Why do everyone immediately think of tankies when someone mentions anti-capitalism? Are the bourgeois intentionally presenting tankies as their only opposition to make themselves look better? There will be no anti-capitalist mass movement as long as it is associated with tankies, so how can we get rid of them?
Why do everyone immediately think of tankies when someone mentions anti-capitalism...
Other urls found in this thread:
Because ML ideologies have always been the most successful in creating communist countries such as the USSR.
Because there was this thing called the Cold War, it wasn't a big deal, you might have heard of it, but apparently a lot of people knew about it back in the day
Anti-capitalist mass movements associated with tankies have always been their most feared opposition
They have always played an integral part in the Spectacle as the opposition precisely because they pose no threat.
Two capitalist superpowers facing off each other.
Historically tankies have presented the leading geopolitical threat to porkies. Of course they are going to cry wolf.
Name one thing wrong with the Vendee Campaign, the burning of Georgia and dekulakization. Human lives are the currency for radical change.
The state must realize that fascist and Islamist-fascist miscreants alongside climate change is a threat to its continued existence and only through tankies' eco-Stalinism will it survive the 21st century. No one free the people from a system to truly free them, rather only to oppress them under a worthier system.
Thank god they're crying wolf and losing sight of us. Give us a single reason to not climb the ladders of the state and hijack it as a tool to oppress reactionaries, fascists and liberals out of existence.
Is this intentional or are you actually FBI?
I think they think about SJWs, not tankies - although there is plenty of overlap.
No, they think of Stalin and the GULAG.
Well, if you're gonna nationalize/collectivize private property the porky is gonna violently resist.
Sending porky to camps going to be inevitable in case of revolution, when interacting with normies you don't have to deny the gulag but instead explain the necessity and reassure them their playstation isn't going to get collectivized.
Peasants are not the proletariat and kulaks are not the bourgeoisie. Speaking of porky instead of examining their relation to Capital is convenient as it hides the fact that the Bolshevik revolution was a transition from feudalism to capitalism, not socialism.
Kulaks owned land, hired other peasants to work it, speculated and gave loans, I don't know why do you need to make it more complicated in this case.
Anyway the talk is about hypothetical gulags in future socialism, and there the land would definitely be taken from increasingly small amount of bourg. Relocating 1000 people instead of 800000 is going to be less spooky.
Bullshit. What do you know about Marxist-Leninist praxis? Have you ever organised? We have organisational roots in unions, works committees, student's parliaments, publish newspapers, organise not-for-profit festivals with over 10.000 attendants that offer lectures, activities and networking. I personally have the central point of my work in organising theory groups about political economy which attendance is free. We have youth organisations that produce communist cadres.
Literally everybody who isn't an ML who I got to now has absolute shit praxis or no praxis at all. You should also realise that parties don't make revolutions, a revolutionary situation can occur but you also need organisational structures. Since only MLs build them with the working class, every single revolution that's successful will be ML, and every Trotskyst/leftcommunist/anarchist revolution will be a failure.
Holdover from the cold war and liberal laziness tbh.
Just organize where you're at around class issues like wages and rent, most folks are far more interested in their real situations than the politics of a state that hasn't existed for over 2 decades. MLs (and Trots) aren't involved in that stuff organizationally, their parties seem more interested in fleecing donations, engaging in electoralism, or some activist faggotry.
because the biggest representative anarchists have is fight club
Because the anarchists typically are out in shithole communes and DIY spaces like Slab City.
Also, you've never seen a non-tanky socialist country get into power. People have the time to learn history, but not every niched & nuanced leftist ideology that will probably fail.
Tankies can be an actual threat, unlike impotent anarchists and radlibs. In truth though, tankies want to preserve the suicidal industrial system so they are almost as bad as capitalists at the end of the day
Anarchists pose no threat to capitalism, so they are ignored completely. Screeching in the streets without attempting to seize control of the state is a completely impotent and lifestylist act.
Anarchists not posing any threat sounds really silly coming from a tankie knowing how often your kind had to ally with the bourgeoisie against the anarchists to protect your red capitalism.
And also, if anarchists wanted to overthrow the communist party, they should be crushed. No mercy for counter revolutionaries.
Because Tankies are obnoxious, have strong brandname recognition from the USSR being a thing, and they're easy to strawman since they hate and disapprove of everything.
By making a cyrillics/Russian version of the Tianamen copypasta, posting those on every thread, and de-funding the glow-in-the-darks/boycotting the media megacorps propping up the tankies and the narratives about them.
lmao okay lysenkoist
I refuse to believe anyone is stupid enough to think communism is pushed by CIA and mainstream media to oppress the anarkiddies. You have to be insane.
Yeah, almost as if you get a brand name if you actually build superpowers as opposed to being three guys in a garage.
Which is why you regularly get leftcommunist/anarchist op-eds in mainstream media while ML positions are considered unacceptable almost everywhere. Right.
This position is especially addled if you consider that anarchists and friends don't have the historical baggage of the Cold War and are regularly presented as debatable positions on the left-wing spectrum, whereas MLs are not.
In 2011 the KKE broke with massive protests surrounding a 48 hour general strike to protect parliament, where politicians were about to vote for legislation that would implement more austerity measures to the detriment of the working class. When other protesters (not just anarchists, arguably not even majority anarchist) marched on parliament, the KKE clashed with them to prevent anyone not affiliated with the KKE from getting to parliament. When the police came, the KKE worked with the police to arrest the protesters not affiliated with KKE.
Wut? For anarchists you've got Kim Kelly who writes about labor or music. For leftcoms you've got nobody, cuz they don't leave their own blogs or sites.
Off the top of my head Abby Martin, Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton, and Anya Parampil all are aligned with ML politics and have similar or larger reach than Kim Kelly. And if we're not talking about just journalism by medium, a ML(M) got over 3 million to make one of the most well received movies of 2018, which got him on several popular talk shows to talk about labor organization.
Maybe on revleft, but not in real life. Anarchists are still only associated with assassinations and chaos. There was no need for Cold War propaganda against them as they have been constantly slandered and demonized since the dawn of time. Meanwhile the world if full of ML parties that you can vote for and, while most people consider them to be lunatics in the same way as they do the far-right, they fit nicely into the liberal framework of politics and are accepted as such.
It's not pushed the same way 9/11 was not an inside job. They merely let it happen as it leads to a situation that can be controlled. That's how security works. Anarchists cannot be deal with, they are uncompromising and actually want to abolish capitalism and privative appropriation. Meanwhile tankies are just like any other power hungry group, you can bribe their leaders, make historical compromises or please them with meagre wage increases. Is it really that difficult to understand why would they prefer to deal with communists, especially now that the USSR collapsed, compared to anarchists? You speak the same language of power, it shouldn't be such a fucking mystery to you to recognize how you are used to curb revolutionary potential and domesticate the more radical elements in society.
Kinda cool that gulags/gorillions smears are becoming so inefficient you had to dig up lysenko fiasco to make ML look bad.
It does not need to be dug up, it's common knowledge. Of course if you knew anything about history you wouldn't be a tankie.
Zig Forums literally had 5 threads on it over the span of 3 years you moron, if anything they originally dug it up.
Zig Forums isn't 100% ML.
I don't have the screenshot or archive but the most recent one was made by a tankie a year and a half or so ago.
Probably because Lysenkoism is also a topic which people talk shit about and the narrative "hurr durr commies don't believe in genetics" is wrong.
Lysenkoism is really inexcusable. I hope even the most hardcore Stalin fan will admit that it was a mistake.
I doubt there's a conspiracy to paint all opposition as stalinist, but ML was the most popular "communist" current of last century, so people interprets the collapse of ML regimes as the failure of communism in general. Cheap, easy way to call all communists failures.
We organize without them. We leave them in the mud where they belong.
Gonna need sauce on your kke claim.
10 seconds on duck duck go
So, I have no doubt that KKE was trying to keep anarchists from throwing molotovs at police and government buildings, as this is exactly what police pretending to be anarchists are doing to justify violently dispersing protesters, but I don't believe the KKE/PAME were working with the state to have anyone arrested.
"some sources claim" etc. from an obviously completely anti-ML news source is not reliable to me.
KKE and PAME have organized over 20 general strikes against austerity over the years, so claiming that they are working with the bourgeois state to further austerity is insane to me.
Yeah, that was retarded but it got nothing to do with ML ideas
Yeah, tell that to the anarchists who advocated collaboration with the Republican Spanish government, entered that government and even became ministers. Or to advisor to the Russian Provisional Government and supporter of Entente, Peter Kropotkin.
Or even to the ones who fought for and died for the Bolsheviks
Just wanted to point out it was done to discuss it's plausibility casually. I don't even consider it slander considering Lysenko was right about mutations.
Let's be honest, what MLs do rarely has anything to do with their ideas.
Speaking of tank, how trustworthy are guys Ludo Martens and Grover Furr? Hardcore tankies link them as debunk of the usual gorillions narrative but I'm not sure if I can trust the "Stalin was a miracle angel baby who did nothing wrong" story either.
Don't know who Ludo Martens is, but Furr is an idiot. There are plenty of things to criticize Stalin for, but Furr will die on the Stalin hill no matter what evidence suggests otherwise. Parenti has a far more nuanced view of Stalin and the USSR in general.
>not knowing the author of Another View of Stalin who was chairman of the Workers' Party of Belgium
Grover Furr makes some correct points here and there, he sources all his claims. If people disagree with him they can just look up his sources and his interpretation of it. That being said, he's obviously completely ideological driven because he will defend literally anything Stalin did, which is a form of extremism that Stalin himself would probably disagree with, considering Stalin himself never claimed to never do anything wrong and was annoyed by his personality cult.
I guess Grover Furr is a useful asset for "triggering the libs" and also has some interesting things to say here and there, especially his counter-arguments against people like Timothy Snyder or Steven Kotkin, when he dissects their sources, I also kind of agree with his work on Katyn, I do agree it's controversial and not 100% proven that the Soviets did it.
Unlike Furr, Martens doesn't claim to he a neutral source because he's an avowed Marxist-Leninist. That obviously makes him more "honest" than Furr who insists that he's just a neutral academic interested in Soviet history (yeah right), his work is less "debunking" the myths around Stalin but just viewing Stalin from the perspective of the worker's movement. I still recommend his book as the first redpill for Marxism-Leninism when it comes to Stalin.
Also generally, when not talking to other communists don't quote Furr or Martens, it will just get you discarded as a lunatic. If you want to repeat an argument they make, take their source as they quote it as these are usually legit.