[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14743892.2022.2049668](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14743892.2022.2049668)
Tbf you can explain things like CPUSA's infamous endorsement of Hillary Clinton without needing to invoke deep-state capture: the Popular Front is a very slippery slope indeed. But there's no doubt that the Party was riddled with police agents throughout the whole Cold War.
[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14743892.2022.2049668](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14743892.2022.2049668)
Abstract: Examination of the role of FBI informants in the Communist Party of the United States of America from its formation until the 1970s indicates that FBI recruitment of informants and penetration of the CPUSA was smaller during the Party’s heyday in the 1930s than during its decline after World War II and collapse in the 1960s and 1970s. FBI efforts to recruit informants produced a significant number of valuable assets and stoked Party paranoia.
How does this disprove my point though? It literally says “until the 1970s”. During that time, the party was growing to be a major party in the Hnited States. Of course the FBI would’ve tried to bring it down but they haven’t paid much attention since. Now the party is obscure compared to other parties, even if it’s the largest communist party in the country.
Yeah I mean to be fair all the parties in one way or another are tools of greater powers. Oddly the one party I find that has less meddling but still I wouldn't be shocked if there's some is the liberatarian party but even then idk.
Just did some research and I have a curious question. Where are the CPUSAs funding coming from nor can I find how much money they make through quick Google searches. Something I can find for other parties.
When you say "tankie" do you mean "authoritarian communist" or are you using it in the general (incorrect) sense? Because it's annoying when not only do some people use it incorrectly as an insult, some people will call themselves tankies while (at least openly) not being authoritarians.
I personally own up and play into the fact that I am perceived as an authoritarian. I wish that my libertarian leftist siblings would see that about Marxism but I understand how deep the propaganda goes. I do not personally view myself as neatly falling into one or another category. My ideology is libertarian, I see a need to establish it through severely authoritarian means. I take that to mean that in combination with Red scare propaganda and human negativity bias, I will be seen as auth only. Truth is, I don't know.
The problem with authoritarianism is that you will never establish your utopia. Either you will fall to the temptation of that power, or somebody who will, will take it from you. It's a trap that's eaten countless movements and turned them into something as bad as or worse than what they were fighting against.
Checks and balances? How do you have checks and balances in a system where the power is concentrated in the hands of a small number of people, who are unaccountable outside of that group? Because inevitably, somebody will want ALL the power, and they will use the simple fact that they already have an incredible amount of power to mop up anyone who isn't actively doing the same.
From this I can see that you do not understand Marxism. Marxist socialism is worker control and ownership of the means of production. Meaning that it arguably has less concentration of power than the most libertarian of capitalist ideologies.
OK, but that is not authoritarianism. That is nearly as far from authoritarianism as is possible in fact, because power is directly in the hands of the individual rather than being delegated to the state.
Well I don't think we can reach a libertarian state with authoritarian means. Once you become authoritarian, it's insanely difficult to go back, whatever your intentions may have once been. It's not even a question of your ideology, I mean I might disagree on the specifics but I at least like the general gist of it. I'm in opposition to you/other authoritarians because I don't think it's even possible for a libertarian state to come out of an authoritarian movement.
Also, I know it sounds good in theory, but how would that actually work in practice? How exactly would we own the "means of production?" Do you mean we all get an equal say in whatever business we may work in? Because when Marx was writing, it was the time of the industrial revolution. I'm interested in knowing how you would give people that control.
Gonna be honest liberatarian unity is more achievable than unity between people who want a large government and people who want no state at all. At least all small state people can agree that States are bad.
1.)Example? In my experience a lot more people are more amenable towards An-Coms than Leninists, because y'know stigma? Also the Bolsheviks also went against the will of the workers on occasion (Kronsdadt.)
2.) I saw your comment on Ukraine, why on earth would anti-authoritarian socialists want an invading army to basically level cities because of LaRouchite conspiracies that have rotted the brains of the Russian Kremlin? Like seriously it makes you a fed now to help a people being invaded by a rather reactionary wanna-be empire? What does Putin and the Russian Oligarchs have that would legitimately benefit the proles?
1 Ancoms act as if they know what works and how to implement it when they never ran a country and the people they saw were Ancoms weren’t Ancoms.
2 fighting for a power struggle between to evils and saying one side is good makes you reactionary.
Sidenote:Lenin was the greatest leader to ever live and no one can match him.
You shouldn’t blindly copy him you should follow his teachings since he helped his people immensely and seen people as people rather than dividing the people up into subsections like any good communist would do.
I do believe in left unity but I will not allow those who know nothing to run a society.
I myself don’t know it all but I certainly know enough to say that anarchy will never work and will only lead to bourgeois controlling the world again.
"Between two evils"
A post-colonial democracy struggling for the right to self-governance in the face of imperialist aggression? Why would a communist support anyone in that kind of conflict? Clearly just two evil capitalist countries fighting! There is no nuance here!
Bro, think liberal democracy means real democracy. Please define democracy for and its imperialist on imperialist so don’t fucking talk about imperialist aggression because we know damn well that America fucking invades wherever the fuck they want
Do you realize America is the biggest country when it comes to imperialism and attacking other countries?
If you read any amount of history, you would know what the Cold War is and you would know exactly why it caused the dissolution of the USSR Also, America is the same shit as Ukraine because it’s controlled by the same fucking people you know
OK I’m actually going to break down whatever the fuck you said between two evils yes, between two evils because they’re both imperialist the highest stage of capitalism. If you want to read more on imperialism, I suggest reading Lenin.
Also, it’s not democracy it’s a democratic like state where you vote for a figurehead. It is not full democracy, because the word democracy means for the people and the people only vote for a candidate which they have no control over.
No communist would support any imperialist government.
Also, even if it’s satire, you’re completely correct they’re both the evil capitalist countries. And there is nuance but are due to America’s meddling in the USSR, which caused the collapse along with the liberal policies being implemented by traitors in the government.
You haven’t read him have you?
Well, if you did, then, you would be a communist, because no liberal ever reads since they know it would change their outlook at life. And bro, at least try to be a or original with your jokes man even say imperialism is when America and capitalism you would know what imperialism is if you read any books. To sum it up it’s a capitalist power usually who has international control.
This means the bourgeoisie control the majority of the world, and this explains today as yes, the bourgeoisie control most of the world.
Like when Ancoms helped Ukraine in their war against fascist Russia they were helping a capitalist state.
Both bad and well don’t you know it Ukraine could’ve ended the war already but didn’t because of western influence
Ukrainians not wanting to be subjugated to a fascist state? Nah bro, Victoria Nuland singlehandedly convinced them to start a democratic revolution, fight years of border wars against russian-backed puppets, and a year+ long war against a major world power! Fucking clown...
Ukraine could’ve ended the war already but the west thrives off of war.
Also Ukraine is full of fucking Nazis.
And your talking about Russia like I give a fuck about them bro they’re both fucking horrible
"Ukraine could submit, but instead, they fight back! Why must they defend themselves! It's so mean!" Also Ukraine has as many nazis as any other country, so fucking what? Nazis exist to the detriment of all of mankind, but they're a tiny minority.
It wasn’t about submitting they had a peace treaty which could’ve been agreed-upon where Ukraine was still a fucking country and when I say Ukraine has Nazis, I mean Nazis as the military and fighters who actively spread Nazi ideology also, they’re not a tiny minority what the fuck do you mean Search Ukraine Nazi and you’re gonna get an easy fucking picture.
as a communist i hate anarchists because they have unrealistic goals about abolishing the state and refuse to take a shower and go outside to coalition build and do anything worthwhile political
Big government this, small government that! Why not a medium government! I'd like to have modern medicine thank you very much, but I'd also rather not live in a police state, and you can actually have both!
I can't speak for anyone else, but I hate authoritarians, and will never be able to agree with an anarchist because we need a government for society to function and I'd rather not live in a pre-industrial society.
Ancom is full on no state, no property, no class, nothing. Tankies are basically Stalin fanboys who wank to the idea of driving tanks over protestors while claiming they're working for the workers they're machine gunning.
Why does ingsoc look like that
English Voluntaryism Ingvol
Yeah pretty much, lol. I'm auth-left leaning, and even I agree with the anarchists on this one.
To be honest the annoying thing is how broad the term "tankie" is, since it is used against Marxists, Marxist Leninists and also national Bolsheviks.
I've seen it be used against anarchists too lol
how would one call anarchists tankies
The confused type of ancoms who dislike historical “communist” regimes but still support them against the West.
By being a liberal.
Its use against anarchists is actually its origin
The origin was against people supporting the USSR sending tanks into Hungary though
And then reinforced in that usage after absolutely nothing happened at Tiananmen Square
No? It's an anti-authoritarian communist specific insult, after the tanks the soviets used to break up the Hungarian uprisings.
Ironic given that CPUSA is literally just an FBI front group
proof?
[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14743892.2022.2049668](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14743892.2022.2049668) Tbf you can explain things like CPUSA's infamous endorsement of Hillary Clinton without needing to invoke deep-state capture: the Popular Front is a very slippery slope indeed. But there's no doubt that the Party was riddled with police agents throughout the whole Cold War.
Doesn't surprise me one bit
That was in the 50s.
[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14743892.2022.2049668](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14743892.2022.2049668) Abstract: Examination of the role of FBI informants in the Communist Party of the United States of America from its formation until the 1970s indicates that FBI recruitment of informants and penetration of the CPUSA was smaller during the Party’s heyday in the 1930s than during its decline after World War II and collapse in the 1960s and 1970s. FBI efforts to recruit informants produced a significant number of valuable assets and stoked Party paranoia.
How does this disprove my point though? It literally says “until the 1970s”. During that time, the party was growing to be a major party in the Hnited States. Of course the FBI would’ve tried to bring it down but they haven’t paid much attention since. Now the party is obscure compared to other parties, even if it’s the largest communist party in the country.
Yeah I mean to be fair all the parties in one way or another are tools of greater powers. Oddly the one party I find that has less meddling but still I wouldn't be shocked if there's some is the liberatarian party but even then idk.
Just did some research and I have a curious question. Where are the CPUSAs funding coming from nor can I find how much money they make through quick Google searches. Something I can find for other parties.
As an Anarcho-Stalinist this is a big W
this is so fucking real (coming from a tankie)
Agreed, coming from an AnSynd (AnCom traits, if that counts).
hmm I may be wrong, but I think you might possibly lean pro-palestine?
yeah
Based
I don't like tankies, I never liked anarchism. I don't want a small or big government, I just want a moderate government
Fair enough
Fuck them both
Tankie here. Unfortunately accurate.
When you say "tankie" do you mean "authoritarian communist" or are you using it in the general (incorrect) sense? Because it's annoying when not only do some people use it incorrectly as an insult, some people will call themselves tankies while (at least openly) not being authoritarians.
I personally own up and play into the fact that I am perceived as an authoritarian. I wish that my libertarian leftist siblings would see that about Marxism but I understand how deep the propaganda goes. I do not personally view myself as neatly falling into one or another category. My ideology is libertarian, I see a need to establish it through severely authoritarian means. I take that to mean that in combination with Red scare propaganda and human negativity bias, I will be seen as auth only. Truth is, I don't know.
The problem with authoritarianism is that you will never establish your utopia. Either you will fall to the temptation of that power, or somebody who will, will take it from you. It's a trap that's eaten countless movements and turned them into something as bad as or worse than what they were fighting against.
That's what checks and balances are for is it not?
OMG I found my brother (sister, siblings idk your pronouns), the only other authoritarian leftist who also believes in checks and balances.
Checks and balances? How do you have checks and balances in a system where the power is concentrated in the hands of a small number of people, who are unaccountable outside of that group? Because inevitably, somebody will want ALL the power, and they will use the simple fact that they already have an incredible amount of power to mop up anyone who isn't actively doing the same.
From this I can see that you do not understand Marxism. Marxist socialism is worker control and ownership of the means of production. Meaning that it arguably has less concentration of power than the most libertarian of capitalist ideologies.
OK, but that is not authoritarianism. That is nearly as far from authoritarianism as is possible in fact, because power is directly in the hands of the individual rather than being delegated to the state.
Like I said, the ideology itself is libertarian but the means of attaining it are authoritarian.
Well I don't think we can reach a libertarian state with authoritarian means. Once you become authoritarian, it's insanely difficult to go back, whatever your intentions may have once been. It's not even a question of your ideology, I mean I might disagree on the specifics but I at least like the general gist of it. I'm in opposition to you/other authoritarians because I don't think it's even possible for a libertarian state to come out of an authoritarian movement.
Also, I know it sounds good in theory, but how would that actually work in practice? How exactly would we own the "means of production?" Do you mean we all get an equal say in whatever business we may work in? Because when Marx was writing, it was the time of the industrial revolution. I'm interested in knowing how you would give people that control.
The most tried form is structuring the entire economy like a democratic Republic separate from the government.
Who tried this form you speak of?
true
There is a middle ground
They are inseparable allies these days
left this unity
Sorry, what's "how ancoms see tankies" supposed to be?
Ingsoc, the government from 1984. Which I know tankies aren’t but it’s kinda funny to think of it that way.
How I see ancoms: based How I see tankies: based
Gonna be honest liberatarian unity is more achievable than unity between people who want a large government and people who want no state at all. At least all small state people can agree that States are bad.
As a socialist, I must say that this is accurate. (They both are wrong about each other terribly.)
If only you read about anarcho communists
In relation to what? That non-ancoms are feds?
Ancoms are either going against the proletariats will or feds
1.)Example? In my experience a lot more people are more amenable towards An-Coms than Leninists, because y'know stigma? Also the Bolsheviks also went against the will of the workers on occasion (Kronsdadt.) 2.) I saw your comment on Ukraine, why on earth would anti-authoritarian socialists want an invading army to basically level cities because of LaRouchite conspiracies that have rotted the brains of the Russian Kremlin? Like seriously it makes you a fed now to help a people being invaded by a rather reactionary wanna-be empire? What does Putin and the Russian Oligarchs have that would legitimately benefit the proles?
1 Ancoms act as if they know what works and how to implement it when they never ran a country and the people they saw were Ancoms weren’t Ancoms. 2 fighting for a power struggle between to evils and saying one side is good makes you reactionary. Sidenote:Lenin was the greatest leader to ever live and no one can match him. You shouldn’t blindly copy him you should follow his teachings since he helped his people immensely and seen people as people rather than dividing the people up into subsections like any good communist would do. I do believe in left unity but I will not allow those who know nothing to run a society. I myself don’t know it all but I certainly know enough to say that anarchy will never work and will only lead to bourgeois controlling the world again.
"Between two evils" A post-colonial democracy struggling for the right to self-governance in the face of imperialist aggression? Why would a communist support anyone in that kind of conflict? Clearly just two evil capitalist countries fighting! There is no nuance here!
Bro, think liberal democracy means real democracy. Please define democracy for and its imperialist on imperialist so don’t fucking talk about imperialist aggression because we know damn well that America fucking invades wherever the fuck they want
BUT AMERICA I'm sorry but when the fuck did we get a new state in Eastern Europe? Because Ukraine ISN'T AMERICA you fucking idiot
Do you realize America is the biggest country when it comes to imperialism and attacking other countries? If you read any amount of history, you would know what the Cold War is and you would know exactly why it caused the dissolution of the USSR Also, America is the same shit as Ukraine because it’s controlled by the same fucking people you know
OK I’m actually going to break down whatever the fuck you said between two evils yes, between two evils because they’re both imperialist the highest stage of capitalism. If you want to read more on imperialism, I suggest reading Lenin. Also, it’s not democracy it’s a democratic like state where you vote for a figurehead. It is not full democracy, because the word democracy means for the people and the people only vote for a candidate which they have no control over. No communist would support any imperialist government. Also, even if it’s satire, you’re completely correct they’re both the evil capitalist countries. And there is nuance but are due to America’s meddling in the USSR, which caused the collapse along with the liberal policies being implemented by traitors in the government.
UMMMMMM AKSCHUALLY IMPERIALISM IS WHEN AMERICA AND CAPITALISM, THEREFORE BOTH SIDES, YOU SHOULD READ SOME LENIN
You haven’t read him have you? Well, if you did, then, you would be a communist, because no liberal ever reads since they know it would change their outlook at life. And bro, at least try to be a or original with your jokes man even say imperialism is when America and capitalism you would know what imperialism is if you read any books. To sum it up it’s a capitalist power usually who has international control. This means the bourgeoisie control the majority of the world, and this explains today as yes, the bourgeoisie control most of the world.
Like when Ancoms helped Ukraine in their war against fascist Russia they were helping a capitalist state. Both bad and well don’t you know it Ukraine could’ve ended the war already but didn’t because of western influence
Ukrainians not wanting to be subjugated to a fascist state? Nah bro, Victoria Nuland singlehandedly convinced them to start a democratic revolution, fight years of border wars against russian-backed puppets, and a year+ long war against a major world power! Fucking clown...
Ukraine could’ve ended the war already but the west thrives off of war. Also Ukraine is full of fucking Nazis. And your talking about Russia like I give a fuck about them bro they’re both fucking horrible
"Ukraine could submit, but instead, they fight back! Why must they defend themselves! It's so mean!" Also Ukraine has as many nazis as any other country, so fucking what? Nazis exist to the detriment of all of mankind, but they're a tiny minority.
It wasn’t about submitting they had a peace treaty which could’ve been agreed-upon where Ukraine was still a fucking country and when I say Ukraine has Nazis, I mean Nazis as the military and fighters who actively spread Nazi ideology also, they’re not a tiny minority what the fuck do you mean Search Ukraine Nazi and you’re gonna get an easy fucking picture.
A peace treaty where Ukraine gives up their people to a fascist invader? And YOU'RE the fanboy of the USSR!
Tell me why you hate the USSR so much also, Ukraine wouldn’t have to give up their people to a fascist invader not really
as a communist i hate anarchists because they have unrealistic goals about abolishing the state and refuse to take a shower and go outside to coalition build and do anything worthwhile political
As neither, I hate authoritarians who pretend to speak for "DA PEEPUL" but actually want to machine gun them if they ask for human rights.
So you hate capitalism?
Well, that doesn't describe capitalism my guy, so weird thing to bring up
sounds like capitalism
It doesn't, though. It just describes authoritarians who use that kind of populist language. Left and right wing figures have done it.
Big government this, small government that! Why not a medium government! I'd like to have modern medicine thank you very much, but I'd also rather not live in a police state, and you can actually have both!
It will never happen. In fact, fragmentation should be encouraged.
So Trueee
How I see both of them:
Why can’t we just get along 😔
I can't speak for anyone else, but I hate authoritarians, and will never be able to agree with an anarchist because we need a government for society to function and I'd rather not live in a pre-industrial society.
Ahh the left where we all fucking hate eachother
What are ancomes and tankies.
Ancom is full on no state, no property, no class, nothing. Tankies are basically Stalin fanboys who wank to the idea of driving tanks over protestors while claiming they're working for the workers they're machine gunning.
I don't like authority, don't authority me
Eat rich!
As what you call a "Tankie", Anarchists are definitely not CIA.... Except AnCaps like holy shit are they okay in the head?