TRUE communism!

That's not even close. I have one with 1k+ angry hexbear comments

As is tradition. I don't care though. They're well known to constantly lie and misrepresent people they hate in their own comms. So long as they don't come and shit in here.

That doesn't mean the character of an economy that is dominated by public ownership is capitalist, either, just that it is on the "socialist road," ie it is socialist, and working its way to higher levels of socialization until communism is achieved.

This is the crux of the disagreement between anarchists and MLs. I would argue that state ownership - if the state does not adequately represent the will of the people - is not public ownership. A hierarchical state with a flawed and bureaucratic democracy that is prone to corruption inevitably creates and maintains a class of bureaucrats with social, political, and economic privilege. The state - in order to preserve itself - maintains a monopoly on collective ownership, preventing workers from organizing on their own terms.

This is what anarchists mean when they call something "state capitalist." They are arguing that the state itself is a private entity pretending to represent the will of the people.

It feels a bit disingenuous to hear the following:

to engage in productive conversation with Marxists.

I mean I got your point the other day, that I shouldn't necessarrily argue about Communistic dogma without reading all the literature, but I had to fight tooth and nail to get to that point and not just be waved away as a bad faith actor. So I was already working hard just to be told to go and read up.

OP is using the same intensity hammer you guys got going on over there. Is it fair?

As long as the state holds control of the large firms and key industries, and resolves class contradictions in the favor of the proletariat and against the bourgeoisie, then as the economy develops and grows it will continue to take on an increasingly socialized character.

When has this been achieved in communism?

A good communist is suspicious of all leaders. Because nobody fucks the working class like leaders

They got so upset some of them resorted to ableism. Just astounding stuff.

Start the argument

Disengage

disengage

You don't get it we're not leftists, we're red fascists.

Also

Authoritarian leftists and marxist lenninists are not leftists.

Never were. Never will be.

1. Belief that someone relinquishes power after seizing it is just childish, at best. Borderline moronic given the historic evidence.
2. If you like authoritarian assholes in power, one that purges the ranks, seizes power and gets control of the eeconomy. All for the good of people. That is Fascism. Capital F. Get. Fucking. Real.

Because people need to be reminded of the lessons anarchists learned the hard way to prevent another Spain, Ukraine and even Russia.

... You don't get it?

This is an Anarchist instance.

Anarchists are extremely critical of the concept of 'the State' itself, tend to want to either totally abolish it, or at least strip it down so much or break it apart that it essentially isn't a 'State' any more.

Tankies embrace, and essentially worship the State.

... Also, in basically every single recorded instance of a succesful or attempted leftist revolution in modern human history, tankies ally with anarchists to overthrow the existing State, and then murder all of them after they've established themselves as the new State or proto-State.

One could argue that it seems to be in the material interest of authoritarian statists to extend false allyship to 'fellow leftists', and then betray them as quickly as they abandon their ideal of a 'classless society' and begin to assert themselves as the new ruling class.

There's a 101 level answer for your 'why so antagonistic' question.

Tankies historically cry 'Unity! Unity!' and do exactly what you are doing, trying to shame those who are skeptical... and then the rhetoric flips on a dime and the cry switches to 'Purity! Faith!'

...

Also worth noting is your framing of this as antagonistic in the first place.

I guess you find the evidence of history thus far to largely be antagonistic to your worldview?

I don't know, I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth, but that is my assumption.

I could be wrong though.

This sums up my thoughts on human behavior quite nicely. I really want to believe "true communism" is possible but I just don't see how when power-hungry assholes exist. My thoughts are that it can only happen at small scales where you know everyone in your "tribe". It's far easier to oppress nameless strangers than it is to oppress Jenny with a heart condition a sick kid.

I'd be very interested in an honest answer about how this is handled from someone with more knowledge on communism.

Kinda fuckin sus that all of the people you ban and remove comments from don't have said comments show up in your moderation history. As an anarchist I find this not just authoritarian but looking like you have something to hide.

You done gone and triggered the whole damn beehive!

I'm popping my popcorn, I'll be back later 🍿

db0 does this on purpose because they have a humiliation fetish or something.

The Marxist equivalent of "but the GDP..."

This happens like clockwork whenever a meme makes fun of authcoms from a typical anarchist perspective. Always! You should see the 1000-comment salt mines of the very first such post I made.

Well you see decades of CIA propaganda, started by the Nazis in the 40s, have become such widespread narratives that most people take them at face value without thinking about it.

Oh also

I guess it's tempting to say stuff like this when you can point to capitalists moving their factories to China to take advantage of cheap costs of production, but you do realize that capital is recoiling in total fear of the monster that their investment in a legitimately socialist country has created, right? If Marxism-Leninism is the ideology of the factory owner, why are American imperialists (who politically answer to and are controlled by the forces of capital) so dead-set on isolating and crushing China? Why are they trying to open 3 fronts around China, separating them from Iran and Russia, as well as creating a proxy army in Taiwan?

Furthermore, why is it that liberals and fascists can more or less be trusted to reliably communicate what their intentions are (within some margin of error, it's especially necessary substitute "development" for "colonization" when you listen to them talk about the economy), but when it comes to communists they actually mean the opposite of what they say? Fascists are pretty open about believing that the causes of conflict are the impure rabble that have corrupted the noble races. Liberals are pretty open about believing that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the system of liberal democracy in the West, the problems are with foreign influence (Russiagate, TikTok) and with poor regulation/over regulation, or with too little government influence and too much (depends on which side of the Keynesianism debate a liberal lands). But when communists say, labor must seize the means of production and become the rulers of society, what they really mean is that a small cabal of vanguardists should rule over the workers like dictators? Why is it that the communists are understood as inherently duplicitous?

edit: Maybe I'm naive to expect a response but I did feel like expanding on my argument about the suspicion placed on communists that isn't placed in equal measure on fascists, particularly. There is a sense in which fascists are duplicitous, hide behind many layers of masks like the ever-present chan-board irony culture that has actually influenced much of the modern internet. But communists are the opposite! Communists can't operate behind secrecy and with the kinds of tactics that fascists employ because communists rely on the masses. For communists to be successful, they can't trick the masses into believing one thing, then implement another; they must educate the masses about what the masses must themselves do, then empower the masses to carry out revolution. I think that Roderic Day does a good job of explaining this phenomenon in his essay Really Existing Fascism, where he even generalizes the instinct to conceal reactionary aims to also apply in equal measure to 21st century liberals:

According to Marx, solidary forms of social organization that in the past had arisen simply out of need and circumstance, which were equally superseded by need and circumstance (by the efficient oppression of man by man, by slavery), were to make an emancipatory comeback. However, this time around they would be enshrined and protected by masses of conscious workers, workers who know the value of their labour, who demand an economy that they have made, that they know they have made, and that they are capable of remaking ongoingly. [60]

Nietzsche, if we accept the reading of him as the ultimate fascist philosopher, is easily understood as making an analogous plea to his own reactionary constituency. Where Hannah Arendt and John Seeley try to claim that Western colonization and slavery were “absentminded” pursuits, Nietzsche persuades readers that there is glory in all of it, if done properly, aesthetically, “beyond good and evil.” Where Marx wants the masses to rediscover “primitive communism,” only this time consciously, Nietzsche wants elites to pursue the brutal programme of “primitive accumulation,” only this time consciously and without private shame.

I say private because, in anti-symmetry with Marx, and fully aware of the danger of letting people know what he’s really about, Nietzsche recommends concealing one’s aims. Thus we come to understand Nietzsche’s warm reception in the liberal West, whose architects turn out to be much better pupils of Nietzsche than the Nazis ever were. George Kennan posits American supremacy as an end in itself, donning a perfectly serviceable mask of liberal pluralism, then goes on to play an important role in planning several decades of “Pax Americana” on the basis of genocidal terrorism. The defining characteristic of the fascist is that they defend their anti-egalitarianism purposefully. The fundamental cleavage between Classical Liberalism and Modern Liberalism is simply the heightened awareness, given the Revolutions and Counter-Revolutions of the 20th century, that it is tactically expedient to wear a mask.