nowadays tankie just means someone who shills for china/russia with a communist background
Communists support the PRC as a Socialist state run by Marxist-Leninists, yes. No Communist supports the Russian Federation outright, however, only reserved, temporary, and highly critical support for Russia’s anti-US Hegemony stance, which it only adopts for its own survival and not out of any moral superiority. No Communist “shills” for the Russian Federation.
If China is a socialist state worth supporting then I’m a donkey with a laser dick :P But I’m more anarchistically inclined so different perspective.
I see your point though. What I’m saying is not that communist = tankie, on the contrary. I’m saying that tankies claim to be communists but spend all day parroting their favorite Russian or Chinese state propaganda because they believe everything else is clearly controlled by Obamna™ himself. They rarely actually talk about communism, they just roam Lemmy all day calling everybody who disagrees with them a liberal :D
The conversation around China will take a minute, so I’ll skip ahead to your second paragraph and circle back to do your statement justice.
The people you describe as “tankies” do not exist in any reasonable number. You are extending a belief in some aspects of anti-western sources as full blind dogmatism. Secondly, in order to even consider oneself a Communist in a western-dominated website means exposure to constant western-narrative, the idea that eastern propaganda is much more effective is more of a smokescreen to avoid discussing hard topics than anything else.
As for the PRC, they absolutely aren’t Anarchist. They are, however, Marxist-Leninist, and Socialist. They have a Socialist Market Economy. Their Public Sector has supremacy over the direction of the Private Sector as key heavy industries the Private Sector relies on are entirely State Owned, and the Private Sector itself is trapped in a “birdcage model” whereby the CPC increases ownership and control as Markets naturally form monopolist syndicates.
This is entirely in line with Marxism. Marxists believe that markets naturally centralize and form monopolist syndicates ripe for central planning, and thus are more efficient vectors for growth at earlier stages in development, but that as they centralize this becomes less efficient and public ownership and central planning takes priority.
I recommend the article Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism.
The people I’m describing as tankies are people I’ve interacted with myself. I’m sure they don’t exist in huge numbers, but they are more concentrated on .ml, they are loud, and they are impossible to converse with. I still like it here because most people here, like yourself, are smart and offering interesting perspectives I haven’t explored before.
I agree that the idea of only Eastern propaganda being dangerous and pervasive is wrong. Western propaganda is everywhere too and also dangerous.
One thing that is different is the lack of government-critical sources available from China, also Russia. Freedom of Speech in the West is wobbly, but in China and especially Russia it is even worse (from everything I’ve read).
This is a lovely segue into our China sidequest, and while I agree on the definition, I have doubts on how public the public sector really is. The way that national election results look and the way vocal dissidents or political opposition are treated does not give me the idea that the people truly have all the power here.
Capitalism concentrates power in the capitalist class. This class can then subvert democracy, resulting in oligarchy. In a similar way, central planning concentrates power in the central government, which actually makes it even easier to abuse that power. Chinese government is not transparent nor federal enough for me to call it democratic or owned by the people.
I appreciate you calling me smart and trying to have a conversation, however I want to stress something you said:
I’m saying that tankies claim to be communists but spend all day parroting their favorite Russian or Chinese state propaganda because they believe everything else is clearly controlled by Obamna™ himself. They rarely actually talk about communism, they just roam Lemmy all day calling everybody who disagrees with them a liberal :D
What you are seeing is one aspect of people, and moreover the ones with “favorite state propaganda” that distrust all western sources as liberal propaganda don’t exist. Even just seeing people debating endlessly on Lemmy.ml is just one aspect, people frequently have different accounts or discuss Communism on different threads than the ones they get into debates in.
Additionally, I encourage you to look beyond the western veil. There are plenty of Russia-critical sources and China-critical sources in the east.
With respect to China, I encourage you to look into processes like Whole Process People’s Democracy, State Owned Enterprises, and other aspects to see how Socialism with Chinese Characteristics works. I encourage you to read the article I linked, as well. Additionally, while I know you said you are an Anarchist, your point on centralization being a bad thing goes directly against Marxist understanding. I recommend the article Why Public Property?
Capitalism concentrates itself and centralizes, which prepares the productive forces for the mechanisms required to centerally plan them after folding them into the Public Sector. Central Planning is the only way to truly democratize production in the eyes of Marxists.
One thing that is different is the lack of government-critical sources available from China, also Russia. Freedom of Speech in the West is wobbly, but in China and especially Russia it is even worse (from everything I’ve read).
What have you read?
Your freedom of speech is tolerated in the West to the extent thst it doesn’t threaten ruling class interests. The ruling class already owns all of the papers and TV channels and think tanks, they drown you out. You can never hope to push socialism through their apparatus. That is how effective their cemsorship already is: you’re told you have freedom of speech and then deplatformed. If you get a little louder, you might get a platform on occasion, but will then will still be drowned out by “competing” views.
And if you fly too close to the sun, you will get direct government censorship. Ask Germany how “free speech” is going with regards yup Palestinian solidariry. Ask comrades in the US how free speech is going with Samidoun declared a terrorist orgsnization. Ask a former Black Panther for free their speech was while being soued on snd martyred by the feds and cops.
If you actually do anything that matters, if you truly challenge the ruling powers in the West, you will need to be realistic and expect oppression. The idea that you have free speech is just pure propaganda.
Re: China go on Weibo you will find plenty of criticism of the government. The idea that you can’t criticize the government in China is xenophoboc propaganda.
Re: Russia: okay, but what is your point? There are bad things that happen in Russia so… their role against US imperialism is bad? Because that tends to be the only thing supported by “tankies”. The Russian Federation is a capitalist project created by capitalist revanchist shock therapy on the USSR that killed 7-10 million people. The West created the RF, its “oligarchs” are hust centralized capitalists like in othet countries in Europe, except the West continued to exclude Russia from the imperisl core, attempting to force it into the periphery (extraction snd poverty). What you see today is a regional capitalist power that is respinding to that. One where the national bourgeoisie are dominant rather than the international bourgeoisie, due to circumstances imposef on them. As a consequence, they often align against Western imperislism.
This is a lovely segue into our China sidequest, and while I agree on the definition, I have doubts on how public the public sector really is. The way that national election results look and the way vocal dissidents or political opposition are treated does not give me the idea that the people truly have all the power here.
Which is to say, you don’t actually know anything about it. Public means state-owned, by the way. Do you believe they aren’t actually owned by the state?
Capitalism concentrates power in the capitalist class. This class can then subvert democracy, resulting in oligarchy.
This has the false premise that the historical course of capitalism is to enter spaces that were already “democratic” in the bourgeois democratic sense. This is not true. Instead, capitalism itself gained power through the replacement of feudalistic giverning powers (like monarchies) with structures they could control, compatible with their ideas of “progress”. In short, they created bourgeous democracy. They were already in control. The question of concentration of capital changes the words but not the fact of who is in control.
In a similar way, central planning concentrates power in the central government, which actually makes it even easier to abuse that power.
In countries run by socialists, central planning is an exercise of power that already exists. The power is maintained through the oppression of competing classes and, traditionally, party bureaucracy.
I don’t know what it could possibly mean to say it is “easier to abuse that power”, it is so vague and decontextualized thst it just sounds like something you’re makinh up on the spot. Socialists endeavour to speak in terms of concrete realities and draw conclusions from them. What is your standard of abuse? Of power? How are you comparing these things?
btw central planning is not unique to countries run by socialists. Highly concentrated capitalism also has central planning aspects, as do their governments in times of emergency. But it is, in that case, central planning for bourgeois interests.
Chinese government is not transparent
How so? Tell me how the Chinese system works for, say, someone working to get a hospital built in their town.
nor federal enough
This sounds like America-centrism. There is nothing inherently democratic about federalism and it is often antidemocratic. If you are in the US, do you applaud the electoral college?
for me to call it democratic or owned by the people.
Tell me which other peripheral countries hsve done so much for their people. Tell me who has alleviated so much poverty, built so much infrastructure, and by their own hand rather than imperialism and capitalist ventures. The proof is in the doing.
I’m genuinely apologizing because I’m only skimming this as I’m getting sleepy. and it’s a lot to go through. I can tell you took effort so apologies.
Re: West also bad, at times worse
I know and I agree!
btw central planning is not unique to countries run by socialists. Highly concentrated capitalism also has central planning aspects, as do their governments in times of emergency. But it is, in that case, central planning for bourgeois interests.
And in the case of China, it is for CCP interests. Holding elections every now and then doesn’t translate to the dictatorship of the proletariat as envisioned. By that logic, US democracy would be a dictatorship of the proletariat as well, since they hold elections every now and then.
This sounds like America-centrism
I do not consider america really federal, since there is massive power concentrated at the top. Same for other “federal” states like Germany
I’m genuinely apologizing because I’m only skimming this as I’m getting sleepy. and it’s a lot to go through. I can tell you took effort so apologies.
No worries, I am not holding you to a schedule. Please take any amount of time to reply. I also won’t take it personally if you don’t reply.
It actually isn’t much effort, I am very fast at writing.
Re: West also bad, at times worse
I know and I agree!
Well that isn’t what I said, though. What I said about the West is that there is addressing the false perception of greater “free speech” in the West, which is, again, largely just chauvinism. You do not enjoy greater speech, you are just such a non-entity in terms of threatening the ruling interests. This is because those ruling interests keep you, along with the wider public, weak, docile, and hating their same enemies.
I am also highlighting the ruling interests, not the government. This is because in these places with allegedly more “free speech”, international capital is dominant and has control over your everyday lives. It controls whether you can house and feed yourself and it censors on a constant basis. Restricting yourself solely to government censorship is a rhetorical trick used by capitalists to pretend that corporate control over life doesn’t count as oppression. Where is the comparison to private censorship, where the “free press” is actually a corporate-censored press? Have you done a comparison between the accuracy of claims from the SCMP and NYT? Just pick Palestine, see how it serves you.
And in the case of China, it is for CCP interests. Holding elections every now and then doesn’t translate to the dictatorship of the proletariat as envisioned.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is not specified as anything other than the proletarian class oppressing the bourgeois class because they gained power through revolution. The PRC regularly executes billionaires and uniquely reroutes funds to its people, and its poorest, to build material well-being for all, not just the richest, and certainly not just the higher-ups in the party.
By that logic, US democracy would be a dictatorship of the proletariat as well, since they hold elections every now and then.
The dictatorship of the proletariat does not have any governing structure specified whatsoever. It is something predicted by Marx to have certain attributes that are more about political economics, like using monopoly industry that is already centrally planned and wielding it for the good of the proletarians. Something that China has often done and is the explicit communist logic behind their conveyor belt strategy for requiring companies to have more party and government participation as they grow larger and more monopolistic.
I do not consider america really federal, since there is massive power concentrated at the top. Same for other “federal” states like Germany
Then I have no idea what your meaning is.
It’s always hilarious to see how the most ignorant libs are always the most confident. You might as well believe you’re a donkey with a laser dick as it makes as much sense as everything else you believe.
hehe Yogthos I was actually thinking of you when I mentioned China stans :P no offense
I really don’t like being called a liberal though :( what makes me come across like a liberal? Is it my anarchism? My hatred of capitalism, colonialism and western hegemony?
It is your repetition of radlib talking points to punch left.
Anarchists are liberals who like LARPing as leftists. You share the same ideology and focus on individualism above all else.
Okay we might have a different definition of liberal. (ironically under a post where I’m arguing about the definition of tankie lol). I’m talking about people who think capitalism can work or can be made to work. People who conflate capitalism and the fake meritocracy sold by the American dream with actual freedom.
If liberal just means somebody who believes that freedom is important, then yeah I’m a liberal. But maybe you have a different definition? (genuinely asking, not trying to be standoffish)
You have a misconception about anarchism being about individualism though. Anarchists focus on community and communes. Most anarchist theory I’ve consumed laments the individualism that capitalism tries to sell because it destroys culture and community.
Liberalism is fundamentally an ideology of private property ownership and that’s why it always inevitably devolved into fascism in times of crisis.
Therefore, whenever economic liberalism finds itself under threat from “populism”, it quickly jettisons the principles of political liberalism to which it is theoretically tied.
In other words, these “principles” are not principles at all, just convenient postures designed to cloak the unpleasant reality of the economic liberals’ capitalist system.
https://orgrad.wordpress.com/articles/liberalism-the-two-faced-tyranny-of-wealth/
Anarchists talk a lot about community, but reject actual practical way to organize communally and combat capitalism. And the argument for rejecting practical means is that these approaches restrict individual freedoms. Anarchists place their individual freedom above collective good, and thus align with liberal capitalists in action.
Your “hatred” for colonialism?
X doubt
You want hong kong to still be a british colony
Per the origins of the term, a tankie is a communist that supported the Soviets wuelling the Hungarian 1956 uprising. It was an insult concocted by British Trotskyists, who also consider themselves communists.
The modern use of the term is just a liberal sentiment leveled against anyone that doesn’t fall neatly in line with US Empire’s vilification campaigns. If you dare to say that Russia has material motivations that are a counter to those of the US rather than being a kingdom run by a madman that just loves killing, you are a tankie. If you don’t want Ukraine used as a proxy for the US to hurt Russia, regardless of how many Ukrainians die, you are a tankie. If you treat the PRC as country filled with normal people living normal lives rather than the dystopian nightmare it’s falsely depicted as, uou are a tankie. If you know anything at all about Dengism, you are a tankie.
Really, the liberal position on both countries is premised on orientalism and it is never a surprise when the criticisms inevitably turn into vague tropes. And when this laziness is called out, well, it’s time to deploy a tactical tankie reference. I definitely don’t care about being insulted, these situations are really just a way for the other person to give themselves an excuse to stop thinking or engaging.
Those are some valid arguments actually. I guess some people do throw the term around too liberally (heh).
I’m very critical of American imperialism but I fail to see how the US is using Ukraine to hurt Russia.
The fault always lies with the invader, Russia did this to itself. If I see someone getting stabbed and throw him a knife, implying I’m using him to hurt the other person attacking him is silly. Russia can leave anytime.
I do agree tankie is thrown around far too much, I’ve been called one myself just for talking shit of the military, even though I never mentioned an other country or a political idealogie.
The spread of the word as well as the constant villainization of China seems like prep for red scare 2.0, so we can have the population support bombing villages full of civilians (again).
I’m very critical of American imperialism but I fail to see how the US is using Ukraine to hurt Russia.
The US and its proxies have constantly escalated using Ukraine as a proxy for over a decade and since the war started they have continued this pattern. There is no path to victory for Ukraine. If the RF wanted to end it they could run mass bombing campaigns like NATO members do. They are making the opposite calculation: that the status quo of a military meat grinder for Ukraine is better for the RF. Given that one of their goals is a demilitarized Ukraine, there is some logic to this idea.
It has been painfully obvious that Ukraine cannot win from the beginning. Nobody trying to escalate, provide Wunderwaffe, etc really things Ukraine will win, that is just not what any serious person thinks. This is also why there is such an intense and absurd propaganda campaign to say that Russia is losing more people and equipment, with the source nearly always being Azov Batallion, the UA MoD, or a combination of the two. They need to sell the public on the idea that Ukraine just needs your support and dang it they mogjt pull this thing off!
So then, if UA can’t win and the heads of state know they can’t win, what is their logic? What is the angle on who benefits? Well, the singular common thread of brinksmanship with Ukraine as proxy has always been to try anf peel Europe away from economic integration with Russia and to instead keep it in the EU bubble, with more American integration. And, lo and behold, look at how Europe has destroyed its own industry and made itself even more dependent on the US. This has the added effect of isolating Russia from Europe. While Europe still buys their fossil fuels from Russia, trade overall is way down.
In addition, there is the simple calculus that it requires manpower and productive capacity to wage war, capacity that could be directed elsewhere. Iran would likely have more and better air defense systems if Russia weren’t focused on Ukraine.
At no point does the suffering of the Ukrainian people enter the equation. There are no anti-war voices on the mainstream media about this aside from self-serving right wing “this is not our problem” rhetoric.
The fault always lies with the invader, Russia did this to itself. If I see someone getting stabbed and throw him a knife, implying I’m using him to hurt the other person attacking him is silly. Russia can leave anytime.
There are few countries thst tolerate a civil war on their border targeting the ethnicity of your own country, let alone an encroachment of the primary aggressor military force around the world couping them, let alone that neighbor remilitarizing despite agreements and not honoring their agreements. This is geopolitics, not a bar fight. War does not occur in a vacuum, it has a material basis. One does not need to justify war in order to understand that this did not occur in a vacuum and there is blame to go around.
I do agree tankie is thrown around far too much, I’ve been called one myself just for talking shit of the military, even though I never mentioned an other country or a political idealogie.
Yeah it’s really just a way for national chauvinist liberals to quiet their own cognitive dissonance. I also think it’s extra funny when a Trotskyist gets called tankie, since they invented the epithet.
The spread of the word as well as the constant villainization of China seems like prep for red scare 2.0, so we can have the population support bombing villages full of civilians (again).
Yes the US is trying to decouple on its own terms. Its constant attempts to provoke the PRC with Taiwan is also similar to what they did to Ukraine. To have the consent of their population to sacrifice their own well-being and justify whatever military action might occur, they will needs to be more racist and xenophobic towards China. It may not be Taiwan. It might be Korea or Myanmar. But constant escalation and provocation is the US game. Maximalist, relentless foreign policy pushing towards war and death.
Russia entered a conflict that was already in progress, a civil war where the Ukrainian coup government was attempting to ethnically cleanse the Russian speaking population in the east. This coup was orchestrated by the US (this was obvious, admitted to in recorded phone calls, and was rife with high US politicians (John McCaine for example) going there to celebrate. The US/NATO also funded the training and arming of openly neo-nazi militias like Azov Battalion, (and others) many of whom were the ones shelling the people in the East long before Russia intervened. All of this was done by the US to exert pressure on Russia. And this is just scratching the surface. So no, Russia did not “do this to itself” and your framing of it is naive and simplistic and just plain false.
I am genuinely glad to see you reognize the villainization of China, but please also apply those same critical thinking skills to what you have been told about Russia in the Ukraine conflict and do some digging into the history that doesn’t rely on western propaganda.
Do you have any links?
Has the thought ever occur to you, that maybe Russia can just leave Ukraine be? Just maybe another country that is resisting wants to keep it’s sovereignty? Maybe the Tankie word is for people that fails to have any critical thought?
The Russian Federation did leave Ukraine be. It was only after Western meddling, a coup, a civil war, not implementing agreements, toying with NATO membership, and resuming a civilian shelling campaign that the RF invaded.
The imperial core Western powers poked and prodded and used Ukraine as a pawn until the RF hit its limit.
Given that you likely live in one of the countries doing the relentless escalation, why not work against them doing so?
This is the reality of language.
Both definitions are now correct. The change isn’t a fight you can win.The reality of language is that people like op rely on the negative connotation of the definition I just gave.
Imagine of they just said, “advocating for” instead. Wouldn’t have the same impact, right?
Yup.
You say that like it’s mutually exclusive. Nobody gets to choose how other people use language. Definitions are whatever people agree that they are, even if you’re not one of the people who agrees with it.
You can dislike that definition of tankie all you want, the fact that they used it in this way and that you understood it means that it was used correctly.The evolution of language may hurt people, but denying the reality of evolving language hurts nobody but yourself. The etymology and history is good to know (and the meme relies on it), but the new definition is still a correct alternate definition.
Oh I misunderstood and thought we were talking about a different word. This makes this discussion even sillier.
You say that like it’s mutually exclusive. Nobody gets to choose how other people use language. Definitions are whatever people agree that they are, even if you’re not one of the people who agrees with it.\
How do people agree what they are without telling other people their meaning explicitly or implicitly? What about people that intentionally misuse language to deceive? What about language that is self-descriptive due to selective use?
I’m aware of prescriptivism vs descriptionism but this conversation isn’t actually about that. In fact, I am already following a descriptivist line of reasoning, if you will review my earlier comment. I am saying how tankie is used nowadays.
You can dislike that definition of tankie all you want
What definition? Which one do I dislike? I don’t know what you’re talking about.
the fact that they used it in this way and that you understood it means that it was used correctly.
The way I understood it is, “anyone defending a target of US empire in any way from the left that I would like to stop listening to before my brain breaks”. Seems spot-on to me.
The evolution of language may hurt people, but denying the reality of evolving language hurts nobody but yourself. The etymology and history is good to know (and the meme relies on it), but the new definition is still a correct alternate definition.
What on earth do you think you’re replying to?
Removed by mod
The thing is that in a polarised world you support one side or the other, and the sides are the US and China. US is certainly not better deserving support than China, but liberals will call tankie anyone who support China in any way, shape or form. For a liberal it’s completely inacceptable to say that China is doing anything better than the US.
It means “anyone who does not immediately believe the most lurid rumors about the Bad Countries”
Weird way to say has at least modicum of understanding of geopolitics and doesn’t support the genocidal western empire.
It’s not shilling, it’s nuance. American main stream thinking is full of lies about both China and Russia. And both conservatives and liberals HATE when people don’t fall in line.
Your second and third sentence are true. I have definitely seen plenty of shills though.
In my experience I’ve only seen the word tankie be used by leftists. Libs and conservatives don’t even know what a tankie is.
Yet again begging liberals to understand what the word “shill” means.
Define liberal please because I don’t like being called one.
In the same way that some people will shill for billionaires or for some billionaire-owned company, aka a corporate shill. People who fail to see that (capitalist) companies are just a way to extract profit. In the same vein, some people fail to see that nation states are just instruments of power. Some are better than others in different ways of course, but I get real itchy when people jump to defend a nation at the first smidgeon of criticism. I hate nationalism.
Define liberal please because I don’t like being called one.
Liberalism is the dominant ideology of capitalism, it is a wide set of social and political views that serve capitalism through the absorption of bourgeois attitides and its primsry vehicle of political legitimacy is bourgeois democracy, like parliamentarianism. Every person living under capitalism has absorbed some liberalism, including every anarchist and communist. But those who critically engage sufficiently can shed the label because they understand the system sufficiently and work against it.
You are repeatedly exoressing a litany of thoughts rooted in unexamined liberalism. One that is usually retained by baby leftists in Western countries is racism and xenophobia. They will see the value of organized labor and social justice but cannot tie it to imperislism and fall in line with who the Capitalists tell them is their enemy
What do you think of people who say it’s hypocritical for queer people to support Palestine? Because to a socialist you sound like that when spreading imperialist pinkwashing against China.
In the same way that some people will shill for billionaires or for some billionaire-owned company, aka a corporate shill. People who fail to see that (capitalist) companies are just a way to extract profit.
A shill is someone paid to profess to have views other than their own. People shilling for a product makes sense, it is an old salesman tactic.
Who do you think is paying me to be right about China all the time?
In the same vein, some people fail to see that nation states are just instruments of power.
On the contrary, every communist that has ever existed knows this. We write about it all the time. Projecting this liberalism onto communists is just telling on yourself.
Some are better than others in different ways of course, but I get real itchy when people jump to defend a nation at the first smidgeon of criticism. I hate nationalism.
Existing in the real world as we do, your “anti-nationalism” is really just nationalism in favor of Western powers, despite your professibg to be against them. You repeat their talking points! What do you think the outcome is of uncritically repeating sinophobic or russophobic falsehoods? Why do you think we are even talking about those two countries? It is because US empire has decided to focus on them as targets of derision and marginalization.
What, exact, nationalism are you pushing back against? What is making you itchy? Because all I see are people defending China against piss-poor talking points.
You say liberalism is dominant in capitalism, you say it has a wide set of mechanisms that serve it, you say everyone in a capitalist country absorb them. You do not elaborate on what those specific mechanisms are, you just say there are mechanisms. This is not a definition of liberal. This is you telling someone liberalism exists in, and is important to, capitalism.
I did not give an extensive definition because the self-description of liberalism, by liberals, is at odds with the historical actions of liberalism. It could be distracting and take a while to get the point across.
For example, liberalism self-defined with maximizing individual liberty while it also advocated for the “freedom” of corporations to work you as many hours as it could while shitting down your unionizing effort with violence. Liberalism also self-defined as favoring democracy and everyone having a say, but implemented this in a racist and sexist way that placed capital in charge while also colonizing others and depriving them of self-determination.
The common thread is really just that it is the dominant ideology of capitalism, its function is to extoll the virtues of capitalism and tying it to an illusion of liberation and self-determination while actually working against both of those things, as under capitalism, capital works against both struggles. The person that liberals have you read as foundational to liberalism, John Locke, worked to support an American settler colony and its slavery rules and explicitly supported child labor. Then, as today, there is a difference between how political figures present themselves and what their advocacy actually entails.
Now you have given a definition for liberalism. You could have done this in the previous reply, or could have just told the person no. Instead you gave a vague non-answer.
I actually have no given a definition of liberalism outside of the core I did originally. I have only listed a few self-claimed qualities and their inconsistency.
I also gave a rationale for why I went in this direction. Notice the complete lack of engagement with it.
Liberalism is the dominant ideology of capitalism,
gonna stop reading right here since I’ve stated I’m anticapitalist and it feels like going in circles. sorry but can only answer so many of these huge comments in a day. If there’s an argument you really want me to engage with please let me know
gonna stop reading right here since I’ve stated I’m anticapitalist and it feels like going in circles.
Anyone can call themselves anything. Are they always correct?
If you deigned to keep reading, condescending liberal, you would find that I explained how this works.
sorry but can only answer so many of these huge comments in a day. If there’s an argument you really want me to engage with please let me know
No. You can reply to what I said if you want to discuss this topic or you can acknowledge that you aren’t ready to discuss these things. This is not asking very much. I’m not asking you to read a book. It is about 3 average-sized paragraphs worth of text. I am not holding you to a deadline, either. But you can’t just dance around in bad faith and expect patient responses.
Holy fucking shit what a coward you are. This person @TheOubliette@lemmy.ml has done more in good faith to actually educate you about things no leftist should be ignorant about than you deserve. You have this tremendous opportunity to genuinely learn from someone with a wealth of knowledge and actually deepen your understanding of the world and even the ideology you claim to subscribe to, but instead you plug your ears and pretend there’s nothing to be gleaned from this generous education you’re being offered all because it conflicts with your preconceptions, your misconceptions which is cognitively uncomfortable. But that really does just come down to cowardice. I hope one day you can recognize this, recognize the importance of and necessity for self crit. If not, you’ll forever be stuck as you are, the proverbial useful idiot for the same empire you claim to wish to see an end to.
Or someone who slightly disagrees with a republican
Or even a democrat. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been called a tankie, by liberals, for simply not adhering to status-quo ideology.
That’s in theory. In practice it’s only used by liberals to insult leftist when they criticise the US or liberalism.
The use of the word “tankie” these days is so over-used it has become synonymous with “left of the DNC.” I’ve even seen Anarchists described as “tankies,” it’s getting ridiculous. Still, the word “tankie” is most often used by liberals against Marxists, though they won’t admit to having an anti-Marxist bias, mostly because they think they agree with Marx generally but are unfamiliar with Marxist analysis.
Really, more people need to read theory before having an opinion on it to avoid speaking past each other. I wrote an introductory reading list for Marxism-Leninism if anyone wants to get a better understanding of Marxism.
It’s both overused in the way you describe and yet obscure enough that only terminally-online political people have even heard of it.
Yep, it’s a deeply unserious term. It’s only used unironically, in my experience, by people who haven’t read theory yet devote a huge chunk of time to debating online, which is largely a waste of time to begin with. That’s why I focus on just trying to correct misconceptions and provide my reading list when appropriate, debating is just an outlet for frustration for most people. It’s truly rare that debate convinces anyone.
Back when I used reddit it seemed like everyone threw around Fascist in a similar way. Lemmy seems to prefer Tankie. For a lot of people the thinking doesn’t go any farther than “I disagree with you, therefore you are ________ist” or whatever.
It is what it is.
It varies from instance to instance. The main users of the word “tankie” are blahaj.zone, lemmy.world, and sh.itjust.works from what I’ve seen, most other instances generally aren’t as bad about it IMO.
I think I posted something critical of conscripting people to make them fight over who they pay taxes to at the end and got called a tankie and Russian bot.
It is entirely consistent with anarchism to be critical of states using coercive violence to force people to fight for their preservation.
Some of the libs on this protocol are intensely derranged, I think for many it’s their first time seeing that people out there disagree with some of their sacred assumptions and it breaks their brains.
For sure, libs get scratched easily these days.
Probably because there are a lot of tankies here. 🙃
Yep, and unfortunately a lot of fascists on Reddit.
I do like how whenever a conservative Lemmy pops up, it has more trolls than users and the mods abandon it within a few weeks.
thank you for that and the “what is socialism” post; but i’m encountering that theory is somehow still a HEAVY read for someone like who me has been inside the leftist sphere of influence for his entire life; there’s needs to be some sort of sound-bite-able way of sharing these messages and i wish that ml’s had the capitalists’ deep pockets that guarantees a deep bench of talent that could figure something like this out.
it reminds of my own own experience of going from technical support to software engineering by simply reading. your ignorance makes it daunting as first and you have to put in A LOT of effort to understand it when you don’t even know the basics and you’ll get there eventually if you stick with it; but most won’t stick with it and if you’re REALLY knowledgeable at it, it becomes difficult to understand why it’s difficult for other people.
It’s certainly difficult, but when in doubt I love sharing this person’s articles as more bite-sized bits of theory and soundbites from Michael Parenti speeches, haha.
even more material to “read”; now i’m wondering if i’ll ever be finished with any of it. lol
We’ll never be finished with bourgeois theory: it’s what we’ve been fed our entire lives, usually without even realizing it. It’s just common sense.
i’m convinced that if i had fewer vulnerable identities that i would never have been able to see through practice all the “common sense” bullshit levied against me all my life and i also think that’s the only reason why i try when others with identical backgrounds, like my family, don’t bother; i’ve learned the hard way that ignorance will hurt me long before it will hurt them.
That does help. After all it was black Americans who invented wokeness, before white liberal Americans co-opted it and perverted its meaning. The marginalized have always experienced the fascism that’s been baked into the American project since the beginning.
i suspect that facism is going to force me to move back into the country that my parents immigrated from if trump gets his way and in the same way that incidents like operation wetback deported millions of american citizens.
Haha, if you want the most bang for your buck I stand wholeheartedly behind my introductory reading list. I truly put a lot of effort into it and several comrades helped tremendously.
i’m starting there because i’ve learned that audio books are the best way to cheat at “reading” lol
Thanks! Feel free to ask questions 🫡
You could start with communist content on YouTube. That tends to be more easily digestible and eases you into reading theory later on.
I can recommend channels like Second Thought, Yugopnik, Hakim, revolutionaryth0t and Ian Neves/História Pública (you’ll need to use subtitles for this one if you don’t speak portuguese).
ha! i’m already subscribed to half of them, but thanks nonetheless for the two i didn’t know about.
As I said in another comment, Tankies are often in support of the modern Russian state and the modern CCP. These are not positions that are “left of the DNC”.
Supporting the PRC is absolutely a Leftist position, as a Socialist country and a rising superpower it’s the current best hope for Socialism, whether you agree with all of the CPC’s actions or only some.
Critical, reserved support for Russia’s temporary and strategic anti-US Hegemony stance does not mean Leftists critically supporting Russia agree with the Russian state or support it.
Support for Russia’s genocidal invasion of Ukraine in no way supports anti-US hegemony stances. They’re literally stealing children and indoctrinating them-the same thing the US did while committing genocide against the First Peoples.
Just opposing the US doesn’t make Russia the good guys.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine isn’t “genocidal,” what would be closer to genocidal is the West’s intention to fight Russia to the last Ukranian standing. Several times, Russia has tried to reach a peace deal, only for the UK and US to step in and tell Ukraine not to take it. The “stealing of children” is taking orphans from warzones and making sure they don’t die.
Russia’s goal isn’t to ethnically cleanse Ukraine, nor is it to “de-Nazify” Ukraine. Russia’s goal is to totally ruin Ukraine’s military capabilities as a means to prevent further extension of NATO encirclement around it’s borders. This is a consequence of the 2014 Euromaidan coup, and goes all the way back to the dissolution of the USSR. When the USSR was sliced up and sold to the West for profit, 7 million people died, and a Nationalist movement led to domestic Nationalist bourgeoisie reclaiming industry from the West, beginning a long series of NATO expansion and encirclement to force Russia to open themselves up again for the West to profit.
No, Russia are not the “good guys.” No Communist believes Russia has morally just intentions and is here to save everyone. Communists believe Russia is acting in its own material interests, and those interests happen to align against US-Hegemony, which Communists see as the primary block for progress.
Communists have as such advocated for both countries to negotiate a cease-fire since the beginning of the invasion. An ideal situation would be a cessation of NATO expansion and no bloodshed, but Communists have no real control over that.
Removed by mod
Staying ignorant is cool, you heard it here first folks.
This one isn’t just staying ignorant, they’re loudly proclaiming their ignorance as if they’re proud of it. Yikes.
I first read it in Warhammer 40000 lore, how nice for libs to be uncritically internalising over the top satirical nazism.
Cool 👍
Not believing in blatant right-wing propaganda is a leftist position. Parroting right-wing propaganda is a right-wing position. You are parroting right-wing propaganda. Please stop doing that, especially if you consider yourself on the left.
I’m sorry if I’m misunderstanding but are you in support of the CCP?
Generally yes, I support the CPC. I’m a Marxist, and their dedication to developing Socialism, eliminating poverty, developing green energy, and presenting an alternative for the Global South should be admired. The PRC and CPC aren’t perfect, not by any stretch, but among the major world powers they are the least problematic and present the greatest potential for Humanity moving forward.
Removed by mod
Why do you say that? First of all, the CPC is the party in charge of the PRC, not the PRC itself. Secondly, which of the things I said do you disagree with? We can discuss them if you want, but otherwise I can’t really take you seriously either if that is your response to me answering your question honestly.
I mean I would argue saying “party in charge of” is a bit much, while they are the Majority party in total, and the majority party in the coalition, there are 8 parties in the coalition, so its not like they are the only party, instead they are the largest party in the PRC
I cannot take you seriously if you willfully swallow the firehose of US propaganda about how cHiNa BAD ebil aUthOrItArIaN when it’s a country whose government has the enthusiastic approval of over 90% of the population, the country that lifted 850 million people out of abject poverty, the only large country doing anything significant about the mass extinction event that is climate change, the country that… well, I could go on. But no, keep believing those lies like a good lil western capitalism enjoyer.
I, for one, haven’t seen people over-using the word “tankie”, I haven’t seen people getting called tankies for the reason alone that they are leftists or even communists.
However, I’ve seen many tankies insisting that the word is meaningless or that it just means anybody on the left.
People I’ve seen using the word tankie have been surprisingly consistent about who they call a tankie: supporters of authoritarianism, especially Putin and the CCP.
The only Communists that don’t support the PRC are Maoists, generally, Marxists and Marxist-Leninists consistently support the CPC. None of them support Putin, only critical, reserved support for the Russian Federation’s temporary and strategic opposition to US Hegemony, which Communists see as the primary obstacle in the way of Socialism across the world.
Oh I know quite a few communists who would absolutely not support the PRC. They wouldn’t shill for the US either. Nor for Russia nor the USSR for that matter.
Are these Communists members of any Communist orgs, or just online people?
These are people I know personally. So no, not online people. And some are organized, some were, it varies. They are at best ambivalent on China. The idea that if you identify as a communist, talk like a communist, or are member of a communist organization, you should automatically support China would be frankly absurd in my circles. A strong minority of communists were at best ambivalent on the USSR even back in the day, so this is not new. And yes there are also those who will identify with and feel the need to support any regime that is in name or in some of its practices “communist”. Whereas others will take a more critical stance. I am in Europe by the way, this may matter, I find that the way words are used across the pond sometimes varies. Even within Europe, in much of Eastern Europe I understand that “communist” and “Russophile ” are thought to go hand in hand. Not so in my country, not necessarily. Anyway, it’s complicated.
The point about you knowing these people online or in person was secondary to my point about organizing. Individual people considering themselves Communists but unaffiliated with an org vere frequently misunderstand theory, develop strange and contradictory stances, and otherwise fail to bounce their ideas off of actual, practicing Communists who daily test their theory and refine it. That’s why “Party Lines” exist. These “Party Lines” generally form around specific tendencies within Marxism, because there do exist right and wrong answers when faced with material reality and consistent frameworks of analysis. No, a Communist shouldn’t automatically support anything, they should test their theory and keep what works and toss what doesn’t. The fact that the overwhelming majority of actual practicing Communists do support the PRC and USSR does not mean they are doing so thoughtlessly. Blackshirts and Reds is a good book.
The most major tendency of Marxism is Marxism-Leninism, as it has had the most direct proof of validity and consistency with theory and practice. ML organizations have had numerous successful revolutions, and most AES states follow an ML line. As such, the vast majority of Communists worldwide support the PRC and USSR.
Maoists, generally, reject Deng’s reforms that returned the PRC to a more traditional Marxist understanding of economics, and see him as a right-deviationist. Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, a more fringe ideology popularized by the Communist Party of Peru, are less consistent on this matter.
The only other major current of Marxism is Trotskyism, which has produced no real revolutions and no real results. Trots are common in the Western Left because it fits with the West’s overall anti-AES stance, and thus is easier to come to from a Western perspective. Outside of tiny pockets mostly in Latin America, Trots do not exist in the Global South. Trotskyism is a misanalysis of Socialism, Marxism, and Revolutionary Theory, and as such I was not including them as actual Communists. A good article is Trotskyists Don’t Believe Anything.
Seeing as how you’ve admitted to a European point of view, everything coincides with what I’ve said. I have been speaking internationally, you’ve been speaking from a Trot-heavy Euro-centric point of view. Again, the Western Left’s tendency to reject actual Socialism is more to do with compatability with existing world views. I recommend Jones Manoel’s Western Marxism Loves Purity and Martyrdom, But Not Real Revolution.
Hey thanks for making the effort. You are clearly more passionate about this than I am. And you clearly consider today’s China a case of “existing socialism”. I do not. And I’m surprised that a number of people still do. Indeed the Trotskyist left and other related currents in the West have always had to deal with the paradox of advocating communism while at the same time opposing most if not all regimes that claimed to be communist. On the other hand more traditional communists - some would call them Stalinists if we’re using labels - who would advocate for regimes that many considered oppressive and were happy to see fall (including everyone who considered such regimes to be a degeneration of the original revolutionary potential). Personally I don’t feel I have a big stake in this. I am more and more thinking that these are experiments that largely failed no matter how you look at it, and hope to see new movements that will update their repertoire, learn from the failings, and succeed better. I am not sure what form or shape such movements will take. But am also not betting on capitalism not leading to the destruction of the world sooner or later. When I sometimes appear to defend China it is because I do not think that western-style capitalism and liberal democracy are the only ways that capitalism can function.
They’re using the same playbook as the fascists, insisting the word is overused and meaningless while painting themselves as victims. It’s actually fascinating how similar hexbear snd the_donald feel.
Marxism and Marxism-Leninism are not the same, and should not be treated as the same. One is an economic theory/philosophy, one is an ideology. I’ll leave it to you to figure out which is which.
Marxism is broken up into 3 major components:
-
Dialectical and Historical Materialism
-
Critique of Capitalism via the Law of Value
-
Advocacy for Revolutionary and Scientific Socialism.
Marxism-Leninism carries these 3 foundations forward, and analyzes Capitalism as it reaches Imperialism, as well as numerous expansions on the foundations of revolutionary theory and practice.
They are not “the same,” but the vast majority of Marxists are Marxist-Leninists, because Lenin’s application of Marxism to higher stages of Capitalism are invaluable to Marxism.
Marxism-Leninism was not actually thought out by Lenin, but by Stalin. The Stalin.
And how invaluable were Lenin’s ideas about violently suppressing opposition, resistance, and unwanted societal classes?
Stalin synthesized Marxism-Leninism, yes. He did so on the basis of Lenin’s theoretical advancements on Marxism. Stalin himself wasn’t that much of a theoretician, hence why it’s Marxism-Leninism, though Stalin has a few works under his belt. Yes, the Stalin. You’re free to read my introductory reading list if you want to learn more about Marxism.
Secondly, you have no idea what you’re talking about if you’re pretending Lenin came up with the idea of revolution and using the Dictatorship of the Proletariat to suppress fascists and the bourgeoisie. Such ideas came from Marx and Engels, who always advocated for revolution. From Marx:
“We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.”
I suggest you take the advice of @Edie@lemmy.ml and read up on Marxist theory and history before speaking nonsense from a pedestal.
That quote is extremely hinged on context in which it was made, and it would serve you well to internalise that context before throwing this quote around pretending it to have been something Marx lived by.
Secondly, you have no idea what you’re talking about if you’re pretending Lenin came up with the idea of revolution and using the Dictatorship of the Proletariat to suppress fascists and the bourgeoisie.
That was not my claim, but thank you for so generously misinterpreting what I said. Lenin implemented the violent oppression of dissenters and opposition in a socialist system. That was carried further by Stalin, under whom ‘counter-revolutionary’ became an extremely malleable term that could mean anything not fully aligned with his ideas. The fact that you think political violence and terror is a core tenet of Marxism tells me that you’re the one who might need to brush up on their history a little bit.
In fact, authoritarian socialism - as practiced in virtually every single Marxist-Leninist country that ever existed - was completely counter to the ideals of Marx and Engels. The people we have to thank for creating the violent authoritarianism that pervaded communist countries in practice are Lenin and Stalin. “Dictatorship of the proletariat” may have been a phrase used by Marx, but he never fully elaborated on what that should or could look like. And fascism as created by Mussolini and unleashed upon the world by Hitler didn’t even exist during Marx’s lifetime. Even Marx’s views on religion were a lot more complex and multifaceted than what Marxist-Leninist governments turned them into.
I don’t know if either of you have ever lived in a Marxist-Leninist country (as in lived, not just visited). I was born in one. I lived in another for five years. I’ve seen the before and after, first-hand. That’s my pedestal. How’s the weather up there on yours?
In fact, authoritarian socialism - as practiced in virtually every single Marxist-Leninist country that ever existed - was completely counter to the ideals of Marx and Engels.
Do you mean the Engles who said this:
[T]he anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?
Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don’t know what they’re talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction
…or is there some other Engles I should know about?
I don’t know of any person called Engles who would be significant in this context, so I can’t tell you if there is one you should know about. The Engels who said what you quoted above, also said - literally in the sentence preceding your quote:
Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society.
As always, context matters. And I’ll trust the context created by the words and interpretations of respected historians way more than I’ll trust some randos on Lemmy who only excel at selective quoting.
I don’t know if either of you have ever lived in a Marxist-Leninist country (as in lived, not just visited). I was born in one. I lived in another for five years. I’ve seen the before and after, first-hand.
Could you please name those countries? And share your experiences, if possible? Were they not Marxist?
The countries were the German Democratic Republic, where I was born; and Cuba, where I lived from 1985 to 1990.
And what are experiences? By all accounts what I grew up in was normal, because I didn’t know any different. We grew up like any kids really, playing, riding bikes, watching TV, getting up to mischief. I have a lot of good memories from both the GDR and Cuba, and even getting started on them would take me hours.
Sure, we knew about the West. Some of my friends had relatives in the West and occasionally got packages with sweets and other things. We watched Western TV and were exposed to Western toys, comics and music, to a degree. In Cuba there were a lot of Western movies and series on TV. But we also knew that you could get into trouble for being too open about that.
But after it all came down, we learned a lot about what went on. The oppression, the secret police, the lack of basic freedoms.
Once in art class, we were tasked with drawing something we had seen or experienced. Just a short time prior to that, we had gone to see a well known boat lift east of Berlin. The boat that came through the lift was a freight barge flying the West German flag. So that’s what I drew. Only years later my parents told me that they had subsequently been summoned by the school and had to explain that it was nothing more sinister than that - a child drawing a picture of something they had seen.
Another thing that struck me as odd at the time was this. Most of the socialist countries we knew as ‘friendly’ had state-run youth organisations. Ours were called the pioneers. Once there was an afternoon activity with a little quiz, and one of the quiz questions was ‘name three friendly youth organisations’. So I named three that I remembered from my pioneer calendar - and one of them was Finnish. My quiz came back with the correction ‘friendly youth organisations’.
I will always remember and defend the good aspects about the countries I grew up in. By the same token I will always vociferously criticise the bad things, and anyone who wants to try them again.
That quote is extremely hinged on context in which it was made, and it would serve you well to internalise that context before throwing this quote around pretending it to have been something Marx lived by.
Correct, Marx wasn’t just randomly terrorizing people. He was referring to the Proletariat making no apologies for revolution and taking up arms against the bourgeoisie and their enablers, something Lenin and the people of the USSR carried into reality. Lenin descibed what you’re doing to Marx and Engels right now quite well:
“What is now happening to Marx’s teaching has, in the course of history, happened repeatedly to the teachings of revolutionary thinkers and leaders of oppressed classes struggling for emancipation. During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their teachings with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to surround their names with a certain halo for the “consolation” of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time emasculating the essence of the revolutionary teaching, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it. At the present time, the bourgeoisie and the opportunists within the working-class movement concur in this “doctoring” of Marxism. They omit, obliterate and distort the revolutionary side of this teaching, its revolutionary soul. They push to the foreground and extol what is or seems acceptable to the bourgeoisie. All the social-chauvinists are now “Marxists” (don’t laugh!). And more and more frequently, German bourgeois scholars, but yesterday specialists in the annihilation of Marxism, are speaking of the “national-German” Marx, who, they aver, educated the workers’ unions which are so splendidly organized for the purpose of conducting a predatory war!”
- Vladimir Lenin, The State and Revolution
That was not my claim, but thank you for so generously misinterpreting what I said. Lenin implemented the violent oppression of dissenters and opposition in a socialist system. That was carried further by Stalin, under whom ‘counter-revolutionary’ became an extremely malleable term that could mean anything not fully aligned with his ideas. The fact that you think political violence and terror is a core tenet of Marxism tells me that you’re the one who might need to brush up on their history a little bit.
Lenin implemented the world’s first Socialist state, and this state violently oppressed the bourgeoisie, fascists, the White Army, rebels, and so forth. The fact is, political violence is often sadly necessary against those who would crush the Socialist state, like the 14 Capitalist countries that jointly invaded the USSR after its founding. A Marxist project that rolls over and dies the second fascists and the bourgeoisie fight against it isn’t Marxist. Blackshirts and Reds is a good quick read on the tangible benefits AES states achieved despite brutal opposition from the outside.
In fact, authoritarian socialism - as practiced in virtually every single Marxist-Leninist country that ever existed - was completely counter to the ideals of Marx and Engels. The people we have to thank for creating the violent authoritarianism that pervaded communist countries in practice are Lenin and Stalin. “Dictatorship of the proletariat” may have been a phrase used by Marx, but he never fully elaborated on what that should or could look like. And fascism as created by Mussolini and unleashed upon the world by Hitler didn’t even exist during Marx’s lifetime. Even Marx’s views on religion were a lot more complex and multifaceted than what Marxist-Leninist governments turned them into.
This is nonsense. First of all, what separates “authoritarian” Socialism from “non-authoritarian” socialism? All Marxist-Leninist states practice democracy and allow more participation in the way society is run than Capitalist states for the average person. Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan is a good resource on this. Secondly, the idea that Marx and Engels never had a clear idea of what the Dictatorship of the Proletariat would look like is further nonsense - Marx described the Paris Commune as the first implementation of the DotP in reality. Marx and Engels knew quite well that violent suppression of bourgeois elements was required.
Furthermore, whether Marx or Engels really observed fascism is utterly irrelevant, unless your point is that they would not have been anti-fascist, which is nonsense.
I don’t know if either of you have ever lived in a Marxist-Leninist country (as in lived, not just visited). I was born in one. I lived in another for five years. I’ve seen the before and after, first-hand. That’s my pedestal. How’s the weather up there on yours?
A non-sequitor. Spending early childhood in an AES state does not mean you know how it works, nor what it deals with on a daily basis. Even people who live their entire lives in Capitalist states go without knowing how they function.
13·1 month agoUnless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn’t that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful. How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense?
It won’t do!
It won’t do!
You must investigate!
You must not talk nonsense!
When you get anywhere near making a point, just send up a flare, ok?
-
The biggest irony of our times is blood thirsty liberals who are cheering for as much war as possible running around calling people tankies.
Iraq war supporters calling anyone a tankie, should be immediately flattenned by a tank
It’s always funny to me how the go-to examples of like, “See, they just blindly support anything the regime does!” tend to be relatively minor events after the state in question has considerably chilled out. Like, Stalin and Mao did much worse things compared to Khrushchev/Hungary and Deng/Tienanmen. The problem being, communists are generally willing to criticize things like the Great Leap Forward, because, surprise surprise, we don’t just blindly support anything they do. The reason for this is that the word tankie isn’t meant to describe someone who blindly supports everything a communist country does, as it’s claimed to, but rather, someone who supports anything any communist country does.
The fear Western leftists had that led to the term being coined was that people who had previously been critical of Stalin and Mao would respond positively to the countries moving away from their approach, and so they had to create a label to discredit such people and associate them with the previous leaders. It’s one of the reasons Khrushchev’s approach was questionable, because no matter how much you try to distance yourself from someone like Stalin and paint yourself as “one of the good ones,” you’re still never going to appease the Western left that demands absolute perfection, let alone the West in general.
Removed by mod
Lol I get called a tanky for criticizing the Democratic party and Israel and that’s literally the only time I’ve ever seen it used.
Conflating it with supporting a government that hasn’t existed since I was 3 is downright hysterical.
I get called a tanky by people who literally support the group using tanks.
Straight from the horses’ mouth, a tankie is anyone left of Hitler. You’re literally calling humans ‘orks’. You are a Nazi.
„nazi“, lol
incredible that people can see an actual genocide livestreamed for 13 months on every social media platform available, and STILL think anything comparable to that is happening in China. absolutely mindboggling.
Removed by mod
do you think Israel, with one of the most advanced security apparatuses in the world, doesn’t also have methods to censor evidence? and yet, all of this evidence still flows. insane, China has 1.4 billion people, all with cell phones, all with access to TikTok and VPNs, and there’s not a single picture or video of mass graves or camps or starvation campaigns or religious persecution. is China just uniquely good at censorship? is every Chinese citizen just brainwashed and can’t think for themselves?? or are you just repeating cold-war style CIA think-tank talking points about a geopolitical rival because you refuse to investigate for yourself?
Removed by mod
The U.S. has spy satellites that can read a license plate. China could have total control over every camera in their country (lmao) and they wouldn’t be able to hide a genocide.
Do you deny the genocide happening in China or in Ukraine? Then you are a tankie.
Do you believe that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence? Then you’re a tankie.
Some people have this idea that if a claim involves genocide, then it gets to bypass the entire process of investigating a claim, because it’s technically “genocide denial,” so like if someone said “France is committing genocide against Belgians!” you’d just have to accept it without question. In fact, it’s the opposite, more extreme claims require more solid evidence.
Since we’re on .ml though, we don’t have to deal with such absurd censorship standards, and I’m free to point out the fact that the whole “Uighur genocide” narrative is just unsubstantiated propaganda, coming almost entirely from one crackpot named Adrian Zenz. And at this point it’s largely outdated propaganda, since the narrative has largely quietly disappeared from the news after the claims about it couldn’t be verified.
You’re welcome to prove me wrong though. You know, just show me the bodies. How long has it allegedly been going on at this point? We can see what an ongoing genocide looks like by what’s happening in Gaza. Strange how there aren’t any similar images coming out of Xinjiang, isn’t it?
I mean, you are aware that genocide doesn’t have to involve mass-killing of a population, right? Causing them serious bodily or mental harm with the goal of destroying that separate culture, i.e. in reeducation camps can still fulfill that definition.
Has there ever been a genocide in history where no one was killed?
Honestly, if we’re going to use such standards and definitions that a “nonviolent genocide” is possible, then I’m not sure I understand what makes such a thing wrong. In Japan, the number of people who believe in and practice Shinto is in decline, and more and more people are paying for Western style weddings, so temples are struggling to keep their doors open. Is that an inherently bad thing? Is that genocide? How about in the context of the Allies pressuring the emperor to renounce his claims to divinity, undermining a major aspect of Shinto beliefs? Because it seems to me like that did more good than harm. Does that mean I support the (mostly) “nonviolent genocide” of Imperial Japanese culture?
Or perhaps a better example: After 9/11, there was a wave of hate crimes against Muslims, the US extrajudicially detained people (primarily Muslim) without trial and subjected them to numerous human rights abuses, and there were many people talking about how, “Islam is a religion of violence,” and about “Turning the desert to glass,” and the country started two wars with Muslim countries in which about a million people were killed. Did that constitute a genocide? Why or why not?
Honestly, if we’re going to use such standards and definitions that a “nonviolent genocide” is possible, then I’m not sure I understand what makes such a thing wrong. In Japan, the number of people who believe in and practice Shinto is in decline, and more and more people are paying for Western style weddings, so temples are struggling to keep their doors open. Is that an inherently bad thing? Is that genocide?
Come on, you can do better than that.
People changing their culture on their own volition is obviously different from people being forced to by those in power.
How about in the context of the Allies pressuring the emperor to renounce his claims to divinity, undermining a major aspect of Shinto beliefs? Because it seems to me like that did more good than harm. Does that mean I support the (mostly) “nonviolent genocide” of Imperial Japanese culture?
That’s a slightly better point. The main argument for genocide though is, that a whole population is forced to erase their culture. The population of japan could have chosen to ignore the obviously forced statement and continued to believe in their faith. And it seems like they did if shinto is still a thing, even if it is struggling like many other religions are.
People changing their culture on their own volition is obviously different from people being forced to by those in power.
Is it? Genocide doesn’t necessarily have to be conducted by the state. If a a roving militia or gang of mercenaries went around killing a certain kind of people en masse, then it could still be considered genocide. So if we’re allowing for this idea of a bloodless genocide, then I’m not sure it’s obvious how non-state actors taking nonviolent actions that cause the decline of a culture don’t meet your definition.
The main argument for genocide though is, that a whole population is forced to erase their culture.
“Forced,” but not through killing.
There’s often a disconnect between first generation immigrants and their kids, who often end up adopting the culture they live in over their home culture through various social pressures. The fact that the US has road signs only in English forces people to learn English, doesn’t it? Are those road signs genocide? If public schools fail to make accommodations in terms of language, if they teach history from a different perspective than what their parents grew up with, is that genocide?
It’s absurd. What a coincidence that the first “nonviolent genocide” in history happens to come from the US’s chief geopolitical rival. It’s a dilution of the word for political reasons that attempts to put much less bad things on the same level as the mass extermination of a people. The primary reason that genocide is wrong is the violence accociated with it.
The population of japan could have chosen to ignore the obviously forced statement and continued to believe in their faith. And it seems like they did if shinto is still a thing
No, they did not. The emperor’s divinity was one aspect of Shinto, and a significant one, but Shinto was never like a monotheistic tradition.
If a a roving militia or gang of mercenaries went around killing a certain kind of people en masse, then it could still be considered genocide. So if we’re allowing for this idea of a bloodless genocide, then I’m not sure it’s obvious how non-state actors taking nonviolent actions that cause the decline of a culture don’t meet your definition.
I think it is pretty obvious. Is force involved, e.g. making it punishable to use your inhereted language, incarcerting people for praying to their god, taking your kids away for teaching them about your culture, …? Then it might be a genocide. Force does not need to be lethal to still be able to eradicate a culture.
Are other cultures influencing your culture by existing and interacting with your culture and the cultures change because of that? Then no, this definitely isn’t genocide. Which should answer the other “questions” you posed. If you are a minority in another culture you might have a harder time keeping your culture alive. But as long as there aren’t any explicit actions/sanctions against you doing your thing there isn’t a problem there.
The population of japan could have chosen to ignore the obviously forced statement and continued to believe in their faith. And it seems like they did if shinto is still a thing
No, they did not. The emperor’s divinity was one aspect of Shinto, and a significant one, but Shinto was never like a monotheistic tradition.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. They didn’t have the option? They didn’t do it? And if the divinity of the emperor wasn’t the only thing keeping up shinto why does it matter that much then, that you liken it to a genocide?
But as long as there aren’t any explicit actions/sanctions against you doing your thing there isn’t a problem there.
Are there explicit actions/sanctions against Uighurs practicing Islam, or other aspects of their culture?
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. They didn’t have the option? They didn’t do it?
I’m saying that modern practitioners of Shinto don’t consider the emperor divine.
And if the divinity of the emperor wasn’t the only thing keeping up shinto why does it matter that much then, that you liken it to a genocide?
What an interesting perspective. So what you’re saying is, if the Chinese government were to recognize Islam as one of its major, protected religions, but restrict certain radical teachings and versions of it, then it wouldn’t be genocide.
Oh, you mean like what the Ukrainian coup government was doing to the people in the east (Donbas) for years before Russia even entered the conflict? Yes, there is a strong argument to be made that genocide is the term we should use with regard to what Ukraine was attempting to do to the Russian-speaking population in their country.
You know what, I’m going to refer you to your fellow .ml comrade and you can discuss whether this is or is not genocide. If what happenend in Eastern Ukrain was genocide, then what is happening to the Uygurs is definitely also genocide. But if what is happening to the Uygurs can’t be genocide, then what has been happening in Ukraine also can’t be genocide. Please keep me updated on any results you two produce :)
https://lemmy.ml/comment/15069887
Has there ever been a genocide in history where no one was killed?
Honestly, if we’re going to use such standards and definitions that a “nonviolent genocide” is possible, then I’m not sure I understand what makes such a thing wrong. In Japan, the number of people who believe in and practice Shinto is in decline, and more and more people are paying for Western style weddings, so temples are struggling to keep their doors open. Is that an inherently bad thing? Is that genocide? How about in the context of the Allies pressuring the emperor to renounce his claims to divinity, undermining a major aspect of Shinto beliefs? Because it seems to me like that did more good than harm. Does that mean I support the (mostly) “nonviolent genocide” of Imperial Japanese culture?
Eastern Ukrain was genocide, then what is happening to the Uygurs is definitely also genocide.
Except in Ukraine people did die and their heritage and language were being actively suppressed, etc. We know this because it is documented all over, even in pictures on the net. These specific things are readily confirmable. It was even a large impetus for a broader war, as hopefully you’re aware. There is zero question that Ukrainian nazis were shelling Russian-speaking civilians in the Donbas and that Ukraine as a state was passing laws detrimental to Russian speakers.
In Xinjiang, no such evidence exists because nothing of the sort happened. It’s based on a lie dreamed up by one Christian fundamentalist Adrian Zenz. Every source on this “genocide” traces back to him, and none of the claims are confirmable. Even to the UN! In fact you, yes, even you if you have the means to travel, can go there today and see for yourself that the Uyghur population is thriving and they will laugh if you tell them they’re being genocided. I’ll leave the academic discussion for exactly where to draw the line for the definition of the term genocide to others for now. But based on how you were defining it, Ukraine was committing genocide, but no, China was doing quite the opposite by encouraging ethnic diversity. Again, go see for yourself like this person did: Oh yeah, just look at all that genociding going on!
You may call me crazy but this doesnt sound like it all traces back to just one guy
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-22278037
Several countries, including the US, UK, Canada and the Netherlands, have accused China of committing genocide - defined by international convention, external as the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.
The declarations follow reports that, as well as interning Uyghurs in camps, China has been forcibly mass sterilising Uyghur women to suppress the population, separating children from their families, and attempting to break the cultural traditions of the group.
The US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, has said China is committing “genocide and crimes against humanity”.
The UK parliament declared in April 2021 that China was committing a genocide in Xinjiang.
A UN human rights committee in 2018 said it had credible reports that China was holding up to a million people in “counter-extremism centres” in Xinjiang.
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute, external found evidence in 2020 of more than 380 of these “re-education camps” in Xinjiang, an increase of 40% on previous estimates.
Analysis of data contained in the latest police documents, called the Xinjiang Police Files, showed that almost 23,000 residents - or more than 12% of the adult population of one county - were in a camp or prison in the years 2017 and 2018. If applied to Xinjiang as a whole, the figures would mean the detention of more than 1.2 million Uyghur and other Turkic minority adults.
The UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss said the files contained “shocking details of China’s human rights violations”.
Earlier, leaked documents known as the China Cables made clear that the camps were intended to be run as high security prisons, with strict discipline and punishments.
People who have managed to escape the camps have reported physical, mental and sexual torture. Women have spoken of mass rape and sexual abuse.
Also, yes I am aware of the reasons putin brought forward to start an attack on ukraine with the goal of erasing that country from the landmap. Go ahead and tell me he wouldn’t pass laws “detrimental” to the people of Ukraine if he succeeds with his invasion.
You may call me crazy but this doesnt sound like it all traces back to just one guy
That’s because you didn’t click the links on the article to see where the claims come from. That article cites Adrian Zenz, they just wized up enough to leave his name buried in the links. But you’re right that not every claim traces back to him, to be fair, we also have, uh, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, the UK parliament, and some random Australian think tank.
The UN doesn’t claim China is committing genocide, even in a report that in no way paints China in a good light. The delegation from 14 Muslim-majority countries that visited Xinjiang didn’t think there was a genocide, either.
The only countries claiming there’s a genocide, and that they’re so concerned about the treatment of Muslims in China, are the ones who spent the last 20 years slaughtering millions of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If what happenend in Eastern Ukrain was genocide, then what is happening to the Uygurs is definitely also genocide. But if what is happening to the Uygurs can’t be genocide, then what has been happening in Ukraine also can’t be genocide.
What the hell are you talking about? Ukraine was launching artillery shells at civilian targers in Eastern Ukraine. How is that nonviolent?
How is incarcerating a significant portion of an ethnic group non-violent?
Good question! Do you consider the disproportionate mass incarceration of African Americans a genocide?
And if someone supports the American government which is committing a genocide in Gaza right now?
“support the American government” is not what I see around Lemmy
Try saying Joe Biden is committing genocide on lemmy.world and you will find a plethora of apologists.
I think you’re confusing electoral lesser-evilism with genuine support. I’m as fed up with ‘Israel can do nothing wrong because history’ types as the next guy, but they’re hardly a majority
If you are demanding everyone vote for the people bypassing Congress to send more bombs to the obviously grotesque war criminal country, people are gonna think you support them, because you are.
Do you see me demanding anything? I’m literally only describing what has been my experience around Lemmy, and that your widespread genocide support is just your twisting of what people are actually saying. I think your hostile comment proves my point
I was using ‘you’ rhetorically rather than accusing you of anything. IDK how you see that as a hostile one. I’m just explaining why people get rubbed the wrong way by the the vote blue brigade.
People are actively censoring and denying any responsibility from the Democrats regarding the genocide in Gaza.
People are utter the words “Kamala was not perfect” while she is an active participant in a genocide.
It is not “Israel can do nothing wrong because history”. Democrats are the main responsible party. Seemingly they can do no wrong because lesser evil.
Have you ever watched one of the dystopian Biden state department briefings? It is lie after lie after lie.
People are actively censoring and denying any responsibility from the Democrats regarding the genocide in Gaza.
Any examples on Lemmy?
You can check the modlog on my account, this was from a couple months ago on Lemmy.world
The “finding out” should be that you lost while supporting genocide. Shouldn’t have done that, huh? Not very strategic or “adult in the room”, was it?
Did you miss all of the people supporting a lesser evil Harris genocide? Many are in this thread right now trying to preemptively pass blame for everything Trump does onto those who opposed the genocide and refused to vote for its committers. This is in no way a pro-Palestinian space, either. This thread has many examples of “the pro Palestinian protesters were a Russian plot!” and, “hope you enjoy Palestinians dying, non-voters!” sentiments.
Primarily lemmy.world
Some wild comments on /politics receiving upvotes there. People rebuking them get their comments removed and/or banned for ‘trolling’.
When one visit that place they would think Donald Trump is the current president who is personally strangling every child in Gaza.
I just don’t believe the vast majority of “lesser evil” Democrats because I saw them turn around and enthusiastically cheer on Harris, and then act like someone shot their dog when she lost. If you’re reluctantly supporting 99% Hitler over 100% Hitler, you don’t go to 99% Hitler rallies and you don’t care when he loses.
Supporting evidence:
I think Kamala Harris would be an objectively great president (1000 upvotes)
Kamala Harris is a “former prosecutor with a spotless record” (1200 upvotes)
These are the real beliefs of the supposedly “reluctant” Harris supporters who say they’re only supporting her because she’s a “lesser evil.” It’s the classic motte-and-bailey tactic, defending a much weaker form of their beliefs when under criticism than what they actually believe.
You tend to see it more on Lemmy.world, less so on instances dominated by Leftists.
Removed by mod
I understand that you hate Marxists, and yes, you’re most likely a liberal. It isn’t a coincidence that leftists tend to have similar stances to each other, when working from the same theoretical framework similar conclusions follow.
Called it
Called what?
Person A: Expresses a liberal perspective “Watch as this person calls me a Lib” Person B: “… yes, that is common liberal perspective” Person A: “Called it”
lol hatred of leftists is more associated with fascists than liberals. Don’t flatter yourself.
What a way to call yourself a fascist uh
I mean that would mean I believe that they’re imperialists supporting the case of white supremacy - I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to claim that most USA supported conflicts have the purpose of benefitting the western world, which is based on white supremacy - and most likely are either politicaly illiterate and are unaware (willingly or by ignorance) of what USA is doing, or are sociopaths. They’re not tankies by virtue of not being pro post soviet dictatorships, but when it comes to the callousness towards loss of innocent human lives, they’re uh… Pretty bad. I’m not making a comparison though, I feel that’s like asking which of two shits stinks worse, and we can clearly see that both defecators had varied and distinctive diets.
In that case the term Tankie could not be applied to China as the original meaning of the word Tankies could only apply to the Soviet Union.
What I have always understood to be the implication is “people justifying and usually denying war crimes from a government or group which aligns with their political ideology”.
Most often those people do not care about the war crimes. They think a government and/or government ideology is awesome and therefore will excuse any war crimes because it is for the greater good/lesser evil.
And honestly speaking I’m not sure myself if “tankie” should apply to China, seeing how most of their bad shit happend internally with the notable exceptions of Taiwan and Hong Kong, which are a stretch. There is a distinctive difference between Russia and China, despite both belonging to same political alliance and both have a dictatorial leaderships. Hating west/USA and loving either of them would make one a campist, but I’m not sure about that qualifyng as tankie. Naturally, most campists support both, so by that definition it would make them tankies.
While your definition does describe tankies as well, I always understood it to be a derogatory term for the general authoritarian communist/pseudo-communist block more so than applying to all national supermacists.
should apply to China, seeing how most of their bad shit happend internally with the notable exceptions of Taiwan and Hong Kong
Those are still internal to China. I can understand that people are ignorant of the fact that Taiwan is part of China given the rhetoric around it and the fact that it is still provisionally ruled by the ousted rump-state nationalist government that still thinks it’s the legitimate ruler of Mongolia too. Taiwan IS part of China, but there IS something being actually being contested there. But Hong Kong? Hong Kong unambiguously is in China, it’s just one of the Special Autonomous Regions, but even they themselves consider themselves part of China, not “external” to it.
Also, it’s not “bad shit,” it’s treating reactionaries with relatively kid gloves.
There is a distinctive difference between Russia and China, despite both belonging to same political alliance and both have a dictatorial leaderships.
China does not have a “dictorial” leadership. As for Russia, well it’s leadership is no more “dictorial” than that of any western “democracy” leadership. Their “political alliance” is still relatively loose, and the only way in which they could be considered part of the same “axis” (not a word you used, but still kind of implied) is because the US’s belligerence against them both has driven them closer together.
Hating west/USA and loving either of them would make one a campist,
Hating the west/USA is just a matter of simultaneously knowing history and being a compassionate, empathetic human being. And I would bet that most of the people you would say “love” either Russia or China rather just support their actions and goals, probably very critically in the case of Russia, and do so for rational reasons based on the true behavior of those countries. That is not campism. Campism is when you support (or “love”) a country not because its actions genuinely align with your own ideals or ideology but purely because you identify with it. Interestingly, it largely stems from a failure of self-awareness. There absolutely are campists for Russia and for China, I am not denying that at all. But despite what the libs here say, you won’t find very many of them on lemmy. Most of the people on lemmy support these countries for very rational reasons regarding ideology and their geopolitical conduct.
but I’m not sure about that qualifyng as tankie.
I always understood it to be a derogatory term for the general authoritarian communist/pseudo-communist block more so than applying to all national supermacists.
This is more or less correct. Most campists on lemmy support the US/NATO and they certainly aren’t tankies by anyone’s standards. You’re right about it always having been solely a derogatory term for certain radical leftists, nowadays usually those who support countries whose governments are fighting western imperialism. But like many others have said in this thread, it is becoming so diluted that merely not supporting the fascist DNC has been enough to get a person labeled a tankie. The silly “authoritarian” part mostly came into play once liberals started using the term and (as usual) completely not understanding its origins (origins that have to do with a specific uprising in Hungary in the 1950s).
That’s not relevant to being a tankie as the US, Israel, and other states backing Israel, aren’t claiming they’re building communism or are the successor state to another which claimed to be building communism. It’s the part where communism is an excuse that means the bad things didn’t really happen and would be fine even if they did that makes tankie-ism its own distinct thing.
So apologizing and supporting war crimes is fine as long as it is not communism?
That’s what Democrats have been telling me for the past 13 months
Of course not, but it’s an unrelated not fine to whether or not someone’s a tankie.
How does supporting one genocide stop the other? Who said that I somehow support the US? Who says I am even american, and not someone who personally has to deal with the consequences of tankie horseshit?
Your definition conveniently exempted America and countries such as Germany or the UK.
Removed by mod
Ah the hitlerite is ableist
Oh wait
All of them are
That is true. What the west is doing in Palestine is worse.
Removed by mod
Russia does bomb regularly bomb infrastructure such as energy plants. But Russia is not mass bombing schools, hospitals and refugee camps. Every time they do it it is front page news because 2 people died. Meanwhile Israel bombs a school killing 20 people every single day.
If Russia did what America and Israel are doing in Gaza, the front page of newspapers would be filled with sob stories and gore. And Hamas would be praised as brave resistance fighters against the modern Nazis.
Summary of this comment: “Do you recognize reality and not believe the ocean of NATO propaganda we’re all awash in? Then you’re a tankie. Do you reject a bunch of bullshit I made up using fascist-invented terms like “red fash” and “totalitarian”? Then you’re a tankie.”
Ok, I’m a definitely tankie then. It must suck not to be one and be stuck in these pitiful, childish delusions, and labeling people “orks” and ascribing people who value truth with what you think is an epithet. Some grade A fuckin’ cringe right here.
Removed by mod
Behold, fellow lemmy browsers: here^ we see the scratched liberal as their mask starts to slip. Not unlike the “UHMUHRICA! Love it er LEAVE it!” style of chud. They have a similar simplistic and deeply uncurious faulty view of the world, a view desperately clung to even when they are shown it is undeniably false, for self reflection is too frightening a concept for them even to consider.
Removed by mod
Okay then why am I accused of it while not qualifying. Seems like that’s not how it’s used by liberals, almost like this isn’t the colloquial definition
If you don’t have an opinion on it, you might when you learn the fascists were putting chalk marks on the doors of communists and jews
The first time I saw this word being used was here on Lemmy, when I arrived during the reddit exodus. I’m not a native English speaker though.
It was used on Reddit, but not widely. Mostly by insufferable ‘enlightened centrists’ who didn’t want to engage in good faith argument.
It’s now a blanket term for “anyone left l politically left of me” used by insufferable liberals who don’t want to admit that trying to curry votes from Republicans lost them the election.
For a time it was being used to describe actual Chinese and Soviet sympathisers, but given how quiet that particular group has been after the election, I suspect it was interchangable with state sponsored bot accounts.
Exactly this! I’ve never seen the term used by anyone but liberals to taunt, attack or divert a debate.
Much the Scots ruining Scotland, liberals seem to delight in ruining liberalism. As time passes, I see liberals more worried about some other liberal’s little slot in life. And less and less concerned with getting things done. The Big Picture is eschewed in favor of fighting over minutia.
We get what we are asking for.
As somebody who isn’t much on social media, I often have to look up slang terms I don’t use. It’s actually kind of relatable when an explanation doesn’t convey the nuances people feel when these terms are just part of normal speech. Also tbh the general idea of mocking people for not knowing things doesn’t really seem that cool.
And then there is me who keeps getting called both tankie and liberal.
This is the part where I would normally state my opinion in geopolitics but since both sides have their sources and “fact checks” I won’t. I’m tired of this information war. The only geopolitical thing both sides (yes even the great majority of liberals) can actually agree on is the Palestinian genocide. The rest is split between Western and Anti-Western reporting with both sides having blind spots for sources favouring their side whilst denouncing the sources that do not fit their world views.
And whilst we - the economic left - are fighting an unwinnable war over geopolitics the economic right is making the economy less social whilst radicalising in nationalism and conservativism with every election.
And then there is me who keeps getting called both tankie and liberal.
Only one side has a concrete definition so I’ll ask the one question that determines if you’re a liberal: do you want to overthrow capitalism?
A consumer capitalist society that is focused to see infinite GDP growth is incompatible with saving the planet and collective health. Plus seeing the human being as a mere “resource” whilst promoting individualism is deeply cynical.
The capitalist ideal is that you can be yourself as long as you can afford it. “Oh so you like playing soccer? Sorry bud, but since you have a higher probability of getting injured you’ve to pay 100$ more than your neighbour who does not.”, “Oh, you’re playing video games after your 9-5 office job? Sorry, but you spend way too much time sitting, we will therefore not cover the cost of your knee operation. You should have done more exercise.” is peak capitalism, you don’t want to live the healthy most health efficient life then better start affording the cost your decisions bring. Meanwhile corporations try to blame their heavy usage of public infrastructure and the environmental impact of their cheaply produced goods on the individual so they can wind themselves out of paying taxes so their leadership & shareholders can get another sweet bonus even tho they all already own 3 yachts, 10 supercars and 5 private jets.
Why should anyone rationally thinking want to preserve a deeply unfair economic system like capitalism? The whole system only survives because people actually think they could become the next super rich guy by chance whilst in reality over 99,9% fail to come even close to that dream but still everyone thinks they’re gonna be the 0,1%.
What I want is a system where you actually get the chance to make it from the bottom to the top if you are skilled enough. It starts by free public access to education & healthcare, investments into public transport with individual transport only for the last kilometre (or kilometres if you live in the countryside) and a social net for the jobless, homeless and retirees. Even better would be if the state would limit the amount of money the CEO can earn to max 5 times the minimum wage that the company pays and company bailouts at the cost of them becoming (partially) state owned. I have the luxury to live in Central Europe, where public services are in place but I’ve been watching the libertarians dismantling them step by step over the last few years.
My family experienced both socialism and capitalism and whilst they love the freedom of travel and the possibility to voice their opinion and go demonstrate they really miss the working atmosphere under socialism where “life was less hectic with more free time and people were friendlier and more helpful. Yes, we had to wait for certain products and maybe sometimes couldn’t afford something but the neigbors would always be helpful and borrow their stuff if it arrived first and so would we borrow our stuff to our neigbors in return. The times were tough just like nowadays, but unlike today where we feel like being left alone we felt like going through them together.” But sadly my granny also told me a lot of shit she experienced like that she lived near soviet barracks and they’d hold military roll calls at 6:00 am and if a non-soviet wasn’t there they’d find them, take them into the backyard and beat the shit out of them whilst racially insulting them and like telling them to admit they were the inferior race because they had to be liberated. But I guess no military in the world is free of nationalist pigs (who else would want to die for their country anyways)?
/acc in name
Worse than tankie tbh
i’ve only ever seen tankies complain about the word “tankie” being over used. i guess us non-tankies just don’t hear it very often.
there’s also this false dichotomy i’ve seen many tankies present where they try to argue that people are either liberals or tankies. it is possible to be a leftist and not support authoritarian governments.
I’ve seen Anarchists, Marxists, and progressive liberals all called “tankie” before, so either you aren’t looking or you consider them to be “tankies.” Secondly, I don’t know what you mean by “supporting authoritarian governments,” leftists don’t support the US Empire.
I thought tankie was for any government that used tanks on their own people? So many others should be included, China is missing, I think the Phillipines maybe? There’s more. I’m open to being corrected.
The word “tankie” originated as the OP describes, referring to members of the Communist Party of Great Britain that supported the USSR putting down the color revolutions in Hungary and Prague Spring. Nowadays, it is used as a catch-all pejorative for anyone to the left of the DNC.
Examples? Seems like it’s used for Russians that fail to stand up to or actively support their government to me.
You can see quite a few instances in this thread of such accusations. Actually, maybe not, you aren’t federated with the major leftist instances as far as I know.
Oh, we can see them alright. Haven’t seen so many tagged profiles in a long while.
What do you use for tagging? I need a way to start doing that
Boost.
Looks like it’s now an experimental feature in voyager. Still may need to try out boost again
That’s not entirely accurate. I’m sure some use it that way, but it’s not “left of the DNC” to support the modern Russian state and its actions, which is the problem most people have with Tankies.
The word “tankie” isn’t solely applied to people who critically support Russia in its temporary anti-US Hegemony stance. Again, the lack of unity behind the usage of the term means some may use it in a more reserved and restricted manner, but in reality it is used by liberals of all stripes against leftists of all stripes.
Somehow supporting colonial aggression by a totalitarian state is a left cause.
Unsure what you’re referring to, specifically, moreover the use of the word “totalitarian” betrays a lack of understanding how the USSR functioned in reality.
Not talking about the USSR there skipper.
You keep saying that people are called “tankie” for being “left of the DNC” but the only people I see being called “tankie” are folks who think a lot more people aught to be dying from polonium poisoning.
So, nobody? You really don’t see anyone being called a tankie? Interesting.
