this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
458 points (93.0% liked)

Memes

45746 readers
1608 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 74 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (15 children)

Let's bracket the "was the USSR in the right?" question, and let's ask the "how brutal was the Soviet clampdown on these two uprisings?"

  • 1956 Hungary: 2000-3000 killed by the USSR
  • 1968 Prague: 137 killed by the USSR

How does this compare to clampdowns by NATO countries (excluding the US)?

  • Indonesian National Revolution against the Dutch: 100 000 Indonesians killed by the Dutch

  • Algerian War of Independence: 250 000 killed by the French (French estimate) - 1.5 Million (Algerian estimate)

  • French War against Vietnamese Independence: 200 000 dead

  • Portuguese Colonial Wars: 70,000–110,000 civilians killed by Portugal

  • Mau Mau Uprising against the UK: "Officially the number of Mau Mau and other rebels killed was 11,000, including 1,090 convicts hanged by the British administration. The Kenya Human Rights Commission has said 90,000 Kenyans were executed, tortured or maimed during the crackdown, and 160,000 were detained in appalling conditions. "

This is a non-exhaustive list with estimates. The actual brutality is not conveyed. The war crimes are often comparable to the Waffen SS.
You get the idea: the colonial powers were incomparably worse. us-foreign-policy

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)

this is the most appropriate "both sides" argument i've ever seen.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 week ago (7 children)

"Both sides" is when you equivocate two things which are not equal, you're looking for "whataboutism" which is not an actual fallacy, claiming "you're doing whataboutism" was a PR tactic first used by British colonizers when Irish people brought up British violence in response to anti-IRA propaganda.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[–] [email protected] 57 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (83 children)

The use of the word "tankie" these days is so over-used it has become synonymous with "left of the DNC." I've even seen Anarchists described as "tankies," it's getting ridiculous. Still, the word "tankie" is most often used by liberals against Marxists, though they won't admit to having an anti-Marxist bias, mostly because they think they agree with Marx generally but are unfamiliar with Marxist analysis.

Really, more people need to read theory before having an opinion on it to avoid speaking past each other. I wrote an introductory reading list for Marxism-Leninism if anyone wants to get a better understanding of Marxism.

load more comments (83 replies)
[–] [email protected] 51 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The biggest irony of our times is blood thirsty liberals who are cheering for as much war as possible running around calling people tankies.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 week ago

Those fucking bloodthirsty tankies don't want us sending more tanks to nazis

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 week ago

Iraq war supporters calling anyone a tankie, should be immediately flattenned by a tank

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 week ago (22 children)

nowadays tankie just means someone who shills for china/russia with a communist background

[–] [email protected] 44 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Communists support the PRC as a Socialist state run by Marxist-Leninists, yes. No Communist supports the Russian Federation outright, however, only reserved, temporary, and highly critical support for Russia's anti-US Hegemony stance, which it only adopts for its own survival and not out of any moral superiority. No Communist "shills" for the Russian Federation.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 week ago (83 children)

If China is a socialist state worth supporting then I'm a donkey with a laser dick :P But I'm more anarchistically inclined so different perspective.

I see your point though. What I'm saying is not that communist = tankie, on the contrary. I'm saying that tankies claim to be communists but spend all day parroting their favorite Russian or Chinese state propaganda because they believe everything else is clearly controlled by Obamna™ himself. They rarely actually talk about communism, they just roam Lemmy all day calling everybody who disagrees with them a liberal :D

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 week ago (46 children)

anarchistically

True anarchist stance is when your geopolitical opinions about the US's rivals coincidentally align perfectly with that of the US State Department. It's always the other side that is propagandized.

load more comments (46 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 week ago (13 children)

The conversation around China will take a minute, so I'll skip ahead to your second paragraph and circle back to do your statement justice.

The people you describe as "tankies" do not exist in any reasonable number. You are extending a belief in some aspects of anti-western sources as full blind dogmatism. Secondly, in order to even consider oneself a Communist in a western-dominated website means exposure to constant western-narrative, the idea that eastern propaganda is much more effective is more of a smokescreen to avoid discussing hard topics than anything else.

As for the PRC, they absolutely aren't Anarchist. They are, however, Marxist-Leninist, and Socialist. They have a Socialist Market Economy. Their Public Sector has supremacy over the direction of the Private Sector as key heavy industries the Private Sector relies on are entirely State Owned, and the Private Sector itself is trapped in a "birdcage model" whereby the CPC increases ownership and control as Markets naturally form monopolist syndicates.

This is entirely in line with Marxism. Marxists believe that markets naturally centralize and form monopolist syndicates ripe for central planning, and thus are more efficient vectors for growth at earlier stages in development, but that as they centralize this becomes less efficient and public ownership and central planning takes priority.

I recommend the article Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (81 replies)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 week ago (2 children)

It’s not shilling, it’s nuance. American main stream thinking is full of lies about both China and Russia. And both conservatives and liberals HATE when people don’t fall in line.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 week ago

Weird way to say has at least modicum of understanding of geopolitics and doesn't support the genocidal western empire.

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 week ago

If you don't have an opinion on it, you might when you learn the fascists were putting chalk marks on the doors of communists and jews

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 week ago (1 children)

For context: these are the original lines

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It's always funny to me how the go-to examples of like, "See, they just blindly support anything the regime does!" tend to be relatively minor events after the state in question has considerably chilled out. Like, Stalin and Mao did much worse things compared to Khrushchev/Hungary and Deng/Tienanmen. The problem being, communists are generally willing to criticize things like the Great Leap Forward, because, surprise surprise, we don't just blindly support anything they do. The reason for this is that the word tankie isn't meant to describe someone who blindly supports everything a communist country does, as it's claimed to, but rather, someone who supports anything any communist country does.

The fear Western leftists had that led to the term being coined was that people who had previously been critical of Stalin and Mao would respond positively to the countries moving away from their approach, and so they had to create a label to discredit such people and associate them with the previous leaders. It's one of the reasons Khrushchev's approach was questionable, because no matter how much you try to distance yourself from someone like Stalin and paint yourself as "one of the good ones," you're still never going to appease the Western left that demands absolute perfection, let alone the West in general.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I have actually found the “tankie” moniker to be useful IRL:

Tell someone you’re a Marxist-Leninist and you just get a blank stare.

Tell someone you’re a socialist and they think you mean you’re simpatico with AOC and Bernie.

Tell someone you’re a communist and they will just shut down and not hear anything else you say.

But “tankie” seems to convey enough truth - that you support past and current efforts from AES states to build socialism - to be useful.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›