Incoming!!!
“Tankie” is a meaningless pejorative used by feds and morons to smear actual socialists, as is “authoritarian”. Refusal to wield authority in defense of socialism only guarantees capitalism will destroy it anywhere it is attempted.
Average .ml behaviour
Yep
Tankies are not further left, they are further right
None of these people are British Communists writing in defense of trade unions.
Lack of britishness is in fact a virtue
itt: people proving op right
I would strongly contest the idea that tankies are durther left than anarchists. This only make since if you’re a shitlib.
deleted by creator
Still waiting for the tankies to defeat capitalism. Last I see China has fully embraced it and the Soviets collapsed.
Public ownership is the principal aspect of China’s economy. This means that public ownership governs the large firms and key industries, and is what is rising in China, as private ownership is kept to small and medium non-essential industries. No system is static, meaning identifying the nature of a system depends on identifying what is rising and what is dying away. Cpitalists are held on a tight leash, and are prevented from gaining political power as a class. The reason private ownership is allowed at all is because China has very uneven development due to their rapid industrialization, and private ownership does help with filling in gaps left by the primary aspects of the economy like SOEs.
The form of democracy and the mode of production in China ensures that there is a connection between the people and the state. Policies like the mass line are in place to ensure this direct connection remains. This is why over 90% of the Chinese population supports the government, and why they have such strong perceptions around democracy:
The Chinese political system is based on whole-process people’s democracy, a form of consultative democracy. The local government is directly elected, and then these governments elect people to higher rungs, meaning any candidate at the top level must have worked their way up from the bottom and directly proved themselves. Combining this consultative, ground-up democracy with top-down economic planning is the key to China’s success.
I highly recommend Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance. Socialist democracy has been imperfect, but has gone through a number of changes and adaptations over the years as we’ve learned more from testing theory to practice. Boer goes over the history behind socialist democracy in this textbook.
China does have billionaires, as you might then protest. China is in the developing stages of socialism. Between capitalism, which is characterized by private ownership being the principal aspect of the economy and the capitalists in control of the state, and communism, characterized by full collectivization of production and distribution devoid of classes and the state, run along the lines of a common plan, is socialism, where public ownership is principle and the working classes in control. China in particular is working its way out of the initial stages of socialism:
The reason China has billionaires is because China has private property, and the reason it has private property is because of 2 major factors: the world economy is still dominated by the US empire, and because you cannot simply abolish private property at the stroke of a pen. China tried that already. The Gang of Four tried to dogmatically force a publicly owned and planned economy when the infrastructure best suited to that hadn’t been laid out by markets, and as a consequence growth was positive but highly unstable.
Why does it matter that the US Empire controls the world economy? Because as capitalism monopolizes, it is compelled to expand outward in order to fight falling rates of profit by raising absolute profits. The merging of bank and industrial capital into finance capital leads to export of capital, ie outsourcing. This process allows super-exploitation for super-profits, and is known as imperialism.
In the People’s Republic of China, under Mao and later the Gang of Four, growth was overall positive but was unstable. The centrally planned economy had brought great benefits in many areas, but because the productive forces themselves were underdeveloped, economic growth wasn’t steady. There began to be discussion and division in the party, until Deng Xiapoing’s faction pushing for Reform and Opening Up won out, and growth was stabilized.
Deng’s plan was to introduce market reforms, localized around Special Economic Zones, while maintaining full control over the principle aspects of the economy. Limited private capital would be introduced, especially by luring in foreign investors, such as the US, pivoting from more isolationist positions into one fully immersed in the global marketplace. As the small and medium firms grow into large firms, the state exerts more control and subsumes them more into the public sector. This was a gamble, but unlike what happened to the USSR, this was done in a controlled manner that ended up not undermining the socialist system overall.
China’s rapidly improving productive forces and cheap labor ended up being an irresistable match for US financial capital, even though the CPC maintained full sovereignty. This is in stark contrast to how the global north traditionally acts imperialistically, because it relies on financial and millitant dominance of the global south. This is why there is a “love/hate” relationship between the US Empire and PRC, the US wants more freedom for capital movement while the CPC is maintaining dominance.
Fast-forward to today, and the benefits of the CPC’s gamble are paying off. The US Empire is de-industrializing, while China is a productive super-power. The CPC has managed to maintain full control, and while there are neoliberals in China pushing for more liberalization now, the path to exerting more socialization is also open, and the economy is still socialist. It is the job of the CPC to continue building up the productive forces, while gradually winning back more of the benefits the working class enjoyed under the previous era, developing to higher and higher stages of socialism.
In doing this, China has presented itself to the global south as an alternative to the unequal exchange the global north does with the global south, which is accelerating the development of the global south. China is taking a more indirect method of undermining global imperialism than, say, the USSR, but its been remarkably effective at uplifting the global working classes, especially in China but also in the global south.
To call China “imperialist” or “capitalist” is to either invent a fantasy of China or to not understand imperialism, capitalism, or socialism. China isn’t a utopia, it’s a real socialist country.
Lmao I’m not wasting my time reading a whole Tankies schizo rant about how awesome China is and how it’s authoritarian 1 party system is actually super cool democracy.
You should read it.
Why would I willingly waste my time on Tankie nonsense?
Because you dismiss even western academics and scholars like Jason Hickel and Roland Boer, organizations like Harvard and the Ash Center, and even Wikipedia. Who on Earth do you trust, then? If the communists and socialists can manage to find well-respected western orgs backing our claims, why do you reject even them? How small is your echo chamber allowed to be?
You might learn something. But who knows, maybe China is just evil and nothing can be learned about their society and governance.
Even if you think Chinese socialism is bad, aren’t you obligated to learn about it?
What an excellent counter to academic sources mostly from western organizations. Pejoratives, ableism, and admitting to not even daring to read it.
Okay I’ll give you the tiniest little bite. Your first link is a fucking substsck article from a blatant propaganda pusher that mostly publishes “the west = bad” blog post
So he is trying to claim that China is actually a shining example of democracy, despite being a 1 party state that openly punishes it’s citizens for critisicing the government, the revolution, key reveloutionary figure or communism in general, because of opinion polls that, in a different blog post, he admits are only as high as they are because of China’s censorship of government criticism.
We have actual empirical standards for what a democracy is. China is basically the poster child for modern authoritarianism and does not fit the description of a democratic state in any reasonable way. No opposition is allowed, the party leadership is the one that picks candidates, not the citizens and even then citizens only get this performative vote at the very lowest level of government.
But that’s all I’m going to give you. I’ve fallen into the trap of trying to argue with Tankies who are not arguing from a position of reason, you’re like Magas or Nazis but just intelligent enough to actually cherry pick data and use the language of political theory to attempted to disguise your lunacy.
Reply if you want, call me a shitlib for being pro free and fair elections if you feel like, but I’m not wasting any more of my time on you.
Okay I’ll give you the tiniest little bite. Your first link is a fucking substsck article from a blatant propaganda pusher that mostly publishes “the west = bad” blog post
Nope. My first link is to Wikipedia, my second link is to Jason Hickel’s substack. Here’s who he is, per Wikipedia:
Jason Edward Hickel[2] (born 1982) is a Swazi economic anthropologist, academic and democratic eco-socialist.[3] He is a professor at the Institute of Environmental Science & Technology (ICTA-UAB) at the Autonomous University of Barcelona,[4] a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, a visiting senior fellow at the International Inequalities Institute at the London School of Economics, and was the Chair of Global Justice and the Environment at the University of Oslo.[5] He serves on the Climate and Macroeconomics Roundtable of the US National Academy of Sciences.[6]
I guess none of that matters to you? All of his sources are cited, including organizations like Harvard and the Ash Center. The fact that he posts some of his work on Substack doesn’t make it wrong.
So he is trying to claim that China is actually a shining example of democracy, despite being a 1 party state that openly punishes it’s citizens for critisicing the government, the revolution, key reveloutionary figure or communism in general, because of opinion polls that, in a different blog post, he admits are only as high as they are because of China’s censorship of government criticism.
Actually, Hickel’s point is that support for the CPC in China is popular because, above all else, the CPC has consistently delivered on its ambitious but grounded promises to the public. The PRC has seen an unimaginable climb from 1949 under CPC leadership, faster than any other country on the planet, and this has caused the working classes to support them.
We have actual empirical standards for what a democracy is. China is basically the poster child for modern authoritarianism and does not fit the description of a democratic state in any reasonable way. No opposition is allowed, the party leadership is the one that picks candidates, not the citizens and even then citizens only get this performative vote at the very lowest level of government.
This is incorrect, on multiple levels. China does not allow opposition parties, this is true, because factionalism is anti-socialist and is a product of liberal, bourgeois forms of democracy. Instead, policy is dynamic and focuses on consultative democracy. Democracy is not the ability to choose which party represents you, but is the rule by the majority. China has the latter, while the west only has the former.
To repeat myself, the Chinese political system is based on whole-process people’s democracy, a form of consultative democracy. The local government is directly elected, and then these governments elect people to higher rungs, meaning any candidate at the top level must have worked their way up from the bottom and directly proved themselves. Combining this consultative, ground-up democracy with top-down economic planning is the key to China’s success.
I highly recommend Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance. Socialist democracy has been imperfect, but has gone through a number of changes and adaptations over the years as we’ve learned more from testing theory to practice. Boer goes over the history behind socialist democracy in this textbook.
But that’s all I’m going to give you. I’ve fallen into the trap of trying to argue with Tankies who are not arguing from a position of reason, you’re like Magas or Nazis but just intelligent enough to actually cherry pick data and use the language of political theory to attempted to disguise your lunacy.
No, socialists and communists are nothing like MAGA nor Nazis. As we have seen and I have proven, you’re dismissing decorated academics like Jason Hickel and Roland Boer, as well as western organizations like the Ash Center, Wikipedia, and Harvard, all to cling to a false vision of reality.
Reply if you want, call me a shitlib for being pro free and fair elections if you feel like, but I’m not wasting any more of my time on you.
You aren’t pro “free and fair elections,” you’re in favor of elections dominated by capitalists, and believe Chinese people to be too stupid to realize the superiority of such elections. In order to maintain that chauvanistic view, you dismiss even western academics and scholars like Jason Hickel and Roland Boer, organizations like Harvard and the Ash Center, and even Wikipedia. Who on Earth do you trust, then?
They’ll have China remove it all when they get more billionaires. Marx famously said that socialism can only be done with billionares, and Mao said political power grows from the Shanghai Stock Exchange.
deleted by creator
Whataboutism, they still are capitalist.
Pointing out obvious holes in your logic isn’t whataboutism dumbass
deleted by creator
I’ve explained before, but no, China is not capitalist. Public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy, it governs the large firms and key industries and dominates the overall character of the economy. Private ownership exists, but is secondary to that, filling in the gaps left behind by the huge state driven industries in secondary and underdeveloped areas, and is folded into the public sector as it grows. The capitalist class is not allowed to gain political power, and the working classes control the state.
Some progress is better than none, you should spend less time parroting state department talking points and more time learning from what previous and current socialist projects have gotten right
I hate this left/right shit. There’s only conservatives and everyone else.
I wish that were true. Unfortunately, you have a large population of liberals who believe “This far left and no further” is a policy they’re willing to see others kill and die for.
We’ve got a bloc of political consultants who exist to infiltrate and undermine civil movements, a media sphere that propagates all sorts of hysteria around any kind of local leftist control of government or the economy, and a professional managerial class that is all in on a permanent labor underclass they can profitably exploit.
They’ll wave the rainbow flags and write op-eds about how much they love immigration and wistfully pine for a health care system that’s more affordable, right up until someone suggests their Starbucks Baristas might strike for better benefits. And then its fascism time.
And the “conservatives” are liberal as hell. The only thing they “conserve” is value for the ultra rich and some cherry-picked Biblical social order. Restrictions on capitalism? Let freedom ring.
Somehow this turned into a political argument instead of people just saying “based”
Based
And this is how those in power stay in power.
And this is how those in power stay in power.
what do you mean?
Divide and conquer.
Yup. Anyone writing off the majority of their fellow working class is just playing into hands of fascists.
Truth nuke.
The green bar is far too wide
I think tankies are further right than most leftists, but you’re welcome to call everyone to the left of you soulists.
A one dimensional political spectrum! Proper shit post, sir!
Oh, I know better than to participate in this discussion.
Nice try, Tankie.
Yeah, lots of pointless arguing further down in here. Like arguing about whether authoritarianism is left or right like that even matters. There are no set of single labels that can describe everyone’s motivations, goals, and what they are willing to do to get them, so arguing about the labels is pointless.
are you pro or anti sea piracy?
Probably anti overall, though context could change that. It’s just sea banditry and most bandits aren’t Robin Hood.
The digital version shouldn’t even be compared by using the same name, but if it was honest, then it wouldn’t work as propaganda (not that it seems to be working anyways).
Tankies are left?
Communists are left, yes.
They’re really not.
On what planet are communists not left-wing?
This one.
By whose standards? Communism is pretty definitionally left wing.
deleted by creator
If you believe in the horseshoe theory they aren’t. I believe in the horseshoe theory
I certainly reassessed.
Hey, horseshoes aren’t a theory, they’re custom cut and nailed in place…
Yes, but horseshoes invented the theory
Crabs truly are talented.
Sir Alex horseshoe Who was, in fact a horseshoe
Based
The biggest similarity is that we are both willing to use violence to oppress our enemies. The difference is that the enemy of communists are our oppressors and the enemy of fascist is whoever they decide to not like at the moment. The ultimate attack on capital (communism) is materially different than the ultimate defense of capital (fascism).
Fun fact though, liberalism also supports violence (or at least passively accepts it) as long as it is mostly external. We don’t get to choose non-violence. You can attack the people doing violence, join the people doing violence, or accept the people doing violence.
With the slight clarification that communists will redifine oppressors at their will, making them effectively the same in practice.
-
You are a worker that doesn’t support the movement? Class traitor, gulag.
-
You made a joke about dear leader? Traitor, gulag.
-
You would like free elections? Foreign agent, gulag.
Anything’s possible when you make shit up
Yes, holodomor is western propaganda.
Yes actually, and like all the best propaganda it’s partially true. Famine happened, people died, both verifiable facts. The extent is drastically exaggerated by western sources, allegations that it was an intentional act of genocide are baseless and hilariously hypocritical coming from the US & friends.
…no
-
I appreciate your point of view, but from my interactions here, that’s not my experience.
To be clear I am not trying to argue with you here I’m just curious what you think.
What part of what I said have you found to be untrue? What sort of interactions led you to this conclusion?
I think, it needs to be clarified, that not everything you said I would say is “untrue”, and I want to thank you for approaching this conversation constructively. I think we agree on many points, e.g. housing is a human right, as is access to food, Healthcare, water, etc.
The biggest similarity is that we are both willing to use violence to oppress our enemies.
I can’t speak to that point, so I will defer to you.
The difference is that the enemy of communists are our oppressors and the enemy of fascist is whoever they decide to not like at the moment.
I do know that fascism needs an enemy in order to function, but, from my interactions with various people who claim to be communist, they are just as happy to view anyone who dissent with their views as a sheep, or, an enemy to their cause. For example, we both agree that Israel is committing genocide, we both agree that, at the very least, Israel is certainly on its way to doing the same in Lebanon. We both agree that what the US did in Iran, and Vensuela is inexcusable (keeping it recent). Now when another country, russia, does something similar to ukraine, and, it’s called out, well now im a shit lib who is pro Imperialism and the enemy of what is “communism”
The ultimate attack on capital (communism) is materially different than the ultimate defense of capital (fascism).
If you mean communism, and not whatever russia and China are, then yes, no argument here.
Fun fact though, liberalism also supports violence (or at least passively accepts it) as long as it is mostly external.
I think liberals, generally are ok with it, as you said, externally, there was a lot of liberal support for the Iraq bullshit.
We don’t get to choose non-violence. You can attack the people doing violence, join the people doing violence, or accept the people doing violence.
Yes, boiled down, that is very unfortunately the case, and from an idealistic point of view, we need to collectively move past that stupidity.
Not ignoring you, but I want to give you a proper reply, not on my phone, so I need to get on a computer, ill write you back :)
No worries, take your time
No.
yes
