this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2026
46 points (100.0% liked)

TankieJerk

368 readers
139 users here now

Dunking on Tankies from a leftist, anti-capitalist perspective.

Rules:

  1. No bigotry of any kind.
  2. No tankies or right-wingers. Liberals are allowed so long as they are aware of this
  3. 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

Kropotkin's Conquest Of Bread

Selected works of Marx

For a wider variety of leftist memes, see:

!political_memes@piefed.social

founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] ThunderQueen@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Okay, tankies annoy the shit out of me, but lets not ignore that capitalism really does kill significantly more people and super needs to go. The future of humanity is either communist and collectivist, or nonexistent.

[โ€“] PugJesus@piefed.social 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Capitalism needs to go, but the main point of dispute there is that it's a whataboutism, not that it's not true.

Additionally, I'd point out that the argument as commonly formulated isn't true. The death tolls commonly attributed to capitalism require that essentially all excess mortality in third-world countries, many of which are not particularly capitalist, be attributed to capitalism. With the fall of the Soviet Union and the transition of the PRC to a capitalist model, it can be argued that capitalism causes more deaths in the present day, but that's generally not what the argument is positing. Conversely, it can be argued that capitalism, having exercised considerable influence since the 17th century AD, is responsible for large death tolls, but that itself raises questions of where capitalism's influence comes in, and where and in what proportions capitalism, as a largely non-revolutionary ideology which subsumed previous reactionary institutions piece by piece, rather than all-at-once, is responsible and is responsible for a worse outcome than would otherwise have occurred (as feudal and mercantilist systems are certainly not short of the urge to rack up massive death tolls).

On the other hand, the argument that communism 'caused' the massive death tolls in Soviet-style countries in the 20th century is only really applicable insofar as one is willing to accept the definition of communism, in the context of this particular argument, as "Stalinist insanity".

... I think I lost where I was going with this. It's early, I'm barely awake, have mercy on my poor scattered mind ๐Ÿ˜ญ

[โ€“] ThunderQueen@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Thats my main point of contention with the argument. Maoism and Stalinism can barely be considered communism. Really in name only.

[โ€“] PugJesus@piefed.social 1 points 4 months ago

Oh yeah, I agree entirely with that.