https://lemmy.ml/comment/16430292
Brave take at the top of the screenshot which was then flooded by minions of the grad.
I tried to not post any Cowbee because it was too easy but you’re welcome to check out the thread and post your own findings.
With Chinese characteristics. Don’t forget the Chinese characteristics.
Btw, on voyager you can use “share as image”, which is a bit nicer than screenshots:
First of all: Thank you for your fantastic app.
Secondly: I had no idea I could do that I just keep discovering new things. Thank you so much!
What defines a tankie is the authoritarianism, not whatever economic theory they profess to believe in.
It IS transitional, shitlib 🙄 didn’t you read theory? It clearly says it’ll transition to a workers paradise after 500 years of capitalist dictatorship.
Trans rights for dictatorships 🏳️⚧️
China will get rid of all its billionaires after it’s done installing suicide nets on every factory
So true, read das kapital brother suicide is against the values of the party
I bit the onion
I hope it tasted good
Cowbee “Tankie Influencer” is some underrated high comedy right there, I tell you what.
Well, socialism is supposed to be a transition to communism. The problem is that people suck, and none of the communist countries have ever managed to successfully make that transition.
Turns out, when revolutionaries tear down the government and get handed all the power, they suddenly hate the idea of a stateless society.
Yeah, usually the people who are good at running a revolution are not the same people you want running the government after the revolution.
What you call communism and what MLs call communism is usually different things. For them a state bureaucracy with wage labor below it is perfectly capable of being considered “stateless”. It’s quite absurd really.
But ML methods never create a stable socialist system. They all inevitably collapse into Capitalism proper.
I’ve heard this claim but only from critics. Is there somewhere I can find it from a ML writer? While I have heard some debate about what exactly stateless means from within anarchist thinkers, all were at least dramatically deconstructed compared to modern states. It’s hard to imagine how anyone could consider the idea of a stateless bureaucracy to be intellectually serious.
I hear they PM’d you. Did argue for that position adequately then? :D
@Cowbee@lemmy.ml believes so and usually can argue at length about it. You can see if they’re in the mood to elaborate.
The problem is that people suck
Basically this. Socialism and communism both fall down because they’re brittle systems. All it takes is one corrupt, selfish individual to exploit the system, accumulate wealth, use it to buy power, and the system falls over.
It’s true for every system. Any system can be captured and taken advantage of. But the systems without built in central control are harder to take advantage of.
Yes, though I think one difference is that capitalism just assumes that everyone is selfish and will act out of self-interest, and builds a kind of stability out of this. This doesn’t make capitalism good, but perhaps more realistic.
, and builds a kind of stability out of this
Gestures wildly hwhat?!
Anyway, anarchism deals with this issue by not allowing anyone to accumulate wealth in the first place.
and builds a kind of stability out of this
Gestures wildly hwhat?!
Oh, yeah, well it only stays that way as long as there’s enough competition to prevent any single actor from gaining too much control. Like I said, it’s not good.
anarchism deals with this issue by not allowing anyone to accumulate wealth in the first place.
How exactly would this be enforced in an anarchist society? Who would be doing the “not allowing”, and how would they decide what constitutes too much accumulation, and what form would the enforcement take?
You misunderstand. Accumulation requires enforcement. Anarchists would just reasonably ask why one thinks they deserve to keep more than they need for themselves
Accumulation requires enforcement.
If I am a woodworker, and I make furniture in a particular style, and that style becomes desirable so that other people want to have furniture made by me, and are willing to trade goods and services to me beyond what you might consider the normal value of the materials and labor cost of the furniture, am I now “accumulating wealth” by making furniture that is highly valued? Have I already accumulated wealth by acquiring the tools and the workshop needed to make the furniture?
If I am a painter, and my paintings become popular, am I accumulating wealth by continuing to produce paintings which I know will be highly valued?
If I start a library, am I accumulating wealth by collecting books?
How are these in any way “enforcement”?
Anarchists would just reasonably ask why one thinks they deserve to keep more than they need for themselves
Who defines “need” or “reasonable”?
Ultimately what I am understanding from what you are saying is that this anarchist society requires individuals to be self-monitoring and self-limiting. I think all of human history describes how unrealistic that idea is.
Further, it would require that all 8billion+ people in the world have some collectively shared definition of what is reasonable, deserving, needful. This is a kind of conformity and uniformity that I find deeply uncomfortable.
I’m gonna be real, I think we’ve lost all credibility to talk shit as we just had our own night of the long knives.
You can talk shit about fascist regimes while living under one yourself ;) I’d say if you haven’t voted for the fascists but they got into power anyway then you are more of a victim, than the suspect.
Signed, a shit talker about regimes while living under one.
Living under a fascist regime doesn’t strip you of the ability to criticize other fascist regimes. On the contrary, if you allow other fascists to peddle their tripe uncontested, you will end up with Anschluss, not liberation.
Just remember that this fuckwad regime we live under comes first for taking fire.
