It doesn’t, though. The bit Sanctus added to the end was their personal evaluation of Marxism-Leninism, not something that matched the Wiki definition.
It was not. Its my personal evaluation of a self described tankie. Which I dont think is an actual ideology. Just an insult. But OP said they were one so.
“Authoritarianism” isn’t really a thing. What ultimately matters is which class in society has control of the state, and that determines how it responds to class conflicts. What determines the strength of state force in those conflicts is the circumstances society is found in, not the whims of random individuals.
Specifically, it was used to distinguish party members who spoke out in defence of the Soviet use of tanks to suppress the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the 1968 Prague Spring
Correct, the reasons Marxist-Leninists support the suppression of western-backed and trained fascist counter-revolutions and widespread lynchings of communists and Jewish peoples are not about “good side crushing bad side.”
Idk about that. Seems there were conflicting opinions about whether this was good or bad. And while yeah it makes sense the CIA would back this. I dont see Amy fascist shit here.
On the night of 20–21 August 1968, military forces from several Warsaw Pact member states (Albania, Romania and East Germany did not participate[58]) invaded Czechoslovakia. Soviet media cited a call for help from unnamed representatives as the cause of the “fraternal intervention”, publishing an unidentified appeal as proof on 22 August 1968; However, as it became clear from the first day that virtually the entire responsible leadership of the Czechoslovak government and communist parties, including Dubček, were being blamed as causes of the invasion, and even the Soviet-supported leadership fell into accusations against each other, most allied communist parties around the world rejected the Soviet pretext as a thin disguise for gross violation of national party autonomy.[59] Even President Ludvík Svoboda had publicly issued a statement calling on occupying forces to withdraw and for reforms to continue, while Czechoslovakia’s UN representatives were calling for international support against the invasion.
Wikipedia is a western-centric overview, not a historical document. The anti-communists in Hungary were marking up the doors of Jews and communists, lynching them. For Czechoslovakia, again, the counter-revolutionaries were anti-communist nationalists who wanted to install a far-right government. It’s cut and dry among Marxist-Leninists that intervention was correct these days.
I’d be happy to learn another viewpoint. But so far I dont see your claims backed up anywhere. Maybe if I could read some of your sources I could agree with them.
Overall, when it comes to geopolitical enemies of the United States in particular, it would not be a bad idea to treat your current understanding with extreme skepticism until you’ve investigated counter-sources as well. That doesn’t mean the US always lies, in fact it frequently tells mostly the truth, but will distory either the quality or quantity of an event.
Thank you, I’ll read the epubs of those books. I was trying to dig more into Dubcek but the Wikipedia entry glosses over how he arrived at his conclusion and ideals. The US doesnt always lie, but it does a lot, especially very recently. I dont trust governments of any sort. I tend towards arnarchism.
I mean, it does match the original definition pretty well. Aa always it’s an issue of people having different definitions for the same word.
It doesn’t, though. The bit Sanctus added to the end was their personal evaluation of Marxism-Leninism, not something that matched the Wiki definition.
It was not. Its my personal evaluation of a self described tankie. Which I dont think is an actual ideology. Just an insult. But OP said they were one so.
The only self-described “tankies” are Marxist-Leninists being tongue-in-cheek, like those who call themselves commies.
I wouldn’t be so sure. There are definitely authoritarian lefties, no matter how back asswards it seems.
“Authoritarianism” isn’t really a thing. What ultimately matters is which class in society has control of the state, and that determines how it responds to class conflicts. What determines the strength of state force in those conflicts is the circumstances society is found in, not the whims of random individuals.
huh?
Correct, the reasons Marxist-Leninists support the suppression of western-backed and trained fascist counter-revolutions and widespread lynchings of communists and Jewish peoples are not about “good side crushing bad side.”
Idk about that. Seems there were conflicting opinions about whether this was good or bad. And while yeah it makes sense the CIA would back this. I dont see Amy fascist shit here.
Wikipedia is a western-centric overview, not a historical document. The anti-communists in Hungary were marking up the doors of Jews and communists, lynching them. For Czechoslovakia, again, the counter-revolutionaries were anti-communist nationalists who wanted to install a far-right government. It’s cut and dry among Marxist-Leninists that intervention was correct these days.
I’d be happy to learn another viewpoint. But so far I dont see your claims backed up anywhere. Maybe if I could read some of your sources I could agree with them.
This is a decent overview of the background that led up to the events of 1956, and this is a decent overview of the darker side, where the lynchings happened. Content Warning: lynched corpses. Here is a source on MI6 training and arming the counterrevolutionaries. Those 3 articles give only the briefest overview of the events, but don’t do the real buildup to them, their complexities, what the people actually supported, or the real character in any depth. If you want to actually take a deep dive, these are additional sources:
The History of the Working Class Movement in Hungary
1956 Counter-Revolution in Hungary
Others can offer more sources.
Overall, when it comes to geopolitical enemies of the United States in particular, it would not be a bad idea to treat your current understanding with extreme skepticism until you’ve investigated counter-sources as well. That doesn’t mean the US always lies, in fact it frequently tells mostly the truth, but will distory either the quality or quantity of an event.
Thank you, I’ll read the epubs of those books. I was trying to dig more into Dubcek but the Wikipedia entry glosses over how he arrived at his conclusion and ideals. The US doesnt always lie, but it does a lot, especially very recently. I dont trust governments of any sort. I tend towards arnarchism.