On lemmy.world I posted a comment on how liberals use ‘tankie’ as an invective to shut down dialogue and received tons of hateful replies. I tried to respond in a rational way to each. Someone’s said ‘get educated’ I responded ‘Im reading Norman Finkelstein’s I’ll burn that bridge when I get there’ and tried to keep it civil.
They deleted every comment I made and banned me. Proving my point, they just want to shut down dialogue. Freedom of speech doesn’t existing in those ‘totalitarian’ countries right? But in our ‘enlightened’ western countries we just delete you.
So I’ve heard tankies defined as “someone who specifically supports the centralized, authorization flavor of communism practiced by the USSR”. They also often mention worship of Stalin and Mao, and a revisionist version of history supporting such a stance
This seems odd to me, especially since a group of tankies flocked early to a decentralized platform geared for long-form discussions
Personally, I believe capitalism is an ideological virus. You can trace a clear path from the Roman empire to the modern day, where a hyper-specialized society eradicated every other system of resource husbandry by sloppily harvesting as quick as possible and using that advantage to gangpress everyone else into service under them (and destroying anything that would even slightly slow down the process )
I don’t think communism is the answer, because I don’t think it’s a path we can walk without first curing the disease, but the guiding concepts resonate with me.
So in that light, I’d like to ask in good faith:
Self-identified tankies - how do you define a tankie?
you’re not going to get an answer because people don’t self identify as a tankie - it’s a pejorative term. you should ask for the opinion of modern marxist-lenninists and you’ll get plenty of explanation. like most political persuasions it’s not the ideology that is flawed it’s the execution.
Fair enough, a pejorative term for what exactly though? The most nuanced answer I’ve gotten is from a proponent of communism who pointed at the authoritarian bent to it… Which seems super weird to me.
The way I see it, a bureaucracy has more leeway in allocating goods the higher up you go, which is very literal administrative capitol - it’s totally in conflict with the core concept of Marx, which is a person getting the fruits of their own labor, and no one getting to milk others (which is really the only way to get much inequality)
I’m a lot more critical of lennonists. While on the surface it imitates capitalism’s ability to optimize production (and with a more aligned goal, minimizing scarcity instead of maximizing the supply-demand equation), it also reintroduces the alignment problem. As you scale up, individual action and ideological beliefs become blips in the data, and the super organism created through humans arranged in the structure.
Individuals have a perverse incentive to maximize their own authority, the number of people under them, and the scale of their operations - by doing that they appear more meritocratous and are more likely to move up the hierarchy. Eventually someone gets the idea to fudge the numbers, and since the metrics are too complex to spot this in a spreadsheet, the most widely selected for skill to move up the ladder is to distort (or spin) the numbers so an individual appears to be serving a greater need than what actually exists.
Lennon’s theory is great, the more centralized the distribution, the greater the potential for optimization - but it ignores the emergent properties that appear when humans form an entity too complex for individual humans to grasp the full picture. You can reign in the worst excesses through watchdogs and harsh punishments, but ultimately that just becomes another layer for power to concentrate. You can keep layering and slow down the rot, but it’s a fundamental alignment problem - either you purposely concentrate the power in a person or group and regress to autocracy, or you constantly keep adding layers of checks and balances (which eats away at the efficiency gains)
So I see a fundamental contradiction here, which is why I can get behind techno-communism with intelligent agents running the show, or I can get behind decentralizing the system and creating something more anarchistic (or ideally, both), but Lennon always seemed to me to be a smart architect given a problem with a scale and an urgency beyond his abilities
Or am I missing something fundamental?
It’s why it’s really funny that there’s a decent amount of libs trying to pretend that Lemmy (either .ml or as a whole) is this super “tankie” thing when they’re really the opposite
Like, if the rest of the Lemmy universe was “tankie” we wouldn’t need Lemmygrad in the first place
It’s pretty funny that liberals see themselves as proponents of open debate and rational discourse, but in practice they start freaking out as soon as anybody challenges their dogmas.
This is liberal mental space, full of “freedom of speech”. Liberalism is a cancer which leads to right extremism. And social democracy leads to liberalism. If you exclude ML from discourse, you eliminate whole left wing point of view consequently.
Liberals are incapable of intelligent conversation with others, especially those of opposing viewpoints. They’ve been trained to desire and maintain the status quo (Capital), even in the face of creeping fascism, and will parrot insults at anyone who doesn’t tow the line. ‘Tankie’ is just the newest term.
It’s just western red scare paranoia with a millennial twist. I hadn’t peeked at those communities before, but I’ll make sure they’re given a wide berth now.
Wow you’re not using liberal the american way are you? What is your definition of the world liberal?
Edit: Downvoting me for asking a question is so reddit of you, feels like home <3
Sorry for the long comment, hope this clarification helps. If others disagree with my explanation, feel free to clarify or call out any wrong ideas. I’m a new Liberal convert so I’m still working through these details.
In essence, the “left” are socialists, the “right” are fascists (Glossing over some details here). Fascism is authoritarian capitalism, but Liberalism is capitalism that’s not fascism. Liberalism is theoretically to the left of the political spectrum, but it’s a compromise to the capitalists.
Our problem with Liberals is they seem completely incapable of having a real conversation about how the world works, and how to make change. As well, they demonize anyone that doesn’t share their viewpoint.
For example: “Woke” is kind of a fake word now, it means whatever conservatives want it to mean, but it comes from a real place. Initially being woke meant that you see the injustices that are institutionalized in the world, and seek to better yourself after learning that information. This is a good thing and lead to more people understanding the contradictions of our wold. But Liberals kinda turned into “I’m better than you because I went ‘woke’”, “If you aren’t woke, then leave my circle of friends”, “Anything that isn’t woke isn’t worth talking about”. This perpetuates the culture war that the conservatives are winning, because in the end, who wants to side with the assholes who push their own out at any sign of disobedience? The fascists are playing open arms to everyone the left excludes, perpetuating the growing movement of right authoritarianism.
I was a liberal for a long time, but always felt out of place because although the conservatives made up a lot of bullshit about liberals, they touched on some real things that also irritated me. Instead of moving to the right, I was educated and looked at the source of some of these things. That led me to find where the real problems of the world were, opened my eyes to those that were in charge, causing these problems in the first place. That lead me to socialism, communism, etc. and now I think I’m more on the ‘left’ than I have ever been.
This turned into the longest thing I’ve written in ages.
You gave quite a good explanation, and there are just two big points I want to add to it. Sorry if I get basic with it or seem condescending, but I’m also writing with new people in mind. The first point is that liberal capitalism is capitalism that is not yet fascist, and the second point is that for anyone living in one of the many places the west exploits, it already is fascist. Because of how writing this shook out, I’ve tried to make these points in the opposite order, because it’s easier to follow that way.
Nothing is static, everything is a process. A mountain is the process of plate tectonics, an animal is the process of cellular life, and a capitalist economy is the process of accumulation. It outcompeted and replaced feudalism, a more primitive form of accumulation. Every form of social organization has inherent contradictions, inherent tension points where the interests of one group pull against the interest of another. Peasant vs landlord, yeoman farmer vs slave, industrial worker vs factory owner. These roles are defined by their relationships to the means of production and to each other, and when conditions make those relationships untenable, they break, and a new dynamic arises. For example, when the conditions of defeat in the Civil War but also a paltry reconstruction effort by the US made chattel slavery an unviable arrangement for the wealthy, they started up the sharecropping industry, a form of wage slavery the new government found acceptable. Obviously prison slavery also started ballooning afterwards, and now we have more prisoners in a larger carceral system in the US than anywhere else on Earth. The profit margins of chattel slavery were stabilized by other types of slavery. Because a capitalist economy requires infinite growth, it requires new frontiers to exploit, places where resources and labor can be had cheaply and sold for more elsewhere. In US history, these frontiers (and the wretched economic conditions necessary to extort cheap labor) have always been enforced by military and intelligence organizations. Look into the history of any country the west uses for cheap labor, cheap materials, or as a trash dumping ground, and you’ll find a history of naked imperialism that set the conditions for all these “voluntary, free market” transactions that always seem to screw over anyone who isn’t part of the so-called first world.
The need for profits drove colonialism, it drives neocolonialism today, and when one frontier closes, another must open. If no external frontier can be opened, it will be an internal one. Fascism, economically, is is the attempt to open up an internal frontier against a segment of ones own society. It’s capitalism in crisis mode, a rampant imperial economy that has begun chewing at it’s own flesh to make up for the caloric deficit. This is the stage at which decline will be felt by the people living inside the empire, with things like infrastructure failures, mass poverty, mass incarceration, crimes of desperation, an explosion in new cults, and outbreaks of disease becoming commonplace. These conditions are symptoms of the contradictions between the classes becoming irreconcilable: decades of austerity, of public funds and programs being looted by the wealthy, of endless imperial wars, of the privatization of every industry and resource, even vital resources like food and water that people need to live. This is where we’re at now-and I havent even mentioned the concentration camps.
Looking at it from a class perspective, these are conditions that the American and westen bourgeoisie have inflicted both on the proletariat of their own countries, and to a much greater extent on the rest of the world. The people of all these countries we ruin don’t choose fascism, our ruling class chooses it for them. The people of America don’t choose to go to war, or for healthcare to cost a million dollars, or to give the police tanks and combat robots. Our ruling class chooses it for us. We don’t actually live in a democracy, we live in a dictatorship of the rich.
When we consider that a capitalist economy has only one goal -to accumulate capital, to make fewer and fewer individuals richer and richer- and that it will fufill this goal at any cost and when we consider that extreme fascist policies are very good for private accumulation, it leads to an uncomfortable conclusion: that any liberal capitalist economy, after exhausting or losing access to it’s external frontiers, will inevitably become fascist, must inevitably become fascist, or be outcompeted and absorbed by a more ruthless competitor.
As long as capitalism is the dominant mode of production on this planet, fascism is it’s only logical endpoint.
TLDR what we think of as liberalism is actually just when the fascism is contained in the countries we inflict it on.
I mean liberalism in the sense of support for things like private property, liberal ‘western’ democracy and an exploitative, laissez-faire approach to market economies. I am American; perhaps I’m just not understanding the varied meaning of the word?
We should call liberals coupies because of all their coups.
If someone calls me a tankie I roll my eyes, but what makes my blood boil is the term “red fascist.” What the actual F? I would have been in a fascist concentration camp for at least 3 reasons
No need to resort to suppositions; just look at Thälmann.
The term of “red fascist” is not only (purposefully) insulting to the memory of actual MLs who came under repression and execution from the hands of fascists (and ignoring that in many fascist states they were the forefront of resistance against it, see: the PCE under francoist Spain), but also dangerous as it blurs fascism as a word with a meaning, making actual fascism harder to identify and, thus, to combat.
There’s a reason why fascism has to be redefined, blurred, or otherwise trivialized. Most libs don’t do it on purpose but they serve reaction by doing so. If we actually learned the true socio-economic definition of fascism we’d very quickly realize that the golden billion live in nations which are arguably fascist.
Fascist or ‘authoritarian’ even. I asked for their definition so we couldn’t at least have some ground to debate on but yeah, naw. It’s just throwing memes. And I again reiterate the US is absolutely authoritarian. Prison population? Through the roof. Cop city? Murder protestors. War? Total media and popular support even to the tune of one trillion dollars a year.
1000000000000 dollars
omg i just had the misfortune of wandering into this thread, https://lemmygrad.ml/post/806853 i am so glad we have our own space where we can safely laugh at these fools. omg.
That whole thread:
hmm, I wonder who controls the socialist state
Just because a state brands itself socialist doesn’t say anything about the level of democracy or workers’ control of it.
sure, but if we were talking about non-socialist states that call themselves socialist, we wouldn’t call them socialist states
Well IMHO both USSR and China shows how gaining workers control and keeping it, or moreso making significant headway towards communism, is just much more complicated. Representative worker ownership of the means of production through the state doesn’t have a compelling track record. I think it’s dishonest, reactionary and anti intellectual to laugh off arguments like that of comrade spood from the screenshot above.
Edit: checked out my claim on calorie intake and discovered it was dubious. Removed, but letting the main argument stay.
The USSR was eventually compromised, so it technically failed in that sense, but how is China an example of failing to retain worker control? If you’re claiming that capitalists control China’s government, I’d challenge you to provide some evidence
Lack of press freedom, organization freedom, social credit system, great firewall of China, over 2000 work hours pr year (France has 1500), severely low scores in democracy rankings. This doesn’t smell much like worker control, more like authoritarianism. But then again, I’m very much from the West. Happy to be educated on my shortcomings in understanding 👍
No one should control the state because there shouldn’t be a state. If there is a state then there’s oppression.
Oppression of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat, absolutely; the point is to eventually eliminate the bourgeois class. When class distinctions no longer exist, the state will, by definition (a tool for oppression of one class by another), cease to exist. How would you go about abolishing the state while classes still exist, or abolishing classes within a bourgeois dictatorship?
The issue is that where there is a state, definitively there will be still social classes - those with power within the state, and those without. If your position is “we can’t abolish the state until there are no class divisions” then you’ve got an infinite loop.
Obviously with the way the world is there is no way to go straight from the current situation to communism, but the goal is still the abolition of the state, and so many leftists seem to get angry with the concept that we should (and have to) abolish the state. That’s all I am saying - reading any deeper into my comment than that isn’t recommended!
I’m not sure if anyone is getting angry that you’re saying the state must be abolished. MLs fundamentally agree with that. It’s what revolutionaries are aiming for.
The criticism is that you seem to be saying that revolutionaries cannot use the state because it’s an incoherent notion:
If your position is “we can’t abolish the state until there are no class divisions” then you’ve got an infinite loop.
By this do you mean to say that the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat is logically contradictory? That it won’t work? You seemed to agree, above, that you don’t think that’s the case (i.e. you think the state can be used as a tool), but here you appear to be saying just that?
It may be helpful here to reiterate the dialectical element of Marxism-Leninism. It’s not a step-by-step sequence of events. First one, then the other. It’s a dialectical development.
The plan isn’t to seize the state, then to use the state to abolish classes. That won’t work. It’s anti-dialectical.
The idea is that by seizing the state and wresting control over the means of production from the bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie will become redundant and whither away. This will take a long time. The state is needed to keep the reactionaries in line in the meantime.
It’s taken China over half a decade to start the process and most of the rest of the world hasn’t even begun the task yet. The DotP and the abolition of classes and the state are one process. They’re interrelated.
Have you read State and Revolution or ‘Better Fewer But Better’ by Lenin?
there shouldn’t be a state
Agreed, now let’s abolish the state through developing the material conditions necessary for it to happen instead of just saying “STATES BAD!!” online :^)
Holy shit what an insufferable group.
“Define Tankie”
Red fascist
Who defines a buzzword with a buzzword ffs.
Also! (Paraphrasing)
[…] people who justify genocides. […]
'scuze me what the fuck? Who here says genocides are cool and good actually? We are like the first fuckers to point them out and scream about them???
And even more!
Comrade Spood
Now that’s dose of Anarcho-Debilizm let me tell you. “Just press the communism button Xi and we’ll succeed no problem! They will just let us exist and everyone will love each other :3”
And it just still keeps going!
Educate yourself. / Please change and grow as a person. / Read a book.
Motherfuckers I read too much compared to your sorry asses.
By the way, it seems that moderators in 196 are deleting those comments from lemmygrad posters in a way that appear as visible while seen from lemmygrad while they appear as deleted by mods from any other instances (or so I suppose, I do not know very well how does Lemmy work). This is happening even if there is no breaking of rules in sight.
it seems that moderators in 196 are deleting those comments from lemmygrad posters in a way that appear as visible while seen from lemmygrad while they appear as deleted by mods from any other instances
Whoa, that’s pretty 1984 Animal House of them
Cause everybody who dislikes tankies is a liberal?
Almost always that or worse.
Hm interesting, seems to dedependent on your locality. Where I live, there are lots of communists, anarchists materialists and general left at university’s, factories and unions, but there is also a (very small) group of communists, who loves stalin,think everything that Russia does is automatically good (mostly while denieng they are a imperialist state) and everyone who doesn’t treat Lenin’s and Stalin’s books like sacred texts which need to be followed down to the letter (instead of valuable contributions to a scientific debate) is wrong by definition and need to be shut down. All new Marxist philosophy’s (material feminism, postkolonial study’s, frankfurter schule, etc. Pp.) get denied the right to exist, people who write or work in other communist schools of thinking then them are called a counter revolutionary and spat on and threatens to get killed in the revolution. Furthermore they make it very clear, that everyone who hasn’t exactly the same opinion as them is not welcomed in their communist utopia and would get put in to gulags (yes they use that word with pride) or directly killed by them/the state
Those people are get called tankies by the much bigger rest of th e communist/Marxist scene
So when people over here self describe as tankies and wear that label with pride (happend under this post)I was quite puzzled.
At least here its not a general slur against communists (like queer were for homosexuals) which can be turned around easily, it is a very specific description of a very specific group of people in the communists scene
So the people who call others tankies are almost never liberals (they don’t even know that word, they just say communists and think this is enough of insult), it’s mostly other Marxists/communists or more or less close ideology’s like anarchists or socialists
They don’t like you because you carry water for the colonialist usa. The people outside the west must be liberated and idealists like you want to stop their liberators because they are not clean enough or something. “Oh no they used violence once”
Oh and most of the nonwestern progressives fit your definition of t*****. Oh it’s a slur that targets mostly non-caucasians again.
Oh you again, your the best of them all.
Soo let me recap:
You criticise anything about russia (like saying not everything they do is automatically good) --> you carry water for the USA
The man says the people outside the west need to be liberated.
I would agree, I would even say the people inside the west needs to be liberated. The world needs to be liberated.
But he thinks, the people in Russia or China are already liberated or even are the liberators.
Did it ever occur to you, that those countries are just imoerialisric states with a bad communist mask?
Or is your liberty one where you get put in jail or worse if you are gay, where the working class still works for rich old man and gets almost nothing, where ideological power is maintained through prisons and shootings?
In the west, you lose your job, then go homeless and then get put in jail when you do not conform to the cishet ableist neurotypical society.
The people in russia have been re-enslaved by the west.
The people in the west are mostly complicit in the usa’s imperialism, they don’t need to be “liberated” from their slavery loot.
Edit: and you are a nazi enabler.
The stawman is strong in this one
So you have not been on reddit lately.
Oh you are now so engaged you follow me to other threads? That’s nice of you.
This is the same thread.
Also, you are a nazi enabler.
Totally agree. Edgy Russian conquest apologists is far more apt. I hate the modern use of the term “tankie.” “Tankies” were at least communist. Had some ideas and principles. Neither Russia nor China has communist core economic systems.
You used so many words to say that you do not have a clue regarding how the economic system in China functions.
“
“So many words” I’m sorry my “micro blog” isn’t micro enough for you, message board warrior.
Not sure you understand what communism is. Nor how financial systems work. China is no more communist than North Korea is a republic.
I just don’t get why people are downvotin’ this comrade when they are clearly correct. According to the party doctrine on socialism with Chinese characteristics, China is not presently communist but is in the primary stage of socialism, aiming to develop towards full, egalitarian socialism and then on towards communism as the productive forces are modernized and the society develops further.
Mate you’re really making yourself look like a fool here I’d just quit while you’re ahead. Clear as day you haven’t a clue about geopolitics or economics. Must have missed the stop for reddit.
Go ahead liberals. Call me a tankie. See if I give one ten thousandth of a fuck. Literally such a low-tier insult. “Uhh its like… uh…you support this large cool looking machine that stopped Color Revolutions and was responsible for Liberating the Eastern Front during World War II” “Yea, I do😐” “😨”
Tankie means you approve when a communist state uses military/tanks against its own people… Not against a Nazi state. I would reconsider if you really want to wear that label with pride…
What is your opinion on the standing rock protests and the Kentucky state massacre
Also the 1956 Hungarian coup attempt that the epithet “tankies” comes from was literally full of nazis lmao
The nazis aren’t our people.
And everyone who don’t likes Stalin is a Nazi
/kappa
The uprising in hungary was a nazi uprising, with pogroms.
There’s a really great graphic novel called ‘Berlin’ that goes into how the Nazis came to be, how the communists were the ones that organized worker strikes to stop railroads to death camps etc. I don’t think our meme warfare on the net will change anything but if your looking for a fun read checkit. Is there anything you would recommend for me? I probably I’ll read it. I’m a reader.
Oh i totaly agree that communists were often the strongest force against fascists. Don’t have to like Stalin to be a communist nor to be antifascist though
That’s correct, specifically a state that uses tanks against its people in revolt.
However, people on Reddit (and on Lemmy now) basically use it to refer to any leftist they have a disagreement with.
Well saying tankies support using tanks against civilians gets you down voted on lemmygrad.
No tankies here though, all just libs propaganda
/kappa
So you want the nazis to murder everyone in hungary?
Thats such an obvious strawman, i dont think i need to answer that ;)
Because if you would answer that you would have to admit that the wokes were right.
This is a rhetorical trap called “reality”.
Oh I think there are a lot of people who get called woke and are right. Your rhetorical trap is not reality, its trying to get me to say something which confirms your prejustices.
Remember, my claim, forwhich you guys are fighting me here was “tankie” has other than “someone I don’t like”
You attacked me verbally for saying that, and then realized, that you can’t win this argument, cause in reality you agree with me so you try to shift the battlefield to a discussion you can win (and kept pressing really hard with your Hungarian Nazis ^^)
That’s your rhetorical strategy, it has nothing to do with reality ;)
Tankie just means “any communist I don’t like” at this point. Take your McCarthyism and complete ignorance about color revolutions elsewhere.
Nice definition of tankie! Got that from wish?
At what point does being clowned on by an entire instance spur self-reflection?
