Agree with you in general, but I think a lot if people here are not really informed what differences there are materialistic ideologies.
Yes, Stalin bad.
But Guevara is not Stalin.
Marx is not che
Engels is not Marx
China is not communist.
Marxism is not materialism
Socialism is not communism
Also the amount of people bringing the "the 3 times people tried socialism were bad, so the whole ideology must be bad" argument are way to high IMHO.
How many times was capitalism tried? How many times it worked out? Is the USA a "functioning" state with all the oppression, racism, greed, invading other countries out of monetarian interest and environment destruction?
While I agree with you, that oppression is bad, no matter what the oppressor calls himself, we should talk about policies without resorting to dogmas and generalising people in favor of fear the hegemonic class is propagating to stay in power.
Not to say they're a perfect country but to pretend that anyone in the West can critique them when their material conditions are dictated by the actions of the West is just comical.
If you aren't a materialist, what are you even doing? As if history happens in the realm of pure thought.....
Something something worlds largest prison population?
Again, it's not like North Korea is some shining example or anything, but to pretend that the west has the moral high ground here is laughable.
Again, listen to Blowback Season 3, recognize that their country was basically bombed to the stone age Curtis le may style and then maybe reevaluate, just a little, the chauvinist attitude.
DPRK is not a great country but it's not as if they were ever given a chance either.
Yeah, the US prison system is absolutely abhorrent and counterethical to all the principles it's supposed to hold.
First, the US is basically the only western country like that:tm:, second, more than one thing can be bad. "'North Korea is a great country' is a dumb position", the only (implied) assertion I made about it in my original comment, is still true, even if they got dealt a shit hand (which, so did most of the east after WW2; South Korea was in a pretty similar state (it was actually worse than NK shortly after the Korean war), yet they're doing... much better than NK at least).
Being "basically bombed to the stone age" doesn't mean a dictatorship is inevitable, nor that their government is suddenly blameless; being victimized doesn't mean you can victimize others.
Genuinely, if you take "the west" as a whole and compare it to North Korea... yeah, I do think they have a high ground. No, I'm not saying the west is perfect, far from it. No, I'm not saying communism is automatically bad, I'm totally cool with communists.
Basically my base position is "a functional democracy is the governance system that works the best". Most western states are much closer to that than North Korea (yes, I know what the Electoral College is and why it's bad), so I do think their political system is better.
I still wonder why you're so obsessed with North Korea. It's not like the South wasn't also a dictatorship until very recently. I wonder what the difference in economic outcomes was. Surely not the political system but instead the different material conditions between south and north i.e. embargo and isolation.
Again, I don't think that NK is the best example of AES, in fact their country is probably the worst. But I don't think the people who have produced the economic emisseration of the country and have worked to undermine its regime at every term get to scold them about their political choices.
Why should democracy be privileged when the choices of that democracy, at least internationally, are immoral. Should we praise democracy when it produces an evil outcome? Why are you so wedded to a system? After all democracy produces trans and drag bans in the south. Is that good? This isn't to say dictatorship is superior, I don't think it necessarily is, but to pretend the virtue is in the system rather than the outcome is pretty lib. If democracy produces fascism is it still good? If we throw our trans friends or homeless into the wood chipper because voters say it's good with 51% of the vote, does that legitimate it?
All of the so called 'functional democracies' of the West are abysmal, China has 94% government satisfaction where I doubt there's one western country over 50% (and the US is at 24%)
The country that holds the record for number and percentage of people in prison is the US.
In the US the percentage of black people in prison was higher than the percentage of black people in prison in South Africa during apartheid.
No other western/industrialized (at some stage) nation has had so many political exilees and people whose citizenship was revoked based on "anti-american" views than the US. At some point the general secretary of RCP was in exile in France with his citizenship revoked. So, not all states are equal, and their historic development as modern capitalist states should be studied within context.
When a liberal says "tankie" they mean anything remotely communist-looking. When a leftist says "tankie", they mean authoritarians who like red flags and self-proclaimed communists who nonetheless support hierarchies and have no plan or intention to bring them down. I think the vast majority of people here knows this already.
Is the USA a “functioning” state with all the oppression, racism, greed, invading other countries out of monetarian interest and environment destruction?
I hope you realize that this is an incredibly privileged take. The US is rife with issues, but the hardships experienced by the average western citizen doesn't even compare to the suffering that you would find in, say, Pol Pot's Cambodia, or (to a less extreme extent) Maduro's Venezuela. To compare what a US citizen deals with on a daily basis due to capitalism to what a citizen of any of those countries had to go through is very reductive and may be perceived as disrespectful to many who had to live those experiences.
The United States, for all it's faults, is the pretty side of capitalism.you don't even need to look to the most poor countries to see a standard of living that makes even directly post ww2 soviet union look like a great place.
The US is rife with issues, but the hardships experienced by the average western citizen doesn’t even compare to the suffering that you would find in, say, Pol Pot’s Cambodia
I have some fellas from Detroit that would disagree.
Killing millions and being dysfunctional are in a different realm of terrible. I'm sorry, but how did you come to the conclusion that they are even comparable?
Im not from USA, and from my point of view its mich worse than most other countries (no healthcare, no independend courts, murder sprees in schools nearly every day, opression of half of the world (a half of them just to get more oil to destroy the planet faster), one of 3 of the biggest war-pushers in whole earth, polutes and destroys earth mode than every other country per citizens, etc. PP.)
capitalism mostly opresses and profits from people out of the country to Funktion. if its Bad in Venezuela or Cuba or Afghanistan, or even early russia, thats at least partly fault of US.
Venezuela is not communism, China isnt, russia isnt.
Most of them have failed, at least partly because caputalist societys atack them and stop a as soon as they are born and they can't form a stable democracy.
Before reading Marx, your bashing of communism isnt worth anything, as you clearly don't understand what you are talking about. We never had communism, and some would say not even socialism. You sound like you don't even know the difference, since you keep talking about communism, which is a utopian society after humanity has stopped a lot of bad habits and has learned to live without working against each other in competition and working together instead, which arises maybe after generations of workig socialism, which we clearly didn't have.
4.you exactly prove my point. I dont agree with tankies either, but the number of people around here blindly copying capitalist propaganda while understanding nothing they bash about is too damm high.
You have a warped view of USA that doesn't reflect reality. You're seeing it through the lens of sensationalist news media and hyperventilating social media posts.
The actual reality for Americans is that it's a vast, beautiful land with an amazing spectrum of various experience. Violent crime is rare overall, and most Americans have never seen or heard any gun violence in person. Health care is available to pretty much everyone, even if you don't have money. We have state-run healthcare facilities that the poor can make use of like county health departments.
My life in the USA is great, because I don't live in a big city. I live on my own land, in a nice house that I own, and I'm just middle class income level. It's pretty easy to accomplish if you choose a low cost of living area rather than a big metropolis or suburb thereof.
Well of course the standard of living in the imperial core is higher than the countries it has exploited or destabilized. A lot of American wealth is the fruit of imperialism.
What's your definition of "tankie"? If you're willing to call out Putin's homophobic journalist murdering authoritarian bullshit and the Chinese government's massacring of protesters and genociding of ethnic minorities you're not a tankie imo, you're just a communist.
It's pretty typical tankie behavior that we're seeing.
When you say it's bad that Stalin implemented genocidal policies such as against the Krim Tartars, Kalmykks and other ethnic groups, they come back with wHaT aBoUt aMeRiCa.
They know that both things can be bad, but they have similar incentives to right-fascists. That is to say they're liars.
2023, where the maoist New People's Army is a stronghold for human rights & dignity for the Filipino people, engaged in open war against the truly authoritarian & cruel, Imperialist backed Phillipine Republic
To tankies fascist means opposing whatever flavor of authoritarian "communism" they prefer regardless of the reasons or context. This conveniently allows any number of pogroms, mass slaughters or engineered famines to be reframed as anti-fascist action, rather than a brutal expression of state power at the expense of the working class.
Then what would you have me call people who make excuses for invasion, oppression, and genocide just because it was committed by the Russian or Chinese government instead of a western one?
I really hate how ya'll deliberately conflate tankies and all socialism/communism, and then conflate anyone being opposed to those concepts as inherently being a fascist.
The Cuban working class does not self-administer the economy. Although Cuba is as close so a success as Marxism can get, Fidel's policies of homophobic persecution - regardless of the fact that he regretted them - is proof positive of why authoritarian policies go wrong. Why no single person should have that level of power.
Because in spite of Castro's evident good intentions, and the otherwise high level of success that Cuba has achieved, those atrocities still happened. And because of Authoritarian policies, no-one within Cuba could opposite it while it went on without facing persecution.
didn't they have a problem with people doing alt-right dogwhistles about anti-white racism recently?
and it got so bad that they had to make a mod announcement telling people to stop doing it and all of the users started trying to explain to the mods how it definitely wasn't a right wing dogwhistle
the US state department dogma must be a much better read😌
lmao
How will you perform a non-authoritarian revolution? How will you quash racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.? By being polite?
the main idea is dual power structures.
spreading awareness, and people will do whats necessary, mobilize, organize, all that fun stuff.
if u can teach people about the struggles of marginalized groups, they will be able to recognize it in their own lives and stand up against it.
Or are you going to vote us towards communism🤩
and there wont be a need for political parties to enforce "compliance", people are naturally empathetic. well not all people, but the vast majority.
And I have plenty more books, but go on🤗
try "Are you an anarchist? the answer might surprise you" by David Graeber, if ur ever looking for something else.
or "Anarchy works" by Peter Gelderloos for a more comprehensive description of these ideas.
Che Guevara did a lot of good for people, like the people of Cuba. Considering he fought, and helped Cuba free itself from being a colony to the United States and against Batista. I didn't know people fighting for the right to not be under colonial rule and have their own self determination is "extreme".
Also maybe go check out "On revolutionary medicine" by Che Guevara. I'll also leave this quote from him.
...the life of a single human being, is worth a million times more than all the property of the richest man on earth...
Isn't "authoritarian communist" kind of an oxymoron? 😂 like the whole point of communism is that there isn't a ruling class. I guess Russia and China were never really communist, just statist authoritarian right? I mean, the Nazis called themselves Socialist. They were nowhere near that
Isn't "authoritarian communist" kind of an oxymoron?
Most real life implementations of communism used an authoritarian one party system. You can say these aren't true examples of communism, but that just ends up sounding like cope unfortunately.
Fair point. Though so far, there hasn't really been any system at all that didn't lead to genocide and/or class based opression. From monarchs to feudal Lords to capitalist oligarchies and communist dictators, terrible people always rise to the top.
As how Marx outlined Communism as the evolution of Capitalism once it reaches a scale of production that everyone can have their needs met, resulting in a classless, stateless, moneyless society, then yes authoritarian communist is an oxymoron.
there's a trend towards that, which can be combatted & has been by communist parties. Stalin had a pretty incoherent plan to combat rightist tendencies within the communist party, assuming the problem stemmed from external meddling. Mao actually shared your view in that bureaucracy rots socialism, and that it needs to be decreased as the people are helped towards being self reliant, ready to self manage the economy & have suitable industry to run the country with. that's why the cultural revolution happened, to fight bureaucracy
And yet in spite of the few positive things contributions Mao made, and some of the things he got right, he still positioned himself culturally to take up the position 'benign and distant emperor. Much as the contemporary regime prefers to pin all the horrors of the Cultural Revolution on the Gang of Four, many of Mao's ideas themselves were harmful (such as wholesale and universal destruction of old culture).
Marxism-Leninism and its party structure has shown itself, in practice and historically, as being unable to resist this impulse to corruption and autocracy. It was Bolshevik counterrevolution that destroyed the power of the Worker's and Soldier's Soviets in Russia, Soviet counterrevolution that invaded Ukraine during its revolution, and then again Leninist party counterrevolution that prevented any of the (few) positive aspects of the cultural revolution from blossoming into anything useful.
Vanguard parties are counter productive, and counter revolutionary. The French revolution gives us the same lesson, as the Jacobin counter-revolutionary terror (with the oh-so-popular guillotine mostly used on the poor) created the space for reactionary backlash.
The centralization of power is, therefore, a counter-revolutionary impulse. Humans being are not suited for the rule and management of others. Only a revolution that truly returns power to the people has any chance of lasting. That's why even the flawed and imperfect Kurdish revolutionaries of Rojava are sustaining the social and cultural infrastructure for revolution, while Marxists, Maoists and other authoritarian communists world-wide consistently either degrade into bandits and terrorists, or form corrupt and reactionary power-structures.
The proletariat are by definition the majority. The Soviet Union was by no means ruled by the majority. Stalin murdered millions to enforce his autocracy—the exact opposite of majority rule.
just to chime in with an anarchist perspective-- majority rule, as lionized by proponents of liberal democracies, is itself a form of heirarchy in which the will of an ostensible 'majority' (though usually that of the capital- owning class actually) is inflicted upon society as a whole, alienating the minority position, enforced by the state apparatus' monopoly of violence.
if one values bodily autonomy, reconciled with the needs of the collective, a system of governance like mutual collective determination must be established which guarantees that all voices are heard and acknowledged.
Both. Fascist apologist like to cherry pick palatable characteristics of figures like Stalin, or Hitler, or Andrew Jackson in order to destigmatize thier idolatry of these figures. These "certain aspects" are the tip of the wedge they use to destroy rationality and peace.
A reasonable person who would like to discuss the benefits of communism would point to the value of labor, advantages of unions, and the dignity of the worker, not the evil, paranoid, and violent person of Stalin.
Always, the stink of fascism follows the idolization of so called "great men." Excuses after excuses.
The Holocaust most definitely happened and was perpetuated by the Nazis. Please don't accuse me of denial.
Communism, or to be most specific, Marxism, was most definitely aligned against Hitler.
Stalin, was not. He would have watched Hitler kill all of Europe had the Nazis not attacked Russia. Same as the united states if Japan had not attacked them.
I'm not obsessed with Stalin. I'm also not a Holocaust denier. You really seem keen on saying inflammatory things about me without any preceding context.
I will observe that I think Stalin was an awful person who tarnished the reputation of socialism for a century. I don't have anything against socialist, being one myself.
I have a beef with apologist for failed communist states like the soviet onion. I feel they deeply misrepresent socialism.
Your historical notes are technically correct, and Stalin did even attempt to reach a pact with France to limit the potential expansion of Nazi Germany. However, once those initiatives failed, Stalin had no issue about pacting with Hitler instead to invade third countries together, which highlights how Stalin's first priority was improving his geopolitical position, rather than an ideological opposition to nazism.
I am of the strong opinion that fascism doesn't care if you call yourself a communist, a capitalist, or a Democrat. If someone promotes a state which strips the power of local and individual labor for it's own use; cultivates violence as a means of domestic control; supports expansionism; and finally the consolidation of power under a personality; I oppose it, and call it what it is.
My comments are split now, so I'll let you read my other one. I would just like to emphasize that I consider myself a socialist, and that it's not really that vague of a criteria for the purposes of an Internet argument. It's just broad. I believe all current world superpowers current share elements of fascism which I despise and oppose.
Nazism as an ideology set out to eradicate those seen as impure, and two of the most prominent of those targeted groups were communists and Slavic people. Hitler literally wanted to kill everyone who identified as a socialist. To think that the USSR was unaware or tolerant of this fact is a truly awful take.
Wow a commie who doesnt know history, not surprising. Firstly I never said USSR didnt know what Germany was doing, I said they didnt care. This is backed up by history. Yes Hitler hated the soviets and they probably disliked him to but they tolerated him and his crimes against humanity enough to form an alliance and work together. A little timeline of events to refresh your memory: 1939 USSR signs a non aggression pact with Germany. This pact includes plans to divide eastern europe between USSR and Germany, a clause that prevents the USSR from allying or aiding enemies of Germany. Shortly after Germany and the USSR double team Poland and split it up between them. After Stalin used the attack to capture a few eastern european countries he asked to join the Axis powers treaty. Stalin was warned multiple times that Germany was preparing to backstab him but rejected the warnings as he thought they were so allies. After it was confirm that Hitler had betrayed him he spent several days sulking in his holiday house refusing to communicate with his generals.
There is no way you can reasonably say that USSR disapproved of Hitlers action and Ideology. The only thing he would have had an issue with is that Hitler hated slavic people. He was even willing to put that aside because they both had authoritarianism in common.
Did you finish your book halfway through? Hitler and Stalin formed an alliance shortly after the Spanish civil war. Even though Hitler referred to Slavic people as untermench Stalin still signed treaties because they were at the end of the day both Fascist Authoritarian dictators and dont give a single fuck about committing crimes against humanity.
The fundamental problem of tankies is that they forget the whole point of socialism is making people's lives better, not getting revenge on the hated capitalists. If you create an oppressive hellscape in the process of destroying capitalism then you've failed.
maoists??? I think you should read anything by mao. he was anything but "authoritarian", he spend most of his time after 1949 taking a sledgehammer to bureaucracy & encouraging communities to be self reliant
So, people who love North Korea, or defend russia invading Ukraine, people, who stand by even the most autoritarian, anti-democratic, militaristic, imperialistic regimes - just because they call themselves “socialist” or “communist” - are “Tankies”.
Would be good to point out these people you are mentioning are not all the same.
There are people that Are critical of Russia, but don't buy from western propaganda and are being called tankies too.
It is more like, if one dare to question the western narrative = tankie.
i.e. are critical of russia, but stand by even the most autoritarian, anti-democratic, militaristic, imperialistic regimes - just because they call themselves “socialist” or “communist”, except for russias invasion of ukraine
isn't that the same logic that the tankies are using though - because they think they have to be authoritarian to the people who they believe are trying to take their freedoms i.e. capitalists?
Yes that's right, you see, Aaron Swartz was a "free speech absolutist" who allowed for things like /r/creepshots and allowed for cp on early reddit.
https://archive.is/d4NPt
It's the prog-lib equivalent of woke. It's used dismiss leftists with out engaging with our arguments. The term has lite ideological or argumentative use.
Without a state to enforce environmental regulations, how do you intend to defend your community from pollution? By attacking the polluters with guns? They have guns, too. Probably more guns than you do, since pollution is so profitable.
Without a state to defend against invasion, what's going to stop some other country from marching in and enslaving you? Small arms won't protect you from a modern military; only a modern military of your own will, and without a state, who will command it?
Without a state to enforce mutual aid, what's going to stop others from withholding it while taking yours? By the expectation that no one will be so greedy as to withhold needed aid? Then your proposed system will fail almost immediately. By some sort of aid credit that groups of people exchange equally in order to ensure that aid given equals aid received? Congratulations, you have invented capitalism.
The state apparatus exists for a reason. It has of course been abused, but we can't simply get rid of it and expect everything to be fine, or else we'd have already gotten rid of it a long time ago.
Yes, because lunatics that support dictators just because they have wrapped a red flag around themselves and drop occasional buzzword are totally leftists.
Honest question - what's a tankie? I feel like I've seen them mentioned a ton on Lemmy but I'd never heard the term prior to a few days ago. From the image it looks like a maga/skinhead combo?
They're communists, but not your every day "people should hold the power" communists. More like "tianenmen never happened, and if it did it wasn't that bad" type
Tankie was first used for that kind of communist supporter who kept singing Russia's praises/defending Russia even when Russia was sent 5000 tanks to crush a popular uprising in Czechoslovakia (the "Prague Spring") on August 20, 1968. Some people just couldn't accept that a communist country could do something bad, so defended the action.
Nowadays, it's used to refer to those that are strongly supportive of Russia, completely ignoring the awful things they do. Often these days there's a lot of anti American bent to it. Like, anything anti America and American "imperialism" must be good - even blatant and awful Russian Imperialism.
These days they calmly explain how Ukraine just needs to come to the table and discuss peace (ignoring that Ukraine wouldn't exist if they did so) and blame America for the war in Ukraine for... well... they're America. The people who want war, or are causing the war, are those giving Ukraine weapons - not the country that is literally invading it.
I think a better term is "Campist" which is the trend within revisionist marxists to side with one imperialist camp to oppose another. it's the same shit the SPD did during WW1
how is a small group of people commanding a big mass better?
at least over time there will always be power hungry asshole or just an idiot in position of power.
no power for no one is the only concept that can really work over time. but you need self-responsible and educated people for that
edit: and yeah, it is a utopian idea, but one I believe it is worth working for
There's a lot of abstractions in that link but I think the following action is a meaningful distinction to call out:
The term is also used to describe people who endorse, defend, or deny the crimes committed by communist leaders such as Vladimir Lenin,[7][8] Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and Kim il-Sung.
A tankie is someone who supports authoritarian communism (I believe the term originated from using tanks to suppress protests)
Here's a post showing that the main instance of Lemmy (hosted by the main 2 Lemmy devs) removes any negative posts about the Chinese or Russian governments for "orientalism": https://lemmy.pineapplemachine.com/post/5784
Nothing wrong per se with communism itself, it just tends to be extremely unstable and quickly turns to authoritarianism, I don't think it's ever worked for any nation in history so far.
The defending of Uyghur genocides, and the defending of the CCP and Russian government is really concerning though. Good thing this platform is federated.
libretro has a similar problem, it's developed by a team of transphobic, homophobic, racist Russian apologists who border on Nazism. I don't know what attracts these people to FOSS development.
the modern russian state is not the soviet union, it is who america put in charge after creating a situation that led to millions of deaths.
The fact that you can believe this narrative literally spawned by the people who currently control and siphon away 50% or more of Russia's entire GDP into foreign bank accounts under the whip of Vladimir "East German KGB-operative" Putin is pretty astounding.
"Let us take by way if example a cotton spinning mill. The cotton must pass through at least six successive operations before it is reduced to the state of thread, and these operations take place for the most part in different rooms. Furthermore, keeping the machines going requires an engineer to look after the steam engine, mechanics to make the current repairs, and many other labourers whose business it is to transfer the products from one room to another, and so forth. All these workers, men, women and children, are obliged to begin and finish their work at the hours fixed by the authority of the steam, which cares nothing for individual autonomy. The workers must, therefore, first come to an understanding on the hours of work; and these hours, once they are fixed, must be observed by all, without any exception. Thereafter particular questions arise in each room and at every moment concerning the mode of production, distribution of material, etc., which must be settled by decision of a delegate placed at the head of each branch of labour or, if possible, by a majority vote, the will of the single individual will always have to subordinate itself, which means that questions are settled in an authoritarian way."
This is the dumbest take i ever read. You can literally choose not to work at that factory. Did you really read this book? Or are you just defaulting to a NPC response? If you really read the book you would understand how dumb it is to recommend it to people who are against authoritarianism.
“You criticize society, yet you participate in it? Curious…”
Judging by your username, I’m going to guess you’re a communist. Will you continue to participate in this forum using a computing device that was produced by a capitalist economic system? If you demand this level of ideological purity, it seems rather hypocritical.
You are completely ignorant in how the real world works.
Labour costs are artificially kept low in the global south due to imperialism. The US’ dollar hegemony helps them artificially depreciate Global South currencies, in which you, a Westerner benefits immensely from.
Low wages doesn’t signify anything about the mode of production. Truthfully, wage labour existed even prior to capitalism.
You don’t even know what you are talking about but you, in typical orientalist and racist fashion, thinks you know anything about a civilisation that has lasted 4000 years.
What is fact is that China has had the highest wage growth for the past few decades, which taking into account its 1.3billion population, means it has have helped uplift more people out of poverty than the entire population of the West.
Calling China “state capitalist” is an insult to all the people that were colonized by the Europeans, where ACTUAL capitalism destroyed, pillaged and genocided entire civilisations for the benefit of Capital, which is still happening btw.
Well I wouldn't exactly use the name of a political party as evidence for whether or not they actually follow that ideology... There are plenty of examples for the fact that the name is not the deciding factor but what they actually do. And, considering the definition of communism, it is kinda weird to consider China communist just because that's the name the leading party gave themselves.
I just think that "Authoritarian Regime" or similar isn't something a party would call itself.
When a leftist, or progressive says “tankie” it is different from what the mainstream media perceives. It (tankie) indicates someone who is overzealously supportive of non-Western imperialist countries such as Russia and China and denies their atrocities.
Also, the term developed from the tanks deplored by the user to invade Hungary and denote people who supported such action.
Agree with you in general, but I think a lot if people here are not really informed what differences there are materialistic ideologies.
Yes, Stalin bad.
But Guevara is not Stalin.
Marx is not che
Engels is not Marx
China is not communist.
Marxism is not materialism
Socialism is not communism
Also the amount of people bringing the "the 3 times people tried socialism were bad, so the whole ideology must be bad" argument are way to high IMHO.
How many times was capitalism tried? How many times it worked out? Is the USA a "functioning" state with all the oppression, racism, greed, invading other countries out of monetarian interest and environment destruction?
While I agree with you, that oppression is bad, no matter what the oppressor calls himself, we should talk about policies without resorting to dogmas and generalising people in favor of fear the hegemonic class is propagating to stay in power.
Yeah, that's not the tankies here; these are "North Korea is a great country, actually" tankies.
Also, "anything negative about a communist country is US propaganda"
or "russia is correctly in invading ukraine"
Should probably listen to Blowback Season 3.
Not to say they're a perfect country but to pretend that anyone in the West can critique them when their material conditions are dictated by the actions of the West is just comical.
If you aren't a materialist, what are you even doing? As if history happens in the realm of pure thought.....
The material conditions forcing North Korea to make work camps
Bugger off, tankie
Something something worlds largest prison population?
Again, it's not like North Korea is some shining example or anything, but to pretend that the west has the moral high ground here is laughable.
Again, listen to Blowback Season 3, recognize that their country was basically bombed to the stone age Curtis le may style and then maybe reevaluate, just a little, the chauvinist attitude.
DPRK is not a great country but it's not as if they were ever given a chance either.
Yeah, the US prison system is absolutely abhorrent and counterethical to all the principles it's supposed to hold.
First, the US is basically the only western country like that:tm:, second, more than one thing can be bad. "'North Korea is a great country' is a dumb position", the only (implied) assertion I made about it in my original comment, is still true, even if they got dealt a shit hand (which, so did most of the east after WW2; South Korea was in a pretty similar state (it was actually worse than NK shortly after the Korean war), yet they're doing... much better than NK at least).
Being "basically bombed to the stone age" doesn't mean a dictatorship is inevitable, nor that their government is suddenly blameless; being victimized doesn't mean you can victimize others.
Genuinely, if you take "the west" as a whole and compare it to North Korea... yeah, I do think they have a high ground. No, I'm not saying the west is perfect, far from it. No, I'm not saying communism is automatically bad, I'm totally cool with communists.
Basically my base position is "a functional democracy is the governance system that works the best". Most western states are much closer to that than North Korea (yes, I know what the Electoral College is and why it's bad), so I do think their political system is better.
I still wonder why you're so obsessed with North Korea. It's not like the South wasn't also a dictatorship until very recently. I wonder what the difference in economic outcomes was. Surely not the political system but instead the different material conditions between south and north i.e. embargo and isolation.
Again, I don't think that NK is the best example of AES, in fact their country is probably the worst. But I don't think the people who have produced the economic emisseration of the country and have worked to undermine its regime at every term get to scold them about their political choices.
Why should democracy be privileged when the choices of that democracy, at least internationally, are immoral. Should we praise democracy when it produces an evil outcome? Why are you so wedded to a system? After all democracy produces trans and drag bans in the south. Is that good? This isn't to say dictatorship is superior, I don't think it necessarily is, but to pretend the virtue is in the system rather than the outcome is pretty lib. If democracy produces fascism is it still good? If we throw our trans friends or homeless into the wood chipper because voters say it's good with 51% of the vote, does that legitimate it?
All of the so called 'functional democracies' of the West are abysmal, China has 94% government satisfaction where I doubt there's one western country over 50% (and the US is at 24%)
The country that holds the record for number and percentage of people in prison is the US. In the US the percentage of black people in prison was higher than the percentage of black people in prison in South Africa during apartheid.
No other western/industrialized (at some stage) nation has had so many political exilees and people whose citizenship was revoked based on "anti-american" views than the US. At some point the general secretary of RCP was in exile in France with his citizenship revoked. So, not all states are equal, and their historic development as modern capitalist states should be studied within context.
When a liberal says "tankie" they mean anything remotely communist-looking. When a leftist says "tankie", they mean authoritarians who like red flags and self-proclaimed communists who nonetheless support hierarchies and have no plan or intention to bring them down. I think the vast majority of people here knows this already.
You are way optimistic.
Mostly True, while (at least in my part of the world) there are a lot of people who like red flags but fight against hierarchies.
There are plenty of Marxists and Marxist-derived socialists who aren't Tankies.
They just don't make up the majority.
I hope you realize that this is an incredibly privileged take. The US is rife with issues, but the hardships experienced by the average western citizen doesn't even compare to the suffering that you would find in, say, Pol Pot's Cambodia, or (to a less extreme extent) Maduro's Venezuela. To compare what a US citizen deals with on a daily basis due to capitalism to what a citizen of any of those countries had to go through is very reductive and may be perceived as disrespectful to many who had to live those experiences.
The United States, for all it's faults, is the pretty side of capitalism.you don't even need to look to the most poor countries to see a standard of living that makes even directly post ww2 soviet union look like a great place.
I have some fellas from Detroit that would disagree.
My dude you need to stop right now before you end up saying that genocide isn't that bad. Because that's what Pol Pot did.
Genocide and pol pot is terrible. So is the USA.
Killing millions and being dysfunctional are in a different realm of terrible. I'm sorry, but how did you come to the conclusion that they are even comparable?
hm i wonder if theres any capitalist countries with a history of committing genocide..
Every genocide can be bad at all the same time. You know?
I'm all ears. Please give me a list so I can expand my understanding.
For the person dying of hunger is the same. But yeah, killing millions is bad and is something America NEVER did, right?
Implying the us is better than Cambodia because Cambodia committed genocide is very weird, considering that the US did so too
You can't be serious...
Im not from USA, and from my point of view its mich worse than most other countries (no healthcare, no independend courts, murder sprees in schools nearly every day, opression of half of the world (a half of them just to get more oil to destroy the planet faster), one of 3 of the biggest war-pushers in whole earth, polutes and destroys earth mode than every other country per citizens, etc. PP.)
capitalism mostly opresses and profits from people out of the country to Funktion. if its Bad in Venezuela or Cuba or Afghanistan, or even early russia, thats at least partly fault of US.
Venezuela is not communism, China isnt, russia isnt. Most of them have failed, at least partly because caputalist societys atack them and stop a as soon as they are born and they can't form a stable democracy. Before reading Marx, your bashing of communism isnt worth anything, as you clearly don't understand what you are talking about. We never had communism, and some would say not even socialism. You sound like you don't even know the difference, since you keep talking about communism, which is a utopian society after humanity has stopped a lot of bad habits and has learned to live without working against each other in competition and working together instead, which arises maybe after generations of workig socialism, which we clearly didn't have.
4.you exactly prove my point. I dont agree with tankies either, but the number of people around here blindly copying capitalist propaganda while understanding nothing they bash about is too damm high.
You have a warped view of USA that doesn't reflect reality. You're seeing it through the lens of sensationalist news media and hyperventilating social media posts.
The actual reality for Americans is that it's a vast, beautiful land with an amazing spectrum of various experience. Violent crime is rare overall, and most Americans have never seen or heard any gun violence in person. Health care is available to pretty much everyone, even if you don't have money. We have state-run healthcare facilities that the poor can make use of like county health departments.
My life in the USA is great, because I don't live in a big city. I live on my own land, in a nice house that I own, and I'm just middle class income level. It's pretty easy to accomplish if you choose a low cost of living area rather than a big metropolis or suburb thereof.
Well of course the standard of living in the imperial core is higher than the countries it has exploited or destabilized. A lot of American wealth is the fruit of imperialism.
Capitalism has killed orders of magnitude more than communism.
There have been orders of magnitude more people living under capitalism than communism
yeah, and every time a communist country tried to pop up USAmerica sent Smedley Butler to ass blast them.
And Capitalism also killed more people than Fascism.
That doesn't mean Fascists movements don't need fiercer opposition than Capitalist Liberals.
Again: seems weitd that you think, a New thing needs to work after 3 -5 trys.
Capitalism was tried 100erds of times and still doesnt work...
Based.
They already have lemmygrad.
Honestly, I don't think we need them here.
the have genzdong in there lol
tankies more like no thankies
This comment section is really something uh
Tankies on their way to explain why teaming up with the Nazis to conquer Poland is actually based and totally in line with Marxist philosophy.
Can you give an actual example?
I got banned from lemmygrad for saying acab means all cops lmao
there's literally a community called "moretankie196", they should go infest that one instead
"lemmygrad.ml" was the most infested for the last year, "lemmy.ml" the 2nd worst. They ban for being lucid. ".ml" stands for Marxist Leninist !
I thought ml stands for make love
actually it was chosen because the .ml domain is ludicrously cheap to get, like to the level of basically being free
Just removed like 40 comments and banned a buncha people.
What are some good actual communist lemmy communities that aren't supporting the fucking capitalist imperialist russian invasion?
fr I'm down with having a good old purge eventually but noone should be surprised
Literally doing the "so much for the tolerant left" shtick.
removed by mod
Can we have something like tankiejerk here? I seriously liked browsing that sub after a bad day with the red fashs.
that sub often tended towards outright anti-leftism
"tankies" criticize the Soviet union, you know? They also criticize the ebil See See Pee but apparently there's no room for nuance
What's your definition of "tankie"? If you're willing to call out Putin's homophobic journalist murdering authoritarian bullshit and the Chinese government's massacring of protesters and genociding of ethnic minorities you're not a tankie imo, you're just a communist.
No, it wasn't fine, that's kinda the point.. It isn't fine when the west does it, it's not fine when others do it too..
It's pretty typical tankie behavior that we're seeing.
When you say it's bad that Stalin implemented genocidal policies such as against the Krim Tartars, Kalmykks and other ethnic groups, they come back with wHaT aBoUt aMeRiCa.
They know that both things can be bad, but they have similar incentives to right-fascists. That is to say they're liars.
I'm confused on your point.
well some people who are called "tankies" do. some of them are just rabid bhreznevites
What year do you think it is?
2023, where the maoist New People's Army is a stronghold for human rights & dignity for the Filipino people, engaged in open war against the truly authoritarian & cruel, Imperialist backed Phillipine Republic
what with all the anti-communist fascists and all
Sure. There are plenty of people who are anarchists, who are people I would not work with. Like armchair anarchists.
And the word "tankie" does get used by armchair anarchists A lot often inappropriatly.
But still tankie is a valid crique of Red fascism.
And if you are a person who believes In communism, and can see it's benefits but are unable to see it's faults your probably a tankie.
Please remember on multiple instances The Soviets turned their back on anarchists. Like in the Spanish civil war.
To tankies fascist means opposing whatever flavor of authoritarian "communism" they prefer regardless of the reasons or context. This conveniently allows any number of pogroms, mass slaughters or engineered famines to be reframed as anti-fascist action, rather than a brutal expression of state power at the expense of the working class.
Then what would you have me call people who make excuses for invasion, oppression, and genocide just because it was committed by the Russian or Chinese government instead of a western one?
I really hate how ya'll deliberately conflate tankies and all socialism/communism, and then conflate anyone being opposed to those concepts as inherently being a fascist.
Tankies use "Liberal" just as the right does. Funny, that.
um, what's a tankie?
well is there any actually existing socialist country that you would support?
is there any actually existing socialist country that is actually socialist?
yes, cuba is pretty uncontroversialy a socialist country
The Cuban working class does not self-administer the economy. Although Cuba is as close so a success as Marxism can get, Fidel's policies of homophobic persecution - regardless of the fact that he regretted them - is proof positive of why authoritarian policies go wrong. Why no single person should have that level of power.
Because in spite of Castro's evident good intentions, and the otherwise high level of success that Cuba has achieved, those atrocities still happened. And because of Authoritarian policies, no-one within Cuba could opposite it while it went on without facing persecution.
i’d never have seen it coming! /s
Nah, I joined their Discord for a bit and everyone there was a leftist.
didn't they have a problem with people doing alt-right dogwhistles about anti-white racism recently? and it got so bad that they had to make a mod announcement telling people to stop doing it and all of the users started trying to explain to the mods how it definitely wasn't a right wing dogwhistle
Thank fuck. I thought Lemmy was some ultra militant leftist hellhole before the shift.
I don't like extreme radical left any more than extreme radical right.
Fuck Che Guevara. Read a book.
tankies arent radical left. they are authoritarians ffs
already have. maybe u should get urself another book to read for once.
lmao
the main idea is dual power structures. spreading awareness, and people will do whats necessary, mobilize, organize, all that fun stuff. if u can teach people about the struggles of marginalized groups, they will be able to recognize it in their own lives and stand up against it.
and there wont be a need for political parties to enforce "compliance", people are naturally empathetic. well not all people, but the vast majority.
try "Are you an anarchist? the answer might surprise you" by David Graeber, if ur ever looking for something else.
or "Anarchy works" by Peter Gelderloos for a more comprehensive description of these ideas.
Do you know its possible to read books and disagree with them?
The ML obsession with treating books as religious tomes is getting tiring.
what if the book is Che Guevaras "Guerrilla Warfare"
Is being a good tactician and being a genocidal, totalitarian extremist an oil and water situation?
He can be both.
How about Saw Gerrera?
Saw Gerrera is an extremist and must be brought to justice for the good of the Empire.
This, but unironically. That man lost it and became a monster.
c/EnlightedCentrism
Che Guevara did a lot of good for people, like the people of Cuba. Considering he fought, and helped Cuba free itself from being a colony to the United States and against Batista. I didn't know people fighting for the right to not be under colonial rule and have their own self determination is "extreme".
Also maybe go check out "On revolutionary medicine" by Che Guevara. I'll also leave this quote from him.
Vaush moment
What's a tankie?
Hard-core authoritarian communist. The kinda peeps who support Stalin and shit
Isn't "authoritarian communist" kind of an oxymoron? 😂 like the whole point of communism is that there isn't a ruling class. I guess Russia and China were never really communist, just statist authoritarian right? I mean, the Nazis called themselves Socialist. They were nowhere near that
Yes. Yes, it is. I sometimes call them “pseudocommunists” for this reason.
Most real life implementations of communism used an authoritarian one party system. You can say these aren't true examples of communism, but that just ends up sounding like cope unfortunately.
None of those states ever gave economic or political power to the working classes.
Fair point. Though so far, there hasn't really been any system at all that didn't lead to genocide and/or class based opression. From monarchs to feudal Lords to capitalist oligarchies and communist dictators, terrible people always rise to the top.
As how Marx outlined Communism as the evolution of Capitalism once it reaches a scale of production that everyone can have their needs met, resulting in a classless, stateless, moneyless society, then yes authoritarian communist is an oxymoron.
well socialism has the proletariat as the ruling class, this is true in Marxism & anarchism even if anarchists word it differently
The party leaders are not proletarian, but rather become part of a class of privileged bureaucrats.
there's a trend towards that, which can be combatted & has been by communist parties. Stalin had a pretty incoherent plan to combat rightist tendencies within the communist party, assuming the problem stemmed from external meddling. Mao actually shared your view in that bureaucracy rots socialism, and that it needs to be decreased as the people are helped towards being self reliant, ready to self manage the economy & have suitable industry to run the country with. that's why the cultural revolution happened, to fight bureaucracy
And yet in spite of the few positive things contributions Mao made, and some of the things he got right, he still positioned himself culturally to take up the position 'benign and distant emperor. Much as the contemporary regime prefers to pin all the horrors of the Cultural Revolution on the Gang of Four, many of Mao's ideas themselves were harmful (such as wholesale and universal destruction of old culture).
Marxism-Leninism and its party structure has shown itself, in practice and historically, as being unable to resist this impulse to corruption and autocracy. It was Bolshevik counterrevolution that destroyed the power of the Worker's and Soldier's Soviets in Russia, Soviet counterrevolution that invaded Ukraine during its revolution, and then again Leninist party counterrevolution that prevented any of the (few) positive aspects of the cultural revolution from blossoming into anything useful.
Vanguard parties are counter productive, and counter revolutionary. The French revolution gives us the same lesson, as the Jacobin counter-revolutionary terror (with the oh-so-popular guillotine mostly used on the poor) created the space for reactionary backlash.
The centralization of power is, therefore, a counter-revolutionary impulse. Humans being are not suited for the rule and management of others. Only a revolution that truly returns power to the people has any chance of lasting. That's why even the flawed and imperfect Kurdish revolutionaries of Rojava are sustaining the social and cultural infrastructure for revolution, while Marxists, Maoists and other authoritarian communists world-wide consistently either degrade into bandits and terrorists, or form corrupt and reactionary power-structures.
This is such a based comment. Good analysis and very well said.
The proletariat are by definition the majority. The Soviet Union was by no means ruled by the majority. Stalin murdered millions to enforce his autocracy—the exact opposite of majority rule.
just to chime in with an anarchist perspective-- majority rule, as lionized by proponents of liberal democracies, is itself a form of heirarchy in which the will of an ostensible 'majority' (though usually that of the capital- owning class actually) is inflicted upon society as a whole, alienating the minority position, enforced by the state apparatus' monopoly of violence.
if one values bodily autonomy, reconciled with the needs of the collective, a system of governance like mutual collective determination must be established which guarantees that all voices are heard and acknowledged.
Communism must be enforced somehow, it just ends up being authoritarian because of that
The same can be said for capitalism though.
Capitalism must be enforced somehow, it ends up being an oligarchy or authoritarian because of that.
Not sure I disagree, necessarily, but that's the answer to your question.
it's also not an either or situation
Certain aspects of Stalin? Or in general?
Both. Fascist apologist like to cherry pick palatable characteristics of figures like Stalin, or Hitler, or Andrew Jackson in order to destigmatize thier idolatry of these figures. These "certain aspects" are the tip of the wedge they use to destroy rationality and peace.
A reasonable person who would like to discuss the benefits of communism would point to the value of labor, advantages of unions, and the dignity of the worker, not the evil, paranoid, and violent person of Stalin.
Always, the stink of fascism follows the idolization of so called "great men." Excuses after excuses.
Lol. To the contrary! I think communist lady has proven to be in interesting person to argue with. 😅😅😅😅
The Holocaust most definitely happened and was perpetuated by the Nazis. Please don't accuse me of denial.
Communism, or to be most specific, Marxism, was most definitely aligned against Hitler.
Stalin, was not. He would have watched Hitler kill all of Europe had the Nazis not attacked Russia. Same as the united states if Japan had not attacked them.
I'm not obsessed with Stalin. I'm also not a Holocaust denier. You really seem keen on saying inflammatory things about me without any preceding context.
I will observe that I think Stalin was an awful person who tarnished the reputation of socialism for a century. I don't have anything against socialist, being one myself.
I have a beef with apologist for failed communist states like the soviet onion. I feel they deeply misrepresent socialism.
Your historical notes are technically correct, and Stalin did even attempt to reach a pact with France to limit the potential expansion of Nazi Germany. However, once those initiatives failed, Stalin had no issue about pacting with Hitler instead to invade third countries together, which highlights how Stalin's first priority was improving his geopolitical position, rather than an ideological opposition to nazism.
Do you deny the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact and the illegal attack on Poland by the Soviet union under its leader Josef Stalin?
I am of the strong opinion that fascism doesn't care if you call yourself a communist, a capitalist, or a Democrat. If someone promotes a state which strips the power of local and individual labor for it's own use; cultivates violence as a means of domestic control; supports expansionism; and finally the consolidation of power under a personality; I oppose it, and call it what it is.
My comments are split now, so I'll let you read my other one. I would just like to emphasize that I consider myself a socialist, and that it's not really that vague of a criteria for the purposes of an Internet argument. It's just broad. I believe all current world superpowers current share elements of fascism which I despise and oppose.
You're a spineless coward, just admit you're fine with genocide and totalitarianism so long as they have a red flag.
And then they killed millions of people to enforce Stalin's autocracy. How, exactly, is that better than Hitler?
All tankies ever have is name-calling.
Because they were attacked. Otherwise they would have happily sat out of ww2.
Nazism as an ideology set out to eradicate those seen as impure, and two of the most prominent of those targeted groups were communists and Slavic people. Hitler literally wanted to kill everyone who identified as a socialist. To think that the USSR was unaware or tolerant of this fact is a truly awful take.
Wow a commie who doesnt know history, not surprising. Firstly I never said USSR didnt know what Germany was doing, I said they didnt care. This is backed up by history. Yes Hitler hated the soviets and they probably disliked him to but they tolerated him and his crimes against humanity enough to form an alliance and work together. A little timeline of events to refresh your memory: 1939 USSR signs a non aggression pact with Germany. This pact includes plans to divide eastern europe between USSR and Germany, a clause that prevents the USSR from allying or aiding enemies of Germany. Shortly after Germany and the USSR double team Poland and split it up between them. After Stalin used the attack to capture a few eastern european countries he asked to join the Axis powers treaty. Stalin was warned multiple times that Germany was preparing to backstab him but rejected the warnings as he thought they were so allies. After it was confirm that Hitler had betrayed him he spent several days sulking in his holiday house refusing to communicate with his generals.
There is no way you can reasonably say that USSR disapproved of Hitlers action and Ideology. The only thing he would have had an issue with is that Hitler hated slavic people. He was even willing to put that aside because they both had authoritarianism in common.
Did you finish your book halfway through? Hitler and Stalin formed an alliance shortly after the Spanish civil war. Even though Hitler referred to Slavic people as untermench Stalin still signed treaties because they were at the end of the day both Fascist Authoritarian dictators and dont give a single fuck about committing crimes against humanity.
The fundamental problem of tankies is that they forget the whole point of socialism is making people's lives better, not getting revenge on the hated capitalists. If you create an oppressive hellscape in the process of destroying capitalism then you've failed.
"I care deeply about the color of the boot"
"The Russian and Chinese boots just taste better, I tell you."
"what if our classless stateless society had the right class controlling the state?"
state means centralization of power, and in a classless society what class and who would represent it in this centralization of power?
oh ok so bhreznevites
And Stalinist, Maoists, and other authoritarian Communists.
Usually they also "love" countries like North Korea, China, and for whatever reason (aNtI iMpErIaLiSm), Syria, Russia, and so on.
Red Fascists. They use the same tactics of gas lighting and goal post shifting.
And engaging in bad faith but accusing everyone else of engaging in bad faith.
maoists??? I think you should read anything by mao. he was anything but "authoritarian", he spend most of his time after 1949 taking a sledgehammer to bureaucracy & encouraging communities to be self reliant
And also going around making lunatic declaration, indifferent to the human suffering he was causing.
Thanks, that was very helpful.
Now, can you explain the 196 reference for me?
Oh that's a can of worms.
Also, I created a community for leftist infighting here:
https://lemmy.ml/c/leftistinfighting
It's a free and open forum for respectful and good-natured name-calling, debating, and infighting. But dickheads aren't allowed.
Would be good to point out these people you are mentioning are not all the same.
There are people that Are critical of Russia, but don't buy from western propaganda and are being called tankies too.
It is more like, if one dare to question the western narrative = tankie.
i.e. are critical of russia, but stand by even the most autoritarian, anti-democratic, militaristic, imperialistic regimes - just because they call themselves “socialist” or “communist”, except for russias invasion of ukraine
lol.
you meant UK, USA or both?
i was just quoting the other commenter. but dont forget about china, nazi germany, north korea, etc.
Yeah sure. So lets ban the USA apologists together with all these tankies?
fine by me. fuck the US
idk what u mean by that. im an anarcho-communist. and imo tankies are very anti-communist, even if they dont want to admit that to themselves.
btw seens a paradox that you guys so "pro freedom" are asking for bans of people that you disagree.
it may seem that way, but no. pro-freedom actually means keeping people away who wanna take our freedom. i.e. authoritarians like tankies
isn't that the same logic that the tankies are using though - because they think they have to be authoritarian to the people who they believe are trying to take their freedoms i.e. capitalists?
a community not welcoming assholes =/= a state killing everyone who's in their way. one is authoritarian, the other is not.
what did they do to take your freedom? built this whole platform we are using right now?
just because they do good things too doesnt make them perfect
"Paradox of tolerance"
A nazi with red aesthetic
I do, but you don't.
Spez and Unidan made reddit and no-one likes them either
Unidan didn't make reddit wtf u talking about
I mean Aaron Swartz
Aaron Swartz? The dead (by suicide) activist and philanthropist software developer and Reddit co-founder Aaron Swartz?
Yes that's right, you see, Aaron Swartz was a "free speech absolutist" who allowed for things like /r/creepshots and allowed for cp on early reddit. https://archive.is/d4NPt
That's enlightening indeed. Knowing the both of them are trash does explain many, many things about Reddit.
fair
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie#:~:text=Tankie%20is%20a%20pejorative%20label,with%20Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism%20in%20history
It's the prog-lib equivalent of woke. It's used dismiss leftists with out engaging with our arguments. The term has lite ideological or argumentative use.
If you're in a position where you can freely oppress the capitalist class then you've already supplanted them and become the capitalist class.
radical solidarity, mutual aid, armed community defense. none of these require the state apparatus.
Without a state to enforce environmental regulations, how do you intend to defend your community from pollution? By attacking the polluters with guns? They have guns, too. Probably more guns than you do, since pollution is so profitable.
Without a state to defend against invasion, what's going to stop some other country from marching in and enslaving you? Small arms won't protect you from a modern military; only a modern military of your own will, and without a state, who will command it?
Without a state to enforce mutual aid, what's going to stop others from withholding it while taking yours? By the expectation that no one will be so greedy as to withhold needed aid? Then your proposed system will fail almost immediately. By some sort of aid credit that groups of people exchange equally in order to ensure that aid given equals aid received? Congratulations, you have invented capitalism.
The state apparatus exists for a reason. It has of course been abused, but we can't simply get rid of it and expect everything to be fine, or else we'd have already gotten rid of it a long time ago.
There won't be a capitalist class when their assets are seized.
Yes, because lunatics that support dictators just because they have wrapped a red flag around themselves and drop occasional buzzword are totally leftists.
I have always wondered why it always says "Kick _" when she is punching instead of kicking. Lol.
300 Comments already. Oh my god! Lol.
Honest question - what's a tankie? I feel like I've seen them mentioned a ton on Lemmy but I'd never heard the term prior to a few days ago. From the image it looks like a maga/skinhead combo?
They're communists, but not your every day "people should hold the power" communists. More like "tianenmen never happened, and if it did it wasn't that bad" type
Which makes them no different from the western imperialists they hate so much.
exactly
Tankie was first used for that kind of communist supporter who kept singing Russia's praises/defending Russia even when Russia was sent 5000 tanks to crush a popular uprising in Czechoslovakia (the "Prague Spring") on August 20, 1968. Some people just couldn't accept that a communist country could do something bad, so defended the action.
Nowadays, it's used to refer to those that are strongly supportive of Russia, completely ignoring the awful things they do. Often these days there's a lot of anti American bent to it. Like, anything anti America and American "imperialism" must be good - even blatant and awful Russian Imperialism.
These days they calmly explain how Ukraine just needs to come to the table and discuss peace (ignoring that Ukraine wouldn't exist if they did so) and blame America for the war in Ukraine for... well... they're America. The people who want war, or are causing the war, are those giving Ukraine weapons - not the country that is literally invading it.
Thanks for the explanation. I believe they are also called Rashists, at least Ukrainians call them that.
I think a better term is "Campist" which is the trend within revisionist marxists to side with one imperialist camp to oppose another. it's the same shit the SPD did during WW1
what is "authoritarianism" to you?
heirarchy in any form
"he's not hurting the right people, " painted red
well that's just childish isn't it
do you consider that a rebuttal?
yes because it's not anything intelligent enough to be thoughtfully argued against. a 7 year old could see the holes in such an idea
I oppose one more system of authority than you do, in the interest of ideological consistency, intellectual honesty.
are you taking the position of a literal child?
how is a small group of people commanding a big mass better?
at least over time there will always be power hungry asshole or just an idiot in position of power.
no power for no one is the only concept that can really work over time. but you need self-responsible and educated people for that
edit: and yeah, it is a utopian idea, but one I believe it is worth working for
There's a lot of abstractions in that link but I think the following action is a meaningful distinction to call out:
Originally, it was used to describe communists who followed the party line and supported suppressing Hungarian workers with tanks.
Today it means ultra-authoritarian marxist-leninist.
For context, the image originally said kick nazis out of punk.
genocide denier and hard authoritarian. fash dressed in red, basically.
How a lot of you sound
Fair
This post has literally 6 times the comments of the next most-comments post, jesus. Wonder what could have triggered this!
Literally just made an account and am just a Reddit pleb. What exactly are tankies and what is 196? Guessing it's a Lemmy server but otherwise unsure
based
b b b b b based
Why are Blanquists even in the Fediverse? The Fediverse is about decentralization while Blanquists are for the extreme opposite.
? The developers of Lemmy are tankies, it’s important to make sure that tankies know they aren’t welcome here.
Gotta ask for both a source and your definition of a "tankie".
You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
A tankie is someone who supports authoritarian communism (I believe the term originated from using tanks to suppress protests)
Here's a post showing that the main instance of Lemmy (hosted by the main 2 Lemmy devs) removes any negative posts about the Chinese or Russian governments for "orientalism": https://lemmy.pineapplemachine.com/post/5784
In the comments of that post, you can find one of the devs borderline defending what China is doing to the Uyghurs: https://lemmy.pineapplemachine.com/comment/5950
That same dev has a github repo called "essays on communism": https://github.com/dessalines/essays
I'm pretty sure both of the devs' profile pictures are Fidel Castro too
Aight fair enough, that's pretty concerning.
Nothing wrong per se with communism itself, it just tends to be extremely unstable and quickly turns to authoritarianism, I don't think it's ever worked for any nation in history so far.
The defending of Uyghur genocides, and the defending of the CCP and Russian government is really concerning though. Good thing this platform is federated.
libretro has a similar problem, it's developed by a team of transphobic, homophobic, racist Russian apologists who border on Nazism. I don't know what attracts these people to FOSS development.
The fact that you can believe this narrative literally spawned by the people who currently control and siphon away 50% or more of Russia's entire GDP into foreign bank accounts under the whip of Vladimir "East German KGB-operative" Putin is pretty astounding.
Hey, just fyi, there are different branches of communism. The most popular ones vehemently oppose Russia, China, and North Korea.
u/CommunistLady is part of the delusional few who are pro-China, but please don't attack communists as a whole because of the loud idiots.
Your outrage is completely misguided.
Say Russia was trying to "exterminate gay people": it is a capitalist country.
You can't present the deeds of capitalists as evidence of communist wrongdoing.
Fuck authoritarian commies. Better?
This is the dumbest take i ever read. You can literally choose not to work at that factory. Did you really read this book? Or are you just defaulting to a NPC response? If you really read the book you would understand how dumb it is to recommend it to people who are against authoritarianism.
Damn, so living in a society implies that sometimes you don't get what you want? And therefore authoritarianism is obligatory?
That's so ridiculously stupid lmao. It's like a child's understanding of life "I don't get what I want so this is tyranny".
“You criticize society, yet you participate in it? Curious…”
Judging by your username, I’m going to guess you’re a communist. Will you continue to participate in this forum using a computing device that was produced by a capitalist economic system? If you demand this level of ideological purity, it seems rather hypocritical.
China is state capitalist, as evidenced by the fact that the phone you bought was manufactured there via cheap labor.
You are completely ignorant in how the real world works.
Labour costs are artificially kept low in the global south due to imperialism. The US’ dollar hegemony helps them artificially depreciate Global South currencies, in which you, a Westerner benefits immensely from.
Low wages doesn’t signify anything about the mode of production. Truthfully, wage labour existed even prior to capitalism.
You don’t even know what you are talking about but you, in typical orientalist and racist fashion, thinks you know anything about a civilisation that has lasted 4000 years.
What is fact is that China has had the highest wage growth for the past few decades, which taking into account its 1.3billion population, means it has have helped uplift more people out of poverty than the entire population of the West.
Calling China “state capitalist” is an insult to all the people that were colonized by the Europeans, where ACTUAL capitalism destroyed, pillaged and genocided entire civilisations for the benefit of Capital, which is still happening btw.
Well I wouldn't exactly use the name of a political party as evidence for whether or not they actually follow that ideology... There are plenty of examples for the fact that the name is not the deciding factor but what they actually do. And, considering the definition of communism, it is kinda weird to consider China communist just because that's the name the leading party gave themselves.
I just think that "Authoritarian Regime" or similar isn't something a party would call itself.
You're delusional.
Baaaased
I don't know what tankies are and at this point I'm too afraid to ask
When a leftist, or progressive says “tankie” it is different from what the mainstream media perceives. It (tankie) indicates someone who is overzealously supportive of non-Western imperialist countries such as Russia and China and denies their atrocities.
Also, the term developed from the tanks deplored by the user to invade Hungary and denote people who supported such action.
why?
No