“Tankie” is just the new “commie”. 🤷
come @ me lemmy liberals
You know I think the only ones that will are the six or seven chronic users who peaked at using tankie as a pejorative, and half of them fucked off to piefed to insulate themselves from further interaction.
i’m grateful they left. lemmy feels much better already.
It’s kinda funny in some ways when they still come back. Only in the way of seeing how they can’t handle anything outside of their talking points. Or the one who seems to be as intelligent as that influencer who did the MN daycare stories
I like your attitude, but no one is right all the time. I bet you burnt a pizza once. RIP your pizza
there are very few liberals on .ml lol
Thankfully!
Removed by mod
15·2 days agoReddit banned communists, so communist made a reddit alternative (lemmy.) Reddit then continued to ban comumunists, so they went to the communist reddit alternative. That’s why there are communists in the communist reddit alternative.
Yall can have it. I just dont know how it ended up in my feed.
I don’t know, how?
Someone was being cheeky with the starter packages probably.
Go back to reddit.
Couldn’t even get the image right. Atlas bore not the earth, but the sky.
Have you never seen any depiction of Atlas?
Any systems of government run by people in a time of resource limits, and when money is still in wide use, will inevitably become corrupt.
Once we can have anything we want, whenever we want, then maybe we’ll be free.
Authoritarian Dictatorships famously never become corrupt after all
Capitalist dictatorship (IE liberal / bourgeios “democracy”) by definition is corrupt, in that it is a form of goverment where propertied and rich interests control the country, to the detriment of its exploited workers, who have no say or representation in their government. You’re “free” to yell into the void as long as your complaints don’t affect anything, at which point your movement will be crushed violently.
Its pure projection that liberals call every other form of government that challenges their rule a “dictatorship”, and rely on decades of ingrained anti-communist cold-war propaganda to cement it.
Unfortunately many people accept their propaganda willingly without challenging the cold-war dogma, or looking into how actually or previously existing socialist states had functional, substantive democracy, not the fake “democracy in name only” that liberal countries are selling you.
I never said that I was a liberal. If anything, I consider myself a market socialist since anything needed to survive shouldn’t be comdified for capital.
I’m simply saying that giving one man absolute power whether it be political or through wealth will inevitably lead to corruption. After all, the meme states that tankies are “always right”, and I’m assuming that by tankie they mean the authoritarian left like Stalinism, Maoism, etc.
Here is a declassified internal CIA memo from 1956 that literally says Stalin did not have absolute power and people who think he did don’t understand the Soviet system
The idea that socialist heads of state are kings is ludicrous and ahistorical, a product of western movies and TV during and after the red scares
I’m simply saying that giving one man absolute power whether it be political
This is standard anti-communist propaganda that unfortunately happens to work on gullible people. It’s related to medieval era witch hunting, where you:
- Create a legend of a supremely evil / nefarious thing, you want to demonize. IE the devil, leaders of revolutionary movements like Robespierre, Stalin, Castro, Mao, Kim Il-Sung, etc.
- Claim that all people are under the dominion of this sole power, which removes their humanity, and ability to reason or think like you do.
- Carry out societal-wide demonization and extermination campaigns, to terrorize any potential sympathizers.
Its a really effective tactic that lets you blame a single entity, encourages conformity and intentional ignorance, lets westerners ignore the functioning democracies of socialist states, and the mass movements that supported these various leaders.
“Market” Socialism is not necessary. Socialism pursues a dictatorship of the proletariat, not the total eradication of the bourgeoise. This means that socialism has to have some form of private ownership and thus some form of market.
Authoritarian does not mean anything. Dictatorship is the democratic domination of one group over all others. A dictatorship of the proletariat is inherently more democratic and less corrupt than a dictatorship of the bourgeoise.
could you define authoritarianism for the class? you may be as brief or extensive as you wish. the floor is yours, democracy crusader.
…A profit driven government that consolidates power and resources under a single figure-head and their keys to power at the expense of the common people, is an authoritarian state. Or if you’d rather the super simple watered down version: A government that serves itself, and not the people it is supposedly established to govern.
If you have a King who puts into place policy that creates wealth, safety, and comforts for his people; that’s a king, not an authoritarian dictator.
If you have a King who puts into place policy that takes away wealth, safety, and comfort for his people for his own agenda; that’s tyranny, a tyrant, and an authoritarian dictatorship.
This is just how I understand it. Though I am super excited to see your argument otherwise!
If you have a King who puts into place policy that creates wealth, safety, and comforts for his people; that’s a king, not an authoritarian dictator.
So an absolute monarchy will vacillate between being authoritarian and not based solely on the moral character of the particular king in power, even though the system remains the same?
Yes, Monarchy describes the method of passing rulership. Authoritarian deacribes the style of ruling.
Monarchy describes a type of government in which the leadership generally rests in one person, and that person is generally chosen based on heredity.
Authoritarian describes a style of governing in which the ruler and ruling class have little regard for human rights and freedoms, often employing a type of police state with high levels of control on individual behavior.
A monarchy could be authoritarian, or a monarchy could be fairly liberal and allow a lot of personal freedoms and self rule.
An authoritarian government could be a monarchy, or it could be a dictatorship, oligarchy, or even a type of democracy. Typically individuals don’t like living under authoritarian systems so typically they don’t last long under truly free democracy. But since authoritarians often crack down on opposition, the press, and freedom of assembly it is possible for them sometimes to maintain power across elections.
Authoritarianism broadly speaking is just a strong central government, so I suppose it’s not always a dictatorship per say I’d that’s what your point is. However, even still, there would be a class of people with absolute power over the populous just like the rich towering over the poor under capitalism. So it’d essentially be the government putting the boot over your neck instead of the billionaires
You’re very clearly a “baby leftist” from your few comments here so I really don’t want you to take this the wrong way. You really need to read some theory. Your heart is seemingly in the right place but that doesn’t mean much when you have yet to deconstruct your liberal foundations and actually come to understand the how and why of scientific socialism.
Ah, so this is what you mean by that. Still, bad focus. Ever since Hoxha’s Albania, Socialists have been pursuing the separation of the government and the economy as separate governing entities. So any claim that Socialists advocate for a strong central government is outdated at best. In reality it was always an askew argument as the people have far more democratic control over their lives than under capitalism.
Hey its fine if you want to believe you’re right, we all think we are. Thats why we believe what we believe. But can you at least not call people libs for not wanting authoritarianism?
Behold the greatest advance in Liberal Theory since Harry Potter.
You mean wanting to run brutal authoritarian dictatorships in other countries to exploit their resources
You say, while defending the DNC elsewhere
ah yes socialism is when dictator and no iPhone
Authoritarianism is not a thing, and you can tell it’s not a thing by how nobody who uses it can define it in a way that doesn’t include every government on earth.
Authoritarianism is a system of institutionalized domination, and yes this includes pretty much every government on earth currently.
Pretty much, or every? Can you think of a government that doesn’t fit this description? Because we already have a word for a system of institutionalized domination, and that word is “government.”
The Zapatista territories in Chiapas come to mind.
They enforce/enforced their authority often violently against the Mexican government, cartels, and the US.
Authoritarian is a useless buzzword for liberals to paint countries/movements they don’t like as immoral.
They enforce the authority of the people against institutional power, using a method (consensus-making) that ensures that it’s truly reflective of the will of the people (and not what a group of faux intellectuals think is the will of the people) and that it cannot be divorced from that will.
So? They institutionally dominated the region kicking out the cartels, US and Mexican government. They are authoritarian just as every form of governance is. Who the “authoritarianism” affects is a separate question.
What makes them different?
See my other reply
‘He shouts in the echo chamber’
lol
he mocks confidently because the western ruling class shares rhe same opinions he has
Removed by mod
Ah, my first customer, a .world lib classic LMBO
why is it always .world ? what’s happening there ?
.world is basically reddit. So they came here expecting clone of reddit but more convenient to use on their phones, but encountered numerous communists and the exposure to non-imperialist ideas made them incredibly uncomfortable. So they proceeded to do something they always do on reddit: snitching to the admins to deplatform communists. But it didn’t work because this is decentralised fediverse, not reddit. This made them extremely mad, so they defederated from two most prolific communist instances and random encounters on .ml make them pretty aggressive.
In short, .world is basically reddit.
wait, that’s actually a really clever insult that i’ve never heard before!
it has no place here though. try twitter, maybe?
