this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2026
73 points (100.0% liked)

TankieJerk

272 readers
9 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:

!mop@quokk.au

founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
PugJesus@piefed.social
73
Oh wow, a crossover episode of Genocide Denialism (media.piefed.social)
submitted 6 days ago by PugJesus@piefed.social to c/tankiejerk@piefed.social
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 12 points 6 days ago (2 children)

You couldn’t convince me they and MAGA don’t share a mental illness.

Tribalism. The measles of mankind, to paraphrase Einstein.

[–] Eldritch@piefed.world 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

More or less yup. That and mindless reflexive reactionary behavior.

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 0 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

You don't need to throw tribes under the bus, you can call it sectarianism.

Tribes were actually pretty good at coexistence. Here in Australia before colonisation, tribes went to war sometimes, and often, nobody died. They had rules for how to conduct war that made it safe. Nations are way more violent than tribes.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

That doesn't really gel with the observation of high per capita rates of death by violence in hunter-gatherer societies.

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

https://international-review.icrc.org/articles/indigenous-australian-laws-of-war-914

image

Despite the quarrels of the past, we have finally – partly through Darmangeat's work – arrived at a basic idea of the two main types of inter-tribal confrontation that occurred in Indigenous Australia. The most common, devastating warfare seems to have been stealth attacks – raids or kanudaitji (secret or revenge expeditions), for instance in the Western Deserts.40 These were usually small parties of men, but sometimes scores or more, who would sneak deep into enemy territories to commit assassinations or theft (usually of women).41 In contrast to raids there existed what we can call open, regulated battles (some prefer the word “tournaments”), which were much more formalized and lengthy events, involving anywhere from 60 to over 1,500 combatants, drawn from several allied groups.

...

At any rate, battles, raids and duels were intended more as a form of cathartic venting rather than a field of slaughter. In South Australia, an Indigenous Australian informant described what he considered a recent “glorious” (successful) battle. He defined it as successful because “nobody tumble down, only big one yabber [talk]. … My king … say ‘don't throw spears, only yabber.’”

Even when battles involved very large numbers of warriors, they generally resulted in flesh wounds and very few, if any, deaths – although there were some very violent exceptions, depending on the intensity of the dispute. Raids were more usually fatal, and highly unpredictable (indeed, it was expected that women and children would suffer), but often only the targets were slain.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

According to his findings, 64% of open battles ended with less than three deaths each, despite usually involving hundreds of combatants.

... that's not at all unusual. Even with technology and tactics as late as the 15th century AD, battles of thousands of individuals could end with only a handful of actual deaths. Hand-to-hand combat is extremely trying, and without a means of running down an enemy after they're routed (ie cavalry), casualties only become large in the most desperate and dire of battles.

None of that paper seems to at all address my point, which was of per capita deaths by violence, not whether any individual battle produced a large number of deaths.

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I dunno what to tell you, man. Tribes are good and tribalism isn't as warlike as the turn of phrase implies. You've seen the numbers. The international legal structure was engineered to prevent bloody wars between tribes. It was like the UN, but actually effective.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I dunno what to tell you, man. Tribes are good and tribalism isn’t as warlike as the turn of phrase implies. You’ve seen the numbers.

And I pointed out that the numbers don't say what you think they're saying. Furthermore, your own source paints Australian Aboriginal society as quite warlike, discussing how even deaths by natural causes could spark murderous feuds over 'sorcery', and that the kidnapping and rape of women, and counter-raids to recover women, were extremely common.

About all it actually shows is the low casualty numbers for the ritualistic battles, the higher casualty numbers for raids, and a number of 'laws of war'.

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I agree that aboriginal treatment of women was often horrific, but when it comes to sorcery, you have to understand that the white people's idea of reality simply wasn't present in precolonial Australia. Singing was and continues to be a serious issue with serious consequences, and if someone has good reason to believe sorcery was used in the carrying out of a murder, they should be able to present that evidence to the local authorities (the tribe elders) and seek payback.

Payback is a much more humane approach to criminal punishment than the white people's prison system. White people lock a lad up for years and destroy his relationship to his community, so as often as not he's forced to commit crimes again to survive. Payback is quick and simple, and once it's done, the victim is expected to forgive the criminal. No bloody cycles of revenge, no more hard feelings. It's exactly the opposite of the "tribalism" we see in white society, with ancient blood feuds between different groups. This is just another example of white people assuming their social flaws are human nature, and that they are somehow the best at rising above it. Projection, in other words.

As you read in the excerpt I shared, aboriginal tribes would go to war, and the leaders would instruct the warriors to avoid shedding blood. And if no blood was spilled, it would be considered a great victory. Look at the Crusades and tell Me what we've discussed today fits your idea of "tribalism" better than white people's greatest "accomplishments". The truth is, the realists are more militant in their quest to destroy opposing social groups than any tribe.

(Also pronouns)

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Singing was and continues to be a serious issue with serious consequences, and if someone has good reason to believe sorcery was used in the carrying out of a murder, they should be able to present that evidence to the local authorities (the tribe elders) and seek payback.

... the source you provided explicitly contradicts this notion of well-founded claims of sorcery.

Payback is a much more humane approach to criminal punishment than the white people’s prison system. White people lock a lad up for years and destroy his relationship to his community, so as often as not he’s forced to commit crimes again to survive. Payback is quick and simple, and once it’s done, the victim is expected to forgive the criminal. No bloody cycles of revenge, no more hard feelings.

Are you being fucking serious? Your own source points out that the exact opposite is the case - that deaths in Aboriginal warfare continued to generate feud and counter-feud even in the most ritually justified circumstances.

As you read in the excerpt I shared, aboriginal tribes would go to war, and the leaders would instruct the warriors to avoid shedding blood. And if no blood was spilled, it would be considered a great victory.

In ritualistic battles bloodshed was not the goal. Your source explicitly points out that in other forms of Aboriginal warfare bloodshed explicitly was the goal.

Look at the Crusades and tell Me what we’ve discussed today fits your idea of “tribalism” better than white people’s greatest “accomplishments”.

the fuck

The truth is, the realists are more militant in their quest to destroy opposing social groups than any tribe.

The question isn't about destroying 'opposing social groups', the question is of death by violence.

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I'm not having fun in this argument anymore because it feels like we've gotten to the "no it doesn't yes it does" portion of the argument, and you're using pronouns I don't like even though I tried to remind you. So I think I'm gonna dip until next time. Have fun, I liked the meme

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

and you’re using pronouns I don’t like even though I tried to remind you.

... wait, where did I use a gendered pronoun?

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I use capitalised pronouns in all three grammatical persons. Lowercase "you" isn't gendered, and that's the problem. I prefer to be gendered in My second person pronouns.