Pretty different context, I was asking for clarification from someone who used “tankie” unironically to ask them what they meant, you used it as an unironic insult, and further this is a different comm.

How so?

You got temp-banned from a different comm for breaking the rules, I don’t think picking fights is a good usage of your time to be honest.

The fact that Reddit is by far larger means choosing Lemmy is out of a deliberate choice in its favor systemically. This is usually more ideological in basis.

That’s “tankier” than the “tankies” you demonize, though. Kinda just confused here.

It was a way to break up worker organizing and strikes.

You can’t just kill Socialism into existence, though. That’s Idealism, not Materialism. That removes the entire process of Historical Materialism, and erases the foundations of Scientific Socialism, as opposed to Utopianism. I recommend reading or revisiting Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.

Fair enough, but I would say that examining what went right and what went wrong is an imporant duty for any socialist examining the USSR not just dismissing it outright. Many of the issues and problems with Soviet Union can be applied to any country building socialism as can many of the benefits. So we must learn what to keep and what to leave aside, as it remained Socialist until the very end of its existence.

And for what it’s worth, I reccommend that first link I sent. I think what I described in that could be useful for you.

The vast majority of Marxists globally are either “ignorant, delusional, or worst of all, tankies” then. The idea that the Soviet Union wasn’t Socialist is an extremely fringe opinion among all of Marxists, typically limited to Trotskyists, themselves limited to Western Countries and devoid of any revolutions.

Oh, you mentioned Permanent Revolution. I take it you’re a Trotskyist, then? That explains your stance, but I really don’t see why Permanent Revolution is relevant in any way, the theoretical basis relied on the assumption of the Peasantry as incapable of being truly aligned with the Proletariat and thus eventually would become counter-revolutionary. This ended up being false, and Socialism stabilized in the USSR, Cuba, China, Vietnam, Laos, and more, effectively debunking its relevancy.

In China, the Trotskyists wished to martyr China by attacking the Kuomintang and the Japanese Imperialists both, rather than allying with the KMT before overthrowing them. Had the Trotskyists had their way, China would remain a colony.

Today, the Russian Federation certainly is Capitalist and extremely Nationalist, but the PRC is still Socialist. I wrote a post on some common problems that some people run into when trying to determine Mode of Production. I also made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list, if you want to check it out. I think you’d benefit, especially since you took more of an adventurist route.

The former Soviet Union was Socialist, and so is the PRC. They haven’t reached Communism, but they are examples of Socialism if you count Marxism as Socialist. What makes you say they weren’t? Most people would disagree with you, especially Marxists, so I’m not sure what your stance is.

I am not advocating against revolution, I’m a Communist. If you became president of the US without revolution, you would not be able to execute any Capitalist you wanted, that’s more what I am saying. Temper your dogmatism with pragmatism, read theory and study past successful revolutions, such as in the USSR, China, Cuba, Algeria, etc.

Random executions doesn’t transfer political power, adventurism was debunked back when the SRs failed to lead the Russian Revolution. Execution is a tool with its own use, but it isn’t the best tool in all situations.

Not to bat for the disgustingly wealthy, but at the point Leftists have had a successful revolution, we don’t need to execute them outright, just lift their assets and jail them if they resist, or execute if they go on to become terrorists. Learn from successful revolutions, when the Cuban revolution succeeded Castro was actually very lenient in comparison to Batista.

Revolution is bloody, and we won’t make excuses, but at a certain point it risks dogmatism. Billionaires aren’t like Minecraft characters that drop their inventories on death, revolution is actually very sensible because it’s a lot easier to sieze their assets when the working class has control.

Yea but the Dems wouldn’t pass that, though.

100% correct, thank you.

The funding of Death Squads in Colombia is a better reason IMO but this works too, haha

Technically it’s the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, both the Republic of Korea and Democratic People’s Republic of Korea consider the other government to be illegitimate.

Either way, the CPC absolutely does follow ML-XJT. That guides their entire political economy and their strategy as a whole with regards to Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.

They usually do, here. If someone breaks the rules, report them, don’t feed them. If you want an instance with little interaction with liberals, Hexbear.net or Lemmygrad.ml might be a better fit too. I personally keep both a Lemmy.ml and a Hexbear.net account.

That’s taken out of context, though. That wasn’t a pivot from the working class as a focus, that was a pivot away from the Gang of Four’s fetishization of poverty under a more direct form of Socialism as being more noble than prosperity under a more market-focused system. China has been utilizing a Socialist Market Economy to rapidly build up the productive forces, and has channeled a lot of that growth into massive expansions in poverty reduction and infrastructural improvements for the good of all.

They didn’t pull an entire 180, they course corrected from Left-Deviationism. Ironically, the Gang of Four had taken on an idealist stance, rather than materialist, by treating higher levels of socialization of the Productive Forces as inherently superior at an almost mystical level, rather than as a course in material development that becomes more suitable the more advanced industry becomes. This goes against Marx.

Put another way, what would you consider a pivot that the CPC could make to turn it “authentically Marxist?” Is this pivot even feasible, or advisable? We can always critique, the CPC for sure has valid criticism that can be made, but I wouldn’t say that takes away from its Marxist character.

Sure, there can be, but in the instance of the CPC we can observe the Political Economy of the PRC, and observe trends over time, and confirm that they are indeed Marxists.

The CPC is Marxist-Leninist, currently ML-XJT.