I actually agree with you on that. However, “being too prone to using Marxist definitions and terminology” does not warrant labelling them as a “tankie” or “Russian propagandist.”
That’s not what I was asserting, no.
Is there a reason you’re dancing around this instead of explaining what you meant by this? You’re just trolling.
Is that better? Or do I need a Russian or Korean translator?
Jesus Christ, try to keep your racism in check.
I’m stubbornly refusing to hold your hand through English comprehension or logic because I don’t respect you.
Well then, I guess this is the conversational path you wanted, where we yell at each other over easily resolved misunderstandings because you decided to be a dick. Entirely your choice, not mine.
THAT IS NOT THE REASON I LABELED THEM A TANKIE, BUT I DID IN FACT LABEL THEM A TANKIE (FOR OTHER REASONS I EXPLAINED ELSEWHERE
Yeah, hey, and what were those reasons you explained in the linked thread? Let’s check:
The problem we’re discussing is that tankies employ definitions gymnastics
Oh hey, what do you know? You’re labelling them a tankie because they’re too prone to using Marxist definitions!
Ah, more tankie logic; “Anti-Russian and Anti-North-Korean sentiment can only come from a place of racism.”
Well then, I guess this is the conversational path you wanted, where we yell at each other over easily resolved misunderstandings because you decided to be a dick. Entirely your choice, not mine.
Oh you surely started the douchey behavior. I definitely joined you in the mud, though.
Yeah, hey, and what were those reasons you explained in the linked thread? Let’s check:
The problem we’re discussing is that tankies employ definitions gymnastics
Oh hey, what do you know? You’re labelling them a tankie because they’re too prone to using Marxist definitions!
Not all Marxist definitions are mental gymnastics to defend imperialists, no. Until today I thought none of them were, but I haven’t read everything he wrote so you could be right about some of them.
Either way, you’re still wrong to assert that I beleive Marxist Definitions = Tankie. Marx wasn’t a tankie.
Ah, more tankie logic; “Anti-Russian and Anti-North-Korean sentiment can only come from a place of racism.”
No, suggesting that I need a translator is what’s racist.
Either way, you’re still wrong to assert that I beleive Marxist Definitions = Tankie. Marx wasn’t a tankie.
Funny, that’s not what I said. Unlike you, I’ll explain the distinction, though you probably won’t see it. I said that you accused this specific person of being a tankie based on their tendency to use Marxist definitions, not that you do the same to anyone who uses any Marxist terminology.
No, suggesting that I need a translator is what’s racist.
It’s not racist to assert that people are always better at their native tongue than they are at second languages; that’s just linguistics and how human brains work. I’ll never be as good at my second languages as I am at English, for example. It’s not racist against my race if I or someone else says that. See how that works?
But I get it, you need to grasp at straws to malign me at this point. Propagandists gotta propaganda.
Funny, that’s not what I said. Unlike you, I’ll explain the distinction, though you probably won’t see it. I said that you accused this specific person of being a tankie based on their tendency to use Marxist definitions, not that you do the same to anyone who uses any Marxist terminology.
And again, that logic does not follow, and so it is not what I believe; I accused that specific person of being a tankie because they are doing mental gymnastics, yes by using what you consider a Marxist definition of imperialism, to assert that Russia is not imperialist. I sincerely doubt Marx would’ve thought Russia in 2026 is not imperialist. In fact, I don’t even think that person was using a Marxist definition of the term. From marxist.com:
we must give a definition of imperialism that will include the following five of its basic features:
(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this ‘finance capital’, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.
Feel free to cite Marx’s actual words on the topic if you want, as I found that harder to find.
Regardless, “opposing imperialist states” is not the definition of a non-imperialist state, as that person asserted. Nor is “invading for irredentism (and taking and profiting off of the invaded country’s resources).”
Another straw man. Try again.
How on God’s green earth could that possibly be a strawman?
Hint:
Point out the comment where I said I didn’t label them a tankie.
Is there a reason you’re dancing around this instead of explaining what you meant by this? You’re just trolling.
Removed by mod
Jesus Christ, try to keep your racism in check.
Well then, I guess this is the conversational path you wanted, where we yell at each other over easily resolved misunderstandings because you decided to be a dick. Entirely your choice, not mine.
Yeah, hey, and what were those reasons you explained in the linked thread? Let’s check:
Oh hey, what do you know? You’re labelling them a tankie because they’re too prone to using Marxist definitions!
Ah, more tankie logic; “Anti-Russian and Anti-North-Korean sentiment can only come from a place of racism.”
Oh you surely started the douchey behavior. I definitely joined you in the mud, though.
Not all Marxist definitions are mental gymnastics to defend imperialists, no. Until today I thought none of them were, but I haven’t read everything he wrote so you could be right about some of them.
Either way, you’re still wrong to assert that I beleive Marxist Definitions = Tankie. Marx wasn’t a tankie.
No, suggesting that I need a translator is what’s racist.
Funny, that’s not what I said. Unlike you, I’ll explain the distinction, though you probably won’t see it. I said that you accused this specific person of being a tankie based on their tendency to use Marxist definitions, not that you do the same to anyone who uses any Marxist terminology.
It’s not racist to assert that people are always better at their native tongue than they are at second languages; that’s just linguistics and how human brains work. I’ll never be as good at my second languages as I am at English, for example. It’s not racist against my race if I or someone else says that. See how that works?
But I get it, you need to grasp at straws to malign me at this point. Propagandists gotta propaganda.
And again, that logic does not follow, and so it is not what I believe; I accused that specific person of being a tankie because they are doing mental gymnastics, yes by using what you consider a Marxist definition of imperialism, to assert that Russia is not imperialist. I sincerely doubt Marx would’ve thought Russia in 2026 is not imperialist. In fact, I don’t even think that person was using a Marxist definition of the term. From marxist.com:
Feel free to cite Marx’s actual words on the topic if you want, as I found that harder to find.
Regardless, “opposing imperialist states” is not the definition of a non-imperialist state, as that person asserted. Nor is “invading for irredentism (and taking and profiting off of the invaded country’s resources).”