A common person in the contemporary era is assailed by many threats to their autonomy: the religious, the nihilists, the corporatists, the fascists, and the alleged “collectivists”, who we’ll discuss here.
Extreme authoritarian “leftists”, A.K.A. “tankies” (i.e., apologists for Lenin, Stalin, Mao, the CCP, the DPRK, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Xi Jingping, etc.), are also threats to a free, egalitarian, and open society, are just as violent as their authoritarian competitors, and should be treated with the contempt, distrust, and ridicule they deserve.
Why?
They claim to speak and fight for the proletariat, promising a new utopia, never before seen, once their revolution executes the last “class-traitor”. In practice, once they’re finished with “seizing the means of production”, they’ll never relinquish control and become the new ruling class.
They’ll assume the mantle of an “enlightened elite post-revolutionary administration” to guide the proletariat to their promised utopia of “each according to their ability, to each according to their need”. In practice, "the party leadership needs the most, because they’re obviously the most able” in reorganizing the economic and political structure of society. The utopia of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” will never exist, only the dictatorship of the “revolutionary party” will, and repression and execution await those who question their claims and decisions.
These supposed champions of labor are really harbingers of death of the mind, body, and community. They claim to be the true authoritative “voice of the people”. Understand what they really are; power over everything and everyone, forever, is what they seek. They want you either as a true believer (a willing pawn) or dead, just like all of the other supposedly benevolent dictators who promised utopias throughout history.
They’re akin to the pigs in Orwell’s Animal Farm, the loudest voices in the revolution, usurpers of a righteous cause, but a bit “more equal” than everyone else after the farmer is done away with. Fortunately, the pigs, like the farmer, got their comeuppance in the end of the story. And like all pigs, they will squeal when things don’t go their way.
Never ever trust anyone or any group that says “I am/we’re in charge, fovever”.
If we’re talking about economic systems or political parties, socialism can indeed be one “answer to authoritarianism”. It can also be authoritarian, even more than what its members seek to replace.
Nope, by its definition it’s a dictatorship of the proletariat, it’s not authoritarian to subvert the rich and prevent capital from affecting politics. But given you subscribe to China bad US good, the left wing isn’t really for you.
I would say I’m more of a democratic market-socialist, with a strong preference for “consent of the governed”, and bottomless contempt for arbitrary authority.
Let’s, for a moment, sidestep your interpretation of the definitions of previously mentioned political parties, economic systems, or forms of governance. I don’t agree with much of it, but that’s irrelevant.
In my post, I am referring to those who outwardly refer to themselves as “socialists” or “communists”, but on closer scrutiny, are apologists for mass-murderers and are just really bloodthirsty tyrants waiting for their turn at the pig-trough of unchecked power.
The idea that those who claim to be on the “left” are infallible, incorruptible, or morally unassailable is incredibly naive, given the weight of history and what we as a species know about human group dynamics.
Simply put, one must always be wary of those who seek control. Especially, when they want it without question, permanently, and require adulation for it.
A common person in the contemporary era is assailed by many threats to their autonomy: the religious, the nihilists, the corporatists, the fascists, and the alleged “collectivists”, who we’ll discuss here.
Extreme authoritarian “leftists”, A.K.A. “tankies” (i.e., apologists for Lenin, Stalin, Mao, the CCP, the DPRK, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Xi Jingping, etc.), are also threats to a free, egalitarian, and open society, are just as violent as their authoritarian competitors, and should be treated with the contempt, distrust, and ridicule they deserve.
Why?
They claim to speak and fight for the proletariat, promising a new utopia, never before seen, once their revolution executes the last “class-traitor”. In practice, once they’re finished with “seizing the means of production”, they’ll never relinquish control and become the new ruling class.
They’ll assume the mantle of an “enlightened elite post-revolutionary administration” to guide the proletariat to their promised utopia of “each according to their ability, to each according to their need”. In practice, "the party leadership needs the most, because they’re obviously the most able” in reorganizing the economic and political structure of society. The utopia of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” will never exist, only the dictatorship of the “revolutionary party” will, and repression and execution await those who question their claims and decisions.
These supposed champions of labor are really harbingers of death of the mind, body, and community. They claim to be the true authoritative “voice of the people”. Understand what they really are; power over everything and everyone, forever, is what they seek. They want you either as a true believer (a willing pawn) or dead, just like all of the other supposedly benevolent dictators who promised utopias throughout history.
They’re akin to the pigs in Orwell’s Animal Farm, the loudest voices in the revolution, usurpers of a righteous cause, but a bit “more equal” than everyone else after the farmer is done away with. Fortunately, the pigs, like the farmer, got their comeuppance in the end of the story. And like all pigs, they will squeal when things don’t go their way.
Never ever trust anyone or any group that says “I am/we’re in charge, fovever”.
You understand Orwell was a socialist, right?
Yes, he was. I would refine the description as a democratic socialist.
One can be a “socialist” and still be anti-authoritarian.
Demsocs explicitly are not socialist, they just want a welfare state.
And if course you can be socialist and antiauthoritarian, those are opposites.
Not exclusively.
Nope, socialism is the answer to authoritarianism.
If we’re talking about economic systems or political parties, socialism can indeed be one “answer to authoritarianism”. It can also be authoritarian, even more than what its members seek to replace.
Nope, by its definition it’s a dictatorship of the proletariat, it’s not authoritarian to subvert the rich and prevent capital from affecting politics. But given you subscribe to China bad US good, the left wing isn’t really for you.
Yes, I don’t consider the CCP to be “left wing”. Where in my original post did I say “US good”? I don’t think you read what I wrote.
Removed by mod
Can you read?
No masters, no slaves. “Boy”.
Glad to hear you’re a communist and what you wrote was just ignorant bait.
I would say I’m more of a democratic market-socialist, with a strong preference for “consent of the governed”, and bottomless contempt for arbitrary authority.
That’s a communist, read your theory.
I have.
Then you know democracy is the foundation of communism and socialism and has market economics.
Let’s, for a moment, sidestep your interpretation of the definitions of previously mentioned political parties, economic systems, or forms of governance. I don’t agree with much of it, but that’s irrelevant.
In my post, I am referring to those who outwardly refer to themselves as “socialists” or “communists”, but on closer scrutiny, are apologists for mass-murderers and are just really bloodthirsty tyrants waiting for their turn at the pig-trough of unchecked power.
The idea that those who claim to be on the “left” are infallible, incorruptible, or morally unassailable is incredibly naive, given the weight of history and what we as a species know about human group dynamics.
Simply put, one must always be wary of those who seek control. Especially, when they want it without question, permanently, and require adulation for it.
Make sense?