• SomeLemmyUser@discuss.tchncs.de
    160·
    2 years ago

    Agree with you in general, but I think a lot if people here are not really informed what differences there are materialistic ideologies.

    Yes, Stalin bad.

    But Guevara is not Stalin.

    Marx is not che

    Engels is not Marx

    China is not communist.

    Marxism is not materialism

    Socialism is not communism

    Also the amount of people bringing the “the 3 times people tried socialism were bad, so the whole ideology must be bad” argument are way to high IMHO.

    How many times was capitalism tried? How many times it worked out? Is the USA a “functioning” state with all the oppression, racism, greed, invading other countries out of monetarian interest and environment destruction?

    While I agree with you, that oppression is bad, no matter what the oppressor calls himself, we should talk about policies without resorting to dogmas and generalising people in favor of fear the hegemonic class is propagating to stay in power.

        • Vilian
          73·
          2 years ago

          or “russia is correctly in invading ukraine”

      • TrashcanMarxist@sh.itjust.works
        8·
        2 years ago

        Should probably listen to Blowback Season 3.

        Not to say they’re a perfect country but to pretend that anyone in the West can critique them when their material conditions are dictated by the actions of the West is just comical.

        If you aren’t a materialist, what are you even doing? As if history happens in the realm of pure thought…

          • TrashcanMarxist@sh.itjust.works
            5·
            2 years ago

            Something something worlds largest prison population?

            Again, it’s not like North Korea is some shining example or anything, but to pretend that the west has the moral high ground here is laughable.

            Again, listen to Blowback Season 3, recognize that their country was basically bombed to the stone age Curtis le may style and then maybe reevaluate, just a little, the chauvinist attitude.

            DPRK is not a great country but it’s not as if they were ever given a chance either.

            • Sekoia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              6·
              2 years ago

              Yeah, the US prison system is absolutely abhorrent and counterethical to all the principles it’s supposed to hold.

              First, the US is basically the only western country like that:tm:, second, more than one thing can be bad. “‘North Korea is a great country’ is a dumb position”, the only (implied) assertion I made about it in my original comment, is still true, even if they got dealt a shit hand (which, so did most of the east after WW2; South Korea was in a pretty similar state (it was actually worse than NK shortly after the Korean war), yet they’re doing… much better than NK at least).

              Being “basically bombed to the stone age” doesn’t mean a dictatorship is inevitable, nor that their government is suddenly blameless; being victimized doesn’t mean you can victimize others.

              Genuinely, if you take “the west” as a whole and compare it to North Korea… yeah, I do think they have a high ground. No, I’m not saying the west is perfect, far from it. No, I’m not saying communism is automatically bad, I’m totally cool with communists.

              Basically my base position is “a functional democracy is the governance system that works the best”. Most western states are much closer to that than North Korea (yes, I know what the Electoral College is and why it’s bad), so I do think their political system is better.

              • RedMarsRepublic@vlemmy.net
                2·
                2 years ago

                All of the so called ‘functional democracies’ of the West are abysmal, China has 94% government satisfaction where I doubt there’s one western country over 50% (and the US is at 24%)

              • TrashcanMarxist@sh.itjust.works
                1·
                2 years ago

                I still wonder why you’re so obsessed with North Korea. It’s not like the South wasn’t also a dictatorship until very recently. I wonder what the difference in economic outcomes was. Surely not the political system but instead the different material conditions between south and north i.e. embargo and isolation.

                Again, I don’t think that NK is the best example of AES, in fact their country is probably the worst. But I don’t think the people who have produced the economic emisseration of the country and have worked to undermine its regime at every term get to scold them about their political choices.

                Why should democracy be privileged when the choices of that democracy, at least internationally, are immoral. Should we praise democracy when it produces an evil outcome? Why are you so wedded to a system? After all democracy produces trans and drag bans in the south. Is that good? This isn’t to say dictatorship is superior, I don’t think it necessarily is, but to pretend the virtue is in the system rather than the outcome is pretty lib. If democracy produces fascism is it still good? If we throw our trans friends or homeless into the wood chipper because voters say it’s good with 51% of the vote, does that legitimate it?

            • IriYan@lemmy.world
              1·
              1 year ago

              The country that holds the record for number and percentage of people in prison is the US. In the US the percentage of black people in prison was higher than the percentage of black people in prison in South Africa during apartheid.

              No other western/industrialized (at some stage) nation has had so many political exilees and people whose citizenship was revoked based on “anti-american” views than the US. At some point the general secretary of RCP was in exile in France with his citizenship revoked. So, not all states are equal, and their historic development as modern capitalist states should be studied within context.

    • SuddenDownpour@lemmy.world
      74·
      2 years ago

      When a liberal says “tankie” they mean anything remotely communist-looking. When a leftist says “tankie”, they mean authoritarians who like red flags and self-proclaimed communists who nonetheless support hierarchies and have no plan or intention to bring them down. I think the vast majority of people here knows this already.

    • 𝔊𝔦𝔫𝔧𝔲𝔱𝔰𝔲@lemmy.world
      43·
      2 years ago

      Is the USA a “functioning” state with all the oppression, racism, greed, invading other countries out of monetarian interest and environment destruction?

      I hope you realize that this is an incredibly privileged take. The US is rife with issues, but the hardships experienced by the average western citizen doesn’t even compare to the suffering that you would find in, say, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, or (to a less extreme extent) Maduro’s Venezuela. To compare what a US citizen deals with on a daily basis due to capitalism to what a citizen of any of those countries had to go through is very reductive and may be perceived as disrespectful to many who had to live those experiences.

      • Definitely_me@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        22·
        2 years ago

        The United States, for all it’s faults, is the pretty side of capitalism.you don’t even need to look to the most poor countries to see a standard of living that makes even directly post ww2 soviet union look like a great place.

      • proletariatnerd@iusearchlinux.fyi
        22·
        2 years ago

        The US is rife with issues, but the hardships experienced by the average western citizen doesn’t even compare to the suffering that you would find in, say, Pol Pot’s Cambodia

        I have some fellas from Detroit that would disagree.

      • SomeLemmyUser@discuss.tchncs.de
        8·
        2 years ago

        1. Im not from USA, and from my point of view its mich worse than most other countries (no healthcare, no independend courts, murder sprees in schools nearly every day, opression of half of the world (a half of them just to get more oil to destroy the planet faster), one of 3 of the biggest war-pushers in whole earth, polutes and destroys earth mode than every other country per citizens, etc. PP.)

        2. capitalism mostly opresses and profits from people out of the country to Funktion. if its Bad in Venezuela or Cuba or Afghanistan, or even early russia, thats at least partly fault of US.

        3. Venezuela is not communism, China isnt, russia isnt. Most of them have failed, at least partly because caputalist societys atack them and stop a as soon as they are born and they can’t form a stable democracy. Before reading Marx, your bashing of communism isnt worth anything, as you clearly don’t understand what you are talking about. We never had communism, and some would say not even socialism. You sound like you don’t even know the difference, since you keep talking about communism, which is a utopian society after humanity has stopped a lot of bad habits and has learned to live without working against each other in competition and working together instead, which arises maybe after generations of workig socialism, which we clearly didn’t have.

        4.you exactly prove my point. I dont agree with tankies either, but the number of people around here blindly copying capitalist propaganda while understanding nothing they bash about is too damm high.

        • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
          2·
          2 years ago

          You have a warped view of USA that doesn’t reflect reality. You’re seeing it through the lens of sensationalist news media and hyperventilating social media posts.

          The actual reality for Americans is that it’s a vast, beautiful land with an amazing spectrum of various experience. Violent crime is rare overall, and most Americans have never seen or heard any gun violence in person. Health care is available to pretty much everyone, even if you don’t have money. We have state-run healthcare facilities that the poor can make use of like county health departments.

          My life in the USA is great, because I don’t live in a big city. I live on my own land, in a nice house that I own, and I’m just middle class income level. It’s pretty easy to accomplish if you choose a low cost of living area rather than a big metropolis or suburb thereof.

      • Cynosure@lemmy.world
        2·
        2 years ago

        Well of course the standard of living in the imperial core is higher than the countries it has exploited or destabilized. A lot of American wealth is the fruit of imperialism.

    • deltec@lemmy.world
      4·
      2 years ago

      Seems weird that you want to ignore the fact that communism has never worked once lol

  • BlinkerFluid@lemmy.one
    722·
    2 years ago

    Thank fuck. I thought Lemmy was some ultra militant leftist hellhole before the shift.

    I don’t like extreme radical left any more than extreme radical right.

    Fuck Che Guevara. Read a book.

            • river@lemmy.world
              6·
              2 years ago

              the US state department dogma must be a much better read😌

              lmao

              How will you perform a non-authoritarian revolution? How will you quash racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.? By being polite?

              the main idea is dual power structures. spreading awareness, and people will do whats necessary, mobilize, organize, all that fun stuff. if u can teach people about the struggles of marginalized groups, they will be able to recognize it in their own lives and stand up against it.

              Or are you going to vote us towards communism🤩

              and there wont be a need for political parties to enforce “compliance”, people are naturally empathetic. well not all people, but the vast majority.

              And I have plenty more books, but go on🤗

              try “Are you an anarchist? the answer might surprise you” by David Graeber, if ur ever looking for something else.

              or “Anarchy works” by Peter Gelderloos for a more comprehensive description of these ideas.

        • ATGM 🚀@beehaw.org
          3·
          2 years ago

          Do you know its possible to read books and disagree with them?

          The ML obsession with treating books as religious tomes is getting tiring.

      • BlinkerFluid@lemmy.one
        18·
        2 years ago

        Is being a good tactician and being a genocidal, totalitarian extremist an oil and water situation?

        He can be both.

  • animelivesmatter@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    60·
    2 years ago

    finds social media developed by tankies

    looks inside

    finds tankies

    fr I’m down with having a good old purge eventually but noone should be surprised

  • buckykat@lemmy.fmhy.ml
    57·
    2 years ago

    What are some good actual communist lemmy communities that aren’t supporting the fucking capitalist imperialist russian invasion?

    • WabiSabiPapi@lemmy.world
      31·
      2 years ago

      look for anarchists if you desire a classless, stateless, moneyless society.

      communism has been coopted by auth apologists infatuated with the color red.

        • Silverstrings@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          19·
          2 years ago

          There are an infinite variety of flavors of socialism, at some point you gotta learn to find folks you don’t disagree with on anything too important. In my experience anarchists are generally chill.

        • WabiSabiPapi@lemmy.world
          9·
          2 years ago

          https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-are-you-an-anarchist-the-answer-may-surprise-you

          anarchism acknowledges Marxist theory, but rejects the need for a state/beaurocratic apparatus, as it is considered to be fundamentally oppressive.

          the state is an abstraction of capital, and cannot liberate the working class, as it exists to perpetuate its own hegemonic existence, our subjugation.

          governance need not be heirarchichal; I promote collective mutual determination as an egalitarian system by which society can organize.

          can’t dismantle the master’s house with the master’s tools

          • kartonrealista@lemmy.world
            5·
            2 years ago

            governance need not be heirarchichal; I promote collective mutual determination as an egalitarian system by which society can organize.

            I don’t. I don’t think all hierarchies are unjust, I evaluate them based on their effect on the world. If a hierarchy can solve a problem better, it’s the preferable solution.

            Everyone believes they are capable of behaving reasonably themselves. If they think laws and police are necessary, it is only because they don’t believe that other people are. But if you think about it, don’t those people all feel exactly the same way about you?

            But what if we all have a different idea of what behaving reasonably means?

            Anarchists argue that almost all the anti-social behavior which makes us think it’s necessary to have armies, police, prisons, and governments to control our lives, is actually caused by the systematic inequalities and injustice those armies, police, prisons and governments make possible.

            That’s silly. Systemic inequalities don’t make people park their vehicles on the bike path or murder their wife because they think she cheated on them. If anarchism is all about thinking people are angels unless bad, bad oppressive systems make them do evil things they couldn’t do on their own then I don’t think we’ll ever get along. It’s alternate reality and an incredibly naive way of looking at the world and human nature.

            Edit: could you kindly not respond to this? I don’t have an option to silence this thread on my end, and don’t want to hear about it any further.

          • archon@dataterm.digital
            3·
            2 years ago

            I promote collective mutual determination as an egalitarian system by which society can organize.

            In practice, direct democracy? Or, how would that work - how would we organize society? Positions would still need to be held, no? Roles appointed, decisions made, lines drawn. No one can be up-to-date on all matters in their local nor global environment. And certainly not at the same point in time. How would anything work with any cohesiveness?

            Sorry to be so dismissive, I’m actually kinda curious on your thoughts. Only ways I see are AI governance or a hive mind. Not sure about either tbh.

          • IriYan@lemmy.world
            1·
            1 year ago

            anarchism acknowledges Marxist theory, but rejects the need for a state/beaurocratic apparatus, as it is considered to be fundamentally oppressive.

            Acknowledges Marxist theory as much as acknowledging Newtonian gravitational theory may be a way to put it. Most of the ones I know either accept Marxist general theory as a whole, non-critically, and the rest are anti-communist/anti-marxist idealists, as much as any fascist would be. Because the true essence and reason for the existence of fascism is anti-communism.

            There are many social relations that are oppressive, why limit it to state? Parents are oppressive, teachers, professors, bosses, cops, military higher officers, spouses, parents in law, … prison guards … they are all oppressive. Is it just the state? Is it a different class of people who oppress from those being oppressed?

            the state is an abstraction of capital, and cannot liberate the working class, as it exists to perpetuate its own hegemonic existence, our subjugation.

            Between the late 1800s and early 1900s the state became an insurer of labor law and justice, the welfare state was born, rights to pension, an 8hr day, sick leave, vacation, overtime pay, were all provided and were promised by the state. So we can say the state backed off and became hostile to capital. Between struggle (labor syndicalism) and the capitalist state there was a dialectic transformation, the social democracy was born. Today the state has absolutely surrendered to the powers of the banking financial world system, made out of a handful of banks and financial institutions mainly based in NY, London, Frankfurt, Paris, maybe even in HKong, Tokyo, to a lesser extent. All states owe to private global markets to such a degree that just one or two clicks down on their bond ratings and they are bankrupt and in the hands of IMF and other bankers to implement the most vicious neo-liberal reform anyone can imagine.

            This means that when leninists propose on taking over a state that just means removing it from the markets and sentencing the population to starvation and misery. “Abolishing the state” is just as suicidal. Should there be a thing like political responsibility for genocide proposed by pseudo revolutionaries, who want to enforce their fantasy on people already suffering because of capitalism?

            governance need not be heirarchichal; I promote collective mutual determination as an egalitarian system by which society can organize.

            As long as you speak of “a system” you imply, like it or not, a centralized system, a system that supervises whether the system is implemented correctly or not. That constitutes an authority. Whether this authority and enforcement is conducted by “anti-authoritarians” who as a minority forced their terms and conditions on a society, we are speaking of a revolutionary vanguard, an authoritarian force over the entire society (under the state and within state borders).

            By the way, the collapse of the Syrian state had a gradual effect of Turkey moving sourth, Israel and Libanon moving further east, Iran moving west, I am uncleat of Jordan is taking a piece of the pie, and some Iraqi authorities are eyeballing the Kurdish management of some areas they would like to grub as well. So by abolishing a state these days the remaining states in the globe legitimize the neighbors all grubbing a piece without anyone being a state to protest. Assad’s only friend is too busy fighting the entirety of NATO playing a game on the heads of the residents of ex-Ukraine.

            can’t dismantle the master’s house with the master’s tools

            As long as your focus is to destroy and dismantle instead of constructing an alternative and an escape route from capitalism you will be condemned by history as a force of nothing beneficial to humanity.

            As long as you preach -isms- from a high tower looking down on people without ideology, and you refuse to accept that the dialectic between leninism and libertarianism has already materialized, that more than a million people have been living OUTSIDE of capitalism, in autonomous communities, for nearly 30years (this next new year’s eve), decide in their communities EVERYTHING about their own lives, mostly using consensus, and their federation (2 levels) is designed to serve the community not to dictate to the community, you are more authoritarian and stuck up than you really think. Now these people have liberated themselves from capitalism, they live outside it, they are unaffected by it, other by having to fend off some para-military attacks here and there 2-3 times a year, their values and principles are even more strict than the early 1900s CNT constitution, and they laugh really hard and stick a finger up to all revolutionary vanguards, but you keep speaking hypothetically, what if society did this and that and the other thing.

            If you want to be heard, you should be looking up to indigenous peasants, farmers, not down. If you want the residents of the favela to follow bureaucrats and academics to social change, you are in worse shape and dillusion than the average tankies. If you want children industrial workers in SE Asia to look up to your ideology and rhetoric, to buy your story, I assure you they think you are dumber than they are.

            Who gives a flying ** what “anarchism” acknowledges.

          • kartonrealista@lemmy.world
            2·
            2 years ago

            I don’t know how any of that applies to what I said here.

            Edit: I skimmed through the text on the first read because I was sleepy. After reading more carefully I guess you’re agreeing with me somewhat: yes, the necessity for certain types of organization in specific situations is why I dislike anarchism.

            I don’t know why a certain ineffective administrative model would have to be coupled with a more equitable economic model. Although I didn’t want to argue that point, rather express a preference.

      • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
        5·
        2 years ago

        communism has been coopted by auth apologists infatuated with the color red.

        Which happened almost instantly. I don’t have much hope that other radical leftist movements will fare much better.

    • Captain Minnette@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      21·
      2 years ago

      I’m on the FMHY instance and the only political ideology community that’s been showing up in my feed has been Anarchism, so it’s probably the instance to join if you’re libleft and don’t want to deal with Auth shit.

          • Discoslugs@lemmy.world
            21·
            2 years ago

            Okay Stalin’s Moustache,

            Listen there’s more kinds of people than liberals tankies, and fascists.

            There are also anarchist who can critizes these three groups ( and others) with out being within them.

            I have no problem with ML and other comrades of various flavors but if your going to be really Into to stalin your not going to be working with me.

            You should read about the Spanish civil war.

              • Discoslugs@lemmy.world
                4·
                2 years ago

                Sure. There are plenty of people who are anarchists, who are people I would not work with. Like armchair anarchists.

                And the word “tankie” does get used by armchair anarchists A lot often inappropriatly.

                But still tankie is a valid crique of Red fascism.

                And if you are a person who believes In communism, and can see it’s benefits but are unable to see it’s faults your probably a tankie.

                Please remember on multiple instances The Soviets turned their back on anarchists. Like in the Spanish civil war.

          • Silverstrings@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            20·
            2 years ago

            To tankies fascist means opposing whatever flavor of authoritarian “communism” they prefer regardless of the reasons or context. This conveniently allows any number of pogroms, mass slaughters or engineered famines to be reframed as anti-fascist action, rather than a brutal expression of state power at the expense of the working class.

          • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
            16·
            2 years ago

            Then what would you have me call people who make excuses for invasion, oppression, and genocide just because it was committed by the Russian or Chinese government instead of a western one?

        • Frod@lemmy.world
          6·
          2 years ago

          “tankies” criticize the Soviet union, you know? They also criticize the ebil See See Pee but apparently there’s no room for nuance

          • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
            20·
            2 years ago

            What’s your definition of “tankie”? If you’re willing to call out Putin’s homophobic journalist murdering authoritarian bullshit and the Chinese government’s massacring of protesters and genociding of ethnic minorities you’re not a tankie imo, you’re just a communist.

              • aski3252@lemmy.world
                28·
                2 years ago

                Westerners slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for decades on end, and it was fine because we labeled them all terrorists.

                No, it wasn’t fine, that’s kinda the point… It isn’t fine when the west does it, it’s not fine when others do it too…

                • ATGM 🚀@beehaw.org
                  9·
                  2 years ago

                  It’s pretty typical tankie behavior that we’re seeing.

                  When you say it’s bad that Stalin implemented genocidal policies such as against the Krim Tartars, Kalmykks and other ethnic groups, they come back with wHaT aBoUt aMeRiCa.

                  They know that both things can be bad, but they have similar incentives to right-fascists. That is to say they’re liars.

    • HornyOnMain🏳️‍⚧️@lemmy.ml
      5·
      2 years ago

      didn’t they have a problem with people doing alt-right dogwhistles about anti-white racism recently? and it got so bad that they had to make a mod announcement telling people to stop doing it and all of the users started trying to explain to the mods how it definitely wasn’t a right wing dogwhistle

      • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
        34·
        2 years ago

        Isn’t “authoritarian communist” kind of an oxymoron? 😂 like the whole point of communism is that there isn’t a ruling class. I guess Russia and China were never really communist, just statist authoritarian right? I mean, the Nazis called themselves Socialist. They were nowhere near that

        • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
          31·
          2 years ago

          Isn’t “authoritarian communist” kind of an oxymoron?

          Yes. Yes, it is. I sometimes call them “pseudocommunists” for this reason.

        • ImplyingImplications
          24·
          2 years ago

          Isn’t “authoritarian communist” kind of an oxymoron?

          Most real life implementations of communism used an authoritarian one party system. You can say these aren’t true examples of communism, but that just ends up sounding like cope unfortunately.

          • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
            10·
            2 years ago

            Fair point. Though so far, there hasn’t really been any system at all that didn’t lead to genocide and/or class based opression. From monarchs to feudal Lords to capitalist oligarchies and communist dictators, terrible people always rise to the top.

        • blackbelt352@lemmy.sdf.org
          17·
          2 years ago

          As how Marx outlined Communism as the evolution of Capitalism once it reaches a scale of production that everyone can have their needs met, resulting in a classless, stateless, moneyless society, then yes authoritarian communist is an oxymoron.

        • learning2Draw
          6·
          2 years ago

          Communism must be enforced somehow, it just ends up being authoritarian because of that

          • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
            19·
            2 years ago

            The same can be said for capitalism though.

            Capitalism must be enforced somehow, it ends up being an oligarchy or authoritarian because of that.

            • learning2Draw
              11·
              2 years ago

              Not sure I disagree, necessarily, but that’s the answer to your question.

              it’s also not an either or situation

        • Coryneform@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          6·
          2 years ago

          well socialism has the proletariat as the ruling class, this is true in Marxism & anarchism even if anarchists word it differently

          • ATGM 🚀@beehaw.org
            20·
            2 years ago

            The party leaders are not proletarian, but rather become part of a class of privileged bureaucrats.

            • Coryneform@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              2·
              2 years ago

              there’s a trend towards that, which can be combatted & has been by communist parties. Stalin had a pretty incoherent plan to combat rightist tendencies within the communist party, assuming the problem stemmed from external meddling. Mao actually shared your view in that bureaucracy rots socialism, and that it needs to be decreased as the people are helped towards being self reliant, ready to self manage the economy & have suitable industry to run the country with. that’s why the cultural revolution happened, to fight bureaucracy

              • ATGM 🚀@beehaw.org
                14·
                2 years ago

                And yet in spite of the few positive things contributions Mao made, and some of the things he got right, he still positioned himself culturally to take up the position 'benign and distant emperor. Much as the contemporary regime prefers to pin all the horrors of the Cultural Revolution on the Gang of Four, many of Mao’s ideas themselves were harmful (such as wholesale and universal destruction of old culture).

                Marxism-Leninism and its party structure has shown itself, in practice and historically, as being unable to resist this impulse to corruption and autocracy. It was Bolshevik counterrevolution that destroyed the power of the Worker’s and Soldier’s Soviets in Russia, Soviet counterrevolution that invaded Ukraine during its revolution, and then again Leninist party counterrevolution that prevented any of the (few) positive aspects of the cultural revolution from blossoming into anything useful.

                Vanguard parties are counter productive, and counter revolutionary. The French revolution gives us the same lesson, as the Jacobin counter-revolutionary terror (with the oh-so-popular guillotine mostly used on the poor) created the space for reactionary backlash.

                The centralization of power is, therefore, a counter-revolutionary impulse. Humans being are not suited for the rule and management of others. Only a revolution that truly returns power to the people has any chance of lasting. That’s why even the flawed and imperfect Kurdish revolutionaries of Rojava are sustaining the social and cultural infrastructure for revolution, while Marxists, Maoists and other authoritarian communists world-wide consistently either degrade into bandits and terrorists, or form corrupt and reactionary power-structures.

          • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
            16·
            2 years ago

            The proletariat are by definition the majority. The Soviet Union was by no means ruled by the majority. Stalin murdered millions to enforce his autocracy—the exact opposite of majority rule.

            • WabiSabiPapi@lemmy.world
              8·
              2 years ago

              just to chime in with an anarchist perspective-- majority rule, as lionized by proponents of liberal democracies, is itself a form of heirarchy in which the will of an ostensible ‘majority’ (though usually that of the capital- owning class actually) is inflicted upon society as a whole, alienating the minority position, enforced by the state apparatus’ monopoly of violence.

              if one values bodily autonomy, reconciled with the needs of the collective, a system of governance like mutual collective determination must be established which guarantees that all voices are heard and acknowledged.

        • peanuts4life@beehaw.org
          71·
          2 years ago

          Both. Fascist apologist like to cherry pick palatable characteristics of figures like Stalin, or Hitler, or Andrew Jackson in order to destigmatize thier idolatry of these figures. These “certain aspects” are the tip of the wedge they use to destroy rationality and peace.

          A reasonable person who would like to discuss the benefits of communism would point to the value of labor, advantages of unions, and the dignity of the worker, not the evil, paranoid, and violent person of Stalin.

          Always, the stink of fascism follows the idolization of so called “great men.” Excuses after excuses.

            • peanuts4life@beehaw.org
              631·
              2 years ago

              The Holocaust most definitely happened and was perpetuated by the Nazis. Please don’t accuse me of denial.

              Communism, or to be most specific, Marxism, was most definitely aligned against Hitler.

              Stalin, was not. He would have watched Hitler kill all of Europe had the Nazis not attacked Russia. Same as the united states if Japan had not attacked them.

                • peanuts4life@beehaw.org
                  481·
                  2 years ago

                  I’m not obsessed with Stalin. I’m also not a Holocaust denier. You really seem keen on saying inflammatory things about me without any preceding context.

                  I will observe that I think Stalin was an awful person who tarnished the reputation of socialism for a century. I don’t have anything against socialist, being one myself.

                  I have a beef with apologist for failed communist states like the soviet onion. I feel they deeply misrepresent socialism.

                • SuddenDownpour@lemmy.world
                  25·
                  2 years ago

                  Your historical notes are technically correct, and Stalin did even attempt to reach a pact with France to limit the potential expansion of Nazi Germany. However, once those initiatives failed, Stalin had no issue about pacting with Hitler instead to invade third countries together, which highlights how Stalin’s first priority was improving his geopolitical position, rather than an ideological opposition to nazism.

                • Quereller@lemmy.one
                  18·
                  2 years ago

                  Do you deny the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact and the illegal attack on Poland by the Soviet union under its leader Josef Stalin?

            • peanuts4life@beehaw.org
              28·
              2 years ago

              I am of the strong opinion that fascism doesn’t care if you call yourself a communist, a capitalist, or a Democrat. If someone promotes a state which strips the power of local and individual labor for it’s own use; cultivates violence as a means of domestic control; supports expansionism; and finally the consolidation of power under a personality; I oppose it, and call it what it is.

                • peanuts4life@beehaw.org
                  16·
                  2 years ago

                  My comments are split now, so I’ll let you read my other one. I would just like to emphasize that I consider myself a socialist, and that it’s not really that vague of a criteria for the purposes of an Internet argument. It’s just broad. I believe all current world superpowers current share elements of fascism which I despise and oppose.

            • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
              20·
              2 years ago

              And then they killed millions of people to enforce Stalin’s autocracy. How, exactly, is that better than Hitler?

            • Fizz@lemmy.nz
              7·
              2 years ago

              Because they were attacked. Otherwise they would have happily sat out of ww2.

                • Fizz@lemmy.nz
                  8·
                  2 years ago

                  Did you finish your book halfway through? Hitler and Stalin formed an alliance shortly after the Spanish civil war. Even though Hitler referred to Slavic people as untermench Stalin still signed treaties because they were at the end of the day both Fascist Authoritarian dictators and dont give a single fuck about committing crimes against humanity.

              • yuritopia@lemmy.world
                2·
                2 years ago

                Nazism as an ideology set out to eradicate those seen as impure, and two of the most prominent of those targeted groups were communists and Slavic people. Hitler literally wanted to kill everyone who identified as a socialist. To think that the USSR was unaware or tolerant of this fact is a truly awful take.

                • Fizz@lemmy.nz
                  7·
                  2 years ago

                  Wow a commie who doesnt know history, not surprising. Firstly I never said USSR didnt know what Germany was doing, I said they didnt care. This is backed up by history. Yes Hitler hated the soviets and they probably disliked him to but they tolerated him and his crimes against humanity enough to form an alliance and work together. A little timeline of events to refresh your memory: 1939 USSR signs a non aggression pact with Germany. This pact includes plans to divide eastern europe between USSR and Germany, a clause that prevents the USSR from allying or aiding enemies of Germany. Shortly after Germany and the USSR double team Poland and split it up between them. After Stalin used the attack to capture a few eastern european countries he asked to join the Axis powers treaty. Stalin was warned multiple times that Germany was preparing to backstab him but rejected the warnings as he thought they were so allies. After it was confirm that Hitler had betrayed him he spent several days sulking in his holiday house refusing to communicate with his generals.

                  There is no way you can reasonably say that USSR disapproved of Hitlers action and Ideology. The only thing he would have had an issue with is that Hitler hated slavic people. He was even willing to put that aside because they both had authoritarianism in common.

        • Silverstrings@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          20·
          2 years ago

          The fundamental problem of tankies is that they forget the whole point of socialism is making people’s lives better, not getting revenge on the hated capitalists. If you create an oppressive hellscape in the process of destroying capitalism then you’ve failed.

              • IriYan@lemmy.world
                1·
                1 year ago

                state means centralization of power, and in a classless society what class and who would represent it in this centralization of power?

        • ATGM 🚀@beehaw.org
          33·
          2 years ago

          And Stalinist, Maoists, and other authoritarian Communists.

          Usually they also “love” countries like North Korea, China, and for whatever reason (aNtI iMpErIaLiSm), Syria, Russia, and so on.

          Red Fascists. They use the same tactics of gas lighting and goal post shifting.

          • Coryneform@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            3·
            2 years ago

            maoists??? I think you should read anything by mao. he was anything but “authoritarian”, he spend most of his time after 1949 taking a sledgehammer to bureaucracy & encouraging communities to be self reliant

            • ATGM 🚀@beehaw.org
              8·
              2 years ago

              And also going around making lunatic declaration, indifferent to the human suffering he was causing.

      • proletariatnerd@iusearchlinux.fyi
        4·
        2 years ago

        So, people who love North Korea, or defend russia invading Ukraine, people, who stand by even the most autoritarian, anti-democratic, militaristic, imperialistic regimes - just because they call themselves “socialist” or “communist” - are “Tankies”.

        Would be good to point out these people you are mentioning are not all the same.

        There are people that Are critical of Russia, but don’t buy from western propaganda and are being called tankies too.

        It is more like, if one dare to question the western narrative = tankie.

        • river@lemmy.world
          13·
          2 years ago

          but don’t buy from western propaganda

          i.e. are critical of russia, but stand by even the most autoritarian, anti-democratic, militaristic, imperialistic regimes - just because they call themselves “socialist” or “communist”, except for russias invasion of ukraine

    • limbo99@lemmy.ml
      11·
      2 years ago

      It’s the prog-lib equivalent of woke. It’s used dismiss leftists with out engaging with our arguments. The term has lite ideological or argumentative use.

      • Darorad@lemmy.world
        38·
        2 years ago

        Libs use it that way, actual leftists use it to describe fascists that think they’re on the left and like red flags.

          • Silverstrings@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            12·
            2 years ago

            If you’re in a position where you can freely oppress the capitalist class then you’ve already supplanted them and become the capitalist class.

            • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
              3·
              2 years ago

              Without a state to enforce environmental regulations, how do you intend to defend your community from pollution? By attacking the polluters with guns? They have guns, too. Probably more guns than you do, since pollution is so profitable.

              Without a state to defend against invasion, what’s going to stop some other country from marching in and enslaving you? Small arms won’t protect you from a modern military; only a modern military of your own will, and without a state, who will command it?

              Without a state to enforce mutual aid, what’s going to stop others from withholding it while taking yours? By the expectation that no one will be so greedy as to withhold needed aid? Then your proposed system will fail almost immediately. By some sort of aid credit that groups of people exchange equally in order to ensure that aid given equals aid received? Congratulations, you have invented capitalism.

              The state apparatus exists for a reason. It has of course been abused, but we can’t simply get rid of it and expect everything to be fine, or else we’d have already gotten rid of it a long time ago.

      • PlasmaK@lemmy.ml
        6·
        2 years ago

        Yes, because lunatics that support dictators just because they have wrapped a red flag around themselves and drop occasional buzzword are totally leftists.

  • LemmyAtem@beehaw.org
    35·
    2 years ago

    Honest question - what’s a tankie? I feel like I’ve seen them mentioned a ton on Lemmy but I’d never heard the term prior to a few days ago. From the image it looks like a maga/skinhead combo?

    • SirSnufflelump@lemmy.world
      94·
      2 years ago

      They’re communists, but not your every day “people should hold the power” communists. More like “tianenmen never happened, and if it did it wasn’t that bad” type

    • agreyworld@lemmy.world
      90·
      2 years ago

      Tankie was first used for that kind of communist supporter who kept singing Russia’s praises/defending Russia even when Russia was sent 5000 tanks to crush a popular uprising in Czechoslovakia (the “Prague Spring”) on August 20, 1968. Some people just couldn’t accept that a communist country could do something bad, so defended the action.

      Nowadays, it’s used to refer to those that are strongly supportive of Russia, completely ignoring the awful things they do. Often these days there’s a lot of anti American bent to it. Like, anything anti America and American “imperialism” must be good - even blatant and awful Russian Imperialism.

      These days they calmly explain how Ukraine just needs to come to the table and discuss peace (ignoring that Ukraine wouldn’t exist if they did so) and blame America for the war in Ukraine for… well… they’re America. The people who want war, or are causing the war, are those giving Ukraine weapons - not the country that is literally invading it.

      • atlasraven31@lemm.ee
        23·
        2 years ago

        Thanks for the explanation. I believe they are also called Rashists, at least Ukrainians call them that.

      • Coryneform@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        9·
        2 years ago

        I think a better term is “Campist” which is the trend within revisionist marxists to side with one imperialist camp to oppose another. it’s the same shit the SPD did during WW1

    • aski3252@lemmy.world
      33·
      2 years ago

      Originally, it was used to describe communists who followed the party line and supported suppressing Hungarian workers with tanks.

      Today it means ultra-authoritarian marxist-leninist.

        • h34d@feddit.de
          15·
          2 years ago

          It’s not entirely the same though. Some of the “tankies” in the West seem to be Maoists more than Stalinists, as far as I can tell. Besides, some (many?) Stalinists also consider the term “Stalinist” derogatory, and prefer to call themselves “Marxist-Leninists”.

          • 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de
            5·
            2 years ago

            Ok but let’s not pretend that either Marx or Lenin envisaged their form of communism as what Stalin was doing

            It’s no different to “free speech” suddenly meaning “free hate speech, but restricted speech on anything else”

      • Silverstrings@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        25·
        2 years ago

        Concrete views like the idea that the government being able to jail dissenters at will is bad? That unlimited state power inevitably leads to authoritarianism? That labeling yourself socialist doesn’t necessarily mean you’re actually a socialist state?

      • parlaptie@feddit.de
        19·
        2 years ago

        You’re so insufferably cocksure in your positions everywhere else, but when someone honestly asks what a tankie is, you just get defensive and can’t master up the courage to just say what it is that you stand for? I really get the impression that you’re just here to stir up shit.