Death to America is a saying that goes back much further than Bin Laden, and there have been many good reasons for many people to say it. I'm sure many of the people indigenous to the land (that wasn't "America" to them) had a probably rather similar phrase and said it probably rather often as that entity commenced with their genocide. And since that time, it's not as if there hasn't been a lack of good reasons to call for the destruction of the settler-colonial project responsible for the worst imperialist cruelties since the British Empire (the immediate ancestor). But you might consider questioning why you seem to only associate the phrase with that one particular person.
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 17
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 17
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
edit: removing duplicate comment.
It's such an irony to me that people who call us "tankies" and say that we are somehow caricatures of communists, always make such caricatures out of themselves. Like, instead of engaging with any of FunkyStuff's very reasonable, calmly stated questions, you go off about how we ("tankies") just decided to be evil, and calling us ridiculous while behaving in such a ridiculous, blatantly and needlessly antagonistic way yourself. It's over the top.
Paraphrasing:FunkyStuff: asks a calm, concise series of questions that are meant to help clarify the issue.lunnrais: "See?! Look how frothing these evil, ridiculous lunatic tankies are!!"
And this after correctly recognizing that the red scare was a terrible witch hunt? But it was people like us, people who believe what we believe, that were the "witches" of that particular persecution. We are simply what most communists in the world look like, we believe what most communists in the world believe, people who have very clear and consistent views. But instead of honestly trying to engage or actually understand why "tankies" believe the things they do, you just smear us with lies and pretend that the position of Marxist-Leninist communists is just some bananas, made-up-on-the-fly, contrarian position, rather than one with deep foundations that have been developed over decades of intense thought and practice including by people fighting in the trenches for their own and others liberation. To you, were the Black Panthers "tankies"? Do you know about their mutual support of and with North Korea, or did they just decide to be "evil" to pwn the libs? Was Che Guevara a "tankie"? Is Michael Parenti? Were they all just ridiculous contrarians who liked the picture that reactionaries ("republicans") painted of them?
Is this sarcasm? The venn diagram that represents overlap of what nazis believe & value vs what the CIA believes & values may not be a perfect circle, but it's fairly close.
Communism allows everyone to pretend to have free stuff by declaring those that actually make it less than human
I know you've been banned (not unreasonably so) and can't respond, but if you truly believe what you wrote above, you owe it to yourself to find out how you've been lied to. Communism at its most fundamental core is about alleviating the exploitation done to "those that actually make it" (workers). Communism elevates everyone to personhood, as opposed to capitalism that only does so for the ownership class.
- JumpRemoved Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Sounds like we’re in agreement that Russia broke the ceasefire by invading.
Not really, no. A ceasefire becomes void when on of those who agreed to it starts, you know, firing.
It doesn't matter whether Germany was forbidden from "assisting" Ukraine, the point is that it is openly known that the West had no intention of honoring the agreements and used them only as a ploy. If you want to cynically claim 'that's just shrewd military tactics, it's Russia's own fault for believing NATO/Ukraine's coup regime promises, ceasefires don't mean shit, lol!' then fine, but you can't then hold the position that Russia are the ones who can't be trusted with agreements or that they are the ones who broke the agreements.
There was nothing in the Minsk agreement that said Ukraine couldn’t defend itself from future invasions.
There was plenty in there about not continuing to shell Donetsk, which of course they did, frequently killing civilians.
- JumpRemoved Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Surely, if Russia is indeed so benevolent,
Who is calling Russia "benevolent"? In fact I specifically said that Russia is probably only making the offer because they know it won't be accepted.
Ukraine wouldn’t need them going forward in this hypothetical peace?
Why wouldn't they? I'm genuinely not sure why anyone would think such a thing. Like do you think that just because they tentatively accept this peace offer they will suddenly be fully propped up economically by Russia after having completely handed over their public assets to NATO countries, largely in exchange for the weapons that have allowed them to put up the resistance that they did against Russia? Do you think that countries exist in their own vacuum and there wouldn't be massive repercussions (read: severe consequences) for breaking with the western countries they have relied on since 2014 and outright depended on since 2022? And that's Ukraine as a whole irrespective of who is currently running it...
Most of that becomes secondary when you consider that the current government Ukraine (the 'regime,' if you will), the people who make it up, have an interest in maintaining their own positions, as is true for literally anyone holding a position of power. Above reasons aside, that current leadership of Ukraine would not remain the leadership long without NATO regardless of whether or not they accepted this offer if they didn't have NATO backing. Said government and NATO are inextricably tied, said government only exists because of NATO. So I doubt that government wants to accept the peace offer either and isn't necessarily in their best interests even if it absolutely is in the best interests of the Ukrainian people, especially the ones being forcibly conscripted to go die on the front in a war they don't want to even be involved in.
- JumpRemoved Deleted
Permanently Deleted
This is very acceptable to anyone rational. Russia can (and probably will) end up taking a lot more. Putin is not serious about this proposal only because he know the fascists in control of Ukraine's military won't accept it or any other peace offerings until every last Ukrainian other than themselves has been forcibly conscripted and killed.
- JumpRemoved Deleted
Permanently Deleted
After Ukraine and their NATO backers blatantly violated peace treaties, Russia entered an already ongoing civil war where Ukraine was illegally and violently trying to ethnically cleanse a minority population within their own borders, killing men, women, and children while doing so, and they did it in front of all of us. Those are the facts, and you can confirm it with any independent news source.
Russia doesn't have a long list of breaking peace agreements or invading sovereign countries. On the other hand, NATO, particularly the US, have a disgustingly long list of violently invading countries under paper thin pretexts and lies. It's not Russia whose word isn't worth jack shit.
- JumpRemoved Deleted
Permanently Deleted
I suppose easily verifiable reality probably would seem like a "weird angle" when you're not used to ever seeing it.
- JumpRemoved Deleted
Permanently Deleted
lol gottem.
I have to admit, it is amusing to watch bootlickers fail to keep up with The Narrative. It's understandable when they're only a couple talking points behind, because it must be hard for anyone to keep up with all that shifting bullcrap. But often enough I'll still see lines trotted out like "Russians are fighting with shovels and are amazed to see paved roads." It's very rare but every now and then it's still possible to come across someone who brings up the Ghost of Kiev and still believes it.
- JumpRemoved Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Apparently at least 134 lemmy users who claim to support Ukraine seem to think that yes, Ukraine should be flattened rather than have peace. With friends like these, who needs enemies? But then it's pretty clear that most of them don't actually care about Ukrainian people, since it's fine with them that Ukrainians who want nothing to do with it are being conscripted and forced to fight against their will and die so long as that mean old Putler doesn't get his way!
- JumpRemoved Deleted
Permanently Deleted
They can't show you. Because he never said that and Russia never expected that. These geniuses don't understand the concept of attrition and apparently think Putin doesn't either. But that won't stop them from just making shit up that sounds nice to them, especially if it helps them cope with the reality that their team Ukraine is losing bad and has no chance of ever getting back the territories it was so fond of shelling even before Russia got there.
I knew this already of course, but reading through this thread has been a great reminder that NATO bootlickers will just make up whatever shit they want that fits the narrative that they like to believe, and they will just run with it. Even when the exact opposite is true and they are obviously 100% projecting, like saying it was Russia that broke agreements that literally anyone can check to see that NATO country leaders admitted to breaking. It's so wild to me how much these lemitors will screech about Russian propaganda but then turn around and happily drink deep from the US state department propaganda water fountain... and then ask for a firehose instead.
- JumpRemoved Deleted
Permanently Deleted
ukraine doesn’t have a choice, they have nowhere to go. they can’t pull out of the conflict because they are literally the one being invaded
You are right in that they have nowhere to go but it's because NATO won't let them accept peace but will force them to keep fighting until that last working class Ukrainian is dead. Russia is literally offering them a way out of more bloodshed right now, literally the topic of this post. They also could have avoided all of this by simply honoring the Minsk Agreements, but it was Ukraine breaking those agreements (including by shelling their own people in the east) that led to Russia "invading" by entering a conflict that had already been initiated by Ukraine trying to ethnically cleanse the east. It's funny you start by saying that Russia is untrustworthy, but Ukraine and NATO are the ones who very explicitly and admittedly broke their agreements.
- JumpRemoved Deleted
Permanently Deleted
So is this what someone told you and you believed it, or are you just straight making shit up?
Merkel (and others, but most famously Merkel) openly boasted about how the Minsk Agreements were designed to buy more time to arm Ukraine for the conflict they were intentionally and actively trying to provoke, and weren't ever serious attempts at peace. What Russia did wrong in that case was to be apparently stupid enough to believe Ukraine and the western backers would honor the Minsk Agreements. Russia rolling into Ukraine was a result of the breaking of Minsk.
- JumpRemoved Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Ukraine has no hope of winning at this point. It is stupid not to accept the peace offer because they will never get a better deal. But NATO wouldn't let them accept it even if the Ukrainian regime wanted to. That's probably why Russia is even making the offer.
Part of being a communist is recognizing what it means to even be "authoritarian." It means (among many other things) that you have examined that word and it's various meanings and how it holds up to what's really happening in the material world, and how it relates to the way societies actually work. Not just some nebulous "vibes" regarding what kind of images float around in our heads when the word is spoken. In other words, materialism vs idealism.
I doubt you could find a single communist who believes that modern Russia is communist because it isn't. We all can agree that it is not. Likewise I think every communist you could find would say that modern Russia is at best a disgusting capitalist disgrace to its Soviet history. But to call it a "dictatorship" especially without also recognizing other capitalist nations similarly as "dictatorships" is just a failure of understanding of what that word means, but I won't say more on it because ordnance_qf already did. So let's move on to "support" of Russia. As a communist (Marxist Leninist, aka "tankie") I do NOT support Russia in its capitalist endeavors. Again, I doubt you can find a communist who does. But I can still look at Russia's position on the world stage at this time and see that because of its material interests (and not because it's "the good guy" - it isn't, and not because it's current government has noble intentions - they don't), it is supporting the global south in the latter's struggle against imperialism. And it is US imperialism that is the boot on the neck of the peoples of the Global South. For liberatory revolutions to be able to survive before being strangled in their nascency, the pressure of that boot must be reduced or better yet removed. What I support is Russia's undeniable help in facilitating that. Which is what we as communists mean by "critical support." We highly criticize Russia, but we support it in it's primary fight against the US, NATO, and Western Imperialism (which are all aspects of essentially the same thing) for the sake of revolutionary movements that would thrive were it not for western suppression.
I would agree with you that support of China is not a prerequisite of being a communist and there are many communists who do not (including many communists who the anticommunists on this instance would still call "tankies"). China doesn't "implement parts of communism" but China is a Socialist project (where the word "socialism" refers to the transitional stage away from capitalism and towards communism, since unfortunately communism cannot spring fully formed into place). You can be highly critical of China's socialism as many are, but at the very least capital does not enjoy a dictatorship in China as it does in so-called "liberal democracies." However, when you go on to say things like China is eradicating the identity of minorities or the implication that it is not a profoundly multicultural society, that is where I just have to firmly disagree and call "BS." Of course communism and a multicultural society do not exclude each other - they can't exclude each other, by definition. China is very far away from perfect, but to say it is against multiculturalism or worse that it is "eradicating the identity of minorities" is simply the repetition of lies that you were told, lies originating from a state that considers China its arch nemesis and despises it. It's propaganda. This can be confirmed even by going there. So by all means, criticize China, call it out for its actual faults, but find out first what they really are and do not perpetuate demonization, literal sinophobic falsehoods.
I went into a lot of detail in this response because I think that you and I (and therefore many "tankies") are not actually on very dissimilar tracks, and likewise I suspect with a lot of other people reading this thread. But there is just so much bad faith I see in threads like this, it makes it all but impossible to see the similar tracks. And I think that is often by design. Like another comment I responded to (and tons more I didn't) that just want to smear and demonize without even a hint of a desire to understand, but your comment clearly wasn't like that, and you expressed honest, valid (though towards the end, I would say gravely misled) concerns. I'd bet there are a lot of people who listen to the "tankies are evil red fash" noise and just assume that must be the case without any actual engagement and never actually take the chance to understand the actual position. Those of us who genuinely want sincere, unselfish human flourishing, should be able to find that common ground to actually suss out our positions and learn. But the smarmy and smug anti-tankie crowd do not want to learn and they do not want others to learn. Fortunately many still will, despite them.