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.

  • CriticalResist8OPA
    401·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • SovereignState
      281·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • CriticalResist8OPA
        161·
        1 year ago

        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

        • AmarkuntheGatherer
          61·
          1 year ago

          It would help a lot if these people weren’t so intellectually uncurious and read what these terrible horrible tyrants said. Mao doesn’t say that some landlord stole his candy so we all must commit to PPW everywhere. We can’t discuss anything with someone who thinks it’s the end of history, we can merely point them in a direction that might break the illusion, and if they by themselves succeed, then we can discuss and inform.

          Seriously, I commend your efforts. At no point was I under the illusion that everyone can be educated with discussion or anything, but it takes shit experiences to recognise when the argument is boiling down to “this person holds all the wrong axioms and won’t respond if I try to refute them.”

    • Star Wars Enjoyer A
      192·
      1 year ago

      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.