As a leftist I find tankies an absolute fucking disgrace. Dunno if it’s the fact that I’m middle aged and Finnish, so not only do I know a lot of people who had to escape the Soviet Union but I’ve visited it, and I had an entire branch of my family tree genocided by the Soviets, but I just can’t fathom how somebody can be so stupid as to idolize someone like fucking Stalin (or Mao or whichever incompetent psycho a particular tankie loves)
And everyone I know who has horror stories of life in the glorious workers’ paradise of the USSR is a lying counterrevolutionary who should have been shot by the KGB
MFW I realize genocide denialism follows the Narcissist’s prayer
It didn’t happen, and if it did it wasn’t that bad, and if it was it’s not that big a deal, and if it is it wasn’t (insert genocidal party)'s fault, and if it was they didn’t mean it, and if they did the victims deserved it.
Anyone defending genocide isnt a leftist, not a liberal, a “tankie” or anything else.
They’re a fascist who doesn’t want to be called a fascist.
It’s not like people are running around using NK as a straw puppet for why democracy is bad, we all agree they’re just lying about their governmental system.
Anyone defending genocide isnt a leftist, not a liberal, a “tankie” or anything else.
They’re a fascist who doesn’t want to be called a fascist.
Eh, although I agree in principle, facism isn’t a catch-all term for all authoritarian ideologies. Fascism is essentially corporatist (“corporation” in the poli sci sense, not “ruled by private corporations”) authoritarian capitalism with a big focus on private enterprise, completely against eg. welfare systems or anything like that (because weak people doesn’t deserve to be supported, and if anything need to be killed), highly misogynistic, etc. etc. For example the NSDAP privatized a lot of previously public enterprises, which doesn’t seem to be something a lot of people realize.
While tankies are authoritarian, they’re still communists or socialists or whatever.
So you’re saying a “moderate liberal” who supports genocide is more of a fascist than a “tankie”? Or would you call them a “tankie” for saying theyre on the left but openly supporting genocide, siccing police on peaceful protestors, and immediately cutting off any voter/media/politicians who disagree with them?
Sxomeone that openly refuses to step aside unless “lord God” tells them? Someone that insists they’re the only one that can save the country, and if they don’t personally win the country is over.
So you’re saying a “moderate liberal” who supports genocide is more of a fascist than a “tankie”?
I’m not saying anything like that: you’re saying that.
What I was saying is that fascism is its own kind of ideology, and although yes it’s been pretty fluid over the years, the hallmarks are authoritarian capitalism, emphasis on private enterprise, social Darwinism (supporting “the strong” and loathing “the weak”), misogyny, and the hatred and outright murder of the Other (jews, foreigners, LGBT+ people, people with the wrong religion, people with no religion, whoever).
Lots of folks fit the mold even without necessarily realizing it.
Would you call them “tankie” or fascist?
A tankie is an authoritarian communist. Your hypothetical person doesn’t seem to support communism nor be a leftist, and it’s kinda hard to say if they’re a fascist or not just based on what you wrote. Fascist-adjacent maybe but 🤷
What I was saying is that fascism is its own kind of ideology, and although yes it’s been pretty fluid over the years, the hallmarks are authoritarian capitalism, emphasis on private enterprise, social Darwinism (supporting “the strong” and loathing “the weak”), misogyny, and the hatred and outright murder of the Other (jews, foreigners, people with the wrong religion, people with no religion, whoever).
Well, if you lump misogyny in with other bigotry like it should be…
That’s a pretty good description of “moderate Dems” and Joe Biden’s entire 2024 campaign specifically.
My point is, breaking it all up into every slice getting it’s own special name is ridiculous and just confuses people.
But I don’t think you’re going to magically start understanding any of this if I keep replying.
My point is, breaking it all up into every slice getting it’s own special name is ridiculous and just confuses people.
You seriously think it’s less confusing to use a well-established political term incorrectly for everything that’s even a little bit authoritarian, and that calling different systems by their own and well-established terms is confusing? This is just your version of reich-wingers calling everyone to the left of Goebbels a “socialist” because they can’t be bothered to learn about politics.
This is just your version of reich-wingers calling everyone to the left of Goebbels a “socialist” because they can’t be bothered to learn about politics.
That’s exactly what it is. And if they weren’t so obviously a troll, they could have actually made an interesting point.
The difference is that the meaning of words actually matters to people on the left. While, yes, the right does benefit from easier organization because they can all just yell the same thing, the reason is because they all know that the real point in bigotry and cruelty. The specifics don’t matter as long as the Party wins, and the Other suffers
This is why you see so many “people” making both sides arguments. You can convince people on the left of things, because we care about words, so these arguments only harm our candidates, even if, on the surface, they seem balanced
No liberal supports genocide. It’s been explained to you time and again. The problem with debating you is that everyone has to wade through the bullshit world you created just to get back to the reality where the actual things happen.
NO LIBERAL SUPPORTS GENOCIDE.
Stop making up bullshit and stating it as a fact. It does nothing but dilute the point of any discussion you’re in.
We support Biden over Trump because we feel curable cancer is a better option than an incurable one. And unlike you, we also understand how nuance works within the context of political events. We don’t just make shit up so that we can win arguments.
Maybe try it? Or are you that afraid to give up the commonality you share with MAGA?
Basically it is a cult mentality. And dogmatically placing ideology over reality. Ideology puts things in nice clean boxes that people think they find easy to understand.
The problem with ideology is its ideal. But not real. It’s why I don’t dogmatically identify as anything ideologically. Pragmatically I’m anarcho communist/ true or left libertarian. It’s where my beliefs lay but it doesn’t define or restrict them.
ML often just lack critical thinking skills. And are as hypocritical as the liberals they curse. But they don’t do it because it’s logical or based in fact. They do it to belong to a group and feel superior. Just like those they despise.
Funny story. Couple days ago I was commenting on a thread in a community. I didn’t even pay attention to where the community was hosted. (Lemmy.ml lol) But people were complaining about the West, and how it is completely fascist. And how only the West does horrible things like genocide etc. To which I replied 'Russia and China would like to have a word with you". Predictably they screeeed that they “aren’t Marxist Leninist”. Which I pointed out that they had been. And that their evolution was representative of ML. That any groups, given absolute power. Would rather destroyed their societies than relinquish it. Whether they’re capitalist or ML. And stated that no ML government will achieve communism, or even remain socialist. Bam perma ban for “horse shoe theory” bullshit. That’s when I realized the server the community was on and broke out laughing. I take the band as a badge of honor. Previously I had been banned from the same Community for a month. The made up reason for that one was genocide denial. Because I had the audacity to admonish people for conflating actual genocide with enabling genocide. I didn’t deny it. But as I said. ML are whiny hypocrites. Who can’t argue their own positions. And look for any petty out they can find.
Yes it is. Industrialization helps everyone who implements it. It has nothing to do with the political ideology. Industrialization is good. The funny thing about you posting that. Is that China is not Marxist leninist or socialist anymore in any meaningful way. There is a new bourgeois-xi class oppressing the proletariat. And frittering away all their hard work on get rich quick schemes for him and his friends before everything implodes.
Marxism-Leninism is not tied to one specific one size fits all economic policy, what’s needed depends on the specific material conditions. China managed to open up and allow bourgeois investment to flow in, without allowing the bourgeoisie to take over the government and do regulatory capture. This was what they needed to do at the time to best advance the condition of the people, and it’s also allowed them to emerge as a major global power, while at the same time having too many economic ties for anyone to really do anything about them, militarily. It’s proving to be an incredibly successful strategy, both geopolitically and domestically.
Tell that to emperor bourgeoi-xi in the forbidden city. And his wealthy oligarch buddies. The bourgeoisie never had to take over. Xi happily joined them, and is planning to out bourgeoisie them. He certainly isn’t proletariat and neither are the business owners in China working with him. But tell yourself what you need to to cope.
Do you feel that one isolated graph justifies everything Mao did though? Like, 15 – 55 million people died in the Great Leap Forward, some 20 – 30 million died due to the Four Pests campaign, and so on and so on, but life expectancy got better so that’s OK? How much of that is even Mao’s doing? He kicked the bucket in the mid 70’s after all
No, Mao did a lot of terrible things which I would not defend. But he also made very significant improvements in the lives of a lot of people, and imo the graph puts a lot of things into perspective. During the enormous failure of the Great Leap Forward, that’s where the line stagnates before continuing upwards. The steep climb afterwards was actually during the Cultural Revolution, the chaos and destruction is far outweighed by the implementation of the Barefoot Doctors program, in which doctors were trained quickly and sent out to the provinces to administer the basics of modern medicine, such as vaccines.
Of course you’re right that it wasn’t all Mao’s doing. While life expectancy drastically increased during the time he was in power, people were still living in conditions of extreme poverty. The reforms in the 80’s beginning with Deng led to 800 million people being lifted out of poverty, which amounted to 3/4 of worldwide poverty reduction. But Westerners, not having experienced anything like the conditions that the communists in China eliminated, generally ignore these accomplishments and disavow the entire project as a total failure.
It’s fair to criticize Mao for sure, but there’s a lot of space in between “idolization” and “incompetent psycho.” If you have any sort of complex or nuanced view on him, however, that means that you’re a tankie.
I don’t think people are generally against nuance (or at least they shouldn’t be) but it’s not like actualtankies – ie. authoritarian communists – have very nuanced views. So yes, of course there’s a whole gradient between “idolization” and “incompetent psycho” and I was being hyperbolic, but especially with Mao I’d argue that he really was fairly incompetent. Likely not an actual psychopath like Stalin seemed to be, but a shining example of competence he wasn’t (Four Pests is just one example). This doesn’t mean that nothing good happened under his rule though.
“Actual” tankies don’t exist, outside of perhaps a handful of edgy teens. The way I use the term is defined by common use, regardless of the stated definition. In actual practice, anyone who defends anything a communist government has ever done, even if it’s something as minor as acknowledging the success of Cuba’s literacy program, is liable to be called a tankie by someone. I could try to fight it but I’d be fighting virtually every time the term is used, and I prefer to just reclaim it. You might as well ignore it, or love the word instead, because you ain’t done nothing if you ain’t been called a Red
Yes. Hexbears do not defend everything any communist government has ever done, and therefore do not meet the stated definition of tankies.
It’s virtually impossible for anyone to be an “actual” tankie. The Soviet Union collapsed, so obviously it had to have flaws. The Sino-Soviet split happened, so clearly at least one of them had to have been in the wrong. Khrushchev criticized Stalin and Deng criticized Mao, so in both cases, either the criticism was correct and the target was flawed or the criticism was incorrect so the person doing the criticism must have been flawed. Even if you tried to, you couldn’t knee-jerk support every communist leader.
You won’t according to their wishes and they won’t according to yours?
Not American, not even a western person, so my comment may not be relevant or welcome.
I think a part of it is bitterness(against the mainstream for letting it get to the current state) and the hope that the people facing the issues instead of a temporary 4 year delay would lead to actual changes.
Personally, I think that people should vote as long as they can safely do so.
Tho, the presidential elections seem weird for me as I’m from a parliamentary system.
“dOnT cArE, nOt VoTiNg”
-hexbear
As a leftist I find tankies an absolute fucking disgrace. Dunno if it’s the fact that I’m middle aged and Finnish, so not only do I know a lot of people who had to escape the Soviet Union but I’ve visited it, and I had an entire branch of my family tree genocided by the Soviets, but I just can’t fathom how somebody can be so stupid as to idolize someone like fucking Stalin (or Mao or whichever incompetent psycho a particular tankie loves)
Well, you see, every atrocity committed by Stalin or Mao was justified and it’s only CIA propaganda that makes you think otherwise. /s
And everyone I know who has horror stories of life in the glorious workers’ paradise of the USSR is a lying counterrevolutionary who should have been shot by the KGB
MFW I realize genocide denialism follows the Narcissist’s prayer
It didn’t happen, and if it did it wasn’t that bad, and if it was it’s not that big a deal, and if it is it wasn’t (insert genocidal party)'s fault, and if it was they didn’t mean it, and if they did the victims deserved it.
Which follows because it’s perpetrated by the political equivalent of narcissists: dictators and oligarchs.
Anyone defending genocide isnt a leftist, not a liberal, a “tankie” or anything else.
They’re a fascist who doesn’t want to be called a fascist.
It’s not like people are running around using NK as a straw puppet for why democracy is bad, we all agree they’re just lying about their governmental system.
Eh, although I agree in principle, facism isn’t a catch-all term for all authoritarian ideologies. Fascism is essentially corporatist (“corporation” in the poli sci sense, not “ruled by private corporations”) authoritarian capitalism with a big focus on private enterprise, completely against eg. welfare systems or anything like that (because weak people doesn’t deserve to be supported, and if anything need to be killed), highly misogynistic, etc. etc. For example the NSDAP privatized a lot of previously public enterprises, which doesn’t seem to be something a lot of people realize.
While tankies are authoritarian, they’re still communists or socialists or whatever.
So you’re saying a “moderate liberal” who supports genocide is more of a fascist than a “tankie”? Or would you call them a “tankie” for saying theyre on the left but openly supporting genocide, siccing police on peaceful protestors, and immediately cutting off any voter/media/politicians who disagree with them?
Sxomeone that openly refuses to step aside unless “lord God” tells them? Someone that insists they’re the only one that can save the country, and if they don’t personally win the country is over.
Would you call them “tankie” or fascist?
I’m not saying anything like that: you’re saying that.
What I was saying is that fascism is its own kind of ideology, and although yes it’s been pretty fluid over the years, the hallmarks are authoritarian capitalism, emphasis on private enterprise, social Darwinism (supporting “the strong” and loathing “the weak”), misogyny, and the hatred and outright murder of the Other (jews, foreigners, LGBT+ people, people with the wrong religion, people with no religion, whoever).
Lots of folks fit the mold even without necessarily realizing it.
A tankie is an authoritarian communist. Your hypothetical person doesn’t seem to support communism nor be a leftist, and it’s kinda hard to say if they’re a fascist or not just based on what you wrote. Fascist-adjacent maybe but 🤷
Don’t bother. These people LOVE rewriting your narrative. It’s the only way they can win arguments.
Well, if you lump misogyny in with other bigotry like it should be…
That’s a pretty good description of “moderate Dems” and Joe Biden’s entire 2024 campaign specifically.
My point is, breaking it all up into every slice getting it’s own special name is ridiculous and just confuses people.
But I don’t think you’re going to magically start understanding any of this if I keep replying.
You seriously think it’s less confusing to use a well-established political term incorrectly for everything that’s even a little bit authoritarian, and that calling different systems by their own and well-established terms is confusing? This is just your version of reich-wingers calling everyone to the left of Goebbels a “socialist” because they can’t be bothered to learn about politics.
And I’m supposedly the dim one here?
That’s exactly what it is. And if they weren’t so obviously a troll, they could have actually made an interesting point.
The difference is that the meaning of words actually matters to people on the left. While, yes, the right does benefit from easier organization because they can all just yell the same thing, the reason is because they all know that the real point in bigotry and cruelty. The specifics don’t matter as long as the Party wins, and the Other suffers
This is why you see so many “people” making both sides arguments. You can convince people on the left of things, because we care about words, so these arguments only harm our candidates, even if, on the surface, they seem balanced
No liberal supports genocide. It’s been explained to you time and again. The problem with debating you is that everyone has to wade through the bullshit world you created just to get back to the reality where the actual things happen.
NO LIBERAL SUPPORTS GENOCIDE.
Stop making up bullshit and stating it as a fact. It does nothing but dilute the point of any discussion you’re in.
We support Biden over Trump because we feel curable cancer is a better option than an incurable one. And unlike you, we also understand how nuance works within the context of political events. We don’t just make shit up so that we can win arguments.
Maybe try it? Or are you that afraid to give up the commonality you share with MAGA?
I see you have met the auth-“left”.
I mean…
The “moderate” wing and Joe Biden are the ones insisting on genocide these days.
Although with the way Biden has been treating protestors and voters/media/politicians who question him…
Yeah, ok, I guess we can start call Biden and them “auth-left” instead of “moderate”.
Basically it is a cult mentality. And dogmatically placing ideology over reality. Ideology puts things in nice clean boxes that people think they find easy to understand.
The problem with ideology is its ideal. But not real. It’s why I don’t dogmatically identify as anything ideologically. Pragmatically I’m anarcho communist/ true or left libertarian. It’s where my beliefs lay but it doesn’t define or restrict them.
ML often just lack critical thinking skills. And are as hypocritical as the liberals they curse. But they don’t do it because it’s logical or based in fact. They do it to belong to a group and feel superior. Just like those they despise.
Funny story. Couple days ago I was commenting on a thread in a community. I didn’t even pay attention to where the community was hosted. (Lemmy.ml lol) But people were complaining about the West, and how it is completely fascist. And how only the West does horrible things like genocide etc. To which I replied 'Russia and China would like to have a word with you". Predictably they screeeed that they “aren’t Marxist Leninist”. Which I pointed out that they had been. And that their evolution was representative of ML. That any groups, given absolute power. Would rather destroyed their societies than relinquish it. Whether they’re capitalist or ML. And stated that no ML government will achieve communism, or even remain socialist. Bam perma ban for “horse shoe theory” bullshit. That’s when I realized the server the community was on and broke out laughing. I take the band as a badge of honor. Previously I had been banned from the same Community for a month. The made up reason for that one was genocide denial. Because I had the audacity to admonish people for conflating actual genocide with enabling genocide. I didn’t deny it. But as I said. ML are whiny hypocrites. Who can’t argue their own positions. And look for any petty out they can find.
It’s pretty simple really
Yes it is. Industrialization helps everyone who implements it. It has nothing to do with the political ideology. Industrialization is good. The funny thing about you posting that. Is that China is not Marxist leninist or socialist anymore in any meaningful way. There is a new bourgeois-xi class oppressing the proletariat. And frittering away all their hard work on get rich quick schemes for him and his friends before everything implodes.
Marxism-Leninism is not tied to one specific one size fits all economic policy, what’s needed depends on the specific material conditions. China managed to open up and allow bourgeois investment to flow in, without allowing the bourgeoisie to take over the government and do regulatory capture. This was what they needed to do at the time to best advance the condition of the people, and it’s also allowed them to emerge as a major global power, while at the same time having too many economic ties for anyone to really do anything about them, militarily. It’s proving to be an incredibly successful strategy, both geopolitically and domestically.
Tell that to emperor bourgeoi-xi in the forbidden city. And his wealthy oligarch buddies. The bourgeoisie never had to take over. Xi happily joined them, and is planning to out bourgeoisie them. He certainly isn’t proletariat and neither are the business owners in China working with him. But tell yourself what you need to to cope.
Do you feel that one isolated graph justifies everything Mao did though? Like, 15 – 55 million people died in the Great Leap Forward, some 20 – 30 million died due to the Four Pests campaign, and so on and so on, but life expectancy got better so that’s OK? How much of that is even Mao’s doing? He kicked the bucket in the mid 70’s after all
No, Mao did a lot of terrible things which I would not defend. But he also made very significant improvements in the lives of a lot of people, and imo the graph puts a lot of things into perspective. During the enormous failure of the Great Leap Forward, that’s where the line stagnates before continuing upwards. The steep climb afterwards was actually during the Cultural Revolution, the chaos and destruction is far outweighed by the implementation of the Barefoot Doctors program, in which doctors were trained quickly and sent out to the provinces to administer the basics of modern medicine, such as vaccines.
Of course you’re right that it wasn’t all Mao’s doing. While life expectancy drastically increased during the time he was in power, people were still living in conditions of extreme poverty. The reforms in the 80’s beginning with Deng led to 800 million people being lifted out of poverty, which amounted to 3/4 of worldwide poverty reduction. But Westerners, not having experienced anything like the conditions that the communists in China eliminated, generally ignore these accomplishments and disavow the entire project as a total failure.
It’s fair to criticize Mao for sure, but there’s a lot of space in between “idolization” and “incompetent psycho.” If you have any sort of complex or nuanced view on him, however, that means that you’re a tankie.
I don’t think people are generally against nuance (or at least they shouldn’t be) but it’s not like actual tankies – ie. authoritarian communists – have very nuanced views. So yes, of course there’s a whole gradient between “idolization” and “incompetent psycho” and I was being hyperbolic, but especially with Mao I’d argue that he really was fairly incompetent. Likely not an actual psychopath like Stalin seemed to be, but a shining example of competence he wasn’t (Four Pests is just one example). This doesn’t mean that nothing good happened under his rule though.
“Actual” tankies don’t exist, outside of perhaps a handful of edgy teens. The way I use the term is defined by common use, regardless of the stated definition. In actual practice, anyone who defends anything a communist government has ever done, even if it’s something as minor as acknowledging the success of Cuba’s literacy program, is liable to be called a tankie by someone. I could try to fight it but I’d be fighting virtually every time the term is used, and I prefer to just reclaim it. You might as well ignore it, or love the word instead, because you ain’t done nothing if you ain’t been called a Red
Have you seen Hexbear? Honestly, saying they don’t exist outside of a few edgy teens seems a bit myopic
Yes. Hexbears do not defend everything any communist government has ever done, and therefore do not meet the stated definition of tankies.
It’s virtually impossible for anyone to be an “actual” tankie. The Soviet Union collapsed, so obviously it had to have flaws. The Sino-Soviet split happened, so clearly at least one of them had to have been in the wrong. Khrushchev criticized Stalin and Deng criticized Mao, so in both cases, either the criticism was correct and the target was flawed or the criticism was incorrect so the person doing the criticism must have been flawed. Even if you tried to, you couldn’t knee-jerk support every communist leader.
I see from that graph that in 2190 they should live until they are 124.
You won’t according to their wishes and they won’t according to yours?
Not American, not even a western person, so my comment may not be relevant or welcome.
I think a part of it is bitterness(against the mainstream for letting it get to the current state) and the hope that the people facing the issues instead of a temporary 4 year delay would lead to actual changes.
Personally, I think that people should vote as long as they can safely do so.
Tho, the presidential elections seem weird for me as I’m from a parliamentary system.