The Korea one is specially confusing. He's against the Korea that was created by the US, in favor if the one that was created by the US adversary?
Honestly, I fear how close tankies and Republicans are.
this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2025
179 points (93.2% liked)
The Democratic People's Republic of Tankiejerk
994 readers
124 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 denial
We allow posts about tankie behavior even off fedi, shitposts, and rational, leftist discussion.
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The madness of just picking a side and blindly following it.
Holy shit this guy actually exists. He's so heavy handed I thought it was actually a really obvious fake account or satire.
I really don't understand being against globalization. You're telling me you don't want the entire world working together, peacefully? The fuck is wrong with you?
Globalist is a not so subtle dog whistle for the Jews.
Globalization on its own is one thing, globalization with capitalism and imperialism is another. That's how we ended up with leaded gasoline, microplastics, and global warming.
I uh, have a pretty strong suspicion that leaded gasoline, microplastics, and global warming have deeper rooted causes than whether an investor-driven market economy is dominant.
It may seem nitpicky, but I always emphasize that changing to a socialist or other post-capitalist system will not solve all of our problems. We will still be fighting a good 80% of the same problems we are now, and probably a good 5% of new ones (percentages not meant to be particular precise).
And don't get me wrong - not having to worry about 15% of the world's current issues would be massive! Completely cutting a good 15% of the world's problems would be worth total global upheaval, if that upheaval could be said to have a good chance of ushering in a new, stable post-capitalist system in even just a handful of countries. It would allow for so much more time and energy from those of us who aren't short-sighted and tuned-out to put towards those problems!
Changing to a post-capitalist system would be a massive improvement over what we have now. Not having to worry about fuckwads accumulating fuckmassive amounts of wealth and transient investors supercharging short-sighted behaviors in firms would lead to a massive improvement in both the material and moral quality of modern life.
... but people are people, and most major problems relate to human nature rather than the reigning economic system. We will be fighting the same battles to inform the uninformed - often willfully uninformed - the tuned out, the lazy, the apathetic, those who benefit from an issue, and the unimaginative.
Tribal societies have created ecological catastrophes, clientistic societies have had real-estate crises, feudal societies have had breakdowns of familial structures, anarchist societies have had failures to express solidarity, and we all can't seem to stop eating things that are fucking horrible for us from a public health standpoint.
A post-capitalist society is something worth fighting and sacrificing for. Just... be careful about viewing the world's problems as largely transient and ideological instead of fundamentally human.
The globalization you're describing is desirable, the globalization we got is a different one.
The world economy is becoming more and more capitalist, "free" trade agreements are bringing workers into competition with workers on the other side of the globe. Meanwhile nationalism and hate seem to be just as pervasive as before "globalization". War is being waged, fascism is on the rise.
The globalization we got only benefitted the rich and powerful.
Globalism intertwines economies, allowing us to put pressure against wars without putting boots on the ground.
Meanwhile nationalism and hate seem to be just as pervasive as before “globalization”.
This would require a massive amount of recent history to be disregarded.
can you elaborate? I'd love to be educated but this is my perception. full-blown fascism is alive in the US. It's on the rise in Europe too, and both conservatives and liberals are embracing anti-immigration policies based on nationality and other us-vs-them identities.
I can't speak to south america, africa and asia historically though, my education is sadly rather eurocentric.
Not to downplay the recent rise of far-right parties in the Western world, as it is a cause for serious concern - but what is radically racist today was mainstream just a few short decades ago, and what is unthinkable now was not even a mainstream topic of dissent then. Before globalization in the late 19th century, and accelerating ever-since, immensely xenophobic and insular attitudes were the norm in domestic politics all around the world. Shit was open and proudly stated that would make most MAGA Republicans cringe, even. There's still a difference between mainstream British sentiment being overwhelmingly in favor of openly-stated shitfuckery like Enoch Powell and modern-day mainstream opinions, even on the right.
That shouldn't be seen as a barrier to them supporting horrific fascists, mind you - many of the greatest atrocities in the past century were committed with immense effort by fascist leaders to hide the truth even from their own supporters. But in terms of how far from their pre-existing opinions they need to go to get from "Where they are" to "Where they need to be", we are greatly advantaged as compared to the early days of globalization, as in the mid-20th century, and immensely privileged compared to opinions in the early 19th century and before, when the world was only marginally interconnected by the perceptions of your average Joe.
We, at least, do not have the unenviable task of convincing people who would as soon bury a hatchet in the heads of a stranger without blood relation to them as strike up a conversation that all people are equals. Hate and localist chauvinism were much stronger in the past, even if they're still very strong today.
I'm honestly exhausted from IRL shit, and it's not one of my favorite subjects to go over to begin with, so unfortunately I don't have a more substantial explanation to provide at the moment.
thanks I really appreciate it
It's a dog whistle for Jews when they say globalists.
I was a bit worried about the cultural homogeneization of the world, but the one-sidedness (everyone copying the West) is because of the Western domination and this "homogeneization" is actually just cultural exchange.
PSA: "Globalists" is just one of the newer words to say "the Jews" and getting away with it.
Not that new, Alex Jones has been using it for at least 30 years to mask his raging antisemitism.
Has he really been at it for 30 years? I feel like he got popular when Limbaugh died.
"Globalists". Globalism should be the ultimate goal for humans of the earth yet there is noise out there that shows globalism in a negative light.
It's at least partially a biblical thing. "Globalism" is associated with the antichrist in some flavors of Christianity. It's part of what's got some of them convinced that the rapture is due any day now (again/still). Religion is a fucking memetic disease.
Economic globalisation is often associated with the decline of manufacturing in western countries and the associated job loss, while those issues are actually caused by unregulated capitalism (lack of labour laws and no local environmental protections).
It is also associated with some conspiracy theories of Jews secretly running the world.
It is also associated with some conspiracy theories of Jews secretly running the world.
The theorists usually say "bankers" these days
War will not end until the planet is united under a single global government. Imagine what humanity could do if we didn't have to spend money on militaries.
Being united under a single government doesn't prevent wars within countries today. What makes you think it'd be different if that country was global?
Nothing makes me think it. I just hope it. A global united collective will not change human nature, I get it.
I always wonder what people mean when they say they "will fight" against a foreign power. Will you pick up a rifle? Will you join a support squadron or supply chain for the military? Will you ~~bribe~~ lobby your local politician? Will you march in support? Will you call or email your local politician?
No? Guess posting shit online counts as "fighting" these days.
Shouldn't he be standing with the ROC in mainland China instead of those communist insurrectionists?
Huh, funny he forgets to mention “Britain in US”
Artisinally shitty take
Eh, and I throw up again.