- cross-posted to:
- 196@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- 196@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
Agree with you in general, but I think a lot if people here are not really informed what differences there are materialistic ideologies.
Yes, Stalin bad.
But Guevara is not Stalin.
Marx is not che
Engels is not Marx
China is not communist.
Marxism is not materialism
Socialism is not communism
Also the amount of people bringing the “the 3 times people tried socialism were bad, so the whole ideology must be bad” argument are way to high IMHO.
How many times was capitalism tried? How many times it worked out? Is the USA a “functioning” state with all the oppression, racism, greed, invading other countries out of monetarian interest and environment destruction?
While I agree with you, that oppression is bad, no matter what the oppressor calls himself, we should talk about policies without resorting to dogmas and generalising people in favor of fear the hegemonic class is propagating to stay in power.
Yeah, that’s not the tankies here; these are “North Korea is a great country, actually” tankies.
Also, “anything negative about a communist country is US propaganda”
or “russia is correctly in invading ukraine”
Should probably listen to Blowback Season 3.
Not to say they’re a perfect country but to pretend that anyone in the West can critique them when their material conditions are dictated by the actions of the West is just comical.
If you aren’t a materialist, what are you even doing? As if history happens in the realm of pure thought…
The material conditions forcing North Korea to make work camps
Bugger off, tankie
Something something worlds largest prison population?
Again, it’s not like North Korea is some shining example or anything, but to pretend that the west has the moral high ground here is laughable.
Again, listen to Blowback Season 3, recognize that their country was basically bombed to the stone age Curtis le may style and then maybe reevaluate, just a little, the chauvinist attitude.
DPRK is not a great country but it’s not as if they were ever given a chance either.
Yeah, the US prison system is absolutely abhorrent and counterethical to all the principles it’s supposed to hold.
First, the US is basically the only western country like that:tm:, second, more than one thing can be bad. “‘North Korea is a great country’ is a dumb position”, the only (implied) assertion I made about it in my original comment, is still true, even if they got dealt a shit hand (which, so did most of the east after WW2; South Korea was in a pretty similar state (it was actually worse than NK shortly after the Korean war), yet they’re doing… much better than NK at least).
Being “basically bombed to the stone age” doesn’t mean a dictatorship is inevitable, nor that their government is suddenly blameless; being victimized doesn’t mean you can victimize others.
Genuinely, if you take “the west” as a whole and compare it to North Korea… yeah, I do think they have a high ground. No, I’m not saying the west is perfect, far from it. No, I’m not saying communism is automatically bad, I’m totally cool with communists.
Basically my base position is “a functional democracy is the governance system that works the best”. Most western states are much closer to that than North Korea (yes, I know what the Electoral College is and why it’s bad), so I do think their political system is better.
All of the so called ‘functional democracies’ of the West are abysmal, China has 94% government satisfaction where I doubt there’s one western country over 50% (and the US is at 24%)
When a liberal says “tankie” they mean anything remotely communist-looking. When a leftist says “tankie”, they mean authoritarians who like red flags and self-proclaimed communists who nonetheless support hierarchies and have no plan or intention to bring them down. I think the vast majority of people here knows this already.
I think the vast majority of people here knows this already.
You are way optimistic.
Mostly True, while (at least in my part of the world) there are a lot of people who like red flags but fight against hierarchies.
There are plenty of Marxists and Marxist-derived socialists who aren’t Tankies.
They just don’t make up the majority.
Is the USA a “functioning” state with all the oppression, racism, greed, invading other countries out of monetarian interest and environment destruction?
I hope you realize that this is an incredibly privileged take. The US is rife with issues, but the hardships experienced by the average western citizen doesn’t even compare to the suffering that you would find in, say, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, or (to a less extreme extent) Maduro’s Venezuela. To compare what a US citizen deals with on a daily basis due to capitalism to what a citizen of any of those countries had to go through is very reductive and may be perceived as disrespectful to many who had to live those experiences.
The United States, for all it’s faults, is the pretty side of capitalism.you don’t even need to look to the most poor countries to see a standard of living that makes even directly post ww2 soviet union look like a great place.
The US is rife with issues, but the hardships experienced by the average western citizen doesn’t even compare to the suffering that you would find in, say, Pol Pot’s Cambodia
I have some fellas from Detroit that would disagree.
My dude you need to stop right now before you end up saying that genocide isn’t that bad. Because that’s what Pol Pot did.
Genocide and pol pot is terrible. So is the USA.
Killing millions and being dysfunctional are in a different realm of terrible. I’m sorry, but how did you come to the conclusion that they are even comparable?
hm i wonder if theres any capitalist countries with a history of committing genocide…
Every genocide can be bad at all the same time. You know?
I’m all ears. Please give me a list so I can expand my understanding.
For the person dying of hunger is the same. But yeah, killing millions is bad and is something America NEVER did, right?
Implying the us is better than Cambodia because Cambodia committed genocide is very weird, considering that the US did so too
You can’t be serious…
-
Im not from USA, and from my point of view its mich worse than most other countries (no healthcare, no independend courts, murder sprees in schools nearly every day, opression of half of the world (a half of them just to get more oil to destroy the planet faster), one of 3 of the biggest war-pushers in whole earth, polutes and destroys earth mode than every other country per citizens, etc. PP.)
-
capitalism mostly opresses and profits from people out of the country to Funktion. if its Bad in Venezuela or Cuba or Afghanistan, or even early russia, thats at least partly fault of US.
-
Venezuela is not communism, China isnt, russia isnt. Most of them have failed, at least partly because caputalist societys atack them and stop a as soon as they are born and they can’t form a stable democracy. Before reading Marx, your bashing of communism isnt worth anything, as you clearly don’t understand what you are talking about. We never had communism, and some would say not even socialism. You sound like you don’t even know the difference, since you keep talking about communism, which is a utopian society after humanity has stopped a lot of bad habits and has learned to live without working against each other in competition and working together instead, which arises maybe after generations of workig socialism, which we clearly didn’t have.
4.you exactly prove my point. I dont agree with tankies either, but the number of people around here blindly copying capitalist propaganda while understanding nothing they bash about is too damm high.
-
Removed by mod
Seems weird that you want to ignore the fact that communism has never worked once lol
Capitalism has killed orders of magnitude more than communism.
There have been orders of magnitude more people living under capitalism than communism
yeah, and every time a communist country tried to pop up USAmerica sent Smedley Butler to ass blast them.
And Capitalism also killed more people than Fascism.
That doesn’t mean Fascists movements don’t need fiercer opposition than Capitalist Liberals.
Again: seems weitd that you think, a New thing needs to work after 3 -5 trys.
Capitalism was tried 100erds of times and still doesnt work…
Che was a Stalinist. Obviously his motivations and actions were purer, and he was by no means a monster.
But the adults who glorify him know his politics well.
Based.
They already have lemmygrad.
Honestly, I don’t think we need them here.
the have genzdong in there lol
tankies more like no thankies
This comment section is really something uh
Tankies on their way to explain why teaming up with the Nazis to conquer Poland is actually based and totally in line with Marxist philosophy.
Can you give an actual example?
Thank fuck. I thought Lemmy was some ultra militant leftist hellhole before the shift.
I don’t like extreme radical left any more than extreme radical right.
Fuck Che Guevara. Read a book.
tankies arent radical left. they are authoritarians ffs
Removed by mod
already have. maybe u should get urself another book to read for once.
Removed by mod
the US state department dogma must be a much better read😌
lmao
How will you perform a non-authoritarian revolution? How will you quash racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.? By being polite?
the main idea is dual power structures. spreading awareness, and people will do whats necessary, mobilize, organize, all that fun stuff. if u can teach people about the struggles of marginalized groups, they will be able to recognize it in their own lives and stand up against it.
Or are you going to vote us towards communism🤩
and there wont be a need for political parties to enforce “compliance”, people are naturally empathetic. well not all people, but the vast majority.
And I have plenty more books, but go on🤗
try “Are you an anarchist? the answer might surprise you” by David Graeber, if ur ever looking for something else.
or “Anarchy works” by Peter Gelderloos for a more comprehensive description of these ideas.
Removed by mod
Do you know its possible to read books and disagree with them?
The ML obsession with treating books as religious tomes is getting tiring.
what if the book is Che Guevaras “Guerrilla Warfare”
Is being a good tactician and being a genocidal, totalitarian extremist an oil and water situation?
He can be both.
How about Saw Gerrera?
Saw Gerrera is an extremist and must be brought to justice for the good of the Empire.
deleted by creator
c/EnlightedCentrism
there’s literally a community called “moretankie196”, they should go infest that one instead
“lemmygrad.ml” was the most infested for the last year, “lemmy.ml” the 2nd worst. They ban for being lucid. “.ml” stands for Marxist Leninist !
deleted by creator
actually it was chosen because the .ml domain is ludicrously cheap to get, like to the level of basically being free
I got banned from lemmygrad for saying acab means all cops lmao
finds social media developed by tankies
looks inside
finds tankies
fr I’m down with having a good old purge eventually but noone should be surprised
Removed by mod
Literally doing the “so much for the tolerant left” shtick.
removed by mod
Just removed like 40 comments and banned a buncha people.
What are some good actual communist lemmy communities that aren’t supporting the fucking capitalist imperialist russian invasion?
look for anarchists if you desire a classless, stateless, moneyless society.
communism has been coopted by auth apologists infatuated with the color red.
But what if I’m not an anarchist? I like Marx but not Lenin, so I can’t be an ML either.
There are an infinite variety of flavors of socialism, at some point you gotta learn to find folks you don’t disagree with on anything too important. In my experience anarchists are generally chill.
anarchism acknowledges Marxist theory, but rejects the need for a state/beaurocratic apparatus, as it is considered to be fundamentally oppressive.
the state is an abstraction of capital, and cannot liberate the working class, as it exists to perpetuate its own hegemonic existence, our subjugation.
governance need not be heirarchichal; I promote collective mutual determination as an egalitarian system by which society can organize.
can’t dismantle the master’s house with the master’s tools
governance need not be heirarchichal; I promote collective mutual determination as an egalitarian system by which society can organize.
I don’t. I don’t think all hierarchies are unjust, I evaluate them based on their effect on the world. If a hierarchy can solve a problem better, it’s the preferable solution.
Everyone believes they are capable of behaving reasonably themselves. If they think laws and police are necessary, it is only because they don’t believe that other people are. But if you think about it, don’t those people all feel exactly the same way about you?
But what if we all have a different idea of what behaving reasonably means?
Anarchists argue that almost all the anti-social behavior which makes us think it’s necessary to have armies, police, prisons, and governments to control our lives, is actually caused by the systematic inequalities and injustice those armies, police, prisons and governments make possible.
That’s silly. Systemic inequalities don’t make people park their vehicles on the bike path or murder their wife because they think she cheated on them. If anarchism is all about thinking people are angels unless bad, bad oppressive systems make them do evil things they couldn’t do on their own then I don’t think we’ll ever get along. It’s alternate reality and an incredibly naive way of looking at the world and human nature.
Edit: could you kindly not respond to this? I don’t have an option to silence this thread on my end, and don’t want to hear about it any further.
I promote collective mutual determination as an egalitarian system by which society can organize.
In practice, direct democracy? Or, how would that work - how would we organize society? Positions would still need to be held, no? Roles appointed, decisions made, lines drawn. No one can be up-to-date on all matters in their local nor global environment. And certainly not at the same point in time. How would anything work with any cohesiveness?
Sorry to be so dismissive, I’m actually kinda curious on your thoughts. Only ways I see are AI governance or a hive mind. Not sure about either tbh.
Removed by mod
I don’t know how any of that applies to what I said here.
Edit: I skimmed through the text on the first read because I was sleepy. After reading more carefully I guess you’re agreeing with me somewhat: yes, the necessity for certain types of organization in specific situations is why I dislike anarchism.
I don’t know why a certain ineffective administrative model would have to be coupled with a more equitable economic model. Although I didn’t want to argue that point, rather express a preference.
Removed by mod
I disagree that he ever did anything approaching Marxism. His writings and his actions are pretty distant from one another.
Removed by mod
communism has been coopted by auth apologists infatuated with the color red.
Which happened almost instantly. I don’t have much hope that other radical leftist movements will fare much better.
I’m on the FMHY instance and the only political ideology community that’s been showing up in my feed has been Anarchism, so it’s probably the instance to join if you’re libleft and don’t want to deal with Auth shit.
Can we have something like tankiejerk here? I seriously liked browsing that sub after a bad day with the red fashs.
that sub often tended towards outright anti-leftism
That’s the unfortunate thing.
Start criticizing the Soviet union and you’ll end up with a bunch of people left bashing in general.
Removed by mod
Okay Stalin’s Moustache,
Listen there’s more kinds of people than liberals tankies, and fascists.
There are also anarchist who can critizes these three groups ( and others) with out being within them.
I have no problem with ML and other comrades of various flavors but if your going to be really Into to stalin your not going to be working with me.
You should read about the Spanish civil war.
Removed by mod
Sure. There are plenty of people who are anarchists, who are people I would not work with. Like armchair anarchists.
And the word “tankie” does get used by armchair anarchists A lot often inappropriatly.
But still tankie is a valid crique of Red fascism.
And if you are a person who believes In communism, and can see it’s benefits but are unable to see it’s faults your probably a tankie.
Please remember on multiple instances The Soviets turned their back on anarchists. Like in the Spanish civil war.
To tankies fascist means opposing whatever flavor of authoritarian “communism” they prefer regardless of the reasons or context. This conveniently allows any number of pogroms, mass slaughters or engineered famines to be reframed as anti-fascist action, rather than a brutal expression of state power at the expense of the working class.
Then what would you have me call people who make excuses for invasion, oppression, and genocide just because it was committed by the Russian or Chinese government instead of a western one?
what with all the anti-communist fascists and all
“tankies” criticize the Soviet union, you know? They also criticize the ebil See See Pee but apparently there’s no room for nuance
What’s your definition of “tankie”? If you’re willing to call out Putin’s homophobic journalist murdering authoritarian bullshit and the Chinese government’s massacring of protesters and genociding of ethnic minorities you’re not a tankie imo, you’re just a communist.
Removed by mod
Westerners slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for decades on end, and it was fine because we labeled them all terrorists.
No, it wasn’t fine, that’s kinda the point… It isn’t fine when the west does it, it’s not fine when others do it too…
It’s pretty typical tankie behavior that we’re seeing.
When you say it’s bad that Stalin implemented genocidal policies such as against the Krim Tartars, Kalmykks and other ethnic groups, they come back with wHaT aBoUt aMeRiCa.
They know that both things can be bad, but they have similar incentives to right-fascists. That is to say they’re liars.
Removed by mod
I’m confused on your point.
well some people who are called “tankies” do. some of them are just rabid bhreznevites
Removed by mod
I really hate how ya’ll deliberately conflate tankies and all socialism/communism, and then conflate anyone being opposed to those concepts as inherently being a fascist.
Removed by mod
Tankies use “Liberal” just as the right does. Funny, that.
Removed by mod
well is there any actually existing socialist country that you would support?
is there any actually existing socialist country that is actually socialist?
yes, cuba is pretty uncontroversialy a socialist country
The Cuban working class does not self-administer the economy. Although Cuba is as close so a success as Marxism can get, Fidel’s policies of homophobic persecution - regardless of the fact that he regretted them - is proof positive of why authoritarian policies go wrong. Why no single person should have that level of power.
Because in spite of Castro’s evident good intentions, and the otherwise high level of success that Cuba has achieved, those atrocities still happened. And because of Authoritarian policies, no-one within Cuba could opposite it while it went on without facing persecution.
i’d never have seen it coming! /s
Nah, I joined their Discord for a bit and everyone there was a leftist.
didn’t they have a problem with people doing alt-right dogwhistles about anti-white racism recently? and it got so bad that they had to make a mod announcement telling people to stop doing it and all of the users started trying to explain to the mods how it definitely wasn’t a right wing dogwhistle
300 Comments already. Oh my god! Lol.
What’s a tankie?
Hard-core authoritarian communist. The kinda peeps who support Stalin and shit
Isn’t “authoritarian communist” kind of an oxymoron? 😂 like the whole point of communism is that there isn’t a ruling class. I guess Russia and China were never really communist, just statist authoritarian right? I mean, the Nazis called themselves Socialist. They were nowhere near that
Isn’t “authoritarian communist” kind of an oxymoron?
Yes. Yes, it is. I sometimes call them “pseudocommunists” for this reason.
Isn’t “authoritarian communist” kind of an oxymoron?
Most real life implementations of communism used an authoritarian one party system. You can say these aren’t true examples of communism, but that just ends up sounding like cope unfortunately.
None of those states ever gave economic or political power to the working classes.
Fair point. Though so far, there hasn’t really been any system at all that didn’t lead to genocide and/or class based opression. From monarchs to feudal Lords to capitalist oligarchies and communist dictators, terrible people always rise to the top.
As how Marx outlined Communism as the evolution of Capitalism once it reaches a scale of production that everyone can have their needs met, resulting in a classless, stateless, moneyless society, then yes authoritarian communist is an oxymoron.
Communism must be enforced somehow, it just ends up being authoritarian because of that
The same can be said for capitalism though.
Capitalism must be enforced somehow, it ends up being an oligarchy or authoritarian because of that.
Not sure I disagree, necessarily, but that’s the answer to your question.
it’s also not an either or situation
well socialism has the proletariat as the ruling class, this is true in Marxism & anarchism even if anarchists word it differently
The party leaders are not proletarian, but rather become part of a class of privileged bureaucrats.
there’s a trend towards that, which can be combatted & has been by communist parties. Stalin had a pretty incoherent plan to combat rightist tendencies within the communist party, assuming the problem stemmed from external meddling. Mao actually shared your view in that bureaucracy rots socialism, and that it needs to be decreased as the people are helped towards being self reliant, ready to self manage the economy & have suitable industry to run the country with. that’s why the cultural revolution happened, to fight bureaucracy
And yet in spite of the few positive things contributions Mao made, and some of the things he got right, he still positioned himself culturally to take up the position 'benign and distant emperor. Much as the contemporary regime prefers to pin all the horrors of the Cultural Revolution on the Gang of Four, many of Mao’s ideas themselves were harmful (such as wholesale and universal destruction of old culture).
Marxism-Leninism and its party structure has shown itself, in practice and historically, as being unable to resist this impulse to corruption and autocracy. It was Bolshevik counterrevolution that destroyed the power of the Worker’s and Soldier’s Soviets in Russia, Soviet counterrevolution that invaded Ukraine during its revolution, and then again Leninist party counterrevolution that prevented any of the (few) positive aspects of the cultural revolution from blossoming into anything useful.
Vanguard parties are counter productive, and counter revolutionary. The French revolution gives us the same lesson, as the Jacobin counter-revolutionary terror (with the oh-so-popular guillotine mostly used on the poor) created the space for reactionary backlash.
The centralization of power is, therefore, a counter-revolutionary impulse. Humans being are not suited for the rule and management of others. Only a revolution that truly returns power to the people has any chance of lasting. That’s why even the flawed and imperfect Kurdish revolutionaries of Rojava are sustaining the social and cultural infrastructure for revolution, while Marxists, Maoists and other authoritarian communists world-wide consistently either degrade into bandits and terrorists, or form corrupt and reactionary power-structures.
This is such a based comment. Good analysis and very well said.
The proletariat are by definition the majority. The Soviet Union was by no means ruled by the majority. Stalin murdered millions to enforce his autocracy—the exact opposite of majority rule.
just to chime in with an anarchist perspective-- majority rule, as lionized by proponents of liberal democracies, is itself a form of heirarchy in which the will of an ostensible ‘majority’ (though usually that of the capital- owning class actually) is inflicted upon society as a whole, alienating the minority position, enforced by the state apparatus’ monopoly of violence.
if one values bodily autonomy, reconciled with the needs of the collective, a system of governance like mutual collective determination must be established which guarantees that all voices are heard and acknowledged.
Stalin
Certain aspects of Stalin? Or in general?
Both. Fascist apologist like to cherry pick palatable characteristics of figures like Stalin, or Hitler, or Andrew Jackson in order to destigmatize thier idolatry of these figures. These “certain aspects” are the tip of the wedge they use to destroy rationality and peace.
A reasonable person who would like to discuss the benefits of communism would point to the value of labor, advantages of unions, and the dignity of the worker, not the evil, paranoid, and violent person of Stalin.
Always, the stink of fascism follows the idolization of so called “great men.” Excuses after excuses.
I appreciate you arguing even though it’s with a brick wall.
Lol. To the contrary! I think communist lady has proven to be in interesting person to argue with. 😅😅😅😅
deleted by creator
You’re the brick wall, so yeah. Read the meme lady. Easy block.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
The Holocaust most definitely happened and was perpetuated by the Nazis. Please don’t accuse me of denial.
Communism, or to be most specific, Marxism, was most definitely aligned against Hitler.
Stalin, was not. He would have watched Hitler kill all of Europe had the Nazis not attacked Russia. Same as the united states if Japan had not attacked them.
deleted by creator
I’m not obsessed with Stalin. I’m also not a Holocaust denier. You really seem keen on saying inflammatory things about me without any preceding context.
I will observe that I think Stalin was an awful person who tarnished the reputation of socialism for a century. I don’t have anything against socialist, being one myself.
I have a beef with apologist for failed communist states like the soviet onion. I feel they deeply misrepresent socialism.
Your historical notes are technically correct, and Stalin did even attempt to reach a pact with France to limit the potential expansion of Nazi Germany. However, once those initiatives failed, Stalin had no issue about pacting with Hitler instead to invade third countries together, which highlights how Stalin’s first priority was improving his geopolitical position, rather than an ideological opposition to nazism.
Do you deny the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact and the illegal attack on Poland by the Soviet union under its leader Josef Stalin?
I am of the strong opinion that fascism doesn’t care if you call yourself a communist, a capitalist, or a Democrat. If someone promotes a state which strips the power of local and individual labor for it’s own use; cultivates violence as a means of domestic control; supports expansionism; and finally the consolidation of power under a personality; I oppose it, and call it what it is.
deleted by creator
My comments are split now, so I’ll let you read my other one. I would just like to emphasize that I consider myself a socialist, and that it’s not really that vague of a criteria for the purposes of an Internet argument. It’s just broad. I believe all current world superpowers current share elements of fascism which I despise and oppose.
You’re a spineless coward, just admit you’re fine with genocide and totalitarianism so long as they have a red flag.
And then they killed millions of people to enforce Stalin’s autocracy. How, exactly, is that better than Hitler?
Removed by mod
All tankies ever have is name-calling.
Because they were attacked. Otherwise they would have happily sat out of ww2.
Removed by mod
Did you finish your book halfway through? Hitler and Stalin formed an alliance shortly after the Spanish civil war. Even though Hitler referred to Slavic people as untermench Stalin still signed treaties because they were at the end of the day both Fascist Authoritarian dictators and dont give a single fuck about committing crimes against humanity.
Nazism as an ideology set out to eradicate those seen as impure, and two of the most prominent of those targeted groups were communists and Slavic people. Hitler literally wanted to kill everyone who identified as a socialist. To think that the USSR was unaware or tolerant of this fact is a truly awful take.
Wow a commie who doesnt know history, not surprising. Firstly I never said USSR didnt know what Germany was doing, I said they didnt care. This is backed up by history. Yes Hitler hated the soviets and they probably disliked him to but they tolerated him and his crimes against humanity enough to form an alliance and work together. A little timeline of events to refresh your memory: 1939 USSR signs a non aggression pact with Germany. This pact includes plans to divide eastern europe between USSR and Germany, a clause that prevents the USSR from allying or aiding enemies of Germany. Shortly after Germany and the USSR double team Poland and split it up between them. After Stalin used the attack to capture a few eastern european countries he asked to join the Axis powers treaty. Stalin was warned multiple times that Germany was preparing to backstab him but rejected the warnings as he thought they were so allies. After it was confirm that Hitler had betrayed him he spent several days sulking in his holiday house refusing to communicate with his generals.
There is no way you can reasonably say that USSR disapproved of Hitlers action and Ideology. The only thing he would have had an issue with is that Hitler hated slavic people. He was even willing to put that aside because they both had authoritarianism in common.
Removed by mod
The fundamental problem of tankies is that they forget the whole point of socialism is making people’s lives better, not getting revenge on the hated capitalists. If you create an oppressive hellscape in the process of destroying capitalism then you’ve failed.
“I care deeply about the color of the boot”
“The Russian and Chinese boots just taste better, I tell you.”
“what if our classless stateless society had the right class controlling the state?”
When the Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968, there were some british leftists who cheered for those tanks driving into Prague. They proved by this that they didn’t care about leftism, socialism, democracy or anti-imperialism at all - they approved the imperialism and militarism of the Soviet regime.
Their praise for the rolling tanks is what gave them their name: Tankies.
So, people who love North Korea, or defend russia invading Ukraine, people, who stand by even the most autoritarian, anti-democratic, militaristic, imperialistic regimes - just because they call themselves “socialist” or “communist” - are “Tankies”.
oh ok so bhreznevites
And Stalinist, Maoists, and other authoritarian Communists.
Usually they also “love” countries like North Korea, China, and for whatever reason (aNtI iMpErIaLiSm), Syria, Russia, and so on.
Red Fascists. They use the same tactics of gas lighting and goal post shifting.
And engaging in bad faith but accusing everyone else of engaging in bad faith.
Yes. They have essentially the same incentives as right-wing fascists.
Say whatever sticks and keep your opinions in a superposition, collapsing into what fits you best in the moment. They’re not called red fash for nothing.
maoists??? I think you should read anything by mao. he was anything but “authoritarian”, he spend most of his time after 1949 taking a sledgehammer to bureaucracy & encouraging communities to be self reliant
And also going around making lunatic declaration, indifferent to the human suffering he was causing.
So, people who love North Korea, or defend russia invading Ukraine, people, who stand by even the most autoritarian, anti-democratic, militaristic, imperialistic regimes - just because they call themselves “socialist” or “communist” - are “Tankies”.
Would be good to point out these people you are mentioning are not all the same.
There are people that Are critical of Russia, but don’t buy from western propaganda and are being called tankies too.
It is more like, if one dare to question the western narrative = tankie.
but don’t buy from western propaganda
i.e. are critical of russia, but stand by even the most autoritarian, anti-democratic, militaristic, imperialistic regimes - just because they call themselves “socialist” or “communist”, except for russias invasion of ukraine
lol.
most autoritarian, anti-democratic, militaristic, imperialistic regimes
you meant UK, USA or both?
i was just quoting the other commenter. but dont forget about china, nazi germany, north korea, etc.
Yeah sure. So lets ban the USA apologists together with all these tankies?
fine by me. fuck the US
Removed by mod
btw seens a paradox that you guys so “pro freedom” are asking for bans of people that you disagree.
it may seem that way, but no. pro-freedom actually means keeping people away who wanna take our freedom. i.e. authoritarians like tankies
keeping people away who wanna take our freedom. i.e. authoritarians like tankies
what did they do to take your freedom? built this whole platform we are using right now?
just because they do good things too doesnt make them perfect
isn’t that the same logic that the tankies are using though - because they think they have to be authoritarian to the people who they believe are trying to take their freedoms i.e. capitalists?
a community not welcoming assholes =/= a state killing everyone who’s in their way. one is authoritarian, the other is not.
“Paradox of tolerance”
what is your taking on Israel killing Palestinians?
That’s a genocide, and the western world deny.
Thanks, that was very helpful.
Now, can you explain the 196 reference for me?
Oh that’s a can of worms.
Also, I created a community for leftist infighting here:
https://lemmy.ml/c/leftistinfighting
It’s a free and open forum for respectful and good-natured name-calling, debating, and infighting. But dickheads aren’t allowed.
A nazi with red aesthetic
Removed by mod
I do, but you don’t.
deleted by creator
Spez and Unidan made reddit and no-one likes them either
deleted by creator
fair
Unidan didn’t make reddit wtf u talking about
I mean Aaron Swartz
deleted by creator
Yes that’s right, you see, Aaron Swartz was a “free speech absolutist” who allowed for things like /r/creepshots and allowed for cp on early reddit. https://archive.is/d4NPt
deleted by creator
It’s the prog-lib equivalent of woke. It’s used dismiss leftists with out engaging with our arguments. The term has lite ideological or argumentative use.
Libs use it that way, actual leftists use it to describe fascists that think they’re on the left and like red flags.
Removed by mod
radical solidarity, mutual aid, armed community defense. none of these require the state apparatus.
Without a state to enforce environmental regulations, how do you intend to defend your community from pollution? By attacking the polluters with guns? They have guns, too. Probably more guns than you do, since pollution is so profitable.
Without a state to defend against invasion, what’s going to stop some other country from marching in and enslaving you? Small arms won’t protect you from a modern military; only a modern military of your own will, and without a state, who will command it?
Without a state to enforce mutual aid, what’s going to stop others from withholding it while taking yours? By the expectation that no one will be so greedy as to withhold needed aid? Then your proposed system will fail almost immediately. By some sort of aid credit that groups of people exchange equally in order to ensure that aid given equals aid received? Congratulations, you have invented capitalism.
The state apparatus exists for a reason. It has of course been abused, but we can’t simply get rid of it and expect everything to be fine, or else we’d have already gotten rid of it a long time ago.
If you’re in a position where you can freely oppress the capitalist class then you’ve already supplanted them and become the capitalist class.
Removed by mod
There won’t be a capitalist class when their assets are seized.
Removed by mod
Yes, because lunatics that support dictators just because they have wrapped a red flag around themselves and drop occasional buzzword are totally leftists.
I have always wondered why it always says “Kick _” when she is punching instead of kicking. Lol.
Honest question - what’s a tankie? I feel like I’ve seen them mentioned a ton on Lemmy but I’d never heard the term prior to a few days ago. From the image it looks like a maga/skinhead combo?
They’re communists, but not your every day “people should hold the power” communists. More like “tianenmen never happened, and if it did it wasn’t that bad” type
Which makes them no different from the western imperialists they hate so much.
exactly
Tankie was first used for that kind of communist supporter who kept singing Russia’s praises/defending Russia even when Russia was sent 5000 tanks to crush a popular uprising in Czechoslovakia (the “Prague Spring”) on August 20, 1968. Some people just couldn’t accept that a communist country could do something bad, so defended the action.
Nowadays, it’s used to refer to those that are strongly supportive of Russia, completely ignoring the awful things they do. Often these days there’s a lot of anti American bent to it. Like, anything anti America and American “imperialism” must be good - even blatant and awful Russian Imperialism.
These days they calmly explain how Ukraine just needs to come to the table and discuss peace (ignoring that Ukraine wouldn’t exist if they did so) and blame America for the war in Ukraine for… well… they’re America. The people who want war, or are causing the war, are those giving Ukraine weapons - not the country that is literally invading it.
Thanks for the explanation. I believe they are also called Rashists, at least Ukrainians call them that.
I think a better term is “Campist” which is the trend within revisionist marxists to side with one imperialist camp to oppose another. it’s the same shit the SPD did during WW1
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie
Basically, it’s Communists who support authoritarianism.
what is “authoritarianism” to you?
heirarchy in any form
well that’s just childish isn’t it
do you consider that a rebuttal?
yes because it’s not anything intelligent enough to be thoughtfully argued against. a 7 year old could see the holes in such an idea
I oppose one more system of authority than you do, in the interest of ideological consistency, intellectual honesty.
are you taking the position of a literal child?
how is a small group of people commanding a big mass better?
at least over time there will always be power hungry asshole or just an idiot in position of power.no power for no one is the only concept that can really work over time. but you need self-responsible and educated people for that
edit: and yeah, it is a utopian idea, but one I believe it is worth working for
Removed by mod
"he’s not hurting the right people, " painted red
Removed by mod
I’m an anarchist, but nice try.
But as soon as they see anyone to their left with any kind of organization or even a respect for their forebearers, a switch flips in their brains and all they see or hear is “tyranny”.
Leninism is a right-wing variation of Marxism.
Removed by mod
It’s almost as if using force to overcome oppression isn’t the same as deliberatively hurting people.
Lest we forget, the Jacobin terror and the guillotine was almost entirely turned on the poor and working peoples.
And Stalin’s genocide targeted ethnic and cultural minorities. Not even to mention Stalin’s forced-birthing policies and homophobia (that went against Lenin’s earlier and relative social liberalism).
There’s a lot of abstractions in that link but I think the following action is a meaningful distinction to call out:
The term is also used to describe people who endorse, defend, or deny the crimes committed by communist leaders such as Vladimir Lenin,[7][8] Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and Kim il-Sung.
Originally, it was used to describe communists who followed the party line and supported suppressing Hungarian workers with tanks.
Today it means ultra-authoritarian marxist-leninist.
I mean there is a word for that that’s less derogatory: Stalinist
It’s not entirely the same though. Some of the “tankies” in the West seem to be Maoists more than Stalinists, as far as I can tell. Besides, some (many?) Stalinists also consider the term “Stalinist” derogatory, and prefer to call themselves “Marxist-Leninists”.
Ok but let’s not pretend that either Marx or Lenin envisaged their form of communism as what Stalin was doing
It’s no different to “free speech” suddenly meaning “free hate speech, but restricted speech on anything else”
We want to use the more derogatory term because Tankies don’t just have bad takes, but are actively harmful and dangerous counterrevolutionaries.
From the image it looks like a maga/skinhead combo?
For context, the image originally said kick nazis out of punk.
Oh okay, got it. Thanks!
genocide denier and hard authoritarian. fash dressed in red, basically.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Instead of fascists and capitalists
MLs not realizing that they are pretty much both.
Removed by mod
Concrete views like the idea that the government being able to jail dissenters at will is bad? That unlimited state power inevitably leads to authoritarianism? That labeling yourself socialist doesn’t necessarily mean you’re actually a socialist state?
You’re so insufferably cocksure in your positions everywhere else, but when someone honestly asks what a tankie is, you just get defensive and can’t master up the courage to just say what it is that you stand for? I really get the impression that you’re just here to stir up shit.
Removed by mod
