“NO, compromise is NOT acceptable, we MUST implement socialism NOW; otherwise you’re all fascists and completely identical” - Tankies when democracy
Compromise isn’t only acceptable, it’s necessary. To deny this is Ultraleft dogmatism. Moreover, one of the first things AES states do is democratize the economy, from the Soviet system in the USSR to the New Democracy of the PRC. The “compromise,” I assume, is allowing liberal and fascist parties to compete, in which case PJ’s only real complaint is that AES states didn’t leave easy avenues for Imperialist countries to destabilize the Socialist systems.
“Um, aktually, sweatie, materialist analysis DEMANDS we be capitalist first” - Tankies when no democracy
This is just the usual “Capitalism is any system with a single drop of Private Property, Socialism is a fully publicly owned economy only” fallacy. Treating Socialism as a unique Mode of Production utterly distinct and separate entitely from how other Modes of Production are analyzed is wrong. That implies that a single drop of Public Ownership would make a system Socialist if we were applying this rule with equal weight, which is bad analysis to begin with.
In reality, a system is determined by its principle character, something the image shows. The reason the US is Capitalist despite having a large Public Sector is because Private Property is the driver of the economy, and controls primary industry like steel. The rubber factory has far more control over the economy than the rubber ball factory, because it comes earlier in the production process, ergo that is one way of exerting economic control. In the PRC, large industry is almost exclusively under the control of the public.
Moreover, this isn’t something we say. Capitalism is not dogmatically necessary, and neither are Markets. Dogmatically rejecting them is wrong, but you do not need to use them to develop in all cases. Moreover, you can’t get rid of small production by banning it outright. Markets are a tool especially effective at lower stages of development, and public ownership is a tool especially effective at higher stages.
Sure would be nice if any of these “Left-wing” anticommunists would actually read Marx and Engels. They regularly make dogmatic errors Marx and Engels disproved centuries ago, and rather than attempting to understand the Marxist point of view, they hold onto a flexible anticommunist stance.
Of course, PJ has denounced the Black Panther Party and supported the Nazi-led lynchings and pograms that made up the 1956 Hungarian Counter-revolution, as well as defended chasers. Their only goal seems to be to pretend to be Left, but defend NATO, western Capitalism, and any resistance to AES. They don’t want the world to get better because they benefit from their comfortable Western position.
Compromise isn’t only acceptable, it’s necessary. To deny this is Ultraleft dogmatism. Moreover, one of the first things AES states do is democratize the economy, from the Soviet system in the USSR to the New Democracy of the PRC. The “compromise,” I assume, is allowing liberal and fascist parties to compete, in which case PJ’s only real complaint is that AES states didn’t leave easy avenues for Imperialist countries to destabilize the Socialist systems.
This is just the usual “Capitalism is any system with a single drop of Private Property, Socialism is a fully publicly owned economy only” fallacy. Treating Socialism as a unique Mode of Production utterly distinct and separate entitely from how other Modes of Production are analyzed is wrong. That implies that a single drop of Public Ownership would make a system Socialist if we were applying this rule with equal weight, which is bad analysis to begin with.
In reality, a system is determined by its principle character, something the image shows. The reason the US is Capitalist despite having a large Public Sector is because Private Property is the driver of the economy, and controls primary industry like steel. The rubber factory has far more control over the economy than the rubber ball factory, because it comes earlier in the production process, ergo that is one way of exerting economic control. In the PRC, large industry is almost exclusively under the control of the public.
Moreover, this isn’t something we say. Capitalism is not dogmatically necessary, and neither are Markets. Dogmatically rejecting them is wrong, but you do not need to use them to develop in all cases. Moreover, you can’t get rid of small production by banning it outright. Markets are a tool especially effective at lower stages of development, and public ownership is a tool especially effective at higher stages.
Sure would be nice if any of these “Left-wing” anticommunists would actually read Marx and Engels. They regularly make dogmatic errors Marx and Engels disproved centuries ago, and rather than attempting to understand the Marxist point of view, they hold onto a flexible anticommunist stance.
Of course, PJ has denounced the Black Panther Party and supported the Nazi-led lynchings and pograms that made up the 1956 Hungarian Counter-revolution, as well as defended chasers. Their only goal seems to be to pretend to be Left, but defend NATO, western Capitalism, and any resistance to AES. They don’t want the world to get better because they benefit from their comfortable Western position.