this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2023
256 points (98.1% liked)
Fediverse
28490 readers
1212 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you really care that much about "Authoritarians" and "Tankies", maybe you should just move to exploding-heads.
I, for one, fully support the explicitly antifascist politics of the core maintainers
Agreed. There is too much false equivalence of "Tankies" and fascists.
Fascists want to enslave your sisters and daughters and stick your trans friends in psych wards until they "decide" to stop being trans. They're fine with Blacks wallowing in poverty as second-class citizens and having militarized police on every streetcorner.
"Tankies" (Marxist-Leninists) believe in all the same progressive things other (so-called) Socialists do but have different views on historical figures and foreign policy, something that does not matter a bit in the here and now.
Here is the difference between Fascists and "Tankies": if it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that China was trying to exterminate the Ughyr people through mass execution, 95% of the "Tankies" out there, myself included, would disown China and denounce the genocide (this will not happen, because it isn't a genocide except in the broadest and most meaningless of terms). If it was proven beyond a doubt that the Holocaust happened (which it more or less has), the majority of Neo-Nazis would still say it was good.
Saying you'd denounce a genocide you deny is happening isn't accomplishing what you think it is.
People don't equate "tankies" with "fascists" because you advocate some sort of marxist-inspired system of governance... it's because denying the suffering of others when it's politically convenient is absolutely the opening strategy of the fascist playbook.
Also, "Disown China"??? Nothing wrong with liking other countries but the way you guys talk about them is off putting and doesn't come across as informed or even remotely unbiased.
Ughyrs are being genocided rn, but otherwise your points are correct
Agree completely with this take. 'Tankie' is just 'woke' for libs. They don't want dialogue over ideas that threaten their worldview (or profits!)
Based and materialist take
stay mad, nerd
That phrase stuck out for me too, and supports my growing suspicion that the majority of people that claim to be marxists are actually just another group of fascist conspiracy theorists. I hope to be proven wrong.
You could literally prove yourself wrong by exercising just a little intellectual curiosity. Marxism is, at its core, an economic theory based on the idea that democracy has as much a place in the workplace and economy as it does in our political system. If that's fascist to you, you're unserious.
Now, if you're just unwilling to correct or criticize your own beliefs, and you want to conflate Marxism with Stalinism and Tankies, you're better off just saying so.
I joined Lemmy a while ago and I suddenly got exposed to many "tankie" debates going on. Is there a reason this group suddenly became relevant on Lemmy (I mean, from the view of a Reddit migrant)?
Because thanks to the federated setup we get exposed to a wider range of ideas. There are people who are actually socialist or communist and support countries like Cuba and see what China is trying to do with communism there and offer different perspectives. Western media is flooded with anti China propaganda because the capitalists just can't compete with a state run economy. So the word 'tankie' is what capitalists or liberals use to shut down Marxist dialogue over these countries. It's basically used the way MAGA idiots use 'woke'. The meaning is ambiguous and the point is to stop 'bad ideas' from being discussed.
I use "tankie" to refer to the type of people that claim to be Marxist but are actually just anti-West, like the ones that support Russia's love of genocide simply because Russia is opposing the western world. I'd love to have conversations with actual Marxists, I've just become increasingly less sure that they exist.
I don't know any Marxists that support 'Russias love of genocide'. That's crazy. I do know people that question the narrative of the proxy war in Ukraine and are critical of NATO since Yugoslavia and Libya were destroyed by NATO. But nobody supports Putin's war. They understand it was in reaction to Nazi activity in Donbass and threats of NATO staging advanced missile tech in Ukraine, but mention this and you get labeled 'tankie' and see your comments deleted..
Read the comment you’re replying to carefully. He’s not referring to Marxists. He’s referring to pro Russian warmongers / anti wests trolls that wrap themselves in Marxism flag.
Sure, but the thing is if you say anything about the context of the war in Ukraine that doesn't toe the G7 party line, you get called a Tankie and your comments get deleted. On Lemmy grad I haven't seen a single post saying they are "pro Russian' or 'support genocide in Russia ' but we get labeled as having those opinions. It's a strawman argument. And it's used by liberals and capitalists to shut down actual dialogue.
Lmao which proxy war? It's Russia committing to a full scale invasion of Ukraine and losing. That's like calling WW2 a proxy war because the soviet union received critical amounts of US aid.
That's interenting that you don't recognize this as a proxy war. Even Blinken admits that.. Make no mistake, the US knew Russia would invade if they moved forward with NATO. They wanted it to happen. Look who wins. US natural gas sales to Germany at twice the cost, pipeline blown up, Lockheed and Raytheon stock through the roof. But these my friend are facts you will quickly disavow because the propaganda machine so powerful. Just ask yourself cui bono in all of these conflicts that's the key.
That's because that's just Russian propaganda used to justify doing imperialism and conquering Ukraine.
If Russia wanted to 'conquor' Ukraine they would have done what the US did to Iraq: shock and awe, destroy Kiev's water electric and sewage infrastructure etc..Talking about the historical context of the conflict is not propaganda. But there is definitely a ton of propaganda coming from western countries though. Just like before the Iraq war, everyone believed WMD. The propaganda machine in the west is amazeballs.
Wonderful revisionist history you have there. Russia blindly believed they could roll over Ukraine and seize the country in threeweeks, (Russia's words not mine). They didn't do a "shock and awe" destruction raid at first because they wanted to steal the land in tact and re-add it to the Russian "empire" that Putlin wants to rebuild. Putin knows he doesn't have much time left and he wants to rebuild the glorious USSR before he dies. He has made moves towards that for the last 10 years. So far his only real success is the puppet state of Belarus. If it was really about Nazi's this was the stupidest police action in modern history.
OMG Chick-fil-A becoming “woke” was the highlight of the week. 🤣
Tankie is a term coined by dissident socialists and communists to refer to authoritarian Stalinist/Maoist leftists who are hostile to libertarian or democratic leftist movements, or any other kind of democratic movement. Comparing it with "woke" (which has no well-defined meaning) is ridiculous.
The people who are labeled tankies are very much anti-democratic. Them being leftist or communist is actually not an issue at all. The problem is they either 1) Attempt to gaslight about authoritarian regimes (for example by claiming said regimes are not authoritarian, that their "elections" are real, or that everything is western propaganda), or 2) Unabashedly support these regimes, sometimes claiming that their victims "deserved" it.
Tankie was recouperated from dissident socialists, the way it's used today has very little to do with its origin. Just because something starts out as a politically radical idea doesn't mean it can't get twisted in bourgeois society. It's mostly just used as a smear to mean "communist I don't like"
It's like woke - what started as a term used by BLM to criticize oppression of minorities was recouperated and now it's been turned into a right-wing smear and lost all meaning.
No, not at all. It simply means "Communist who supports oppression & authoritarianism". European socialists, especially eastern Europeans, still use it in this exact same meaning to this day. The non-bourgeois workers & trade unionists who were subjected to decades of oppression under various Stalinist regimes also use it.
The entire argument is pointless and trite anyway. Most of the people in this thread taking offence at the term "tankie" do in fact support authoritarianism and are attempting to gaslight readers about it.
"support"
You keep using this word, but do you really think any of the people you call tankies have actually done anything to support these countries? Or, more likely, are you using "support" to mean "refuse to condemn/disavow"?
Well, count me in to that group.
I will not join the imperialist dogpile against China. My opinions about their government is irrelevant at best, and at worst by joining in the echo chamber of "China Bad!" then I am helping America pave the way for a war it so obviously wants.
If you want to call that support, then I have to ask why supposed "socialists" are joining America in attacking China!
I couldn't care less if tankies "only" refused to condemn China/Russia/DPRK or whatever oppressive regime they think is anti-imperialist – indeed, I wouldn't even describe this group as tankies. The cold-war "tankies" weren't passive or neutral either.
The tankies you see here, even in this thread, actively dehumanize and gaslight people resisting these regimes, and attempt to delegitimize any act of resistance against them, even if indigenous. These are the kind of people who would smear actual leftist activists in Russia, China or Iran as "CIA Agents" in the hope that said regimes continue existing, to take revenge against the US. This worldview espouses that nobody has any agency except the US (and its authoritarian adversaries), because every opponent of these regimes has to be agent of the US.
Refusing to condemn something isn't the same as lending support. Gaslighting people about the Tianamen Massacre, about the treatment of Uighurs, or about creeping authoritarianism in HK is, however, definitely a form of support.
Socialists who oppose the CCP tend to do that for entirely different reasons than the US. Not that there is much socialism to support there. Labour rights and protections under the CCP are inferior to the average European country, with the rampant 996 culture and very few instances of collective labor action, which is seen as undesirable and suppressed by the party.
As the saying goes, you can't be neutral on a moving train.
By refusing to condemn China, I must therefore support it. That's how it works. You can't just be a third positionist about this and say "I oppose everybody with my own special snowflake socialism!"
My country managed to legislate better labor rights and worker protections under milquetoast SocDem governments than whatever the CCP managed to implement in China. So the CCP's brand of "socialism" is not appealing to me.
This is literally the tankie position, so I'm not sure why modern tankies take offense at being labeled so. Even in 1968, socialists & communists disagreed over the squashing of the Prague Spring, but tankies now still demand unconditional loyalty for their anti-US crusade, with little regard for anything else.
Your country extracted super profits from the exploitation of the third world and then redistributed a small portion of that stolen wealth to pacify the workers. Mine did that too and that's nothing to be proud of!
Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, which means the contradictions of US hegemony are the highest contradictions and take precedence!
It doesn't matter if I personally disagree with how China is responding to Muslim extremism or how it responds to protesters or how it is supposedly "developing the means of production" with state capitalism, because China is still an ally in the fight against empire.
When the empire is dead we can deal with the lesser contradictions.
And the CCP wholeheartedly supports that. Companies such as VW even set up a factory in Xinjiang to take advantage of Uyghur slave labour, with full CCP acquiescence. The CCP itself has no issue with exploiting workers, exploiting its own population, or that of the 3rd world either.
I fail to see the advantage of replacing US hegemony with CCP hegemony. Substituting an empire with another is pointless.
For that to be true, one would have to believe in the idea that the CCP is interested in solving the contradictions of capitalism. Is there any evidence that this is the case? At this point, the CCP has abandoned socialism in favour of state capitalism & nationalism. A pivot back to socialism after the end of imperialism is within the realm of historical alt-timeline fiction.
Tankies may think of the CCP as an ally, but that view might not be mutual. Once the empire is dead, their role will end. They are only useful to Stalinist regimes insofar they run interference for them and undermine any democratic opposition. Beyond that, they have no use. Attempting to "deal with lesser contradictions" under these undemocratic revisionist regimes will simply result in purges.
To be clear, nobody will be dealing with any contradiction under the CCP. It's a totalitarian, statist regime which has squashed, and will squash any glimmer of dissent. Bringing up contradictions at any level is likely to result in a futile re-enactment of the cultural revolution, with predictably similar results. There will be one option: To follow the party line to the letter.
I don't believe Chinese hegemony is possible. US hegemony is a historical anomaly created by the very specific circumstances of colonialism, slavery, and then the post-WW2 period that saw all the old empires destroyed.
Once this empire is dead, there won't ever be another. The material conditions won't allow for it.
US hegemony is not a "historical anomaly". It is the logical consequence of the imperial center i.e. the US/UK/Europe winning the geographical lottery. The triangular slave/goods/textile trading scheme in the Atlantic resulted in rapidly developing markets and massive extraction of wealth, ensuring US dominance. These geographical factors have become less important in the 21st century, however.
That is because orthodox Marxist discourse hasn't evolved in any meaningful way since the cold war. It's just people repeating the same platitudes with almost-religious fervor, willfully ignoring newer research.
Not only is Chinese hegemony possible, but trends suggest that it is poised to inherit the role of the imperial center possibly by the end of the century. Ian Morris' "Why the West Rules—For Now" graphs the development of China and the West based on the amount of energy each civilization can capture, and extrapolation suggests that China will overtake the US by no later than 2100, possibly even earlier.
In the very least, that wouldn't have been a regression if China wasn't controlled by the CCP. But as things are currently, Chinese hegemony is synonymous with CCP hegemony. Some people attempt to argue otherwise, but that's just sophistry. The hypercentralized statism of the CCP and its propensity to use all available technological means to coerce will leave little room for reform or discussion.
It can only be an anomaly, because not only did the US/UK/Europe win the geographical lottery (making it an anomaly that can't be repeated) but also the Atlantic slave trade and the rapid expansion into the so-called New World was another anomaly. Then, like I said, WW2 created another anomaly that saw literally every other empire fall and the US gobble them all up with only the USSR around to challenge them. Then the USSR fell and the US became the sole global hegemon, another anomaly that created the first global empire in history!
China doesn't have the same geographical advantages. China doesn't have the opportunity to steal trillions in wealth from native lands and native peoples. China can't make a new slave trade. China will be forced to compete with other powers, like the declining US and EU as well as regional rivals like India and Russia. China can't recreate US global hegemony, and neither can any other country because all the low-hanging fruit has already been eaten. There's no bonanza of resource to exploit anymore, it's all gone, and now we'll be entering a post-neoliberal world with permanent multipolarity.
Let us not forget that global warming is going to continue to destabilize the entire world with billions forced to migrate. Country after country will collapse into uninhabitable dead zones. China isn't going to build an empire in the ashes left by this particular epoch, no one will and no one can.
This is a new situation and I obviously could be wrong, but unless China figures out cold fusion or asteroid mining or something I don't see them becoming the new global empire. We're at the end of an era and something new is happening.
These geographical advantages aren't as important today as they were at the beginning of industrialization. As for the other things: They're all ethical issues and "international norms" established under US hegemony. The reason the slave trade isn't a thing anymore is because the US/UK-led global empire decided to collectively abolish it in the first place. The same goes for old-fashioned colonialist conquest & plundering, which the old European powers were forced to abandon under US pressure (among other factors).
All the things you're describing are features and consequences of the US global order, so why would anyone expect any of them to remain intact if that global order gives way to something else? The reason almost every single state, even totalitarian ones, adhere to "international norms" on slavery, colonialism, or nuclear weapon usage is because the consequences of breaking these norms would be highly disadvantageous, and would result in punitive action in the current global order. The reason why almost every single state - even the most totalitarian - holds elections (even if "fake" ones) and attempts a facsimile of democracy is because the current global order inherently lends democracies more legitimacy than autocracies.
Assuming the current global order disappears, why wouldn't totalitarianism, slavery, disenfranchisement of women, or even colonialist conquest make a comeback? There would be nothing to enforce the norms against these at that point – and any actor could easily break them with no consequence whatsoever.
External pressure is just as likely to incentivize empire building. Physical domination and control of habitable land at any cost will likely become very important, if not essential, and everyone will get away with it.
They don't need to figure out any of that. They simply need to be able to capture more energy than their adversaries, and that is possible without cold fusion or asteroid mining. The CCP only need maintain its current trajectory of development to be able to overtake the US by the end of the century. Unlike western liberal democracies, a high-tech totalitarian society like CCP-controlled China can expand and maintain stability even in a collapsing environment without being constrained by norms or concepts such as the rule of law.
That's really what you think, huh? They just abolished slavery because they decided to? For what? Because they're so nice? lol
Does the motive matter that much? It was the result of US/European abolitionist movements' success, who ended the practice within their respective empires, and which eventually extended into a global ban. The point is that the practice was banned & ended worldwide.
Reformist movements don't and can't exist under CCP rule period. An anti-exploitation movement in China would be crushed immediately, if it were even allowed to develop at all.
China is not communist, it's an authoritarian state doing state capitalism and performing ethnic cleansing/genocide. It's quite far removed from the ideals of communism.
It's kind of both. I think of it more like a hybrid car. It has capitalism and foreign companies love it, but it also has a very strong communist base, the state controls production and distribution, the local communities vote for the local government. I think there may be a gap in your understanding about how their government is set up.. but I'm sure we can have a rational dialogue about this issue right?
This is a good comparison because I also oppose car-dependant infrastructure and think we would be better off with more public transports and an infrastructure closer to the people in general.
I suppose I don't get why someone who claim to be communist would adhere in any way to capitalism knowing full well how much harm capitalism bought about.
But then I'm an anarchist so it's not that surprising to me that a state would perpetuate oppressing power structures such as Capitalism or Police forces.