"During the 1930s, many communists and socialists from Germany and Austria sought refuge from the Nazis in the USSR. But in a shocking betrayal, the Soviet secret police handed over hundreds of them to Hitler’s Gestapo… https://jacobinmag.com/2021/08/hitler-stalin-pact-nazis-communist-deportation-soviet
My issue is not that they are historical ignorant, my issue their continuation of gaslighting and hijacking anarchist/communist movements to place themselves at the lead, the vanguard who knows “the truth”, who knows whats “best” for me and others, those that read such history and will first come up with some justification for the genocides conducted under the USSR. Justifying historical genocides, will result in justifying contemporary genocides.
Question: Whenever criticism against authoritarian communists is presented, why do you always come along as someone to defend them?
I am not defending them, but I think you do the cause a dis-service by posting nearly 100 year old examples and thus drawing false analogies. That is just preaching to the choir and all the old time anarchists will say “hmm, hmm, like we always said” and nothing changes at all.
that’s all you do here. not really anything more.
what’s false analogies? Contemporary tankies justify most genocides done under the USSR.
And they will happily justify handing over people to the Nazis during the 1930ties because they can easily rationalize away some age old stuff. There is really no point in harping on and on about that.
If you have some contemporary examples I am happy to hear them and I am sure some of those “tankies” will have a lot harder time to rationalize those away.
That’s what they always do. It is called gaslighting. Felix, dev of lemmy, justified Assad and how he cracked down something that started as a simple protest and eventually resulted in mass murder. They will reply with very long threads why [something about CIA] [something about shit libs] [something about the enemy of my enemy is my friend] [something about anti-ameria and justifying any other imperium that takes position against US] and because of that it was necessary.
Nothing more then gaslighting that follows all the time the same patterns.
Great, post some more examples of what happened in Syria then! The story is indeed a bit more complex and warrants some debate about!
what ever genocide it is,tankies will always justify it if it is done by a country that they claim to be an ally.
It is an ideological concept that you can’t disproof with logic. It is an dogma, that justifies itself.
Yes because tankies belong to some sort of hive-mind and will never ever be able to change their mind /s
(especially when we are not even trying to convince them, but just like to have a happy in-group circle jerk about how bad these “tankies” are).
That’s not what I’m saying here. I’m saying that their mind set is dogmatic. That does not mean that it’s permanent, but if you aim to create a dialogue that gives a chance to question such dogmas, it is useful to understand they exist. If you create a dialogue where the dogma can just justify itself, it will deepen their ideological believes.
You want to question their dogmas? Understand how they function first.
Removed by mod
Great you have a friend. But what’s the point?
Removed by mod
Why don’t you post some examples of their wrong-doings from contemporary times then?
ok: justifying genocides done by the USSR.
Genocides of the USSR were horrible and there is nothing to justify them, but those are also not contemporary.
The justification of these genocides is nothing of the past, it happens in this moment. It creates a culture that will legitimize upcoming genocides. And tankies do this. The damage those genocide brought to society is also nothing that is something of the past, it is still present, and so is it important to speak about history and how it relates to the here and now.
I think most of the people living today that you like to call “tankies” are just historically ignorant, have had a bit too much USSR propaganda and likely think China is somehow cool because they are seemingly “winning” the current geo-political conflict.
But they are mostly not really bad people, just quite deluded (and that is substantially different to some hardcore Neo-Nazies).
I broadly agree with this sentiment, however, I still find their uncritical support for demonstrably awful states (like states tend to be) distasteful.
Take the Uyghur issue, for example. Occidental propaganda wants us to believe that there’s a literal, Nazi-style physical genocide, which isn’t true. Tankies point that out and claim “victory”, when Uyghurs are living in pretty shitty conditions, and the Chinese state is doing everything it can to erase their culture, even if no physical genocide is happening.
I think I read recently in an anti-cop sublemmy (ACAB? I forgot the name) that being against “all” cops is problematic, because, after all, cops in “proletariat-controled states” exert the will of the proletariat (unlike cops in burgeois-controlled states). And thus, they’re good. 🙄
I get that these people are not a serious political force. And they’re certainly not as insufferable as liberals (and they do much less damage, if any at all). But still.
Agreed.
On the topic of cops, obviously it doesn’t matter much what type of state these cops enforcing, it is more a matter of personal incentives and oversight that is needed to prevent abuse of power by those few professional cop like people that are probably a good idea to have in society despite all the ACAB rhetoric.
The issue is power itself. If “cop like people” are needed at all, they should be restricted in the power to the degree that they wouldn’t be recognizable as cops to anyone living in a modern state, (ie not having firearms, not having authority to arrest, etc).
Regardless of your opinion on the issue, cops being “unreformable”, and an institution that’s inherently shitty, is the anarchist position, and the basis behind the sentiment expressed in ACAB. Which is why its shitty to read cop apologist/bootlikers in sublemmies like that.
“If a Nazi justifies the holocaust, that’s not an issue, because those who conducted the holocaust are dead”
nope! that’s not how that works.
You are cherry-picking partial sentences and twisting them to fit your narrative.
explain what you mean, if what I said doesn’t represent you correct.
see my other responses in this thread.
ok, so it doesn’t make sense to me, except that you justify the justification of genocide. “cool”
I don’t but whatever…
you repeatably said, that all this are just things of the past, that justifying genocides of the past in not really an issue if it’s done by tankies.
No I did not say that. I said that you will not be able to convince anyone otherwise when pointing out long ago examples that these people are probably already aware off and have already neatly rationalized away in their dogmatic world-view.