this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
243 points (81.2% liked)

196

16514 readers
2422 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 36 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I'm tired of tankies telling me I need "leftist unity" when I want freedom

[–] [email protected] 4 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

I think the whole authoritarian vs antiauthoritarian split is kinda BS - IMO it's more about who's dictating terms to who. We really badly need land reform, and landlords aren't going to willingly give that up, so we have to be a bit "authoritarian" in order to make them do so. Same thing goes with wealth redistribution, and land back. If you give up on using force to get what you want, how do you get land back to indigenous populations, or stop the genocide in Gaza?

I think we'll be more free if we work together to build socialism than we would be if we keep shitting on each others approaches towards building it. Then we'll just keep refining it until there's a minimum amount of hierarchy or control in society that's used to prevent re-privatisation, exploitation, and the re-establishment of Capitalism.

Signed, a "tankie"

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

My problem is there's an assumption that you know what's best for people, rather than self determination of peoples.

You think it's a BS line because even in US and Canada at least (where I'm most familiar with). We're still under (though to a much lesser extent) authoritarianism.

The Government knowingly executed a probably innocent man.

The victims family, and even the prosecution, admits they got it wrong.

How is this not authoritarianism if the state can execute innocent people?

Just because you can vote, doesn't mean you have power.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

You can have revolution without authority, the true question is should the workers truly own the nation they built or a self appointed "vanguard"? Do the ends truly justify the means? Also we shit on auths because for most of history they felt no need to truly work with us unless they were desperate (and then they proceed to backstab us when they get comfortable).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

So, I think the workers should own the nation and that power should be held at the level of workplace unions and community organizations. I see being "the vanguard" of communism as similar to a 1st place designation in Mario Kart - it's a floating title that depends on who's doing the most for the effort and who other people look to. That vanguard shouldn't get any extra privileges, they're workers just like anyone else.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

In my opinion at that point why even have a vanguard when the power can be held exclusively by syndicates (just to clearify though I do respect your position).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 17 hours ago

Agreed, power should be held by syndicates, ideally with those syndicates/groups/unions/etc working together by sending delegates to a Congress and then abiding by the democratic decisions made by that Congress.

I think deciding who is or isn't the vanguard is something you can only do when you look back at history - you can point at different groups at different times when they were leading the movement, but if you were living through it things might not be clear. It's pointless trying to figure out who the vanguard is right now, instead we should be organizing.