• UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Because you can be a leftist and not support that shit by holding positive views of the Soviet Union or China.

    To paraphrase Muhammad Ali: “I ain’t got no quarrel with them Viet Cong. No Viet Cong ever called me the N-word”.

    • Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Hitler never tried to kill me based on my ethnicity but I’ve still got a problem with him.

      You can and should oppose fascism and authoritarianism without being the targeted victim.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Hitler never tried to kill me

        We didn’t enter the war with Germany until after Pearl Harbor. So, it was less Hitler than Tojo that ultimately provoked our entry into the war.

        You can and should oppose fascism and authoritarianism

        It should be noted that FDR opposed fascism in Europe by sending enormous amounts of military aid to a certain Russian Communist by the name of Joseph Stalin. Quite a few of his peers argued the opposite. It was Stalin who was the true menace and Hitler who should have been our natural ally.

        So, who should we have opposed? The Fascist or the Authoritarian?

      • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Ali was making a statement about his refusal to be sent to fight in Vietnam. That soldiers are individuals, and that they have more in common with each other than they do with their own leadership.

        I mean, yeah fascism and its leadership must be opposed in all its forms, but the average German soldier in WW2 wasn’t any more brainwashed than the average American soldier is now.

        The armies of the enemy are not our enemy. They are distant parts of ourselves, ruled over by wicked masters just as we are.

            • Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              Me: Because you can be a leftist and not support that shit by holding positive views of the Soviet Union or China.

              Them: To paraphrase Muhammad Ali: “I ain’t got no quarrel with them Viet Cong. No Viet Cong ever called me the N-word”.

              You: It’s a warning, that in fighting fascism we must always remember that the enemy is not the people to avoid becoming the oppressor.

              That seems like a very unrelated tangent you’ve gone on here?

              Unless you’re trying to argue that the people who push for and actively want those oppressive regimes are not the enemy? Which is so utterly ridiculous that I don’t think that’s your point.

              • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                9 months ago

                That seems like a very unrelated tangent you’ve gone on here?

                Don’t worry about it, my ADHD-ass brain always has trouble explaining these intuitive leaps.

                Unless you’re trying to argue that the people who push for and actively want those oppressive regimes are not the enemy? Which is so utterly ridiculous that I don’t think that’s your point.

                Actually, that’s precisely it.

                They might not be innocent, being complicit or even active participants in the oppression, but they are also victims of the regime as well. Those people are not the enemy, but the enemy’s base of support.

                Fascism builds its base with false promises of prosperity and blames its own ills on outsiders. Fighting them directly risks validating the regime’s propaganda and making martyrs to their cause, but subverting that base erodes the regime’s support and builds your own at the same time. It’s easy because fascists love to broadcast their crimes and any prospefity that can be found never falls far from the top of the hierarchy.

                • Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Most tankies live in cushy western countries going on about how great Russia/China are, the only thing they’re victims of is their own stupidity.

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Are you saying you have no issue with China because you aren’t a Uigher?

      Leftism should be accompanied by the belief that no matter where someone is born or with what traits, they should be able to live a happy and comfy life. No government should be exempt from persecuting people. A Tankie says “well, hold on” if it’s a government they like.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Leftism should be accompanied by the belief that no matter where someone is born or with what traits, they should be able to live a happy and comfy life.

        You’re not describing “Leftism”. You’re describing “Consumerism”. The leftist struggle for a free and equitable society does not guarantee happiness or comfort. It guarantees a worker’s right to the fruits of one’s labor.

        And sending troops abroad to butcher civilians and burn down their homes does nothing to accomplish either.

        A Tankie says “well, hold on”

        Again, it is absolutely crazy to see to “tankie” conflated with “please stop bombing people”.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          How the hell did you get “a Tankie says to stop bombing people” from “a Tankie excuses genocides if they like the country”?

          My whole point is that there’s certain countries where they don’t say “please stop bombing people” and make excuses defending the country instead.

          It’s very telling however that your thought of people being able to live happily and freely no matter where they’re born or with what traits is “consumerism”.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            “a Tankie excuses genocides if they like the country”

            Fascists constantly telling me that we need to bomb the village in order to save it, and if you don’t support napalming My Lai, you’re with the Terrorists.

            My whole point is that there’s certain countries where they don’t say “please stop bombing people”

            Name. That. Country.

            It’s very telling however that your thought of people being able to live happily and freely no matter where they’re born or with what traits is “consumerism”.

            Its Utopian to believe people simply stop having problems under a particular ideological system. Capitalists and Communists alike need to deal with droughts and pandemics and supply chain failures and climate change.

            Neither system guarantees people happiness and freedom.

            But recognizing ecological limits means you’re a “tankie”? While devouring seed corn because it makes you happy is… what? Real Leftism?

            • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              I get the feeling we are terribly misunderstanding each other and talking past the other. I think I see your point about there being problems in any system, but I think it behooves us to strive for the ideal, even if it’s unattainable.

              In general, Russia tends to be the country that tankies make excuses for. Instead of condemning the actual country invading Ukraine and bombing civilians, they’ll say it’s Ukraine’s fault for wanting to join NATO, for instance.

              If you disagree with that thinking, then good. You aren’t a Tankie. There were a number of “leftist” thinkers at the outset of the war who blamed the West and NATO for Russia invading, instead of Russia. And some still insist the bloodshed has to stop by Ukraine suing for peace, instead of Russia leaving.

              Fascists constantly telling me that we need to bomb the village in order to save it, and if you don’t support napalming My Lai, you’re with the Terrorists.

              In Ukraine war, Tankies suggest Russia is just defending itself and its “spheres of influence”. It’s not dissimilar from your example. If you don’t understand Russia’s “very reasonable” response of bombing Ukraine to prevent it from joining NATO, you’re called a Western imperialist, unironically.

              The other main example is with China and the Uighurs. Detaining a cultural group in concentration camps and forcibly reeducating them and erasing their culture is typically seen as genocide, but with China you’ll hear Tankies make excuses that it’s to stop terrorism and that is all Western propaganda and there’s nothing suspicious going on at all.

              Once again, if that isn’t you, you aren’t a Tankie. I’d argue tankies actually have a concerning natural alliance with fascists.

              Moderates are eager to paint leftists as Tankies when that isn’t the case, I agree with you there. That doesn’t mean the term has no meaning nor utility however.

              • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                In general, Russia tends to be the country that tankies make excuses for.

                I doubt one in ten leftists (much less westerners) could tell you about the 1956 Hungarian Revolution in any kind of detail. So I’m skeptical of the claim that you’ve got a bunch of rock-ribbed old school Stalin-Shouldn’t-Have-Stopped-At-Berlin Soviets running around.

                Some of the fiercest leftist criticism I’ve seen has been aimed squarely at Gorbachev and Yeltsin, for selling the Soviet States down the river during Perestroika. I’ve gotten an earful of criticism over the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, I’ve seen all sorts of complaints about their poor environmental record, and plenty of leftists bemoaning the vestigial state of the modern Russian Communist Party in the face of United Russia.

                If there’s a bunch of DSA folks or Brooklyn comedians or LA Nurses Union members or Corbynite / Trudeauite Labor Organizers insisting “Russia Good Aktuly!”, I’m not seeing it.

                But I do see a lot of folks going to the old Parenti quote:

                “During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.”

                I see leftists dismissing the cynical attacks on civil rights leaders, anti-colonial organizers, and opponents of western financialization/privatization as “useful idiots” of some evil foreign hand. And I see them labeled as “tankies” because they refuse to correlate BLM or climate activism or anti-war protests or anti-surveillance libertarians as “pawns Russia”.

                If you disagree with that thinking, then good. You aren’t a Tankie.

                The term is bullshit. If you look at the folks who advocate driving tanks across Europe, you’ll find them in Anthony Blinken’s State Department and Olaf Scholz’s Defense Ministry as quickly as Rupert Murdoch’s news department. The only question is which direction those tanks should be driving.

                I don’t see any kind of shortage of pro-war advocates. I don’t see any shortage of military spending. I don’t see any shortage of tanks.

                What I see a vast deficit in is anti-war advocates at any level of power. And anyone who voices an objection to Ukrainian forced conscription or the next $50B spent on new tank shells or another year trading artillery fire over a mile of mud in the Donbas… these people are called Tankies. The folks paying for the tanks and cheering the tanks and egging on another year of tanks firing on one another, these… aren’t.

                In Ukraine war, Tankies suggest Russia is just defending itself

                Are you referencing anyone in particular, or are you just describing Cable News Republicans as “Tankies”? I’m hard pressed to name anyone outside Elon Musk or Tucker Carlson who was “Pro-Russia”

                All I see are a bunch of people with heads in their hands, who see the decade of civil war in Ukraine and the next three years of war with Russia as a phenomenal and catastrophic lose for the region. I see people watching the death figures roll in - 10,000 new dead Russians + 8,000 new dead Ukrainians + another 100,000 new refugees fleeing their respective borders - and wailing “STOP! Sue for peace! End this madness!”

                And these people get called “Tankies”, too. They’re pro-Russia because they don’t see an inevitable Ukrainian victory. They’re pro-Russian because they don’t see thousands of dead infantrymen as some kind of Win For The West. They’re pro-Russian because they don’t want to chime in and cheer when some comedian says “Putin Is A Big Gay Who Is Definitely Going To Die Soon of Stupid Person Disease”.

                Moderates are eager to paint leftists as Tankies when that isn’t the case, I agree with you there. That doesn’t mean the term has no meaning nor utility however.

                There’s only one tankie I recognize, and its

                • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  You are going off on massive tangents I don’t have have the time to address. Let’s just step back a second. You’re getting too hung up on semantics.

                  Do we agree war is bad? Do we agree that there’s no excuse for invading and oppressing people? Do we believe that genocide is fucked up no matter who’s doing it?

                  If yes to all of the above, we’re in agreement. We dislike people who believe genocide and invasions are justified because they like the aggressive country.

                  That’s the simplest I can distill this down to, and I do think we’re aligned on it. We just disagree on the term Tankie.

                  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    Do we agree war is bad?

                    I think we agree its bad. I’m not sure we agree on how to end it. Too often, I see “War is Bad But Necessary” used as a caveat to continue it indefinitely.

                    Do we agree that there’s no excuse for invading and oppressing people?

                    There’s definitely some kind of excuse, given how many folks on this site are fans of D-Day and the Pacific Theater.

                    I might argue that there’s no excuse in throwing human lives away for a nationalist ideal. Which is why the best response to Gaza is to get all those refugees the fuck out of there and on to a neighboring safe territory, while the worst response to Ukraine is to round up another 20,000 teenagers and charge them through Russian minefields.

                    Do we believe that genocide is fucked up no matter who’s doing it?

                    I’d like to think so. But at some point I gotta ask where this leads us? Is it to here?

                    That’s the simplest I can distill this down

                    But you lose a lot in the process.

                    And when we get into the harder questions, the more historical bits and pieces, and the gray areas of a conflict that go beyond “Is Word Bad?”, I imagine you’re going to end up calling anti-war folks “Tankies” because the plans they have to end these conflicts don’t benefit the folks you’ve decided are on the Good Team.