• Pratai@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Calling people “tankies” calls forth an imagine of old men yelling at everyone to stay off their lawn.

    • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      You mean, instead of the definition of being fans of genocidal maniacs who would turn tanks onto the population?

      • Pratai@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I couldn’t care less what they are, it using derogatory terms to describe someone is childish.

  • Celeste@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You didn’t mention the Prague Spring or the whole of the assassination attempts on Tito or the East German uprising in 1953.

  • bouh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s easy to make a list of all communists countries that turned fascists and massacred people. You don’t do that with capitalists because there are simply too many, everywhere, in about all of history.

    • nixcamic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s almost like the main problem with both authoritarian communism and authoritarian capitalism might be the authoritarianism.

  • alternative_factor@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    NNNOOOO!!! HOW DARE YOU UN-WHITEWASH LENIN!!! NOOOO!!! Tankies tried SO HARD to make Makhno disappear like Trotsky! You LIBERAL AMERICANS!!! REEEEEE!!!

    • mycorrhiza they/them@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Here is Makhno in 1920 after agreeing to a temporary ceasefire:

      "Military hostilities between the Makhnovist revolutionary insurgents and the Red Army have ceased. Misunderstandings, vagueness and inaccuracies have grown up around this truce: it is said that Makhno has repented of his anti-Bolshevik acts, that he has recognized the soviet authorities, etc. How are we to understand, what construction are we to place upon this peace agreement?

      What is very clear already is that no intercourse of ideas, and no collaboration with the soviet authorities and no formal recognition of these has been or can be possible. We have always been irreconcilable enemies, at the level of ideas, of the party of the Bolshevik-communists.

      We have never acknowledged any authorities and in the present instance we cannot acknowledge the soviet authorities. So again we remind and yet again we emphasize that, whether deliberately or through misapprehension, there must be no confusion of military intercourse in the wake of the danger threatening the revolution with any crossing-over, ‘fusion’ or recognition of the soviet authorities, which cannot have been and cannot ever be the case."

      — quoted in Nestor Makhno: Anarchy’s Cossack, a pro-Makhno book

        • mycorrhiza they/them@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          it appears to have been mutually understood

          After the Seige of Perekop, Makhno’s aide-de-camp Grigori Vassilevsky, announced the agreement was over:

          That’s the end for the agreement! Take my word for it, within one week the Bolsheviks are going to come down on us like a ton of bricks!

          — Grigori Vassilevsky, quoted in the same book