tankies aren’t “further left than me” they’re “more authoritarian than me”
“further left than me” are idealist utopian communists and “more libertarian than me” are idealist utopian anarchists
Yep. Authoritarianism does not lie leftward, it is not a leftist principle.
nobody can agree what “left” means
That is nonsense.
The left was coined by its opposition to the monarchy while the right supported it.
So left has been currently and historically speaking in opposition of hierarchies and in favor of equality.
The right consequently has been in favor of hierarchies.
Okay, but just grounding it in historical context doesn’t make it the definition. If Mamdani established Mamdanistan and abused courts to execute people polluting ground water with data centers, that would be hierarchical, but very clearly not “right wing” in the common understanding.
Opposing hierarchies is generally fitting, but the minutia of politics make such simple definitions harder to agree on by everyone, which touches on their point.
Weird example but ok.
And no, it is not only historical. I stated that in my original comment and I invite you to look at left wing politics but some “left wing” politician’s position on some random issue, but a widely supported position by the left wing community. You will see that they are all in opposition of hierarchy.
But let’s take your weirdly racist example, where is the hierarchy?
Sorry my bad, I thought jokes about Mamdanistan were more common internet parlance, the point is a radical leftwing state in the minds of fox news viewers. I was doing the limiting case to prove the point, but the base point is prosecution of criminal environmental acts through courts requires hierarchy.
I guess I have to ask what you mean by hierarchy if you don’t believe that courts executing people counts.
I think it’s weird that you think it’s “weirdly racist”. Weirdo
it means a very scary mountain
the point of the meme is to be wrong…
libertarians are not anarchists
Anarchists are a genre of libertarians though. It’s just that who dominates the landscape of “libertarian” is ancaps, who are just fascists with a weirder set of steps to implement a fascist nightmare.
Anarchists and Libertarian used to be synonymous, since Libertarian was a way to talk about Anarchism without being persecuted. Later in the US Proprietarians coopted the term Libertarian, and later even Anarchism by claiming to be ‘Anarcho-Capitalists’.
@ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net always out here saying what i’m trying to say, but better
Yeah, exactly. This graphic is really bad. I guess it’s supposed to be incorrect, but it sends a bad message.
Also, the only people calling anyone “shitlibs” are literal tankies. Sane leftists don’t call anyone “shitlib.”
Any leftist to the right of my on the spectrum is probably considered center-left. I prefer democratic socialism and/or social democracy, using incremental progress to achieve leftist reform.
People are allowed to have different opinions than me. That’s what democracy is. But no one can be allowed to be authoritarian in a democracy, because authoritarianism is incompatible with democracy and a danger to it.
Authoritarians don’t respect diversity of opinion, they don’t tolerate differences. So I’m so tired of authoritarian-minded people whining and calling me intolerant just because I shut them down when they’re trying to dominate others.
Imagining yourselves as everyone’s parents… Literal unironic paternalism.
Having a .ml as one’s actual parent sounds like a nightmare though. Absolutely a sure fire way to create an anarcho-capitalist or some shit in the natural backlash.
Just because I recognize that you are the intellectual equivalent of a toddler doesn’t mean I accept the responsibility of raising you
So you think you and those that agree with you should have power over people but have no responsibility to them?
I legitimately don’t care if you think I’m stupid I know what you think is smart.
I think that you specifically are too stupid for your own health and safety and that someone competent and trustworthy absolutely should have power over you until that changes, ideally multiple someones with a robust system of public oversight. I said I do not accept responsibility for you, just because I recognize the need for competent leadership doesn’t mean I’m willing or able to lead.
>democracy
look inside
>attachment to particular institutions, policies and practices
How is Utopian communist further left? A non-realizable ideology isn’t left, left is one which actually has political power and is based on material reality, because it’s the one which ends up achieving results.
the farthest extremes on either side are unrealistic and deluded. just because you like one side doesn’t mean they dont get crazy when you go far enough. it’s VERY important not to lose site of that.
yes a communist utopia is unachievable. yes there are people who are actively pursuing that impossible goal. that does not make them unleft.
Being in the middle does not make a stance correct. Saying “slavery is good” and someone saying “slavery is bad” does not make “some slavery is good” the correct position.
Secondly, utopianism is what they are referring to, the practice of theorycrafting a perfect idea and trying to create that by explaining that perfect idea to everyone. Communism has been scientific since Marx, however those who still cling to utopianism over scientific communism do exist to this day. They are typically called “ultraleft,” but not because they are “more left,” but because they place ideals over material reality. That’s why the question exists, can they truly be called “more left” if their strategy is impossible to begin with?
i didn’t say you should be centerist lmao. i said that extremism is real and something to watch yourself on. I’m very far left, that why I’m on this forum you goof. that doesn’t mean leftist extremism isn’t real.
when i said father i meant in pursuing a specific goal or idea. not “father left”.left vs right is just defined by vague political goals and ideas. to say anything is more or less of that is impossible because the scale is undefined. that’s not what matters, the point is that if you don’t police your own beliefs you are likely to fall down dangerous rabbit holes.
My point is that “extremism” doesn’t really mean anything, except that it diverges from the median political opinion. Communism is correct and viable, despite being “extreme” in the eyes of the mainstream westerner.
Accurate
Forgive my ignorance, what is a tankie?
Someone who sees through cold-war anticommunist propaganda and defends the anti-imperialist and massively progressive Actually Existing Socialist states (USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam…) instead of belonging to the “compatible left” that doesn’t actually have a history of successful struggle against capitalism and imperialism.
People will be called tankies for defending the socialist figures and projects which get vilified in western discourse precisely because of their success against capitalism and fascism (Fidel, Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh), whereas anticommunists will only praise historical figures and projects who failed (Allende, Rojavas, Spanish anarchists) because their metric is not actual improvements to quality of life of people but ideological purity.
Tankie started out as a pejorative word against communists with the attempt to associate them with militarism. Notice how other leftists don’t call liberals “dronies” for supporting Obama despite the drone attacks on civilians in the middle east, don’t call fascists or Nazis “campies” despite the extensive usage of concentration camps, and don’t call capitalists “colonies” despite the widespread colonialism, such violent terms are only reserved to socialists. I consider myself a communist and I reclaim the label “tankie”, since it was actually Soviet tanks (T-34s mainly) which destroyed Nazism and saved hundreds of millions of lives in Europe from extermination.
oh god, it’s like reading parenti
make it stop
Block me already, Mussolini enjoyer
I will never understand anarchists, if I can read and enjoy Kropotkin as a Marxist-Leninist, what the fuck prevents you from reading and enjoying Parenti
when does kropotkin infantalize and dismiss marxists?
I was responding to a question about the pejorative term “tankie”, it was literally tankies being attacked here. My parentiposting consisted mainly of defending my ideology from attacks by the compatible left.
“Mussolini enjoyer”
this is some bad faith bullshit
Tanking the definition of fascism from a fascist because it’s convenient to your “all states are actually the same” ideology is also bad faith, especially when you explicitly ignore the differences in outcomes between different modes of governance.
To you it’s a theoretical/philosophical debate about what’s more pure, to me it’s a matter of whether people get to have food, housing, healthcare, rights and education (which you explicitly ignored)
Someone you dont like, with a vaguely leftist connotation.
It’s essentially a pejorative for “communist.” I recommend the Prolewiki article on “Tankies,” as well as Nia Frome’s essay “Tankies.”
“Tankie” was a pejorative for Marxists that support socialism in real life then as well as now. It originated in the Communist Party of Great Britain. The term was coined because of the British tendency towards silly-sounding insults, and because the Soviet Union sent in the Red Army to stop the western-backed fascist insurrection. This caused a split in the party (as it always does in western orgs).
The Hungarian revolt in 1956 was infested with anti-semitic pograms. MI6 funded, supplied, and trained the Hungarian counter-revolutionaries. These counter-revolutionaries were allied with fascists who were lynching Jewish people and Communists. The Truth About Hungary by Herbert Aptheker heavily relies on citing western sources like the New York Times. Aptheker backs up his claims heavily.
"The special correspondent of the Yugoslav paper, Politika, (Nov. 13, 1956) describing the events of those days, said that the homes of Communists were marked with a white cross and those of Jews with a black cross, to serve as signs for the extermination squads. “There is no longer any room for doubt,” said the Yugoslav reporter, “it is an example of classic Hungarian fascism and of White Terror. The information,” continued this writer, “coming from the provinces tells how in certain places Communists were having their eyes put out, their ears cut off, and that they were being killed in the most terrible ways.”
“But the forces of reaction were rapidly consolidating their power and pushing forward on the top levels, while in the streets the blood of scores of massacred Communists, Jews, and progressives was flowing.”
“Some of the reports reaching Warsaw from Budapest today caused considerable concern. These reports told of massacres of Communists and Jews by what were described as 'Fascist elements’ …” (N.Y. Times, Nov. 1. 1956)
“The evidence is conclusive that the entry of Soviet troops into Budapest stopped the execution of scores, perhaps thousands of Jews, for by the end of October and early November, anti-Semtic pogroms - hallmark of unbridled fascistic terror - were making their appearance, after an absence of some ten years, within Hungary.”
"A correspondent of the Israeli newspaper Maariv (Tel Aviv) reported:
During the uprising a number of former Nazis were released from prison and other former Nazis came to Hungary from Salzburg . . . I met them at the border . . . I saw anti-Semitic posters in Budapest . . . On the walls, street lights, streetcars, you saw inscriptions reading: “Down with Jew Gero!” “Down with Jew Rakosi!” or just simply “down with the Jews!”
Leading rabbinical circles in New York received a cable early in November from corresponding circles in Vienna that “Jewish blood is being shed by the rebels in Hungary.” Very much later-in February, 1957-the World Jewish Congress reported that “anti-Semitic excesses occurred in more than twenty villages and smaller provincial towns during the October-November revolt.” This occurred, according to this very conservative body, because “fascist and anti-Semitic groups had apparently seized the opportunity, presented by the absence of a central authority, to come to the surface.” Many among the Jewish refugees from Hungary, the report continued, had fled from this anti-Semitic pogrom-like atmosphere (N.Y. Times, Feb. 15, 1957). This confirmed the earlier report made by the British Rabbi, R. Pozner, who, after touring refugee camps, declared that “the majority of Jews who left Hungary did so for fear of the Hungarians and not the Russians.” The Paris Jewish newspaper, Naye Presse, asserted that Jewish refugees in France claimed quite generally that Soviet soldiers had saved their lives."
Further, the CIA also backed Hungarian resistance forces:
Prague in 1968 was a similar fascist uprising in both cases there were some elements of progressive protest, but these were greatly overshadowed by the fascist movements. Dubcek wanted to sell out to the IMF, and restore capitalism. The idea that any of this was about “democracy” or “freedom” is silly, it was always about Cold War tactics to destabilize socialism.
TL;DR imagine if the January 6th rioters were armed and trained by foreign governments, started lynching officials and Jewish people, and the US sent in the army to put down the insurrection. The MAGA chuds would claim that it was about “freedom” and “democracy,” but we all know that they just wanted Trump in office.
Nowadays, it’s used by any random anti-communist to refer to anyone that supports socialist states or doesn’t buy into the imperialist narrative about global south countries. It was the ones they call “tankies” that knew the stories of WMD and Saddam’s forces leaving babies outside of incubators were both bullshit to manufacture consent for war, but now that its decades later the anti-communists all suddenly have collective amnesia about their willing participation in spreading the lies of empire to murder hundreds of thousands of people.
A person who believes that an authoritarian state is righteous and justified as long as it calls itself communist (even if it’s not), examples being the USSR, North Korea, China, and oddly the current capitalist Russian federation. You can find a more in-depth answer here.
Nobody actually believes anything that calls itself socialist/communist is justified axiomatically. In reality, socialists supportive of what’s called “Actually Existing Socialism” support these states for their progressive advancements and socialist economies, being defined by their actual characteristics. These actual characteristics include having public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy (ie, that which is dominant, rising, and in control of the economy, typically by commanding the large firms and key industries at a minimum) and the working classes in control of the state.
Examples of AES include the PRC, DPRK, Laos, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, and depending on who you ask, Vietnam. Formerly existing socialism includes the USSR. No communist considers the Russian Federation to be AES. You’re confusing (or deliberately misleading) critical support for bourgeois states against imperialism, such as Iran, Palestine, etc, with AES.
Notably, your theory that simply calling oneself socialist/communist is enough to be considered AES falls apart immediately once considering the Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot’s Cambodia considered itself communist, yet they were stopped by the Vietnamese communists, and no Marxists really consider them to have been genuinely communists. The National Socialist Party of Germany is another example, no communist supports the Nazis despite their claims of being socialists. It isn’t the name that matters, but the structure. This isn’t even getting into disagreements between Marxist-Leninists and Maoists on groups like the Shining Path, the Naxalites, CPI (M) vs. CPI (ML), etc.
In reality, you just maintain a stance on AES that runs counter to Marxist consensus, and rather than argue against the actual reasons for that consensus, you try to sidestep that entire exercise by claiming it has to do with naming. I already explained how this is full of holes in the prior paragraph, but further emphasis is necessary: you’re describing someone that doesn’t exist.
Oh fuck, the MAGA crowd has started posting. Get ready for made up stupid shit to distract / confuse you as they are.
Removed by mod
Ok good lol
It’s hardly a secret that screaming The Eptein Files works like a dragon shout.
Oh, I know better than to participate in this discussion.
Yeah, lots of pointless arguing further down in here. Like arguing about whether authoritarianism is left or right like that even matters. There are no set of single labels that can describe everyone’s motivations, goals, and what they are willing to do to get them, so arguing about the labels is pointless.
are you pro or anti sea piracy?
Probably anti overall, though context could change that. It’s just sea banditry and most bandits aren’t Robin Hood.
The digital version shouldn’t even be compared by using the same name, but if it was honest, then it wouldn’t work as propaganda (not that it seems to be working anyways).
Removed by mod
I don’t consider tankies lefter than me.
Seriously. Tankies are authoritarians who consider themselves leftists.
Authoritarian / libertarian is on a completely different axis from left / right, no?
Only on the political compass, which uses a definition of left vs right that a lot of leftists disagree with. Really, the entire history of “left wing” politics has been about questioning and dismantling authority. The terms “left wing” and “right wing” come from the French revolution, when the people in favour of simply reforming the monarchy sat on the right side of the room, while the people who wanted to fully dismantling the monarchy sat on the left. A lot of more modern leftist thought is about questioning the power that capitalist businesses have.
Well said. Still; can you not have authoritarian left and libertarian left viewpoints? I just don’t see how questioning the power capitalist businesses have is limited to the libertarian left.
What’s wrong with the definition of left & right on the political compass? I’m not super tuned into political science but this is the first I’ve heard that many leftists have take issue with it. I have seen the authoritarian left referred to as “red fascists”, but do they not also take issue with the power capitalist businesses have?
I suppose I’d consider myself a left libertarian. The power of the state should be limited and what power is granted to the state should be used to improve the life of the people.
can you not have auth left and lib left viewpoints?
Yes, but actually no. The distinction is fundamentally unstable. If the left is constantly questioning power structures, it will inevitably turn to whatever structure the auth left comes up with.
what’s wrong with the definition of left and right on the political compass?
It’s specially economic left/right, which is almost always defined by taxation, government spending, and social welfare. While leftists usually say social welfare is a good thing, it’s not changing the fundamentals of how capitalism works, which is the current dominant power structure that leftists are against.
do auth left not also take issue with the power capitalist businesses have?
Yes, but they usually put something just as bad in its place. You might have heard people saying that the USSR was “state capitalist rather than communist”. This means that the workers and customers had just as little say in how things are run than they would under capitalists, only is was directly with the state rather than individual business owners.
Thanks, I appreciate your replies.
Very well said, thank you.
Worthwile to note here that the left of the French revolution, the Jacobins, did develop authoritarianism.
Which should have been a warning sign for all leftists to come, but alas…
They’re on the Leftest off-ramp that heads back the other way.
Tankies support systems that have brought about immense increases in life expectancy, worker’s rights, women’s rights, free healthcare, free education, and literally defeated fascism. It’s still baffling to me that in 2026, witnessing the descent to fascism of the west (Trump, Meloni LePen, AfD, Vox…) you’re still so threatened by Chinese socialists who literally don’t have a fascist party or by the Soviet socialists who literally saved Europe from Nazism.
support systems that have brought about immense increases in life expectancy, worker’s rights, women’s rights, free healthcare, free education, and literally defeated fascism
Cool, you can make literally that exact same argument about capitalist neo libs.
You actually can’t make the argument that neoliberal capitalism has defeated fascism at all, you’d have to be completely historically & politically illiterate to even consider it. Life expectancy increase came as a result of medical research conducted around the world, all others were conceded by capitalist governments begrudgingly and only after years of hard work by organizations that were overwhelmingly made up of anti-capitalists, and every single one is currently being rolled back in every capitalist nation on earth.
and every single one is currently being rolled back in every capitalist nation on earth.
Just completely factually incorrect.
You actually can’t make the argument that neoliberal capitalism has defeated fascism at a
Sure you can, I wouldn’t agree with it, just like I wouldn’t agree that socialism did, but you can make that argument
Life expectancy increase came as a result of medical research conducted around the world
Yeah that’s kind of my point. The things you mention as successes of “”“socialist”“” countries is just scientific advancement and industrialisation.
Factually entirely correct lol, sorry if reality is inconvenient for your bullshit
Replaced Nazism in Europe*
France got liberated thanks to the Soviets too, we’re talking all of Europe here.
In the rest of places, as I said, replacing it by a system with full free healthcare, worker’s rights, respect of minorities and their languages and cultures, free education to the highest level, anti-imperialism and industrial development and self-reliance. The dismantling of the Eastern Block is the biggest demographic catastrophe in Europe since WW2.
Worthwile to note that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were longstanding allies before Operation Barbarossa and a critical amount of steel and oil that supplied the Nazi war machine after the allied embargo was supplied by the Soviet union.
Which says nothing of the monumental sacrifice given by Soviet civilians, but let’s separate that from Stalin’s policy, perhaps?
Anything’s possible when you make shit up
I’ve replied to the whole “Nazis and Soviets were allies” in another comment in this post, I encourage you to read it and reply. Thank you!
We don’t need to read propaganda and lies thanks.
It’s well known history that Russia and Germany split up Poland and had a peace deal. End of story.
Anti imperialism? How did they become the largest country on earth?
Respect of minorities? Tell that to the tens of thousands of people executed in forests. Or starved to death. Because of their identity.
Industrial development? Yes, current Russia having an economy the size of Italy is a testament to that.
Plenty of countries have free education and Healthcare.
Anti imperialism? How did they become the largest country on earth?
Imperialism is not when big country, believe it or not. Imperialism is about having peripheral colonies from which you extract raw materials and where the citizens have fewer rights, and a core which benefits from the labor of the rest of the periphery. The USSR engaged in the opposite by providing raw materials and energy inputs to the Eastern-Block countries at subsidized prices precisely with the intention of helping them industrialize and develop. As an example, the GDP per capita of Estonia was 20% higher than that of the Russian republic during the USSR.
Respect of minorities?
Yes. Ukraine got its borders and political representation for the first time in history during Soviet rule. You may be surprised to find that Rosa Luxembourg argued against this, there are some fun letters between her and Lenin where the latter argued in favour of supporting the national identity of Ukrainians. This was carried out as soon as the revolution took place, in the Korenizatsiya policy of boosting ethnic minorities once oppressed by the Russian empire. You may be surprised to learn that Stalin was the commissar for nationalities when the Russian Revolution happened. The communists elected a Georgian leader in 1925, unthinkable just 10 years prior.
All republics in the USSR had the right to determine their own languages, and people had a right to an education in these languages up to university level (not always included). The majority of books and newspapers printed in areas with national languages different to Russian were in said languages (Ukrainian, Kazakh, Armenian, Georgian, Estonian…). You can get informed about this in Albert Szymanski’s “human rights in the Soviet Union”. There were big mistakes during a few years due to hysteria against Nazism and Japanese invasion (see deportations of Crimean Tatars and Koreans), but other than that the USSR has a mostly impeccable record in this regard. Compare that to France murdering 1 million Algerians in the 1960s in the Algerian war of independence, or with Occitan language becoming almost extint in the 20th century.
Industrial development? Yes, current Russia
The USSR was at the time the second largest economy in the world, idk why you compare it with modern capitalist Russia, of course capitalism destroyed the progress achieved by socialists.
Yes, muscovites just made friends, that’s not imperialism. Sakha just wanted to give it’s oil and minerals to Moscow. Yakutia just wanted desperately to learn Russian. It’s not imperialism if there are no boats involved!
Estonia? Now their GDP per capita is not 20% higher, it’s 200% higher than Russia. Yes, triple as high. Obviously Russia was robbing them blind, and holding them back. Same as most other republics and Warsaw pact nations. GDP explosions after ditching the red parasite.
Ukraine had borders just fine when Soviets invaded them. If not for the war they lost against Poland in 1920 they would have kept invading and repressing nations. Belorussian language is almost extinct nowadays after all the russification. Same for Ukrainian in Eastern Ukraine.
French killed 1 million Algerians? Rookie numbers, they should have learned from the holodomor.
Tell me which actually existing, relevant, long-lasting leftist projects you support and how they’re further to the left than Cuba.
They’re so left they’ve wrapped around and became fascists
Shit, there’s plenty of Non Tankies to my left. Tankies want to use force to control people’s thoughts and actions.
Tankies are drunk on hierarchy and violence.
Oh, cool, tell me what historically successful, relevant and long-lasting leftist movements you support! Wait, you don’t support any actually existing leftism…?
Hey I found the Tankie who thinks they’re on the left!
You can answer the question too! Which actually existing current or historical leftist movements do you support? Or is your ideology purely theoretical and you don’t actually care about the results?
Bruh just out here punching the air in an empty comment section of a shit posting sub
Go back to your echo chamber tankie. Nobody likes you. Nobody wants you. But I’m sure your fans enjoy your circle jerk.
Which actually existing current or historical leftist movements do you support?
Are you a fucking cop? Get the fuck out of here you loser. I’m sorry everyone hates you. But thats a you issue.
I’m not sorry everyone hates them
Anarchist Catalonia, modern Rojava, more than a few pre-Columbian North American societies, the Paris Commune of 1793… Maybe read some theory instead of making arguments from ignorance.
And you can care about results without having historical results. Anti-monarchism in general had basically zero results post-Industrial Revolution until the liberals won in North America in the late 18th century, but that didn’t mean that they didn’t care about results, just that they hadn’t achieved much yet. The American Revolution was pretty quickly followed by the French Revolution, the Haitian Revolution, several more French revolutions, Brazilian independence, and eventually the October Revolution, the most recent Chinese civil war, the Cuban Revolution, and so on.
Between 1775 and 1925, the general concept of people voting on matters of statewide policy went from a relic of the Classical Era that had ended more than 1800 years earlier to the norm in North America and Europe. 1800 years of obscurity, then 150 years to ubiquity in the world’s wealthiest states and another 50 to expand to most of the rest.
Sure, anarchism has had a longer period out of the spotlight, not having been the norm since roughly the invention of agriculture ~8000 years ago, but you never know when it might return. Having a concrete, achievable plan to get results is good, but you also want to make sure that the results you’re striving for are just, otherwise you end up with liberalism again. And we all know how that ends up.
Anarchist Catalonia, modern Rojava, more than a few pre-Columbian North American societies, the Paris Commune of 1793
Pre-columbian societies aside (you can’t turn history around), all the rest ended up in fascism/monarchism/failed state in a matter of how many years/months?
And you can care about results without having historical results
Yes, you can do that if your goal is moral purity or intellectual amusement and not the material improvement of the lives of actual people. All other system changes you’ve proposed are just changes of ruling class and production system due to the slow motor of history and development, except for the socialist revolutions in Russia, China and Cuba. We literally have the recipe that works, why do you reject it?
Having a concrete, achievable plan to get results is good, but you also want to make sure that the results you’re striving for are just
Agreed. That’s why I praise the immense increases in welfare and quality of life in actually existing socialist countries, both historical and ongoing.
Lol way to prove their point dumbass
Being better at violence doesn’t make you more left, it makes you better at violence. That can be useful, but it isn’t the same thing. Your argument boils down to “might makes right” and could be expanded to classify social democracy as “more left” (after all, it’s left of the global status quo and its citizens are the happiest on average). In fact, you might even be able to use the argument for liberalism; it’s left of monarchy and fascism. Sure, it frequently decays into fascism, but so did the USSR.
Social democracy in the imperial core is to the right of the global status quo, because it depends on imperialism, neocolonialism, and unequal exchange. The USSR, on the other hand, supported anti-imperialist and decolonial movements materially, and set up a socialist economy. Being able to both establish and maintain socialism is a necessary first step for anything that can be considered left, because it’s the only leftism that’s actually real. No, socialism isn’t fascism, and equating the two is a form of Holocaust trivialization with ties to Double Genocide Theory.
To place Russian communism on the same moral level with Nazi fascism, because both are totalitarian, is, at best, superficial, in the worse case it is fascism. He who insists on this equality may be a democrat; in truth and in his heart, he is already a fascist, and will surely fight fascism with insincerity and appearance, but with complete hatred only communism.
The global status quo is liberalism. Social democracy is to the left of liberalism.
And I never said that socialism was fascism, I said that the USSR gave way to fascism. Vladimir Putin’s Russian Federation is fascist. The USSR collapsed, and fascism followed, much like the Weimar Republic collapsed and was replaced by the Nazis. That doesn’t mean that the liberals in the Weimar Republic were fascists.
Liberalism and social democracy in the imperial core are imperialist. This is to the right of liberalism and social democracy in the global south. Erasure of imperialism in the question of whether or not a society is progressive historically or reactionary is a mistake, as the imperialist countries are the ones holding back global progress right now. It’s kinda like saying landlords are progressive and tenants are reactionary.
As for the USSR bit, I misread you. Saying it descended into fascism I took to you meaning that it was progressive in the first few years or so but then turned fascist, not that the RF was that fascism. I disagree with the idea that the RF is fascist, it’s certainly run by nationalists and is an utter tragedy how far they’ve fallen from their soviet roots, but that’s a different discussion.
India is well to the right of e.g. Norway. Brazil only recently moved to the relative left. Argentina is also very right-wing (and also a lot more settler-colonialist than most of the countries not allowed into the White Countries Club). Iran and Afghanistan are about as far-right as they come, despite being very much opposed to the global order as it stands today. I wasn’t discounting the so-called “Global South,” I just also don’t think that an imperialist past (or even present) is the only factor in determining whether a country is right-wing.
In fact, I’d potentially go so far as to say that the majority of poorer countries are farther right than wealthier ones. The exceptions that come to mind are Cuba, Vietnam, Burkina Faso, Bolivia, and Mexico, but on the other side you have the ones I’ve already mentioned, plus Qatar, Lebanon, El Salvador, Pakistan, and more. Not doing imperialism is good, and refusing to do it is better (as opposed to simply being unable), but it doesn’t singlehandedly make an extremist theocracy leftist. If your country does not interact with others at all but is still an absolute monarchy with laws that explicitly discriminate against marginalized groups, it’s an isolationist right-wing state, not a leftist one.
The question of being right or left is which role you play, a progressive role or a reactionary one. For all of the ways the nordics may be more progressive internally, it is of a Herrenvolk style, only for them and at the explicit expense of the global south. For all of the social faults of some countries in the global south, their rise is progressive against imperialism, and this rise facilitates social progress internally.
Being better at violence doesn’t make you more left
Being better at violence against fascism and imperialism definitely makes you more left, though. Actual praxis and results are to me the definition of successful leftism, not the realm of ideas. The lack of proper violence against such regimes leads to a destruction of the left wing.
Your argument boils down to “might makes right” and could be expanded to classify social democracy as “more left”
Social democracy also regularly turns to fascism when it needs to, it’s definitely lacking violence against fascism, amazing that you’d say this in 2026. I fucking wish our mighty social democracies in Europe fought against Israeli fascism and USA fascism, unfortunately they’re buddies!
(after all, it’s left of the global status quo and its citizens are the happiest on average)
By excluding imperialism from the measure of average happiness, you’re committing a sampling error. That would be like polling monarchs of medieval Europe to ask whether monarchy is the system making people happier. Ask the people in India and Sri Lanka and Peru extracting the resources of the goods social democracies consume and sewing the clothes we wear how happy they are with social democracy.
Sure, it frequently decays into fascism, but so did the USSR
So, we have one example of a Marxist-Leninist state decaying to fascism (after saving Europe from Nazism) and several examples of countries not doing this (China, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba). How about we engage in honest criticism of the flaws of the Soviet model that led to its dissolution in order to prevent that from happening again?
Removed by mod
You literally ban all tankies in comms where you can do it, you’re abusing authoritarianism, there are literal banns in your comms with the description “upvoting while tankie” lmfao
Tankies aren’t more left than anarchists by pure ideology, I’d argue we’re matched there, we’re just more scientific and less corrupted by cold-war propaganda.
You literally ban all tankies in comms where you can do it, you’re abusing authoritarianism,
authoritarianism is when bedtime, am i rigt?
Well, they’re a mod, they take the harshest action a mod can take which is banning, and they do this for literally upvoting a comment
Oh no! What a shame. Oh well, moving on.
Hey, I’m not the one crying authoritarianism here, I’m just exposing the hypocrisy
authoritarianism is when the government that has real control over things that matter and uses it to control up. when a private citizen kicks you out of their club it’s just called a disagreement.
Every successful country has to express some level of Authority to maintain its existence. Especially the USSR which, you know, defeated Nazi Germany almost single handedly. Was that them being “tankies”?
Another example, Vietnam would look like Gaza city if they didn’t express authority. Same with DPRK aka “north Korea “
authoritarianism is when the government
Incredibly uneducated again. Authority is not only when government. Your boss dictating what you do under threat of unemployment is a strong form of authority prevalent in modern society that didn’t exist in the so-called “authoritarian socialist” governments.
Removed by mod
free of association
Funny how your communities have no problem accommodating western libs without any anti-imperialist ideas or rethoric. You choosing to associate with them instead of with actual socialists and banning us immediately even for upvoting a comment shows very well whose side you stand on.
You try to force the human condition into something you think you can quantify and control and call that science?
No, I approach history, sociology and economy as sciences instead of as vibes-based. I support the system that historically statistically fed the children, not the one that claims in theory it can feed the children without having prisons.
Removed by mod
Wont somebody please think of the poor princes??? How many kids had to grow up without their nazi collaborator dad there to guide them on the path of
fascismanticommunism?Removed by mod
All those queers? Princes. All those different socialists? Also princes. Hundreds of kingdoms, with millions of dollars each.
guess they didn’t make it that far…
To be fair, there was excess repression during the late 1930s in the USSR, but people massively inflate the numbers and won’t ever tell that only about 1/4 of prisoners in the prison system (whose acronym was GULAG) were actually politically motivated. People also don’t understand that the harsh conditions in Soviet prisons were due to a Soviet-wide famine caused by the Nazi aggression:
prison system (whose acronym was GULAG)
Afaik not true. The average westerner may think so, but GULAG is an acronym for a specific part of the system.
copypasted my earlier comment
if you would consult the chart from chapter 10:
The etymology of GULAG is: “the acronym of Гла́вное управле́ние исправи́тельно-трудовы́х лагере́й (Glávnoje upravlénije ispravítelʹno-trudovýx lageréj, “Chief Administration of Corrective-Labor Camps”)” emphasis mine, as it corresponds directly to the above, specifically the camps under the O.G.P.U. These are where those with harsher sentences were sent, as seen in the chart (3-10 years)
were actually politically motivated
Thrers an old joke: Two guys in Gulag talk
-How many year you’ve got?
-20
-For what?
-For nothing.
-You fucking liar. You’d get only 10 for nothing
right but this person isnt really the nuanced type, they’re cherrypicking and so am I
And here we go with the cold-war propaganda :D called you from the first second.
Anarchism in Spain led to many, many more gays in concentration camps and murdered than in prisons in the former USSR because anarchism cannot historically defeat fascism! That’s the authoritarianism you should be focusing on, especially in 2026 as we see the rise of fascism once again
Removed by mod
Ignoring the part where they’re 100% right about spanish anarchists throwing people in camps because it’s inconvenient for your bullshit lol, try again
If anarchism is to blame for a different system that came after it than Marxist-Leninism is to blame for the capitalist shithole that is Russia today
Literally yes, we Marxist leninists study history in order to prevent the same mistakes. That’s why we have entire books devoted to the topic such as “Socialism Betrayed” analyzing the history and mistakes of the socialists in the USSR that led to its dissolution. Imagine engaging in honest criticism of your own ideology.
Still, Marxist Leninism brought 70 years of development and human rights to a former absolutist monarchy and saved its inhabitants from extermination at the hands of Nazism, and it still survives in many countries like Cuba, Vietnam, Laos or freaking China.
It’s a marketplace of ideas right up until you make them look stupid, then they conveniently forget their opposition to authoritarianism just long enough to suppress all dissenting opinions
Enough to suppress tankies*. They won’t eliminate opinions from the capitalism-compatible left. Go ahead and praise European Socdems and war budgets in Europe, you won’t get banned for doing that
Tankies aren’t leftists in reality.
Maybe left of Nazis, but they aren’t leftists.
The political left and authoritarianism are inherently contradictory.
Its the political right that embraces authoritarianism. Hence why we call them “Red Fascists”
The political left and authoritarianism are not contradictory. Leftists are not always Libertarians, and many of them will and do trade freedom for safety regularly.
For safety, or for power.
Terrible analysis based on cold-war lies. The USSR for example saw a massive reduction in the wealth and power of leaders compared to what came after and what existed before:
Tell me again how Che Guevara and Rosa Luxembourg were chasing power when they sacrificed their lives for the betterment of others
Uh, your graph is missing power levels for Lenin and Stalin.
over 9000
Based
Whatt your graph shows is only a reduction in percentage. The top 10% still amount to around 25% of the wealth - which is wild considering that companies that were privatly owned didn’t exist. So what equity positions are we talking about?
The top 10% still amount to around 25% of the wealth
Yes, so? Do you expect or wish a society with completely equal distribution of resources? I agree with the fundamental principle of harder working people receiving more than those who contribute less (as long as everyone’s needs are met). The top 10% by the way weren’t mostly politicians, they were highly trained workers like university professors, surgeons, media personalities, high profile artists…
deleted by creator
The political compass isn’t an objective model
Found the tankie.
Ironic that you’d call “red fascists” to the people supporting the socialist movement that literally saved Europe from fascism.
Tankies support systems that have historically brought massive improvements to working and peasant classes in the oppressed world. Doubling and tripling life expectancy wherever communism arrives and succeeds, literacy from 20-30% to 100% in a few decades, women’s rights, worker rights, free massive healthcare, free education… You just argue against tankies because you’re a westerner whose leftism is conformed by CIA propaganda. You don’t support any historically successful socialist movement (Cuba, Soviets, China, Vietnam, Laos) precisely because they defeated capitalism and fascism.
Especially hurtful as a Spaniard, where we leftists lost our civil war because the biggest leftist movements were anarchists and they couldn’t win a war, and we were left with 40 years of fascist dictatorship. You’d just rather praise the anarchists that lost against fascism than the communists who defeated it elsewhere.
The nazis’ economy was a shell game of debt, and they were overextended militarily. Their regime would have fallen even if they had won the war. Secondly, the USSR at first joined forces with the nazis until they were betrayed by them, and after the soviets joined the allies, they received massive aid under the lend-lease act. And even with the aid, they still had to rely on human-wave tactics.
the Nazis would have fallen either way
Perhaps in the long run, not without genociding the entirety of Eastern Europe first. Not an argument to me.
received massive assistance
England received far more assistance from Lend-Lease, they weren’t the ones who won the war.
human wave tactics
Literally Nazi propaganda of “Asiatic hordes”, the number of combat casualties in the eastern front isn’t that different between Nazis and Soviets, Soviets sustained more casualties simply because the Soviet industry had had 10 years of development compared to the 100 years of the German one.
the USSR at first joined forces with the Nazis
It takes a lot of information to dispel misinformation, so forgive me but I’m gonna paste a comment that I wrote some time ago responding to the whole “Soviets sided with the Nazis” phrase that is often propagated on Lemmy. Feel free to respond to it, I’d love to engage with you in its contents:
The only country who offered to start a collective offensive against the Nazis and to uphold the defense agreement with Czechoslovakia as an alternative to the Munich Betrayal was the USSR. From that Wikipedia article: “The Soviet Union announced its willingness to come to Czechoslovakia’s assistance, provided the Red Army would be able to cross Polish and Romanian territory; both countries refused.” Poland could have literally been saved from Nazi invasion if France and itself had agreed to start a war together against Nazi Germany, but they didn’t want to. By the logic of “invading Poland” being akin to Nazi collaboration, Poland was as imperialist as the Nazis.
As a Spaniard leftist it’s so infuriating when the Soviet Union, the ONLY country in 1936 which actively fought fascism in Europe by sending weapons, tanks and aviation to my homeland in the other side of the continent in the Spanish civil war against fascism, is accused of appeasing the fascists. The Soviets weren’t dumb, they knew the danger and threat of Nazism and worked for the entire decade of the 1930s under the Litvinov Doctrine of Collective Security to enter mutual defense agreements with England, France and Poland, which all refused because they were convinced that the Nazis would honor their own stated purpose of invading the communists in the East. The Soviets went as far as to offer ONE MILLION troops to France (Archive link against paywall) together with tanks, artillery and aviation in 1939 in exchange for a mutual defense agreement, which the French didn’t agree to because of the stated reason. Just from THIS evidence, the Soviets were by far the most antifascist country in Europe throughout the 1930s, you literally won’t find any other country doing any remotely similar efforts to fight Nazism. If you do, please provide evidence.
The invasion of “Poland” is also severely misconstrued. The Soviets didn’t invade what we think of nowadays when we say Poland. They invaded overwhelmingly Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian lands that Poland had previously invaded in 1919. Poland in 1938, a year before the invasion:
“Polish” territories invaded by the USSR in 1939:
The Soviets invaded famously Polish cities such as Lviv (sixth most populous city in modern Ukraine), Pinsk (important city in western Belarus) and Vilnius (capital of freaking modern Lithuania). They only invaded a small chunk of what you’d consider Poland nowadays, and the rest of lands were actually liberated from Polish occupation and returned to the Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian socialist republics. Hopefully you understand the importance of giving Ukrainians back their lands and sovereignty?
Additionally, the Soviets didn’t invade Poland together with the Nazis, they invaded a bit more than two weeks after the Nazi invasion, at a time when the Polish government had already exiled itself and there was no Polish administration. The meaning of this, is that all lands not occupied by Soviet troops, would have been occupied by Nazis. There was no alternative. Polish troops did not resist Soviet occupation but they did resist Nazi invasion. The Soviet occupation effectively protected millions of Slavic peoples like Poles, Ukrainians and Belarusians from the stated aim of Nazis of genociding the Slavic peoples all the way to the Urals.
All in all, my conclusion is: the Soviets were fully aware of the dangers of Nazism and fought against it earlier than anyone (Spanish civil war), spent the entire 30s pushing for an anti-Nazi mutual defence agreement which was refused by France, England and Poland, tried to honour the existing mutual defense agreement with Czechoslovakia which France rejected and Poland didn’t allow (Romania neither but they were fascists so that’s a given), and offered to send a million troops to France’s border with Germany to destroy Nazism but weren’t allowed to do so. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a tool of postponing the war in a period in which the USSR, a very young country with only 10 years of industrialization behind it since the first 5-year plan in 1929, was growing at a 10% GDP per year rate and needed every moment it could get. I can and do criticise decisions such as the invasion of Finland, but ultimately even the western leaders at the time seem to generally agree with my interpretation:
“In those days the Soviet Government had grave reason to fear that they would be left one-on-one to face the Nazi fury. Stalin took measures which no free democracy could regard otherwise than with distaste. Yet I never doubted myself that his cardinal aim had been to hold the German armies off from Russia for as long as might be” (Paraphrased from Churchill’s December 1944 remarks in the House of Commons.)
“It would be unwise to assume Stalin approves of Hitler’s aggression. Probably the Soviet Government has merely sought a delaying tactic, not wanting to be the next victim. They will have a rude awakening, but they think, at least for now, they can keep the wolf from the door” Franklin D. Roosevelt (President of the United States, 1933–1945), from Harold L. Ickes’s diary entries, early September 1939. Ickes’s diaries are published as The Secret Diary of Harold Ickes.
"One must suppose that the Soviet Government, seeing no immediate prospect of real support from outside, decided to make its own arrangements for self‑defence, however unpalatable such an agreement might appear. We in this House cannot be astonished that a government acting solely on grounds of power politics should take that course” Neville Chamberlain House of Commons Statement, August 24, 1939 (one day after pact’s signing)
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this
Now that is quite a fun game of gymnastics, but just to pick one out and ohrase it differently.
The Soviets invaded Poland to weaks late according to the treaty with Germany, because they were held back in Belarus, the Baltics and Ukraine, but gladly took the promised lands.
Yeah right. However you spin this the USSR was by no means an innocent country, nor were they anti-imperialist. They might have seen themselves that way. But that’s like me saying I am dilligent and disciplined, lying to oneself is what we do best.
The Soviets invaded Poland to weaks late according to the treaty with Germany, because they were held back in Belarus, the Baltics and Ukraine
You’re misunderstanding the post. Those territories at the time belonged to Poland. It is not until two weeks after the Nazis invaded, at a point when the Polish government collapsed, that the Soviets entered those “Polish” territories that now we consider Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian, and a very minor part of what nowadays we consider Poland.
Again, what was the alternative to Soviet presence in said territories after Polish government collapse?
saved Europe from fascism
a fascist state fought a war against a competing fascist state. simply being on the side opposing Nazi Germany doesn’t magically make your state a perfect divine utopia
Nobody talked about divine utopias, Engels settled this topic 150 years ago in his “Socialism: scientific and Utopian”. The USSR was scientific socialism, not utopian.
Calling the USSR fascist just proves how little informed you are about its realities. Free education to the highest level, free universal healthcare, guaranteed employment with high working rights and the highest rates of unionization at the time in the world, women’s rights, guaranteed housing for everyone at 3% of the monthly income on average, quality and affordable public transit, heavily subsidized utilities and foodstuffs, lowest rates of economic inequality in the history of the region, respect for different ethnicities and their cultures and languages, strong investments in infrastructure and industrial development… All of this is very accessible information, you could read Albert Szymanski’s “human rights in the Soviet Union” and check the sources there if you don’t believe me.
none of that precludes fascism
Literally all of it precludes fascism
just saying it doesn’t make it true
Then elaborate further instead of “actually no”
I felt similarly until I discovered anarchism
Feline anarchy is the only valid. Human whole purpose is to server cats. Fuck everyone else.
Fuck capitalism, fuck communism, fuck fascism, fuck everyone. FELINE ANARCHY!!!
I heard about arachno communism but this is new to me
server cats
I tried to do that, but they wouldn’t let the cats in the colo.
Isn’t that just ancient Egypt? At any rate, based AF.
Where is the Black Panther Party?
Tankies are left?
No.
Communists are left, yes.
They’re really not.
On what planet are communists not left-wing?
This one.
By whose standards? Communism is pretty definitionally left wing.
yes
Yes, we support the movements that have brought the most significant development of worker rights, welfare state and anti-imperialism.
If you believe in the horseshoe theory they aren’t. I believe in the horseshoe theory
E: uppon more research i don’t believe in the horseshoe theory per se. But in speaking to many tankies, they exhibit many traits that the far right has.
I certainly reassessed.
Hey, horseshoes aren’t a theory, they’re custom cut and nailed in place…
Yes, but horseshoes invented the theory
Sir Alex horseshoe Who was, in fact a horseshoe
Crabs truly are talented.
Based
The biggest similarity is that we are both willing to use violence to oppress our enemies. The difference is that the enemy of communists are our oppressors and the enemy of fascist is whoever they decide to not like at the moment. The ultimate attack on capital (communism) is materially different than the ultimate defense of capital (fascism).
Fun fact though, liberalism also supports violence (or at least passively accepts it) as long as it is mostly external. We don’t get to choose non-violence. You can attack the people doing violence, join the people doing violence, or accept the people doing violence.
I appreciate your point of view, but from my interactions here, that’s not my experience.
To be clear I am not trying to argue with you here I’m just curious what you think.
What part of what I said have you found to be untrue? What sort of interactions led you to this conclusion?
I think, it needs to be clarified, that not everything you said I would say is “untrue”, and I want to thank you for approaching this conversation constructively. I think we agree on many points, e.g. housing is a human right, as is access to food, Healthcare, water, etc.
The biggest similarity is that we are both willing to use violence to oppress our enemies.
I can’t speak to that point, so I will defer to you.
The difference is that the enemy of communists are our oppressors and the enemy of fascist is whoever they decide to not like at the moment.
I do know that fascism needs an enemy in order to function, but, from my interactions with various people who claim to be communist, they are just as happy to view anyone who dissent with their views as a sheep, or, an enemy to their cause. For example, we both agree that Israel is committing genocide, we both agree that, at the very least, Israel is certainly on its way to doing the same in Lebanon. We both agree that what the US did in Iran, and Vensuela is inexcusable (keeping it recent). Now when another country, russia, does something similar to ukraine, and, it’s called out, well now im a shit lib who is pro Imperialism and the enemy of what is “communism”
The ultimate attack on capital (communism) is materially different than the ultimate defense of capital (fascism).
If you mean communism, and not whatever russia and China are, then yes, no argument here.
Fun fact though, liberalism also supports violence (or at least passively accepts it) as long as it is mostly external.
I think liberals, generally are ok with it, as you said, externally, there was a lot of liberal support for the Iraq bullshit.
We don’t get to choose non-violence. You can attack the people doing violence, join the people doing violence, or accept the people doing violence.
Yes, boiled down, that is very unfortunately the case, and from an idealistic point of view, we need to collectively move past that stupidity.
Not ignoring you, but I want to give you a proper reply, not on my phone, so I need to get on a computer, ill write you back :)
No worries, take your time
With the slight clarification that communists will redifine oppressors at their will, making them effectively the same in practice.
-
You are a worker that doesn’t support the movement? Class traitor, gulag.
-
You made a joke about dear leader? Traitor, gulag.
-
You would like free elections? Foreign agent, gulag.
Anything’s possible when you make shit up
Yes, holodomor is western propaganda.
…no
Yes actually, and like all the best propaganda it’s partially true. Famine happened, people died, both verifiable facts. The extent is drastically exaggerated by western sources, allegations that it was an intentional act of genocide are baseless and hilariously hypocritical coming from the US & friends.
-
I’m not a fan of communism, but I DO very much like tanks.
A libertankian, perhaps
You could be a fan of both, like me! Soviets made absolute beauties, and importantly, they made them cheap and mass produced. Imagine a HUNDRED THOUSAND T-55s with APDS, what a beauty. For reference, those tanks first saw combat against Israel if I’m not mistaken ;)
I could be a fan of both, but I’m not! Current favorite is the Nordic model, but I do like “workers’ self-management of enterprises”, my favorite communist “feature”.
Re tanks I find them fascinating, they are horrible machines; the only thing worse than being inside of one in war time is being outside of one.
A lot of countries still use the T-55, it’s like the Honda of tanks
WWII Panzer IIIs and T-34s are my favorites, I like the classics but NOT the Sherman. Fuck the Sherman
Everyone thinks they’re in the based zone and everyone else is the problem 😂
Bruh tankies aren’t further left than me
You are a liberal
That doesn’t make what he said wrong.
It does tho, liberals are center-right at best
I’m not saying they aren’t. It’s still correct, though.
Nope
