You truly are despicable or the most complete idiot I have ever seen.

I don’t care about internal US bullishit (we were talking about US wars) but even in that area you’re wilfully ignorant McCarthyism, The deporter in chief, Guantanamo bay, Abu gharib (CIA black sites et al). You are clearly a very privileged person with a very loose grasp on history and reality.

While we’re on the tipic. Please explain to me how the extermination campaign in Korea (dropping more bombs on half an already small peninsula than were dropped in the Pacific theatre of WW2 as a whole, 1 in 5 to 1 in 4 of the population killed, all major farms and structures turned to rubble leaving the survivors living in caves) is not equivalent or honestly worse than the more recent atrocities. Or how about Vietnam still dealing with the after affects of the rainbow agents (agent orange etc.). Or the US collection of pet failed states like Libya. How about putting pinochet or the shah (aka the butcher) in power alongside the rest of their pet fascists of the day.

You are an arrogant uninformed privileged ass who needs to read some books and get in touch with reality.

I am not justifying the endless stream of “military operations” the USA has partook in, but to compare what’s going on today to what military action looked like 20 years ago is just silly.

What do you actually know about Korea? Vietnam? Iraq? Yugoslavia? Afghanistan? …

Only someone as privileged as a USian could say something so completely wrong.

What the hell is a protest if it does not disrupt?

A parade

Maybe I phrased it badly but that’s the point I was trying to make the Indian resistance movement that Ghandi was the face of (both the sections he directly lead and the movement as a whole) was far more confrontational and active than the image canonised later by imperial powers of the hunger striking saint reaching freedom for India through moral appeals. Just like Mandela, MLK etc. the real movement was sanitised and laundered to curb future protests.

Demands are the concrete expression of class interest. A movement that refuses to articulate specific objectives is not a political force. It is a cultural festival. Material conditions do not shift because people gather in large numbers. They shift when production halts and when power is directly challenged. To say the citizenry is not in charge of fixing the country is defeatist idealism (a blatantly ridiculous fiction). It surrenders agency to the bourgeoisie. The masses create history but only when they are organized to seize it.

You claim these gatherings are the largest in history yet business continues as usual. Capital flows uninterrupted. The stock market does not tremble at a parade. Where is the general strike? Where is the material cost to the ruling class? Without economic leverage, visibility is meaningless. Western liberal protest culture trains people to believe that moral visibility equals victory. This is a deliberate falsehood designed to protect property relations. History shows that concessions are never granted out of goodwill. They are extracted through force and disruption.

Look at the historical record without the imperialist filter. Gandhi is presented as the saint of nonviolence who shamed the British Empire into leaving. This erases the material reality of the struggle. The British did not leave because of salt marches. They left because the Royal Indian Navy mutinied in 1946 and violent uprisings made the colony too expensive to maintain. The nonviolent narrative is a tool to disarm future movements. The same sanitization happened to Nelson Mandela and the ANC. He is remembered as a peacemaker but he led Umkhonto we Sizwe. The apartheid regime negotiated because they were being bled by armed struggle and mass disruption. They did not negotiate because of moral appeals.

Martin Luther King Jr is held up as the sole face of Black liberation who won through peace. This ignores the material pressure that actually forced legislation. King himself called riots the language of the unheard. The Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act were passed while American cities were burning. The ruling class conceded rights to pacify the unrest and protect property. The radical elements who advocated for self defense and disruption created the pressure that made the moderates successful. To ignore this is to ignore how power actually works.

These current gatherings are different because they are safe for capital. Police allow them. Businesses prepare for them like weather events. There is no risk to the state. This is why they are parades and not protests. They function as a pressure valve to dissipate revolutionary sentiment. People feel they have acted because they showed up. Their energy is funneled into spectacle rather than organization. This serves the state by preventing the formation of actual revolutionary capacity.

Chairman Mao taught that revolution is not a dinner party. It is an act of violence by which one class overthrows another. These events are dinner parties. They may serve as recruiting grounds but calling them protests lies about the nature of struggle. Real action requires risking comfort. It requires disrupting the flow of capital. If there is no cost to the oppressor there is no victory for the oppressed.

Edit: Oh there’s another possible one day “strike” wow. You really should stop being such a pretentious ass and actually try engage with what’s being said.

https://redsails.org/masses-elites-and-rebels/

The axis and the allies were both bad because they both hurt people.

Please be serious.

“Why do you think only ownership can be a ‘material anchor’? When someone can ‘own’ something they’ve never been within a thousand miles of, why couldn’t another form of institutionally enforced authority over that object fulfill that same role?”

Ownership isn’t about physical proximity. It’s about the right to exclude, to appropriate surplus, to transfer control. That’s what makes it a material anchor. Institutional authority without that right is conditional. A manager can direct labour, but if they can’t sell the factory, bequeath it, or pocket the profit, they aren’t a capitalist. That distinction, as has been pointed out already, is the difference between a function and a class.

“You reformist! ;) Why would regulation offer any more resistance against the pressure of material relations between authority and worker within state communism than in liberal capitalism?”

Mass line, criticism-self-criticism, recall mechanisms aren’t liberal reforms. They’re tools to keep proletarian authority tied to the class it serves. The AES have used them, imperfectly but materially, to prevent bureaucratic ossification. That’s not reformism. It’s simply recognizing that contradiction doesn’t disappear after revolution. It has to be managed through practice, not wished away. And let’s be clear: these tools work because the dictatorship of the proletariat has an objective interest in aligning leadership with the masses. The dictatorship of capital has the opposite aim. Its core function is to reproduce exploitation. No amount of “recall mechanisms” will make a bourgeois state serve workers, because its class character is defined by serving capital. You can’t reform a class enemy into an ally.

“It’s natural that functions converge when pursuing the same goals, especially when the pressure is on.”

Exactly. Material conditions demand certain forms. That’s proof that strategy must be grounded in reality, not moral preference. If anarchists end up adopting ML positions when faced with real tasks (smashing the state, defending the revolution, coordinating production) that says something about those ML positions. They are proven correct by practice.

“One of the nice things of anarchy is that other people can exercise their better ideas, so even if I give a bad answer they are free to give a good answer and people can go with that instead. That’s how you prevent beginner mistakes like the four pests campaign or the holodomor from killing millions of people.”

This is historical illiteracy. First, the “beginner mistakes” line erases the material conditions those revolutions faced: invasion, embargo, sabotage, famine imposed from outside. Second, it ignores that anarchist experiments have their own body counts when they fail to coordinate defense or production. Third, it pretends the AES didn’t learn, adapt, and save hundreds of millions from imperial predation. The PRC lifted nearly a billion people out of poverty, built world-class infrastructure, and broke imperial dependency. That’s a historical achievement under nearly impossible conditions not to mind the USSR going from illiterate peasants to space faring in under 50 years.

And the “let others try their better ideas” approach sounds open but is functionally irresponsible. Revolution isn’t a laboratory. People die when strategy fails. The mass line isn’t about letting everyone do their own thing. It’s about synthesizing mass experience into coherent strategy through disciplined practice.

“You can’t break imperial chains with sociocracy. Why couldn’t you?”

Show me where it has shown even the slightest potential to. Imperialism doesn’t care about your decision-making model. It bombs, sanctions, coups. Breaking imperial chains requires coordinated political power, economic planning, and military defense. That requires authority. Decentralization without central coordination isn’t a strength. If anything it’s a massive weakness begging to be exploited.

“Shaping the material conditions towards decentralization and voluntary association, so there is nothing for the counterrevolution to seize.”

This is magical thinking. Counter-revolution doesn’t need a central office to seize. It needs discontent, scarcity, external backing. Imperial invasion doesn’t require a capital city to target. It requires weakness to exploit. Defense requires logistics, intelligence, strategy. That means coordination, discipline, authority.

“Everyone, with those who can’t communicate effectively being assisted to have a say.”

Abstract universalism ignores concrete contradictions. Who decides what “effective communication” means? How are conflicting interests adjudicated? How is surplus allocated when not everyone’s needs can be met equally?

“Decentralized local production. Long-lasting repairable goods. Living within your ecological means.”

All good things in theory. But imperialism doesn’t respect local autarky. It enforces dependency through debt, trade, force. Breaking that requires collective power at scale. And let’s be concrete: decentralized, uncoordinated production cannot manufacture modern technology. Computer chips, phones, advanced medicine, modern weapons, none of it happens in isolated communes. Kneecapping yourself technologically in the face of a hegemonic aggressor is suicidal at best. And we’re back to fuck the ill and disabled if your model can’t produce the medicine and equipment they need to survive.

“Perhaps to help make these ideas more concrete we could have drills/competitions where different communes or federations showcase the strategies they think work best so groups can share and learn empirically.”

Prefigurative practice has value. But revolution isn’t a showcase. It’s a life-and-death struggle against a ruthless enemy.

The core disagreement remains simple. You see authority as inherently dangerous, so you want to minimize it. I see authority as a social relation, so I ask: which class wields it, for what end, and with what mechanisms to prevent ossification? One approach leads to moralism. The other leads to strategy. But to be blunt: your “anarchist” vision is idealist fantasy in the face of hegemonic violence. Imperialism doesn’t negotiate with your decision-making model. It crushes what it can’t co-opt. Material conditions don’t care about your preferences. They only respond to power which you fear rather than understand.

The origin and core of social democracy is clearly socialist and, in many cases, Marxist.

Social democracy’s practice has always been the administration of capitalism. The Second International’s collapse in 1914 proved this materially: when imperialist war arrived, they chose nation over class. Democratic socialists on the other hand may hold socialist aims in theory, however utopian. Social democrats do not. Their program accepts capitalist property relations as permanent. Their project is the rationalization of exploitation, not its abolition: distributing a portion of imperial superprofits to the labor aristocracy of the core to stabilize the system. This is not reformist socialism but capitalist management.

Isn’t everything/anything existing under capitalism financed by imperial rent? How is it different to China, for example?

The mechanism matters. The Nordic welfare state (the alleged shining example of modern social democracy) is financed by extractive capital operating in the periphery. Swedish and Norwegian firms control mines across Africa that extract cobalt, copper, and rare earths under conditions replicating colonial relations. This creates a material basis for class collaboration at home. China’s path is the inverse. China was subjected to imperial plunder for a century. The revolution under Chairman Mao broke that dependency and built an independent industrial base. Today China offers an alternative development path to the periphery through initiatives like the Belt and Road, free of IMF conditionalities and enforced dependency. That is anti-imperialist practice, not imperial rent extraction.

When has this happened? Do you have a specific example of a social democratic party turning fascist?

The argument is not that social democrats literally become out and out fascists. It is that their function in crisis serves fascism. The mask depends on surplus flow. Look at Labour in the UK today. Under Starmer, they are indistinguishable from the Tories they replaced. As imperial rent shrinks, austerity and class defense move to the forefront. They back arms deals, enforce anti-union laws, and cut public services. Across Europe, social democratic parties capitulate as the far right rises. In Germany, the SPD presides over rearmament and welfare cuts. In France, the PS collapses while Macron’s center holds. In Sweden, social democrats adopt anti-immigrant positions to chase right-wing voters. Social Democracys niceties are financed by imperial plunder. When that flow shrinks, it defaults to open class defense. It is not identical to fascism, but it is the bridge: austerity dismantles the welfare compromise, creating the social desperation fascism exploits.

They didn’t just preserve it, they were essential in building it… it is at least somewhat explainable given the uncertainty of the situation.

“Explainable”. The SPD’s choice to build a liberal republic rather than smash the bourgeois state was a class choice, not a historical accident. They did not face a binary of “chaos or Weimar.” They faced a choice: side with the proletarian masses who had just toppled the Kaiser, or side with the generals, judges, and bureaucrats who served capital. They chose the latter. The Ebert-Groener pact was alignment. Using the Freikorps against the KPD while negotiating with monarchists was not a tragic error. It was clear cut counterrevolution.

This is very critical and one of the biggest issues. But again, this was a mutual thing. The KPD also refused to form any kind of front against the nazis until it was too late.

The refusal was not symmetric. The SPD held state power. They controlled the police, the courts, the army. They used that power to repress communist organizing while tolerating fascist mobilization. The KPD, by contrast, had no state apparatus. Their sectarianism was a tactical failure. The SPD’s collaboration with bourgeois forces was a strategic orientation. One error could have been corrected. The other was structural.

And this characterization is in part what made it virtually impossible to form any kind of pragmatic alliance/front against the fascists… Why would they work with the SPD against the fascists when the SPD was, in practice, fascist itself?

Stalin’s characterization was not the cause of the split. It was the summation of material practice. The SPD had already shown, in 1919, 1920, and 1923, that they would use state violence against proletarian organizations before allying against them with the far right. The KPD’s analysis recognized that a united front requires mutual trust. The SPD had forfeited that trust through their actions. The purpose of the characterization was clarity: you cannot build a front with a force that views your destruction as a precondition for stability. History confirmed that the SPD’s priority was preserving the bourgeois order, not stopping fascism. That is why the “moderate wing of fascism” label stuck it is an accurate descriptor.

Many have no issue with critial support of regimes/groups/factions for specific and pragmatic goals

Critical support is possible when goals align against a principal enemy. We support Russia and Iran against imperialist aggression not because they are socialist, but because their resistance weakens the imperial core. No such alignment exists with social democrats. Their entire project is to blunt the teeth of capital at home in order to suck dry any revolutionary potential of the proletariat. They bribe sections of the working class with concessions financed by imperial plunder to enforce a false sense of class consciousness. They are enemies through and through, just like the neoliberals and the fascists. Recognizing this is not sectarianism. It is clarity. What shoot any movement in the foot is not recognizing the enemy.

Social democracy is against revolution and pro reform. If that makes it fascist, literally everything and everyone except for revolutionary socialists are/were fascists.

The definition is not “against revolution equals fascist.” The definition is material: which class interest does a force serve in the decisive moment? Social democracy serves capital. When the system is stable, it administers concessions. When the system is threatened, it defends property by force. That function is what Stalin termed the moderate wing of fascism. This worldview does not turn everyone into an enemy. It identifies the enemy correctly. The West’s low revolutionary potential today is precisely the result of social democracy’s historical success in channeling proletarian energy into parliamentary dead ends. Abandoning class analysis to chase broader alliances does not build power. It dissolves it.

Yeah he made that very clear when he blamed shock therapy on communism.

They are many things fascist isn’t one of them currently. But if they were to be killed by leftwing/communist revolutionaries I would support it yes (if it was planned out well enough to not aid imperialist forces). Nice gotcha attempt though.

Not to mind it’s a ridiculous analogy comparing majorly flawed yet still currently antimperialist leaders to a healthcare CEO (the most predatory kind of private insurance).

Killing someone who put profits before humans to the point they doomed thousands to excruciating slow agonizing death is good actually. In the same way that killing fascists is good.

Thank you. Always glad to hear when people find my comments helpful or interesting.

Getting incessant DMS full of waves of bullshit, circular argument etc. from a racist nationalist gets annoying but I think it’s still worth writing up a reply for others to see at least gives it some meaning beyond headbutting a brickwall.

I responded again

A brief list of issues:

You completely reversed the historical record on Czechoslovakia: the Soviet Union proposed a collective security pact with Poland and Britain in 1938 to defend Czechoslovakia against Nazi expansion; Poland refused, then joined the Nazis in annexing Zaolzie; Britain chose appeasement at Munich. Claiming the Soviets “ordered” Poland to invade is not merely incorrect, it is the precise opposite of what occurred.

You equate Russia’s defensive reaction to NATO encirclement, the 2014 western-backed coup in Kyiv, and eight years of war in Donbas with interwar Poland’s opportunistic seizure of territory in Western Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine. One is a response to imperial threat and the protection of persecuted populations; the other was expansion into neighbors weakened by revolutionary disarray. Conflating them ignores material context and serves imperial narratives.

You dismiss Comecon as “theft” while ignoring the Marshall Plan as an instrument of imperial subordination, measuring socialist solidarity by capitalist standards. You conflate Khrushchev’s public, factional speech attacking Stalin’s supporters with an internal CIA memo never meant for public consumption. One was intra-party maneuvering weaponized by imperialism; the other was an admission against interest by an ideological enemy. They are not methodologically equivalent.

You ignore the material difference between the DPRK, flattened by carpet bombing, under permanent sanctions and existential threat, and Poland, which retained industrial capacity and operated within a supportive bloc. Scale and concrete conditions matter. False equivalence is not analysis. You reduce the complex reality of the Donbas conflict, the Minsk agreements, and the repression of Russian-speaking populations to a simple moral label of “imperialism” while ignoring the chain of causation and eight years of prior warfare.

You claim EU integration began in 2004, ignoring decades of trade conditioning, political alignment, and structural adjustment that prepared Poland for subordination to EU capital. You treat your lived experience of shortages as total analysis while refusing to consider war destruction, population loss, industrial prioritization, and counter-revolutionary sabotage as contributing factors. Anecdote is not structural analysis.

You demand socialism achieve perfection under siege, sanctions, and threat while applying no such standard to capitalism’s inherent crises, inequalities, and imperial violence. You confuse essence with deviation: capitalism produces exploitation as its logic; socialism produces it as a contradiction to be corrected. You present correction as proof of failure. You treat power as abstract rather than class power, reflecting liberal individualism rather than materialist analysis.

You impose idealist definitions of “real communism” from outside, then dismiss actually-existing socialist states that do not fit your abstraction. This is not method; it is arbitrariness. You shift goalposts: first claiming “communism produces unaccountable systems,” then narrowing to “elites can emerge,” which is a tautology applicable to any system. You engage in circular reasoning: comparing incomparable cases, ignoring concrete conditions, then insisting the outcomes prove your premise.

You made racist remarks about my English, judging my background by language patterns, then dismissed my village’s transformation under collective planning as “performance.” This is imperial condescension. You stalked my posting times to insinuate I am not working or not Chinese. You accused me of using a VPN (I am, it is legal, and I have no issues with it).

You claim to reject “self-applied labels” while imposing your own external definitions, leaving you with no consistent method for analysis. You present the Khmer Rouge as evidence against communism despite their repudiation by every existing socialist state. This is intellectually dishonest. You use liberal moralizing to judge historical events without context, dismissing socialist self-critique as proof of system failure while ignoring capitalism’s systematic protection of oligarchs.

You argue that any deviation under socialism refutes the whole, while treating capitalism’s endemic crises as normal. This is bias, not analysis. You claim to have been “raised in the 80s and 90s” and remember hunger, then use that to dismiss structural analysis. Lived experience is valid (except you have none of the communist period); it is not total. Materialism requires examining the totality of conditions. You accuse me of arrogance while displaying profound historical gaps, logical fallacies, and personal attacks. Projection is not critique.

You refuse to engage dialectically: you cannot hold that socialism can correct itself (as with party criticism of past errors) and that such correction proves failure. Both cannot be true. You demand I “share excuses” while ignoring broadly known party analyses and declassified admissions from ideological enemies. You select evidence that fits your narrative and dismiss the rest. You claim not to be anti-communist while functioning as one: judging socialism by standards never applied to capitalism, dismissing actually-existing socialist achievements, and amplifying imperial narratives. Intent does not negate effect.

He has again responded with another round of horseshit:

Your opening sarcasm was a universal claim. Now you narrow it after being pressed typical.

Nah, you just assumed I’m going after communism in general, where I was making a point that communism can also give rise to pathological elites/leaders. I just hate the shallow fanatical/fanboy approach to ideology showcased here so often, whatever the tendency. If you’d went thought my old comments you’d find me going after anarchists or liberals just as well (fascism is not to be debated).

Labeling is not analysis. The DPRK’s political form developed under total war, permanent sanctions, and existential threat.

Is the country ruled by workers council or a dynasty of unquestionable leaders? Whatever you call it, it is not communism.

Poland faced pressure too, but the material base was not the same. You cannot compare a state flattened by carpet bombing followed by brutal sanctions

Followed by theft of the remaining industrial equipment, rejection of Marshall plan and German retributions and years of pillage by the Soviets,

to one that retained industrial capacity and was supported by multiple blocs post war.

Soviets were taking away enough food to bring one of the breadbasket countries of Europe to the edge of hunger multiple times over the next 40 years. At the hight of the protests in 70/80 workers welded trains fool of produce bound east to the tracks, as there was no food for them to eat. If you come at me with propaganda statistics which are broadly know to be absolutely fake please mind that this, again, is a lived experience of generations. The only ones able to question the supply issues were the ones with access to party stores.

Also they are elected and rule collectively through a Congress but I’m sure you’ll dismiss that out of hand.

Are there repercussions for questioning the leaders line? Would that encourage acceptance and freeze any other fractions/party lines? Could (at least theoretically) that influence their choices in the parliament? Can you at least consider that something might not be right, even tho it labels itself communist?

Different class compositions,

How different? Poland was mostly rural, mostly city population got wiped out, as well as some of the cities themselves.

different party formations, different leadership decisions under different concrete conditions produce different outcomes.

Yeah, you cited reasons that would make it even worse for Poland, so when countered you state it’s because everything else is different. Right, great argument.

Poland was not under siege from the Nazis for decades after the end of ww2

No? I was pretty sure we were still next to the border with germany, where radical majority of the nazi administration went unpunished and was armed by US and then NATO for the very prepose of war, for which generations of Polish people were primed just as well. Might be just me tho.

they received a huge amount of funds for rebuilding and integration instead first from the soviets

LOL.

then the EU. Are you really this uneducated?

No, I was rised in the 80 and 90 and remember going hungry as an effect of the economy collapsed by communist and then shot in the head by liberals. Are you that ignorant? Also Poland joined UE in 2004, “communism” fell in 89/90. Thats ~25 years. How old are you again?

“Is it like something anti-communist and hostile to its society grew out of a originally communist/maoist party? Would that be exactly the point Im making and youre prettending not to see?”

No. The Khmer Rouge were repudiated by every existing socialist state.

Were they originally a part of the communist party?

By your logic, any group that uses socialist language while acting against socialist practice counts as “communist.”

Not exactly. My very point is that communist parties of systems might give rise to what you call deviations. Again that is exactly the point I was making original and you chose to ignore.

The Nazis called themselves socialists too.

DPRK is calling itself democratic and state capitalist regimes call themselves communist. Obviously I don’t care for the self applied labels.

Maybe you are the type of McCarthyist idiot who would call the Nazis socialist but I hope not that’s low even for a polish nationalist like yourself.

Mate, you cant insult me however many times you attempt. You’re an internet ignorant, not unlike a street drunk and your insults are just as touching.

Nationalist currents existed in Poland long before 1945.

Are you, again, attempting to teach me my own history? Was your point not being offended that someone might want to tell you what things are? How come you give yourself the right to do so, time and time again? You just think your a better human as you internalized some party line you little Eichmann?

The post-war state inherited those contradictions.

Yeah, that was over 20 years latter, and you are now justifying a antisemitic pogrom, without a word of critique for the fact it took place, and was organized by party members. Who primed you to be incapable of showing any humanity if any supposedly communist party might have done something evil?

That the party later criticized and corrected these errors is a feature of socialist self-critique, not a refutation of the system.

Ok, so did the same happen after Stalin, by any chance? And if so, would that again be my exact point made?

Twisting this history while ignoring your own country’s record of invading Czechoslovakia,

That was on Soviet order, so happens, but yeah, disgraceful.

occupying Western Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine is ironic.

I’m glad you accept Ukraine’s right to self determination, I also think Russian invasion is an illegal and immoral act of imperialism. As was Poland’s occupation of nowadays Lithuania, Belarus and Russia. Poland was a imperialist state, and a slaver one and bares the full responsibility for that. Stop assuming what I know or believe, you can just ask.

If Vietnam, a socialist state, overthrew the Khmer Rouge, then your example refutes your own claim.

My claim was communism can give rise to degenerate elite/rule. Same as democracy, as being an oligarch going around fucking children is not democracy, same as khmer’s were not communist. They were degenerated, but rose from communist ranks. That. Is. My. Point. No idea or human is immune to corruption that comes with absolute power over others. You’re trying to make my argument into something else to save your own point, against reality.

“Living memory” does not replace structural analysis.

Is this structural analysis by any chance? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Cult_of_Personality_and_Its_Consequences Or do you put a CIA report over that? Would this prove the point of my particular example being determined a “deviation” by the party?

I noted that when an institution dedicated to undermining socialism internally acknowledges

Correct me if I’m wrong, in a single report, you haven’t even read?

My village’s transformation from poverty to modern infrastructure under collective planning is not a performance for your approval.

Ah, by my entire country’s is for you? Arogant fuck.

Also it was around 8am I was on the train to work

Your last posts would be at; 18:42 8:21 4:43 3:46 You’re one stubborn commenter, I’ll give you that. But isn’t lemmy.ml blocked in China? Hope you’re not an anti-social on a VPN? That would be against party line, I’m sure.

Markets are a mechanism,

Yeah, and very much not communism. Market socialism, maybe?

Still; theres oligarchs, and nepo babies citicised and even at times punished by the party. Again a proof that my argument was right and such issues can arise under what you claim to be communism.

So is it possible these fascists in power have colored your view of things just like McCarthyism did for Americans?

At best as much as it is that youre so blinded by your ideology you ignore anything that doesent suit it 1:1.

Then you have abandoned your original claim. You started with “communism produces unaccountable systems.”

No, that’s what you read assuming I’m coming from an anti-communist position, because, you are an ignorant fuck who only accepts a singular party line as the only source of truth.

Those are opposite arguments.

You might have missed a part of the argument, feel free to re-read it, as it is on how the communist power gave rise to an elite acting against the people. Stil the main point of my comment.

That is not free choice, that is crisis management under duress.

Which justifies anything from Korea to Poland. Great. When and where there was a time without such pressures? Are you telling me communism will always be shaped by capitalists?

I have to ask, are you a teenager?

No.

The arrogance paired with the historical gaps (…) and engage with materialist analysis before debating.

Gaps? It would seem to be more like not sharing you excuses, while you seem to be ignoring broadly know party analysis (On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences) and place a CIA report over it? Get a grip.

“I am not waving it away, I am lowering its status to be within the same realm as concerns that are secondary in capitalism.”

You can’t just decide ownership matters less after capitalism by fiat. That’s idealism. Ownership isn’t a preference. It’s the material anchor of class power. The point of proletarian state power isn’t to wish authority away. It’s to use authority to socialize production, break imperial chains, and create the conditions where class distinctions become obsolete. You don’t get there by lowering the status of property relations. You get there by transforming them.

“Any group with authority over these matters that can have solidarity within the authoritative group will serve as a ruling class that gains from exploiting the working class.”

This conflates function with class. Yes, bureaucrats can degenerate. That’s a real contradiction. Mao wrote extensively about the risk of a “new bourgeoisie” emerging from within the party. But the solution isn’t to abandon proletarian authority. It’s to deepen mass line, criticism-self-criticism, recall mechanisms. The AES experiences show that proletarian authority can break imperial dependency, socialize surplus, and expand human development. That isn’t authority becoming a class. That’s authority being wielded to transform the conditions that make class possible.

“If the singular working class as a concept had more teeth than nationality I would expect it to, well, take a bigger bite out of history. For French revolutionaries to abolish slavery…”

The French Revolution was a bourgeois revolution. Of course bourgeois revolutionaries didn’t abolish colonial slavery out of “solidarity.” That proves the class character of that revolution, not the impossibility of proletarian internationalism. The Paris Commune, the Bolsheviks, the Chinese revolution, the Vietnamese revolution, the Cuban revolution, these show proletarian internationalism in practice. It’s uneven, contradictory, contested. But it exists. And it exists because imperialism creates a shared enemy, not because workers spontaneously feel nice to each other.

“No, we should become anarchist… complex social structures with far less authority already exist from sociocracy to decentralized guerilla cells.”

“Anarchism”(I’ve read anarchist theory and debated principled anarchists; in practice, when faced with real revolutionary tasks (smashing the bourgeois state, defending against counter-revolution, coordinating production at scale) they end up adopting positions functionally close to MLs, because material conditions demand it. The “authority is inherently tyrannical” line is tyranny of bedtime idealism that collapses on contact with actual struggle.) treats authority as the problem. But authority isn’t the problem. Class power is. You can’t dismantle the bourgeois state with decentralized cells. You can’t break imperial chains with sociocracy. The material task of revolution is to seize state power, socialize production, and defend the revolution against counter-revolution. That requires coordination, discipline, and yes, authority. “Anarchism’s” refusal to confront this is why it has repeatedly failed when faced with real revolutionary situations.

“But where you expect administrators to make such improvements to their personal and (sub)class’ detriment, anarchy keeps the power to make these changes with the people…”

This sounds good but is abstract. Who are “the people”? How do they coordinate at scale? How do they defend against counter-revolution, imperial invasion, economic sabotage? The mass line is a method for tying leadership to the masses through concrete practice. But it requires a vanguard, a party, a state form capable of wielding power. “Anarchism’s” distrust of all authority leaves it unable to answer these questions.

“We are able to be anarchist (or state communist) even within capitalism…”

You can build prefigurative spaces under capitalism. That’s great, but prefiguration isn’t revolution. The bourgeois state won’t be voted away or out-organized by parallel structures. It has to be smashed. And what replaces it has to be capable of holding power, not just avoiding it.

You see authority as inherently dangerous, so you want to minimize it. I see authority as a social relation, so I ask: which class wields it, for what end, and with what mechanisms to prevent ossification? One approach leads to moralism. The other leads to strategy.

To which I replied:

“Where do I state that communist systems are in general impossible to remove?”

Your opening sarcasm was a universal claim. Now you narrow it after being pressed typical.

“3 generations of absolute rulers from a single family is not communism its monarchy.”

Labeling is not analysis. The DPRK’s political form developed under total war, permanent sanctions, and existential threat. Poland faced pressure too, but the material base was not the same. You cannot compare a state flattened by carpet bombing followed by brutal sanctions to one that retained industrial capacity and was supported by multiple blocs post war. Also they are elected and rule collectively through a Congress but I’m sure you’ll dismiss that out of hand.

“How come did we not develop a monarchy with such a similar context?”

Because historical development is not mechanical. Different class compositions, different party formations, different leadership decisions under different concrete conditions produce different outcomes. Poland was not under siege from the Nazis for decades after the end of ww2 they received a huge amount of funds for rebuilding and integration instead first from the soviets then the EU. Are you really this uneducated?

“Is it like something anti-communist and hostile to its society grew out of a originally communist/maoist party? Would that be exactly the point Im making and youre prettending not to see?”

No. The Khmer Rouge were repudiated by every existing socialist state. They were not a deviation, they were its negation. By your logic, any group that uses socialist language while acting against socialist practice counts as “communist.” That renders the term meaningless. The Nazis called themselves socialists too. Are you applying that standard consistently? Maybe you are the type of McCarthyist idiot who would call the Nazis socialist but I hope not that’s low even for a polish nationalist like yourself.

“Well our communist party organised a state sanctioned antysemitic pogrom. Go figure.”

Nationalist currents existed in Poland long before 1945. The post-war state inherited those contradictions. That the party later criticized and corrected these errors is a feature of socialist self-critique, not a refutation of the system. Twisting this history while ignoring your own country’s record of invading Czechoslovakia, occupying Western Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine is ironic.

“Exactly what I was referring to, but thanks for pointing it out, I feel educated comrade.”

Then your point collapses. If Vietnam, a socialist state, overthrew the Khmer Rouge, then your example refutes your own claim.

“Is US supporting a fanatical regime to subvert another state anything surprising to you? Why do you assume it would be for me? And what does that have to the original point?”

It has everything to do with the original point. You present political outcomes as if they emerge in a vacuum. They do not. When the leading imperial power funds, arms, and legitimizes opposition movements, that says something about those movements as I said in the original comment if the largest anti-communist force on earth is funding your anti-communist extremists calling them communist is idiotic.

“Mate, thats a living memory of my family, same as millions around as. You have to be a westerner not to know or understand that. It was criticised by the party itself. Thats also propaganda?”

“Living memory” does not replace structural analysis. American families have living memories of WMDs in Iraq too. That does not make the invasion justified.

“Didnt know you trust CIA reports.”

I do not trust the CIA. I noted that when an institution dedicated to undermining socialism internally acknowledges facts that contradict its own propaganda, those facts carry weight. Is that really so hard for you to understand.

“Must have been very well, Ive been to China and I dont see any of the language patters of people from the private sector. That doesent sound like state educated english. Also what time is it at your place? Pretty late id say.”

Judging someone’s background by their English is a lazy trope. I learned English to engage with friends internationally. My village’s transformation from poverty to modern infrastructure under collective planning is not a performance for your approval. You racist fuck. Also it was around 8am I was on the train to work not that you know anything about labour.

“Isnt last 25 years more like state capitalism? Again Ive been to china i do understand and apriciate the scale of changes, but it is a market economy.”

Markets are a mechanism, not a mode of production. China’s system maintains public ownership of the commanding heights, party leadership (reproduced through whole process people’s democracy and mass line, there’s a reason approval even according to places like Harvard is 90+%) over capital, and development oriented toward social need. The eradication of extreme poverty for hundreds of millions is not a capitalist achievement. It is the result of socialist planning adapting to concrete conditions.

“It has been bordering of fascism since 20 years. My house was stormed by fascist militants attempting to set it on fire, but do tell me more.”

So is it possible these fascists in power have colored your view of things just like McCarthyism did for Americans?

“No mate. I was very clear. Not communism. Elites of whatever came out of supposed communism.”

Then you have abandoned your original claim. You started with “communism produces unaccountable systems.” Now you say the problem is elites after socialism was dismantled. Those are opposite arguments. The latter describes the outcome of externally imposed privatization, not the prior system’s logic.

“They did that before knowing and participating in the system change.”

They participated under conditions of systemic collapse, foreign pressure, and a coordinated ideological offensive. That is not free choice, that is crisis management under duress.

One last thing: I wasn’t going to ask but after your comment about my English, I have to ask, are you a teenager? The arrogance paired with the historical gaps feels like it. But if you are an adult, perhaps it is time to read more than western media and engage with materialist analysis before debating.

If I’m taking the time to refute waves of bullshit using it to help educate anyone interested makes it less annoying.

He responded again (copy paste over screen grab due to length):

original claim, which was itself a lazy, absolutist statement. You opened with a blanket assertion about communist systems being inherently unaccountable and impossible to remove.

Yeah, never did communism bring to power a impossible to remove group or person focused on increasing their power and blocking any chance of keeping them in check. Unheard off.

Where do I state that communist systems are in general impossible to remove? I live in a country where it was removed without violence (other then that of the regime against workers).

I responded by mocking that certainty. If you read that as some kind of debate tactic instead of what it was, that’s on you.

Yeeeeah, right.

If you mean the DPRK, you’re ignoring basic context.

Yeah I do and no I dont. 3 generations of absulute rulers from a single family is not communism its monarchy.

This comes after a war where US bombing killed an estimated 15% of the population (majority civilian casualties with estimates as high as 70%) and destroyed most infrastructure. Given that history, it is not surprising they emphasize continuity and stability tied to the legacy of Kim Il-sung. You don’t have to support it, but pretending it developed in isolation from that pressure is not serious.

WW2 killed 20% of my coutrys population, and whatever industry was not destroyed during got taken away after. We had building up might of NATO combined tank armies some 300km from oir borders, and '60 US plans to drop 20-50 nukes on my city alone in case of war. Still a stalinist and than socrealist government with a considerably normal succesion of power (other than one leader being killed in Moscow).
How come did we not develop a monarchy with such a similar context?

Calling the Khmer Rouge(who I assume this is about) “communist” is not just inaccurate, it’s indefensible

Oh is it? Is it like something anti-communist and hostile to its society grew out of a originally communist/maoist party? Would that be exactly the point Im making and youre prettending not to see?

built on extreme agrarian nationalism that rejected industrial society entirely.

Well our communist party organised a state sanctioned antysemitic pogrom. Go figure. Its just like calling onself a communist might not be enought sometimes.

Vietnam, an actual socialist state, is the one that overthrew them.

Exactly what I was referring to, but thanks for pointing it out, I feel educated comrade.

US support for Khmer Rouge after 1979

Is US supporting a fanatical regime to subvert another state anything surprising to you? Why do you assume it would be for me? Amd what does that have to the original point?

This is recycled Cold War propaganda.

Mate, thats a living memmory of my family, same as millions around as. You have to be a westerner not to know or understand that. It was criticised by the party itself. Thats also propaganda?

Even the CIA’s

Ddnt know you trust CIA reports. But that only works, when absigle one supports your point I guess?

I’m a born and raised rural Chinese minority. I’ve done well for myself, but I’m far from rich.

Must have been very well, Ive been to China and I dont see any of the language patters of people from the private sector. That doesent sound like state educated english. Also what time is it at your place? Pretty late id say.

What I have experienced directly is my village going from abject poverty to modern living conditions in under 25 years, largely through state-led development grounded in communist principles.

Isnt last 25 years more like state capitalism? Again Ive been to china i do understand and apriciate the scale of changes, but it is a market economy.

Meanwhile, you’re speaking from Poland, where the political trajectory has been steadily rightward, with increasing hostility toward left-wing movements.

It has been bordering of fascism since 20 years. My house was stormed by fascist militants attempting to set it on fire, but do tell me more.

Your argument reads less like analysis and more like it’s shaped by that environment, repeating familiar nationalist narratives instead of engaging seriously with the material history.

Yeah, no.

Yes, shock therapy did all of that. And attributing it to communism is a fundamental error.

No mate. I was very clear. Not communism. Elites of whatever came out of supposed communism.

Blaming communism for the outcomes of policies imposed after it was removed is incoherent and frankly idiotic.

Yeah, and your the one making that point to have something to foght agsinst.

As for the crackdowns, they occurred in the context of systemic instability, political fragmentation, and mounting external pressures. Reducing that to a one-dimensional story about “communists vs workers”

They sent tanks on to striking workers.

while ignoring what replaced that system is not a serious reading of history.

They did that before knowing and participating in the system change.

That totally justifies you coming to rape and pillage the periphery. (Sarcastic)

Death to amerikkka.