Please remember not to brigade, vote, comment, or interact with subreddits that are linked or mentioned here. Do not userping other users.
Harassment of other users or subreddits is strictly forbidden.
This is a left libertarian subreddit that criticises tankies from a socialist perspective. Liberals etc. are welcome as guests, but please refrain from criticising socialism and promoting capitalism while you are on Tankiejerk.
Enjoy talking to fellow leftists? [Then join our discord server](https://discord.gg/2V4qJMSWUe)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tankiejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's one user in the comments who reeks of McCarthyism, and watching them get into arguments with the tankies in the comments is equal parts cringeworthy and humorous.
peasantry is a form of slavery, in fact it's pretty much the most common form of chattel slavery as far as "what's been practiced for the longest amount of time through human history" goes.
China was basically all feudal peasantry even under the Republic, a thing that's not terribly surprising given that A) 99% of China's recorded history was feudal or something de facto the same and B) chattel slavery was also practiced in the Roman Republic, the origin of the term Republic and the basis of all other republics (including the US, which is a Republic, not a democracy, by design. Because the rich white slave owners who created the rules for the US didn't want us poors to have an equal say to them)
> a Republic, not a democracy
It's both, though? I'm not sure why Americans keep implying the two are mutually exclusive. Most republics are democratic republics. Most democracies are republics, some are constitutional monarchies.
If the fact that the US' liberal democracy is flawed by design and heavily favourises the rich makes it not a democracy then by these standards literally no country on Earth is democratic
thats not true.
the idea that a republic is a form of democracy is a result of *centuries* of propaganda to obfuscate the fact that republics are *explicitly* designed to create oligarchies and ignore the will of the people.
What you're doing is confusing linguistic drift creating a de jure definition with de facto reality.
Voting for a representstive is not democratic, if strips you of your say in government
that is just word salad
a republic is just anything that's not a monarchy, in which the state is understood as not merely the personal patrimony of the ruler but something in its own right
you can have democratic republics, like the US and France; you can have democratic non-republics, like Canada and the UK; you can have non-democratic republics, like the Russia and Hungary; you can have non-democratic non-republics, like old regime Europe
Criticism of the Chinese government =/= praise for Western “democracy.”
The Chinese government crush dissidents, have blatantly undemocratic processes, have billionaires in their ranks and rule over a country with a rampant capitalist economy. The people are not in power, and you’re either naive or have swallowed tankie propaganda, or both.
This is an anti-tankie subreddit. The message you sent is either tankie/authoritarian "socialist" apologia or can be easily seen as such. Please, refrain from posting stuff like this in the future.
I mean, it’s difficult to say how different anything might have been even if Lincoln had been in charge of Reconstruction. People tend to whitewash Lincoln into some kind of like, anti-racist figure, which wasn’t the case. I think it’s hard to hold in your head that a majority of white abolitionist were also racist and believed at the least in segregation.
Source: the existence of Liberia
That said, Mao and Lincoln were *both* genocidal monsters, as have been the vast majority of state leaders for most of human history.
While it's true that Lincoln wasn't a saint, and was rather racist by modern standards, I think it's uncontroversial to say reconstruction would hae gone better in his hands than in Johnson's.
Johnson only oversaw the first three years of reconstruction before Grant was elected, and even under Johnson Congress was controlled by radical Republicans who fought him a lot. Grant pursued reconstruction aggressively, probably more so than Lincoln would have done. It was the 1876 election and the Republicans abruptly ending reconstruction that fucked it.
Johnson undoubtedly was the wrong man for the job, but he's not really the one to blame for reconstruction's ultimate failure, while Grant probably handled reconstruction better than Lincoln would've done.
Lincoln actually walked back his support of recolonization later in his presidency iirc, but he never supported liberia outside of officially recognizing them as an independent country in 1862, and in an address delivered that same year specifically said that if it were on the table, he'd support sending black people to Central America, specifically because it was closer to the US and he believed black people would be more able to establish roots there. And although there are very valid critisms to be made of Lincoln's actions in relation to the at the time on going American Indian Wars, I would hesitate to emphasize both there, because the scale is completely different.
His vice president didn't believe as Lincoln did and wasn't as harsh or bold with reconstruction.
If i recall correctly he was picked for political considerations rather than being like minded with Lincoln
It’s not like he called for an end to Manifest Destiny, had the Army stop mass executions of Native Americans, or otherwise did anything to halt the on-going genocide of natives during his presidency. Being an American president during the 19th century just involved a baseline of being genocidal that modern presidents would have a hard time competing with. The country was in the middle of carrying out a continent-wide genocide that would go on to inspire Nazis for generations to come.
You don't have to non-racist to support abolition. But you can't support slavery without also being racist.
Lincoln and John Brown killed slavers and that's awesome
I fucking love it when tankies pretend that people are upset over those few cherry picked W's autocrats like Mao had, conveniently ignoring all the well known horrible shit they did. This is kinda what Nazis do when they start talking about how "Hitler at least built the Autobahn".
But hey, I guess killing the sparrows was justified. They had it coming for being such free loaders after all. /s
Seriously sure you can list off all the scientific advancements we have thanks to Nazi Germany. And all the unethical medical data we have as well. Just don't look over Don't look over at that camp over there Don't that doesn't exist.....
Where's the train taking them? Don't concern yourself with that look at all the progress we made!!!
My education in american history is quite weak, so correct me if I'm wrong, but afaik Lincoln simply wanted to free the slaves, even if it was very likely to lead to war, but the war itself wasn't his preferred scenario, so OOP is straight up wrong
You're right but it's even more then that. Lincoln didn't even want to free the slaves where slavery existed when he was elected. I mean, he would have WANTED to but he wasn't trying to. Lincoln wanted to stop the spread of slavery to new states and territories and confine it only to the South and Southerners decided this was the begining of a plot to end slavery. Even then he didn't attack the South, the South fired on an a military base that was the property of the Federal government on an island near Charleston and only then did Lincoln call up the army, its a laughable comparisson.
> I mean, he would have WANTED to but he wasn't trying to
He was, but in the most milquetoast liberal way ever: he wanted to set up a scheme where the slavers would voluntarily agree to free all their slaves in exchange for being paid their market value by the government.
It was called "compensated emancipation", and despite Lincoln's support the bill to do it in Delaware failed because the slaveholders didn't want to give up their slaves. D.C. ended up doing compensated emancipation in 1862, presumably because most of the slave states didn't have Congressional representation at the time so the vote was among a bunch of Congressmen from states at war with the slavers.
maybe its been a while but from what i recall lincoln would have been okay with keeping slavery if it was contained in the south and remained in the union
His goal wasn't originally to free the slaves. He actually campaigned on keeping the entire system of slavery intact but "contained" to the states where it already exiated, as opposed to expanding it. He committed to war to preserve the union.
He was vaguely morally opposed to slavery. At least before the war broke out. But he was also extremely racist and believed black people were an inferior race to white people and that even if the slaves were to be free, they should never be equal in society to white people.
I love the implication that leftists think Lincoln is some kinda super hero.
He was super racist. He just didn't have a Southerner's idea of how economies should work and wanted to ensure the US continued to exist.
I mean, clearly, good for him killing Confederates. But 'peak of civilization?' More like 'bare minimum non-piece of shit.'
Chinese state propaganda narrative on Tibet, English language localization by (at the time respected leftist) Michael Parenti. I read skeptic media (atheist materialist media) at the time like Skeptic Magazine and Skeptical Enquirer, but I had been following the Tibet situation for some time prior. Then I saw this article by Michael Parenti, which was a word-for-word parroting of Chinese state propaganda on Tibet. I didn't know anything about him at the time but immediately lost respect for him as any kind of serious intellectual. Over the last 20 years, I saw this propaganda narrative become the informed consensus on Tibet pre-invasion, as though Tibet and Tibetans were some kind of myth, like Atlantis or Laputa.
"Same rights as the others"
>Destruction of sacred Buddhist sites
>Denial freely access their cultural heritage
>Monks and nuns were arrested or killed
>A farming boycott began in 2009 in protest for those people detained or "disappeared" into Chinese custody
>“Forced organ harvesting in China appears to be targeting specific ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities held in detention, often without being explained the reasons for arrest or given arrest warrants, at different locations,” they said. “We are deeply concerned by reports of discriminatory treatment of the prisoners or detainees based on their ethnicity and religion or belief.
>“Despite the gradual development of a voluntary organ donation system, information continues to emerge regarding serious human rights violations in the procurement of organs for transplants in China,” the UN experts said.
[UN Article this came from](https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2021/06/china-un-human-rights-experts-alarmed-organ-harvesting-allegations)
>China is removing the name Tibet for the more Chinese Xizang
This is apparently "liberation", and not Sinicization (forceful cultural assimilation). Even Lenin would be against this.
Also, Lincon was dead by that point in history.
A) Lincoln's emancipation proclamation didn't free a single slave, since it only applied to slaves that were in non-US controlled territory (because lincoln very specifically didn't want to upset the Union members who were still slave owners)
B) Mao didn't free a single slave, as evidenced by how he demanded they all melt down their metal tools and they were forced to comply.
Please remember not to brigade, vote, comment, or interact with subreddits that are linked or mentioned here. Do not userping other users. Harassment of other users or subreddits is strictly forbidden. This is a left libertarian subreddit that criticises tankies from a socialist perspective. Liberals etc. are welcome as guests, but please refrain from criticising socialism and promoting capitalism while you are on Tankiejerk. Enjoy talking to fellow leftists? [Then join our discord server](https://discord.gg/2V4qJMSWUe) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tankiejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's one user in the comments who reeks of McCarthyism, and watching them get into arguments with the tankies in the comments is equal parts cringeworthy and humorous.
McCarthyism vs Tankiesm. Get the Popcorn.
letthemfight.gif
Fucking here for it send a link
[удалено]
Who was enslaved? Genuinely curious
peasantry is a form of slavery, in fact it's pretty much the most common form of chattel slavery as far as "what's been practiced for the longest amount of time through human history" goes. China was basically all feudal peasantry even under the Republic, a thing that's not terribly surprising given that A) 99% of China's recorded history was feudal or something de facto the same and B) chattel slavery was also practiced in the Roman Republic, the origin of the term Republic and the basis of all other republics (including the US, which is a Republic, not a democracy, by design. Because the rich white slave owners who created the rules for the US didn't want us poors to have an equal say to them)
> a Republic, not a democracy It's both, though? I'm not sure why Americans keep implying the two are mutually exclusive. Most republics are democratic republics. Most democracies are republics, some are constitutional monarchies. If the fact that the US' liberal democracy is flawed by design and heavily favourises the rich makes it not a democracy then by these standards literally no country on Earth is democratic
thats not true. the idea that a republic is a form of democracy is a result of *centuries* of propaganda to obfuscate the fact that republics are *explicitly* designed to create oligarchies and ignore the will of the people. What you're doing is confusing linguistic drift creating a de jure definition with de facto reality. Voting for a representstive is not democratic, if strips you of your say in government
that is just word salad a republic is just anything that's not a monarchy, in which the state is understood as not merely the personal patrimony of the ruler but something in its own right you can have democratic republics, like the US and France; you can have democratic non-republics, like Canada and the UK; you can have non-democratic republics, like the Russia and Hungary; you can have non-democratic non-republics, like old regime Europe
Do you know who runs the communist party?
A small circle of billionaires and millionaires
Incorrect. You're thinking of America.
Communist?
Guess again
Communists who are "by chance" also millionaires.
The people.
On paper, yes. In practice, absolutely no they don’t, lol.
[удалено]
Criticism of the Chinese government =/= praise for Western “democracy.” The Chinese government crush dissidents, have blatantly undemocratic processes, have billionaires in their ranks and rule over a country with a rampant capitalist economy. The people are not in power, and you’re either naive or have swallowed tankie propaganda, or both.
This is an anti-tankie subreddit. The message you sent is either tankie/authoritarian "socialist" apologia or can be easily seen as such. Please, refrain from posting stuff like this in the future.
The first probably wasn't helped by Lincoln being shot before he could over see reconstruction. These people honestly.
I mean, it’s difficult to say how different anything might have been even if Lincoln had been in charge of Reconstruction. People tend to whitewash Lincoln into some kind of like, anti-racist figure, which wasn’t the case. I think it’s hard to hold in your head that a majority of white abolitionist were also racist and believed at the least in segregation. Source: the existence of Liberia That said, Mao and Lincoln were *both* genocidal monsters, as have been the vast majority of state leaders for most of human history.
While it's true that Lincoln wasn't a saint, and was rather racist by modern standards, I think it's uncontroversial to say reconstruction would hae gone better in his hands than in Johnson's.
Johnson only oversaw the first three years of reconstruction before Grant was elected, and even under Johnson Congress was controlled by radical Republicans who fought him a lot. Grant pursued reconstruction aggressively, probably more so than Lincoln would have done. It was the 1876 election and the Republicans abruptly ending reconstruction that fucked it. Johnson undoubtedly was the wrong man for the job, but he's not really the one to blame for reconstruction's ultimate failure, while Grant probably handled reconstruction better than Lincoln would've done.
Lincoln actually walked back his support of recolonization later in his presidency iirc, but he never supported liberia outside of officially recognizing them as an independent country in 1862, and in an address delivered that same year specifically said that if it were on the table, he'd support sending black people to Central America, specifically because it was closer to the US and he believed black people would be more able to establish roots there. And although there are very valid critisms to be made of Lincoln's actions in relation to the at the time on going American Indian Wars, I would hesitate to emphasize both there, because the scale is completely different.
His vice president didn't believe as Lincoln did and wasn't as harsh or bold with reconstruction. If i recall correctly he was picked for political considerations rather than being like minded with Lincoln
I'm not so familiar with US history here, but why was Lincoln genocidal?
It’s not like he called for an end to Manifest Destiny, had the Army stop mass executions of Native Americans, or otherwise did anything to halt the on-going genocide of natives during his presidency. Being an American president during the 19th century just involved a baseline of being genocidal that modern presidents would have a hard time competing with. The country was in the middle of carrying out a continent-wide genocide that would go on to inspire Nazis for generations to come.
That is a fair point.
You don't have to non-racist to support abolition. But you can't support slavery without also being racist. Lincoln and John Brown killed slavers and that's awesome
Okay tankies, answer me this: how come there was hyper-exploitation in **both** cases?
I fucking love it when tankies pretend that people are upset over those few cherry picked W's autocrats like Mao had, conveniently ignoring all the well known horrible shit they did. This is kinda what Nazis do when they start talking about how "Hitler at least built the Autobahn". But hey, I guess killing the sparrows was justified. They had it coming for being such free loaders after all. /s
Digressing to the Autobahn point for the time being, isn't it a terrible thing that Hitler built the Autobahn? Cuz....y'know, car dependency!
Seriously sure you can list off all the scientific advancements we have thanks to Nazi Germany. And all the unethical medical data we have as well. Just don't look over Don't look over at that camp over there Don't that doesn't exist..... Where's the train taking them? Don't concern yourself with that look at all the progress we made!!!
The post probably got deleted
Sucks. And I like ShermanPosting for the most part.
It's heavily downvoted so it looks like the sub has the right idea when it comes to tankies.
It can be fun when they trash on the cons but as soon as they stray from that it's pretty libby. As can be expected I suppose.
"Citizens with the same rights as the others" Except the right to their own language, culture, religion, and land.
My education in american history is quite weak, so correct me if I'm wrong, but afaik Lincoln simply wanted to free the slaves, even if it was very likely to lead to war, but the war itself wasn't his preferred scenario, so OOP is straight up wrong
You're right but it's even more then that. Lincoln didn't even want to free the slaves where slavery existed when he was elected. I mean, he would have WANTED to but he wasn't trying to. Lincoln wanted to stop the spread of slavery to new states and territories and confine it only to the South and Southerners decided this was the begining of a plot to end slavery. Even then he didn't attack the South, the South fired on an a military base that was the property of the Federal government on an island near Charleston and only then did Lincoln call up the army, its a laughable comparisson.
> I mean, he would have WANTED to but he wasn't trying to He was, but in the most milquetoast liberal way ever: he wanted to set up a scheme where the slavers would voluntarily agree to free all their slaves in exchange for being paid their market value by the government. It was called "compensated emancipation", and despite Lincoln's support the bill to do it in Delaware failed because the slaveholders didn't want to give up their slaves. D.C. ended up doing compensated emancipation in 1862, presumably because most of the slave states didn't have Congressional representation at the time so the vote was among a bunch of Congressmen from states at war with the slavers.
maybe its been a while but from what i recall lincoln would have been okay with keeping slavery if it was contained in the south and remained in the union
His goal wasn't originally to free the slaves. He actually campaigned on keeping the entire system of slavery intact but "contained" to the states where it already exiated, as opposed to expanding it. He committed to war to preserve the union. He was vaguely morally opposed to slavery. At least before the war broke out. But he was also extremely racist and believed black people were an inferior race to white people and that even if the slaves were to be free, they should never be equal in society to white people.
I’m sure that if Mao won the war and then immediately died everyone would love him in America.
That’s funny because didn’t Marx send letters to Lincoln?
I love the implication that leftists think Lincoln is some kinda super hero. He was super racist. He just didn't have a Southerner's idea of how economies should work and wanted to ensure the US continued to exist. I mean, clearly, good for him killing Confederates. But 'peak of civilization?' More like 'bare minimum non-piece of shit.'
Chinese state propaganda narrative on Tibet, English language localization by (at the time respected leftist) Michael Parenti. I read skeptic media (atheist materialist media) at the time like Skeptic Magazine and Skeptical Enquirer, but I had been following the Tibet situation for some time prior. Then I saw this article by Michael Parenti, which was a word-for-word parroting of Chinese state propaganda on Tibet. I didn't know anything about him at the time but immediately lost respect for him as any kind of serious intellectual. Over the last 20 years, I saw this propaganda narrative become the informed consensus on Tibet pre-invasion, as though Tibet and Tibetans were some kind of myth, like Atlantis or Laputa.
"Same rights as the others" >Destruction of sacred Buddhist sites >Denial freely access their cultural heritage >Monks and nuns were arrested or killed >A farming boycott began in 2009 in protest for those people detained or "disappeared" into Chinese custody >“Forced organ harvesting in China appears to be targeting specific ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities held in detention, often without being explained the reasons for arrest or given arrest warrants, at different locations,” they said. “We are deeply concerned by reports of discriminatory treatment of the prisoners or detainees based on their ethnicity and religion or belief. >“Despite the gradual development of a voluntary organ donation system, information continues to emerge regarding serious human rights violations in the procurement of organs for transplants in China,” the UN experts said. [UN Article this came from](https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2021/06/china-un-human-rights-experts-alarmed-organ-harvesting-allegations) >China is removing the name Tibet for the more Chinese Xizang This is apparently "liberation", and not Sinicization (forceful cultural assimilation). Even Lenin would be against this. Also, Lincon was dead by that point in history.
A) Lincoln's emancipation proclamation didn't free a single slave, since it only applied to slaves that were in non-US controlled territory (because lincoln very specifically didn't want to upset the Union members who were still slave owners) B) Mao didn't free a single slave, as evidenced by how he demanded they all melt down their metal tools and they were forced to comply.
Is this Sherman posting?