After seeing a megathread praising Mao Zedong, an actual mass killer, and a post about a guy saying “99% of westerners are 100000000000% sure they know what happened in ‘Tiny Man Square’ […] the reasons for this are complex and involve propaganda […],” I am genuinely curious what leads people to this belief system. Even if propaganda is involved when it comes to Tiananmen Square, it doesn’t change the atrocities that were/are committed everywhere else in China.
I am all for letting people believe what they want but I am lost on why one would deliberately praise any authoritarian system this hard.
Can someone please help me understand why this is such a large and prominent community? How have these ideals garnered such a following outside of China?
EDIT: Thank you to everyone who has responded! This thread has been very insightful :)
Marxists and anarchists support using violence against fascists, capitalists, landlords, slavers, etc. The major difference is that Marxists acknowledge the utility of the state for doing so, while anarchists go for more horizontalist structures (even if they also end up forming states and semi-states, like the Spanish anarchists did). The idea that either of us want to wholesale slaughter everyone that disagrees with us is just fantasy, though.
What purpose did this comment serve? You just refused to acknowledge the observational truth in my comment and steam rolled past it with a claim that wasn’t disputed or relevent to the conversation, and then ended it with a strawman.
Edit: as long as you continue to utilize deceitful rhetoric while talking to me, I will continue to call it out, and everyone outside of the echo chamber will acknowledge your delusional behavior. Refusing to acknowledge reality is not a persuasive argument.
What observational truth? The people in the OP aren’t as the user described. The number of people that meet the definition given is close to nil on the Fediverse, yet people get called a tankie all the time.
“Tankie” is just a pejorative for those who uphold existing socialist states as legitimate, which covers the large majority of Marxists and a decent number of anarchists. The people in the OP are “tankies” by the definition I gave, it’s consistent and clear. They uphold existing socialist states as legitimate, and this is the norm among Marxists.
Call out whatever you like, it’s going to backfire, because what I’m saying is more in line with reality. Unless your point is that Marxism itself is extremist and therefore “tankie,” calling the norm position among Marxists extremist isn’t particularly useful.
Yeah, for sure. I’m not interested in your willful misinterpretation/misrepresentation or incessant reframing to escape valid points. Don’t worry, nothing will backfire on me because I have nothing to lose- no skin in the game, no ideology to dogmatically adhere to. I just call out people that argue in bad faith. And you either are, or you’re not reading carefully enough to articulate a valid response.
I’m not seeing any valid arguments here. I’m good-faith, and I’m reading the arguments, I just disagree with them. Calling me bad-faith for disagreeing with you isn’t a point, nor does it mean I am actually bad-faith.
Do you really want me to go point back at the strawmen or the spots where you failed to even respond to what I was saying? But by all means, please, keep downvoting me for calling out your behavior. I know you can do better, so maybe you just need time to calm down and reassess.
This is the original comment I replied to, which is a strawman. The people that think “Just line everyone who doesn’t accept my exact interpretation of communism up against the wall” is rational praxis don’t exist in any significant numbers, yet the word “tankie” is thrown around willy nilly these days.
This argument is that existing socialist states aren’t to be trusted and are equally bad, but becoming a communist isn’t just about agreeing with a nice picture of it in our heads, but to also see what communists have done in real life.
The original comment was itself a strawman, and you didn’t offer any compelling argument beyond “extremists exist,” which is true but not relevant. We aren’t talking about outliers, but a common phenomenon, that being communists on the fediverse that uphold existing socialist states and are called “tankies” for it.
How do you think replying to someone else’s comment is, in any way/shape/form, relevant to the strawman arguments you propped up against me to deflect against my entire comment? Here, I’ll make you read it again. Maybe this time you can meaningfully respond to it.
Edit: here’s a hint in being consistent. You cannot literally interpret another person’s words when it benefits you and choose to respond with a wishy-washy non-literal deflection that requires reframing to fit the prompt.