Exterminate social groups!?!?!? The far left would never do that to the kulaks, ukrainians, perceived ideological opponents, jews, political opponents, poles, and a quarter of Cambodia, ever.
deleted by creator
Very cool, justifying the extermination of a social group as “deserved”. Any more who “deserved it”?
deleted by creator
Oh, that clears it up, I see now liquidating the right sort of people “who deserve it” is a far-left thing that is righteous, and liquidating the wrong people who, as the right say “”“”“deserve it”“”" is a far-right thing that is evil.
Before I read this, I was a stupid centrist who thought you shouldn’t liquidate groups of people at all, thank you for showing me the right way
Man that guy really went all out to assist you in making your point didn’t he?
Bolsheviks literally exterminated entire social groups because they believed they were impure. Calling people “kulaks” and such.
They also deported (as in half dying in the way) to Siberia whole peoples, like Chechens and Ingushs.
Also some peoples by ethnicity alone were deemed suspicious in certain parts of USSR and forcefully moved from there. That’s how there are very few Greeks in Crimea.
And you have those hammer and sickle on the “far left” pic.
Its almost as if the USSR was just fascism with red trim.
I agree, but the author used hammer&sickle as the illustration of “far left”.
Its the symbol of communism, as opposed to the USSR alone.
It originated in the Soviet Union, it’s associated with Communism because of the Soviet Union. It’s only a symbol of Communism within the context of the USSR, if you believe the model of the USSR to be fascist then you believe the Hammer and Sickle to be symbolic of fascism.
Alternatively, you can dissapprove of the model of the USSR while recognizing it as Socialist and not fascist.
It originated under tsarist Russia. So, by your own “logic”, its a symbol of pre-industrial surfism.
Sure, I could recognise it as that but then we’d both be wrong. You see, much like the peoples democratic republic of Korea, simply declaring your country to be something doesn’t make it true. Its actually a bit more complicated than that.
It originated under tsarist Russia. So, by your own “logic”, its a symbol of pre-industrial surfism.
“Surfism?” Sounds rad 🏄
In all seriousness, the Tsarist Regime was overthrown in 1917, while the Hammer and Sickle was first proposed in 1918, and adopted officially by the Bolsheviks and the USSR as it formed out of the Russian Civil War. It has since become a symbol of Marxism through association with the USSR, not despite it. The H&S was symbiolized for the USSR, not necessarily Marxism itself.
Sure, I could recognise it as that but then we’d both be wrong. You see, much like the peoples democratic republic of Korea, simply declaring your country to be something doesn’t make it true. Its actually a bit more complicated than that.
The DPRK did not invent the concept of Democracy, nor have groups since the DPRK adopted their symbolism as a means to associate themselves with Democracy. This is a flawed comparison foundationally, because the various Communist groups that have brandished the Hammer and Sickle are at minimum supporting Marxism-Leninism, the state ideology of the USSR, even if these groups support or denounce Stalinism (ie, Trotskyist orgs).
If you can find a significant number of groups brandishing the Hammer and Sickle but denouncing the USSR in totality, then please, be my guest.
*Serfism
Cool story, still a poor argument.
The DPRK did not invent the concept of >Democracy,
Whats that got to do with anything? Are you attempting to claim the USSR invented socialism? I sure hope not.
or have groups since the DPRK adopted their symbolism as a means to associate themselves with Democracy. This is a flawed comparison foundationally, because the various Communist groups that have brandished the Hammer and Sickle are at minimum supporting Marxism-Leninism, the state ideology of the USSR, even if these groups support or denounce Stalinism (ie, Trotskyist orgs).
Yeah, you’ve got yourself mixed up with the symbolism here. I understand why you don’t want to venture away from it but we are going to have too.
Its a perfectly good comparison for showing why simply declaring a country to be something is, at best, problematic. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make but I’m sure you made it well enough for whatever argument it would actually fit in.
Let’s make it real simple, is the peoples democratic republic of Korea a democracy?
Far-left definitely isn’t that - “we’re gonna make sure everyone’s needs are met” is literally a general leftist thing. Assuming you’re trying to portray tankies and fascists, a more accurate depiction would be “we’re gonna make sure working class needs are met with an iron fist and extermination of anyone potentially rebellious”.
That being said, holy shit there are so many bad takes in this thread
Respectfully, I don’t think tankies are the farthest left, or even left at all. They seem far too concerned with statism and too unconcerned with uplifting the worker.
I also think that there is space for more than one type of far left.
EDIT: Witness below: a lengthy conversation about states, colonialism, whose team is worse, and other masturbatory topics. What average worker is going to engage with this ideology? Dorks.
Not just tankies but ml. We should all be working towards communism generally. No question. And ML governments have helped industrialize their regions as capitalism did. Again no question. But in that process the ML governments have been oppressive and violent as most capitalist. Combined with the fairytale of the administrative state magically withering on it’s own. It’s safe to say that the vanguard of Marxist Leninism the Soviet Union splintered and fell to fascism of the administrative state. With China repeating their mistakes. Making they’re already unaccountable administrative State even more unaccountable. Appointing their president for life even as he moves into the Forbidden City and The Emperor’s Palace. Now largely emperor in all but name.
Honestly I think the reason they get shown so much is because there’s not a lot of other clear iconography relating to the left. There’s the upgrades fist. But it has been adopted for a number of other groups and movements. Outside of that most of the truly recognizable ones were adopted by the leninists.
But in that process the ML governments have been oppressive and violent as most capitalist
Please explain me how Marxist-Leninist governments have partaken in unequal exchange, colonialism, or how there was surplus extracted from workers.
Combined with the fairytale of the administrative state magically withering on it’s own
Isn’t that quite literally what happened in the USSR in 1991? A unilateral dissolution of the government and its institutions from the top-down.
Either way, you’re showing that you actually haven’t studied the ideas of Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism literally defines the state as oppressive in nature, it’s kinda the core point of Lenin’s “State and Revolution”. Marxist-Leninists defend a democratic form of government in which worker-councils elect representatives who enact Marxist policy in the most democratic fashion possible, and a constant back-and-forth dialogue between the communist intellectual vanguard and the people in which the needs of the people are translated to Marxist language and policy and enacted. Marxism-Leninism isn’t “when Stalin based”, that’s, well, Stalinism.
Please explain me how Marxist-Leninist governments have partaken in unequal exchange, colonialism, or how there was surplus extracted from workers.
Please at least give us a challenge. Okay let’s just stick to Russia otherwise I’ll be here all day. They forcefully /undemocraticaly annexed a large portion of Eastern Europe under threat of violence. Concentrated most of the wealth, power, and influence in the politburos of Moscow. Leaving rural areas largely destitute with no prospects. Though to their limited credit still providing them with a minimal subsistence. The Russian oligarchs of today as well as the bourgeoisie fascistic dictator now in charge. All roads lead back to the wealthy, privileged, and politically connected in Moscow.
We can do ole forbidden city bourgeoi-xi throwing around the peoples resources to buy off and debt trap smaller foreign nations to exploit if you want.
Isn’t that quite literally what happened in the USSR in 1991? A unilateral dissolution of the government and its institutions from the top-down.
Where’s the communism? We were promised communism. Unless you’re going to try and paint the fascistic Russian state as temu/wish brand communism. Which would be both hilarious and sad if you did. The state and it’s authority never dissolved. They released the captured territories. Letting them return to governing themselves. Which was good. But the modern government of Russia has well documented clear ties back to Soviet government and leadership. They just put on a different mask. But it’s hardly classless or stateless.
Either way, you’re showing that you actually haven’t studied the ideas of Marxism-Leninism.
Or, consider that I have. And that I understand that all “ideologies” are ideal. And as such divorced from reality. Capitalist theory was freeing and uplifting too. Not at all imperial. The practice and implementation of ideologies is their failing.
Marxist-Leninists defend a democratic form of government in which worker-councils elect representatives who enact Marxist policy in the most democratic fashion possible
Threats of isolation and violence? Democratic?! Seriously? Real talk, I’m all for worker and local councils being the government. Pragmatically I’m anarco-communist. Get rid of moscow, get rid of Beijing. Get rid of the party. Let the people choose how to organize themselves. Then it won’t be nothing but empty rhetoric.
What Lenin especially as well as engles and even marx failed to understand or account for. Was that anything acquired through force. Can just as easily be taken or destroyed through Force. It has happened with every single Revolution their ideology started. What’s built through consent, through solidarity, and cooperation cannot easily be destroyed or Taken. Using the shortcuts and tactics of the bourgeoisie leads to becoming the bourgeoisie. Every single time. No matter how well intentioned Marxist Leninist are.
i think whats missing from most anti-ml takes here is colonialism and the overbearing influence of the west everywhere else.
china wouldnt be able to break away from the washington consensus like it does if they didnt have enough force to show and use whenever necessary to keep it at bay.
likewise with pretty much every long lasting, large scale socialist experiment so far. people forget what happens to the likes of allende when they try funny business and can’t back it up with actual force.
i also have a problem with using ‘tankie’ for serious discussion because its a meaningless word at this point.
If things were perfect they would be perfect. However that’s circular reasoning/tautology. Everyone struggles with factors internal and external. And ultimately it’s not someone else’s responsibility what they do. So bringing up the West in a critique of marxist leninism he’s largely pointless and at best only a crutch. Because yes we can absolutely critique the west or similar things. The fact that they do them doesn’t make Marxist leninism better by comparison.
And let’s be clear. China and the Chinese government needed no help exploiting their proletariat for the benefit of the ascendant bourgeoisie. The West did not force that or cause it.
My critique of marxist leninism is not a defense of capitalism or the west. I see them as largely equal and opposed. Yes the West has been shitty to countries that have adopted Anti-Capitalist Stances. And I absolutely believe it is largely unwarranted and counterproductive.
Where it is warranted ironically one only has to look to Vladimir Lenin to understand why. The forceful annexation of much of Eastern Europe post World War ii. The division of Germany. No one from the West forced that. Remind me. Former Soviet block countries, what were their General feelings about the Soviet Union and Lenin / Stalin after it dissolved? I remember even until recently A lot of them tearing down statues of those men. Was it because they love them so much and wanted to have pieces of them in their house to worship? It wasn’t because they failed to deliver on their promises, and were largely hated and despised by survivors and family of people marched off to Siberia to die was it?
quite the contrary.
force is needed because things arent perfect, hence why i say the analysis misses neocolonialism.
Why, after that force is used to successfully establish themselves, those countries never actually empower the lower classes?
China has been secure on the world stage for decades, yet their people still work as wage slaves for the benefit of the western bourgeoise interests.
“we’re gonna make sure everyone’s needs are met” is literally a general leftist thing
Pretty sure most people who consider themselves leftists in western countries don’t agree with the implications of this. Guaranteeing housing for everyone implies hard policy against landlords (including expropriation), construction of dense public housing… Guaranteeing equal rights in education means eliminating private education, and the same can be applied to medicine.
As for the human rights of people outside the western world, ensuring their human rights would imply stopping the abusive trade relations that they’re forced into partaking. No more unequal exchange, so now chocolate is 5-10€ a piece. We also can’t export our trash anymore to poorer countries. Good-bye to 3000€/month salaries in so-called “high added value” sectors of the economy when you submit to the reality that a western worker’s hour shouldn’t be paid at 5-times the rate of a non-western worker.
We need to degrow economically in order to preserve the climate, so the purchase power of people must be reduced when it comes to many consumer products which aren’t basics. No more luxury vehicles (possibly restrictions on purchase of cars), no more buying clothes twice a month, and compulsory reduction of meat consumption.
Now, try to do all of those things within the logic of capitalism. Most self-described leftists don’t see the logical and historical impossibilities of guaranteeing the needs of everyone within a capitalist system. So yeah, virtue-signalling and good intentions are good, but more than that is needed to actually achieve the goals in mind. The far-left is just aware of this.
Assuming you’re trying to portray tankies and fascists
Wait. Fascists are left-wing now? Fascists want to “ensure working class needs”???
If you go far enough on the left sector then yes, they may say they want to “ensure the working class needs” but are so full of shit that they strike down anything that differs slightly from their views. We need part of a personal incentive and an individual focused economy to actually meet the needs of the people. Communism might just ensure the bare minimum. Degrowth might be what would be good for our planet but in no world do I see the majority of people willing to give up part of their purchasing power so its easier to push for a more green economy without degrowth.
Degrowth might be what would be good for our planet but in no world do I see the majority of people willing to give up part of their purchasing power so its easier to push for a more green economy without degrowth.
Thank you for agreeing with my point that self-described leftists don’t want to experience the consequences of ensuring everyone’s needs are met.
We need part of a personal incentive
Communism isn’t against that. The USSR workers had salaries tied to their productivity more often than in the west, I literally don’t know any worker in my capitalist country whose salary is increased if they increase their productivity. If by “incentive” you mean “the looming threat of unemployment and homelessness”, then speak openly. How funny that people aren’t willing to give up purchase power according to you, but the threat of unemployment is an adequate incentive.
and an individual focused economy to actually meet the needs of the people.
The needs of the people in developed capitalist societies are best met in socialized services such as public education, public healthcare, and public pensions. Typically, it’s individual-based (i.e. private) sectors of the economy like housing (or healthcare and education in the US) that give the worst crises and stress to people, and the ones that ensure highest inequality between rich and poor.
Communism isn’t against that. The USSR workers had salaries tied to their productivity more often than in the west, I literally don’t know any worker in my capitalist country whose salary is increased if they increase their productivity.
It might seem abstract to you but if you are valuable to the company and another company offers you more money your pay is adjusted based on your economic productivity
If by “incentive” you mean “the looming threat of unemployment and homelessness”, then speak openly. How funny that people aren’t willing to give up purchase power according to you, but the threat of unemployment is an adequate incentive.
Why should I speak openly if I support a social safety net that ensures a basic standard of living and housing during times of unemployment?
None of this needs a communist state
and another company offers you more money your pay is adjusted based on your economic productivity
Meritocracy in capitalism is a myth. Low-wage workers often work harder than anyone else, and get no rises or other jobs for doing so.
Why should I speak openly if I support a social safety net that ensures a basic standard of living and housing during times of unemployment?
None of this needs a communist state
Sure, the capitalist west is doing so well electing the far right to erode our already-eroded social rights even more.
Its not about how hard you work tho. Its based on how much your work is worth to others and how replaceable you a company. Actually Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark are some of the happiest countries on earth with the highest standards of living so I’d say they’re doing pretty well. I know that there are a lot worse capitalist countries but I specifically focus on a social market economy and the potential. I am not defending the lack of social welfare in the US.
Nordic European countries have rather decent social welfare, agreed, but their economy is as sustained on unequal exchange as those of the rest of the developed world. In the case of Norway arguably more since they’re oil exporters. My point being, not every country, not even most countries, can be like Scandinavian countries because they rely on exploitation of people outside their borders.
Its not about how hard you work tho. Its based on how much your work is worth to others and how replaceable you a company.
How’s that not a bad thing to reward people based on? We saw during the pandemic that the actually important jobs in our society are the ones that pay jackshit and are easily replaceable. Shouldn’t these people get a better life?
Right-wing in-group: “So long as you be just like us in every way and fall in line, you will be accepted. Sort of.”
Left-wing in-group: “So long as you’re not an asshole, we don’t care what you believe or do.”
Right-wing out-group: Anyone not like them.
Left-wing out-group: Anyone who is an asshole.
The key being what constitutes being an asshole, and what you allow yourself to do to someone once the label can be pasted onto someone. It’s really the same thing seen through different gross stereotypes - they could literally say the same thing.
That’s not to say there aren’t very real differences between parties, but they aren’t extreme sides of a one dimensional line (or vague notions in a two dimensional mapping) which is basically a propaganda tool for the ego.
It’s funny. I have a blog post from Ken Arneson who talks about “The Right to be an Asshole” and here’s how he defines an asshole:
An asshole is a selfish person whose selfishness causes foreseeable indirect collateral damage to the people around them.
He goes on:
Assholes take risks that provide upside to themselves, but transfer the downsides of those risks to other people.
But the true test case for the limits of freedom is the asshole. Philosophically speaking, assholes walk the line between intentions and consequences. Assholes form the boundary between freedom and control.
Assholes don’t intend to do direct harm. They just don’t think about, and/or care about, and/or believe, and/or comprehend, that their actions can or will have negative consequences for other people beyond their direct intentions.
He goes on to recount the tale of COVID Patient 31 from Seoul, South Korea. Shortly after receiving her diagnosis, she decided to seek comfort at church. Hundreds of deaths and thousands of infections were traced back to her through contact tracing. So, now we come to intentions vs. consequences. Patient 31 wasn’t intending to make anyone sick or die, she was merely seeking comfort through faith. Any reasonable non-asshole could have told her and probably did tell her, that attending church while infected would cause others to be infected and possibly die. How should this asshole be judged? If we judge her by her intentions, then she’s as much a victim as anyone. But if we judge her by her consequences, then she’s a mass murderer.
So the question we have to ask as a free society is: What the fuck do we do about assholes?
Assholes have a very clever trick that allows them to keep being assholes.
If you try to stop them from being an asshole, they will declare you to be an asshole who, although perhaps intending to prevent some bad thing from happening, causes harm by denying some very fine people, who have no intention of harming anyone, their freedom. So who’s the real asshole here, anyway?
Socialism is literally transferring all risk to other people. Nice try though.
Except they both say what the left guy says and accuse the other of being the right guy. You both also use all of the same strategies. Silver your opposition, throw shit, and make shit up wherever media is owned by you.
Yah except can fact check and see one side is making up a lot more BS. Hell, one news station got sued for making up stuff so bad.
Everyone can say stuff. How am I to know which stuff said is true?
Look into situations yourself. Like if someone says X person did Y, you can look and see if that’s true. There are plenty of face checking sites that list sources for you to verify information independently. Like when Trump said KH wants to raise retirement age, you can look and see she’s never said that or purposed that.
Also legal action on a topic is a good indicator as there has been proceedings done so the outcome can be more trusted.
But as a general rule of thumb I find the side that bans books and education, calls any criticism a lie, and has had a track record of lying on the record countless times as the less trustworthy side.
Where am I gonna look? I personally have a conviction for something I didn’t do because the legal process is lazy and malicious, so I won’t be trusting that either. Who am I to believe any digital story?
You’re not helpless to look up facts. If you’re asking where to look go to the source. For the example I mentioned you can look at her platform. Your stance seems to be very close to the “how can we know anything” which is often pushed as a mindset when a group of bad actors calls everything into question to avoid accountability. Truths can be known, things can be confirmed.
As for court, I said it’s more trustworthy, but not absolute by any means. It’s controlled by people, and people are not infallible.
Nothing is knowable. The map is not the territory and mappers have motivations.
So you don’t know your own name, how to read or type? Impressive.
