1300
Both sides!
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2024
1300 points (100.0% liked)
Political Memes
5473 readers
2279 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Far-left definitely isn't that - "we're gonna make sure everyone's needs are met" is literally a general leftist thing. Assuming you're trying to portray tankies and fascists, a more accurate depiction would be "we're gonna make sure working class needs are met with an iron fist and extermination of anyone potentially rebellious".
That being said, holy shit there are so many bad takes in this thread
Respectfully, I don't think tankies are the farthest left, or even left at all. They seem far too concerned with statism and too unconcerned with uplifting the worker.
I also think that there is space for more than one type of far left.
EDIT: Witness below: a lengthy conversation about states, colonialism, whose team is worse, and other masturbatory topics. What average worker is going to engage with this ideology? Dorks.
Yeah I did want to originally include this in my original comment - there's ideologies like Anarchism that is also far-left, and same can be applied to the right, with their ancaps and libertarians though both of those are rarely ever referred to as far-right (wonder why's that).
Not just tankies but ml. We should all be working towards communism generally. No question. And ML governments have helped industrialize their regions as capitalism did. Again no question. But in that process the ML governments have been oppressive and violent as most capitalist. Combined with the fairytale of the administrative state magically withering on it's own. It's safe to say that the vanguard of Marxist Leninism the Soviet Union splintered and fell to fascism of the administrative state. With China repeating their mistakes. Making they're already unaccountable administrative State even more unaccountable. Appointing their president for life even as he moves into the Forbidden City and The Emperor's Palace. Now largely emperor in all but name.
Honestly I think the reason they get shown so much is because there's not a lot of other clear iconography relating to the left. There's the upgrades fist. But it has been adopted for a number of other groups and movements. Outside of that most of the truly recognizable ones were adopted by the leninists.
i think whats missing from most anti-ml takes here is colonialism and the overbearing influence of the west everywhere else.
china wouldnt be able to break away from the washington consensus like it does if they didnt have enough force to show and use whenever necessary to keep it at bay.
likewise with pretty much every long lasting, large scale socialist experiment so far. people forget what happens to the likes of allende when they try funny business and can't back it up with actual force.
i also have a problem with using 'tankie' for serious discussion because its a meaningless word at this point.
If things were perfect they would be perfect. However that's circular reasoning/tautology. Everyone struggles with factors internal and external. And ultimately it's not someone else's responsibility what they do. So bringing up the West in a critique of marxist leninism he's largely pointless and at best only a crutch. Because yes we can absolutely critique the west or similar things. The fact that they do them doesn't make Marxist leninism better by comparison.
And let's be clear. China and the Chinese government needed no help exploiting their proletariat for the benefit of the ascendant bourgeoisie. The West did not force that or cause it.
My critique of marxist leninism is not a defense of capitalism or the west. I see them as largely equal and opposed. Yes the West has been shitty to countries that have adopted Anti-Capitalist Stances. And I absolutely believe it is largely unwarranted and counterproductive.
Where it is warranted ironically one only has to look to Vladimir Lenin to understand why. The forceful annexation of much of Eastern Europe post World War ii. The division of Germany. No one from the West forced that. Remind me. Former Soviet block countries, what were their General feelings about the Soviet Union and Lenin / Stalin after it dissolved? I remember even until recently A lot of them tearing down statues of those men. Was it because they love them so much and wanted to have pieces of them in their house to worship? It wasn't because they failed to deliver on their promises, and were largely hated and despised by survivors and family of people marched off to Siberia to die was it?
quite the contrary.
force is needed because things arent perfect, hence why i say the analysis misses neocolonialism.
Why, after that force is used to successfully establish themselves, those countries never actually empower the lower classes?
China has been secure on the world stage for decades, yet their people still work as wage slaves for the benefit of the western bourgeoise interests.
take a look at how quality of life, health, education and most aspects of society improves vastly under socialism.
also take a look at the time scale at which such things happen.
we also have capitalism.
The Foxconn building had to put up nets around their building because so many employees were committing suicide due to their extremely poor working conditions.
You're suggesting that is simply a necessary evil on the long road to real socialism? Marx said there needs to be 100 years of capitalist industrialization before a communist revolution can succeed (which I disagree with, but let's roll with it). China was able to enact a successful revolution without waiting 100 years of wage slavery, only to then become a wage slave accepting nation? To what end is this benefitting the proletariat? China doesn't have free higher education, and they don't have fully free healthcare.
Meanwhile, Anarchists in Spain were able to liberate the working class and eliminate money mid-revolution. They lost the war due to lack of access to weapons/logistics, but nothing about enacting those social revolutions seemed to be terribly detrimental to their efforts.
China seems to have willfully become capitalist itself (pretty lame of them), so, at least from the average worker's standpoint, it seems relatively inconsequential whether they are a wage slave in mainland china, or in any other capitalist country.
some say dengism was a necessary evil, yes. i personally disagree, they should have been able to do better like others before. the results came for the next generation though, and it didn't need all those 100 years.
setbacks are part of history everywhere else too, and don't paint the entire picture.
I assume you mean the current generation in China? If so, the results seem to be less than ideal, to put it mildly. I would posit that the Nordic countries (and possibly most of the EU) offer better living and working conditions to the working class, even under their neoliberal welfare state. I certainly don't see where China is excelling in that regard.
The question is; now that China is a wealthy world power, what exactly is stopping them from enacting more radical social changes to make it actually look like a socialist country? How long do they have to wait before power is given freely to the proletariat and the state withers away? From my perspective, there does not appear to be any light at the end of the tunnel.
To the contrary of your contrary. The French revolution. One of the most influential formative revolutions that helped influence and shape Karl Marx's philosophy and much of marxist thought. Showed otherwise.
Sure sometimes Force can be needed to break free. But if you need Force to govern you are doing it wrong.
the french revolution didnt have a previous, but strong empire trying to stop it at all costs. you are subestimating neocolonialism. my country has a history of being interfered with by the empire at the hint of wanting free. and that won't narrow it down.
there is a reason one country in the planet spends almost as much as everyone else combined on their military
Are you fucking kidding me
Please explain me how Marxist-Leninist governments have partaken in unequal exchange, colonialism, or how there was surplus extracted from workers.
Isn't that quite literally what happened in the USSR in 1991? A unilateral dissolution of the government and its institutions from the top-down.
Either way, you're showing that you actually haven't studied the ideas of Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism literally defines the state as oppressive in nature, it's kinda the core point of Lenin's "State and Revolution". Marxist-Leninists defend a democratic form of government in which worker-councils elect representatives who enact Marxist policy in the most democratic fashion possible, and a constant back-and-forth dialogue between the communist intellectual vanguard and the people in which the needs of the people are translated to Marxist language and policy and enacted. Marxism-Leninism isn't "when Stalin based", that's, well, Stalinism.
Please at least give us a challenge. Okay let's just stick to Russia otherwise I'll be here all day. They forcefully /undemocraticaly annexed a large portion of Eastern Europe under threat of violence. Concentrated most of the wealth, power, and influence in the politburos of Moscow. Leaving rural areas largely destitute with no prospects. Though to their limited credit still providing them with a minimal subsistence. The Russian oligarchs of today as well as the bourgeoisie fascistic dictator now in charge. All roads lead back to the wealthy, privileged, and politically connected in Moscow.
We can do ole forbidden city bourgeoi-xi throwing around the peoples resources to buy off and debt trap smaller foreign nations to exploit if you want.
Where's the communism? We were promised communism. Unless you're going to try and paint the fascistic Russian state as temu/wish brand communism. Which would be both hilarious and sad if you did. The state and it's authority never dissolved. They released the captured territories. Letting them return to governing themselves. Which was good. But the modern government of Russia has well documented clear ties back to Soviet government and leadership. They just put on a different mask. But it's hardly classless or stateless.
Or, consider that I have. And that I understand that all "ideologies" are ideal. And as such divorced from reality. Capitalist theory was freeing and uplifting too. Not at all imperial. The practice and implementation of ideologies is their failing.
Threats of isolation and violence? Democratic?! Seriously? Real talk, I'm all for worker and local councils being the government. Pragmatically I'm anarco-communist. Get rid of moscow, get rid of Beijing. Get rid of the party. Let the people choose how to organize themselves. Then it won't be nothing but empty rhetoric.
What Lenin especially as well as engles and even marx failed to understand or account for. Was that anything acquired through force. Can just as easily be taken or destroyed through Force. It has happened with every single Revolution their ideology started. What's built through consent, through solidarity, and cooperation cannot easily be destroyed or Taken. Using the shortcuts and tactics of the bourgeoisie leads to becoming the bourgeoisie. Every single time. No matter how well intentioned Marxist Leninist are.
You mean when in 1917 the Russian Socialist Federation of Soviet Republics unilaterally decreed for the first time in history the right to self-determination for all ethnicities and peoples in the former Russian Empire, which gave most of eastern Europe the legal right of secession? And which nationalist elites of countries like Poland used to establish local elites as the form of government and to start nationalist expansionist wars like the Polish-Ukrainian war, including invasion of the RSFSR in an attempt to secure more of their "historical border claim" of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? Or which they used to join the white armies in an attempt to destroy socialism? Or do you mean annexions in WW2 era in an attempt to prevent the rise of fascism in bordering countries that had declared anti-communist in the wake of their newly gained independence?
Patently false. Representation in the party was very representative of all republics of the USSR. Farmers in Central Asia had higher salaries than those in the Russian Republic, and Baltic republics like Estonia had higher average salaries than those in the Russian Republic. There were policies to subsidize life in places with harsh conditions such as the far north and east. There was immense investment in industrialization of Central Asia.
Rural emigrations intensified after the USSR was dissolved, which again kinda disproves your point. Arable land in the Russian Republic has decreased since the USSR times further proving that more people wanted to be farmers before.
Surprise surprise: the USSR was dissolved in 1991, and thanks to neoliberal shock therapy applied through western influence and with the help and doctrine of IMF and prestigious MIT economists, the country's means of production and national wealth were unlawfully and corruptly sold to the most corrupt bidder.
You've made no claim to support that there was exploitation of surplus of the working class. Maybe because you can't support that claim?
If by "well documented clear ties", you mean "people who lived during the USSR still lived during the transition to capitalism, and those in higher positions of authority were in a better position to scavenge the remainings of the welfare state in their own benefit", then yes. That's not a centralized effort from a consistent and cohesive elite between 1990 and 2010, it's literally the IMF's capitalist policy of privatisation of the economy. There were no such thing as oligarchs or as economic elites within the USSR because productive property was publicly owned.
The current Russian government is proto-fascist, of course it's not classless or stateless. The USSR wasn't stateless obviously, but it was classless since there was no exploitation of the working class by any other proprietary class.
You really don't see the irony there? Obviously the end-goal is the minimisation of the state (although a body of elected representatives of some sort will probably always be needed, call that however you want). The discussion is a matter of how quickly. As you can probably understand, feudal serfs in 1917 couldn't spontaneously and flawlessly organize in communist, collective organizations who decide everything by themselves. A vanguard party of communist intellectuals that translates the demands of the people to communist policy is needed in the initial stages, or how else do you envision the transition from feudalism/capitalism to communism?
Tell that to Salvador Allende or to the Spanish Second Republic.
There is no bourgeoisie without economic exploitation of the working class. Excessive bureaucracy and lack of democracy? Sure as hell. But saying that there was a bourgeoisie in the USSR is mental gymnastics.
As opposed to direct anarcho-communism, which has shown in the multiple times it's been applied, that it's everlasting and can endure any external threat. Come on, please tell me how internationally significant Rojava and Zapatistas are, and how they're not one step away from being crushed by US imperialism as soon as they're deemed too dangerous to be kept alive.
Deflections, bad faith arguments, and denial. Truly the copium of the proletariat. Right comrade?
You couldn't rebut a single point. And your best attempts teetered on cherry picked unrepresentative data. Oh for a short period things were different from what I claimed before becoming what I claimed?! Well then I stand....correct?
And seriously with the everything is the wests fault schtick? I'm not defending the west. But if all the bad things are the fault of the west. You're being dishonest. I will freely point out how the Union was industrialized. How, for a short time it brought around great benefit to the proletariat. As all automation should. And the marvels of science and research pioneered under the union. That doesn't justify or excuse the negatives. Don't bullshit me with there being no new ascendant bourgeoisie rot at the top. Greed and selfishness is a part of human nature. Not just "the west". And those with too much power and wealth, regardless of their ideology, always work things to their personal benefit. Don't think others can't see bullshit when you put it out.
Why don't you go point by point instead of categorically dismissing my comment?
I don't need to justify or excuse the negatives. Stalinism and the great terror were excessive, arbitrary, pointless, cruel, and harmful. Dekulakization and the collectivisation of land was a fucking mess. But there was no bourgeoisie in the USSR and there is no continuity of governance or system between the USSR and modern Russia. I beg you, answer my previous comment point by point, I'm dying to see how you call a bureaucrat "a bourgeois".
Please answer and give me examples of functioning anarcho-communist revolutions, or even the theory of how it would work.
Again, I fully agree that there was too much of an accumulation of power in the top spheres of the USSR. There was an ossification of power. Leadership was until death which is absurd, and the lack of criticism of the leader is even more absurd. It's what led the USSR to its dismantling, I fully agree with it. I just don't agree with calling it "yet another form of capitalism" or saying that "there was a bourgeoisie" or that "there's a continuum in the form of government of the USSR and modern Russia". And no, there weren't people with too much wealth in the USSR, the only way to get a salary was through a job since nobody could exploit others using private capital, no rentists, no bourgeoisie.
I understand your definitions, but I I think many Americans don't use the same definitions. OP is pointing this out.
If we look at specific issues it's easy to see. If I say that we should have universal health care, or UBI, many people would say that I'm way far out on the left. What if I said that we shouldn't allow people to be multimillionaires? Would that make me way far out on the left? Again, to a lot of people yes.
So your definitions might be reasonable, but they aren't universal, and I think if you keep that in mind you can appreciate OP more.
I think the issue is not so much definitions, but who actually has a voice. Currently in US politics the far left does not wield any influence, but the far right does hold some sway over the Republican party.
I suppose some on the right toss out accusations of being far left, but that's just empty rhetoric.
Just to support your point (and for the benefit of others not from the US), even people who are sympathetic to your views will often use the adjective "radical" when describing them if you espouse such beliefs. Everyone who votes R will cal you a radical and a high percentage of democrats will too.
And that's before you even get to the stuff about overt wealth redistribution.
Bernie Sanders is the radical left to a great many in the US. (personally I consider him just the right amount of left 😁 )
Look at the neck of the chad. He has a commie symbol so its clearly that far out. Not just universal health care or UBI
I just catalogue tankies as another flavor of right-wing. Any kind of authoritarianism is far-right as far as I'm concerned, whether it's supposedly in service of communism or anything else.
Being left is about finding actual working solutions that help people and make society more free, just and safe for everyone and it's about being willing to abandon solutions that have been tried and don't work towards that goal (or require massive amounts of blood to achieve).
A tankie insisting that you need to just purge the political undesirables to make a utopia is just as irrational and right-wing as MAGA chud thinking theocracy or an ethnostate will work.
"Centrists" in the US think you're meant to cut the difference between those two, which is why they end up conservative themselves. They're stuck in a conception of the political landscape that limits them to thinking of things as a spectrum of extremes, rather than a binary between stuff that works to produce material good and stuff that doesnt.
To everyone upvoting this: you're agreeing with the take of a guy saying "fascism can be both described as left and right wing and it wants to ensure the needs of the working people"
Edit: confused the above commenter with another user. Ignore this comment.
No? I'm referring to the meme up above where the sides being portrayed are far-left and far-right, and I'm inferring the ideologies they represent based on the appearance and the text of the characters within the meme (with far-left being tankies and far-right being fascists).
By definition, fascism is always far-right.
That's not to say there aren't dictators within the left wing though. It's more of a common treat in Latin America and Asia.
Pretty sure most people who consider themselves leftists in western countries don't agree with the implications of this. Guaranteeing housing for everyone implies hard policy against landlords (including expropriation), construction of dense public housing... Guaranteeing equal rights in education means eliminating private education, and the same can be applied to medicine.
As for the human rights of people outside the western world, ensuring their human rights would imply stopping the abusive trade relations that they're forced into partaking. No more unequal exchange, so now chocolate is 5-10€ a piece. We also can't export our trash anymore to poorer countries. Good-bye to 3000€/month salaries in so-called "high added value" sectors of the economy when you submit to the reality that a western worker's hour shouldn't be paid at 5-times the rate of a non-western worker.
We need to degrow economically in order to preserve the climate, so the purchase power of people must be reduced when it comes to many consumer products which aren't basics. No more luxury vehicles (possibly restrictions on purchase of cars), no more buying clothes twice a month, and compulsory reduction of meat consumption.
Now, try to do all of those things within the logic of capitalism. Most self-described leftists don't see the logical and historical impossibilities of guaranteeing the needs of everyone within a capitalist system. So yeah, virtue-signalling and good intentions are good, but more than that is needed to actually achieve the goals in mind. The far-left is just aware of this.
Wait. Fascists are left-wing now? Fascists want to "ensure working class needs"????
If you go far enough on the left sector then yes, they may say they want to "ensure the working class needs" but are so full of shit that they strike down anything that differs slightly from their views. We need part of a personal incentive and an individual focused economy to actually meet the needs of the people. Communism might just ensure the bare minimum. Degrowth might be what would be good for our planet but in no world do I see the majority of people willing to give up part of their purchasing power so its easier to push for a more green economy without degrowth.
Thank you for agreeing with my point that self-described leftists don't want to experience the consequences of ensuring everyone's needs are met.
Communism isn't against that. The USSR workers had salaries tied to their productivity more often than in the west, I literally don't know any worker in my capitalist country whose salary is increased if they increase their productivity. If by "incentive" you mean "the looming threat of unemployment and homelessness", then speak openly. How funny that people aren't willing to give up purchase power according to you, but the threat of unemployment is an adequate incentive.
The needs of the people in developed capitalist societies are best met in socialized services such as public education, public healthcare, and public pensions. Typically, it's individual-based (i.e. private) sectors of the economy like housing (or healthcare and education in the US) that give the worst crises and stress to people, and the ones that ensure highest inequality between rich and poor.
It might seem abstract to you but if you are valuable to the company and another company offers you more money your pay is adjusted based on your economic productivity
Why should I speak openly if I support a social safety net that ensures a basic standard of living and housing during times of unemployment?
None of this needs a communist state
Meritocracy in capitalism is a myth. Low-wage workers often work harder than anyone else, and get no rises or other jobs for doing so.
Sure, the capitalist west is doing so well electing the far right to erode our already-eroded social rights even more.
Its not about how hard you work tho. Its based on how much your work is worth to others and how replaceable you a company. Actually Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark are some of the happiest countries on earth with the highest standards of living so I'd say they're doing pretty well. I know that there are a lot worse capitalist countries but I specifically focus on a social market economy and the potential. I am not defending the lack of social welfare in the US.
Nordic European countries have rather decent social welfare, agreed, but their economy is as sustained on unequal exchange as those of the rest of the developed world. In the case of Norway arguably more since they're oil exporters. My point being, not every country, not even most countries, can be like Scandinavian countries because they rely on exploitation of people outside their borders.
How's that not a bad thing to reward people based on? We saw during the pandemic that the actually important jobs in our society are the ones that pay jackshit and are easily replaceable. Shouldn't these people get a better life?
I get your point. It's sad that for example football stars get millions a year while the people required to run a country don't get a good pay. But large parts of a society for example highly value those stars which is why they're so well-paid.
In an ideal world we could do that, but only because you put a lot of effort into something doesn't mean it is of higher value to society. If its standard stuff someone else could do or you just aren't better than many others you don't get valued as much. If everyone worked the same job (Its a ridiculous example, I know but stick with it one second) and worked their ass off it would just be nearly worthless since all the other jobs would be empty. Thats how the economy allocates the work force.
This might be true, but even more industrialized countries like Germany or the Netherlands have a decent welfare state. They export a lot as well, yes, but I don't see it as much of an issue if the other countries were more industrialized and had higher pr capita productivity which would leave more things for everyone involved.
Again, ESSENTIAL jobs during the pandemic. They are the ones of highest value to society, to the point that it would crash without them.
I'm fully aware that's how it works now, I argue that it shouldn't be like this.
Again, that's not how it works. If you allow currently poor countries to develop, they'll stop providing cheap labor and raw materials to wealthy countries, and stop buying expensive manufactured products like cars and planes at a premium. That's what the western welfare state relies on: exploitation through unequal exchange of the poorer regions of the world
I don't agree with that assessment. I believe that the amount of manual labor and cheap outsourcing isn't needed for wealth. I believe we could all increase our standards of living
I believe that too, I just don't believe it can happen equitatively between countries in Capitalism. I'm not making up this "import raw materials, agricultural produce, cheap labor; export high added-value goods and services" approach to the economy, it's been there alive and kickin' since neocolonialism and the industrial revolution, and it's the boot that has been keeping the poor countries poor with the help of the CIA and the IMF. Countries that dare elect leaders who want to invest the surplus of the resources of their countries into modernizing them and into improving the lives of their citizens, are declared enemies of the west, like Venezuela (as bad as its policy may have been), like Libya under Gaddafi, like Iran under Mosaddegh, or like Patrice Lumumba in Congo. The list is truly endless. And simply by partaking in the system of international trade established by the western countries, who claim to want the best for everyone through free market but apply sanctions and economic warfare when their strategic economic sectors are threatened (see the current import taxes to Chinese EVs), the exploitation takes place and perpetuates itself. It's the reason why 1h of labour of Finnish or Swedish or Danish worker can be paid at 10 times the rate of that of a Congolese one.
The chinese government heavily subsidises EVs in a way unsuitable for the EU for example. I think 100% on top is too much but I guess that was Biden's gambit for not losing the public to Trump's protectionist agenda. Also, china has really done a bad job diplomatically to place itself as a rival of the US with their wolf warrior diplomacy.
How exactly else do you think other industrialised societies have developed high-tech manufacturing? South Korea, Japan, the former USSR... All of it was through protectionism, you can't outcompete a historically more developed industry (UK, Germany, USA) in the free market. The neoliberal dogma is that countries should focus on the sectors in which they're competitive even if they're low value-added, the reality is very different if we look at history.
Not happy with protectionism, though, the US and EU are now outright applying sanctions and bans to the Chinese economy, such as preventing them from importing high-tech lithography systems and technology. It's an economic war with China because the western hegemony is finally coming to an end and the west doesn't want that.
China placed itself as a rival of the US? The US is literally propping Taiwan, an island full of US military bases, and regularly sailing their warboats between the island and mainland China. Can you imagine if China had military bases in Cuba and they sailed warboats between the island and Miami? Or in Mexico and central America? Because the US has military bases all over southeast Asia. It's not "china placing itself as a rival of the US", it's simply the US imperialism resisting being overtaken.