this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2023
19 points (100.0% liked)
Fediverse
34444 readers
2358 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to [email protected]!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you really care that much about "Authoritarians" and "Tankies", maybe you should just move to exploding-heads.
I joined Lemmy a while ago and I suddenly got exposed to many "tankie" debates going on. Is there a reason this group suddenly became relevant on Lemmy (I mean, from the view of a Reddit migrant)?
Because thanks to the federated setup we get exposed to a wider range of ideas. There are people who are actually socialist or communist and support countries like Cuba and see what China is trying to do with communism there and offer different perspectives. Western media is flooded with anti China propaganda because the capitalists just can't compete with a state run economy. So the word 'tankie' is what capitalists or liberals use to shut down Marxist dialogue over these countries. It's basically used the way MAGA idiots use 'woke'. The meaning is ambiguous and the point is to stop 'bad ideas' from being discussed.
Tankie is a term coined by dissident socialists and communists to refer to authoritarian Stalinist/Maoist leftists who are hostile to libertarian or democratic leftist movements, or any other kind of democratic movement. Comparing it with "woke" (which has no well-defined meaning) is ridiculous.
The people who are labeled tankies are very much anti-democratic. Them being leftist or communist is actually not an issue at all. The problem is they either 1) Attempt to gaslight about authoritarian regimes (for example by claiming said regimes are not authoritarian, that their "elections" are real, or that everything is western propaganda), or 2) Unabashedly support these regimes, sometimes claiming that their victims "deserved" it.
Tankie was recouperated from dissident socialists, the way it's used today has very little to do with its origin. Just because something starts out as a politically radical idea doesn't mean it can't get twisted in bourgeois society. It's mostly just used as a smear to mean "communist I don't like"
It's like woke - what started as a term used by BLM to criticize oppression of minorities was recouperated and now it's been turned into a right-wing smear and lost all meaning.
No, not at all. It simply means "Communist who supports oppression & authoritarianism". European socialists, especially eastern Europeans, still use it in this exact same meaning to this day. The non-bourgeois workers & trade unionists who were subjected to decades of oppression under various Stalinist regimes also use it.
The entire argument is pointless and trite anyway. Most of the people in this thread taking offence at the term "tankie" do in fact support authoritarianism and are attempting to gaslight readers about it.
"support"
You keep using this word, but do you really think any of the people you call tankies have actually done anything to support these countries? Or, more likely, are you using "support" to mean "refuse to condemn/disavow"?
Well, count me in to that group.
I will not join the imperialist dogpile against China. My opinions about their government is irrelevant at best, and at worst by joining in the echo chamber of "China Bad!" then I am helping America pave the way for a war it so obviously wants.
If you want to call that support, then I have to ask why supposed "socialists" are joining America in attacking China!
I couldn't care less if tankies "only" refused to condemn China/Russia/DPRK or whatever oppressive regime they think is anti-imperialist – indeed, I wouldn't even describe this group as tankies. The cold-war "tankies" weren't passive or neutral either.
The tankies you see here, even in this thread, actively dehumanize and gaslight people resisting these regimes, and attempt to delegitimize any act of resistance against them, even if indigenous. These are the kind of people who would smear actual leftist activists in Russia, China or Iran as "CIA Agents" in the hope that said regimes continue existing, to take revenge against the US. This worldview espouses that nobody has any agency except the US (and its authoritarian adversaries), because every opponent of these regimes has to be agent of the US.
Refusing to condemn something isn't the same as lending support. Gaslighting people about the Tianamen Massacre, about the treatment of Uighurs, or about creeping authoritarianism in HK is, however, definitely a form of support.
Socialists who oppose the CCP tend to do that for entirely different reasons than the US. Not that there is much socialism to support there. Labour rights and protections under the CCP are inferior to the average European country, with the rampant 996 culture and very few instances of collective labor action, which is seen as undesirable and suppressed by the party.
As the saying goes, you can't be neutral on a moving train.
By refusing to condemn China, I must therefore support it. That's how it works. You can't just be a third positionist about this and say "I oppose everybody with my own special snowflake socialism!"
My country managed to legislate better labor rights and worker protections under milquetoast SocDem governments than whatever the CCP managed to implement in China. So the CCP's brand of "socialism" is not appealing to me.
This is literally the tankie position, so I'm not sure why modern tankies take offense at being labeled so. Even in 1968, socialists & communists disagreed over the squashing of the Prague Spring, but tankies now still demand unconditional loyalty for their anti-US crusade, with little regard for anything else.
Your country extracted super profits from the exploitation of the third world and then redistributed a small portion of that stolen wealth to pacify the workers. Mine did that too and that's nothing to be proud of!
Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, which means the contradictions of US hegemony are the highest contradictions and take precedence!
It doesn't matter if I personally disagree with how China is responding to Muslim extremism or how it responds to protesters or how it is supposedly "developing the means of production" with state capitalism, because China is still an ally in the fight against empire.
When the empire is dead we can deal with the lesser contradictions.
And the CCP wholeheartedly supports that. Companies such as VW even set up a factory in Xinjiang to take advantage of Uyghur slave labour, with full CCP acquiescence. The CCP itself has no issue with exploiting workers, exploiting its own population, or that of the 3rd world either.
I fail to see the advantage of replacing US hegemony with CCP hegemony. Substituting an empire with another is pointless.
For that to be true, one would have to believe in the idea that the CCP is interested in solving the contradictions of capitalism. Is there any evidence that this is the case? At this point, the CCP has abandoned socialism in favour of state capitalism & nationalism. A pivot back to socialism after the end of imperialism is within the realm of historical alt-timeline fiction.
Tankies may think of the CCP as an ally, but that view might not be mutual. Once the empire is dead, their role will end. They are only useful to Stalinist regimes insofar they run interference for them and undermine any democratic opposition. Beyond that, they have no use. Attempting to "deal with lesser contradictions" under these undemocratic revisionist regimes will simply result in purges.
To be clear, nobody will be dealing with any contradiction under the CCP. It's a totalitarian, statist regime which has squashed, and will squash any glimmer of dissent. Bringing up contradictions at any level is likely to result in a futile re-enactment of the cultural revolution, with predictably similar results. There will be one option: To follow the party line to the letter.
I don't believe Chinese hegemony is possible. US hegemony is a historical anomaly created by the very specific circumstances of colonialism, slavery, and then the post-WW2 period that saw all the old empires destroyed.
Once this empire is dead, there won't ever be another. The material conditions won't allow for it.
US hegemony is not a "historical anomaly". It is the logical consequence of the imperial center i.e. the US/UK/Europe winning the geographical lottery. The triangular slave/goods/textile trading scheme in the Atlantic resulted in rapidly developing markets and massive extraction of wealth, ensuring US dominance. These geographical factors have become less important in the 21st century, however.
That is because orthodox Marxist discourse hasn't evolved in any meaningful way since the cold war. It's just people repeating the same platitudes with almost-religious fervor, willfully ignoring newer research.
Not only is Chinese hegemony possible, but trends suggest that it is poised to inherit the role of the imperial center possibly by the end of the century. Ian Morris' "Why the West Rules—For Now" graphs the development of China and the West based on the amount of energy each civilization can capture, and extrapolation suggests that China will overtake the US by no later than 2100, possibly even earlier.
In the very least, that wouldn't have been a regression if China wasn't controlled by the CCP. But as things are currently, Chinese hegemony is synonymous with CCP hegemony. Some people attempt to argue otherwise, but that's just sophistry. The hypercentralized statism of the CCP and its propensity to use all available technological means to coerce will leave little room for reform or discussion.
It can only be an anomaly, because not only did the US/UK/Europe win the geographical lottery (making it an anomaly that can't be repeated) but also the Atlantic slave trade and the rapid expansion into the so-called New World was another anomaly. Then, like I said, the World Wars created another anomaly that saw literally every other empire fall and the US gobble them all up with only the USSR around to challenge them. Then the USSR fell and the US became the sole global hegemon, another anomaly that, combined with intercontinental flight and communication, created the first global empire in history!
China doesn't have the same geographical advantages. China doesn't have the opportunity to steal trillions in wealth from native lands and native peoples. China can't make a new slave trade. China will be forced to compete with other powers, like the declining US and EU as well as regional rivals like India and Russia. China can't recreate US global hegemony, and neither can any other country because all the low-hanging fruit has already been eaten. US hegemony is collapsing because it's an unsustainable form of geopolitics. There's no bonanza of resources to exploit anymore, it's all gone, and now we'll be entering a post-neoliberal world with permanent multipolarity.
Let us not forget that global warming is going to continue to destabilize the entire world with billions forced to migrate. Country after country will collapse into uninhabitable dead zones. China isn't going to build an empire in the ashes left by this particular epoch, no one will and no one can.
This is a new situation and I obviously could be wrong, but unless China figures out cold fusion or asteroid mining or something I don't see them becoming the new global empire. We're at the end of an era and something new is happening.
These geographical advantages aren't as important today as they were at the beginning of industrialization. As for the other things: They're all ethical issues and "international norms" established under US hegemony. The reason the slave trade isn't a thing anymore is because the US/UK-led global empire decided to collectively abolish it in the first place. The same goes for old-fashioned colonialist conquest & plundering, which the old European powers were forced to abandon under US pressure (among other factors).
All the things you're describing are features and consequences of the US global order, so why would anyone expect any of them to remain intact if that global order gives way to something else? The reason almost every single state, even totalitarian ones, adhere to "international norms" on slavery, colonialism, or nuclear weapon usage is because the consequences of breaking these norms would be highly disadvantageous, and would result in punitive action in the current global order. The reason why almost every single state - even the most totalitarian - holds elections (even if "fake" ones) and attempts a facsimile of democracy is because the current global order inherently lends democracies more legitimacy than autocracies.
Assuming the current global order disappears, why wouldn't totalitarianism, slavery, disenfranchisement of women, or even colonialist conquest make a comeback? There would be nothing to enforce the norms against these at that point – and any actor could easily break them with no consequence whatsoever.
External pressure is just as likely to incentivize empire building. Physical domination and control of habitable land at any cost will likely become very important, if not essential, and everyone will get away with it.
They don't need to figure out any of that. They simply need to be able to capture more energy than their adversaries, and that is possible without cold fusion or asteroid mining. The CCP only need maintain its current trajectory of development to be able to overtake the US by the end of the century. Unlike western liberal democracies, a high-tech totalitarian society like CCP-controlled China can expand and maintain stability even in a collapsing environment without being constrained by norms or concepts such as the rule of law.
That's really what you think, huh? They just abolished slavery because they decided to? For what? Because they're so nice? lol
Does the motive matter that much? It was the result of US/European abolitionist movements' success, who ended the practice within their respective empires, and which eventually extended into a global ban. The point is that the practice was banned & ended worldwide.
Reformist movements don't and can't exist under CCP rule period. An anti-exploitation movement in China would be crushed immediately, if it were even allowed to develop at all.
I, for one, fully support the explicitly antifascist politics of the core maintainers
Agreed. There is too much false equivalence of "Tankies" and fascists.
Fascists want to enslave your sisters and daughters and stick your trans friends in psych wards until they "decide" to stop being trans. They're fine with Blacks wallowing in poverty as second-class citizens and having militarized police on every streetcorner.
"Tankies" (Marxist-Leninists) believe in all the same progressive things other (so-called) Socialists do but have different views on historical figures and foreign policy, something that does not matter a bit in the here and now.
Here is the difference between Fascists and "Tankies": if it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that China was trying to exterminate the Ughyr people through mass execution, 95% of the "Tankies" out there, myself included, would disown China and denounce the genocide (this will not happen, because it isn't a genocide except in the broadest and most meaningless of terms). If it was proven beyond a doubt that the Holocaust happened (which it more or less has), the majority of Neo-Nazis would still say it was good.
Saying you'd denounce a genocide you deny is happening isn't accomplishing what you think it is.
People don't equate "tankies" with "fascists" because you advocate some sort of marxist-inspired system of governance... it's because denying the suffering of others when it's politically convenient is absolutely the opening strategy of the fascist playbook.
Also, "Disown China"??? Nothing wrong with liking other countries but the way you guys talk about them is off putting and doesn't come across as informed or even remotely unbiased.
Being "unbiased" is not a virtue. I am a Marxist. I judge people, governments, and ideas based off of a Marxist framework. That is my bias.
I give China the benefit of the doubt because they are, at least, claiming to be a Marxist state. This on its own puts them above any non-Marxist state.
Isn't claiming to be a Marxist state while still maintaining power within a small group of people (the inner party, a political version of the bourgeois) worse? By effectively being the same power structure, it allows critics to dismiss Marxist ideals as the same or worse. China is a particularly bad case as they disallow proper freedom of speech, basically castrating the proletariat. This harms perception of Marxism, hurting your case in arguing for it
The Chinese system isn't perfect but I think questions like these put the cart before the horse. Is the Chinese system set up in such a way that, if bad actors got their way to the top, they would wield an immense amount of power? Yes, definitely. This question is separate from whether or not the people at the top right now are bad actors. And I think, like in any country, it's a mixed bag; there are oligarchs and business-industry plants and corrupt officials, but there's also well-meaning bureaucrats (Xi Jinping broadly fits into this category) and ideologically-driven Marxists.
The idea that Xi Jinping is a power-hungry dictator is an overblown trope. He is a fat, old, boring bureaucrat who got into office because he is an agreeable political moderate; a compromise between the ideological Marxist wing of the party and the pro-business Dengist wing.
As we saw in the Soviet Union, unrestricted Freedom of Speech is the downfall of Marxism. Home-grown Liberals are only the first issue; the United States government spends literally billions of dollars propping up anti-government organizations, whether that's Uyghur terrorist groups, the Falun Gong, Tibetan Independence movements, or "LGBTQ+ Rights" organizations who always seem to spend more time arguing for political liberalization than they do actual LGBTQ+ Rights (and, before you strawman me, I want to make my point here clear: LGBTQ+ Rights are good, but many such organizations in China are funded by foreign actors in order to disrupt Chinese politics. The bad things about them are not their LGBTQ+ Rights advocacy, but their advocacy for other forms of Liberalization that undermine Communism in China. If an LGBTQ+ Rights organization in China calls for the downfall of the CPC, they do not deserve to exist)
I think some of the foundations of your arguments are shaky at best.
Xi is a bad actor. He actively removes opponents, like his predecessor, Hu Jintao, who sat right fucking next to him and was publicly removed. Under Xi, China is asserting ownership of international waters in the South China Sea that have historically been either international waters or even owned by smaller nations. Under Xi, the Uyghers' and Mongolians' culture is actively being erased by outlawing local religious and cultural customs. I fail to see how any of these active are "agreeable" or "moderate". Going back to the Marxist theme, Uyghers and Mongolians are of the working class, too. Why should they be persecuted?
Free speech is the downfall of Marxism??? What? Seriously? The Soviet Union didn't fall because people were complaining. It fell because their systems weren't economically viable. While many of the domestic programs of the Soviet Union were excellent, the cost due to size versus productive population was prohibitive. Most of the USSR's land wasn't economically viable, but they held things together through totalitarianism, which again, isn't really empowering the workers. Once they let up on the totalitarianism, the cracks started to show. Maybe if the USSR was smaller and had managed their bureaucracy better, they could have succeeded, but that wasn't the case. It had nothing to do with freedom of speech. And if the workers can't voice their needs and desires, that's depriving workers of power, which is the opposite of Marxism. I don't think there has been a properly Marxist state.
I don't know where you're getting your information and history from or what your path is for your reasoning, but it really doesn't make sense to me
This is a bad conspiracy theory. Hu Jintao was allowed to sit at the table because he is an important historical figure. He's in his 80s and has Alzheimer's. He was having an episode at the table and was escorted out. The idea that he was publicly removed from building and disappeared is tabloid-level misinformation.
Nations fight over territorial waters all the time, whether it's Turkey or Kenya or China. There are EEZ disputes in the North Sea between Norway, Denmark, Iceland, and the UK. Why should I care whether China or the Philippines own the Spratly Islands? What does it have to do with China being Marxist or not? I really don't understand why you even brought it up.
Neither their local religion nor cultural customs are being infringed upon. If anything, the re-education programs in Xinjiang seek to remove recent (90s-now) religious influence from Arabian missionaries, who have spread Modernist interpretations of Islam that are what is endangering local Traditionalist Islam in Xinjiang.
The one thing I would actually agree is an issue is language - the biggest sticking point in Mongolia is that recently public schools have been mandated to teach in Mandarin. However, nothing is being done to prevent locals from speaking Mongolian at home; the goal is just to guarantee that all people in China are fluent in Chinese, while a Mongolian-language school system means some amount of people are just never learning Chinese. Cultural assimilation isn't even really the goal; not knowing Chinese is correlated with worse career prospects for indigenous people in China.
And of course, most countries in the world, including the U.S., mandate that public schools teach in the official language. This is nothing new nor unique to China.
There is a similar problem in Tibet, where in addition to the above issues, boarding schools are being mandated for rural children because it's less expensive to have a large, centrally located boarding school in low-density areas than managing a public school in every remote Tibetan village (China recently outlawed private schools, which I think is a big plus for equality of opportunity).
Sorry, but you are exactly the kind of person everyone is talking about being awful.
I dare you, go to Taipei, Taichung, Kaohsiung, where there are much - vastly - greater lgbt rights, freedom of press, freedom of speech, freedom to protest, uncensored internet and media, etc, than in China, and tell anyone passing by this Xi bootlick spiel. Ask them if they're happy to see how Hong Kong has been treated.
He is far from harmless. He's an imperialist who, in his own words several times wants to use military force to impose his flag on millions of unwilling people who already have their own democracy.