• Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    33
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

    • OrnluWolfjarl@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Krause [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      They agree with fascists on every valuable part of their worldview

      The Liberal says as they side with Fascists against Communists every single time

      • Duamerthrax@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

          • Duamerthrax@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • CriticalResist8@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

            • REEEEvolution@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              In other words, you do not know what “tankie” means. You’re just an anti-communist too cowardly to say so.

          • Duamerthrax@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • 新星 [they/them/🏳️‍⚧️]@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • Duamerthrax@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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?

                • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                • 新星 [they/them/🏳️‍⚧️]@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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

          • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Authoritarian regimes like to call themselves different names with better connotations than they deserve.

          • verdigris@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

              • verdigris@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                … 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?

                • REEEEvolution@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It means you did not understand the question, and your answer proved me right. You are completely ignorant regarding communist theory.

                  • verdigris@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Classic more leftist than thou bs. Is your goal to alienate everyone who doesn’t already share your exact thoughts?

      • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I really want a good explanation for why the dumb shit admin thought it was a good idea to federate with tankie fucks

    • ReadFanon@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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:

      1. The violent overthrow of the current system (spoiler alert: that’s a very authoritarian thing to do!)

      2. 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.)

        • ReadFanon@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          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…”