Musk is doing the Nazi salute inside the Capitol while on live TV, and the thing they are worried about is tankies? Wild.
69·5 days agoLiberals and focusing on communists while facists are taking power and being a 100x threat than even their made up communists are.
Actually it’s the tankies’ fault Trump is the president because we told people not to vote for Kamala.
Real 1930s Germany vibes going on
Should we just copy/paste the same tactics nazis use?
“I’m not a communist, there’s no such thing as communism anymore. Cold war’s over, bro. If anyone’s a communist it’s YOU mr. National SOCIALIST!”
literally falling for the rightwing talking point that communists are everywhere. they’re as delusional as those rightwingers who think kraft is run by commies.
Well you see, the left is a low hanging fruit and you’re not allowed to criticize the right…but the left controls the mainstream narrative!
That’s because they either: 1. Believe Musk wasn’t actually doing it, or 2. Believe nazism is better than leftists
Fuck everyone who tries to maintain or implement hierarchies.
Let’s just leave the 12-year-olds alone
It’s unjust hierarchies by the way. Teachers teaching students isn’t inherently unjust. Parenting children, guiding them, and making medical decisions on their behalf isn’t inherently unjust. Even older/more developed students setting an example for less developed students can promote the general welfare.
It’s like an immature reading of anprim where you cut all your hair off because you get lice, so you’re stoned to death for the medical advancement. Then the people who stoned you are punched to death for creating weapons.
Nobody who is actually going to organize and cooperate well is going to be so adamant about the tendencies as to not work together. The “press the communism and betrayal button instead of just the communism button” is a fiction from where western leftists stand. It’s the kind of thing that’ll have you critiquing Castro’s revolution for reclaiming the island from gambling gangsters. "Well, actually you didn’t need Soviet missiles to resist the most bloodthirsty empire post WW2 who are also pointing missiles at you
"And what’s silly is there are anarchist writings about how to organize non-heirarchal families and education. But instead of mentioning that and directing Marxists to this type of material, these fucking libs say libshit because they don’t actually learn about their self-proclaimed ideology. Only a skimming of Wikipedia articles on atrocities and sectarianism written by other libs.
I’d be open to conversations about how to not rely on the contrived atomic family unit and educational structures that teach you how to take a standardized test (as opposed to literacy). Something tells me their disagreement with Marxism is different and dumber.
deleted by creator
One of them posting that while the rest of the thread is full of libs deriding “tankies” for not voting for Kamala is so goddamn funny, these fuckers turn hypocrisy and Dunning-Kruger into an art form
But we need to enforce their bedtime!
Anarcho-bedtimeism
The .ml instances are meant to stand for “Maoist/Leninist” so you’ll see a lot of tankies from those .ml instances…
79% literacy rate strikes againAlso it’s Mali
They aren’t sending their best.
The depressing part is that they are.
Look I’m trying okay?
“Do you see anyone tolerating fascists in here??”
every comment is about the double genocide theory 
Russia, China and North Korea’s apologists
Literally what has the DPRK done to anyone that people would need to apologize for?
I mean things that really happened, with evidence and stuff. The Wile E. Coyote atrocity stories sourced from South Korean tabloids that constantly appear in the Western press don’t count.
Think real hard…
I’ve, once or twice, MLs over-correct and try to deny the personality cult that has organically arisen around the Kim family in the DPRK.
But that’s such an utterly meaningless thing to care about, when the worlds richest man feels comfortable enough to go mask off, and do a Nazi salute on live television, and when the new administration is attacking Trans people so aggressively.
Like, for a supposedly queer friendly instance, those are some fucked up priorities.
The main issue I have with this kind of criticism of the DPRK is that while true, it really is meaningless like you said, especially because we should compare what the USA did to Korea. There’s no comparison at all.
Some government corruption and a privileged family? Ok, sure but how do you even put that in the same ballpark as flattening the whole country, killing millions, and making the DPRK a pariah country for decades?
These people don’t understand scale or how to make comparisons. Every single atrocity or criticism they have of supposed tankies is vastly overshadowed by anything the USA does on a daily basis. It’s not even close
I get what you mean. There is probably more dynastic worship than I’d select for my ideal society, but I hesitate to judge the degree, because I know all of my information is distorted through the lenses of geopolitical rivalry and vast cultural gaps.
For example, I remember when
died, the public displays of weeping really seemed like cult stuff, but I later learned it was a Korean cultural phenomenon that long predated communism.This reminds me of what Pat Sloan wrote
CHAPTER XV: STATE AND PARTY - Soviet Democracy
In connection with the status of Stalin in the U.S.S.R. I feel I must refer to one point of criticism which is raised in common by the Webbs, by Andre Gide, and by Sir Walter Citrine. This is the phenomenon described by the Webbs in their book as “the adulation of Stalin.” Any reader of the Soviet Press, with an eye and ear trained to the English language, is likely to be sometimes shocked by references to “our dearly beloved Stalin,” “our glorious leader,” and so on. This matter has often struck foreign observers, and is cited time and again as evidence of a servile attitude on the part of the population towards Stalin, and thus as symptomatic of a lack of democracy.
Personally, I must frankly admit that for at least three years in the U.S.S.R. I was often unfavourably impressed by the lavish way in which love and praise of Stalin was expressed in public utterances of all types of Soviet citizens. To the English ear such words seemed to be more appropriate to religion than to modern politics, and there is no doubt that I, too, was at first affected in the same way as the Webbs by this. But my feelings on this matter were completely changed when I happened one day to see a letter from a young worker to his brother. It began: “Honoured Beloved Brother!” These were the same words, or words closely similar to, those which had been thoroughly unpleasing to me when addressed to Stalin, because in English they suggested degradation and servility! But the young Russian used them to his brother. And when I suggested that he should simply write “Dear Brother” he was literally shocked. The English have a reputation for being a cold-blooded nation!
When André Gide began a letter to Stalin in the same words which he would have used in French, his guide suggested that a little verbal embroidery was necessary. Gide was shocked. But if I wrote to André Gide in French to-morrow, and finished up “yours sincerely,” Gide would certainly consider that I did not know French, or that I was being rude. The French, you see, happen to conclude their letters with a rigmarole which, to the English, seems artificial and somewhat servile.
When the Webbs discover a “deliberate exploitation by the governing junta of the emotion of hero-worship, of the traditional reverence of the Russian people for a personal autocrat,” they substantiate this view by examples of an apparent extravagance of language such as we have mentioned, which in English appears utterly ridiculous. And, while it is obviously not going to be the policy of the Communist Party of the U.S.S.R. to try to stimulate hatred of its leaders, but the opposite, I feel that the translation of the language used gives an utterly unreal picture of the situation.
When the people of the U.S.S.R. wish to express their loyalty to their recognized leader they can only do it in their own language. Actually, the language of the oriental peoples of the U.S.S.R. is even more flowery than Russian. If the Russian worker writes to his brother as “dearly beloved,” we must not consider these words to be servile when coming from a group of collective farmers and addressed to Stalin. On the contrary, they are fraternal words, brotherly words, and not servile words. When these facts are taken into account I think it is true to say that not one example of the “adulation of Stalin” which the Webbs give contains any example of adulation greater than the words expressed by millions of British workers about Dimitrov at the time of the Leipzig trial.
All people when in foreign countries tend to assume that they understand the language better than they do, and are happy if they can translate sentences phrase by phrase without a dictionary. Both the Webbs and André Gide, cultured people as they are, have not absorbed the idiom of the Russian language. By mechanical translation they have made errors of interpretation which can have serious political repercussions; for the question of whether the Russian workers address Stalin in the way that Lady Houston wrote about the late King or as the Archbishop of Canterbury addresses God, or as one workman addresses his brother, is a question of vital importance in considering the degree of democracy which exists to-day in the U.S.S.R. Actually, as I discovered after three years, the workers of the U.S.S.R. use the same words in writing to Stalin as in writing to a much admired brother.
https://comlib.encryptionin.space/lib/html/soviet-democracy/soviet-democracy_files/chapter15.xhtml
Comparing mild personality cult of DPRK to South Korea and Samsung, almost the entire country one a damn 1920’s company town.
They eat unicorns and have all the same haircut!
Recently I have been thinking over why I find this sort of liberal anti-communism so pathetic, and I think its because there is something particularly aggravating about being scolded by a person whose level of ideological development so closely resembles a past version of myself.
If you are an atheist, you have probably encountered the specific form of anti-atheist propaganda wherein which a religious person will say something like “I used to be an atheist, I was so mad at god every day and hated him, but then I found blah blah”. These anecdotes usually make me want to laugh; its obvious they were never former atheists, and are simply (and sloppily) trying to create a strawman atheist to convince you of how bad it is. The point im trying to make is that there probably aren’t a lot of serious atheists who go on to convert to religion; its a cognitive step that, once made, is hard to take back.
The argument I am trying to make is that being a communist is the same thing. If I asked you to show me a committed, well read marxist-leninist who decided to become a liberal, I imagine you would be hard pressed to find one. I specify “committed” and “well read” because I’m sure some lemmitor would counter-argue “But I loved to play the soviet anthem out loud on the school bus when i was in middle school, and now I love Joe Biden!”. However, if I asked you to show me a committed liberal who became a communist, many of you would raise your hands, as would I!
And this is sort of the crux of the point im trying to make. Its really frustrating seeing the smugness of these individuals with regards to their hate for tankies, because I see myself in them. I know that they are literally just who I was in high school; before I had read any communist works, before I had tried to study history, etc. When I see a particularly arrogant comment from one of them, I cant help but imagine my 16 year old self saying it instead, and I just want to explain to him that he is literally just a version of me that knows less about the world, and that therefore his smugness is unwarranted.
I would like to find a way to explain this to a liberal that isnt too condescending, because I imagine it could be a powerful source of doubt for their neoliberal beliefs. Something along the lines of “I reached your level of political development many years ago, and surpassed it. You, on the other hand, were never a communist, let alone did you “surpass it””, except thats incredibly smug redditor speak and I think it would aggravate someone too much for them to process it. I used religion as the blueprint because thats where I have obviously seen this dynamic play out the most; if any of you are formerly religious and were convinced to stop being religious by a person who once belonged to your religion, maybe you have a useful anecdote for how they were able to arouse doubt in your beliefs without insulting your intelligence.
if any of you are formerly religious and were convinced to stop being religious by a person who once belonged to your religion, maybe you have a useful anecdote for how they were able to arouse doubt in your beliefs without insulting your intelligence.
I’m Catholic, was before my radicalization and still am, but obviously had a lot of homophobia and transphobia to unlearn. More relevant to this question though, the way I thought about Marxists before I radicalized had to change, and while I still don’t use the label Marxist I’d say I use Marxist thought to analyze basically all social phenomena. I think the critical thing for me was understanding that the conflict between Communist states in history (and to some extent, the French Revolution) and religion didn’t stem out of the left’s hatred of religion, but out of the Church’s resistance to social change. I had to understand that the Church was kind of a load-bearing structural member of the social order and legitimized all the oppressive institutions, so naturally the radicals who aimed to abolish said social order needed to take measures against religious institutions. If I could talk to myself before I was politically conscious, I’d tell him that he should consider that the way things were arranged in the Russian Empire, Feudal China, France, etc. the only possible way to get the masses to throw off their shackles was to attack corrupt religious institutions that were literally conspiring and collaborating with the secular states to keep peasants down. That the violent measures that I was taught about were used as a last resort, and were only a reflection of the violence that the overthrown institutions had used liberally for centuries.
As to how this pertains to anti-authoritarian leftists, I think you could modify this argument a little bit, and apply it to whatever they think authoritarianism is. “Tankies” don’t want to use authoritarian tactics because they hate freedom, or because they want to restrict individuality. They want to use those tactics to achieve the same political goals as all leftists: to abolish capitalism.
This hits on something I feel very keenly, and have boiled down to “I’ve been where you are, you’ve never been where I am.”
The point im trying to make is that there probably aren’t a lot of serious atheists who go on to convert to religion; its a cognitive step that, once made, is hard to take back.
As a former serious Atheist who could currently be described as religious, I can confirm that this is true - I do not think I have ever met anyone else who went from Atheist to Theist. In my case, it required - as you said regarding the Liberal to Communist transition - further information about the world that I lacked when I was an Atheist. Granted, I am somewhat unusual in this respect, as I was raised as an Atheist unlike most in America but - even still, it required what I perceived as hard evidence that there was more than just the material. Of course, this perceived hard evidence came in the form of personal experiences that I cannot transmit to others, as typically seems to be the case with this stuff, for better or worse.
This often also seems to be the case for the Liberal to Communist transition - I’m not sure I’ve ever seen someone actually be successfully convinced through rhetoric alone - it always requires some kind of personal experience that provides a bedrock of hard evidence that their current beliefs are inadequate for understanding and navigating the world in which they exist. After that bedrock exists - then rhetoric and reading and all that can have a meaningful effect.
Papering over anti-fascist art to make it be instead about a nonsensical anti-communist vendetta?
It’s liberal time!
three_arrows.jpg
Radlib on the train to the camps labeled “tankies”
“Excuse me, mr Nazi, sir. I think I’m not on the correct train I’m not a tankie I’m a real communist”
Radlibs do not get send to the camps, they sit in the Reichstag singing Deutschland Deutschland über alles with the fash themselves.
Yes, this is how far I got before I had to close the tab. What even is this? This means nothing. Why does it keep reappearing? How unserious can these people be?
It’s pathetic, it’s cringe. We would have much better uses for our time as leftists and this is what these people choose to spend their time on. No investigation, no engagement with the arguments or what has actually happened in history.
I just saw a newspaper page from the early 1900s yesterday where one headline just casually stated how the White terror state police had imprisoned hundreds of communists just because they opposed my country joining with the Nazis and were in good relations with the Soviet Union. Seeing a thread like this one after reading that and I just can’t.
also why is far left trademarked, makes no sense
sure it does, it’s the ‘far left’ brought to you by lockheed martin
It makes perfect sense since it’s a complete self-own.
Okay so apparently there’s a NATO trademark troll
Also, @yogthos@lemmygrad.ml, what did you do to get yourself made persona non grata over there?
Too powerful of a poster
Is this just horseshoe theory with extra steps/less braincells?
It’s horseshoe theory but I’m one of the good ones
I wish one of them would wander in here so I could ask a question:
(gonna focus on American politics here but this maps to other Western contexts) Obviously if you’re an anarchist/radical liberal/whatever you have a lot of disagreements with the “tankies.” I’m gonna assume a tankie to be someone with the views of Vijay Prashad, Losurdo, Parenti, something in that vicinity. They want a socialist state to oppress the bourgeoisie, while still maintaining some capitalist production relations as a means to develop productive forces (obviously some anti-Dengists will disagree here, but you know, general vibes). That’s a reasonable ideological disagreement. But here’s what I don’t get: the difference in what you aim to achieve is meaningful, but still quite small; whereas the difference between your goals and the Democratic Party’s goals couldn’t be more different. You want to abolish all unjust hierarchies, right? How can you be so hostile to “tankies” that wish to preserve like 20% of the unjust hierarchies you dislike, but vote for the Democratic Party which is actively preserving 100% of the hierarchies? If you have any principles at all, why are you so hostile to “tankies” yet you seem to be quite comfortable with a political party that is actively committing genocide. Are tankies not an even lesser evil? What reasoning could lead you to think that they aren’t?
The people throwing around “tankie” like this are nearly universally unaware of even their own stated political theoretical background. They hold these views because they have absorbed liberal anticommunism, including the anticommunism that their ideological predecessors absorbed and published about, like anti-Soviet propaganda that some US anarchists embraced in the 30s. Generally speaking, their complaints are not based in any coherent criticism that is actually rooted in political theory. So their entire complaint is often as ridiculoys as labeling people as authoritarian and leveraging this as a thinking-terminating cliché and throwing a tantrum when the absurdity is pointed out.
For example, there are several comments in that linked thread that are blanket declarations against hierarchy and calling themselves anarchist. There haa never been an anarchist collective that actually did anything that did not have hierarchy and being blanket opposed to all hierarchy is not, historically, an actual anarchist position. Instead, they have historically embraced a critique of hierarchy and seek to dismantle those that are unjust and most oppressive is the common theme, e.g. fighting capitalists and capitalism.
These are the “anarchists” that are just liberals with an aesthetic, not our comrades that work to dismantle oppression. They are appropriators of the tradition and are even hostile to it when you aak them to read about it. Hell, they complain about the Red Army’s suppression of Makhnovschina but get angry when you suggest reading publications by those in the Black Army when it doesn’t completely support their anticommunism.
They can be reached but I’ve only seen this irl when actual anarchists correct them.
i think the thing that keeps me on this side of the “tankie” line is I just can’t understand how anarchists plan on dealing with antagonistic capitalist states. Look at the world socialist countries exist in. You have to be decisive with putting down opposition and you should get nuclear weapons because otherwise the CIA is gonna be in there causing trouble. Without considering the realities of a communist state or whatever they want to call it coming into existence it’s just idealism.
if you want some sectarian commentary that explores this divide check out
Woah that was a good read
I’m not an anarchist myself but there’s definitely some tentative solutions to those problems. I don’t think it’s a problem with anarchism as an ideology, but with this specific type of online leftist who seems to be very preoccupied with being ideologically correct (while never reading theory) above actually carrying out meaningful actions. That’s the idealist part. The whole horizontal organizing and statelessness while still having ways to defend yourself (not sure about nuclear weapons) from hostile capitalist states I think isn’t idealism, it’s just a different way to fight capitalism from what we’ve synthesized on the “authoritarian” left.
Amazing replies (emphasis added):
If anyone wants to argue. Both want an oppressive rule that brings about very great gains to the society. Certain parts are eradicated.
All in the name of greater good.
More importantly, oppression magically skips over them.
Yes, that is fascism. Funny you ask.
The post is about removing tankies from the community and that’s justified partly on the grounds that tankies what to remove certain parts of society (fascists, counter-revolutionaries).
They’re trying to do the liberal thing of calling a particular action bad )while ignoring the target of the action)…and at the same approving of the action when their community does it.
the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: “theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron”
Great point. What I think is interesting too is that the Fedi itself, with its moderation (AuThoritarianizzzm) is a decentralized way of doing social media and it still has/turns into hierarchies.
It also ends up creating many unintended problems like these sorts of leftists defining a thing and factually suppressing discussions about it. So there is a lot of oppression in this decentralized supposedly anarchist way of organizing the internet commons. And when you claim your system is not hierarchical and has no issues, you never have to address the issues because you can always claim they don’t exist at all.
Putting the fed in fediverse.
These people are effectively liberals.
They’re in there complaining that the tankies convinced people not to vote for Holocaust Harris, I’d say they’re effectively nazis
a lot of them are scratched too
also wild how hexbear is defederated yet instances with openly transphobic admins and mods are still federated with blahaj
It’s a weird variation of
brain, imo. Dogwhistling isn’t considered violence, but saying you should use violence to defy your oppressors is unacceptable.classic @Civility posting
Exactly.
🥰
😤
Woah, there. Tone it down, please.
Sorry 😔
It’s okay. We all get overexcited sometimes.
They are effectively Nazi sympathisers.
:same-picture:
We’re such a threat to these Vaushite radlib clowns when we have no influence or power in the West, while fascists are actively winning elections everywhere. Shows you how deeply unserious they are about their “leftism”.
russian organised genocide during soviet union where they kept doing what hitler tried.
@endeavor@sopuli.xyz what the fuck are they even talking about?
You know, like when the Soviet Union continued running the third reichs concentration camps, kept sending gay people to them after ww2 had ended, staffed the civillian government with goose-steppers, poached former members of nazi high command to their new continent-spanning anti-american military organization, and spent the next several decades covertly building nazi militia networks throughout the world to put down labor organizing. You know, all those things the designated bad guys did that we rightly hate them for, like Blair Mountain and the Highway of Death. Evil commies are a threat to freedom everywhere.
Moments like this make me miss federation. I wanna get in there. Let me at em coach!
They’re talking about the time Stalin genocided Ukrainians because they had nothing left to eat after he ate all the grain with a comically large spoon.
