Socialism and communism seem to be very misunderstood outside of places like Grad, Hexbear, Lemmy.ml, etc. Some thing social programs are socialism, others think the Marxist conception of communism is incompatible with administration, some think any form of market or private property has to be eradicated for socialism to exist, some think it’s about worker/employer relationships, etc. I think it would be a decent idea to form a better understanding.

For clarity, socialism is best described as a transitional status between capitalism and communism, by which public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy (controls the large firms and key industries at a minimum) and the working class is in control of the state. This fits cleanly with socialism in practice and with Marxist conceptions of socialism.

I am extremely open and honest with my views. Nobody believes “any means are justified” in order to create “a state run society.” Communists believe revolution is necessary to implement socialism, not that any means are justified nor that just any state run society is acceptable. We also don’t believe in supporting “dictatorships” in the sense that one person or an elite few control everything. We support the working class having control.

You are making up ghosts and strawmen to fight. These “tankies” as you describe them do not exist.

Nobody praises “China and Russia for their ability to control their people.” These people do not exist, they are ghosts and strawmen you are fighting.

Again, you need to look at things from a class analysis. There is no such thing as “libertarian capitalism,” capitalism requires the state, and freedoms for citizens are restricted because they don’t have as much access to necessities and democracy doesn’t extend to the economy.

Socialist countries that provide better access to necessities have more freedom for the average person than capitalist countries. They don’t have the same privledged class of capitalists with unlimited political power, but the people have more power.

This is a false-binary. It isn’t a strawman, the political compass is entirely bogus and cannot accurately depict ideology or structure as they exist in the real world. It does more harm than helps.

I’m not dancing, I’ve said it firm: I want the working class to use the state in their own interests, against capitalists and fascists, to meet the needs of the people and liberate society.

When you utterly erase class analysis, and just group everyone under “citizens,” you run into utter contradictions. Socialist states have been far more liberating for their populace overall, even if they’ve been oppressive towards fascists, capitalists, etc, meaning they would technically belong in the “libertarian” quadrant if we define it the way you claim we should. The entire idea of a “libertarian-authoritarian” spectrum, or even a left-right spectrum and not just various right and left ideologies that cannot be abstracted into a graph-based system, is actively harmful to our understanding of political ideology.

Anarchists want communalism, whereas Marxists want collectivization. Neither is more or less “authoritarian” or “libertarian,” in that even horizontalist systems actually erase the democratic reach of communities to within their communities and immediate surroundings, while collectivization spreads power more evenly globally. This isn’t something that can be represented on the graph in any way, yet results in fundamentally different approaches and outcomes.

All states are authoritarian in that they uphold one class and oppress others. It’s a good thing when the class in charge is the working class, throughout history socialist states have resulted in dramatic improvements in living standards for the vast majority of society. These socialist states, and the ones who support them, are labeled “authoritarian” whenever these states practice land reform, nationalize industries, etc, and are met with mountains of hostility and slander from the west.

Even an anarchist revolution is “authoritarian,” as it involves violently taking control. In practice, “authoritarianism” is more of a vibe than an actual thing we can measure or a policy to be implemented. It’s used as a club against socialist states by those who’ve lost property to land reform or nationalization.

Nobody fits that definition, though.

I don’t know what you mean by “hypocrisy,” communists support China as a socialist state and critically support Russia to the extent that they trade with socialist countries, oppose western imperialism, and have a populace increasingly sympathetic to socialism. Nobody supports Russia the same way communists actually support China, the USSR fell 3 decades ago. I also don’t know what you mean by saying “tankies” aren’t communists, “tankie” is just a pejorative for communist, nor do I know what you mean by the so called “actual communism” these supposed “tankies” would violently oppose.

Not a single communist is “enamored by” the Russian Federation, we all wish the USSR had never dissolved. Communists do tend to support China, as it’s the world’s most developed socialist country. Further, all states are “authoritarian,” in that all states are means by which one class exerts its authority over the others. Communists support the working class being in charge of that authority, all communists (unless you count anarchists) support the use of the state against capitalists and fascists, and the majority of practicing communists support socialist states.

The problem here is that “tankie” is just a strawman with ready-made characteristics. In the minds of viewers, a tankie is exactly what McCarthy described, yet also someone who believes that the McCarthyian version of a communist is a good thing. The problem is that this doesn’t describe real people. Communists disagree with common western, liberal viewpoints on existing socialist states, and believe them to be unfairly represented in western media. Communists aren’t paid trolls, we aren’t in it for ego. Many of us are members of communist parties, volunteer in our communities, etc.

You say these supposed “tankies” identify with crimes against humanity, but that’s demonstrably false. I can say that, for example, the idea of the 1930s famine in the USSR being intentional is utter mythology. That doesn’t mean I support the famine, it means based on evidence from the opening of the soviet archives, we know that it was a tragedy caused by adverse weather conditions made worse by kulaks destroying grain and livestock as resistance to collectivization, and that food output grew with collectivization. None of that “identifies with” the idea that the famine was intentional and is somehow good.

Even your points on the Russian Federation are wrong. Nobody thinks they are still socialist, critical support for the Russian Federation lies in the fact that it’s forced into trade with socialist countries, resists western imperialism, and has a rising socialist public that wishes to reimplement socialism. The DPRK isn’t the dystopian nightmare the west pitches it to be, and we know this by measuring up defector testimonies and comparing them to reporting both internally and externally. China is socialist, public ownership is the principle aspect of its economy.

All of this is to say, yourself and others are getting downvoted because you’re treating the McCarthyite strawman as if it’s a real thing.

I think every instance has pretty strong political views

You asked with a .world account, meaning you’re defederated from 2/3 biggest communist spaces on Lemmy, on Lemmy.ml, the last third. As such, it became quite a mess, because communists are outnumbered by anti-communists if you cut out 2/3s of communists.

The ones that had their comments removed were picking a definition that does not correspond to reality.

It’s kinda like asking what the word “woke” means. MAGA people are going to give you this elaborate strawman, and others are going to tell you that it’s just a pejorative strawman.

If you want to see all sides, read the wikipedia page for “tankies,” first, as it’s the liberal understanding. Then compare that to the prolewiki entry for “Tankies,” for a communist perspective on it, then read “Tankies” by Nia Frome to get someone to elaborate on how it’s actually used today, beyond its origins and the strawman characteristics it holds.

Yep, the comm is .ml but the poster is .world, ao it’s like it’s invisible to anyone that can’t see both .ml and .world.

Haha, fair! Grad can see it, but hex can’t, that’s what I meant.

Hex and .world are mutually defederated, no? .world defederated first I thought.

There are no hexbear responses because .world is defederated from Hexbear. Hex has little tolerance for liberalism in my experience, because that’s the default on the english-speaking internet.

Ask with an account federated with Hexbear and Lemmygrad, and you’ll get more communist perspectives.

No communist “simps” for the Russian Federation, support for the RF extends to the fact that it does a lot of trade with socialist countries like China and Cuba, opposes western imperialism, and has a populace increasingly in support of a return to socialism. Communists do tend to support China, as China is a socialist country. Public ownership is the principle aspect of their economy.

It’s essentially a pejorative for “communist.” I recommend the Prolewiki article on “Tankies,” as well as Nia Frome’s essay “Tankies.”

For those that want an introduction to Marxism-Leninism, I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list, check it out!

I know… but DLCs confirmed!