Give it a minute or two. They scour the traffic for anything tangentially related to them to get the sweet, sweet 50c per post they would get paid for.
It’s really an amazing world some of y’all think you are in, such a different reality. I mean I wish I lived in a reality in which the last hundred plus years of American History wasn’t liberals setting up brutal dictators to murder and destroy the leftists all around the world.
This! So much this! While married to my ex-husband his ENTIRE family wasn’t registered to vote. Before I got out of that messy marriage I had all but two of twenty registered and voting in local elections.
Liberals supporting fascist enablers every step of the way and then blaming the leftists when everything they warn about doing that comes to pass.
Libs will never learn. You should vote but voting is quite literally the least impactful way to be involved in your political system. Join DSA if you want to work towards tangible change. Otherwise you’re just patting yourself on the back and assuaging your guilt for not doing more.
I love that American liberals have no idea what liberalism is and just think it’s all the good things about liberalsim and none of the bad things, and they have no idea what conservatism is and wind up believing it’s all the bad things about liberalsim and none of the good things.
Liberalism is a political philosophy that emerged as feudal political structure started to strain with the growth of mercantilism. Merchants wanted the wealth they were hoarding to translate into power, but they couldn’t buy power because power was tied to land and land was tied to nobility which was entirely determined by the unitary sovereign which was entirely determined by heredity.
Merchants wanted their wealth to translate to power, so they developed a new political theory for where power should come from - private property. Private property was to be the basis for all political power and political power was not to impinge on the power of wealth unnecessarily. Liberalism was focused foundationally on ending the power of the sovereign to that merchants could buy and sell land, build privately-run cities, own and breed slaves for sale…
… and then they realized that they needed a way to do it to brown people who were too numerous to just kidnap. So they started to invent abstract concepts to disconnect power from reality so they could reassign power. They invented the concept of abstract rights, and they put a right to private property into a list of things like the right to print whatever they wanted in newspapers that they owned and the right to buy and sell anything.
Liberalism invents this concept of private property and then invents a rule that states that if you apply labor to land then you get private property rights to it. This was great because they could claim that indigenous people weren’t working the land and all the European merchants had to do was chop down some trees and put up a fence and now they had an “inalienable right” of private property.
And then they needed a solution to every merchant raising a military to become warlords and destroy the wealth of others, so they landed on the democratic republic form as a mechanism to resolve conflicts between the wealthy in a way that didn’t require war.
Liberalism is the political philosophy of merchants and land owners that gives them political power on the basis of their effectiveness at accumulating wealth and makes the bare minimum concessions to the laboring masses required to get them to fight against the kings on behalf of the merchants.
It is the political philosophy of settler colonialism, of privatization, of chattel slavery, of Thomas Jefferson’s breeding plantations, of Coca Cola hiring death squads, of the Opium Wars, of killing all the buffalo so that land could be taken from the Lakota, of getting people addicted to drugs in order to get them into debt.
Liberalism is the political movement that destroyed the social safety net that feudal societies maintained through nobilesse oblige and impoverished the masses everywhere until it forced the emergence of a labor movement and the creation of labor unions to give the masses a vehicle to fight the liberals, which the liberals crushed with military and paramilitary violence.
A faction of Liberals developed a theory of progressivism that they thought could appease the labor movement and maintain liberalism. But traditional Liberals chafed at the idea of the government doing anything to help the masses, because they believed if people wanted a better life they should just work harder for the Liberals with money and land. So factions within Liberalism fought and continue to fight in the best way to express Liberalism.
You’re talking about the ends of Liberalism but never from the basis of the philosophers and minds who came up with the concept. This is the same disconnect people have with socialism. They view how it was played out, not what the core philosophies are.
I wouldn’t say it is wrong, but it is definitely a perspective of how one can view a political theory, through theory or in practice. Do you view all governing philosophies with this lens?
I’d also argue a lot of what you said has more to do with religion but it is pretty hard to separate religion and governing styles when they intentionally intertwine themselves with beliefs like “god given rights” and what not.
No, I’m not. I explicitly started with the beginnings of Liberalism, not its ends. Liberalsim is not defined as “all the good stuff”. It’s a distinct real historical process and private property is its foundation, not an accident.
Yes, I view all political philosophies through a historical concrete lens and not through an abstract idealist one.
The foundation of liberalism is natural rights, the rule of law and personal autonomy. The US was the first country founded on those principles and a lot of what you said came from how the US managed to do that, with the financial backing of rich southern slave-owning states and the concept of manifest destiny which is directly tied to religion and the concept of owning land to embrace liberalism.
But liberal concepts first played out in Europe in opposition of monarchies, not really on the basis of land owning but more private property in the face of a king which you could argue are the same but a lot of private property wasn’t specifically just land. Which is what I mean, you’re talking about the American liberalism evolution, not the like two hundred years before that where it existed as a political theory used to wrestle power from the ultra rich of that time.
No, I am talking the 200 years prior. You don’t get to separate the USA from the French, Dutch, English, and Spanish. You don’t get to separate the emergence of mercantilism as a mechanism of wealth accumulation from the struggle against monarchy. Peasants were not inventing abstract concepts of natural rights in letter writing campaigns to each other. Liberalism was not a grassroots movement. It was a position developed, as you said, to fight the monarchy, but the people looking to fight the monarchy were the non-noble wealthy merchants. That’s it’s history.
The USA was not the first country to imagine what manifest destiny was all about. The concept of divine right of expansion and dominion emerged from European monarchists and monarchists relied on the merchant class to go forth and spread that dominion. The Pope decreed to all the Europeans that they could rape, enslave, and murder to save the souls of non-Europeans.
The fact that the European colonists who broke away from the crown chose Liberalism and were also wealthy merchants is not an accident.
The fact that liberalism in the US led to mass poverty doesn’t discount all the subsequent liberal revolutions that also led to mass poverty.
And the reason this is obvious is because private property being an abstract human right is so obviously contradictory that no one focused on universal human rights would be able to reconcile. It was Liberalism that said the state should not have any obligations to the laborers, it was liberalism that said private property should allow a single man (and only a European man) to deprive literally the entire society and indeed the entire world from the benefits of that land and that it was the state’s job to use violent force on enforcing that deprivation.
The foundation of Liberalism, like every political philosophy, is a theory of power on the basis of some beliefs about outcomes. The abstract idea of moral good is a post hoc rationalization.
Liberalism is the most hypocritical ideology that exists and always try to not offend any side and they do not respect their own rules . Stuart Mill for example talked about the concept of harm principle at the same time was enabling and theorizing about colonialism worked as a high-ranking official for the British East India Company for 35 years, directly managing the bureaucratic machinery of imperial rule over India.
Modern liberals claim to support Palestinians at the same time talking about supporting the colonial power and are financing the occupation .
Aren’t all political theories like this? Communism gives rise to privileged ruling class and tends to take worker’s rights away when in theory it is supposed to equalize and support worker’s rights, planning an economy to distribute goods equally creates inefficiencies. Democracies create plutocracies, Fascism leads to cronyism, Anarchism leaves gaps for might makes right-thinking, Monarchies claim divine right and then falls to civil war and assassinations who then claimed the same divine right rule.
I also think it is rather silly to call everything liberalism or throwing that blanket on every action a country does because it calls itself liberal. A country that calls itself liberal can still do imperialism, a country that calls itself fascist can still do socialism, a country that calls itself a democracy can still do authoritarianism.
Government, politics, political theory, economy. They’re big beasts, they don’t just do what they say on the tin.
You’re just spitting vibes, Doom. Imperialism and Liberalism are compatible. Communism makes the working class into the ruling class and doesn’t make a new one. When you talk of workers “right” you’re confusing communism and liberalism. Communism isn’t about workers rights as defined by Liberalism. Communism is about the interests of the working class driving the decisions of the state. Which is why every communist project ever has raised the poorest of the poor into food abundance, housing abundance, positive health outcomes, and positive education outcomes. These things are what the working class needs and sometimes the path there tramples on what liberals imagine are metaphysical “rights”.
Democracies create plutocracies
No. Liberalism creates plutocracies. Your definition of democracy is limited to existing liberal democracies. Real democracy is when the people have the ability to influence the state, which is what communist movements have done successfully despite being called “undemocratic” by the Liberals. Mostly because Liberalism cannot abide a state deciding to nationalize its natural resources.
a country that calls itself fascist can still do socialism
This is probably the strongest evidence that you’re all vibes and no awareness.
a country that calls itself a democracy can still do authoritarianism
That’s why we think there’s no such thing as “authoritarianism” in a meaningful sense. All states are, by definition, authoritarian. Democracy is not an opposite of authority.
At this point, you might as well say “Liberalism is all the good things and none of the bad things and all the bad things are not liberalism because liberalism is all the good things”
Most of the people I see telling people not to vote are Red and Blue guys talking to anyone thinking about voting for a third party. I see AOC make shit up about the Green Party candidates when the Green Party candidates are the ones putting their asses on the line, getting arrested, and protesting the abhorrent shit this administration does. That is worlds away from a Chuck Schumer letter.
Democrats gave the Israelites weapons to carry out their genocide, which helped them lose to literally the most unqualified candidate to ever run for anything.
Want to go tit for tat? I have more ammo, I promise.
What a stupid throwaway strawman. Lenin both saw the traps of electoralism while encouraging tactical participation in it. He certainly wouldn’t encourage “vote blue, no matter who”. That gets you Fettermans and Sinemas. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1911/oct/18c.htm
The golden boy of libs, JFK invaded and embargoed cuba, supported notorious fascist dictatorship of south vietnam against popular vietnam communists, also did coup in iraq overthrowing democratically elected president because he nationalised key industries
Lyndon johnson did coup of democratically elected left wing brazilian president in 1964
Eisenhower backed right wing coup in Laos against communists, also Iran and guatemala
Libs don’t give a shit about JFK. You gotta update your targets if you want to shit talk libs. You can pull a cuckservative and shit talk Obama. That makes more sense than bringing up JFK.
Eisenhower? Lyndon? I think it says something that you have to go back that far to make a point.
It’s meaning can vary based on the ideology of the user, but in my experience it’s usually someone who supports authoritarian regimes because of a veneer of communism. Usually Soviet Russia (especially the Stalin era) or modern China. I think the term comes from how these regimes like to show power with tanks.
I think the term comes from how these regimes like to show power with tanks.
It was an insult made up by a group of British trots against other European communist groups for their support of the USSR intervention in an attempted color revolution (involving a bunch of actual og nazi-affiliates/Nazis) in Hungary in the ‘50s. The intervention involved driving tanks into Hungary, thus “tankie”.
Of course later openings of CIA archives confirmed that the revolution was indeed supported by the CIA. The nazi thing was evident at the time, you can just look up the groups involved and the participants.
Uh-huh. CIA archives, is that what it is now? Last I checked the only evidence of CIA involvement was an incredibly tenuous link to a hungarian immigrant group that was founded several years afterwards. But there’s archives now, are there? Can we see them, please? It would be super interesting since, well, reports from the actual CIA archives sure make it sound like they didnt know what was happening at all, let alone have any control over it. In fact according to them, they didn’t even have more than one officer there and completely fucked up the entire thing, which they doubtlessly would have liked to have supported, through what can only be described as “wild incompetence”.
Basically when you look around and the sky is blue, plus people don’t generally have the most basic allowance to shoot each other… you’re not a tankie.
when you see green grass and yet consider polite society “the real Nazis”… when everyone other than Russia or China is a Nazi… you ARE a tankie.
When Putin says it’s a “3 day special operation” but you say “well no one really said that? Uh I mean actually It was NATO…” then you’re a def a tankie.
Basically take all of reality, remove any accountability, and then make up shit.
Basically when you look around and the sky is blue, plus people don’t generally have the most basic allowance to shoot each other… you’re not a tankie.
when you see green grass and yet consider polite society “the real Nazis”… when everyone other than Russia or China is a Nazi… you ARE a tankie.
When Putin says it’s a “3 day special operation” but you say “well no one really said that? Uh I mean actually It was NATO…” then you’re a def a tankie.
Basically take all of reality, remove any accountability, and then make up shit.
I’ll happily vote for the Dems candidates if stop supporting genocide and start doing what the people want. If they want to play republican-lite again they can lose again. If you dont like that, centrists and zionists, I dont particularly care. But the dems will earn my vote from now on. They have taught us all that if we dont demand, they will do zero to represent us– they will just cash bribe checks. No more of that.
A well known benefit of not voting is you don’t need to update your registration and have new and up to the moment information about yourself available to anyone who can register a pac.
PyLova
Godric
Share on Mastodon
Share on Reddit
Share on WhatsApp
where are all these tankies everyone on here keeps talking about? lol
Give it a minute or two. They scour the traffic for anything tangentially related to them to get the sweet, sweet 50c per post they would get paid for.
i just like collecting stamps from all the different agencies paying me to post
The Nazi-Soviet alliance was brought up a bit ago, that sure got them out of the woodwork!
you’re gonna trigger them with this one llol
Who’s going to Fox news to trash the Dsa and Hassan? Not the tankis but the establishment democrats
Geriatrics dems who appease to the facists are libs
shhh! don’t tell Joe and Eileen Bailey!
Trump may claim to hate communism
But arming Israel is bombunism
It’s really an amazing world some of y’all think you are in, such a different reality. I mean I wish I lived in a reality in which the last hundred plus years of American History wasn’t liberals setting up brutal dictators to murder and destroy the leftists all around the world.
let’s be fair, sometimes it was liberals setting up brutal dictators to murder and destroy brutal dictators they’d previously set up.
and then there was that time the country wanted bananas
Must be a different reality because this seems tangentially related.
If we would have known you’d destroy yourself without our involvement we probably wouldn’t have bothered.
My favorite is “I’m not political so I don’t vote”.
MFer, YOU are a big reason why we’re here now, having to put up with this corrupt shit! GET OFF YOUR SORRY ASS!
(Imo voting should be mandatory like in AU)
This! So much this! While married to my ex-husband his ENTIRE family wasn’t registered to vote. Before I got out of that messy marriage I had all but two of twenty registered and voting in local elections.
Liberals supporting fascist enablers every step of the way and then blaming the leftists when everything they warn about doing that comes to pass.
Libs will never learn. You should vote but voting is quite literally the least impactful way to be involved in your political system. Join DSA if you want to work towards tangible change. Otherwise you’re just patting yourself on the back and assuaging your guilt for not doing more.
🤡
I’d love to see you verbalize a count argument than whatever this is.
Tankies. Worthless pride over common sense every single time.
In a system like this im just glad they feel a way.
I love that American liberals have no idea what liberalism is and just think it’s all the good things about liberalsim and none of the bad things, and they have no idea what conservatism is and wind up believing it’s all the bad things about liberalsim and none of the good things.
What does liberalism mean to you
Liberalism is a political philosophy that emerged as feudal political structure started to strain with the growth of mercantilism. Merchants wanted the wealth they were hoarding to translate into power, but they couldn’t buy power because power was tied to land and land was tied to nobility which was entirely determined by the unitary sovereign which was entirely determined by heredity.
Merchants wanted their wealth to translate to power, so they developed a new political theory for where power should come from - private property. Private property was to be the basis for all political power and political power was not to impinge on the power of wealth unnecessarily. Liberalism was focused foundationally on ending the power of the sovereign to that merchants could buy and sell land, build privately-run cities, own and breed slaves for sale…
… and then they realized that they needed a way to do it to brown people who were too numerous to just kidnap. So they started to invent abstract concepts to disconnect power from reality so they could reassign power. They invented the concept of abstract rights, and they put a right to private property into a list of things like the right to print whatever they wanted in newspapers that they owned and the right to buy and sell anything.
Liberalism invents this concept of private property and then invents a rule that states that if you apply labor to land then you get private property rights to it. This was great because they could claim that indigenous people weren’t working the land and all the European merchants had to do was chop down some trees and put up a fence and now they had an “inalienable right” of private property.
And then they needed a solution to every merchant raising a military to become warlords and destroy the wealth of others, so they landed on the democratic republic form as a mechanism to resolve conflicts between the wealthy in a way that didn’t require war.
Liberalism is the political philosophy of merchants and land owners that gives them political power on the basis of their effectiveness at accumulating wealth and makes the bare minimum concessions to the laboring masses required to get them to fight against the kings on behalf of the merchants.
It is the political philosophy of settler colonialism, of privatization, of chattel slavery, of Thomas Jefferson’s breeding plantations, of Coca Cola hiring death squads, of the Opium Wars, of killing all the buffalo so that land could be taken from the Lakota, of getting people addicted to drugs in order to get them into debt.
Liberalism is the political movement that destroyed the social safety net that feudal societies maintained through nobilesse oblige and impoverished the masses everywhere until it forced the emergence of a labor movement and the creation of labor unions to give the masses a vehicle to fight the liberals, which the liberals crushed with military and paramilitary violence.
A faction of Liberals developed a theory of progressivism that they thought could appease the labor movement and maintain liberalism. But traditional Liberals chafed at the idea of the government doing anything to help the masses, because they believed if people wanted a better life they should just work harder for the Liberals with money and land. So factions within Liberalism fought and continue to fight in the best way to express Liberalism.
You’re talking about the ends of Liberalism but never from the basis of the philosophers and minds who came up with the concept. This is the same disconnect people have with socialism. They view how it was played out, not what the core philosophies are.
I wouldn’t say it is wrong, but it is definitely a perspective of how one can view a political theory, through theory or in practice. Do you view all governing philosophies with this lens?
I’d also argue a lot of what you said has more to do with religion but it is pretty hard to separate religion and governing styles when they intentionally intertwine themselves with beliefs like “god given rights” and what not.
No, I’m not. I explicitly started with the beginnings of Liberalism, not its ends. Liberalsim is not defined as “all the good stuff”. It’s a distinct real historical process and private property is its foundation, not an accident.
Yes, I view all political philosophies through a historical concrete lens and not through an abstract idealist one.
The foundation of liberalism is natural rights, the rule of law and personal autonomy. The US was the first country founded on those principles and a lot of what you said came from how the US managed to do that, with the financial backing of rich southern slave-owning states and the concept of manifest destiny which is directly tied to religion and the concept of owning land to embrace liberalism.
But liberal concepts first played out in Europe in opposition of monarchies, not really on the basis of land owning but more private property in the face of a king which you could argue are the same but a lot of private property wasn’t specifically just land. Which is what I mean, you’re talking about the American liberalism evolution, not the like two hundred years before that where it existed as a political theory used to wrestle power from the ultra rich of that time.
No, I am talking the 200 years prior. You don’t get to separate the USA from the French, Dutch, English, and Spanish. You don’t get to separate the emergence of mercantilism as a mechanism of wealth accumulation from the struggle against monarchy. Peasants were not inventing abstract concepts of natural rights in letter writing campaigns to each other. Liberalism was not a grassroots movement. It was a position developed, as you said, to fight the monarchy, but the people looking to fight the monarchy were the non-noble wealthy merchants. That’s it’s history.
The USA was not the first country to imagine what manifest destiny was all about. The concept of divine right of expansion and dominion emerged from European monarchists and monarchists relied on the merchant class to go forth and spread that dominion. The Pope decreed to all the Europeans that they could rape, enslave, and murder to save the souls of non-Europeans.
The fact that the European colonists who broke away from the crown chose Liberalism and were also wealthy merchants is not an accident.
The fact that liberalism in the US led to mass poverty doesn’t discount all the subsequent liberal revolutions that also led to mass poverty.
And the reason this is obvious is because private property being an abstract human right is so obviously contradictory that no one focused on universal human rights would be able to reconcile. It was Liberalism that said the state should not have any obligations to the laborers, it was liberalism that said private property should allow a single man (and only a European man) to deprive literally the entire society and indeed the entire world from the benefits of that land and that it was the state’s job to use violent force on enforcing that deprivation.
The foundation of Liberalism, like every political philosophy, is a theory of power on the basis of some beliefs about outcomes. The abstract idea of moral good is a post hoc rationalization.
Personal property is the foundation. Because before liberalism, everything belonged to the king.
Please read a book before posting this sort of embarrassingly ignorant shit
The right to self determination, but I’m not a tankie.
LOL. Read a book ffs
What do you think liberalism means?
Answered here
https://lemmy.ml/comment/27821464
Found the tankie
Tankism is when knowledge through study.
Also tanks literally crushing liberation movements. It’s where the word comes from.
Liberalism is the most hypocritical ideology that exists and always try to not offend any side and they do not respect their own rules . Stuart Mill for example talked about the concept of harm principle at the same time was enabling and theorizing about colonialism worked as a high-ranking official for the British East India Company for 35 years, directly managing the bureaucratic machinery of imperial rule over India.
Modern liberals claim to support Palestinians at the same time talking about supporting the colonial power and are financing the occupation .
Kid. Have you ever heard of conservatism? Do you have eyes and ears and a brain to process stimuli?
Aren’t all political theories like this? Communism gives rise to privileged ruling class and tends to take worker’s rights away when in theory it is supposed to equalize and support worker’s rights, planning an economy to distribute goods equally creates inefficiencies. Democracies create plutocracies, Fascism leads to cronyism, Anarchism leaves gaps for might makes right-thinking, Monarchies claim divine right and then falls to civil war and assassinations who then claimed the same divine right rule.
I also think it is rather silly to call everything liberalism or throwing that blanket on every action a country does because it calls itself liberal. A country that calls itself liberal can still do imperialism, a country that calls itself fascist can still do socialism, a country that calls itself a democracy can still do authoritarianism.
Government, politics, political theory, economy. They’re big beasts, they don’t just do what they say on the tin.
You’re just spitting vibes, Doom. Imperialism and Liberalism are compatible. Communism makes the working class into the ruling class and doesn’t make a new one. When you talk of workers “right” you’re confusing communism and liberalism. Communism isn’t about workers rights as defined by Liberalism. Communism is about the interests of the working class driving the decisions of the state. Which is why every communist project ever has raised the poorest of the poor into food abundance, housing abundance, positive health outcomes, and positive education outcomes. These things are what the working class needs and sometimes the path there tramples on what liberals imagine are metaphysical “rights”.
No. Liberalism creates plutocracies. Your definition of democracy is limited to existing liberal democracies. Real democracy is when the people have the ability to influence the state, which is what communist movements have done successfully despite being called “undemocratic” by the Liberals. Mostly because Liberalism cannot abide a state deciding to nationalize its natural resources.
This is probably the strongest evidence that you’re all vibes and no awareness.
That’s why we think there’s no such thing as “authoritarianism” in a meaningful sense. All states are, by definition, authoritarian. Democracy is not an opposite of authority.
At this point, you might as well say “Liberalism is all the good things and none of the bad things and all the bad things are not liberalism because liberalism is all the good things”
Lost me almost immediately.
“You’re just spitting vibes”
This is the lamest version of the debate pervert.
I’m glad you’ll learn nothing from anything that happened here then. Carry on
There’s always a tankie ready to take the bait
Most of the people I see telling people not to vote are Red and Blue guys talking to anyone thinking about voting for a third party. I see AOC make shit up about the Green Party candidates when the Green Party candidates are the ones putting their asses on the line, getting arrested, and protesting the abhorrent shit this administration does. That is worlds away from a Chuck Schumer letter.
The green party accidentally registered their candidate as a referendum question in Nevada, instead of as a candidate.
Democrats gave the Israelites weapons to carry out their genocide, which helped them lose to literally the most unqualified candidate to ever run for anything.
Want to go tit for tat? I have more ammo, I promise.
You know, I don’t recall any instance of Trump losing ballot access due to filing the wrong paperwork.
What a stupid throwaway strawman. Lenin both saw the traps of electoralism while encouraging tactical participation in it. He certainly wouldn’t encourage “vote blue, no matter who”. That gets you Fettermans and Sinemas. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1911/oct/18c.htm
As if Lenin wasnt smarter than your average tankie.
Truth:
The golden boy of libs, JFK invaded and embargoed cuba, supported notorious fascist dictatorship of south vietnam against popular vietnam communists, also did coup in iraq overthrowing democratically elected president because he nationalised key industries
Lyndon johnson did coup of democratically elected left wing brazilian president in 1964
Eisenhower backed right wing coup in Laos against communists, also Iran and guatemala
There are countess more crimes of liberals.
Bruh.
It’s 2026.
Libs don’t give a shit about JFK. You gotta update your targets if you want to shit talk libs. You can pull a cuckservative and shit talk Obama. That makes more sense than bringing up JFK.
Eisenhower? Lyndon? I think it says something that you have to go back that far to make a point.
Liberals support genocidal gulf monarchies and apartheid state of israel
OP’s meme is about voters, your meme is about the politicians themselves.
Not really.
I kniw i can ddg it but… Whats a tankie?
It’s meaning can vary based on the ideology of the user, but in my experience it’s usually someone who supports authoritarian regimes because of a veneer of communism. Usually Soviet Russia (especially the Stalin era) or modern China. I think the term comes from how these regimes like to show power with tanks.
It was an insult made up by a group of British trots against other European communist groups for their support of the USSR intervention in an attempted color revolution (involving a bunch of actual og nazi-affiliates/Nazis) in Hungary in the ‘50s. The intervention involved driving tanks into Hungary, thus “tankie”.
Of course later openings of CIA archives confirmed that the revolution was indeed supported by the CIA. The nazi thing was evident at the time, you can just look up the groups involved and the participants.
Uh-huh. CIA archives, is that what it is now? Last I checked the only evidence of CIA involvement was an incredibly tenuous link to a hungarian immigrant group that was founded several years afterwards. But there’s archives now, are there? Can we see them, please? It would be super interesting since, well, reports from the actual CIA archives sure make it sound like they didnt know what was happening at all, let alone have any control over it. In fact according to them, they didn’t even have more than one officer there and completely fucked up the entire thing, which they doubtlessly would have liked to have supported, through what can only be described as “wild incompetence”.
How deranged can you be?
It was the soviet red fascists cracking down on actual communists.
Basically when you look around and the sky is blue, plus people don’t generally have the most basic allowance to shoot each other… you’re not a tankie.
when you see green grass and yet consider polite society “the real Nazis”… when everyone other than Russia or China is a Nazi… you ARE a tankie.
When Putin says it’s a “3 day special operation” but you say “well no one really said that? Uh I mean actually It was NATO…” then you’re a def a tankie.
Basically take all of reality, remove any accountability, and then make up shit.
Congrats, you’re a tankie!
Basically when you look around and the sky is blue, plus people don’t generally have the most basic allowance to shoot each other… you’re not a tankie.
when you see green grass and yet consider polite society “the real Nazis”… when everyone other than Russia or China is a Nazi… you ARE a tankie.
When Putin says it’s a “3 day special operation” but you say “well no one really said that? Uh I mean actually It was NATO…” then you’re a def a tankie.
Basically take all of reality, remove any accountability, and then make up shit.
Cingrats, you’re a tankie!
Like you just did?
here you go
I’ll happily vote for the Dems candidates if stop supporting genocide and start doing what the people want. If they want to play republican-lite again they can lose again. If you dont like that, centrists and zionists, I dont particularly care. But the dems will earn my vote from now on. They have taught us all that if we dont demand, they will do zero to represent us– they will just cash bribe checks. No more of that.
tAnKiEs are out here voting for people while liberals demand they vote how they would, it’s not good enough
I love voting, try and stop me going to the polling booth on election day
Don’t forget the neolibs
A well known benefit of not voting is you don’t need to update your registration and have new and up to the moment information about yourself available to anyone who can register a pac.