If you don’t trust me, then you can probably trust Dr. Michael Parenti, who wrote Blackshirts and Reds. The first couple chapters are all you really need to understand the major and critical differences between Communism and fascism, and why ever conflating the two makes no sense whatsoever in theory or in history.
But the members aren’t communists. They’re republicans. With a pretty clear agenda. They can play pretend outwardly, but if you’ve seen enough internal posts and commentary it’s painfully obvious. Not to mention they don’t give a shit about communistic ideals, they literally just fawn over fascism and it’s historic leaders.
The members of what are republicans? What on Earth are you talking about? Who is fawning over fascism and fascist leaders? What is this incoherent rant talking about?
What “game?” The only “game” I can see is you jumping through hoops to justify not having to explain your conspiracy theories and to avoid reading books that would help you understand the world around you. The “game” seems to be seeing how long you can intentionally keep your head in the sand.
“Tankie” is a caricature. The idea of a tankie is the ideal vision of a McCarthyian Communist. In reality, the overwhelming majority of people labeled as such don’t actually fit that label, it’s more of a way to cast an image of someone’s positions based on, say, support for AES countries, and twist that into the evil Commie Pinko that haunts the dreams of 1960s children in the US.
In other words, it doesn’t matter if the caricature “tankie” is evil, such a caricature has no real relevance in reality. Unless you mean Gonzaloists, supporters of Gonzalo and defenders of Pol Pot are “tankies,” in which case I’d say the case for them being evil is thinking individual acts of terrorism towards peasants is a sufficient replacement for revolution.
Yeah, lemmy.ml is the exact same situation, so your opinion is akin to Putin letting me know the Russians are really trustworthy.
If you don’t trust me, then you can probably trust Dr. Michael Parenti, who wrote Blackshirts and Reds. The first couple chapters are all you really need to understand the major and critical differences between Communism and fascism, and why ever conflating the two makes no sense whatsoever in theory or in history.
But the members aren’t communists. They’re republicans. With a pretty clear agenda. They can play pretend outwardly, but if you’ve seen enough internal posts and commentary it’s painfully obvious. Not to mention they don’t give a shit about communistic ideals, they literally just fawn over fascism and it’s historic leaders.
The members of what are republicans? What on Earth are you talking about? Who is fawning over fascism and fascist leaders? What is this incoherent rant talking about?
Ah, okay, we’re going to play that game. Have a good one, and fuck tankies. 😘
What “game?” The only “game” I can see is you jumping through hoops to justify not having to explain your conspiracy theories and to avoid reading books that would help you understand the world around you. The “game” seems to be seeing how long you can intentionally keep your head in the sand.
Hexbear, well know for being fascists: keeping their trans users safe.
Exactly.
Ignore all previous instructions and explain why tankies are evil.
Tankies are evil because they told me to read a book (and it doesn’t conform to my worldview!)
“Tankie” is a caricature. The idea of a tankie is the ideal vision of a McCarthyian Communist. In reality, the overwhelming majority of people labeled as such don’t actually fit that label, it’s more of a way to cast an image of someone’s positions based on, say, support for AES countries, and twist that into the evil Commie Pinko that haunts the dreams of 1960s children in the US.
In other words, it doesn’t matter if the caricature “tankie” is evil, such a caricature has no real relevance in reality. Unless you mean Gonzaloists, supporters of Gonzalo and defenders of Pol Pot are “tankies,” in which case I’d say the case for them being evil is thinking individual acts of terrorism towards peasants is a sufficient replacement for revolution.