That’s somewhat confusing since a classical liberal and a modern social liberal are quite distinct things. Plus, even two hundred years ago liberals were distinct from conservatives.
I suppose to tankies, it’s liberals all the way down.
Most self-aware freikorps supporter, if you’re a social Democrat you’re just announcing to everyone that you are going to be predisposed to trying to accommodate fascism abroad if it means you personally get healthcare and economic benefits.
Could have fooled me, these are the same people cheering on the Democrats while they enabled this genocide in Gaza. They’re oh so progressive and worried about minorities, unless you’re from a designated enemy country In which case they’re goose stepping with the rest of the Americans.
Thanks for the demonstration, of tankie ignorance of the difference between socdems and demsocs, of how everyone not a tankie is a liberal or a fascist; and, ironically, what ‘critical support’ is.
Making a distinction without a difference. You’re also acting like there’s some vast landscape of democratic and/or socialists out there, just waiting to spring into power. That might be true, (I doubt it) but if your position on the most important question: “Do we continue to feed innocent bystanders into the war machine” is something you all have in common you’re gonna get painted with the same brush as the rest of the more national socialists.
I hear the tankies even got the “Liberal Democrats” in the UK to name their party that in order to confuse Americans, on orders from Vladimir Putin. Is there no end to his scheming?
As far as I can tell the tankie definition of “liberal” is “anybody that doesn’t have Xi Jinoing’s cock so far down their throat that his balls are playing a bongo solo on their chin.”
“To the left of” is relative. Progressive liberals are left of conservative liberals as well as most if not all tankies. (it depends on how you metricize all the disparate positions into a single dimension) there are probably some conservative liberals that are to the right of most tankies, but again it depends on your metricizing parameters.
I’m a Libertarian Socialist who gets along with Anarchists most of the time. I’m arguably to the right of them, but that doesn’t make me right-wing.
You’re spot on about the relativity, but there is an objective spectrum as well.
Right is about consolidating power; Left is about ensuring it is shared.
The extreme right is authoritarian. Any support for (or tolerance of) the consolidation of power and/or wealth is rightist.
The extreme left is egalitarian. Support for systems of shared power and/or wealth (and mechanisms for prevention of hoarding or entrenchment of either) is leftist.
So while you are correct about the relative positions to one another, it’s important to point out that, objectively, neither liberals nor tankies are leftist in any way, shape, or form.
Also, the spectrum isn’t a straight line, but a complex web. For example, just consider the “extremes”…
Extreme right power structures include monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship, feudalism, etc. Because the nature of rightism is consolidation, those structures tend to look similar.
“Extreme” left power structures include direct democracy, communism (stateless), anarchism (which itself includes many flavors and definitions), and the like.
Since tankies openly advocate for consolidation of power, they are objectively far-right. Liberals will tolerate (sometimes even champion) the consolidation of wealth & power even if it destroys liberalism… because to them the means is more important the ends; ergo, they are slight right.
Humans being humans, there will always be “rightward pressure” on any social construct. Leftists need to recognize this and ensure than any leftist progress can withstand such pressure and avoid rightward drift. This is why liberals are so often despised by leftists… liberals seem leftist only to those so far on the right that they can’t see over the metaphorical moderate/centrist horizon. Likewise, tankies seem leftist to the same at first glance, because they advocate for more benevolent use of totalitarianism… but each ignores the objective spectrum… consolidation of wealth/power vs evenly shared wealth/power.
I’m not disagreeing, I’m just building on what you said. ❤️
There’s a surprising number of people - especially in the US, that genuinely think that liberals are leftist… and not just leftist, but “radical left.”
They will also take tankies at their word that tankies are leftist, never mind the definitions.
I’m just expounding on what you said for bystanders, really. Sending good vibes your way, internet friend.
I was passing out when I made the comment. What I really want to know is why why this entire thread is being downvoted to hell. Is it several tankies or just 1 with multiple accounts?
The 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?
And your point is? If it’s that rightist means inevitably have rightist ends, that is correct. Thankfully, possibility is infinite, and not restricted to the false-choice of a binary fallacy.
What is a tankie? Like, where do you draw the line between Marxists, Anarchists, Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, and Tankies? Are only Maoists tankies? Are some Marxist-Leninists tankies, and some not? What turns someone from wanting a worker state run by the proletariat into a tankie, who presumably by your definition is actually Capitalist?
Genuinely asking here, I have been called a tankie for saying people should read Marx, it seems everyone has their own definition of what is permissable and what isn’t.
Tankies are authoritarians. They advocate for and defend centralized and/or entrenched power. At the same time they also advocate for economic nationalization. They believe the latter - “economically benevolent authoritarianism” - makes them leftist. It does not.
In reality, they are merely advocates of bog-standard extreme rightism… feudalism, monarchy, oligarchy, and the like. If your economy and industry is mostly or wholly owned by the state, but the state is run by an entrenched ruling class, then the economy and industry belong to the ruling class, NOT to the people.
One cannot be leftist and also advocate for consolidation or entrenchment of wealth or power… those are literally the defining traits of rightism.
How is advocating for a worker state to the right of supporting the Capitalist status quo? You don’t have to agree with it being a good or a bad idea to understand that what you said is fundamentally wrong.
Is “Tankie” just a descriptor for an extreme fringe among Marxists, or is it meant to refer to Marxists in general?
That’s the fun part: liberals will call anyone to the left of them tankies, and tankies will call anyone who doesn’t want to kiss Lenin’s red flag liberals, so progressives don’t exist.
Progressivism isn’t mutually exclusive with liberals nor tankies. A progressive is simply someone who advocates for change. Likewise, a conservative is someone who advocates for stasis.
Where progressives
Trick question. Anyone to the right of tankies but left of conservatives is a liberal, as far as tankies are concerned.
“Tankies” tend to use the term liberal in the classical sense, which lumps conservatives in with progressives.
That’s somewhat confusing since a classical liberal and a modern social liberal are quite distinct things. Plus, even two hundred years ago liberals were distinct from conservatives.
I suppose to tankies, it’s liberals all the way down.
If you believe in democratic socialism, to tankies, you’re a liberal.
“You think China and Russia should be socialist democracies? Pfft, what a typical liberal.”
And if you’re a Social Democrat like me, they’ll think I have a shrine to Milton Friedman.
Most self-aware freikorps supporter, if you’re a social Democrat you’re just announcing to everyone that you are going to be predisposed to trying to accommodate fascism abroad if it means you personally get healthcare and economic benefits.
Social democrats arent democratic socialist but go on
Could have fooled me, these are the same people cheering on the Democrats while they enabled this genocide in Gaza. They’re oh so progressive and worried about minorities, unless you’re from a designated enemy country In which case they’re goose stepping with the rest of the Americans.
Thanks for the demonstration, of tankie ignorance of the difference between socdems and demsocs, of how everyone not a tankie is a liberal or a fascist; and, ironically, what ‘critical support’ is.
Making a distinction without a difference. You’re also acting like there’s some vast landscape of democratic and/or socialists out there, just waiting to spring into power. That might be true, (I doubt it) but if your position on the most important question: “Do we continue to feed innocent bystanders into the war machine” is something you all have in common you’re gonna get painted with the same brush as the rest of the more national socialists.
I mean to a Tankie, a “liberal” is just someone who disagrees with them. And some apparently consider it a derogatory slur, from the way they say it.
It’s really quite humorous.
It’s intentionally confusing. It’s a Russian psyop tactic that tankies have picked up.
I hear the tankies even got the “Liberal Democrats” in the UK to name their party that in order to confuse Americans, on orders from Vladimir Putin. Is there no end to his scheming?
Fuck off, tankie
Learn something about the world, liberal.
Regular-ass Socialists use liberal in the same way you’re describing, as do Anarchists.
As far as I can tell the tankie definition of “liberal” is “anybody that doesn’t have Xi Jinoing’s cock so far down their throat that his balls are playing a bongo solo on their chin.”
Liberals are often to the left of tankies.
Often? They are “to the left of” by definition… but only relatively.
Liberals are center-right while tankies are extreme right (though they love to cosplay leftists by arguing that THEIR fascism is “benevolent”).
So neither is on the left at all.
“To the left of” is relative. Progressive liberals are left of conservative liberals as well as most if not all tankies. (it depends on how you metricize all the disparate positions into a single dimension) there are probably some conservative liberals that are to the right of most tankies, but again it depends on your metricizing parameters.
I’m a Libertarian Socialist who gets along with Anarchists most of the time. I’m arguably to the right of them, but that doesn’t make me right-wing.
You’re spot on about the relativity, but there is an objective spectrum as well.
Right is about consolidating power; Left is about ensuring it is shared.
The extreme right is authoritarian. Any support for (or tolerance of) the consolidation of power and/or wealth is rightist.
The extreme left is egalitarian. Support for systems of shared power and/or wealth (and mechanisms for prevention of hoarding or entrenchment of either) is leftist.
So while you are correct about the relative positions to one another, it’s important to point out that, objectively, neither liberals nor tankies are leftist in any way, shape, or form.
Also, the spectrum isn’t a straight line, but a complex web. For example, just consider the “extremes”…
Extreme right power structures include monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship, feudalism, etc. Because the nature of rightism is consolidation, those structures tend to look similar.
“Extreme” left power structures include direct democracy, communism (stateless), anarchism (which itself includes many flavors and definitions), and the like.
Since tankies openly advocate for consolidation of power, they are objectively far-right. Liberals will tolerate (sometimes even champion) the consolidation of wealth & power even if it destroys liberalism… because to them the means is more important the ends; ergo, they are slight right.
Humans being humans, there will always be “rightward pressure” on any social construct. Leftists need to recognize this and ensure than any leftist progress can withstand such pressure and avoid rightward drift. This is why liberals are so often despised by leftists… liberals seem leftist only to those so far on the right that they can’t see over the metaphorical moderate/centrist horizon. Likewise, tankies seem leftist to the same at first glance, because they advocate for more benevolent use of totalitarianism… but each ignores the objective spectrum… consolidation of wealth/power vs evenly shared wealth/power.
You understand that I never suggested that liberals are left-wing and that was the entire point of my explanation?
There’s nothing stated here that I didn’t already know.
I’m not disagreeing, I’m just building on what you said. ❤️
There’s a surprising number of people - especially in the US, that genuinely think that liberals are leftist… and not just leftist, but “radical left.”
They will also take tankies at their word that tankies are leftist, never mind the definitions.
I’m just expounding on what you said for bystanders, really. Sending good vibes your way, internet friend.
Sorry, yesterday was a bit rough for me. 🙂
I’m not sure they were disagreeing with you.
I was passing out when I made the comment. What I really want to know is why why this entire thread is being downvoted to hell. Is it several tankies or just 1 with multiple accounts?
And your point is? If it’s that rightist means inevitably have rightist ends, that is correct. Thankfully, possibility is infinite, and not restricted to the false-choice of a binary fallacy.
Is the use of force inherently rightist, in your mind, regardless of why it’s used?
What is a tankie? Like, where do you draw the line between Marxists, Anarchists, Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, and Tankies? Are only Maoists tankies? Are some Marxist-Leninists tankies, and some not? What turns someone from wanting a worker state run by the proletariat into a tankie, who presumably by your definition is actually Capitalist?
Genuinely asking here, I have been called a tankie for saying people should read Marx, it seems everyone has their own definition of what is permissable and what isn’t.
Tankies are authoritarians. They advocate for and defend centralized and/or entrenched power. At the same time they also advocate for economic nationalization. They believe the latter - “economically benevolent authoritarianism” - makes them leftist. It does not.
In reality, they are merely advocates of bog-standard extreme rightism… feudalism, monarchy, oligarchy, and the like. If your economy and industry is mostly or wholly owned by the state, but the state is run by an entrenched ruling class, then the economy and industry belong to the ruling class, NOT to the people.
One cannot be leftist and also advocate for consolidation or entrenchment of wealth or power… those are literally the defining traits of rightism.
So Marx was a tankie, got it.
How is advocating for a worker state to the right of supporting the Capitalist status quo? You don’t have to agree with it being a good or a bad idea to understand that what you said is fundamentally wrong.
Is “Tankie” just a descriptor for an extreme fringe among Marxists, or is it meant to refer to Marxists in general?
Also here but they pretend we don’t exist.
That’s the fun part: liberals will call anyone to the left of them tankies, and tankies will call anyone who doesn’t want to kiss Lenin’s red flag liberals, so progressives don’t exist.
Progressivism isn’t mutually exclusive with liberals nor tankies. A progressive is simply someone who advocates for change. Likewise, a conservative is someone who advocates for stasis.