As a poc, for as long as I can remember, I find tankies to be extremely tone deaf as if they speak for people of colour who either have experience living in a communist state or living next to one. For example, I am originally from the Far East, and while I don’t agree with American military presence because they occasionally cause disruption to locals, it is simply out of geopolitical necessity and by explicit permission from the country to host American troops. Because guess why? Those of us from democratic countries are living next to Marxist-Leninist countries being threatening. China is trying to occupy an entire body of ocean and squatting within 200 nautical miles from Philippines’ internationally recognised legal territory. China is waterhosing both Filipino and Vietnamese fishermen, and then sending their own armed-to-the-teeth fishing vessels to monopolise fishing in the area. Japan is having a similar water territorial row with China. South Korea is living next to North Korea and I don’t need to elaborate their situations.
When I bring all those up to tankies, they go on conspiratorial mental gymnastics that these countries are being coerced by the US both militarily and economically. But i then ask them the rhetorical question if they have actually asked Filipino, Vietnamese, Japanese and Koreans what they think of China-- it’s all crickets. They go on ad hominem that I am a white Western bootlicking capitalist. When I tell that I am actually Asian, they go quiet! Like, as if they speak for people who actually have lived experience being next to a communist behemoth that don’t respect democracy! If I were white, they would probably go on with ad hominem, which I will go on more details in later paragraph.
I get that tankies took up anti colonial struggles as well, but they became the very thing they rail against, although frankly in a comical way. They patronise the global south and other non-Western nations as if they don’t have their own agency. It’s the red version of “white man’s burden”. That said, they convince themselves that those outside the West are brainwashed. Either tankies are totally ignorant of geopolitics and differing views from wider cultures, or wilfully ignorant. Being so tone deaf, I am convinced that they are actually Westerners living a middle class life or at least not struggling-- considering most of them are terminally online so they have nothing better to do.
Additionally, I have immigrated to Europe. I find tankies refuse to recognise that Europe is not one homogeneous place. Countries like Poland, Ireland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, the Baltics were under imperial and colonial rule by bigger neighbours in the past. And yet, tankies think all white Europeans are guilty of colonialism and imperialism, despite many having been victims like those from non-Western countries. I got banned in one of their instances when I pointed this out. I don’t know what their background is, but if most of the tankies are actually white folks, that is a weird self-hatred to have.
Witnessing all this, this is like the tankie version of “Get Out”. The white knighting from tankies is cringe inducing kinda like with liberals. This is why I appreciate Slavoj Zizek making the same observation and commentary because he has a tacit licence to say such things. He is an Eastern European immigrant who suffered from imperialism and has broad and diverse lived experience in both capitalist and communist societies, unlike terminally online tankies who are probably actually middle class and never have been in a communist state.


Yikes.
If this were my source I’d be ashamed to put my fingers to the keyboard. Next they’ll be quoting Stalin and Mao.
deleted by creator
Yes, of course, because I pointed out that the author of a particular book is a horrible person whose work is not worth reading, that must mean I don’t read at all.
Pathetic.
That’s your opinion. You don’t even want to critique his actual ideas. Have you read Lenin? Have you developed any actual basis for your beliefs?
Like I get not wanting to read the books of someone who I’m ideologically opposed to. I have done some of it and found it to be pretty insightful.
Also I deleted my post because I agree it was dumb to post it here. Maybe even pathetic. But the basis for what I said, I don’t get how someone could be like “don’t read the bad books” and not pause in thier criticism of authoritarianism that they in fact are being authoritarian. And maybe that’s okay in some cases, to adopt some authoritarian measures when facing an authoritarian enemy.
But, if actually permissible to deploy authoritarianism, then I think you have to acknowledge that 1. Even in the best faith, people will make mistakes 2. Lenin’s authoritarianism could have reasonably been a response to the brutal authoritarianism of the Tsar 3. Lenin may have made some really bad mistakes during the civil war/invasion period that were not inherent to an authoritarian “nature”
I’m really critical of the revolution after 1921. I am opposed to Stalinism and bureaucracy probably more than you are. But I can actually articulate a real criticism of Lenin. Your “Lenin doesn’t account for older forms of imperialism” really just betrays a deep ignorance about how socialists theorize capitalism subsumes other social forms (which is in the first few paragraphs of the Manifesto, so it doesn’t even take much effort to find) and what his actual argument is, which is pretty undeniable. He doesn’t say Imperialism was invented by capitalism, he also doesn’t say that imperialism is the last stage of Capitalism, he is saying that Capitalism has reached a stage where it became imperialistic. This is not a stretch, Marx formulated most of this in Capital, and Lenin’s work is more of an economic analysis showing how finance capital had fused with the old colonial powers and taken on the form of imperialism. Lenin found the evidence for what Marx had theorized.
Its just really hard for me to read you have such strong dismissive opinions, so much to tell others not to even go near the subject, when you clearly have no idea about the book you’re criticizing. You’re entitled to strong feelings, contradictory beliefs, and critical opposition to whatever you feel is necessary. But at least be honest about it. You’re on this comm posting about dumb tankies, which I’m not gonna dispute is deserved in some even many cases, but IMO you should at least be honest with someone who is being honest about having less knowledge on a subject, that you also have next to no knowledge. Maybe you grew up in Eastern Europe and hate the USSR and the Bolsheviks and the whole thing. Honestly couldn’t hold that against you.
But that isn’t the knowledge you claim to have. You claim to understand Lenin’s theories enough to decommend or even comment on, when you clearly don’t.
So maybe you’ve misunderstood my point, or maybe you’re projecting what you think my point is onto me.
I am not saying “don’t read the bad books”. I am saying “don’t read the books of bad authors”, and in that context only from some very limited sources. For instance, I would also recommend that people not read Mein Kampf.
This is like excusing the behavior of an abusive father because his father was also abusive. We can understand the source of the behavior, certainly, but we do not excuse it, treat it as acceptable, nor should we take advice on social structure from such a person.
I said no such thing. You are putting words in my mouth.
What I said was that imperialism is NOT a function of capitalism. They are distinct and separate concepts. There might be overlap in symptoms, but that does not make them the same thing or causally linked to each other in any particular way.
Don’t care, for the reason stated above.
Again, not the subject, the author.
Well thank you so much for your permission.
I have been very blunt, direct and honest. You have misinterpreted what I said, either intentionally or unintentionally, and have generated straw men so that you can argue against them.
Again, I have claimed no such thing, and also don’t care to become able to claim any such thing. If someone were making social or economic arguments based on Mein Kampf I would also ignore them.
And yes, I’m aware I just brought this into Godwin’s Law territory, but frankly it’s justified.
Lenin isn’t Hitler dude, if Lenin was Hitler the Fascists would like him. I bet these Tankies hate sub’s are full of nascent and committed fascists. So I’m glad you’re comparing Lenin to Hitler as if that was a bad thing, it demonstrates there might be something salvageable in that rats nest of political understanding.
It just always chills me seeing propagandists and agitationalists run round and round in circles screeching about how evil these caricature regimes were without a single shred of actual evidence. Sneering at Tankies has become a form of self medication for a lot of centrists, a form of entertainment. Its like watching fox news and getting riled up about trans bathrooms or whatever.
All I’m saying is there are actual good criticisms of Lenin that you could learn and contribute to, but because in your own life there isn’t anything that challenges your preconceptions about the subject at all, then you think your beliefs on the subject is the same thing as objective truth. And I doubt I’ll be able to disabuse you of it anytime soon.
See ya around.