Forest of trees

Communists support the PRC as a Socialist state run by Marxist-Leninists, yes. No Communist supports the Russian Federation outright, however, only reserved, temporary, and highly critical support for Russia's anti-US Hegemony stance, which it only adopts for its own survival and not out of any moral superiority. No Communist "shills" for the Russian Federation.

If China is a socialist state worth supporting then I'm a donkey with a laser dick :P But I'm more anarchistically inclined so different perspective.
I see your point though. What I'm saying is not that communist = tankie, on the contrary. I'm saying that tankies claim to be communists but spend all day parroting their favorite Russian or Chinese state propaganda because they believe everything else is clearly controlled by Obamna™ himself. They rarely actually talk about communism, they just roam Lemmy all day calling everybody who disagrees with them a liberal :D
- anarchistically
  True anarchist stance is when your geopolitical opinions about the US's rivals coincidentally align perfectly with that of the US State Department. It's always the other side that is propagandized.
  
  Stop with the strawmen. When did I say I agree with US propaganda? When did I say that I consider myself on the same side as the US?
  
  tankies claim to be communists but spend all day parroting their favorite Russian or Chinese state propaganda
  Tell us how these "tankies" are "parroting" propaganda and we'll tell you exactly how your geopolitical opinions align with the US State Dept.
  When did I say I agree with US propaganda?
  For starters, right here where you showed your whole ass and said: "If China is a socialist state worth supporting then I'm a donkey with a laser dick"
  You do seem to be quite a donkey but clearly it's just overconfident false advertisement about the laser.
  
  If China is so great then why does it feel the need to dictate over Hong Kong and Taiwan? Does China have gay marriage? Trans rights perhaps?
  I'm not saying China is as bad as the West claims it is. I'm just saying it's not something to get wild about. It's a nation state (a far too big one at that), which are by definition tools of oppression.
  
  If China is so great
  Are we having a discussion of geopolitics or a schoolyard gossip fight?
  then why does it feel the need to dictate over Hong Kong
  Why do you have strong opinions about this topic when you clearly do not know any history about China?
  China, more specifically the Qing Dynasty, was colonized (mostly by the British) through a series of imperialist ventures thst included the Opium Wars. The result was the designation of Hong Kong, already an existing Chinese city, as a British imperial trade hub where resources and wealth extracted from the rest of the country was traded, as well as later serving as a finsncial hub for the rest of the imperialized region. But, to put it simply, the British stole Hong Kong in 1841-1843.
  When China threw off all of its imperial masters in its national liberation fight against the Japanese, it then had a civil war due to the KMT attacking the communists. Obviously, the communists won. As part of this, they reclaimed Hong Kong just a little over 100 years after it was stolen, but using the legal definition that had been imposed by the British, who had given themselves a 100-year lease that ended in 1997.
  Hong Kong is a Chinese city that was colonized by the British and is being reintegrated, as yiu would expect from a sovereign country. You claimed elsewhere that you are against Western hegemony, but this is a crystal clear example of anticolonial action and you're siding with the colonists that write breathless propaganda about how unfair it is that China is governing a Chinese city.
  and Taiwan
  Again, just basic history. When the communists were reconsolidating their country, they were also expelling KMT forces. At the end, the KMT looted wealth and cultural artifacts and fled to Taiwan, where they set up a military dictatorship and began oppressing the indigenous people there. The PRC was set to invade Taiwan and finish their civil war, but the US set up a blockade and the PRC opted to vow a later return rather than force the Americans out. The first question you should have is why the US was meddling in their civil war.
  Both the PRC and the KMT have long held that the civil war has never ended, with the PRC claiming Taiwan and the KMT claiming all of msinlsnd China and also Mongolia. The PRC holds a consistent line of reunification being the end goal.
  The US uses Taiwan to harass the PRC and wants to use it to escalate tensions. It may even try to turn it into another Ukraine, doing everything it can to push China over red lines militarily until it finally decides that Taiwan is an intolerable threat just a few miles off its coast and very close to Shenzhen. If that happened, would you yet again go after the target if US imperialism like your masters tell you to, calling it an unprovoked aggression? Would you have new names for people that correctly blame the US for using their proxies as puppets to harass other nations? The US is already trying to derisk from Taiwan by exportinh its chip production facilities but it isn't going well because the US is so finsncislized that it can't barely build productive capacity at even 10X the cost of elsewhere.
  Does China have gay marriage?
  This is another example of why someone would call you a liberal. Pinkwashing imperialist takes. What is your logic on what is permitted to be done to other countries if they don't have a legal recognition of gay marriage? On what basis do other cultures need to mirror your own preferences in order for them to be free of your chauvinism? Any real county will have reactionary elements, some old, some new. Your country, and you, have reactionary elements.
  There is a populsr struggle for gay marriage in China and it is going pretty well. It is mostly jist old people who are against it. You should exoect to see it legalized in the next decade or so. But you will have had nothing to do with thst, as your contribution here is to sneer at the entire country for not doing what this Westerner baby leftist demands.
  Incidentally, if the CPC did force through legalized gay marriage and it elicited some negative response, like protests, you can be certain this would be characterized as an authoritarian overreach and how dare they disregard the will of the people. Some "socialists", huh!?
  Trans rights perhaps?
  China has better trans rights than your country, most likely. It has less transphobia to begin with, had major out and truly popular trans celebrities before the US did, and provides gender-affirming care of all kinds in a way that is truly accessible for the vast majority of people. Compare this to the US where trans kids are often exiled by their families and given no support, leading to high rates of homelessness, hard drug use, and death.
  China does not have the same culture wars as the US, it doesn't have the same need for capital to create and maintain marginalization to distract from material decline. China is materially advancing and ending extreme poverty.
  I'm not saying China is as bad as the West claims it is. I'm just saying it's not something to get wild about.
  But you don't seem to know anything about China. Why have an opinion at all? Why not hold your tongue until you have done some reading or talked nicely to Chinese people?
  It's a nation state (a far too big one at that), which are by definition tools of oppression.
  Sure, but what of it? Do you think we are in a position to have a societu free of oppression, including nation states? With you and whose army?
  Socialists must build revolution in the real world, with what is materially in front of us. Tell us how you would, say, end China's status as a nation state without it just getting immediately recolonized, probably by the country in which you live, work, and to which you contribute.
  
  Hong Kong is a Chinese city that was colonized by the British and is being reintegrated, as yiu would expect from a sovereign country. You claimed elsewhere that you are against Western hegemony, but this is a crystal clear example of anticolonial action and you’re siding with the colonists that write breathless propaganda about how unfair it is that China is governing a Chinese city.
  Okay so violently beating down protesters is okay because it's in the name of anticolonialism? This line of reasoning goes exactly the same as US imperialism. It's always some harmful ideology that is enslaving the poor people of some place and they must be freed by being forced to join the empire.
  I don't get where you're trying to take this conversation. You don't have to prove to me that some things about China are great. In this comment alone you admitted three times that China isn't perfect. Which means, China should be criticized. Like any other nation state. And I am saying, there are shills who run around and won't let anybody criticize China because for some reason they got emotionally attached to a nation state. Everybody who says they don't want to deepthroat Mao's shlong for breakfast gets called a liberal. Any and all words uttered by a human that has even looked at the US on a map is liberal slop, and everything coming from the Russian state department is gospel. And I call those people tankies. That's all I'm saying.
  
  do some self crit
  you were given answers in earnest, and you are not engaging with them in a sincere way
  
  sorry, I'm trying
  
  First, before I respond point-by-point, I would like to point out thst you have ignored nearly all of my response. I offered you information, history, and context, in part because it is informative, but mostly because it provides you the opportunity to recognize (vocally or not) your ignorance of this topic and instead redirect your attention yo actually questioning your knowledge and opinions and doing some reading instead of lashing out or doubling down.
  Instead, you are doubling down on seeking conflict and sharing, yet again, that your only knowledge of this topic is what you were recemtly told to believe by capitalist media propagandists. And that this is so superior to my knowledge that you don't even need to acknowledge what I've said and can just continue on trying to be contrarian.
  Do you think it would be fair to call your behavior insufferable, as you have called tankies? To be clear, I do expect an answer to this question.
  Okay so violently beating down protesters is okay because it's in the name of anticolonialism?
  Oh, so you aren't even really responding to what I said, which is about Westerners being outraged that China was governing China. I thought you might not understand what I meant by that, but I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt.
  Anyways this is a srraw man and I will ignore it.
  This line of reasoning goes exactly the same as US imperialism. It's always some harmful ideology that is enslaving the poor people of some place and they must be freed by being forced to join the empire.
  You're just talking to yourself about all of this. It has nothing to do with what I said.
  Are you ready to have an actual conversation or are you so deep into liberalism that you can only imagine fighting and winning rather than questioning your own ignorance?
  I don't get where you're trying to take this conversation. You don't have to prove to me that some things about China are great. In this comment alone you admitted three times that China isn't perfect. Which means, China should be criticized.
  Let's say you go to a bar and there are some Nazis at the next table. You hear them say, "and fuck those communists, they will get what is coming to them". Are you going to go over there and say, "yeah, fuck those tankies! They're insufferable authoritarians"? Because all that means is that you're going out of your way to validate Nazis trying to kill communists and aligning yourself with them. When someone says, "what the fuck, punch those Nazis, don't validate them" are you going up say, "ergo, communists should be criticized".
  Your entire social context is those Nazis in that bar. And your criticisms aren't even informed, they're the bullshit spread by the Nazi propagandists. And then you tell everyone you're on the left.
  If you ever spent time among communists, you would find they are very critical of China. But their criticisms are differemt from yours becsyse yours are warmed over cold war talking points and uncritical readings of the media. And they are intentional about their outward criticisms, becayse again, our entire social context is the Nazi bar.
  Like any other nation state. And I am saying, there are shills who run around and won't let anybody criticize China because for some reason they got emotionally attached to a nation state
  Nonsense. Speak to and of the tankies right in front of you right now. What, exactly, are we doing?
  Everybody who says they don't want to deepthroat Mao's shlong for breakfast gets called a liberal.
  Hey look it's that homophobia I mentioned liberals doing in another comment. You asked me what a liberal is, well there you go. A liberal us, for exple, someone that attacks China for not having legalized gay marriage but then uses homophobic insults.
  Do self-crit.
  Any and all words uttered by a human that has even looked at the US on a map is liberal slop, and everything coming from the Russian state department is gospel. And I call those people tankies. That's all I'm saying.
  You do tell a lot of vague stories but they have no relation to what people are actually doing.
  It is not coincidental that you ignored the vast majority of what I said, as it was concrete history.
  
  Are you ready to have an actual conversation
  I thought I was having one. I'm just disagreeing with you on some things and you somehow seem to think that means I'm not engaging. I'm trying.
  Let’s say you go to a bar and there are some Nazis at the next table. You hear them say, “and fuck those communists, they will get what is coming to them”. Are you going to go over there and say, “yeah, fuck those tankies! They’re insufferable authoritarians”? Because all that means is that you’re going out of your way to validate Nazis trying to kill communists and aligning yourself with them. When someone says, “what the fuck, punch those Nazis, don’t validate them” are you going up say, “ergo, communists should be criticized”.
  Woah no and I'm sorry if I've given the impression I would do something like that. I consider marxist-leninist communists to be misguided comrades, and I hope you can think of me the same way.
  Hey look it’s that homophobia
  How is that homophobia? I think you're construing something here.
  It is not coincidental that you ignored the vast majority of what I said, as it was concrete history.
  It is not coincidental that I skimmed this comment as well because it is really fucking long. sorry
  
  Obviously violent “protesters” can’t be allowed to terrorize a city. But that’s not the narrative imperial core media spun about it. They spun a story about “freedom fighters”. It’s what they always do.
  Behind a made-for-TV Hong Kong protest narrative, Washington is backing nativism and mob violence
  
  Hm why does this narrative of violent protesters terrorizing cities feel so familiar? I wonder where I've heard that before
  
  The nuances of the PRC's desire for a One China policy largely stem from the Marxist theory of Nations, along with a desire to throw off all western colonizers. Without understanding the depths of the "century of humiliation" you can't hope to understand the desire for a unified China.
  Secondly, the PRC's process means social change comes slowly, but it has been improving. Notably, Xin Jing, a transgender woman, is one of China's top celebrities. Change is slow, but is happening at different rates across different sections of the PRC. Social change comes from improvements in productive forces and focusing on people as a priority.
  Thirdly, nobody is saying the PRC is Anarchist, but your insistence that everyone agree with you saying the government is by definition a tool of oppression despite 90%+ approval rates stands at direct odds with the people themselves. Like it or not, you must face the reality that it is Marxism that has brought great improvements to China's conditions, and these improvements are continuing at a rapid pace, and thus has widespread support.
  
  it is Marxism that has brought great improvements to China’s conditions, and these improvements are continuing at a rapid pace, and thus has widespread support.
  I can face that reality I think.
  All fair points, but what about Taiwan and Hong Kong? What about the treatment of minorities?
  
  but what about Taiwan
  You mean the island where the fascist fled after they lost the Chinese civil war and now acts as a base of US military hegemony?
  Hong Kong
  What about Hong Kong? The UK leased it after they won a colonialist war in the 19th century. The last British governor of Hong Kong was a white dude appointed from London. What about Hong Kong?
  "Only 17% of Hong Kongers say they want independence from China with just 20% saying China has abused the “one country, two systems” model to favor Beijing, a Reuters poll released on December 31 shows."
  What about the treatment of minorities?
  Could you give us examples?
  
  You mean the island where the fascist fled after they lost the Chinese civil war and now acts as a base of US military hegemony?
  So what? Imperialism is suddenly okay if you don't like the ruling ideology there? That is the same logic underlying US imperialism, and coincidentally, fits the old definition of the word tankie.
  What about Hong Kong?
  You may recall protests being violently repressed.
  Could you give us examples?
  Many uighurs have been imprisoned for example.
  Also your screenshot once again, just tries to prove China is awesome, because the US is bad. I'm not trying to compare the two.
  What are you trying to prove to me? That China is perfect? I know you don't believe that.
  
  Others have done far more research on those subjects and can answer them better than I can, so rather than contribute to the spread of nonsense I will refrain from speaking outside of what I factually know.
  What, specifically, are you asking about?
  
  Hong Kong has experienced violent oppression from China when there were protests. Taiwan wants to be independent but is not recognized as such by China. While Western media has certainly exaggerated claims, there are credible reports of uyghurs being repressed. I'm not saying this behavior is worse than Western imperialist behavior. I'm saying these are imperialist behaviors, and just like the US, the Chinese government tries to cover them up or pretend they aren't happening, or comes up with some reason for it.
  What I'm saying is that there are some people who buy into that, and will shut down any criticism of it.
  
  If China is so great then why does it feel the need to dictate over Hong Kong and Taiwan?
  It doesn't. Taiwan and Hong Kong ARE China. If anything the high level of autonomy that China allows reactionary regional governments to have is what should be criticized.
  Does China have gay marriage? Trans rights perhaps?
  China allows for civil unions for LGBTQ. https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1162943.shtml It made civil unions legal across the nation before USA made gay marriage legal in every state. Like all places in the world (some more than others) China has a long way to go on LGBTQ rights. But that's just it, China is improving along those lines, while the US is rapidly regressing. China is improving with trans rights and has been punishing companies that violate them. So yes, we should absolutely support China in continuing to move in the correct direction.
  It's a nation state (a far too big one at that), which are by definition tools of oppression.
  Lol, by whose definition? A state is only as good or bad as the ruling class that wields it. A bourgeois (capitalist) state will always be oppressive. As a socialist state (and China is a socialist state), the CPC uses its power to suppress the constant attempts of the bourgeois to oppress the working class.
  
  Taiwan and Hong Kong ARE China
  Imperialism much?
  China is improving along those lines, while the US is rapidly regressing
  That's fair, but it's once again an argument based entirely on comparing China to the US. The US being bad doesn't make China good. To get back to my original argument, I'm just saying that the word 'tankie' refers to China or Russia simps. There is no nation in this world worth simping for.
  
  Imperialism much?
  It is imperialism to let proxy governments for the UK and US maintain a colonial foothold in China actually.
  
  So the Taiwanese all desperately want to join the DPRC? Last I checked Taiwan was a sovereign nation. Capitalism has a foothold there but the British no longer rule there. Justifying imperialism with imperialism also doesn't magically make it okay
  
  Imperialism much?
  Wut? Oh, you think that's imperialism? Stating the fact that Taiwan is part of China and that Hong Kong is also just a region (SAR if you even know what that is) of China? All this shows is you have no fucking clue what imperialism even is. You literally don't know what that word means. Not by ML standards clearly, but not even by general layman standards. And it shows you know absolutely nothing about the history of this situation, which is typical of the sinophobic liberal. Taiwan is ran by a fascist nationalist government that tried to wipe out the workers movements and that still claims to be the "rightful" rulers not only of all of China but also other sovereign nations like Mongolia. And you're saying that China allowing them to continue to operate while slowly working towards future reunification is "imperialism." That's just sick. Take a look at what the US via the IMF and World Bank does to impoverished global south nations (that are impoverished solely because the US impoverished them for the purpose of subjugation and unequal exchange) to begin to understand what imperialism looks like. Then come back and tell me China's lenient position on Taiwan is "imperialism."
  The US being bad doesn't make China good.
  Never said it did. BUT part of why China is good is because it is overtaking the US which is unambiguously bad. This is one of the many things China is doing (in this case passively, but it does a hell of a lot of active good too) that is beneficial to humanity.
  There is no nation in this world worth simping for.
  I don't know what you think "simping" for a country even means, given it's a slang term involving romantic attraction, but if by "simping" for a nation, you mean "expressing vocal approval and ideologically supporting it," then yes, there are nations absolutely worth "simping" for. Cuba immediately comes to mind as the obvious one. But China also deserves the vocal approval and support of leftists since it is in fact a socialist state and is in fact doing much good in the world, both for the masses of people living within it as well as for most of the rest of the world through BRI and the fact that it is undermining the actual imperialist's ability to beat the global south into submission. Russia deserves critical support for the latter bit as well, seeing as it is doing more than any other state to actively fight imperialism and the monopolarity of US hegemony.
  
  Alright, please elaborate on your critical stance on China that is different from what is mainstream in US politics & journalism.
  
  That is the dumbest argument ever. Hitler liked dogs, liking dogs doesn't make you a nazi. That's not to say I agree with the US stance on China, but why would this even matter
  
  again, do some self crit
  the point was that many anarchists are indistinguishable from centrists when it comes to actual geopolitical issues, because they have internalized western propaganda about the West's rivals
  propaganda is not just lies (though some of it is actual lies), but emphasis
  nothing you've written in this thread is a genuine engagement with people who try to refute western propaganda about the west's rivals, and you've written nothing that would indicate that you're not a liberal who just likes anarchist aesthetics with a vague handwavy criticism of "nation states"
  
  many anarchists are indistinguishable from centrists when it comes to actual geopolitical issues
  simply gotta disagree. anarchists reject empire and authority. Centrists often support imperialism so long as it is favoring their own country. Anarchists typically oppose the imperialism of their own countries more than anything else.
  I'm really trying to engage with people here and I've conceded multiple good points. I've learned some things and I'm seeing new perspectives.
  Also why do you care so much about finding a way to call me a liberal it's obsessive :P
  
  Also why do you care so much about finding a way to call me a liberal it's obsessive :P
  First step in purging your inner liberal is recognizing that you are a liberal hahaha
  
  lmao I'll keep searching for that inner liberal then
- The conversation around China will take a minute, so I'll skip ahead to your second paragraph and circle back to do your statement justice.
  The people you describe as "tankies" do not exist in any reasonable number. You are extending a belief in some aspects of anti-western sources as full blind dogmatism. Secondly, in order to even consider oneself a Communist in a western-dominated website means exposure to constant western-narrative, the idea that eastern propaganda is much more effective is more of a smokescreen to avoid discussing hard topics than anything else.
  As for the PRC, they absolutely aren't Anarchist. They are, however, Marxist-Leninist, and Socialist. They have a Socialist Market Economy. Their Public Sector has supremacy over the direction of the Private Sector as key heavy industries the Private Sector relies on are entirely State Owned, and the Private Sector itself is trapped in a "birdcage model" whereby the CPC increases ownership and control as Markets naturally form monopolist syndicates.
  This is entirely in line with Marxism. Marxists believe that markets naturally centralize and form monopolist syndicates ripe for central planning, and thus are more efficient vectors for growth at earlier stages in development, but that as they centralize this becomes less efficient and public ownership and central planning takes priority.
  I recommend the article Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism.
  
  The people I'm describing as tankies are people I've interacted with myself. I'm sure they don't exist in huge numbers, but they are more concentrated on .ml, they are loud, and they are impossible to converse with. I still like it here because most people here, like yourself, are smart and offering interesting perspectives I haven't explored before.
  I agree that the idea of only Eastern propaganda being dangerous and pervasive is wrong. Western propaganda is everywhere too and also dangerous.
  One thing that is different is the lack of government-critical sources available from China, also Russia. Freedom of Speech in the West is wobbly, but in China and especially Russia it is even worse (from everything I've read).
  This is a lovely segue into our China sidequest, and while I agree on the definition, I have doubts on how public the public sector really is. The way that national election results look and the way vocal dissidents or political opposition are treated does not give me the idea that the people truly have all the power here.
  Capitalism concentrates power in the capitalist class. This class can then subvert democracy, resulting in oligarchy. In a similar way, central planning concentrates power in the central government, which actually makes it even easier to abuse that power. Chinese government is not transparent nor federal enough for me to call it democratic or owned by the people.
  
  One thing that is different is the lack of government-critical sources available from China, also Russia.
  
  Do you speak Chinese or Russian?
  
  No, and that's a good point actually. Although I think the state of political opposition both in Russia and China speaks volumes.
  
  This might be a hard pill to swallow, but Putin is largely popular among Russians for assisting with throwing out the Western Capitalists that bought the various slices of the former USSR after "Shock Doctrine" killed 7 million people with the re-introduction of Capitalism, and the CPC has an over 90% approval rate. Political opposition is largely limited because both governments have more support among their citizenry than Western governments do.
  
  I'm actually really happy that you mentioned Shock Doctrine because last time I was arguing with a tankie they called Naomi Klein a US state sanctioned liberal :D
  I already replied on another comment about the support
  
  Klein herself is fairly liberal, but the impact on the post-Soviet citizenry is apt. 7 million people died so that the West could profit.
  
  Shock Doctrine is good theory regardless of whatever western brainworms reside in her. If people couldn't separate theory we'd have to throw the whole thing out with Marx's European brainworms.
  
  Even in the very beginning you see the Western brainworms dangled in your face, but there are good aspects to the book.
  
  yep <3
  Unfortunately I've hat the displeasure of "conversing" with a few people who are unable to handle even that level of nuance
  
  I appreciate you calling me smart and trying to have a conversation, however I want to stress something you said:
  I’m saying that tankies claim to be communists but spend all day parroting their favorite Russian or Chinese state propaganda because they believe everything else is clearly controlled by Obamna™ himself. They rarely actually talk about communism, they just roam Lemmy all day calling everybody who disagrees with them a liberal :D
  What you are seeing is one aspect of people, and moreover the ones with "favorite state propaganda" that distrust all western sources as liberal propaganda don't exist. Even just seeing people debating endlessly on Lemmy.ml is just one aspect, people frequently have different accounts or discuss Communism on different threads than the ones they get into debates in.
  Additionally, I encourage you to look beyond the western veil. There are plenty of Russia-critical sources and China-critical sources in the east.
  With respect to China, I encourage you to look into processes like Whole Process People's Democracy, State Owned Enterprises, and other aspects to see how Socialism with Chinese Characteristics works. I encourage you to read the article I linked, as well. Additionally, while I know you said you are an Anarchist, your point on centralization being a bad thing goes directly against Marxist understanding. I recommend the article Why Public Property?
  Capitalism concentrates itself and centralizes, which prepares the productive forces for the mechanisms required to centerally plan them after folding them into the Public Sector. Central Planning is the only way to truly democratize production in the eyes of Marxists.
  
  One thing that is different is the lack of government-critical sources available from China, also Russia. Freedom of Speech in the West is wobbly, but in China and especially Russia it is even worse (from everything I've read).
  What have you read?
  Your freedom of speech is tolerated in the West to the extent thst it doesn't threaten ruling class interests. The ruling class already owns all of the papers and TV channels and think tanks, they drown you out. You can never hope to push socialism through their apparatus. That is how effective their cemsorship already is: you're told you have freedom of speech and then deplatformed. If you get a little louder, you might get a platform on occasion, but will then will still be drowned out by "competing" views.
  And if you fly too close to the sun, you will get direct government censorship. Ask Germany how "free speech" is going with regards yup Palestinian solidariry. Ask comrades in the US how free speech is going with Samidoun declared a terrorist orgsnization. Ask a former Black Panther for free their speech was while being soued on snd martyred by the feds and cops.
  If you actually do anything that matters, if you truly challenge the ruling powers in the West, you will need to be realistic and expect oppression. The idea that you have free speech is just pure propaganda.
  Re: China go on Weibo you will find plenty of criticism of the government. The idea that you can't criticize the government in China is xenophoboc propaganda.
  Re: Russia: okay, but what is your point? There are bad things that happen in Russia so... their role against US imperialism is bad? Because that tends to be the only thing supported by "tankies". The Russian Federation is a capitalist project created by capitalist revanchist shock therapy on the USSR that killed 7-10 million people. The West created the RF, its "oligarchs" are hust centralized capitalists like in othet countries in Europe, except the West continued to exclude Russia from the imperisl core, attempting to force it into the periphery (extraction snd poverty). What you see today is a regional capitalist power that is respinding to that. One where the national bourgeoisie are dominant rather than the international bourgeoisie, due to circumstances imposef on them. As a consequence, they often align against Western imperislism.
  This is a lovely segue into our China sidequest, and while I agree on the definition, I have doubts on how public the public sector really is. The way that national election results look and the way vocal dissidents or political opposition are treated does not give me the idea that the people truly have all the power here.
  Which is to say, you don't actually know anything about it. Public means state-owned, by the way. Do you believe they aren't actually owned by the state?
  Capitalism concentrates power in the capitalist class. This class can then subvert democracy, resulting in oligarchy.
  This has the false premise that the historical course of capitalism is to enter spaces that were already "democratic" in the bourgeois democratic sense. This is not true. Instead, capitalism itself gained power through the replacement of feudalistic giverning powers (like monarchies) with structures they could control, compatible with their ideas of "progress". In short, they created bourgeous democracy. They were already in control. The question of concentration of capital changes the words but not the fact of who is in control.
  In a similar way, central planning concentrates power in the central government, which actually makes it even easier to abuse that power.
  In countries run by socialists, central planning is an exercise of power that already exists. The power is maintained through the oppression of competing classes and, traditionally, party bureaucracy.
  I don't know what it could possibly mean to say it is "easier to abuse that power", it is so vague and decontextualized thst it just sounds like something you're makinh up on the spot. Socialists endeavour to speak in terms of concrete realities and draw conclusions from them. What is your standard of abuse? Of power? How are you comparing these things?
  btw central planning is not unique to countries run by socialists. Highly concentrated capitalism also has central planning aspects, as do their governments in times of emergency. But it is, in that case, central planning for bourgeois interests.
  Chinese government is not transparent
  How so? Tell me how the Chinese system works for, say, someone working to get a hospital built in their town.
  nor federal enough
  This sounds like America-centrism. There is nothing inherently democratic about federalism and it is often antidemocratic. If you are in the US, do you applaud the electoral college?
  for me to call it democratic or owned by the people.
  Tell me which other peripheral countries hsve done so much for their people. Tell me who has alleviated so much poverty, built so much infrastructure, and by their own hand rather than imperialism and capitalist ventures. The proof is in the doing.
  
  I'm genuinely apologizing because I'm only skimming this as I'm getting sleepy. and it's a lot to go through. I can tell you took effort so apologies.
  Re: West also bad, at times worse
  I know and I agree!
  btw central planning is not unique to countries run by socialists. Highly concentrated capitalism also has central planning aspects, as do their governments in times of emergency. But it is, in that case, central planning for bourgeois interests.
  And in the case of China, it is for CCP interests. Holding elections every now and then doesn't translate to the dictatorship of the proletariat as envisioned. By that logic, US democracy would be a dictatorship of the proletariat as well, since they hold elections every now and then.
  This sounds like America-centrism
  I do not consider america really federal, since there is massive power concentrated at the top. Same for other "federal" states like Germany
  
  I’m genuinely apologizing because I’m only skimming this as I’m getting sleepy. and it’s a lot to go through. I can tell you took effort so apologies.
  No worries, I am not holding you to a schedule. Please take any amount of time to reply. I also won't take it personally if you don't reply.
  It actually isn't much effort, I am very fast at writing.
  Re: West also bad, at times worse
  I know and I agree!
  Well that isn't what I said, though. What I said about the West is that there is addressing the false perception of greater "free speech" in the West, which is, again, largely just chauvinism. You do not enjoy greater speech, you are just such a non-entity in terms of threatening the ruling interests. This is because those ruling interests keep you, along with the wider public, weak, docile, and hating their same enemies.
  I am also highlighting the ruling interests, not the government. This is because in these places with allegedly more "free speech", international capital is dominant and has control over your everyday lives. It controls whether you can house and feed yourself and it censors on a constant basis. Restricting yourself solely to government censorship is a rhetorical trick used by capitalists to pretend that corporate control over life doesn't count as oppression. Where is the comparison to private censorship, where the "free press" is actually a corporate-censored press? Have you done a comparison between the accuracy of claims from the SCMP and NYT? Just pick Palestine, see how it serves you.
  And in the case of China, it is for CCP interests. Holding elections every now and then doesn’t translate to the dictatorship of the proletariat as envisioned.
  The dictatorship of the proletariat is not specified as anything other than the proletarian class oppressing the bourgeois class because they gained power through revolution. The PRC regularly executes billionaires and uniquely reroutes funds to its people, and its poorest, to build material well-being for all, not just the richest, and certainly not just the higher-ups in the party.
  By that logic, US democracy would be a dictatorship of the proletariat as well, since they hold elections every now and then.
  The dictatorship of the proletariat does not have any governing structure specified whatsoever. It is something predicted by Marx to have certain attributes that are more about political economics, like using monopoly industry that is already centrally planned and wielding it for the good of the proletarians. Something that China has often done and is the explicit communist logic behind their conveyor belt strategy for requiring companies to have more party and government participation as they grow larger and more monopolistic.
  I do not consider america really federal, since there is massive power concentrated at the top. Same for other “federal” states like Germany
  Then I have no idea what your meaning is.
- Per the origins of the term, a tankie is a communist that supported the Soviets wuelling the Hungarian 1956 uprising. It was an insult concocted by British Trotskyists, who also consider themselves communists.
  The modern use of the term is just a liberal sentiment leveled against anyone that doesn't fall neatly in line with US Empire's vilification campaigns. If you dare to say that Russia has material motivations that are a counter to those of the US rather than being a kingdom run by a madman that just loves killing, you are a tankie. If you don't want Ukraine used as a proxy for the US to hurt Russia, regardless of how many Ukrainians die, you are a tankie. If you treat the PRC as country filled with normal people living normal lives rather than the dystopian nightmare it's falsely depicted as, uou are a tankie. If you know anything at all about Dengism, you are a tankie.
  Really, the liberal position on both countries is premised on orientalism and it is never a surprise when the criticisms inevitably turn into vague tropes. And when this laziness is called out, well, it's time to deploy a tactical tankie reference. I definitely don't care about being insulted, these situations are really just a way for the other person to give themselves an excuse to stop thinking or engaging.
  
  Those are some valid arguments actually. I guess some people do throw the term around too liberally (heh).
  
  I'm very critical of American imperialism but I fail to see how the US is using Ukraine to hurt Russia.
  The fault always lies with the invader, Russia did this to itself. If I see someone getting stabbed and throw him a knife, implying I'm using him to hurt the other person attacking him is silly. Russia can leave anytime.
  I do agree tankie is thrown around far too much, I've been called one myself just for talking shit of the military, even though I never mentioned an other country or a political idealogie.
  The spread of the word as well as the constant villainization of China seems like prep for red scare 2.0, so we can have the population support bombing villages full of civilians (again).
  
  I'm very critical of American imperialism but I fail to see how the US is using Ukraine to hurt Russia.
  The US and its proxies have constantly escalated using Ukraine as a proxy for over a decade and since the war started they have continued this pattern. There is no path to victory for Ukraine. If the RF wanted to end it they could run mass bombing campaigns like NATO members do. They are making the opposite calculation: that the status quo of a military meat grinder for Ukraine is better for the RF. Given that one of their goals is a demilitarized Ukraine, there is some logic to this idea.
  It has been painfully obvious that Ukraine cannot win from the beginning. Nobody trying to escalate, provide Wunderwaffe, etc really things Ukraine will win, that is just not what any serious person thinks. This is also why there is such an intense and absurd propaganda campaign to say that Russia is losing more people and equipment, with the source nearly always being Azov Batallion, the UA MoD, or a combination of the two. They need to sell the public on the idea that Ukraine just needs your support and dang it they mogjt pull this thing off!
  So then, if UA can't win and the heads of state know they can't win, what is their logic? What is the angle on who benefits? Well, the singular common thread of brinksmanship with Ukraine as proxy has always been to try anf peel Europe away from economic integration with Russia and to instead keep it in the EU bubble, with more American integration. And, lo and behold, look at how Europe has destroyed its own industry and made itself even more dependent on the US. This has the added effect of isolating Russia from Europe. While Europe still buys their fossil fuels from Russia, trade overall is way down.
  In addition, there is the simple calculus that it requires manpower and productive capacity to wage war, capacity that could be directed elsewhere. Iran would likely have more and better air defense systems if Russia weren't focused on Ukraine.
  At no point does the suffering of the Ukrainian people enter the equation. There are no anti-war voices on the mainstream media about this aside from self-serving right wing "this is not our problem" rhetoric.
  The fault always lies with the invader, Russia did this to itself. If I see someone getting stabbed and throw him a knife, implying I'm using him to hurt the other person attacking him is silly. Russia can leave anytime.
  There are few countries thst tolerate a civil war on their border targeting the ethnicity of your own country, let alone an encroachment of the primary aggressor military force around the world couping them, let alone that neighbor remilitarizing despite agreements and not honoring their agreements. This is geopolitics, not a bar fight. War does not occur in a vacuum, it has a material basis. One does not need to justify war in order to understand that this did not occur in a vacuum and there is blame to go around.
  I do agree tankie is thrown around far too much, I've been called one myself just for talking shit of the military, even though I never mentioned an other country or a political idealogie.
  Yeah it's really just a way for national chauvinist liberals to quiet their own cognitive dissonance. I also think it's extra funny when a Trotskyist gets called tankie, since they invented the epithet.
  The spread of the word as well as the constant villainization of China seems like prep for red scare 2.0, so we can have the population support bombing villages full of civilians (again).
  Yes the US is trying to decouple on its own terms. Its constant attempts to provoke the PRC with Taiwan is also similar to what they did to Ukraine. To have the consent of their population to sacrifice their own well-being and justify whatever military action might occur, they will needs to be more racist and xenophobic towards China. It may not be Taiwan. It might be Korea or Myanmar. But constant escalation and provocation is the US game. Maximalist, relentless foreign policy pushing towards war and death.
  
  Russia entered a conflict that was already in progress, a civil war where the Ukrainian coup government was attempting to ethnically cleanse the Russian speaking population in the east. This coup was orchestrated by the US (this was obvious, admitted to in recorded phone calls, and was rife with high US politicians (John McCaine for example) going there to celebrate. The US/NATO also funded the training and arming of openly neo-nazi militias like Azov Battalion, (and others) many of whom were the ones shelling the people in the East long before Russia intervened. All of this was done by the US to exert pressure on Russia. And this is just scratching the surface. So no, Russia did not "do this to itself" and your framing of it is naive and simplistic and just plain false.
  I am genuinely glad to see you reognize the villainization of China, but please also apply those same critical thinking skills to what you have been told about Russia in the Ukraine conflict and do some digging into the history that doesn't rely on western propaganda.
  
  Do you have any links?
  
  https://lemmy.ml/post/22553506/15008047
  
  Has the thought ever occur to you, that maybe Russia can just leave Ukraine be? Just maybe another country that is resisting wants to keep it's sovereignty? Maybe the Tankie word is for people that fails to have any critical thought?
  
  The Russian Federation did leave Ukraine be. It was only after Western meddling, a coup, a civil war, not implementing agreements, toying with NATO membership, and resuming a civilian shelling campaign that the RF invaded.
  The imperial core Western powers poked and prodded and used Ukraine as a pawn until the RF hit its limit.
  Given that you likely live in one of the countries doing the relentless escalation, why not work against them doing so?
  
  This is the reality of language.
  \ Both definitions are now correct. The change isn't a fight you can win.
  
  The reality of language is that people like op rely on the negative connotation of the definition I just gave.
  Imagine of they just said, "advocating for" instead. Wouldn't have the same impact, right?
  
  Yup.
  You say that like it's mutually exclusive. Nobody gets to choose how other people use language. Definitions are whatever people agree that they are, even if you're not one of the people who agrees with it.
  \ You can dislike that definition of tankie all you want, the fact that they used it in this way and that you understood it means that it was used correctly.
  The evolution of language may hurt people, but denying the reality of evolving language hurts nobody but yourself. The etymology and history is good to know (and the meme relies on it), but the new definition is still a correct alternate definition.
  
  Oh I misunderstood and thought we were talking about a different word. This makes this discussion even sillier.
  You say that like it's mutually exclusive. Nobody gets to choose how other people use language. Definitions are whatever people agree that they are, even if you're not one of the people who agrees with it.\
  How do people agree what they are without telling other people their meaning explicitly or implicitly? What about people that intentionally misuse language to deceive? What about language that is self-descriptive due to selective use?
  I'm aware of prescriptivism vs descriptionism but this conversation isn't actually about that. In fact, I am already following a descriptivist line of reasoning, if you will review my earlier comment. I am saying how tankie is used nowadays.
  You can dislike that definition of tankie all you want
  What definition? Which one do I dislike? I don't know what you're talking about.
  the fact that they used it in this way and that you understood it means that it was used correctly.
  The way I understood it is, "anyone defending a target of US empire in any way from the left that I would like to stop listening to before my brain breaks". Seems spot-on to me.
  The evolution of language may hurt people, but denying the reality of evolving language hurts nobody but yourself. The etymology and history is good to know (and the meme relies on it), but the new definition is still a correct alternate definition.
  What on earth do you think you're replying to?
  
  Dude, idk.
  I was just like "you seem to be telling the dude that he isn't using tankie correctly, but that's not how language works"
  And then you replied that I'm wrong, and seemed to be making an appeal that the negative connotations had to do with the invalidity of the definition.
  Our wires are so crossed at this point that a random car in 1960 Spain just got spontaneously hotwired.
  
  I was just like "you seem to be telling the dude that he isn't using tankie correctly, but that's not how language works"
  What I actually did was provide some context for the term and how it's used nowadays. The point of the history lesson was to point out how the term became appropriated and set the stage for laughing about how some Trots get called tankie nowadays. The point of "how it's used nowadays" was go provide a counter-narrative for the "definition" they were taking their own liberties with. I did what they did, but I'm more correct in my context.
  Injecting a prescription vs description debate isn't really relevant.
  And then you replied that I'm wrong, and seemed to be making an appeal that the negative connotations had to do with the invalidity of the definition.
  Yes that was me misunderstanding which word we were talkjng about. There's another thread I had in mind. I don't think what I said there applies to the word tankie.
  Our wires are so crossed at this point that a random car in 1960 Spain just got spontaneously hotwired.
  I can make it worse, just give me time.
- I'm curious, where do you think so many westerners are exposed to Russian propaganda? Because there are apparently so many victims of it these days, can't turn a corner without someone decrying all these damn Russian and Chinese shill everywhere. So where do we all come from? What exactly did we get exposed to? I know this is the part where you handwave the question away with a "Heh, they got exposed to devious foreign thought on the freaking internet
  " but I'm not letting you off that easy. Tell me what you think the actual specific vectors are for all this "Russian and Chinese propaganda" you see everywhere, and how it was apparently able to easily penetrate the absolute haze of American propaganda that all of us in "the west" have been force fed our entire lives.
  Please account for this gaping hole in your social theory. Why so many tankies, how, and why only now?
  
  Funny, I was just telling @Cowbee about how the tankies I see on here are insufferable & impossible to converse with.
  But I'll bite. First of all, I don't appreciate the strawmen. I'm not saying that there is a lot of tankies, nor that they are here now suddenly. I'm not denying that US/Western propaganda doesn't exist, nor that it's dangerous and pervasive.
  I'm just saying that I, myself, in my own experience, have seen people shilling for China or even Russia, acting like it's a fucking utopia. Russia an oligarchy, just with a different structure than most Western countries. China is a government that rules over billions of people. That is, by definition, evil. No amount of America Bad makes China or Russia good.
  In terms of propaganda sources, for example just take a look at Russia Today.
  
  China is a government that rules over billions of people. That is, by definition, evil.
  Funny how 95% of the Chinese population approves of and rates favorably this terrible "ruling over" they are being subjected to.
  New theory just dropped, everyone: The more people a government represents, the more evil that government is.
  
  New theory just dropped, everyone: The more people a government represents, the more evil that government is.
  lmao. I unironically believe this though. The more you concentrate power, the harder it is to keep bad actors from abusing said power.
  Funny how 95% of the Chinese population approves of and rates favorably this terrible “ruling over” they are being subjected to.
  Most Americans approve of capitalism. Does that make it good too?
  
  lmao. I unironically believe this though.
  
  The more you concentrate power, the harder it is to keep bad actors from abusing said power.
  What makes you think the power over those billion+ people is all "concentrated"? Could it be (gasp!) that the power is largely distributed among those people who overwhelmingly support that government? This is just capitalist-realism-brained misunderstanding of how communist parties work.
  Most Americans approve of capitalism. Does that make it good too?
  No, but that's certainly not what makes it bad.
  
  Could it be (gasp!) that the power is largely distributed among those people who overwhelmingly support that government?
  Democracy doesn't work when it's top-down. In the West, the capitalist and ruling class is capable of exerting control on public opinion and therefore on elections. The same is true of the CCP, which can influence public opinion as well. The best way to combat this is by emancipating individuals so they are able to resist state propaganda. China has a dogshit score on the press freedom index, so good luck educating the people on the shortcomings of the government. The government is intransparent and oppressive by design.
  
  the press freedom index
  Oh not the Burger Institute Freedom Fries Index?!?!
  
  It's maintained by Reporters without Borders and is not US affiliated
  
  Can you explain how Whole Process People's Democracy is "top-down?" Further, can you explain why it's a good thing for Capitalists to control the press, and not the public? The inverse of public press is private press, and that means ownership by Capitalists and liberals. Surely it's better for the people to control the press, and not the bourgeoisie?
  Further, can you explain how the government is "intransparent and oppressive by design?" Just because you don't speak mandarin doesn't mean the process is mystified and opaque for those who live in and contribute to said system.
  
  Can you explain how Whole Process People’s Democracy is “top-down?”
  Can you explain to me how it's not?
  Further, can you explain why it’s a good thing for Capitalists to control the press, and not the public?
  No, because it's not. Nice strawman. Is this public you speak of the government?
  
  Most Americans approve of capitalism. Does that make it good too?
  because "capitalism" and "communism" are loaded words
  consider this though:
  A year before the presidential election, three-quarters of Americans (76%) believe the country is headed in the wrong direction and the leading Democratic and Republican candidates are viewed broadly unfavorably, according to a new ABC News/Ipsos poll. Only 23% of Americans think the country is headed in the right direction.
  When asked whether things in their country are heading in the right direction, or are they off on the wrong track, 90 percent of the respondents from China taking part in this Ipsos survey said they were heading in the right direction.
  
  I don't see what the approval rates of these two countries have to do with anything here. In terms of the economy and infrastructure, China is indeed moving in the right direction. That doesn't mean I think China is a force of good in the world. It's a nation state and should be subject to criticism. And all I'm saying is that there are people who will religiously dogpile you if you try to do that, and I call those people tankies.
  
  China is indeed moving in the right direction. That doesn't mean I think China is a force of good in the world.
  Then what would? If the fact that China is doing good in the world is not enough for you to think "it a force for good in the world" then what does it need to do? Oh, I forgot, you think "all nation states are bad by definition" and unironically believe that the more people a government represents, the more evil it is. So in order for China to be "a force for good in the world" China simply has to cease to exist. Got it. Nope, that doesn't align with US interests at all.
  
  It's a nation state and should be subject to criticism. And all I'm saying is that there are people who will religiously dogpile you if you try to do that, and I call those people tankies.
  Literally no one on lemmy has ever said China is above criticism. I dare you to find a single instance of that ever happening.
  
  Literally no one on lemmy has ever said China is above criticism. I dare you to find a single instance of that ever happening.
  That's not quite what I mean, I think we got sidetracked. I'll give you an example:
  https://lemmy.ml/post/21941058
  This guy posts the worst propaganda article I've ever read, and gets downvoted to oblivion. Take a look and tell me that reading it doesn't feel like wormtongue himself is whispering into your ear. The issue being lamented in the article is real, and I made clear in my first comment that I agree, but the OP goes off, assumes that I don't like the article because a Russian wrote it, calls me a liberal, puts up 100 strawmen without engaging any of my arguments, and then accuses me of not engaging their (nonexistent) arguments. I wasn't even disagreeing with the article just the way it's written lmao
  
  Nobody believes Russia is a Utopia.
  Nobody believes the PRC is perfect, but on the right track, and especially nice in Tier 1 and 2 cities.
  The CPC has over 90% support, the fact that China has a government does not mean that is "evil."
  
  90% support makes the whole thing more suspicious to me than anything.
  I'm sure a lot of the policy that the CCP has put forward are great, especially if compared to the US counterparts, but that doesn't justify violence and oppression.
  
  90% support makes the whole thing more suspicious to me than anything.
  True democracy is when a president has a 37% approval rating.
  Alright I'm just joshing with you, but since you're an anarchist you do agree with me on the following, right?
  The Western hegemony is dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. It suppresses voices that dissent from neoliberal dogmas and the military brinkmanship of NATO. It often violently clamps down grassroots movements like BLM or the Free Palestine protests. The Western parliaments consist of different flavours of neoliberalism, neoconservatism and fascism, and not a real representation of an actual "marketplace of ideas", just a theatre of so-called politics.
  
  True democracy is when a president has a 37% approval rating.
  unironically funny lmao.
  Yes I do agree with you.
  
  Why does it make you suspicious? Do you have legitimate grounds for this? Under the CPC, extreme poverty has been eliminated, and China went from being one of the poorest countries on the planet to a rising superpower in less than a century. When you look at the real, material change in people's lives in as short a timespan as this, it's understandable why they have a high approval rate.
  Secondly, I don't know what you're referring to as "justification for violence and oppression."
  
  it’s understandable why they have a high approval rate.
  It is. I'm not saying the number is fake. I'm saying that the CCP does not make an effort to make its government transparent and emancipate its citizens so they can form cirtical opinions. Those in power hold all the tools to keep themselves in power.
  
  I'm saying that the CCP does not make an effort to make its government transparent and emancipate its citizens so they can form cirtical opinions.
  You said you don't speak Chinese.
  You read this where? NYT? Radio Free Asia? Totally-Non-Governmental-Organization coincidentally lead by Atlantic Council ghouls and retired NATO generals?
  
  On what grounds do you say the CPC does not make an effort to make its government transparent? Whole Process People's Democracy, and the general democratic processes within the PRC, require politicians to work their way up from small, local rungs until they reach the top. Secondly, the fact that you don't speak Mandarin and consider all state press to be propaganda rags does not mean that the CPC doesn't showcase transparency to its own citizens in the PRC.
  Thirdly, it is a chauvanistic point of view to claim that the PRC doesn't "emancipate its own citizens" so they can "form critical opinions," frankly. This is a sinophobic point of view that claims a country of billions can't think for themselves.
  Finally, the claim that "those in power have the tools to keep themselves in power" is utterly unsubstantiated. You're conjuring a view of China that isn't based on any material claims.
  Listen, I'm sure you're trying to answer in good-faith, but it's clear that you're entirely unfamiliar with how the PRC works and funtions on a day to day basis. It is entirely okay to admit to not knowing much about it, taking a break from the keyboard, and reading up on concepts like Whole Process People's Democracy. I think it would benefit you greatly.
  I know you're an Anarchist, but Mao has fantastic advice for this kind of subject matter:
  Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn't that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful. How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense?
  It won't do!
  It won't do!
  You must investigate!
  You must not talk nonsense!
  Oppose Book Worship
  I also recommend my introductory Marxism-Leninism reading list, and am happy to answer any questions you might have.
  
  Okay fine if I have time tmrw I'll do some extra reading on WPPD. Got a good resource?
  
  Widespread public support for a government is alien to the mind of the liberal
  
  I think I haven't made myself clear, I don't think the number is made up.
  
  acting like it's a fucking utopia. # I don't appreciate the strawmen.
  
  China is a government that rules over billions of people. That is, by definition, evil.
  Wait what? You'd prefer to Balkanize China into a several million anarchist direct democracy communes? Or what? How would that work in 2024?
  
  You're implying that I'm the one setting up a strawman by claiming that people are acting a certain way. This is from my personal experience. I'm not accusing you or everyone here of being a tankie but it seems like everybody here identifies as one. Maybe we have a different definition of the word. I was trying to clarify my definition.
  You’d prefer to Balkanize China into a several million anarchist direct democracy communes? Or what? How would that work in 2024?
  No, and I don't think any smart anarchist is advocating for some crazy revolution involving a coup or whatever. I advocate for building strong local communities, that are heavily interconnected. "Communes" as such are kind of impossible since most people live in cities anyway. We need to build resilient networks that can slowly replace oppressive centralized power. Personally I also don't subscribe to only 100% anarchism, my ideology is also influenced by socialism, syndicalism and marxism.
  
  We need to build resilient networks that can slowly replace oppressive centralized power.
  hmm, maybe a truly massive party with many cadres around the country? perhaps? maybe?
  I advocate for building strong local communities, that are heavily interconnected.
  Are you 100% sure there's nothing like this in China?
  so how to do this neat leftcom kind of stuff, without some kind of centralization, when also you simultaneously need to
  modernize your country, literally everything from agriculture, to healthcare and heavy industry and so on
  defend yourself from antagonistic countries
  defend yourself from giant multinational corpos who'd jump at the chance to plunder your resources
  defend yourself from fascist/monarchist elements inside your country
  I mean in actual practice in a real historical scenario?
  
  This debate went way off the rails, but maybe tell me about how you think things should go. For example what would be a way for the US to transition to communism.
  
  Nah, I give up at this point and Xi only paid me for this long, my shift is over.
  Read Parenti and others.
  
  Alright, well thanks for engaging with me I know I was ruffling feathers.
  
  Funny, I was just telling @Cowbee about how the tankies I see on here are insufferable & impossible to converse with.
  I would say the people here are being very patient with you, as you are spreading xenophobic views out of ignorance and recycled imperialist think tank talking points while also being condescending. You don't get pushback on that by liberals because they agree with you but anyone on the left would be embarrassed to be associated with it.
  The appropriate response for someone not generously giving you their time would be to call you, among other things, a liberal and then go on with their day.
  But I'll bite. First of all, I don't appreciate the strawmen. I'm not saying that there is a lot of tankies, nor that they are here now suddenly
  Liberals suddenly learned the word tankie. Why do you think that is? Rather than a straw man, I understood this as a fact we could all accept.
  I'm just saying that I, myself, in my own experience, have seen people shilling for China or even Russia, acting like it's a fucking utopia.
  What tankies have you seen that treat Russia like a utopia? What tankies have you seen that treat China like a utopia? I think you are just revealing your owm straw men, and all you have seen is people appreciating asoects of either country. And by the magic of chauvinism, any praise for any aspect of "the enemy" is an uncritical endorsement. Liberals going down this path will often throw in some homophobic ibsults about Putin or Xi.
  Russia an oligarchy, just with a different structure than most Western countries.
  Russia is capitalist. It is only called an oligarchy because Westerners are racist towards them and need different words for the same thing when the Slavic brainpan does it. This is you uncritically absorbing that racism. They control our thoughts through language, framings, and what is discussed vs. not discussed.
  China is a government that rules over billions of people. That is, by definition, evil.
  It obviously is not.
  No amount of America Bad makes China or Russia good.
  America Bad both describes the position of the US as the globsl seat of capital and imperislist power and is intended to get people like yourself to have sone persoective, as you are deeply propagandized towards America-centrism.
  In terms of propaganda sources, for example just take a look at Russia Today.
  RT is, generally speaking, more reliable that the NYT. So what of it?
  
  Again apologies for skimming, you are writing a lot.
  I would say the people here are being very patient with you
  I agree
  Russia is capitalist. It is only called an oligarchy because
  You misunderstood me. I'm saying that the US is an oligarchy as well.
  you are spreading xenophobic views out of ignorance and recycled imperialist think tank talking points while also being condescending
  the first part is your opinion, and the second part is not true. I'm not being condescending, and I'm being equally patient replying to people who are just trolling
  RT is, generally speaking, more reliable that the NYT
  If you have to compare RT to the NYT, that says more than enough
  
  You misunderstood me. I’m saying that the US is an oligarchy as well.
  Every capitalist country is an oligarchy. The term is used selectively for Russia, and you have specifically focused on its use re: Russia in this discussion.
  the first part is your opinion
  My correct opinion. Do you believe you are the first baby leftist I've come across that harbors these kinds of views? I am always part of the political education group in any org I am in. We have to root people out who are very confident in their chauvinism and isolate them from the others in some way, as they are very disruptive on top of being wrong. This is also why various baby-leftist-only spaces are so completely useless, they spend their time chasing phantoms and fighting people that do good work. This is also why the feds have historically supported Trotskyists and certain anarchist formations.
  and the second part is not true.
  It is true, I know where these claims come from. I recognize them.
  I’m not being condescending, and I’m being equally patient replying to people who are just trolling
  You are repeatedly broad-brushing "tankies" with bullshit and placing yourself in a position to argue with others despite clearly not doing the work of learning about the topic first. A cool guy once said, "no investigation, no right to speak".
  If you have to compare RT to the NYT, that says more than enough
  I don't know what that means.
  
  In terms of propaganda sources, for example just take a look at Russia Today.
  You think Russia Today accounts for the massive worldwide upswell in communist and anti-imperialist sentiment over the last few years
  
  My guy, you clearly just listed the first Russian news outlet you could think of. In the very last sentence too, after like a paragraph of tangential whining, as if anybody asked. It's such a transparent attempt to bait my attention away from your inability to defend your dumbass theory, and then you top it off with "uhh anyway, millions of people around the world suddenly got hooked on Russia Today." Deeply unserious. I assume you can pull up google trends and verify this massive spike in readership, right?
  Yeah man, it's not the warmongering, the lies, the genocide, the complete capitalist destruction of any social fabric, hope for the future, international peace or survivable environment. It's just the sinister Chinese and die Russich swine working to sow dissent among us freedom loving people.
  You are a dipshit, a liberal, and a useful idiot for fascism, but I repeat myself. One thing you are currently not is any kind of leftist.
  
  You think Russia Today accounts for the massive worldwide upswell in communist and anti-imperialist sentiment over the last few years
  No? When did I say that? You seem to think I'm calling everybody here a tankie (or my definition thereof). I'm not.
  as if anybody asked.
  I was literally asked
  Yeah man, it’s not the warmongering, the lies, the genocide, the complete capitalist destruction of any social fabric, hope for the future, international peace or survivable environment. It’s just the sinister Chinese and die Russich swine working to sow dissent among us
  Jesus Christ I cannot make this any more clear, I am not saying that China or Russia are the top threats and that we need to save liberal democracy lmao. I criticize China, you immediately assume that I'm a liberal and your enemy. You argue in bad faith, pellet me with strawmen and make 100 assumptions about what you think my opinions are. Which is exactly the kind of behavior I'm talking about.
  At least most of the other people replying to my comment were interesting to speak to and argued in good faith. I might learn something from them. I won't learn anything from you and you aren't interested in learning anything from me.
  You have proven my point :)
- It's always hilarious to see how the most ignorant libs are always the most confident. You might as well believe you're a donkey with a laser dick as it makes as much sense as everything else you believe.
  
  hehe Yogthos I was actually thinking of you when I mentioned China stans :P no offense
  I really don't like being called a liberal though :( what makes me come across like a liberal? Is it my anarchism? My hatred of capitalism, colonialism and western hegemony?
  
  It is your repetition of radlib talking points to punch left.
  
  Anarchists are liberals who like LARPing as leftists. You share the same ideology and focus on individualism above all else.
  
  Okay we might have a different definition of liberal. (ironically under a post where I'm arguing about the definition of tankie lol). I'm talking about people who think capitalism can work or can be made to work. People who conflate capitalism and the fake meritocracy sold by the American dream with actual freedom.
  If liberal just means somebody who believes that freedom is important, then yeah I'm a liberal. But maybe you have a different definition? (genuinely asking, not trying to be standoffish)
  You have a misconception about anarchism being about individualism though. Anarchists focus on community and communes. Most anarchist theory I've consumed laments the individualism that capitalism tries to sell because it destroys culture and community.
  
  Liberalism is fundamentally an ideology of private property ownership and that's why it always inevitably devolved into fascism in times of crisis.
  Therefore, whenever economic liberalism finds itself under threat from “populism”, it quickly jettisons the principles of political liberalism to which it is theoretically tied.
  In other words, these “principles” are not principles at all, just convenient postures designed to cloak the unpleasant reality of the economic liberals’ capitalist system.
  https://orgrad.wordpress.com/articles/liberalism-the-two-faced-tyranny-of-wealth/
  Anarchists talk a lot about community, but reject actual practical way to organize communally and combat capitalism. And the argument for rejecting practical means is that these approaches restrict individual freedoms. Anarchists place their individual freedom above collective good, and thus align with liberal capitalists in action.
  
  Liberalism is fundamentally an ideology of private property ownership and that’s why it always inevitably devolved into fascism in times of crisis.
  What does this have to with anarchism, which rejects private property?
  Anarchists place their individual freedom above collective good, and thus align with liberal capitalists in action.
  Anarchists believe that it is neither a supreme ruler nor the majority that decide what collective good is. I reject your idea that the collective good is something we have to decide on collectively and then force upon those who disagree. Anarchists have been brutally repressed in Western countries, they in no way align with liberal capitalists in action.
  
  Everything anarchists do in tangible terms helps maintain liberal capitalist rule. That's the reality of the situation. Hence why anarchists are just LARPing without any tangible plan of action. Anarchists love moaning about being brutally repressed, but refused to take any action against the repression.
  
  IMO, building support networks and communities is better than meeting in dark rooms and planning revolutions. Or what is your plan of action? (Genuinely asking)
- The thing is that in a polarised world you support one side or the other, and the sides are the US and China. US is certainly not better deserving support than China, but liberals will call tankie anyone who support China in any way, shape or form. For a liberal it's completely inacceptable to say that China is doing anything better than the US.

It’s not shilling, it’s nuance. American main stream thinking is full of lies about both China and Russia. And both conservatives and liberals HATE when people don’t fall in line.

Your second and third sentence are true. I have definitely seen plenty of shills though.
In my experience I've only seen the word tankie be used by leftists. Libs and conservatives don't even know what a tankie is.
- Anyone who uses the term "tankie" unironically to disparage other leftists is a lib. Anyone who uses the term ironically to make fun of those who don't is a leftist. But you're right, conservatives don't know what it means, they also don't know that they are libs as well.

Weird way to say has at least modicum of understanding of geopolitics and doesn't support the genocidal western empire.

Yet again begging liberals to understand what the word "shill" means.

Define liberal please because I don't like being called one.
In the same way that some people will shill for billionaires or for some billionaire-owned company, aka a corporate shill. People who fail to see that (capitalist) companies are just a way to extract profit. In the same vein, some people fail to see that nation states are just instruments of power. Some are better than others in different ways of course, but I get real itchy when people jump to defend a nation at the first smidgeon of criticism. I hate nationalism.
- Define liberal please because I don't like being called one.
  Liberalism is the dominant ideology of capitalism, it is a wide set of social and political views that serve capitalism through the absorption of bourgeois attitides and its primsry vehicle of political legitimacy is bourgeois democracy, like parliamentarianism. Every person living under capitalism has absorbed some liberalism, including every anarchist and communist. But those who critically engage sufficiently can shed the label because they understand the system sufficiently and work against it.
  You are repeatedly exoressing a litany of thoughts rooted in unexamined liberalism. One that is usually retained by baby leftists in Western countries is racism and xenophobia. They will see the value of organized labor and social justice but cannot tie it to imperislism and fall in line with who the Capitalists tell them is their enemy
  What do you think of people who say it's hypocritical for queer people to support Palestine? Because to a socialist you sound like that when spreading imperialist pinkwashing against China.
  In the same way that some people will shill for billionaires or for some billionaire-owned company, aka a corporate shill. People who fail to see that (capitalist) companies are just a way to extract profit.
  A shill is someone paid to profess to have views other than their own. People shilling for a product makes sense, it is an old salesman tactic.
  Who do you think is paying me to be right about China all the time?
  In the same vein, some people fail to see that nation states are just instruments of power.
  On the contrary, every communist that has ever existed knows this. We write about it all the time. Projecting this liberalism onto communists is just telling on yourself.
  Some are better than others in different ways of course, but I get real itchy when people jump to defend a nation at the first smidgeon of criticism. I hate nationalism.
  Existing in the real world as we do, your "anti-nationalism" is really just nationalism in favor of Western powers, despite your professibg to be against them. You repeat their talking points! What do you think the outcome is of uncritically repeating sinophobic or russophobic falsehoods? Why do you think we are even talking about those two countries? It is because US empire has decided to focus on them as targets of derision and marginalization.
  What, exact, nationalism are you pushing back against? What is making you itchy? Because all I see are people defending China against piss-poor talking points.
  
  You say liberalism is dominant in capitalism, you say it has a wide set of mechanisms that serve it, you say everyone in a capitalist country absorb them. You do not elaborate on what those specific mechanisms are, you just say there are mechanisms. This is not a definition of liberal. This is you telling someone liberalism exists in, and is important to, capitalism.
  
  I did not give an extensive definition because the self-description of liberalism, by liberals, is at odds with the historical actions of liberalism. It could be distracting and take a while to get the point across.
  For example, liberalism self-defined with maximizing individual liberty while it also advocated for the "freedom" of corporations to work you as many hours as it could while shitting down your unionizing effort with violence. Liberalism also self-defined as favoring democracy and everyone having a say, but implemented this in a racist and sexist way that placed capital in charge while also colonizing others and depriving them of self-determination.
  The common thread is really just that it is the dominant ideology of capitalism, its function is to extoll the virtues of capitalism and tying it to an illusion of liberation and self-determination while actually working against both of those things, as under capitalism, capital works against both struggles. The person that liberals have you read as foundational to liberalism, John Locke, worked to support an American settler colony and its slavery rules and explicitly supported child labor. Then, as today, there is a difference between how political figures present themselves and what their advocacy actually entails.
  
  Now you have given a definition for liberalism. You could have done this in the previous reply, or could have just told the person no. Instead you gave a vague non-answer.
  
  I actually have no given a definition of liberalism outside of the core I did originally. I have only listed a few self-claimed qualities and their inconsistency.
  I also gave a rationale for why I went in this direction. Notice the complete lack of engagement with it.
  
  Oh no, you did, you laid out the basic tenets of it's individualism, and how that has served capitalism. The last post you just said it served capitalism without elaborating on aspects of its individualistic ideas. You didn't get into depth, but you mentioned the very surface level concepts.
  
  I didn't speak about individualism at all, actually.
  It's not clear to me what your point is. Did you read my longer response to you? Do you have anything to say about it?
  
  For example, liberalism self-defined with maximizing individual liberty while it also advocated for the “freedom” of corporations
  I didn’t speak about individualism at all, actually.
  Uh.. what? I said you brought up how it held individualism as important, but the pitfalls of that in how it serves capitalism. This is a copy/paste of a line in your reply. How do you now deny this, when you said that?
  
  Liberalism is the dominant ideology of capitalism,
  gonna stop reading right here since I've stated I'm anticapitalist and it feels like going in circles. sorry but can only answer so many of these huge comments in a day. If there's an argument you really want me to engage with please let me know
  
  gonna stop reading right here since I’ve stated I’m anticapitalist and it feels like going in circles.
  Anyone can call themselves anything. Are they always correct?
  If you deigned to keep reading, condescending liberal, you would find that I explained how this works.
  sorry but can only answer so many of these huge comments in a day. If there’s an argument you really want me to engage with please let me know
  No. You can reply to what I said if you want to discuss this topic or you can acknowledge that you aren't ready to discuss these things. This is not asking very much. I'm not asking you to read a book. It is about 3 average-sized paragraphs worth of text. I am not holding you to a deadline, either. But you can't just dance around in bad faith and expect patient responses.
  
  Holy fucking shit what a coward you are. This person @TheOubliette@lemmy.ml has done more in good faith to actually educate you about things no leftist should be ignorant about than you deserve. You have this tremendous opportunity to genuinely learn from someone with a wealth of knowledge and actually deepen your understanding of the world and even the ideology you claim to subscribe to, but instead you plug your ears and pretend there's nothing to be gleaned from this generous education you're being offered all because it conflicts with your preconceptions, your misconceptions which is cognitively uncomfortable. But that really does just come down to cowardice. I hope one day you can recognize this, recognize the importance of and necessity for self crit. If not, you'll forever be stuck as you are, the proverbial useful idiot for the same empire you claim to wish to see an end to.

Or someone who slightly disagrees with a republican

Or even a democrat. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been called a tankie, by liberals, for simply not adhering to status-quo ideology.

That's in theory. In practice it's only used by liberals to insult leftist when they criticise the US or liberalism.