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.
Off topic: It’s times/comments like these that I wish people kept in mind when they start clamouring for defederation
this is the most appropriate “both sides” argument i’ve ever seen.
“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.
it get that they’re both bad faith ways to shut down discourse and i can see how whataboutism fits; but i was referring to the false equivalency placed between the nato’s atrocities and that of the soviet union’s in the comment
when it’s “both sides” is brought up to shutdown arguments that the democrats have done some of the same things that the republicans did; they’re likewise implying that the democrats have fewer of such incidents than the republicans and therefore the argument is invalid.
this was my half snarky way of saying that this comment is a “both sides” example can be applied in the opposite direction where it neuters the effect that “both sides” has with liberals.
Sorry, I often fail at snark perception
i think it’s better that you say something if it’s not clear for the people who lurk through all the interactions.
Im not the person who replied to you but I picked up on what you meant
fwiw, I suspect Hexbear users expect snark more. It’s basically the default mode in a bunch of comms.
i keep forgetting to use <snark> </snark> tags.
I would submit that sometimes “whataboutism” can be related to the issue of topicality in a debate, though. If not addressed properly topicality issues will inevitably derail a discussion as is their nature.
There’s also a point here in how if you have to kill a bunch of people to fight a movement, and still lose, that means you’re fighting a genuinely popular movement. But if it takes orders of magnitude less violence to fight a movement, and the movement fails, how popular was it to begin with?
tankie to the rescue
“Yes, the USSR performed atrocities, but the fact that the west has as well excuses that.”
It’s not like those are the only two instances of human rights violations by the USSR, and they’re infamous for lying about numbers.
Misery is not s competition. You don’t have to pick sides. There can be more than one violent authoritarian regime in the world, they can all be bad, and you can oppose all of them. There’s really no reason to defend any imperial powers.
“Yes, the USSR performed atrocities, but the fact that the west has as well excuses that.”
I don’t think that’s what Kieselguhr was trying to say.
As I see it, they are simply pointing out that, when ever the USSR does something bad the west are quick to let you know all about it and how EVIL the USSR is, but when the west does something bad or worst, they don’t seem so eager to let you know about it. It’s not that the west did something bad, it’s that they usually don’t tell you anything about it, but at happy to show the atrocities the others have committed.
But I’m not them so I guess we could ask them to clarify.
I actually support the side which is magnitudes less violent. And there is a difference between killing fascists like the Soviets did and killing anti-colonial freedom fighters but mostly civilians like the colonial powers did.
You can only oppose everyone if your opposition doesn’t actually do anything. If you’re actually affecting things your opposition of one will strengthen the other. You have to be against the US empire and for multipolarity or against multipolarity and for the US empire. There isn’t a third option.
Deeply unserious and reactionary reply. Accomplished with signature feigned stupidity to fully sidestep the point being made.
The biggest irony of our times is blood thirsty liberals who are cheering for as much war as possible running around calling people tankies.
Iraq war supporters calling anyone a tankie, should be immediately flattenned by a tank
Those fucking bloodthirsty tankies don’t want us sending more tanks to nazis
Much like the Scots ruining Scotland, liberals seem to delight in ruining liberalism. As time passes, I see liberals more worried about some other liberal’s little slot in life. And less and less concerned with getting things done. The Big Picture is eschewed in favor of fighting over minutia.
We get what we are asking for.
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.
It’s both overused in the way you describe and yet obscure enough that only terminally-online political people have even heard of it.
Yep, it’s a deeply unserious term. It’s only used unironically, in my experience, by people who haven’t read theory yet devote a huge chunk of time to debating online, which is largely a waste of time to begin with. That’s why I focus on just trying to correct misconceptions and provide my reading list when appropriate, debating is just an outlet for frustration for most people. It’s truly rare that debate convinces anyone.
thank you for that and the “what is socialism” post; but i’m encountering that theory is somehow still a HEAVY read for someone like who me has been inside the leftist sphere of influence for his entire life; there’s needs to be some sort of sound-bite-able way of sharing these messages and i wish that ml’s had the capitalists’ deep pockets that guarantees a deep bench of talent that could figure something like this out.
it reminds of my own own experience of going from technical support to software engineering by simply reading. your ignorance makes it daunting as first and you have to put in A LOT of effort to understand it when you don’t even know the basics and you’ll get there eventually if you stick with it; but most won’t stick with it and if you’re REALLY knowledgeable at it, it becomes difficult to understand why it’s difficult for other people.
We need to make more parentiwave tbh, we’ve been slacking on that
i’ve never heard of parentiwave, but it sounds perfect if it’s anything like vaporwave
Vaporwave but with Parenti speeches 😎
i just saw an example and i wonder if it can be leveraged somehow.
Sharing it! Or just jamming
my family calls it complaining and so do i despite my therapist’s efforts to get me to stop calling it so; i bet that guy WISHES he could roll his eyes as hard as my family does every time i do it. lol
Of the few tracks, this one’s my favorite
it looks like vaporwave; i subscribed.
You could start with communist content on YouTube. That tends to be more easily digestible and eases you into reading theory later on.
I can recommend channels like Second Thought, Yugopnik, Hakim, revolutionaryth0t and Ian Neves/História Pública (you’ll need to use subtitles for this one if you don’t speak portuguese).
ha! i’m already subscribed to half of them, but thanks nonetheless for the two i didn’t know about.
It’s certainly difficult, but when in doubt I love sharing this person’s articles as more bite-sized bits of theory and soundbites from Michael Parenti speeches, haha.
even more material to “read”; now i’m wondering if i’ll ever be finished with any of it. lol
We’ll never be finished with bourgeois theory: it’s what we’ve been fed our entire lives, usually without even realizing it. It’s just common sense.
i’m convinced that if i had fewer vulnerable identities that i would never have been able to see through practice all the “common sense” bullshit levied against me all my life and i also think that’s the only reason why i try when others with identical backgrounds, like my family, don’t bother; i’ve learned the hard way that ignorance will hurt me long before it will hurt them.
That does help. After all it was black Americans who invented wokeness, before white liberal Americans co-opted it and perverted its meaning. The marginalized have always experienced the fascism that’s been baked into the American project since the beginning.
i suspect that facism is going to force me to move back into the country that my parents immigrated from if trump gets his way and in the same way that incidents like operation wetback deported millions of american citizens.
Haha, if you want the most bang for your buck I stand wholeheartedly behind my introductory reading list. I truly put a lot of effort into it and several comrades helped tremendously.
i’m starting there because i’ve learned that audio books are the best way to cheat at “reading” lol
Thanks! Feel free to ask questions 🫡
Marxism and Marxism-Leninism are not the same, and should not be treated as the same. One is an economic theory/philosophy, one is an ideology. I’ll leave it to you to figure out which is which.
Marxism is broken up into 3 major components:
-
Dialectical and Historical Materialism
-
Critique of Capitalism via the Law of Value
-
Advocacy for Revolutionary and Scientific Socialism.
Marxism-Leninism carries these 3 foundations forward, and analyzes Capitalism as it reaches Imperialism, as well as numerous expansions on the foundations of revolutionary theory and practice.
They are not “the same,” but the vast majority of Marxists are Marxist-Leninists, because Lenin’s application of Marxism to higher stages of Capitalism are invaluable to Marxism.
Marxism-Leninism was not actually thought out by Lenin, but by Stalin. The Stalin.
And how invaluable were Lenin’s ideas about violently suppressing opposition, resistance, and unwanted societal classes?
Stalin synthesized Marxism-Leninism, yes. He did so on the basis of Lenin’s theoretical advancements on Marxism. Stalin himself wasn’t that much of a theoretician, hence why it’s Marxism-Leninism, though Stalin has a few works under his belt. Yes, the Stalin. You’re free to read my introductory reading list if you want to learn more about Marxism.
Secondly, you have no idea what you’re talking about if you’re pretending Lenin came up with the idea of revolution and using the Dictatorship of the Proletariat to suppress fascists and the bourgeoisie. Such ideas came from Marx and Engels, who always advocated for revolution. From Marx:
“We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.”
I suggest you take the advice of @Edie@lemmy.ml and read up on Marxist theory and history before speaking nonsense from a pedestal.
That quote is extremely hinged on context in which it was made, and it would serve you well to internalise that context before throwing this quote around pretending it to have been something Marx lived by.
Secondly, you have no idea what you’re talking about if you’re pretending Lenin came up with the idea of revolution and using the Dictatorship of the Proletariat to suppress fascists and the bourgeoisie.
That was not my claim, but thank you for so generously misinterpreting what I said. Lenin implemented the violent oppression of dissenters and opposition in a socialist system. That was carried further by Stalin, under whom ‘counter-revolutionary’ became an extremely malleable term that could mean anything not fully aligned with his ideas. The fact that you think political violence and terror is a core tenet of Marxism tells me that you’re the one who might need to brush up on their history a little bit.
In fact, authoritarian socialism - as practiced in virtually every single Marxist-Leninist country that ever existed - was completely counter to the ideals of Marx and Engels. The people we have to thank for creating the violent authoritarianism that pervaded communist countries in practice are Lenin and Stalin. “Dictatorship of the proletariat” may have been a phrase used by Marx, but he never fully elaborated on what that should or could look like. And fascism as created by Mussolini and unleashed upon the world by Hitler didn’t even exist during Marx’s lifetime. Even Marx’s views on religion were a lot more complex and multifaceted than what Marxist-Leninist governments turned them into.
I don’t know if either of you have ever lived in a Marxist-Leninist country (as in lived, not just visited). I was born in one. I lived in another for five years. I’ve seen the before and after, first-hand. That’s my pedestal. How’s the weather up there on yours?
In fact, authoritarian socialism - as practiced in virtually every single Marxist-Leninist country that ever existed - was completely counter to the ideals of Marx and Engels.
Do you mean the Engles who said this:
[T]he anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?
Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don’t know what they’re talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction
…or is there some other Engles I should know about?
I don’t know of any person called Engles who would be significant in this context, so I can’t tell you if there is one you should know about. The Engels who said what you quoted above, also said - literally in the sentence preceding your quote:
Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society.
As always, context matters. And I’ll trust the context created by the words and interpretations of respected historians way more than I’ll trust some randos on Lemmy who only excel at selective quoting.
That quote is extremely hinged on context in which it was made, and it would serve you well to internalise that context before throwing this quote around pretending it to have been something Marx lived by.
Correct, Marx wasn’t just randomly terrorizing people. He was referring to the Proletariat making no apologies for revolution and taking up arms against the bourgeoisie and their enablers, something Lenin and the people of the USSR carried into reality. Lenin descibed what you’re doing to Marx and Engels right now quite well:
“What is now happening to Marx’s teaching has, in the course of history, happened repeatedly to the teachings of revolutionary thinkers and leaders of oppressed classes struggling for emancipation. During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their teachings with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to surround their names with a certain halo for the “consolation” of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time emasculating the essence of the revolutionary teaching, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it. At the present time, the bourgeoisie and the opportunists within the working-class movement concur in this “doctoring” of Marxism. They omit, obliterate and distort the revolutionary side of this teaching, its revolutionary soul. They push to the foreground and extol what is or seems acceptable to the bourgeoisie. All the social-chauvinists are now “Marxists” (don’t laugh!). And more and more frequently, German bourgeois scholars, but yesterday specialists in the annihilation of Marxism, are speaking of the “national-German” Marx, who, they aver, educated the workers’ unions which are so splendidly organized for the purpose of conducting a predatory war!”
- Vladimir Lenin, The State and Revolution
That was not my claim, but thank you for so generously misinterpreting what I said. Lenin implemented the violent oppression of dissenters and opposition in a socialist system. That was carried further by Stalin, under whom ‘counter-revolutionary’ became an extremely malleable term that could mean anything not fully aligned with his ideas. The fact that you think political violence and terror is a core tenet of Marxism tells me that you’re the one who might need to brush up on their history a little bit.
Lenin implemented the world’s first Socialist state, and this state violently oppressed the bourgeoisie, fascists, the White Army, rebels, and so forth. The fact is, political violence is often sadly necessary against those who would crush the Socialist state, like the 14 Capitalist countries that jointly invaded the USSR after its founding. A Marxist project that rolls over and dies the second fascists and the bourgeoisie fight against it isn’t Marxist. Blackshirts and Reds is a good quick read on the tangible benefits AES states achieved despite brutal opposition from the outside.
In fact, authoritarian socialism - as practiced in virtually every single Marxist-Leninist country that ever existed - was completely counter to the ideals of Marx and Engels. The people we have to thank for creating the violent authoritarianism that pervaded communist countries in practice are Lenin and Stalin. “Dictatorship of the proletariat” may have been a phrase used by Marx, but he never fully elaborated on what that should or could look like. And fascism as created by Mussolini and unleashed upon the world by Hitler didn’t even exist during Marx’s lifetime. Even Marx’s views on religion were a lot more complex and multifaceted than what Marxist-Leninist governments turned them into.
This is nonsense. First of all, what separates “authoritarian” Socialism from “non-authoritarian” socialism? All Marxist-Leninist states practice democracy and allow more participation in the way society is run than Capitalist states for the average person. Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan is a good resource on this. Secondly, the idea that Marx and Engels never had a clear idea of what the Dictatorship of the Proletariat would look like is further nonsense - Marx described the Paris Commune as the first implementation of the DotP in reality. Marx and Engels knew quite well that violent suppression of bourgeois elements was required.
Furthermore, whether Marx or Engels really observed fascism is utterly irrelevant, unless your point is that they would not have been anti-fascist, which is nonsense.
I don’t know if either of you have ever lived in a Marxist-Leninist country (as in lived, not just visited). I was born in one. I lived in another for five years. I’ve seen the before and after, first-hand. That’s my pedestal. How’s the weather up there on yours?
A non-sequitor. Spending early childhood in an AES state does not mean you know how it works, nor what it deals with on a daily basis. Even people who live their entire lives in Capitalist states go without knowing how they function.
I don’t know if either of you have ever lived in a Marxist-Leninist country (as in lived, not just visited). I was born in one. I lived in another for five years. I’ve seen the before and after, first-hand.
Could you please name those countries? And share your experiences, if possible? Were they not Marxist?
The countries were the German Democratic Republic, where I was born; and Cuba, where I lived from 1985 to 1990.
And what are experiences? By all accounts what I grew up in was normal, because I didn’t know any different. We grew up like any kids really, playing, riding bikes, watching TV, getting up to mischief. I have a lot of good memories from both the GDR and Cuba, and even getting started on them would take me hours.
Sure, we knew about the West. Some of my friends had relatives in the West and occasionally got packages with sweets and other things. We watched Western TV and were exposed to Western toys, comics and music, to a degree. In Cuba there were a lot of Western movies and series on TV. But we also knew that you could get into trouble for being too open about that.
But after it all came down, we learned a lot about what went on. The oppression, the secret police, the lack of basic freedoms.
Once in art class, we were tasked with drawing something we had seen or experienced. Just a short time prior to that, we had gone to see a well known boat lift east of Berlin. The boat that came through the lift was a freight barge flying the West German flag. So that’s what I drew. Only years later my parents told me that they had subsequently been summoned by the school and had to explain that it was nothing more sinister than that - a child drawing a picture of something they had seen.
Another thing that struck me as odd at the time was this. Most of the socialist countries we knew as ‘friendly’ had state-run youth organisations. Ours were called the pioneers. Once there was an afternoon activity with a little quiz, and one of the quiz questions was ‘name three friendly youth organisations’. So I named three that I remembered from my pioneer calendar - and one of them was Finnish. My quiz came back with the correction ‘friendly youth organisations’.
I will always remember and defend the good aspects about the countries I grew up in. By the same token I will always vociferously criticise the bad things, and anyone who wants to try them again.
13·2 days agoUnless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn’t that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful. How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense?
It won’t do!
It won’t do!
You must investigate!
You must not talk nonsense!
When you get anywhere near making a point, just send up a flare, ok?
-
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.
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.
I have a hard time imagining anyone who would stop listening at “communist” but not “tankie”
I might be wrong but I don’t think ‘tankie’ has seeped into the offline world yet
For context: these are the original lines
For whatever reason, I’ve seen fascists try to claim they are not fascists because they haven’t done anything yet or are not close to the levers of power.
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
The first time I saw this word being used was here on Lemmy, when I arrived during the reddit exodus. I’m not a native English speaker though.
It was used on Reddit, but not widely. Mostly by insufferable ‘enlightened centrists’ who didn’t want to engage in good faith argument.
It’s now a blanket term for “anyone left l politically left of me” used by insufferable liberals who don’t want to admit that trying to curry votes from Republicans lost them the election.
For a time it was being used to describe actual Chinese and Soviet sympathisers, but given how quiet that particular group has been after the election, I suspect it was interchangable with state sponsored bot accounts.
Exactly this! I’ve never seen the term used by anyone but liberals to taunt, attack or divert a debate.
As somebody who isn’t much on social media, I often have to look up slang terms I don’t use. It’s actually kind of relatable when an explanation doesn’t convey the nuances people feel when these terms are just part of normal speech. Also tbh the general idea of mocking people for not knowing things doesn’t really seem that cool.
And then there is me who keeps getting called both tankie and liberal.
This is the part where I would normally state my opinion in geopolitics but since both sides have their sources and “fact checks” I won’t. I’m tired of this information war. The only geopolitical thing both sides (yes even the great majority of liberals) can actually agree on is the Palestinian genocide. The rest is split between Western and Anti-Western reporting with both sides having blind spots for sources favouring their side whilst denouncing the sources that do not fit their world views.
And whilst we - the economic left - are fighting an unwinnable war over geopolitics the economic right is making the economy less social whilst radicalising in nationalism and conservativism with every election.
And then there is me who keeps getting called both tankie and liberal.
Only one side has a concrete definition so I’ll ask the one question that determines if you’re a liberal: do you want to overthrow capitalism?
A consumer capitalist society that is focused to see infinite GDP growth is incompatible with saving the planet and collective health. Plus seeing the human being as a mere “resource” whilst promoting individualism is deeply cynical.
The capitalist ideal is that you can be yourself as long as you can afford it. “Oh so you like playing soccer? Sorry bud, but since you have a higher probability of getting injured you’ve to pay 100$ more than your neighbour who does not.”, “Oh, you’re playing video games after your 9-5 office job? Sorry, but you spend way too much time sitting, we will therefore not cover the cost of your knee operation. You should have done more exercise.” is peak capitalism, you don’t want to live the healthy most health efficient life then better start affording the cost your decisions bring. Meanwhile corporations try to blame their heavy usage of public infrastructure and the environmental impact of their cheaply produced goods on the individual so they can wind themselves out of paying taxes so their leadership & shareholders can get another sweet bonus even tho they all already own 3 yachts, 10 supercars and 5 private jets.
Why should anyone rationally thinking want to preserve a deeply unfair economic system like capitalism? The whole system only survives because people actually think they could become the next super rich guy by chance whilst in reality over 99,9% fail to come even close to that dream but still everyone thinks they’re gonna be the 0,1%.
What I want is a system where you actually get the chance to make it from the bottom to the top if you are skilled enough. It starts by free public access to education & healthcare, investments into public transport with individual transport only for the last kilometre (or kilometres if you live in the countryside) and a social net for the jobless, homeless and retirees. Even better would be if the state would limit the amount of money the CEO can earn to max 5 times the minimum wage that the company pays and company bailouts at the cost of them becoming (partially) state owned. I have the luxury to live in Central Europe, where public services are in place but I’ve been watching the libertarians dismantling them step by step over the last few years.
My family experienced both socialism and capitalism and whilst they love the freedom of travel and the possibility to voice their opinion and go demonstrate they really miss the working atmosphere under socialism where “life was less hectic with more free time and people were friendlier and more helpful. Yes, we had to wait for certain products and maybe sometimes couldn’t afford something but the neigbors would always be helpful and borrow their stuff if it arrived first and so would we borrow our stuff to our neigbors in return. The times were tough just like nowadays, but unlike today where we feel like being left alone we felt like going through them together.” But sadly my granny also told me a lot of shit she experienced like that she lived near soviet barracks and they’d hold military roll calls at 6:00 am and if a non-soviet wasn’t there they’d find them, take them into the backyard and beat the shit out of them whilst racially insulting them and like telling them to admit they were the inferior race because they had to be liberated. But I guess no military in the world is free of nationalist pigs (who else would want to die for their country anyways)?
/acc in name
Worse than tankie tbh
i’ve only ever seen tankies complain about the word “tankie” being over used. i guess us non-tankies just don’t hear it very often.
there’s also this false dichotomy i’ve seen many tankies present where they try to argue that people are either liberals or tankies. it is possible to be a leftist and not support authoritarian governments.
I’ve seen Anarchists, Marxists, and progressive liberals all called “tankie” before, so either you aren’t looking or you consider them to be “tankies.” Secondly, I don’t know what you mean by “supporting authoritarian governments,” leftists don’t support the US Empire.
