I’m confused as to what you’re referring to, lemmygrad? Nah I’m pretty sure those are just tankies and tankies are as I understand it basically what rightwingers think everyone left of Ronald Reagan is. Like tankies aren’t just commies, they’re fucking stalinists.
“Stalinists” who support a radical right wing hyper capitalist Christian oil tycoon oligarchy with colonist ambitions, and endless wars of conquest. They’re just edgy anti westerners with no real policy ideology.
Some years ago I read an amusing article about Conservapedia, discussing how half the contributors were genuine right wing lunatics and the other half were trolls pretending to be right wing lunatics and nobody could tell who was what. I suppose it’s possible that Lemmygrad is like that too. But there are definitely genuine lunatics in the mix, regardless.
There are genuine people on the extreme Left who are Stalin apologists, and they are called Tankies. They are a fringe but they’re not trolls, they believe it
On the other, tankies are fascists. They just happen to prefer their slaves to be communal, rather than spread out amongst corpos.
Stalin was a fascist. Being a Stalinist means you’re a fascist. Ergo, tankies are fascists.
Centralization of power is always bad. Because fascism is always bad. We need to stop looking at bygone eras of centralized power structures and move towards a more federational (federated) power/governance structure.
Then we need to get rid of the power balance for good. Until then, be weary of communists masquerading under the same flag but pushing for power centralization.
Communism isn’t a form of governance, our first step should be to mold our democratic republic around it instead of capitalism. Then change it as our needs demand.
Easier said than done, I realize, but change is possible. Fingers crossed it happens soon. Sorry about the rant.
Sta·lin·ism
/ˈstäləˌniz(ə)m/
noun
the ideology and policies adopted by Stalin, based on centralization, totalitarianism, and the pursuit of communism.
Sorry, but it’s true, Stalin was a fascist. Democratic centralization is still power centralization, and runs counter to all of communism’s economic ideologies.
You’ve said nothing that actually fits Stalin into any of the many definitions of fascism.
No reference to Eco, no mention of palingenetic ultranationalism, you could maybe use Gregor to fit your view even though other scholars discount his positions and ideas, but you don’t.
Even if you used the definition from a man killed as a result of Stalin, Trotsky, you still wouldn’t have a definition that found Stalin to be a fascist.
Dislike him if you want but use words that actually fit him and what he did. Fascist isn’t it.
Yeah, I didn’t mention them because they’re literal set dressing used by a dictator to convince people he wasn’t one. It’s worse if the man truly thought creating a centralized power structure would be beneficial to Marxist principles, because he himself proved that it can’t work.
Here’s why: once you establish a centralized power structure, it doesn’t matter how kind or charismatic the person (or small group) in charge is, it is the literal definition of fascism.
I don’t know how to more clearly put this. Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt, he created a centralized power structure that was immediately corrupted and abused. You’re saying “but look at all this other stuff” like it takes away from the fact that this is fascism.
What I don’t get how you reconcile communism with totalitarianism (literally fascism with extra steps).
I think you’re overthinking it, tankies absolutely do exist and have since stalin’s death, the term was coined by a communist reffering to more extreme members of their own party. If this is your first time running into them I honestly envy that.
It’s really really hard to believe those people are being honest.
The delusion is strong with tankies. It’s really quite interesting to observe, particularly when big events happen (ex: When Russia was repelled from Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Kherson). One will see a refocusing happening over the course of a few days, then the same conclusions are reached but using completely different (often contradictory) logic.
It’s a common feature of any demographic that is convinced of their moral superiority. Once you’ve accepted that you and your leaders are on the side of justice and are presented a designated enemy, you cease having to look inward. Progress requires acknowledging that you are operating inside of a flawed system, and that you have to work with people from other systems who acknowledge their own flaws.
Tangent: “Enlightened centrists” acknowledge the flaws of both sides of an argument while failing to acknowledge that both sides have to play fair.
It’s really really hard to believe those people are being honest.
Every post I saw before I blocked them was 100% what rightwingers believe “libruls” believe.
I’m confused as to what you’re referring to, lemmygrad? Nah I’m pretty sure those are just tankies and tankies are as I understand it basically what rightwingers think everyone left of Ronald Reagan is. Like tankies aren’t just commies, they’re fucking stalinists.
“Stalinists” who support a radical right wing hyper capitalist Christian oil tycoon oligarchy with colonist ambitions, and endless wars of conquest. They’re just edgy anti westerners with no real policy ideology.
And I’m saying I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re all rightwingers larping.
They all think they’re the only ones trolling and everyone else is authentic, when none of them are
Leftists can be fucking insane too, my guy. Lemmygrad is proof of that
Some years ago I read an amusing article about Conservapedia, discussing how half the contributors were genuine right wing lunatics and the other half were trolls pretending to be right wing lunatics and nobody could tell who was what. I suppose it’s possible that Lemmygrad is like that too. But there are definitely genuine lunatics in the mix, regardless.
That people on social media who claim to be “leftists” say insane shit my guy
You are aware that people can do that, right?
Just go on the internet and lie about shit…
Is your argument that tankies don’t exist? I assure you that they do.
Would anyone actually do that? Just go on the internet and lie about shit?
Next thing you know these jaded people are going to tell me it’s not really the cats in pictures asking for cheeseburgers!
There are genuine people on the extreme Left who are Stalin apologists, and they are called Tankies. They are a fringe but they’re not trolls, they believe it
On the one hand, yes, absolutely.
On the other, tankies are fascists. They just happen to prefer their slaves to be communal, rather than spread out amongst corpos.
Stalin was a fascist. Being a Stalinist means you’re a fascist. Ergo, tankies are fascists.
Centralization of power is always bad. Because fascism is always bad. We need to stop looking at bygone eras of centralized power structures and move towards a more federational (federated) power/governance structure.
Then we need to get rid of the power balance for good. Until then, be weary of communists masquerading under the same flag but pushing for power centralization.
Communism isn’t a form of governance, our first step should be to mold our democratic republic around it instead of capitalism. Then change it as our needs demand.
Easier said than done, I realize, but change is possible. Fingers crossed it happens soon. Sorry about the rant.
This is very incorrect. Hate Stalin if you want but he wasn’t a fascist.
Sta·lin·ism /ˈstäləˌniz(ə)m/ noun the ideology and policies adopted by Stalin, based on centralization, totalitarianism, and the pursuit of communism.
Sorry, but it’s true, Stalin was a fascist. Democratic centralization is still power centralization, and runs counter to all of communism’s economic ideologies.
You’ve said nothing that actually fits Stalin into any of the many definitions of fascism.
No reference to Eco, no mention of palingenetic ultranationalism, you could maybe use Gregor to fit your view even though other scholars discount his positions and ideas, but you don’t.
Even if you used the definition from a man killed as a result of Stalin, Trotsky, you still wouldn’t have a definition that found Stalin to be a fascist.
Dislike him if you want but use words that actually fit him and what he did. Fascist isn’t it.
Yeah, I didn’t mention them because they’re literal set dressing used by a dictator to convince people he wasn’t one. It’s worse if the man truly thought creating a centralized power structure would be beneficial to Marxist principles, because he himself proved that it can’t work.
Here’s why: once you establish a centralized power structure, it doesn’t matter how kind or charismatic the person (or small group) in charge is, it is the literal definition of fascism.
I don’t know how to more clearly put this. Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt, he created a centralized power structure that was immediately corrupted and abused. You’re saying “but look at all this other stuff” like it takes away from the fact that this is fascism.
What I don’t get how you reconcile communism with totalitarianism (literally fascism with extra steps).
I think you’re overthinking it, tankies absolutely do exist and have since stalin’s death, the term was coined by a communist reffering to more extreme members of their own party. If this is your first time running into them I honestly envy that.
The delusion is strong with tankies. It’s really quite interesting to observe, particularly when big events happen (ex: When Russia was repelled from Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Kherson). One will see a refocusing happening over the course of a few days, then the same conclusions are reached but using completely different (often contradictory) logic.
It’s a common feature of any demographic that is convinced of their moral superiority. Once you’ve accepted that you and your leaders are on the side of justice and are presented a designated enemy, you cease having to look inward. Progress requires acknowledging that you are operating inside of a flawed system, and that you have to work with people from other systems who acknowledge their own flaws.
Tangent: “Enlightened centrists” acknowledge the flaws of both sides of an argument while failing to acknowledge that both sides have to play fair.