edit: this is now closed future comments won’t be counted
I keep seeing this instance is overrun with tankies so hey, lets do an informal survey like I’ve seen on hexbear
respond with YES or NO in the first line of your comment and i’ll tally everything in a couple of days, lets say I’ll try and collect everything on the sunday the 9th (10+gmt sorry)
not sure thisll work, be nice, have fun
deleted by creator
Yes, although I personally prefer “central planning enthusiast”.
I think we’re approaching the point where the word gets taken back by the community it was used to malign, if not there already. "
deleted by creator
i am a meat popsicle
I have a new favorite description for human that I hear today: terrified electric meat. Perfectly sums up the human experience
Tankie is a floating signifier. If you ask twenty liberals what a tankie is you’ll get
- Twenty different answers, and
- Several people upset at being called a liberal because they don’t have even a Wikipedia-level understanding of liberalism or socialism.
100 percent agreed. They’ll group anything too far left of them under the same name. Don’t care anymore. If they want to whine then fuck it, I’ll wear the term.
Like how fascists think liberals are marxists, despite liberals and marxists both knowing how dumb that is
No I’d rather be morally righteous and sit on my ass and blame “the left” as the world collapses.
YES
They would have burned me as a heretic in the middle ages.
- Carl Jung
Just like calling someone a “witch” or heretic in the middle ages, a “barbarian”, or “savage”, or “commie” or “pinko” in the 20th century, these terms are less about the actual meaning, and more about a demonization, scapegoating, or a power relation between the dominant class, and a group they seek to malign and rally their people around.
Creating a useful enemy promotes group bonding, unity, a sense of strengthened identity, and self worth.
“Tankie” had a meaning that generally referred to non-pacifist leftists (or those that agreed with using violence to defend socialist projects), but now it just means, “any leftist I don’t like”.
It functions in the exact same way that “commie” did in the the McCarthy era, as a xenophobic and western-supremacist scapegoating of socialist countries, and an internal purging of the working-class communist movement.
It’s additionally useful because it deters people from reading or engaging with the worldwide communist / socialist movement.
If someone uses this term, this is what they’re doing without realizing it:
Removed by mod
Wtf. Talk about twisting truths.
Don’t like people putting up a mirror to you?
now it just means, “any leftist I don’t like”.
With respect, there’s a bit more to it than that.
The way political discussions are often policed on ML instances (This one, Lemmygrad, and Hexbear) is not conducive to helping new people see your point of view. If a, let’s say, social democrat says something critical of the CCP and then is immediately censured or banned, they are going to be left with a very negative impression that feeds into the stereotypes that already exist about these instances.
Creating a useful enemy promotes group bonding, unity, a sense of strengthened identity, and self worth.
Aren’t people on ML instances also doing the exact same thing when they shout down and decry the wretched “liberals” (which seems to refer to anyone left-of-centre who doesn’t support communist party rule)? Whether it’s “tankie” or “liberal”, it only further entrenches the us vs them mindset.
It’s a shame that leftist infighting exists to such a degree when we often share about 95% of the same views, compared to the general public.
Aren’t people on ML instances also doing the exact same thing when they shout down and decry the wretched “liberals” (which seems to refer to anyone left-of-centre who doesn’t support communist party rule)?
Liberal is a well defined category though. Liberalism as a self-described ideology opposed to both communism and monarchy has been around for centuries at this point. Most people being decried as liberals would themselves identify as liberals.
Removed by mod
The way political discussions are often policed on ML instances (This one, Lemmygrad, and Hexbear) is not conducive to helping new people see your point of view.
If you ask in earnest, you’ll get good responses. A good number of people ask questions not to learn a different point of view, but to reinforce their own existing biases, which naturally becomes exhausting. Kind of like how POC get tired of justifying their existence to white supremacists, communists often for good reason get tired of trying to justify the existence of countries who choose to follow their own path, outside of the model of bourgeois democracy.
Aren’t people on ML instances also doing the exact same thing when they shout down and decry the wretched “liberals” (which seems to refer to anyone left-of-centre who doesn’t support communist party rule)? Whether it’s “tankie” or “liberal”, it only further entrenches the us vs them mindset.
Liberal, unlike tankie, has a fairly precise meaning in political discourse. It can be used too loosely IMO, but it generally means pro-capitalism, pro-individual freedom (including to exploit labor power to earn surplus value), pro free-market, pro-free speech (for all including reactionaries), pro wage-slavery, as well as specific limitations imposed on those considered outside of the “community of the free”. Its important to realize that even the US mis-definition of liberal (as vaguely socially progressive) includes all of the above, and the internationally accepted definition of liberal, is right wing (for example, the right wing party in Australia is the liberal party). The best book I can recommend here, is Losurdo’s Liberalism - A counter-history.
Not only that, but liberals rule most of the world, and especially most of the economies and governments of anglo-speaking countries, extracting a surplus from the sale of their labor power (who are mostly extremely poorly paid proletarians in the global south), and are responsible for most of the suffering of working-class people worldwide.
If you ask in earnest, you’ll get good responses.
This is not the case. Every time I’ve asked in earnest, I’ve faced mobs of lunatics.
[Citation needed]
If you ask in earnest, you’ll get good responses. A good number of people ask questions not to learn a different point of view, but to reinforce their own existing biases, which naturally becomes exhausting.
That is understandable, however I was more talking about good-faith attempts to express views that are contrary to ML orthodoxy being dogpiled, removed, and banned. I have personal direct experience with this, as do many others who have attempted to engage in political discussions in ML communities. Perhaps users of the ML persuasion are used to being attacked and this why contrarian views are so heavily moderated on ML instances, but quite often this defensive response only leads to alienating other leftists who could be sympathetic to your point of view.
Also, I already understand quite well the differences between classical, social, and neo-liberalism, and how the term is used in the US; I have a degree in political science. My point was that users on ML instances weaponize the term in the same way that other users utilize the term “tankie” in order to dismiss people who disagree with them, ad hominem.
“Tankie” in the traditional sense of someone who uncritically supports the USSR in the handling of 1956’s uprising? Probably not.
While Kruschev’s use of tanks in 1956 was heavy handed, the Hungarian alliance with the Axis in WWII and participation of Operation Barbarossa, lingering fascist sympathisers and nationalists remained in Hungary.
This coupled with the Communist Party of Hungary’s less than equitable redistribution of land/castles/other properties earlier in the 1950’s (favouring giving properties to ranking CPH members instead of distributing it to the proletariat equally). This created resentment for the Party, and an image of the Communists as no better than the Monarchy that came before or the Fascists that came after.
The Hungarian uprising had elements of fascist sympathisers, monarchists, bourgeoisie, etc but also legitimate critics of the handling of the situation. It never should have come to that, and a more educated/self critical Communist Party in Hungary could have prevented things from getting that far. The people should have benefitted a lot more from a better redistribution of wealth.
The above issues coupled with Soviet distrust of Hungarians (since they did invade the Soviet Union in the 40’s) led to a swift and harsh reaction towards the uprising, seeing it as just a reactionary revolt.
Now, am I a tankie in the Reddit redefinition, of anyone that critically supports Cuba, China, Vietnam and their style of government? Yeah, I suppose I am. This is no more radical a position than Malcolm X or the Black Panthers who also supported the late USSR, China and Cuba.
Serious question, I mean I feel you dislike the “west” or jow it is governed (I guess) and to each their own but are you against democracy? And if so, how do you get rid of dictators like Putin if needed?
Cheers
Please find a Marxist against democracy. Your question is framed in an incorrect manner.
You have to imagine other people have no idea about Marxism but what they’ve heard from US propaganda. When they hear you support China, Cuba, and Vietnam, they just hear you supporting dictator for life Xi Jinping and one party state Cuba and Vietnam. You guys need better answers than this.
The other person’s answer was pretty good, though.
My point is to get them to do some questioning on their own, and challenge the pretenses. Sometimes this approach works better as the other person comes to a new conclusion on their own.
Okay you don’t want democracy, but how do you deal with dictators like putin always creeps into the system and takes over if you can’t vote them out?
I do want Democracy. What are you talking about?
See your first post…
But dodge the question again lol
I asked you to find a Marxist against Democracy because that mythical anti-Democracy Marxist doesn’t exist.
It isn’t a dodge, it’s like you asking veterinarians why they like screwing cats and dogs.
Dude. Get a history book lol.
Our definition of what is and isn’t a democracy is significantly different than that of liberals. We wouldn’t consider Europe and America to be democracies meaning that we have no sympathies for those style of governments and societies.
To contextualize this, one thing you have to understand is that there are many formulations of democracy that have existed historically. Athenian democracy is very different from liberal democracy, which is in turn very different from democratic centralism (the formulation most used by Marxist states). And there were probably many forms of democracy that hunter-gatherers and indigenous peoples used (which I unfortunately don’t know much about).
The main problems with how democracy is talked about in liberal philosophy (the hegemonic philosophy) is that only the liberal formulation of democracy is considered valid, even if its performance has historically been extremely subpar. Furthermore, class is completely ignored, as all “democracies” have existed in service of a class (in athens, for the slave owners, in liberal republics, for the bourgeoise, in ML republics, for the proles).
Because we do not consider liberal democracies to be a valid form of democracy, liberals take this disingenuously as if Marxists hate all democracy.
So how do you get rid of the likes of Putin?
Interesting theories there, a bit too generalisering for my taste, most people in the west are not liberals either.
As far as my understanding of the soviet style democratic centralist systems goes (I suppose DemCent could be implemented in many ways, just like liberal electoralism can), every country has a supreme soviet which convenes some times a year to appoint, remove and review the progress of the presidium. The members of the presidium themselves have a strong distribution of powers amongst each other, and so a dictator type like Putin shouldn’t really show up at all, and if he does, he should be removed by the supreme soviet. The supreme soviet itself was elected by lower level regional soviets, which were in turn elected by lower level soviets and so on until you had the fully local soviets, which were initially organizations the factory workers and soldiers during the revolution (so they predated even the USSR), and latter (after the 1936 constitution) became location based (so similar to the local councils in liberal systems).
I have heard compelling arguments that any new DemCent system should take ideas from ancient athenian democracy like sortition and direct democracy. I agree with them, but implementing such a system in reality would likely be challenging and require many preconditions to be met (such as having a highly educated population with good amounts of free time and no worries about war or imperialism).
Interesting, but no way removing a putin (and no, hopium won’t do it) that I see.
What even do you mean “a way of removing a putin” if what I have said does not suffice?
I am to the left of Ronald Reagan. A lot of people would classify that as tankie.
But that’s not a no.
I’ll take that as a yes for you. If you are a Tankie you should stand up for your values and be proud!
The only reason why you would deny it or hide it is if you have an agenda.
Tankie is a floating signifier, a pejorative, a thought-terminating cliché, a rhetorical cudgel.
The only reason why you would deny it or hide it is if you have an agenda.
Or because it’s a thought-terminating pejorative. And in any case, just as it is impossible to be unbiased, it is impossible to be agendaless. By implying that I have some secret agenda, you’re doubling down on McCarthyism.
Does it count if I’ve actually driven tanks?
Not unless you enjoyed the crunching sounds
Idk. I’m really bad at history and such cause I never pay attention. I used to take everything I saw on the internet at face value, so I decided to slow down on current news. Doesn’t help that I like programming and video games a lot, so I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about world events.
I just like communities that are tolerant and won’t let people bully the lgbt or the disabled. It feels less tiring.
Believe it or not, some people would call you a tankie for that.
I never got called a tankie, so idk about that.
Then again, I rarely participate in political discussions that I don’t know about. I try to read as much as possible to get an idea, but I never go in dept, like read sources.
I’m going to go to uni soon. I’ll try to spend more time into learning history properly.
Then again, I rarely participate in political discussions that I don’t know about.
If only more people thought or behaved this way. You’re on the right track then. For me my first foray into serious geo-politics was when I wrote a paper on Iran-Contra for a sociology course which also led me to diving into the history of Iran’s conflicts with the west, and from there I started trying to unravel the confusing mess that western sources try to make Palestine seem like, only to finally come to the (correct) conclusion that the only answer to any of these problems is for the US and all it’s colonial projects be dismantled as soon as possible.
Then when gamergate happened and a whole new generations of kids started getting radicalized by mask off fascists I came to another (also correct) conclusion: The only people truly ready and willing to fight fascists were anarchists and communists and that’s how I ended up on the old Chapo subreddit and then here.
The folks around here are extremely knowledgeable and you will learn a hell of a lot through osmosis but eventually you’ll want to read some of this stuff yourself. In addition to what @[email protected] gave you I also recommend Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid A Factor Of Evolution which is not Marxist per se, but a great refutation of the “muh human nature means communism doesn’t work” thought terminating cliche.
Finally I would recommend bumping State and Revolution up the que in that list just because it is such a fuckin banger and isn’t long. The opening passage roped me right in:
What is now happening to Marx’s theory has, in the course of history, happened repeatedly to the theories of revolutionary thinkers and leaders of oppressed classes fighting for emancipation. During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names to a certain extent for the “consolation” of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it. Today, the bourgeoisie and the opportunists within the labor movement concur in this doctoring of Marxism. They omit, obscure, or distort the revolutionary side of this theory, its revolutionary soul. They push to the foreground and extol what is or seems acceptable to the bourgeoisie. All the social-chauvinists are now “Marxists” (don’t laugh!). And more and more frequently German bourgeois scholars, only yesterday specialists in the annihilation of Marxism, are speaking of the “national-German” Marx, who, they claim, educated the labor unions which are so splendidly organized for the purpose of waging a predatory war!
When I first read that I was like “Oh shit he predicted what happened to MLK Malcolm X and Fred Hampton all the way back in 1917”
I dont know a lot of things that you’re talking about, but I promise I’ll read the texts that you mentioned to try to understand 👍
I’m so happy I avoided gamergate because I was too much into splatoon lmao. The community there was really friendly.
oh yeah almost forgot to tell you to check out Marx Madness. They’ve done full reads of a lot of foundational texts and they offer it up in podcast/book club format where they read and discuss each work. https://podtail.com/en/podcast/marx-madness/
And this here is a collection of introductory works as well as some absolutely essential works on decolonial Marxism assembled by Chunka Luta Network with some free audio books as well. https://mega.nz/folder/cuMwjRyK#eDPayQSdYFwaCh9qr8zzPw
For a good history book I cannot recommend Palo Alto by Malcolm Harris enough. We have the full audiobook on there.
Good!
Let me know if you want some basic Marxist recommendations.
I was thinking of diving head first into das kapital. I’m not sure if 3 courses of philosophy are enough. I was going to ask my philosophy teacher about it, but I’m a bit scared to ask haha.
I would be glad to get some recommendations though.
I def recommend against starting with das kapital, at least until the advanced / intermediate stages. Its a slog, and not really the best introduction.
Here’s a Marxism study plan, with a good number of audiobooks / audiobook torrents for them.
No.
Maybe I’m way off the mark here but… I think the reaction to tankies seems very overblown. No one you could describe as a “tankie” is currently in charge of any of the countries/companies/organizations that are busy destroying the world right now, so I don’t super understand why everyone’s talking about them like they’re at all a priority? The authoritarians that tankies are obsessed with are all either long dead, or totally unaware of their existence.
Maybe some people on the left are just trying to look at future dangers here, like tankies are gonna be “Bolsheviks Part 2”, somehow come into power, and then purge all the anarchists or something. But didn’t Bolsheviks actually have a lot of power and influence prior to the revolution? Tankies don’t seem to.
why everyone’s talking about them like they’re at all a priority?
Because the red scares and the cold war[1][2] never actually ended, and our government, think tanks, and corporate media still feed us a constant drip of spooky stories.
…you know, that definitely sounds pretty plausible! Massive wave of fascism happening internationally right now, and we’re screaming about these people instead because the red scare was so incredibly effective? That is sadly very believable.
The global wave of fascism isn’t coming from nowhere, it’s largely the result of neoliberalism, which is a form of capitalism in decay. And you don’t have to be a Marxist to understand this: even Noam Chomsky and Chris Hedges get it. Noam Chomsky: Neoliberalism and the roots of fascism
I wish stalin drove tanks straight into west berlin, then france, then the UK, then atlantis, then NYC, then chicago, then seattle, then anchorage, then Tokyo, then Seoul, then Beijing, then KFC/tacobell.
Sorry nerd, that was Trotsky that wanted that, and your boi put an icepick in his brain for being good at it.
Oh, yeah, with all the tanks the USSR had in 1923
He was that good! Also the Red Army actually captured some tanks from Allied forces that were helping the Whites during the war.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War
Bonus fun fact: Three of the captured Mark Vs were recommissioned to defend Stalingrad
Love Trotsky and hate how they did him after all he did for the revolution, but Trotskyists annoy the fuck out of me.
no. I’m probably a communist but authoritarianism can fucking shove it
Fredrich Engels, 1872: On authority
Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is. It is the act by which one part of the population imposes its will on the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannons — by the most authoritarian means possible; and the victors, if they do not want to have fought in vain, must maintain this rule by means of the terror which their arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if the communards had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach them for not having used it enough?
Therefore, we must conclude one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don’t know what they’re talking about, in which case they are only sowing confusion; or they do know, in which case they are betraying the proletarian movement. In either case, they serve reaction.
Found the tankie! ☝️
Yeah we should never rebel, just listen to authority…
Big \ S
READ THE FIRST 3 SENTENCES.
How about, I don’t know, establishing some sort of democracy? Just a crazy idea
Oh, but they did.
It just doesn’t resemble the bourgeois ‘democracy’ we have in the west, but rather something else entirely that better fits the 'for the people, by the people, of the people" definition of democracy.
Remind me what happened to the Soviet union with their “Democracy”?
Got captured by anti-communists, who then proceeded to march tanks through moscow to bomb the supreme soviet (ironic, right?) and dissolved the union, strip all of its capital assets leading to one of the largest peacetime drop in living standards in human history.
Maybe capitalist states should do that, but they won’t because they’re capitalist states. They’ll form bourgeois democracies at best and fascism at worst[1][2][3].
You misunderstood me. I’m saying after the revolution. The Engels quote implies that because revolution is authoritarian, so is whatever system it implements. Which I disagree with
What your genius idea is missing is that there is an already established society with a ruling class, is your plan to ask nicely? 😅
The point Engels is making is that revolution is about establishing one group authority over the already established authority. In a society where might makes right, only might can resolve it.
At what point does a leftist system become authoritarian? Where is the line? Is it just a vibe check, or is there a definitive metric we can check?
The line is when the communist system collapses as usual and a dictatorship seizes power.
So Cuba, China, Vietnam, and the DPRK are by your definition not authoritarian, got it.
Does that make you a tankie?
I mean that’s a good question but there’s no reason to apply it just to leftist governments
NO. Not a fan of the current or former CCP or the former Soviet Union
