Are you a "tankie"? (2025 edition)
I forgot to set a reminder so I'm a little late getting to this, but here we are again:
Are you a "tankie"?
Respond "yes" or "no", I'll collate results later
This process is being undertaken to determine if so-called "tankies" are conspiring to make you (yes, you) have a bad time on the internet!
vague or informal answers will be interpreted by the central authority (me). Only top level comments will be counted. I will not be providing further instructions or clarifications.
🤯
Link to previous results (very serious) hexbear / lemmy,ml
Link to previous "are you a tankie?" thread
I'll likely check back in a week, my old pc died so itll take a little bit of time to prettify the results and write a report
Ciao, and of course, imperialism must be destroyed.
In that "tankie" is just a pejorative for a communist, yes. I'm a Marxist-Leninist, and I uphold AES as legitimate.
Workers of the world, unite! ☭
For those who don't know what a "tankie" is, it's essentially a pejorative for "communist." I recommend the Prolewiki article on "Tankies," as well as Nia Frome's essay "Tankies."
For those that want an introduction to Marxism-Leninism, I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list, check it out!
Oh god oh fuck I'm the type of commie that isn't obsessed with millitary equipment I didn't study oh god oh fuck
What is AES in this context? I'm pretty sure it's not encryption or a corporation lol
Actually Existing Socialism, countries like the PRC, Cuba, DPRK, Vietnam, Laos, former USSR, etc.
I can see the difference between these and EU, but isn't EU mostly socialist? Like France for example, isn't it considered so? Assuming socialist ≠ Marxist.
No, the EU is all capitalist, in every economy (even the nordics) private ownership is the principle aspect and governs the large firms and key industries. Financial capital and by extension imperialism are the dominant forces in society.
In the countries I listed, it's the opposite, public ownership is at minimum the principle aspect. Some are more heavily publicly owned, like the DPRK and Cuba, and others have more market forces at play, like Vietnam and the PRC, but in all cases public ownership is principle.
If I may ask: Does my country Algeria count as AES then ?
Algeria is more complicated. It has had a long history of communists and socialist revolutionaries such as Frantz Fanon, but is currently a capitalist country. It's far better than imperialist countries like France, and has been very progressive in opposing imperialism and colonialism, but isn't considered socialist.
You're such a sweet nerd, I really appreciate you comrade <3
(I am finally doing this)
Aww, thanks comrade <3
Tankie is a pejorative for authoritarians that advocate violence to further their political aims. The particular ideology is just window dressing.
George Washington is a Tankie. Hitler is a Tankie. Makhno is a Tankie. Elon Musk is a Tankie. Etc.
Obviously, the term "tankie" is only applied to the left. My point was that in that respect there is not really any difference between the extremes of the political spectrum. You could even say they converge in some way.
No, horseshoe theory is just liberalism trying to distance itself from fascism, when historically liberalism abd fascism correspond to capitalism doing okay and capitalism in crisis respectively.
Further, liberalism has also been responsible for mass violence, both the progressive kind such as in the French revolution, and the horribly reactionary kind when it comes to slavery, colonialism, genocide of Palestine, etc.
Redefining words and whataboutism. Name a more iconic duo.
What words did I redefine? What "whataboutism" did I do? I explained very clearly why your definition is bad, and applies to everyone. Comparison is not "whataboutism" inherently.
You literally just redefined the word 'tankie' when called out for your shitty definition of it.
Also George Washington was a leftist extremist to the British monarchy.
You've expanded the definition to include nearly everyone. All states are authoritarian, in that they are all instruments by which one class wields its authority over other classes. Revolution is the most authoritarian action there is, as was liberating the slaves in Haiti, the Statesian south, etc. You've erased any analysis of what these political aims are, essentially saying only pacifists have validity, and historically pacifists have been some of the least effective, or even damaging to their movements.
The communists that wish the working class to wield that authority wield it for progressive means, and in the interest of the people. Eventually, when class is abolished, even the state itself will be too.
I suggest you read the articles I linked, you can read both in the span of ~15 minutes and you'll have a much better understanding of what "tankie" means.
Your theory has just one minor flaw: every violent revolution ever has resulted in one clique of repressive assholes being replaced with another. And every time they've betrayed every ideal they ever did it didn't have in order to cling on to power. How is your revolution going to be different?
Your comment has one major flaw: it's wrong.
Revolution in France, for example, ovethrew an oppressive monarchy. Napoleon took power, but it was still an improvement, and in the long run was even better. In Haiti, slavery was overthrown, in Algeria colonialism was overthrown. These are just for national liberation movements and general revolution.
Socialist revolution in Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Korea, and more have all dramatically improved key metrics like life expectancy, dramatically democratized society, increased literacy rates, and lowered disparity while dramatically developing society. Socialism achieves far better metrics at similar levels of wealth and development, even in the face of brutal sanctions.
There is no "betrayal of ideals," there's the real process of existing in the world and facing real struggles. Socialism isn't magic or perfect, it's simply a much better economic system than capitalism. It isn't immune to problems or struggles, and it doesn't gift those running the economy with prophetic visions. Liberal anti-communists hold socialism to a higher standard than liberal systems, refusing it outright if it isn't heaven on Earth, and call it a "betrayal" if it isn't immediately a perfect wonderland while giving liberalism a pass, or mild critique.
I expect revolution in the US Empire to go a similar way, only that it won't be at risk of being nuked or sanctioned to death by the US Empire.
I highly suggest doing more research on the topic at hand, I can make recommendations if you want.
So having all of Europe drenched in blood by Napoleon was an improvement? And you conveniently forgot the terror. Similar things could be said about your other examples. The rest is just assertions without evidence so I'll have to pull Hitchens' razor.
-Mark Twain
In the end, moving beyond feudalism to capitalism was progressive, just as moving on beyond capitalism to socialism was and is progressive. This is rarely bloodless, but it pales in comparison to the daily violence of the present system.
Secondly, I did offer evidence upon request, I find when I just dump sources people tune out. If you have specific questions, I can back them up with answers and evidence, otherwise the lack of evidence applies just as much to you.
Neocon Iraq war supporting Christopher Hitchens? weems like a weird guy to quote if you're opposed to the state murdering people but ok
Literally all of your claims have been assertions without evidence
I'm a liberal. I know the power that democracy bestows: vote.
Fighting fascism? Vote hard.
Fighting genocide? Vote harder.
Fighting cancer? You guessed it, just vote.
Vote solves everything, vote is beautiful.
I'm a moderate and believe in supporting the lesser of two evils, which means critical support for enemies of US imperialism. I'm also something of a centrist because I believe anarchists and Marxist-Leninists and other left tendencies all have good ideas.
So yeah, I'm a moderate centrist.
I'm an anarchist though I do get called a tankie quite a lot as a pejorative.
I'm opposed to all states. That said as someone who lives in the west I don't really care to spend a lot of energy being mad about what my governments state enemies are doing.
'democracy' in capitalist states is a cruel facsimile of actual democracy. If you don't have money for rent you might as well be unpersoned, corporations are people and money is free speech.
The question is, do you want to murder people who disagree with you?
Obviously not. Not sure what you're trying to get at here though.
No. I do absolutely support Khrushchev sending tanks to Hungary (very rare Khrushchev W), but i'm not British.
I am in a superposition of being a tankie and not being a tankie at the same time.
Tankies consider me a lib because I dislike DPRK.
Libs consider me a tankie because I dislike "the west".
Oh well
Pretty much in the same boat
Can I join the club?
I'm still in doubt of what a tankie is, even though I've now seen it mentioned 1000 times. Also why is it called that?
It's essentially a pejorative for "communist." I recommend the Prolewiki article on "Tankies," as well as Nia Frome's essay "Tankies."
This is an oversimplification, but tldr..
Tankies are Authoritarian communist, as opposed to democratic or liberal communism. It refers to when the soviet union put down rebellion in Hungry and Czechoslovakia by rolling in the tanks. It prioritizes order over individual freedoms.
Lol
I think the confusing part is that liberal in there refers not to the ideology but to free in choice.
Maybe a better wording would've been "free" or just "democratic", leaving out the "liberal" entirely.
All communists believe in freedom and democracy
Then by definition, MLs aren't communists.
No, by definition Marxist-Leninists are supportive of freedom and democracy for the working class.
MLs absolutely believe in freedom and democracy; get a better dictionary
Yeah, sure. They frequently repress anarchocommunists.
There is no democracy without anarchy.
All communists support freedom and democracy for the working class, the distinction between "authoritarian and democratic" is a purely invented one designed to disavow existing implementations of socialism and absolve the one taking up the mantle of having to grapple with how socialism exists in the real world, often letting Red Scare narratives run rampant and uncontested.
All states are authoritarian; all communist states to date have followed a form of democratic centralism; and “liberal communism” is an oxymoron because liberalism is founded on private ownership of the means of production.
Neither of which were proletarian rebellions. Both were bourgeois counterrevolutions backed by western imperialist states. They were color revolutions, and these kinds of regime change operations are still happening today.
https://redsails.org/tankies/
Except that, comrade, the Prague Spring organisers opposed a secret police, which is imho a fascist element. It also focused on decentralisation of the economy. The KGB infiltrated some of the organisations.
The Hungarian 1956 liberation struggle also demanded public ownership of land. While it is true that the CIA had been involved (e.g. inviting the fascist over for reform... gee, Hungary didn't change much eh?), neither of the revolutions appear 100% bourgeoise. It would have helped to imprison the fascist, and not inform the public.
While it is true that "pro-democracy" often in practice means "pro-bribery" (as oligarchs then are enabled to bribe politicians), the core problem is and remains money even being a thing of prestige.
What should be the rule, is that society must be as resistant to corruption as possible. This is especially critical for factions and cooperations. That means:
All must be obliged to organise according to decentralised worker democracy. No boss, no master. Freedom of discussion, freedom of action.
No one who ever has led/owned a private company may be part of a group.
The groups must finance themselves through the principle of a moneyless, barterless gift economy, and mutual aid.
Full transparency of finances is required, including ultimate sources. This will encourage people to make the 'stream' of resources as direct as possible.
If a group does not adhere to even one of these principles, it is automatically considered defunct and disbands; and the members will be part of a group that does adhere to it. Those who made the group no longer adhere to all principles, will be societally barred from mutual aid (transport, food, housing, and so on). In other words, don't be a corrupt person.
Groups can not be bigger than 150 people, but can mutually aid each other and cooperate in federations, which must also be organised through all above principles.
You're combining contradictory stances. You want extreme decentralization and horizontalism even to the extent that managers don't exist, but you want factories and the ability to unilaterally punish cells that don't pass the "moral test." Everything you listed is something that seems to sound cool, but is incredibly impractical, especially when taken all together. You also wish to punish former capitalists without retaining the authority to do so, leaving those people bitter and actively working against the rest of society.
This is all ignoring your misconception of fascism as "anything scary" and not as capitalism in crisis, and your minimization of, say, the anti-semites that were lynching Jewish people and communists in Hungary before the Red Army was sent in, etc.
From a practical basis, your vision is a non-starter, factories number in the several hundreds to thousands of workers with complex supply chains that need management and administration to avoid people getting killed by heavy machinery and to ensure production actually runs smoothly. You're asking to reformat every factory to work on a microscopic scale and yet work on a purely gift economy form, when goods would take more labor and resources to produce at such a small scale, rather than reaching abundance.
Most practical forms of anarchism try to make administration more accountable, they don't try to get rid of it entirely, and call it a "justifiable hierarchy."
Thank you for the explanation! 😊
It doesn't per se prioritise order inasmuch it prioritises state tyranny.
I view tankies as marginally better than fascists in that they at least strive for universal healthcare, universal housing, and so on. But when it comes to being able to choose, they're just as terrible.
Order can only be achieved through freedom from intolerance. The true answer lies in anarchocommunism.
Communism doesn't prioritize "order" or "state tyranny," it prioritizes working class control. In AES states, the bourgeoisie and fascists violently oppose the system, and as such this is contested by the state under the control of the working class. The state is not an independent entity, it's an extension of the ruling class and as such isn't a thing in and of its own volition. In economies where public ownership is principle, ie at least over the large firms and key industries, the working class can retain control of the economy (assuming they already smashed and replaced the state).
Communists are by no means "marginally" better than fascists. This is Holocaust trivialization and equates working class control with incredibly violent bourgeois control, on the basis of both having states. Even when it comes to choice, socialist countries have dramatically expanded democratization and worker participation in the economy.
Your last bit about intolerance is self-defeating, we must be intolerant towards fascists and the bourgeoisie, and this is often cast as "authoritarian" or "totalitarian" in countries dominated by capitalists fearful of the same being done to them.
This is a child watching Saturday morning cartoon level take. Imagining your enemies are one dimensional villains who value evil for evils sake.
Tankie is when a third worlder socialist shares the most Milquetoast leftist opinion.
Yes
(Or at least I hope so lol)
So you're cool with what happened at tiananmen square? Or maybe you deny anything bad happened there? Because that's what being a tankie is all about. Tankie != Communist.
Ok so Tiananmen square had two main elements in the protest:
I have way more sympathy for the second group than I do the first. A more ideal path would have been a re-education of the first group and an integration of the second group into the CPC more directly, but unfortunately this did not occur as protestors became militant.
This is not to excuse the CPC response of course; even in the face of political violence, even reactionary political violence from the first group, the military should have as light of a hand as possible in response, and I don't think this was abided by in the events of 1989. However, I do think it was correct to suppress this movement in the first place in some capacity. The alternative would probably be colour revolution. Look at places like Venezuela and Nepal and Bolivia; they haven't purged their reactionary elements upon socialists reaching power and capitalist coups/regime change become inevitable.
They were literally lynching soldiers of the PLA, that shit had to be stopped.
Yes
nice try, CIA
Yes.
That answer is only for my own country America, I do not have strong opinions for other areas and countries.
And I realize the term is broad, and gives connotations I do not intend.
A socialist movement that is backed by force, and not using democratic methods, would save far more lives than it would destroy.
Americans do not understand democracy because they do not understand, at a fundamental level, that ballot counts need to be witnessed and recounts always allowed.
They cannot be taught that. This removes reform by democracy.
But when reform is imposed on by force there are many who would disagree . So the revolution would need to defend itself. That means time and time again, this would happen repeatedly. And the cost would be horrible.
Of course my preferred solution would raise new problems, and a rise of a new elite would have to countered, and history shows that is hard. But I think because tens of millions of Americans will die if this revolution not happen, then it’s worth it
No in the sense of back when anarchists used it to mean ML/Stalinist/AES types. No idea right now where the word seems to have no meaning. I don't think I've heard a definition of "tankie" that described my politics at least so probably still no. In general you should just say what you mean.
It's just a pejorative for communist at this point, alongside "pinko" and "red."
It was very bizarre seeing that change happen in real time. It was always a stupid word though, because even back when it was an anarchist term for a particular type of Marxist, the boundaries of what exact kinds of Marxists were encapsulated by it always changed from anarchist to anarchist. If you're actually talking politics and not memeing then you should say what exactly you mean.
To be fair, it still means something different to everyone, the common denominator is generally anti-imperialism, pro-communism, Marxism, etc.
I don't think it's fair to say that "anti-imperialism" was one of the requirements when many of the western ML/Stalinist groups that would generally fall under any anarchist's definition of "tankie" were very much chauvinist/nationalistic. Like that describes basically nearly every "communist party" in the west.
Obviously the modern anarchist usage of the term was fairly different to the origin of the term anyway, which meant a self-proclaimed communist who supported Soviet imperialism in Hungary, which Stalinists were/are opposed to. But I guess they re-used the term now that Khrushchevites are not really a thing anymore.
I don't really agree with classifying putting down the 1956 color revolution where fascists were let out of jail to lynch Jewish people and communist officials as "Soviet imperialism," but putting that all aside anti-imperialism still gets you labeled a "tankie." Opposing the west these days and its plunder of the world is sufficient to be called a "tankie" even if you reject Marxism-Leninism.
Sure, some people use it that way, but you listed it as a requirement. Chauvinists get called "tankies" too so clearly it's not a requirement.
I listed it as an option, not a requirement.
I've been called one, but fuck if I know what I am.
Are you a communist?
Probably? At least in the sense that I’ve managed to gather from the very confused online arguments about the term. I’m a communist. While I’d love it if we could all peacefully vote our way into a better society, I recognize that it’s probably not going to happen and whatever nastiness we’d have to do to actually make the change is worth moving past the endless awfulness that is capitalism. And for the existing countries, while they’re not magical Christmas lands, I’ve learned they’re not quite as bad as the capitalists have fear- mongered.
And I get Anarchists thinking it’s states all the way down but…………. I don’t know what to tell you. What’s the alternative? Even if I want to get where you’re going, how do we get there? Where is the bus/train? I don’t see any running to get there.
Hey comrade, have you considered making an account on Lemmy.ml, Lemmygrad.ml, or Hexbear.net? Lemmy.world censors communist content, so you might at least prefer something like Lemmy.zip that can see the content communists are posting.
How does that work? I assumed one Lemmy account covered everything. Where do I go for each of these?
Lemmy instances are kinda like islands, but you can visit and see other islands that are on good terms, or "federated." Federation can be one-way, ie you can see and comment on another instance's posts but they can't see yours, or it can be two-way, and you can comment back and forth. You are on Lemmy.world's view of a Lemmy.ml post. There are comments from Hexbear and Lemmygrad users on this post that I can see, but you can't, like this one.
Lemmy.world is defederated from Hexbear.net and Lemmygrad.ml, the two biggest communist instances. In order to see their content and interact with their users, you need an account on an instance like those two, or Lemmy.ml, Lemmy.zip, etc. You don't need one for each instance, just one federated with what you want to see.
Does that make sense?
So I just pick one of them and I'm good? Any suggestion which one to pick? Just the biggest?
EDIT: Also, am I able to just be logged into both so I can see both sides at the same time or do I have to swap back and forth if I want to check out world or the commy instances?
Well, what is it that you want? Do you want one account that can see almost everything? Lemmy.zip or Lemmy.ml would be better than Lemmy.world, and you can chat with Hexbear and Lemmygrad users as well as Lemmy.world users that way. Do you just want to talk with communists? Lemmygrad.ml or Hexbear.net might be a better fit, you won't be able to interact with Lemmy.world that way. You can see Lemmy.world content and comment on it from Grad, but they can't see your content. Hexbear defederated from .world so it doesn't even show up.
Personally, I use all 3 depending on what I want to do.
I recommend checking out this guide by a good Lemmygrad comrade!
Thanks. Do only some of the instances have an old version? I see one for lemmy.zip but it doesn't show up for ml or lemmygrad.
I think? Not actually sure, really!
A communist isn't a tankie per sé. Tankies are people who blindly follow authoritarians of a communist regime and defend/deny the gruesome acts committed by said authoritarians. The idea behind communism is a valid one. In a perfect world, communism would lead to the star Trek utopia. Problem is, assholes will always take advantage and turn everything to shit. I still prefer communism over the heap of flaming shit most of the world lives in.
I think I'm more of a wankie myself
Tankie is a pretty cool sounding word, so yes.
no
Sure
No
No
😔
I don't mind people calling themselves tankies but I don't think using a "slur" as an identifier is in any way helpful. Nor does anyone who uses it demeaningly really know what happened in Hungary. I barely know anything about it.
For the sake of the poll, it's really asking "are you a communist?" I generally don't refer to myself as a "tankie" for similar reasons as you said, but clarified my position to expressly include that as far as this poll is about support for communism/leftism/etc, it applies to me. Just hoping the final numbers show a good amount of "yes" answers simply due to wanting a strong showing of leftists.
I really think the wording should be changed. Liberals will gladly rip everything out of context. The word Tankie is infinitely more loaded than Communist. Most Liberals even think it's about Tiannenmen square and the tank man and you already know how much propaganda they consumed about Tiannenmen square.
I align most with Nia Frome's viewpoint in Marketing Socialism. Essentially, we can't shy away from loaded terms, liberals will accuse us regardless, so it's more important to correctly demystify rather than taking the "easy" path of distancing ourselves from "tankies," as though "tankie" means anything other than "communist/leftist/anti-imperialist/etc."
We should correctly call out "tankie" as something to not be afraid of, it just means "commie" or "red" or "pinko," and not let the word have power over discourse when discussing leftist politics.
But 'Tankie' is not the ideology at all. There is no reason to defend anything which is not the ideology itself. The word Tankie is so meaningless and vague that the only reason to ever use it is if people are actually trying to push on it. In which case you'd first have to ask them what they even mean by the word Tankie because they probably don't know what it means to begin with (nobody really does at this point).
Using it as a self-identifier is self-defeating.
Using "tankie" as a self-identifier has the same effect as calling oneself a "commie," it signals that being accused of being a communist isn't anything to take offense to. If I am going to be called a "commie, pinko, red, tankie, etc" then it is best to call it out for what it is: Accurate insofar as it describes me as a communist. I'm not going to deny those who call me by such pejoratives, rather I'm just going to explain why I'm a communist. Using it as a self-identifier blunts the pejorative and makes it less effective in public discourse to shut down communist speech.
I don't think anyone sincerely identifies as a tankie, I just made this thread so I can remake my funny chart with the title are tankies conspiring to make you have a bad time on the internet?
I was expecting a questionnaire. Um, no...
No, I don't think so?
No
no
I don't think so but I have been called it. So from my perspective no. from other peoples perspective. yes. From what I think a tankie would be (full communist workers own the means of prodcution who then says russia or such is in the right direction) no. I mean I doubt they look at me as one of their own. I sorta doubt tankies like the term though if per se. I mean there is a difference between feeling that karl marx writings are correct and outlays a way for society to run and saying nk, china, and russia are doing a bang up job.
No communist thinks the Russian Federation is socialist, at most there is critical support in that the RF opposes the US Empire and the west as well as maintaining strong ties with socialist countries, but most communists do support the PRC and by extension the efforts of the CPC to develop a robust socialist system.
As for "tankies," many label themselves as such as more of a joke, or to disempower the term. The actual pejorative though is fairly meaningless.
Yeah I think that when it comes down to it tankie is basically an insult to those that use it as a label and means whatever they want it to. So on the one side I will talk about how renting is not bad when the person who "owns" property lives there and get a lot of flak. I equally get flak when I talk about how property ownership is sorta an illusion given with taxes and such everyone rents from the government in some shape or form along with the fact that the government has to control an area and recognize the ownership for there to be ownership.
I’m a former owner-occupant of a multi-unit property. This is a textbook petit bourgeois assertion, the kind of thing that Bernie Sanders might say. He’ll rail against crony capitalism and über capitalism but not per se capitalism. Petit capitalism as a treat inevitably leads to the haute capitalism and oligarchy we suffer under today.
If you're meandering around support for capitalism, you're not a communist, so I wouldn't think "tankie" would apply to you.
nah it's great being treated like a second class citizen by a fucking parasite with a part time job
No. But my anarchist friends consider me one. Also I don't consider the term tankie to be synonymous with communist or socialist.
If there were no meddling from the imperialist special interest abroad, there would have been no need for the tanks. Unfortunately the siege is ever present and ubiquitous.
"Tankie" isn't synonymous with communist in the same way "pinko" isn't, both are just pejoratives for communists.
I don't think so, I like USSR as a response to imperialism, current China is quite cool in many ways, but I don't automatically support whatever governments agrees on just cuz they're better than their competition.
Also Karl Marx was kinda genius, but not sure how he uses violence in his theory, of course a political theory must contain a corner for violence, but it is hard for me to trace what exactly was Marx's exact plan.
No.
I'm an anarchist. I organize with Anti-authoritarian Communist though since most anarchist here are batshit 😅
Not a fan of nation states. They divide the working class against themselves.
Pretty big difference between a capitalist state that divides the working class and socialist states that unify the working class. The era of borders dissolving is only really possible when socialism has become by far the dominant mode of production globally.
How do you propose we get rid of them? Because that is our end goal, which we make our plans toward reaching.
A big problem with most other leftists’ plans are their prefigurative politics. “Be the change you want to see in the world” doesn’t cut it while the world is significantly controlled by imperialist states. Until those capitalist states are dispensed with, socialist states don’t have the luxury of prefiguration, or they go the way of Allende’s Chile.
A (long) excerpt from Michael Parenti’s Blackshirts and Reds: Anticommunism & Wonderland. Here’s a snippet:
BTW, the Soviet Union wasn’t a nation-state and neither is China, but rather multinational states.
No
Aigh't, while i don't believe in the premise of communism in human civilisation, i think socialism, without it getting over the freedom of people, is one of the way to ensure the future of humanity.
I believe a balanced amount of anarchism and socialism can, for a medium sized population, be good and sustainable on the long run.
Tho to be honest, i don't know enough in politics to say an answer.
Why do you think this hypothetical solution is a good idea, and why not communism?
Because pure communism breaks as soon as you have more than a few hundreds of people living together, in my opinion.
We are not ants, and we as a specie are doing things more for ourselves than for others.
A hypothetical society wanting to approach to the closest version of communism would need to be terribly authoritarian and selective, and would be very vulnerable to non workers pushing down the economy. To live in communism means to not let freedom to the workers. It is as unsustainable as fordism.
I don't know what you mean by "pure" communism. Communism is a mode of production based on collectivized production and distribution, it isn't a religious vow. Humans are indeed not ants, I don't see why you think people being self-interested gets in the way of collectivized and planned production and distribution. As for scale, communism works far better at larger scales, and I would say necessarily requires it. I think you may be confusing communism with communalism.
I don't know what you mean by needing to be "authoritarian to non-workers," especially because that's the default in capitalism unless you're a capitalist. You can have social safety nets while still having the labor necessary to keep society functioning and thriving.
Where did you get this idea of communism?
Looked up on an encyclopedia, i admit i have been actually confusing communism with communalism, or communism at its primal sense. I had the idea that communism is the abolishment of private property and the equal repartition of remuneration between people, wether they work hard or not. Kind of like the functionning of ants. Simply got this idea from high school honestly (heh).
Though, if communism is only about collectivised production and distribution, i can see why it would be interesting to successfully implement it.
Honestly, i haven't got a good enough knowledge of political alignments yet to be able to answer your question correctly, thank you for making me understand that. Do you reccomand any reads/authors who approached this topic?
Funny you ask, I actually made an entire Marxist-Leninist introductory reading list! It's designed to introduce key concepts and take you from no knowledge of political theory whatsoever into becoming a good cadre in any ML org. You obviously don't need the whole thing, though, you can just read or listen to section 0a and you'll be more than good, even just the first half of the section.
Communism, essentially, is economically compelled by the existing trends of capitalism, ie centralization of markets around a few firms and sprawling production and supply chains, as well as capitalism's contradictions, like overproduction leading to crisis and the struggle between workers and owners (workers want more for their labor, owners want to pay them less). Collectivized production and distribution has a number of ways to account for labor and resource management, it's far more complex than just getting everything for free.
Let me know if you have any questions!
Enlightened socialcentrism.
I think I interacted with one? They were denying the prosecution of the Muslim Uygurs by China
Interesting that the outright Islamophobe seems to be defending muslims against China. Either way, it's likely you were told that the situation is more complicated. The best and most comprehensive resource I have seen so far is Qiao Collective's Xinjiang: A Resource and Report Compilation. Qiao Collective is explicitly pro-PRC, but this is an extremely comprehensive write-up of the entire background of the events, the timeline of reports, and real and fake claims.
I also recommend reading the UN report and China's response to it. These are the most relevant accusations and responses without delving into straight up fantasy like Adrian Zenz, professional propagandist for the Victims of Communism Foundation, does.
Tourists do go to Xinjiang all the time. You can watch videos like this one on YouTube, though it obviously isn't going to be a comprehensive view of a complex situation like this.
Lol, it was the very same "bear or man" but I just changed man with Muslim because that's what you're all being stupid about. The bear or man point stayed but mine got "moderated" for islamophobia. And yeah this "outright islamophobe" is against the concept of ethnic cleansing, wowe.
While I appreciate you actually bringing up sources unlike that other asshole, I can't really take you seriously throwing out claims like the first one.
Now, I won't admit I'm an expert and it's a fairly way back event. But what I was told was that they basically corraled all those Muslims and didn't let them practice their faith.
Why can't people admit countries do shitty things? It's happened with mine, it's happened with China and it's happened with the US.
Being islamophobic "ironically" doesn't get a pass, though. All that looks like is looking for an excuse to be bigoted in a socially acceptable manner.
Either way, you admit to not being an expert and haven't dug into sources, yet fully accept what you are told and agree that China is committing ethnic cleansing just because "countries do shitty things?" High accusations like ethnic cleansing need actual proof, not just people parroting the claims of Adrian Zenz uncritically.
There's a political reason the idea of genocide is pushed, it's to undermine the PRC's international image and delay the Belt and Road Initiative in the Xinjiang Autonomous Zone, which is a key point connecting mainland China to Europe and the Middle East.
Again, being islamophobic "ironically" to get upset at someone complaining about systemic violence against women is not okay.
Women and muslims are both systematically oppressed groups, you used someone complaining about violence against women as a springboard to make an incredibly poor "joke" about muslims, just repeating standard islamophobic talking points as the "joke." This isn't about virtue signalling, you were in the wrong and it was right to remove your comment.
So it wasn't a joke, you were just being openly islamophobic after all? Incredible.
Again, women and muslims are both systemically oppressed. No, nobody said "all men are predators," you took personal offense to someone talking about widespread systemic oppression of women. Do some self-crit, you talked down on someone speaking against oppression and added your own islamophobic take.
No.
I believe that both Palestine and Ukraine are being invaded by genocidal maniacs and both nations deserve support in fighting their oppressors.
Fuck Russia and its defenders. Fuck Israel and its defenders. Fuck the USA and its defenders, but the USA is right to help Ukraine and it should be helping Palestine.
The US Empire "supports" Ukraine for the same reason it supports Israel: both serve the economic interests of western imperialism by putting millitary pressure on the surrounding countries, often including terrorism or even genocide. Make no mistake, though, the US Empire isn't helping Ukraine. It's entrapping it in huge amounts of debt, sending shoddy equipment, and using them to deal as much damage to Russia as possible. Peace was on the table long ago, but the US Empire wants to milk Ukraine for everything it has and do as much damage to Russia as possible in order to pressure Russia into letting foreign capital overtake their economy like in the 90s.
Russia isn't commiting genocide in Ukraine, it's at war with Ukraine. Further, the secessionists in the Donbass region were the ones inviting Russia in, and Russia isn't trying to take all of Ukraine. Russia wants the Donbass region, as it's the land bridge into Russia, and demillitarization of Ukraine. Post-Euromaidan coup in 2014, Ukraine has been ruled by far-right nationalists that uphold Stepan Bandera, and this is what has caused such millitarization of Ukraine and a civil war between Kiev and the Donbass region.
The best support Ukraine can have right now is an expedient peace deal. Any "help" from the west comes in the form of shoddy gear and unlimited debt, and Russia has the means to continue the war and achieve its aims whether or not Ukraine continues getting NATO equipment. There's no more support the west can give even if they were altruistic, the US is a paper tiger and can't actually produce millitary equipment at a rate to keep up with conventional warfare.
As for Israel and Palestine, the US Empire will never help Palestine. Israel, like Ukraine, is a US vassel that pressures and terrorizes the surrounding area, such as Iran, Yemen, and of course Palestine. The US Empire uses both Israel and Ukraine as land-based semi-autonomous aircraft carriers to project hard power.
The reason the US Empire interacts with Ukraine and Israel, along with every country, is to continue the system of imperialism by which the global north plunders the global south. Nothing else matters to the US Empire than making as much profits as it can.
No, while I do hold countries like China and Cuba in higher regard than America, I don't hold them in higher regard than any real democracies and I hold countries like Russia and North Korea in even lower regard than America.