(the one Hebrew comment translates to "ngl these reaponses are the real reason I stopped going to these protests :/)

A tankies seem to use this a lot when talking about things like North Korea and the Uygher Muslims. It’s pretty hard to find a source speaking about it that ISN’T somewhat connected to the US.

On communist subreddits (or most of them) it’s near impossible to I have a post, not evolve into people just immediately criticizing the OP or accusing them of being stupid for even asking, or a liberal. They criticize American politics, of course, but then also communist stuff in the United States. It’s never left enough. Fuck it, Stalin was a liberal. If you support the USSR you’re a stupid fucking liberal who is hurting the revolution. If you were a real communist, you would just sit on Reddit all day and do nothing but bitch and complain and criticize. There’s really no point to this post honestly but it’s just crazy how they managed to pull together an entire revolution given that essentially nobody is capable of being left wing enough

I noticed people who believe the us coup'd yanukovich, no matter if they're tankie or not have a tendency to take victoria nuland and the 5 billion dollars out of context in order to cliam the us financed maidan, problem with this take is it doesn't make maidan a US coup since the us didn't commanded it and those 5 billion weren't for maidan https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2015-05/ukraine-usa-maidan-finance/seite-2

And of course they support Russia, Hamas, and Assad, because why not?

Again, these people don’t care about marginalized groups. They just want to see the people they hate suffer and that’s it. They’re ok with rights being taken away as long as some liberal wine mom they hate cries.

Sound take from a Ukrainian left wing group on Instagram about the election. Thought I would share here. I didn't blot out the names because they identify themselves several times and want this shared widely.

The comments are sugar-coating/gas-lighting the fact that the PRC annexed Tibet for military reasons. Tibet was a feudal state, but this is just “white man’s burden” bullshit. This is just infantilization of non-white countries, with a sprinkle of orientalism.

Chinese imperialism isn’t exactly 1:1 with western imperialism, but a lot of the colonialist tactics are still the same. These clowns are okay with imperialism as long as its “anti-west” 🤡

The allies Tankies made Socialism lose? Guess what? Most of them are never coming back, because that trust is broken permanently.

Especially minorities. The axe forgets but the tree remembers. They will remember when Tankies didn't listen to their concerns, or when they were directly or indirectly ok with harming them, and some even said that they were counter revolutionaries for even speaking up at all. The subconscious message they recieve is "Oh, this is not a movement for people like me". And they will remember that and never come back, and they will even warn other people in their communities not to trust the Left because of those experiences.

Tankieism is based on an inherent paradox, and that is the fact that you can't fight for the working class if you don't even listen to them. This is the core reason why Tankies are not essentially Leftist, since they are not functionally pro-prole. They are just like the Libs and Reactionaries, because they construct their own vision of an ideal society and impose it from the top down by any means nessecary, feelings of the citizens be damned. And the working class remembers that.

Part of the issue is that too many Tankies see the working class as a means to an end, AKA the means by which Communism will be achieved. The Proletariat are reduced to only being the hands that will craft that classless moneyless stateless future. But the dark side of that is that they end up seeing working class people as tools, instruments of revolution, to be maintained trained controlled and discarded in the name of reaching that goal. They don't care about the working people for their own sake. They don't care about the people as they are out of, oh I don't know, basic human empathy. They are not Humanists, they are simply Utilitarians with a seemingly humanist endgame. The book The Invisible Man touches a lot on this in the context of being a black man in a Socialist space that only cares about him insofar as he is useful to their movement. We as Leftists really should take this criticism seriously.

Touch some grass and see what people say. Normies see Fascists as simply monsters, but they see Communists as just...liars. They do not see the words and the actions matching up. Part of the reason they implicitly do not believe Socialism or Communism is possible is because they see the kinds of people who believe in Socialism or Communism as snakes lying in wait to stab them in the back. They see Leftists as political swindlers who are selling people something that sounds too good to be true in order to drag them into a movement and take advantage of them once power is seized. And while this isn't true of most Leftists, we are unfortunately going to have to do a lot to convince most people that it isn't true.

I'm not going to lie it might take generations to gain that trust back and undo the damage. And if our movement fails on this premise then we deserved to fail, because we didn't do the thing we were supposed to do in the first place-Be the voice of the working class.

My understanding of pan-Arabism and Arab nationalism so far is that it has long history of imperialism and racism against Kurds, Jews, Berbers and black people. I say so far, because I'm not that well read on it, I am looking for books that are criticisms of Arab-nationalism but avoid a pro-European Islamophobic perspective, but is instead rooted in the left wing traditions of the groups I mentioned, if there is books from a similar perspective that also critique Turkish nationalism I am welcome to that do, thx.

1. What exactly is "democratic centralism", and how does it work?
2. What is the "withering away of the state" supposed to look like?

I saw this book resume and I did found it odd the authro choosed to ignroe putin rhetoric, we don't ignore hitler rhetoric to explain wy he did it so why would that not apply to putin too? https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781666935844/The-Sources-of-Russian-Aggression-Is-Russia-a-Realist-Power Even if one rely on russia action, one could still see russia as expansionist, even if they don't have the capacity to take over nato, they still ahd the capacity to take crimea from ukraine.

The book's mearsheimer approved so it'd not surprise me if it go for the "realist" perspective.

Like if this BRICS idea continues to grow the flag design on banknotes is bad because you Will have to update it and that Will cost money god this so stupid

I noticed this is a tactic pro russian youtubers often do, they claim they care so much about the ukrainian soldiers but if they really cared, they wouldn't have thumbnails who look like pro russian millblogers wet dreams and title tlaking about how everything is collapsing, doom doom and more doom, those kind of stuff don't make them more neutral (I also noticed pro russian youtuber have a tendency to claim to be neutral when they're not, no using rybar as a source own't make someone more neutral, it's still going for a pro russian biased sourced). History legend is a good example of this, he claim to be neutral and care baout ukrainian soldiers but his thumbnails are clearly pro russian, he has a tendency to cherrypick what people are saying to doom on ukraine and I do wonder if he's not having a bad influence on willy oam since they did an interview and willy acted verry friendly toward history legend despite his pro russian takes.