(Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin, running for a new six-year term in an election that his opponents say is a parody of democracy, said on Tuesday that past U.S. elections had been rigged by postal voting.
“In the United States, previous elections were falsified through postal voting … they bought ballots for $10, filled them out, and threw them into mailboxes without any supervision from observers, and that’s it,” Putin said, without providing evidence.
Well, I gotta say that you’re the first person I’ve encountered that didn’t immediately feel shame for randomly bringing up a totally irrelevant political faction after that question. I suppose the next question is, what do you consider a tanky? Anyone left of democrats? Or do you have a more specific definition in mind?
Edit: downvote me all you want, but this is a legitimate question. I’m a type of anarchist that advocates for mutual aid, industrial unionism, and a complete decentralization of power. I’ve been called a tanky because I support tenant unions.
I’m literally standing in the position you described and no one has ever called me a tankie, if you think China and the USSR were/are positive forces for common people, want to accelerate the collapse of the US, and/or have Anakin Skywalker tendencies (“then they should be made to”) you’re a tankie. If not you most likely aren’t a tankie
Don’t bother. Tankies and their apologists don’t argue in good faith.
Lmao, so you’re calling me a tanky now, because I dared to ask a relevant question about your opinion?
Sorry for not falling for the “I don’t know what a tankie even is here on the Fediverse, but I’m also 100% sure that they aren’t a problem and you’re exaggerating, pwease spoon-feed me what it means”
So you’re just going to ignore the weaponization of the word across the political spectrum to the point where it’s actually a pointless accusation?
If you think I was JAQing, I’ll dispell that right now by giving the brief history for you and others. The origin of the term Tanky is from British marxists who used it as a term to seperate themselves from other British marxists that supported the brutal crushing of a worker revolt in Hungary, and has since turned into a term (by, for, and directed at) leftists that unequivocally support totalitarianism coming from a leftist perspective. Some leftists have also expanded that meaning to be people that identify with Marxist-Leninism. Others still use it to degrade people that want a scientific analysis of the successes and failures of other socialist projects. The alt-right uses it to disparage anyone with leftist sympathies. Liberals picked it up and use it to disparage people left of liberals.
Sorry for trying to have a common understanding I guess.
Removed by mod
Common language is essential to understanding for a conversation to move forward. Case in point, I want to know what the USSR did well and I want to know what their failures were, so we can make an attempt at a better socialist experiment and prevent a Stalin from cropping up. An important part of that is seeing past the decades of propaganda and loaded language in the coverage of Western media. Seeking that kind of knowledge is known as scientific socialism. More than a few people call that “tanky”, despite not fitting the definition of “unequivocally supports totalitarianism”.
Removed by mod
Do you consider Michael Parenti a tanky?
Never heard of him so I couldn’t say one way or the other
Fair enough I suppose. He’s a historian and political activist, and one of the most prominently published marxists in the later half of the 20th century. He wrote classics like Democracy for the Few, Black Shirts and Reds, A People’s History of Ancient Rome, Against Empire, To Kill a Nation, and many more. He was one of the faces of protest against the Vietnam War, and broke off his friendship with Sanders because Bernie supported the bombing of Yugoslavia.
I just realized I have one of his books in my audible library, I’d counter recommend The Philosophy of Social Ecology by Murray Bookchin and The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow, based on the ideas you described two comments ago I think you’d get a lot out of both
I’ll have to check them out, honest to goodness I love expanding my understanding of political philosophy.
How does he view something like China or Stalin?
He hasn’t written or given many speeches about those topics from what I’ve seen, so I couldn’t say for certain.
OK, too bad. They’d be quite telling
Aren’t you tired of conversations like this? It doesn’t matter what label any of us use to describe our political views. We don’t have the power to implement them. Those that do don’t give a fuck what we think. We’re all just yelling at the perceived other while we watch things deteriorate.
Actually, I am. I’m sick of purity tests, infighting, and a disorganized left. That doesn’t mean that I don’t have any power. I have local power; we all do. I have tactical agreement with Democrats for a progressive future, that doesn’t make me a Democrat.
I can influence local politics to have a progressive local government. With enough people doing this in their local government, we influence regions and states to be more progressive and push the country forward to a more equitable and just society. My weapon of choice is organizing a union at my work. Once we win, I’m going to organize my apartment complex. Once we win, I’m going to organize my broader community.
Removed by mod