2·
27 days agorule of law and property rights are secondary to them.
‘Secondary’ is being generous. They’d likely see them purely through a pragmatic lens instead of seeing them as legitimate concepts.
The core point of socialism is to eliminate private property altogether (not to be confused with personal property!), and socialist theory considers the current laws to be effectively dictated by the owning class through systemic influence over politicians, judges, mass media and other systematic pressures, rather than rules proposed or ratified by people like you and me, or for the benefit of people like us. So it makes sense for them to see rule of law as illegitimate, as a tool for the bourgeois class to maintain their dominance over the working class.
Ah, I see, yeah I was just talking about theory and ideology, the behaviour of activists rather than governments, which can be much simpler.
I’d assume a tankie perspective (based on my understanding of historical Lenin/Bolshevik perspectives, plus the event that the name ‘tankie’ came from) is that their government/party represents the worker class, and that when push comes to shove, the most important thing is to maintain the revolution and avoid capitalist counterrevolution, so if that ultimately demands sacrificing rule of law, property rights, liberties and even suspending democracy, they would insist the ends justify those means. Their view is that there’s no point in pursuing ideals like property rights and rule of law if that means the government falls and those rights collapse anyway. So they justify pragmatic compromise. And what happened to Jack Ma is an example, they’d rather remove Ma’s rights than permit that amount of capitalist power.