It seems to #bothsides an issue via a lot of hyperbole, and risks straw-manning one side just for a favourable comparison.
I don’t colour myself a tankie, but I do live in a more socialist country than America - low bar, such as it is. I sense I’m not in a position to properly understand how your argument can make sense, but the kneejerk comparison I feel needs some explanation before just throwing that smelly fish out there.
It’s not cut-and-dried, but presented as such. It’s not helpful and relevant by itself. Thus, downvote.
Here’s my take: I would rather live in an authoritarian communist state than an authoritarian capitalist, or fascist one. But I would strongly prefer that I have no masters ruling me against my will, willing to use the full violent force of the state to repress me the second that the power structure feels challenged, no matter what form it takes. A communist state would just be mildly better than what we’ve already got. Which is why I advocate for a strictly anti-statist approach to socialism
Historically, though, proletarian anarchists have largely joined with the Marxists in socialist states. Petite bourgeois and bourgeois anarchists often sided against the new socialist state, as it did not expand their freedoms but instead stripped them of their capital, while proletarian anarchists found massively improved quality of life. I think saying that socialist states were only mildly better is a huge disservice to countries that managed to double life expectancy, among other massive improvements.
I’m not saying historically things weren’t better in some regards (the USSR is the only country I know of to jump from feudal to industrial in a single generation, and that’s huge), I’m saying that right now things would only be mildly better.
Realistically, if the US somehow had a socialist revolution tomorrow, I’m going to be siding with whoever wants to further the revolutionary project.
But that’s to say nothing about the many many proletarian anarchists in the Ukrainian Free Territory, that certainly did not join with the Marxists after the revolution
China also leaped from a colonized agrarian country to industrialized in a single generation, and Vietnam/Laos/Korea (both sides) were all similarly rapid. Cuba went from a primarily slave colony to a socialist country extremely rapidly as well.
As for the US, I think the leap would be similarly rapid. So much of the modern US Empire’s problems are caused by the decay in capitalism due to imperialism. Getting high speed rail, solar, decolonizing the Americas, healthcare, etc. would all be massive.
I’ll downvote that too.
It seems to #bothsides an issue via a lot of hyperbole, and risks straw-manning one side just for a favourable comparison.
I don’t colour myself a tankie, but I do live in a more socialist country than America - low bar, such as it is. I sense I’m not in a position to properly understand how your argument can make sense, but the kneejerk comparison I feel needs some explanation before just throwing that smelly fish out there.
It’s not cut-and-dried, but presented as such. It’s not helpful and relevant by itself. Thus, downvote.
Here’s my take: I would rather live in an authoritarian communist state than an authoritarian capitalist, or fascist one. But I would strongly prefer that I have no masters ruling me against my will, willing to use the full violent force of the state to repress me the second that the power structure feels challenged, no matter what form it takes. A communist state would just be mildly better than what we’ve already got. Which is why I advocate for a strictly anti-statist approach to socialism
Historically, though, proletarian anarchists have largely joined with the Marxists in socialist states. Petite bourgeois and bourgeois anarchists often sided against the new socialist state, as it did not expand their freedoms but instead stripped them of their capital, while proletarian anarchists found massively improved quality of life. I think saying that socialist states were only mildly better is a huge disservice to countries that managed to double life expectancy, among other massive improvements.
I’m not saying historically things weren’t better in some regards (the USSR is the only country I know of to jump from feudal to industrial in a single generation, and that’s huge), I’m saying that right now things would only be mildly better.
Realistically, if the US somehow had a socialist revolution tomorrow, I’m going to be siding with whoever wants to further the revolutionary project.
But that’s to say nothing about the many many proletarian anarchists in the Ukrainian Free Territory, that certainly did not join with the Marxists after the revolution
China also leaped from a colonized agrarian country to industrialized in a single generation, and Vietnam/Laos/Korea (both sides) were all similarly rapid. Cuba went from a primarily slave colony to a socialist country extremely rapidly as well.
As for the US, I think the leap would be similarly rapid. So much of the modern US Empire’s problems are caused by the decay in capitalism due to imperialism. Getting high speed rail, solar, decolonizing the Americas, healthcare, etc. would all be massive.