• eldavi
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    – and they both punch left; exactly as conservatives like to do.

    • u_die_for_elmer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I consider tankies to be on the right end of the socialist spectrum, so when I say it I’m punching right. They’re still comrades even if they are miss guided by state-capitalist governments. Cheers

      • SlayGuevara@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Lemmygrad admin here. I normally don’t look at reports from other instances but for this I had to make an exception. Probably the dumbest shit I have read so far lmao.

          • davelA
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Reason: “state capitalist”

            Hence my reply:

            Because the Chinese state has fiat monetary sovereignty, it doesn’t function in the capitalist mode. It has no need to make a profit because it has infinite money[1]. It doesn’t need to extract surplus value from workers to satisfy investors, and it doesn’t even need to break even. The logic of capitalism doesn’t apply.

            Ultras fear the scroll.

      • OurToothbrush
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        I love it when people call a transitional economy state capitalist because it betrays a lack of understanding of actually existing capitalism and the role the state plays in it.

      • Cowbee [he/they]
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        I think if you’re comparing “degrees” of left vs right, at that point you’re missing the forest for the trees. Ultimately, Anarchists and Marxists disagree on strategy and end goal, but both oppose Capitalism and Imperialism. At that point, there really isn’t a “more” or “less” left, there’s just differences in analysis and what must be done to get from A to B, as well as what B itself is.

      • ShimmeringKoi [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        They’re still comrades even if they are miss guided

        This is unironically the nicest and most reconciliatory anti-tank post I’ve ever seen. We have different assessments but neither of us are writing off the other as stupid or an LLM, which is actually a breath of fresh air. The bar for political discourse may be in hell these days, but I still appreciate your clearing it.

        As for where our views diverge, I would like to understand the nature of the divergence. I guess my main question is: what decides your ideology’s position on the spectrum?

      • davelA
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        Because the Chinese state has fiat monetary sovereignty, it doesn’t function in the capitalist mode. It has no need to make a profit because it has infinite money[1]. It doesn’t need to extract surplus value from workers to satisfy investors, and it doesn’t even need to break even. The logic of capitalism doesn’t apply.

        Ultras fear the scroll.