I already said Marxism-Leninism is not a “form of governance.” The fact that you repeat this claim leads me to believe that you aren’t actually reading what I’m writing.

Phikosophy, our world outlook, is already before science. The way we see the world and understand it determines how we view science and perform it. This is why vulgar materialists, as opposed to dialectical materialists, tried to prove race theory correct and thus advocate for eugenics. Science is not neutral. The world around us, the material world, does not care how we interpret it beyond how we change it. However, there is no such thing as a perfectly neutral observer, we all have preconceived biases.

Marxism-Leninism is already scientific, the scientific method is a tool employed by it already. You’re trying to remove science from the context it exists in.

You’re still treating science like it’s not a process gone through by humans. Science once posited that race science was correct in order to justify eugenics. We need to be aware of our world outlook and correct it before we begin to use science, otherwise we come to incorrect conclusions and incorrect propositions. That’s my point.

Marxism-Leninism is correct not because it is a “form of governance” (it isn’t) but because it’s a living social science grounded in scientific understanding of the world.

This has been a successful strategy in existing socialist states, including the Russian revolution. You aren’t doing “harm reduction,” you’re morally justifying accelerationism to yourself.

Science is not independent of philosophy. There’s idealist science, metaphysical science, etc, all of which are wrong. There is no such thing as science without philosophy, because science is an attempt by humans to understand the world. Humans are all philosophers, as we all have a world outlook. By rejecting study of philosophy as it relates to science, you are ignoring preconcieved biases, rather than acknowledging them and correcting the misconceptions.

This is why Marxism-Leninism is correct, and why all science must be done from a dialectical materialist standpoint.

What do you think “work” means? If you mean that we cannot change the system by voting for communists alone, then sure, that doesn’t work. Communist parties participating in elections, bringing popular policy to the forefront, and radicalizing the working classes? That absolutely works and is absolutely useful.

The fact of the matter is that your accelerationism already throws marginalized people under the bus by putting the more competent imperialists in power, directly, without fronting every chance to depose the imperialists of both parties. The DNC doesn’t even protect domestic marginalized peoples, and is a more capable party for dominating the global south for longer.

Voter reform cannot actually gain systemic change. It’s a carrot used to keep people under the impression that gaining it will fix the system and not require revolution.

Marxism-Leninism is already heavily based on science, and takes the stance of dialectical materialism as the basis for science and analysis. What’s wrong with scientific socialism as it already exists, in your eyes?

In that case, since I am not an accelerationist, I believe it to be more valuable to bring about revolution by voting for communist/socialist parties than to try to extend the effectiveness of imperialism by entrenching the democrats. If communists and socialists front policy that is widely popular yet consistently loses to the DNC and GOP, or wins and is defanged by capitalists and the state, this increases revolutionary potential by correctly showing the working classes why electoralism is a dead-end. Entrenching the DNC retains the illusion that the system can be reformed.

See, this is where I disagree a decent bit. “Tankie” isn’t just used against communists, it’s used against anarchists, even liberals. The main connecting string is defense of existing socialist states, like the aforementioned PRC and USSR. This defense does not mean that tankies believe that the allegations of the Red Scare are both true and justified, there’s usually a large disconnect between perspectives on what actually happens in socialist states and what we receive in (presumably) the west. Glorification of war is not something I can say I’ve seen, outside of I suppose some communists liking soviet military gear.

If I were to give my own definition of what constitutes a tankie, I’d say it’s anyone who defends existing socialist states, past or present. Those socialist states are generally understood to be the USSR, PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, GDR, etc. The defense tankies give is not in accepting both bourgeois historiography as accurate but justified, but instead in directly combatting bourgeois historiography. Tankie is also a pejorative for these people, used to convey the strawman of the person that believes the lies of the Red Scare but believes them to be justified.

In that case, I am definitely a tankie. I spend a good deal of time talking about socialism both past and present, and arguing for how we can expand that movement and carry it to the future. I am definitely a defender of socialist states, I just don’t believe the common allegations such as “100 million were killed by communism” are at all accurate. I don’t think you’ll find someone who believes the 100 million number but also thinks it’s good and justified, these people do not exist, but it sounds like that’s what you believe a tankie to be. Am I misunderstanding you?

When did I make that argument to begin with? My point was that voting is less than the bare minimum. My point was never that “voting actively damages the movement.” I advocate voting for communist parties, even if they never win, as it helps solidify the fact that liberal democracy cannot bring systemic change.

Are you confusing my points for someone else?

I agree, but not for the reasons you likely believe. The Great Leap Forward ultimately improved food security and industrial capacity, even if it was mishandled and ran into problems. By the end of the Great Leap Forward, industrial output had doubled as compared to before, and agricultural output was also higher (though not quite as much).

You did not explain how the “ruling class” was not the majority of society. You explained that you have an incomplete, non-Marxist view of what class is, and thus we are talking about entirely different subjects.

Classes are relations to ownership of production, not levels of wealth, and not hierarchy. The ruling class of the USSR was the proletariat, administrators were proletarian and the state was run in the interests of the proletariat. Capitalists, fascists, landlords, kulaks, etc. were the oppressed classes and had their property expropriated.

Ruling class does not mean leadership, nor “tiny,” it refers to the class in power.

So do outlets like the BBC and New York Times.

No matter how many times you label communists “fascists,” it never gets one nanometer closer to becoming truth.

2 Russian news agencies.

You still see the state as outside of class struggle, which is why you believe you can keep the ruling class in “check.” The reason the USSR had a much better structure than capitalist economies is because the ruling class of the USSR was the same as the majority of society, the proletariat. Production and the state are intensely intertwined in both capitalism and socialism, the state is the means by which the ruling class cements its rule.

As for the DDR, the ruling class, similarly to the USSR, was the proletariat. Democracy in the DDR was controlled by the working classes, and the working classes controlled the state. They did not have a western, liberal form of democracy, but this is exactly why they were genuinely more democratic as opposed to the west.

I don’t necessarily need to respond to your metaphors substituted as a point. It’s very well-known that the USSR charged reparations from Germany, which was in their right but caused economic hardship in East Germany, and that the west was flooded with support from the US and the rest. Further, East Germany had much less to work with, and was more devastated by the war. Despite this, it had a better form of society that, if both had continued to be distinct, would have surpassed the west down the line.

Against the hypothetical? Or in general?

When a country emerges from extremely underdeveloped agriculture, famine is still a constant threat. Early PRC history involves famine as a result of not yet having developed out of conditions famine thrived. It wasn’t something as mechanical as “do a socialism and then people die.”

Nah, accelerationism would be supporting the DNC. Accelerationism isn’t “ruin everything,” it’s a strategy that says that if capitalism continuing results in crisis, we should have the most competent managers of empire in the front seat. This accelerates capital accumulation and crisis. I also said I am not in favor of the “ruin everything” tactic either.

That’s why I am a revolutionary, and I don’t support the DNC nor GOP. I told you why I wouldn’t vote for the GOP nor DNC. Sacrificing minority groups is unnacceptable, and climate change is an ever-present danger. That’s why revolution is necessary.

You’re probably referencing the Nazi bar that stalks communists at the end there, for what reason I don’t know.

What point were you trying to illustrate? That it would be strategically better to organize under a milquetoast liberal regime than a republican regime? My response is how I already responded, neither is acceptable and both would pivot to open fascism against revolution if it actually broke out.

Hell, in modern days, organizing under the GOP is paradoxically easier because they are less competent managers of empire, and spark more discontent among the populace, driving support for revolutionary change. I would never argue for voting for the GOP though, so that’s why I support third party voting, at most.

What do you think a tankie is? What’s a communist? Tankie is, as I understand it, just a pejorative for communists, so if you can help elaborate on what you think these terms mean we might be able to come to an understanding. I consider myself to be a communist, for what it’s worth.