Comunism can only emerge from authoritarianism, by definition, because every single class society is authoritarian, and thus every state is. And as Engels noticed, revolution is the most authoritarian thing that is.
Imperialism is not the same as authoritarianism. To know what we mean by “imperialism” read Lenin’s “Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism”.
And you might noticed how authoritarianism in my first sentence is used incredibly wide, it’s not a mistake, it’s one of those terms that have no useful meaning, it wasn’t even useful to start with, and especially not when it went through the liberal media and social media mill which had tendency to either purposefully or acidentally (or both) twist definitions to the point they are unrecognizable. Therefore to broadly talk about “authoritarianism” is meaningless, that word is unhelpful as definition and can be used at most as the cliche to deflect discussion (and note it’s been used in this thread in this characer extensively by liberals who sure as hell aren’t opposing it because they support authoritarian societies as well).
True communism is stateless, so how can this emerge from authoritarianism?
Because history and society exist? States exist? Regardless if you are for transitional socialist state or you are some kind of utopist wanting to implement instant communism on a press of a button, that communist society will be necessarily build on a base of the current one.
as tankies for justifying their repressive ideology
What lack of dialectic materialism does to a mfer.
You do always discuss by asking questions this loaded? Especially after making completely outlandish claim that new society can’t be build on base of the old one? Not even posadists went that far, that sounds more like some apocalypse preaching.
Comunism can only emerge from authoritarianism, by definition, because every single class society is authoritarian, and thus every state is. And as Engels noticed, revolution is the most authoritarian thing that is.
Imperialism is not the same as authoritarianism. To know what we mean by “imperialism” read Lenin’s “Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism”.
And you might noticed how authoritarianism in my first sentence is used incredibly wide, it’s not a mistake, it’s one of those terms that have no useful meaning, it wasn’t even useful to start with, and especially not when it went through the liberal media and social media mill which had tendency to either purposefully or acidentally (or both) twist definitions to the point they are unrecognizable. Therefore to broadly talk about “authoritarianism” is meaningless, that word is unhelpful as definition and can be used at most as the cliche to deflect discussion (and note it’s been used in this thread in this characer extensively by liberals who sure as hell aren’t opposing it because they support authoritarian societies as well).
True communism is stateless, so how can this emerge from authoritarianism?
We could use the word oppressive or repressive if you prefer?
I agree, liberals are as bad as tankies for justifying their repressive ideology
Because history and society exist? States exist? Regardless if you are for transitional socialist state or you are some kind of utopist wanting to implement instant communism on a press of a button, that communist society will be necessarily build on a base of the current one.
What lack of dialectic materialism does to a mfer.
So how do you envisage communism arising from a socialist state which represses its citizens?
You do always discuss by asking questions this loaded? Especially after making completely outlandish claim that new society can’t be build on base of the old one? Not even posadists went that far, that sounds more like some apocalypse preaching.