After seeing a megathread praising Mao Zedong, an actual mass killer, and a post about a guy saying "99% of westerners are 100000000000% sure they know what happened in 'Tiny Man Square' [...] the reasons for this are complex and involve propaganda [...]," I am genuinely curious what leads people to this belief system. Even if propaganda is involved when it comes to Tiananmen Square, it doesn't change the atrocities that were/are committed everywhere else in China.

I am all for letting people believe what they want but I am lost on why one would deliberately praise any authoritarian system this hard.

Can someone please help me understand why this is such a large and prominent community? How have these ideals garnered such a following outside of China?

EDIT: Thank you to everyone who has responded! This thread has been very insightful :)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 142 points 10 months ago (55 children)

As a couple of poster here are already demonstrating, they discover that western nations have lied about communist nations, but they don't learn the more fundamental lesson that they shouldn't trust everything a nation says. So instead of adopting a nuanced view, they just counter believing everything a western nation says with rejecting everything a western nation says and instead believing everything a communist nation says.

  • source
  • hideshow 55 child comments
  • [–] 52 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

    Yep.

    I'm perhaps older than some here, so I saw something similar after 9/11.

    Western media, especially American media, were often blatantly biased in favour of the US government and the so called 'war on terror'. Especially when stuff leaked out about torture, mass killings and abuses. People turned to alternatives and often found channels like Russia Today. And to be fair, at first glance Russia Today did (certainly at the time) appear to be far more nuanced than mainstream media. It was certainly and often justifiably critical of what the US and its allies was up to around that time. But people who spent a lot of time uncritically watching Russia Today, often ended up believing the Russian government propaganda mixed in with truths.

    I think it's also in large part due to the human tendency to simplify reality. Reality is often complex, but we prefer to thing in categories, like black and white. And so you often see people thinking in or blindly accepting false binaries. Side A bad, so side B bad good. (e: brain fart)

    It's surprisingly common. I mean, look how common it is to think of Germany as the bad guy in WWI, when the reality was far more nuanced. The British empire really wasn't great.

    And in WWII the nazis were obviously evil, but that doesn't mean the allies were particularly good either. For example, Roosevelt didn't do that much to stop the deportation of up to 2 million Mexicans and Mexican Americans, putting Japanese Americans in concentration camps wasn't moral, America was still virulently racist, and contrary to what you may have been led to believe about the Soviets up to 1 in 4 rapes by allied troops were perpetrated by Americans. Churchill arguably helped kill up to 4 million Indians during the war. Etc. etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 10 months ago

    The Post 9/11 situation with Mass Media and RT is why it's so desperately important for a Government to not lie or cover up it's actions. Another example of this is Al Jazeera. The US Government's dedication to hiding its dirty deeds opened the door for AJ to establish credibility which they later used against the US and it's Government.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 10 months ago

    I think it’s also in large part due to the human tendency to simplify reality. Reality is often complex, but we prefer to thing in categories, like black and white. And so you often see people thinking in or blindly accepting false binaries. Side A bad, so side B bad.

    Agreed.

    Nuance is difficult, and arguably more to the point, it's sort of vague and insubstantial, not least because an awful lot of it necessariky boils down to "I don't know." People generally prefer something more solid to which to cling, so tend toward absolutes and unjustified certainties. And the most attractive ones are binaristic, because then you don't even have to provide support for your claimed position - all you have to do is find fault with the (generally falsely dichotomous) alternative.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    instead believing everything a "communist" nation says.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago (46 children)

    Not a tankie, but this kind of framing is reductionist and condescending. It's possible for someone to study the spectrum of political ideology and rationally decide that Communism is the best system. It's honestly disheartening that a non-falsifiable claim presented with zero evidence would garner this many upvotes on this platform.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 46 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

    It’s possible for someone to study the spectrum of political ideology and rationally decide that Communism is the best system.

    Seems you're assuming all communists are tankies, when they wrote about communist nations, ie, communist states which are all some variety of Marxism-Leninism, not general communism. Who's being reductive here?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago

    THANK you. I was considering saying something similar here, and did in response to another ignorant, self-assuaging user elsewhere in the thread. So I'll just say the same thing I said to them, as a response to WatDabney above:

    If you read the many comments in this thread, not to mention other threads on this topic, a significant chunk of western leftists who are ML arrive at Marxism Leninism only after going through a more anarchist phase, and only through a lot of examination of the world and themselves, coupled with a lot of study and reading, do they move from anarchism to come to recognize the undeniable accuracy of Marxism Leninism to reflect the real world and to offer an actually-working methodology for revolution.

    Your fallacious description of people's process towards becoming Marxist Leninists as being the same sort of way that poor, ignorant, emotionally needy people latch onto a cult, is ridiculous, and the kind of things liberals like to say of all of us on the anticapitalist left to comfort themselves into maintaining their simplistic "I'm right but they're wrong" worldview and avoid having to engage with the many real reasons people become anticapitalists. But that's what you're doing. Don't be like the liberals. Try to understand the real why of things, don't make up nice little bedtime stories that ensure you don't have to examine your own misconceptions.

    And some of them just get born into it.

    No one is born into Marxism Leninism, anarchism, or any other ideology, and saying that is a grotesquely anti-anarchist thing to say.

    And to add to that, when first coming to realize the lies you've been told by the state you live under, it is a lack of nuance to immediately jump to the false premise that just because your state is bad, that must mean all states are bad. That's just the easy and childish answer. That doesn't make it inherently wrong, but it does make it the one that requires further examination and sometimes a hard look at ones misconceptions. MLs are the ones who have done that hard work, not the ones who have fallen for the easy, un-nuanced end point. As someone else here went into a lot of detail describing but I can't find at the moment, the typical and more easy trajectory for a young leftist is to go from disillusionment at their own state to anarchism. It is only after a lot more learning, examination, and recognition of nuance, that a person comes to see that the understandable kneejerk reaction that "all of them are evil!" is naive, simplistic, and totally lacking the nuance these things need.

    It takes more internal work to conclude that "oh wow, all these other things I assumed were just the flat truth, common knowledge, - like how evil the communist states were and how bad they were for their people - were actually just more lies I was being told for a reason." Which is why we have so many young anarchists who over time become ML's but only rarely the other way around. @WatDabney@lemmy.dbzer0.com has it exactly backwards.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago* (35 children)

    Uh, I don't think you understood their point. Tankies aren't communists, they're authoritarians with a red paint job. We're not talking about nuanced Marxist thinkers, we're taking about people who think "Just line everyone who doesn't accept my exact interpretation of communism up against the wall" is rational praxis.

    There are plenty of ways to rationally arrive at Communism, but really the only way to get to Tankie is, as the top comment says, rejecting Western propaganda in favor of the propaganda of so-called "communists".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 10 months ago (27 children)

    Those people don’t exist. You’re making things up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (26 children)

    Unfortunately not, I have had conversations with them. And I know your next line is going to be "But they're just trolling, no one really thinks that", and I call horseshit. That "trolling", when so religiously adhered to, inspires weak-willed onlookers into sincere belief.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (20 children)

    Unfortunately not, I have had conversations with them.

    Any examples? As it stands, you're not beating the "I use a strawman as a club to terminate discussions" allegations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (19 children)

    This is just intellectual dishonesty. We both know that every side has its extremists, and to deny their existence simply makes you look like a liar.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (18 children)

    Sure, so we can say the people OP is referring to in their post do not actually share the views described by the comment I replied to, if that makes you feel better. The people that get the word "tankie" thrown at them that actually meet that comment's description are extremely few in number, perhaps a dozen on the entirety of Lemmy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (17 children)

    Personally, I think you're making an unconvincing argument.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (16 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (14 children)

    Marxists and anarchists support using violence against fascists, capitalists, landlords, slavers, etc. The major difference is that Marxists acknowledge the utility of the state for doing so, while anarchists go for more horizontalist structures (even if they also end up forming states and semi-states, like the Spanish anarchists did). The idea that either of us want to wholesale slaughter everyone that disagrees with us is just fantasy, though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (12 children)

    What observational truth? The people in the OP aren't as the user described. The number of people that meet the definition given is close to nil on the Fediverse, yet people get called a tankie all the time.

    "Tankie" is just a pejorative for those who uphold existing socialist states as legitimate, which covers the large majority of Marxists and a decent number of anarchists. The people in the OP are "tankies" by the definition I gave, it's consistent and clear. They uphold existing socialist states as legitimate, and this is the norm among Marxists.

    Call out whatever you like, it's going to backfire, because what I'm saying is more in line with reality. Unless your point is that Marxism itself is extremist and therefore "tankie," calling the norm position among Marxists extremist isn't particularly useful.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (10 children)

    I'm not seeing any valid arguments here. I'm good-faith, and I'm reading the arguments, I just disagree with them. Calling me bad-faith for disagreeing with you isn't a point, nor does it mean I am actually bad-faith.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (8 children)

    Uh, I don’t think you understood their point. Tankies aren’t communists, they’re authoritarians with a red paint job. We’re not talking about nuanced Marxist thinkers, we’re taking about people who think “Just line everyone who doesn’t accept my exact interpretation of communism up against the wall” is rational praxis.

    This is the original comment I replied to, which is a strawman. The people that think “Just line everyone who doesn’t accept my exact interpretation of communism up against the wall” is rational praxis don't exist in any significant numbers, yet the word "tankie" is thrown around willy nilly these days.

    There are plenty of ways to rationally arrive at Communism, but really the only way to get to Tankie is, as the top comment says, rejecting Western propaganda in favor of the propaganda of so-called “communists”.

    This argument is that existing socialist states aren't to be trusted and are equally bad, but becoming a communist isn't just about agreeing with a nice picture of it in our heads, but to also see what communists have done in real life.

    The original comment was itself a strawman, and you didn't offer any compelling argument beyond "extremists exist," which is true but not relevant. We aren't talking about outliers, but a common phenomenon, that being communists on the fediverse that uphold existing socialist states and are called "tankies" for it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    I never denied that outliers existed, my point is that outliers that actually fit the label are small in number yet the label is applied to non-outliers as a way to equate them. I'm consistent with my critique, and you haven't engaged with my point, just dodged it and claimed to be doing everyone a service.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago* (5 children)

    I don't know how you are incapable of processing the situation rn.

    I don't need to engage with your point. I made a point that you didn't engage with.

    You need to engage that point instead of attempting to use this opportunity to sanitize the pejorative "tankie".

    Reread my comment that I already requoted for you again. Keep rereading it. Keep rereading it. You can stop rereading it whenever you engage with it.

    Edit: hell, maybe reread the entire thread for context. You seem lost as hell.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    I processed the situation fully, you're getting lost in the sauce a bit here. I'll spell it out for you paragraph by paragraph though:

    Because even if the statement was hyperbole when referring to the majority of the tankie population, it still rings true for some of them- an inconvenient truth that you outright denied initially and were forced to backpedal on/reframe.

    This is the point I made about outliers existing, I didn't outright deny that they did in my original comment. The ones it rings true for, the "outliers," are an extreme minority. I wasn't forced to backpedal on it, when you interpreted my comment as denying their existence I clarified for you.

    Most rational people are going to see this, see someone obviously using hyperbole, see someone obfuscating reality to serve their purposes, and dismiss you outright.

    See, the problem with this statement is that I didn't do that.

    Beyond that, while it IS hyperbole to say tankies as a monolith believe in executing political dissidents, it is NOT hyperbole to say tankies as a monolith continue to support several states which DO believe in executing political dissidents.

    That's not what the original comment said, though. "Executing political dissidents" like using state violence against fascists and sabateurs is supported by the overwhelming majority of Marxists, but that was not the statement made:

    Just line everyone who doesn’t accept my exact interpretation of communism up against the wall” is rational praxis

    This is what you're now interpreting as any "executing of political dissidents." It's true that Marxists are revolutionary, and support using the state to protect that, but it isn't true that there's a significant number of us that want to line everyone up against the wall for thought crime.

    I wouldn’t color myself an anarchist necessarily, but I do find myself increasingly believing that anarchists are, for the most part, some of the only internally consistent ideologues. Fuck all states seems to be the only reasonable position when all existing states fucking suck.

    I really don't care what you think about this considering your lack of understanding the current argument being made to begin with. Marxism is internally consistent, whether someone misinterpreting an argument believes so or not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (3 children)

    Those people don’t exist. You’re making things up.

    Here is the comment that another poster originally made, and is the originating comment of this argument, and the position you have been defending this entire time. "Those people don't exist. You're making things up." Do I need to quote it for you a third time? You clarified after being forced to. Stop trying to sanitize your behavior and own up to it.

    Anyway, as for the rest of your comment...

    Are you just being dumb or? Do you not see how you just said "we like this thing, but we don't like the same thing phrased in a slightly different way"

    Nice one, dawg. You lost. GG.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    In the context of OP talking about a specific group of people that don't measure up to what that commenter stated? No, they don't exist, and they did make it up. The subject of the OP is not something that their comment applies to.

    Nice one, dawg. You lost. GG.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    No, I don't think they're trolling. I think that you mistake any comment that is vaguely supportive of China or Russia or that contradicts the mainstream western narrative about those countries as wholesale support for anything those countries do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    You would be incorrect, I do no such thing. I'm speaking about a specific phenomenon, as I described.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Can you link to an example? Because I haven’t encountered such a person yet in my 6 months on Lemmy (admittedly not a long time).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago

    I have deliberately avoided interacting with people like that for a while, and I don't really feel like digging back like a year to find a specific examples, especially since you came out of the gate unshakably convinced that it never ever happens.

    But I assure you they exist. No I'm not generalizing pro- Russia/China sentiment. I'm talking about people who advocate the forceful spread of their ideology through violence.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago

    Communists know that the theory and the real world are not the same and that people can see thing in different light.

    Tankies and fascists can't. And for the same reason: they see the world in black and white. "100%with me or you are the enemy". Not the rival or the opposition. The enemy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    You're making a semantic argument and wrapping it up with a "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

    OP is making an assumption about his opposition with zero evidence to support his claim. It's a claptrap for people who want to feel intellectually superior, even if it's to a straw man.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

    Not really, no. Words have definitions. It's not a "semantic argument' to clarify the definition of a word. It's not "no true Scotsman" either, that's when you define a group by some unrelated or incidental quality. What I've referred to is the definition of a tankie. The quality described is neither unrelated nor incidental.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

    Uh, no. I just have the ability to look up definitions. The word means what it means

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    You said...

    Tankies aren’t communists, they’re authoritarians with a red paint job.

    Per the definition:

    Tankie is a pejorative label generally applied to authoritarian communists

    So you have the ability to look up definitions, just not to read them, apparently.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    I know what it says, but "authoritarian communist" is an oxymoron, like "carnivorous vegan". They may call themselves communists, they may be members of a party that calls itself "communist", but authoritarianism cannot coexist with a stateless, classless, moneyless society.

    Sloppy editing does not change that fact, and there is extensive literature and commentary providing clarification.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] -4 points 10 months ago

    Uh, I don’t think you understood their point. Tankies aren’t communists, they’re authoritarians with a red paint job. We’re not talking about nuanced Marxist thinkers, we’re taking about people who think “Just line everyone who doesn’t accept my exact interpretation of communism up against the wall” is rational praxis.

    These people don't exist, so effectively the purpose for maintaining this as your definition is to use it as a discussion-terminating club against those that uphold socialism as it exists in real life, tacking on the sins of this strawman like a scarlet letter A.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    Hey I can understand your frustration at their supposedly misplaced reasoning. But you have to let them have that view for some time so their own experience can align it closer to what you believe is happening. It shouldn't be disheartening that people might have incorrect explanations of how the world works for some time.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (6 children)

    You are right that we cannot know and understand the life of every individual in a group, but we may observe typical or aggregate behavior, and we may seek reasonable inferences.

    Tankies express a general pattern of behavior that is bad faith.

    They quote passages instead of explaining from personal comprehension. They attack individuals against an opportunity to discuss ideas. They defer to doctrine instead of reasoning independently. They anchor to absurd lies about anarchists. They lie and deny instead of admitting to problems. They rely on disingenuous rhetoric such as the motte-and-bailey fallacy.

    Such observations converge on a pattern of anchoring to convictions for reasons that are unrigorous, prejudiced, and generally misguided.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    The problem with your argument is that it relies entirely on anecdotal evidence and personal experience, which is heavily influenced by confirmation bias.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    Politics is not an empirical science.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago*

    It happens with other things. If you hear a new Linux user, a reborn Christian, a new WH4K player, ... you'll hear them say that the "new" thing they like is the best thing in the world and has no flaws. Then you find the flaws and can happen two things: either you grow up and admit it has flaws or you stay a child and ditch that thing for another "new" thing.

  • source
  • parent