Nope. Just like the charges against Maduro, this is bullshit used to manufacture consent.

This is imperialist bullshit, what’s going on is a leftist uprising against the right-wing government and the US Empire supporting it.

☭

Tankies call ourselves as such because we have 3 options, when the pejorative is flung at us:

1. Attack the legitimacy of the pejorative itself. For example, point out that it really only means “someone who supports existing socialist states” at a consistent level.

2. Own the term. By accepting the pejorative, you acknowledge that the line of division between the tankie and the one accusing the other of being a tankie is the fact that the accuser views the tankie as unjustifiably supporting socialist states, while the tankie believed their support to be justified, usually due to a difference in perspective, historiography, and understanding. This forces the conversation forward, to discussions of existing socialism, and what tankies actually support.

3. Accept that the pejorative exists, but vehemently deny that it applies to you.

Only 1 and 2 actually have a leg to stand on, and present a path forward. The reason we tankies accept the pejorative isn’t because the liberal idea of a tankie is a real thing, but because the liberals correctly identify communists as belonging to a coherent group that falls under the same category. This doesn’t mean it isn’t a pejorative and a strawman, it’s like “feminazi” back when that term was popular, only for socialism instead of feminism.

Like “feminazi,” tankie is a term used to dismiss people as holding unreasonable views. It’s by definition a pejorative and strawman, just like “feminazi.”

No problem! Sorry that I don’t have good reading, I fear most liberal narratives would use it to talk about “the rise of the evil Putin” rather than explain the materialist causes behind the nationalists taking power.

You’re mixing belief with Trump’s actual positions, which are nationalist in character. Whether or not Trump believes white supremacism is correct is irrelevant to the fact that his positions are those of a white supremacist. Nationalism is often opposed to the outer, for example Algerians slaughtered any Europeans they saw on sight during the Algerian revolution. It is nevertheless true that this violent national liberation was a progressive movement against colonialism, and was created by colonialism.

As for Fanon, his masterwork (and the one most relevant to our discussion) is The Wretched of the Earth.

Here’s what you said responding to my point on class and the mode of production shaping our thought:

It’s an interesting theory. But without a study in an other mode of production, it’s wishful thinking… and to hope for a new mode of production to change how the brain works, and in such a deep level, is not a very credible one. Moreover, it’s not relevant for communist organization within capitalism.

This is fairly reasonable to see as a denial of class’s impact on how we think, in favor of a more nebulous and less-defined “power.”

Regarding corruption:

Hundred of thousands of trials for corruption 63 years after the foundation of the People Republic (this declaration is from 2012)… it does look like a pretty huge scale to me. There’s corruption in my capitalist country, but far less than in China.

You’re using the total number as your metric for those on trial for corruption in China for China being “corrupt,” more so than “your capitalist country.” Any reasonable reading of this statement implies you believe the number of corruption trials is a good indication for absolute levels of corruption, but this erases the difference in mode of production, the class in power, and therefore which country is more likely to punish corruption.

It is though as, on average, higher classes have higher incomes.

This changes dramatically in socialism, where the working classes are in control. The conflation of class with income implies administrators in socialism are a “higher class” than the rest of the working classes, when in fact they are the same. When we are discussing the so-called corruptive nature of “power,” this becomes a critical hole.

Because it’s irrelevant. The question about the necessity or not of hierarchies is an other debate. Something can be bad and inescapable at the same time.

It’s absolutely relevant given the topic of discussion is whether or not “power corrupts.”

Trump is absolutely relying on nationalism, white supremacy, and more, and is using it to support imperialism. I think your understanding of what constitutes nationalism is different from mine, and again, I recommend Fanon.

Again, you’re confusing Trump’s position as a nationalist with being pro-Russian. Trump is not a Russian ally, he already would have pulled out of Ukraine and NATO, and would not be attacking Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela.

As for the Chilean nationalists, I never said they weren’t working class. I am specifically saying that individual groups can be bad, but if they are fighting against indigenous peoples then this is definitely reactionary. This is why I recommended reading Fanon, I of course oversimplified the situation, and gave the trade union example to illustrate that exceptions exist.

You pointed to China punishing corruption as evidence of “your capitalist country” having “less corruption.” Capitalism itself is a system where socialized production produces private profits, it’s by definition a “corrupt” system.

As for your study, we are talking about class, not income, which is not useful for our purposes at all.

Also not sure why you abandoned the point about large industry and administration being necessary, did you just silently concede that point?

It wasn’t a true revolution, but it was when the nationalists kicked out the liberals who were letting Russia be plundered by the west in “Shock Doctrine.” Putin’s party took power precisely on a nationalist platform, kicking out the compradors, and thus earned legitimate popularity among the Russian people and western demonization.

Trump being a Russian ally is a conspiracy theory, and is used to justify pushing problems from the US onto Russia. Trump’s problems and interests are of American origin.

As for Nationalism in the global south, it’s necessarily an oversimplification. Trade unions can also be violently racist, it’s wrong but not indicative of trade unions being wrong. And for indigenous peoples, they are the ones whose nationalism would be progressive, not the nationalism of those not indigenous.

Very expected of Reddit.

Trump is not a Russian ally, he is interested in harvesting Ukraine for minerals. The Russo-Ukrainain war is not one of imperialism on Russia’s part, annexation is not imperialism. This is just BlueAnon, sorry to say, it’s blaming the Russians on Statesian failures.

As for nationalism in the global south, it is not opposed to internationalism. It is nationalism in the global north that is opposed to internationalism. I highly recommend reading Fanon, who wrote extensively on the psychological aspects of colonialism and the class outlook of national liberation.

You’re pointing to China actually punishing corruption in a country of billions, and France for example deliberately not punishing corruption, as an example of socialist countries being the same as capitalist when it comes to corruption. This is absurd.

As for your study, it equates income to class, which is just wrong.

Socialist countries simply do not face the same scale of problems with corruption as capitalist countries.

Corruption is always a problem, but “power” is not a corruptive force. This is why we must return to class analysis, and how this impacts people.

I read the study you linked, not only was it largely based on lab studies and not the real world, it also entirely erased class from the experiments. Much of what it contributed to “power” is in actual fact a result of differences in class, and erasing this essential function from how class dynamics shape differences in individual authority fundamentally paints a massive hole in the experiment and conclusions.

Trump has not tried his hardest to erase sanctions, end the war in Ukraine, etc. If he wanted, he could do so right now. Trump has no reason to be a Russian ally.

As for the petite bourgeoisie, they aren’t necessarily working class, though they do labor. The national bourgeoisie aren’t the same as the petite bourgeoisie.

As for nationalism in the global south, this is also internationalist. I recommend looking into Marxist analysis of the nation and nationalism, again, Cuban, Palestinian, Vietnamese, Chinese, etc. nationalism is all progressive against imperialism in their wars for liberation. Once liberated, then the process of building socialism can genuinely begin (as it has in the socialist countries mentioned).

It isn’t merely wishful thinking, it’s based on actual analysis of socialist countries. Administration is a necessity for large scale production, without which we cannot abolish class, unless you wish to turn to early communalism.

The way we live influences how we think and how we act. This is basic materialism. However, “power” is not the moving factor, class is. This is why administration has changed dramatically based on modes of production and distribution. Socialist countries simply do not face the same scale of problems with corruption as capitalist countries. This isn’t because socialism is more resistant to corruptive forces like “power,” but instead because the class relations are different.

I call the idea that “power corrupts” supernatural thinking because it erases the actual materialist cause, and injects a vague and nebulous concept of an evil corruptive force. Administration is not the enemy, class is.

Nobody is arguing that Russia would not engage in imperialism if given the opportunity. The point being driven home is that they do not have that opportunity, and as such are targeted by imperialists. This puts them on opposing sides. Again, it’s purely self-interest, not ideology.

As for Trump, this is just BlueAnon conspiracy theory. Trump is self-interested. If Trump was a Russian ally, Trump would have erased sanctions and forced an end to the Russo-Ukrainian war, would have dissolved NATO already, and more.

As for capitalists not having a “belief” in nationalism, that’s not at all what I mean. The national bourgeoisie are those that are largely constrained within the domestic markets, not international financiers. Think the people that own factories, vs. the ones owning Blackrock. The national bourgeoisie of countries under threat of imperialism have aligned interests with the proletariat and peasantry in opposing imperialism. They are still obstacles to socialism, but are progressive against imperialism.

Nationalism in the imperial core protects imperialism, but national liberation in the global south opposes imperialism. Palestinian nationalism is progressive, as is the nationalism of Burkina Faso, as was Vietnamese and Cuban nationalism. The National liberation movement is a progressive one against imperialism and therefore assists the transition to socialism.