What’s wrong with you people? You’re cheering on fascists when they beat up communists? Shouldn’t you help instead?
Tankies aren’t communists, they’re authoritarians with the red aesthetics. They agree with fascists on every valuable part of their worldview, and only disagree on which historical genocidal dictator was totally innocent actually
They agree with fascists on every valuable part of their worldview
The Liberal says as they side with Fascists against Communists every single time
Let’s not pretend that your politics aren’t inherently authoritarian as well.
Either you support capitalism (or worse), which is grossly authoritarian as it inflicts massive violence not only via warfare but through mass starvation and deprivation, or you support socialism, in which case you have two options:
-
The violent overthrow of the current system (spoiler alert: that’s a very authoritarian thing to do!)
-
The gradual reform of the current system, meaning maintaining the status quo for an exceptionally long time as we ever so slowly creep our way to a more just economic system while countless people starve, go homeless, die without healthcare, end up in yet-another war and so on (which is a very authoritarian proposition, just throwing away the lives of the poor in your own country—not to mention those in the developing world—just so you can have a neat and tidy reformist approach that doesn’t rock the boat.)
Failing to acknowledge that authoritative measures arise not through ideology, but through material conditions, is anti-Marxist, anti-dialectical, and idealist.
Nah, I didn’t do that. I just pointed out that they are either a supporter of capitalism (or reactionary politics) or they support revolutionary/evolutionary socialism, all of which are inherently authoritarian in their own ways.
The material conditions that give rise to authoritarianism is a different question altogether. I was specific in my choice of words for a reason.
I’m sorry. I meant to agree.
I think I am gonna stay with social democracy. You all are way too extreme.
Capitalism was extreme as well when compared to the feudal order. But eventually they fought, they won, and now we get to wake up every day at 6 and drive 45 minutes to work.
“I like capitalism with minor concessions (won by communists) that will continually be rolled back over time.”
Fuck dude, add some god damn spice to your politics. Milk toast is better with chili powder. Maybe read some books and come up with your own opinion via critical thinking too.
Won by communists? Bruh. My country has climbed the ranks as one of the best countries in terms of HDI, happiness, etc. All the communists ever did was threaten and spy on us.
Pure communism will never happen and will never function. Humans are human and don’t want equality, we need something to thrive for.
Does your country’s QOL not come at anyone’s expense, disproportionately? The Global South’s for instance?
deleted by creator
Any concessions capitalists have given the working class in your country are likely due to their fear of a proletariat uprising in your own country because a socialist country was on your doorstep. Turns out when people see that other people are able to seize back the power in their country and don’t have to lick boots they start to think, “huh, maybe we could do that here too.”
This scared the shit out of those in power, so they gave social concessions. After the fall of nearby socialist states, you’ll see those concessions slowly erode as capitalism begins eating its own ass again and they “need” more profits at the expense of your social welfare. If it hasn’t happened yet, just wait until your country can no longer export the levels of exploitation they need for unlimited growth.
Go read a history book and think critically before posting such stupid shit online again. It was the capitalist countries who began shit with the communist countries and that continues to be true to this very day. Ask yourself, how many foreign communist military bases were there? Sure sounds like they were the aggressor compared to capitalists in this regard.
equality sounds nice but its boring is completely applied to everything.
No it’s not, because that literally has never happened. The propaganda of “under communism everyone will eat dry bread and live in grey cubes” is both not rooted in actual examples. In those times and states there were both still a privileged elite and the majority of world superpowers were not only not participating in the sharing of resources, they were actively attacking it either indirectly through political pressure or directly through literally killing people.
If we had actual true global equality everyone would be doing better than you’re probably doing right now.
Spoken like someone benefiting from the status quo
Libertarians are anti-war. Capitalism is not colonialism.
Do you mean libertarians, or “libertarians” as per Murray Rothbard’s quote:
“One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over…”
-
Oh yes, wanting to raise people out of poverty is totally what fascists want.
You don’t know what you are talking about. You are just repeating something someone in authority once told you to believe. Ironic.
Yes, Mao and Stalin raised people out of poverty by killing enough people so there was enough to go around.
what US state education does to a mf
You’re just jealous because your spoon isn’t as big as Stalin’s was.
Which is why the population grew by a lot under them? Reality disproves your childish arguments.
Show me the numbers. Curious how population growth rate in both USSR and China rises unprecendently, after these two came to power.
You played their own card, lmaooo
So you’re saying communists are fascists now?
In before you say Stalin’s spoon actually killed 100,000,000 Ukrainians
Pretty sure he’s saying the exact opposite. Russian/CCP simps aren’t communists. They’re just a different flavor authoritarianism then the maga chuds.
Can you explain why MLs are not communists? With your own arguments.
No, because MLs aren’t necessarily tankies. And I do consider tankies a subset of Communists. Just not the very bright subset.
“Tankie” means someone who’s more interested in following a communist team rather then a communist ideal. Even if the team leader is just a grifter.
If you acknowledge the short comings of certain states that don’t really follow the “from each according to his ability to each according to his need”, you’re not a tankie.
Anarchists follow their team too; they’re opposed to any state whatsoever, no matter what the character of that state is and no matter the achievements of that state. Their team is the abolition of the state and anything that works towards that goal, no matter who it comes from, is considered by anarchists to be anarchist(ic). By this definition they would be tankies too.
In other words, you do not know what “tankie” means. You’re just an anti-communist too cowardly to say so.
Can you please explain how the Communist Party of China isn’t communist?
Also, are you suggesting the US isn’t “authoritarian” or do you just mean countries you don’t like?
Authoritarian regimes like to call themselves different names with better connotations than they deserve.
Anybody who screeches about authoritarian regimes exposes themselves as being intellectually bankrupt, and can be safely ignored. A great explanation of why this is a nonsensical narrative peddled by western pseudoleft https://cym.ie/2020/04/01/left-anti-communism-the-unkindest-cut-by-michael-parenti/
Don’t you call America an authoritarian regime on an hourly basis?
The same way the DPRK isn’t democratic.
Which it is, thank you for proving that the CPC is a communist party.
How do you define “democratic?” Would North Korea be democratic if there were two candidates instead, where they fought in a pretend culture war, but one of them really just deferred to the other if they won? North Korea has different parties too, you know.
And yet somehow the head office with total power is hereditary just like a monarchy.
Now you’re being dense and bad faith.
Because anyone can call anything what they want. Is the Patriot Act very patriotic? Call something what it isn’t and mock people who call it out. It’s a form of double talk.
Let me be blunt then. Has the People’s Republic of China achieved the final stage of communism? Of course not, that would be ridiculous.
Are they trying to work towards communism and improve the conditions of their population? I would say so.
I would not. They’re trying to erase the cultures of any non-Han Chinese and suppressing any lgbt groups. How does that support the “from each according to his ability to each according to his need” creed?
Can you please explain which of their policies and actions on a national and international scale constitute communism?
You’re welcome to read about socialism with Chinese characteristics if you’re interested.
So no answer?
deleted by creator
This is like really basic geopolitics my dude, China is a thoroughly capitalist economy by any definition that isn’t being massaged specifically to exclude them.
Maybe do not try to use basic geopolitics to answer a question of political economy?
… is this supposed to be some sort of gotcha? Did I commit a whoopsie by using the term geopolitics to refer to how one of the top 3 global superpowers runs its markets?
I really want a good explanation for why the dumb shit admin thought it was a good idea to federate with tankie fucks
Go cry to him then lmao, what the fuck do you want us to do about it?
To stop being tankie retards and shut the fuck up
Again, there’s no point in telling me this lol. Go cry to your admin to defederate from the big bad tankies that give you nightmares.
Yikes. Sounds like a personal problem. Maybe don’t engage with “tankies” if you don’t like them?
We’re defederated on Beehaw if you want to go there instead
lemmy.ml admins? Same admins as lemmygrad.ml.
As to lemm.ee: Here’s the policy. Long story short: Tankies don’t go harassing lemm.ee communities and aren’t doing illegal shit, spam, suchlike, elsewhere so they get a pass.
🤦 Of course they would be the same ones.
Since when were libertarians fascists?
Even if they aren’t fascists, I wouldn’t side with anyone that agrees with Atlas Shrugged
The author of that book didn’t consider herself libertarian, and educated ancaps usually do not consider herself one of their own.
That is, apparently you’ve never met one yet write such pretentious phrases.
Her views are 100% bog standard modern “libertarian,” because her works are the most significant factor in the shaping of those beliefs, but in her day libertarians were anarchists just beginning the ideological split into today’s actual libertarians and anarcho-capitalists/“libertarians”/racist and pedophilic liberals and fascists lying about their real goals to useful idiots.
Rothbard, famous racist, slave desiring, apartheid supporting, pedophile ideological founder of anarcho-capitalism, who has quite a lot of suspiciously pro-fascism quotes, technically started the process in the 40’s, but it didn’t gain steam or co-opt the term libertarian until the populatization of “libertarianism” thanks to Rand’s works.
So yes, everything you just said is technically correct, but is still deliberately misleading in modern context.
Her views are 100% bog standard modern “libertarian,”
Wrong. She praises monopolies, hierarchical systems with hereditary aristocracy, money bending rights, some people being more human than others etc. She’s rather very roughly Darwinist, with the idea that the less you try to compensate for strength disparity, the better, and at the same time she’s rather centralist. Almost fascist.
Basically she’s an inverted Bolshevik, which is not surprising considering her family history. A Bolshevik from capitalists, if you like. Not even similar to libertarianism. Her ideas have simply nothing to do with liberty. She was sufficiently honest to explain these things herself.
and anarcho-capitalists/“libertarians”/racist and pedophilic liberals and fascists lying about their real goals to useful idiots.
I’m ancap (rather distributist as in Chesterton’s views, but that’s harder to explain), so this BS you can leave to yourself.
I’d generalize this as anarchist ideologies attracting people who’d like to get rid of certain limitations most others would consider sane. Like fucking children, stealing, killing etc. This is, sadly, a real tendency, but I’ve met such leftist anarchists too.
Rothbard, famous racist, slave desiring, apartheid supporting, pedophile ideological founder of anarcho-capitalism, who has quite a lot of suspiciously pro-fascism quotes, technically started the process in the 40’s, but it didn’t gain steam or co-opt the term libertarian until the populatization of “libertarianism” thanks to Rand’s works.
You forgot to say that he also kinda liked USSR, at least in his book, “For a new liberty” or something, a very interesting person surely.
Also Rothbard’s and Rand’s followers were always very different people. I’ve never met a person who’d like both. It’s a bit like tankies think that “liberal” and “fascist” are synonyms, completely removed from the reality. If you want to have some idea about libertarians, you should talk to them and not your leftist friends.
So yes, everything you just said is technically correct, but is still deliberately misleading in modern context.
It’s especially important in modern context. Ayn Rand is basically a spoiler for libertarianism, a strawman which every leftist uses against people whose ideology has nothing in common with her. And in reality she was just, like I said earlier, for capitalism what Bolsheviks were for leftist ideologies. Rather economically misguided and too impractical.
LMAO- The only dignity your lies and cope deserve.
I mean, you can just read the sources, Rothbard’s most known books, Ayn Rand’s Atlas and other stuff, and make your own opinion. The only common thing between them is disdain for state regulation and leftism. But the root of Rothbard’s ideology is simply incompatible with the root of Rand’s ideology.
The former builds on natural right and non-aggression. The latter builds on people not being equal, and some being shit under the boot of others, better and more useful. These are in direct conflict.
I mean, explaining something to a tankie is similar to trying to teach a pig fly.
Since that flag tried storming the capital building. I actually like the original meaning of the flag, but it got cooped by meat heads. I do like the pride and women’s rights versions of the gadsen flag.
I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but flags are inanimate objects that lack the ability to make conscious decisions like “storm the capitol.” People make those decisions, and people can carry whatever flag they so choose while doing so whether they embody the meaning of that flag or not, as evidenced by much of those same people also carrying conflicting thin blue line or maga gear. They could have chosen to storm the capitol carrying antifa flags, and besides the fact that you’d likely be cheering them on rather than admonishing them for the same behavior exhibited by your percieved enemy, the flag waved would largely be inconsequential to anything other than “your support.” In fact, you’d likely point out that ~1,003 have been charged from the incident which is not only a small percentage of the total supporters of either side, but is a small percentage of the crowd that was even at the rally that started it, meaning more people who fly either of those respective flags didn’t “do it” than did.
Of course, that isn’t propaganda-y enough for most, or is too propaganda-y because I’m only supposed to talk bad about one side not both. Oh well, c’est la pipe.
We’re taking the Gadsden Flag back! The right doesn’t own it. It belongs to the people and we’re taking it back!
What’s the point? Gadsen was a slave owning piece of shit. It’s a dumb flag.
Sometimes a shithead can be right about something.
How many high-minded ideals were written by people that were absolute assholes or monsters in the other parts of their life?
We need a way to differentiate between communists and the tankie subset.
Spoiler alert: “Tankie” is just a buzzword like the conservative interpretation of “woke”
Ah the classic “No True Tankie” fallacy
Edit: whoops, replied to the wrong comment
He is right though. It isn’t a fallacy, the usage of the word tankie is so far removed from content that it is a bad term and more thought terminating than anything.
Tankies were originally a small subset of some Western and some, mostly East European, socialists and communists which were in favour of a (para-)military response to the revolt in Hungary in 1956. It was a complex situation and even people not on the side of Nagy within Hungary were in favour of the Soviet action.
The term now was used, and amplified by intelligence agencies and Western media, to decry the Soviet action and more importantly de-legitimize several communist groups. In that sense the functional usage of the term is similar, but the question is where would the slur hit actually?
In principle it would hit a small sub section of MLs who followed Khrushchev’s decision. Many people within the pact did see the de-Stalinisation and how it was communicated as problematic, as it enabled opposition forces to claim ground in countries. Nagy tried to do introduce reforms, the most far reaching: “Hungary to leave the Warsaw Pact and declare neutrality in the Cold War.”
Countries thinking about leaving the dominant two powers spheres of influence during the Cold War were often met with violence. See the Jakarta Method for more information about that (i.e. Vietnam, Korea, Indonesia, the whole of South America). During that time colonialism was also still relevant and colonial powers did use excessive violence, this is another part of the book.
Now what you and others do is labeling people who are to the left of the Soviets at that point as Tankies. Which is doubly wrong and cynical. What is interesting is that the slur can be traced back for the last 6 years to the US and there to more right wing places. It wasn’t primarily a phrase that was used by leftists. However after the heating chamber of the alt right online people used it to label even people who are democratic socialists at best.
In that sense it is a continuity to the Red Scare, to not have to engage with content.
Luckily the US would never in the 1950s use regime change in countries, for example it would never use military force in Guatemala to ensure the profits of the United Fruit company and the CIA director’s family or
alike
1948–1960s Italy 1949 Syrian coup d'état 1949–1953 Albania 1953 Iranian coup d'état 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état 1956–57 Syria crisis 1957–58 Indonesian rebellion 1959–2000 assassination attempts on Fidel Castro 1959 Cambodia, Bangkok Plot 1960 Congo coup d'état 1961 Cuba, Bay of Pigs Invasion 1961 Cuba, Operation Mongoose 1961 Dominican Republic 1963 South Vietnamese coup d'état 1964 Brazilian coup d'état 1965–66 Indonesia, Transition to the New Order 1966 Ghanaian coup d'état 1971 Bolivian coup d'état 1970–1973 Chile 1976 Argentine coup d'état 1979 Salvadoran coup d'état 1979–1989 Afghanistan, Operation Cyclone 1975–1992 Angola, UNITA 1981–1990 Nicaragua, Contras 1982 Chad 1996 Iraq coup attemptBullshit. Everyone’s a tankie. My dog is a tankie. Tankie doesn’t mean shit, in the four years it’s been revived, nobody has ever been able to give me a universal definition. It literally just means “people I don’t like”.
I’ve seen anarchists get called tankies. I myself am a Marxist-Leninist but because I may be better at conveying my thoughts and opinions I don’t get called a tankie, while other MLs do. I literally have the same opinions they do, but anarchists sometimes think I’m cool with them lol.
Tankie doesn’t mean anything. You’re a tankie.
tl:dr “Tankie” means someone who’s more interested in following a communist team rather then a communist ideal. Even if the team leader is just a grifter.
If you acknowledge the short comings of certain states that don’t really follow the “from each according to his ability to each according to his need”, you’re not a tankie.
By your definition, every community is a tankie because every communist rejects idealism. If these are the only two options, the only option left is to choose a team. But that can’t be right because you imply that some communists aren’t tankies.
Further, does it count as a definition if other people use the term in different ways?
If so, how do you know who is a communist and who is a tankie without asking them how they decided to show (critical) support for XYZ?
By your definition, you must first know whether someone has strong reasons to support XYZ before being able to decide that they really decided because XYZ was on the right team. That would be exhausting and fraught with the problem that nobody is going to say they didn’t do the reading; if they give an argument, how do you determine whether it’s valid or a cover for ‘choosing by reference to team’?
I’m unsure if it’s possible to define ‘tankie’ by reference to ‘communist’ without also defining the latter and showing how they’re different.
That’s a pretty vague definition you came up for to dismiss people.
Ah the classic pretending to invoke fallacies instead of just telling me what a “tankie” is supposed to be…
If you really just mean “commie,” just say it
ah, you think I don’t have definitions of those words?
“Woke” as we’re using it today start around the 1920’s America and the was by the black community to refer to white people who were aware of and sympathetic to social injustices committed against the black community. It’s sense evolved to include anyone belong to a majority group aware of and sympathetic to an oppressed group.
“Tankie” refers to people who profess their love of communism, but pick allies not on action, but on team affiliation. Any short coming of their favorite communist™ state isn’t an internal fault, but something the evil “west” has committed against them. Which, to be fair, the CIA loves fucking around in South America,
The tankie isn’t at all much different from the “patriotic” Maga head. A Maga head will scream about how free America is, but defending it whenever the county, or more specifically, their team, starts restricting personal freedoms of lgbt individuals, minority rights, or women’s and particularly women’s reproductive rights.
Both tankies and Maga heads will preform mental gymnastics to try and rationalize why the gays can’t be married even though the text of either group doesn’t have any problem with them.
I don’t have any problem with textbook Communist. So long as they can acknowledge the short comings of how it’s been applied so far and how it’s been subverted by people who want to consolidate power and wealth. Same logic goes for Capitalists. In principle, both systems are viable economic models, although textbook communism is the more progressive one. But both, at least as applied by real and would be super powers, are corrupt and dangerous.
A tankie is someone who supports the Soviets sending tanks to stop the Hungarian revolution and other other use is made-up bullshit.
Words and their usage evolve over time. That’s the origin of the word.
Any short coming of their favorite communist™ state isn’t an internal fault, but something the evil “west” has committed against them.
To be fair, as you said, many of these problems are because of the International Community™. As for the rest, maybe all support should be critical, with increasingly less “critical” the less there is to criticize.
Both tankies and Maga heads will preform mental gymnastics to try and rationalize why the gays can’t be married
I haven’t seen anyone on Lemmygrad express that view, and I certainly support our LGBT comrades.
I haven’t seen anyone on Lemmygrad express that view, and I certainly support our LGBT comrades.
I’ve seen it else were. Gonzalo Lira might be a special case though. I mean you have to be a special kind of stupid to spread Russian propaganda while in Ukraine. He’s also complained that women don’t dress up anymore while looking like hobo for his online “debates”.
Point being is that it’s well known that Russian and China aren’t lgbt friendly and supporters of those countries either need to be ok with that or intentionally ignorant of that. I have seen some snide comments on other communist forums towards lgbt people. The rational, if there is any, is that childless people don’t belong in a long term society.
Well, perhaps you’d be relieved to know that on Lemmygrad, we condemned the Russian Federation for its recent anti-LGBT policies then.
Tell me, what should a communist do if they’re a citizen of the U.S. and the US were to make voting mandatory, punishable by death? Should we die rather than vote for someone we disagree with, or should we pick someone we think might be marginally better?
That’s how we feel about Russia — we don’t pretend to think they’re communist, and there are things we disagree with, but they’re still better than the US, so we vote for them.
No that won’t happen. This is a tactic by whatever group that is so butthurt about having left wing views on the internet to try to tone-control Lemmy. If they can get everyone to agree the slur tankie is bad, they can claim anyone that supports a left wing government that imposes a policy that restricts US freedom to exploit that country is a Tankie.
We need to stop differentiating between liberal and fascist tendendcies. Anyone who aligns with NATO ideals is a fascist, period, regardless of what label you claim.
Yes it’s calling them tankies. They currently seem to be keen on framing it as “buzzword” or “undefined culture war slur against the whole left”, while in more or less the same breath of course still stanning for North Korea and calling China communist and ignoring that they’re called out by the collective rest of the left for that. With that exact term.
In case you have too much time have Keffals on Hakim on the world tankie.
Which is on brand for them. The original “tankies” were cheering on the Soviets violently crushing uprisings by other communists for attempting to practice the “wrong kind” of communism, AKA “Anything other than complete submission to Soviet oppression.”
That’s the sole identifying mark of a tankie: a desire to crush dissidence of their peers through violence, particularly if their victims share their professed economic ideology. Tankies aren’t communists: they’re fascists cosplaying as communists.
Tankies are a COINTELPRO plot to discredit the left, convince me otherwise.
Can you send me your list of nice, approved communists plz? Would be much appreciated. lol
Well I’m not a communist so I’m kinda the wrong guy to ask but you’d be surprised, Lenin is on that list for me. You know the guy who warned everyone that Stalin must under no circumstance be allowed to lead. A lot of good analysis, alas his solutions often had first solution syndrome, meaning they were insufficiently hardened against good ole power dynamics taking over because, as Marx so rightly observed, it’s in a class’ interest to act in its own self-interest and ultimately the nomenklatura is a class as distinct from the proletariat, or even party base, as priests are from believers. I’m pretty sure if the guy had Lenin’s failures to look back at he’d do a lot better, though.
If you want something random to read to learn from I’d recommend the Anarchist Library. And Bookchin in particular.
That’s not what the meme is saying.
Hmm, is it criticizing lemmings for cheering on fascists beating up communists?
There’s no intended camps in the image. It’s just a bunch of individual infighting.
Are we looking at the same image? How’s that the correct interpretation?
help the “fascists” would be fun but I can just sit back and enjoy the show.
dumbass vs dumbass bro, i am just lolling at both
exactly!
MLs aren’t communists.
Stalinists aren’t communists.
ML works just fine if you assume a benevolent dictator with a merciful, honest, and well educated population of party leaders who will listen to agricultural, industrial, and economic experts instead of taking a hard line ideological stance on everything and not try to force the abolition of personal property before society is ready.
Should be easy, right?
deleted by creator
Where did you learn that? The school of enlightened centrism? How do you explain the Nazis putting every communist they could find in a concentration camp? They just violently disagreed on the wording of the exact same position?
deleted by creator
The "Holo"domor is a fascist myth. Hence why most countries do not recognize it. The Aral sea destruction happened mostly after the end of the USSR…
Meanwhile fascists did the Holocaust, which did happen and the genocidal roadshow that was WW2 followed by the genocidal roadshow that is the USA.
What’s wrong with you calling ancaps fascist? I mean, they are not more or less fascist than anyone in this pic except for the tankie getting pummeled, and the tankie always has this coming.
When have “libertarians” ever won a physical fight anywhere lol. We have actual revolutionaries who fought on the frontlines like Che and Castro, Lenin, Ho Chi Minh, Mao.
you have this goofy cartoon
Lenin was a tyrant who strangled the revolution in the cradle.
The best part of comments like yours is trying to figure out your ideology. Could be anything, really.
Lenin was a tyrant? By that logic, every white person is a terrorist.
There are ancaps here?
There shouldn’t be. Can we please start bullying them?
Scratch a liberal and a fascist will bleed.
Every. Single. Time.
Lmao
I don’t get it and I’m much more comfortable asking for clarification here than anywhere else.
Explain?
Edit: I appreciate all the answers. I’ve been calling myself “liberal” just to differentiate myself from “conservative” and I think that’s not quite right. I need like a test or something to help me find the right words
Essentially, it means fascism is the method by which liberalism defends itself in the face of progress and revolution.
The point is that liberalism and facism are intrinsically linked. Liberalism does not seek to change the world and stems from philosophies instead seeking to explain it. Accordingly, liberalism is a philosophical justification for the capitalist status quo. As such, when contradictions in capitalism accentuate with time, such as those between classes, liberalism turns to fascism. Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds, because the liberal is a closet fascist when times are good; when class struggle poses a threat, it clamps down. You can see this throughout history.
That a poor, simplified explanation, but I hope it helps.
Just to make sure we get this correct.
Are you talking about the skewed USA definition of Liberal, or the one the entire rest of the world uses?
This is not exclusive to liberalism, the radicalization and individualism in tough times is part of human nature. When your family’s livelihood is at stake, you’ll stop caring about society and only care about yourself.
And there will always be people who’ll pose as the saviours of the homeland and champions of the people, just to gain power and enrich themselves, while fucking over everyone else. This is how Mussolini got to power, how Hitler got to power and how many other dictators did too, including communist ones.
Btw, the dictatorship of the proletariat, aka communist dictatorships are just fascist states in disguise, concentration camps and totalitarian bullshit included.
is part of human nature
Phrases like those are a quick hint that you are stuck in outdated thinking.
I love how people use this kind of metaphysical argument, invoking human nature and such, and then have the nerve to call Marxism idealistic.
Marxist logic is literally about eschewing idealistic metaphysical arguments and focusing on the material conditions that influence history. Go read the Misery of Philosophy, people ffs.
Guys, you can keep jerking off each other all you want, but pseudo-scientific arguments are simply not sufficient to prove your point.
Science persists over millennia, builds compasses and then ships and then rockets and now computers. Science makes whole societies vanish or survive. Over the course of too many years.
Now let’s look at communism. It’s not science, it’s a socioreligious sect, of the kind that Lucian of Samosata was ironic about, as those were plentiful in his time.
Individuals in struggling societies don’t always atomize, many revolutions occurred due to degradation in conditions. When the cost of fighting for change is less than doing nothing you will fight, and you will fight with others, or else you will quickly fail and be forgotten.
Curious what your definition of facism is. With a few exceptions, communist inclined states have always lead to unprecedented economic development, education, improvement of quality of life, etc. If you take all cold war propaganda at face value, you can not deny the development seen in such states; when balanced by alleged atrocities, you see a stark contrast to colnialist nations that too committed atrocities but with little to show for it.
I find the surface level historical criticisms of communist states, even if applied at an equaly superficial level, is applied to capitalist states, you would find a staggering contradiction. Maybe you should read more. Add to your socioeconomic calculus the fact that no communist state benefited from the same starting point as colonizer countries, and try to be critical of this. Consider that none of these communist states had the benifits of colonization, and when compared to other developing countries did remarkably better.
There is no contradiction. Both kinds of states are bad. Economic growth is not a “level of country goodness” meter. If it happens through horrible and harmful means I don’t care about it.
Economic growth itself is just a number, development is what matters. In addition and as a part of development I also specifically mentioned education and improvement of quality of life. You could add literacy, housing, levels of nourishment, and much, much more.
I won’t argue about history or its interpretations with you now. Just consider the path to development wealthy capitalist countries took, which involved slavery, colonialism, genocide, brutal worker suppression, and perhaps the worse working conditions in history during industrialisation.
You may attribute many horible things to communist countries. I might argue much of this is exaggerated by the media of the anti-comunist country you live in. Even if it is all true, developed capitalist countries did the same to themselves, and other peoples around the globe.
Then consider the development communist countries have had compared to undeveloped capitalist countries. People can have better lives, that is what matters.
Hey, thanks a lot for the respectful reply.
I don’t really understand what kind of point you’re making, though. There are plenty of economic and political systems that can reach all the development and improvement to quality of life and literacy you want, yet they do it through horrible, brutal and harmful means. You yourself would be opposed to attaining these things you’re talking about through colonialism or slavery, or even through capitalism as I’m sure you’re also against social democracy like I am. My argument is that the means communist countries used to get to these ends are bad enough that I don’t care about the ends they reached. Just like I would never care about the ends reached by colonialist means.
I am not denying capitalist countries didn’t suffer from the same problems or didn’t commit the same or even more attrocities. This doesn’t excuse anything though. I am opposed to these things by principle, no matter who does them. And I’m not going to pick between two systems that do the things I’m against all the same, but one leads to prosperity quicker. I’m not playing that game.
Example:
You can improve your literacy stats by killing illiterate people.
That wouldn’t be a good development.
It’s an expression that nods to the tendency of liberals to empower, enable and ultimately align with fascists against socialists, communists and the labour movement generally. There are a great many historical examples of this phenomenon, but among the most prominent are:-
-
The German SDP aligning with the remnants of the German Imperial Army and supporting the proto-fascistic Freikorps as it savagely suppressed the rising of communist revolutionaries at the end of WW1 in order to preserve German bourgeois rule
-
The reintegration of the defeated Nazi and Imperial Japanese leadership into anti-communist organisations and state organs in the new west German and Japanese nations by the triumphant capitalist powers at the end of WW2, including leadership of NATO by a senior commander of the Nazi Wehrmacht and leadership of the rebuilt Japanese state by one of the most brutal colonial oppressors from Japan’s old regime.
-
Unapologetic support for Augusto Pinochet’s murderous takeover of Chile by a wide range of liberal powers and voices, most ardently by figures such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, the former of whom considered offering him political asylum in the 80s and the latter of whom publicly expressed outrage when Pinochet was arrested and subsequently subjected to justice in the international criminal court for the crimes he committed against his own people.
It’s not that you are completely wrong in anything, but:
at the end of WW1 in order to preserve German bourgeois rule
I’ll just inform you here that German aristocracy and “bourgeoisie” are usually used as antonyms, not synonyms.
Also Germany was starving, the logic was that they can’t afford more chaos, even if it means conservatives.
Soviets did the similar thing with GDR and Hungary and what not in the Eastern block. Though of course they preferred their existing communist buddies who somehow survived the 30s and 40s.
USA wouldn’t have such still already existent friendly factions, so they tried to grow some new ones, initially from people who’d be moderates in former regimes.
I’d still prefer Pinochet to Khmer Rouge.
-
I would like to add that liberal well of people and large land owners which also labeled themselves as somewhat liberal in Italy before the Fascists came to power were quick in allying with the Fascists and enact violence against socialist and communist groups and structures they supported, for example unions. The liberals did use violence to shut off that political and economic enemy, yet they didn’t then to fight the fascists and also didn’t ally with socialists to stand against the fascists.
You can find very extensive studies about that which use voting shares before the take over and alike.
To put it bluntly while liberals espouse liberal values when the situation is rough they - or be it people with means, economic, political, parliamentary or party mandates - regularly did chose to fight socialists, anarchists and communist to not rock the boat and to not be uncivil.
You’re a fount of knowledge, new (to the grad) comrade. Keep it coming.
Thanks I try to achieve at least 30% good and 70% bad comments.
It makes for a snappy one liner to try and equate common non-communist ideologies. It effectively reduces extraordinary different ideologies with extremely different views on just about everything that isn’t private property to the same thing.
It’s as ridiculous as saying “potatoes are practically tree bark, because they’re both plants that rely on photosynthesis” when you’re discussing what to eat for dinner.
In what world are the libertarians winning on the MLs lol. The only reason you feel like you’re winning on us is because any time we start making a little too much sense we get defederated – wouldn’t want your users to be exposed to conflicting ideas now would you ;)
Idea Fight! Idea Fight!
The pirates are missing here
You folks have just been taking advantage of our civility lol, look at how the hexbearians are destroying your fronts everywhere.
Disrespectful electronic gay generation
you called?
God the comment section on this post is some reddit/twitter(or x now ig) level toxicity
The Gadsden flag is often used by white supremacists…
Can normal people who just don’t like being tread on not have anything?
As far as I’m aware, the Gadsden flag has it’s origins as a warning against the British when the American colonies started to get their shit together and become ungovernable. It seems like it might be a good time to start flying it again just about worldwide.
No, if one man I don’t like uses a thing it immediately means you completely agree with everything he’s ever said or done, or will in the future.
That’s why I hate vegetarians, Hitler was a vegetarian.
They can have whatever they want, but you’ll have to forgive people for thinking that you align with people who display the same symbols as you.
I assume anyone flying a swastika is antisemitic, when to be fair, they might just be a fan of the Nazi stance on affordable housing and infrastructure.
If you have a problem with symbols you identify with being co-opted by people you don’t, take it up with the people you disagree with who took your symbol, not the people who also disagree with them.
We’re taking the Gadsden Flag back. It was never theirs to begin with. US Soccer has been using it for decades, for example.
I don’t think it was ever actually co-opted. I think people saw some bearded redneck wear it as a cape in a picture above an article a couple times and then the Internet left decided it was a Nazi symbol.
The Confederate flag has a 100% legitimate argument for being a symbol of hate. The Gadsden Flag is a part of our nation’s founding ideal.
Bad example, it’s more like Finland’s WW1 planes which might surprise some people
That’s a bad example, finlands air regalia was developed by a fascist.
Actually, I think that the opposite of a bad example. If I see you flying that flag, I’m not going to assume your an enthusiast of finish WW1 aviation.
I chose the swastika specifically because some other people used the symbol at some point and had it ruined for them. That’s a thing that happens to symbols, they get associated with shitty stuff and you stop showing the symbol, convince people to drop the objectionable meaning, or accept that people will think you endorse the shitty one.
I assume anyone flying a swastika is antisemitic, when to be fair, they might just be a fan of the Nazi stance on affordable housing and infrastructure.
Or they’re Hindu and it’s got nothing to do with Nazis at all.
That mostly depends on the angle and the location of the swastika
Also this is a rare case where the color of the skin may be a hint as to the interpretation of the flag.
Yes, that’s sorta why I picked that example. It’s a symbol that’s been used in other contexts and is almost entirely associated with a specific negative use case.
If you see a guy walking around with a swastika arm band, do you really think "oh, look at that man showing pride in his Hindu beliefs”?
If they’re dressed in Hindu garb, sure. I wouldn’t assume they’re a Nazi then. Granted it’s not what we’re likely to see.
deleted by creator
The word idiot had its origin in not being elected to the senate or alike and yet you seem to be an idiot when you argue with origins instead of usage by white supremacists.
Are white supremacists really using this flag?
While the answer to this is “yes,” some white supremecists are also drinking coke, and the two things are equally as relevant to white supremecy. “White Supremecy” is frankly antithetical to libertarianism, whether you’re right (individualist) libertarian or left (collectivist) libertarian. It’d be like if Goldman Sachs stuck a hammer and sickle on their logo or if the proud boys hung up drei pfeile flags, it wouldn’t suddenly make those symbols of capitalism or whatever the fuck the ptoud boys are, they’d just be “wrong,” “stupid,” “intentionally misrepresenting themselves to manipulate you or temper perceptions with a label that doesn’t actually apply to them,” and labels are simply a tool for control btw. This concept also applies to the Gadsden flag, or any other myriad of appropriated symbols.
Do you label yourself as libertarian or something like that? This post and the other one hint at it: https://lemmygrad.ml/comment/1115631
Is in your eyes the problem the “corporatism” of capitalism? If yes it would be funny that a person that ate that propaganda is defending fascists, since you would be carrying water for fascists.
Yes. I typed in “White Supremacists 2020 USA” and this is what I got in the first rows:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally
Look at those flags: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally#/media/File:Charlottesville_‘Unite_the_Right’_Rally_(35780274914)_crop.jpg
1 Nazi flag per 2 Gadsen “Tread on me” flags and per 3 confederate flags.
Meanwhile when you search for “tread on me” flag usa 2020 you will get a vast majority of right wing white supremacists posing with that flag and little else.
Yes
“Can normal people who just don’t like being tread on not have anything”
Ask the white supremesists if you can have it back
They’re not gonna voluntarily give it back, so why not just take it like they did? Let’s say they start flying rainbow flags, should the LGBT community just give up the rainbow flag? I’ve noticed a trend where the alt-right widely adopts a symbol and the left just kinda… let’s them have it. Why? I don’t get it. If you don’t want them to have a symbol, then don’t allow them to become the exclusive users of it.
I’ve been saying this for years. What happens is they let their leftist friends bully them into not using it for fear of appearing right wing, and the right wing wins it. Honestly if the right ever figures out they have this power it’ll be…interesting…
Young people indoctrinated to socially pressure their peers into following a strict moral code. The parallels are so on-the-nose that it’s almost funny.
The Moral Majority horseshoe theory is real as fuck.
What exactly do they win? What do left people lose? It’s not like the LGBT movement is the rainbow flag. It’s just a symbol, and if it weren’t there’d be another one. This whole fighting for a thing makes sense only if there weren’t infinite equivalent alternatives.
But to be fair it’s really hard to co-opt the symbol of a wholly opposed group.
That’s basically what happened with the word “libertarian”. It originally meant libertarian socialist.
We’ve been surrendering words to the right for at least a century and it hasn’t gone well. Every time the public decides a right wing idea is trash, the right rebrands the idea.
They’re coming for “anarchist” next with monarchism rebranded as “anarcho”-capitalism.
Ancaps pretty much only exist in the US so elsewhere libertarian still means the original definition.
Reason for me to emigrate #302
A word cannot be defined as a subset of itself.
It isn’t. What we now call libertarian socialist used to just be called libertarian.
I’m tempted to fly a “Come and take it” flag under an LGBTQ+ pride flag.
I think it sends the right message to bigots: it’s threatening and the double entendre makes them uncomfortable.
I think I’ve seen both “Come and take it” and “don’t tread on me” on pride flags; that could be a way to reclaim both symbols. Put 'em on flags that already represent things contrary to the alt-right.
We don’t get many around these parts. I’m in Australia. I just think it’s a kickass flag. A simple message, delivered with limited space.
Australia has their own version of that which has also been co-opted by the right.
Take back the Eureka Stockade flag and you have the equivalent
I don’t know if you’re aware, but we had our arses handed to us at the Eureka stockade. Anyone who didn’t die was hung. You guys eventually won, whereas we were trapped into eternal service to the crown, which we still for some reason don’t want to step away from. I wouldn’t fly the stockade flag.
don’t know if you’re aware, but we had our arses handed to us at the Eureka stockade. Anyone who didn’t die was hung.
That is utterly untrue. Nobody was hung, they were acquitted. And while they certainly lost the shooting part when they ran out of ammo, they won public opinion and legal changes ( unfair/unjust treatment and taxes was the core issue)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_Rebellion
“The fighting left at least 27 dead and many injured, most of the casualties being rebels”
“Open rebellion broke out on November 29, 1854, as a crowd of some 10,000 swore allegiance to the Eureka Flag.”
“A group of 13 captured rebels (not including Lalor, who was in hiding) was put on trial for high treason in Melbourne, but mass public support led to their acquittal.”
Noting of the 10,000, only a thousand fronted to fight, and half those deserted to go get drunk during the night
“After the oath swearing ceremony, about 1,000 rebels marched in double file from Bakery Hill to the Eureka”
“Lalor was in charge, but large numbers of the men were constantly going out of the Stockade, and as the majority got drunk, they never came back … The 500 or 600 from Creswick had nothing to eat, and they, too, went down to the Main Road that night … Lalor seeing that none would be left if things went on, he gave orders to shoot any man who left.”
The actually fighting force was a few hundred in the end.
They did reasonably well until they ran out of ammo given they picked a really shit spot
"For at least 10 minutes, the rebels offered stiff resistance, with ranged fire coming from the Eureka Stockade garrison such that Thomas’s best formation, the 40th regiment, wavered and had to be rallied. Blake says this is “stark evidence of the effectiveness of the defender’s fire.”
Once they ran out of ammo they were quickly over run
You guys eventually won,
Who ? Are you calling me a seppo ? I’m an Aussie mate.
whereas we were trapped into eternal service to the crown, which we still for some reason don’t want to step away from.
So campaign for a republic, Johnny Howard may have managed to kick the can down the road but nobody likes wingnut, support is rising.
Alright. This has changed my entire understanding of that flag. I am now and evermore to be known as “The Fist of Eureka” and I will fly only the flag of the stockade.
Please accept this as humble apologies for being incorrect on the internet twice in one day.
You may initially dismiss this as loud noise that you need to close immediately, but I encourage you to persevere with The Legend of Borry through to the end at least once.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3sbyesGcUE&list=PLia1J-9CU8Z5rsNKNaw1hvGelyp5Kgk-j
We’re not asking. We’re taking the Gadsden Flag back whether they or anyone else likes it or not. It’s our flag, not theirs.
Scratch a liberal and a fascist will bleed.
I recently just read that somewhere
Me too. Because he posted the damned comment twice.
Zebras have hooves, but not all hoofed animals are zebras.
And luckily since the invention of cars nothing that has hooves is necessary anymore.
But I like my tax, insurance and maintenance free Domesticated Fertiliser Machine… a car can’t fertilise the roads the way my horse can ☹️
r u pro car ?
Hitler also drank water.
It’s more akin to the swastika. It was in use before Nazis started using it. But if you see someone showing one these days, there is a much higher chance that they are signaling their hate. The Gadsden flag is used pervasively on the far right and with white nationalists. There are certainly people who fly it that are not in those categories but it has definitely been co-opted by hate groups.
Unfortunately. I had a license plate of it because I liked it and it was yellow, which is my favorite color.
Then I finally broke free of the brainwashing required to be right wing and it had to go. I had to go to a plate that was only half yellow, but if rather do that than be lumped with them.
Personally, the cunts that would lump me in with white supremacists because I have a Don’t Tread On Me license plate aren’t worth the effort to appease. They’d have to be brainwashed themselves.
A little step, but an important one.
The none nazi swatstika turns left
The Nazis used both types.
Source?
1934 festival in Bückeberg
That’s why I only drink Coca-Cola and Root beer
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Is that the “diver down” looking flag?
Diver down is a red flag with a white diagonal stripe, the red and black flag is Anarcho-syndicalist.
The wheels fell off this one for sure
But did the front fall off?
Kid’s gonna break his thumb
I just love it when the post brings up a lot of questions, and people actually ask and debate them while making of everything along the way
…but seriously is no one gonna talk about Tux? What is he doing there?
Not a Linux person but I think he’s just there to judge you for not using an Arch installation.
Concerning
![The Whole Fediverse is Wholesome [fixed]](https://media.kbin.social/media/75/34/7534fdd6766a8bc7f83436386577e62a42333384f5e0e25621c1ee00ac70f675.jpg){kind=link}
_crop.jpg){kind=link}