Social democracy (what you call democratic socialism) in the EU depends on imperialism to function. The reason it’s deteriorating and pushing to the far-right is because of the decay in imperialism. This is a consequence of the capitalist nature of social democracy, not something that would be applicable to socialism. Socialism one day will emerge, and from it communism will, as contradictions within socialism as resolved.

Communists don’t crave power, and if your only point to that is that we recognize the necessity of employing state power against literal fascists, landlords, capitalists, sabateurs, etc, then you’re implicitly making the point that we should let these groups run free for a sense of greater “freedom,” even if these groups murder us and re-establish the very system that so immiserated us to the point of revolution in the first place. You’re handcuffing yourself.

In reality, communists become so because of disaffections with present capitalist systems, and seek answers from Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. The fact that some party members are opportunists doesn’t make that a fact of communism. This kind of psycho-analysis doesn’t hold any water when measured against real communist movements, both in successful socialist nations and in communist parties in capitalist nations.

Uh, I don’t think you understood their point. Tankies aren’t communists, they’re authoritarians with a red paint job. We’re not talking about nuanced Marxist thinkers, we’re taking about people who think “Just line everyone who doesn’t accept my exact interpretation of communism up against the wall” is rational praxis.

These people don’t exist, so effectively the purpose for maintaining this as your definition is to use it as a discussion-terminating club against those that uphold socialism as it exists in real life, tacking on the sins of this strawman like a scarlet letter A.

“Tankie” is just a pejorative for those who recognize and uphold the legitimacy of existing socialist states. If you ask any self-described leftist if they support socialists stopping fascists, murderers, slavers, landlords, etc through violent means, 99% will support it. Marxists do not wish to “contril others who do not share their beliefs,” but instead recognize that the state violence committed against genuine fascists, slavers, sabateurs, imperialists, and so forth in real life was and is necessary. Anarchists also wielded force against fascists in Spain, but “Tankie” is reserved as a special pejorative for those who also uphold the socialist state projects.

Is queer support for Palestinian liberation “a disgusting phenomenon” as well, due to socially reactionary views from Hamas? Nobody supports China’s lacking queer rights, but instead the fact that they are continuously improving, both in general and with respect to queer rights. The major obstacle in China with respect to queer rights are the social conservativism of older generations, it isn’t a fixed, static aspect of China but a phenomenon caused by the new society still needing to overcome lingering elements of the old. It’s the same for Palestine, social progress is something that unfolds over time and is expedited by progressive movements, such as national liberation from genocidal settler colonialism.

Free for all Communism has never worked in any meaningful way. Now, the always ready retort is “it’s never had the chance to!” to which I’d reply: it never will. If it can compete with other forms of governance let it rip, but… ? where is the success story?

The problem is that this is false. Socialist countries led by communist parties have consistently brought dramatic, radical improvements over what came before in a way that far surpasses any upsides of capitalism. Metrics like life expectancy, in many cases, increase by 50-100%, poverty rates plummet, land reform helps end famine where it was once common (a huge part of life expectancy increases), and their economies are democratized in a way that fundamentally doesn’t exist in capitalist countries. Socialism works.

Communism is a post-socialist stateless, classless, moneyless society. Communist parties have always governed socialist countries, because communism has not yet been achieved, and is itself a global phenomenon.

Not sure what you mean by “free for all.”

Democratic Socialism works very well in other countries all over the world: they recognize there are certain services that are critical to provide in order for democracy to function: fire, police, healthcare, disability affordances, so many things that government is uniquely situated to promote and provide.

You’re confusing social democracy for socialism. Social safety nets within the boundaries of capitalism are not socialism, socialism is not when the government does stuff. Capitalism is a mode of production characterized by private ownwership as the principle aspect of the economy and capitalists in control of the state, with socialism being public ownership as principle and the working classes in charge of the state.

“Democratic Socialism” itself is a a vague term. Socialism is already democratic, rule by the majority is a necessity when the working class is in control of the state. What it ends up meaning in practice is socialism relying heavily on electoralism and reformism, such as in Chile under Allende and in Venezuela.

The important factor here is that the social democracies that are doing the best, their safety nets are largely funded by imperialism and unequal exchange. These are not internally driven systems, but closer to landlords in country form towards the global south. Now that imperialism as a global system is weakening, we can actually track the erosion of safety nets in these social democracies, and in the general shift to the far-right.

I’m happy to change from free-for-all-capitalism, welcome it, but you can’t point to a hypothetical end point that’s never ever existed AND won’t be allowed to exist as long as resources require capital.

We can point to the real existing socialism in the real world and uphold their gains. No socialist country has been perfect, of course, all have had problems and struggles. They have, however, always been progressive and emancipatory as compared to what came before, and more effective at providing for their people compared to peer capitalist countries, without relying on imperialism.

The fact of the matter is that over 90% of Chinese citizens support the CPC. You’re confusing individualist tendencies with socialism. The citizens of the PRC don’t have to join the party, they have 100 million members but 1.4 billion citizens. The party is supported because it consistently improves the quality of life of the working classes of China in a regular and planned fashion. Whole Process People’s Democracy is core to the idea of the PRC’s consensus-building and direction.

Standard of living is quite high and rapidly rising. For example, purchasing Power in 2022 was 25 times higher than 1978. The gap between rural and urban development has long been acknowledged and is already something worked on. The famous poverty eraducation campaign was focused on just that. Read The Metamorphosis of Yuangudui to see what that looks like in practice.

Another consistent metric is perceptions of democracy:

For more reading, The East is Still Red, Socialism in Power: On the Theory and History of Socialist Governance, and Socialism With Chinese Characteristics: A Guide for Foreigners are all great for understanding how the PRC works. ProleWiki’s page on the People’s Republic of China is also good if you just want an in-depth summary.

In what way is AES “nonsense?” Countries where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the workint class in control of the state factually exist. It isn’t a “deliberate lie” because you either disagree with that or with the understood definition of socialism.

It’s no good escaping the grasp of “the west” if the cure is worse than the disease, and that’s almost always the case.

This form of sloganeering sounds nice on paper, but isn’t actually what happened. If we look at various movements led by Marxist-Leninists, we can see the following general rule:

1. Russia turned from a brutal Tsarist semi-feudal backwater into a socialist state.

2. China turned from a colonized agrarian country into a socialist state.

3. Cuba turned from a fascist slave colony into a socialist state.

4. Vietnam turned from a colonized agrarian country into a socialist state.

And many, many more examples. In many of these examples, life expectancy increased by 50-100%, the economies were democratized, literacy rates skyrocketed, land reform dramatically reduced risk of famine, and more. The idea that the working classes have it worse in socialism than what came before is fundamentally absurd.

The Soviets are gone and modern Russia is little more than a Mafia state. China is ascendent, but it’s also growing more capitalist by the hour, and even with the current US administration, we still have more freedoms in America than in China. Whether that remains true is yet to be seen, but if America falls to authoritarianism and joins Russia as a second Mafia state, we know we can count on tankies to cheer it on, oblivious to how much worse that will be for pretty much all of humanity.

The US Empire is far more brutal to the working classes than China could ever hope to be, especially at an international scale. China isn’t “becoming more capitalist,” it’s gradually developing to greater degrees of socialization and is already a socialist state. What Marxists are cheering on is the end of the US Empire’s hegemony, its negative impact on the world is declining due to this downfall.

Ignoring the conspiracy theory about communists being paid to be communists (I wish, instead I pay dues to my org), this in particular is false:

Marx and his allies believed Communism can’t come about by force, only by natural progression following the unavoidable natural collapse of capitalism.

Marx was revolutionary. The fundamental transformation from a society where private ownetship is principle and capitalists in charge of the state into one where public ownership is principle and the working class in charge of the state requires revolution. The idea that capitalism paves the way for socialism by centralizing and increasing the number of proletarians as compared to capitalists and entering worse and worse crisis doesn’t mean that you can only have a revolution in a developed capitalist country, or that we simply wait on our hands for capitalism to collapse and pray socialism takes its place.

I suppose, but just so we’re on the same page, you understand socialism to be when public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working class in control of the state, right?

I’m not gaslighting you, your comment is assuming there’s concrete evidence we are not acknowledging. That’s the fundamental basis point, and your justification is that we know the US Empire is bad. I didn’t bring up the US Empire because of assuming you’re statesian, but because it’s the world hegemon.

☭ Join us! ☭

👻 spooky scary communists! 👻

There’s bias in my writing, sure. I’m not an impartial observer, but a Marxist-Leninist that came to Marxism after anarchism. In the context of the state, which we are necessarily limited to, I have to tackle the economic foundations, though both Marxism and anarchism are about much more. Dialectical materialism, for example, is applicable to all manner of analysis and change, not purely for political ends.

Sometimes they did, sometimes they didn’t. Anarchists largely joined the red army and the bolsheviks, with a minority joining the whites or forming their own cells. There wasn’t a blanket “kill anarchists for thought crime” order, nor did the soviets sit back when groups like Makhnovschina started their banditry against soviet villages and camps.

This is just your own personal justification for not doing any investigation, yet feeling comfortable with repeating claims a group we already have established lies about their enemies. We aren’t talking about any sort of moralism here, but analyzing concrete reality and continuously engaging with it to further and deepen our knowledge of it.

There’s absolutely nothing insidious about me saying that the enemies of the US Empire are not the evil empires the US alleges them to be. To the contrary, my goal is to understand the world so as to change it for the better. Conjuring up ideas of dead bodies where they either do not exist or exist in far smaller quantities than portrayed by geopolitical enemies does a service to the far greater evil in legitimizing their demonization, furthering their goals.

Bingo.

Socialist countries aren’t built on imperialism. They have their own problems, but at the same time are directed by the working classes rather than capitalists.