Common 196 W
deleted by creator
No it’s an insult for red fascists
Explaining a meaningless insult using another one kind of just proves his point
“You don’t tolerate Nazis? Perhaps YOU are the REAL Nazis”
Why are you people all the same? Do you get a 50 Cent Army script or something?
I fail to see how your first statement has anything to do with my comment. Of course I don’t tolerate Nazis, fascists or anything of the sort and trying to lump your idea of ‘tankies’ into this category does remind me of what conservatives and reactionaries sometimes do with ‘woke’ Also just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I’m one of ‘you people’ ‘tankies’ ‘red fascists’ or wumaos and you are just lumping me in with anyone who you associate with being part of that vague group. Just because I don’t agree with you on any issue doesn’t mean that I’m a state propagandist.
I fail to see how your first statement has anything to do with my comment.
Not surprising
Maybe you could try explaining your reasoning to me instead of immediately comparing me to the Nazis?
What are your opinions on the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact?
A last-ditch effort to defend against a war of extermination by fascists after the UK, France and America spent years rejecting the Soviet Union’s offers of a united front, what about it?
at what level of desperation do you have to be that you look at totalitarian states and decide they’re the forefront of leftism in the world, instead of just like, admitting they didn’t work and trying to avoid the mistakes they made? seriously, why? in an ideology and belief system heavily entrenched in nuance why do you view the world in black and white? why is it being a “lib” to say that governments who repress the human rights and civil liberties of minorities are not practicing leftism in good faith? the same governments who have horrifically and violently crushed workers rights movements? who have enforced crippling wealth inequality in their own borders? do you even know what leftism is?
deleted by creator
The state owning the means of production is no better than capitalists. Only when the workers control it themselves will communism be achieved and settling for anything less shouldn’t be accepted
I get your general point, but I’d like to say that theoretically you could have a socialist system where the state owns the means of production for certain industries and the workers would have control through the state as long as the state is an actual functioning democracy.
The problem, of course, is that states with that much power almost always devolve into authoritarianism because of the corrupting force of power.
All I’m trying to say is that, if done right, you could have actual worker control via the state as long as the state is actually listening to and, in some sense, subservient to the people.
This is no way defends the state capitalism we see in China and Russia since they are not even close to a functioning democracy.
States with that much power will always devolve into authoritarianism. If there is a power structure, it will be corrupted. That’s the issue.
Yea that’s where I’m at. Human nature is a bitch.
I believe I’m an anarchist at heart, though I’m not sure the world, with its current population, is ready for that level of self reliance and community building. Lots of learned behavior to break.
We kind of dug ourselves a mighty deep hole as a species. We need to be better.
Growing up in a western capitalist state has left me fairly jaded as far as politics go, tbf
The question always comes down to how do we stop people from being bad. The answer escapes me tbh.
“The question always comes down to how do we stop people from being bad.” This is the problem with not having a materialist analysis of the world, its not about being bad or being good or morality at all. At large people are motivated by self interest, perpetuating and sustaining their material conditions. Its only through struggle of the oppressed against those in power that change can come about.
I am an anarchist. And I understand that. I flip flop between having hope and thinking there is none. Some days I think we missed our chance and now we’re too far gone. Other days I look at movements like the Zapatistas and Rojava and think that their may be hope. Ultimately I don’t think any first world country is gonna have it happen. Maybe if a country had a successful anarchist revolution and society, it’d be able to inspire people in first world countries. But I do think our hope lies outside of first world countries. At least till there is a proper example to inspire people.
I do still try to put an effort into organizing where I live. As I think it is still important to do that. Even if I don’t think it will garner fruit till there is a true example of anarchism in action.
deleted by creator
Supporting Cuba doesn’t a tankie make: Good arguments can be had that Cuba is actually a democracy, and not in the “democracy is when party rules” kind of way. Supporting North Korea, OTOH…
What would you call the position that defends authoritarian communism even to the point of justifying genocide and brutal suppression of opposition and free press?
deleted by creator
What the fuck does that question have to do with anything? The US could have a personal hatred for every individual Uyghur Muslim in the world and China would still be in the midst of trying to genocide them.
Could you link a source that doesn’t lead back to one religious zealot who thinks he’s on a godsent mission to destroy beijing and asked like 8 people how many uighurs they “thought” were in reeducation centers, then extrapolating these numbers to the entire Xinjiang population ?
I’m an American and I care, so at least partially yes, America does care. And because we have a democracy, the government (at least imperfectly) reflects the priorities of the people.
But I also agree with the other poster that doesn’t really have anything to do with anything we were taking about
The only thing our government reflects is the priorities of capital…
@lemmybrucelee @lobster_teapot Go back to lemmygrad bootlicker
deleted by creator
Fun fact: you can be opposed to capitalism without being a communist.
You [tankies] maybe opposed to capitalism, but you’re still in favor of the coercive control of individuals by a state-level entity. That’s just another flavor of authoritarianism.
you can be opposed to capitalism without being a communist
Feudalism might make a comeback lads
Feudalism will be different this time we swear.
You’ll get to vote on a lord to rule the town, and they’ll get to vote on the barons to rule over each barony, and each barony will basically be its own country anyway so they maintain the right to secede and stuff like that, and the barons will get to elect a monarch and a council to advise them who will rule the country.
So you see it’s totally democratic and it definitely won’t turn into a de facto autocracy that’s not meaningfully different from regular feudalism this time
deleted by creator
That’s closer to anarchism then communism. Communism, as it’s generally developed, has a central state authority.
Personally, I see the existence of a state and individual liberties as always under tension. You can’t have a state without some infringement on individual expressions. But some restriction on individual expression is necessary for a functioning society. The question is what infringements and under what circumstances are acceptable.
deleted by creator
Economics is political. Always has been.
you’re still in favor of the coercive control of individuals by a state-level entity.
Find one.
deleted by creator
You’re just licking a different boot. All forms of hierarchy need to be abolished. State and capitalist. You don’t advocate for workers, all you advocate for is state control.
damn brb gonna tell xi to press the gommunism button thank you internet anarchist for showing us it was that easy, we just had to take a quick look at your list of successful revolutions to take inspiration from
Maybe quite stabbing us in the back and practice some of that “left unity” you tankies love to preach about
Perfect projection, no notes
We’d have more than two if it hadn’t been for tankies stabbing us in the back. But go, go on, tell me how Makhno was a counter-revolutionary or something. Kulak? Or was it about not being able to tolerate a non-authoritarian alternative.
As to successful tankie revolutions… there’s none. They devolved into either state capitalist tyranny, capitalist tyranny, or straight tyranny. Cuba and Vietnam don’t count they were wars for independence from colonial powers first, communist second in Vietnam’s case and in Cuba’s fourth or fifth or something.
We’d have more than two if it hadn’t been for tankies stabbing us in the back.
This is a phrase that keeps popping up in anarchist spaces but once you look at what it makes reference to it’s… Simply not true? It’s mostly used to refer to the Spanish Civil War, but one only needs to pick up a high school history book to learn that the May Days were a result of the anarchists attempting to antagonize the entirety of the Republican side by hindering war efforts, and not only the PCE or other Soviet-alligned communists, who held a rather small amount of power inside the Republican government.
But go, go on, tell me how Makhno was a counter-revolutionary or something. Kulak? Or was it about not being able to tolerate a non-authoritarian alternative.
If to not be authoritarian is a priority for you, reading Voline’s accounts of his participation in the makhnovist movement should be enough to realize that his project is probably not the one you want to rally behind the most.
Just ignore the Zapatistas who are a current example of anarchism in practice.
And saying the Soviets held little power in the Spanish Republic is just a bald faced lie. The Soviets withheld supplies from non-soviet militias and actively damaged the war effort because they’d rather focus on garnering power than actually fighting fascists.
You know it’s kinda rich of you to refer to, of all people, Voline. If he was critical of Platformism guess what he had to say about Bolshevism. Even before Trotsky tried to have him killed.
See one factor of Anarchism is that you invariably don’t end up having the same ideas of how to do stuff once the dust has settled and power is secured. Yes, Makhno was quite a bit of a Bonarparte. That doesn’t mean that he would’ve crushed disagreements with tanks, he would’ve taken an offer of “Comrade, we thank you for all you’ve done but you’re a fighter not a politician, here’s a nice Dacha”, and then written his memoirs. Anarchism adapts itself, Anarchists adapt themselves to local circumstances and culture, shaping it as much as the utopia is shaping people. As a gestalt, it is shapeless, therefore, it can succeed: Because it does not need to, must not, fight the people.
…somehow you also ignored the two successful ones. I kinda wonder whether you even know which I’m talking about.
Also, if you bother answering at all I’d like you to give an example of a revolution of yours that didn’t end in tyranny. Shouldn’t actually be that hard for a tankie as you don’t think tyranny is bad, so why not admit it that there’s none?
Bro if a communism button existed Biden would be infinitely more likely to press it than Xi, and Biden sure as shit is not a communist.
deleted by creator
I thought it meant the crazy liberals who want a communist utopia where no one works. The ones that specifically are so deranged they useally ban any discussion that’s against their ideology.
Tankies are the ones who think you need a strong state (read authoritarian) to enforce communism.
They support the use of literal tanks to crush any rebellion or uprising against the authoritarian communist state, and then deny that it happened at all.
The term was coined when the soviets crushed the Hungarian rebellion of 1956 (local communists didn’t want to be under soviet rule, soviets sent in tanks) The original tankies supported the soviets
Then there’s Tiananmen Square, the CCP crushed protesters with tanks until fire hoses could wash the sludge down into the sewers, Tankies claim it was justified, when they acknowledge that it happened at all.
Tankies deny the ongoing genocide of the Uyghurs. Or claim that china is only detaining “rebels”.
And finally, tankies tend to be pro-Russia, even though it stopped pretending to be communist in the 90s. The tankies tend to be anti-Ukraine in this conflict.
Another aspect is the 100% denial of any western media or released intelligence, because it’s all evil capitalist propaganda.
Basically these types of Tankies have picked up a history book, seen the overwhelming evil that the western powers have propagated and decided that anyone who stands against the western powers must be good. Which is stupid as fuck.
The world isn’t black and white, it’s not good vs evil, it’s varying shades of greed and evil vs other shades of greed and evil. Tankies tend to not understand this simple truth.
Holy strawman. Can you do something else but repeating western propaganda as facts? Your Tiananmen tirade is based on lies, eye witnesses debunked it. Completely.
You also whitewash the hungarian counterrevolution. And use the wrong acronym for the CPC. And STILL believe in the Uyghur genocide hoax?! Still, no muslim country supports the western accusations. And have no clue about anti-imperialism. Because a country pushing back US influence form its doorstep is bad somehow?
Buddy: When western intelligence (any intelligence really) relase something, they do so intentionally. You need to be incredibly gullible to believe otherwise.
You talk about “simple truths”, yet don’t even understand what the fuck you’re talking about. Grow the fuck up and learn to use your brain, it felt embarrassed reading your stupidity.
deleted by creator
Even if it’s not genocide per se
Lmao careful dude, you’re gonna get called a tankie for agreeing with what the state department already admitted
I don’t think that it’s accurate to call tankies liberals.
A lot of this gets thought of on a left-right spectrum, but it’s really more like a compass, with economics being left-right, and authoritarian/antiauthoritarian being top-bottom. Liberals in the US would be slightly left of center on the economic spectrum, but largely centrist on the authoritarianism spectrum. Tankies would be far left on the economic spectrum, but at the top of the authoritarian spectrum. Libertarians (or, what gets called libertarian now) would be at the extreme right on the economic spectrum, but at the very bottom of the authoritarianism spectrum. (The most modern libertarians are not actually anti-authoritarian, although they claim to be. E.g., many of them oppose abortion rights.)
The political compass is extremely dumb and completely useless for actual political analysis.
After World War I, I made my living in Paris, now as a retoucher at a photographer’s, now as painter of “Chinese antiquities” (made in France!). I would distribute leaflets denouncing the crimes committed by the French colonialists in Viet Nam.
At that time, I supported the October Revolution only instinctively, not yet grasping all its historic importance. I loved and admired Lenin because he was a great patriot who liberated his compatriots; until then, I had read none of his books.
The reason for my joining the French Socialist Party was that these “ladies and gentlemen” - as I called my comrades at that moment - has shown their sympathy towards me, towards the struggle of the oppressed peoples. But I understood neither what was a party, a trade-union, nor what was socialism nor communism.
Heated discussions were then taking place in the branches of the Socialist Party, about the question whether the Socialist Party should remain in the Second International, should a Second and a half International be founded or should the Socialist Party join Lenin’s Third International? I attended the meetings regularly, twice or thrice a week and attentively listened to the discussion. First, I could not understand thoroughly. Why were the discussions so heated? Either with the Second, Second and a half or Third International, the revolution could be waged. What was the use of arguing then? As for the First International, what had become of it?
What I wanted most to know - and this precisely was not debated in the meetings - was: which International sides with the peoples of colonial countries?
I raised this question - the most important in my opinion - in a meeting. Some comrades answered: It is the Third, not the Second International. And a comrade gave me Lenin’s “Thesis on the national and colonial questions” published by l’Humanite to read.
There were political terms difficult to understand in this thesis. But by dint of reading it again and again, finally I could grasp the main part of it. What emotion, enthusiasm, clear-sightedness and confidence it instilled into me! I was overjoyed to tears. Though sitting alone in my room, I shouted out aloud as if addressing large crowds: “Dear martyrs compatriots! This is what we need, this is the path to our liberation!”
After then, I had entire confidence in Lenin, in the Third International.
Formerly, during the meetings of the Party branch, I only listened to the discussion; I had a vague belief that all were logical, and could not differentiate as to who were right and who were wrong. But from then on, I also plunged into the debates and discussed with fervour. Though I was still lacking French words to express all my thoughts, I smashed the allegations attacking Lenin and the Third International with no less vigour. My only argument was: “If you do not condemn colonialism, if you do not side with the colonial people, what kind of revolution are you waging?”
Not only did I take part in the meetings of my own Party branch, but I also went to other Party branches to lay down “my position”. Now I must tell again that Comrades Marcel Cachin, Vaillant Couturier, Monmousseau and many others helped me to broaden my knowledge. Finally, at the Tours Congress, I voted with them for our joining the Third International.
At first, patriotism, not yet communism, led me to have confidence in Lenin, in the Third International. Step by step, along the struggle, by studying Marxism-Leninism parallel with participation in practical activities, I gradually came upon the fact that only socialism and communism can liberate the oppressed nations and the working people throughout the world from slavery.
There is a legend, in our country as well as in China, on the miraculous “Book of the Wise”. When facing great difficulties, one opens it and finds a way out. Leninism is not only a miraculous “book of the wise”, a compass for us Vietnamese revolutionaries and people: it is also the radiant sun illuminating our path to final victory, to socialism and communism.
deleted by creator
If loving the third world makes me silly, if wishing for the end of imperial hegemony makes me a clown, then I will wear grease paint with my head held high.
The First World consisted of the rich countries in North America, Western Europe, Australia, and Japan, all of which had gotten wealthy while engaging in colonialism. Their leading power, the United States, was late to that game, at least outside North America, but it certainly played. The young United States took control of the Louisiana territories, Florida, Texas, and the Southwest by waging war or threatening to attack.9 Then, Washington took over Hawaii after a group of businessmen overthrew Queen Liliuokalani in 1893, and gained control of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines in the Spanish-American War of 1898. The Philippines, the second-largest country in Southeast Asia, remained a formal colony until 1945, while Cuba moved into the informal US sphere of influence in Central America and the Caribbean—where US Marines intervened a dizzying twenty times, at least, by 1920—and Puerto Rico remains in imperial limbo to this day.10
The “Second World” was the Soviet Union and the European territories where the Red Army had set up camp. Since its founding, the USSR had publicly aligned itself with the global anticolonial struggle and had not engaged in overseas imperialism, but the world was watching how Moscow would exert influence over the occupied nations of Central and Eastern Europe.
And then there was the “Third World”—everyone else, the vast majority of the world’s population. That term was coined in the early 1950s, and originally, all of its connotations were positive. When the leaders of these new nation-states took up the term, they spoke it with pride; it contained a dream of a better future in which the world’s downtrodden and enslaved masses would take control of their own destiny. The term was used in the sense of the “Third Estate” during the French Revolution, the revolutionary common people who would overthrow the First and Second Estates of the monarchy and the clergy. “Third” did not mean third-rate, but something more like the third and final act: the first group of rich white countries had their crack at creating the world, as did the second, and this was the new movement, full of energy and potential, just waiting to be unleashed. For much of the planet, the Third World was not just a category; it was a movement.
- Vincent Bevins: The Jakarta Method (2020)
yall havent gone back to reddit yet?
Sorry but you don’t own the entire fediverse.
deleted by creator
