Not trying to piss anyone off, the category of “tankie” is occupied by people that defend socialist states. That’s it, in practice. Nebulous conceptions do not actually describe the group we are talking about, while support for existing socialism absolutely does.

The fact that you continue to believe China to be evidence against socialism is proof that you, again, do not understand socialism and communism. Socialism is not about dogmatically collectivizing everything, regardless of the situation. It’s a scientific approach. Markets play a subservient role in China’s economy, which is dominated by massive state owned enterprises. Markets play a progressive role in creating developed productive forces that can then become centrally planned. It’s not that socialism can’t work on its own, it’s that the system is already socialist, and fully planned economy requires higher developed productive forces than China presently has to be fully effective.

There is no child nor slave labor in China. There is no “elite class,” the CPC is dominated by the proletariat. The state does wield massive power, correct! It uses it against capitalists, fascists, and reactionaries that would overturn socialism.

As for Xinjiang, no, there is no genocide. Western allegations of genocide didn’t stick due to lack of evidence, and as such the west turned to vague allegations of “human rights abuses.” These allegations are largely dramatized and exaggerated, but still, you can start to put together the lack of credibility. That’s not enough, though, to dismiss. Where did they come from? And why?

Prior to the establishment of de-radicalization programs, western-backed terrorist attacks were common, in order to disrupt the Belt and Road initiative (where Xinjiang is key to expanding westward). These included:

• July 5, 2009: The Urumqi Riots resulted in 197 deaths, and 1700 wounded in mass stabbings.

• October 28, 2013: Tian’anmen Attack, 5 killed, 40 wouded, when a Jeep was driven directly into crowds.

• March 1, 2014: Kunming Train Station Attack, 31 killed, 141 wounded. 8 jihadists committed mass stabbings.

• May 22, 2014: Urumqi Attack, 39 killed, 94 injured as 2 attackers drove cars into crowds and threw explosives at buildings.

And many more. Since the de-radicalization efforts, these attacks have gone down to effectively 0. The reason for these attacks was because Xinjiang is geostrategic for the Belt and Road initiative, which is why the west stoked anti-China sentiment among the Uyghur peoples, funding terrorist groups and separatists. When China responded not with tanks and bombs but with vocational centers and investment in the region, the west pivoted to claims of “genocide,” then walked those claims back to “human rights abuses” when no evidence for genocide materialized.

I recommend reading the UN report as well as (especially) China’s response to it, which eclipses it in size and detail. These are the most relevant accusations and responses without delving into straight up fantasy like Adrian Zenz, Christian nationalist and professional propagandist for the Victims of Communism Foundation, does.

Qiao Collective also has Xinjiang: A Resource and Report Compilation as well. This is my personal recommendation for a Chinese Marxist perspective.

“General authoritarianism” is a nonsense claim. All states are monopolies on violence. What matters is which class controls the state, not if this or that state has power, as they all do. In China, the proletariat is the ruling class, and they use this authority to direct production and distribution towards pro-social ends. This is because China is a socialist country.

You have no coherent analysis, so you just resort to insult. It’s deeply unserious behavior.

Okay, then returning, vulgar empiricism is inferior to dialectical materialism because the dialectical materialist understands how change occurs and develops, while vulgar materialists fail to. I gave an example of how at a macro level this manifests in either focusing on reformism or revolution and development.

Why don’t you propose an example of how you would use the scientific method in practice to test for a better system, and we will see if you make metaphysical errors in your approach. After all, my point is that philosophy is simply how we view the world, and we all have a given philosophy, even if we don’t acknowledge it, and it determines how we interpret the objective reality of the world.

Lemmygrad.ml is a Marxist-Leninist instance. The users are very chill there normally, so the reason for defederation is ideological.

I’m not talking about political philosophy, but how we actually interpret empirically tested data. I never made the claims you believe me to be making.

I gave you an example already, one deeply relevant to our conversation considering it centers social science. The liberals that believe they can simply keep trying different reforms and testing them empirically are right along with you, but this ignores the gradual changes in how wealth is distributed and capital is concentrated.

China is a socialist country, the commanding heights of the economy are overwhelmingly publicly owned and the working classes control the state. The fact that they have some level of private capital in underdeveloped industry does not mean they are a “mix” of capitalism and communism, socialism is a transition between capitalism and communism and therefore has elements of each, while being principally socialist. I already explained fairly well the status of ML countries, they are doing fairly well right now, especially China.

As for communism not being a global system, what do you mean? Since Marx, communists have long understood that communism must be global. Everything preceding it but in transition towards that is socialism.

Again, you’re pretending I’m arguing against science. I’m not arguing against science, I am arguing against vulgar empiricist forms of science, and not dialectical materialist forms of science. I explained the limitations of refusing to acknowledge that science is interpreted by humans, therefore philosophy impacts the way we read results.

Communism is a global, fully collectivized system of production and distribution devoid of classes, the state, and money. It’s a post-socialist mode of production and distribution. You are referring to socialist countries that have been run by communist parties.

In any case, I’ll answer in order.

The Soviet Union was a resounding success for the working classes, the reward for their triumph over capital being doubled life expectancies, tripled literacy rates to 99.9%, dramatic improvements to housing quality and a near eradication of homelessness, free and high quality education and healthcare, unprecedented equality of the sexes, and stable economic growth up until its dissolution. It was gradually undermined by reforms that split the socialist system against itself, a lesson other socialist states have learned from.

The PRC is the world’s largest economy by PPP, the longest standing socialist country, and is continuing it’s path to developing higher and higher levels of socialism. The populace recieved many similar benefits to those in the USSR, and unlike the USSR they are becoming the clear world power. Socialism is presenting itself as the only logical path forward thanks to their success.

Cuba is struggling. Though they have done a tremendous amount thanks to their socialist system, decades of brutal blockades and sabotage by the world’s largest empire have left it woefully underdeveloped. Thanks to partnership with comrades in China, they are rapidly developing solar power, and therefore energy independence.

The DPRK is stronger than ever before. Thanks to their policy of nuclear deterrence, they have been able to peacefully develop their socialist system and gradually minimize the stark divide between the developed and underdeveloped portions of the region. Trade with Russia and China has resulted in an economic boom, brought upon by sanctions on Russia in the wake of the Russo-Ukrainian War.

Venezuela was never governed by a communist party. It never solidified socialism either. It’s currently in retreat after the US Empire kidnapped their democratically elected president, and are recovering from economic terrorism by the US combined with the fallout from Earthquakes.

You didn’t mention them, but Vietnam and Laos are doing well now as well.

I know how you defined it, I just wanted to know why you think it’s a better definition despite yours being more subjective and incomplete. Being misogynistic and ableist isn’t a substitution for a point.

You directly implied it by stating the following:

Keep on topic: tankie isn’t a replacement word for leftists and never has been.

That’s straight from you, the implication being that this is my position, which it isn’t. Either way, “authoritarian” is not an objective and measurable term, being ableist doesn’t improve your point.

I don’t see where you’re going with this crashout, as much as you say you are “objectively correct” you still haven’t explained why you believe it’s a better definition than what I gave.

What does it mean to “act authoritarian?” Tell me in an objective way.

I never said “tankie is a replacement word for leftists,” I said it’s a pejorative for those who support existing socialist states. Your definition, as I explained in the other comment, is horrendously subjective and ill-defined. “Authoritarian” isn’t an objective term, and moreover it means that anarchists that get called “tankie” are suddenly “authoritarian,” when most who use the word authoritarian would not consider anarchists to be such.

The reason it makes sense to acknowledge that tankies are whoever defends and supports existing socialist states is because it objectively covers the vast majority of people who would be called tankie, without applying to those who would not be. It’s an objective definition and clearly defined.

The definition you gave is an attempt to understand a colloquially used term that has expanded from it’s original conception, as a term used against British communists that supported the suppression of the Hungarian counter-revolution. Saying tankies are “authleft” is an utterly meaningless term, considering “authoritarian left” is a horrendously ill-defined term in and of itself.

The definition I gave is objective, if someone supports the PRC, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, Cuba, former USSR, they are almost certainly going to be called a tankie at some point. It’s a clear, objective measure of whether or not someone will be considered a tankie by those who take the term seriously.

I don’t think your crashout accusing me of being illiterate is going to help your point at all, anyone can clearly tell that I’m not illiterate nor stupid.

You didn’t explain how I’m wrong, though. You’ve not yet engaged with what I said. If we are going strictly by dictionary definitions, then it would only apply to British communists that supported suppressing the Hungarian counter-revolt, and I’m not British so I can’t be a tankie by that definition. Every other definition beyond that original one is an attempt to understand how it is used colloquially, since it has clearly broadened in scope, and I answered that well in my opinion.

It’s impressive how you can say so much while saying nothing at all. How is what I said wrong? Is that a difficult question to answer? Are you aware that acting like this is a common reason cited for why many leftists tend to not take those who hurl “tankie” around seriously?

Fair enough. Mechanistic materialism does not understand change or development properly. When taken as a social science, this manifedtd in the form of liberalism. Trying to reform and fix a system that cannot be fixed, because it is necessarily trending in a definite direction, towards centralization and monopoly. Trying to means-test welfare fixes does not address the concrete problems with imperialism and late-stage capitalism.

The dialectical materialist approach can more accurately identify how we got here, where we are heading, and how we can best steer this in our own interests. Socialism becomes not just an answer because someone designed it, as the Utopians tried, but because it is the logical next step in production, moving from market-based distribution to planned economy.

You’re still not getting it, both are “scientific approaches.” What you are describing as science is merely science with a mechanistic materialist outlook, one that relies on vulgar empiricism and removes the room for logical analysis of what has been empirically studied. Your philosophy underlining your science is better than religious science, but inferior to dialectical materialist science. It’s all science, yours is just incomplete for the fact that you refuse to acknowledge the weaknesses of it.

You’re abstracting the problem of denying the influence of how we view the world on how we view results of science, which is ironically enough a metaphysical error. It’s of course better to be actively ending starvation, but that wasn’t the question. The way we interpret facts determines how we go about ending starvation. Of course reality doesn’t care about what we think of it, but the way we interact back with reality certainly does!

As for the question, you dodged it. The answer is that the development of history is a result in shifting material conditions, which changes how we think and reshape the world. Like it or not, religion was in fact early science. Science itself is not a philosophy, it’s how we understand the world. What you are grasping at is a vulgar materialist conception of science at best, but this misses how change and development actually occur, and results in errors by abstraction.

This is the reason world outlook is important, you’re assuming you already have the correct world outlook while refusing to grapple with the fact that you have one. It’s Schrödinger’s philosophy.

Science is not a philosophical framework, and you’re now describing a moralistic reasoning for it, not a world outlook. Philosophy changes how we view the origin and causes of starvation, lack of access to basic necessities, and more. The philosophy you seem to be pushing is a vulgar approach to empiricism, rather than a more accurate dialectical materialist philosophy.

Here’s an example. Do you believe historical change is primarily driven by a development of ideas, or material conditions?