top 92 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 32 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Oh, I know better than to participate in this discussion.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah, lots of pointless arguing further down in here. Like arguing about whether authoritarianism is left or right like that even matters. There are no set of single labels that can describe everyone's motivations, goals, and what they are willing to do to get them, so arguing about the labels is pointless.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    are you pro or anti sea piracy?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    Probably anti overall, though context could change that. It's just sea banditry and most bandits aren't Robin Hood.

    The digital version shouldn't even be compared by using the same name, but if it was honest, then it wouldn't work as propaganda (not that it seems to be working anyways).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 6 months ago
    [–] 13 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

    Feline anarchy is the only valid. Human whole purpose is to server cats. Fuck everyone else.

    Fuck capitalism, fuck communism, fuck fascism, fuck everyone. FELINE ANARCHY!!!!

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 136 points 6 months ago (42 children)

    I don’t consider tankies lefter than me.

  • source
  • hideshow 42 child comments
  • [–] 96 points 6 months ago (22 children)

    Seriously. Tankies are authoritarians who consider themselves leftists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    Authoritarian / libertarian is on a completely different axis from left / right, no?

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

    Only on the political compass, which uses a definition of left vs right that a lot of leftists disagree with. Really, the entire history of "left wing" politics has been about questioning and dismantling authority. The terms "left wing" and "right wing" come from the French revolution, when the people in favour of simply reforming the monarchy sat on the right side of the room, while the people who wanted to fully dismantling the monarchy sat on the left. A lot of more modern leftist thought is about questioning the power that capitalist businesses have.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Well said. Still; can you not have authoritarian left and libertarian left viewpoints? I just don’t see how questioning the power capitalist businesses have is limited to the libertarian left.

    What’s wrong with the definition of left & right on the political compass? I’m not super tuned into political science but this is the first I’ve heard that many leftists have take issue with it. I have seen the authoritarian left referred to as “red fascists”, but do they not also take issue with the power capitalist businesses have?

    I suppose I’d consider myself a left libertarian. The power of the state should be limited and what power is granted to the state should be used to improve the life of the people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    can you not have auth left and lib left viewpoints?

    Yes, but actually no. The distinction is fundamentally unstable. If the left is constantly questioning power structures, it will inevitably turn to whatever structure the auth left comes up with.

    what's wrong with the definition of left and right on the political compass?

    It's specially economic left/right, which is almost always defined by taxation, government spending, and social welfare. While leftists usually say social welfare is a good thing, it's not changing the fundamentals of how capitalism works, which is the current dominant power structure that leftists are against.

    do auth left not also take issue with the power capitalist businesses have?

    Yes, but they usually put something just as bad in its place. You might have heard people saying that the USSR was "state capitalist rather than communist". This means that the workers and customers had just as little say in how things are run than they would under capitalists, only is was directly with the state rather than individual business owners.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -12 points 6 months ago (11 children)
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    support systems that have brought about immense increases in life expectancy, worker's rights, women's rights, free healthcare, free education, and literally defeated fascism

    Cool, you can make literally that exact same argument about capitalist neo libs.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago (9 children)
  • [+] 1 point 6 months ago* (8 children)
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Worthwile to note that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were longstanding allies before Operation Barbarossa and a critical amount of steel and oil that supplied the Nazi war machine after the allied embargo was supplied by the Soviet union.

    Which says nothing of the monumental sacrifice given by Soviet civilians, but let's separate that from Stalin's policy, perhaps?

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

    Anti imperialism? How did they become the largest country on earth?

    Respect of minorities? Tell that to the tens of thousands of people executed in forests. Or starved to death. Because of their identity.

    Industrial development? Yes, current Russia having an economy the size of Italy is a testament to that.

    Plenty of countries have free education and Healthcare.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 6 months ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Yes, muscovites just made friends, that's not imperialism. Sakha just wanted to give it's oil and minerals to Moscow. Yakutia just wanted desperately to learn Russian. It's not imperialism if there are no boats involved!

    Estonia? Now their GDP per capita is not 20% higher, it's 200% higher than Russia. Yes, triple as high. Obviously Russia was robbing them blind, and holding them back. Same as most other republics and Warsaw pact nations. GDP explosions after ditching the red parasite.

    Ukraine had borders just fine when Soviets invaded them. If not for the war they lost against Poland in 1920 they would have kept invading and repressing nations. Belorussian language is almost extinct nowadays after all the russification. Same for Ukrainian in Eastern Ukraine.

    French killed 1 million Algerians? Rookie numbers, they should have learned from the holodomor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [+] -7 points 6 months ago (18 children)
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    Hey I found the Tankie who thinks they're on the left!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -5 points 6 months ago* (4 children)
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Bruh just out here punching the air in an empty comment section of a shit posting sub

    Go back to your echo chamber tankie. Nobody likes you. Nobody wants you. But I'm sure your fans enjoy your circle jerk.

    Which actually existing current or historical leftist movements do you support?

    Are you a fucking cop? Get the fuck out of here you loser. I'm sorry everyone hates you. But thats a you issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Anarchist Catalonia, modern Rojava, more than a few pre-Columbian North American societies, the Paris Commune of 1793... Maybe read some theory instead of making arguments from ignorance.

    And you can care about results without having historical results. Anti-monarchism in general had basically zero results post-Industrial Revolution until the liberals won in North America in the late 18th century, but that didn't mean that they didn't care about results, just that they hadn't achieved much yet. The American Revolution was pretty quickly followed by the French Revolution, the Haitian Revolution, several more French revolutions, Brazilian independence, and eventually the October Revolution, the most recent Chinese civil war, the Cuban Revolution, and so on.

    Between 1775 and 1925, the general concept of people voting on matters of statewide policy went from a relic of the Classical Era that had ended more than 1800 years earlier to the norm in North America and Europe. 1800 years of obscurity, then 150 years to ubiquity in the world's wealthiest states and another 50 to expand to most of the rest.

    Sure, anarchism has had a longer period out of the spotlight, not having been the norm since roughly the invention of agriculture ~8000 years ago, but you never know when it might return. Having a concrete, achievable plan to get results is good, but you also want to make sure that the results you're striving for are just, otherwise you end up with liberalism again. And we all know how that ends up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (10 children)

    Being better at violence doesn't make you more left, it makes you better at violence. That can be useful, but it isn't the same thing. Your argument boils down to "might makes right" and could be expanded to classify social democracy as "more left" (after all, it's left of the global status quo and its citizens are the happiest on average). In fact, you might even be able to use the argument for liberalism; it's left of monarchy and fascism. Sure, it frequently decays into fascism, but so did the USSR.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (8 children)

    Social democracy in the imperial core is to the right of the global status quo, because it depends on imperialism, neocolonialism, and unequal exchange. The USSR, on the other hand, supported anti-imperialist and decolonial movements materially, and set up a socialist economy. Being able to both establish and maintain socialism is a necessary first step for anything that can be considered left, because it's the only leftism that's actually real. No, socialism isn't fascism, and equating the two is a form of Holocaust trivialization with ties to Double Genocide Theory.

    To place Russian communism on the same moral level with Nazi fascism, because both are totalitarian, is, at best, superficial, in the worse case it is fascism. He who insists on this equality may be a democrat; in truth and in his heart, he is already a fascist, and will surely fight fascism with insincerity and appearance, but with complete hatred only communism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (7 children)

    The global status quo is liberalism. Social democracy is to the left of liberalism.

    And I never said that socialism was fascism, I said that the USSR gave way to fascism. Vladimir Putin's Russian Federation is fascist. The USSR collapsed, and fascism followed, much like the Weimar Republic collapsed and was replaced by the Nazis. That doesn't mean that the liberals in the Weimar Republic were fascists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (6 children)

    Liberalism and social democracy in the imperial core are imperialist. This is to the right of liberalism and social democracy in the global south. Erasure of imperialism in the question of whether or not a society is progressive historically or reactionary is a mistake, as the imperialist countries are the ones holding back global progress right now. It's kinda like saying landlords are progressive and tenants are reactionary.

    As for the USSR bit, I misread you. Saying it descended into fascism I took to you meaning that it was progressive in the first few years or so but then turned fascist, not that the RF was that fascism. I disagree with the idea that the RF is fascist, it's certainly run by nationalists and is an utter tragedy how far they've fallen from their soviet roots, but that's a different discussion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago* (5 children)

    India is well to the right of e.g. Norway. Brazil only recently moved to the relative left. Argentina is also very right-wing (and also a lot more settler-colonialist than most of the countries not allowed into the White Countries Club). Iran and Afghanistan are about as far-right as they come, despite being very much opposed to the global order as it stands today. I wasn't discounting the so-called "Global South," I just also don't think that an imperialist past (or even present) is the only factor in determining whether a country is right-wing.

    In fact, I'd potentially go so far as to say that the majority of poorer countries are farther right than wealthier ones. The exceptions that come to mind are Cuba, Vietnam, Burkina Faso, Bolivia, and Mexico, but on the other side you have the ones I've already mentioned, plus Qatar, Lebanon, El Salvador, Pakistan, and more. Not doing imperialism is good, and refusing to do it is better (as opposed to simply being unable), but it doesn't singlehandedly make an extremist theocracy leftist. If your country does not interact with others at all but is still an absolute monarchy with laws that explicitly discriminate against marginalized groups, it's an isolationist right-wing state, not a leftist one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    The question of being right or left is which role you play, a progressive role or a reactionary one. For all of the ways the nordics may be more progressive internally, it is of a Herrenvolk style, only for them and at the explicit expense of the global south. For all of the social faults of some countries in the global south, their rise is progressive against imperialism, and this rise facilitates social progress internally.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (3 children)

    There is no way to be a leftist or progressive dictatorship. There is no leftist or progressive way to have unequal laws for women, or to prevent gay people from marrying, or to deny people medical care. It's a contradiction in terms. You may believe that Iran or India becoming more powerful is an overall good thing, but it is objectively and definitionally not progressive or leftist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    Where do you think social progress comes from? It isn't purely economic, of course, but what's critical is that social progress is hampered by imperialism and neocolonialism. When the primary obstacle to global progress, including socially, are these economic systems of brutal plunder, considering countries like the social democracies in the imperial core based purely on their internal policy and not at all on their foreign policy is a grave error.

    Again, it's like you're pointing to a group of landlords and calling them more progressive than their tenants. It's a form of Herrenvolk progressivism, progressivism at the expense of the global south and working against global progress.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Well, yeah, all you have to do is look at Iran under Mossadegh to realize that reactionary forces often stem from colonial oppression. What doesn't make sense is denying that those forces are reactionary. You can understand why something is happening and still call it what it is.

    The US is largely at fault for how reactionary Iran is, but Iran is still reactionary. If you never learned to swim because your parents wouldn't let you near water, it isn't your fault that you never learned, but you still shouldn't jump in the deep end.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    I am not denying social conservativism as reactionary, I am rejecting the idea that imperialist and neocolonial countries can be considered left of center when they are larger obstacles to forward progress than socially reactionary anti-imperialist countries.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 24 points 6 months ago* (2 children)

    Oh fuck, the MAGA crowd has started posting. Get ready for made up stupid shit to distract / confuse you as they are.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 102 points 6 months ago (20 children)

    tankies aren't "further left than me" they're "more authoritarian than me"

    "further left than me" are idealist utopian communists and "more libertarian than me" are idealist utopian anarchists

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    nobody can agree what "left" means

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    That is nonsense.

    The left was coined by its opposition to the monarchy while the right supported it.

    So left has been currently and historically speaking in opposition of hierarchies and in favor of equality.

    The right consequently has been in favor of hierarchies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago* (3 children)

    Okay, but just grounding it in historical context doesn't make it the definition. If Mamdani established Mamdanistan and abused courts to execute people polluting ground water with data centers, that would be hierarchical, but very clearly not "right wing" in the common understanding.

    Opposing hierarchies is generally fitting, but the minutia of politics make such simple definitions harder to agree on by everyone, which touches on their point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Weird example but ok.

    And no, it is not only historical. I stated that in my original comment and I invite you to look at left wing politics but some "left wing" politician's position on some random issue, but a widely supported position by the left wing community. You will see that they are all in opposition of hierarchy.

    But let's take your weirdly racist example, where is the hierarchy?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    Sorry my bad, I thought jokes about Mamdanistan were more common internet parlance, the point is a radical leftwing state in the minds of fox news viewers. I was doing the limiting case to prove the point, but the base point is prosecution of criminal environmental acts through courts requires hierarchy.

    I guess I have to ask what you mean by hierarchy if you don't believe that courts executing people counts.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    libertarians are not anarchists

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 6 months ago

    Anarchists are a genre of libertarians though. It's just that who dominates the landscape of "libertarian" is ancaps, who are just fascists with a weirder set of steps to implement a fascist nightmare.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Anarchists and Libertarian used to be synonymous, since Libertarian was a way to talk about Anarchism without being persecuted. Later in the US Proprietarians coopted the term Libertarian, and later even Anarchism by claiming to be 'Anarcho-Capitalists'.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -1 points 6 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

    the farthest extremes on either side are unrealistic and deluded. just because you like one side doesn't mean they dont get crazy when you go far enough. it's VERY important not to lose site of that.

    yes a communist utopia is unachievable. yes there are people who are actively pursuing that impossible goal. that does not make them unleft.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Being in the middle does not make a stance correct. Saying "slavery is good" and someone saying "slavery is bad" does not make "some slavery is good" the correct position.

    Secondly, utopianism is what they are referring to, the practice of theorycrafting a perfect idea and trying to create that by explaining that perfect idea to everyone. Communism has been scientific since Marx, however those who still cling to utopianism over scientific communism do exist to this day. They are typically called "ultraleft," but not because they are "more left," but because they place ideals over material reality. That's why the question exists, can they truly be called "more left" if their strategy is impossible to begin with?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child)

    i didn't say you should be centerist lmao. i said that extremism is real and something to watch yourself on. I'm very far left, that why I'm on this forum you goof. that doesn't mean leftist extremism isn't real.

    when i said farther i meant in pursuing a specific goal or idea. not "father left".left vs right is just defined by vague political goals and ideas. to say anything is more or less of that is impossible because the scale is undefined. that's not what matters, the point is that if you don't police your own beliefs you are likely to fall down dangerous rabbit holes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago

    My point is that "extremism" doesn't really mean anything, except that it diverges from the median political opinion. Communism is correct and viable, despite being "extreme" in the eyes of the mainstream westerner.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah, exactly. This graphic is really bad. I guess it's supposed to be incorrect, but it sends a bad message.

    Also, the only people calling anyone "shitlibs" are literal tankies. Sane leftists don't call anyone "shitlib."

    Any leftist to the right of my on the spectrum is probably considered center-left. I prefer democratic socialism and/or social democracy, using incremental progress to achieve leftist reform.

    People are allowed to have different opinions than me. That's what democracy is. But no one can be allowed to be authoritarian in a democracy, because authoritarianism is incompatible with democracy and a danger to it.

    Authoritarians don't respect diversity of opinion, they don't tolerate differences. So I'm so tired of authoritarian-minded people whining and calling me intolerant just because I shut them down when they're trying to dominate others.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 6 months ago

    The green bar is far too wide

  • source
  • [–] 42 points 6 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    Forgive my ignorance, what is a tankie?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago

    It's essentially a pejorative for "communist." I recommend the Prolewiki article on "Tankies," as well as Nia Frome's essay "Tankies."

    "Tankie" was a pejorative for Marxists that support socialism in real life then as well as now. It originated in the Communist Party of Great Britain. The term was coined because of the British tendency towards silly-sounding insults, and because the Soviet Union sent in the Red Army to stop the western-backed fascist insurrection. This caused a split in the party (as it always does in western orgs).

    The Hungarian revolt in 1956 was infested with anti-semitic pograms. MI6 funded, supplied, and trained the Hungarian counter-revolutionaries. These counter-revolutionaries were allied with fascists who were lynching Jewish people and Communists. The Truth About Hungary by Herbert Aptheker heavily relies on citing western sources like the New York Times. Aptheker backs up his claims heavily.

    "The special correspondent of the Yugoslav paper, Politika, (Nov. 13, 1956) describing the events of those days, said that the homes of Communists were marked with a white cross and those of Jews with a black cross, to serve as signs for the extermination squads. “There is no longer any room for doubt,” said the Yugoslav reporter, “it is an example of classic Hungarian fascism and of White Terror. The information,” continued this writer, "coming from the provinces tells how in certain places Communists were having their eyes put out, their ears cut off, and that they were being killed in the most terrible ways."

    "But the forces of reaction were rapidly consolidating their power and pushing forward on the top levels, while in the streets the blood of scores of massacred Communists, Jews, and progressives was flowing."

    "Some of the reports reaching Warsaw from Budapest today caused considerable concern. These reports told of massacres of Communists and Jews by what were described as 'Fascist elements' ...." (N.Y. Times, Nov. 1. 1956)

    "The evidence is conclusive that the entry of Soviet troops into Budapest stopped the execution of scores, perhaps thousands of Jews, for by the end of October and early November, anti-Semtic pogroms - hallmark of unbridled fascistic terror - were making their appearance, after an absence of some ten years, within Hungary."

    "A correspondent of the Israeli newspaper Maariv (Tel Aviv) reported:

    During the uprising a number of former Nazis were released from prison and other former Nazis came to Hungary from Salzburg . . . I met them at the border . . . I saw anti-Semitic posters in Budapest . . . On the walls, street lights, streetcars, you saw inscriptions reading: “Down with Jew Gero!” “Down with Jew Rakosi!” or just simply “down with the Jews!”

    Leading rabbinical circles in New York received a cable early in November from corresponding circles in Vienna that “Jewish blood is being shed by the rebels in Hungary.” Very much later-in February, 1957-the World Jewish Congress reported that “anti-Semitic excesses occurred in more than twenty villages and smaller provincial towns during the October-November revolt.” This occurred, according to this very conservative body, because “fascist and anti-Semitic groups had apparently seized the opportunity, presented by the absence of a central authority, to come to the surface.” Many among the Jewish refugees from Hungary, the report continued, had fled from this anti-Semitic pogrom-like atmosphere (N.Y. Times, Feb. 15, 1957). This confirmed the earlier report made by the British Rabbi, R. Pozner, who, after touring refugee camps, declared that “the majority of Jews who left Hungary did so for fear of the Hungarians and not the Russians.” The Paris Jewish newspaper, Naye Presse, asserted that Jewish refugees in France claimed quite generally that Soviet soldiers had saved their lives."

    Further, the CIA also backed Hungarian resistance forces:

    Prague in 1968 was a similar fascist uprising in both cases there were some elements of progressive protest, but these were greatly overshadowed by the fascist movements. Dubcek wanted to sell out to the IMF, and restore capitalism. The idea that any of this was about "democracy" or "freedom" is silly, it was always about Cold War tactics to destabilize socialism.

    TL;DR imagine if the January 6th rioters were armed and trained by foreign governments, started lynching officials and Jewish people, and the US sent in the army to put down the insurrection. The MAGA chuds would claim that it was about "freedom" and "democracy," but we all know that they just wanted Trump in office.

    Nowadays, it's used by any random anti-communist to refer to anyone that supports socialist states or doesn't buy into the imperialist narrative about global south countries. It was the ones they call "tankies" that knew the stories of WMD and Saddam's forces leaving babies outside of incubators were both bullshit to manufacture consent for war, but now that its decades later the anti-communists all suddenly have collective amnesia about their willing participation in spreading the lies of empire to murder hundreds of thousands of people.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    A person who believes that an authoritarian state is righteous and justified as long as it calls itself communist (even if it's not), examples being the USSR, North Korea, China, and oddly the current capitalist Russian federation. You can find a more in-depth answer here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    Nobody actually believes anything that calls itself socialist/communist is justified axiomatically. In reality, socialists supportive of what's called "Actually Existing Socialism" support these states for their progressive advancements and socialist economies, being defined by their actual characteristics. These actual characteristics include having public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy (ie, that which is dominant, rising, and in control of the economy, typically by commanding the large firms and key industries at a minimum) and the working classes in control of the state.

    Examples of AES include the PRC, DPRK, Laos, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, and depending on who you ask, Vietnam. Formerly existing socialism includes the USSR. No communist considers the Russian Federation to be AES. You're confusing (or deliberately misleading) critical support for bourgeois states against imperialism, such as Iran, Palestine, etc, with AES.

    Notably, your theory that simply calling oneself socialist/communist is enough to be considered AES falls apart immediately once considering the Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot's Cambodia considered itself communist, yet they were stopped by the Vietnamese communists, and no Marxists really consider them to have been genuinely communists. The National Socialist Party of Germany is another example, no communist supports the Nazis despite their claims of being socialists. It isn't the name that matters, but the structure. This isn't even getting into disagreements between Marxist-Leninists and Maoists on groups like the Shining Path, the Naxalites, CPI (M) vs. CPI (ML), etc.

    In reality, you just maintain a stance on AES that runs counter to Marxist consensus, and rather than argue against the actual reasons for that consensus, you try to sidestep that entire exercise by claiming it has to do with naming. I already explained how this is full of holes in the prior paragraph, but further emphasis is necessary: you're describing someone that doesn't exist.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 15 points 6 months ago

    A one dimensional political spectrum! Proper shit post, sir!

  • source
  • [–] 66 points 6 months ago (12 children)

    Tankies aren't leftists in reality.

    Maybe left of Nazis, but they aren't leftists.

    The political left and authoritarianism are inherently contradictory.

    Its the political right that embraces authoritarianism. Hence why we call them "Red Fascists"

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    The political left and authoritarianism are not contradictory. Leftists are not always Libertarians, and many of them will and do trade freedom for safety regularly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (3 children)
  • [+] -12 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 10 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    The nazis' economy was a shell game of debt, and they were overextended militarily. Their regime would have fallen even if they had won the war. Secondly, the USSR at first joined forces with the nazis until they were betrayed by them, and after the soviets joined the allies, they received massive aid under the lend-lease act. And even with the aid, they still had to rely on human-wave tactics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›