this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2023
621 points (86.7% liked)

Showerthoughts

29325 readers
3 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The best ones are thoughts that many people can relate to and they find something funny or interesting in regular stuff.

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I can't really think of a reason for that as Reddit is hated somewhat equally by "both" sides of the spectrum. It's just something I find interesting.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I see just as much if not more complaining about “tankies” as on subs like subredditdrama, it’s not that leftist

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I literally saw a guy earlier today in that one large memes thread trying to convince people that Eastern European countries yearn for the USSR days.

Only tankies try to do that lol.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

A lot of people there do yearn for the return of the USSR. You can argue about why, but the polling is quite clear that many people miss socialism

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Where can I see that polling?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

So really not a lot of people, mostly Russians and countries that have strong ties to Russia.

That's what the first source says and as someone already pointed to a more recent polling showing that it's no longer the case for eastern European countries.

Hungary source is an old article and the same recent polling shows otherwise.

Romania source link doesn't even work.

Eastern Germany is a pretty complex and nuanced topic, one that I won't get into so I'll give that one the benefit of the doubt that they actually want soviet socialism back.

Czech source link also doesn't work.

Serbia source literally has the article saying "the Serbian citizens primarily refer to better economic situation and standard of living, but the majority of them would not go back to that period."

And then there's the Russian part, which is completely understandable considering the USSR was just a form of Russian imperialism.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Russians are dying to get the old gang back together, that's for certain.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I literally saw a guy

I'm not a guy. Hi though.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Depends on the day of the week to be honest. I'm a socdem some days, I'm a demsoc other days, and I'm a revolutionary on others. Right now I'm mainly calling myself a trade unionist, but I won't tell you which union I organise for 😘😘😘

Enjoy the strikes though.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (17 children)

Tankies are a tiny subset of extreme far leftists which even far leftists have a right to despise, though.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (6 children)

if they truly are a "tiny subset" then why even spend the time to complain about them?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Because they're very vocal online, are annoying, and also give actual leftists bad rep. If you're promoting egalitarianism and distributing social power among everyone, you wouldn't like people who support authoritarism to share a label with you.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

every state in the world is authortarian

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are you saying this as a retort to me indirectly calling tankies authoritarians? If so, that's pretty rich.

The Soviet Union suppressed people who used Marxist analysis to argue that the higher echelons of the party aparatus had constituted itself as a separate, dominant class that held the ultimate political power, which resulted in a tendency to exert that power undisputed and continued accumulation of privileges. Once enough time had passed, some of the people leading that aparatus decided they wanted an even larger share of the cake, so they decided to drop the pretense, drop the nominal communism and embrace privatisation. When working people tried to oppose that process, the authoritarian state used its repressive forces to protect the ruling class. What is most interesting about this is that you can see similar processes in almost every single country that followed the leninist vanguardist model, ultimately losing any political equality that was initially sought in its revolution, and any self-respecting Marxist should have taken the hint that this makes Leninism and its godchildren a failed avenue for socialism.

To connect this with your not too hidden assertion that "since every state is authoritarian, me supporting authoritarian states is ok": any state and society is going to decide the margins outside of which behavior and politics are not acceptable, but that is absolutely no excuse to give free reign to any government to become as authoritarian as they aim to no matter the cost. When we do that, we come across disgusting situations such as the difficulties for working class Chinese people being unable to self-organize and protect their rights if the local party strongman arbitrarily decides they're too much trouble. Any kind of emancipatory project soon turns crippled under those circumstances, which you could have easily noticed if you weren't drown in liturgy.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

https://redsails.org/western-marxism-and-christianity/

ML states are the only successful socialist states in history to hold out for a significant amount of time against the United States empire. I'm not super attached to the vanguard model myself, but can you show me a single other successful model? I think this quote is quite relevant here:

"This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask: “Who was right?”

In Guatemala, was it Árbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?

>Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead. They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit’s unarmed party didn’t survive. Allende’s democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the détente between the Soviets and Washington.
>Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence of a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported -- what the rich countries said, rather than what they did.
>That group was annihilated." - Vincent Bevins, The Jakarta Method
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Authoritarianism under the banner of socialism isn’t success. It’s just a different kind of failure.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can you define what you mean by "authoritarian" in a way that doesn't include actions the US does ? What is authority in your mind?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why would I do that when I think the US is authoritarian, too?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Alright but like, which states aren't then?

Like, if none of them aren't which I assume is your take (I was an anarchist myself until the climate crisis started hitting hard so I have some sympathy for anti statism myself) and you can see that socialist states provide a better quality of life than capitalist states when compared at an equal level of development, surely you can admit that one is a lesser evil than the other? But that's not what the people shouting about "authoritarian states" functionally do with their rhetoric, functionally they defend capitalist states and uphold the status quo by forming part of the opposition to the end of capitalist states and the formation of socialist ones.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

None, afaik. We need to do better. I don’t oppose ending capitalist states and forming socialist ones. I oppose violations of human rights by both corporations and governments. If we can’t set the bar above “marginally better for most people than late stage capitalism, but we’ll disappear you if you speak out against us,” we’ve already lost.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What exactly do you think happens to people that actually threaten capitalism?

The issue isn't "speaking out" about problems. The issue is people attempting to overthrow the socialist system. Capitalism disappears and murders those of us that attempt to overthrow it just the same. You're allowed to speak about problems so long as you are not actively trying to overthrow governments while doing so (and being effective at it). If you're effective you end up like everyone in The Jakarta Method, like Allende, or like Assange. The US operates hundreds of blacksites all over the world and yet people pretend that people aren't disappeared for being a threat to it. The lack of self awareness is perplexing.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m not saying the US doesn’t disappear people. It absolutely does. The threshold’s just usually a bit higher than in, say, China. China’s better at meeting basic needs for people at the bottom, and the US will usually only throw you in a black site if you actually foment revolution, rather than simply criticizing the government. It’s amazing how many people assume you have to pick an existing model to root for here. I repeat, I think everyone are bastards, and that we can and must do better.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I think you've really got a warped perspective on this. China has more protests than every other nation. And they don't just disappear people for criticism. That is reserved for those actively fomenting revolution just as you say it does in the west. This site is obviously intended to be anti-China propaganda but I have a quite different take on it, what you're seeing in this data is actually the real quantity of protests that China perfectly allows. In the last 12 months 1196 protests have occurred and I assure you the hundreds of thousands of protesters involved in those events aren't "disappeared". It would be utterly absurd. In just a few years you'd have nobody fucking left in the country. So this data is, in my opinion, useful to demonstrate the quantity of allowed demonstration rather than the quantity that is prevented. It's shit like the hong kong attempt at literally overthrowing the government with shady western support that get real murky.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Is it better to be too “authoritarian” and protect your revolution, or just let reactionary states destroy your newly formed socialist state, carve up the remains and enjoy the spoils while people suffer?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Good to know you hate working class people

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

The compulsion that you feel to distance yourself from past proletarian movements so that your attackers won't associate you with the supposed atrocities of those movements only functions to move you further and further right. It doesn't work because the attackers will do it regardless of how much you moderate yourself. This instinct leads you to not only distance yourself from their own goals, and to condemn your own movement, but to uphold reactionary lies about our movements, sometimes even outdoing those lies by exaggerating them, in order to further emphasize the attempt to distance. It doesn't matter how much we try to twist and turn and distance ourselves from atrocity propaganda, rubbish will be heaped upon the graves of working class leaders.

Functionally all this compulsion does is move you rightwards. You are attempting to make yourself more appealing to the right because you think that doing so will magically make people on the right suddenly like socialist politics. In the meantime they will attack you with every single piece of propaganda regardless, and you will moderate yourself even more. This deradicalises the movement and blunts the radical edge it requires to get things done.

It's exactly the same compulsion that liberals have that has caused them to move further and further right over the decades. Every time they get called a communist by the republicans they desperately try to move rightwards in order to get it to stop happening, it will never stop happening though because it is not said in good faith, and the tactic of accusing them of it works well in moving them right.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)