Tankie ☭

Dont Forget The Brutal US Invasions , Carpet bombings , Scorched Earth Campaigns , Genocides usually followed by Brutal Civil Wars , assassination attempts & nonstop coup plots funding of terrorists and rebels the list goes on and on , and im not making any of this up.

@NH3reftech @israeliens1 @RockChartrand The shithole communism makes:

@israeliens1 @RockChartrand That's what the former USSR and East Germany thought too. We see what happened there. The people got tired of lines for toilet paper and the total shithole communism makes.

Capitalism isn't opposed to force. It's opposed to the initiation of force. Protecting rights requires force. Defending yourself from a murderer, thief, invader, or aggressor is force. The difference is that capitalism permits force only in retaliation to rights violations. Communism permits force to seize wealth, control production, and compel obedience. Capitalism says force may be used defensively. Communism says force may be used offensively in pursuit of a political goal. So pointing to anti communist violence doesn't prove capitalism requires aggression. The relevant question is whether the force was retaliatory or initiatory. Capitalism permits the former and forbids the latter.

Lenin did not define the vanguard party as “bourgeois professional revolutionaries.” Thats just false. In What Is To Be Done?, Lenin says it is immaterial whether a professional revolutionary is a student or a worker. The point is not class origin, the point is revolutionary training, discipline, and organization. marxists.org/archive/lenin/… He also says the movement’s job is to help capable workers become professional agitators, organizers, propagandists, etc. So no, it wasnt “bourgeois people ruling over workers.” It was about raising workers into revolutionary leadership. marxists.org/archive/lenin/… Your confusing “professional revolutionary” with “bourgeois.” Professional means their life is dedicated to revolutionary work. It doesnt mean they are a bourgeois class. That is literally not Lenin’s definition.

@HandsOffDPRK @FreedomFlaming0 @yrysbryd Actually, no, in practice a vanguard party has consisted of bourgeois professional revolutionaries. Lenin even defined it as such.

Mao says that national struggle should ally with the "revolutionary" national bourgeoisie. Nationalism is class collaboration

Youre making it out to be something its not. A vanguard party doesnt mean a caste above the masses. It means the most class-conscious and organized section of the proletariat leading the struggle. The proletariat doesnt automatically have revolutionary consciousness just because it exists. Thats why organization and political leadership matter. The party is supposed to lead the masses, not replace them. If it separates from the masses and rules over them, thats revisionism/bureaucratism, not what a vanguard is meant to be. Your confusing degeneration with the concept itself.

@HandsOffDPRK @FreedomFlaming0 @yrysbryd A vanguard party is, by self-definition, above the masses.

“Naturally functions top-down” is just an assertion. A vanguard party only becomes top-down if it separates itself from the masses. Thats revisionism/bureaucratism, not the concept of a vanguard itself. The point of a vanguard is to organize the most advanced part of the proletariat and give political leadership to the class struggle. It isnt supposed to replace the masses. And again, anarchism has the same issue. Councils, communes, militias, delegates and experts can also become informal ruling layers if they arent controlled by the masses. So the question isnt “party or no party.” The question is whether the masses can supervise, criticize, recall and remove people who betray them. Marxism admits that problem openly. Anarchism pretends horizontal structures magically avoid it.

@HandsOffDPRK @FreedomFlaming0 @yrysbryd The difference is that Marxist-Leninists rely on a vanguard party that naturally functions in a top down manner and makes itself a ruling class.

Yes, communist democracy also says authority should come from below and be accountable to the masses. The difference is Marxists dont pretend authority disappears. We admit revolutions need organized power, delegates, discipline, defense, planning and enforcement. The question is which class controls that power. Anarchists say “bottom-up authority” too, but then act like it isnt authority because they call it delegation, coordination or free association.

@HandsOffDPRK @FreedomFlaming0 @yrysbryd Anarchism makes responsibility top down and authority bottom up, if you need to see it that way… but that’s an incorrect oversimplification. It’s a good concept to start with to get used to the idea of democratic accountability.

The DPRK has free housing free healthcare 100 percent literacy rate, abolishment of taxes, agricultural development and rural development in the process and many more USSR success in the image. You can fail and have some limited success and recover from such failures. Failures happened due to civil wars, sanctions/embargos, droughts and floodings, imperialist and anti-communist invasions and many more.

@HandsOffDPRK @redf0undation They are codifications of failure and none have brought us anywhere near to communism

you can’t be a Juche fan posting this lmao

@FreedomFlaming0 @yrysbryd If you want to say China is imperialist, prove domination. Show China forcing regime change, occupying countries, controlling states, imposing structural adjustment, seizing sovereignty, or using debt to dictate policy.

@HandsOffDPRK @yrysbryd Uses Lenin's old framework which ignores monopolization of capital within the state, so conveniently they can use his definitions to get out of it

@yrysbryd @FreedomFlaming0 Found an free accessible one here on internet archive web.archive.org/web/2022121817…

@HandsOffDPRK @FreedomFlaming0 Hmm interesting I’ll have to take a look at it at school where I have access to it

@jona_net @redf0undation None are trash, they are genuine developments of marxism which is the only solution to capitalism and all of its contradictions.

@HandsOffDPRK @redf0undation Trash built on trash

You just admitted enforcement again. If people refuse to cooperate during war and you call it sabotage, then what happens? You either stop them, punish them, disarm them, remove them, or force them to follow the decision. Thats coercive authority. Calling it “self defense” doesnt change the content. Marxists also say proletarian state power is self defense against counterrevolution. And if everyone is armed, that doesnt magically solve it. It means you either have organized force under a political line, or you get rival armed groups fighting over food, logistics, territory and production. So the issue is still the same: who controls the force, who decides what counts as sabotage, and how are they held accountable? Anarchism doesnt escape authority. It just renames it.

@HandsOffDPRK @yrysbryd If people refuse to cooperate during war then they are engaged in self sabotage. Are you saying that if a small group takes over a free society (who are supposed to all be armed) that it isn't self defense to fight back?

@yrysbryd @FreedomFlaming0 I have just found this interesting article journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.117…

@HandsOffDPRK @FreedomFlaming0 Most of it is unwritten that’s why it’s imperative to listen to African Marxists

You just admitted the point again. If a clique captures weapons, food, logistics or communications and the people have to “put them down,” then you have organized coercive power. You can call it self-defense, but its still enforcement. And “free association” doesnt answer social production. A revolution cant run defense, food, medicine, transport, housing and industry on “associate if you feel like it.” If people refuse to cooperate during war or sabotage, either the commune enforces decisions or it collapses. So anarchism doesnt escape authority. It just calls authority “self-defense” when it likes it and “authoritarianism” when Marxists admit it openly.

@HandsOffDPRK @yrysbryd If people don't cooperate, then they don't associate. Pretty simple. Free association is a basic and fundamental principle from anarchists

@FreedomFlaming0 @yrysbryd Even SAIS-CARI doesn’t back the "China is debt-trap imperialist" line. Their paper says Chinese loans are not the main reason African countries are in debt distress. saiia.org.za/wp-content/upl…

@HandsOffDPRK @yrysbryd Ask your AI how much debt has been forgiven by China in Africa compared to how much is still outstanding. The amount they have forgiven is negligible

"Equality of structural power" is just saying your system works because you say it does. If decisions are spread equally, what happens during war, sabotage, famine, defense, production, etc? If everyone has to agree, one faction can block everything. If a council or militia can act anyway, then thats delegated authority. "Free cooperation" doesnt answer counterrevolution either. What happens when people dont cooperate? What happens when a clique takes weapons, food, logistics or communications? Either you enforce decisions or you dont have power. So anarchism doesnt abolish authority. It just hides it behind words like "delegation," "coordination," and "free cooperation." The real question is how the masses keep that authority accountable.

@HandsOffDPRK @yrysbryd You once again show your COMPLETE ignorance of anarchist political theory. Read (or more likely based off of what I know of you summarize with AI) A modern anarchism by Daniel Baryon

@yrysbryd @FreedomFlaming0 how is china imperialist though? I have not found any conclusive proof of such being the case. geopoliticaleconomy.com/2022/08/20/chi…

@FreedomFlaming0 @HandsOffDPRK I don’t think modern China is mao’s fault so much as a combination of the emergence of global capitalism combined with a lack of party discipline and some other factors I’m still learning . It is disappointing to see Chinese imperialism as well as some of the working conditions

@yrysbryd @FreedomFlaming0

@HandsOffDPRK @FreedomFlaming0 Critique is a necessary part of Marxist Leninism hence why lenin engaged in it obsessively

@yrysbryd @FreedomFlaming0 looks like you will be correcting me alot then

@HandsOffDPRK @FreedomFlaming0 It’s not but it’s a stronger position to discuss with anarchists . Particularly when they are ancoms the vertical dimension is useful in making sure democratic mandate is implemented along anti capitalist lines

@yrysbryd @FreedomFlaming0 Clearly not my style of argument.

@HandsOffDPRK @FreedomFlaming0 You could have just stated that anarchism lacks the checks that are present within democratic centralism which in theory has both veritable and horizontal accountability

Ok good, then you admit anarchism also needs structures to prevent capture. Thats been my point the whole time. Every revolutionary system needs mechanisms against bureaucracy, cliques, opportunists and counterrevolution. The difference is you pretend anarchist structures are immune because theyre "horizontal." They arent. Councils, communes, delegates, militias and experts can still be captured. So the argument isnt "vanguard bad, anarchism good." The real question is which system has better mechanisms to keep power under mass/proletarian control.

@HandsOffDPRK @yrysbryd We don't magically prevent it. We prevent it through specific structures

@yrysbryd @FreedomFlaming0 Dont bother arguing with him. He is an idiot who cant be convinced. x.com/HandsOffDPRK/s… ...also can I follow you? I like you alot

@FreedomFlaming0 @HandsOffDPRK No you do reject authority and what you support are expertise . These are two different things a doctor who has authority via credentials isnt one unless he has the expertise to back it up . Many people learn that the hard way particularly when they fall for doctor oz