Revolution is the only way left-wing governments have historically been solidified. Bolivia tried the democratic process, and this failed, so now a potential revolution is brewing as clashes between the far-right and the primarily indigenous socialists are erupting. Allende tried the democratic process in Chile, and was coup’d for it.
Who cares? I’m not talking about how they get solidified. I’m talking about what they do when they have power. If someone supports violent left wing regimes, then they are a Tankie. If you don’t think that the regimes are violent beyond their revolutions, then that wouldn’t imply one way or another whether you are a Tankie.
So we are back to square one: since all leftist states are the result of revolution, it is definitionally correct that “tankies” are those who support socialist states. All states are tools by which the ruling classes retain their dominance, in socialism this is the working class. Therefore, all states are inherently violent, and trying to label some as uniquely violent misses the entire point of the state, a monopoly on violence.
Yes, of course I can read. You rejected my interpretation, and I very clearly explained how your rejection is baseless. What is a “non-violent leftist regime?”
No. That’s not what happened. I rejected the idea that having a violent revolution makes a regime violent by definition. This whole time I’ve been talking about regimes and you’ve been talking about revolutions. It’s really that simple of a miscommunication.
I’ve been talking about both revolutions and states, which you call “regimes” to sound scary. States are itself tools by which one class dominates the rest, this is inherently violent.
You don’t get to tell me what I mean when I speak. Regimes, revolutions, and states are all different things and I would never use one of those terms to mean another.
I have never once said states and revolutions are the same thing, only that the only way to create a leftist state is revolution, and that states themselves are inherently violent towards the non-dominant class. Regimes are just scary words for states in common lingo, so please explain what a regime is.
Revolution is the only way left-wing governments have historically been solidified. Bolivia tried the democratic process, and this failed, so now a potential revolution is brewing as clashes between the far-right and the primarily indigenous socialists are erupting. Allende tried the democratic process in Chile, and was coup’d for it.
Who cares? I’m not talking about how they get solidified. I’m talking about what they do when they have power. If someone supports violent left wing regimes, then they are a Tankie. If you don’t think that the regimes are violent beyond their revolutions, then that wouldn’t imply one way or another whether you are a Tankie.
So we are back to square one: since all leftist states are the result of revolution, it is definitionally correct that “tankies” are those who support socialist states. All states are tools by which the ruling classes retain their dominance, in socialism this is the working class. Therefore, all states are inherently violent, and trying to label some as uniquely violent misses the entire point of the state, a monopoly on violence.
No. I explicitly rejected that interpretation in the very comment you are responding to. Can you read?
Yes, of course I can read. You rejected my interpretation, and I very clearly explained how your rejection is baseless. What is a “non-violent leftist regime?”
No. That’s not what happened. I rejected the idea that having a violent revolution makes a regime violent by definition. This whole time I’ve been talking about regimes and you’ve been talking about revolutions. It’s really that simple of a miscommunication.
I’ve been talking about both revolutions and states, which you call “regimes” to sound scary. States are itself tools by which one class dominates the rest, this is inherently violent.
You don’t get to tell me what I mean when I speak. Regimes, revolutions, and states are all different things and I would never use one of those terms to mean another.
I have never once said states and revolutions are the same thing, only that the only way to create a leftist state is revolution, and that states themselves are inherently violent towards the non-dominant class. Regimes are just scary words for states in common lingo, so please explain what a regime is.