Honestly it can be a coin flip, but I’m also banned from many of the instances that agree with Rimu thanks to the fiasco. That’s also why I tend to not be downvoted so much anymore, they literally cannot see my comments from Piefed.social.

If I were to give my own definition of what constitutes a tankie, I’d say it’s anyone who defends existing socialist states, past or present. Those socialist states are generally understood to be the USSR, PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, GDR, etc. The defense tankies give is not in accepting both bourgeois historiography as accurate but justified, but instead in directly combatting bourgeois historiography. Tankie is also a pejorative for these people, used to convey the strawman of the person that believes the lies of the Red Scare but believes them to be justified.

In that case, I am definitely a tankie. I spend a good deal of time talking about socialism both past and present, and arguing for how we can expand that movement and carry it to the future. I am definitely a defender of socialist states, I just don’t believe the common allegations such as “100 million were killed by communism” are at all accurate. I don’t think you’ll find someone who believes the 100 million number but also thinks it’s good and justified.

It’s also useful to understand it in this manner because it explains why even anarchists and liberals are called “tankie.” The throughline about defending existing socialism is the central identifier of a tankie, and the use of tankie to dismiss those who defend socialism as it exists in the real world is also covered by this understanding.

If I were to give my own definition of what constitutes a tankie, I’d say it’s anyone who defends existing socialist states, past or present. Those socialist states are generally understood to be the USSR, PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, GDR, etc. The defense tankies give is not in accepting both bourgeois historiography as accurate but justified, but instead in directly combatting bourgeois historiography. Tankie is also a pejorative for these people, used to convey the strawman of the person that believes the lies of the Red Scare but believes them to be justified.

In that case, I am definitely a tankie. I spend a good deal of time talking about socialism both past and present, and arguing for how we can expand that movement and carry it to the future. I am definitely a defender of socialist states, I just don’t believe the common allegations such as “100 million were killed by communism” are at all accurate. I don’t think you’ll find someone who believes the 100 million number but also thinks it’s good and justified.

It’s also useful to understand it in this manner because it explains why even anarchists and liberals are called “tankie.” The throughline about defending existing socialism is the central identifier of a tankie, and the use of tankie to dismiss those who defend socialism as it exists in the real world is also covered by this understanding.

What part, and how so?

You don’t seem to get what makes something left vs. right. It’s about what direction they take us, in the direction of the status quo, being right wing, or if they take us forwards to socialism, being left wing. In the future, socialism will be right wing, and communism will be left wing. That’s just how it is, we must proceed forward exactly as much as we can without letting idealism cloud our judgement.

I don’t see where I did that.

I’m not redefining it. Historically, leftism has been used to describe those who wish to advance to the next mode of production historically, ie those who are progressive, while rightism is to conserve or turn the clock backwards. BBC and NYT are both on the side of dying capitalism, wishing to drag the moribund body of capitalism, while leftists would be the socialists and communists. In the French revolution, capitalism was left, because it represented a movement beyond the monarchy and into capitalism.

Both are right-wing. Both uphold capitalism, imperialism, and Zionist genocide. Leftism begins at socialism.

Body shaming isn’t cool.

There have been a few fiascos about it. It isn’t exactly unknown, but it isn’t exactly advertised either.

The fact that it has been debated does not make it subjective. Gravity is not subjective, nor is the idea that the Earth is flat. Marxism is based on objective observations that have been empirically confirmed, as well as logically confirmed.

More ideologically driven, the Dev of PieFed wants to reduce exposure to leftists.

Socialists do not “uninvent the market,” or “require people to willingly forget what they know,” and certainly not “give up any possession of value.” Socialists solve the contradiction between socialized production, which markets are great at establishing, and private appropriation of the spoils of production, which creates the tiny and wealthy capitalist class. This is not an “un-invention” of the productive forces created by markets, but a solution to markets that have already fulfilled their historic role in creating socialized production.

Those that have their property appropriated are the owning classes, the capitalists, landlords, etc. This isn’t “anything of value,” it’s specifically the means of production and distribution, to create a better society for everyone based on the labor they actually perform and contribute to society.

Further still, socialism is democratic. Capitalism cannot be. Those kept in fear in socialism and deprived of power are the formerly and present owning classes. For the proletariat, the workers, socialism is the first taste of actual democracy. Violent, revolutionary means are necessary to gain this democracy and end the oppression of capitalism, which keeps workers in fear and dictatorial control.

States are inherently monopolies on violence. Either capitalists control the state, or the working classes do. Either there’s capitalism, or socialism. Only once class has been abolished can the state wither away.

Deafboy dramatically and intentionally misrepresented the point, but all states are monopolies on violence, all are “authoritarian.” The excesses committed in socialist States are genuine excesses of socialism.

That being said, “concentration camps” is a bit disingenuous. No socialist state has had industrialized mass murder like the Nazis, UK, US, etc. Most deaths in prisons in the Soviet Union, for example, happened due to starvation during World War II, after the Nazis took Ukraine, the USSR’s breadbasket.

Contributing famine to socialism is even more disingenuous. In all instances of famine in socialist countries, these have been in countries historically food insecure with common famine, and the socialists were the ones to end the cycle of famine. Socialism did not cause the famines, weather disaster and underdeveloped agricultural forces did. Mismanagement often played a part, but not in a way intrinsic to socialism nor in a manner that would have made capitalism preferable.

As for cultural purges, this is more vague. The cultural revolution in China, for example, is recognized as a mistake by the CPC. This is all I can really think of, though, when it comes to “cultural purges.”

A platform similar to Lemmy, but with an explicit ideological stance against communists, who are the main Lemmy devs (and the Lemmy devs, because of their belief in communism, adhere more closely to FOSS and federation, with less hard-coded bias as PieFed).

It has a few evangelists, but I’m not sure I’d call them a “propaganda team” as I don’t think they get paid to do so.

Of course colonialism is bad, you won’t get an argument from me in favor of it. That’s why I support countries like the former USSR, who were and are the biggest anti-colonial powers in history. Simply stating that “colonialism is bad, no matter what color” is a subjectivist truism that doesn’t prove one iota of colonialism from socialist countries. It’s the kind of substitution for an argument people who refuse to investigate how colonialism actually functions make, because otherwise you’d make a concrete claim against socialist countries.

As for “the workers denied an education for refusing Leninism,” etc, this is largely nonexistent. In socialist countries, education is typically free and universal, or exceptionally low-cost. Literacy rates went from ~30% to 99.9% in the USSR over the course of a couple decades. Either only .1% refused Marxism-Leninism, proving that acceptance of Marxism-Leninism was and is exceptionally popular in socialist countries, or that education was in fact free and universal, regardless of political views, assuming you weren’t a domestic terrorist. Either way, terrible point on your part.

Religious persecution is largely seen as a dogmatic error by early socialism, but is also overblown. Same for the idea that people were mass punished for participating in bourgeois culture.

I won’t weep for those who worked in tough working conditions out of necessity, instead I will salute them for taking on the difficult work. In many socialist countries, they were and are compensated in reduced working hours for the same pay, more pay for equal hours, or both. Such was common in the USSR for hazardous work.

As for the working classes gaining power, it’s happened many times, such as in the USSR, GDR, PRC, DPRK, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. Office work is still work. Party membership is largely reserved for those exceptionally dedicated and competent among the working classes, and communist parties regularly purge corrupt or lazy officials, replenishing their ranks from the rest of the working classes. Those in administration were and are workers, they do not gain income from capital ownership but from their own labor.

As for the idea that commodity shortages are unique to socialism, this is absurd. Further, the abundance of commodities in western countries comes near exclusively from the spoils of international plunder, through imperialism, unequal exchange, and neocolonialism. The vast productive forces for agriculture in the US were created thanks to colonial relations securing vast amounts of steel and other resources, and yet despite having agricultural abundance Americans often go without eating to save money. The USSR, on the other hand, was found to have eaten more calories and more nutritionally complete diets compared to Americans.

I’m not advocating for revolution for a “fairy tale.” I’m advocating for revolution because I want to decolonize Turtle Island, and get the same gains of socialism for the people living on it. I want to end imperialism and neocolonialism. I want to end climate change and mitigate its effects. Comparing me to the US Empire is ludicrous and horrendously out of touch, considering the US Empire is all of the horrendous issues you accuse socialism of having, but far worse than even your accusations.

Saying that “there is no class” is an absurdity. Class is objectively defined and empirically understood. Class is relation to ownership of the means of production and distribution. Every single economist on the planet, no matter what ideology, agrees that workers and capitalists exist, that feudal lords and peasants exist, that slaves and slave owners exist. Even if you disagree with Marx’s analysis of class society, you cannot possibly deny the existence of class.

And most importantly, I am a worker. I do create the means of production and distribution, as do all workers. Capitalists do not. Revolution ends the massive contradiction between socialization of production and privatization of appropriation, where those who do no labor gain the vast majority of the wealth while those who do labor gain crumbs.

It doesn’t, though, outlets like BBC, the New York Times, etc. are allowed.

Sure, in the same way that saying “fascism is bad” is technically an opinion. This, however, neglects the objective correctness of Marxism, which deliberately doesn’t rely on subjectivism or moralistic arguments, and the incoherence of liberalism and fascism at an objective level.

Liberalism is right wing, and is allowed. Anything to the left of liberalism, from anarchism to socialism to communism, is censored. It’s clear as day that Piefed is right-wing at the developer level. The fact that the far right is also censored does not make it left wing.