I think the real division on the "left" can be boiled down to those using all the language and rhetoric of left wing ideology but in service of fascist and conservative ideas.
For example, tankies or people who have been brainwashed by tankies; a person can spend all day talking about how they support Palestine and BLM and LGBT rights etc. but then turn around and defend the CCP, which completely undermines any claim that they're actually on the left/center.
So in that way it's less of a "progressives never agree" and more of a "anti-progressive ideas are constantly pushed into progressive spaces to undermine them."
I mean, you can use that same logic on the US government, even Democrat run ones, which have supported genocides in the past and even current ongoing ones, and have tried to stomp out left movements, been racist, sexist, and homophobic. But people have still supported the US and the Democratic party and called themselves leftist. The point is, I assume as I'm not a CCP Stan myself or anything, is to give critical support to back an actual socialist project and give a counterweight to a pure single superpower world (esp. When that superpower has destroyed or undermined almost every left project it can in the world). Critical support meaning you pick out the good from the bad, supporting the good and criticizing the bad. China actually puts a leash on its billionaires = good. But they seem to be forcing some cultural integration of Uyghurs = bad. But they're providing lots of housing and cheap EV's = good. But they can have bad working conditions = bad. But they're helping support economies and infrastructure in the global South with the Belt and Road project = good. But they keep doing that shit with territory in the south seas = bad. But they seem to have a long-term plan for implementing communism that they are actually following = good. And so on. I do think some people go too far in being CCP supportive, but I also think some people on Lemmy go too far the other direction, and think everyone that gives the slightest critical support to China or analyzes some US propaganda on China a bit before swallowing it is a CCP troll.
In the end, it's a mixed bag, but I do think there is some worth to not having a single hegemonic superpower in the world, so other leftist countries or colonized global south ones have alternative access to allies, trade, and support without bowing down to the US and their often reactionary policies. Cuba for example was doing pretty good until the Soviet Union fell and basically the only market became the western, US-controlled one that they had been mostly sanctioned the hell out of. I wish it was a better country than China, but hopefully they improve their social issues as they improve economically, which tends to be the pattern. I just wish they'd stop doing the aggressive maneuvers near the Philippines and Vietnam.
This is exactly what I see. Many people see critical support and assume it as uncritical support, then extrapolate nonsensical views from that. Like, if someone says they think it's cool that China has high speed rail, that doesn't mean they wish 100 Tianannmenn massacres annually and to personally fellate Xi.
Nah dude you got it all wrong, Tianannmenn square was a western psyop. and all those "prisons" in xianjiang are just hotels or something idk.
Execution vans? never heard of them m8
No cap, fr, fr
Username does not check out.
But the same people will say that Israel has to be 100% opposed, even though they are a democracy where lots of people disagree with the current actions of the government.
So China's problems are ignored but Israel's are not. That's the definition of bias.
I don't really think this is an equivalent statement. Israel isn't opposed because it's a liberal democracy, but because it is an aparthied state carrying out a genocide and propped up by the US to protect its business interests.
The people who give China a pass are who I'm talking about. They don't oppose the Chinese government either.
For some people the thought process is:
Oppose "the West" = good
Support "the West" = bad
The countries making up "the West" change from person to person and day to day.
I think this is an unintentional oversimplification of their views.
Put another way, if someone considers China a lesser evil than the US, that doesn't mean they are giving China a "pass." I would argue that there are no truly good states right now, so everyone is ultimately picking a lesser evil.
If I say China having high speed rail is good, that doesn't mean I agree with the homophobic legislature in China.
Israel is not a democracy, they are a theocratic apartheid state.
Calling the Democratic Party the Democrat Party is a right-wing pejorative
Sorry, I'll fix that.
But I’ve only seen good things about the CCP on TikTok.
And Tiananmen Square looks lovely.
Did something ever happen there, or why is everyone talking about it? /s
God that show has aged him haha (or I'm just getting old and that show's been on way longer than I perceive.......yep I'm going with that first thing I said. :P)
Speaking as an elder millennial, it's about both if you're like me 😄
But yeah, he DOES frequently joke about how much he's aged in the decade plus change it's been on 😄
Speaking as an elder millennial, it’s about both if you’re like me 😄
I think it is often more subtle than something like Tankies defending the CCP or Russia. A lot of people who call themselves left or progressive still think the world just needs the "correct" strong-man, when one of the biggest defining things of "left" is going against engrained power structures.
While it is possible to be left-ish and support particular leaders, it is seldom a sign of an actually enlightened person if they think only a "strong man" can fix things. Tankies fit squarely in the center of that, but there are LARGE fringes where people seriously do not understand some of the core axioms of "left" politics while also not being full blown tankies.
i mean i wouldn't be opposed to a strong man leader, provided they're an absolute saint and ceaselessly preach about being good to one another and spends shitloads of time practising what they preach.
Humans do naturally gravitate towards having leaders, however it's important that everyone keeps in mind that leaders get their power because people trust them, and if they violate that trust they shouldn't keep the power.
Being a leader shouldn't really be a position of power, it should be a position of responsibility and scrutiny.
agreed. but some people can't really decipher what some politicians say because they don't inform themselves enough, or didn't learn.
While I agree largely with your conclusion that anti progressive ideas are pushed to undermine progressive spaces, I don't really agree with how you get there and with the examples you choose to arrive at that conclusion. There obviously are actual bad actors, and actual hegemony to get these bad actors into being, but there is also a lot of real people, actually still learning about the topics, or just plainly with a different perspective on some of the issues that you might be discussing.
For it to be an ideology that is self consistent leftism actually needs differences and disagreement, or said in another way: if we were to prescribe beliefs instead of trying to teach them we'd also just be trying to build our "own" authoritarian hegemony. I can invoke successes of or defend the CCP and the soviets just as I can invoke successes of the US or EU or India realizing that all states are fundamentally bad, still sometimes perhaps by accident they do good things. And that examples and mental shortcuts, as well as actual experiments that might be of a socialist nature, are just what they are argumentative tools.
I've been called a tankie just because I see the downfall or backsliding of the US as good thing and don't really accept that china would be as bad as the US has been for the last 40 years or so. Which is perfectly normal for someone who doesn't really reap the benefits of US hegemony, and sort of just ranks authoritarian institutions by size(strength)(wealth) to arrive at a measure of subjective dislike.
It's almost similar to someone calling me a tankie because I purchase Pepsi instead of coca cola on that given day, when we all know I should make my own tea or at least just buy the supermarket/local brand to begin with.
I don't know where you are and what kind of people you meet on a regular basis but to me the simple and fast ways of understanding other people almost never hold true, most of us humans just lead to complicated lives to easily subjectify us. And honestly I wish most leftists would not try to subjectify other people to begin with.
Yeah, this is kind of what I'm talking about. You can't on one hand say you're for progressive leftist ideals, which are centered on human rights and democratic freedom and then also employ the rhetoric of a far right dictatorship. You're just soft-selling authoritarianism at that point in defense of some empty label.
Criticizing the US is one thing, even wanting their power balanced by other nations is sensible, but pretending the CCP is anything but a far-right totalitarian dictatorship isn't productive if the goal is a world with more opportunities for progressive ideas to take root -- there is no scenario that manifests out of the CCP increasing its geopolitical influence that isn't objectively worse, regardless of what bones there are to pick with the right-wing in the US. The goal should be defeating the far-right in the US, not kneecapping the US so the CCP can start expending their imperial ambitions.
China accumulating power only moves the global needle further towards authoritarian norms, not away from them. It results in more cross pollination between right-wing groups internationally. We are witnessing it right now, as US democracy declines (not US power) and China rises we see a not-so-coincidental rise in far-right groups everywhere else too (which China and Russia happily foster and weaponize. Very progressive of them).
In the US (or any democracy) there is still much more political diversity, so if you criticize US actions you're really criticizing one of those groups and their abuse of US power. By contrast, China has a single state party with a single person at its head with more or less unrestricted power. It is quite a few steps ahead on the road to fascism even compared to the US. So it doesn't make sense to try and bill them as the same thing.
There is no internal force within China working to reform it, not even potential for it, but there are progressive groups in the US pushing against the right-wing authoritarianism rising in their own country. If there weren't we wouldn't be seeing the evolution of public perception on issues like Israel/Gaza. That is a direct result of Americans themselves pushing from within using their (slowly diminishing) rights. You see nothing like that in China because it's simply not possible, fascism is already locked in there. It doesn't help you or anyone else for them to gain more influence.
Dictatorship and authoritarianism are diametrically opposed to every progressive political goal, they aren't concepts that can be harnessed for some greater good, they are never a means to an end.
This is because, as you allude to, the defining characteristic of the "left" is that it is always looking to evolve society past the solutions that have proven to be failures (like monarchy, theocracy, corprotocracy, communism, libertarianism etc.) in favor of decision-making that's based on reality as we understand it now and can be adapted without concentration camps and mass graves.
"Leftism" is when people try to use knowledge for the goal of fostering human dignity, well-being and freedom, but it is also when people are ready to cast aside ideas that fail to produce. It doesn't matter what flavor of progressive someone is, those are still the central defining notions that unite anyone inclined to be "left wing".
If someone finds themselves defending ideas or groups that don't serve those basic purposes they're simply no longer promoting progressive/left ideas -- they're promoting failed ideas that will inevitably be incorporated by the right to open new routes to the same resolution as any right-wing effort. That's what conservativism is; a failure to move as our understanding of reality moves.
So, yeah, some people only just becoming politically aware might have muddled thinking about things they were taught along the way, but they need to be shown how those ideas don't really reinforce the end goal they actually want, not to have those ideas treated as legitimate and valid forms of progressive political philosophy. They need to be taught how to examine any idea for what it is, not what they want it to be.
This is the problem with having loyalty to labels, specific theories and personalities over basic principles and practical realities. You become inflexible and vulnerable to having your good intentions exploited, ending up in these weird positions where you're supporting the very thing you claimed to be against (like self-proclaimed leftists who still defend Stalin or the CCP despite the mind-boggling levels of human suffering they've produced)
I don't care about implementing one specific left-branded ideology or another, my concern is more with ejecting conservative political thought so that ideas and information can be discussed and debated to find the solutions that actually produce good for everyone. That simply isn't possible until the people get past the corpses of their darlings, whatever they may be.
That deliberation should be able to happen without people dogmatically attempting to shoehorn in ideas that have already been tried and failed. Progressives should not be precious with ideas that way and should be willing to label ideas based on what they produce in reality, not just in theory.
I'm having a hard time understanding the perspective of someone who believes that lefties would benefit by having the world's largest army and nuclear arsenal under a government backsliding all the way into theocratic authoritarianism. Like step one is a little putsch, step two is murdering all your political opponents, then it is time to invade neighbors to steal resources. Yes, the US is already invading countries to steal resources, no, I don't think having an authoritarian cancelling voting will help reduce that any. What am I missing? Just fuck it, ramp up climate change and war, get it over with, and pray socialism crawls out of the rubble?
I'm having a hard time understanding the perspective of someone who believes that lefties would benefit by having the world's largest army and nuclear arsenal under a government backsliding all the way into theocratic authoritarianism.
Well some leftists would loose a lot obviously, specifically those in or directly around the US, but fascist regimes are not very sustainable, and certainly loose the ability to ally and coerce over time.
And This loss of ability to project power (by the largest and thus likely the most destructive institution of coercive power) is what I see as a critical step towards a communist or just any different way of economic and political organization on a global scale.
I don't want a facist US regime, I would never tell any leftists to advocate for one, but I would tell them to prepare or flee nonetheless because it is still likely, or at least possible that it happens (again).
I'd much rather have a reasonably progressive US voluntarily give up power in good faith, curtail her own economic might to allow her citizens a good life and our shared world a sustainable economy and ecology but given that among many other titles, she also holds the title of the foremost petrostate, and at least one of the largest Tax heavens, in the world I unfortunately don't really see that happening, I still hope for it, but as far as I understand powerful interests aligning and climate change, the world economy... it just doesn't seem particularly likely.
I'm in Germany so not anywhere extremely tied into the US, but at the same time both are imperial core, there is a lot of cooperation, I would likely feel a lot of the secondary effects, but I also believe perhaps naively that not all of the world would , blindly follow the US in it's slow march towards fascism. And with each institution peeling of from US hegemony there is at least a chance to throw a big political lever in the rightish direction, whether it be the EU, IMF, Nato or whatever else, a movement that at the moment is blocked largely by US and perhaps wider western but also sometimes chinese or russian imperialist positions. And of course the Capital that these states (actually) represent.
Like step one is a little putsch, step two is murdering all your political opponents, then it is time to invade neighbors to steal resources. Yes, the US is already invading countries to steal resources, no, I don't think having an authoritarian cancelling voting will help reduce that any. What am I missing?
All of this is already happening anyways, murdering political opponents internally as well as outside of the US,furthering climate change, destabilizing and undermining trust etc. again sliding into fascism is not what I want, but even a fascist US would be bound by physical, organizational, and social circumstances, and thus for the wider world likely less catastrophic than you might believe it'd be if you were raised or resided in the US.
I can't claim for certain that the US is having a Weimar moment, and I cant be certain that a US fascism in the modern era would be shorter and less gruesome, I also can't say it'll be better afterwards, but I feel all of these things to not be completely outrageous predictions, because as leftists probably should, I can try to interpret the historical Weimar moment, and the current political landscape...
Just fuck it, ramp up climate change and war, get it over with, and pray socialism crawls out of the rubble?
Well again, ramp up in war and climate change are already happening, and in my world the wars are already the 20th century ideas as well as their capital, lashing out against 21st century thinking, changes in circumstances, and the very real onset of this era of climate change scarcity that we are entering.
So to some extent from my point of view yes, you don't have to keep trying to be a democracy with institutions and foundational texts as well as family hierarchies from the 18th century, that were made and changed by your political enemies, you can fight for (but hopefully mostly against) the fascism that the powers at be try to impose upon you, but without just believing the popular vote, and the systems it enables, will save you here.
If you crawl out of an actual civil war esque partial collapse as hardened syndicalists, or if you can get rid of FPTP and establish a democratic socialist party that is able to actually make international agreements in good faith, for me it mostly doesn't matter. I'd prefer the second if I look at the human cost of both options, but because the first option I'd guess could be faster in implementation, and the result would be similar from an international perspective, I don't completely hate it, very literally I could likely "live with it", precisely because I likely won't have to live under it, much more than anyone from the US could.
Essentially I don't identify with the US emotionally, I have almost no image of her institutions being good, so I can compartmentalize and write off that particular nation state much easier. For me a fascist or civil war ridden US that is short lived and likely reemerges with better bones might actually be very similar to one that transforms more amicably.
I can just say suffering is going to be inevitable, but that the suffering to change things for the better, to make them work sustainably, to make them work for the people, is the one i hope Americans actually still strive toward deep down, because I by pure circumstance don't need to suffer in that same way, I will suffer differently and for a different reason, fighting essentially the same fight sure, but from a different position with different levers to pull and different pressures to withstand.
We had fascism here openly 80 years ago, it's still here trying it's hardest to grab power and survive, but perhaps obviously it's fastest decent, its quickest downfall was almost the exact same time as it's most emancipated period, in fact they followed each other in lockstep.
I'm sure there's some tangible "definition" of tankie, but I've been on lemmy for a while and I still couldn't tell you what it is past "person I disagree with" lol
My definition is an authoritarian with a left leaning vaneer.
People are too quick to use the word though. Im a genuine communist, but am staunchly anti authoritarian.
Its really more for hardcore Maoists than anything.
I've been called a tankie for saying Marxism is a valid strain of Socialism, so I have forever been skeptical whenever someone is called a tankie.
Do genuinely awful people exist on the "left," like PatSocs and MAGA Communists? Yes, but they are by far the fringe.
Generally, leftists will agree when breaking up issues into their component parts, but will often disagree if posed at a macro level, which is why infighting is both common and largely worthless.
Isn't that the point of the meme? Leftists can share 94% of views, but if they disagree on one thing they are treated as the worst enemy, rather than the people who share 0% of the same views.
Correct, if those differences are irreconcilable. I can ally with lefties that want slightly different things, but "America is evil therefore Stalin wasn't that bad" is not someone grounded in reality.
Don't take this as Stalin defending, but if you are trying to accomplish movements to the Left and both Person A and Person B want Worker Ownership of the Means of Production, and Person C wants literal fascism, is Person B being a Stalin defender worth creating a 3 way battle when people who identify with C far outnumber A and B combined currently? That seems to go against what is strategically necessary in the US, at least.
I think it's more important to build a cohesive worker movement that's as large as possible before we move on to discussing Marxism vs Anarchism vs some other flavor of Leftism, at least in the US.
History shows that allying with authoritarians rarely works out for those who don't want authoritarianism.
Sure. But if you have to pick between a 3 way fight and a 2 way fight, it is easier to convince someone with 94% shared views while allying with them than it is to win a 3 way fight.
A united front is the only way to get Socialism in the US.
Yeah because it's historically been REALLY easy to get rid of authoritarian allies once a semblance of victory is achieved 🙄
Also, for a left libertarian (aka an anti-authoritarian leftist), the authoritarianism itself is a huge part of the problem.
Personally, I'm not a fan of people being murdered for trying to unionize like fascists would, but I'm also not a fan of people being murdered for NOT unionizing like stalinists would.
On the nose! Capitalism always devolves to authoritarian or fascistic systems when left to it's own devices. Broken by anticompetitive behavior. And Leninism/Stalinism/Maoism start there. Going from one to the other is a lateral move. Their benefits and faults are oddly similar. Despite how vehemently they despise each other. The authoritarian nature is the fault. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I don't think you'll find many people advocating for either of those positions outside the most fringe of fringe.
Clearly you've not met a lot of tankies.
Not to worry though: since you're on Lemmy you're bound to meet far too many of them sooner rather than later!
The authoritarian nightmare will turn on you the moment they have secured victory. It happens every time.
Person B want Worker Ownership of the Means of Production, and Person C wants literal fascism
Person B being a Stalin defender
They're the same picture /s
But seriously, the only reason Stalin's USSR wasn't "fascist" is because fascism is explicitly a right aligned ideology, but it was essentially fascist in practice. His whole thing was totalitarian rule and blaming enemies of the state for any shortcomings, which is just fascism with a coat of paint.
I'm not disagreeing with you here on whether or not the USSR is good or bad, that's not my point.
My point is that if both person A and person B want worker ownership and person C wants a dictatorship of Capitalism, then person A and B should ally, even if temporarily.
Person B is also a fascist, and should be let nowhere near power because they will purge person A the first second they can.
Even if they want 94% of the same things?
We aren't talking about MAGA Communists or PatSocs.
Let's say you and I align politically 99%. Our only point of contention is that I want to kill or jail you specifically. Are you going to ally with me and hope I change my mind later?
This is exaggerated to make a point, not a direct analogy.
What are the foundations of wanting to kill or jail me? Seems important, no?
You're saying if I have a good reason, you're OK with it?
Not necessarily, I'm saying your hypothetical lacks necessary information.
Presently, you've framed it in an Idealist manner, not a Materialist one. People's views aren't selected by a Random Number Generator in real life, they are the consequence of their Material Conditions. Matter creates thought, ideas do not create matter.
Looking at our hypothetical, you have a Leftist with the currently unexplained ideal that I personally should die for no reason. This doesn't make any practical sense, so we cannot apply this theory to practice.
In the case of this entire meme, there exists a divide, generally, between Marxists and Anarchists. Using your example of a Stalin defender, which situation is more realistic?
A: A Leftist believes everything the US state department has levied against Stalin is true, he killed 200 million people and murdered puppies, and believes that this is good, actually, and we should do more of it?
B: A Leftist believes nothing the US state department has said is true, and believes Stalin to be the second coming of Jesus Christ and Marx himself, and believes this to be a good thing?
Neither are realistic, but A makes far less internal sense, and cannot be reasoned with, as mass cruelty is the point. Person B, however, could be misled and instead worked with. Person B has good intentions with a faulty understanding, person A has bad intentions with a faulty understanding.
Do you see my point? Without knowing the origin of views, how can we hope to address them and how to deal with them?
You left out C.
Ostensible leftist that knows what horrific things Stalin did, but thinks they weren't that bad or even good, somehow. It's even more detached from reality than example A. Spend some time on lemmygrad and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Those things people disgree on are entire political axioms, so yes it is much bigger than a meme. Tankies think strong men are a good thing, which should be antithetical to anyone with the faintest hint of actual big boy anarchy in their politics. Worshiping leaders OR positions is literally and directly antithetical to MUCH of the left.
OFC there will be infighting when most people don't even understand what the left stands for. IMO, we shouldn't even dignify tankies and other strong-men liking idiots with a label anywhere close to "left". They're just idiot fascists wearing a different coat to try and fit in.
I don't see many actual Tankies then, I guess. Most Marxists just want a Worker-State and explicitly reject "Great Man Theory." I agree that worshipping strong men is antithetical to the left, but I also see this in a very fringe minority, and at that point the meme no longer applies as there is far more than 6% divergence.
MAGA Communists and PatSocs are clowns, I agree, but I don't think they share a significant percentage of views with anyone on the Left, Marxist or Anarchist alike.
If you haven't met one, you must not have been around long. They're all over. People who will rail against the US, but extoll the virtues of the USSR or the CCP? The ones who aren't just open sycophants for strong men are often completely ignorant to leftist ideals, like a strong state that dictates all sorts of things to the populace is itself in any form antithetical to many leftist axioms.
Any "lefty" that cannot explain how ACAB applies to even good cops is a pretty terrible leftist, as a different example. It's not about reducing specific occurences. It's about designing systems that naturally resist the BS.
It's only "worshiping" in the extreme examples. The "Normie" examples are people that literally cannot imagine society without armed police while claiming worker's rights, as an example. If you're for workers' rights, you shouldn't be for a sanctioned force that constantly fights against both protesters and picketers alike. It's about a gross disconnect in ideals vs what someone pushes for.
Like someone who realizes executives make way too much money, but scoff at worker co-ops. Either for not going far enough to worker ownership, or for being some hippy idea that won't work. There are fake "leftists" of many types.
Yes, there are clowns all over, but you HAVE to realize there are many, many people running around who are only missing the clown makeup...
It's the difference between agreeing on a problem vs agreeing on a solution. It is a WORLD of difference.
Most Marxists just want a Worker-State and explicitly reject "Great Man Theory." I agree that worshipping strong men is antithetical to the left, but I also see this in a very fringe minority
A minimal state. Representative of the people/proletariat. Not a brutal mono party that tries to crush all dissent.
And if strong man worship is so fringe and antithetical to ML. Why has it been a defining feature of every system of governance based on it? Stalin, Mao or Xi today, Castro, Kim Il Sung. Fringe is supposed to imply it's not a core component of every single implementation and yet it is.
I think it's fair to say that Marxists agree with Marx, and so the best representation of Marx is Critique of the Gotha Programme. The state should be as minimal as can be based on the Material Conditions, ie a stronger state is necessary if you are constantly being attacked by Capitalist nations, and a weaker state is necessary if you aren't. I don't think people are advocating for a strong monoparty, but a unified front of Workers. At least, in my experience.
Stalin, Mao, Xi, Castro, Kim Il Sung, Ho Chi Minh, Lenin, Trotsky, Che, Sankara, Deng, whoever you want to pick, aren't so much worshipped as they are studied, for their mistakes and the good things they did. Some are obviously more mistake than others, some were a net negative, some were a net positive, what's important is to study what happened so we can learn from it.
Is anything I said wrong?
Yes. External factors are one thing entirely. And completely unrelated to crushing dissent. Dissent is an internal thing. And if you automatically classify all the dissent as a product of external factors there by making it something to fight and crush. You may have just perfectly encapsulated the issues with your ideology.
Also while I agree capitalists are not really good friends. They used to be Allied with the Russians during World War II for example. It's almost like something happened post World War II that was actually the problem. And not just that capitalists must be fought everywhere. Do you know what that might have been? It's something China is currently dealing with and failing in their own way. And I'm not going to say that it's not hypocritical for many Western countries to criticize this considering what they've done. But just because a criticism is hypocritical doesn't mean it's not valid.
I never said I was against dissent. I'd be in favor of trying to rehabilitate fascists and Capitalists, sure, but open discussion of ideas is important. You calling it "issues with my ideology" is a bit silly.
I am not sure I understand where you are going with your second paragraph.
When internal dissent was mentioned you automatically jumped to externalizing it and fighting it. Not addressing it. You say that you're not against it. But you just said that you were against it.
You can play ignorant if you like. We aren't obligated to believe such poor acting however. You know exactly what I'm referring to. They forceful annexation of much of Eastern Europe post World War II including the dividing up of germany. And more contemporary. China's failure upon absorbing Hong kong. And saber a rattling regarding Taiwan.
I don't believe fascists or Capitalists should be allowed to violently attack people and attempt to gain power, that's silly.
As for expansionism, I am not sure why you are expecting me to defend that or apologize for it, I am not in control of the 20th century USSR or modern PRC.
I agree. That's not what I was talking about and you know that.
I didn't ask you to apologize. I was simply explaining why a lot of countries are against Russia China Etc. That they much like the capitalist countries have given plenty of reason for people not to like or trust them. Which in many ways does a tie back directly to their mistreatment of their own citizens. Capitalists are no more anyone's friend than ML are.
It's almost like you're engaging in bad faith. Which if I had to go by our history of interactions I would say is the most likely explanation.
So if we both know what I am advocating for, and what most people are advocating for, then why are you trying to pretend I agree with punishing dissent?
I agree that people have reason not to trust China or Russia. As much is valid, of course it is. I disagree that Marxists are somehow more dangerous to people than Capitalists.
I have been engaging exclusively in good-faith, the fact that this entire convo has been you putting words in my mouth means you're more likely to be bad faith. I still engage because I value constructive conversation, but if you aren't interested and are trying to disengage then there's no point.
A few things here. You have consistently, in this conversation even, many times lumped together and conflated all capitalists as a monolithic group. Do you have a right to object when someone does similar back at you?
Second you aren't "Marxist" or representative of all marxists. You are on a domain specifically dedicated to leninism. A specific sub branch of Marxism not representative of the group as a whole. Which also includes other groups like Marxist Libertarians and communists etc. Hi! While defending ML against Marxist and adjacent critiques. What are we supposed to think?
If anyone has put words in your mouth. Consider the fact that you've repeatedly deflected and ignored what was said. Leaving everyone to assumed your answers. Nothing was stopping you from being direct.
If everywhere that's implemented capitalism largely becomes violently exploitative. (And they do) And everywhere that's implemented governments based off ML ideology has always become violently oppressive. (And they have) Then neither is a flaw of their respective ideology, or they both are. And if an ideology is flawed, our allegiance should be to outcomes. Not the ideology. Herein lies the rub. And where the similarities in capitalism and Marxist-Leninism shine. And why the rest of the left dislikes both. Both have been tried and found lacking. We need to move beyond both at this point.
I think what annoys me is when people assume I support shit like the CCP or Putin just because of my leftist views, or because I didn’t make sure to criticize them every single time I criticize anything/anyone else (good ol’ whataboutism). The amount of times I’ve been attacked by supposed leftists that are really just liberals in disguise, is far too high.
“Hey, you didn’t criticize Putin in your comment that clearly isn’t even about Putin in any way, so I’m going to make a sweeping assumption and say that you support him.”
Don’t criticize Biden here, or they automatically say that you want Cheeto Hitler to win and you’re actually a fascist. So many people fail to see that their commentary and childish reductionism is counterproductive to a leftist movement. They also fail to see that what they’re doing is a tactic of neoliberals and fascists. It’s divisive language that solves nothing, and is used to always keep the opposition in a defensive stance. We’re seeing it first hand today with Israel and the US government repeatedly stating that defending Palestine is considered antisemitism. They went as far as redefining the word entirely just so they can drown out the peace movement with noise.
thats because china is not right wing. we defend the mostly good things accomplished by the current and past socislist experiments in eg. cuba, china, ussr etc, not the bad things that happened there in the way here. the world is not black and white.
we MLs advocate for learning with past experiments and we were never urging anyone to view the tiannamen incident, the ukraine incident or similar, as exaggerated and propagandized as they were by the west as a good thing we should repeat. we don't want bad things repeated.
I think the real division on the "left" can be boiled down to those using all the language and rhetoric of left wing ideology but in service of fascist and conservative ideas.
For example, tankies or people who have been brainwashed by tankies; a person can spend all day talking about how they support Palestine and BLM and LGBT rights etc. but then turn around and defend the CCP, which completely undermines any claim that they're actually on the left/center.
So in that way it's less of a "progressives never agree" and more of a "anti-progressive ideas are constantly pushed into progressive spaces to undermine them."
I mean, you can use that same logic on the US government, even Democrat run ones, which have supported genocides in the past and even current ongoing ones, and have tried to stomp out left movements, been racist, sexist, and homophobic. But people have still supported the US and the Democratic party and called themselves leftist. The point is, I assume as I'm not a CCP Stan myself or anything, is to give critical support to back an actual socialist project and give a counterweight to a pure single superpower world (esp. When that superpower has destroyed or undermined almost every left project it can in the world). Critical support meaning you pick out the good from the bad, supporting the good and criticizing the bad. China actually puts a leash on its billionaires = good. But they seem to be forcing some cultural integration of Uyghurs = bad. But they're providing lots of housing and cheap EV's = good. But they can have bad working conditions = bad. But they're helping support economies and infrastructure in the global South with the Belt and Road project = good. But they keep doing that shit with territory in the south seas = bad. But they seem to have a long-term plan for implementing communism that they are actually following = good. And so on. I do think some people go too far in being CCP supportive, but I also think some people on Lemmy go too far the other direction, and think everyone that gives the slightest critical support to China or analyzes some US propaganda on China a bit before swallowing it is a CCP troll.
In the end, it's a mixed bag, but I do think there is some worth to not having a single hegemonic superpower in the world, so other leftist countries or colonized global south ones have alternative access to allies, trade, and support without bowing down to the US and their often reactionary policies. Cuba for example was doing pretty good until the Soviet Union fell and basically the only market became the western, US-controlled one that they had been mostly sanctioned the hell out of. I wish it was a better country than China, but hopefully they improve their social issues as they improve economically, which tends to be the pattern. I just wish they'd stop doing the aggressive maneuvers near the Philippines and Vietnam.
This is exactly what I see. Many people see critical support and assume it as uncritical support, then extrapolate nonsensical views from that. Like, if someone says they think it's cool that China has high speed rail, that doesn't mean they wish 100 Tianannmenn massacres annually and to personally fellate Xi.
Nah dude you got it all wrong, Tianannmenn square was a western psyop. and all those "prisons" in xianjiang are just hotels or something idk.
Execution vans? never heard of them m8
No cap, fr, fr
Username does not check out.
But the same people will say that Israel has to be 100% opposed, even though they are a democracy where lots of people disagree with the current actions of the government.
So China's problems are ignored but Israel's are not. That's the definition of bias.
I don't really think this is an equivalent statement. Israel isn't opposed because it's a liberal democracy, but because it is an aparthied state carrying out a genocide and propped up by the US to protect its business interests.
The people who give China a pass are who I'm talking about. They don't oppose the Chinese government either.
For some people the thought process is:
Oppose "the West" = good
Support "the West" = bad
The countries making up "the West" change from person to person and day to day.
I think this is an unintentional oversimplification of their views.
Put another way, if someone considers China a lesser evil than the US, that doesn't mean they are giving China a "pass." I would argue that there are no truly good states right now, so everyone is ultimately picking a lesser evil.
If I say China having high speed rail is good, that doesn't mean I agree with the homophobic legislature in China.
Israel is not a democracy, they are a theocratic apartheid state.
Calling the Democratic Party the Democrat Party is a right-wing pejorative
Sorry, I'll fix that.
But I’ve only seen good things about the CCP on TikTok.
And Tiananmen Square looks lovely.
Did something ever happen there, or why is everyone talking about it? /s
It's the setting of John Oliver's romance novel When Spring Turns to Summer
God that show has aged him haha (or I'm just getting old and that show's been on way longer than I perceive.......yep I'm going with that first thing I said. :P)
Speaking as an elder millennial, it's about both if you're like me 😄
But yeah, he DOES frequently joke about how much he's aged in the decade plus change it's been on 😄
Same haha
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests_and_massacre TLDR military killed protestors as ordered by government
Damn I forgot the /s in my previous comment. Thought it was kinda obvious, given that I'm replying to a /s comment.
Ah shit my autism is showing again isn't it
Why did you leave a blank comment?
/s
I think it is often more subtle than something like Tankies defending the CCP or Russia. A lot of people who call themselves left or progressive still think the world just needs the "correct" strong-man, when one of the biggest defining things of "left" is going against engrained power structures.
While it is possible to be left-ish and support particular leaders, it is seldom a sign of an actually enlightened person if they think only a "strong man" can fix things. Tankies fit squarely in the center of that, but there are LARGE fringes where people seriously do not understand some of the core axioms of "left" politics while also not being full blown tankies.
i mean i wouldn't be opposed to a strong man leader, provided they're an absolute saint and ceaselessly preach about being good to one another and spends shitloads of time practising what they preach.
Humans do naturally gravitate towards having leaders, however it's important that everyone keeps in mind that leaders get their power because people trust them, and if they violate that trust they shouldn't keep the power.
Being a leader shouldn't really be a position of power, it should be a position of responsibility and scrutiny.
agreed. but some people can't really decipher what some politicians say because they don't inform themselves enough, or didn't learn.
While I agree largely with your conclusion that anti progressive ideas are pushed to undermine progressive spaces, I don't really agree with how you get there and with the examples you choose to arrive at that conclusion. There obviously are actual bad actors, and actual hegemony to get these bad actors into being, but there is also a lot of real people, actually still learning about the topics, or just plainly with a different perspective on some of the issues that you might be discussing.
For it to be an ideology that is self consistent leftism actually needs differences and disagreement, or said in another way: if we were to prescribe beliefs instead of trying to teach them we'd also just be trying to build our "own" authoritarian hegemony. I can invoke successes of or defend the CCP and the soviets just as I can invoke successes of the US or EU or India realizing that all states are fundamentally bad, still sometimes perhaps by accident they do good things. And that examples and mental shortcuts, as well as actual experiments that might be of a socialist nature, are just what they are argumentative tools.
I've been called a tankie just because I see the downfall or backsliding of the US as good thing and don't really accept that china would be as bad as the US has been for the last 40 years or so. Which is perfectly normal for someone who doesn't really reap the benefits of US hegemony, and sort of just ranks authoritarian institutions by size(strength)(wealth) to arrive at a measure of subjective dislike.
It's almost similar to someone calling me a tankie because I purchase Pepsi instead of coca cola on that given day, when we all know I should make my own tea or at least just buy the supermarket/local brand to begin with.
I don't know where you are and what kind of people you meet on a regular basis but to me the simple and fast ways of understanding other people almost never hold true, most of us humans just lead to complicated lives to easily subjectify us. And honestly I wish most leftists would not try to subjectify other people to begin with.
Yeah, this is kind of what I'm talking about. You can't on one hand say you're for progressive leftist ideals, which are centered on human rights and democratic freedom and then also employ the rhetoric of a far right dictatorship. You're just soft-selling authoritarianism at that point in defense of some empty label.
Criticizing the US is one thing, even wanting their power balanced by other nations is sensible, but pretending the CCP is anything but a far-right totalitarian dictatorship isn't productive if the goal is a world with more opportunities for progressive ideas to take root -- there is no scenario that manifests out of the CCP increasing its geopolitical influence that isn't objectively worse, regardless of what bones there are to pick with the right-wing in the US. The goal should be defeating the far-right in the US, not kneecapping the US so the CCP can start expending their imperial ambitions.
China accumulating power only moves the global needle further towards authoritarian norms, not away from them. It results in more cross pollination between right-wing groups internationally. We are witnessing it right now, as US democracy declines (not US power) and China rises we see a not-so-coincidental rise in far-right groups everywhere else too (which China and Russia happily foster and weaponize. Very progressive of them).
In the US (or any democracy) there is still much more political diversity, so if you criticize US actions you're really criticizing one of those groups and their abuse of US power. By contrast, China has a single state party with a single person at its head with more or less unrestricted power. It is quite a few steps ahead on the road to fascism even compared to the US. So it doesn't make sense to try and bill them as the same thing.
There is no internal force within China working to reform it, not even potential for it, but there are progressive groups in the US pushing against the right-wing authoritarianism rising in their own country. If there weren't we wouldn't be seeing the evolution of public perception on issues like Israel/Gaza. That is a direct result of Americans themselves pushing from within using their (slowly diminishing) rights. You see nothing like that in China because it's simply not possible, fascism is already locked in there. It doesn't help you or anyone else for them to gain more influence.
Dictatorship and authoritarianism are diametrically opposed to every progressive political goal, they aren't concepts that can be harnessed for some greater good, they are never a means to an end.
This is because, as you allude to, the defining characteristic of the "left" is that it is always looking to evolve society past the solutions that have proven to be failures (like monarchy, theocracy, corprotocracy, communism, libertarianism etc.) in favor of decision-making that's based on reality as we understand it now and can be adapted without concentration camps and mass graves.
"Leftism" is when people try to use knowledge for the goal of fostering human dignity, well-being and freedom, but it is also when people are ready to cast aside ideas that fail to produce. It doesn't matter what flavor of progressive someone is, those are still the central defining notions that unite anyone inclined to be "left wing".
If someone finds themselves defending ideas or groups that don't serve those basic purposes they're simply no longer promoting progressive/left ideas -- they're promoting failed ideas that will inevitably be incorporated by the right to open new routes to the same resolution as any right-wing effort. That's what conservativism is; a failure to move as our understanding of reality moves.
So, yeah, some people only just becoming politically aware might have muddled thinking about things they were taught along the way, but they need to be shown how those ideas don't really reinforce the end goal they actually want, not to have those ideas treated as legitimate and valid forms of progressive political philosophy. They need to be taught how to examine any idea for what it is, not what they want it to be.
This is the problem with having loyalty to labels, specific theories and personalities over basic principles and practical realities. You become inflexible and vulnerable to having your good intentions exploited, ending up in these weird positions where you're supporting the very thing you claimed to be against (like self-proclaimed leftists who still defend Stalin or the CCP despite the mind-boggling levels of human suffering they've produced)
I don't care about implementing one specific left-branded ideology or another, my concern is more with ejecting conservative political thought so that ideas and information can be discussed and debated to find the solutions that actually produce good for everyone. That simply isn't possible until the people get past the corpses of their darlings, whatever they may be.
That deliberation should be able to happen without people dogmatically attempting to shoehorn in ideas that have already been tried and failed. Progressives should not be precious with ideas that way and should be willing to label ideas based on what they produce in reality, not just in theory.
I'm having a hard time understanding the perspective of someone who believes that lefties would benefit by having the world's largest army and nuclear arsenal under a government backsliding all the way into theocratic authoritarianism. Like step one is a little putsch, step two is murdering all your political opponents, then it is time to invade neighbors to steal resources. Yes, the US is already invading countries to steal resources, no, I don't think having an authoritarian cancelling voting will help reduce that any. What am I missing? Just fuck it, ramp up climate change and war, get it over with, and pray socialism crawls out of the rubble?
Well some leftists would loose a lot obviously, specifically those in or directly around the US, but fascist regimes are not very sustainable, and certainly loose the ability to ally and coerce over time.
And This loss of ability to project power (by the largest and thus likely the most destructive institution of coercive power) is what I see as a critical step towards a communist or just any different way of economic and political organization on a global scale.
I don't want a facist US regime, I would never tell any leftists to advocate for one, but I would tell them to prepare or flee nonetheless because it is still likely, or at least possible that it happens (again).
I'd much rather have a reasonably progressive US voluntarily give up power in good faith, curtail her own economic might to allow her citizens a good life and our shared world a sustainable economy and ecology but given that among many other titles, she also holds the title of the foremost petrostate, and at least one of the largest Tax heavens, in the world I unfortunately don't really see that happening, I still hope for it, but as far as I understand powerful interests aligning and climate change, the world economy... it just doesn't seem particularly likely.
I'm in Germany so not anywhere extremely tied into the US, but at the same time both are imperial core, there is a lot of cooperation, I would likely feel a lot of the secondary effects, but I also believe perhaps naively that not all of the world would , blindly follow the US in it's slow march towards fascism. And with each institution peeling of from US hegemony there is at least a chance to throw a big political lever in the rightish direction, whether it be the EU, IMF, Nato or whatever else, a movement that at the moment is blocked largely by US and perhaps wider western but also sometimes chinese or russian imperialist positions. And of course the Capital that these states (actually) represent.
All of this is already happening anyways, murdering political opponents internally as well as outside of the US,furthering climate change, destabilizing and undermining trust etc. again sliding into fascism is not what I want, but even a fascist US would be bound by physical, organizational, and social circumstances, and thus for the wider world likely less catastrophic than you might believe it'd be if you were raised or resided in the US.
I can't claim for certain that the US is having a Weimar moment, and I cant be certain that a US fascism in the modern era would be shorter and less gruesome, I also can't say it'll be better afterwards, but I feel all of these things to not be completely outrageous predictions, because as leftists probably should, I can try to interpret the historical Weimar moment, and the current political landscape...
Well again, ramp up in war and climate change are already happening, and in my world the wars are already the 20th century ideas as well as their capital, lashing out against 21st century thinking, changes in circumstances, and the very real onset of this era of climate change scarcity that we are entering.
So to some extent from my point of view yes, you don't have to keep trying to be a democracy with institutions and foundational texts as well as family hierarchies from the 18th century, that were made and changed by your political enemies, you can fight for (but hopefully mostly against) the fascism that the powers at be try to impose upon you, but without just believing the popular vote, and the systems it enables, will save you here.
If you crawl out of an actual civil war esque partial collapse as hardened syndicalists, or if you can get rid of FPTP and establish a democratic socialist party that is able to actually make international agreements in good faith, for me it mostly doesn't matter. I'd prefer the second if I look at the human cost of both options, but because the first option I'd guess could be faster in implementation, and the result would be similar from an international perspective, I don't completely hate it, very literally I could likely "live with it", precisely because I likely won't have to live under it, much more than anyone from the US could.
Essentially I don't identify with the US emotionally, I have almost no image of her institutions being good, so I can compartmentalize and write off that particular nation state much easier. For me a fascist or civil war ridden US that is short lived and likely reemerges with better bones might actually be very similar to one that transforms more amicably.
I can just say suffering is going to be inevitable, but that the suffering to change things for the better, to make them work sustainably, to make them work for the people, is the one i hope Americans actually still strive toward deep down, because I by pure circumstance don't need to suffer in that same way, I will suffer differently and for a different reason, fighting essentially the same fight sure, but from a different position with different levers to pull and different pressures to withstand.
We had fascism here openly 80 years ago, it's still here trying it's hardest to grab power and survive, but perhaps obviously it's fastest decent, its quickest downfall was almost the exact same time as it's most emancipated period, in fact they followed each other in lockstep.
I'm sure there's some tangible "definition" of tankie, but I've been on lemmy for a while and I still couldn't tell you what it is past "person I disagree with" lol
My definition is an authoritarian with a left leaning vaneer.
People are too quick to use the word though. Im a genuine communist, but am staunchly anti authoritarian.
Its really more for hardcore Maoists than anything.
I've been called a tankie for saying Marxism is a valid strain of Socialism, so I have forever been skeptical whenever someone is called a tankie.
Do genuinely awful people exist on the "left," like PatSocs and MAGA Communists? Yes, but they are by far the fringe.
Generally, leftists will agree when breaking up issues into their component parts, but will often disagree if posed at a macro level, which is why infighting is both common and largely worthless.
Isn't that the point of the meme? Leftists can share 94% of views, but if they disagree on one thing they are treated as the worst enemy, rather than the people who share 0% of the same views.
Correct, if those differences are irreconcilable. I can ally with lefties that want slightly different things, but "America is evil therefore Stalin wasn't that bad" is not someone grounded in reality.
Don't take this as Stalin defending, but if you are trying to accomplish movements to the Left and both Person A and Person B want Worker Ownership of the Means of Production, and Person C wants literal fascism, is Person B being a Stalin defender worth creating a 3 way battle when people who identify with C far outnumber A and B combined currently? That seems to go against what is strategically necessary in the US, at least.
I think it's more important to build a cohesive worker movement that's as large as possible before we move on to discussing Marxism vs Anarchism vs some other flavor of Leftism, at least in the US.
History shows that allying with authoritarians rarely works out for those who don't want authoritarianism.
Sure. But if you have to pick between a 3 way fight and a 2 way fight, it is easier to convince someone with 94% shared views while allying with them than it is to win a 3 way fight.
A united front is the only way to get Socialism in the US.
Yeah because it's historically been REALLY easy to get rid of authoritarian allies once a semblance of victory is achieved 🙄
Also, for a left libertarian (aka an anti-authoritarian leftist), the authoritarianism itself is a huge part of the problem.
Personally, I'm not a fan of people being murdered for trying to unionize like fascists would, but I'm also not a fan of people being murdered for NOT unionizing like stalinists would.
On the nose! Capitalism always devolves to authoritarian or fascistic systems when left to it's own devices. Broken by anticompetitive behavior. And Leninism/Stalinism/Maoism start there. Going from one to the other is a lateral move. Their benefits and faults are oddly similar. Despite how vehemently they despise each other. The authoritarian nature is the fault. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I don't think you'll find many people advocating for either of those positions outside the most fringe of fringe.
Clearly you've not met a lot of tankies.
Not to worry though: since you're on Lemmy you're bound to meet far too many of them sooner rather than later!
The authoritarian nightmare will turn on you the moment they have secured victory. It happens every time.
They're the same picture /s
But seriously, the only reason Stalin's USSR wasn't "fascist" is because fascism is explicitly a right aligned ideology, but it was essentially fascist in practice. His whole thing was totalitarian rule and blaming enemies of the state for any shortcomings, which is just fascism with a coat of paint.
I'm not disagreeing with you here on whether or not the USSR is good or bad, that's not my point.
My point is that if both person A and person B want worker ownership and person C wants a dictatorship of Capitalism, then person A and B should ally, even if temporarily.
Person B is also a fascist, and should be let nowhere near power because they will purge person A the first second they can.
Even if they want 94% of the same things?
We aren't talking about MAGA Communists or PatSocs.
Let's say you and I align politically 99%. Our only point of contention is that I want to kill or jail you specifically. Are you going to ally with me and hope I change my mind later?
This is exaggerated to make a point, not a direct analogy.
What are the foundations of wanting to kill or jail me? Seems important, no?
You're saying if I have a good reason, you're OK with it?
Not necessarily, I'm saying your hypothetical lacks necessary information.
Presently, you've framed it in an Idealist manner, not a Materialist one. People's views aren't selected by a Random Number Generator in real life, they are the consequence of their Material Conditions. Matter creates thought, ideas do not create matter.
Looking at our hypothetical, you have a Leftist with the currently unexplained ideal that I personally should die for no reason. This doesn't make any practical sense, so we cannot apply this theory to practice.
In the case of this entire meme, there exists a divide, generally, between Marxists and Anarchists. Using your example of a Stalin defender, which situation is more realistic?
A: A Leftist believes everything the US state department has levied against Stalin is true, he killed 200 million people and murdered puppies, and believes that this is good, actually, and we should do more of it?
B: A Leftist believes nothing the US state department has said is true, and believes Stalin to be the second coming of Jesus Christ and Marx himself, and believes this to be a good thing?
Neither are realistic, but A makes far less internal sense, and cannot be reasoned with, as mass cruelty is the point. Person B, however, could be misled and instead worked with. Person B has good intentions with a faulty understanding, person A has bad intentions with a faulty understanding.
Do you see my point? Without knowing the origin of views, how can we hope to address them and how to deal with them?
You left out C.
Ostensible leftist that knows what horrific things Stalin did, but thinks they weren't that bad or even good, somehow. It's even more detached from reality than example A. Spend some time on lemmygrad and you'll see what I'm talking about.
So you're basically saying that independent thought is a myth. What heinous material conditions forced you to come up with THAT turd? 🤦
Those things people disgree on are entire political axioms, so yes it is much bigger than a meme. Tankies think strong men are a good thing, which should be antithetical to anyone with the faintest hint of actual big boy anarchy in their politics. Worshiping leaders OR positions is literally and directly antithetical to MUCH of the left.
OFC there will be infighting when most people don't even understand what the left stands for. IMO, we shouldn't even dignify tankies and other strong-men liking idiots with a label anywhere close to "left". They're just idiot fascists wearing a different coat to try and fit in.
I don't see many actual Tankies then, I guess. Most Marxists just want a Worker-State and explicitly reject "Great Man Theory." I agree that worshipping strong men is antithetical to the left, but I also see this in a very fringe minority, and at that point the meme no longer applies as there is far more than 6% divergence.
MAGA Communists and PatSocs are clowns, I agree, but I don't think they share a significant percentage of views with anyone on the Left, Marxist or Anarchist alike.
If you haven't met one, you must not have been around long. They're all over. People who will rail against the US, but extoll the virtues of the USSR or the CCP? The ones who aren't just open sycophants for strong men are often completely ignorant to leftist ideals, like a strong state that dictates all sorts of things to the populace is itself in any form antithetical to many leftist axioms.
Any "lefty" that cannot explain how ACAB applies to even good cops is a pretty terrible leftist, as a different example. It's not about reducing specific occurences. It's about designing systems that naturally resist the BS.
It's only "worshiping" in the extreme examples. The "Normie" examples are people that literally cannot imagine society without armed police while claiming worker's rights, as an example. If you're for workers' rights, you shouldn't be for a sanctioned force that constantly fights against both protesters and picketers alike. It's about a gross disconnect in ideals vs what someone pushes for.
Like someone who realizes executives make way too much money, but scoff at worker co-ops. Either for not going far enough to worker ownership, or for being some hippy idea that won't work. There are fake "leftists" of many types.
Yes, there are clowns all over, but you HAVE to realize there are many, many people running around who are only missing the clown makeup...
It's the difference between agreeing on a problem vs agreeing on a solution. It is a WORLD of difference.
A minimal state. Representative of the people/proletariat. Not a brutal mono party that tries to crush all dissent.
And if strong man worship is so fringe and antithetical to ML. Why has it been a defining feature of every system of governance based on it? Stalin, Mao or Xi today, Castro, Kim Il Sung. Fringe is supposed to imply it's not a core component of every single implementation and yet it is.
I think it's fair to say that Marxists agree with Marx, and so the best representation of Marx is Critique of the Gotha Programme. The state should be as minimal as can be based on the Material Conditions, ie a stronger state is necessary if you are constantly being attacked by Capitalist nations, and a weaker state is necessary if you aren't. I don't think people are advocating for a strong monoparty, but a unified front of Workers. At least, in my experience.
Stalin, Mao, Xi, Castro, Kim Il Sung, Ho Chi Minh, Lenin, Trotsky, Che, Sankara, Deng, whoever you want to pick, aren't so much worshipped as they are studied, for their mistakes and the good things they did. Some are obviously more mistake than others, some were a net negative, some were a net positive, what's important is to study what happened so we can learn from it.
Is anything I said wrong?
Yes. External factors are one thing entirely. And completely unrelated to crushing dissent. Dissent is an internal thing. And if you automatically classify all the dissent as a product of external factors there by making it something to fight and crush. You may have just perfectly encapsulated the issues with your ideology.
Also while I agree capitalists are not really good friends. They used to be Allied with the Russians during World War II for example. It's almost like something happened post World War II that was actually the problem. And not just that capitalists must be fought everywhere. Do you know what that might have been? It's something China is currently dealing with and failing in their own way. And I'm not going to say that it's not hypocritical for many Western countries to criticize this considering what they've done. But just because a criticism is hypocritical doesn't mean it's not valid.
I never said I was against dissent. I'd be in favor of trying to rehabilitate fascists and Capitalists, sure, but open discussion of ideas is important. You calling it "issues with my ideology" is a bit silly.
I am not sure I understand where you are going with your second paragraph.
When internal dissent was mentioned you automatically jumped to externalizing it and fighting it. Not addressing it. You say that you're not against it. But you just said that you were against it.
You can play ignorant if you like. We aren't obligated to believe such poor acting however. You know exactly what I'm referring to. They forceful annexation of much of Eastern Europe post World War II including the dividing up of germany. And more contemporary. China's failure upon absorbing Hong kong. And saber a rattling regarding Taiwan.
I don't believe fascists or Capitalists should be allowed to violently attack people and attempt to gain power, that's silly.
As for expansionism, I am not sure why you are expecting me to defend that or apologize for it, I am not in control of the 20th century USSR or modern PRC.
I agree. That's not what I was talking about and you know that.
I didn't ask you to apologize. I was simply explaining why a lot of countries are against Russia China Etc. That they much like the capitalist countries have given plenty of reason for people not to like or trust them. Which in many ways does a tie back directly to their mistreatment of their own citizens. Capitalists are no more anyone's friend than ML are.
It's almost like you're engaging in bad faith. Which if I had to go by our history of interactions I would say is the most likely explanation.
So if we both know what I am advocating for, and what most people are advocating for, then why are you trying to pretend I agree with punishing dissent?
I agree that people have reason not to trust China or Russia. As much is valid, of course it is. I disagree that Marxists are somehow more dangerous to people than Capitalists.
I have been engaging exclusively in good-faith, the fact that this entire convo has been you putting words in my mouth means you're more likely to be bad faith. I still engage because I value constructive conversation, but if you aren't interested and are trying to disengage then there's no point.
A few things here. You have consistently, in this conversation even, many times lumped together and conflated all capitalists as a monolithic group. Do you have a right to object when someone does similar back at you?
Second you aren't "Marxist" or representative of all marxists. You are on a domain specifically dedicated to leninism. A specific sub branch of Marxism not representative of the group as a whole. Which also includes other groups like Marxist Libertarians and communists etc. Hi! While defending ML against Marxist and adjacent critiques. What are we supposed to think?
If anyone has put words in your mouth. Consider the fact that you've repeatedly deflected and ignored what was said. Leaving everyone to assumed your answers. Nothing was stopping you from being direct.
If everywhere that's implemented capitalism largely becomes violently exploitative. (And they do) And everywhere that's implemented governments based off ML ideology has always become violently oppressive. (And they have) Then neither is a flaw of their respective ideology, or they both are. And if an ideology is flawed, our allegiance should be to outcomes. Not the ideology. Herein lies the rub. And where the similarities in capitalism and Marxist-Leninism shine. And why the rest of the left dislikes both. Both have been tried and found lacking. We need to move beyond both at this point.
I think what annoys me is when people assume I support shit like the CCP or Putin just because of my leftist views, or because I didn’t make sure to criticize them every single time I criticize anything/anyone else (good ol’ whataboutism). The amount of times I’ve been attacked by supposed leftists that are really just liberals in disguise, is far too high.
“Hey, you didn’t criticize Putin in your comment that clearly isn’t even about Putin in any way, so I’m going to make a sweeping assumption and say that you support him.”
Don’t criticize Biden here, or they automatically say that you want Cheeto Hitler to win and you’re actually a fascist. So many people fail to see that their commentary and childish reductionism is counterproductive to a leftist movement. They also fail to see that what they’re doing is a tactic of neoliberals and fascists. It’s divisive language that solves nothing, and is used to always keep the opposition in a defensive stance. We’re seeing it first hand today with Israel and the US government repeatedly stating that defending Palestine is considered antisemitism. They went as far as redefining the word entirely just so they can drown out the peace movement with noise.
thats because china is not right wing. we defend the mostly good things accomplished by the current and past socislist experiments in eg. cuba, china, ussr etc, not the bad things that happened there in the way here. the world is not black and white.
we MLs advocate for learning with past experiments and we were never urging anyone to view the tiannamen incident, the ukraine incident or similar, as exaggerated and propagandized as they were by the west as a good thing we should repeat. we don't want bad things repeated.