I forgot to set a reminder so I’m a little late getting to this, but here we are again:
Are you a “tankie”?
Respond “yes” or “no”, I’ll collate results later
This process is being undertaken to determine if so-called “tankies” are conspiring to make you (yes, you) have a bad time on the internet!
vague or informal answers will be interpreted by the central authority (me). Only top level comments will be counted. I will not be providing further instructions or clarifications.
🤯
Link to previous results (very serious) hexbear / lemmy,ml
Link to previous “are you a tankie?” thread
I’ll likely check back in a week, my old pc died so itll take a little bit of time to prettify the results and write a report
Ciao, and of course, imperialism must be destroyed.
Except that, comrade, the Prague Spring organisers opposed a secret police, which is imho a fascist element. It also focused on decentralisation of the economy. The KGB infiltrated some of the organisations.
The Hungarian 1956 liberation struggle also demanded public ownership of land. While it is true that the CIA had been involved (e.g. inviting the fascist over for reform… gee, Hungary didn’t change much eh?), neither of the revolutions appear 100% bourgeoise. It would have helped to imprison the fascist, and not inform the public.
While it is true that “pro-democracy” often in practice means “pro-bribery” (as oligarchs then are enabled to bribe politicians), the core problem is and remains money even being a thing of prestige.
What should be the rule, is that society must be as resistant to corruption as possible. This is especially critical for factions and cooperations. That means:
All must be obliged to organise according to decentralised worker democracy. No boss, no master. Freedom of discussion, freedom of action.
No one who ever has led/owned a private company may be part of a group.
The groups must finance themselves through the principle of a moneyless, barterless gift economy, and mutual aid.
Full transparency of finances is required, including ultimate sources. This will encourage people to make the ‘stream’ of resources as direct as possible.
If a group does not adhere to even one of these principles, it is automatically considered defunct and disbands; and the members will be part of a group that does adhere to it. Those who made the group no longer adhere to all principles, will be societally barred from mutual aid (transport, food, housing, and so on). In other words, don’t be a corrupt person.
Groups can not be bigger than 150 people, but can mutually aid each other and cooperate in federations, which must also be organised through all above principles.
You’re combining contradictory stances. You want extreme decentralization and horizontalism even to the extent that managers don’t exist, but you want factories and the ability to unilaterally punish cells that don’t pass the “moral test.” Everything you listed is something that seems to sound cool, but is incredibly impractical, especially when taken all together. You also wish to punish former capitalists without retaining the authority to do so, leaving those people bitter and actively working against the rest of society.
This is all ignoring your misconception of fascism as “anything scary” and not as capitalism in crisis, and your minimization of, say, the anti-semites that were lynching Jewish people and communists in Hungary before the Red Army was sent in, etc.
From a practical basis, your vision is a non-starter, factories number in the several hundreds to thousands of workers with complex supply chains that need management and administration to avoid people getting killed by heavy machinery and to ensure production actually runs smoothly. You’re asking to reformat every factory to work on a microscopic scale and yet work on a purely gift economy form, when goods would take more labor and resources to produce at such a small scale, rather than reaching abundance.
Most practical forms of anarchism try to make administration more accountable, they don’t try to get rid of it entirely, and call it a “justifiable hierarchy.”