- cross-posted to:
- leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- cross-posted to:
- leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
[dude with glasses in a communist t-shirt, arguing] I’m the only leftist here, your opinions are TRASH
[dude holding a theory book on smug, arguing] Read theory you losers, you’re all WRONG
[dude in an anarchist hoodie, arguing] Nuh-uh, I’m the only leftist here, you’re SHITLIBS
[the three dudes are now caught in a cartoon fight, glasses gone flying, punches everywhere, while a firing squad of nazis are targeting them with rifles]
[a confused nazi asks] Why… why are they still arguing?
You must log in or # to comment.
It’s why ranked choice is the only sane voting approach. First past the post heavily favors right wing authoritarians.
“Voting is actually bad” Tankies 🤝 Nazis
This is why far “left” and “right” are itself misguided labels. It’s more like far opposite on the other end where they meet.
Horsehoe theory is misguided itself, it was pitched purely to distance liberalism from fascism when historically they are linked, and to demonize those who support collectivization over privatization. Read Blackshirts and Reds.
See the comments for a bunch of examples
Still looking for a single leftist here who claims they support communism. I constantly see it being attributed to the left, but in real life scenarios I just don’t see it, only in memes, unless you meant socialism, which is a healthy system of every country, including US.
EDIT: I guess I should stop waiting, this feels like strawman argument/gatekeeping
I’m a communist, I support communism. Socialism isn’t welfare, it’s a transitional status towards the gradual sublimation of private property. The US is firmly capitalist and is in no way socialist, socialism isn’t “when the government does stuff.”
I’m anti authoritarian and anti right. Tankies are leftists that I have no interest in getting along with. They are just as excited to be holding the gun in this comic
Yes, leninists are nominally on the left. Nominally. However throughout history most similar ideologies have consistently exterminated executed and oppressed everyone that ever disagreed with them. Allies or not. Left or right. Which makes them authoritarian and untrustworthy first. Left at their convenience.
As an anarchist, I have no major beef with actual communist. While I will disagree a lot with demsoc or socdems. I have no issue allying with them where we agree. Because even though we disagree, on the things we agree on. I know they are just as committed, and won’t turn on us the moment it’s convenient.
But I’m all too familiar with the type that behave like the comic. I think we all are. Anyone using the term shitlib or blue maga for instance.
As an anarchist
You aren’t an anarchist though, you’ve never actually expressed anarchists beliefs: you’re a hard core DNC supporter and liberal. There’s a reason your main complaint is people using terms like “shitlib” and “bluemaga”, because those are what you are.
Deleted by moderator
I do it all the time.
I literally never see it, but I do often see you saying things that are explicitly incompatible with anarchism.
Who’s shitty hot takes are regularly posted on and laughed at in many communities
“We make fun of you in our secret tree house that you aren’t allowed in” is not the sick burn you think.
I could give you 10 to 13 calling them out.
And for every one tepid, qualified criticism of the democrats you offer, I could you give 20 of you viciously tearing into the left for not supporting the democrats enough.
However terminally online little trolls like yourself aren’t interested in facts or reality. And your disapproval is a badge of honor.
Oh my god, go back to Reddit you insufferable dweeb. You’re really doing the “facts and logic” bullshit?
This “anti-authoritarian” recently called for mass execution of their enemies.
Me? Is this because I said the SS should have been executed?
Are you now going to argue that that isn’t an authoritarian act because it was justified? Because, guess what, every “authoritarian” believes their actions are justified
Protecting Jewish and other minorities rights to live and safety is not an authoritarian act. It is in fact protecting the most vulnerable’s liberty. Anti authorization is not lawless. You are a very weird little person and I have no interest in trying to convince you Nazis are bad. I hope you can figure that one out on your own
I believe what @BrainInABox@lemmy.ml is getting at is that all states are authoritarian, and that there are positive and negative uses of authority. Executing SS officers is a positive use of authority. Since all states are an extension of the ruling class, it is better for that ruling class to be the proletariat, rather than the bourgeoisie, and for the proletariat to use its authority to oppress the bourgeoisie and gradually sublimate capital until all production is collectivized, class ceases to exist, and by extension the state withers away, leaving only administration, management, etc.
No I’m pretty sure they pulled something from another post to try to misrepresent it because they’re a bitter terminally online loser. That is a very generous interpretation though
I’m saying it because I’ve seen them make the same argument, as I have done myself, in different ways.
This thread keeps popping up and it just clicked and I had to ask:
Is the guy in the red shirt supposed to be Vaush?
It’s the factory preset look for these pseudo-tankies that show up in my local activism group every now and then.
Always the big earring, unkempt beard, this specific shape of glasses, and the cheap aliexpress t-shirt with a political message on it.
Not my fault Vaush stole the look!
pseudo-tankies
I’m not even sure whether this is supposed to be an insult anymore. Is a “tankie” better or worse than a “fake tankie”?
In a thread complaining about leftist infighting, there’s a special irony in liberals singing out a leftist who is simultaneously too far left and not far left enough.
It’s a specific type of leftist we have in my country, french communists are a… special breed, let’s say.
In the 1980s our communist party bulldozed a migrant worker dormitory because they hated migrants that much. Red MAGA or something. The party recovered from that era, but french communists are still chauvinistic, xenophobic, and strangely not that much into anti-imperialism (which is meant to be the redeeming quality of tankies). They do however share with tankies the traits of applying “class first” logic to a lot of conversations, which makes them deathly allergic to intersectionality, and being terminally online and way into infighting. Thus they usually end up booted from actual activist groups, since they tend to hold us back and prevent us from actually getting shit done in the streets.
Hence me calling them pseudo-tankies because it’s hard to label them. We just call them tankies here: they’re members of a party that supported the crushing of the hungarian uprising with soviet tanks, and is ambiguous about tienanmen (no denying it happened but very alt-history about it), so pro-tanks they are.
I have an easier time getting along with the average online american tankie than with our local communist party’s members.
I looked it up, and yep, looks like the PCF abandoned Marxism-Leninism in 1979 and adopted Eurocommunism, which is a vulgarization of Marxism that upholds western imperialism. MLs would consider them to be patsocs, same as the American Communist Party which espouses “MAGA Communism.”
I thought maga communism was a joke.
We all wish it was…
This is an odd take just considering World War 2 is like the example of unity against a common genocidal threat: the Nazis.
There were no anarchists left in the USSR.
And the Soviets allied with Nazi Germany and carved up Poland with their new buddies.
The communists were never “buddies” with the Nazis. The communists spent the decade prior trying to form an anti-Nazi coalition force, such as the Anglo-French-Soviet Alliance which was pitched by the communists and rejected by the British and French. The communists hated the Nazis from the beginning, as the Nazi party rose to prominence by killing communists and labor organizers, cemented bourgeois rule, and was violently racist and imperialist, while the communists opposed all of that.
When the many talks of alliances with the west all fell short, the Soviets reluctantly agreed to sign a non-agression pact, in order to delay the coming war that everyone knew was happening soon. Throughout the last decade, Britain, France, and other western countries had formed pacts with Nazi Germany, such as the Four-Power Pact, the German-French-Non-Agression Pact, and more. Molotov-Ribbentrop was unique among the non-agression pacts with Nazi Germany in that it was right on the eve of war, and was the first between the USSR and Nazi Germany. It was a last resort, when the west was content from the beginning with working alongside Hitler.
Harry Truman, in 1941 in front of the Senate, stated:
If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don’t want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances.
Not only that, but it was the Soviet Union that was responsible for 4/5ths of total Nazi deaths, and winning the war against the Nazis.
Not gonna mention the Secret Protocol in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact that enabled the partition of Poland and the Baltics?
Or that Stalin actually fell for it all, trusted Hitler, disregarded all evidence of Nazi troop buildup until the day of Operation Barbarossa? Then Stalin spent weeks disappeared from public view.
Credit to the Soviets for defeating the Nazis. WW2 would have been lost without them. But they also acted as imperialists in reattaching Tsarist colonies to Russia, dividing Poland and the Baltics with Hitler, invading Finland, not to mention all the puppet states created postwar.
No, because there was never an agreement about partitioning. It was about spheres of influence, which Nazi Germany broke, and further the USSR entered Poland weeks after the Nazis invaded in order to prevent the entirety of Poland from falling to the Nazis, largely sticking to areas only a few decades prior Poland had invaded and annexed.
There’s also no evidence the Soviets didn’t expect the Nazis to invade. They didn’t get the timeframe right, but they expected it the entire time. And no, the Soviets weren’t imperialist.
0·1 month agoIt’s interesting to read that article on sci-hub. It’s giving more specific details on what happened in 1939, but is otherwise in line with The Cold War & Its Origins. You don’t need access to classified documents to understand the world, you can sit there in 1961 and get shit more or less right.
Yep! Just having a fairly consistent and coherent understanding of the world is usually sufficient to get things more right than not, not everyone needs to be a grandmaster-level Marxist-Leninist with decades of reading and practice to view the world in a constructive way. Theory and practice is still necessary, but even liberals can acknowledge reality.
Taps sign again…
This isn’t infighting between liberals and leftists, this is infighting between different flavours of leftism, like anarchism and marxist-leninism.
Or Marxism and Marxist-leninist.
Say what you will about Democrats. Outside of the elected ones. Most of them don’t have a strong ideology. Just actually wanting things to improve. But I’m sure of how to go about it. And when you approach them like that. Are plenty likely to be sympathetic and allies.
Not really sure what you’re trying to say here as “Marxism and Marxism-Leninism.” Are you saying these are antagonistic ideologies? Marxism is an umbrella, not a tendency within itself. History has progressed since Marx, and Marxist theorists since Marx have developed theory and practice accordingly. By far the largest tendency in Marxism is Marxism-Leninism, the closest to a “pure” Marxism you can get is Orthodox Marxism, which itself is ironically anti-Marxist and is overall an extreme fringe belief among Marxists.
ah yes, because marxist-leninism has no history of its adherents glorifying imperialism or state-capitalism.
Correct. Neither imperialism is glorified, nor is state-capitalism like the US Empire, Republic of Korea, Singapore, or Bismarck’s Germany if you want an earlier example, are glorified by Marxism of any kind.
glorified by Marxism of any kind.
i didnt claim that.
nevertheless, china was oddly missing in ur list of state-capitalist nations that werent glorified…
Your claim, sarcasm aside, was that Marxist-Leninists have a history of glorifying imperialism and state-capitalism, which I rejected, and said not just Marxism-Leninism but all Marxism rejects both. Either you’re trying to say Marxism-Leninism isn’t Marxist, in which case some heavy justification is required, or I misunderstood your point, in which case I’d appreciate elaboration.
As for the PRC, I didn’t list it as state-capitalist for the same reason I wouldn’t list the US as socialist. The PRC has a socialist market economy. The large firms and key industries of the PRC are publicly owned, and the medium firms are heavily controlled by the state and rely on the publicly owned key industries to function. Private property and the bourgeoisie don’t have political power because they don’t control the large firms or key industries.
What distinguishes state capitalism from socialism is private ownership of the large firms and key industries, or public ownership. The US, Singapore, ROK, etc all have large megacorps with firm control of the state, which uses its power to relatively guide and plan the economy for private interest. In the PRC, the opposite is the case, since the large firms and key industries are publicly owned and planned, the bourgeoisie doesn’t have political control, the proletariat does. This is reflected in over 90% approval rates for the government in the PRC.
The reason the PRC has a bourgeoisie and private property to begin with is because they haven’t yet developed out of it. They are still in a relatively early stage of socialism, market forces are quite useful for small and medium firms to grow into centralized firms that can be gradually sublimated and folded into public ownership. This is a Marxist understanding of economics, and while it isn’t what an anarchist would want, I don’t personally define socialism in a manner that excludes Marxism.
Does that make sense?
Either you’re trying to say Marxism-Leninism isn’t Marxist, in which case some heavy justification is required, or I misunderstood your point, in which case I’d appreciate elaboration.
my claim was not about marxism or marxist-leninism, but specifically its adherents. i dont think that marxism inherently glorifies state-capitalism or imperialism, but i recognize that an uncomfortably large portion of its adherents do.
as to ur explanation of chinas economic system…
it seems that u define socialism as public ownership of industry/means of production, and capitalism as private ownership of these.
i would argue that public ownership should refer to the public i.e. the populace of the area, not the state that claims to represent them, yet according to u is disapproved of by 10% of its people.
and when the state owns all/most of the firms, and the workers/proletariat does not own them, this is another form of capitalism: one where the state owns the means of production. therefore, state capitalism.
id recommend this video series that tries to explain the state and its function in different historical contexts:
part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTwxpTyGUOI
its also available in text format if u prefer reading: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anark-the-state-is-counter-revolutionary
Regarding Marxists and imperialism/state capitalism, I suppose I just disagree with you there, either we are using different definitions of imperialism just like we are using different definitions of socialism and state capitalism, or you’re seeing something I don’t.
As for me, and socialism vs capitalism, socialism is essentially a mode of production by which collectivized ownership forms the principle aspect of society, ie the base. In practical terms, that means the large firms and key industries, which have control over the rest of the economy (controlling the rubber factory means you have power over the rubber ball factory, as an example). Capitalism is the reverse, privatized ownership of the large firms and key industries, and thus bourgeois control.
Returning to the state, the state is an extension of the ruling class, not a class in and of itself. This is principly the Marxist stance, here. The reason state ownership in a principly publicly owned economy is socialist, is because that necessitates proletarian control. If the bourgeoisie only control the medium firms, and only to the extent that they cannot work against the common, collective plan, then they have no political power, the proletariat does. The small firms are largely cooperative or petite bourgeois property in the PRC, meaning the bourgeoisie proper really only has the non-essential, smaller-scale industry. As a side note, 10% is actually higher than the disapproval rate. Disapproval is highest at the township level, but gets higher the more central you get, with only 4.3% disapproving at the top level:
State ownership is not juxtaposed with proletarian ownership, if the proletariat actually directly owned and controlled the tools they used, they would not be proletarian, but petty bourgeois. Cooperative ownership, in small-scale firms, is petty bourgeois ownership. This isn’t intrinsically an issue in a broader socialist economy, but without collectivized ownership you cement class divisions, ie each cooperative is its own competing cell, rather than existing in the context of a collectivized economy run by all in the interests of all.
Capitalism, on the other hand, relies on the M-C…P…C’-M’ circuit of reproduction. State-run industries don’t have to adhere to this, they don’t need to run a profit and they don’t need to compete in a market, but in capitalism, this is the dominant mode of production over the largest and key firms and industries. The difference between how the US, for example, and PRC functions is dramatic, and its why the PRC has such large approval rates.
As for the state, Marxists and anarchists have different views. Marxists see the state as an instrument of class oppression that exists as long as class does, and so in order to get rid of it, all property needs to be gradually sublimated into collectivized property, across all of society. The principle difference is between centralization and collectivization vs decentralization and horizontalism.
I appreciate the link, but as a former anarchist myself I’m already familiar with the anarchist perspective. I’m not trying to debate anarchism, or try to explain why I agree more with Marxism and Marxism-Leninism, just defend Marxism from what I recognize as misrepresentations of it. Anark’s central premise seems to be that the state creates classes, which fundamentally relies on either a different definition of class at best or a misunderstanding of the state and class at worst.
