I don’t consider tankies lefter than me.
Seriously. Tankies are authoritarians who consider themselves leftists.
Authoritarian / libertarian is on a completely different axis from left / right, no?
Only on the political compass, which uses a definition of left vs right that a lot of leftists disagree with. Really, the entire history of “left wing” politics has been about questioning and dismantling authority. The terms “left wing” and “right wing” come from the French revolution, when the people in favour of simply reforming the monarchy sat on the right side of the room, while the people who wanted to fully dismantling the monarchy sat on the left. A lot of more modern leftist thought is about questioning the power that capitalist businesses have.
Well said. Still; can you not have authoritarian left and libertarian left viewpoints? I just don’t see how questioning the power capitalist businesses have is limited to the libertarian left.
What’s wrong with the definition of left & right on the political compass? I’m not super tuned into political science but this is the first I’ve heard that many leftists have take issue with it. I have seen the authoritarian left referred to as “red fascists”, but do they not also take issue with the power capitalist businesses have?
I suppose I’d consider myself a left libertarian. The power of the state should be limited and what power is granted to the state should be used to improve the life of the people.
can you not have auth left and lib left viewpoints?
Yes, but actually no. The distinction is fundamentally unstable. If the left is constantly questioning power structures, it will inevitably turn to whatever structure the auth left comes up with.
what’s wrong with the definition of left and right on the political compass?
It’s specially economic left/right, which is almost always defined by taxation, government spending, and social welfare. While leftists usually say social welfare is a good thing, it’s not changing the fundamentals of how capitalism works, which is the current dominant power structure that leftists are against.
do auth left not also take issue with the power capitalist businesses have?
Yes, but they usually put something just as bad in its place. You might have heard people saying that the USSR was “state capitalist rather than communist”. This means that the workers and customers had just as little say in how things are run than they would under capitalists, only is was directly with the state rather than individual business owners.
Thanks, I appreciate your replies.
Very well said, thank you.
Worthwile to note here that the left of the French revolution, the Jacobins, did develop authoritarianism.
Which should have been a warning sign for all leftists to come, but alas…
deleted by creator
They’re so left they’ve wrapped around and became fascists
deleted by creator
Replaced Nazism in Europe*
deleted by creator
Worthwile to note that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were longstanding allies before Operation Barbarossa and a critical amount of steel and oil that supplied the Nazi war machine after the allied embargo was supplied by the Soviet union.
Which says nothing of the monumental sacrifice given by Soviet civilians, but let’s separate that from Stalin’s policy, perhaps?
deleted by creator
We don’t need to read propaganda and lies thanks.
It’s well known history that Russia and Germany split up Poland and had a peace deal. End of story.
Anything’s possible when you make shit up
Anti imperialism? How did they become the largest country on earth?
Respect of minorities? Tell that to the tens of thousands of people executed in forests. Or starved to death. Because of their identity.
Industrial development? Yes, current Russia having an economy the size of Italy is a testament to that.
Plenty of countries have free education and Healthcare.
deleted by creator
Yes, muscovites just made friends, that’s not imperialism. Sakha just wanted to give it’s oil and minerals to Moscow. Yakutia just wanted desperately to learn Russian. It’s not imperialism if there are no boats involved!
Estonia? Now their GDP per capita is not 20% higher, it’s 200% higher than Russia. Yes, triple as high. Obviously Russia was robbing them blind, and holding them back. Same as most other republics and Warsaw pact nations. GDP explosions after ditching the red parasite.
Ukraine had borders just fine when Soviets invaded them. If not for the war they lost against Poland in 1920 they would have kept invading and repressing nations. Belorussian language is almost extinct nowadays after all the russification. Same for Ukrainian in Eastern Ukraine.
French killed 1 million Algerians? Rookie numbers, they should have learned from the holodomor.
support systems that have brought about immense increases in life expectancy, worker’s rights, women’s rights, free healthcare, free education, and literally defeated fascism
Cool, you can make literally that exact same argument about capitalist neo libs.
You actually can’t make the argument that neoliberal capitalism has defeated fascism at all, you’d have to be completely historically & politically illiterate to even consider it. Life expectancy increase came as a result of medical research conducted around the world, all others were conceded by capitalist governments begrudgingly and only after years of hard work by organizations that were overwhelmingly made up of anti-capitalists, and every single one is currently being rolled back in every capitalist nation on earth.
and every single one is currently being rolled back in every capitalist nation on earth.
Just completely factually incorrect.
You actually can’t make the argument that neoliberal capitalism has defeated fascism at a
Sure you can, I wouldn’t agree with it, just like I wouldn’t agree that socialism did, but you can make that argument
Life expectancy increase came as a result of medical research conducted around the world
Yeah that’s kind of my point. The things you mention as successes of “”“socialist”“” countries is just scientific advancement and industrialisation.
Factually entirely correct lol, sorry if reality is inconvenient for your bullshit
They’re on the Leftest off-ramp that heads back the other way.
deleted by creator
Hey I found the Tankie who thinks they’re on the left!
deleted by creator
Bruh just out here punching the air in an empty comment section of a shit posting sub
Go back to your echo chamber tankie. Nobody likes you. Nobody wants you. But I’m sure your fans enjoy your circle jerk.
Which actually existing current or historical leftist movements do you support?
Are you a fucking cop? Get the fuck out of here you loser. I’m sorry everyone hates you. But thats a you issue.
I’m not sorry everyone hates them
Anarchist Catalonia, modern Rojava, more than a few pre-Columbian North American societies, the Paris Commune of 1793… Maybe read some theory instead of making arguments from ignorance.
And you can care about results without having historical results. Anti-monarchism in general had basically zero results post-Industrial Revolution until the liberals won in North America in the late 18th century, but that didn’t mean that they didn’t care about results, just that they hadn’t achieved much yet. The American Revolution was pretty quickly followed by the French Revolution, the Haitian Revolution, several more French revolutions, Brazilian independence, and eventually the October Revolution, the most recent Chinese civil war, the Cuban Revolution, and so on.
Between 1775 and 1925, the general concept of people voting on matters of statewide policy went from a relic of the Classical Era that had ended more than 1800 years earlier to the norm in North America and Europe. 1800 years of obscurity, then 150 years to ubiquity in the world’s wealthiest states and another 50 to expand to most of the rest.
Sure, anarchism has had a longer period out of the spotlight, not having been the norm since roughly the invention of agriculture ~8000 years ago, but you never know when it might return. Having a concrete, achievable plan to get results is good, but you also want to make sure that the results you’re striving for are just, otherwise you end up with liberalism again. And we all know how that ends up.
Lol way to prove their point dumbass
deleted by creator
Being better at violence doesn’t make you more left, it makes you better at violence. That can be useful, but it isn’t the same thing. Your argument boils down to “might makes right” and could be expanded to classify social democracy as “more left” (after all, it’s left of the global status quo and its citizens are the happiest on average). In fact, you might even be able to use the argument for liberalism; it’s left of monarchy and fascism. Sure, it frequently decays into fascism, but so did the USSR.
Social democracy in the imperial core is to the right of the global status quo, because it depends on imperialism, neocolonialism, and unequal exchange. The USSR, on the other hand, supported anti-imperialist and decolonial movements materially, and set up a socialist economy. Being able to both establish and maintain socialism is a necessary first step for anything that can be considered left, because it’s the only leftism that’s actually real. No, socialism isn’t fascism, and equating the two is a form of Holocaust trivialization with ties to Double Genocide Theory.
To place Russian communism on the same moral level with Nazi fascism, because both are totalitarian, is, at best, superficial, in the worse case it is fascism. He who insists on this equality may be a democrat; in truth and in his heart, he is already a fascist, and will surely fight fascism with insincerity and appearance, but with complete hatred only communism.
The global status quo is liberalism. Social democracy is to the left of liberalism.
And I never said that socialism was fascism, I said that the USSR gave way to fascism. Vladimir Putin’s Russian Federation is fascist. The USSR collapsed, and fascism followed, much like the Weimar Republic collapsed and was replaced by the Nazis. That doesn’t mean that the liberals in the Weimar Republic were fascists.
Liberalism and social democracy in the imperial core are imperialist. This is to the right of liberalism and social democracy in the global south. Erasure of imperialism in the question of whether or not a society is progressive historically or reactionary is a mistake, as the imperialist countries are the ones holding back global progress right now. It’s kinda like saying landlords are progressive and tenants are reactionary.
As for the USSR bit, I misread you. Saying it descended into fascism I took to you meaning that it was progressive in the first few years or so but then turned fascist, not that the RF was that fascism. I disagree with the idea that the RF is fascist, it’s certainly run by nationalists and is an utter tragedy how far they’ve fallen from their soviet roots, but that’s a different discussion.
India is well to the right of e.g. Norway. Brazil only recently moved to the relative left. Argentina is also very right-wing (and also a lot more settler-colonialist than most of the countries not allowed into the White Countries Club). Iran and Afghanistan are about as far-right as they come, despite being very much opposed to the global order as it stands today. I wasn’t discounting the so-called “Global South,” I just also don’t think that an imperialist past (or even present) is the only factor in determining whether a country is right-wing.
In fact, I’d potentially go so far as to say that the majority of poorer countries are farther right than wealthier ones. The exceptions that come to mind are Cuba, Vietnam, Burkina Faso, Bolivia, and Mexico, but on the other side you have the ones I’ve already mentioned, plus Qatar, Lebanon, El Salvador, Pakistan, and more. Not doing imperialism is good, and refusing to do it is better (as opposed to simply being unable), but it doesn’t singlehandedly make an extremist theocracy leftist. If your country does not interact with others at all but is still an absolute monarchy with laws that explicitly discriminate against marginalized groups, it’s an isolationist right-wing state, not a leftist one.
The question of being right or left is which role you play, a progressive role or a reactionary one. For all of the ways the nordics may be more progressive internally, it is of a Herrenvolk style, only for them and at the explicit expense of the global south. For all of the social faults of some countries in the global south, their rise is progressive against imperialism, and this rise facilitates social progress internally.
deleted by creator
Shit, there’s plenty of Non Tankies to my left. Tankies want to use force to control people’s thoughts and actions.
Tankies are drunk on hierarchy and violence.
tankies aren’t “further left than me” they’re “more authoritarian than me”
“further left than me” are idealist utopian communists and “more libertarian than me” are idealist utopian anarchists
Yep. Authoritarianism does not lie leftward, it is not a leftist principle.
nobody can agree what “left” means
That is nonsense.
The left was coined by its opposition to the monarchy while the right supported it.
So left has been currently and historically speaking in opposition of hierarchies and in favor of equality.
The right consequently has been in favor of hierarchies.
Okay, but just grounding it in historical context doesn’t make it the definition. If Mamdani established Mamdanistan and abused courts to execute people polluting ground water with data centers, that would be hierarchical, but very clearly not “right wing” in the common understanding.
Opposing hierarchies is generally fitting, but the minutia of politics make such simple definitions harder to agree on by everyone, which touches on their point.
Weird example but ok.
And no, it is not only historical. I stated that in my original comment and I invite you to look at left wing politics but some “left wing” politician’s position on some random issue, but a widely supported position by the left wing community. You will see that they are all in opposition of hierarchy.
But let’s take your weirdly racist example, where is the hierarchy?
Sorry my bad, I thought jokes about Mamdanistan were more common internet parlance, the point is a radical leftwing state in the minds of fox news viewers. I was doing the limiting case to prove the point, but the base point is prosecution of criminal environmental acts through courts requires hierarchy.
I guess I have to ask what you mean by hierarchy if you don’t believe that courts executing people counts.
I think it’s weird that you think it’s “weirdly racist”. Weirdo
it means a very scary mountain
libertarians are not anarchists
Anarchists are a genre of libertarians though. It’s just that who dominates the landscape of “libertarian” is ancaps, who are just fascists with a weirder set of steps to implement a fascist nightmare.
Anarchists and Libertarian used to be synonymous, since Libertarian was a way to talk about Anarchism without being persecuted. Later in the US Proprietarians coopted the term Libertarian, and later even Anarchism by claiming to be ‘Anarcho-Capitalists’.
@[email protected] always out here saying what i’m trying to say, but better
the point of the meme is to be wrong…
deleted by creator
the farthest extremes on either side are unrealistic and deluded. just because you like one side doesn’t mean they dont get crazy when you go far enough. it’s VERY important not to lose site of that.
yes a communist utopia is unachievable. yes there are people who are actively pursuing that impossible goal. that does not make them unleft.
Being in the middle does not make a stance correct. Saying “slavery is good” and someone saying “slavery is bad” does not make “some slavery is good” the correct position.
Secondly, utopianism is what they are referring to, the practice of theorycrafting a perfect idea and trying to create that by explaining that perfect idea to everyone. Communism has been scientific since Marx, however those who still cling to utopianism over scientific communism do exist to this day. They are typically called “ultraleft,” but not because they are “more left,” but because they place ideals over material reality. That’s why the question exists, can they truly be called “more left” if their strategy is impossible to begin with?
i didn’t say you should be centerist lmao. i said that extremism is real and something to watch yourself on. I’m very far left, that why I’m on this forum you goof. that doesn’t mean leftist extremism isn’t real.
when i said father i meant in pursuing a specific goal or idea. not “father left”.left vs right is just defined by vague political goals and ideas. to say anything is more or less of that is impossible because the scale is undefined. that’s not what matters, the point is that if you don’t police your own beliefs you are likely to fall down dangerous rabbit holes.
My point is that “extremism” doesn’t really mean anything, except that it diverges from the median political opinion. Communism is correct and viable, despite being “extreme” in the eyes of the mainstream westerner.
Yeah, exactly. This graphic is really bad. I guess it’s supposed to be incorrect, but it sends a bad message.
Also, the only people calling anyone “shitlibs” are literal tankies. Sane leftists don’t call anyone “shitlib.”
Any leftist to the right of my on the spectrum is probably considered center-left. I prefer democratic socialism and/or social democracy, using incremental progress to achieve leftist reform.
People are allowed to have different opinions than me. That’s what democracy is. But no one can be allowed to be authoritarian in a democracy, because authoritarianism is incompatible with democracy and a danger to it.
Authoritarians don’t respect diversity of opinion, they don’t tolerate differences. So I’m so tired of authoritarian-minded people whining and calling me intolerant just because I shut them down when they’re trying to dominate others.
Imagining yourselves as everyone’s parents… Literal unironic paternalism.
Having a .ml as one’s actual parent sounds like a nightmare though. Absolutely a sure fire way to create an anarcho-capitalist or some shit in the natural backlash.
Just because I recognize that you are the intellectual equivalent of a toddler doesn’t mean I accept the responsibility of raising you
So you think you and those that agree with you should have power over people but have no responsibility to them?
I legitimately don’t care if you think I’m stupid I know what you think is smart.
I think that you specifically are too stupid for your own health and safety and that someone competent and trustworthy absolutely should have power over you until that changes, ideally multiple someones with a robust system of public oversight. I said I do not accept responsibility for you, just because I recognize the need for competent leadership doesn’t mean I’m willing or able to lead.
>democracy
look inside
>attachment to particular institutions, policies and practices
Tankies aren’t leftists in reality.
Maybe left of Nazis, but they aren’t leftists.
The political left and authoritarianism are inherently contradictory.
Its the political right that embraces authoritarianism. Hence why we call them “Red Fascists”
The political left and authoritarianism are not contradictory. Leftists are not always Libertarians, and many of them will and do trade freedom for safety regularly.
For safety, or for power.
deleted by creator
Uh, your graph is missing power levels for Lenin and Stalin.
over 9000
Based
Whatt your graph shows is only a reduction in percentage. The top 10% still amount to around 25% of the wealth - which is wild considering that companies that were privatly owned didn’t exist. So what equity positions are we talking about?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
The nazis’ economy was a shell game of debt, and they were overextended militarily. Their regime would have fallen even if they had won the war. Secondly, the USSR at first joined forces with the nazis until they were betrayed by them, and after the soviets joined the allies, they received massive aid under the lend-lease act. And even with the aid, they still had to rely on human-wave tactics.
deleted by creator
Now that is quite a fun game of gymnastics, but just to pick one out and ohrase it differently.
The Soviets invaded Poland to weaks late according to the treaty with Germany, because they were held back in Belarus, the Baltics and Ukraine, but gladly took the promised lands.
Yeah right. However you spin this the USSR was by no means an innocent country, nor were they anti-imperialist. They might have seen themselves that way. But that’s like me saying I am dilligent and disciplined, lying to oneself is what we do best.
deleted by creator
saved Europe from fascism
a fascist state fought a war against a competing fascist state. simply being on the side opposing Nazi Germany doesn’t magically make your state a perfect divine utopia
deleted by creator
none of that precludes fascism
deleted by creator
just saying it doesn’t make it true
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
The political compass isn’t an objective model
Found the tankie.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Wont somebody please think of the poor princes??? How many kids had to grow up without their nazi collaborator dad there to guide them on the path of
fascismanticommunism?deleted by creator
prison system (whose acronym was GULAG)
Afaik not true. The average westerner may think so, but GULAG is an acronym for a specific part of the system.
copypasted my earlier comment
if you would consult the chart from chapter 10:
The etymology of GULAG is: “the acronym of Гла́вное управле́ние исправи́тельно-трудовы́х лагере́й (Glávnoje upravlénije ispravítelʹno-trudovýx lageréj, “Chief Administration of Corrective-Labor Camps”)” emphasis mine, as it corresponds directly to the above, specifically the camps under the O.G.P.U. These are where those with harsher sentences were sent, as seen in the chart (3-10 years)
right but this person isnt really the nuanced type, they’re cherrypicking and so am I
were actually politically motivated
Thrers an old joke: Two guys in Gulag talk
-How many year you’ve got?
-20
-For what?
-For nothing.
-You fucking liar. You’d get only 10 for nothing
Removed by mod
All those queers? Princes. All those different socialists? Also princes. Hundreds of kingdoms, with millions of dollars each.
guess they didn’t make it that far…
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Ignoring the part where they’re 100% right about spanish anarchists throwing people in camps because it’s inconvenient for your bullshit lol, try again
You literally ban all tankies in comms where you can do it, you’re abusing authoritarianism,
authoritarianism is when bedtime, am i rigt?
deleted by creator
Oh no! What a shame. Oh well, moving on.
deleted by creator
authoritarianism is when the government that has real control over things that matter and uses it to control up. when a private citizen kicks you out of their club it’s just called a disagreement.
deleted by creator
Every successful country has to express some level of Authority to maintain its existence. Especially the USSR which, you know, defeated Nazi Germany almost single handedly. Was that them being “tankies”?
Another example, Vietnam would look like Gaza city if they didn’t express authority. Same with DPRK aka “north Korea “
It’s a marketplace of ideas right up until you make them look stupid, then they conveniently forget their opposition to authoritarianism just long enough to suppress all dissenting opinions
deleted by creator
Tankies are left?
No.
yes
deleted by creator
Communists are left, yes.
They’re really not.
On what planet are communists not left-wing?
This one.
By whose standards? Communism is pretty definitionally left wing.
If you believe in the horseshoe theory they aren’t. I believe in the horseshoe theory
E: uppon more research i don’t believe in the horseshoe theory per se. But in speaking to many tankies, they exhibit many traits that the far right has.
I certainly reassessed.
The biggest similarity is that we are both willing to use violence to oppress our enemies. The difference is that the enemy of communists are our oppressors and the enemy of fascist is whoever they decide to not like at the moment. The ultimate attack on capital (communism) is materially different than the ultimate defense of capital (fascism).
Fun fact though, liberalism also supports violence (or at least passively accepts it) as long as it is mostly external. We don’t get to choose non-violence. You can attack the people doing violence, join the people doing violence, or accept the people doing violence.
With the slight clarification that communists will redifine oppressors at their will, making them effectively the same in practice.
-
You are a worker that doesn’t support the movement? Class traitor, gulag.
-
You made a joke about dear leader? Traitor, gulag.
-
You would like free elections? Foreign agent, gulag.
Anything’s possible when you make shit up
Yes, holodomor is western propaganda.
…no
Yes actually, and like all the best propaganda it’s partially true. Famine happened, people died, both verifiable facts. The extent is drastically exaggerated by western sources, allegations that it was an intentional act of genocide are baseless and hilariously hypocritical coming from the US & friends.
-
I appreciate your point of view, but from my interactions here, that’s not my experience.
To be clear I am not trying to argue with you here I’m just curious what you think.
What part of what I said have you found to be untrue? What sort of interactions led you to this conclusion?
Not ignoring you, but I want to give you a proper reply, not on my phone, so I need to get on a computer, ill write you back :)
No worries, take your time
I think, it needs to be clarified, that not everything you said I would say is “untrue”, and I want to thank you for approaching this conversation constructively. I think we agree on many points, e.g. housing is a human right, as is access to food, Healthcare, water, etc.
The biggest similarity is that we are both willing to use violence to oppress our enemies.
I can’t speak to that point, so I will defer to you.
The difference is that the enemy of communists are our oppressors and the enemy of fascist is whoever they decide to not like at the moment.
I do know that fascism needs an enemy in order to function, but, from my interactions with various people who claim to be communist, they are just as happy to view anyone who dissent with their views as a sheep, or, an enemy to their cause. For example, we both agree that Israel is committing genocide, we both agree that, at the very least, Israel is certainly on its way to doing the same in Lebanon. We both agree that what the US did in Iran, and Vensuela is inexcusable (keeping it recent). Now when another country, russia, does something similar to ukraine, and, it’s called out, well now im a shit lib who is pro Imperialism and the enemy of what is “communism”
The ultimate attack on capital (communism) is materially different than the ultimate defense of capital (fascism).
If you mean communism, and not whatever russia and China are, then yes, no argument here.
Fun fact though, liberalism also supports violence (or at least passively accepts it) as long as it is mostly external.
I think liberals, generally are ok with it, as you said, externally, there was a lot of liberal support for the Iraq bullshit.
We don’t get to choose non-violence. You can attack the people doing violence, join the people doing violence, or accept the people doing violence.
Yes, boiled down, that is very unfortunately the case, and from an idealistic point of view, we need to collectively move past that stupidity.
Accurate
Forgive my ignorance, what is a tankie?
Someone you dont like, with a vaguely leftist connotation.
deleted by creator
oh god, it’s like reading parenti
make it stop
deleted by creator
“Mussolini enjoyer”
this is some bad faith bullshit
deleted by creator
when does kropotkin infantalize and dismiss marxists?
deleted by creator
A person who believes that an authoritarian state is righteous and justified as long as it calls itself communist (even if it’s not), examples being the USSR, North Korea, China, and oddly the current capitalist Russian federation. You can find a more in-depth answer here.
Nobody actually believes anything that calls itself socialist/communist is justified axiomatically. In reality, socialists supportive of what’s called “Actually Existing Socialism” support these states for their progressive advancements and socialist economies, being defined by their actual characteristics. These actual characteristics include having public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy (ie, that which is dominant, rising, and in control of the economy, typically by commanding the large firms and key industries at a minimum) and the working classes in control of the state.
Examples of AES include the PRC, DPRK, Laos, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, and depending on who you ask, Vietnam. Formerly existing socialism includes the USSR. No communist considers the Russian Federation to be AES. You’re confusing (or deliberately misleading) critical support for bourgeois states against imperialism, such as Iran, Palestine, etc, with AES.
Notably, your theory that simply calling oneself socialist/communist is enough to be considered AES falls apart immediately once considering the Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot’s Cambodia considered itself communist, yet they were stopped by the Vietnamese communists, and no Marxists really consider them to have been genuinely communists. The National Socialist Party of Germany is another example, no communist supports the Nazis despite their claims of being socialists. It isn’t the name that matters, but the structure. This isn’t even getting into disagreements between Marxist-Leninists and Maoists on groups like the Shining Path, the Naxalites, CPI (M) vs. CPI (ML), etc.
In reality, you just maintain a stance on AES that runs counter to Marxist consensus, and rather than argue against the actual reasons for that consensus, you try to sidestep that entire exercise by claiming it has to do with naming. I already explained how this is full of holes in the prior paragraph, but further emphasis is necessary: you’re describing someone that doesn’t exist.
It’s essentially a pejorative for “communist.” I recommend the Prolewiki article on “Tankies,” as well as Nia Frome’s essay “Tankies.”
“Tankie” was a pejorative for Marxists that support socialism in real life then as well as now. It originated in the Communist Party of Great Britain. The term was coined because of the British tendency towards silly-sounding insults, and because the Soviet Union sent in the Red Army to stop the western-backed fascist insurrection. This caused a split in the party (as it always does in western orgs).
The Hungarian revolt in 1956 was infested with anti-semitic pograms. MI6 funded, supplied, and trained the Hungarian counter-revolutionaries. These counter-revolutionaries were allied with fascists who were lynching Jewish people and Communists. The Truth About Hungary by Herbert Aptheker heavily relies on citing western sources like the New York Times. Aptheker backs up his claims heavily.
"The special correspondent of the Yugoslav paper, Politika, (Nov. 13, 1956) describing the events of those days, said that the homes of Communists were marked with a white cross and those of Jews with a black cross, to serve as signs for the extermination squads. “There is no longer any room for doubt,” said the Yugoslav reporter, “it is an example of classic Hungarian fascism and of White Terror. The information,” continued this writer, “coming from the provinces tells how in certain places Communists were having their eyes put out, their ears cut off, and that they were being killed in the most terrible ways.”
“But the forces of reaction were rapidly consolidating their power and pushing forward on the top levels, while in the streets the blood of scores of massacred Communists, Jews, and progressives was flowing.”
“Some of the reports reaching Warsaw from Budapest today caused considerable concern. These reports told of massacres of Communists and Jews by what were described as 'Fascist elements’ …” (N.Y. Times, Nov. 1. 1956)
“The evidence is conclusive that the entry of Soviet troops into Budapest stopped the execution of scores, perhaps thousands of Jews, for by the end of October and early November, anti-Semtic pogroms - hallmark of unbridled fascistic terror - were making their appearance, after an absence of some ten years, within Hungary.”
"A correspondent of the Israeli newspaper Maariv (Tel Aviv) reported:
During the uprising a number of former Nazis were released from prison and other former Nazis came to Hungary from Salzburg . . . I met them at the border . . . I saw anti-Semitic posters in Budapest . . . On the walls, street lights, streetcars, you saw inscriptions reading: “Down with Jew Gero!” “Down with Jew Rakosi!” or just simply “down with the Jews!”
Leading rabbinical circles in New York received a cable early in November from corresponding circles in Vienna that “Jewish blood is being shed by the rebels in Hungary.” Very much later-in February, 1957-the World Jewish Congress reported that “anti-Semitic excesses occurred in more than twenty villages and smaller provincial towns during the October-November revolt.” This occurred, according to this very conservative body, because “fascist and anti-Semitic groups had apparently seized the opportunity, presented by the absence of a central authority, to come to the surface.” Many among the Jewish refugees from Hungary, the report continued, had fled from this anti-Semitic pogrom-like atmosphere (N.Y. Times, Feb. 15, 1957). This confirmed the earlier report made by the British Rabbi, R. Pozner, who, after touring refugee camps, declared that “the majority of Jews who left Hungary did so for fear of the Hungarians and not the Russians.” The Paris Jewish newspaper, Naye Presse, asserted that Jewish refugees in France claimed quite generally that Soviet soldiers had saved their lives."
Further, the CIA also backed Hungarian resistance forces:
Prague in 1968 was a similar fascist uprising in both cases there were some elements of progressive protest, but these were greatly overshadowed by the fascist movements. Dubcek wanted to sell out to the IMF, and restore capitalism. The idea that any of this was about “democracy” or “freedom” is silly, it was always about Cold War tactics to destabilize socialism.
TL;DR imagine if the January 6th rioters were armed and trained by foreign governments, started lynching officials and Jewish people, and the US sent in the army to put down the insurrection. The MAGA chuds would claim that it was about “freedom” and “democracy,” but we all know that they just wanted Trump in office.
Nowadays, it’s used by any random anti-communist to refer to anyone that supports socialist states or doesn’t buy into the imperialist narrative about global south countries. It was the ones they call “tankies” that knew the stories of WMD and Saddam’s forces leaving babies outside of incubators were both bullshit to manufacture consent for war, but now that its decades later the anti-communists all suddenly have collective amnesia about their willing participation in spreading the lies of empire to murder hundreds of thousands of people.
Bruh tankies aren’t further left than me
You are a liberal
That doesn’t make what he said wrong.
It does tho, liberals are center-right at best
I’m not saying they aren’t. It’s still correct, though.
Nope
Oh, I know better than to participate in this discussion.
Yeah, lots of pointless arguing further down in here. Like arguing about whether authoritarianism is left or right like that even matters. There are no set of single labels that can describe everyone’s motivations, goals, and what they are willing to do to get them, so arguing about the labels is pointless.
are you pro or anti sea piracy?
Probably anti overall, though context could change that. It’s just sea banditry and most bandits aren’t Robin Hood.
The digital version shouldn’t even be compared by using the same name, but if it was honest, then it wouldn’t work as propaganda (not that it seems to be working anyways).
Nice try, Tankie.
I would strongly contest the idea that tankies are durther left than anarchists. This only make since if you’re a shitlib.
deleted by creator
Still waiting for the tankies to defeat capitalism. Last I see China has fully embraced it and the Soviets collapsed.
Public ownership is the principal aspect of China’s economy. This means that public ownership governs the large firms and key industries, and is what is rising in China, as private ownership is kept to small and medium non-essential industries. No system is static, meaning identifying the nature of a system depends on identifying what is rising and what is dying away. Cpitalists are held on a tight leash, and are prevented from gaining political power as a class. The reason private ownership is allowed at all is because China has very uneven development due to their rapid industrialization, and private ownership does help with filling in gaps left by the primary aspects of the economy like SOEs.
The form of democracy and the mode of production in China ensures that there is a connection between the people and the state. Policies like the mass line are in place to ensure this direct connection remains. This is why over 90% of the Chinese population supports the government, and why they have such strong perceptions around democracy:
The Chinese political system is based on whole-process people’s democracy, a form of consultative democracy. The local government is directly elected, and then these governments elect people to higher rungs, meaning any candidate at the top level must have worked their way up from the bottom and directly proved themselves. Combining this consultative, ground-up democracy with top-down economic planning is the key to China’s success.
I highly recommend Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance. Socialist democracy has been imperfect, but has gone through a number of changes and adaptations over the years as we’ve learned more from testing theory to practice. Boer goes over the history behind socialist democracy in this textbook.
China does have billionaires, as you might then protest. China is in the developing stages of socialism. Between capitalism, which is characterized by private ownership being the principal aspect of the economy and the capitalists in control of the state, and communism, characterized by full collectivization of production and distribution devoid of classes and the state, run along the lines of a common plan, is socialism, where public ownership is principle and the working classes in control. China in particular is working its way out of the initial stages of socialism:
The reason China has billionaires is because China has private property, and the reason it has private property is because of 2 major factors: the world economy is still dominated by the US empire, and because you cannot simply abolish private property at the stroke of a pen. China tried that already. The Gang of Four tried to dogmatically force a publicly owned and planned economy when the infrastructure best suited to that hadn’t been laid out by markets, and as a consequence growth was positive but highly unstable.
Why does it matter that the US Empire controls the world economy? Because as capitalism monopolizes, it is compelled to expand outward in order to fight falling rates of profit by raising absolute profits. The merging of bank and industrial capital into finance capital leads to export of capital, ie outsourcing. This process allows super-exploitation for super-profits, and is known as imperialism.
In the People’s Republic of China, under Mao and later the Gang of Four, growth was overall positive but was unstable. The centrally planned economy had brought great benefits in many areas, but because the productive forces themselves were underdeveloped, economic growth wasn’t steady. There began to be discussion and division in the party, until Deng Xiapoing’s faction pushing for Reform and Opening Up won out, and growth was stabilized.
Deng’s plan was to introduce market reforms, localized around Special Economic Zones, while maintaining full control over the principle aspects of the economy. Limited private capital would be introduced, especially by luring in foreign investors, such as the US, pivoting from more isolationist positions into one fully immersed in the global marketplace. As the small and medium firms grow into large firms, the state exerts more control and subsumes them more into the public sector. This was a gamble, but unlike what happened to the USSR, this was done in a controlled manner that ended up not undermining the socialist system overall.
China’s rapidly improving productive forces and cheap labor ended up being an irresistable match for US financial capital, even though the CPC maintained full sovereignty. This is in stark contrast to how the global north traditionally acts imperialistically, because it relies on financial and millitant dominance of the global south. This is why there is a “love/hate” relationship between the US Empire and PRC, the US wants more freedom for capital movement while the CPC is maintaining dominance.
Fast-forward to today, and the benefits of the CPC’s gamble are paying off. The US Empire is de-industrializing, while China is a productive super-power. The CPC has managed to maintain full control, and while there are neoliberals in China pushing for more liberalization now, the path to exerting more socialization is also open, and the economy is still socialist. It is the job of the CPC to continue building up the productive forces, while gradually winning back more of the benefits the working class enjoyed under the previous era, developing to higher and higher stages of socialism.
In doing this, China has presented itself to the global south as an alternative to the unequal exchange the global north does with the global south, which is accelerating the development of the global south. China is taking a more indirect method of undermining global imperialism than, say, the USSR, but its been remarkably effective at uplifting the global working classes, especially in China but also in the global south.
To call China “imperialist” or “capitalist” is to either invent a fantasy of China or to not understand imperialism, capitalism, or socialism. China isn’t a utopia, it’s a real socialist country.
Lmao I’m not wasting my time reading a whole Tankies schizo rant about how awesome China is and how it’s authoritarian 1 party system is actually super cool democracy.
You should read it.
Why would I willingly waste my time on Tankie nonsense?
You might learn something. But who knows, maybe China is just evil and nothing can be learned about their society and governance.
Even if you think Chinese socialism is bad, aren’t you obligated to learn about it?
Because you dismiss even western academics and scholars like Jason Hickel and Roland Boer, organizations like Harvard and the Ash Center, and even Wikipedia. Who on Earth do you trust, then? If the communists and socialists can manage to find well-respected western orgs backing our claims, why do you reject even them? How small is your echo chamber allowed to be?
What an excellent counter to academic sources mostly from western organizations. Pejoratives, ableism, and admitting to not even daring to read it.
Okay I’ll give you the tiniest little bite. Your first link is a fucking substsck article from a blatant propaganda pusher that mostly publishes “the west = bad” blog post
So he is trying to claim that China is actually a shining example of democracy, despite being a 1 party state that openly punishes it’s citizens for critisicing the government, the revolution, key reveloutionary figure or communism in general, because of opinion polls that, in a different blog post, he admits are only as high as they are because of China’s censorship of government criticism.
We have actual empirical standards for what a democracy is. China is basically the poster child for modern authoritarianism and does not fit the description of a democratic state in any reasonable way. No opposition is allowed, the party leadership is the one that picks candidates, not the citizens and even then citizens only get this performative vote at the very lowest level of government.
But that’s all I’m going to give you. I’ve fallen into the trap of trying to argue with Tankies who are not arguing from a position of reason, you’re like Magas or Nazis but just intelligent enough to actually cherry pick data and use the language of political theory to attempted to disguise your lunacy.
Reply if you want, call me a shitlib for being pro free and fair elections if you feel like, but I’m not wasting any more of my time on you.
Okay I’ll give you the tiniest little bite. Your first link is a fucking substsck article from a blatant propaganda pusher that mostly publishes “the west = bad” blog post
Nope. My first link is to Wikipedia, my second link is to Jason Hickel’s substack. Here’s who he is, per Wikipedia:
Jason Edward Hickel[2] (born 1982) is a Swazi economic anthropologist, academic and democratic eco-socialist.[3] He is a professor at the Institute of Environmental Science & Technology (ICTA-UAB) at the Autonomous University of Barcelona,[4] a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, a visiting senior fellow at the International Inequalities Institute at the London School of Economics, and was the Chair of Global Justice and the Environment at the University of Oslo.[5] He serves on the Climate and Macroeconomics Roundtable of the US National Academy of Sciences.[6]
I guess none of that matters to you? All of his sources are cited, including organizations like Harvard and the Ash Center. The fact that he posts some of his work on Substack doesn’t make it wrong.
So he is trying to claim that China is actually a shining example of democracy, despite being a 1 party state that openly punishes it’s citizens for critisicing the government, the revolution, key reveloutionary figure or communism in general, because of opinion polls that, in a different blog post, he admits are only as high as they are because of China’s censorship of government criticism.
Actually, Hickel’s point is that support for the CPC in China is popular because, above all else, the CPC has consistently delivered on its ambitious but grounded promises to the public. The PRC has seen an unimaginable climb from 1949 under CPC leadership, faster than any other country on the planet, and this has caused the working classes to support them.
We have actual empirical standards for what a democracy is. China is basically the poster child for modern authoritarianism and does not fit the description of a democratic state in any reasonable way. No opposition is allowed, the party leadership is the one that picks candidates, not the citizens and even then citizens only get this performative vote at the very lowest level of government.
This is incorrect, on multiple levels. China does not allow opposition parties, this is true, because factionalism is anti-socialist and is a product of liberal, bourgeois forms of democracy. Instead, policy is dynamic and focuses on consultative democracy. Democracy is not the ability to choose which party represents you, but is the rule by the majority. China has the latter, while the west only has the former.
To repeat myself, the Chinese political system is based on whole-process people’s democracy, a form of consultative democracy. The local government is directly elected, and then these governments elect people to higher rungs, meaning any candidate at the top level must have worked their way up from the bottom and directly proved themselves. Combining this consultative, ground-up democracy with top-down economic planning is the key to China’s success.
I highly recommend Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance. Socialist democracy has been imperfect, but has gone through a number of changes and adaptations over the years as we’ve learned more from testing theory to practice. Boer goes over the history behind socialist democracy in this textbook.
But that’s all I’m going to give you. I’ve fallen into the trap of trying to argue with Tankies who are not arguing from a position of reason, you’re like Magas or Nazis but just intelligent enough to actually cherry pick data and use the language of political theory to attempted to disguise your lunacy.
No, socialists and communists are nothing like MAGA nor Nazis. As we have seen and I have proven, you’re dismissing decorated academics like Jason Hickel and Roland Boer, as well as western organizations like the Ash Center, Wikipedia, and Harvard, all to cling to a false vision of reality.
Reply if you want, call me a shitlib for being pro free and fair elections if you feel like, but I’m not wasting any more of my time on you.
You aren’t pro “free and fair elections,” you’re in favor of elections dominated by capitalists, and believe Chinese people to be too stupid to realize the superiority of such elections. In order to maintain that chauvanistic view, you dismiss even western academics and scholars like Jason Hickel and Roland Boer, organizations like Harvard and the Ash Center, and even Wikipedia. Who on Earth do you trust, then?
Some progress is better than none, you should spend less time parroting state department talking points and more time learning from what previous and current socialist projects have gotten right
deleted by creator
Whataboutism, they still are capitalist.
Pointing out obvious holes in your logic isn’t whataboutism dumbass
I’ve explained before, but no, China is not capitalist. Public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy, it governs the large firms and key industries and dominates the overall character of the economy. Private ownership exists, but is secondary to that, filling in the gaps left behind by the huge state driven industries in secondary and underdeveloped areas, and is folded into the public sector as it grows. The capitalist class is not allowed to gain political power, and the working classes control the state.
deleted by creator
They’ll have China remove it all when they get more billionaires. Marx famously said that socialism can only be done with billionares, and Mao said political power grows from the Shanghai Stock Exchange.
deleted by creator
Oh fuck, the MAGA crowd has started posting. Get ready for made up stupid shit to distract / confuse you as they are.
Removed by mod
Ok good lol
It’s hardly a secret that screaming The Eptein Files works like a dragon shout.
A one dimensional political spectrum! Proper shit post, sir!
And this is how those in power stay in power.
And this is how those in power stay in power.
what do you mean?
Divide and conquer.
Yup. Anyone writing off the majority of their fellow working class is just playing into hands of fascists.
“Tankie” is a meaningless pejorative used by feds and morons to smear actual socialists, as is “authoritarian”. Refusal to wield authority in defense of socialism only guarantees capitalism will destroy it anywhere it is attempted.
Average .ml behaviour
Yep
Feline anarchy is the only valid. Human whole purpose is to server cats. Fuck everyone else.
Fuck capitalism, fuck communism, fuck fascism, fuck everyone. FELINE ANARCHY!!!
I heard about arachno communism but this is new to me
server cats
I tried to do that, but they wouldn’t let the cats in the colo.
Isn’t that just ancient Egypt? At any rate, based AF.
