (edited )

looks like some tank made 20 accounts to downvote all the non-tanks

edit: yup, lots of new accounts with 100 comment votes and nothing else.

2

kinshavo wrote

What is funny to me is from where I came from, CCP China is a joke even for ML, Tankies and Trots... So the only way to understand this is maybe assuming that the peculiar evolution of the USA political enviroment contributed for this Dengist spread over leftists in North America. Is mind-boggling actually...

4

ziq OP wrote

I think third positionist fascism arises in USAers so often because they have a ton of guilt for their people's colonization of the world, and it's their mentality to seek an alternate strongman ruler to root for against their own ruler. It helps them feel like they're absolved of guilt by backing the USA's biggest opponents, even though those opponents are invariably just as shitty as the USA.

5

Bezotcovschina wrote

Hot take: anarchists don't like authoritarians?

4

Amorphous wrote

MLs don't particularly like anarchists either but they don't seem to have much trouble seeing the value in working together and hearing our sides of things.

5

ziq OP wrote (edited )

Either you haven't spent much time around tankies or you're not an anarchist and are doing some entryism.

5

Amorphous wrote

You are wrong on both counts.

4

ziq OP wrote

the more I see you post, the more dubious this sounds

2

Amorphous wrote

Only because in your mind being an anarchist is inextricably linked with devouring western propaganda and providing support for western countries against their enemies.

I'm an anarchist because I truly believe in making a better world, a communist world, one where every person is free to live in peace as they wish. Your ilk, you disgusting parasite who spends their time calling people fascists for doing their best to bring about the world you claim to want, will always side with the true fascists in the end. You have no interest in making a better world, nor in learning the history which lead us to where we are today. You care only about feeling like you're ideologically perfect, that in the end you were right, that you never budged an inch from your own enlightened position. You'll take that feeling of smug superiority with you to your unmarked mass grave under the new fascist state, surrounded by MLs, indistinguishable to fascists and identical in death.

Take a step back for a moment and think about how you treat even anarchists who do not share your rabid hatred of the enemies of the state you claim to oppose.

And then go fuck yourself.

−2

celebratedrecluse wrote

i don't want to get in the middle of the interpersonal stuff above, however i do want to address this:

Your ilk, you disgusting parasite who spends their time calling people fascists for doing their best to bring about the world you claim to want, will always side with the true fascists in the end.

Who are the "people...doing their best to bring about the world [anarchists] claim you want"? It seems like you are saying the current government of China, but I'm not really sure.

4

Amorphous wrote

All our comrades. The anarchists, the MLs, the maoists, everyone who is willing to work together to bring about a communist world.

−1

celebratedrecluse wrote

i think this is a very broadly elisive and rather naive view of politics. anarchists and statist communists have wildly divergent goals and methods in many cases. Similarities in rhetoric or between certain subgroups or particular individuals do not prove a rule, frankly.

4

Amorphous wrote

What is truly naive is the idea that we can build an effective communist movement by calling MLs fascists.

−1

celebratedrecluse wrote

What about Stalin, who signed a mutual non aggression pact with the Nazis, and proceeded to help them expand eastward for years and thus begin the second world war?

Or Stalin again, when he massacred strikers and protestors with military force in Hungary when people attempted to create an autonomous, non-colonized socialist movement/country?

Is merely calling yourself a ML or any label sufficient to earn our broad loyalty across significant ideological divides? Or is there a minimum standard of action/behavior which is needed to build that trust, rather than it being assumed and loyalty mandated, without consent?

3

Amorphous wrote

What about Stalin, who signed a mutual non aggression pact with the Nazis, and proceeded to help them expand eastward for years and thus begin the second world war?

With all due respect, have you ever read a history book, or do you get all your knowledge of history from hyperbolic anarchist memes?

There are so many things wrong with just this one sentence that it's difficult to even attempt to tackle them.

  1. There's nothing wrong with signing a non-aggression pact with a terrifying expansionist dictatorship which would quite likely threaten your territory otherwise. Yeah I'd have preferred if Stalin personally rode into Germany on the back of a bear and cut Hitler down with a sword the moment he took power, too, but that's not how it works. Preparing for war takes time.

  2. He didn't "help them expand eastward," he specifically stopped them from expanding any further eastward than a specific line he managed to draw. Again, yeah, would've been nice if he could've stopped them completely, but that's just not realistic.

Stalin had attempted time and time again to enter some form of pact or alliance with Britain and France in order to deal with Nazi Germany, but they wanted no part of it. So when Nazi Germany came along like "hey, want to not fight for a bit" what reason would they possibly have for saying no?

Or Stalin again, when he massacred strikers and protestors with military force in Hungary when people attempted to create an autonomous, non-colonized socialist movement/country?

I am unfortunately less informed on that story than I'd like to be. This comment is interesting, though.

Or is there a minimum standard of action/behavior which is needed to build that trust

I don't see why you'd need to frame it that way. I trust people who want to create a communist world by default, they would need to do something specifically to lose that trust. We're very, very weak, especially compared to those we oppose. We can't afford to be so paranoid.

−3

Bezotcovschina wrote (edited )

Reading this page AND some sources referenced in it, I think Stalin was FUCKING HYPED when he was hinted on the possibility of SU joining Axis - laying claims on British colonies, Turkey. Then, while the chance of SU joining Axis gradually becomes thinner, Stalin gradually reduced his appetites in territory, but not giving up.

Like: "Boys, boys, let me in your cool expansionist club, I only want India, Afghanistan, Iran, Bosporus, Dardanelles, Finland, Bulgaria and other. What? No answer? What if I drop India? Just let me in! Still no answer? Well, maybe Afghanistan is too much? Boys, boys, let me hang with you. What? You let fucking Hungary and Romania in and not me? I'm no longer asking for Iran, boys! Wait, you allowed fucking Bulgaria to join you? B-but my claims... Well, I guess I can gulp it. Just let me in, boys!".

Fucking humiliating. Fucking meme material.

3

kinshavo wrote

entryism as f*ck, no me jodas:

providing support for western countries against their enemies

I dunno if this is eurasian propaganda or plain Tankie cliché

making a better world, a communist world

by your Party guidelines, I assume

you disgusting parasite

typical Tankie disqualification towards Anarchists

2

ziq OP wrote

yeah you're a raging tankie doing entryism alright, you're not even good at it

I don't give a shit about western countries, if you're gonna smear me do it right

w/ziq_essays will give you plenty of ammo

btw I hope you choke on Putin's boot

2

Amorphous wrote

Good lord you're fucking beyond help

−2

ziq OP wrote

I'm not a tankie I just support homophobic state capitalist tyrants because of dialectical materialism

brown fascists would kill both you and red fascists so you should be friends with red fascists even though they would kill you too

3

Amorphous wrote

amazing how liberals actually think of things in these terms.

absolutely bizarre. i wouldn't have even called you a straight up liberal till you did the standard liberal thing of accusing anyone you dont like of being in bed with putin. i am no longer even upset at you, i am just puzzled that you think you are in any way opposed to liberalism.

genuinely, what the fuck?

−2

ziq OP wrote

In bed with putin? Lol. All you tanks fetishize alt-capitalists putin, assad and xi. I'm not calling you a Russian agent you disingenous dipshit. Let's stop pretending now, no one gets this salty over china being called capitalist unless they're a card carrying tank. Just own it and engage anarchists honestly without trying to pose as one of us. You clearly don't know shit about anarchy and aren't fooling anyone.

2

Amorphous wrote

alright, lets cover all you've said for a second

  1. putin is one of the worst human beings alive on this planet. the world would be a slightly better place if he dropped dead today, though it's not like that would actually change anything on its own

  2. I never "got salty" over china being called capitalist or disputed that in any way whatsoever. If you can recall to 2 days ago (I know, tough work for you, do your best) I took issue with my comrades being called fascists

  3. I was introduced to general leftist thought after becoming a vegan and interacting with vegan anarchists. having not realized before that point that anarchism was a real thing that actual human people believed, I looked into it and read the conquest of bread. it resonated with me and made me look into other anarchist authors, and socialism and communism more generally. in this study I have developed a healthy respect for marxists of all varieties (keep in mind, of course, that kropotkin himself was influenced by marx, and despite anarchism and marxism having separate roots, the two have been intertwined for many, many years)

I remain an anarchist and remain devoted to bringing about a truly communist world. I hope that some day you, too, will set aside your smug liberal bullshit and become committed to actually making a better world instead of just sitting around bitterly calling people fascists because they didn't believe everything CNN or the BBC or whatever told them.

0

celebratedrecluse wrote

I took issue with my comrades being called fascists

Who are your comrades? The government of China, CCP? Or am I misunderstanding?

If you are really saying the CCP are your comrades... Do you...know these people? I guess my question is, what do you mean with a statement like this?

Also, /u/ziq does a significant amount of organizing work, i think you are out of line and just plain incorrect in assuming that they do not and instead spend all their time criticizing authoritarian communists on the internet. This is one of many things they do with their time, but the little window I have had into their efforts they have done far more than most people I have interacted with in radical spaces over more than a decade of living and organizing with communists, anarchists, and other fellow travelers.

6

Amorphous wrote

Also, I believed you about ziq when I initially read this comment. I thought, "You know, maybe I'm out of line. Maybe posting shenanigans bring out the worst in /u/ziq and they do good work IRL. I hope that's true!" Then I wrote my reply to this comment, and /u/ziq immediately threw a full-on tantrum, randomly insulting me, all-caps spamming me, and then rapid-fire posting no fewer than eight (probably will be closer to ten by the time this comment is actually posted) different anti-china memes.

I then scrolled back through their history to get a feel for how often they go on these ridiculous posting tantrums. There are pages and pages of posts in their history for every single day.

After reconsidering the facts, I must say I simply cannot believe your claim. There is no way /u/ziq has time to organize IRL.

−1

ziq OP wrote

how the fuck r u talking this much with that boot permanently lodged in your shitty lying tank mouth? goddamn

1

Amorphous wrote (edited )

Who are your comrades? The government of China, CCP? Or am I misunderstanding?

You are misunderstanding, as I clarified in another reply to you. I'd like to take this moment, then, to point out another thing I noticed. You talk like a liberal. That's something I notice in anarchist online spaces and only in anarchist online spaces.

What I mean by that is that "CCP" is not a real thing. The party is the Communist Party of China, or CPC, and this is how they self-identify. The fact that you think of them as the CCP reveals that you only hear of them from western liberal media or, worse, from western liberal/fascist randoms who you hear talking about them. And that's what I mean when I say that you consider people "fascists" for not believing everything CNN or the BBC says. You (not necessarily you specifically, I don't know you, but some radlibs calling themselves anarchists on this site and other online anarchist spaces) identify people as fascist for supporting a group of people you don't even know how to speak about without proving your ignorance.

−1

celebratedrecluse wrote

I don't think of them as an acronym, I think of them as the Chinese Communist Party, which seemed pretty neutral and unloaded by being plainly descriptive. Any inference of malice or ignorance i think is misplaced, I read their own press releases in translated mandarin, read news articles from Chinese sources and include state-run media in my information diet about this government.

this is really just symbolic posturing, and i think it is less substantive than the rest of what you and others have to say about this issue.

4

ziq OP wrote

god will you give it a fucking rest with the red fash entryism already, no one is fucking buying what you're selling

2

Amorphous wrote

Can you fuck off? I'm trying to have a serious discussion here, something you are far too immature to manage. Butt out.

0

ziq OP wrote

eat my shit you fucking bootlicker

1

ziq OP wrote

CPP CPP CPP CPP CPP CPP CPP CPP CPP

0

Amorphous wrote

lmao are you actually 12 years old

0

ziq OP wrote

are you incapable of not making intelligence based attacks?

3

celebratedrecluse wrote

wait, are you an anarchist? You've given me the opposite impression in another conversation.

4

spezlovesslavery6969 wrote

This is basically the tankie version of "if those racists can be civil, why can't you?" having standards isn't immature or some shit

2

Amorphous wrote

That's such an absurd comparison. Hopefully all of us here want communism in the end. The only real difference is the opinions about what method would be most effective at getting there. That's not comparable to someone who fundamentally disagrees with you about what society should be like, and about who should even be considered a person.

2

spezlovesslavery6969 wrote

Anarchists want freedom and oppose imperialism, that's a pretty fundamental disagreement with tankies.

5

hogposting wrote (edited )

If you find someone who earnestly says the USSR or China is some kind of utopian ideal, yeah, that's ridiculous, and it's fundamentally different from what anarchists want. But almost no one makes that argument.

The arguments you hear are more along the lines of:

  1. No, [fill-in-the-blank socialist state] did not march 4,093 jabillion people into death camps; here's what the reality was.
  2. Whatever its flaws, [fill-in-the-blank socialist state] did accomplish a lot of material progress in terms of education, healthcare, technology, standards of living, etc.
  3. It wasn't very realistic for [fill-in-the-blank socialist state] to accomplish [end-state utopian project] when they were getting invaded or threatened by powerful capitalist opponents; what's the best they realistically could have done in that situation?
  4. You want an example of how it's possible to do [important social program] better than it's done under capitalism? Here's a real-world example from [fill-in-the-blank socialist state].

None of that is inconsistent with ultimately wanting a classless, moneyless, stateless society. You can argue that we can get there pretty directly from here, or you can argue that we need some form of (at least temporary) state protection if we hope to get there and hold off the inevitable reactionary pushback, but the ultimate goal is the same.

−2