edit: this is now closed future comments won’t be counted

I keep seeing this instance is overrun with tankies so hey, lets do an informal survey like I’ve seen on hexbear

respond with YES or NO in the first line of your comment and i’ll tally everything in a couple of days, lets say I’ll try and collect everything on the sunday the 9th (10+gmt sorry)

not sure thisll work, be nice, have fun

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      0·
      7 months ago

      At what point does a leftist system become authoritarian? Where is the line? Is it just a vibe check, or is there a definitive metric we can check?

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          1·
          7 months ago

          So Cuba, China, Vietnam, and the DPRK are by your definition not authoritarian, got it.

          Does that make you a tankie?

      • pelletbucket@lemm.ee
        0·
        7 months ago

        I mean that’s a good question but there’s no reason to apply it just to leftist governments

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          0·
          7 months ago

          There is, for the purpose of this question.

          You have separated “Authoritarians” from the rest of “Communists.” At what point does Communism become authoritarian?

          I’m framing this question in this manner to try to understand what you believe Communism should look like in a manner that goes against what people often described as tankies want it to look like.

    • davel [he/him]@lemmy.mlEnglish
      0·
      7 months ago

      Fredrich Engels, 1872: On authority

      Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is. It is the act by which one part of the population imposes its will on the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannons — by the most authoritarian means possible; and the victors, if they do not want to have fought in vain, must maintain this rule by means of the terror which their arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if the communards had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach them for not having used it enough?

      Therefore, we must conclude one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don’t know what they’re talking about, in which case they are only sowing confusion; or they do know, in which case they are betraying the proletarian movement. In either case, they serve reaction.