I love the contradiction of Tankies and Queer identity.
::: spoiler Thumbnail Thumbnail is from the Bohemian Rhapsody movie where multiple scenes depicting same sex relations were removed by the Chinese government :::
Their historic figures and modern anti-Western states they so vehemently defend all have abysmal, actively hostile records and attitudes regarding LGBTQ+ rights and representation, with prosecution and state-sanctioned execution.
Their modern "anti-imperialist" states, which they frequently defend and look up to as bastions of their takes, are all steeped in state-sanctioned homophobia and illegality of queer identities.
-
China: The government systematically censors LGBTQ+ representation in media (check the thumbnail spoiler above) and shuts down queer NGOs, framing them as "foreign influences." Same-sex couples are denied legal recognition, marriage, and adoption rights. The government actively censors people who openly discuss and advocate for the lack of rights and recognition for LGBTQ+ communities, not even allowing depictions of gay relationships in their media.
-
Russia: The State has explicitly outlawed the "international LGBT movement" by classifying it as an extremist organisation. Expressing queer identity publicly or portraying it positively in media is illegal and heavily penalised. There are gay people who are beaten in the street who dare hold hands with each other, afforded no protection or rights. They don't allow marriage or gender identity.
-
Iran and Hamas: Here the situation is lethal, where under these regimes, homosexuality is criminalised and punishable by imprisonment, torture and even state-sanctioned executions.
Then you have Marxist-Leninist figures, the architects and leaders, who were just as hostile to queer identity and LGBTQ people, calling being gay a Western deviancy and sending them to camps or killing them.
-
You have Stalin, who reversed the decriminalisation of homosexuality after the revolution, recriminalising it and calling it a symptom of bourgeois decadence and fascist depravity, where if you were openly gay, you were at risk of being sent to gulags or killed.
-
Mao Zedong heavily persecuted homosexuality during the Cultural Revolution, wherein later the State punished gay individuals under vague criminal charges of hooliganism and treating homosexuality as a mental illness by Western Capitalism.
-
Fidel Castro, of course, said that "a homosexual cannot be a revolutionary." And his government subsequently rounded up gay men to send them to labour camps, and otherwise viewed queer identities as unfit for socialist society.
-
Friedrich Engels mocked homosexual rights, calling its subjects "extremely against nature" and dismissing gay rights as "turning smut into theory." Marx received and circulated the letter without objection.
And then you have something much more local: Lemmy Developer, Nutomic, with their own moment: "The transgender topic is clearly promoted by the bourgeoisie, going as far as putting lgbt flags on government buildings, or allowing biological men to compete in women's sports at the Olympics."
Given all this, why would any queer person align themselves with an ideology whose foundational leaders persecuted them, and whose modern bastions or allies actively seek to erase them?
Note: This post is not defending Capitalism, or attacking Communism.
19 replies
I've been binging their videos and they're really almost all relevant to this lol
Here is a queer "tankie" talking about the re-criminalisation of homosexuality in the USSR https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE7UPO6GGK4
Their video on Cuba's LGBTQ (and why it's a really good demonstration of ML) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7276dWOEFU&pp=0gcJCRMMAYcqIYzv
Why people should critically support resistance to imperialism and revolutionary movements even though they might be queerphobic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgwPECzyeG4
I don't have much time to get into it, but I thought these might be good starting points for people curious to learn more 🥰
::: spoiler Some counter-counterpoints and general thoughts: Sure, you can say, 'Oh, they're products of their time!' and while that can excuse some of them, it doesn't excuse others, like the Soviet Union, for example, considering Lenin decriminalised queer people (not that this was a cultural embrace of queer identity). It also doesn't excuse the modern figures, groups or nations who still hold onto discrimination and illegality of queer identities, or otherwise say their past atrocities were mistakes or 'never happened.'
There is a shining gem though, and that is Cuba, which has one of the most progressive LGBTQ+ frameworks in the Americas, and Castro publicly apologised his comments about gay people, though an apology doesn't automatically negate past atrocity. Yet, ironically, Cuba accomplished this through largely liberal means, such as a democratic public referendum and civil debate, mechanisms which are not possible in the much more powerful China, Russia and Iran because the state is afraid of conceding control to the people. Which makes you wonder, if Cuba, a much weaker socialist country can implement gay marriage while standing against Western Hegemony and the ML definition of imperialism, why can't the others?
Extremists, like tankies, operate using the same epistemic mechanics as cults, or more aptly, authoritarian groups. They maintain their worldview through strict isolation, removing all information and non-approved media and individuals as inherently corrupted by a looming, monolithic enemy, for example, Capitalism. When they are exposed to something that contradicts their views, they default to thought-termination, dismissing the contradiction as Western propaganda, or use lies and libel to distract and disregard. In the view of extremists, there is only good-versus-evil, where the evil has invariably corrupted every aspect of society, political forums, communities, organisations, or personhood.
You are either in "in the know," a tankie, or otherwise a useful idiot or someone who has been so utterly brainwashed that you cannot see "the truth," thus an enemy -- This is also why Tankies, and other extremists, can never admit wrong or defeat, to do so means that they are not "The Truth," that their dualistic, conspiratorial view of the world is instead a product of their dissonance.
When you probe tankies on Capitalism, you'll find they often only mean the West. They never mean China, even though China is more exploitative to its working class than Western nations. My experiences with them are that the shadowy figures or looming power, in this case, Capitalism, is actually the US. Since if they did mean it from a structuralist view, they'd also apply to China, which they do not. And if they do, it's with the caveat that Western influence is doing it, and this is supported by historic socialist states always referring to their flaws and faults as foreign interference. I think it's more telling, honestly, that tankies fundamentally misunderstand communist theory, which is ironic, all things considered.
They sometimes frame their support of contradictory powers and figures as the greater good. Like Hamas or Iran, for example, who are overtly against everything Tankies stand for. But because Tankies view them as the lesser evil, Tankies will show their support, with the belief they will be spared or celebrated, or that there must be sacrifices. (Naivety, really, as they are a part of Western hegemony). This is backed up by historic precedent, where you can look at anarchist and other leftist movements as an example, where once authoritarian states consolidate power over their enemies, they later destroy the useful leftists who supported them along the way, such as the Ayatollah.
Their arguments are also that progressivism and queer rights are conditional. So long as they are useful proponents of Capitalism, they will be allowed to flourish under controlled conditions. Still, at a moment's notice, the capitalist State can become fascist and authoritarian, while at the same time being blissfully ignorant that the same can be and has been done by socialist states as well. Despite that, Western Liberal Democracies and Capitalism afford more power to civil society through different forms of resistance, including lawsuits, strikes, boycotts, fundraisers, protests, and independent movements and individuals. In the modern states Tankies support, the State controls everything already, making organised resistance illegal, sometimes fatal. So queer people will still have more rights and freedoms afforded to them in the West, as they can actually resist using the system. Compared to the State already being in control. In the West, rights might be a constant battle, but the State allows you to equip yourself to resist. In the authoritarian regimes that tankies support, the State has already won and outlawed resistance.
And for arguments they cannot counter, which more often than not, reflect reality or their day-to-day lives, they remove them and hide themselves in safe spaces, protected from bitter reality and harsh truths. It's here that they are groomed and shaped into useful doctrine, and encouraged and rewarded by a like-minded community, which ends up being very much the operating apparatus of cults and cliques. In today's age, many can fall for this trap, which can lead to disastrous results: denying reality and destroying aspects of your life and others' to sustain this illusion. To know that you are not in this, ask yourself: how often do you challenge yourself and explore unknown territories? Can you admit wrong? Can you apply your morals past nations, such as recognising that liberal countries aren't perfect either?
It's here, where I believe, diversity fits nicely, forcing you to confront difference. It's also here that I remind everyone in this community to actively engage with Tankies when available to do so.
:::
This is, and I mean this respectfully, a tall order.
This sentiment has been expressed about MAGA as well, that it takes a collective effort to engage with them and deprogram them. Furthermore, so it goes, this is a worthy goal because it turns one more soul against a life of hatred and loathing, it gives us back one more person. An evangelism of empathy and reason, so to speak.
But in my experience, and as anyone who has tried to argue with MAGA family members can tell you, this is an exhausting effort, bordering on futile. I do not want my lot in life to be the Sisyphean task of reminding people of the golden rule. Why is it my responsibility, be it collective or personal, to beg (Tankies/MAGA) to reconsider their philosophy? Because reason and logic, as you said, they shut down instantly. Empathy or compassion, or even "live and let live," they view as weakness.
I'm tired boss. I have my own life to live and my own people to look after. I don't need to deal with a Two Boats and a Helicopter buffoon.
it's not only exhausting, it's counter-productive. arguing with someone only makes them more entrenched in their position.
if you're only role in this person's life is to argue politics with them, you can only have a negative impact.
if you can befriend and support them and more subtly challenge their underlying assumptions, you have a slim chance at changing their minds.
Well, arguing when they show no interest or aptitude to think about what's being said. When they think it's a game, and that everyone else thinks so just like them. That's absolutely a lost cause. Even when they are perceptive and genuine, it's absolutely exhausting still. Ultimately you can't generally just lay out the facts and be done for the most part. You have to ask questions to lead them to find the understanding for themselves. They might not trust you. But if they come across it themselves its much harder to dismiss. Its a lot of hard work.
I largely agree, yeah, you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. But when you see them spouting nonsense in public spaces, you can challenge them and have them immediately crumple.
Extremist positions are fuelled entirely by fear. One of the few successful methods is the Daryl Davis approach, where you simply communicate, act courteously, listen to their fears, and reassure them. Daryl David asked, 'How can you hate me when you don't even know me?' -- And so he treated extremists with genuine warmth and humility. You recognise their fear and treat them gently.
Other approaches are that you just question why over and over again, since extremist views are packed full of reality-denial, and having them confront that themselves gives a brief respite of self-awareness. You can ask them clarifying questions when there's a contradiction, having them spin themselves and confuse themselves about where you just repeat every new spin until they trip themselves up.
The fact of the matter is that extremists are genuinely unhappy; that's why they latch onto extremist views. Treating them with kindness and making them feel happy makes them leave the extremism. But it is exhausting, and a single mistake can undo everything. That's also why authorities of these extremists carefully remove anyone who isn't them, they can't risk that.
Yeah I also don't know that this even works to begin with.
Becoming besties with right-wing leaning individuals has not worked for me. Push came to shove during COVID and I lost a couple of friends to MAGA and antivaxx movements, who I'd known for over a decade.
The weirdest thing was that they knew I was trans, they were close friends of mine, and what pushed them out of our friend group had nothing to do with me. But you can bet that when they left, they also threw in a slew of transphobic comments before the door could hit them on the way out.
These people have a hatred that talk-no-jutsu just won't erase.
True, but the argument isn’t necessarily for them (although some have spoken of arguments starting cracks in their thinking that developed into them breaking out of the mindset years later). It’s for other people reading them.
There are, unfortunately, too many people who blindly believe what they see online, and tankies are masters at seeming reasonable. And so if they go unchallenged, people will think that means that their opinions are valid, and they are much more likely to drift towards the tankie mindset themselves. A challenge makes other people think.
So arguing for the sake of a third party reader, that I can get behind.
t-to who?
To people who don’t know, or who know just enough to be dangerous.
For instance, let’s say this person knows how the CIA admitted to messing with another country to put a puppet government in so that the US would have control. And that they biased the people of the US against the people trying to run the country that they didn’t like via lots of nasty propaganda.
Tankies will take that, and use it to claim that the US is trying to do that to China/Russia/North Korea/favorite-tankie-flavor-of-the-week, and therefore any bad thing you hear is nothing but lies and propaganda. Then they start listing good things about said country, making it actually sound amazing and wonderful and sparkly-perfect. In fact you’ll see them do this sequence quite a bit.
A person might be swayed to think that since they’d been lied to once, it was happening again. So they believe the tankie, because no-one comes along and says things like ‘that government actually admitted themselves that they did x bad thing’, or something.
Being different is a threat to the weaponized conformity that authoritarian governments use to control the masses.
From my experience, being different is a threat to any community. But you are right, yeah.
Not every community, but certainly authoritarian ones. All real world communist countries so far have been authoritarian.
Humans do tend to prefer conformity, sure, but there are tons of creative communities and even cities like Austin where differences are celebrated.
idunno, push comes to shove and if you're too different then you're likely to be removed from a community. That's been my experience.
'inclusive' communities mean 'people who look different on the outside, but are all the same on the inside'
I would argue it's only a threat to centralized communities. Meaning communities with centralized governance (republics and dictatorships, not lottocracies and anarchies); centralized production (factory societies, not craftsman societies); or centralized culture (religion-authoritative societies, not religiously free societies)
That's mostly a hunch, tho.
Another way to phrase it is that pillar-doctrine cultures violently persecute individuals that deviate from the pillar doctrine. Centralized governence, centralized production, and centralized culture all create pillar doctrines, so they attack 'deviants' over that. In societies which lack pillar doctrines, situations which justify such attacks do not exist.
Because people are complex and stupid creatures.
We do not act logically to serve our own best interests. We are not rational actors.
"CIA propaganda"
You're joking, but it's the same with popular"minority" religion like islam. It's funny to hear people cherry picking the most sanitized opinions of western scholars interpretation of non-verified text about something slightly mentioned in passed (like the mukhannath) and totally ignore all the obvious issues staring you in the face (woman as 2nd class citizens, treatment of lgbt, etc ...).