I've just realised that 99% of you are simply tankies. Even those who claim they're moderates

This is a libertarian board

Ancoms, libsocs, leftcoms, ansynds etc. collectively outnumber the ML presence

Anarkiddies think tankie or ML is anyone who is a Marxist of any kind and believes in organization. These people are allergic to cooperation or any kind of structure because muh ebil capitalists. I guess in a way they are defeatists and will have to be put in gulag when they don't stop smashing things even after the revolution.

I'm not politically fervent enough to take any ideology seriously, just enquiring

Who could have guessed?

It's really nice to hear. What a sane clear-headed person you are.

I'm an ancom tho

And tankie used to define krushevite revisionists due to their passion to invade satellite states with tanks, which makes stalinists as in classic marxist leninist, ironically, not tankies

I'm sure this time it'll work, comrades.

T. another tankie with delusional visions of camps and world revolutions.

...

Whenever theres a poll it shows that anarchists and democratic socialists outnumber the tankies.

Yes, I'm sure smashing your local CVS and knocking over trashcans will finally make capitalism collapse. That's a much better plan.

Do you want to say demo socialists aren't tankies? And all anarchists are different, you know. There are many militant anarchists who are even more militant than statists.

t. Radical Centrist

Fuck off liberal. This is a leftist board.

...

I don't smash anything, neither do I have any "plans" of capitalism's destruction. As I said I'm genuinely curious and want to enquire without any bias and agression.

wew

stahp

Faggots like you are nutless pieces of shit for whom there will be no room in the future. You can't even defend your own ideas and have to resort to hiding like a little bitch.

If only that were true, Holla Forums would be a much better place.

Nice false dichotomy m8. I hate smashies and think they're just radlibs engaging in a cathartic outlet provided by the state.

I don't have ANY political views, as far as I'm concerned almost all existing political outlooks including liberalism only breed more violence, confusion and ignorance. And your hostility doesn't help anyone.

Then continue lurking and Google Murray Bookchin.

But that makes this place so interesting. Unlike Holla Forums, which is a perpetual The_Dolan circlejerk.

You mean like revleft?

So you don't want revolution, and you don't even want to smashie. What do you want?

kek

Aren't you the enlightened free thinking faggot

Hiding from what? I have good friends, intimate relations, and enjoy society. Probably the fact that I don't share your psychotic visions make you all so upset. And ideas, my god, everyone has his precious little idea, but it doesn't make any difference in the world, quite the contrary. Is not having "the idea" and being rather naive and exibiting a genuinely friendly attitude towards everyone a new thought crime?

Yes, maybe? Why are you so frustrated though?

...

Democracy is great and all that. But if we have to line up the bankers against the wall to get there, we should. If that makes me a tankie so be it.

How can we even compete with such wisdom

Imagine being this deep in the trashcan.

Oh yes, the neoliberal boogeyman capitalism, yes, there's only ideology left, friend. Sniff sniff.

...

...

Well, OP, your life's gonna be pretty shit if you hate all ideologies. Just read up on some leftist literature, will ya?
Prolly start with Socialism: Utopic and Scientific. Good stuff.

Yeah, there could be some cool stuff in here. I'll spectate.

That's not what I meant, you illiterate faggot. You claim to hold no opinions, but even the status quo is an opinion. You're simply an intellectual coward who is afraid to think about anything because people might criticize him. You're a weak person and are living while dead.

Nope

Mein gott, nothing worst than an ideologue in denial, stop posting and go read a fucking book

Imagine being this high on the spectacle.

Why should I have an emotional stake in someone's ideas how things should be? Because "he really knows"?

"Status quo" being indifference and degradatoion of human societies, then some people come and claim they can fix that with their political mantras, and want everyone else to repeat after them, getting angry when someone ridicules them.

Why are you here if you are not going to discuss anything?

The board is at least half in the bottom left quadrant of the political compass.

I didnt support the invation of hungary?

I never said I don't want revolution, in reality I want a real revolution, not just something that switches one oppressive state for another.

so what's your plan for a 'real revolution'?

Because I've met some nice people here, and most other places on the internet are much worse

That is the summary of your opinions, because you think indifference is somehow beyond criticism. Again, you are eating deep from the garbage can and there seems to be no end in sight for you.

what did he mean by this?

Because it's interesting mate, if you don't wanna read it, don't.
Though if you do believe all points of view only perpetuate violence then you might as well learn about them.

You're a special sort of fucking idiot, aren't you?

I don't have any plan, neither does anyone else here. But my standards for a revolution is one that abolishes all oppressive systems, including the state and capital.

You don't have to want something for it to be the inevitable result of your actions.

Not having a revolution guarantees that the tyranny of late capitalism will continue. Having a revolution means there's a less than zero chance of abolishing oppression, imperialism and poverty. I get the feeling you're a rational skeptic type so you should like this next bit: QED, it is logical to support revolution if you want to abolish states and classes.

I'm appropriating this meme.

Please don't talk about things you don't understand.

Speak for yourself.

No, I think the opposite, that only indifference must always be the object of criticism, and what I see here is indifference and inability of locals to even hear each other out, let alone be friendly. In fact, I'm saying all this because I care about local people, albeit not because of some political outlook.

I do support a revolution, my original post was ridiculing statist attempts at revolution. I'm not the undecided centrist ITT.

You really should read a book or two. You really just sound like you have no idea what your moral compass is and are assuming that thousands of years of philosophy and political theory has yet to reach your enlightened state of mind.

I think, if you actually tried studying the thoughts and ideas of others, instead of dismissing them for existing (you do this out of fear btw), you'd actually come out a lot better in the end.

There's no reason why it should lead to that. Or are you going to go full "skeptic" and claim that all revolutions lead to authoritarianism so we might as well never try? You have to provide evidence as why you think one particular course of action is going to result in this versus not, and then doing that, you can define what you think revolution will look like. We can then argue about whether your criticisms are valid or not, and come to an understanding. Just saying that "Marxism is le authoritarian" without actually having an idea of why that is, or what exact mechanisms lead to that is completely meaningless. It's also telling that a lot of people that claim this define every Marxist as a Marxist-Leninist, which isn't what Marxism or Leninism is. That shit is what Stalin was into.

As for the "revisionism" criticism. I don't think that Marx is beyond the reach of this. All ideas must be revised with new evidence, but we must think through it logically while using the scientific method to arrive at sound conclusions. If we do not do this, we end up arguing word soup arguments without any meaning.

The reason indifference is criticized is because everyone is trying to live in a better world, so when the suggestion is made that nothing should be done and we shouldn't want better, you are kind of defeating the point of the whole discussion, especially when we actually know how bad things are getting and how bad they will get in the future. Saying "Let's do nothing" is a stupid thing to say when the question is "How do we improve our lives?"

Revisionism is not simply modifying a theory. Theories need to be updated when they are found to be incompatible with experience or leading to false conclusions.

Revisionism is trying to pass a cow for a horse in order to benefit oneself rather than communism, which is similar to opportunism.

I don't believe all revolutions are authoritarian, I do believe that any revolution that just imposes another state will end up another failed "worker's paradise". Marxists believe that states serve classes, with the modern one serving the bourgeoisie, so they think if they're able to capture the state they can use it to serve the proletariat. What the don't realize is that the state serves nothing except itself, and it cannot be used for anything except to further its own interests. This is why ML states failed, not because they were too authoritarian, but because they tried to perform the impossible.

Statism has a better track record than anarchism.

What SSRI have they got you on? Sertraline doesn't do shit.

I like the comic but is this the one by the same person who did that thing where the boy kisses his dog and then the dog has to get neutered and then at some point later they relaunched it and the dog was MLK and got shot?

You can alter state interests to align better with those of the individuals within the state. The idea that all states are equal is ridiculous. (You can argue they all fall under an undesirable category, obviously, but don't pretend a sandal is a jackboot.)

to be honest I didnt mean to post that i meant to post this *but I wish Raine Dog didnt get discontinued*

Also, mfw someone reups the webm I made.

fug i am disgraced

Most Western leftists become tankies out of sheer animosity for Western rightists.

rofl

i don't remember much of raine dog but i do kind of wish it continued just because i know i don't regret marathoning the whole thing one evening

Well that's demonstrably false, since states often act to their own detriment to improve the lives of the bourgeoisie. In fact, the state will often eliminate parts of itself to sell to connected private interests, so you are dead wrong. This is one of those anarchists' "common sense" points, that don't really pan out in the real world. Furthermore, what alternative to a state do you have after revolution? It certainly isn't just going to work itself out, and counterrevolutions will be attempted. How do you think you can defend yourself from this if not through organization? Or is this another case of an anarchist wanting a state but not calling it so?

rofl

The modern scientific method did not exist in his time. Marxism is scientific in that it attempts to be as realistic as possible in terms of historical and political philosophy, and encourages further analysis as scientific development continues.

The problem here being that most modern scientific skeptics are smug douche liberals that never question their own ideology.

...

is there a phrase more ideological than "evidence based policymaking"?

especially when the evidence is an economic model which either has zero correlation with empirical data, or achieves the correlation with ridiculous assumptions and hacks that manage to shoehorn all of history in but eschew any predictive value.

rosa is ded
violets are blue
liberals get the bullet too.

It's better at surviving through murder and theft, I agree with that.
That's true, but that does not mean that's desirable. Is forcing owners to listen to the workers and pay them a bit more a worthy goal for a revolution?

Privatization isn't any detriment to the state. It's just passing off its responsibilities to some other entity: the politicians get their special interest money and the capitalists get to profit in an untapped market. The state will never actually harm itself for the sake of the bourgeoisie.
Organization is not statism. Something become a state if it has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force and it coerces others into being a part of it.

Not if you're going to base it on good evidence. If your aim is to do x, then you should pick the path to x based on the best evidence, whatever that may be. It doesn't mean you'll be right, but it means that you'll screw up less often. However, that x is cannot be decided by science, nor is the price you're willing to pay for x. As for Marxism having zero correlation with empirical data. That's just plain fucking wrong. Or maybe you're referring to neoclassical economics and marginal value theory.

He was agreeing with my second statement I think. Liberals trying to separate economics from politics is one of their saddest moments.

Well, it is. That's exactly what ancaps want. You can, in fact, eliminate the state while maintaining state-like function. The sate and state apparatus is a tool.

Well, except when it does. States have gone insolvent while the bourgeoisie flee with the riches. Entire countries have been formed and dissolved based on the wishes of the ruling class. How can you claim that the state, which isn't a real entity, somehow serves "itself"?
Then you can never eliminate a state during anarchism. Else who stops me from murdering? who stops me from raising an army? Or who tells me what is and isn't acceptable behavior with my children? Can I diddle them? Can I beat them? Teach them shit wrong on purpose? The fact is that if this is how you're going to define it, you're going to keep a state. And if you're not going to spread this model, then it's destined to die out when counterrevolutionary forces decide to invade.

I felt like adding an addendum onto it explaining that obviously asking scientists in areas where scientific evidence is strong is the smart thing to do (i.e. the narrow sense of evidence based policy), just the wider sense liberals apply it in that it becomes pure ideology. (Though legitimate scientists often make the mistake of assuming since they actually change their models when empirical data shows them to be nonsensical, economists must do the same…)

Although being candid I would have to admit that in narrow policy terms I'd gladly legislate in the face of the evidence on certain things. (Generally speaking, a preference for universal provision of services over means testing.)

That I am. I can't really think of any state that's been run on something that would approximate "marxist (marxian?) economics"

Essentially.

Ancaps want to privatize the state, that's precisely why they're not anarchists. Now instead of there being one big state, there's multiple smaller ones. In regular privatization the state is passing off its responsibilities to a private entity so they can make money and so that the state doesn't have to bother. It's mutually beneficial: the state isn't losing anything for the sake of the booj.
Likely against the wishes of the state. Why would politicians and bureaucrats want to lose their livelihood and position just to satisfy the booj?
Because all organizations serves itself, because every member's self-interest is tied to the interest of the organization.
The community saying "you can't do that" out of their own desire for self-defense is not the same as a state saying "give me your money, your life, and be sure to follow these rules that mostly have to do with my interests, not the peoples"

Because they're one and the same 99% of the time. How do you not get this?
That's also demonstrably false. Workers and CEOs alike steal from their own companies. Clearly the organization is just a tool to both.
Who is the community? Why do they get to say something goes and something else doesn't? After all, they don't have the monopoly on legitimate force. Why can't I arrest people for offending me?
So then private property remains, then. After all, you can't take that away because it doesn't align with my interests.

This is COINTELPRO tier.

no fuck off /liberty/ and reddit

They are both part of the ruling class but it's absurd to think they all have the same interests. Individual bourgeois don't put some vague class interests above their own, why would politicians?
For the vast majority of workers and executives, the company continuing to grow and do well is in their self-interest: individuals might work against the interests of the company, but the company in general will never work against itself. Similarly, a minority of bureaucrats and politicians are willing to sabotage the state for their own interests, but the system does its best prevent that. Even when they do succeed they're not doing it for spooky class interests, but because of their own interests, which often contradicts with broader class interests.
They have the right to defend themselves, and the right to stop associating with someone they don't like.
You could, but that'd like have consequences for everyone else who doesn't like that kind of aggression.
Not sure what you're saying. The state will never abolish private property, because it is the greatest holder of it.

Leftcoms by in large reject the label "libertarian socialist"

Define tankie. I'm ancom, but if I could use tanks to eradicate the bourg I totes would

Gee, I wonder who OP could be?

STOP BEING BAITED YOU FUCKERS

...

...

Better track record at ruining lives and destroying countries, yes. Also, fantastic track record of having zero socialism, a few welfare programs, and an entrenched ruling class that takes on the same roles of the feudal lords of old.

I'm defintely not a tankie.

As opposed to the litany of successful anarchist territories…

Interesting that this man has a mask and still gives off the punchable face vibe.

Devon

get the gulag

This is a whole new level of delusion.

And yet I've been drowned in examples of successful contemporary anarchism showing that actually, the state was abolished 20 years ago and I'm just a weird schizo… :^)

Just because you want to put your many perceived enemies in a gulag doesn't make you a tankie.

Jesus Christ, they relaunched it?

What next, is Moon Over June coming back?

Stop lumping left communism under the "libertarian" meme classifier. They've always rejected the authoritarian-libertarian dichotomy because it's meaningless. Fuck, even those most associable to pre-left communism like Gorter and Luxemburg rejected the term "libertarian" as anarchist dishonesty, and the latter outright called herself a Bolshevik.

I mean trots are just beta tankies. the difference between y'all and stalinists is we picked a winner.

This thread is figuratively cancer.

Advocating political violence in at least some form or context is not the same as being a tankie. Kill yourself.
t. Libertarian market socialist

I know dude, its all such bullshit man, left right middle fucking puppets man its all such bullshit. I just want communism to happen dude, I'm so sick of fucking money bullshit. Its so stupid.

Mutually exclusive.

Not in the Leninist sense of a transitionary state. Market Socialism is socialist so long as it is a means to an end as opposed to an end in and of itself.

your post sounds like my lib friend's reaciton any time i seriously engage him on marxist theories. like, he is in denial of the inherent authoritarianism of any political ideology beyond just idealistic pontification.

at some point, everyone is a 'tankie' the differences lie in who holds power and what time it is. Right now, its libs, so they pretend they're peaceful nonviolent and whatever else. Same shit, different story. Even anarchists with power turn into charlatans and eventually become hte thing they h ate.

and for sure, i would favor socialism or communism over the current system, so i think that's why i lean 'commie' more than anything. if we cna do it right, it will undoubtedly benefit everyone, and we can't afford to keep down our currrent path. something must change. but its always strange seeing people come up with ways to fight change rather than work to build something new and better.