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.
this is so weird, normally I would say that this is just trolling but there was way too much effort put into these answers, this is actually their opinions. why would they waste their time writing all this out when they have to know they’re not getting approved
Let me in! I have come to save you all! You’ll be lost without my same old ass ‘arguments’ you’ve heard a thousand times before! They’re different this time though because they are from me, the most important person in the world!
Yeah that was essentially my reply in the rejection email:
How can there be a discussion when you don’t even know the material you want to “discuss” against? Do you see us barging into college classes and start arguing with the prof on biochemistry, climate engineering or pharmacology? To assume you are more knowledgeable than us is not only disrespectful, it reeks of self-righteousness. You believe your NATO-friendly brand of socialism to be correct, and everything else to be incorrect, but you’ve clearly never engaged with Marxism in any capacity, otherwise you would know the abolition of the family has nothing to do with “breaking up families to raise kids in Huxleyan labs”. You’re like a 6th grader who mistakenly entered a college class; way out of your depth.
Read our pages, read our library, and then come back to ask about a discussion. It’s time to graduate from fiction and kids books (we’re surprised you didn’t namedrop Animal Farm) and into real political analysis if you’re actually serious about this.
Do you see us barging into college classes and start arguing with the prof on biochemistry, climate engineering or pharmacology? To assume you are more knowledgeable than us is not only disrespectful, it reeks of self-righteousness.
I try my best to remain humble, but I feel this. I’ve been studying this shit for almost a decade and it’s incredible when someone comes at me with the dumbest shit imaginable that they spent 5 minutes reading about and acts like it’s the capital T Truth and treats me like I’m the uneducated moron. Ok. I know deprogramming is not easy, but shit.
I’m picky about my discussions. Yes we should educate, educate, educate, but we are not in a position of power currently. Yet I see more and more people turn towards communism by themselves, and doing the reading. These new communists you can have discussions with.
There’s certain social rules to a “discussion” (I still don’t know what kind of discussions this person wanted to have). It requires that they be open to actually listening, even if they disagree. There’s value even in liberal writers because they pull data and sometimes they can make surprisingly interesting analyses. I remember a student telling me about their masters’ thesis on the energy challenges of Nigeria and it was interesting to have the data, even if the conclusion was very liberal and capitalist. Did I get up to him and attack him on every single point? What kind of discussion can you have if you do that?
If this person wanted a discussion, he could have sent an email. He could have joined the Discord – they’re all more prominent than the request an account button (which is a problem we’re looking to fix). Why is giving him an account a better vector for discussion than the other methods? With an account, he can deface our pages and he knows this, because we have analytics and we see what people look at.
My second rule of discussion is I give the energy I get lol. If people start out hostile then I’ll be hostile with them, so this person deserved everything they got.
PS: It’s funny though because he looked at this page https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Talk:Juche/Archive and then left the website forever according to the analytics lol
It’s like this specific type of person thinks their 2-hour Wikipedia dive and their high school required reading of 1984 makes them more knowledgeable than comrades who’ve spent large blocks of their lives reading obscure tomes they found while crypt-diving on Marxists.org.
These total losers will come into any community that’ll have them, then spout the most milquetoast, regurgitated takes on subjects they’ve never honestly researched. Then lose their pants in rage when their benign tomfoolery is returned to them by people who actually know the history or theory in question. Their only political education is on par with The History Channel, virtually a kindergartener trying to correct someone with a doctorate. This is the intellectual equivalent to street fighters, who think they’re big and tough because they never actually train in a specific martial art and happen to win against fellow losers, then who step into a real martial arts academy thinking they’ll easily challenge the instructor and win, then get their asses handed to them.
I think most people who read this will agree, these people are the greatest laughingstocks on the left. Funnier than most anarchists, a bigger hoot than any shitlib. The only value these people have is the crux of a joke. Otherwise, they’re a waste of bandwidth.
Yeah, fuck a cracker; that’s the whole box of saltines.
No one said that the proletarian revolution has to be bloody. Even no one said that there has to be violence. However, the bourgeoisie will first resort to violence. See 1905 in Russia. The red terror was also only a reaction to the white terror. It is up to the bourgeoisie how a revolution will take place. I hope it is understandable what I am trying to say
I think you are being clear, I think Liberals have trouble understanding this dynamic. Even among those close to me when we talk socialism, they tent to favor the “why do socialists have to kill to take power” perspective. I say, well, if we ask for it, they don’t give us power. If we take it peacefully via strike or protest, they create violence with a legal system that only protects property owners, when we begin to fight back, they escalate, when we actually fight, we’re called ‘fascists’ because “we’re the ones breaking the law” (The laws that the property owners created to protect themselves).
But Liberals stick to their guns… “Then change the laws!!”. Okay, do it. Change the law, go on, I’m tired of talking. Do it. You can’t, can you… You can’t vote in who you want, everyone on the ballot have licked boot to get the money to be ahead, they aren’t on your side. The judges have licked boot, the lawyers live off the boot.
Oh sure, there are some people on our side. They run for president and get like 3% of the vote. They are lawyers that refuse to work for big-corp, and get paid 50k/yr to do good work, etc. But the judges that work toward “rehabilitation” instead of “retaliation” are considered “soft on crime”. Those lawyers are “not successful”. Those progressive candidates “steal votes from the dems”. Here we are, doing the work, and the Libs don’t care.
So yeah, if we want to make change, it’s up to the bourgeoisie to determine how it goes. But they will always pick violence.
Liberals don’t consider the daily amount of violence required to maintain their current cushy lifestyles. They look at an alternatives and see self-determination and self-defense as violence, yet they eagerly create justifications and defenses for the cancer of capitalism and the daily buckets of blood that sustain it.
Fantastic point and I have brought that up. “Hey your lifestyle requires murder, slavery, child slavery, etc.”, and their response is “yeah that sucks, I hate it, America does do bad things”.
“So let’s fight to change it”
“Violence is not a response to violence”
Is it not… Seriously… Ugh I fucking hate it. Let them use all the guns and you can sit on your “high moral ground”, still leading that cushy lifestyle btw…
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.
Imagine being privileged enough in life that you think “authority” is something that can just be cast aside or ignored.
