Oh I misunderstood and thought we were talking about a different word. This makes this discussion even sillier.

You say that like it’s mutually exclusive. Nobody gets to choose how other people use language. Definitions are whatever people agree that they are, even if you’re not one of the people who agrees with it.\

How do people agree what they are without telling other people their meaning explicitly or implicitly? What about people that intentionally misuse language to deceive? What about language that is self-descriptive due to selective use?

I’m aware of prescriptivism vs descriptionism but this conversation isn’t actually about that. In fact, I am already following a descriptivist line of reasoning, if you will review my earlier comment. I am saying how tankie is used nowadays.

You can dislike that definition of tankie all you want

What definition? Which one do I dislike? I don’t know what you’re talking about.

the fact that they used it in this way and that you understood it means that it was used correctly.

The way I understood it is, “anyone defending a target of US empire in any way from the left that I would like to stop listening to before my brain breaks”. Seems spot-on to me.

The evolution of language may hurt people, but denying the reality of evolving language hurts nobody but yourself. The etymology and history is good to know (and the meme relies on it), but the new definition is still a correct alternate definition.

What on earth do you think you’re replying to?

I thought I was having one.

No, you are being self-serving and selective in your responses and have dropped straw men repeatedly. Rather than respond to that when called out, you are just straight-up ignoring most of what is said in response. I don’t care if you are “busy”, you can just not reply and stop saying large swaths of bullshit if you don’t have the capacity to continue. Nobody is making you behave like this.

And again, you have ignored most of my reply. Including the part where I pointed out that you had ignored my reply, and why I had provided that context in the first place. No acknowledgement from you that any of that has happened. I don’t think it is expecting too much that you demonstrate the most basic aspects of good faith engagement.

I’m just disagreeing with you on some things and you somehow seem to think that means I’m not engaging. I’m trying.

I have no idea what you’re talking about. What do you want me to do with you when you just omit most of what I’ve said and ignore it? Do you want me to treat you like someone that is doing that intentionally (i.e. bad faith) or like someone too unaware of what is happening to know that’s counterproductive? How do you treat people that act that way?

Woah no and I’m sorry if I’ve given the impression I would do something like that. I consider marxist-leninist communists to be misguided comrades, and I hope you can think of me the same way.

You are doing something like that. You are mindlessly repeating anti-China propaganda, anti-Russia propaganda. The Nazis are your entire social context. They provide consent for the maximum pressure campaigns. They support the coup following Euromaidan, the non-implementation of the Minsk agreements. If you say any of these things to liberals, they only understand it as a confirmation of their racist and xenophobic views in support of domination. And again, they are largely falsehoods or otherwise presented in an absurdly biased fashion.

I am confident that you are not a comrade yet. You are a liberal that likes some of the things they’ve heard leftists say. But you can’t be a comrade without shedding your liberalism and actually getting involved and learning theory. It is painfully clear that you have not done those things. You might become a comrade eventually, but your confidence despite ignorance will be a serious roadblock, you may never actually get there until you learn how to do some self-crit and ask questions instead of fighting.

How is that homophobia? I think you’re construing something here.

You do not see how treating sucking a man’s dick is used homophobically? Did you grow up on Mars? Its context as an insult is straight guys telling other straight guys to do a gay thing. I don’t think you need me to explain this to you. I think if you stepped back and actually did the self-crit I just told you to do, you could figure it out yourself. So go do that. Stop making excuses and stop fighting pointlessly and do some thinking.

It is not coincidental that I skimmed this comment as well because it is really fucking long. sorry

It is not very long. It takes 3-5 minutes to read and I have given you no deadlines. If you can’t respond to direct criticisms, maybe you aren’t ready to have these discussions. I think that is probably the case. You should go do some reading and self-crit and come back with questions.

gonna stop reading right here since I’ve stated I’m anticapitalist and it feels like going in circles.

Anyone can call themselves anything. Are they always correct?

If you deigned to keep reading, condescending liberal, you would find that I explained how this works.

sorry but can only answer so many of these huge comments in a day. If there’s an argument you really want me to engage with please let me know

No. You can reply to what I said if you want to discuss this topic or you can acknowledge that you aren’t ready to discuss these things. This is not asking very much. I’m not asking you to read a book. It is about 3 average-sized paragraphs worth of text. I am not holding you to a deadline, either. But you can’t just dance around in bad faith and expect patient responses.

You misunderstood me. I’m saying that the US is an oligarchy as well.

Every capitalist country is an oligarchy. The term is used selectively for Russia, and you have specifically focused on its use re: Russia in this discussion.

the first part is your opinion

My correct opinion. Do you believe you are the first baby leftist I’ve come across that harbors these kinds of views? I am always part of the political education group in any org I am in. We have to root people out who are very confident in their chauvinism and isolate them from the others in some way, as they are very disruptive on top of being wrong. This is also why various baby-leftist-only spaces are so completely useless, they spend their time chasing phantoms and fighting people that do good work. This is also why the feds have historically supported Trotskyists and certain anarchist formations.

and the second part is not true.

It is true, I know where these claims come from. I recognize them.

I’m not being condescending, and I’m being equally patient replying to people who are just trolling

You are repeatedly broad-brushing “tankies” with bullshit and placing yourself in a position to argue with others despite clearly not doing the work of learning about the topic first. A cool guy once said, “no investigation, no right to speak”.

If you have to compare RT to the NYT, that says more than enough

I don’t know what that means.

I’m genuinely apologizing because I’m only skimming this as I’m getting sleepy. and it’s a lot to go through. I can tell you took effort so apologies.

No worries, I am not holding you to a schedule. Please take any amount of time to reply. I also won’t take it personally if you don’t reply.

It actually isn’t much effort, I am very fast at writing.

Re: West also bad, at times worse

I know and I agree!

Well that isn’t what I said, though. What I said about the West is that there is addressing the false perception of greater “free speech” in the West, which is, again, largely just chauvinism. You do not enjoy greater speech, you are just such a non-entity in terms of threatening the ruling interests. This is because those ruling interests keep you, along with the wider public, weak, docile, and hating their same enemies.

I am also highlighting the ruling interests, not the government. This is because in these places with allegedly more “free speech”, international capital is dominant and has control over your everyday lives. It controls whether you can house and feed yourself and it censors on a constant basis. Restricting yourself solely to government censorship is a rhetorical trick used by capitalists to pretend that corporate control over life doesn’t count as oppression. Where is the comparison to private censorship, where the “free press” is actually a corporate-censored press? Have you done a comparison between the accuracy of claims from the SCMP and NYT? Just pick Palestine, see how it serves you.

And in the case of China, it is for CCP interests. Holding elections every now and then doesn’t translate to the dictatorship of the proletariat as envisioned.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not specified as anything other than the proletarian class oppressing the bourgeois class because they gained power through revolution. The PRC regularly executes billionaires and uniquely reroutes funds to its people, and its poorest, to build material well-being for all, not just the richest, and certainly not just the higher-ups in the party.

By that logic, US democracy would be a dictatorship of the proletariat as well, since they hold elections every now and then.

The dictatorship of the proletariat does not have any governing structure specified whatsoever. It is something predicted by Marx to have certain attributes that are more about political economics, like using monopoly industry that is already centrally planned and wielding it for the good of the proletarians. Something that China has often done and is the explicit communist logic behind their conveyor belt strategy for requiring companies to have more party and government participation as they grow larger and more monopolistic.

I do not consider america really federal, since there is massive power concentrated at the top. Same for other “federal” states like Germany

Then I have no idea what your meaning is.

The reality of language is that people like op rely on the negative connotation of the definition I just gave.

Imagine of they just said, “advocating for” instead. Wouldn’t have the same impact, right?

First, before I respond point-by-point, I would like to point out thst you have ignored nearly all of my response. I offered you information, history, and context, in part because it is informative, but mostly because it provides you the opportunity to recognize (vocally or not) your ignorance of this topic and instead redirect your attention yo actually questioning your knowledge and opinions and doing some reading instead of lashing out or doubling down.

Instead, you are doubling down on seeking conflict and sharing, yet again, that your only knowledge of this topic is what you were recemtly told to believe by capitalist media propagandists. And that this is so superior to my knowledge that you don’t even need to acknowledge what I’ve said and can just continue on trying to be contrarian.

Do you think it would be fair to call your behavior insufferable, as you have called tankies? To be clear, I do expect an answer to this question.

Okay so violently beating down protesters is okay because it’s in the name of anticolonialism?

Oh, so you aren’t even really responding to what I said, which is about Westerners being outraged that China was governing China. I thought you might not understand what I meant by that, but I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Anyways this is a srraw man and I will ignore it.

This line of reasoning goes exactly the same as US imperialism. It’s always some harmful ideology that is enslaving the poor people of some place and they must be freed by being forced to join the empire.

You’re just talking to yourself about all of this. It has nothing to do with what I said.

Are you ready to have an actual conversation or are you so deep into liberalism that you can only imagine fighting and winning rather than questioning your own ignorance?

I don’t get where you’re trying to take this conversation. You don’t have to prove to me that some things about China are great. In this comment alone you admitted three times that China isn’t perfect. Which means, China should be criticized.

Let’s say you go to a bar and there are some Nazis at the next table. You hear them say, “and fuck those communists, they will get what is coming to them”. Are you going to go over there and say, “yeah, fuck those tankies! They’re insufferable authoritarians”? Because all that means is that you’re going out of your way to validate Nazis trying to kill communists and aligning yourself with them. When someone says, “what the fuck, punch those Nazis, don’t validate them” are you going up say, “ergo, communists should be criticized”.

Your entire social context is those Nazis in that bar. And your criticisms aren’t even informed, they’re the bullshit spread by the Nazi propagandists. And then you tell everyone you’re on the left.

If you ever spent time among communists, you would find they are very critical of China. But their criticisms are differemt from yours becsyse yours are warmed over cold war talking points and uncritical readings of the media. And they are intentional about their outward criticisms, becayse again, our entire social context is the Nazi bar.

Like any other nation state. And I am saying, there are shills who run around and won’t let anybody criticize China because for some reason they got emotionally attached to a nation state

Nonsense. Speak to and of the tankies right in front of you right now. What, exactly, are we doing?

Everybody who says they don’t want to deepthroat Mao’s shlong for breakfast gets called a liberal.

Hey look it’s that homophobia I mentioned liberals doing in another comment. You asked me what a liberal is, well there you go. A liberal us, for exple, someone that attacks China for not having legalized gay marriage but then uses homophobic insults.

Do self-crit.

Any and all words uttered by a human that has even looked at the US on a map is liberal slop, and everything coming from the Russian state department is gospel. And I call those people tankies. That’s all I’m saying.

You do tell a lot of vague stories but they have no relation to what people are actually doing.

It is not coincidental that you ignored the vast majority of what I said, as it was concrete history.

Define liberal please because I don’t like being called one.

Liberalism is the dominant ideology of capitalism, it is a wide set of social and political views that serve capitalism through the absorption of bourgeois attitides and its primsry vehicle of political legitimacy is bourgeois democracy, like parliamentarianism. Every person living under capitalism has absorbed some liberalism, including every anarchist and communist. But those who critically engage sufficiently can shed the label because they understand the system sufficiently and work against it.

You are repeatedly exoressing a litany of thoughts rooted in unexamined liberalism. One that is usually retained by baby leftists in Western countries is racism and xenophobia. They will see the value of organized labor and social justice but cannot tie it to imperislism and fall in line with who the Capitalists tell them is their enemy

What do you think of people who say it’s hypocritical for queer people to support Palestine? Because to a socialist you sound like that when spreading imperialist pinkwashing against China.

In the same way that some people will shill for billionaires or for some billionaire-owned company, aka a corporate shill. People who fail to see that (capitalist) companies are just a way to extract profit.

A shill is someone paid to profess to have views other than their own. People shilling for a product makes sense, it is an old salesman tactic.

Who do you think is paying me to be right about China all the time?

In the same vein, some people fail to see that nation states are just instruments of power.

On the contrary, every communist that has ever existed knows this. We write about it all the time. Projecting this liberalism onto communists is just telling on yourself.

Some are better than others in different ways of course, but I get real itchy when people jump to defend a nation at the first smidgeon of criticism. I hate nationalism.

Existing in the real world as we do, your “anti-nationalism” is really just nationalism in favor of Western powers, despite your professibg to be against them. You repeat their talking points! What do you think the outcome is of uncritically repeating sinophobic or russophobic falsehoods? Why do you think we are even talking about those two countries? It is because US empire has decided to focus on them as targets of derision and marginalization.

What, exact, nationalism are you pushing back against? What is making you itchy? Because all I see are people defending China against piss-poor talking points.

Funny, I was just telling @Cowbee about how the tankies I see on here are insufferable & impossible to converse with.

I would say the people here are being very patient with you, as you are spreading xenophobic views out of ignorance and recycled imperialist think tank talking points while also being condescending. You don’t get pushback on that by liberals because they agree with you but anyone on the left would be embarrassed to be associated with it.

The appropriate response for someone not generously giving you their time would be to call you, among other things, a liberal and then go on with their day.

But I’ll bite. First of all, I don’t appreciate the strawmen. I’m not saying that there is a lot of tankies, nor that they are here now suddenly

Liberals suddenly learned the word tankie. Why do you think that is? Rather than a straw man, I understood this as a fact we could all accept.

I’m just saying that I, myself, in my own experience, have seen people shilling for China or even Russia, acting like it’s a fucking utopia.

What tankies have you seen that treat Russia like a utopia? What tankies have you seen that treat China like a utopia? I think you are just revealing your owm straw men, and all you have seen is people appreciating asoects of either country. And by the magic of chauvinism, any praise for any aspect of “the enemy” is an uncritical endorsement. Liberals going down this path will often throw in some homophobic ibsults about Putin or Xi.

Russia an oligarchy, just with a different structure than most Western countries.

Russia is capitalist. It is only called an oligarchy because Westerners are racist towards them and need different words for the same thing when the Slavic brainpan does it. This is you uncritically absorbing that racism. They control our thoughts through language, framings, and what is discussed vs. not discussed.

China is a government that rules over billions of people. That is, by definition, evil.

It obviously is not.

No amount of America Bad makes China or Russia good.

America Bad both describes the position of the US as the globsl seat of capital and imperislist power and is intended to get people like yourself to have sone persoective, as you are deeply propagandized towards America-centrism.

In terms of propaganda sources, for example just take a look at Russia Today.

RT is, generally speaking, more reliable that the NYT. So what of it?

One thing that is different is the lack of government-critical sources available from China, also Russia. Freedom of Speech in the West is wobbly, but in China and especially Russia it is even worse (from everything I’ve read).

What have you read?

Your freedom of speech is tolerated in the West to the extent thst it doesn’t threaten ruling class interests. The ruling class already owns all of the papers and TV channels and think tanks, they drown you out. You can never hope to push socialism through their apparatus. That is how effective their cemsorship already is: you’re told you have freedom of speech and then deplatformed. If you get a little louder, you might get a platform on occasion, but will then will still be drowned out by “competing” views.

And if you fly too close to the sun, you will get direct government censorship. Ask Germany how “free speech” is going with regards yup Palestinian solidariry. Ask comrades in the US how free speech is going with Samidoun declared a terrorist orgsnization. Ask a former Black Panther for free their speech was while being soued on snd martyred by the feds and cops.

If you actually do anything that matters, if you truly challenge the ruling powers in the West, you will need to be realistic and expect oppression. The idea that you have free speech is just pure propaganda.

Re: China go on Weibo you will find plenty of criticism of the government. The idea that you can’t criticize the government in China is xenophoboc propaganda.

Re: Russia: okay, but what is your point? There are bad things that happen in Russia so… their role against US imperialism is bad? Because that tends to be the only thing supported by “tankies”. The Russian Federation is a capitalist project created by capitalist revanchist shock therapy on the USSR that killed 7-10 million people. The West created the RF, its “oligarchs” are hust centralized capitalists like in othet countries in Europe, except the West continued to exclude Russia from the imperisl core, attempting to force it into the periphery (extraction snd poverty). What you see today is a regional capitalist power that is respinding to that. One where the national bourgeoisie are dominant rather than the international bourgeoisie, due to circumstances imposef on them. As a consequence, they often align against Western imperislism.

This is a lovely segue into our China sidequest, and while I agree on the definition, I have doubts on how public the public sector really is. The way that national election results look and the way vocal dissidents or political opposition are treated does not give me the idea that the people truly have all the power here.

Which is to say, you don’t actually know anything about it. Public means state-owned, by the way. Do you believe they aren’t actually owned by the state?

Capitalism concentrates power in the capitalist class. This class can then subvert democracy, resulting in oligarchy.

This has the false premise that the historical course of capitalism is to enter spaces that were already “democratic” in the bourgeois democratic sense. This is not true. Instead, capitalism itself gained power through the replacement of feudalistic giverning powers (like monarchies) with structures they could control, compatible with their ideas of “progress”. In short, they created bourgeous democracy. They were already in control. The question of concentration of capital changes the words but not the fact of who is in control.

In a similar way, central planning concentrates power in the central government, which actually makes it even easier to abuse that power.

In countries run by socialists, central planning is an exercise of power that already exists. The power is maintained through the oppression of competing classes and, traditionally, party bureaucracy.

I don’t know what it could possibly mean to say it is “easier to abuse that power”, it is so vague and decontextualized thst it just sounds like something you’re makinh up on the spot. Socialists endeavour to speak in terms of concrete realities and draw conclusions from them. What is your standard of abuse? Of power? How are you comparing these things?

btw central planning is not unique to countries run by socialists. Highly concentrated capitalism also has central planning aspects, as do their governments in times of emergency. But it is, in that case, central planning for bourgeois interests.

Chinese government is not transparent

How so? Tell me how the Chinese system works for, say, someone working to get a hospital built in their town.

nor federal enough

This sounds like America-centrism. There is nothing inherently democratic about federalism and it is often antidemocratic. If you are in the US, do you applaud the electoral college?

for me to call it democratic or owned by the people.

Tell me which other peripheral countries hsve done so much for their people. Tell me who has alleviated so much poverty, built so much infrastructure, and by their own hand rather than imperialism and capitalist ventures. The proof is in the doing.

If China is so great

Are we having a discussion of geopolitics or a schoolyard gossip fight?

then why does it feel the need to dictate over Hong Kong

Why do you have strong opinions about this topic when you clearly do not know any history about China?

China, more specifically the Qing Dynasty, was colonized (mostly by the British) through a series of imperialist ventures thst included the Opium Wars. The result was the designation of Hong Kong, already an existing Chinese city, as a British imperial trade hub where resources and wealth extracted from the rest of the country was traded, as well as later serving as a finsncial hub for the rest of the imperialized region. But, to put it simply, the British stole Hong Kong in 1841-1843.

When China threw off all of its imperial masters in its national liberation fight against the Japanese, it then had a civil war due to the KMT attacking the communists. Obviously, the communists won. As part of this, they reclaimed Hong Kong just a little over 100 years after it was stolen, but using the legal definition that had been imposed by the British, who had given themselves a 100-year lease that ended in 1997.

Hong Kong is a Chinese city that was colonized by the British and is being reintegrated, as yiu would expect from a sovereign country. You claimed elsewhere that you are against Western hegemony, but this is a crystal clear example of anticolonial action and you’re siding with the colonists that write breathless propaganda about how unfair it is that China is governing a Chinese city.

and Taiwan

Again, just basic history. When the communists were reconsolidating their country, they were also expelling KMT forces. At the end, the KMT looted wealth and cultural artifacts and fled to Taiwan, where they set up a military dictatorship and began oppressing the indigenous people there. The PRC was set to invade Taiwan and finish their civil war, but the US set up a blockade and the PRC opted to vow a later return rather than force the Americans out. The first question you should have is why the US was meddling in their civil war.

Both the PRC and the KMT have long held that the civil war has never ended, with the PRC claiming Taiwan and the KMT claiming all of msinlsnd China and also Mongolia. The PRC holds a consistent line of reunification being the end goal.

The US uses Taiwan to harass the PRC and wants to use it to escalate tensions. It may even try to turn it into another Ukraine, doing everything it can to push China over red lines militarily until it finally decides that Taiwan is an intolerable threat just a few miles off its coast and very close to Shenzhen. If that happened, would you yet again go after the target if US imperialism like your masters tell you to, calling it an unprovoked aggression? Would you have new names for people that correctly blame the US for using their proxies as puppets to harass other nations? The US is already trying to derisk from Taiwan by exportinh its chip production facilities but it isn’t going well because the US is so finsncislized that it can’t barely build productive capacity at even 10X the cost of elsewhere.

Does China have gay marriage?

This is another example of why someone would call you a liberal. Pinkwashing imperialist takes. What is your logic on what is permitted to be done to other countries if they don’t have a legal recognition of gay marriage? On what basis do other cultures need to mirror your own preferences in order for them to be free of your chauvinism? Any real county will have reactionary elements, some old, some new. Your country, and you, have reactionary elements.

There is a populsr struggle for gay marriage in China and it is going pretty well. It is mostly jist old people who are against it. You should exoect to see it legalized in the next decade or so. But you will have had nothing to do with thst, as your contribution here is to sneer at the entire country for not doing what this Westerner baby leftist demands.

Incidentally, if the CPC did force through legalized gay marriage and it elicited some negative response, like protests, you can be certain this would be characterized as an authoritarian overreach and how dare they disregard the will of the people. Some “socialists”, huh!?

Trans rights perhaps?

China has better trans rights than your country, most likely. It has less transphobia to begin with, had major out and truly popular trans celebrities before the US did, and provides gender-affirming care of all kinds in a way that is truly accessible for the vast majority of people. Compare this to the US where trans kids are often exiled by their families and given no support, leading to high rates of homelessness, hard drug use, and death.

China does not have the same culture wars as the US, it doesn’t have the same need for capital to create and maintain marginalization to distract from material decline. China is materially advancing and ending extreme poverty.

I’m not saying China is as bad as the West claims it is. I’m just saying it’s not something to get wild about.

But you don’t seem to know anything about China. Why have an opinion at all? Why not hold your tongue until you have done some reading or talked nicely to Chinese people?

It’s a nation state (a far too big one at that), which are by definition tools of oppression.

Sure, but what of it? Do you think we are in a position to have a societu free of oppression, including nation states? With you and whose army?

Socialists must build revolution in the real world, with what is materially in front of us. Tell us how you would, say, end China’s status as a nation state without it just getting immediately recolonized, probably by the country in which you live, work, and to which you contribute.

It is your repetition of radlib talking points to punch left.

Per the origins of the term, a tankie is a communist that supported the Soviets wuelling the Hungarian 1956 uprising. It was an insult concocted by British Trotskyists, who also consider themselves communists.

The modern use of the term is just a liberal sentiment leveled against anyone that doesn’t fall neatly in line with US Empire’s vilification campaigns. If you dare to say that Russia has material motivations that are a counter to those of the US rather than being a kingdom run by a madman that just loves killing, you are a tankie. If you don’t want Ukraine used as a proxy for the US to hurt Russia, regardless of how many Ukrainians die, you are a tankie. If you treat the PRC as country filled with normal people living normal lives rather than the dystopian nightmare it’s falsely depicted as, uou are a tankie. If you know anything at all about Dengism, you are a tankie.

Really, the liberal position on both countries is premised on orientalism and it is never a surprise when the criticisms inevitably turn into vague tropes. And when this laziness is called out, well, it’s time to deploy a tactical tankie reference. I definitely don’t care about being insulted, these situations are really just a way for the other person to give themselves an excuse to stop thinking or engaging.

Yet again begging liberals to understand what the word “shill” means.

I’m glad!

This is completely unrelated, but now is a good time to get into shooting paintball guns at pieces of circular glass about 2 cm in diameter.

The political compass exists so that right libertarians can feel good about themselves and call everyone else names. It was created by a right libertarian. It’s really just a “how far away are you from (racist) Ron Paul?” map along two axes. And the vertical axis was invented just to distance them from the Nazis that they inevitably end up supporting anyways and in order to claim to be on equal liberationist footing as anarchists despite supporting the primary vehicle of oppression, capitalism. Right libertarians are not, in reality, libertarian at all. They never saw a CEO’s boot they didn’t want to lick.

When comparing anarchists and Marxists or communists, authority isn’t really a distinguishing factor. It is about theoretical understanding, the goal towards which the group organizes, and what structures are used to advance that goal. Anarchists always have internal authority to deal with, there are always people with outsized impact and decision-making power, and when larger than 10-20 people, there is a need for hierarchy to actually accomplish anything for more than a week.

What is different is a few other things.

One is that Marxists tend to declare a party to be the best apparatus for advancing the goal of revolution, with decisive mass action by that party, while anarchists focus on free association and spontaneous waves in participation. There are aspects of each of these tendencies in the other, but it is distinguishing.

Another is that Marxists plan for a need to defend the revolution against the bourgeoisie both domestically and internationally and that this requires organized industry and a coherent internal politucal program. Anarchists do not always plan on defending the revolution at all, but focus on building communes here and now, during the revolution, and after the revolution. Some do plan on defending the revolution but only in a context where these collectives are primary over organizing industry or oppressing thr bourgeoisie.

When describing those who are “advanced”, just think of it as Marxists being big nerds thst treat revolution as a discipline of study, a science, that is geared towards application: doing the revolution in the best way you can so it is more likely to succeed in all aspects. Just like anyone can become advanced in a science by accumulating degrees and publishing scientific results, the big nerd revolutionary can become advanced through theoretical study and intentional organizing work coupled with constructive self-criticism.

It is those who are advanced in this discipline - not just with experience, but also theoretically, e.g. being class conscious - who Marxists identify as those most ready to lead revolution. And realky, it just makes sense, as a simplified way of saying it is that those with the most exoerience and who are most knowledgeable in a more correct political understanding will make better decisive and have more impact.

The label is also used by contrast. It follows from an acknowledgement that when revolutionaries looked at their real capitalist societies, most people would not have this experience and knowledge. In addition, left formations are often banned or otherwise suppressed before they can gain mass “advancement”. This is where vanguardism cones from, it’s why it exists. It posits that you can function as a suppressed, even an underground, organization to foment revolution by specifically recruiting and developing those who are most “advanced”, which will run a gamut of experiences and theoretical understandings, with the goal of having outsized influence via leadership positions in, for example, organized labor. And this can be done in many forms, including a union leader working with your front group rather than being a member of a Marxist party.

In lieu of this, when people try to organize without leadership by “advanced” members of the working class, you get the same mistakes and failures over and over again. It takes experience, theoretical understanding, constructive self-criticism, and a means by which to retain and use what is learned through each action in order to make increasingly better choices. A lack of “advanced” members or an appreciation of “advancement” is why so many of the US’ left movements spin their wheels and offer only false catharsis rather than material change.

I will leave one final negative example, which is that the most “experienced” person, in this Western context, is often the last person you should listen to. Their experience is usually in failure and often this means they have become resigned to just trying the same thing over snd over again because they have found a way to rationalize failure as a success instead. And because of their experience, they can take up a lot of space for wrong ideas. This distinguishes experience from “advancement”: the quality of experience matters but so does having clear eyes about our own work and the societies in which we are embedded.

BLM is a good example of what happens when you don’t organize with any structure or leadership, actually.

For background, BLM flared up as riots and then protests and people’s occupations in response to racialized police violence, of course. It was a reaction and not organized initially. Organization grew from on-the-ground experience as individuals and orgs shared spaces and developed political programming and actions. But this all happened locally. There was no national group that could legitimately claim to represent BLM, as every city had their own set of orgs and organizers. There was overlap, of course, as many of tge participating orgs spanned multiple cities, but no org or coalition could legitimately say, “these are our demands” at the national level.

Now you might be thinking, “hey, TheOubliette, what about the literal national organization called Black Lives Matter that published demands and spoke to the press?” Well, that group is exactly what you tend to get in the West with a left leadership vacuum: they just asserted they were in charge and started taking credit and raking in donations to their NGO. That national org was full of NGO veterans looking to advance their careers, not on-the-ground organizers. It was essentially a grift / cooption.

I’ve been unfortunate enough to see this kind of thing happen a few times. For example, there was a space that pledged horizontalism but then whoever brought a bullhorn to the next action ended up being the real person in charge. They weren’t selected to do that, few people even knew who they were. But the crowd did what they said and people got arrested due to their bad instructions. I’ve seen other situations where a group declares itself representative unilaterally and begins speaking to the media and making demands or negotiating, and they end up saying and doing things completely at odds with the wishes of the collective. I’ve also seen situations where people tried a bit harder to have some structure, but ended up creating disconnected teams for different domains (press, logistics, action planning, security, etc) but the whole project blew up because one subset of one team declared themselves the only voices that mattered, using self-tokenizing and very inconsistently applied (most people of that identity there disagreed with them) liberal identity politics to justify their power grab. The project ended because they used those shenanigans to throw away leverage and told everyone to go home - it was too difficult to reassemble because communication methods were not solid and most attendees were not in organizations

This is a weakness that arises from having weak, inexperienced, and poorly-structured groups, especially when they create a leadership vacuum. Many things work very well autonomously. Mutual aid and black bloc, for example. But for a larger organizing effort, there are key functions that must be carried out on behalf of the larger group in order for it to actually succeed. There needs to be a deliberation process so that decisions can be made quickly enough without being illegitimate by being non-representative. There need to be people that organize the deliberation process itself. There need to be people that ensure the decision is carried out. There needs to be a way to have some kind of community discipline around some of the decisions - like what to so if a subset of people start doing their own thing at odds with the community decision and putting people at risk. Assuming the organizing effort has external components, like it is intended to change something or confront another party, you need to develop demands and messaging and then have people who deliver and share those things. If you don’t have those things, the organizing effort is vulnerable to the disruptive factors already (and more). Decisions will get made and people won’t understand them and will get very angry. Some people will try to enforce a decision and those who disagree will literally fight them. Without people designated for communication, you will be represented by whichever person gets in front of a TV camera first. Capitalist media is oppositional. With Occupy, they used the fact that the various people talking to them provided about 50 total demands to then suggest that Occupy had no realistic ides of what it wanted to accomplish. There is some truth to that, but mostly this is a consequence of having no media discipline.

Anyways sorry this comment is so long. I wanted to add a lot of context and examples so that it’s clear I’m not being blindly dogmatic, but speaking to the fatal weaknesses of these efforts.

The first source for this claim: https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1895632/

On June 29, 2023, a briefing on arms supplies to Ukraine was held at the UN Security Council at Russia’s initiative. The civil society briefers Russia invited included journalists Max Blumenthal (USA) and Chay Bowes (Ireland).

They provided facts about the Kiev regime using Western weapons to deliver strikes at civilian facilities in Donetsk and to send subversive groups into the Belgorod Region. They supplied evidence that billions of US taxpayer dollars have been invested in the corrupt schemes of fuelling a war against Russia in which Ukrainians are being used as a tool. They concluded that the Western elites and defence industries were the only ones to benefit from the escalation of the conflict.

Oh no, not journalists providing information at a public briefing! Don’t they know it’s time to do baby’s first McCarthyism!?