Why do they consider racism, orientalism and lies disputed long ago “valid criticism”. Not even mentioning the lack of humility or a will to learn, just constant snarkiness, smugness and an unrelenting feeling of superiority. Just please, engage with us on equal terms and don’t be dismissive.
Edit: Don’t go into the comments if you value your day…
there are more communists in the state of Kerala, India, than there are anarchists in the world. Your whiteness shows.
Who is more radical than MLs? You, who spend your time trolling online? 😂
You make the mistake of thinking that ‘communists’ all are MLs, an easy mistake to make but if you really try to educate yourself on communism and its history you’ll find out it’s not true. It’s funny how you think being a tankie makes you the the most radical of the left, when you will happily support states with mixed economies, oligarchies and theocracies. Only Stalin was happy making deals with nazis, the people before him, not so much.
You should follow the good example of your username buddy
Hey, do you have any resources that might discuss the ‘flavours’ of communism? I’m looking for good reading material and this sounds like a specific tangent I’d like to be more knowledgeable on.
I think too many people get caught up on a consumer-identity mode of relating to these things. It’s way more useful to have good fundamental understanding. For very early socialism, Engels provides an excellent summary in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, since the bulk of pre-Marxist philosophers were put by Marx and Engels in the “utopian” category. Text. Audiobook.
While I think Conquest of Bread is probably worth looking at for an economic skeptic of the idea of a classless, moneyless society, generally it seems to me to be the best strategy to prioritize looking at works that were associated with actual projects of socialist states, and the first person to lead such an endeavor that made it to the “actual nation-building” stage was Lenin.