15
fuck tankies rule (lemmy.world)
top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] toomanyjoints69@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 year ago

I remember once building a nice charity program that would make meals for homeless people. I had deluded myself into thinking I was building some kind of revolution or whatever.

I had a book club where we all read theory, and it basically was just a tacked on addition to the food charity.

It was really stupid, but it also broke my heart when a guy deliberately sabotaged it because I was a tankie. It was set up in a very level way where we all basically took turns being the coordinator. He intentionally did nothing and told everyone that each role for that week (driver, cook, etc) was filled. Then when the day for distribution came he laughed about how it wasn't going to happen.

I had to buy like 10 pizzas that day, and I remember not having internet because those pizzas were my bill money. The group kept functioning for a while until it fizzled out, but not because of him.

Most people of all political leanings were willing to help me with my stupid idea, but not that guy. I think about that a lot.

Mutual aide is not really the issue with tankies, the problem is the authoritarianism. Mutual aide can be very effective when done properly. For example, anarchists tend to answer the question of "leeches" by giving them the resources to self-actualize, and if the "leech" does not care to do that, they can be kicked out of an anarchist community.

[-] TheGreatSpoon@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Authoritarianism isn't a thing. No state wants to suppress dissent.

Dissent is suppressed when it needs to be because there's foreign powers trying to destabilize your state. Like when the most powerful country in the world creates a Central Intelligence Agency with the overt purpose of eradicating communism. Which they did covertly through the funding of internal dissent, terrorism and sabotage of infrastructure.

Unless you think the CIA just twiddled their thumbs for 70 years, of course. In that case I recommend reading the book 'Killing Hope' by William Blum.

[-] LambdaDuck@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago

wait, so you’re saying that even the fascist states (e.g. the nazis) were only trying to defend themselves against foreign powers trying to destabilize their state? or am i misinterpreting you?

a state doesn’t have a mind of its own, it consists of people and those people are often power-hungry and do actively want to suppress dissent regardless of what would be good for the state. the whole point of socialism is to dismantle hierarchies, but by placing a powerful leader without accountability on the top you have undermined the whole concept

maybe cia actions were what caused them to be authoritarian, but that doesn’t excuse their actions in any way. the moment they became authoritarian, cia had already defeated socialism

suppressing “dissent” in the form of e.g. refusing to follow laws about distribution of resources (within reason) is one thing, but suppressing dissenting voices is a whole different thing altogether and those two shouldn’t be lumped together in one category. the former is a part of the normal job of a state while the latter is authoritarianism

I am trying to be as respectful as possible here, but saying that authoritarianism doesn't exist is an absolutely insane take. Obviously the CIA did a lot to try and stop communism, we all know that. And why wouldn't a state want to suppress dissent, do you think that all "communist" regimes were these perfect, do nothing wrong utopias? Of course a state wants to suppress dissent, it gives them more control over their people, Governments are greedy, even if they claim to be communist. I don't think the extent of mass surveillance, forced propaganda, censorship, and imprisonment could be justified by "stopping a foreign entity. Here are some examples of the things authoritarian "communist" regimes did to supposedly "fight foreign powers".

Soviet Union (USSR): Under the leadership of Joseph Stalin, the Soviet Union carried out numerous purges and suppressions of dissent. The Great Purge in the late 1930s resulted in the execution or imprisonment of millions of people, including political opponents, intellectuals, military officers, and ordinary citizens accused of disloyalty or counter-revolutionary activities. The state employed the secret police, censorship, forced labor camps (Gulags), and surveillance to maintain control and suppress dissent.

People's Republic of China: The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has a long history of suppressing dissent. During the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), Mao Zedong mobilized student groups known as the Red Guards to target intellectuals, artists, and political opponents. Many individuals were persecuted, imprisoned, or killed. In more recent times, the Chinese government has tightened control over the media, the internet, and social media platforms, censoring content, monitoring online activities, and imprisoning activists and dissidents who challenge the party's authority.

Cuba: The Cuban government under Fidel Castro and his successors has been known for suppressing dissent. The regime has restricted freedom of speech, assembly, and the press, controlling the media and limiting access to information. Independent journalists, activists, and political opponents have been subject to harassment, imprisonment, and surveillance. The government also tightly controls access to the internet and social media platforms.

North Korea: The totalitarian regime in North Korea, led by the Kim family, has implemented strict controls on information and dissent. The state maintains a pervasive surveillance system and enforces ideological conformity through propaganda, censorship, and forced indoctrination. Any form of dissent or criticism of the regime is severely punished, with individuals and even entire families sent to political prison camps.

East Germany: During the existence of the German Democratic Republic (GDR), the ruling Socialist Unity Party suppressed dissent through surveillance, censorship, and repression. The Ministry for State Security, commonly known as the Stasi, maintained a vast network of informants and spies to monitor citizens' activities and control dissent. The government restricted travel, controlled the media, and imprisoned those who challenged the state's authority.

Most suppression of dissent was done to citizens of the state. If you think that any of this can be justified by "fighting foreign powers", you are absolutely delusional.

[-] TheGreatSpoon@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You start by saying you want to be 'respectful'. You end up calling me 'absolutely delusional'. It seems you can't even be consistent in your own behavior. Do you think Einstein was delusional as well? (Source: Born-Einstein Letters)

Again, I recommend you read the book 'Killing Hope' by William Blum to properly contextualize the response of socialist states, including the ones you brought up that to be frank read like ChatGPT prompts, if you truly come here to talk in good faith.

Authority exists. It exists everywhere. That's what states are. What doesn't exist is this idea of a state that has more authority over its country than other states. Every state has a monopoly of power by definition. That's what allows a state to define its own laws and values.

There is suppression of dissent because this is the sole purpose of a state. What distinguishes so called 'authoritarian' countries is the extent of brute force required to suppress it. In capitalist nations, this presents itself as fascism. In socialist nations this presents itself as Leninism.

I might add you have to at least acknowledge there must be some reason the only socialist states to have ever existed for longer than a year have been exclusively authoritarian. They didn't outnumber anarchists, socdems or demsocs by any stretch. Leninism has been as succesful as it is because socialist states live in a capitalist world. A world that wants to eradicate communism root and stem with whatever magnitude of violence and cruelty necessary. Lenin and Stalin expressed this and reality has proven their thesis correct.

Now, you bring up examples, which you seem to be unaware are sourced primarily from CIA investigations. First, I would like to note that you call these actions disproportionate while admitting to being ignorant to the interference these countries faced. Second, I would note you trivialize the mass poverty in western states, disassociate it with its fascist sattelite states and ignore mass policing by the NSA on a GLOBAL scale. You also ignore the immensive devastation these states wrought upon their colonies, including recurring mass famines, only ever seeming to consider these deaths mass murder the moment managment falls into the hands of a collectivist meaning to eradicate it.

Of every single country you've mentioned, I would like to remind you the US and its allies have invaded extensively, used terrorism, had numerous assassination attempts and in China particularly used WMD.

Now I would like you to compare this response to the response of the west to the isolated 9/11 attack by Al Qaeda(an organization funded by the US to overthrow the socialist Afghan government), rendering entire cities level to the ground, murdering millions of men, women and children and letting whoever knows how many more to die of famine or drown at the European border.

Is it 'ethical' or 'utopian'? Absolutely not (and you evidently don't understand what communism is if you think it can be utopian while having a state at the same time).

But these measures undountedly are the grim reality of the way every state operates. It doesn't matter if it's socialist, capitalist, feudal or anything else. So the question isn't if you support purges or no purges. They are the current reality of every state. The question is whether you support a movement for the transition away from the state towards communism or the continuation of the state.

Socialist states aren't perfect, far from it. But mismanagement is not the same as malice that is pervasive in capitalist society.

[-] aidnic@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago
[-] toomanyjoints69@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Because they want to bully someone, and tankies are acceptable. It's not any different from the tankies that kick people out of their book clubs for not worshipping a dictator from a country they've never even been in.

People only argue on the internet because they want to scream at someone - anyone.

I refuse to argue politics with people. It's better to ask a tankie "will you help me with my project?" They'll either say yes or reveal that they're a bully too.

For idolizing the soviet union and the people's republic of china, who have done some very evil things. Tankies always try to undermine the sins of authoritarian regimes. They keep trying to instate authoritarian regimes knowing full well that they have killed so many historically.

If you want truly based leftism, try anarchism.

[-] toomanyjoints69@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago

I've created no authoritarian regimes by giving food to homeless people. It was basically just unpaid charity work covered in red paint.

People's ideas are fluid anyway. I made a lot of leftists into tankies by just being nice and tolerant. I've seen tankies become anarchists because they're surrounded by them. I never succeeded at anything, and neither did they sadly. I wish they had. It was really nice helping eachother. I've never had so many friends. We should all become activists because it gives us so many friends.

It was really nice and I wish more people were like that online. In real life that's how it is.

[-] katve@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago

Maybe you've also absorbed your beliefs from people around you, maybe not. I'd recommend you read this essay by comrade ziq, give it a thought factcheck it if you want to. I find standing in support of the states or atleast the supposed ideologies of the states that have done terrible things (that at least don't fit in my ideology of tolerance) to among others, queer people and other leftists, very distasteful and repulsive. It's not that we say "fuck tankies" for giving food to homeless people, that's not an uniquely tankie thing. It's the tanks yall.

[-] toomanyjoints69@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago

I'd rather just be nice to people. I'm not going to go around and find an excuse not to associate with people unless they're dangerous or counter productive. Tankies like me are neither when it comes to any kind of activism. You could make a case for not letting their organizations help you if your values don't align with them. However there is really no reason to exclude good faith participation of every single individual in that group.

I'd really just say that after a long time of thinking it over a harmonious existence is better than one where everyone around me is correct.

[-] tumble_weeds@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

I’d rather just be nice to people.

You could start by not labeling yourself after a weapon of war who's sole and only purpose is to kill humans.

[-] erusuoyera@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

I don't know what tankies are, and at this point, I'm afraid to ask.

[-] ChosenUndead15@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

A particular part of communist who fully support sending the tanks to suppress their pears just because they think differently. They worship Stalin, Mao and other monsters just because they used the banner of communists.

As you might expect, a lot communists don't like them.

[-] TheGreatSpoon@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Most people who are labeled tankies don't support Russia like the Beehaw user wants you to believe FYI, we just think historical conditions caused the Ukraine war and that those conditions show a trend of US expansionism rather than expansionist ambitions by a country with the GDP of Italy.

...But just like how not supporting democrats makes you a republican, not supporting America makes you a Putinist in their eyes. So wharever.

China is actually a controversial subject because a lot of people think the Deng reforms marked the moment China turned capitalist. Others think it was necessary to mature China's economy and particularly since Xi Jing Ping became chairman have had a lot of faith in China's transition plan.

What they said about tankies being fascists also doesn't make sense. Fadcists exist because of the threat of communism. They took state power to eradicate communists, preserve capital and, often times, establishing a superior racial class while doing so. Communists takes state power to abolish capitalism, eradicate poverty and create a classless society. They are literally opposites.

And always remember this suppression of free speech ONLY happened after western powers attempted to "strangle Bolshevism in its crib" through invasions, coup attempts and supporting reactionary groups.

So yes, surprisingly, socialist states suppressed dissent after the most powerful states in modern history openly declared a holy war on their existence (which includes supporting fascist states like Nazi Germany btw). Very strange.

[-] Discoslugs@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So does this include all Communists or just authoritarian communism? aka red fash

[-] mulcahey@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Hard to tell bc so many people on Lemmy use "Tankie" as "anyone to the left of me"

[-] animelivesmatter@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

well, when you have activity on a community called "moretankie196" , you can see why people might be suspicious yeah?

[-] animelivesmatter@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Noone except some liberals refer to non-authoritarian communists as tankies, and even then when they do that they know they're being misleading

[-] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Dangle that slender thread of hope, tankie.

[-] animelivesmatter@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago
[-] masquenox@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

You should be more appreciative... the other option is to call you chekists.

[-] animelivesmatter@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So what, I say mean things about some liberals and now suddenly I'm a Stalinist?

Maybe I'll be willing to concede that it could also be stupidity instead of deliberate misleading.

[-] masquenox@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Say mean things about liberals all you want - I'll happily upvote you if they hit the mark. But don't pretend that the term "tankie" wasn't invented for a damn good reason - it was. And the fact that some liberals now abuse the term (just like they abuse the term "radical") to peddle their bootlicker agendas doesn't change that.

[-] animelivesmatter@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Then you clearly didn't read my comment. I was specifically referring to people that call non-authoritarian communists tankies. Because the person I was responding to was asking whether it refers to all communists or authoritarian communists, and I was saying that anyone that uses it to mean all communists rather than authoritarian communists shouldn't be taken seriously.

Frankly, it's ridiculous that I have to explain this, it's extremely obvious if you merely read the comment I responded to and then read my comment. Or have seen the other comment in the thread, where I made fun of a tankie that was mad people were calling them a tankie.

I was one of the people saying we should defederate lemmygrad, I was referring to them as tankies. I obviously am not against the use of the term.

You're acting like a clown. You're arguing against things I never said and never claimed. And it's really weird how quickly you jump to conclusions based on me making fun of some (some, not even all!) liberals in the process of conveying that tankie means authoritarian communist.

[-] Discoslugs@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Thanks for clarifying.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2023
15 points (94.1% liked)

196

16276 readers
2674 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS