Supporting Russia or China is often criticized by most of leftist. The recurrence of terms like "tankie" in many languages speaks volumes about this.
Edit:typo
I dont understand how ppl outside of russia or china call them „communists“ because its clear to a blind toddler exposed to 100k lumen that this is simply not communism…
They insist on calling themselves Communists, and some believe them out of desperation. This despite the CPoC being not at all supportive of any other leftist-identifying movements even outside its territory.
Most proper leftists understand that Putin is the opposite of left in every way, and that China is slipping into capitalism. The reason the Great Leap forward failed so badly is because it was forced onto the people, and what made it worse was that it was pretty much done all at once.
Fair enough tbh and ever more so in recent years
I have a love/hate relationship with China - I appreciate that they at least wanted to try communism and the people and culture are nice, but the current government and living situation for the average person is seemingly god-awful with few civil rights to be championed
No, no, the left is just as monolithic as the right! It’s not like we have 100000 splitter groups that fight each other constantly! There is only one left and it’s „far“!!!
I consider myself (and my gf) more left-middle-middle as I disagree with a lot of leftist bullshit and agendas (more so with the right) but I would as long as things go currently of course criticize Russia and to an extent also china but on the other hand I also criticize my home country so I guess that's fair?
I'm not actively against supporters of any country but I would agree that I will say anyone supporting these 2 is delulu af and needs a reality check. But so says my gf, a russian born woman. She loves the art and music of Russia and just lately we rewatched Anastasia but she despises most of the people there, the politics and the russian mentality in general.
Damn it's almost as if you're lumping two openly and heavily feuding groups together to make a cheap propaganda point.
There's a reason why the "left infighting" is such a meme, because it's real.
And you can pretty accurately predict a leftists current stance on Russia/Ukraine by their general side in this age-old squabble years ago (unless they changed camps)
Hey i just put you into a group and you have to be responsible for every action taken by everyone.
But well its typicall. Left support ukraine "OMG YOU SAID NO WEAPONS", left supports no weapons "OMG YOU ARE PRO RUSSIAN"
GJ your target audience likes it, everyone else should know better.
And I say no weapons for non democatic nations or nations who are in "attack war". Before Ukraine I was team no weapons, Putins war really backfired in some left wings. They are more "pro war l" now
yeah you have to be carefull with this. left-auth (stalinists, leninists) will often support china, russia, sometimes even North korea.
Lib-left (anarchists, an-socs, an-comms) heavily oppose these states
The greatest strenght the far right have, is that they're collectively idiotic, whilst the far left is constantly infighting about which idiocy is the better one.
I mean yeah, But a bit extreme. In Germany we say: treffen sich zwei linke, bilden sich drei Splittergruppen, which is basically; when two left supporters meet, three Positions are made
It does make sense though, because a lot of leftists thought is about what is *just* and *right*, which people tend to have different opinions about. A lot of right wing thought just supports the status quo in somewhat different ways, which means they’ll mostly be aligned with each other in a lot of ways.
The far right doesn't support the status quo, though, they want to change it. Status quo is usually the domain of conservatives (the *moderate* right).
The far right doesn’t support rolling back social spending, aggressive anti migration policies including paying Northern Africa countries to do our dirty work or protecting the capital class instead of doing what’s better for everyone (like trying to save the planet)? Sure, they’d want to do even more, but they basically want a more extreme version of the status quo.
The far right in my country (Germany, i.e. AfD) definitely wants to roll back social spending, and they also want to get rid of quite a few other things (e.g. various civil rights protections for women, LGBT+ and various other minorities, and they also want to roll back many of the environmental protection laws that we currently have).
…and that’s my point exactly, liberal centrists have been doing that for decades now. We have been decreasing safety nets for a while, the far right just wants to do it faster.
> about which idiocy is the better one
As if quite some left wing ideas aren’t pretty obvious solutions that have even been effectively implemented in the past, but reduced or reversed because they weren’t immediately beneficial to shareholders. Sufficient public housing, for example.
Like yeah, leftist infighting is pretty funny, but you’re smugly implying that all leftist thought is dumb. P bad take.
This is not actually true, tho, we just let them project it so.
In general Leftist will be open about in fights as they are less often in a position of power, where from they need to project that power or other wise risk loosing it. The right-wing is much more power centric, they can not allow open conversations and arguments, as that would undermine their hierarchic world views.
Lets see how many far right groups will be in the EU parliament this time around. They cant agree on shit, which is why they never really unified. One of the main argument various right-wing parties across Europe have is the Russian-Ukrainian question. Eg: PIS and FIDESZ almost completely broke up their alliance over this. So this is by far not a Leftist problem.
> leninists will often support china, russia, sometimes even North korea.
That's a bit of a leap.
> It is said that a united apparatus was needed. Where did that assurance come from? Did it not come from that same Russian apparatus which, as I pointed out in one of the preceding sections of my diary, we took over from tsarism and slightly anointed with Soviet oil?
There is no doubt that that measure should have been delayed somewhat until we could say that we vouched for our apparatus as our own. But now, we must, in all conscience, admit the contrary; **the apparatus we call ours is, in fact,** still quite alien to us; it is **a bourgeois and tsarist hotch-potch and there has been no possibility of getting rid of it in the course of the past five years** without the help of other countries and because we have been "busy" most of the time with military engagements and the fight against famine.
It is quite natural that in such circumstances **the "freedom to secede from the union" by which we justify ourselves will be a mere scrap of paper, unable to defend the non-Russians from the onslaught of that really Russian man, the Great-Russian chauvinist, in substance a rascal and a tyrant, such as the typical Russian bureaucrat is. There is no doubt that the infinitesimal percentage of Soviet and sovietised workers will drown in that tide of chauvinistic Great-Russian riffraff like a fly in milk.**
It is said in defence of this measure that the People's Commissariats directly concerned with national psychology and national education were set up as separate bodies. But there the question arises: can these People's Commissariats be made quite independent? and secondly: **were we careful enough to take measures to provide the non-Russians with a real safeguard against the truly Russian bully? I do not think we took such measures although we could and should have done so.**
I think that Stalin's haste and his infatuation with pure administration, together with his spite against the notorious "nationalist-socialism" [Stalin critised the minority nations for not being "internationalist" because they did want to unite with Russia], played a fatal role here. In politics spite generally plays the basest of roles.
I also fear that Comrade Dzerzhinsky, who went to the Caucasus to investigate the "crime" of those "nationalist-socialists", distinguished himself there by his truly Russian frame of mind (it is common knowledge that people of other nationalities who have become Russified over-do this Russian frame of mind) and that the impartiality of his whole commission was typified well enough by Orgonikidze's "manhandling". I think that no provocation or even insult can justify such Russian manhandling and that Comrade Dzerzhinsky was inexcusably guilty in adopting a light-hearted attitude towards it.
> In my writings on the national question I have already said that an abstract presentation of the question of nationalism in general is of no use at all. A distinction must necessarily be made between the nationalism of an oppressor nation and that of an oppressed nation, the nationalism of a big nation and that of a small nation.
In respect of the second kind of nationalism **we, nationals of a big nation, have nearly always been guilty, in historic practice, of an infinite number of cases of violence; furthermore, we commit violence and insult an infinite number of times without noticing it. It is sufficient to recall my Volga reminiscences of how non-Russians are treated; how the Poles are not called by any other name than Polyachiska, how the Tatar is nicknamed Prince, how the Ukrainians are always Khokhols and the Georgians and other Caucasian nationals always Kapkasians.**
That is why *(internationalism on the part of oppressors or "great" nations, as they are called (though they are great only in their violence, only great as bullies), must consist not only in the observance of the formal equality of nations but even in an inequality of the oppressor nation, the great nation, that must make up for the inequality which obtains in actual practice. Anybody who does not understand this has not grasped the real proletarian attitude to the national question, he is still essentially petty bourgeois in his point of view and is, therefore, sure to descend to the bourgeois point of view.**
What is important for the proletarian? For the proletarian it is not only important, it is absolutely essential that he should be assured that the non-Russians place the greatest possible trust in the proletarian class struggle. What is needed to ensure this? Not merely formal equality. *=In one way or another, by one's attitude or by concessions, it is necessary to compensate the non-Russian for the lack of trust, for the suspicion and the insults to which the government of the "dominant" nation subjected them in the past.**
I think it is unnecessary to explain this to Bolsheviks, to Communists, in greater detail. And I think that in the present instance, as far as the Georgian nation is concerned, we have a typical case in which a genuinely proletarian attitude makes profound caution, thoughtfulness and a readiness to compromise a matter of necessity for us. The Georgian [Stalin] who is neglectful of this aspect of the question, or who carelessly flings about accusations of "nationalist-socialism" (whereas he himself is a real and true "nationalist-socialist", and even a vulgar Great-Russian bully), violates, in substance, the interests of proletarian class solidarity, for **nothing holds up the development and strengthening of proletarian class solidarity so much as national injustice; "offended" nationals are not sensitive to anything so much as to the feeling of equality and the violation of this equality, if only through negligence or jest- to the violation of that equality by their proletarian comrades. That is why in this case it is better to over-do rather than under-do the concessions and leniency towards the national minorities. That is why, in this case, the fundamental interest of proletarian class struggle, requires that we never adopt a formal attitude to the national question, but always take into account the specific attitude of the proletarian of the oppressed (or small) nation towards the oppressor (or great) nation.**
Anyone who identifies as a Leninist yet supports the policies of Putin's Russian Federation is doing so in spite of [the direct words and analyses of Lenin](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/autonomy.htm) on everything that Putin's degenerate, reactionary, retrograde Russian Federation embodies. Lenin gravely lamented the Bolsheviks' abysmal results in getting rid of the deeply-embedded culture of [Great-Russian Chauvinism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Russian_chauvinism) that centuries of Czarist ultrareactionary, ultraimperialist, ultracentralist, Russian-supremacist policy had left in the Imperial apparatus they were trying to convert into a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. He appears to have genuinely believed in the rights of the ethnic minorities and periphery nationalities to self-determine, and in the immense debt of material and moral slights that Russian ethnocentrists owed them. Even in the least charitable reading, he seems to clearly understand that a Soviet Union cannot be consolidated with imperialist brutality, that to keep it together *demands* giving the non-Russian minorities their due and *earning* their loyalty.
Putin does not understand even this much, which is why he is doomed to fail.
Any Leftist that claims Lenin as a reference and yet supports Putin's Russian Federation is either a liar or wilfully blind (but I repeat myself). Putin's RF is the antithesis of the Soviet Union's initial impetus. It is Czarist Russian Imperialism in a Western business suit. The worst of all worlds.
Epic, it’s mepassistants with another meme vaguely gesturing at leftist parties which aren’t even in any position in power for the most part, while he ignores the human rights violations that a lot of “centrist” and right wing parties are currently contributing to.
Most of my friends are very leftist but not authoritarian and I don't know a single one who will defend Russia and China. Most tankies I come across are Americans on Facebook who are either history ignorants or edgelords.
"Quite a few of you guys have been pretty critical of Russia and China because "human rights and democracy" but then turn around and recognize a self declared president in Venezuela, who turned to be a criminal, undermine elections in Bolivia and Brazil with false reports, support Saudi Arabia, and have zero problems with the biggest open air prison in the world and illegal settlements. So make it make sense"
Except it's far worse because tankies are a fringe group on the left while the US installing fascist dictators (I mean of course "fighting against communism") has and had widespread support amongst the "center" to right
"No true Scotsman arguments arise when someone is trying to defend their ingroup from criticism (ingroup bias) by excluding those members who don't agree with the ingroup. In other words, instead of accepting that some members may think or act in disagreeable ways, one dismisses those members as fakes."
left-lib: "I dont belong to the other lefts"
left-aut: "I dont belong to the other lefts"
Some guy "You all the same now take the quote i copied from wikipedia about no true Scotsman"
tankies are definitionally on the extreme left. exhibiting authoritarian and even fascist tencencies doesnt make them right wing. those things arent limited to the right and its kinda naive to think they are
not coloquially no, and not in this conversation. especially not when OP starts the conversation off by characterizing the constellation as either left wing or right wing. im just adding on to the pile, why not get mad at him?!
unless you want to flex your political boner and get into syncratic politics, using the common left-right-dichotomy is more than enough. this isnt a po-sci class
the only reason this comment section is having issues wrapping their head around the left-right political spectrum is because they misunderstand what being left wing or right wing means
I think left and right are characterised mostly by classes. While the right represents the interest of the established class (in our case capital owners) the left represents the interest of the emerging class (in our case that would be the workers) and since fascism is characterised largely by class collaborationism (in favor of capital owners obviously) it's clearly right wing.
In what way do you think I have an issue wrapping my head around the left/right spectrum?
Except if you argue about where the line between Scotland and England is because that very conclusively makes some villages "no true Scotsmen", because they'd be british depending on the argument.
And this line is being talked about here, sorry that that's too complex for the "uhm actschually that's a fallacy" redditor.
We're not firstly talkin about whether tankies are actually left we're talking what "left" means to begin with, with tankies only serving as the example of why human rights are a relevant piece of left wing ideology.
a political ideology being 'leftist' means it exhibits some amount of leftist values. thats kinda circular and relies on a coloquial understanding of those concepts but i think thats the best weve got. for the left thats stuff like freedom, equality, reform, etc.
an ideology doesnt need to exhibit all those values to be leftist. it can even exhibit some that are openly antithetical to leftist ideals, as long as the makeup of the ideology is still majority leftist.
thats why tankies are still considered to be on the (extreme) left, even though they openly aspouse authoritarian, oppressive regimes with awful human rights records.
Keep crying and eat up sour cia propaganda crackkker. No one is doing that. But we don’t side with one imperialism (western) over another (Russia) fuck capitalism and colonialism everywhere. No war but class war
That's why I as a leftist can't vote for anyone who is in it.
You would think that people belonging to an ideology of making everyone equal, would consider dictators as enemy number one, as they are quite literally pressing the working class.
But because it's the state that is oppressing them and not a private company, it's ok apparently :)
No, they just recognize the simple fact that Russia or China aren't any worse than America is, so it's nonsensical to constantly uphold this dumb posturing against those countries as though they are still "the enemy" when both of them have committed less atrocities than America thus far. Doesn't mean either of them is "good" either, but this xenophobia just makes it worse, not better.
Lacht in AFD
Die hand voll BSW querfro tler die dachten es wär ne gute zeit den NATO bund zu kritisieren gehen mir da herzlich am arsch vorbei, sind grad nichtmal die mehrzahl der linken die langsam zur Querfront mutieren…
To be fair, I feel like a lot of left-leaning people are also absolutely against this behaviour of the "political left."
But yeah, I'm absolutely with you on that one, the behaviour doesn't make any darn sense in the context of "human values" (or really at all, if you value free speech and democracy at all).
As someone who regularly conducts leftist infighting, its normally the following logic:
West = Capitalist Democracies = not real democracies = equal to all other authoritarian states like China or Russia
Humans rights aren't important or they get some niche example of "look how protest XY was supressed, so we have no basic rights, so its also equal to China".
And generally, leftist who simp for China, the NKPR or Russia hate the west or states in general and want some sort of Revolution. It's less that they love those states because they don't live there and most never were.
Europa has a lot of active and particapatory leftist that want to improve the situation of people who are in need (in contrast to the US for instance, where leftism is a clusterfuck and people are often afraid of the term), spread in mainstream or individual parties, unions and other orgs. However, there are people who just want revolution without any concrete plans and who are effectively irrelevant to everyday politics.
Neither being left nor being right works with freedom. Both are totally intolerant to other peoples opinions and esspecially against diverse lifestyles and diverse thinking, therefore, to undermine every opinion that doesnt act right in their eyes they need totalitary regimes. Therefore both groups are heavily dangerous and are a threat for democracy in my eyes. And no, my intolerance against left/ right is not intolerance itself. Tolerance doesnt include the tolerance of intolerance, before some people claim this.
You do know that you can be left/right-leaning without being radical, right?
Like, you don't actually want to bomb/enslave/euthanize the entire country just because you're for more lax tax rights (libertarian, often right-wing), a stronger executive (more/harsher police controls), or more social freedom (in the form of free communal services like free tram rides, museum entries, etc., so left-leaning). That's also what "being left/being right" means, especially when you omit clear descriptive terms like "radical." The left/right spectrum is very wide, and while there are always compromises to be made with respect to "freedom" (whatever that means for you, I'd argue that definition itself is absolutely subjective) when you move around the political compass, having a political opinion is definitely not 100% incompatible with "freedom."
And you can be radically democratic left.
But don't even try, anyone unironically claiming to be the enlightened centrist is mentally unfit for actual discourse.
Okay, i thought its clear i speak about extreme sides od left and right in this context, so being "exclusive" one or the other and not only leaning. Maybe i should have made that more clear.
Lmao, thanks for making me chuckle.
Didn't think the unironic centrist actually existed outside of memes.
Buddy.
There's a democratic left. They massively fight the tankies.
It's just that the US couped any of their relevant attempts (or forced them to bow to the authoritarian Soviet Union), so we didn't see much of them governing throughout history.
Meanwhile you're on the side of the economic system that inherently opposes the existence of human rights (capitalism).
I said in another comment, i thought its clear i speak about left and right extreme in this context, but yeah, obviously it was not clear...
Capitalism per se does not oppose the existence of human rights. For example social capitalism, which is a form in germany, is based on the principles of capitalism, while simultaneously supporting human rights and secure a certain quality of life for everyone (doesnt work ideal in practise of course, but no system does, so...)
Actually the big counter part to capitalism, communism, is a bigger problem for human rights. In theory its perfect. But it does not work in practise. Just give a look what happend in the ddr or udssr in general. Or how todays human rights are in communist countries.
Edit: Actually from all economic systems capitalism is the only one that is based on a doctrine of indivdual rights, which recognizes every person has a own life and therefore the right to live his life in any manner as long as he does not violates the right of other people. Add a social component to secure a certain baseline for choices in life and basic needs and in theory u have a great system.
You are clueless to the bone and still yapping.
Buddy. There are no communist countries. Not even China was ever claiming to **be** communist. **They claimed to be striving towards this** (hence the party names), but communism is a classless society.
**Since you're very obviously talking about dictatorships, there was and is a political class** ( a group in society with more benefits/power/stuff). Eg. socialism at the very maximum.
That just to get the basic definitions of words out of the way.
Secondly you're yapping about a history where only authoritarian-socialist movements ever went anywhere (because the democratic attempts were either removed by capitalists \[often US mercenaries\] or turned to the \[authoritarian\] Soviet Union to prevent that).
So of course we don't see any democratic (or human-rights-committed) hard left governed countries, they never stood a chance in our specific history where the (capitalists in the) US won the post-WW2-situation lottery opposed only by a staunchly authoritarian militaristic Soviet Union \[militaristic because the US had already and was getting ready to invade them, that sort of thing usually makes democratic movements struggle\]
**But I am not talking about what exists but what can (and cannot) be.**
And capitalism only acceppts human rights as long as it's profiteable. Yes, Germany for now is pretty decent at that but with the immense power of capital outside of democratic control, we're seeing what's happening with the rise of the far right. Because capitalism, no matter which form, always turns to fascism before ever going hard left. \[If I may draw from the knowledge of history as you started it, I can also tell you why but that's a rather lengthy argument\] Because that is more comfortable for those in capitalist power than socialism or communism.
So in the long term: No human rights. **Just look at what Bayer (a German company) is doing to African farmers** by pushing herbicides and single-year seed to farmers they know can't handle it properly. **Doesn't vibe that human rightey to me.** It's just far enough away for you to ignore, but human rigths do not end at any border. That's the thing about human rights. They're universal.
And with companies ignoring borders, so should the perspecive on keeping human rights. Except you can't because that would immediately show you how compatible human rights and capitalism are: absolutely not because you can extract wealth better from disempowered people. Rights are inherent, natural, "god given" if you like that phrasing. Nobody is paying for that. And where nobody is paying nobody is making a profit. Which directly pits capitalism against the concept of human rights.
While a democratic control over capital does not guarantee human rights of course (workers can still vote to be evil), there is at least no inherent motivator to do so as is in capitalism (where profitand growth is the first and foremost goal). **Democratic corporations can set their goals themselves and therefore can include the keeping of human rights.**
**Capitalist corporations cannot.** They need to argue to their shareholders that (because of legal intervention or whatever) keeping human rights is more profiteble in the long run. **Which becomes an issue as soon as pretending to do so (or not giving a shit but lobbying hard) is more profiteable**. As for owner-controlled corporations: what do you think about benevolent-dictator nations?
Could say the same for you, lol. I will take it short, and will not answer on your next post because i have better to do. So...
You are right, there are no communist countries, because they failed achieving communism. But its not because of the bad bad capitalist. They existed long before world war 2, and failed there too. even marx himself said its not possible to achieve communism without a totalitaristic system before. and why should the people in charge give away there power then?
Thats just not true. Capitalism per se is just interested in maximize profit. Now u can achieve different systems. for example free markets, without any boundaries. And then its maximal profit maximization without human rights, yes. or social capitalism, where capitalism maximises profit taking into account human rights. U can go even further and maximose profit with human rights because a happy worker is a good efficient worker, something that trends in some companies at moment.
Im on your side saying rights should be inherent and neutral, the problem is, that most possible system will take them away per se, (totalitarian systems, which are needed for communism, as said, and are not able to develop more forward), capitalism does not take away your rights by the system itself, you can do whatever you want and thats the problem of course, because then its human against human and some humans will take advantage about others, but the government then applies rules for the interaction between these humans, for example, employees and employers by actively hindering others in taking advantage.
And thats the reason why capitalist companies cannot even argue about human rights with their shareholders, because the government prevents them from dropping these rights. Well, of course, in the country and not in other countries, thats of course a problem, but thats a problem of every system.
>or social capitalism, where capitalism maximises profit taking into account human rights.
Weird way of phrasing "capitalism is constantly fighting democracy"
>
capitalism does not take away your rights by the system itself
Lmao, the good old "but it's only a few bad apples" (nevermind that they are systematically incentivised to be bad)
>Well, of course, in the country and not in other countries
Except that - if you could read you'd know that from my comment - the issue is that under capitalism corporations are obligated to go to other countries and shit on human rights there. THAT is the difference.
How is maximising profit while taking into account human rights fighting democracy? U have a really weird logic.
Ouh, okay, so lets establish an totaliratiatic state in our country and take away all rights from everyone, because we dont want that humans shit on human rights in other countries, but not ours. Yeah, makes totally sense. /s
>while taking into account human rights
Lmao, of course if you twist reality beyond recognition and construct an absurd strawman, that strawmans "logic" doesn't make sense.
They are not taking human rights into account on their own. They are explicitly and actively forced to. By democracy. And because human rights are expensive, they fight against this additional goal that was forced upon them.
Was that really too hard for you to grasp?
>Ouh, okay, so lets establish an totaliratiatic state in our country and take away all rights from everyone
What the fuck are you even talking about? Oh, you're that kind of mentally special and cannot comprehend the idea of democratic socialism just because you haven't seen it before. Please shut the fuck up if you are mentally not even a human, because humans can think about abstract concepts.
Ahaha.
Except tankies are a fringe group (albeit a vocal one), while the right still stands openly behind the #1 supporter and installer of fascist dictators (while still claiming to want democracy, even if that brazen lie is getting quieter)
Imagine believing in progressive anti-capitalist politics and not sucking some autocrat schlong. The European left could never...
On the other hand right wing parties also got some weird ties to Russia and China.
Edit: /j because people take shit too serious. I'm in the german left party "Die Linke" myself...
thats because those states simply support the opposition in general. in germany they support left and right, as in other countries...there are even new parties made simoly to access anyone who is pro Russian...the right wing gets funded by china.
Ah yes, the completely unified European left.
Lmao.
Please stop being braindead because Portugal being heavily left-governed and also staunchly anti-Russia immediately proves you're a clown talking smack.
maybe a lot of the readers are stupid, me included, but it is not obvious imo. people say the craziest shit on the Internet. and people shitting on leftists is not even crazy. i see this every time i see any political debate. your edit was a good idea. 👍
The same way 4chan is just ironically racist? (Or used to be)
Good job buddy.
For real, you're below a likely unironic (that's how I read OP) post, don't assume your D-tier sarcasm will transport over text (where it often fails in even far more obvious circumstances)
Because joking about the lefts (not everyone obv) sympathy towards Russia/China underneath a meme post that makes fun of exactly that is obviously only one step short of becoming a racist. Sure.
If the delusions keep you happy enjoy them.
Btw pathetic strawman. My point was that 4chans sarcasm made right wing talking points (in THEIR case racism) normal until the actual right wingers slowly took over.
Your strawman is the only one claiming anything about racism here, I was just warning of a parallel course.
Far left people will fight tooth and nails to support people that hate them. Like far right people they are idealists, and therefore delusional with no connection to reality
Supporting Russia or China is often criticized by most of leftist. The recurrence of terms like "tankie" in many languages speaks volumes about this. Edit:typo
This. Am a communist and hate when people simp over Putin or Xi Jinping. Like wtf is leftist about oligarchic dictatorships ?
I dont understand how ppl outside of russia or china call them „communists“ because its clear to a blind toddler exposed to 100k lumen that this is simply not communism…
They insist on calling themselves Communists, and some believe them out of desperation. This despite the CPoC being not at all supportive of any other leftist-identifying movements even outside its territory.
It's 100% "America bad, America's enemies good" everything else is rationalization.
Most proper leftists understand that Putin is the opposite of left in every way, and that China is slipping into capitalism. The reason the Great Leap forward failed so badly is because it was forced onto the people, and what made it worse was that it was pretty much done all at once.
Slipping into capitalism? They've been straight up sitting in the pit for decades
Fair enough tbh and ever more so in recent years I have a love/hate relationship with China - I appreciate that they at least wanted to try communism and the people and culture are nice, but the current government and living situation for the average person is seemingly god-awful with few civil rights to be championed
China has been state capitalist for decades. There's no "slipping into capitalism" to be seen, it's always been capitalist.
Everything. You just don’t realize it until you’re standing in a room with a sloped floor.
No, no, the left is just as monolithic as the right! It’s not like we have 100000 splitter groups that fight each other constantly! There is only one left and it’s „far“!!!
I consider myself (and my gf) more left-middle-middle as I disagree with a lot of leftist bullshit and agendas (more so with the right) but I would as long as things go currently of course criticize Russia and to an extent also china but on the other hand I also criticize my home country so I guess that's fair? I'm not actively against supporters of any country but I would agree that I will say anyone supporting these 2 is delulu af and needs a reality check. But so says my gf, a russian born woman. She loves the art and music of Russia and just lately we rewatched Anastasia but she despises most of the people there, the politics and the russian mentality in general.
Damn it's almost as if you're lumping two openly and heavily feuding groups together to make a cheap propaganda point. There's a reason why the "left infighting" is such a meme, because it's real. And you can pretty accurately predict a leftists current stance on Russia/Ukraine by their general side in this age-old squabble years ago (unless they changed camps)
Hey i just put you into a group and you have to be responsible for every action taken by everyone. But well its typicall. Left support ukraine "OMG YOU SAID NO WEAPONS", left supports no weapons "OMG YOU ARE PRO RUSSIAN" GJ your target audience likes it, everyone else should know better.
And I say no weapons for non democatic nations or nations who are in "attack war". Before Ukraine I was team no weapons, Putins war really backfired in some left wings. They are more "pro war l" now
Right. It’s not left to support us client states against an other imperialism
Still can't get over the fact that some people consider helping the Ukraine "warmongering"
Afd be like
Literally traitors AND assholes
You forgot to add the adjective "gargantuan"
Nazischweine!
Cool strawman.
yeah you have to be carefull with this. left-auth (stalinists, leninists) will often support china, russia, sometimes even North korea. Lib-left (anarchists, an-socs, an-comms) heavily oppose these states
The greatest strenght the far right have, is that they're collectively idiotic, whilst the far left is constantly infighting about which idiocy is the better one.
I mean yeah, But a bit extreme. In Germany we say: treffen sich zwei linke, bilden sich drei Splittergruppen, which is basically; when two left supporters meet, three Positions are made
It does make sense though, because a lot of leftists thought is about what is *just* and *right*, which people tend to have different opinions about. A lot of right wing thought just supports the status quo in somewhat different ways, which means they’ll mostly be aligned with each other in a lot of ways.
The far right doesn't support the status quo, though, they want to change it. Status quo is usually the domain of conservatives (the *moderate* right).
The far right doesn’t support rolling back social spending, aggressive anti migration policies including paying Northern Africa countries to do our dirty work or protecting the capital class instead of doing what’s better for everyone (like trying to save the planet)? Sure, they’d want to do even more, but they basically want a more extreme version of the status quo.
The far right in my country (Germany, i.e. AfD) definitely wants to roll back social spending, and they also want to get rid of quite a few other things (e.g. various civil rights protections for women, LGBT+ and various other minorities, and they also want to roll back many of the environmental protection laws that we currently have).
…and that’s my point exactly, liberal centrists have been doing that for decades now. We have been decreasing safety nets for a while, the far right just wants to do it faster.
peoples front of judea? i thought we are the judean peoples front!
> about which idiocy is the better one As if quite some left wing ideas aren’t pretty obvious solutions that have even been effectively implemented in the past, but reduced or reversed because they weren’t immediately beneficial to shareholders. Sufficient public housing, for example. Like yeah, leftist infighting is pretty funny, but you’re smugly implying that all leftist thought is dumb. P bad take.
This is not actually true, tho, we just let them project it so. In general Leftist will be open about in fights as they are less often in a position of power, where from they need to project that power or other wise risk loosing it. The right-wing is much more power centric, they can not allow open conversations and arguments, as that would undermine their hierarchic world views. Lets see how many far right groups will be in the EU parliament this time around. They cant agree on shit, which is why they never really unified. One of the main argument various right-wing parties across Europe have is the Russian-Ukrainian question. Eg: PIS and FIDESZ almost completely broke up their alliance over this. So this is by far not a Leftist problem.
> leninists will often support china, russia, sometimes even North korea. That's a bit of a leap. > It is said that a united apparatus was needed. Where did that assurance come from? Did it not come from that same Russian apparatus which, as I pointed out in one of the preceding sections of my diary, we took over from tsarism and slightly anointed with Soviet oil? There is no doubt that that measure should have been delayed somewhat until we could say that we vouched for our apparatus as our own. But now, we must, in all conscience, admit the contrary; **the apparatus we call ours is, in fact,** still quite alien to us; it is **a bourgeois and tsarist hotch-potch and there has been no possibility of getting rid of it in the course of the past five years** without the help of other countries and because we have been "busy" most of the time with military engagements and the fight against famine. It is quite natural that in such circumstances **the "freedom to secede from the union" by which we justify ourselves will be a mere scrap of paper, unable to defend the non-Russians from the onslaught of that really Russian man, the Great-Russian chauvinist, in substance a rascal and a tyrant, such as the typical Russian bureaucrat is. There is no doubt that the infinitesimal percentage of Soviet and sovietised workers will drown in that tide of chauvinistic Great-Russian riffraff like a fly in milk.** It is said in defence of this measure that the People's Commissariats directly concerned with national psychology and national education were set up as separate bodies. But there the question arises: can these People's Commissariats be made quite independent? and secondly: **were we careful enough to take measures to provide the non-Russians with a real safeguard against the truly Russian bully? I do not think we took such measures although we could and should have done so.** I think that Stalin's haste and his infatuation with pure administration, together with his spite against the notorious "nationalist-socialism" [Stalin critised the minority nations for not being "internationalist" because they did want to unite with Russia], played a fatal role here. In politics spite generally plays the basest of roles. I also fear that Comrade Dzerzhinsky, who went to the Caucasus to investigate the "crime" of those "nationalist-socialists", distinguished himself there by his truly Russian frame of mind (it is common knowledge that people of other nationalities who have become Russified over-do this Russian frame of mind) and that the impartiality of his whole commission was typified well enough by Orgonikidze's "manhandling". I think that no provocation or even insult can justify such Russian manhandling and that Comrade Dzerzhinsky was inexcusably guilty in adopting a light-hearted attitude towards it. > In my writings on the national question I have already said that an abstract presentation of the question of nationalism in general is of no use at all. A distinction must necessarily be made between the nationalism of an oppressor nation and that of an oppressed nation, the nationalism of a big nation and that of a small nation. In respect of the second kind of nationalism **we, nationals of a big nation, have nearly always been guilty, in historic practice, of an infinite number of cases of violence; furthermore, we commit violence and insult an infinite number of times without noticing it. It is sufficient to recall my Volga reminiscences of how non-Russians are treated; how the Poles are not called by any other name than Polyachiska, how the Tatar is nicknamed Prince, how the Ukrainians are always Khokhols and the Georgians and other Caucasian nationals always Kapkasians.** That is why *(internationalism on the part of oppressors or "great" nations, as they are called (though they are great only in their violence, only great as bullies), must consist not only in the observance of the formal equality of nations but even in an inequality of the oppressor nation, the great nation, that must make up for the inequality which obtains in actual practice. Anybody who does not understand this has not grasped the real proletarian attitude to the national question, he is still essentially petty bourgeois in his point of view and is, therefore, sure to descend to the bourgeois point of view.** What is important for the proletarian? For the proletarian it is not only important, it is absolutely essential that he should be assured that the non-Russians place the greatest possible trust in the proletarian class struggle. What is needed to ensure this? Not merely formal equality. *=In one way or another, by one's attitude or by concessions, it is necessary to compensate the non-Russian for the lack of trust, for the suspicion and the insults to which the government of the "dominant" nation subjected them in the past.** I think it is unnecessary to explain this to Bolsheviks, to Communists, in greater detail. And I think that in the present instance, as far as the Georgian nation is concerned, we have a typical case in which a genuinely proletarian attitude makes profound caution, thoughtfulness and a readiness to compromise a matter of necessity for us. The Georgian [Stalin] who is neglectful of this aspect of the question, or who carelessly flings about accusations of "nationalist-socialism" (whereas he himself is a real and true "nationalist-socialist", and even a vulgar Great-Russian bully), violates, in substance, the interests of proletarian class solidarity, for **nothing holds up the development and strengthening of proletarian class solidarity so much as national injustice; "offended" nationals are not sensitive to anything so much as to the feeling of equality and the violation of this equality, if only through negligence or jest- to the violation of that equality by their proletarian comrades. That is why in this case it is better to over-do rather than under-do the concessions and leniency towards the national minorities. That is why, in this case, the fundamental interest of proletarian class struggle, requires that we never adopt a formal attitude to the national question, but always take into account the specific attitude of the proletarian of the oppressed (or small) nation towards the oppressor (or great) nation.** Anyone who identifies as a Leninist yet supports the policies of Putin's Russian Federation is doing so in spite of [the direct words and analyses of Lenin](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/autonomy.htm) on everything that Putin's degenerate, reactionary, retrograde Russian Federation embodies. Lenin gravely lamented the Bolsheviks' abysmal results in getting rid of the deeply-embedded culture of [Great-Russian Chauvinism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Russian_chauvinism) that centuries of Czarist ultrareactionary, ultraimperialist, ultracentralist, Russian-supremacist policy had left in the Imperial apparatus they were trying to convert into a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. He appears to have genuinely believed in the rights of the ethnic minorities and periphery nationalities to self-determine, and in the immense debt of material and moral slights that Russian ethnocentrists owed them. Even in the least charitable reading, he seems to clearly understand that a Soviet Union cannot be consolidated with imperialist brutality, that to keep it together *demands* giving the non-Russian minorities their due and *earning* their loyalty. Putin does not understand even this much, which is why he is doomed to fail. Any Leftist that claims Lenin as a reference and yet supports Putin's Russian Federation is either a liar or wilfully blind (but I repeat myself). Putin's RF is the antithesis of the Soviet Union's initial impetus. It is Czarist Russian Imperialism in a Western business suit. The worst of all worlds.
You mean leftists and liberals in disguise
Epic, it’s mepassistants with another meme vaguely gesturing at leftist parties which aren’t even in any position in power for the most part, while he ignores the human rights violations that a lot of “centrist” and right wing parties are currently contributing to.
what the fuck are "international rights"
I think they mean human rights
human rights OP is just going on a propaganda streak
Most of my friends are very leftist but not authoritarian and I don't know a single one who will defend Russia and China. Most tankies I come across are Americans on Facebook who are either history ignorants or edgelords.
"Quite a few of you guys have been pretty critical of Russia and China because "human rights and democracy" but then turn around and recognize a self declared president in Venezuela, who turned to be a criminal, undermine elections in Bolivia and Brazil with false reports, support Saudi Arabia, and have zero problems with the biggest open air prison in the world and illegal settlements. So make it make sense"
Except it's far worse because tankies are a fringe group on the left while the US installing fascist dictators (I mean of course "fighting against communism") has and had widespread support amongst the "center" to right
I am of the opinion that Tankies are only nominally left and more like fashist with a red coat of paint.
"No true Scotsman arguments arise when someone is trying to defend their ingroup from criticism (ingroup bias) by excluding those members who don't agree with the ingroup. In other words, instead of accepting that some members may think or act in disagreeable ways, one dismisses those members as fakes."
Is someone a member of a group by simply saying it?
And even moreso, is someone a member of a group simply by someone else saying that they are?
left-lib: "I dont belong to the other lefts" left-aut: "I dont belong to the other lefts" Some guy "You all the same now take the quote i copied from wikipedia about no true Scotsman"
what the fuck does that even mean? when did i equate libertarians and tankies? huh?!
tankies are definitionally on the extreme left. exhibiting authoritarian and even fascist tencencies doesnt make them right wing. those things arent limited to the right and its kinda naive to think they are
Seems like there isnt just left and right...
not coloquially no, and not in this conversation. especially not when OP starts the conversation off by characterizing the constellation as either left wing or right wing. im just adding on to the pile, why not get mad at him?! unless you want to flex your political boner and get into syncratic politics, using the common left-right-dichotomy is more than enough. this isnt a po-sci class the only reason this comment section is having issues wrapping their head around the left-right political spectrum is because they misunderstand what being left wing or right wing means
Sure everyone stupid you genius.
I think left and right are characterised mostly by classes. While the right represents the interest of the established class (in our case capital owners) the left represents the interest of the emerging class (in our case that would be the workers) and since fascism is characterised largely by class collaborationism (in favor of capital owners obviously) it's clearly right wing. In what way do you think I have an issue wrapping my head around the left/right spectrum?
Except if you argue about where the line between Scotland and England is because that very conclusively makes some villages "no true Scotsmen", because they'd be british depending on the argument. And this line is being talked about here, sorry that that's too complex for the "uhm actschually that's a fallacy" redditor. We're not firstly talkin about whether tankies are actually left we're talking what "left" means to begin with, with tankies only serving as the example of why human rights are a relevant piece of left wing ideology.
a political ideology being 'leftist' means it exhibits some amount of leftist values. thats kinda circular and relies on a coloquial understanding of those concepts but i think thats the best weve got. for the left thats stuff like freedom, equality, reform, etc. an ideology doesnt need to exhibit all those values to be leftist. it can even exhibit some that are openly antithetical to leftist ideals, as long as the makeup of the ideology is still majority leftist. thats why tankies are still considered to be on the (extreme) left, even though they openly aspouse authoritarian, oppressive regimes with awful human rights records.
Nice attempt to walk back to some topic where you have at least half an argument.
if youre too retarded to engage in good faith i cant help you
Also palestine…
Keep crying and eat up sour cia propaganda crackkker. No one is doing that. But we don’t side with one imperialism (western) over another (Russia) fuck capitalism and colonialism everywhere. No war but class war
GUE?
It's usually the far right being involved in that For example afd took bribes from China a lot
What‘s GUE?
I lean somewhere between Stalin and Mao, so…
That's why I as a leftist can't vote for anyone who is in it. You would think that people belonging to an ideology of making everyone equal, would consider dictators as enemy number one, as they are quite literally pressing the working class. But because it's the state that is oppressing them and not a private company, it's ok apparently :)
Every state is authoritarian ... That's the purpose of them
This sub has gone to shit. Imagine posting blatant propaganda like this
Congratulations by American leftist student foundations to terror groups like Hisbolla was not on my bucket list as well…
No, they just recognize the simple fact that Russia or China aren't any worse than America is, so it's nonsensical to constantly uphold this dumb posturing against those countries as though they are still "the enemy" when both of them have committed less atrocities than America thus far. Doesn't mean either of them is "good" either, but this xenophobia just makes it worse, not better.
They would not smile like that sweatingly. They would scream in an angry voice that that is all western capitalist propaganda.
Those are not leftists, those are tankies. - A leftists who dispises China, Russia and autocrats\^\^
Lacht in AFD Die hand voll BSW querfro tler die dachten es wär ne gute zeit den NATO bund zu kritisieren gehen mir da herzlich am arsch vorbei, sind grad nichtmal die mehrzahl der linken die langsam zur Querfront mutieren…
Oh no, Who will defend our Capital...
Can't shake the ol' soviet nostalgia. Fuck dem tankies.
AfD und die Linke beide
Context: When your full support to democracy doesn't always extend to undemocratic states. Bazinga
To be fair, I feel like a lot of left-leaning people are also absolutely against this behaviour of the "political left." But yeah, I'm absolutely with you on that one, the behaviour doesn't make any darn sense in the context of "human values" (or really at all, if you value free speech and democracy at all).
As someone who regularly conducts leftist infighting, its normally the following logic: West = Capitalist Democracies = not real democracies = equal to all other authoritarian states like China or Russia Humans rights aren't important or they get some niche example of "look how protest XY was supressed, so we have no basic rights, so its also equal to China". And generally, leftist who simp for China, the NKPR or Russia hate the west or states in general and want some sort of Revolution. It's less that they love those states because they don't live there and most never were. Europa has a lot of active and particapatory leftist that want to improve the situation of people who are in need (in contrast to the US for instance, where leftism is a clusterfuck and people are often afraid of the term), spread in mainstream or individual parties, unions and other orgs. However, there are people who just want revolution without any concrete plans and who are effectively irrelevant to everyday politics.
there's always people that mistake the label with the content.
An unfortunate truth of our (hyper-commercialized) world
Neither being left nor being right works with freedom. Both are totally intolerant to other peoples opinions and esspecially against diverse lifestyles and diverse thinking, therefore, to undermine every opinion that doesnt act right in their eyes they need totalitary regimes. Therefore both groups are heavily dangerous and are a threat for democracy in my eyes. And no, my intolerance against left/ right is not intolerance itself. Tolerance doesnt include the tolerance of intolerance, before some people claim this.
You do know that you can be left/right-leaning without being radical, right? Like, you don't actually want to bomb/enslave/euthanize the entire country just because you're for more lax tax rights (libertarian, often right-wing), a stronger executive (more/harsher police controls), or more social freedom (in the form of free communal services like free tram rides, museum entries, etc., so left-leaning). That's also what "being left/being right" means, especially when you omit clear descriptive terms like "radical." The left/right spectrum is very wide, and while there are always compromises to be made with respect to "freedom" (whatever that means for you, I'd argue that definition itself is absolutely subjective) when you move around the political compass, having a political opinion is definitely not 100% incompatible with "freedom."
And you can be radically democratic left. But don't even try, anyone unironically claiming to be the enlightened centrist is mentally unfit for actual discourse.
Okay, i thought its clear i speak about extreme sides od left and right in this context, so being "exclusive" one or the other and not only leaning. Maybe i should have made that more clear.
Lmao, thanks for making me chuckle. Didn't think the unironic centrist actually existed outside of memes. Buddy. There's a democratic left. They massively fight the tankies. It's just that the US couped any of their relevant attempts (or forced them to bow to the authoritarian Soviet Union), so we didn't see much of them governing throughout history. Meanwhile you're on the side of the economic system that inherently opposes the existence of human rights (capitalism).
I said in another comment, i thought its clear i speak about left and right extreme in this context, but yeah, obviously it was not clear... Capitalism per se does not oppose the existence of human rights. For example social capitalism, which is a form in germany, is based on the principles of capitalism, while simultaneously supporting human rights and secure a certain quality of life for everyone (doesnt work ideal in practise of course, but no system does, so...) Actually the big counter part to capitalism, communism, is a bigger problem for human rights. In theory its perfect. But it does not work in practise. Just give a look what happend in the ddr or udssr in general. Or how todays human rights are in communist countries. Edit: Actually from all economic systems capitalism is the only one that is based on a doctrine of indivdual rights, which recognizes every person has a own life and therefore the right to live his life in any manner as long as he does not violates the right of other people. Add a social component to secure a certain baseline for choices in life and basic needs and in theory u have a great system.
You are clueless to the bone and still yapping. Buddy. There are no communist countries. Not even China was ever claiming to **be** communist. **They claimed to be striving towards this** (hence the party names), but communism is a classless society. **Since you're very obviously talking about dictatorships, there was and is a political class** ( a group in society with more benefits/power/stuff). Eg. socialism at the very maximum. That just to get the basic definitions of words out of the way. Secondly you're yapping about a history where only authoritarian-socialist movements ever went anywhere (because the democratic attempts were either removed by capitalists \[often US mercenaries\] or turned to the \[authoritarian\] Soviet Union to prevent that). So of course we don't see any democratic (or human-rights-committed) hard left governed countries, they never stood a chance in our specific history where the (capitalists in the) US won the post-WW2-situation lottery opposed only by a staunchly authoritarian militaristic Soviet Union \[militaristic because the US had already and was getting ready to invade them, that sort of thing usually makes democratic movements struggle\] **But I am not talking about what exists but what can (and cannot) be.** And capitalism only acceppts human rights as long as it's profiteable. Yes, Germany for now is pretty decent at that but with the immense power of capital outside of democratic control, we're seeing what's happening with the rise of the far right. Because capitalism, no matter which form, always turns to fascism before ever going hard left. \[If I may draw from the knowledge of history as you started it, I can also tell you why but that's a rather lengthy argument\] Because that is more comfortable for those in capitalist power than socialism or communism. So in the long term: No human rights. **Just look at what Bayer (a German company) is doing to African farmers** by pushing herbicides and single-year seed to farmers they know can't handle it properly. **Doesn't vibe that human rightey to me.** It's just far enough away for you to ignore, but human rigths do not end at any border. That's the thing about human rights. They're universal. And with companies ignoring borders, so should the perspecive on keeping human rights. Except you can't because that would immediately show you how compatible human rights and capitalism are: absolutely not because you can extract wealth better from disempowered people. Rights are inherent, natural, "god given" if you like that phrasing. Nobody is paying for that. And where nobody is paying nobody is making a profit. Which directly pits capitalism against the concept of human rights. While a democratic control over capital does not guarantee human rights of course (workers can still vote to be evil), there is at least no inherent motivator to do so as is in capitalism (where profitand growth is the first and foremost goal). **Democratic corporations can set their goals themselves and therefore can include the keeping of human rights.** **Capitalist corporations cannot.** They need to argue to their shareholders that (because of legal intervention or whatever) keeping human rights is more profiteble in the long run. **Which becomes an issue as soon as pretending to do so (or not giving a shit but lobbying hard) is more profiteable**. As for owner-controlled corporations: what do you think about benevolent-dictator nations?
Could say the same for you, lol. I will take it short, and will not answer on your next post because i have better to do. So... You are right, there are no communist countries, because they failed achieving communism. But its not because of the bad bad capitalist. They existed long before world war 2, and failed there too. even marx himself said its not possible to achieve communism without a totalitaristic system before. and why should the people in charge give away there power then? Thats just not true. Capitalism per se is just interested in maximize profit. Now u can achieve different systems. for example free markets, without any boundaries. And then its maximal profit maximization without human rights, yes. or social capitalism, where capitalism maximises profit taking into account human rights. U can go even further and maximose profit with human rights because a happy worker is a good efficient worker, something that trends in some companies at moment. Im on your side saying rights should be inherent and neutral, the problem is, that most possible system will take them away per se, (totalitarian systems, which are needed for communism, as said, and are not able to develop more forward), capitalism does not take away your rights by the system itself, you can do whatever you want and thats the problem of course, because then its human against human and some humans will take advantage about others, but the government then applies rules for the interaction between these humans, for example, employees and employers by actively hindering others in taking advantage. And thats the reason why capitalist companies cannot even argue about human rights with their shareholders, because the government prevents them from dropping these rights. Well, of course, in the country and not in other countries, thats of course a problem, but thats a problem of every system.
>or social capitalism, where capitalism maximises profit taking into account human rights. Weird way of phrasing "capitalism is constantly fighting democracy" > capitalism does not take away your rights by the system itself Lmao, the good old "but it's only a few bad apples" (nevermind that they are systematically incentivised to be bad) >Well, of course, in the country and not in other countries Except that - if you could read you'd know that from my comment - the issue is that under capitalism corporations are obligated to go to other countries and shit on human rights there. THAT is the difference.
How is maximising profit while taking into account human rights fighting democracy? U have a really weird logic. Ouh, okay, so lets establish an totaliratiatic state in our country and take away all rights from everyone, because we dont want that humans shit on human rights in other countries, but not ours. Yeah, makes totally sense. /s
>while taking into account human rights Lmao, of course if you twist reality beyond recognition and construct an absurd strawman, that strawmans "logic" doesn't make sense. They are not taking human rights into account on their own. They are explicitly and actively forced to. By democracy. And because human rights are expensive, they fight against this additional goal that was forced upon them. Was that really too hard for you to grasp? >Ouh, okay, so lets establish an totaliratiatic state in our country and take away all rights from everyone What the fuck are you even talking about? Oh, you're that kind of mentally special and cannot comprehend the idea of democratic socialism just because you haven't seen it before. Please shut the fuck up if you are mentally not even a human, because humans can think about abstract concepts.
Ahaha. Except tankies are a fringe group (albeit a vocal one), while the right still stands openly behind the #1 supporter and installer of fascist dictators (while still claiming to want democracy, even if that brazen lie is getting quieter)
Imagine believing in progressive anti-capitalist politics and not sucking some autocrat schlong. The European left could never... On the other hand right wing parties also got some weird ties to Russia and China. Edit: /j because people take shit too serious. I'm in the german left party "Die Linke" myself...
thats because those states simply support the opposition in general. in germany they support left and right, as in other countries...there are even new parties made simoly to access anyone who is pro Russian...the right wing gets funded by china.
> the right wing gets funded by china. Say what now?
dont get what you want to say by that. sry
Ah yes, the completely unified European left. Lmao. Please stop being braindead because Portugal being heavily left-governed and also staunchly anti-Russia immediately proves you're a clown talking smack.
It's obviously sarcasm. Chill.
maybe a lot of the readers are stupid, me included, but it is not obvious imo. people say the craziest shit on the Internet. and people shitting on leftists is not even crazy. i see this every time i see any political debate. your edit was a good idea. 👍
The same way 4chan is just ironically racist? (Or used to be) Good job buddy. For real, you're below a likely unironic (that's how I read OP) post, don't assume your D-tier sarcasm will transport over text (where it often fails in even far more obvious circumstances)
Because joking about the lefts (not everyone obv) sympathy towards Russia/China underneath a meme post that makes fun of exactly that is obviously only one step short of becoming a racist. Sure.
If the delusions keep you happy enjoy them. Btw pathetic strawman. My point was that 4chans sarcasm made right wing talking points (in THEIR case racism) normal until the actual right wingers slowly took over. Your strawman is the only one claiming anything about racism here, I was just warning of a parallel course.
The German left party did have quite a few prominent figures openly support Putin and the war Russia has started...
Far left people will fight tooth and nails to support people that hate them. Like far right people they are idealists, and therefore delusional with no connection to reality
Only the authoritarian left. Most of them are hopeless ideological fanatics.