Anti-Leninists, what is something you'd like to tell tankies that we actually never heard?

Marx never said centrally plan the economy.
- In Critique of the Gotha Programme:
  What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally and intellectually, still stamped with the birth marks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labour. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labour time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such and such an amount of labour (after deducting his labour for the common funds), and with this certificate he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labour costs. The same amount of labour which he has given to society in one form he receives back in another.
  Such a system requires centralized planning, Marx's entire reason for predicting Socialism to overtake Capitalism came from Marx's analysis of Capitalism's centralizing factor. As industry gets more complex, it grows, until everything is owned in common after revolution and gradual expropriation from Capitalists.
- True, but we know that one. He also never had a plan to achieve communism either. The devil's in the details of HOW we get there.
  
  How about this one to make Leninists mad: Marx and Engels said ad nauseum for 40 years that the democratic republic is the political form in which the class struggle can be fought and won.

Lenin was a mushroom
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin_was_a_mushroom

Tankies don't have a solution for what to do when you and your homies are marching in a compact group along a precipitous and difficult path, firmly holding each other by the hand, and one friend won't shut up about how everybody should go into the marsh.

Maybe anarchists are necessary to help keep the revolutionary state honest. However, I don't know if I'd go so far as to call myself an anti-Leninist.
- Honestly, I find there's a lot of overlap between Marxism and Anarcho-syndicalism, and I think this is essentially the correct way for the workforce to be organized.
  
  For a while, that's probably how I would have sorted myself, but how are the anarcho-syndicalists on taking power from capital and wielding it? How does that differ from Lenin's guidance? (Part of why I don't call myself an anti-Leninist is that I haven't read any Lenin lol.)
  
  Anarcho syndicalism is snakey af
- When have the anarchists accomplished anything? The people itself should keep their goverment honest.
  
  Every day; all sorts of stuff from simply feeding people to high level assassinations, including a POTUS. Anarchism is a means by which the people can embarrass the government and compel corrective action to its deficiencies.
  
  Paid holidays, 8 hour shifts, women's ability to vote, same-sex marriages and LGTBIQ+ rights in general... Those are ideals and achievements that started in anarchism.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Isn't always true. Just because a country/political faction opposes US hegemony doesn't automatically make them morally superior.
- Isn't it implied by using this proverb that you know they have some bad qualities?
  Same as supporting the 'lesser evil'? Also, it's hardly impossible to not be morally superior to these scumbags.
- That's not what MLs actually believe, we have the concept of critical support. It's the act of backing a cause, group, or individual while maintaining a clear-eyed critique of their flaws, contradictions, or harmful actions. It’s not unconditional endorsement but a pragmatic stance that balances solidarity with accountability.
- Even tho we don't care about it, the US holds no moral high ground on any country. The US certainly doesn't care about it either when they support "socialist" forces in Syria, like the SDF, while also supporting headchoppers like HTS. Everything goes as long as it advances their interests.
  
  Oh yeah of course, the US is an imperialist, neocolonialist power that does a tremendous amount of harm in the world.
  I'm an anarchist, so you won't find me singing the praises of any state power, for sure not the US. They do what all states do, consolidate centralized power and dominate as many people as they can.
  My point was that some folks act like anything that opposes the interests of the US is automatically good, and that's not true, ISIS opposes the US, but they're a pretty fucked up group of religious extremists, same with the Westboro Baptist Church hate group, who also oppose the US strongly, but are total scumbags.

Mass society in the West doesn't exist anymore. You're unfit to achieve anything you want to achieve and you lack the tools to elaborate to yourself why you keep losing. The world moved on and so should your politics.
- We have China
  
  Have you ever spoken with an urban young mainlander? They are the most individualistic people on Earth. Beats any gun-bearing Texan everyday.
- Your idea is that... any politics with roots in the 20th century are irrelevant?
  When exactly did everyone on the planet wake up and decide history doesn't matter?
  
  History does matter. In the same way mass parties wouldn't have worked in 15th century Europe, they won't work now. Learning history is useful to understand how entire system of thought and action survived way past their relevance, doomed and incapable of understanding their own demise.
- French communist party
  
  What does that mean? The PCF is pretty much a dying party with basically no relevance.
- I agree btw

Lennin's "state and revolution" and accepting China as a communist country are in conflict with each other. Most tankies or "Marxist-Lenninist" are distorting both Marx and Lennin. Communism in one country can not exists for long without a global overthrow of the capitalist class. Yes, the state in these various countries control the economy more or less, but who controls the state? My assertion, and most other Trotskyists, is that its not the workers.
- Socialism in one country is certainly possible, Communism must be global. This has always been the case, and historical practice affirms this. The Trotskyist assertion needs to actually be backed by analysis, in the time of Trotsky support for Permanent Revolution came because of a lack of faith in the Peasantry, such issues are not the same in the PRC and moreover the Peasantry has been shown to authentically align with the Proletariat.
- I have never seen a Trotskyist on Lemmy before now.
- We addressed this point on Prolewiki: https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China#Abandoning_of_Marxism/Capitalist_restoration
  https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China#Democracy_and_popular_opinion
  China is actually a democracy
  
  A special kind of democracy where the leaders aren't elected huh? You have simultaneously redefined the word democracy and practiced doublethink

Tankie is a broad term. Are u just an idealist commie or do u legitimately support genocidal regimes?
I would like you to look into the commonalities in teaching methods between your beliefs/community, religion, neo Nazis, and ideological indoctrination in general. Look at the classic applications such as redefining meanings of words, the complete denial of descenting opinions simply because they are descenting, the belief in something greater than oneself etc etc.
I would like you to write down your most fundamental beliefs then right down your best argument for those beliefs then I want you to write you best argument to disprove that belief.
I would like you to come up with as many contradictions within your own ideology as possible without rationalising that contradictory belief to yourself.
I'd like u to read nineteen eighty four and then write an argument how the practice's of big brother have been used to indoctrinate you. Then right an argument against that argument.
I'm not here to tell you how to live or what to think I'd just like you to legitimately challenge your own thoughts to the best of your ability.
Good luck on your journey to becoming a free thinker.
- I’d like u to read nineteen eighty four and then write an argument how the practice’s of big brother have been used to indoctrinate you.
  I'd like you to read Isaac Asimov's review of 1984, followed by Orwell's review of Mein Kampf, and finally the Orwell's list wikipedia article, and then to ponder what you yourself might have been indoctrinated by.
- Isn't 1984 a fictional book?
  Have heard people say online that Inventing Reality and Manufactured Consent are better than that for analysis.
  Haven't read any of those books tho.
  Which would be better?
  
  1984 was intended as fictional. Eric Blair wrote it in 1948.
  I'm not sure that it is anymore.
  His books are all pretty good. "Down and out in Paris and London" (or is it London and Paris? It's been a minute) is one of my favourites.
- Meh if you want a good critique of the Bolsheviks by somebody who actually was an old Bolshevik check out the book We instead.