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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…”
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.
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.
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.
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?
LGBT rights in China are admittedly at a frustratingly slow speed. Other comrades more familiar than I am with Chinese politics have suggested that the democratic centralism means that as they do advance, it will be collectively, and without a conservative backlash as we see in the US
Reducing all the nuance of Marxism, socialism, and communism to
“from each according to his ability to each according to his need”
is problematic.
It’s not going to lead to much explanation and it ignores the hundreds of thousands of other words that Marxists have written.
This is in addition to the problem that “from each according to his ability to each according to his need” is the goal of communism and you’re arguing with someone who (rightly) says communism hasn’t been reached.
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.
… 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?
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.
![The Whole Fediverse is Wholesome [fixed]](https://media.kbin.social/media/75/34/7534fdd6766a8bc7f83436386577e62a42333384f5e0e25621c1ee00ac70f675.jpg){kind=link}
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
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
Yes, and both of our countries are wrong for it.
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.
And it will never happen. Everyone is greedy and corrupt.
You perhaps?
Spoken like someone benefiting from the status quo
thankfully!
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.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness
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?
That’s right, I often highlight how the language western propagandists use to describe countries like China sounds when applied to western countries.
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.
No, I genuinely don’t consider the US a democracy.
So you’re saying Democracy is good then?
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?
LGBT rights in China are admittedly at a frustratingly slow speed. Other comrades more familiar than I am with Chinese politics have suggested that the democratic centralism means that as they do advance, it will be collectively, and without a conservative backlash as we see in the US
Reducing all the nuance of Marxism, socialism, and communism to
is problematic.
It’s not going to lead to much explanation and it ignores the hundreds of thousands of other words that Marxists have written.
This is in addition to the problem that “from each according to his ability to each according to his need” is the goal of communism and you’re arguing with someone who (rightly) says communism hasn’t been reached.
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?
is the answer…
deleted by creator
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?
It means you did not understand the question, and your answer proved me right. You are completely ignorant regarding communist theory.
Classic more leftist than thou bs. Is your goal to alienate everyone who doesn’t already share your exact thoughts?
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.