lemm.ee

0 points

9 months ago

Because you can be a leftist and not support that shit by holding positive views of the Soviet Union or China.

To paraphrase Muhammad Ali: “I ain’t got no quarrel with them Viet Cong. No Viet Cong ever called me the N-word”.

report

assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world

[ - ]

2 points

9 months ago

Are you saying you have no issue with China because you aren’t a Uigher?

Leftism should be accompanied by the belief that no matter where someone is born or with what traits, they should be able to live a happy and comfy life. No government should be exempt from persecuting people. A Tankie says “well, hold on” if it’s a government they like.

report

[ - ]

-2 points

9 months ago

Leftism should be accompanied by the belief that no matter where someone is born or with what traits, they should be able to live a happy and comfy life.

You’re not describing “Leftism”. You’re describing “Consumerism”. The leftist struggle for a free and equitable society does not guarantee happiness or comfort. It guarantees a worker’s right to the fruits of one’s labor.

And sending troops abroad to butcher civilians and burn down their homes does nothing to accomplish either.

A Tankie says “well, hold on”

Again, it is absolutely crazy to see to “tankie” conflated with “please stop bombing people”.

report

assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world

[ - ]

3 points

9 months ago

How the hell did you get “a Tankie says to stop bombing people” from “a Tankie excuses genocides if they like the country”?

My whole point is that there’s certain countries where they don’t say “please stop bombing people” and make excuses defending the country instead.

It’s very telling however that your thought of people being able to live happily and freely no matter where they’re born or with what traits is “consumerism”.

report

[ - ]

-2 points

9 months ago

“a Tankie excuses genocides if they like the country”

Fascists constantly telling me that we need to bomb the village in order to save it, and if you don’t support napalming My Lai, you’re with the Terrorists.

My whole point is that there’s certain countries where they don’t say “please stop bombing people”

Name. That. Country.

It’s very telling however that your thought of people being able to live happily and freely no matter where they’re born or with what traits is “consumerism”.

Its Utopian to believe people simply stop having problems under a particular ideological system. Capitalists and Communists alike need to deal with droughts and pandemics and supply chain failures and climate change.

Neither system guarantees people happiness and freedom.

But recognizing ecological limits means you’re a “tankie”? While devouring seed corn because it makes you happy is… what? Real Leftism?

report

assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world

[ - ]

1 point

9 months ago

I get the feeling we are terribly misunderstanding each other and talking past the other. I think I see your point about there being problems in any system, but I think it behooves us to strive for the ideal, even if it’s unattainable.

In general, Russia tends to be the country that tankies make excuses for. Instead of condemning the actual country invading Ukraine and bombing civilians, they’ll say it’s Ukraine’s fault for wanting to join NATO, for instance.

If you disagree with that thinking, then good. You aren’t a Tankie. There were a number of “leftist” thinkers at the outset of the war who blamed the West and NATO for Russia invading, instead of Russia. And some still insist the bloodshed has to stop by Ukraine suing for peace, instead of Russia leaving.

Fascists constantly telling me that we need to bomb the village in order to save it, and if you don’t support napalming My Lai, you’re with the Terrorists.

In Ukraine war, Tankies suggest Russia is just defending itself and its “spheres of influence”. It’s not dissimilar from your example. If you don’t understand Russia’s “very reasonable” response of bombing Ukraine to prevent it from joining NATO, you’re called a Western imperialist, unironically.

The other main example is with China and the Uighurs. Detaining a cultural group in concentration camps and forcibly reeducating them and erasing their culture is typically seen as genocide, but with China you’ll hear Tankies make excuses that it’s to stop terrorism and that is all Western propaganda and there’s nothing suspicious going on at all.

Once again, if that isn’t you, you aren’t a Tankie. I’d argue tankies actually have a concerning natural alliance with fascists.

Moderates are eager to paint leftists as Tankies when that isn’t the case, I agree with you there. That doesn’t mean the term has no meaning nor utility however.

report

[ - ]

-3 points

9 months ago

In general, Russia tends to be the country that tankies make excuses for.

I doubt one in ten leftists (much less westerners) could tell you about the 1956 Hungarian Revolution in any kind of detail. So I’m skeptical of the claim that you’ve got a bunch of rock-ribbed old school Stalin-Shouldn’t-Have-Stopped-At-Berlin Soviets running around.

Some of the fiercest leftist criticism I’ve seen has been aimed squarely at Gorbachev and Yeltsin, for selling the Soviet States down the river during Perestroika. I’ve gotten an earful of criticism over the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, I’ve seen all sorts of complaints about their poor environmental record, and plenty of leftists bemoaning the vestigial state of the modern Russian Communist Party in the face of United Russia.

If there’s a bunch of DSA folks or Brooklyn comedians or LA Nurses Union members or Corbynite / Trudeauite Labor Organizers insisting “Russia Good Aktuly!”, I’m not seeing it.

But I do see a lot of folks going to the old Parenti quote:

“During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.”

I see leftists dismissing the cynical attacks on civil rights leaders, anti-colonial organizers, and opponents of western financialization/privatization as “useful idiots” of some evil foreign hand. And I see them labeled as “tankies” because they refuse to correlate BLM or climate activism or anti-war protests or anti-surveillance libertarians as “pawns Russia”.

If you disagree with that thinking, then good. You aren’t a Tankie.

The term is bullshit. If you look at the folks who advocate driving tanks across Europe, you’ll find them in Anthony Blinken’s State Department and Olaf Scholz’s Defense Ministry as quickly as Rupert Murdoch’s news department. The only question is which direction those tanks should be driving.

I don’t see any kind of shortage of pro-war advocates. I don’t see any shortage of military spending. I don’t see any shortage of tanks.

What I see a vast deficit in is anti-war advocates at any level of power. And anyone who voices an objection to Ukrainian forced conscription or the next $50B spent on new tank shells or another year trading artillery fire over a mile of mud in the Donbas… these people are called Tankies. The folks paying for the tanks and cheering the tanks and egging on another year of tanks firing on one another, these… aren’t.

In Ukraine war, Tankies suggest Russia is just defending itself

Are you referencing anyone in particular, or are you just describing Cable News Republicans as “Tankies”? I’m hard pressed to name anyone outside Elon Musk or Tucker Carlson who was “Pro-Russia”

All I see are a bunch of people with heads in their hands, who see the decade of civil war in Ukraine and the next three years of war with Russia as a phenomenal and catastrophic lose for the region. I see people watching the death figures roll in - 10,000 new dead Russians + 8,000 new dead Ukrainians + another 100,000 new refugees fleeing their respective borders - and wailing “STOP! Sue for peace! End this madness!”

And these people get called “Tankies”, too. They’re pro-Russia because they don’t see an inevitable Ukrainian victory. They’re pro-Russian because they don’t see thousands of dead infantrymen as some kind of Win For The West. They’re pro-Russian because they don’t want to chime in and cheer when some comedian says “Putin Is A Big Gay Who Is Definitely Going To Die Soon of Stupid Person Disease”.

Moderates are eager to paint leftists as Tankies when that isn’t the case, I agree with you there. That doesn’t mean the term has no meaning nor utility however.

There’s only one tankie I recognize, and its

report