101
LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL, you are ALL LIBERAL! NONE of you are free from LIBERALISM
(media.piefed.social)
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2026
101 points (100.0% liked)
TankieJerk
231 readers
71 users here now
Dunking on Tankies from a leftist, anti-capitalist perspective.
Rules:
- No bigotry of any kind.
- No tankies or right-wingers. Liberals are allowed so long as they are aware of this
- No genocide or atrocity denial
We allow posts about tankie behavior, shitposts, and rational, leftist discussion. Please redirect any Fediverse tankie-posts to !MeanwhileOnGrad@sh.itjust.works to avoid bringing drama to Piefed.social
Curious about non-tankie leftism? If you've got a little patience for 19th century academic style, let a little Marx and Kropotkin be your primer!
Marx's Communist Manifesto, short and accessible! Highly recommended if you haven't read it
founded 6 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah yeah "true Libertarianism/Communism/Me-ism" has never been tried.
...all ideologies are "ideas not parties". But at some point Liberals in the west have to admit their representatives are regularly coopted by fascism at a much higher rate than progressives and those left of them.
Liberals are part of the wests systemic problems.
It feels like a false equivalence to compare liberal-in-name governments to socialist-in-name governments after the horrors that the USSR and CCP unleashed upon the world.
You are incorrect, the mass famines of the USSR and CCP were mostly caused by a single conman, named Trofim Lysenko, who was lying about agricultural techniques/results in order to keep his job (taking his bag like a true economic opportunist):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko#views
Here's a whole Behind The Bastards podcast about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t05d8MPzfvs
To that point, even the Gulag system whilst being a horrible and targeted system of political persecution, even there the vast majority of victims survived (1 million died in Gulags, 17 million survived). So you're adopting misinformation because you're coopted into Capitalism.
...this is the whole point The Frankfurt School "Cultural Marxists" (people like Marcuse and Adorno) were making. Capitalism is full of such pro-Capitalist propaganda, which Liberals believe without researching it.
Meanwhile almost all Colonialism, since the French Revolution, and the Free Market genocides of the Congo and bengal/india (aka The British East India Company) were done by Liberal minded Economic Capitalists... Intentionally killing WAY MORE PEOPLE with the Liberalism of their day (which turned the other cheek due to racism and sexism).
So I hate to break it to you, but Historical and Cultural versions of your Liberal Philosophies massacred and killed WAY MORE PEOPLE, and did so WAY MORE INTENTIONALLY, than the USSRs and CCPs unwanted famines combined.
But like every Liberal, you have to ignore solid facts of history in order to make your fake claims. You were willingly coopted back then, just like you're being right now. The only question is whether it's intentional or a product of ignorance.
Lysenko isn't even close to the cause of the famines of the USSR and PRC, and the wiki article even notes that his rise to national prominence wasn't until 1938. That's not even getting into the intentional genocides of ethnic minorities performed by the USSR and PRC.
Downplaying and denying atrocities of red fascist states is not welcome here. This is your only warning.
Oh look, a Liberal is about to ban dissent from a progressive. Fuckin suprise suprise my guy!
As stated in the other thread correct attribution of causes is not denial or apologia. Did I deny the 1 million dead in the gulag system? Did I deny the famines?
...and on your point. The linked page and others elsewhere confirm Lysenko's ideas were on the rise before 1938, and were involved in the 1930s causes of Holodomor.
I'm a socialist, fuckwit.
Admitting a million people died in the GULAG as a denial of the accusation that the USSR committed atrocities is not exactly compelling.
You're saying they were all caused by one little guy, just a little silly fellow with an idea, instead of admitting the systemic issues involved. So yes, that's denialism.
The linked wiki page clearly outlines Lysenko's career, and nothing about it suggests that his work became ultra-popular ten years early, when his career was still in its infancy, and caused the fucking Holodomor.
I literally called it a terrible system of political persecution.
People don't just pop to the top, Lemarckanism was the debate of that age, and farming wasn't easy anywhere at the time, even America had shortages and famines due to the dustbowl.
Your response to this very simple statement:
So now Lysenkoism isn't the work of a conman, but "the debate of that age" despite biologists having near-universally rejected Lamarckism since the late 19th century, and America had a famine too? Is that really where we're at?
Trofim Lysenko would have been an unknown destitute quack if it wasn't for Stalin et all. Pinning it all on Lysenko is extremely convenient. And whitewashes the vanguard of all responsibility. Stalin put Lysenko as the head of agriculture for the Soviet Union and their universities because he liked the sound of Lysenko's quack theories. Despite his theories being unsound. Vavilov being stripped of his titles and positions and being sent to Siberia to die.
RFK Jr. is literally the modern-day analog to Lysenko. And both of them are post turtles. Neither of them got into positions that high on their own.
I don't give a fuck who was responsible for the millions of deaths, the fact of the matter is it's very specific to one pervasive strain of government that keeps popping up, like a disease, and causing the same exact problem in the USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria, soon I fully expect to see it yet again in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Africa.
You shouldn't be defending them, rather you should be blaming them for tainting and poisoning the words Socialism and Communism and preventing the actual ideology from entering mainstream discussions.
Iran is a much more 'traditional' clerical-fascist regime. In fact, they hate leftists with a passion that makes the tankies who bootlick them look downright deranged. Or self-destructive.
Syria, luckily, has been freed from the Assadist boot at this point! If the new government remains reasonably democratic (not guaranteed, but I'm keeping cautiously optimistic) and they can stave off Israel trying to destabilize them for fucking funsies, they may have a future ahead of them.
Afghanistan is downright feudal, honestly, in its power structures, while Pakistan is a military junta and effectively always has been. We (the US) unfortunately, had a... nonzero role in that in the way we empowered the Pakistani ISI and allowed it to play a 'spookocracy' role, like the intelligence services in Putin's Russia.
Africa's ML period is largely over, honestly. When the Soviets fell, most interest in ML projects in the continent fell as well. Africa remains divided and troubled, but largely not by ML-style systems.
The Iran–China 25-year Cooperation Program or Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between I.R. Iran, P.R. China, was signed in 2021. The two countries and their respective predecessors have the longest diplomatic relationship in human history, AFAIK. Iran funded and armed Hamas in Palestine, and China funded and armed Iran.
Syria under Assad was also allied to the Russian and Chinese circle of influence.
Afghanistan... you're right that they have no true allies at this point, but given how the proxy wars have played out thus far I find it hard to believe they're not somehow tied into it all. Just a conspiracy theory at this point.
African nations are allying economically and militarily with China as we speak, the most recent one was the Chinese Launchpad being built in Egypt and they're talking about expanding that program to many other nations in Africa.
Wasn't talking about allies, but the domestic systems they operate under. Realpolitik means that the two don't always end up the same - the US has backed dictatorships, democracies, and even the occasional socialist regime, after all. China, likewise, will do the same - back any system as long as they benefit from it. They may generally prefer countries to adopt their system, but their hegemony is not married to that preference.
It also may seem minor, but different authoritarian systems are shit in different ways. ML systems share a great many features - largely due to being imposed wholesale by the Soviets - and their progress (or lack thereof) is like clockwork. Other authoritarian regimes wax and wane in very different ways.
I would cast doubts on that.
None of the communisms are actual communisms, I just lump the authoritarians who ally with them under the umbrella.
What a beautiful example of how quickly a Liberal becomes Fascist.
Iran isn't Socialist. The Ba'ath Party in Syria are largely a product of US meddling in the middle east, a lot of which was done by - you guessed it - democratic Liberals coopted into helping the fascists perpetuating Capitalist greed!
Oh, I'm arguing wrong am I? Using too many facts.
Poor fool, you've assumed I'm a Socialist, merely because I have a grasp on history. Nope, I'm a modern progressive. But yeah keep pushing me left, you Liberal Fascists. Move to Hungry, go be buddies with Orban or Israel. Go hold the door open for right-populism some more. Let in as much Capitalist Fascism as people can stand. It's what you do best.
"Arab Nationalism and Arab Socialism was caused by the US" is a new one, I have to admit.
... you're literally already playing apologist for red fascist states with well-documented atrocities and genocides to their name.
I said the Ba'ath Party in modern Syria. But that shit was all founded post sykes pico anyways.
Correct attribution of causes has NOTHING to do with apologia. Which is why I've also corrected attributed the genocides and atrocities Liberal, Neo-Liberal and Economic Liberal Philosophies caused and contributed to.
That's not apoligia for them either. I'll say it again in case you missed it: Correct attribution is NOT apologia. It's quite correct to step away from things you disagree with, including when progressives step away from Liberals.
Do you... do you not know what Ba'athist parties stand for?
... what the fuck does Sykes-Picot have to do with the US?
So you admit, then, that attributing the genocides of the USSR and PRC, which included mass executions, ethnic cleansing, and targeted famines, to a little accident all caused by Lysenko was inaccurate?
I never denied famines or the gulag system, I specifically said the gulag system was a horrible system of political persecution.
If Gaza was suddenly powerful, youd see a horrible series of massacres against Israelis. After the french revolution you had a horrible series of executions and white terror.
Systems of Authoritarian oppression often occur after revolutions, during famines, or during times of instability. That's human nature in all systems.
What Lysenko did to perpetuate famines (to maintain his position) was in no way small. Now you're minimizing the undesired and unintended famines.
They were directed politically after the fact but neither China nor Russia wanted them. No government actively wants a famine... Yet you'll happily attribute it to these two governments in particular.
Are there other national famines you incorrectly think were desired by governments/ideologies?
...and I'm not talking about artificial shortages such as in Ireland, Bengal, or the concentration camps of the boer war... You know, Colonial famines.
"No government actively wants a famine... except for those non-red fascist states!"
Sorry that you believe that colonialism cannot be performed by an imperialist state with a long history of colonialism, if it has a coat of red paint. We - or rather, you - are done here.
This you?
This you?
So now we've moved on from "There weren't horrors and even if there were, it wasn't their fault" to "Everyone does it when stressed"
Wait, but if you're quoting them acknowledging it....
....then you claim they were saying "there weren't horrors".... isn't that a bit like trying to have your cake and eat it too? They were either denying it, or actively discussing it - and it doesn't look like they were denying it (just discussing the causes in a way you don't like).
Are you a Tankie?
In the same dubious way that 'acknowledging' there was 'unrest' at Tiananmen Square whilst blaming the protesters is acknowledging the Tiananmen Square massacre, fucking sure.
"It happened but it was just a little mistake by one man, no one involved really wanted it and they all tried to stop it!"
If someone said that about the Holocaust, would that be:
A. Denialism
OR
B. Not denialism?
Fucking forget it. One post here, and one test post on ML three months ago?