After seeing a megathread praising Mao Zedong, an actual mass killer, and a post about a guy saying “99% of westerners are 100000000000% sure they know what happened in ‘Tiny Man Square’ […] the reasons for this are complex and involve propaganda […],” I am genuinely curious what leads people to this belief system. Even if propaganda is involved when it comes to Tiananmen Square, it doesn’t change the atrocities that were/are committed everywhere else in China.
I am all for letting people believe what they want but I am lost on why one would deliberately praise any authoritarian system this hard.
Can someone please help me understand why this is such a large and prominent community? How have these ideals garnered such a following outside of China?
EDIT: Thank you to everyone who has responded! This thread has been very insightful :)
why one would deliberately praise any authoritarian system this hard.
To quote Bertrand Russell: “Much that passes as idealism is disguised hatred or disguised love of power.”
To put it simply, a lot of tankies crave power but just don’t want to admit. They are simply faux concerning for their own ulterior motive. I saw a meme from one of the .ml instances stating that communism simply “wants to improve” society. But I was like: didn’t you guys suppress free elections and speech and persecuted anyone who simply disagrees at the slightest?
It’s not uncommon for many authoritarian communists to eventually become fascists, especially after the end of the Cold War. The ex-leader of Red Army faction became neo-fascist in 2000s. A local politician in my country ran on xenophobic platform, but was a member of a Marxist-Leninist party in the 1970s. All that said, it means these people simply run on whatever ideologies, so long as they can attain power for power’s sake.
Edit: grammar
like everyone else who thinks they know best, they crave the power of forcing others.
Communists don’t crave power, and if your only point to that is that we recognize the necessity of employing state power against literal fascists, landlords, capitalists, sabateurs, etc, then you’re implicitly making the point that we should let these groups run free for a sense of greater “freedom,” even if these groups murder us and re-establish the very system that so immiserated us to the point of revolution in the first place. You’re handcuffing yourself.
In reality, communists become so because of disaffections with present capitalist systems, and seek answers from Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. The fact that some party members are opportunists doesn’t make that a fact of communism. This kind of psycho-analysis doesn’t hold any water when measured against real communist movements, both in successful socialist nations and in communist parties in capitalist nations.
the necessity of employing state power against literal fascists, landlords, capitalists, sabateurs, etc, then you’re implicitly making the point that we should let these groups run free for a sense of greater “freedom,”
Firstly, fascists came much later as response to the growth of communist movements. Communism did not start to prevent fascists, it’s the other way around, not that I am condoning the latter but this is simply the historical truth.
Second, Marxist Leninist communists killed even other different flavour of communists. A famous example were the Kronstadt sailors who simply wanted actual horizontal distribution of power like free and fair electione, and actual worker-run businesses. Instead, the Marxist-Leninist Bolsheviks killed them in the name of “vanguardism”, ie to maintain state power that you just invoked. The state power is merely the centralisation of power and authority for the few.
In reality, communists become so because of disaffections with present capitalist systems, and seek answers from Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. The fact that some party members are opportunists doesn’t make that a fact of communism.
Yes, yes, theory, theory and all that; but that doesn’t ignore the fact that empirical realities negate the idealism that communism purport to espouse. Going back to Bertrand Russell’s quote: it quite literally is a veiled attempt to grab power. Actions and end results must comply with idealism but alas, that didn’t happen even in communism.
I’m aware that fascism became more of a thing towards the 20s and 30s, my point is that fascists existed in the form of fascist partisans in socialist systems and infiltrators.
Secondly, you’re absolutely butchering what happened at Kronstadt. Stepan Petrichenko, the leader of the rebellion, tried to join the White Army before the Kronstadt Rebellion, and joined the White Army after it failed, under general Wrangel. The White Army was a tsarist, anti-communist group. We also know that Petrichenko attempted to instill paranoia among the sailors by lying about Bolsheviks executing strike leaders.
Ignoring the will of the leaders and manipulators of the rebellion, lets look at who this supported. Capitalist media positively reported on the rebellion before it even came to a head, the Bourgeoisie supported the movement as it weakened the Communist movement, causing division. Ignoring who wanted it to succeed, was what the rebels wanted feasible at this point in time? Absolutely not. The rebels wanted to dissolve the bolshevik influence over the revolution, fracturing it during a bloody Civil War. This would have doomed the revolution, it could not come to pass and not result in Capitalist victory over Socialism.
Was it possible for there to be a bloodless resolution? Perhaps, but it didn’t. The Bolsheviks did not have the strength to hold courts and answer said rebellion peacefully, nor could they grant the demands of the rebels. Ultimately, the rebels surrendered and turned on the leaders of the revolt.
They didn’t want “free and fair elections,” they explicitly wanted the bolsheviks disqualified from being elected and dissolved as a party. They didn’t simply want “worker run businesses,” they wanted special privledges in wartime. To pretend that this was all “in the name of vanguardism” and not a crisis of wreckers sabotaging the revolution is pure Red Scare fearmongering. The soviet system dramatically expanded democracy and solidified power in the hands of the working classes.
Yes, yes, theory, theory and all that; but that doesn’t ignore the fact that empirical realities negate the idealism that communism purport to espouse. Going back to Bertrand Russell’s quote: it quite literally is a veiled attempt to grab power. Actions and end results must comply with idealism but alas, that didn’t happen even in communism.
Communists reject idealism and vulgar empiricism, instead supporting dialectical materialist analysis that acknowledges the ability for us to unify theory with practice. Having ideals is not the same thing as idealism, which puts ideas over matter. Communism is absolutely, in no way “a veiled attempt to grab power,” instead communists have managed to implement socialism in real life, warts and all, precisely to overthrow the oppressive systems of the past and implement socialism. This has resulted in the dramatic uplifting of billions of workers and peasants, fundamentally different from the results of capitalism.
it’s easier to believe in a fantasy than deal with the complicated reality
It’s the same question as how do people fall into the “liberal” mindset?
After seeing people worship enslavers and their state… These people literally enslaved millions of people and genocided millions more. And their state continues to invade and murder people around the planet… So how do seemingly rational people accept and support this violent, racist, system that’s literally destroying the planet? How can people be mad at Mao but not also every president? How do they feel complacent and self-righteous about voting for people who support genocide? The rationalizations are all over Lemmy, much more so than tankie rationalizations.
The point is that libs and tankies are basically the same thing, just worshiping a different empire. People want to feel like they’re part of some global movement, regardless of whether the movement is actually evil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_religion
I empathize with some of the thinking, but I don’t necessarily agree with it. To keep it simple, imagine how many different world powers are working to sabotage openly Socialist and Communist governments. What kinds of tools and resources might these world powers have at their disposal? I can’t imagine being part of a disfavored leftist government and not becoming haggard and paranoid beyond reason.
I break it down like this:
Free-for-all Capitalism has gotten us this shit state.
Free for all Communism has never worked in any meaningful way. Now, the always ready retort is “it’s never had the chance to!” to which I’d reply: it never will. If it can compete with other forms of governance let it rip, but… ? where is the success story?
Democratic Socialism has worked for the US already: the new deal, labor rights, Social Security, 40hr work week, etc., et.c,
/then came the 80s… reaganomics destroyed unions, made education a gamble… conservatives saw a path to reducing it all.
Democratic Socialism works very well in other countries all over the world: they recognize there are certain services that are critical to provide in order for democracy to function: fire, police, healthcare, disability affordances, so many things that government is uniquely situated to promote and provide.
I’m happy to change from free-for-all-capitalism, welcome it, but you can’t point to a hypothetical end point that’s never ever existed AND won’t be allowed to exist as long as resources require capital.
“oh that’s not socialism, it’s communism but won’t admit it to itself” is the weakest shit excuse I’ve ever fucking heard in my life.
dolts
Free for all Communism has never worked in any meaningful way. Now, the always ready retort is “it’s never had the chance to!” to which I’d reply: it never will. If it can compete with other forms of governance let it rip, but… ? where is the success story?
The problem is that this is false. Socialist countries led by communist parties have consistently brought dramatic, radical improvements over what came before in a way that far surpasses any upsides of capitalism. Metrics like life expectancy, in many cases, increase by 50-100%, poverty rates plummet, land reform helps end famine where it was once common (a huge part of life expectancy increases), and their economies are democratized in a way that fundamentally doesn’t exist in capitalist countries. Socialism works.
Communism is a post-socialist stateless, classless, moneyless society. Communist parties have always governed socialist countries, because communism has not yet been achieved, and is itself a global phenomenon.
Not sure what you mean by “free for all.”
Democratic Socialism works very well in other countries all over the world: they recognize there are certain services that are critical to provide in order for democracy to function: fire, police, healthcare, disability affordances, so many things that government is uniquely situated to promote and provide.
You’re confusing social democracy for socialism. Social safety nets within the boundaries of capitalism are not socialism, socialism is not when the government does stuff. Capitalism is a mode of production characterized by private ownwership as the principle aspect of the economy and capitalists in control of the state, with socialism being public ownership as principle and the working classes in charge of the state.
“Democratic Socialism” itself is a a vague term. Socialism is already democratic, rule by the majority is a necessity when the working class is in control of the state. What it ends up meaning in practice is socialism relying heavily on electoralism and reformism, such as in Chile under Allende and in Venezuela.
The important factor here is that the social democracies that are doing the best, their safety nets are largely funded by imperialism and unequal exchange. These are not internally driven systems, but closer to landlords in country form towards the global south. Now that imperialism as a global system is weakening, we can actually track the erosion of safety nets in these social democracies, and in the general shift to the far-right.
I’m happy to change from free-for-all-capitalism, welcome it, but you can’t point to a hypothetical end point that’s never ever existed AND won’t be allowed to exist as long as resources require capital.
We can point to the real existing socialism in the real world and uphold their gains. No socialist country has been perfect, of course, all have had problems and struggles. They have, however, always been progressive and emancipatory as compared to what came before, and more effective at providing for their people compared to peer capitalist countries, without relying on imperialism.
I would argue that Democratic Socialism works somewhat better than the perverse form of capitalism that exists today. It does have its flaws also. See the increasing surveillance of the population in the EU that is being pushed by politicians as a start.
At some point in the future, socialism will fail just like every other form of governance humans have devised.
Social democracy (what you call democratic socialism) in the EU depends on imperialism to function. The reason it’s deteriorating and pushing to the far-right is because of the decay in imperialism. This is a consequence of the capitalist nature of social democracy, not something that would be applicable to socialism. Socialism one day will emerge, and from it communism will, as contradictions within socialism as resolved.
For the same reason people fall into fascism. Capitalism is putting the screws to people. Rent is too high, food is too expensive, people are on a treadmill, and dissatisfaction hangs in the air like miasma. People are mad, and they don’t know at what. They sense something is rotten, they dont have the words. Fascism co-opts leftist talking points, but pulls a bait and switch with the Jews and migrants and whoever.
Tankies also start from this choking miasma, you look at Tankie propaganda, its compelling. The US commited genocide and war crimes, and is more racist than you know. Capitalists are terrible, yadda yadda you know it. Tankie propaganda also frames politics as a team sport. When you look at the US (or you can look at it as the “Nato Empire,” which can be an interesting way to think about it), as the ultimate evil, can be easy to see anyone opposing them as good or worth supporting.
For the same reason people fall into fascism.
Agreed. But I think “liberalism” is the underlying problem. Fascism is its extreme.
possibly? Being a liberal is the default where I live. Its generally considered the opposite of “conservative.” I give liberals (in the US politics sense) a bit more grace than most leftists. It is as far left as most people consider “allowable” in the US. They don’t hold very many abhorrent social opinions; they are quite supportive of queer rights, they volunteer at soup kitchens with me, oppose nazis, are environmentally conscious, etc.
Their main issue is that they have never been taught to view the world differently. So they talk about environmentalism, and they get behind bike lanes and electric cars, but they cannot conceive of restructuring cities to make use of more public transportation, or say blowing up fossil fuel infrastructure in minecraft. They want to help the homeless, but they can’t imagine just housing people, they support shelters and clothing drives and the salvation army, and other stop gaps within the system. I’ve long since resigned myself to the fact that people who think what I think are rare, and even various other stripes of leftists (anarchists, syndicalists, MLs, etc) are all gonna be a vanishingly tiny minority. I don’t think most liberals are so far gone we can’t reach them.
(Unless you meant like, neo liberalism, with like Thatcherist and Reaganite austerity, in which case yeah, basically fascism).
Simple answer: The things you think you know aren’t the truth. They’re just propaganda.
How do people fall into any mindset. Scientology is more wacky but also way more prolific than Tankies. Why do you have a hard time wrapping your mind around Tankies if something even crazier exists.
Tiananmen square is one of those things Tankies are generally correct about. There was no massacre, but they also fail to realize there could have been one if things had gone differently that day.
They use this as a decent proof that Western propaganda is lies. Of course it is, so is China’s propaganda. There are no good guys. As someone who discovered the awful truth of the US early on I spent a lot of time contemplating alternatives.
I could see how if I had stopped studying and just landed on the “West is wrong” I could have adopted many of their views. I didn’t though, I kept digging.
As other posters point out they are not really large. They also hit above their weight with their constant pushing of propaganda along with many alts and suppressive behavior on their instance. This is why I found them so distasteful. Their admins were outright abusive. I blocked a few and that solved 99% of the problem.
scientology is a pure grifting “religion” made by a guy that dint like to pay taxes on his books.
There was no massacre, but they also fail to realize there could have been one if things had gone differently that day.
We’re acutely aware of what would have happened if Gene Sharp, the CIA, and the goons they armed, funded, and trained had been successful.
The blueprint of regime change operations How regime change happens in the 21st century with your consent
Always in denial.
While the US might be the worst in history China is no slouch. MSS is just like the CIA and is responsible for countless violations of human rights.
The only real leg to stand on is they are not as prolific as the US. Considering they pumped out more billionaires than the US this year and have fully embraced fascism I think they are well on their way.
I have no idea what you think that proves or disproves about the straw man argument in your head.
That because of one person’s decision less bloodshed happened and that the government did order troops to a peaceful protest.
Not sure why you are so butthurt about the truth.
Not sure why you are so butthurt about the truth.
I’m not? The truth is what happened, not what might have happened. As for what might have happened, there would have been no violence at all if US hadn’t been there to instigate it.
Because the communist party was so peaceful.
Like when they starved 150,000+ of their citizens to death in the Siege of Changchun?
Maybe their rebels had real reasons and not just western propaganda. Good thing I don’t need to defend any superpower.
Like when they starved 150,000+ of their citizens to death in the Siege of Changchun?
You’re right, they should have just laid down arms and let the fascist KMT slaughter them and run the country like Mussolini or Hirohito might have.
Maybe their rebels had real reasons and not just western propaganda.
There’s no maybe about it. You can read and hear their real reasons: they wrote them down and recorded them on tape. Go find them and see who & what you’re trying to defend.
same way people fall into conservative mindset, propaganda. you hear a little snippet of here and there, and ragebaiting or drama, add in a little racism and authotarianism, which both extreme loves. you fall on either opposites of the spectrum politically. they also dont bother to research on the actual material of being “hard left”
Same way people fall into liberal mindset - endless, uncontested propaganda from schools, media, etc. You hear chunks of market ideology here and there. Takes some “econ” classes. Don’t bother researching unprofitable alternatives.
I’d argue that they functionally don’t exist.
Sure, here you run into them here in this universe…not a great sample size. I’m a really social person who spent years in deep leftist Canada…and I’m one of the most radical socialist (whatever you want to call it…all the terms are fraught) folks I’ve met. I’m definitely nowhere near a tankie.
I’ve met exactly one true “tankie”. Good friend…always making excuses for atrocities…it spills over into radical support for modern day Russia etc…but dude is also a silver spooner who works for his dads investment firm.
I honestly wish there were more tankies…and among the lower classes where they should be…but many of the poor people I know are conservatives or nihilists/anarchists.
that friends sounds more like bourgeois, oligarchy than a leftist. kinda like how “hasan” pretends to be a leftist on his streams, hes a grifter.
Nah, he’d have us all up against the wall immediately…I don’t doubt his conviction.
Meh…no…my example was exactly nothing like Hassan. You don’t understand anything about leftism if you believe seeking or having wealth disqualifies you.
Well for sure one of the reason is that even in non marxist communities they show up and write comments in a style that many people resonate with. I mean using citations, good grammar, appealing to logic, (seemingly) good argumentations etc.
This makes them look reasonable and even if you do not read all their sources, you might remember their comments and talking points in a pretty positive light.
I dont want to say this style of arguing is bad, but I think it gets valued higher than arguments based on intuition and emotion with a less “scientific” style, because that is what many people are taught when growing up, going to school etc.
Also I would like to say, in some cases this “showing up” is done in a way that feels invasive to (parts of) communties. Like an online version of Jehovas Witnesses.
I really dig that they often "show their receipts"and I’ll always take someone with citations more seriously than those without. I think it’s prudent to be even more sceptical of those replies, though, as it’s far more likely they have an agenda. That agenda might be as benign as educating others (it’s often why I cite), but it’s still best to think critically about the context, text, and subtext of their narrative.
How do people actually fall into the “Tankie” mindset?
The MLs answering in good faith despite the question being framed in bad faith have exceptional grace.
a post about a guy saying “99% of westerners are 100000000000% sure they know what happened in ‘Tiny Man Square’ […] the reasons for this are complex and involve propaganda […]”
Oh hey I know that guy. If anyone who wants to know more about propaganda & media literacy, please see also: previously.
Cool. I now have your account tagged properly.
Cool. Thanks for the firehose of downvotes, stalwart patriot.
Propaganda and self interest. Pick whatever story is being told that you feel like picking and that’s it.
I’d wager half or more of the tankie posts are bots, paid posters in 3rd world countries, or slave labor in 3rd world countries. The rest are a combo of incest, edge lords, nihilistic, and some vanishingly small number of actual true believers in the power of Fascist accelerated forced Communism.
Marx and his allies believed Communism can’t come about by force, only by natural progression following the unavoidable natural collapse of capitalism. Our experience seems to demonstrate that attempting to force any of it only ever sets the process back.
Ignoring the conspiracy theory about communists being paid to be communists (I wish, instead I pay dues to my org), this in particular is false:
Marx and his allies believed Communism can’t come about by force, only by natural progression following the unavoidable natural collapse of capitalism.
Marx was revolutionary. The fundamental transformation from a society where private ownetship is principle and capitalists in charge of the state into one where public ownership is principle and the working class in charge of the state requires revolution. The idea that capitalism paves the way for socialism by centralizing and increasing the number of proletarians as compared to capitalists and entering worse and worse crisis doesn’t mean that you can only have a revolution in a developed capitalist country, or that we simply wait on our hands for capitalism to collapse and pray socialism takes its place.
I’d wager half or more of the tankie posts are bots, paid posters in 3rd world countries, or slave labor in 3rd world countries.
And yet no Lemmy admin will take your wager, because they have access to way more information than you do, and they don’t see evidence to support it.
Marx and his allies believed Communism can’t come about by force, only by natural progression following the unavoidable natural collapse of capitalism.
Anyone who’s done even a Marxism 101 amount of reading knows this to be false. Neither Marx, Engels, Lenin, or any other major figures said that nature will just inevitably take its course all on its own. All of them were revolutionaries who advocated for influencing its course, not standing idly by.
The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it. — Marx
Many people have objected to my point.
But you’re all saying Marx said violence would occur at times as part of the transition from pre-Communism to Communism. I agree.
What I said is that Marx and his allies didn’t believe that it was possible to FORCE Communism into place - especially from a place of contented “capitalism” (not that anyone in Earth is actually doing capitalism either) - by violence.
And we’ve seen it everywhere every time people claiming to be Marxist and claiming they want to establish a Communist society who pick up arms and start murdering their way through the proletariat on their way to the bourgeoisie to hopefully get to the owners.
The end state is not a stateless classless moneyless etc. society. It’s a bunch of traumatized workers & middle class subject to a new group of owners surrounded by toadies ready to have their breaks wet.
BECAUSE the circumstances for the violent worker uprising against the owners (and maybe their bourgie servants) MUST come around naturally. Those circumstances are a natural outcome of capitalism run amok. They cannot be forced to occur, certainly not by violence.
What I said is that Marx and his allies didn’t believe that it was possible to FORCE Communism into place
If that’s what you meant, then yes, that’s more-or-less correct. You can try to steer a ship, but you can’t make it do the impossible.
(not that anyone in Earth is actually doing capitalism either)
I’d rather not see what’s under this log, so I’ll leave it be.
What I said is that Marx and his allies didn’t believe that it was possible to FORCE Communism into place - especially from a place of contented “capitalism” (not that anyone in Earth is actually doing capitalism either) - by violence.
While partially correct, that isn’t what Marxists have tried to do, except for “Marxists” like the Shining Path that see no success. Further, the majority of the planet is still capitalist, absolutely, and Marx would agree. It doesn’t look the same as it did in Marx’s time, but that was Marx’s entire philsophy, one of permanent change propelled by contradictions - dialectical materialism.
And we’ve seen it everywhere every time people claiming to be Marxist and claiming they want to establish a Communist society who pick up arms and start murdering their way through the proletariat on their way to the bourgeoisie to hopefully get to the owners.
The problem with this paragraph is that it isn’t true. Outside of fringe movements like the Gonzaloite Shining Path of Peru, communists have never done this kind of “grind through the proletariat to eventually get to the bourgeoisie” schtick you claim they have. Not in Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Korea, or even Venezuela and Nicaragua. You’ve invented this.
The end state is not a stateless classless moneyless etc. society. It’s a bunch of traumatized workers & middle class subject to a new group of owners surrounded by toadies ready to have their breaks wet.
More fanfiction. Socialist states aren’t “end states,” merely the solidified socialist state building towards communism. Not only have they brought dramatic uplifting of the working classes and democratization of their economies (ie, not at all what you describe), but these are part of an ever-changing process of resolving contradictions that continues even into communism. Your inclusion of the “middle class,” ie petite bourgeoisie, as something to uphold is also distinctly anti-Marxist, calling into question the validity of your understanding of Marx.
BECAUSE the circumstances for the violent worker uprising against the owners (and maybe their bourgie servants) MUST come around naturally. Those circumstances are a natural outcome of capitalism run amok. They cannot be forced to occur, certainly not by violence.
They did, in Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, etc. Whether it be from capitalism internally, or from being colonized or imperialized externally, revolution hasn’t been forced by communists. Communists have steered real movements towards definite, organized directions, yes, which is fully in line with Marxism. You’re painting a picture of a vibes-based spontaneous adoption of socialism, which is anti-Marxist.
alot of does sound botty.
Tribalism
They opposed one tribe so they joined another
These kinds of answers are just the silliest. If you don’t know why we think the things we do—which you obviously don’t—then don’t “contribute” to the conversation with the first thing that pops into your head. It’s okay to not know things.
They’re not going to do that, because investigation of socialist positions would require them to confront the cognitive dissonance of their own beliefs. And once you go against mainstream liberal groupthink, you risk being ostracized by people calling you
wokea tankie.
This. Treating politics like team sports.
They can’t see that any government is going to create corruption so they picked the government they have the least experience with to side with. Of course at the heart of the tankies is a huge amount of fud being generated by russia and the ccp.
They can’t see that any government is going to create corruption
Uh no. We have no illusions of a utopia free of all forms of corruption. Where did you even get that idea?
Of course at the heart of the tankies is a huge amount of fud being generated by russia and the ccp.
Of course, of course: the massive amount. We’re brainwashed Soyboy and you’re free-thinking Chad. See also.
I swear to god is this c/wrong_answers_only?
I’m a realist and you have nothing but fantasies. Best to identify the hopeless and move on. Thanks.
Is it “realist” to invent a strawman to fight and irrationally apply it to everyonr to avoid discussion? Calling yourself a realist doesn’t mean you are one in practice.
Corruption is a very generic word, can you be more specific?
Ah FUD. Its a tuerky based meat i think in the us. Its right along other lunch meat but its called FUD. It so rarely bought.
