Crown Prince Thutmose

Anarcho-Stalinist over here doesn’t seem to know what he actually believes.

Champions Stalinist Stagism and Leninist vanguard states, simultaneously refusing to acknowledge that the state is the subset of the population with judicial authority that the fasces symbol refers to.

Good, if people can decide for themselves if they want to support this hypothesis of yours.

And when they reject your fascism? How will you respond?

We’ll let others decide if they want to organize organically around the community and the international workers, or your messianic quasi-religion.

There is no need for a messianic vanguard state. We can let others decide how we organize, and you will have to accept that.

You are a fascist, though. You admitted that your worldview requires a state, and we also established that your two-stage hypothetical is a fairy tale that you can’t back up.

I think I’m going to ramp up my criticisms of Marxist-Leninism after this conversation. People can decide for themselves.

Haha, yep.

I often use venns to describe it. If the left (p) represents egalitarianism, and the right (q) represents despotism, then centrist (pq) ideologies necessarily straddle both, making them, at the very least, non-egalitarian because they’re incorporating either political or economic class hierarchy.

It really upsets you when people reject your fascism, doesn’t it? The thing about fascists is that they need a state to force their ideology on others. That’s why you’re unable to accept the idea that society doesn’t need to go through your state capitalist structure.

What are you going to do?

Nah.

The judgement has already been made that we’ll let others decide how they wish to organize. Your stance is inherently fascist and absolutist, which is why you reject the notion of others deciding for themselves. It requires obedience, regardless of they say.

That’s an interesting set of hypotheses. I think that we’ll let others decide if they prefer to work with community organizers and worker unions, or some Stalinists spouting quasi-religious hypotheticals about the necessity of two-stages.

Whatever you need to tell yourself at night to sleep, champ. While you’re plotting secret coups based on Stagist assumptions, the rest of the world will move on.

So, more denial of red fascism? I think we’re done here. You’re living in a Stalinist fantasy world. Thankfully you’ll never be in a position of power to abuse it.

@pyrrhonismorg.bsky.social, any thoughts or feedback on this? Does the timeline look accurate to you?

The bigger question is, how are you going to achieve this Stalinist vanguard society without resorting to fascism. You keep trying to use fascism to address fascism.

Left is egalitarian, and you already acknowledged that your worldview requires a state. This just seems like a case of American supremacism.

You want it for yourself, let us be clear.

A strange way to say that you just want power, no?

If you want to be part of the vanguard ruling class, then why don’t you just own it?

I can hear your goose-stepping from here, dude.

I’m afraid that you haven’t made a very convincing argument. I think I’ll continue promoting the idea of international worker and community organization, and especially the deconstruction of the judicial monopoly on violence.

Marxist-Leninism is Stalinism. You don’t need to organize society around a state. That’s a fascist mentality that you carry, not a fact of human behaviour. You will have to accept that your perspective, while interesting, is a hypothetical.

No, it’s descriptive of your Stalinist worldview. You keep circling back to Stagism because your entire worldview is built on it. You said yourself that your worldview requires a state.

No? Can’t answer the question?

That’s what red fascists usually say to justify their state capitalist framework, yes.

What does this say?

Why would I need to do that when you can’t get to egalitarianism with a state?

I’m going to continue supporting a decentralized worker and community movement because state capitalism isn’t a necessary stage for social organization.

What’s the answer to the actual question? Have you considered it?

There is no necessary step in which societies need to pass through. We already established that. That’s stagism.

Does your worldview require a state?