Thanks I try to achieve at least 30% good and 70% bad comments.

For questions like that pretty much no newspaper is trustworthy.

However you made a claim that is a known propaganda lie, I gave you sources, yet you do not say: “I was wrong, I will delete that sentence from my post and make a disclaimer to it!”, no you try to defend your lie.

You say “while it wasn’t specifically true, you could imagine that over 70 years in some countries of 1.2 billion it might’ve be true somewhere!”

Again, family of mine was prosecuted in the liberal western FRG for homosexuality and sent to prison. 30 years earlier they would’ve ended up in death camps.

Che on the other hand was a homophobic bigot who attempted to eliminate the queer people from Cuba

Liar. You are spewing propaganda. You could read AskHistorians for that.

You are quite reactionary. Seek groups and listen, you need to be participating in collectives to grow as a person.

A little step, but an important one.

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.

Just like I would never care about the ends reached by colonialist means.

That is good and yet: Which country are you living in?

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.

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

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 attempt

Were you adding context though? Does it justify the situation if a percentage of people are migrants (who often are fluent in a language above the given literacy btw.)?

For real literacy skills in the US are a huge problem, it is a systemic problem of which the burden is heavily placed on individuals that are marginalized. Neolibs might quote:

It is estimated that these negative social and economic outcomes cost the United States $362.49 billion annually.

I say watch the whole Parenti lecture if you can: https://twitter.com/a_lutacontinua/status/936363027502391298?lang=de

“Yellow” Parenti lecture

Parenti’s questions:

• What happens to the people that can’t read in the US?
• What happens to the children (who don’t have food) in the US?
• What happens to the people without houses in the US?

Edit The fascists mentioned for example were the right wing Nicaraguan death squads, you can find more about them in the Jakarta method

Which illustrates her point well. 2/3 were born inside the US then.