- The first two want to consolidate power first. Typical capitalist move, get to the top, then pull the ladder up behind you.
- The third guy has a sensible idea.
- The ‘ban Liberalism’ guy probably can’t define Liberalism.
- The ‘ban factory farms’ guy has a good idea.
- The ‘ban cars’ crowd I sorta agree with. Cars should only be used in rural areas, where public transit is not viable.
- The anti-Israel guy, wants to ban countries from solidarizing with Israel. An inherently pro-war take.
- Historical Revisionism, I had to look up who Adrian Zenz is, and Zenz is critical of the Uyghur genocide. So yeah, Historical Revisionism just means ‘anything I don’t like’ to this commenter.
Edit: Changed ‘urban’ to ‘rural’ as pointed out by @goat.
Banning “all” factory farms is a terrible idea without suitable replacements. There’s a reason starvation has decreased world-wide over the past 100 years. There was a really good article posted yesterday about the challenges here.
Agree with the animal part, though.
From the context, he appears to be referring strictly to factory farming of animals. From an environmental and ethical position, it’s hard for me to argue against that. I eat meat, but I’m also aware of how awful conditions are on those farms, and just how far definitions of “ethical” are bent in order to define them as ethical. I think that we need to change culture so that people don’t view meat as central to a diet anymore, or eating large quantities of meat as being symbolic of having ‘made’ it
I also think that we likely need some kind of nationalized (maybe even international?) rotation for all crops, because the system that we’re using of heavy fertilization, etc. is depleting our soil badly, resulting in crops with less nutrition than we were getting just 50 years ago. We’re already in the beginning stages of climate collapse, and monoculture is making that significantly worse.
Agreed. An interesting and related read: https://nypost.com/2023/08/31/50-of-us-beef-is-eaten-by-just-12-of-americans-mostly-men-study/
If we didn’t use 60% of America’s grain belt for growing cattle feed (which humans can’t digest) we could easily feed ourselves many times over.
The third guy has a sensible idea.
Yeah, though that’s going to be insanely costly for the government. Best solution is offering a cheap, readily available public version and then the premium services.
The ‘ban factory farms’ guy has a good idea.
It is! But ironically, animals are and have always been treated the worst in communist states.
The ‘ban cars’ crowd I sorta agree with. Cars should only be used in urban areas, where public transit is not viable.
You mean rural?
The point of banning private versions of essential services is to make it so wealthy people have to use the same public version as poor people.
If a private alternative exists that rich people can use instead, the people who have the most power in society, then they have little incentive to provide a good public version.
You mean rural? Yes, rural. Thanks for pointing that out. Yeah, though that’s going to be insanely costly for the government. Best solution is offering a cheap, readily available public version and then the premium services. Well, services naturally cost money. But yes, allowing private services would also be good. I’m just worried that the public version falls too far behind in terms of quality provided. As in, politicians see that the private version is only a bit more expensive than the public one, and therefore slash funding for the public version, causing the public quality to decrease, after which the private provider see higher demand, and then increase prices.
I used to mix up Urban and Rural because Urban areas are where you grow herbs right?
Third thing will only work if your land is filled with natural resources. Tankies sure take that for granted or just completely ignorant and doesn’t realize that communism is realistically only feasible only if your land has unlimited natural resources and slavery.
“Third guy has a sensible idea”
Not really, if you don’t charge for services at some point it’s simply going to be exploited. This why even government services that don’t turn a profit aren’t free.
The said charging at the point of service. It is being paid for, just not at the time you need it.
Obviously it has to be paid for somehow. My comment was clearly referring to the fact that charging the user reduces frivolous usage. There can be an argument for providing a set small amount of services for free (at point of use) and then charging for everything above, but that’s not what was proposed.
deleted by creator
The anti-Israel guy, wants to ban countries from solidarizing with Israel. An inherently pro-war take.
How so? This is basically just BDS.
The way they word it, it sounds like they want to do that permanently, or until Israel collapses, with no diplomancy. Obviously, if the actualy strategy is isolate them until they agree to reasonable demands, then that would be diplomatic, and render my point moot.
Lmfao, this is exactly what conservatives think all socialists are. Tankies are such terrible optics for advancing the left
It’s because a non trivial portion of them are legitimately Poe’s law trolls and the tankies are completely blind to it.
Lmao the two top answers are fucking poetry. Really says all that needs to be said.
They need this
That’s more the authoritarian part than the communist part. No authoritarian regime has good track records for the rights of the animal homo sapiens.
It is no coincidence that bans are the first thing that comes to mind for them when talking about their power fantasies. They aren’t really even communist, they are just authoritarians. They would embrace fascism in a heartbeat if it meant they personally would gain a position of power.
Removed by mod
thats what homo sapiens are, my guy
All those communist regimes were also authoritarian. All the non communist authoritarian regimes also were bad for human rights. The commonality is authoritarianism, not communism.
“I thought historical revision was more of a neutral thing… Grover Furr is considered a revisionist and we cite him”
He was so close.
You’re (and some of the people in the post) are conflating the colloquial and actual definition of historical revisionism.
Colloquially it just means lying about history, but the real definition is just reinterpriting history in a way that challenged the orthodox view. A great example is the dark ages, which from studying non Latin texts, many authors argue that the lack of knowledge and learning associated with the dark ages is actually just a lack of source texts in Latin from western mainland Europe.
So as you can see the definition of revisionism in an historical context is value neutral, it would depend on who what and how things are being revised.
That’s the most bizarre one. He’s obvioulsy trying to apply critical thinking, but then undemines it by referring to their canon.
Gotta love the “we will ban calling the exchange of scarce goods and services via a monetary proxy capitalism” crowd. For the love of God, please read a book.
Some of these are jokes pretty obviously though, or is it just me?
Just you. All of those are normal tankie positions.
Where’s the joke in “I want to kill people?”
I mean the first one (the one I assume you’re referencing) sounds like sarcasm, maybe I’m misinterpreting it but that’s the tone I hear when I read it. Maybe the joke is extending how much they hate capitalists to something they don’t believe?
It’s a typical act from extremists to say bigotted, hateful shit and then hide behind a shield of “it’s just a joke bro”
Might be true, I might be misreading tone
