While likely true, we should focus on education over attacking. I don’t care for tone policing, but letting assertions hang without challenge doesn’t allow either the person making the claim nor any onlookers to gain a deeper understanding. Lenin taught this well, as sharp-tongued as he was, he always made sure to clearly and concisely refute the positions he was criticizing, big and small. It is this way that we grow the movement. As Sankara said:
We must never stop explaining. We know that when the people understand, they cannot help but follow us.
Quite the opposite. Anarchist, or at least anarchist adjacent.
Just because your colour of state capitalism is red and the thugs breaking heads have a red star on their caps doesn’t make their violence against the people justified.
The difference between a chud and a tankie is the colour of uniform. Cope.
The PRC is socialist, as already explained up here, as public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes in control of the state. Nobody says violence is justified because of an aesthetic difference, but because of qualitatively different class relations. ICE breaks the heads of the working classes, the MSS is used to oppress capitalists and those who seek to undermine socialist construction.
The difference between a chud and a “tankie,” ie a communist, is that chuds serve the capitalist class and seek to perpetuate the extreme predation of the international working classes by a small class of imperialist capitalists, while the communists seek to uplift the working classes and establish a more equitable society for all. Both tend to wear uniforms, but for entirely different purposes.
You focus too much on form while ignoring essence. To chloroken’s credit, this focus on form over essence is an aspect of liberalism, it’s idealist rather than materialist. You may claim to have anarchist sympathies, but liberal ideology seems to be the basis of your thought-process.
Liberal spotted.
While likely true, we should focus on education over attacking. I don’t care for tone policing, but letting assertions hang without challenge doesn’t allow either the person making the claim nor any onlookers to gain a deeper understanding. Lenin taught this well, as sharp-tongued as he was, he always made sure to clearly and concisely refute the positions he was criticizing, big and small. It is this way that we grow the movement. As Sankara said:
Are you seriously going to make me stop angst-posting?
Fine, done.
You can angst-post! Just add some concise refutation if you can as well.
Quite the opposite. Anarchist, or at least anarchist adjacent.
Just because your colour of state capitalism is red and the thugs breaking heads have a red star on their caps doesn’t make their violence against the people justified.
The difference between a chud and a tankie is the colour of uniform. Cope.
The PRC is socialist, as already explained up here, as public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes in control of the state. Nobody says violence is justified because of an aesthetic difference, but because of qualitatively different class relations. ICE breaks the heads of the working classes, the MSS is used to oppress capitalists and those who seek to undermine socialist construction.
The difference between a chud and a “tankie,” ie a communist, is that chuds serve the capitalist class and seek to perpetuate the extreme predation of the international working classes by a small class of imperialist capitalists, while the communists seek to uplift the working classes and establish a more equitable society for all. Both tend to wear uniforms, but for entirely different purposes.
You focus too much on form while ignoring essence. To chloroken’s credit, this focus on form over essence is an aspect of liberalism, it’s idealist rather than materialist. You may claim to have anarchist sympathies, but liberal ideology seems to be the basis of your thought-process.