PRIMARY VERIFICATION QUESTIONS
1-I heard it was a “tankie” wiki, so I came to start a discussion.
2-Social Democracy/Democratic Socialism. I believe that a bloody revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat are unnecessary and even counter-productive to our goals of a more egalitarian and compassionate society.
3-I disagree with your support of socialist dictatorships. “Dictatorships of the proletariat” are often smokescreens for tyranny in the name of socialism, with China and North Korea, in addition to being totalitarian state capitalist and Orwellian monarcho-theocratic regimes respectfully, not even calling themselves Marxist-Leninist. In addition, your support of theocratic and kleptocratic states because they “oppose NATO imperialism” is nonsensical, especially when Russia and China also engage in imperialist escapades, both beyond their borders and inside them (in the form of cultural genocide).
4-I support LGBTQIA+.
5-Stalin and Mao were totalitarian tyrants with a red coat of paint.
6-China is more capitalist than the Nordic countries and North Korea is an unholy hybrid of Orwellian dystopia, fascist state, fundamentalist theocracy, absolute monarchy and Kool-Aid-chugging cult. I haven’t heard much about the others.
SECONDARY VERIFICATION QUESTIONS
2-A non-AuthSoc/“tankie” perspective to start discussions over.
3-I think Native Americans should be allowed to return to their ancestral lands, and be given more rights.
4-I dont know about Marxist-Feminism, but I am a feminist myself.
5-Nonononono. No breaking up families to raise kids in Huxleyan labs, if that’s what you’re implying.
6-I’m not sure. For Singapore, shifting the PAP back towards it’s SocDem, roots. For the UK, fixing the Conservative mess. For Hong Kong, liberating it from Chinese control.
7-I don’t quite see much of one, apart from, like, neo-feudalists (fuck feudalists).
8-Both sides need to find peace. Hamas and the current Israeli administration are both just making things worse.
You shouldn’t even need to frame it from a ‘leftist’ perspective. Just look at America’s own revolution. Up until the declaration of Independence the colonists used nonviolent means, such as petitions, to protest the abuse of the monarchy. Each attempt to request peaceful negotiations was met by more neglect and more abuse. The monarchy refused peaceful transition and opted to be more aggressive and oppressive to the colonists. Once they declared independence, the monarchy needed to put down this insurrection through violence and coercion. History shows us that they were unsuccessful.
America’s own History shows us that when revolutionaries are denied, via peaceful means, the right of secession, the choice is either submit or be defiant. That defiance needs to be snuffed out, and the state has all the tools they need to do that.
I’m sure an analysis of revolutions, successful or otherwise, throughout history would show you that the state had no interest in a peaceful transition. Because the state has everything to lose and nothing to gain.
It’s almost like all of recorded history is defined by struggle between oppressor and the oppressed. Those tend not to be diplomatic relationships.
But maybe I’m talking out my ass, so let me know if I am.
No everything is correct. You extended my words good