Capitalists are also more than willing to kill innocent people to further their goals. Their goals are profit, though. Defending them in this context just makes it look like your advocating for profitable murder.
this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2025
90 points (100.0% liked)
MeanwhileOnGrad
1890 readers
32 users here now
"Oh, this is calamity! Calamity! Oh no, he's on the floor!"
Welcome to MoG!
Meanwhile On Grad
Documenting hate speech, conspiracy theories, apologia/revisionism, and general tankie behaviour across the fediverse. Memes are welcome!
What is a Tankie?
Alternatively, a detailed blog post about Tankies.
(caution of biased source)
Basic Rules:
Sh.itjust.works Instance rules apply! If you are from other instances, please be mindful of the rules. — Basically, don't be a dick.
Hate-Speech — You should be familiar with this one already; practically all instances have the same rules on hate speech.
Apologia — (Using the Modern terminology for Apologia) No Defending, Denying, Justifying, Bolstering, or Differentiating authoritarian acts or endeavours, whether be a Pro-CCP viewpoint, Stalinism, Islamic Terrorism or any variation of Tankie Ideology.
Revisionism — No downplaying or denying atrocities past and present. Calling Tankies shills, foreign/federal agents, or bots also falls under this rule. Extremists exist. They are real. Do not call them shills or fake users as it handwaves their extremism.
Tankies can explain their views but may be criticised or attacked for them. Any slight infraction on the rules above will immediately earn a warning and possibly a ban.
Off-topic Discussion — Do not discuss unrelated topics to the point of derailing the thread. Stay focused on the direct content of the post as opposed to arguing.
You'll be warned if you're violating the instance and community rules. Continuing poor behaviour after being warned will result in a ban or removal of your comments. Bans typically only last 24 hours, but each subsequent infraction will double the amount. Depending on the content, the ban time may be increased. You may request an unban at any time.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Because humans can totally exist in perfect harmony under anything but capitalism. Pack it up fellas, this one's solved inherent evil in human nature!
No one genuine ever said it was perfect. Just better.
Even removing capitalism in society, communism still killed people for reasons outside of capitalism versus communism. Plenty of prisons and labour camps in various communist countries can attest to that. Tankies are willing to kill just to impose their will. Having "better society" as excuse has nothing to do with, they just want power.
You're right. There are definitely unsavory actors acting under the banner of communism, whom in an ideal world would be dealt with. Historically, many of thrm have been capitalists trying to secure an increase in profit, however. I'm NOT a tankie, I'm an anarchist, in fact. However, all one has to do is look at history (real history, not propoganda. Actual numbers.) To see that communism's infamous death toll is actually much, much lower than capitalism's even when adjusted for whatever factor you can think of. For an accurate, well-researched piece with plenty of nuance and primary sources that deals with this matter explicitly, I reccomend the book 'Blackshirts and Reds'. It's a fascinating breakdown of how capitalist propoganda has deeply distorted our view of history, especially when it comes to both fascism and communism.
Not to defend capitalism (I would be more in favour of anarchism provided that certain conditions have to be met first), but I would say that communism only killed less because it is a newer ideology. It is only 150 years old, give or take, with it's practical existence lasting for 76 years. If we are considering mercantilism as capitalism (both are still looking for maximising profits), then in over 300-400 hundred years it's logical to say that capitalism killed more, by virtue of how long profit seeking has been part of human economic policies.
And since we are talking about economic policies, barring the death camps, practically speaking, if communism went for as long as capitalism has, it could catch up with the number on death tolls, considering that communist centralisation of agriculture and ignoring experts caused similarly human-induced famines. A lot of people kinda forgot about Lysenko and his deliberate sidelining of knowledge and experience of farmers and scientists, causing poor harvest and many people starving to death. And I probably don't need to remind everyone what Mao's war on sparrows caused on China's agriculture. Moreover, even after Stalin's death and Lysenko out of the picture, USSR-- and many Soviet satellite states-- have been on ration for many years. USSR struggled to up the agricultural production in spite of being a vast country with abundant fertile lands.
Those are both issues caused by issues that capitalism is subject to as well! Authoritarianism, stupidity and ignorance... Sadly, any working society must be capable of managing these issues. Statistically speaking, as far as the sources I've seen have showed me, capitalism tends to cause more death and suffering than communism. One needs only compare the state of Soviet countires before, after, and during the USSR to see that quite plainly represented.
I’m an anarchist
Imma stop you right there ........
If the very word 'anarchism' is outaide your comfort zone, then yes I suppose I won't be able to be very productive for you.
If you do find yourself curious though, I'm always happy to talk politics, and always open to seriously considering and empathizing with other points of view from my own! Even capitalism 😆
If I had a dollar for every time I heard an anarchist cry for the police when things go south I'd have enough to buy a few books on how to avoid anarchy. I've seen and read enough. Thank you for offering.
The use of public facilities does not preclude critique of them. That's the same argument as 'capitalism made your iPhone'.
One can both believe that the police should be defunded, and be left with them as the only viable solution to resolve a conflict. The fact that anarchists must sometimes rely on the police, I assure you, is not pleasant for anyone involved 🤣
Except maybe those who profit from police activity somehow 🤷♀️
The foundation of anarchy is specifically based on the absence of authority. It would be unpleasant for everyone involved, but if, by your statement, an anarchist will have to swallow their pride to resolve a conflict with an authoritative entity, then they should perhaps think of another belief that will accept some level of authority. It may even be possible to come up with a whole new societal belief system. It is true that capitalism may not be credited with the direct creation of the iPhone, but it did foster an environment for competition to develop other products you have most likely used in your lifetime. These particular products did influence a culture in a more positive direction. For example, Nintendo's Gameboy. That's not to say I am gauging the success of a society by materialistic gains, but again, why not take the best of all worlds and make something new. Bonus points if you can solve for greed in a realistic manner and not in a vacuum.
You are mistaken from the first sentence! The purpose of anarchy is to dismantle unjust heirarchies, NOT to remove the existence of authority. It's a common mistake, and one I used to make myself.
I don't think anyone would disagree that capitalism's competitive drive has in ways benefitted humanity, amd I'm grateful for those benefits. It'd be foolish to discard them. Howver, all one needs to do to see how it's harming us more than helping, is to look at the weather.
'Just make a new system' is actually the point of most communist/socialist movements. Because the world is so defined by capitalism, communism right now basically just means 'everything else', but if you look at the history of communism in the world (which is as fascinating as it is heartbreaking) you can see that there is a huge variety in beliefs of how it should be instituted! Socialists, anarchists, tankies, environmentalists (yes, ecology is intend3d as that alternative system you suggest) all have to act as more or less the same movement because of the overwhelming success of capitalist propoganda
Alright well, it's in the definition. I just can't get onboard with those groups you just listed because I have not seen a practical application that didn't end well for anarchists, communists, especially tankies, and environmentalists. Socialists as in what you see in places like Canada seems to work for them and that's about as close as I would get to a new movement. This is primarily because each system does not scale very well with the size of the population. It all falls apart when you rely on a human to do the right thing and ultimately ends in gate keeping fueled by greed. Capitalism, which has its fatal flaw, has lasted so long because the idea that every person can jump in on a level playing feel is much more appealing to the greedy side of human nature. The "earn your own way and don't rely on anyone" has been ingrained in countless cultures.
What you see today is capitalism run completely out of control. Again, if you trusted all humans to do the right thing in a capitalist system, they would reinvest all of their profits back into the company and share it amongst the employees of the organization in the form of livable wages to include disposable income, bonuses, or stocks, so they too can live comfortably by buying their own food, shelter, and water. In turn organizations profit off the people as they use goods and services and continue to reinvest for improvement and not focus strictly on share holders. Leisure time can also be factored in and you have a productive society.
This is called ethical capitalism. Think of it as the ideal counterpart to any of the ideal systems you stated. You see none of that today and the money is horded by the greediest person at the top of every organization. These billionaires only aim to please shareholders who also horde money by taking profits out of the organization and distributing it into their own personal wealth. The 1% of the population are too busy trying to be the richest person and killing everyone doing it. Oligopolies are the fatal flaw of capitalism, but then again greed is the fatal flaw of every system. Hence, my original comment of figuring out how to solve for the inherent evil nature of humans.
Yeah that's way over simplifying it, but that's the way I see it. Mitigate or eliminate greed and you'll make any of those systems work as intended.
If capitalism truly was a level playing field, free of inheritance and prejudice... I would certainly agree with you. But it too, is imperfect. I would encourage you to compare, sometime, the results of a country being permitted to attempt communism. Modern day Vietnam is a lovely place, for example.
Regardless! The fact that you seek socialism makes us Comrades, because I do too. I'm actually a pacifist! While I have pretty radical beliefs, I have peaceful hopes for achieving them. Which means a road back through democracy, into social democracy, and hopefully one day direct democracy. We both want the same thing, less greed. I'm happy to fight (metaphorically) side-by-side with anyone who has that same goal.
'How can we convince people to move away from a capitalist society?'
'by murdering them ofc'
I am convinced that many of them are not into communism, they just want power.
They're looking for simple answers to complex questions. Capitalism being bad is obvious, but they then make the simple jump to say the opposite of capitalism must be good. Anyone who disagrees is simply subject of "western propaganda" or just racist and they can discard any counter point.
Humanity desperately needs to move away from capitalism, if it wants any chance of survival. Either that or we install a Universal base income system.
were never getting the trek version , which is when they shed capitalism in the future after the 3rd ww(and only use it on a case by case base for many other races that still uses it)
They also had replicator technology.... kind of the main ingredient there.
true, also tech from other species that made it possible.
I agree. I am actually becoming more inclined towards socialism sans the totalitarianism. We might have a chance once we start taxing AI and robots. After all, our data are stolen to train AI. We should get more tangible benefits from it.
Socialism nor communism are supposed to have any amount of totalitarianism... The people who think they do are ignorant fools listening to the capitalist propaganda.
The countries that call themselves socialist or communist are distinctly NOT in most cases. They're just the same old asshole ruling class userping the language of socialism/communism to trick dumb people in to maintaining support.
Kind of like how the US calls itself "the land of the free" despite being built on slavery and ethnic cleansing of natives, now with the highest prison population in the world...
If some country is calling themselves something... ALWAYS press X to doubt.
Socialism nor communism are supposed to have any amount of totalitarianism...
Any organisations need some level of authority to maintain order. But if we are talking about totalitarianism which means controlling every aspects of individual lives including who to marry, how many kids to have, how should you plant crops, what to think, what to say etc., then that it is a problem that shouldn't be tolerated.
Eh... debatable on "authority" being the required attribute. Responsibility is certainly a better word for what an ideal society would look like for many informed anarchists, as far as what many people think of as "authority" now.
Also, "authority" does not have to be something that is given without guard rails or time limits. The authority to arrest and imprison people can exist in a society without full time police, for example. No single person needs to be granted authority as a de facto thing.
I would be much more in favour of anarchism, but I think there needs to be a global wide cultural shift first to happen. Counterparts on the other side of the planet has to be on the same page first before anarchism would take root. But realistically, at the moment, there are far too many diverse expectations and values to allow mutual understanding. Talk to a Somali, Egyptian, Bolivian or Korean about anarchism and you would probably get a confused eyebrow raised on what it means, or even hostile response. I think the lines of communications and technology have to dramatically transform first, to allow organic cultural exchanges and mutual development towards anarchism.
Yea, far, FAR too many morons believe in the "virtues" of a "strong man" leader for actual anarchism to work in current day, sadly...
Y'all both sound like children.
"Going high when they go low" isn't a sound strategy when someone threatens to kill. This underestimation and softness is what leads to the authoritarianism on either side. Nothing wrong with dipping one's hand into the mud once in a while without fully bathing one's self into the mud. Even Slavoj Zizek advocated for having a "soft dictator" like Franklin Roosevelt to counter extremism.
OMG no one cares!
Slavoj Zizek also advocated for voting for Donald Trump in 2016 and says that "transgenderism is incompatible with Freud", so his advocacy doesn't count for much AFAIAC.
Wasn't Freud massively debunked?
Well, Freud was the first to say (or at least the first to popularise) ideas that - in retrospect - should be obvious, like that human behaviour is motivated by unconscious drives, or that past trauma influences your current behaviour. However most of his theories about how the unconscious works were basically unfalsifiable and based on nothing more that his own interpretation of what he's noticed about his own patients (though to be fair, I think that's mostly the case for most of psychology). I think a lot of the early psychology of Freud, Adler, and Jung is quite enmeshed with the philosophy of Nietzsche (who said some truly wild about human nature without providing a single source) and remains more popular than it should be for that reason.
I don't know about his comment on transgenderism, but Slavoj advocating to vote Trump is more about shaking up the liberal status quo to wake them up and actually do a better job, rather than him supporting Trump, and also to do away with Democrat Party's mantra of "vote blue no matter" and their proud label of "lesser evil". Come Trump 2.0, his reasoning proved to be prescient and correct. The Democrat leadership are fighting harder to stop the progressive Zohran Mamdani taking power as New York Democrat mayor, than actually stopping the Republican fascist agenda. As we speak, the Democrat betting on the "voting blue no matter who" is starting to crumble from the POV of voters as outsider progressives are slowly gaining ground.
I don't think his reasoning was prescient and correct, though.
If Trump wins, both big parties, Republicans and Democratics, would have to return to basics, rethink themselves, and maybe some things can happen there. That's my desperate, very desperate hope, that if Trump wins—listen, America is not a dictatorial state, he will not introduce Fascism—but it will be a kind of big awakening. New political processes will be set in motion, will be triggered.
he will not introduce Fascism
Neither party rethought anything (your point about Mamdani shows just how little the Dems have rethought) and now the US is rounding people up to put them in camps.
And re. the transgenderism/Freud comment, I think it mostly serves to show that he puts way more stock in Freud than he should, because Freudian psychology is largely a load of wank.
(Yes, the use of a sexually based pejorative to disparage Freud was deliberate. Please appreciate my clever joke.)
To be honest, a lot of people including me did not expect Trump to go full fascist. His first term was described as fascist-lite at best and many wrongly thought he will continue with that approach. Of course, we were wrong and paying for it dearly.
Going back to the main point of the discussion. Zizek may have been wrong about Trump's fascism, but his point overall about shaking up the status quo is correct. It is wake up call for implementing actual reform and reflection. Practically it did not happen in the way that Zizek and others may have anticipated, but it is still clear that the sign of times is meant for engaging practical and reform solutions towards betterment of ordinary folks. If you talk to many conservatives and on the right, many of them actually agree that wealth inequality is a problem and don't believe in trickle down economics. Many on the right are actually willing to vote left if the left offers tangible solutionsbto bread and butter, or kitchen table issues. As we speak, Zohran Mamdani is getting popular support for his common sense policies. AOC and Bernie Sanders are continually drawing record crowds in their national tour even in Republican states.
This is a sign that what Zizek mentions about shaking things up by electing outsiders to prompt soul searching is working among ordinary voters, even if both Democratic and Republican party elites are not doing so because why would they.
Is it actually prompting any soul searching, though? To be sure, those who were already inclined toward supporting The Squad™ are now getting more vocal about it, but we're also seeing a huge amount of people actively cheering the government on for rounding people up and putting them into cages and sending people to prison camps without due process. (I can't find the source, I'm sorry, but) I saw something recently that said well above 60% of USians support government policies that help the poor, but that drops to about 30% if you call the same policies "welfare". [Edit: found the source here.]
I think Zizek's qualified support for Trump's first term was a gamble that the US would then look at the consequences and then resolve to have to grow up and start taking politics more seriously. And I think that gamble was silly, both because of how the US currently is, and because of how often that hasn't worked in the past 100 years. And that, amongst other reasons, is why I generally take what Zizek has to say with a pinch of salt.
A lot of people not just Zizek recognise that voters want to do away with neoliberalism. Zizek though was hoping that encouraging Trump to take office will make Americans mobilise and be more politically active for grassroots change, which Americans used to be good at. We are kinda seeing it now with No Kings protest and Mamdani getting Democratic primary. But on the one hand, I do admit that Zizek's European background probably influences his narrative, because much of Europe has proportional representative government and ranked choice voting. He is kinda speaking from a high horse since his country could afford voting for third parties without practical repercussions.
Nonetheless, it doesn't really matter if America has PR and ranked choice voting, Zizek's point is to make Americans take more grassroots approach which they used to be good at doing. Over one hundred years ago, third parties do get substantial votes and get into house of representatives to influence the government, because people were more politically active and engaged. Reining in monopolies during the Gilded Age was successful because of people banding together and supporting candidates who support them.
Screaming out loud that it's ingroup / outgroup tribalism.