Damn, I don’t know what you’ve started here but the number of presumably white people coming up with all sorts of reasons to argue why black people shouldn’t have reparations is… is it a white settler moment? Then to follow this up with ‘you need to include white people or they’re not going to like it’ is… maybe Malcolm X was onto something about white liberals.

deleted by creator

Marxists aren’t, or shouldn’t be, dogmatic. It’s the method that they uphold. Plus, Marx didn’t live to see the USSR, China, Cuba, etc, so it’s not possible to know whether he would maintain that position (taking your claim at face value).

You’re a fount of knowledge, new (to the grad) comrade. Keep it coming.

Essentially, it means fascism is the method by which liberalism defends itself in the face of progress and revolution.

By your definition, every community is a tankie because every communist rejects idealism. If these are the only two options, the only option left is to choose a team. But that can’t be right because you imply that some communists aren’t tankies.

Further, does it count as a definition if other people use the term in different ways?

If so, how do you know who is a communist and who is a tankie without asking them how they decided to show (critical) support for XYZ?

By your definition, you must first know whether someone has strong reasons to support XYZ before being able to decide that they really decided because XYZ was on the right team. That would be exhausting and fraught with the problem that nobody is going to say they didn’t do the reading; if they give an argument, how do you determine whether it’s valid or a cover for ‘choosing by reference to team’?

I’m unsure if it’s possible to define ‘tankie’ by reference to ‘communist’ without also defining the latter and showing how they’re different.

Reducing all the nuance of Marxism, socialism, and communism to

“from each according to his ability to each according to his need”

is problematic.

It’s not going to lead to much explanation and it ignores the hundreds of thousands of other words that Marxists have written.

This is in addition to the problem that “from each according to his ability to each according to his need” is the goal of communism and you’re arguing with someone who (rightly) says communism hasn’t been reached.

socialism with Chinese characteristics

is the answer…

That’s partly because ‘tankies’ read theory. Liberal theory, Marxist theory, all of it that they can get their hands on. According to both liberal and Marxist theory, liberalism is the main ideology of capitalism. When ‘tankies’ oppose ‘liberals’, they are talking about the ‘progressive’ left of the Anlgo-European empire and what that ‘left’ calls ‘conservatives’. So if conservatives laugh when ‘tankies’ make fun of liberals, the joke’s on them because the ‘tankie’ means them, too.

There is absolutely no defence of fascism from ‘tankies’. That term usually refers to Marxist-Leninists, who praise Stalin and Mao for their stances against fascism, colonialism, and imperialism. If nothing else (and there is a lot ‘else’), anti-fascism is a central tenet of ‘tankie’ ideology and practice. Anti-fascism is/was a core tenet of all Marxist parties. If you think that a ‘tankie’ is ‘defending fascism’, you have misunderstood what they are saying and/or have inferred something from their words that they did not intend. Horseshoe theory is an intellectually bankrupt ‘theory’.

You are right about this:

We are inherently a position of compromise[.]

As Mao said:

… liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise to a decadent, Philistine attitude and bringing about political degeneration[.]

This and the other types of liberalism are often what ‘tankies’ are challenging when they criticise ‘liberals’—not what counts as ‘liberal’ in the extremely narrow US electoral politics sense of the term.

Marxism is dialectical and historical materialism. It is the analysis of contradictory and internally-connected relations and processes. To detach NATO from the actions of its member states is anti-dialectical.

Additionally, as you say, words have meanings. When people criticise NATO it is as a stand-in for the imperialist world order. It includes the IMF, World Bank, the WTO, the ‘international’ courts and rules, and all their elements and capitalist lackeys. You’re making a semantic argument, which misses the crucial point: that NATO and its member states are concerned only with the wealth and power of their bourgeoisie, regardless of Russia.

I’m not trying to hide the fact that I have an agenda, that we can’t have world peace until there are no more imperialists, which includes and is often, in ordinary language, represented by NATO. If you interpret that as support for Russia, there’s not much left for us to discuss.

I stand corrected. I’ve only browse a few communities so that was my impression, but what you say makes sense.

aren’t around for actual intelligent debate

You’ll find that Hexbear users are all for intelligent debate between themselves, other comrades, and even with liberals when said liberals are willing to listen. From the post on Hexbear that sparked the dotworld defederation:

Please read and respect the rules of the community instance in which you are posting/commenting. Please try to keep the dirtbag lib-dunking to hexbear itself. Do not follow the Chapo Rules of Posting, instead try to engage utilizing informed rhetoric with sources to dismantle western propaganda.

Sounds like there is a strong push for intelligent conversation but others aren’t willing to have it.

It’s not possible to be ‘left’ in any real sense of the term and not be ‘anti west’ in some form because west is structurally an ongoing regime of genocide and exploitation.

They are left-unity. That means some are communists but others are of other ideologies e.g. anarchism. So no, they are not saying ‘fuck you if you aren’t a communist’ because that would alienate half their user-base. The ‘left’ is much broader than whatever counts as the ‘left’ in the US (which mostly isn’t ‘left’ but only ‘left of… XYZ’).

Do you not think it’s a bit ironic to say that they’re unwilling to debate or reason in the context of dotworld defederating before there’s any chance of engagement? If there’s anyone unwilling to debate and reason it’s those who made and support this decision to defederate before they have to suffer the indignity of debating and reasoning with even more people with views contrary to liberalism.

You can pretend that NATO member states are separate from NATO if you like but we can’t really continue a conversation if you think the people behind NATO are not also the same people behind the wars and/or embargoes of the above states. Just because the swap the mask every now and then doesn’t mean it’s a different actor.

I fear that we have reached an impasse in this conversation already. To continue talking would risk talking past one another. All I can do is proffer this meagre offering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2451jFeZp0

That’s the kind of ableism that would get someone banned on Hexbear or any instance that cared about inclusivity and opposed bigotry.

Edit: I can see how it would create a lot of extra work for dotworld mods to have to deal with all the reports if they federated with Hexbear and had to deal with an influx of people who call out bigotry and stand for justice. (Scrolling down, I see this offending comment isn’t the only one in this thread.)

World peace would be a step close, for a start.

NATO’s purpose is to guarantee the freedom and security of its members through political and military means.

https://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/index.html

It would seem that NATO itself disagrees with you.

Edit: NATO are the imperialists. By any definition. Please read any of the following authors’s works on imperialism/empire: Hobson, Hilferding, Lenin, David Harvey, John Smith, Michael Hudson, Zac Cope, Anievas and Nisancioglu, Samir Amin, Giovanni Arrighi, Paul Kennedy, or Niall Ferguson.

What was NATO doing in Yugoslavia, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq? How many Russians are there in Iran, Korea, or Syria?

What about Meta? Will they be federated with? If so, or if there is discussion before an announcement of defederation with Threads, then this argument doesn’t stand. I’m not saying you’re being inconsistent, but that it’s inconsistent with the rationale for the general decision to defederate from Hexbear.