robinn2 [he/him]

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

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!

“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

deleted by creator

In Xi’s case laws needed to be changed to give him the ability to run a third time. IMO moving towards a more authoritarian state is never going to result in a move towards socialism as it further entrenches power in an elite.

1. Authoritarianism (rule by authority) isn’t a valid concept (by which manner of authority? the authority of which class?). All societies are ruled by blind authority, but the status quo asserts itself as natural and everything against it becomes “authoritarian.” The immediate aim of the liquidation of the national bourgeoisie’s political power taken up by the dictatorship of the proletariat is not in any sense removed from bourgeois power elsewhere. This point manifests itself in the consideration of the state of the press, which has more and more become a close link between the capitalist class at large, a class that retains a political dictatorship over the majority of developed nations and several national dictatorships over their respective colonial shares of maldeveloped nations. Owing to the supreme authority of the world bourgeoisie, the proletarian masses who have consolidated political power domestically must suppress the siege on their delicate rule internationally. There are more prisoners per-capita and in total in the U.S. than in China, not to mention the clear difference in ownership of the factors of production, and yet this “authoritarianism” comes up again and again in rhetoric

2. I explained the term limit change in my other reply to you [link]. There is no possible way to categorize this as “authoritarian” or “entrenching power in the elite.”

3. This is an extreme non-reply. Leadership in the DPRK is diffused (explanation below). You never explain how “the state seems to work to perpetuate [hereditary succession, although succession is complex, as I already mentioned with the diffusion of power from Kim Il Sung].”

The fact that there were historical justifications made for Kim Il Sung to pass it to his son is meaningless.

Actually it explains the reason why voters might follow this pattern, and of course nothing in the article I wrote was addressed. As for “hereditary monarchy claims”, Kim Jong Un is General Secretary of the Workers Party of Korea, and Chairman of the State Affairs Commission. These positions are elected by the WPK Party Congress and by the Supreme People’s Assembly respectively.

• Sidenote: parties are elected by the people every five years (under the DFRF), the WPK isn’t permanently leading [other parties include the KSDP and the CCP]

If Kim Jong Un didn’t wish to continue to hold his positions, one of the Vice-Chairpersons would take his place temporarily, and a successor would be discussed and elected at the next party conference, also likely a Vice-Chairperson. For example, Kim Jong Il was elected into the Party Central Committee in the 70’s, and in 1974 was elected as the successor to Kim Il Sung. Jang Song-Thaek was elected to succeed Kim Jong Il, however, he wanted to reform certain areas, thus debate regarding his intentions and whether he was a revisionist or not ensued; the party then switched and had Kim Jong Un succeed Kim Jong Il. Jang Song-Thaek then staged a coup in an attempt to consolidate power by force (confirming his intentions were not pure and that he was likely a revisionist in the intent of his “reform”). He was executed thereafter. It’s important to mention Jang Song-Thaek to show that a successor to Chairman of the SAC doesn’t have to be a direct child of the former. So, if Kim Jong Un were to retire, or wish to discontinue his positions, it would be somebody in the Politburo, or a Vice-Chairperson of the State Affairs Commission, to succeed him. However, there currently isn’t an elected successor appointed, because likely odds are that he isn’t retiring or dying in the near future. Kim Jong Un is not actually in total control of the DPRK; the Supreme People’s Assembly has, by far, the extreme majority of control over the latter. Kim Jong Un has never been in either the Supreme People’s Assembly or its respective Standing Committee. Premier is the second top rank within the SPA, currently held by Kim Jae Ryong [not related]. President of the Standing Committee (Presidium) is the top position within the SPA, a position held by Kim Yong-Nam [not related] until April 2019, where Choe Ryong-Hae thereafter was elected. That isn’t to say that Kim Jong Un holds no power within the DPRK, but anyone within the SPA certainly has more legislative authority. Each person within the SPA, including Premier and Head of the Presidium, is elected (and thus their power is temporary and can be removed at any time). The closest thing to a dictatorship (so to speak) in the DPRK is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, a determining class dictatorship of the majority which governs the state. The only of the Kim family members (remember this is a common Korean surname, I am referring to the lineage of Kim Il Sung) to have an SPA position was Kim Il Sung, and he abolished his position. The “next in line” leader in the WPK is likely not to be a descendant of Kim Il Sung either.

OP is talking about how FDR was the first president to be elected for three terms, which is the same situation for Xi. Are you confusing the PRC and DPRK?

I wrote something on the DPRK’s elections a while ago [link]—the “hereditary” (of which positions are diffused, with the SAC being a modern development of decentralization) succession is a product of extreme hardship from being bombed to shit and starved and occupied by the U.S, and deciding upon candidates that are seen as “successors” to the pioneer of the country/visage who defeated the imperialists; whether or not this is correct in your eyes means nothing.