• IceWallowCum [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        27
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        It’s always just leftists who aren’t western brand “leftists”, i.e. completely averse to action and change.

        Libs will demonize all forms of action and analysis of oppression and then wonder why things just keep getting worse despite them doing a lot of useless, performative things. In the lack of a correct theory, it always comes down to “it’s those damn Asians!!!”

        • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          312 years ago

          The point is it tankie is an amorphous McCarthyist insult. No one knows exactly what you’re saying because most of the people who use it aren’t on exactly the same page. I’ve been called a tankie for supporting Cuba’s new family code and the intensely democratic process behind it and for saying the taean work system is a good system.

        • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          72 years ago

          We really don’t know. Unless your definition is someone who supported the Soviet Union sending in tanks to put down the coup in Hungary, then its pretty devoid of meaning

      • Compass Inspector
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 years ago

        There are 2 types:

        1. Marxist-Leninist - followers of the ideology of the Stalinist counter-revolution. These people are still around but are barely relevant anymore since the fall of the USSR.

        2. Terminally online leftoid who thinks they’re a Marxist-Leninist, is really just a soc-dem who hates America and likes soviet aesthetics. Believes a ton of mutually contradictory shit because they don’t take communism seriously and get all their info from memes and other terminally online leftoids.

    • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      252 years ago

      The pure (libertarian) socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.

      parenti