Afaik it’s consensus for communists to be both anti-NATO and anti-Putin, as is my case. But since lots of people now just use “tankie” as a derogatory term for “communist” instead of “Putin supporter and Russian supremacist”, I felt like making the distinction was a good call.
Then I’m glad to be your acquaintance, comrade. We might have different ideas on how things could be better and how to fight for them, but we definitely know what the real issues are.
So by those rules you imply the whole west is genocidal and Nazist?
USA: genocide of it’s poor, black and indigenous population (by both violence and forced poverty), anti-immigrant policies, police violence, and support for right-wing coups over the world, with Ukraine being the most notable among the recent ones
Canada: genocide of indigenous population, forced castration, support for right-wing coups
France: anti-immigrants, support for right-wing coups, exploitation and genocide of Africans
Australia: see USA, except for being a direct financial contributor to right-wing coups (but supporting them nonetheless)
Every western power is genocidal and imperialist, and most crises currently ongoing are way worse than that tired example you gave. Do you just care if the suffering population is white?
Also, about allying with Nazis: after WW2, who brought home Nazi high officials and gave them positions of power in their own countries again? USA and UK, if you don’t remember.
When someone brings Holodomor they’re not even trying to understand what they’re even blaming, so out of tiredness, I don’t bring up the fact that the ones who ruined the farms and crops were the rich private landowners who didn’t want their properties to be turned over to the state. Holodomor is a capitalist genocide in what was a communist country.
Think for a second: why would a country building an army, needing healthy adults, purposely cause a famine?
Meanwhile every western genocide is about racism, slave-labour and exploitation of the land. Every single one.
Also, nice fallacies you’re throwing out there, like that ad hominem at the end, truly marvellous.
I’m not a tankie, but I don’t think that the idea of justifying political repression in Russia is likely to be much of a challenge. The Bolsheviks justified single-party rule and their own political repressions for a long time. If you’re a tankie, you’re presumably already willing to accept that.
Vanguardism in the context of Leninist revolutionary struggle, relates to a strategy whereby the most class-conscious and politically “advanced” sections of the proletariat or working class, described as the revolutionary vanguard, form organizations to advance the objectives of communism.
The notion of a ‘vanguard’, as used by Lenin before 1917, did not necessarily imply single-party rule. Lenin considered the Social-Democrats (Bolsheviks) the leading elements of a multi-class (and multi-party) democratic struggle against Tsarism.[7] For a period after the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks (now renamed the Communist Party) operated in the soviets, trade unions, and other working-class mass organisations with other revolutionary parties, such as Mensheviks, Social-Revolutionaries and anarcho-communists, and local soviets often elected non-Bolshevik majorities.[8] Lenin did consider the Bolsheviks the vanguard insofar as they were the most consistent defenders of Soviet power (which he considered the dictatorship of the proletariat or ‘Commune-state’).[9] However, the situation changed drastically during the Russian Civil War and economic collapse, which decimated the working class and its independent institutions, and saw the development of irreconcilable conflicts between the Bolsheviks and their rivals. At the 10th Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) in 1921, the Party made the de facto reality de jure by outlawing opposition parties and formalising single-Party rule.[10]
The impetus for having a vanguard party was used by the Bolsheviks to justify their suppression of other parties. Their rationale was that since they were the vanguard of the proletariat, their right to rule could not be legitimately questioned.
Let’s hear the defense, Tankies. Tell us why this is a good thing.
No tankie worth their salt would say it’s a good thing, lol. Being anti-NATO doesn’t immediately mean someone is pro-Putin.
There are lots of pro-Putin Tankies. Lots and lots.
Funnily enough that’s what the right-wing nuts and left-wing nuts in Germany have in common. We’re living in the strangest timeline.
Removed by mod
garfield.jpg
(I’m implying that you, as many others, equate “tankies” with “communists”)
That’s why I restricted to only those worth their salt. Russian-right-wing larpers aren’t welcome in any communist group.
Putin isn’t a communist. So no.
Afaik it’s consensus for communists to be both anti-NATO and anti-Putin, as is my case. But since lots of people now just use “tankie” as a derogatory term for “communist” instead of “Putin supporter and Russian supremacist”, I felt like making the distinction was a good call.
No, I definitely did not mean communist. I am a socialist, but I am sympathetic to communist ideas.
Then I’m glad to be your acquaintance, comrade. We might have different ideas on how things could be better and how to fight for them, but we definitely know what the real issues are.
Likewise!
I think the others missed that memo
Removed by mod
Are you implying killing Nazi soldiers during ww2 was bad?
Killing Nazis isn’t bad, allying with them before being betrayed was. Killing Nazis in self-defense isn’t genocide, Holodomor was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact ?
Yep.
So by those rules you imply the whole west is genocidal and Nazist?
Every western power is genocidal and imperialist, and most crises currently ongoing are way worse than that tired example you gave. Do you just care if the suffering population is white?
Also, about allying with Nazis: after WW2, who brought home Nazi high officials and gave them positions of power in their own countries again? USA and UK, if you don’t remember.
Removed by mod
When someone brings Holodomor they’re not even trying to understand what they’re even blaming, so out of tiredness, I don’t bring up the fact that the ones who ruined the farms and crops were the rich private landowners who didn’t want their properties to be turned over to the state. Holodomor is a capitalist genocide in what was a communist country.
Think for a second: why would a country building an army, needing healthy adults, purposely cause a famine?
Meanwhile every western genocide is about racism, slave-labour and exploitation of the land. Every single one.
Also, nice fallacies you’re throwing out there, like that ad hominem at the end, truly marvellous.
Removed by mod
And tankies aren’t worth salt as it is.
deleted by creator
I’m not a tankie, but I don’t think that the idea of justifying political repression in Russia is likely to be much of a challenge. The Bolsheviks justified single-party rule and their own political repressions for a long time. If you’re a tankie, you’re presumably already willing to accept that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguardism