Pixelfed is the fedi equivalent, maybe make an account there and mastodon.

Hangol is very easy to learn, you can learn it in a day if you wanted to. Grammar and vocab take much, much longer though.

Historically vanguards only ever derive any form of power or legitimacy through popular support from the broader working classes. Had vanguards not been popularly supported, they would have failed. You can see examples of supposed “vanguards” that do fail, such as the Gonzaloist CPP Shining Path, which slaughtered peasants and alienated themselves from the working classes.

It’s less that and more that as capitalism turns to imperialism, it outsources all it can while trying to maintain a tech monopoly, creating “high value add” industry. The problem is that this “value add” industry doesn’t actually add any more value than other kinds of industry, its just kept as a tech monopoly, but China’s been able to break into that tech monopoly and fight those monopolist prices.

You can’t separate imperialism from its economic basis. The ability for a country to take on the mantle of empire post-US is extremely mitigated. Imperialism isn’t a magical force but a material process.

The US Empire has a small chance of Balkanizing, which the map drawers would love. The global south would develop far more rapidly, though this process has already started thanks to countries like the PRC. Europe will be forced into working with Russia and/or China. Countries like Cuba, Venezuela, and the DPRK that are heavily sanctioned will do a lot better with the US Empire out of the way, and Korea may even reunify down the road. Countries with strong socialist sentiment in the populace will better be able to become socialist and rapidly develop.

There’s a pretty big difference between free software, and running production and distribution of physical goods, as well as the geographic communalization anarchists tend to propose. It’s not that all decentralization leads to capitalism, it’s that decentralizing nearly everything related to production and distribution definitely can.

As for Marx to socialism as its practiced in the real world, I’m really not getting what you mean here. Marx himself was clear that the process of building communism is long and drawn-out, so existing socialist states that don’t have the full characteristics of communism aren’t at odds with Marx. Nor is the use of authority by the working classes against the capitalists and landlords. Marx’s famous quote on the working class wielding authority against the capitalists is as follows:

We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.

I think you misread, the idea here is that this same decentralization provides the germ of capitalism again. Collectivizing globally stops this process.

We can’t understand the world purely through arguing, but through actually engaging with the world and learning about it directly. You’re putting ideas before matter, rather than the inverse.

One thing I want to clarify, communists do wish to work towards the full collectivization of production and distribution to suit the needs of all. Our stance is that the transition to such a society will be long, but that transitional state is also good. We want to be the droplets of rock that bore through mountains, through persistence and the carried weight of generations. I do agree that anarchists and communists should work together, especially in combatting the US Empire as the world’s hegemon.

The picture on the bottom is of the DPRK, not the PRC.

I’d agree that idealistic (vs “idealism”) would be more accurate.

As for the bit on historical progression, it was a simplification. Russia was semi-feudal when it became socialist, China and Vietnam were colonized agrarian countries, Cuba was essentially a plantation, etc. Progression in modes of production isn’t so much a strict order but instead a natural progression, and moreover the point is that the driving factor behind their development has been class struggle and evolution in technology changing how we live, produce, and distribute.

Technically utopianism refers to the practice of imagining a better society and thinking you can implement it through fiat, ie by convincing everyone to agree with you. It’s like theorycrafting a society and thinking that you just need to convince everyone it’s the way.

Examples include the Owenites and Saint-Simone, both of which tried their own little isolated societies that they tried to get others to copy, but they fizzled and died. Marxism advanced upon this by looking at socialism not as something to create in a vacuum, but as the logical next step in class struggle, ie feudalism gave way to capitalism which gives way to socialism which gives way to communism due to the unfolding of dialectical processes and relationships (in example, the centralization of production into monopoly in capitalism kills competition, increases the proletariat with ratio to capitalists, and paves the way for central planning and collectivization of production and distribution).

Utopianism is unrealistic, but it isn’t defined by that.

No? Never said that, ever, in my life.

None of this rant answers my question, you’re not genuinely engaging. I’ve already answered the origin and modern use of the word “Tankie,” and it isn’t relevant here anyways.

To their credit, anarchism is far more diverse in tendency than Marxism is, and as a consequence there are legitimately anarchists that reject class analysis. I don’t think they are common, but they exist.

Ah you’re a bit account, gotcha.

Thank you comrade! 🫡

Can you explain how socialism in one country contradicts Marx?

Marxist-Leninists believe in socialism in one country, but that communism must be global. This is entirely in line with Marx. The argument against socialism in one country was the idea that the peasantry would be counter-revolutionary and erode socialism from within, which ended up not being the case. This was because the peasantry were seen to have a more communal consciousness than collectivist. However, practice shows that the proletariat and peasantry can form joint alliances and successfully work to build socialism together.