Not my example, but it’s still literally objectively correct, the only kind of leftist who yearns to send the opposition to the wall is a tankie.
Anyone who doesn’t have their head up their ass realized trusting the state with the precedent of being able to kill people for any reason at all is the biggest idiot’s bargain save maybe for signing a contract with Donald Trump expecting him to actually pay for something.
Tankie refers to Stalinism, you’re watering down the term to be against any form of violent revolution, which would put EZLN in tankie territory by your own terms despite their being Libertarian Socialists.
I get what you’re trying to do, but I think I’m in agreement, you’re using tankie where it doesn’t belong.
Bruh, if the EZLN is for murder under the color of rooting out counterrevolutionaries then yes they too are tankies, it’s not about the stated ideology, it’s about the authoritarianism they get up to regardless.
Lenin proclaimed an ideology that called for basically syndicalism, still used the cheka to kill all the syndicalists for being counter revolutionary.
It wouldn’t have mattered who was running moscow, what mattered was their supporters demanding they send the tanks in to kill the “counterrevolutionaries” in Hungary.
They fight and kill people who attack them, they are revolutionaries, but violent ones.
I understand what you’re saying, but you’re conflating violence with Authoritarianism, and therefore violence with both tankies and authoritarianism. It’s not really accurate and goes beyond the scope of stalinism.
Violence is a key tool of authoritarianism, especially in aggression, and again, sending “counterrevolutionaries” to the wall is an act of aggression and authoritarianism.
You keep trying to insist I’m saying something I’m not, I’m very obviously talking about executions and acts of state sponsored terrorism against “enemies of the people”, a revolutionary movement is capable of these things same as a post revolutionary government, but at no point have I implied that defensive warfare itself is authoritarian violence, I’m talking about KGB shit and purges and anything else that looks of using 1984 as a how to manual.
Shooting some guy who’s coming at you with a machete, self defense, not authoritarian violence, shooting the same guy in the back of the head well after he’s already been pacified, detained, and put into whatever state of containment is warranted for his case, far over the line into authoritarian violence, literally wasting ammunition, soldiers, and even possible enemy intel over wanting to feel like you’re sticking it to that counterrevolutionary scum
Referring to people who’d execute “counterrevolutionaries”?
Mao rehabilitated the last Qing emperor, there’s literally no excuse to be ordering state sanctioned murder against anyone else.
I’m not debating the morality of it but in your previous example it was used improperly, as it often is on Lemmy. That was my only point.
Not my example, but it’s still literally objectively correct, the only kind of leftist who yearns to send the opposition to the wall is a tankie.
Anyone who doesn’t have their head up their ass realized trusting the state with the precedent of being able to kill people for any reason at all is the biggest idiot’s bargain save maybe for signing a contract with Donald Trump expecting him to actually pay for something.
Tankie refers to Stalinism, you’re watering down the term to be against any form of violent revolution, which would put EZLN in tankie territory by your own terms despite their being Libertarian Socialists.
I get what you’re trying to do, but I think I’m in agreement, you’re using tankie where it doesn’t belong.
Bruh, if the EZLN is for murder under the color of rooting out counterrevolutionaries then yes they too are tankies, it’s not about the stated ideology, it’s about the authoritarianism they get up to regardless.
Lenin proclaimed an ideology that called for basically syndicalism, still used the cheka to kill all the syndicalists for being counter revolutionary.
It wouldn’t have mattered who was running moscow, what mattered was their supporters demanding they send the tanks in to kill the “counterrevolutionaries” in Hungary.
They fight and kill people who attack them, they are revolutionaries, but violent ones.
I understand what you’re saying, but you’re conflating violence with Authoritarianism, and therefore violence with both tankies and authoritarianism. It’s not really accurate and goes beyond the scope of stalinism.
Violence is a key tool of authoritarianism, especially in aggression, and again, sending “counterrevolutionaries” to the wall is an act of aggression and authoritarianism.
You keep trying to insist I’m saying something I’m not, I’m very obviously talking about executions and acts of state sponsored terrorism against “enemies of the people”, a revolutionary movement is capable of these things same as a post revolutionary government, but at no point have I implied that defensive warfare itself is authoritarian violence, I’m talking about KGB shit and purges and anything else that looks of using 1984 as a how to manual.
Shooting some guy who’s coming at you with a machete, self defense, not authoritarian violence, shooting the same guy in the back of the head well after he’s already been pacified, detained, and put into whatever state of containment is warranted for his case, far over the line into authoritarian violence, literally wasting ammunition, soldiers, and even possible enemy intel over wanting to feel like you’re sticking it to that counterrevolutionary scum