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.
this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2026
46 points (100.0% liked)
TankieJerk
368 readers
136 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
For a wider variety of leftist memes, see:
!political_memes@piefed.social
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
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 π
Thats my main point of contention with the argument. Maoism and Stalinism can barely be considered communism. Really in name only.
Oh yeah, I agree entirely with that.
I generally agree with what is being expressed, though I think that a proof can be verbose while still being correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_long_mathematical_proofs
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_color_theorem https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/puzzles/js/map.html
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_conjecture "It states that no arrangement of equally sized spheres filling space has a greater average density than that of the cubic close packing (face-centered cubic) and hexagonal close packing arrangements. The density of these arrangements is around 74.05%."
Perhaps the best approach is to feel free to write long essays, but to also create summaries / indexes for them that help while conversing quickly.
Wait until Cowbee gets so enthusiastic about debating you that they write two comments on each of yours, and then guilt trips you for not addressing each of the five paragraphs in each comment in the infinitely expanding tree of comments. It's like fighting a Hydra, but the Hydra is an asshole
Not so much that long answers can't be correct as calling out the attempt to use verbosity as a replacement for accuracy.
I think hypocrisy can invalidate some arguments. For example, apoliticists often argue for a policy of apolticism in various spaces. If even they can't follow their suggested policy, how is anyone else supposed to? I would say in that case, hypocrisy invalidates their argument.
It would depend on the exact argument being made. I would say that generally hypocrisy does not invalidate the point being made, but there are a handful of exceptions wherein the argument is in some way related to personal character.
Otherwise, the point is ironic (and thus humorous insofar as it points out the flaw of its proponent), but not invalid.
I guess the deciding difference would be whether the hypocrisy is oxymoronic - whether the act of making the argument undermines its own position. All oxymoronic arguments are hypocritical, but not all hypocrites are oxymorons.
@PugJesus so there is no whataboutism in "china weegurs"? and no false equivalence in comparing a post war ussr with unsanctioned developed western nations and pinning the challenges on the system and their leaders?
You're doing exactly what you're "calling out".
cia.meme
CIA is when you don't like Stalinists who deny genocides?
I donβt like them either and think itβs a half funny meme but if you canβt see how itβs also directly out of the cia meme archive then youβre leaving some humor on the table