I think an end in this way was foreseeable. I think a segment of the left, particularly the authoritarian left, had a naïve notion that the end of the US empire would inevitability result in some form of class awareness instead of just nostalgic fascism and evangelical millenarianism.
We’ll need each other more than ever in the death throes.
What are you trying to say here? Who are you accusing Midnight of being a mouthpiece for? What is your sarcasm intended to do? What makes you think such a shitty low-quality snipe is worth your or anyone’s time?
I know you aren’t a bot or professional troll. So why act like one here? Leave reddit behind.
What we talk about is more how the US should reduce it’s reach globally. It is exactly that reach which has caused the overextension that we’re now seeing, which is going to mean a much less controlled drawing back than if it had been done intentionally.
It’s y’all who can’t get over the fact that a more cautious and reserved US foreign policy could allow its rivals to gain influence. That’s the whole reason that you label us as “tankies.” Because you literally cannot conceive of the idea that the US has been overextended and that there might be people wanting to correct that overextension before it blows up in our faces, entirely predictably. To try to address US overextension is something you see as inherently treasonous, and it is precisely because of that perspective that we’re in this mess.
The reason people get called “tankies” has nothing to do with the US and all to do with the kind of horrible dictatorships they support. It is possible to be for example against US influence in Syria and against Assad the same time, you know?
It is possible to be for example against US influence in Syria and against Assad the same time, you know?
Of course, but pretty much nobody who uses terms like “tankie” acknowledges that in practice.
When I say that I oppose US intervention in, say, North Korea, then I’m immediately hit with all kinds of horror stories about how everyone has to get the same haircut or whatever. If I refute that misinformation and insist that I don’t want the US to overthrow their government, then I will inevitably be accused of “defending North Korea,” labelled as a “tankie” and then subject to the whole rumor mill about “what tankies believe” that’s completely detached from reality or anything I actually say or believe. Next thing you know, I’m being accused of wanting every country in the world to become like North Korea. If I deny that, then it’s assumed that I’m just concealing my “real” views.
It’s the same way in every conflict in history since the dawn of time. When I was 10 years old asking why we didn’t respond to 9/11 by “turning the other cheek” like I’d been taught, people looked at me like I was some kind of “terrorist sympathizer” because “you’re either with us or against us.” Every single time I have opposed any conflict, I have been accused of “supporting” or “defending” the other side, regardless of what I actually say or what reasons I actually provide.
There’s no use trying to fight it. Instead of trying to, and looking like I’m trying to weasel out of the label like I have something to hide, I’d rather just accept it so that I have some ability to speak for what us “tankies” actually believe. Starting with, opposition to building more tanks. Opposition to building tanks is the defining characteristics of a “tankie” because if you don’t want to build and deploy tanks then you’re assumed to “support” whatever enemy-of-the-week they’re to be used against, who is no doubt “authoritarian.” Likewise, anti-militarism will cause me to be labelled as a “campist” for “supporting” the target of that militarism. When you’re being accused of such things, nobody gives a shit about the nuance between “supporting” or “opposing action against,” and even if you insist on it they’ll just say you’re lying and that you actually do support the “bad guy.”
I find it very hard to believe people would label you a tankie if your position were that of a principled pacifist. Sure, many people also dislike pacifist positions, but it is not possible to mistake the one for the other. Thus I have to assume you are not being genuine here and did in fact give reasons to people to call you a tankie 🤷
it is not possible to mistake the one for the other
You say, immediately before accusing me of lying about my positions, and assuming that whoever accused me of being a tankie must have been both correct and acting in good faith.
To be clear, I am not a strict pacifist, although I was at one time. The shift from pacifist to “tankie” is very small, basically just one exception. Before, I believed in “no war” and now I believe in “no war but class war.” The vast majority of war and violence is not class war, it’s just parts of the ruling class fighting each other over resources. There are only a handful of states that even call themselves socialist and none of them are at war, so that one exception isn’t very relevant.
If I actually did “support” Assad, then how would that look different materially from opposing intervention? I’m an American, I have no control over Syrian domestic policy except through my state intervening. Unless I’m going to fly over there myself and pick up a gun on his behalf, or unless I’m going to somehow convince the US government to do a complete 180 and prop him up, then the distinction is merely rhetorical. And a rhetorical distinction, far from being “impossible” to ignore, is in fact very easy to ignore. If I were secretly an Assadist, then wouldn’t I be advocating for the US to adopt the exact same policies that I would if I were a pacifist or isolationist? Then, if I advocate for those policies, it is trivially easy to accuse me of secretly “supporting” Assad, which is why people did so, and why they do the same in every other conflict.
This isn’t rocket science, it’s not some new thing. Accusing anyone who opposes war of supporting the enemy is a tactic as old as history. As Goering said, “All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.” If you ever have the occasion to oppose a popular war, I can promise that you’ll encounter the same accusations.
I actually agree with your definition of tankie, tankies are generally those who support socialist states and critically support nationalist states that are under imperialist siege. I disagree that all of these are “horrible dictatorships,” or at least for the socialist countries, and see the nationalist dictatorships of capital as generally more progressive in the international context than the imperialist dictatorships of capital, but the through line here is that tankies are defined by the countries we support/critically support above all else.
As for opposing US/Israeli influence in Syria while opposing Assad, who do you support there? I think it’s pretty easy to say “the people of Syria,” but are they any better off now under the Israeli-backed HTS regime than they were under Assad? What groups actually stand to challenge the existing status quo and implement a more progressive system?
No, we call you tankies because you have a history of supporting dictatorships crushing their opposition with tanks.
Those same dictatorships will, if they are allowed to, continue to crush their opposition with tanks. Sure, you would call NK invading SK “reunification”, and youd probably call the Russian invasion of Europe “denazification”, and you’d probably call the Chinese extermination of anyone that isn’t han Chinese “cultural defense”. But in reality what you’re supporting is eastern imperialism and genocide.
i think the ‘authleft’ (at this point the political compass as a phenomenon should be a gen-ed 3 credit-hour class btw) was mostly gen x and millennial doomers with a lapsed DSA membership who thought if America didn’t decline we’d start a nuclear war. you experienced the optimistic slice of the terminally online slice who were fans of pretending to have read theory and then arguing with anarchists, please keep in mind that every group of terminally online people you are tempted to generalize should be treated as about 1% of their representative population, assuming posting on social media is their only hobby.
no matter what set of ideological clothes you put on, the fall of America and rise of China was clear to anyone with open eyes as early as Obama and to schizos as early as Tienanmen square
Also that the Pax Americana was just propaganda. The war in Ukraine is pretty obvious. However the conflicts in the Sahel have also gotten a lot worse since the US has mostly withdrawn itself from that region. Sudan is especially bad(chemical warfare, mass starvation and so forth). The Congo conflict is also flaring up again.
I would not be surprised if things get a lot worse in the near future.
I think that’s their point, that a segment of the left thought pax americana was pure propaganda and it wasn’t. It wasn’t benevolent but for years it did keep global conflict tamped down.
Oh right. I guess I really need to focus on my reading comprehension, its been shit for like two weeks now. This is not the first time in recent times that I have completely misunderstood something.
Or maybe I have finally become as stupid as I always thought I was.
I think an end in this way was foreseeable. I think a segment of the left, particularly the authoritarian left, had a naïve notion that the end of the US empire would inevitability result in some form of class awareness instead of just nostalgic fascism and evangelical millenarianism.
We’ll need each other more than ever in the death throes.
Interesting idea. Have you ever considered not being a mouthpiece?
What are you trying to say here? Who are you accusing Midnight of being a mouthpiece for? What is your sarcasm intended to do? What makes you think such a shitty low-quality snipe is worth your or anyone’s time?
I know you aren’t a bot or professional troll. So why act like one here? Leave reddit behind.
Someone has to be, since the authoritarian left themselves seem manifestly incapable of articulating anything as crass as a goal or a plan.
I mean. They can. They do. Over in .ml land, they talk about how NK, USSR, and China should expand their reach globally.
It’s just that even the tankies realize that nobody really wants to live in North Korea.
What we talk about is more how the US should reduce it’s reach globally. It is exactly that reach which has caused the overextension that we’re now seeing, which is going to mean a much less controlled drawing back than if it had been done intentionally.
It’s y’all who can’t get over the fact that a more cautious and reserved US foreign policy could allow its rivals to gain influence. That’s the whole reason that you label us as “tankies.” Because you literally cannot conceive of the idea that the US has been overextended and that there might be people wanting to correct that overextension before it blows up in our faces, entirely predictably. To try to address US overextension is something you see as inherently treasonous, and it is precisely because of that perspective that we’re in this mess.
That’s such a harebrained campist take 🙄
The reason people get called “tankies” has nothing to do with the US and all to do with the kind of horrible dictatorships they support. It is possible to be for example against US influence in Syria and against Assad the same time, you know?
Of course, but pretty much nobody who uses terms like “tankie” acknowledges that in practice.
When I say that I oppose US intervention in, say, North Korea, then I’m immediately hit with all kinds of horror stories about how everyone has to get the same haircut or whatever. If I refute that misinformation and insist that I don’t want the US to overthrow their government, then I will inevitably be accused of “defending North Korea,” labelled as a “tankie” and then subject to the whole rumor mill about “what tankies believe” that’s completely detached from reality or anything I actually say or believe. Next thing you know, I’m being accused of wanting every country in the world to become like North Korea. If I deny that, then it’s assumed that I’m just concealing my “real” views.
It’s the same way in every conflict in history since the dawn of time. When I was 10 years old asking why we didn’t respond to 9/11 by “turning the other cheek” like I’d been taught, people looked at me like I was some kind of “terrorist sympathizer” because “you’re either with us or against us.” Every single time I have opposed any conflict, I have been accused of “supporting” or “defending” the other side, regardless of what I actually say or what reasons I actually provide.
There’s no use trying to fight it. Instead of trying to, and looking like I’m trying to weasel out of the label like I have something to hide, I’d rather just accept it so that I have some ability to speak for what us “tankies” actually believe. Starting with, opposition to building more tanks. Opposition to building tanks is the defining characteristics of a “tankie” because if you don’t want to build and deploy tanks then you’re assumed to “support” whatever enemy-of-the-week they’re to be used against, who is no doubt “authoritarian.” Likewise, anti-militarism will cause me to be labelled as a “campist” for “supporting” the target of that militarism. When you’re being accused of such things, nobody gives a shit about the nuance between “supporting” or “opposing action against,” and even if you insist on it they’ll just say you’re lying and that you actually do support the “bad guy.”
I find it very hard to believe people would label you a tankie if your position were that of a principled pacifist. Sure, many people also dislike pacifist positions, but it is not possible to mistake the one for the other. Thus I have to assume you are not being genuine here and did in fact give reasons to people to call you a tankie 🤷
You say, immediately before accusing me of lying about my positions, and assuming that whoever accused me of being a tankie must have been both correct and acting in good faith.
To be clear, I am not a strict pacifist, although I was at one time. The shift from pacifist to “tankie” is very small, basically just one exception. Before, I believed in “no war” and now I believe in “no war but class war.” The vast majority of war and violence is not class war, it’s just parts of the ruling class fighting each other over resources. There are only a handful of states that even call themselves socialist and none of them are at war, so that one exception isn’t very relevant.
If I actually did “support” Assad, then how would that look different materially from opposing intervention? I’m an American, I have no control over Syrian domestic policy except through my state intervening. Unless I’m going to fly over there myself and pick up a gun on his behalf, or unless I’m going to somehow convince the US government to do a complete 180 and prop him up, then the distinction is merely rhetorical. And a rhetorical distinction, far from being “impossible” to ignore, is in fact very easy to ignore. If I were secretly an Assadist, then wouldn’t I be advocating for the US to adopt the exact same policies that I would if I were a pacifist or isolationist? Then, if I advocate for those policies, it is trivially easy to accuse me of secretly “supporting” Assad, which is why people did so, and why they do the same in every other conflict.
This isn’t rocket science, it’s not some new thing. Accusing anyone who opposes war of supporting the enemy is a tactic as old as history. As Goering said, “All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.” If you ever have the occasion to oppose a popular war, I can promise that you’ll encounter the same accusations.
I actually agree with your definition of tankie, tankies are generally those who support socialist states and critically support nationalist states that are under imperialist siege. I disagree that all of these are “horrible dictatorships,” or at least for the socialist countries, and see the nationalist dictatorships of capital as generally more progressive in the international context than the imperialist dictatorships of capital, but the through line here is that tankies are defined by the countries we support/critically support above all else.
As for opposing US/Israeli influence in Syria while opposing Assad, who do you support there? I think it’s pretty easy to say “the people of Syria,” but are they any better off now under the Israeli-backed HTS regime than they were under Assad? What groups actually stand to challenge the existing status quo and implement a more progressive system?
No, we call you tankies because you have a history of supporting dictatorships crushing their opposition with tanks.
Those same dictatorships will, if they are allowed to, continue to crush their opposition with tanks. Sure, you would call NK invading SK “reunification”, and youd probably call the Russian invasion of Europe “denazification”, and you’d probably call the Chinese extermination of anyone that isn’t han Chinese “cultural defense”. But in reality what you’re supporting is eastern imperialism and genocide.
i think the ‘authleft’ (at this point the political compass as a phenomenon should be a gen-ed 3 credit-hour class btw) was mostly gen x and millennial doomers with a lapsed DSA membership who thought if America didn’t decline we’d start a nuclear war. you experienced the optimistic slice of the terminally online slice who were fans of pretending to have read theory and then arguing with anarchists, please keep in mind that every group of terminally online people you are tempted to generalize should be treated as about 1% of their representative population, assuming posting on social media is their only hobby.
no matter what set of ideological clothes you put on, the fall of America and rise of China was clear to anyone with open eyes as early as Obama and to schizos as early as Tienanmen square
Also that the Pax Americana was just propaganda. The war in Ukraine is pretty obvious. However the conflicts in the Sahel have also gotten a lot worse since the US has mostly withdrawn itself from that region. Sudan is especially bad(chemical warfare, mass starvation and so forth). The Congo conflict is also flaring up again.
I would not be surprised if things get a lot worse in the near future.
Doesn’t that sort of support Pax Americana being a real thing? If conflicts get worse when America withdraws?
I think that’s their point, that a segment of the left thought pax americana was pure propaganda and it wasn’t. It wasn’t benevolent but for years it did keep global conflict tamped down.
Oh right. I guess I really need to focus on my reading comprehension, its been shit for like two weeks now. This is not the first time in recent times that I have completely misunderstood something.
Or maybe I have finally become as stupid as I always thought I was.
Bro, like, go easy on yourself. The rest of the world is ready to eat you up. Don’t join them in the feasting.
Hehe no worries. I just enjoy self deprecating humor :D I’m actually pretty happy with myself.
Other than the crippling depression and anxiety issues. (:D)
Oh, well those are a given. If you didn’t have crippling anxiety and depression in 2026, THEN I’d be really concerned.
Glad you’re doing (mostly) well :)