Since most people here seem to be American, the problem is their worldview. Nowadays “right wing” in america just means insane people. Americans have lost all sense of nuance, everything is black or white.
Unlike the right wing parties in Europe and Asia that aren’t fascists, right?
Nothing scary going on in France, Russia, Hungary, Korea, Germany, Romania, Austria, Italy…
I agree. For example: how would you Americans view this music video form almost 40 years ago? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB9lObWclFQ&list=RDGMEMJQXQAmqrnmK1SEjY_rKBGA&start_radio=1&rv=UHChZIHePic Made in socialist Yugoslavia. Right wing? Left wing? Authoritarian? Nutjob?
Got banned off redit for using an alt to comment on publicfreakout which I was supposedly banned from, glad this place is still left leaning, but I would rather not have a bubble like reddit either, it gets annoying and isn’t representative of the world like it should be.
Got banned off redit for using an alt to comment on publicfreakout which I was supposedly banned from
If you were banned from a Reddit sub you’ve never posted or commented on, you won’t receive a message informing you you’ve been banned. Mostly likely cause for being banned from a sub you’ve never used is the sub using a bot to preemptively ban people it sees as “problematic” - usually but not always these bots are configured to ban anyone who has ever commented on a list of “bad” subs determined by the mod setting up the bot, regardless of content or context. There are some others, like certain porn subs will preemptively ban any account they detect that has an OnlyFans link.
The net result is if you comment on any remotely controversial sub in any context you’ve likely been banned from one or more unrelated subs, possibly without your knowledge.
This is hypothetically against the mod rules, but not enforced in any way. Mostly because of which subs tend to do it and which subs tend to be targeted.
The comic literally starts off with both sides fighting. That’s not a bubble, it’s not accepting of right-wing trash.
We’re not losing any value by dismissing people who have a flagrant disregard for the truth.
That is also definitely true, they don’t want to learn or care about facts, but its nice to be aware they exist, or ppl get complacent, tiktoks just a great example of how everyone their thought the whole country was trending towards being super woke and liberal since they were in a bubble. You shut ppl out and they have no one to tell them their views are wrong lol.
I think your approach is very valid IRL, where there’s vocal nuance, and body language, and real people who probably aren’t Russian botfarms and communities that you are both part of. In that case calling-in is the far better option the vast majority of the time.
The general open internet doesn’t have much of any of that though, and general numbers and anonymity and lack of repercussions or accountability make it way too easy to be an arsehole/troll and never try to come to a common understanding. If someone’s doing that, they can fuck right off.
I think there are smaller semi-private internet communities that operate kind of half way between those extremes, where you probably have to take it case-by-case.
I think Lemmy is kinda halfway between the second and their option, but will gradually head more toward the second option as it gets bigger.
Let’s not kid ourselves, Lemmy is great because it’s still in its infancy and gen pop is still a minority for now hence the bot makers not being too interested.
Also caretakers of the forums still care enough to adress issues.
I’m happy with what we have now and the idea that it will get bigger is not something I think we should work towards but maybe that’s just me.
The comment was literally just “isnt the wind blowing towards the ocean” made it without even knowing I was banned on my main from publicfreakout, alts are allowed, so this is such an easy mistake to make there, you can get banned from any popular sub and unknowingly comment with an alt, automatically denied appeal too
id understand if I was being controversial, but it was literally such a boring aimless comment
At least we can all hate each other with public logs. I have said it many times: I hate everyone equally.
But I will say; my favorite racial slur is sand person.
im indian, growing up someone called me that so I thought i was allowed to say the n word because I was a sand one lol, like pokemon
You are allowed, just not to American black people as an insult :)
You probably just shouldn’t but the history of the word is on your side.
The n-word was applied to Indians and anyone dark enough by the British. Americans made it solely an African thing but if you read Victorian era British authors they’ll use against anyone brown. Kipling’s stories are notorious for him going along and just dropping random n-words about Indian characters in otherwise pleasant circumstances.
Lulzzzz ya I’ve heard outside of Hamburgerland saying the n word is not a big deal at all. Funny how american centric global social media platforms are when 90% of the population that isn’t American doesn’t give a shit. Can understand why using it IN the US is a stupid fucking idea ofc, say that to the wrong person they will beat the shit out of you.
Can understand why using it IN the US is a stupid fucking idea ofc, say that to the wrong person they will beat the shit out of you.
So it sounds like you don’t understand why using it is a stupid fucking idea. It’s not about physical assault, it’s about not being a fucking racist dickhead. Sincerely, not an American.
Lulzzzz ya I’ve heard outside of Hamburgerland saying the n word is not a big deal at all.
Not true and I suggest you don’t try it in any english speaking countries or you are liable to get your head kicked in.
its only an issue here because theres a reason for it to be, people 100% say it with the intention to aggravate ppl or act like they are above them because of their history, I never really thought about how other countries see it lol
Definitely not generally acceptable here in Australia
Tankies are right wing. Watch them make excuses for Russia and say NATO should pull out of Ukraine. Watch them say a Trump presidency is better than the alternative.
I feel like Russia is further right than the US.
Socially for sure but economically it might be debatable. They have universal healthcare after all.
I used to consider myself quite a socialist but tankies really straightened me out by taking side of Russia and Soviet Union of which I’ve experienced the horrors off first hand myself. There is socialism without cancers like Kremlin and CCP but the whole thing has been ruined and hijacked by these idiots just like alt-right ruined conservatives.
You could try anarchism instead
I’ve been reading “the dispossessed” by Ursula k le guin, and I’m becoming increasingly interested in anarchy. Where should I look for more information on it?
George Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia was pretty inspiring to me
(I’ll also add that Anna Funder’s Wifedom make Orwell seem a bit fucked in his personal life. I haven’t read it yet, just had convos with people who did. Seems maybe Homage to Catalonia could have been a better book if he was less of a mysogynist)
Yeah, I’m quite fond of it!
I’m traveling around south east asia working remotely and staying in small expat communities for a few years at a time (long term visas are still hard). There are a lot of small communities all over the place here in Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, Laos, Cambodia. I’d hesitate to call them anarchist per se because it’s still kinda overseen by local authorities when it comes to crime and visas etc. but it’s pretty close otherwise!
That being said I don’t know how anarchism could be sustainable at scale without a major cultural reset, so I’m not sold on the idea it would work for giant homogenous places like China or US.
I think I’m anarchist in terms of personality, but I’m not quite there politically. Like you, I’m not quite sure how to get there from here. If we do things like mutual aid and support unions, I don’t think we’ll go wrong, and that could end up leading to anarchism at some point in the future.
Where I’m anarchist in personality is that I fundamentally don’t understand why you would want to be an authoritarian. When I first read 1984 in high school, and there’s the bit from O’Brien about how the system is there for power as an end to itself, I didn’t understand why anybody would want that. I can kinda see power as a way of gaining a comfortable life for yourself–usually at the expense of others–but not as its own end. I still don’t understand it, but have come to accept that there are people like that.
Some of those people are draped in thin blue line flags, and some of those people are draped in a hammer and sickle.
Maybe China and the US shouldn’t be giant and homogeneous.
Tankies are factually left-wing. Their actions, however, sometimes play into the deck of right-wingers when they try to fuck around with the system.
Stalin criminalised homosexuality with a punishment of five years prison labour. Go ahead and repeat that fact on Hexbear, and see how many “radical leftists” are willing to make excuses for a homophobe
Isn’t this just an argument that left-right is a bad categorisation?
Tankies are authoritarian socialists. The american right are authoritarian and socially conservative individualists. Anarchists are libertarian socialists. American libertarians are also individualists.
There are lots of other dimensions too, but the left-right designation has been kind of useless at least since communists started fucking over anarchists in various parts of Eurasia in the first half of last century…
People have said that plenty on .ml. The only response I saw was people saying that was a bad move from Stalin and he should not have done that.
Criminalising homosexuality was a mistake, and a consequence of a process of rolling back on some of the cultural progress achieved during the 1920s in the USSR due to fear of a situation like the pushback against early collectivisation efforts after the end of the New Economic Policy era. Nobody on hexbear will excuse this. What they will tell you is the massive boost in literacy during Stalin’s rule, especially among women; the guarantee of employment by the state, the immense equalisation of wages, the total elimination of private property through the collectivisation of agriculture and industry, the guarantee of free healthcare and education de jura and de facto, the world-unprecedented industrial growth and improvement of the economic situation of citizens of the Soviet Union, the massive push towards unionisation of workers and participation in policy through party membership, and the most intense struggle against fascism that costed 27 million Soviet lives.
Now, you named one right wing policy, I named a list of communist policy, please explain me how the overall is “right wing”
Comment has “no bad vibes” vibes
Literally the first phrase is a condemnation of the criminalisation of homosexuality
You mean the war with Hitler? That the URSS started with Hitler?
Edit:
No, because that’s revisionist propaganda. The USSR had proposed mutual-defense agreements with Poland, France and England, which all of them rejected. The USSR offered to enter a war against nazism as a response to the Munich agreements and the annexation of Czechoslovakia by nazis and Poland, but France and England (and obviously Poland) didn’t want that. The Soviets went as far as to offer sending ONE MILLION soldiers to France, together with artillery, aviation and tanks, on exchange for a mutual-defense agreement with France and England. As was later discovered through released embassy wires, the French and English ambassadors were instructed not to make a peace agreement with the Soviets under any condition, but to pretend to be interested and to prolong the negotiations for as long as possible… presumably expecting Nazis to invade the Soviet Union, given that communists were their self-declared enemy and they held racial motivations to eliminate “the Slavic Untermenschen”. It was convenient, letting the Nazis deal with the communists (since England and France had failed to eliminate Bolshevism during their invasion of Russia in the Russian Civil War), two birds with one stone.
The Soviet Union, which had only begun industrializing in 1928 with its first 5-year plan, compared to the century-long history of industrialization of Germany, simply didn’t have the material means to single-handedly fight nazism in 1939. This is further proven by the fact that, after the invasion of the USSR by the Nazis, 27 million Soviet lives were lost in the struggle against fascism. They DESPERATELY needed every single year they could buy, and they DESPERATELY needed to avoid facing the Nazis in a one-on-one struggle. Without the lend-lease program, and without the western front, who’s to say if the Soviet Union would have simply succumbed to Nazi Germany, and the horrifying additional extent of genocide that Nazis would have been able to perpetrate.
In case you don’t believe me personally, I’ll leave you another comment below this one with quotes of western politicians and diplomats of the period, showing the revisionism that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact has been subjected to.
“ It is clear that Stalin had two courses open to him. He could seek a general coalition against Hitler, or he could come to an understanding with Hitler at the expense of the Western democracies. Stalin’s policy was guided by a profound conviction of the ultimate hostility of Nazi Germany, as well as by the hope that if the capitalist Powers became locked in mortal conflict, the Soviet Union might remain aloof, gaining strength while they tore one another to pieces. Certainly the principle of self-preservation lay at the heart of Moscow’s calculations ” Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm, Chapter 20, The Soviet Enigma pub 1948.
“ In those days the Soviet Government had grave reason to fear that they would be left one-on-one to face the Nazi fury. Stalin took measures which no free democracy could regard otherwise than with distaste. Yet I never doubted myself that his cardinal aim had been to hold the German armies off from Russia for as long as might be ” (Paraphrased from Churchill’s December 1944 remarks in the House of Commons.)
“ It would be unwise to assume Stalin approves of Hitler’s aggression. Probably the Soviet Government has merely sought a delaying tactic, not wanting to be the next victim. They will have a rude awakening, but they think, at least for now, they can keep the wolf from the door ” Franklin D. Roosevelt (President of the United States, 1933–1945), from Harold L. Ickes’s diary entries, early September 1939. Ickes’s diaries are published as The Secret Diary of Harold Ickes.
“ One must suppose that the Soviet Government, seeing no immediate prospect of real support from outside, decided to make its own arrangements for self‑defence, however unpalatable such an agreement might appear. We in this House cannot be astonished that a government acting solely on grounds of power politics should take that course ” Neville Chamberlain, House of Commons Statement, August 24, 1939 (one day after pact’s signing)
“ We could not doubt that the Soviet Government, disillusioned by the hesitant negotiations with Britain and France, feared a lone struggle against Hitler’s mighty war machine. It seemed they had concluded, in the interests of survival, that an accord with Germany would at least postpone their day of reckoning ” Cordell Hull (U.S. Secretary of State), The Memoirs of Cordell Hull (Published 1948)
“ *It must be said that the Soviet Government, having little confidence in swift military aid from the Western Powers, chose to protect its borders, however odious such a pact might seem. One perceives in their choice the determination to secure time—time they evidently believed we were not prepared to give them.” Édouard Daladier (French Prime Minister), Address to the French Chamber of Deputies, Late August 1939
“ It seemed to me that the Soviet leaders believed conflict with Nazi Germany was inescapable. But, lacking clear assurances of military partnership from England and France, they resolved that a ‘breathing spell’ was urgently needed. In that sense, the pact with Germany was a temporary expedient to keep the wolf from the door ” Joseph E. Davies (U.S. Ambassador to the USSR, 1937–1938), Mission to Moscow (1941)
“ British officials, for all their outrage, concede that Stalin, with no firm pledge of Allied assistance, and regarding Poland as a foregone victim, decided that if the Red Army must eventually face Hitler, it should not be without first gaining some strategic space—and time ” Joseph P. Kennedy (U.S. Ambassador to the UK, 1938–1940),Private Correspondence, September 1939
Hopefully, you won’t accuse such sources, i.e. western diplomats and politicians who actually experienced WW2, of being tankies
“ It is clear that Stalin had two courses open to him. He could seek a general coalition against Hitler, or he could come to an understanding with Hitler at the expense of the Western democracies. Stalin’s policy was guided by a profound conviction of the ultimate hostility of Nazi Germany, as well as by the hope that if the capitalist Powers became locked in mortal conflict, the Soviet Union might remain aloof, gaining strength while they tore one another to pieces. Certainly the principle of self-preservation lay at the heart of Moscow’s calculations ” Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm, Chapter 20, The Soviet Enigma pub 1948.
“ In those days the Soviet Government had grave reason to fear that they would be left one-on-one to face the Nazi fury. Stalin took measures which no free democracy could regard otherwise than with distaste. Yet I never doubted myself that his cardinal aim had been to hold the German armies off from Russia for as long as might be ” (Paraphrased from Churchill’s December 1944 remarks in the House of Commons.)
“ It would be unwise to assume Stalin approves of Hitler’s aggression. Probably the Soviet Government has merely sought a delaying tactic, not wanting to be the next victim. They will have a rude awakening, but they think, at least for now, they can keep the wolf from the door ” Franklin D. Roosevelt (President of the United States, 1933–1945), from Harold L. Ickes’s diary entries, early September 1939. Ickes’s diaries are published as The Secret Diary of Harold Ickes.
“ One must suppose that the Soviet Government, seeing no immediate prospect of real support from outside, decided to make its own arrangements for self‑defence, however unpalatable such an agreement might appear. We in this House cannot be astonished that a government acting solely on grounds of power politics should take that course ” Neville Chamberlain, House of Commons Statement, August 24, 1939 (one day after pact’s signing)
“ We could not doubt that the Soviet Government, disillusioned by the hesitant negotiations with Britain and France, feared a lone struggle against Hitler’s mighty war machine. It seemed they had concluded, in the interests of survival, that an accord with Germany would at least postpone their day of reckoning ” Cordell Hull (U.S. Secretary of State), The Memoirs of Cordell Hull (Published 1948)
“ *It must be said that the Soviet Government, having little confidence in swift military aid from the Western Powers, chose to protect its borders, however odious such a pact might seem. One perceives in their choice the determination to secure time—time they evidently believed we were not prepared to give them.” Édouard Daladier (French Prime Minister), Address to the French Chamber of Deputies, Late August 1939
“ It seemed to me that the Soviet leaders believed conflict with Nazi Germany was inescapable. But, lacking clear assurances of military partnership from England and France, they resolved that a ‘breathing spell’ was urgently needed. In that sense, the pact with Germany was a temporary expedient to keep the wolf from the door ” Joseph E. Davies (U.S. Ambassador to the USSR, 1937–1938), Mission to Moscow (1941)
“ British officials, for all their outrage, concede that Stalin, with no firm pledge of Allied assistance, and regarding Poland as a foregone victim, decided that if the Red Army must eventually face Hitler, it should not be without first gaining some strategic space—and time ” Joseph P. Kennedy (U.S. Ambassador to the UK, 1938–1940),Private Correspondence, September 1939
Hopefully, you won’t accuse such sources, i.e. western diplomats and politicians who actually experienced WW2, of being tankies
Stalin is a conflicting historical figure, who is neither a monster nor a savior, and so the way you describe him would differ depending on the angle of the conversation.
If the talking point is the rights of the LGBT+ people (or, really, people’s rights overall sometimes), there’s no excuse for him there, and I’m pretty sure Hexbear is not quite the place for a homophobic rhetoric.
But they may point out in other terms that under Stalin’s rule the economy got insanely boosted, the WW2 was won, and many megaprojects used to this day were constructed.
No he’s a monster. You don’t stop being a monster because you also did good alongside the evil.
Being lucky oil prices went up (same for Putin) and people thinking it’s your magic leadership lol.
The oil prices boomed around WW2, while the highest wave of economic growth in the Soviet Union was in the 30’s.
It is Khrushchev and following leaders that benefitted from oil
You could say the same things about Churchill who certainly wasn’t left wing.
You can’t say the same things about Churchill, there was no massive equalisation of wages in England during his rule, nor a planned economy guaranteeing a job to anyone who wanted a job, nor a collectivisation of agriculture and of the means of production, nor a state-backing of unions, nor an immense push towards literacy and women’s rights and education…
Equalisation of wages in the USSR: Lets lower all wages to the lowest of them all and introduce corruption as an obligation to survive!
Handy tool against dissidents too, corruption.
Regarding corruption, I made a little writeup a while ago about why corruption is systematically overestimated in the USSR which, if you’re arguing from good faith, you won’t have a problem checking out. There was active fight against corruption in the Soviet Union (as you can see by the sign on the picture), the so-called “chistka”, i.e. purges of party members, were part of said campaigns, and citizens could legally organise committees to review the functioning and accounting of local public services and institutions.
Regarding “lowering wages”, you’re simply wrong. That’s just from the 60s, but material wealth of people rose at unparalleled speed in the USSR, faster than any country before that. And when the USSR economy stagnated in the 70s, real median wages kept rising at around 3.5% yearly
And those two things you mentioned have nothing to do with his political alignment
Stalin is a conflicting historical figure, who is neither a monster nor a savior
His one and only redeeming deed was that he finally, eventually, only after being stabbed in the back by his former ally Hitler, fought against him by throwing millions of russians at them and thanks to US support managed barely to win.
In every other way he was a total monster, directly responsible for an amazing amount of human suffering that still lingers today in modern day Russia. If Communism had something good in it, Stalin personally ruined it for pretty much everyone for a long time.
Replace Stalin with Hitler and you understand how insane you sound. (Oh and ditch the part about winning ww2)
Hitler took an already established economy and rearranged it towards national capital while killing Jews en masse and initiating a World War.
Not quite comparable.
Stalin took an already establishing economy and rearranged it towards national capital while killing Jews en masse and allied with Nazi’s.
Already establishing? What does that even mean, lol
Stalin also didn’t promote national capital - aside from the fact the word “capital” does not reflect quite the same thing in the context of socialism, the policy of “socialism in a separate country” is nothing more than a reaction to the failure of world revolution. He continued international partnerships with socialist countries and participated in The Communist International.
Soviet Union did not genocide Jews and was not tied to Holocaust. The alliance with Nazis only held through the first stage of WWII as long as it was seen more as a contained European issue. It is true, however, that Soviet Union participated in occupation of Poland.
no they have right wing ideals. they just use left wing terminology to push a right wing worldview.
edit: suddenly it seems tankie is about equality and support for the little guy, and more comically anti-imperialist. hmm I wonder where the word “tankie” comes from…
“TaNkIeS hAvE rIgHtWiNg IdEaLs”
The ideals: collectivisation of the means of production and of agricultural land, guaranteed employment, guaranteed housing, free universal healthcare and education to the highest level, guaranteed public pensions, equalization of wages between jobs, push towards unionisation, defence of LGTBQ and women’s rights, defence of indigenous movements and racial minorities, anti-racism, anti-imperialism…
“And that’s why Stalin was so good”
All of that was soo bad under Stalin it’d be hilarious if it wasnt for the millions of easily prevented deaths and all the easily ore entable suffering.
Lol
Source: my ass
Besides, what’s with Stalin? I’m talking you about my ideals, not of the ideals of a Georgian man who died 70 years ago
As in economic equality and support for disadvantaged groups?
Only to those who fall in line, else they get the tank again.
As in “we are anti imperialists, unless we’re the ones doing the oppression”. Honestly, ime, a common position amongst global south immigrants getting their first high-ish salary in Europe. All about wealth redistribution until you realise you can fly back home and live like a king off those inequalities.
I’ve said this before, and been(more than) down voted for it, but I want more conservatives, more tankies, more anything I don’t outright agree with. People will say how bad person in their echo chamber is in their echo chamber.
The early internet was so scarce it was important to find like minded people. Today the internet is so widespread it should be the opposite. It takes 5 minutes to find a entire platform filled with people who all think like you. That’s how we got flat earth conventions.
I’m confident in my beliefs and opinions, which is why I want them challenged. I want to think critically, I want difficult rhetoric. I want my world view to be challenged. I want to be uncomfortable.
I’d rather not talk with people that genuinely hate me, and/or want to kill me thank you.
This only works when they engage in good faith. So no, you don’t want more tankies and conservatives, because most of them are incapable of that. Their worldview requires that they do not.
Agree, but I think there are lots of people who are a bit more on the fence, or playing around with ideas. If someone says something stupid out of ignorance or inexperience, and they get blasted for it, they probably aren’t gonna learn much from it, and they might go hang out with the people who responded well to it…
Obviously if you try and it turns out they understand what they are saying, and are doing it intentionally, they can get fucked. Problem is it’s hard to tell sometimes, and not many people have the capacity to tolerate that behaviour enough to find out.
Idk… I’m not sure I want all their racist shit echoing around in here with us.
Plus all that paradox of tolerance stuff
Problem is, they don’t argue in good faith, no matter what evidence or arguments you bring to the table no matter how long or short they’re right and you’ve just been subjected to brainwashing/propaganda.
Nor is it a debatable political position to be spread Nazi-ism or bigotry (which is what most right-wingers do)
Yeah, the marketplace of ideas doesn’t really work because people can just lie and other manipulative tactics, and people (yes, you and me too) fall for it (you are not immune to propaganda).
Me too - I can live happily with the fact that not everyone thinks like me; but I still want to know what the other people are thinking.
the bubble helps no one, remember everyone on tiktok tweaking when republicans were winning, they were also in their own social media bubbles and never see any of the “woke” mind changing type posts, mfs out here praising trump for low gas prices like they suddenly dropped when he won and haven’t already been low.
That’s a hard pitch to a platform known to be unflinchingly rigid about maintaining their wind tunnels.
I agree wholeheartedly. I’m a weird mix of politics, radically left and radically right and also sometimes the middle. The radical middle, but fuck centrists. I almost never find like minded people and that’s why I’m here. And why I get banned from echo chambers sometimes. That used to mess with my head. That was a long time ago. I just don’t give a fuck.
Please tell us your radically right policy lmao
Not OP, but here’s my radical right wing belief.
I say we deport the immigrants. ALL the immigrants. I mean anyone in the US that is an immigrant, or descended from an immigrant. Time to kick them all out! Anyone who isn’t descended from the native population, back on the boat. And damn it, this includes myself!
I injected ivermetcin infused raw milk into my veins so that I can get the REAL news quicker.
Don’t forget the cold plunge.
nice. You saw that new Joe Rogan episode too?
Broadcast into my retinas via neuralink.
It may have triggered my nose to bleed incessantly but I KNOW this is because I didn’t take my ONNIT & ALPHA BRAIN
That’s onnit o - n - n - I- t
It’s entirely possible.
Tankies are right wing
Ehh not really.
Economically: The pro China ones can sometimes be pro market-ish. However, I’ve seen some of them talk about how Xi Jinping is making China have a more and more planned economy day by day. As for the pro USSR n North Korea ones, I’ve seen them range from hard anti-market to having teeny tiny sympathy for a very small, heavily state controlled market.
Socially: I’ve seen many trans ppl on hexbear. Aaaand I’ve also seen ppl claim transgenderism itself to being bourgeoisie manufactured fake science to distract the population from the real issue- class warfare. HOWEVER, I have seen none of them defending religious beliefs or ideals.
Therefore, the only thing similar that they share with right wingers, is that their political structures would over time evolve into stateful, classful, authoritarian systems.
Oh, and yeah- they both really love strongmen…
Your last two paragraphs explain how they are actually right wing, because the authoritarianism has already happened and they still support it.
“Planned economy” is just state capitalism. It’s not better than neoliberal capitalism, it just has a red flag, and tankies are fool enough to think that makes difference.
Surely there is a meaningful difference between a planned economy/command economy and a semi-regulated market economy? Like, I get that corporate control can still be authoritarian, but it’s different to state control in some ways, I think?
I didn’t say it was no different. You can tell because I used different words for the two things.
I said it was no better.
this is why left vs. right isn’t nuanced enough for real political discussion outside of a two party system
It’s why we can’t just go around believing everybody who claims to be a leftist. We need to evaluate the actual effects of their actions. If they are oppressing the workers as every state does, they are not left wing.
Labels never more useful than just as a shortcut to understanding someone’s whole nuanced belief…
Yeah, but that’s what I’m doing. I am evaluating the beliefs of authoritarians of all kinds and concluding that they are right wing.
I’m not throwing out the labels, I’m saying this left-right-auth-lib pair of dichotomies is not useful.
They were saying that there are more axes than left/right, and that the left/right axis is typically not one of authoritarianism.
See: libertarians and anarchocapitalists are absolutely right wing but are radically anti-authoritarian.
Well, if we’re interested in the ideals of the people, then yes the political compass is a thing that you can use. The problem is that when you drill down into right wing “libertarianism” you find landlords and bosses (EDIT: actually they’re pretty much right there on the surface). They are in fact about the freedom of coporations to own and control human beings. They are pro-slavery and neo-feudalist. That is not actually libertarian, that is pro-slavery. Right-wingers always are. So in practice, it’s just a lie.
Murray Rothbard himself said that “those who call us anarchists are not on sound etymological footing”. That’s a wanker way to say it, said by a wanker, but it’s clear he understood that words mean things.
That still doesn’t matter.
Sure people misrepresent (by accident or intention) what their actual political beliefs are.
But the single axis (or even two axis) political compass doesn’t really capture the nuance and especially the authoritarian aspect.I get the feeling that by your measure, nearly everything but collectivist anarchy would be “right wing” by virtue of some axis. At which point I don’t think it’s a useful way to frame things.
There’s such a thing as left wing authoritarianism too.
There’s such a thing as right wingers who coopt left wing rhetoric and fool people into believing they are left wing. But anyone who says authoritarianism is left wing because it has some supposedly liberatory ideals is - and tankies will hate to hear this - an idealist.
Joseph Stalin: famous right wing politician
State capitalism isn’t a thing.
Engels, Lenin and Bukharin all talked about state capitalism. Lenin decried it as not real socialism.
the erroneous bourgeois reformist assertion that monopoly capitalism or state-monopoly capitalism is no longer capitalism, but can now be called “state socialism” and so on, is very common
Lenin, The State and Revolution
That was until after the October revolution, at which point he seemed to think it was based and cool actually, and that it was definitely what the USSR was doing.
Reality tells us that state capitalism would be a step forward. If in a small space of time we could achieve state capitalism in Russia, that would be a victory.
Lenin, Minutes of the Sessions of the All-Russia C.E.C., 4th Convocation. Verbatim Report
This is around the time he stripped the soviets of their power and disenfranchised the workers in favour of a central state that alienated them from control over the means of production.
You know, like a capitalist.
And now tankies are distancing themselves because they can’t square the circle that their beloved
revolutionaryheroes were actually capitalists, and they pretend the concept doesn’t exist.So tell me, was Lenin wrong about this? If so, was he wrong twice? Why the flip-flopping on whether it was good or bad? Nobody seemed to dispute at the time that it existed, and an analysis of what happened shows that the USSR liberalised quickly. The bolsheviks were in effect liberal reformists.
EDIT: They weren’t revolutionary, I don’t know why I ceded that rhetorical ground.
You’re taking things out of context. In the first example, Lenin specifically says “bourgeois reformist assertion”, he’s talking of monopoly in the context of a bourgeois state, not in a worker’s state. He understands that for as long as a strong bourgeoisie exists, not even a state monopoly can be considered socialist, because the state is in fact controlled by the bourgeoisie.
That was until after the October revolution
Wow, so you’re telling me that, when confronted with real situations and material conditions, the opinions of someone can change? Baffling.
This is around the time he stripped the soviets of their power and disenfranchised the workers in favour of a central state that alienated them from control over the means of production
Good luck fighting a civil war in which you get invaded by 14 other world powers for the sin of being a communist, while your industry is disorganized and not centralized towards the war-effort. Give as an answer as to how to fight and win such a war, maybe the entire communist part just didn’t think hard enough? Or will you say that the people who spent most of their adult life in jail or exile for organizing workers and distributing communist newspapers during Tsarism were ackchually just power-hungry tyrants?
And now tankies are distancing themselves
Wait, so tankies are actually against centralized economic planning? Strawman
an analysis of what happened shows that the USSR liberalised quickly
“liberalism is when centrally-planned economy”. Seriously, do you know what “liberalism” means?
You know your REAL problem with the Bolsheviks? That they won. The problem YOU have with Bolsheviks, is that they had to face real historical and material problems, and big ones, and therefore had to make tough decisions. You claim to know better than the people of the time that spent their literal lives in jail or exile prior to the revolution, studying and theorizing and discussing about communism in real life, risking their lives in organizing the workers and in fighting against Tsarism, and you know why? Because the ONLY socialists that supposed “leftists” like you will support, are the leftists who failed. You’ll support Salvador Allende because he didn’t face the real conditions of his time and didn’t apply the necessary policy to fight the advance of fascism. You’ll support the anarchists in the Spanish Second Republic because they failed to fight against fascism and, because of rejecting taking power, they didn’t have to apply harsh policy to fight reactionarism. But you won’t ever support actual socialists who DID understand the dangers of fascism and of capitalist counter-revolution, and actually did something about it, because as soon as they apply their ideology to real-world conditions, they’re not perfect anymore. Because they ACTUALLY were a threat to the system, and so the propaganda will paint them as intolerable autocrats, and you’ll swallow that propaganda whole and share the same views of socialists than fucking Zbigniew Brzezinsky.
At no point in any of this are you addressing the argument being made, which is that state capitalism absolutely is a thing, which means Lenin became a capitalist.
You can make excuses for it all day, the only difference between them and the liberal revolutions is ideological at that point, which makes you an idealist.
“I will overfixate on a debate on the academic definition of capitalism in order to be able to call X communist leader a capitalist instead of looking at the actual policy implemented” isn’t an honest framework to deal with this. In a worker state without bourgeoisie, such as the soviet union, there is no such thing as surplus value because there’s no capitalist class appropriating the wealth for itself. Instead, salaries are decided centrally, goods are provided at centrally-planned prices and NOT through the market principles. This is enough for me to claim that the USSR was socialist and not capitalist, and I refuse to engage in semantics rather than talking about policy: the USSR was materially and significantly different from any classical capitalist state, and much better by ANY actual metric than any capitalist state, and you’re just trying to bend definitions to call your Marxist-Leninist of choice a capitalist
That’s a hell of a gpt response and all, but no, state capitalism isn’t a thing and left wing thought has evolved in the last nearly 200 years. Except in the US.
How in the hell is that comment anything GPT-like other than the fact that it’s slightly long???
Oh wow, you called me a bot and an American. Checkmate. No need to respond to anything I actually said, you obviously know how to get right to the heart of dismissing me so you can repeat your opinion without any actual argument.
HOWEVER, I have seen none of them defending religious beliefs or ideals.
Antitheism is right wing. People deserve to worship whether, what, who, and how they want. Left wing communities will always support religious diversity and freedom.
Yes, I wish we were more aware of the neutrality of dualities.
They are not, but sometimes their actions can result in outcomes beneficial to right wing.
The purpose of a system is what it does, and the tankie system results in right wing outcomes, which makes them right wing.
I don’t particularly care if their sweet little lefty hearts bleed for the working class, or if they’re going to heaven. What matters is the results, and authoritarian structures are always right wing.
Please dont redefine words to fit your argument
As long as you don’t bother to make an argument I’d say I’m doing better.
And they’re always bitching about batshit things on conservative.
HOW DARE BIDEN GIVE MONEY LAUNDERER ZELENKSY MORE MONEY. HE IS SURROUNDED BY IT IN HIS CASTLE.
Like bruh shut the fuck up.
Lol did you see the one where they’re complaining about Lemmy “censorship” because their shit takes get downvoted to hell lmao
“reality has a left-leaning bias”
Yeah, and the sad (for them) truth is this is their free market action they love. I see your shitty opinion, I downvote it. Turns out they can’t handle that when they can’t obfuscate their unpopularity
You must like what I say or it is cEnCoRsHiP!!
Ha ha yeah, lyckily they are kind of few.
This is too insightful to be a shitpost.
The presumes that tankies are not actually just right wing trolls trying to divide the left via extremism.
Nah, most tankies really are that dumb.
I mean I agree. But, that doesnt preclude the possibility that there are right wing instigators and trolls on here trying to sow division.
They always seem to toe that line.
How do we feel about libertarians?
They’re just Republicans with a bong.
Who have an issue with age of consent laws
That’s all Republicans.
They’re at best misled on the subject of capitalism and at worst just another band of toadies for the fascists
Depends on what they focus on. Drug legalization, mass incarceration and government overreach into the lives of the population like with the recent banning of porn? That’s a cool libertarian. If they talk economics at all, that’s just a conservative in dummy clothing
Libertarian as in anarchist or libertarian as in “the age of consent should be lower”?
I feel like no anarchist actually calls themselves a basic libertarian, it’s almost always followed up by socialist or communist.
Fun fact IIRC; the term was coined by anarchists in France after the word “anarchist” got banned in press.
I use it when I’m trying to ease people into what anarchism actually means. Also gives me an excuse to shit on right “libertarians” lol
Twelve down votes right now lmfao
Stethoscope theory.
Tankies are just right wingers with zaney lines they drew themselves.
Trump is more left wing than your most left wing tankie.
I’ve seen it before, but I’m not completely convinced tbh, Tankies are authoritarian communists because they believe it to be the path forward and get rid of capitalism with the authoritarian part only being wielded against businesses/owners
Right-wing authoritarianism is all about control because racism, a 6000 year old fiction book and the rich
There it is. I was looking for the comment that contradicts the meme.
I blocked ML, then blocked Trump and Elon as keywords.
I don’t see this behaviour much anymore.
Someone took the time to make this comic. Don’t be that person. You’re better than that and should enjoy much more enriching things than exhausting your energy into the black hole that goes no where, but you’ve been socially led to think is somehow important and noticed.
Step 1. Start blocking the tribe’s.camp sites.
That’s really just sticking your head in the sand, in a way “pulling up the ladder behind you” in regards to new users. I’m not saying Lemmy needs to grow at an explosive rate, but we should still have healthy growth. And the Tankie Triad is against and sometimes straight up hostile to new users who aren’t tankies
And the Tankie Triad is against and sometimes straight up hostile to new users who aren’t tankies
I think it depends on what you’re saying and how you say it. I’m by no means a tankie but definitely really left leaning, as I learn more i’d probably even say leftist (I just can’t get behind the idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat even if I understand the reasoning) but I comment literally everywhere and have never had an issue with hexbear, .ml, or anything.
I think it’s more of a “know your audience” thing. I don’t go into a hexbear conversation firing off about “China bad” or whatever, I just say what I wanted that was relevant to their post.
And for those of them that wish to reach “the liberal” they should consider the same. If the point is communication then they should try to limit the name calling and anger, even though they have the understanding that “we” enable a system and in a lot of cases support a system that they see as committing some of the worst atrocities in history. Communication should be the goal, not the self serving attack that just makes them feel better (or “us.”)
Tankies when someone who defends any western action appears: fucking right wing nutjob
Other instances when someone who is traditionally considered left wing appears: fucking right wing nutjob
Right wingers when someone left of centre appears: I don’t think you’re right but you make valid points on xyz
Now which way are people going to drift based on those interractions?
You can’t complain about how splintered the political landscape is without ditching the “us vs them” mentality and finding common ground (of course with the caveat that fuck people who make discrimination a key part of their personality and people who celebrate oppression as clearly they aren’t reasonable people)
I pretend to be a cat every day, and you live in fantasy land more than me
Right wingers when someone left of centre appears: I don’t think you’re right but you make valid points on xyz
I see you haven’t met my family.
Right wingers when someone left of centre appears: I don’t think you’re right but you make valid points on xyz
Lol this is just pure fantasy
I guess the username checks out.
Right wingers when someone left of centre appears: I don’t think you’re right but you make valid points on xyz
I wish I lived in your fantasy world.
You can’t complain about how splintered the political landscape is without ditching the “us vs them” mentality and finding common ground
Watch me. Right wingers have been taking steps backwards every time a compromise is made with them for as long as I can remember. The only common ground remaining is that we’re all mortal.
You’ve met different online right wingers than me lol. Maybe you are just on left platforms. I think both sides have the full range. We just see nicer right wingers on a left platforms like lemmy. That’s the only way they’d survive lol.
Do you see right wingers on X responding politely on average? Leftists on X are also very intense.
I think it is more acceptable to be a raging leftist on lemmy. I think X promotes intensity. I think most people that would sit and chat in person would be capable of a calm and productive conversation.
That’s a really valid point, my recent experience of terminally online radical left wingers has been lemmygrad, .ml, hexbear etc. whereas my experience of terminally online radical right wingers has been… I guess a few people in piracy/libertarian communities? which aren’t even the authoritarian right wing groups - I think it’s not unreasonable to say liberals are likely to be more reasonable than authoritarians, so if I’m coming across vocal liberal right wingers and vocal authoritarian left wingers (with the liberal left wingers being ignored/less vocal as they’re in the majority) then of course the right wingers are going to seem most reasonable
Brool story co.
