• 0 Posts
  • 22 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: July 5th, 2023
  • Graylitic@lemm.eeto196@lemmy.blahaj.zone•I need Rule
    1·
    1 year ago

    I wasn’t defending Stalin, I was pointing out flaws in your logic, which you continue to double down on. It’s like you’re in a shit pit, making your own shit castle, flinging it everywhere. Nothing you’ve actually said has mattered at all.

    The people you’ve described don’t fit your definition. You’ve given a specific definition, then when asked to clarify, you showed people that don’t fit that same definition.

    Read Marx, I guess.

  • Graylitic@lemm.eeto196@lemmy.blahaj.zone•I need Rule
    1·
    1 year ago
    1. You continue your rant to describe them as conservatives, and other than what I’ve shown you directly saying, you haven’t actually backed up what a tankie is, just a “conservative that uses leftist language.” You haven’t actually backed any of that up, nor pointed out how they are conservative, nor how they back up hierarchy.

    It’s not really how arguments work, considering you just virtue signaled without making any actual points.

    1. I’m fine with being an asshole to you, you’ve been nothing but an asshole to me. That’s just how this convo has been, really.

    My point isn’t that there isn’t such thing as a tankie, or a dictatorship. Pinochet, Pol Pot, Hitler, and by some stretches, Stalin, are all dictators.

    Here’s the nuance, and my driving, central points: what you describe as a tankie doesn’t fundamentally exist in the quantity you pretend it does. There are always crazy people on any side, but the people you linked don’t fit what you described, except in the most extreme, fringe cases. Meanwhile, the majority of people may be “edgy,” but aren’t supporters of the Katyn Massacre, or the numerous issues in the USSR.

    That’s why MLs even have a term they call “critical support,” whereby they recognize leftist movements like the USSR, and recognize the actions resulted from material conditions and responses to said material conditions, rather than out of a moralistic desire to commit evil.

    Pretty sure that covers it. There are very, very few people that actually fit your definition, and you extend it to anyone on the left that’s more radical than you as a way to disengage from actual leftist conversation.

    Guess I should finish this convo by suggesting you read Marx?

  • Graylitic@lemm.eeto196@lemmy.blahaj.zone•I need Rule
    1·
    1 year ago

    You made the blanket statement that tankies are those who “demand a hierarchy where your betters are unquestionable and those below you are subservient.”

    Not once did you back any of this up without moving goal posts.

    I ask you again:

    1. I haven’t seen a single person defend the heinous shit Stalin has done that I described. Do you believe defending individual actions means defending the entire person and thus every extent of their actions?

    2. Do you believe that defending certain aspects of the USSR, such as guaranteed housing, free education, and free Healthcare, means defending the Katyn Massacre as well?

    3. Following the previous 2 questions, do you seriously believe people are defending Stalin’s abuses of state power wholeheartedly, and are doing so because they love hierarchy?

    All of your points so far have been pure anticommunist rhetoric, and using the term tankie to avoid actually having to engage with leftist ideas.

    Here’s a game: based on what I’ve said so far, do you legitimately believe me to be a tankie?

  • Graylitic@lemm.eeto196@lemmy.blahaj.zone•I need Rule
    2·
    1 year ago

    Cool, so it’s just vibes I guess. Not even once did I see anyone defend absolute power hierarchy defended, nor the heinous shit I mentioned defended.

    The absolute closest is defending violence against settlers, which I’d argue is still wrong but is still rooted in anti-colonial, anti-imperialist sentiment, rather than a defense of genocide or absolute power hierarchy. You’re not going to find me defending people killing settlers, but you’ve still misrepresented them.

  • Graylitic@lemm.eeto196@lemmy.blahaj.zone•I need Rule
    2·
    1 year ago

    Where are the people defending his atrocities? Specifically. Citation needed, because I haven’t seen anyone defend any of what I just said, nor anyone believe a leader should have absolute power, like you posited.

    That’s why I’m asking what your answers are.

    1. Is there anyone actually defending any of the heinous shit I listed, or are they defending other sensible policies that a broken clock got right?

    2. Is there anyone actually advocating for a system of power whereby the leader is uncontested and absolute, which has never existed in the USSR?

    That’s my point, your definition of a tanky doesn’t actually exist in any meaningful quantity.

  • Graylitic@lemm.eeto196@lemmy.blahaj.zone•I need Rule
    2·
    1 year ago

    He wasn’t autocratic, nor did everything he want to happen, happen. Much of the ongoing, day to day decisions were made by Worker Councils.

    The CIA literally stated that the notion that he was a dictator were exaggerated, in an internal memo. “Comments on the change in Soviet leadership.”