Authoritarian, as in I believe a strong state is important to facilitate the transition to communism and safeguard against imperialist and capitalist interest.
Once the dialect is complete and communism has been achieved, that authoritarianism can be revisited, but that’s another conversation.
Define Tankie? I’m an authcom and I think I have seen one person use it as a slur correctly…
I get you don’t have to defend the choice and you do you, but people too lazy to read recently using it as a catchall for authcom is absurd.
Edit: in retrospect, don’t even know why I’m arguing this here. I have a lemmygrad acct for commieposting, this account is for hornyposting and they’re only the same thing when pictures of young Castro are involved…
Glad to hear it. Good choice to ditch both.
Nobody gives up power willingly, with very few exceptions. I would say that is not auth specific.(Ironically Stalin tried to step down multiple times, we can debate the authetisity of those times elsewhere.)
From a purely materialist pov, once we reach sustainable communism, the state is no longer required to manage material division. At that point, to be honest, I don’t know. I would like to think that a state without purpose would simple wither, but I think we all know that is highly idealistic. So I’m going to cop out and say let’s focus on getting there first.
I’m an optimist at heart. ( Think Che’s quote on a revolutionary love) And I would want to believe that no one wants power if there is no reason material reason to pursue it. I also understand that is grossly naive and unrealistic. So how do we handle it… Man that’s a hell of a question huh? If you find a good answer, let me know?
Che’s quote I mentioned with context: https://www.quotescosmos.com/quotes/Che-Guevara-quote-23.html