this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2024
103 points (99.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43946 readers
676 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
King was largely reviled in his time. The almost universally loved King of today is a sanitized, defanged, ahistorical version. Mandela is another example, but there are many.
V. I. Lenin, The State and Revolution:
I was hoping you would expound on the King bits about being sanitized.
It’s been done by those more knowledgeable than me.
I dunno know what the Marx quite has to do with King. Very different kinds of revolution, the main one being non violent.
Furthermore is kind of tragic what happened with Lenin's legacy, his thought being blunted similarly into stalinist autocracy.
MLK Jr.'s march was more violent than the BLM protests were, and MLK Jr. was the moderate option compared to the Black Panthers and Malcolm X. MLK Jr.'s radicalism is intentionally blunted and obscured.
It was more Kruschev onward where the Soviet system started to meaningfully diverge from Lenin.
Lemmitors would've called King a tankie
Quit trying to pretend "tankie" means "communist" and not "authoritarian bootlicker." MLK wasn't even slightly a "tankie" regardless of how leftist his views were.
As soon as Liberals stop using it to mean Communist.
Tankie was originally a Trotskyist term for the people that supported tolling tanks into Hungary in the 50s.
Of course, the term "authoritarian bootlicker" is a funny one, as its purveyors have a habit of recycling and promulgating the propaganda pushes of the US State Department and opposition to that tendency is often what gets one labelled a tankie. Like when MLK spoke positively of Castro's revolution or a Vietnam united under Ho Chi Minh rather than targeted for bombing by the US. Though I am being generous: so many people using the term are so politically illiterate that they apply it to basically anything vaguely left that they disagree with.
I think you'd be calling him a tankie.
You're correct about the definition of "tankie," but you're taking MLK way the Hell out of context to falsely accuse him of being one.