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.
As an “authoritarian” leftist, I have been predicting this collapse in US power for years. It was abundantly clear that the US could not maintain so many engagements in so many parts of the world, which is why I have been advocating for years for a peaceful, managed withdrawal to prevent a sudden collapse. Because, also contrary to what you guys always say about us, I don’t believe that a collapse or worsening conditions will somehow automatically lead to a victory for the left.
My plan, what I’ve been saying all this time, is that the US should try to emulate China’s approach of staying out of military entanglements while investing in domestic economic development, that we should accept a role as one of several great powers and should work to win countries over peacefully, by offering them better deals. I have been saying this for around 20 years, from back when we were occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. It is literally this position that defines me as an “authoritarian.”
Why? Because:
When I said we should stay out of Afghanistan, I was an authoritarian for “supporting Al Qaida.”
When I said we should stay out of Syria, I was an authoritarian for “supporting Assad.”
When I said we should stay out of Yemen, I was an authoritarian for “supporting the Houthis”
When I said we should stay out of Venezuela, I was an authoritarian for “supporting Maduro.”
When I said we should stop funding Israel, I was authoritarian for “defending Hamas.”
When I said we should not get involved in Ukraine, I was an authoritarian for “Supporting Putin.”
When I said we should not attack Iran, I was an authoritarian for “Supporting Khomeini.”
Maybe if we had been more selective about what conflicts we got involved in, if we had picked our battles, then we might have been able to focus on one or two of those conflicts. Instead, we’ve had this absolutely unhinged foreign policy where we do things like fund multiple sides in Syria that kill each other with our weapons, or beg China to sanction Russia while at the same time starting a trade war with them. And burning out after getting involved in every conflict everywhere was the most predictable outcome ever.
What is your plan? To keep burning ourselves out, to keep pouring more and more blood and treasure into maintaining and expanding the empire, while domestic conditions become worse and worse, and the fascists at home become more and more powerful? You just want to play Superman, acting like we’re invincible, acting like petty material concerns and limitations are beneath us. It’s pure hubris.
And now that the exact thing we’ve been trying to warn you of has come to pass, you complain that we “can’t articulate a goal or plan?”
Every time that we’ve pushed for a more cautious and reserved approach that would preserve our resources and stamina, y’all have just accused us of being secret agents of whatever your current enemy-of-the-week is.
I would have hoped that seeing the exact thing we’ve been warning you about come to pass would make you stop and consider if maybe we actually have a point, but of course, I know better than to expect it. None of you know anything about what we believe because you’d rather make up beliefs and assign them to us than listen to anything we actually say.
Marxists have very clear plans depending on which country they organize in. For the US, as an example, the primary tasks are to build up a disciplined worker party that can effectively educate the rest of the working class, struggle alongside them whenever they come into conflict with the capitalist class (such as labor disputes, housing struggles, etc.), and organize them. This is the best way to prepare for the inevitable and regular crises of capitalism, to hopefully take the working class as a whole in a unified direction against the capitalist system itself.
After establishing a socialist state, we can begin addressing societal problems more effectively than ever before. Full right to self-determination for all indigenous peoples, mass expansion of public housing and an elimination of landlordism, full employment via a planned economy, and more. Healthcare and housing can be made free, same as education, which develops a far more productive labor base that will be necessary for the grand projects of infrastructure improvements and addressing historic inequalities for oppressed peoples.
All military bases will be closed down overseas, leaving only a small defense army in case of capitalist invasion. The dominance of the US dollar will be no more, nor will IP be respected, as it is leveraged against the global south. Rather than plundering the world, we can cooperate with countries like China to develop mass transit and a green energy transition, free countries like Cuba and Korea, and more.
The idea that Marxists have no plans is silly. Just talk to one of us.
yes perfect the Authoritarian left that, checks notes exists solely within your head?
Surely you can give some examples of leftists authoritarianism, if its so ubiquitous that is.
Also, while your at it, please explore the idea of something being ‘manifestly incapable’. This term seems like an oxymoron an I’d like to see you flesh it out a bit.
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.
It is very easy to counter such accusations by making clear that it is a pacifist position you take. The arguments then will by around pacifism and the issues with that and not if you secretly support Assad. Try it some time 🤷
But since you avoided that term until I brought it up, I must assume you are indeed not considering yourself a pacifist, and then your rethoric falls flat and becomes a “if for some reason I can frame a conflict as class war then it is ok”. And if you in turn apply that to conflicts like the Syrian civil war, then people accusing you of a double standard when it comes to your favourite dictator of the day might have a point.
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 don’t support any of that. I just don’t believe in the US using military force to stop it.
Guess that means I’m not a tankie?
if they are allowed to
Oop, there you go. By not supporting military action by the US, I am “allowing” them to do all that stuff. So I am a tankie on the basis that I’m opposed to using tanks. There you have it.
The US hasn’t had to use military force for any of that. The threat was adequate deterrent. Now that the deterrent is breaking down, well…it’s time to use military force.
Unfortunately, bullies only speak one language. If you could talk to Kim jong un and be like “hey, let’s work together to make the world a better place”, NK wouldn’t be NK. It would looks more like SK. But he’s rather rule ashes than let the country grow outside his control.
Utterly idiotic. The US is weakening and you want to continue expending it’s remaining resources on avoidable conflicts halfway around the world instead of actually addressing the reasons it is in a state of decline and confronting the domestic threat of fascism. You are an accelerationist, whether you realize it or not.
Unfortunately, bullies only speak one language. If you could talk to Kim jong un and be like “hey, let’s work together to make the world a better place”, NK wouldn’t be NK.
Lmao. What has Kim Jong Un ever done to “bully” the US? It’s the US that performs the largest military exercise in the world, every year, right on his doorstep, where they practice invading his country and bombing everything to smithereens the way they did before.
But he’s rather rule ashes than let the country grow outside his control.
Sounds familiar. Except instead of one country, it’s the world. You don’t want a single place on earth to be free of the US and you’re willing to let the US destroy itself with these conflicts than to show an ounce of caution or restraint. You are the one who would rather rule over ashes.
It would be nice to spend less time using military force where it is not necessary. Like the Middle East.
Unfortunately, Russia has shown us that having a military force in Europe is necessary. NK has shown that having a military force in SK is necessary, although thankfully military exercises seem to be enough for now.
China is the only country that seems to be able to function in a peaceful way. Ideally, there would be more cooperation between China and the US, and ideally, the other countries would just continue to focus on peaceful cooperation. But instead they start wars.
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.
As an “authoritarian” leftist, I have been predicting this collapse in US power for years. It was abundantly clear that the US could not maintain so many engagements in so many parts of the world, which is why I have been advocating for years for a peaceful, managed withdrawal to prevent a sudden collapse. Because, also contrary to what you guys always say about us, I don’t believe that a collapse or worsening conditions will somehow automatically lead to a victory for the left.
My plan, what I’ve been saying all this time, is that the US should try to emulate China’s approach of staying out of military entanglements while investing in domestic economic development, that we should accept a role as one of several great powers and should work to win countries over peacefully, by offering them better deals. I have been saying this for around 20 years, from back when we were occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. It is literally this position that defines me as an “authoritarian.”
Why? Because:
When I said we should stay out of Afghanistan, I was an authoritarian for “supporting Al Qaida.”
When I said we should stay out of Syria, I was an authoritarian for “supporting Assad.”
When I said we should stay out of Yemen, I was an authoritarian for “supporting the Houthis”
When I said we should stay out of Venezuela, I was an authoritarian for “supporting Maduro.”
When I said we should stop funding Israel, I was authoritarian for “defending Hamas.”
When I said we should not get involved in Ukraine, I was an authoritarian for “Supporting Putin.”
When I said we should not attack Iran, I was an authoritarian for “Supporting Khomeini.”
Maybe if we had been more selective about what conflicts we got involved in, if we had picked our battles, then we might have been able to focus on one or two of those conflicts. Instead, we’ve had this absolutely unhinged foreign policy where we do things like fund multiple sides in Syria that kill each other with our weapons, or beg China to sanction Russia while at the same time starting a trade war with them. And burning out after getting involved in every conflict everywhere was the most predictable outcome ever.
What is your plan? To keep burning ourselves out, to keep pouring more and more blood and treasure into maintaining and expanding the empire, while domestic conditions become worse and worse, and the fascists at home become more and more powerful? You just want to play Superman, acting like we’re invincible, acting like petty material concerns and limitations are beneath us. It’s pure hubris.
And now that the exact thing we’ve been trying to warn you of has come to pass, you complain that we “can’t articulate a goal or plan?” Every time that we’ve pushed for a more cautious and reserved approach that would preserve our resources and stamina, y’all have just accused us of being secret agents of whatever your current enemy-of-the-week is.
I would have hoped that seeing the exact thing we’ve been warning you about come to pass would make you stop and consider if maybe we actually have a point, but of course, I know better than to expect it. None of you know anything about what we believe because you’d rather make up beliefs and assign them to us than listen to anything we actually say.
Marxists have very clear plans depending on which country they organize in. For the US, as an example, the primary tasks are to build up a disciplined worker party that can effectively educate the rest of the working class, struggle alongside them whenever they come into conflict with the capitalist class (such as labor disputes, housing struggles, etc.), and organize them. This is the best way to prepare for the inevitable and regular crises of capitalism, to hopefully take the working class as a whole in a unified direction against the capitalist system itself.
After establishing a socialist state, we can begin addressing societal problems more effectively than ever before. Full right to self-determination for all indigenous peoples, mass expansion of public housing and an elimination of landlordism, full employment via a planned economy, and more. Healthcare and housing can be made free, same as education, which develops a far more productive labor base that will be necessary for the grand projects of infrastructure improvements and addressing historic inequalities for oppressed peoples.
All military bases will be closed down overseas, leaving only a small defense army in case of capitalist invasion. The dominance of the US dollar will be no more, nor will IP be respected, as it is leveraged against the global south. Rather than plundering the world, we can cooperate with countries like China to develop mass transit and a green energy transition, free countries like Cuba and Korea, and more.
The idea that Marxists have no plans is silly. Just talk to one of us.
yes perfect the Authoritarian left that, checks notes exists solely within your head?
Surely you can give some examples of leftists authoritarianism, if its so ubiquitous that is.
Also, while your at it, please explore the idea of something being ‘manifestly incapable’. This term seems like an oxymoron an I’d like to see you flesh it out a bit.
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.
It is very easy to counter such accusations by making clear that it is a pacifist position you take. The arguments then will by around pacifism and the issues with that and not if you secretly support Assad. Try it some time 🤷
But since you avoided that term until I brought it up, I must assume you are indeed not considering yourself a pacifist, and then your rethoric falls flat and becomes a “if for some reason I can frame a conflict as class war then it is ok”. And if you in turn apply that to conflicts like the Syrian civil war, then people accusing you of a double standard when it comes to your favourite dictator of the day might have a point.
I do not know how you were able to type out this whole post without realizing.
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 don’t support any of that. I just don’t believe in the US using military force to stop it.
Guess that means I’m not a tankie?
Oop, there you go. By not supporting military action by the US, I am “allowing” them to do all that stuff. So I am a tankie on the basis that I’m opposed to using tanks. There you have it.
The US hasn’t had to use military force for any of that. The threat was adequate deterrent. Now that the deterrent is breaking down, well…it’s time to use military force.
Unfortunately, bullies only speak one language. If you could talk to Kim jong un and be like “hey, let’s work together to make the world a better place”, NK wouldn’t be NK. It would looks more like SK. But he’s rather rule ashes than let the country grow outside his control.
Utterly idiotic. The US is weakening and you want to continue expending it’s remaining resources on avoidable conflicts halfway around the world instead of actually addressing the reasons it is in a state of decline and confronting the domestic threat of fascism. You are an accelerationist, whether you realize it or not.
Lmao. What has Kim Jong Un ever done to “bully” the US? It’s the US that performs the largest military exercise in the world, every year, right on his doorstep, where they practice invading his country and bombing everything to smithereens the way they did before.
Sounds familiar. Except instead of one country, it’s the world. You don’t want a single place on earth to be free of the US and you’re willing to let the US destroy itself with these conflicts than to show an ounce of caution or restraint. You are the one who would rather rule over ashes.
It would be nice to spend less time using military force where it is not necessary. Like the Middle East.
Unfortunately, Russia has shown us that having a military force in Europe is necessary. NK has shown that having a military force in SK is necessary, although thankfully military exercises seem to be enough for now.
China is the only country that seems to be able to function in a peaceful way. Ideally, there would be more cooperation between China and the US, and ideally, the other countries would just continue to focus on peaceful cooperation. But instead they start wars.
Removed by mod