What does “tankie” even mean these days? To me it seems to be a 70 year old label from some long irrelevant cold-war leftist in-fighting dragged back out as some sort of run-away meme.
Don’t get me wrong, I am fully against pulling a banket over the historical atrocities of the Soviet Union (or the PRC), but this stupid labeling of people makes no sense to me.
I would say let actions speak for themselves, and there I can’t see much at fault with Lemmy…
What annoys me most about the people around and behind Lemmy is probably the PRC fan-boyism that very much looks like soccer fans cheering for a team just because they appear to be winning the championship and who doesn’t want to be part of the “winning team”? /s
P.S.: I personally suspect that this “tankie” meme was started by some former anarchists turned right-wing liberitarians. So chose your friends wisely…
I don’t know the historical reference. For me tankie is just US slang for marxist-leninists. But i agree i strongly dislike this label because it’s not easy to understand (internal reference) and does not point out actual problems. I have no problem calling out some marxist-leninists for being would-be tyrants and genocide deniers. However, not all marxists are the same and not all folks waiving a sickle and a hammer are dangerous psychopaths.
I would say let actions speak for themselves
Agreed. That’s a very anarchist principle, not dividing people along party lines but along practices. This is also a useful approach for restorative justice and community accountability, to recognize that one’s intentions and one’s result of an action are not the same. No matter what the intentions are, actions can be good or bad.
PRC fan-boyism
That’s very worrying. There was a lot of that with Russia and Turkey a few years back at the height of the Syria wars. Authoritarians of all stripes sure love them some tyranny ;) It’s like i’m not happy with my master so i’ll advertise another one instead… what could possibly go wrong? :P
As for the historical reference: It is a slur about parts of the 1950-1980ish political left in the UK that defended the brutal crackdowns (with troops and tanks) of the Soviet Union on popular uprisings in eastern Europe and Afghanistan as a necessary evil in the fight against global imperialism/capitalism. I think it has to be seen in the context of these people having a living memory of the Soviet’s costly defeat of Nazi Germany being turned into a “victory” by the US/UK in western propaganda, while actual real-life fascists continued to play a big role in much of the west. But this doesn’t make the later actions by the Soviet Union any less bad.
As for PRC fan-boyism: I think it is mostly harmless and based on a very limited understanding of the actual modern-day China combined with some lacking introspective. I can somewhat relate at times, but then again I am too much of a cynic who has always cheered for the losing side ;)
defended the brutal crackdowns (with troops and tanks) of the Soviet Union on popular uprisings in eastern Europe
Aaaaaah that makes entire sense! Thanks for the explanation!
I think it is mostly harmless
I don’t think cheering on any kind of blood-hungry empire (whether China, USA, France, India or Brasil or any other) is harmless. These people are literally preparing the next world war, or are you not noticing the huge increase in border control and military propaganda in the past years?
Yes, I agree. But playing the devils advocate here: it is the west that will likely start a world war with the PRC (to suppress a rival power) and not the other way around (long story… the the PRC might end up looking like starting a war, but that is another story). As it stands it is not in the best interest of the PRC to start anything but minor localized wars. On the other hand there are a lot of things where the PRC looks very good to an outside observer (especially in relation to the failings of the west in similar fields), such as poverty elevation or technological progress.
I agree it’s more likely but you never know for sure. We are just speculating :)
poverty elevation or technological progress
This is partially true. But social progress in China is driven not by the party but by huge popular movements, strikes and protests. The party stands by its repression until a certain movement grows too large/popular and then they revoke local officials and claim they were responsible for going against the party member’s desire for progress in sketchy trials.
It’s important to note also that ecological concern is growing in China. China has become a giant factory/dumpster for the entire planet and this has dire ecological consequences. Pollution and ecological damage is one of the many factors that encouraged western corporations to outsource production over there. The ecological movements in China are facing repression and the corruption of the State with big industry players ; the same can be said about the land/housing preservation movement against gentrification.
All this is my very limited (french-based) understanding of chinese politics but it doesn’t seem much better than over here in terms of popular autonomy and aspirations for social justice.
I think you might not be getting the full picture.
Agree that PRC is now the world’s biggest polluter, but it’s also the world’s biggest investor in clean energy research. Also always worth keeping in mind that the West still houses the majority of its manufacturing in China. China didn’t withdraw from the Paris Agreement, the USA did.
the world’s biggest investor in clean energy research
<sarcasm>Yes, please tell me more about how green capitalism is going to save the world.</sarcasm>
You may find it interesting to read or watch something on the topic. I would strongly recommend End:Civ, and to a lesser degree Planet of the Humans which is way less interesting from a political perspective, but has great explanation of why “green” capitalism isn’t green and “renewable” energies aren’t renewable.
TLDR: “clean energy” and technological innovation won’t save us (source: tech person myself, please don’t trust us to make serious decisions for the future of humanity). only less consumption a serious deconstruction of the car/concrete society, high ecological standards (think no paints, no plastics, no concrete in daily life) and a serious fight against planned obsolescence (and intellectual property of any kind that makes it possible in the first place) might have a chance to save humanity, not exactly as we know it (over-abundance and misery) but as a society of reasonable-abundance and justice.
China didn’t withdraw from the Paris Agreement, the USA did.
Sure. I’m not here to vilify China and defend western empires. I’m an anarchist, i strongly oppose any State though i don’t take a neutral stance when it comes to military interventions. My heart stands with the Kurds and the Palestinians and all the oppressed peoples on this planet. Fire to all colonial empires, even France (my birthplace) and China!
Firstly, you conflated my statement on investing in clean energy with green capitalism. Investing != Capitalism. If you don’t get that please let me know and I can explain further.
Secondly, as a fellow technologist, and someone whose undergrad program director was a not so closeted anarchist, I understand the argument you’re making and have also read several books that advocate for depopulation, an end to consumerism, a return to small scale societies, and the like. I understand your argument and my response is that based on the current trajectory of global society the policy objectives you are arguing for are untenable without a revolution in the United States and Europe concurrently (at least within a 20 year time span).
The reality is capital flight is a real practice with the advent of transnational corporations.
My logic for arguing for technology is that we’re not likely to see a revolution in any major western power anytime soon because of the economic weight of the global financial system and imperial hegemon of the USA. Until we reach a crisis point there will not be the change you’re advocating for. However, much like how Britain overbuilt railways in the 18th century, or the internet stock mania led to the current tech firms dominance today, the creation of for example, lead free perovskite solar panels, open source grid distribution technology, and other sustainable technologies, will allow us to love more sustainably after the crisis.
My interpretation of your argument is that you think we’ll somehow transition to a low resource use economy (realistically how besides revolution?) and then live for decades with low technological progress and forget about the rapid expansion of technology that’s possible under the exploitation of people via capitalism? I don’t see it.
I do hope I’m wrong of course, I particularly hate planned obselesence lately (among all the other terrible things).
What does “tankie” even mean these days? To me it seems to be a 70 year old label from some long irrelevant cold-war leftist in-fighting dragged back out as some sort of run-away meme.
Don’t get me wrong, I am fully against pulling a banket over the historical atrocities of the Soviet Union (or the PRC), but this stupid labeling of people makes no sense to me.
I would say let actions speak for themselves, and there I can’t see much at fault with Lemmy…
What annoys me most about the people around and behind Lemmy is probably the PRC fan-boyism that very much looks like soccer fans cheering for a team just because they appear to be winning the championship and who doesn’t want to be part of the “winning team”? /s
P.S.: I personally suspect that this “tankie” meme was started by some former anarchists turned right-wing liberitarians. So chose your friends wisely…
I don’t know the historical reference. For me tankie is just US slang for marxist-leninists. But i agree i strongly dislike this label because it’s not easy to understand (internal reference) and does not point out actual problems. I have no problem calling out some marxist-leninists for being would-be tyrants and genocide deniers. However, not all marxists are the same and not all folks waiving a sickle and a hammer are dangerous psychopaths.
Agreed. That’s a very anarchist principle, not dividing people along party lines but along practices. This is also a useful approach for restorative justice and community accountability, to recognize that one’s intentions and one’s result of an action are not the same. No matter what the intentions are, actions can be good or bad.
That’s very worrying. There was a lot of that with Russia and Turkey a few years back at the height of the Syria wars. Authoritarians of all stripes sure love them some tyranny ;) It’s like i’m not happy with my master so i’ll advertise another one instead… what could possibly go wrong? :P
As for the historical reference: It is a slur about parts of the 1950-1980ish political left in the UK that defended the brutal crackdowns (with troops and tanks) of the Soviet Union on popular uprisings in eastern Europe and Afghanistan as a necessary evil in the fight against global imperialism/capitalism. I think it has to be seen in the context of these people having a living memory of the Soviet’s costly defeat of Nazi Germany being turned into a “victory” by the US/UK in western propaganda, while actual real-life fascists continued to play a big role in much of the west. But this doesn’t make the later actions by the Soviet Union any less bad.
As for PRC fan-boyism: I think it is mostly harmless and based on a very limited understanding of the actual modern-day China combined with some lacking introspective. I can somewhat relate at times, but then again I am too much of a cynic who has always cheered for the losing side ;)
Aaaaaah that makes entire sense! Thanks for the explanation!
I don’t think cheering on any kind of blood-hungry empire (whether China, USA, France, India or Brasil or any other) is harmless. These people are literally preparing the next world war, or are you not noticing the huge increase in border control and military propaganda in the past years?
Yes, I agree. But playing the devils advocate here: it is the west that will likely start a world war with the PRC (to suppress a rival power) and not the other way around (long story… the the PRC might end up looking like starting a war, but that is another story). As it stands it is not in the best interest of the PRC to start anything but minor localized wars. On the other hand there are a lot of things where the PRC looks very good to an outside observer (especially in relation to the failings of the west in similar fields), such as poverty elevation or technological progress.
I agree it’s more likely but you never know for sure. We are just speculating :)
This is partially true. But social progress in China is driven not by the party but by huge popular movements, strikes and protests. The party stands by its repression until a certain movement grows too large/popular and then they revoke local officials and claim they were responsible for going against the party member’s desire for progress in sketchy trials.
It’s important to note also that ecological concern is growing in China. China has become a giant factory/dumpster for the entire planet and this has dire ecological consequences. Pollution and ecological damage is one of the many factors that encouraged western corporations to outsource production over there. The ecological movements in China are facing repression and the corruption of the State with big industry players ; the same can be said about the land/housing preservation movement against gentrification.
All this is my very limited (french-based) understanding of chinese politics but it doesn’t seem much better than over here in terms of popular autonomy and aspirations for social justice.
I think you might not be getting the full picture. Agree that PRC is now the world’s biggest polluter, but it’s also the world’s biggest investor in clean energy research. Also always worth keeping in mind that the West still houses the majority of its manufacturing in China. China didn’t withdraw from the Paris Agreement, the USA did.
<sarcasm>Yes, please tell me more about how green capitalism is going to save the world.</sarcasm>
You may find it interesting to read or watch something on the topic. I would strongly recommend End:Civ, and to a lesser degree Planet of the Humans which is way less interesting from a political perspective, but has great explanation of why “green” capitalism isn’t green and “renewable” energies aren’t renewable.
TLDR: “clean energy” and technological innovation won’t save us (source: tech person myself, please don’t trust us to make serious decisions for the future of humanity). only less consumption a serious deconstruction of the car/concrete society, high ecological standards (think no paints, no plastics, no concrete in daily life) and a serious fight against planned obsolescence (and intellectual property of any kind that makes it possible in the first place) might have a chance to save humanity, not exactly as we know it (over-abundance and misery) but as a society of reasonable-abundance and justice.
Sure. I’m not here to vilify China and defend western empires. I’m an anarchist, i strongly oppose any State though i don’t take a neutral stance when it comes to military interventions. My heart stands with the Kurds and the Palestinians and all the oppressed peoples on this planet. Fire to all colonial empires, even France (my birthplace) and China!
Firstly, you conflated my statement on investing in clean energy with green capitalism. Investing != Capitalism. If you don’t get that please let me know and I can explain further.
Secondly, as a fellow technologist, and someone whose undergrad program director was a not so closeted anarchist, I understand the argument you’re making and have also read several books that advocate for depopulation, an end to consumerism, a return to small scale societies, and the like. I understand your argument and my response is that based on the current trajectory of global society the policy objectives you are arguing for are untenable without a revolution in the United States and Europe concurrently (at least within a 20 year time span). The reality is capital flight is a real practice with the advent of transnational corporations. My logic for arguing for technology is that we’re not likely to see a revolution in any major western power anytime soon because of the economic weight of the global financial system and imperial hegemon of the USA. Until we reach a crisis point there will not be the change you’re advocating for. However, much like how Britain overbuilt railways in the 18th century, or the internet stock mania led to the current tech firms dominance today, the creation of for example, lead free perovskite solar panels, open source grid distribution technology, and other sustainable technologies, will allow us to love more sustainably after the crisis. My interpretation of your argument is that you think we’ll somehow transition to a low resource use economy (realistically how besides revolution?) and then live for decades with low technological progress and forget about the rapid expansion of technology that’s possible under the exploitation of people via capitalism? I don’t see it. I do hope I’m wrong of course, I particularly hate planned obselesence lately (among all the other terrible things).