Why tankies tank? Are they really believe they'll be ruling party that destroy all opponents...

Why tankies tank? Are they really believe they'll be ruling party that destroy all opponents, or they just don't beleive in archieving their total goal at all, and use it only from reactionary (ironic) motives, to riddicule libertarian narrative?

Other urls found in this thread:


Same reason Maoists Mao, Hoxhaists Hoxe, etc. Supreme alienation and personal angst leading to a need to feel special by identifying with something edgy.

They like larping as sovietboos.

As a lot of people on the left (or a lot of "political" people in general) they just like the image and feel superior to others. They indeed think they are on the right and they are bringing communism but it's mostly that they are self absorbed and use politics to give their life a meaning. Why else should a person ostracize every other leftist, alienate normals (because le ebin vanguard will come and save everything) and support every state that is not america? It's more like football teams than politics. "They did something" so it's 1-0 or whatever against trots/anarchists/ecc

This applies to nearly all of the left and right.

Centrists are just colossal cucks.

Everone who accept capital are in fact, literally, cuck. Marx had written this already in "Communist manifesto":

Marx wanted to de-cuck you, proletarians, and you hate him because you accepted your humiliation as a value, exactly as Christianity commands.

can someone explain this?

Capitalism and Christianity are shit.

Internet makes you retarded.

Why do anarkiddies kid around?

Why do anarkiddies kid around?

After the Revolution, Socialists and Communists collaborate and work together. Then the Anarchists come in and start smashing shit for not getting their way.

I don't support killing leftists, we are all comrades. But, Anarchists historically tend to not want to collaborate with the rest of us and just revolt against everyone but themselves. Not defending tankies for what they did in Hungary and Czchekoslivkia - but I understand why they did it.

this post was more to lurking Holla Forums fags who accept that bourgeois have power to take their women and rationalize it by thinking they're the same skin color at least

Anarchists tend to represent acutal interests of the people and global proletariat instrad of state and work control system in petty-bourgeois aberration of "socialism" what ML countries actually was.

I'm from Poland, comrade: all former Party politicians become bourgeois and liberals, they betrayed the ideals of the left and everyone here knows that. Anarchists are the last, true, and not compromised, defenders of true social revolutionary ideals. And we were against "Solidarity" in 80s, most radical dritics of this reactionary movement in 90s, and to this day we never compromised such as the mainstream left have made for neoliberals. I know why I'm anarchist and what actually took place in the 80's.


And, pardon, my father was worker unionist in 80s, one of the founder of anti-governmet organisations, before they was taken over by CIA-sponsored leaders. He hates "Solidarity" now as any other thing. I'm also worker-union activist, member of IWA-AIT.

Noone in anarchist community here is supporter of so called "democratic opposition" and not even was supporting this in 80. Even we accept you, MLs, in our organisation, basing on view that anarchist communism is more way of organisation than ideology. Blaming us for this reactionary movement is pure propaganda you used to produce from the times of Machnovist movement and Kronstad.

ML's in real life usually don't hate Stalin. I don't know what makes someone a Stalinist in your eyes, but most ML's I've met think Stalin did mostly good things but are still critical of some of his actions and the development of the USSR (especially post-Stalin) and really critical of the remaining ML states like the DPRK and Cuba. I don't know why, I just think isolated internet communities make people retarded.

This is what I think most people on Holla Forums don't get about Marxism-Leninism. Most ML's in real life are that because they agree with the theoretical components of Marxism-Leninism. Marxism, the Leninist party (vanguardism and democratic centralism), Lenin's analysis of imperialism, socialism in one country, the Leninist view of the national question, anti-imperialism, etc.

But to Holla Forums, being a retard who is completely uncritical of actually existing socialism seems to be built into the very definition of Marxism-Leninism, and if you're not that, you're not really a Marxist-Leninist. A while ago some guy on here said that "ML is just whatever stupid shit the USSR did" (or something along those lines), and when I said I was a ML because of the general principles and ideas of it (that I listed in the above paragraph) he just said "uh I think we have different conceptions of what ML is". Being a mentally retarded twitter tankie was basically included in his definition of a Marxist-Leninist.

I also hate dumb memes like "ML's just read Stalin instead of Marx", when even the most hardcore tankies will tell you that Stalin wasn't a huge theory guy, and your average ML study guide is basically just Marx, Engels and Lenin, and maybe a few texts by Mao and Stalin.

The Polish People's Republic gave you more than the Republic of Poland ever will. My family left Poland after the fall.

My father said: "If I'm going to live in a capitalist shithole, then at least I'm going to one with good weather." and here we are today.

Thank you captain obvious.

Kick them out, they contribute nothing and will sell you out to the cops if given a chance.

Read State and Revolution, also there is some retarded people who call all ML's tankies, think that we do not analize the errors of state socialist countries don't even know most of the figures in histry and even current left movents are "tankies".
I'd recomend this video by TFB, it talks about ML positioning and way of reaching to certain conclusios youtube.com/watch?v=KVUa5Svrt5M

Reminder that true MLs such as Hoxa reject Hungary and Czhekoslovakia invasions

thats how it works

reminder that the Chinese cited allowing Prague 1968 as a sign of Soviet revisionism, then ferociously condemned the SU for crushing it. Maoism, not even once.

What's on display here is the worst kind of opportunism: Forging an ideology solely composed of contrarianism to Marxism-Leninism or some boogeyman of it. You guys spend more time hating on us than you spend time criticizing actual capitalist bullshit or imperialism. The whole anarkiddie hating amongst MLs is merely a reaction to that. It's you who always start it, and may even be fine if your critiques are legit, but you always seem to regurgitate the dumbest red scare propaganda, sometimes even out of Goebbels playbook, which is even rejected by most liberal historians.

The entire appeal of your movement is merely the whole "Stalin was like Hitler, we are the real communists!!" shtick, which is an easy bait considering all the propaganda that is out there, but in the end, you don't contribute anything to the cause. I've met my fair share or anarchists and we did want to organize something with them, frankly, it's impossible. They show up at protests intoxicated, smash shit, and then take a fucking selfie with an iPhone in front of it.

You are actual capitalist bullshit, strip away the edge and there is no difference between you and socdems. All you faggots do is autisticly defend the graveyard of your failures or show critical support of 2nd and 3rd world liberals from your social media accounts. There is absolutely nothing to be gained from cooperation with sovietboo larpers who think their party that can't even grab 1% of the popular vote is the vanguard ot the revolution.

So you keep voting for Hillary, like daddy Chomsky tells you? Anarchists are known to always have the worst stances on real-world issues and often refuse to make a materialist analysis of a situation and escape into formalism. To complain about the flaws of actually-existing socialism is something you are not entitled to, given the history of colossal irrelevance and impotence of anarchism, leftcommunism and Trotskyism.
The reason why you have this impression is because you keep complaining about it using Neocon lingo. We could all be chill if you didn't use words like "red fascism" or complain that Stalin ate all the grain. We feel the need to defend actually-existing socialism as a counterthrust to the humongous amount of bullshit that is being perpetuated.
The problem is that you lure people into your movements simply by pointing the finger at evil Stalin, and pretend you are the real communists, which leads to a very weak ideological conviction, because it's so idealistic. Once you become disillusioned, you revert back to liberalism. Face it, kiddo: "Real socialism has never been tried" is not a fucking argument. It makes you the laughingstock.
See, this is the kind of bullshit purged of any pretense of materialist analysis that I'm talking about. I'm sure SocDems abolished the market and the profit motive/production for exchange?

No, abstain from voting. A plurality of burgers can't be bothered to vote and with Macaron the majority of frogs didn't show up either. The ballot box has been irrelevant for decades and you niggas still haven't picked up on it because your materialist analysis stopped in the 50's to be generous.
Point to where I or anyone but yourself itt has used such lingo. I don't care whether Stalin was the devil who personally killed every kulak before raping their corpses or not. The only thing I care about him is that he failed, at best he failed to ensure revisionists wouldn't fuck up socialism and at worst he failed to do anything but recreate capitalism.
You never abolished wage labor and commodity production, calling the firm something else doesn't mean capitalism is gone even if proles now have free healthcare.

That's childish and retarded. I'm pretty sure you are involved in all sorts of useless activism but when it comes to voting you treat the ballot box like the devil the holy water because Bordiga said so? The Bolsheviks themselves couldn't gain power without at least some parliamentarian presence, no matter how much dual power they built.

And no, you are mistaken (actually I think you are just intellectually dishonest). Turnout of voters is increasing over the past years.
At what? Let's pretend he did, he would still be a titan considering the colossal failures of your snowflake tendencies.
Wage labor was abolished. Commodity production only existed in agricultural cooperatives which sold their produce to fixed prices. Surplus was allocated for social needs, not for profit.

No one likes you, not one person, the proles will never, ever, EVER accept anything with stalins or lenins face anywhere near it, for better or for worse, and "it wasn't real communism" is an argument when it really wasn't, try getting rid of the commodity form, one of the degining points of capitalism.

ITT: redlib tankies argue with redlib anarkiddies over who can miss the point harder

Once capitalism crashes we will win again, like we did before, everytime. Organization, logical coherence and scientific outlook win over utopians every time.
lmao. Just try to leave your circlejerk once and talk to people in the r e a l w o r l d. Or go drop that line on any non-communist board on the internet. Or go partake in a debate. In all of these cases you'll get laughed out of the room, and righteously so. Do you really think anybody seriously buys this? You seem to be under the impression that I go arround praising the immortal science of Kimilsung-Kimjongilism or something, which I don't. But when people bring up the USSR I'll explain my position. And unless they are triggered snowflakes, they will listen or they wouldn't have approached me in the first place. Actually, the only people always bringing up the USSR and muh red fascism are you guys.
See my other post

This is not any gotcha moment, actually curious, what could we learn from the ML governments?

Also I'm serious about branding, for better or for worse, the public hates socialism, blue haired twinks are considered annoying but it the (american) publics view anyone supporting ML is dangerous

Pretty sure anarchists are even less popular than Marxist-Leninists. At least in my country. The ML's have multiple parties that have some members and that manage to get a tiny amount of votes each election (it's in the thousands). Pretty much no one even knows what the fuck anarchism is, or who the anarchists are. The only thing they do is spray paint anarchist symbols and put up ugly ass stickers here and there.

You could say the same about the word "communism" (and probably "anarchism" as well). I don't know if you had noticed but all forms of communism/socialism/far-leftism are hella fucking unpopular in North America and Europe.


Then over half of France is childish and retarded and around 45% of burgers, most of whom are proletarians. That you can't pull your head out of your ass to see this is shows the bankruptcy of your analysis.
Do you consider unionization effort meaningless? If so then yes. I also have never read Bordiga, let alone take the ravioli ravager and his leninism seriously.
Where is the USSR now? The best case scenario sees him failing to safeguard the revolution against revisionism.
Calling it something else isn't abolishing it.
Then you didn't have socialism.

What works and what doesn't, how material conditions correspond with the development of ideas, learning from the experiences of revolutionaries, fine-tune economic planning, learn how and why revolutionary situations occur, what leads to revisionism, etc.

I mean it's quite obvious. You might as well ask the question "What could a capitalist economist learn from all the capitalist economies in the world?".

Hi Muke, go debate FinnBol

I meant more specifically what you think worked and what didn't and how that might influence plans for socialism for the 21st century

Just because some people don't do it doesn't mean that voting is completely useless. You won't get a revolution without some parliamentarian representation. I merely pointed out that you lied about the voter turnout which is actually increasing.

Why must tankies lie? Soviet workers still sold their labour under Stalin. Hell there was even income inequality


How? There was no labor market. No unemployment. No surplus extraction. You gotta make some mental gymnastics to come to that conclusion.
What has that to do with anything?

We're talking about a plurality and majority, that's more than "some people".
Macaron's party won more seats than the Socialist Party did in the previous election despite a smaller number of votes. Unless there was an unreported wave of deaths in France, that indicates less people voted in 2017 than in 2012. I fail to see how recognition of this or that less than 60% of burgers showing up is lying.
Is anyone here advocatint an emulation of Caesar's actions?
Exchange of labor for a wage. See
I'm glad you agree with the socdems.
I have, 19th century praxis isn't much use in the 21st century.

There was a buyer and a seller. Therefore labour was sold. Therefore labour was a commodity. Do I really have to smack you with Engels or are you going to stay incredulous? Monopoly capitalism is still capitalism.

There wasn't. Please prove this nonsense. Did enterprises compete with each other to drive down wages? Who was "buying" the labor? Why was there no unemployment? How can there be "buyers" if you are guaranteed a job?
You've clearly shown before that you haven't even read Wage Labor and Capital lmao

Additionally, I'd like to quote this excerpt from Fosters American Trade Unionism:

>After the basic wage rates have thus been established, generally and for the respective industries, the individual unions, through their national and local committees, enter into negotiation with the representatives of the various industries and factories in order to work out detailed wage and other conditions for their specific situations.

Clearly this states that there wasn't a labor market, but fixed salaries for the respective industries.

Because "tankies" is a meaningless insult. It was meant to use as a criticism against the revisionist krushcev regime but now it's a stupid slur used by liberals who pose as sucdems or anarchkids to attack pretty much any meaningful communist regime, whether is it urss, prc, cuba and so on.
It's basically the end result of western 1st world middle class idiots on the Internet regurgitating the same capitalist propaganda that has been fed to them through decades of institutional and educational control.
I remember watching this propaganda anti-communist "documentary" from the 60s that was narrated by Reagan. Literally 90% of the talking points most anti-communists spew on the Internet were obviously taken from that movie.

u ok?


Anyone who has actually read the State and Revolution and sees it as a justification for Stalinist bureaucracy is such a fucking moron that I legitimately wonder how they remember to breathe.