You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
1 point

We aren’t going to tolerate intolerance in this instance. I personally don’t have a problem with communists. But I do have a problem with authoritarian communists. If you think me making this distinction is acting in bad faith, then you might run into more issues than just me here.

permalink
report
parent
reply

I personally don’t have a problem with communists. But

Sounds like you have a problem with communists, or do you think that the country with the biggest army, police force, and imprisoned population (disproportionately of racial minorities) is somehow not authoritarian?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

We have a federal presidential constitutional republic or FPCR in the US. It has three branches of government at the federal level that ideally work as checks and balances on each other. Then there are many subordinate state governments that act as a means of delegating responsibility for the federal government. Our representatives in federal, state, and local governments are democratically elected and ideally should represent the majority of the population. We the people rule in America. The US is not without its flaws, but we are a democracy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

The PRC has the same three branches of government, including a President at the head of the executive branch, and a constitution that lays out their roles (more thoroughly than the US does the power of the judiciary), and it also holds direct elections for municipal offices. Neither country directly elects its President, as the PRC has elected officials vote and the US has the Electoral College say “just trust me bro” before giving the election to the other guy half the time (based on elections this century).

permalink
report
parent
reply

The US is not without its flaws, but we are a democracy.

We literally had a bunch of unelected people in robes declare the president, just over 2 decades ago.

Our representatives in federal, state, and local governments are democratically elected and ideally should represent the majority of the population.

ideally should is doing a lot of lifting in that sentence- They don’t. Local governments are often dominated by landlord interests, as well as homeowners- that’s often accomplished by systematically disenfranchising renters.

Again, the unelected people in robes declared that money is speech, not only swaying elections but allowing influence to be bought directly. How is that a democracy?

You seem to be conflating the concept of ‘democracy’ with the freedom to spend money however it may hurt someone else structurally. That’s pretty authoritarian if you’re someone without money.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

You might run into more issues than just this thread by casually tossing out the “authoritarian” label like you did on Reddit where the groups in question couldn’t defend themselves

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I think you’ll find that goes both ways. We can defend ourselves too. You are not on Hexbear. This is Blahaj.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Defend what? I don’t think the parallel you want to draw works quite as well as you think. My point is that Redditors can cast stones in their ignorance at people who they would struggle to string a whole sentence together to describe without buzzwords because they know jack shit about what those people actually think. Western communists are typically quite familiar with the ideology of liberals.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

The cotton workers and the train workers should seize the means of production via their democracy. If they don’t have a democracy, they should perform a revolution to establish one.

Referring to a revolution by the people as authoritarian is like saying the oppression of a king is freedom. It doesn’t make sense under closer observation. Using force to achieve freedom does not invalidate that freedom. Once the revolution has been won, the people rule themselves. Any authority over them is a temporary construct of their own making that can be removed and replaced.

permalink
report
parent
reply

I completely agree, do you see why I linked it in response to the use of authoritarian?

permalink
report
parent
reply