Again, it’s physically, dialectically, impossible to simultaneously be for “workers own and collectively operate the means of production” and “unelected autocratic dictatorship owns and operates means of production”. It’s either or, there is no shared ownership between the two. Same goes for the question “who is in charge of fruits of the labour” and “who is in charge of natural resources”. It’s either collective, by any mean, or autocrat.
So when they say “I want autocracy” they necessarily pick one of those, and it’s not one that is called socialism (or communism for that matter).
If “the party” is “the worker’s party,” or “the collective,” as has historically been the case, it absolutely can be. It’s like the rightoids claiming the nazis were socialist, they just want to pretend the worst parts of their ideology are actually someone else’s ideology instead of just admitting “yes, X can be done wrong, it can also be done this other way which I think is right.”
The fact that tankies are leftists isn’t an admonishment of leftists at large, the leftists at large’s inability to admit tankies are “the demon within themselves” (in terms of whole party not in you necessarily,) is however.
Of course, many on the right and left define their side as “everything good,” and the other as “everything bad,” so, if you’re one of those, then yeah I guess, whatever dude. In any case this conversation seems pointless, you’ve determined that “leftist authoritarians can’t be leftists frfr” and nothing I say will make you see just how silly that is.
Again, it’s physically, dialectically, impossible to simultaneously be for “workers own and collectively operate the means of production” and “unelected autocratic dictatorship owns and operates means of production”. It’s either or, there is no shared ownership between the two. Same goes for the question “who is in charge of fruits of the labour” and “who is in charge of natural resources”. It’s either collective, by any mean, or autocrat.
So when they say “I want autocracy” they necessarily pick one of those, and it’s not one that is called socialism (or communism for that matter).
If “the party” is “the worker’s party,” or “the collective,” as has historically been the case, it absolutely can be. It’s like the rightoids claiming the nazis were socialist, they just want to pretend the worst parts of their ideology are actually someone else’s ideology instead of just admitting “yes, X can be done wrong, it can also be done this other way which I think is right.”
The fact that tankies are leftists isn’t an admonishment of leftists at large, the leftists at large’s inability to admit tankies are “the demon within themselves” (in terms of whole party not in you necessarily,) is however.
Of course, many on the right and left define their side as “everything good,” and the other as “everything bad,” so, if you’re one of those, then yeah I guess, whatever dude. In any case this conversation seems pointless, you’ve determined that “leftist authoritarians can’t be leftists frfr” and nothing I say will make you see just how silly that is.