Communism is generally held to be about class and state abolition

which are hierarchies, and the criticism of these are based on the same root issue that all hierarchies have. i admit that this statement was somewhat inflammatory, altho i firmly believe that anarchism is the natural conclusion of the communist idea.

Delegates in your model still have hierarchy,

no. the power is always among the people who choose the delegate, formulate their mandate, and can recall them at any time.
the delegate has no power over the people, nor is the delegate coerced into their role.

and u can call the PRC socialist all u like, but that still dont make it true.

Inter-class hierarchy exists, ie bourgeois and proletarian, but intra-class hierarchy also exists, ie worker and manager. The Marxist critique of class involves the fact that there's hierarchy, but that's not the focus, the focus is on class as a social relation to production as informed by ownership. I'm more than willing to agree that your critique is the general anarchist critique, and I'm okay with you preferring anarchism, I just think that if you're trying to argue that Marxism isn't a communist ideology because it doesn't hold the same view of hierarchy as anarchism does, that that's a bit myopic.

no. the power is always among the people who choose the delegate, formulate their mandate, and can recall them at any time. the delegate has no power over the people, nor is the delegate coerced into their role.

Just because the delegate was elected and is subject to recall doesn't mean it isn't a hierarchy, though. Unless your point is that the delegate can only do what 100% of those who elected them want, and if any oppose them then they have no power, but in that case everything would collapse to a halt. The PRC has delegates and elections, and recall elections too, so I'm not sure I understand your criticism with that.

As for not considering the PRC socialist, are you saying it doesn't fit the anarchist conception of socialism, or the conception of socialism that includes Marxism as socialist? Ie, is your argument that the PRC does not meet the Marxist understanding of socialism as well as the anarchist? This is something that needs heavy judtification if so, but if you just mean the anarchist conception then I agree, the PRC isn't anarchist and isn't pretending to be.

[dude with glasses in a communist t-shirt, arguing]
I'm the only leftist here, your opinions are TRASH

[dude holding a theory book on smug, arguing]
Read theory you losers, you're all WRONG

[dude in an anarchist hoodie, arguing]
Nuh-uh, I'm the only leftist here, you're SHITLIBS

[the three dudes are now caught in a cartoon fight, glasses gone flying, punches everywhere, while a firing squad of nazis are targeting them with rifles]

[a confused nazi asks]
Why… why are they still arguing?

ok this gotta be my last response bc i got better shit to do today.

so first off, i simply dont care what the marxist definition or critique of something is, so yes, please understand it as just the general anarchist critique.

Unless your point is that the delegate can only do what 100% of those who elected them want,

well yes, if they want to stay a delegate they have to comply with the mandate they were given.
i also understand that there may be practical considerations that lead ppl to choose weak (e.g. 95%) consensus decisions, and u can call that hierarchical if u like, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt strive to abolish all hierarchies.

the way u have described the PRC does not sound like they have delegates, rather representatives. ive already explained the difference.

as for considering the PRC state capitalist, this is my conception (altho i know a few marxists who agree), and so far ive only argued about the ownership situation and not touched upon wealth accumulation or markets at all, but i think ive still made a fair argument.

Actually maybe we shouldn't call it "left politics", just "human politics", because it's politics for the human, not for some mega-corps.

You're just an astroturf. You are what's a stop to any temporary left unity, not those who you accuse with ridiculous strawmen.

Or maybe I did, and I disagree with your interpretation.

One of the Lemmy Devs was saying that being transgender was promoted by the bourgeois

I'm not uniting with people who will kill me later. We've done that multiple times. Your ilk always betrays us.

It's why ranked choice is the only sane voting approach. First past the post heavily favors right wing authoritarians.

[dude with glasses in a communist t-shirt, arguing]
I'm the only leftist here, your opinions are TRASH

[dude holding a theory book on smug, arguing]
Read theory you losers, you're all WRONG

[dude in an anarchist hoodie, arguing]
Nuh-uh, I'm the only leftist here, you're SHITLIBS

[the three dudes are now caught in a cartoon fight, glasses gone flying, punches everywhere, while a firing squad of nazis are targeting them with rifles]

[a confused nazi asks]
Why… why are they still arguing?

It's a specific type of leftist we have in my country, french communists are a… special breed, let's say.

In the 1980s our communist party bulldozed a migrant worker dormitory because they hated migrants that much. Red MAGA or something. The party recovered from that era, but french communists are still chauvinistic, xenophobic, and strangely not that much into anti-imperialism (which is meant to be the redeeming quality of tankies). They do however share with tankies the traits of applying "class first" logic to a lot of conversations, which makes them deathly allergic to intersectionality, and being terminally online and way into infighting. Thus they usually end up booted from actual activist groups, since they tend to hold us back and prevent us from actually getting shit done in the streets.

Hence me calling them pseudo-tankies because it's hard to label them. We just call them tankies here: they're members of a party that supported the crushing of the hungarian uprising with soviet tanks, and is ambiguous about tienanmen (no denying it happened but very alt-history about it), so pro-tanks they are.

I have an easier time getting along with the average online american tankie than with our local communist party's members.

[dude with glasses in a communist t-shirt, arguing]
I'm the only leftist here, your opinions are TRASH

[dude holding a theory book on smug, arguing]
Read theory you losers, you're all WRONG

[dude in an anarchist hoodie, arguing]
Nuh-uh, I'm the only leftist here, you're SHITLIBS

[the three dudes are now caught in a cartoon fight, glasses gone flying, punches everywhere, while a firing squad of nazis are targeting them with rifles]

[a confused nazi asks]
Why… why are they still arguing?

Ok. Neither did the communist revolutions of the 20th century permanently damage communism as a political system.

Watch the news, talk to people, "communism bad" is all they blurt out without thinking.

So if there one thing I'd be happy for you take out of this convo, is that I am in no way supportive of US-style polemics about "this is such a communist shithole!" or any of the variety of standardized phrases comparing "capitalism" to "communism".

When I lived in the US, this was extremely annoying! That being said, that doesn't mean I am going to deny reality.

Ok. Neither did the communist revolutions of the 20th century permanently damage communism as a political system.

But they have. There are no more communist countries. The remaining countries that are marketed as communist, have long become authoritarian capitalist countries.

There is zero mass momentum towards "communist" parties. Many "communist" parties are little more than fronts for places like russia (a hyper-capitalist shithole with a majority of the population committed to genocidal imperialism).

Anarchists and communistic system have indeed existed before the USSR/CCP China appeared, but they are not functionally comparable to an ideology-focused communist government regime.

It's like saying commerce, competition, innovation are element of capitalism, when these things have existed before capitalism and will likely exist after capitalism (in the polemical sense) becomes mostly a matter of history books.

Besides, so called “liberal democracies” have done far more evil than the USSR or Communist China. In fact, they’re doing a repeat of the Holocaust as we speak. Does that “permanently (without any chance of rehabilitation) discredit democracy as a legitimate ideology”?

This is false.

Sure, if you’re a complete dullard who has mainlined nothing but pure, concentrated cold war propaganda without any thought or consideration, without ever bothering to open a single book on political theory. Everyone else is not that stupid.

This is not cold war propaganda. I was born in the USSR, as was my family. I live in a country that was occupied under the banner of communism under the USSR.

I oppose the current oligarch regime and I have an extremely negative view of the American political system. That being said, communism is not the answer.

Communism is the past. It's history. It's done.

We need to build something better (often inspired by the ideals of Marx), we are wasting chasing a dead end ideology; this only makes the oligarchs and the criminals stronger.

[dude with glasses in a communist t-shirt, arguing]
I'm the only leftist here, your opinions are TRASH

[dude holding a theory book on smug, arguing]
Read theory you losers, you're all WRONG

[dude in an anarchist hoodie, arguing]
Nuh-uh, I'm the only leftist here, you're SHITLIBS

[the three dudes are now caught in a cartoon fight, glasses gone flying, punches everywhere, while a firing squad of nazis are targeting them with rifles]

[a confused nazi asks]
Why… why are they still arguing?

If you're throwing the word "liberals" around, you're an authoritarian, which is no better than being a fascist.

This is why I can't stand Tankies and establishment Democrats. You can't claim to be a champion of human rights, while simultaneously supporting the governments that egregiously violate peoples' human rights. Complete and utter hypocrites.

Edit: See what I mean? All of you suck.

Sounds like you're the one betraying us

I don't care what someone calls themselves as long as they oppose fascism and understand that the only place where Pedophiles are welcome is the inside of a wood chipper.

They would also tell me to my (virtual) face that they think my country has no right to exist, so that too makes it pretty hard to have any sort of productive collaboration.