Too many people are confusing the two. Whenever lemmy.ml or its devs do something stupid, people go “Lemmy is getting worse and worse,” or “I’m leaving Lemmy,” or worse, “I’m leaving for Beehaw.”

If you’re using Beehaw, then you’re using Lemmy. Lemmy is the software these instances run on. If you don’t like lemmy.ml, join another instances that have rules that match your philosophy. Some instance hosts authoritarian or fascist shit? Turn to another Lemmy instance. Lemmy.ml is not even the biggest instance. People who just joined and are unfamiliar with the platform will just think the entire Lemmyverse is run by autocratic admins if we don’t get our terminology right.

  • Baal-Zephon
    link
    English
    21 year ago

    doesn’t mean it can’t get twisted in bourgeois society. It’s mostly just used as a smear to mean “communist I don’t like”

    No, not at all. It simply means “Communist who supports oppression & authoritarianism”. European socialists, especially eastern Europeans, still use it in this exact same meaning to this day. The non-bourgeois workers & trade unionists who were subjected to decades of oppression under various Stalinist regimes also use it.

    The entire argument is pointless and trite anyway. Most of the people in this thread taking offence at the term “tankie” do in fact support authoritarianism and are attempting to gaslight readers about it.

    • @queermunist
      link
      English
      01 year ago

      “support”

      You keep using this word, but do you really think any of the people you call tankies have actually done anything to support these countries? Or, more likely, are you using “support” to mean “refuse to condemn/disavow”?

      Well, count me in to that group.

      I will not join the imperialist dogpile against China. My opinions about their government is irrelevant at best, and at worst by joining in the echo chamber of “China Bad!” then I am helping America pave the way for a war it so obviously wants.

      If you want to call that support, then I have to ask why supposed “socialists” are joining America in attacking China!

      • Baal-Zephon
        link
        English
        2
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You keep using this word, but do you really think any of the people you call tankies have actually done anything to support these countries? Or, more likely, are you using “support” to mean “refuse to condemn/disavow”?

        I couldn’t care less if tankies “only” refused to condemn China/Russia/DPRK or whatever oppressive regime they think is anti-imperialist – indeed, I wouldn’t even describe this group as tankies. The cold-war “tankies” weren’t passive or neutral either.

        The tankies you see here, even in this thread, actively dehumanize and gaslight people resisting these regimes, and attempt to delegitimize any act of resistance against them, even if indigenous. These are the kind of people who would smear actual leftist activists in Russia, China or Iran as “CIA Agents” in the hope that said regimes continue existing, to take revenge against the US. This worldview espouses that nobody has any agency except the US (and its authoritarian adversaries), because every opponent of these regimes has to be agent of the US.

        If you want to call that support, then I have to ask why supposed “socialists” are joining America in attacking China!

        Refusing to condemn something isn’t the same as lending support. Gaslighting people about the Tianamen Massacre, about the treatment of Uighurs, or about creeping authoritarianism in HK is, however, definitely a form of support.

        Socialists who oppose the CCP tend to do that for entirely different reasons than the US. Not that there is much socialism to support there. Labour rights and protections under the CCP are inferior to the average European country, with the rampant 996 culture and very few instances of collective labor action, which is seen as undesirable and suppressed by the party.

        • @queermunist
          link
          English
          01 year ago

          As the saying goes, you can’t be neutral on a moving train.

          By refusing to condemn China, I must therefore support it. That’s how it works. You can’t just be a third positionist about this and say “I oppose everybody with my own special snowflake socialism!”

          • Baal-Zephon
            link
            English
            2
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            My country managed to legislate better labor rights and worker protections under milquetoast SocDem governments than whatever the CCP managed to implement in China. So the CCP’s brand of “socialism” is not appealing to me.

            By refusing to condemn China, I must therefore support it.

            This is literally the tankie position, so I’m not sure why modern tankies take offense at being labeled so. Even in 1968, socialists & communists disagreed over the squashing of the Prague Spring, but tankies now still demand unconditional loyalty for their anti-US crusade, with little regard for anything else.

            • @queermunist
              link
              English
              11 year ago

              Your country extracted super profits from the exploitation of the third world and then redistributed a small portion of that stolen wealth to pacify the workers. Mine did that too and that’s nothing to be proud of!

              tankies now still demand unconditional loyalty for their anti-US crusade, with little regard for anything else.

              Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, which means the contradictions of US hegemony are the highest contradictions and take precedence!

              It doesn’t matter if I personally disagree with how China is responding to Muslim extremism or how it responds to protesters or how it is supposedly “developing the means of production” with state capitalism, because China is still an ally in the fight against empire.

              When the empire is dead we can deal with the lesser contradictions.

              • Baal-Zephon
                link
                English
                1
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Your country extracted super profits from the exploitation of the third world

                And the CCP wholeheartedly supports that. Companies such as VW even set up a factory in Xinjiang to take advantage of Uyghur slave labour, with full CCP acquiescence. The CCP itself has no issue with exploiting workers, exploiting its own population, or that of the 3rd world either.

                Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, which means the contradictions of US hegemony are the highest contradictions and take precedence!

                I fail to see the advantage of replacing US hegemony with CCP hegemony. Substituting an empire with another is pointless.

                because China is still an ally in the fight against empire.

                When the empire is dead we can deal with the lesser contradictions.

                For that to be true, one would have to believe in the idea that the CCP is interested in solving the contradictions of capitalism. Is there any evidence that this is the case? At this point, the CCP has abandoned socialism in favour of state capitalism & nationalism. A pivot back to socialism after the end of imperialism is within the realm of historical alt-timeline fiction.

                Tankies may think of the CCP as an ally, but that view might not be mutual. Once the empire is dead, their role will end. They are only useful to Stalinist regimes insofar they run interference for them and undermine any democratic opposition. Beyond that, they have no use. Attempting to “deal with lesser contradictions” under these undemocratic revisionist regimes will simply result in purges.

                To be clear, nobody will be dealing with any contradiction under the CCP. It’s a totalitarian, statist regime which has squashed, and will squash any glimmer of dissent. Bringing up contradictions at any level is likely to result in a futile re-enactment of the cultural revolution, with predictably similar results. There will be one option: To follow the party line to the letter.

                • @queermunist
                  link
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  I don’t believe Chinese hegemony is possible. US hegemony is a historical anomaly created by the very specific circumstances of colonialism, slavery, and then the post-WW2 period that saw all the old empires destroyed.

                  Once this empire is dead, there won’t ever be another. The material conditions won’t allow for it.

                  • Baal-Zephon
                    link
                    English
                    1
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    US hegemony is not a “historical anomaly”. It is the logical consequence of the imperial center i.e. the US/UK/Europe winning the geographical lottery. The triangular slave/goods/textile trading scheme in the Atlantic resulted in rapidly developing markets and massive extraction of wealth, ensuring US dominance. These geographical factors have become less important in the 21st century, however.

                    Once this empire is dead, there won’t ever be another. The material conditions won’t allow for it.

                    I don’t believe Chinese hegemony is possible

                    That is because orthodox Marxist discourse hasn’t evolved in any meaningful way since the cold war. It’s just people repeating the same platitudes with almost-religious fervor, willfully ignoring newer research.

                    Not only is Chinese hegemony possible, but trends suggest that it is poised to inherit the role of the imperial center possibly by the end of the century. Ian Morris’ “Why the West Rules—For Now” graphs the development of China and the West based on the amount of energy each civilization can capture, and extrapolation suggests that China will overtake the US by no later than 2100, possibly even earlier.

                    In the very least, that wouldn’t have been a regression if China wasn’t controlled by the CCP. But as things are currently, Chinese hegemony is synonymous with CCP hegemony. Some people attempt to argue otherwise, but that’s just sophistry. The hypercentralized statism of the CCP and its propensity to use all available technological means to coerce will leave little room for reform or discussion.