125
this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2023
125 points (85.7% liked)
MeanwhileOnGrad
1391 readers
4 users here now
"Oh, this is calamity! Calamity! Oh no, he's on the floor!"
Welcome to MoG!
Meanwhile On Grad
Documenting hate speech, conspiracy theories, apologia/revisionism, and general tankie behaviour across the fediverse. Memes are welcome!
What is a Tankie?
Alternatively, a detailed blog post about Tankies.
(caution of biased source)
Basic Rules:
Sh.itjust.works Instance rules apply! If you are from other instances, please be mindful of the rules. — Basically, don't be a dick.
Hate-Speech — You should be familiar with this one already; practically all instances have the same rules on hate speech.
Apologia — (Using the Modern terminology for Apologia) No Defending, Denying, Justifying, Bolstering, or Differentiating authoritarian acts or endeavours, whether be a Pro-CCP viewpoint, Stalinism, Islamic Terrorism or any variation of Tankie Ideology.
Revisionism — No downplaying or denying atrocities past and present. Calling Tankies shills, foreign/federal agents, or bots also falls under this rule. Extremists exist. They are real. Do not call them shills or fake users as it handwaves their extremism.
Tankies can explain their views but may be criticised or attacked for them. Any slight infraction on the rules above will immediately earn a warning and possibly a ban.
Off-topic Discussion — Do not discuss unrelated topics to the point of derailing the thread. Stay focused on the direct content of the post as opposed to arguing.
You'll be warned if you're violating the instance and community rules. Continuing poor behaviour after being warned will result in a ban or removal of your comments. Bans typically only last 24 hours, but each subsequent infraction will double the amount. Depending on the content, the ban time may be increased. You may request an unban at any time.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hoo boy.
The point being raised, I believe, is that 'communist' countries are generally as 'communist' as they are 'the people's' or 'democratic' - it bears little resemblance to the 19th century theories which spawned the term and which are still in use amongst socialist thinkers today.
So you're saying there's no actual communist countries, and this whole this is just theoretical?
I mean, countries controlled by communist parties themselves would say that. Communist parties generally claim to run a socialist worker's state which will lead to communism.
In reality, it's just a power grab, with little to do with the workers.
There have been socialist polities in the past 100 years, genuinely socialist. None without their faults, but certainly not the totalitarian farce that people think of when they think of communism.
Correct.
Man, that's really convenient.
There's also no direct democracies either, so what?
Did I say there were?
You're arguing against something I never even said 🤣
I'm asking what your point is, or are you incapable of reading more than 6 words in a reply?
My point is:
"Shit like this is why I don't get (some of) the LGBTQ community's fascination with communism and tankies.
They have proven themselves just as anti-LGBTQ as the fascists."
Okay, and what does that have to do with fact China and the USSR aren't/weren't communist being convenient?
I just think it's convenient that communism gets to live in this little "no true scotsman/communism" bubble where if a state adopts communism and fails, it immedietly gets labeled as "not a real communist" state.
That way, instead of looking if there's something wrong with communism itself, it can get written off as the fault of the state attempting it.
It's not really convenient. It's that communism is an ideal that's literally impossible for large groups of humans to obtain.
There has never been a communist state because there can't be with people involved.
Bingo!
But no state has actually adopted communism. Communism as a basis of an economy requires communal ownership of all goods; not state ownership, but communal. Which country has ever done that?
Okay, so when a country tries to adopt communism, if that makes you happy.
You're proving my point though.
None of them even tried to adopt communism, they all tried to adopt authoritarianism, using the word communism to garner support to get elected. Communism is a class-free society with communal ownership, no country has ever tried to be that.
Again, thanks for proving my point for me.
I have no idea what point you're trying to make, but you do you.
I'm not surprised.
Have a great day!
No, you're point is just shit.
The state can also control everything. In which case, China, Vietnam and Cuba.
That's authoritarianism, not communism.
Which can coincide with communism, see China.
No it cannot, that's not communism. China is as communist as North Korea is democratic. Just because a country calls itself something does not make it that thing.
Countries can have multiple different systems in place. China for example, is an authoritarian communist state.
Communism by definition cannot be authoritarian. So no, China is not an authoritarian communist state, it's just a an authoritarian state.
The only way for China to be communist is to give all people direct communal ownership of goods and services.
Communism can be authoritarian, though, as it has been in history.
What's your basis for this definition?
No it cannot because communism by definition must be a classless society. If there is a group above others that controls the state, it is no longer classless, and therefore not communist.
And you know, the name derives from communal, so no communal ownership = no communism.
Again, what's your basis for this definition?
Generally speaking Marxists and those operating on schools of thought derived or related to Marxism use Marx's original definition of 'Communism' as the end goal of a stateless society, with a socialist state as the necessary intermediate point. This unfortunately gets muddled when people say "I'm a Communist" (meaning I'm forming a socialist state to ACHIEVE communism) and just end up forming a socialist (or 'socialist') state.
I just told you.
I recon the Neozapatista communes in Chiapas come pretty close. Historically, Revolutionary Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, the Makhnovshina during the Russian Civil War, and a couple others also came very close to the definition of communism, although all of them, because they still had to interact with the outside economy, continued to use some form of money.
In the case of the aforementioned historic governments, they met their demise because they relied too heavily on an alliance with tankies, who then proceeded to shoot them in the back. The Neozapatistas did not ally with any authoritarian groups, which is why the sprung up in 1994 in the form of MAREZ and still exist today in the form of GALs.
No, these countries have implemented 19th century theories extremely accurately. After all, Marx manifesto is openly calling for violence and genocide and Marx was also a big fan of Taiping Rebellion which resulted in more than 20 million deaths. I bet he was dreaming about the same destiny for Europe.
Not even close to true
What do you mean? These are the facts. How can they not be true? Are you a lunatic?