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.
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.
If I were to be cheeky, I’d say that market socialism is still liberalism. There’s a difference between a Socialist Market Economy, like the PRC, and market socialism. In a socialist market economy, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, while diverse forms of ownership account for small and medium firms, including cooperatives and private ownership. In market socialism, cooperatives form the principle aspect, and as such it is largely weak to the same mechanisms as capitalism.
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.
Neither Stalin nor Mao had absolute power, though. Both the USSR and China under Mao were democratic. For China, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the CPC, a working class party, dominates the state. At a democratic level, local elections are direct, while higher levels are elected by lower rungs. At the top, constant opinion gathering and polling occurs, gathering public opinion, driving gradual change. This system is better elaborated on in Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance.
For the USSR, it was quite similar. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about.
By “tankie,” OP essentially means anyone that recognizes existing socialist states as valid. This includes the majority of Marxists.
“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.
…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.
Gonna be honest, I have no idea what a “tankie” is at this point. I know what it used to mean, but what it means now is beyond me. I’ve had several people give very different definitions, and none of them were “communists that supported Krushchev sending tanks into Hungary”.
Its basically just “any leftist I don’t like” at this point. Not really any different from “woke”.
Some arrogant western supremacist ultralefts use it to distance themselves from existing socialist states / attempts, but nowadays liberals will call even these ultralefts “tankies” for having the temerity to stand against Israel’s genocide. Its just a term to punch left.
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
Having a strong central government under the control of the working classes is possible, though, as exists in socialist countries. It indeed uses this absolute power against enemies of the state, but in this case the enemies are capitalists, fascists, sabateurs, etc, and the state truly democratic in the sense that it represents the majority. The state can only be under the control of a definite class, it does not exist outside of class struggle but within it.
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.
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
This is standard anti-communist propaganda that unfortunately happens to work on gullible people. It’s related to medieval era witch hunting, where you:
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.
If I were to be cheeky, I’d say that market socialism is still liberalism. There’s a difference between a Socialist Market Economy, like the PRC, and market socialism. In a socialist market economy, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, while diverse forms of ownership account for small and medium firms, including cooperatives and private ownership. In market socialism, cooperatives form the principle aspect, and as such it is largely weak to the same mechanisms as capitalism.
Neither Stalin nor Mao had absolute power, though. Both the USSR and China under Mao were democratic. For China, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the CPC, a working class party, dominates the state. At a democratic level, local elections are direct, while higher levels are elected by lower rungs. At the top, constant opinion gathering and polling occurs, gathering public opinion, driving gradual change. This system is better elaborated on in Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance.
For the USSR, it was quite similar. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about.
By “tankie,” OP essentially means anyone that recognizes existing socialist states as valid. This includes the majority of Marxists.
“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.
I don’t see why you believe socialist democracies to be inherently more corrupt than capitalist “democracies.”
I believe that the meme I was responding to referred to “tankies” always being right, which would mean communist, not socialist.
Socialism is not an end point. It is the transitionary phase between capitalism and communism.
Yep, thank you.
Communism is post-socialist, and has not existed yet.
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!
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.
Then that definition doesn’t apply to the socialist states that “tankies” support, so the original comment doesn’t make sense.
Gonna be honest, I have no idea what a “tankie” is at this point. I know what it used to mean, but what it means now is beyond me. I’ve had several people give very different definitions, and none of them were “communists that supported Krushchev sending tanks into Hungary”.
Its basically just “any leftist I don’t like” at this point. Not really any different from “woke”.
Some arrogant western supremacist ultralefts use it to distance themselves from existing socialist states / attempts, but nowadays liberals will call even these ultralefts “tankies” for having the temerity to stand against Israel’s genocide. Its just a term to punch left.
says the mod banning leftists for being critical towards Russia
Your comment moderation history is full of racist “Found the russian!” comments.
also, to add to that: would it be equally racist to say “Found the American!” in response to a capitalist/imperialist comment
if “full of” means one single comment as a reaction to a pro-Russian statement, yes.
Really just means “supports existing socialism,” but as a pejorative.
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
Having a strong central government under the control of the working classes is possible, though, as exists in socialist countries. It indeed uses this absolute power against enemies of the state, but in this case the enemies are capitalists, fascists, sabateurs, etc, and the state truly democratic in the sense that it represents the majority. The state can only be under the control of a definite class, it does not exist outside of class struggle but within it.
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.
Cowbee’s reading list should give you a good start
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.