zeroday

I've said both. I'm a professional pentester / red teamer, and yeah, we send each other "I'm in" memes when we pop a box.

This report completely missed why many Marxists refer to China as the CPC vs the colloquial CCP. They say CPC because the "Communist Party" part of it comes before the nation, as a symbolic way to reject nationalism in favor of internationalism.

I think the author of this paper would have benefited from talking to the hardline leftists and asking them their thoughts rather than trying to analyze them from the outside. Most of the time, if you ask someone in good faith why they believe what they believe, they'll honestly answer out of a desire to be understood.

I'm curious, what do you mean when you say "tankie"? It's a word that's used to mean so many different things these days

Oh lol, that's weird, I thought it was common knowledge that China censors some types of speech, similarly to every other nation. If I was running a state, I'd want to censor transphobic slurs, arguments for gender inequality, pro-Capitalist propaganda, racism, etc. IMO there's nothing inherently morally wrong about censorship, and I see a lot of think pieces from US / NATO outlets like Voice of America yelling that China is bad because it censors speech, without giving any context or nuance about what type of speech is being censored and also distracting from the US's massive censorship.

On the oppression point - I guess it mostly matters who's getting oppressed. If it's regular working people being oppressed, fuck that, but if we implemented policies as a society that forced billionaires to give up their wealth I'm sure they'd cry about being "oppressed". I don't have any sympathy for the cries of CEOs and mega-landlords about how they're being oppressed by being forced to give back their stolen wealth.

So I've been thinking about this for a bit. Yeah, fuck countries, nation states, etc. Power should be at the level of communities of workers, similar to how the original Soviet system was before it got so fucked up.

Tbh I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, I think wealth should be redistributed by force because I believe that the rich won't redistribute it otherwise. But I can respect where you're coming from - I wish it wasn't necessary but I just don't have faith that the rich will do it out of their own free will and kindness of heart. Also, even more than the local rich we need to expropriate the wealth of the billionaires and other shitheads that just suck the money out of areas and people, leaving them destroyed.

Also - what happens when the community is full of bigots? Like let's take Odessa TX, where they've just functionally banned trans people from using their correct bathroom. The community there decided on that, does that make it right? There's a similar argument with what happens when you've got a community of racist white people who decide that all POC are less than their equals.

Actually, the opinion I see most often on .ml is that modern day Russia sucks, and is bad because they've turned into a capitalist warmongering empire similar to the US. People are pretty mixed on China, but legit if you just look at the technological advances coming out of China - just verified stuff that's been scientifically proven and then deployed - it's pretty impressive, especially surrounding batteries. So, if you're suspicious of China then any good news about China will come off as a conspiracy, but in reality things are pretty mixed and there's a lot of good and bad about nations, and no one state is all good or all bad. Anyone reducing the complexity of geopolitics down to one nation = good / other nation = bad is either dumb, trolling, not speaking in good faith, indoctrinated or just repeating propaganda.

First of all, yes, we're living under a shitty authoritarian government in the US. It's basically a dictatorship of the richest in society. I want to invert that, where the workers have all the power. It'll flatten out the power hierarchy eventually because everyone will become workers like everyone else. Just, in order to get there, we've gotta do some things which will smack of authoritarianism, such as forcibly redistributing wealth and converting businesses to being worker-owned.

I don't know what's best for people, other than that we should make society more democratic. But thing is, we can't let everyone act in their own self interest when doing so harms others. Like, it's in a landlord's individual self interest to charge as much money as possible and to refuse to redistribute their property.

Also, if you let everyone act in their own self interest, how do we solve the problem of getting land back to indigenous populations? For example, I'm certain that many white people in the US won't want to give land back, and there could be a democratic majority that opposes doing the right thing. What do we do then?

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.

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.

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"

Capitalists can choose to give up their property and become workers like the rest of us, or they can get the wall and then their property is redistributed. The capitalist class has colonized our society, and their enforcers are the police. And according to Franz Fanon's books on anticolonial struggle in Algeria, colonial relations never go away unless fought with anticolonial violence to oppose the violence of the colonizers. Ultimately, violence is what is needed to force those in power to give up their wealth, and if they gave up their wealth willingly then violence would not be necessary.

Did someone say "One Big Union"? Sounds like the IWW would be right up your alley. It's coming back to life again - definitely check if you have a local branch!

https://www.iww.org/

The IWW is an explicitly radical militant union devoted to overthrowing the tyranny of the wage system and settling the class war through full worker control of all enterprises. It's an entirely different animal than the bloated business unions who settle for a "fair share" of the profits. The IWW asserts that all of the value produced by the labor of workers should go to workers, and the bosses can just become workers like the rest of us.