this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2025
220 points (91.0% liked)
Anarchism
2920 readers
9 users here now
Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.
Other anarchist comms
- !anarchism@slrpnk.net
- !anarchism@lemmy.blahaj.zone
- !anarchism@hexbear.net
- !anarchism@lemmy.ml
- !anarchism101@lemmy.ca
- !flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As a couple of poster here are already demonstrating, they discover that western nations have lied about communist nations, but they don't learn the more fundamental lesson that they shouldn't trust everything a nation says. So instead of adopting a nuanced view, they just counter believing everything a western nation says with rejecting everything a western nation says and instead believing everything a communist nation says.
Yep.
I'm perhaps older than some here, so I saw something similar after 9/11.
Western media, especially American media, were often blatantly biased in favour of the US government and the so called 'war on terror'. Especially when stuff leaked out about torture, mass killings and abuses. People turned to alternatives and often found channels like Russia Today. And to be fair, at first glance Russia Today did (certainly at the time) appear to be far more nuanced than mainstream media. It was certainly and often justifiably critical of what the US and its allies was up to around that time. But people who spent a lot of time uncritically watching Russia Today, often ended up believing the Russian government propaganda mixed in with truths.
I think it's also in large part due to the human tendency to simplify reality. Reality is often complex, but we prefer to thing in categories, like black and white. And so you often see people thinking in or blindly accepting false binaries. Side A bad, so side B ~~bad~~ good. (e: brain fart)
It's surprisingly common. I mean, look how common it is to think of Germany as the bad guy in WWI, when the reality was far more nuanced. The British empire really wasn't great.
And in WWII the nazis were obviously evil, but that doesn't mean the allies were particularly good either. For example, Roosevelt didn't do that much to stop the deportation of up to 2 million Mexicans and Mexican Americans, putting Japanese Americans in concentration camps wasn't moral, America was still virulently racist, and contrary to what you may have been led to believe about the Soviets up to 1 in 4 rapes by allied troops were perpetrated by Americans. Churchill arguably helped kill up to 4 million Indians during the war. Etc. etc.
What's an example of a piece of false Russian propaganda that you've seen blindly accepted by Western "tankies" (MLs) who watched Russia Today?
Off the top of my head?
The Russian line about Skripal, Litvenenko, or similar.
The idea that Russia and China are playing anything but a highly duplicitious role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Occasional strongly worded letters, some great propaganda, while close strategic and economic ties continue unhindered or even increase.
The idea that Russia is denazifying Ukraine or that Ukraine has a particularly big nazi problem. In the 2019 Ukrainian elections the far right got 2% of the vote. Meanwhile Putin has historically cultivated close ties with Russian fascists, skinheads and hooligans. He is also a fervent admirer of people like Ivan Ilyin, quotes him regularly and helped have his body repatriated to Russia . Ivan Ilyin, who was a self-avowed fascist, openly admired Mussolini and Hitler, and a virulent anti-communist.
Anyway, being a communist/ML and being a tankie aren't synonymous. Actual communists realise tankies are cosplay communists. Actual communists don't make excuses for anti-communists. They don't make excuses for some of the richest people on the planet. They don't make excuses for oligarchs and robber barons. They don't side with fascists, because they happen to be anti-western. They don't make excuses for authoritarian capitalist states.
That's something tankies do. It's embarassing.
If anything tankies are useful idiots for the far-right, because their nonsense and lack of critical thought helps undermine serious leftists, socialists and communists.
China's opposition (or lack of it) to Israel is controversial among MLs. I'm not familiar with the specifics of Russia's opposition to Israel or what RT has claimed about it, but I'll grant you that it's probably similar to China's dynamic with Israel.
I strongly disagree with the characterization of everything else as false propaganda, however.
I'm inclined to side with people like Jeremy Corbyn, Aaron Maté, and academics like Stephen F. Cohen and David S. G. Goodman who all expressed skepticism over the Skripal poisoning. IIRC, he was supposedly exposed to poison on the doorknob to his home at a time when he wasn't even in the city.
If the idea that Ukraine has a Nazi problem is Russian propaganda, then most Western media outlets prior to 2022 qualify as Kremlin propagandists. The Neo-Nazi problem is highly regional. Ukraine is a divided country, which is why it entered a civil war in 2014. You referenced the far-right party Svoboda's mere 2% of the national parliament, however, in the Neo-Nazi stronghold of the western Lviv Oblast, where statues of Stepan Bandera are erected, that share rises to 34%^[https://ukraine-elections.com.ua/en/vybory/result/11 Svoboda translates to "Freedom", which is how it's listed here]. Furthermore, their influence is outsized, because they're highly organized. NATO armed and supported the Banderite Azov Battalion beginning in 2005.^[Per Col. Larry Wilkerson] Today, that group has been upgraded to encompass multiple brigades.^[https://azovlobby.substack.com/p/how-we-learned-to-stop-worrying-and] Ukraine is the only country in the world with a Neo-Nazi group formally integrated into its federal armed forces. Starting in 2014 under Poroshenko's coup regime, after massacring leftists in an inferno in Odessa, these fascists began traveling to the east to ethnically cleanse Russian Ukrainians in pogroms.^[https://tankie.tube/w/11tj9DFjVqbdfBMzqVSUU1] Zelensky ran on a platform of peace with Russia, which is still the dominant position, but was powerless to rein in the NATO-backed far right in his country.
I don't believe RT has ever claimed that Putin is a communist. Presumably you've enumerated his ties to Russian nationalists to suggest that he and the Russian Federation could not possibly be genuinely opposed to Nazis. But even Russian nationalists share the Federation's immense pride in the victory of the Red Army in the Great Patriotic War, for which the country still holds huge annual parades. A guiding tenant of past and present Nazi ideology is a boiling hatred of Russians, which is why they exterminated 18 million Russian civilians in that world war. Nationalism is characterized by pride in ethnicity and nation, and so nationalists tend to dislike people who consider them subhuman and want to kill them. Thus, opposition to Nazis and concern for the security threat they pose make sense from the perspective of both the left and right within Russia.
Apologists for Ukraine and its endless proxy war on behalf of NATO which is decimating Ukraine's population and propelling the entire world towards WWIII and thermonuclear brinkmanship are IMO the embarrassing, useful idiots for the far-right and their genocidal ambitions in the Donbass.
Agreed.
Nuance is difficult, and arguably more to the point, it's sort of vague and insubstantial, not least because an awful lot of it necessariky boils down to "I don't know." People generally prefer something more solid to which to cling, so tend toward absolutes and unjustified certainties. And the most attractive ones are binaristic, because then you don't even have to provide support for your claimed position - all you have to do is find fault with the (generally falsely dichotomous) alternative.
The Post 9/11 situation with Mass Media and RT is why it's so desperately important for a Government to not lie or cover up it's actions. Another example of this is Al Jazeera. The US Government's dedication to hiding its dirty deeds opened the door for AJ to establish credibility which they later used against the US and it's Government.
What has anyone here said that isn't true? You are making an assumption that any of us are "trusting everything a nation says," but that is not what is happening. If you browse any "Tankie" instance you will see plenty of debate and criticism about every communist leader and state, as well as many western sources backing up our claims
As communists we are materialists, we rely on evidence to form our perspectives. Not everyone is going to do this perfectly all the time but generally a communist just wants everyone to be liberated from capitalism and understands that we can only achieve that through evidence based systems, science and pro-social community building. There is no need to "trust everything a nation says," there is plenty of evidence from all sides to form our opinions.
Nerds 😤
Quoting a different comment from this thread:
That doesn't sound to me like any kind of good faith argument as much as an excuse to praise the consolidation of power in one person, which I still have trouble understanding how anyone on the fediverse is for - doesn't it go completely against everything decentralization stands for? How is it so easy to understand the corruption of business billionaires but impossible to understand that a single person in charge of the means of distribution could easily become corrupt and authoritarian?
When I think of a "tankie", I do not think of a Marxist-Leninist arguing in good faith, I think of the people who praise oppressive regimes simply because they are communist, and hold no place for debating alternatives to or safeguards against giving one corrupt individual complete power over a nation. Authoritarianism is not synonymous to communism (see: fascism) and it seems crazy to me to believe that it does not exist, or that it is somehow good.
Perhaps you are not one of the people falling for everything certain nation-states say; in that case, I wouldn't consider you a tankie. But those people absolutely do exist.
I'm not going to speak for that user but in general I think they are referring to a few things:
All states are authoritarian. The idea that communists are especially authoritarian to a point that it means they deserve to be attacked and defeated by "non-authoritarian pro-democracy" nations is essentially an ad campaign by the US and their allies to justify their cold war aggression against communists. We are talking about the British and US empires, during the jim crowe era, accusing the USSR and China of being authoritarians and themselves as democratic. You see how this is nonsense right? There is no way that the British empire, a monarchy with an imperialist bourgeoisie was more democratic or less authoritarian than the USSR, even if most of the lies about the USSR were true. The slave holding jim crowe indigenous genocide USA, with its colonial holdings all over the world, was more democratic and less authoritarian? It just can't be so. The reality is that this word is essentially meaningless, every state has a monopoly on violence and is authoritarian.
None of these people had power consolidated to one person. Stalin, Mao, all of them had a lot of people involved in the decision making process. This is well documented and even admitted by the US in their internal documents about Stalin specifically.
I have been organizing in the real world with leftists of all kinds for over a decade, and unfortunately have seen a bit of the online left in that time as well.
A lot of people call themselves things and don't even know what they mean.
I think calling them tankies is reductive and ignorant because it is misrepresenting every party involved and only serving to paint well meaning MLs as bad because people who are not actually MLs are being allowed to represent us.
+1 for keeping the convo civil
Bedtimes are authoritarian, your parents are dictators
That's just a straw man. The "critical" in "critical support" stands for criticism of the states which anti-imperialists support. A guiding principle of Marxist analysis is ruthless criticism of all that exists.
Maybe it was different at one point, but right now, I think it's fair to ask not if western governments/media are lying, but how they are lying.
Not a tankie, but this kind of framing is reductionist and condescending. It's possible for someone to study the spectrum of political ideology and rationally decide that Communism is the best system. It's honestly disheartening that a non-falsifiable claim presented with zero evidence would garner this many upvotes on this platform.
THANK you. I was considering saying something similar here, and did in response to another ignorant, self-assuaging user elsewhere in the thread. So I'll just say the same thing I said to them, as a response to WatDabney above:
And to add to that, when first coming to realize the lies you've been told by the state you live under, it is a lack of nuance to immediately jump to the false premise that just because your state is bad, that must mean all states are bad. That's just the easy and childish answer. That doesn't make it inherently wrong, but it does make it the one that requires further examination and sometimes a hard look at ones misconceptions. MLs are the ones who have done that hard work, not the ones who have fallen for the easy, un-nuanced end point. As someone else here went into a lot of detail describing but I can't find at the moment, the typical and more easy trajectory for a young leftist is to go from disillusionment at their own state to anarchism. It is only after a lot more learning, examination, and recognition of nuance, that a person comes to see that the understandable kneejerk reaction that "all of them are evil!" is naive, simplistic, and totally lacking the nuance these things need.
It takes more internal work to conclude that "oh wow, all these other things I assumed were just the flat truth, common knowledge, - like how evil the communist states were and how bad they were for their people - were actually just more lies I was being told for a reason." Which is why we have so many young anarchists who over time become ML's but only rarely the other way around. @WatDabney@lemmy.dbzer0.com has it exactly backwards.
Uh, I don't think you understood their point. Tankies aren't communists, they're authoritarians with a red paint job. We're not talking about nuanced Marxist thinkers, we're taking about people who think "Just line everyone who doesn't accept my exact interpretation of communism up against the wall" is rational praxis.
There are plenty of ways to rationally arrive at Communism, but really the only way to get to Tankie is, as the top comment says, rejecting Western propaganda in favor of the propaganda of so-called "communists".
Seems you're assuming all communists are tankies, when they wrote about communist nations, ie, communist states which are all some variety of Marxism-Leninism, not general communism. Who's being reductive here?
Hey I can understand your frustration at their supposedly misplaced reasoning. But you have to let them have that view for some time so their own experience can align it closer to what you believe is happening. It shouldn't be disheartening that people might have incorrect explanations of how the world works for some time.
Your comment is on point, but it is your username that makes it perfect
Burn the palaces, baby 😎
It happens with other things. If you hear a new Linux user, a reborn Christian, a new WH4K player, ... you'll hear them say that the "new" thing they like is the best thing in the world and has no flaws. Then you find the flaws and can happen two things: either you grow up and admit it has flaws or you stay a child and ditch that thing for another "new" thing.