It seems they also have a tendency to consider NATO as cartoons villains. Also, tankies are not the average lefties, they are at the extreme of the left.
The bombs he was fleeing from were decided by NATO, the militias were funded and supported by NATO; the same one that eventually found him and sodomized him to death with a bayonet. What will be evidence enough for you? Hillary's "we came, we saw, he died." quip?
Yes. Gaddafi was also certainly killed based on French intelligence, and there is substantial evidence that the men who assassinated him were French assets. Part of the reason, apart from the broader geopolitical aim of annihilating a country which wanted to engage in the construction of international monetary and commerical systems outside of the orbit and control of the American petro-dollar, Gaddafi had essentially bribed Sarkozy at a certain point and was holding this over the latter's head (Sarkozy is infamously corrupt). See:
Hegemon's have to rule by fear. Read any bloodsoaked page from the history of the Roman Empire. Fear is best instilled through unimaginable atrocity. What do you think the rulers of the rest of Africa and the Middle East thought after they saw how Gaddafi, head of the most prosperous (per-capita, quality of life, standard of living, etc.) state in Africa, ended up?
"Cartoon villain" here means "a villain who is just intrinsically evil and does evil things as a result." Contrast this with real people, who generally have material or ideological motivational for the actions they take.
The left views NATO as evil not because it's full of cartoon villains, but because it is an organization that consciously, due to material and ideological motivations, chooses to immiserate the global south for the benefit of its constituent countries' ruling classes.
I use it similarly to what is described in this Wikipedia article, in particular the last paragraph of the introduction is what disturbs me the most with some Lemmy users. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie
The last paragraph quotes fucking Ross Douthat, come on now
Lots of terms need defining. "Illiberal" just means not capitalistic, which yeah that's all leftists. What is authoritarian? Usually a definition that gets thrown around applies more to capitalist countries vs those listed.
So it's just a western communist that supports non Western communist projects? 🤔
I love it when liberals use 'illiberal' as a criticism. Begging the question much? Of course we're illiberal we're anti-capitalists!
Don't whisper it in hushed tones as if we're being shy about it and might be embarrassed. Liberalism is the cause of so much misery in the world I'd be more embarrassed to be called a liberal.
The best of it is that even liberals accept that liberal society is atrocious; they just throw up their hands, claim that it's the only option, and benefit decadently from the system while the world burns as if nothing could or should be done about it. The nerve.
It's essentially cope for them not just supporting "nominally" socialist countries because their stance is one of anti-imperialism. Iran should have nukes.
Isn't Putin's invasion of Ukraine and the Russo-Georgian war imperialism? I still don't get them, except being blinded by their hate of USA's war crimes, which I can understand, but it still seems like an irrational conclusion to become a tankie. They end up supporting or refusing to criticize regimes that generate similar war crimes.
Wait, are you saying Saakashvili has done an imperialism?
Because even western/EU reports have confirmed that Georgia started that war, not Russia.
They end up supporting or refusing to criticize regimes that generate similar war crimes.
"From 24 February 2022, which marked the start of the large-scale armed attack by the Russian Federation, to 30 July 2023, OHCHR recorded 26,015 civilian casualties in the country: 9,369 killed and 16,646 injured"
Almost 10 thousand civilians killed is horrible.
But compare this to Iraq: it's less than the first month of the war in Iraq, and no US politicians was tried for war crimes. Maybe you should ponder this factoid.
If you live in a NATO country maybe you should demand Blair and Bush to be tried for their war crimes. If you live in the west you should spend more energy of criticizing the ruling class above you.
"supporting or refusing to criticize" This is a made up leftist. Per definition there is no leftist that uncritically supports a right wing capitalist country.
Marxists, following Lenin, define imperialism as the monopoly of finance capital. Not as a synonym for 'conquest', 'annexation', 'empire' (not that I'm saying all three necessarily apply to Russia in Ukraine—a conclusion on that isn't relevant, here).
When US (Anglo-European) finance capital dominates the world through the IMF, World Bank, WTO, and petrodollar, supported by a network of however many hundreds of military bases, all paid for by it's vassals and enemies due to said dominance, there's little to no room for anyone else to even consider being imperialist.
We can discuss that if you like. I'll likely need others to chip in. I'm not proposing that I have all the answers. It's not something with a clear answer. But we can't have the debate at all unless we agree on common definitions and frames of reference. Otherwise it feels as though liberals simply do not understand what's being said. It's just talking past one another, where one side has a coherent definition and framework and the other side… doesn't.
I'll let you decide whether you can honestly say you have a theoretically sound concept of imperialism depending on how much dedicated literature on imperialism you've read.
Yeah it's important that we, as Marxists, therefore proceeding scientific,ally, make very clear from the onset as to what we mean when we use the term 'imperialist' with this more specific, narrow, Leninist definition which only really applies to modern capitalism, or more precisely the modern capitalist world-system. Conceptual clarification is essential for any scientific endeavor, including Marxism.
Even on this definition however, we can note that it is perfectly possible (and concretely, empirically, historically confirm this possibility by looking at the international situation pre-WW1) that there be several powers or polarized groups of powers each of which behaves imperialistically in the Leninist sense. The difference today is that we currently still have a more or less unipolar as opposed to multipolar imperialist (Leninist sense) world-system.
If someone calls Russia 'imperialist' in a different sense, then they might not be wrong, and saying that they are because our definition doesn't apply isn't relevant beyond the fact that there's confusion over the concepts being used because people are equivocating between them, simply because we are using the same term/sound/word/signifier. If we do the latter we are engaging in a semantic debate disguised as, because confused with, a substantive debate.
Good points. I also wouldn't be opposed to accepting that capitalists in Russia would/will try to become imperialistic in the monopoly of finance capital sense. In the one hand, the logic of capital might force their hand. On the other hand, capitalists are gonna capitalist, in part because they fetishise the hoarding of wealth like everyone else living under capitalism.
Whether Russian imperialism becomes a realistic possibility, though… I'd be interested in seeing some stats on that, interpreted in light of the idea that the next type of multipolarity will be quite different to the one at the turn of the twentieth century. Ig if anyone's done that leg work it'd be Michael Hudson but I've not come across it if he has.
There's a concept called "critical support", which most "tankies" are practicing. You have criticism of a side but its the lesser evil so you support it despite your criticism. You won't hear much of that criticism publicly though because that's counterproductive.
Like if I want the US to recognize the DPRK as a sovereign state so we can at least begin discussing Korean reunification, why would I bother mentioning my criticism of Juche?
I would avoid saying "lesser evil" for critical support cases, because revolutionary defeatism exists for lesser evil situations where nothing is progressing against the primary contradiction. It's more a recognition that a shitty thing can be progressive/forward moving relative to its opposition. Russia winning/getting a peace deal with Donbas and Crimea out of Ukraine gets us much closer to ending global imperialism than Ukraine getting it's land back or worse.
We want the larger capitalist empire to loose to the smaller capitalist empire because that leads to better outcomes. Saying otherwise is telling half truths at best.
No. Both are bourgeois states and yes I prefer the weaker one winning in this case, but the framing of "big vs small" is very ignorant of any reason to support something critically
Because its not relevant. It HAPPENS to be the case now, but it's in no way a defining feature. Sure, I'm absolutely fine with that detail being described so, because it's true. But you minimized the analysis to that. "Framing" is ambiguous and I'm ignoring that, I guess you could call it framing, but your framing is irrelevant to my analysis
Because its not relevant. It HAPPENS to be the case now,
It IS relevant because its the fundamental reason why we can say we'll get positive outcomes from this case. It was even baked into your explanation "ending global imperialism".
but the framing of "big vs small" is very ignorant
Fair enough on the framing, just meant that I ignored it for the first half, otherwise the reply was not engaging with you up to that point, but I wrote sloppily.
But you did not originally say "bigger and smaller IMPERIALIST" you said capitalist empire. It's a totally different discussion which is where we started speaking past on another. I still don't think that's correct, because I don't think a new analysis like Lenin made of imperialism would find Russia as materially equivalent in form or content of imperialism at all (maybe requiring a new word for the type of imperialism done by the US/NATO like super-imperialism or so. That's why I still hold the point that it's not just "bigger v smaller" that matters, but the Qualitative difference that then arose from the quantity of Imperialism performed/exported capital and coerced labour. They should be understood as 2 phenomenon at this point, not a big and small
The general "tankie" position is that the people of Donbas, who mostly do not want to remain part of Ukraine, will not stop suffering attacks without Russia fighting Ukraine off. Russia does not seem interested in siphoning resources from or subjugating the people of Donbas, as they did not the people of Crimea, who merely became Russian citizens. This is very different from US carpetbombing for oil.
There is no such thing as a neutral analyst but yes, even neoliberals talked about the civil war at one point and the Nazi problem and the pogroms and so on. Given this, and given the popular support Russia has among the people of that same region, and that it tried for 8 years to negotiate peaceful secession while Ukraine participated in those talks in bad faith, it sure seems like something very different from, and I cannot stress this enough, flying to the opposite side of the world to carpet bomb in the name of freedom and in the service of oil companies.
That's no problem, we call all learn new things every day. You can read about the history of Conrad Henlein (?) and the politics of the annexation to understand the analogy here
The analogy is that the invading country came to rescue their ethnic brethren. How does it 'make less sense' when it's correct that they had popular support in the region?
The crisis wasnt started the donbass seceded. The crisis started because there was a coup in keiv. The new government was shelling the donbass long before the invasion. None of that happened in your example.
It's weird how you want to pivot from separatists being propped by their 'big brothers' to "they weren't using exactly the same weapons so it doesn't count".
Nazi's were certainly using armed provocations to provoke the Czechoslovak government into intervention so they could pounce. The only big difference is actually that the latter were much more reluctant and appeasing to the separatists. Which didn't help because annexation was the only goal for the nazi's anyway.
You're in a thread with half a dozen comments like "wow libs and tankies are celebrating this?", followed by a bunch of "tankies" explaining (again) that they do not actually like modern Russia.
Ah thank you, I was too hasty and didn't see the name. I had thought you were a lemmy referring to the molotov ribbentrop. Thank you for correcting me, do you have any recommendations for what I should I read to be more knowledgeable in this subject?
It regularly does, social-democracy seems to generally ensure better living condition to its people. I don't see any extreme left or right regime that provided better conditions than social-democracies.
Do social democracies also ensure better living conditions for the impoverished nations they continue to exploit so they can support their own standards of living?
I don't see any extreme left or right regime that provided better conditions than social-democracies.
I'm not sure what you define as an "extreme regime" but you can try looking at Cuba, China, or the USSR, for starters.
I think they could improve their impact on developing nations, especially if we consider the impact of colonialism, but otherwise, yes, I think they contribute to their economic growth which keeps lifting people out of poverty.
It doesn't seem like USSR or Cuba's people had on average better lives than in social-democracies. For China, I think it's getting better, mostly thanks to the intense economical ties with the rest of the world that they tied once they decide to abandon the communist economy. However, they continue having notable issues with authoritarianism, which seem to be getting worse with the current leader.
lol, they (european "social-democracies" and US/EU finance capital) are the root cause of colonialism and the financial system has been built around the global south's over-exploitation at gunpoint. That has never really stopped. Any over-exploited, colonized country that expresses too much democracy or sovereignty ends up invaded, sanctioned, or couped...
Cuba is much better now than before the revolution, when mobsters ruled its cities and landlords ruled over the peasantry with an iron fist. There was no democracy there before, and the moment Cuba had a more democratic system it was under assault from the US. The USSR and Cuba were able to develop the way they did in spite of the bourgeois democracies that invaded or assaulted them at every opportunity
Other countries has intense economical ties to western capital, like India. But their development is nothing compared to China's. They have incredible levels of poverty and a lack of development. I am sure you will invent some alternative theory as to why China was able to eliminate extreme poverty, but the truth is that "social democracies" in Europe and NA have notable issues with authoritarianism against the global south. They looted the rest of the world at gunpoint and now tell them their development is all because they are lazy or corrupt.
"Better conditions than social-democracies" is a tall order considering that most (every?) Marxist-Leninist state was formed in impoverished, exploited countries, and have frequently been targeted by sanctions, boycotts, and so on. If you told a Chinese peasant in the 40's that their country's life expectancy would someday exceed that of the US, they'd call you a liar. Certainly it wasn't about to happen under the Nationalists or anybody else.
Not everyone is allowed to have social democracy. For example, Norway's economy benefits greatly from their oil revenues, but in much of the world, the presence of oil resources is called an "oil curse," because Western governments destabilize and overthrow governments that bring those profits back to the people. When Iran's left-leaning (but not communist) government in the 50's tried to reclaim control of their oil from their British colonial overlords, the CIA did a coup and installed a fascist. There are countless other stories of this happening all around the world.
No country has lifted more people out of poverty and extreme poverty than China. Granting developing countries a second option for investment is an enormous boon for the world, especially since China is much less restrictive over other countries' domestic economic policies compared to the IMF.
This is why I would argue that, even if you disagree with China's system, if you want any other system besides capitalism to be available to people in the developing world, then you should recognize that China is furthering that goal. I don't consider China's system to be perfect or ideal by any stretch of the imagination, but I've read enough history to see more ideal systems get crushed time and again.
It seems they also have a tendency to consider NATO as cartoons villains. Also, tankies are not the average lefties, they are at the extreme of the left.
deleted by creator
Thank you for confirming.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Wait so are tankies anti-NATO? All leftists are anti-NATO lmao
gaddafi was sodomized to death with a knife. i can hardly think of a more cartoonishly evil organization.
Was that decided by NATO?
You're saying that the NATO bombings and the NATO-backed rebels had nothing to do with it..? He was fleeing a NATO air strike.
Nope, you're shifting the subject, you were talking about how he died precisely.
The bombs he was fleeing from were decided by NATO, the militias were funded and supported by NATO; the same one that eventually found him and sodomized him to death with a bayonet. What will be evidence enough for you? Hillary's "we came, we saw, he died." quip?
lmao this is like saying if I push someone off a cliff, I'm actually innocent because the ground killed them.
Yes. Gaddafi was also certainly killed based on French intelligence, and there is substantial evidence that the men who assassinated him were French assets. Part of the reason, apart from the broader geopolitical aim of annihilating a country which wanted to engage in the construction of international monetary and commerical systems outside of the orbit and control of the American petro-dollar, Gaddafi had essentially bribed Sarkozy at a certain point and was holding this over the latter's head (Sarkozy is infamously corrupt). See:
Hegemon's have to rule by fear. Read any bloodsoaked page from the history of the Roman Empire. Fear is best instilled through unimaginable atrocity. What do you think the rulers of the rest of Africa and the Middle East thought after they saw how Gaddafi, head of the most prosperous (per-capita, quality of life, standard of living, etc.) state in Africa, ended up?
"Cartoon villain" here means "a villain who is just intrinsically evil and does evil things as a result." Contrast this with real people, who generally have material or ideological motivational for the actions they take.
The left views NATO as evil not because it's full of cartoon villains, but because it is an organization that consciously, due to material and ideological motivations, chooses to immiserate the global south for the benefit of its constituent countries' ruling classes.
Define tankie
I use it similarly to what is described in this Wikipedia article, in particular the last paragraph of the introduction is what disturbs me the most with some Lemmy users. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie
Lmao who tf is
deleted by creator
The last paragraph quotes fucking Ross Douthat, come on now
Lots of terms need defining. "Illiberal" just means not capitalistic, which yeah that's all leftists. What is authoritarian? Usually a definition that gets thrown around applies more to capitalist countries vs those listed.
So it's just a western communist that supports non Western communist projects? 🤔
I love it when liberals use 'illiberal' as a criticism. Begging the question much? Of course we're illiberal we're anti-capitalists!
Don't whisper it in hushed tones as if we're being shy about it and might be embarrassed. Liberalism is the cause of so much misery in the world I'd be more embarrassed to be called a liberal.
The best of it is that even liberals accept that liberal society is atrocious; they just throw up their hands, claim that it's the only option, and benefit decadently from the system while the world burns as if nothing could or should be done about it. The nerve.
someone who uses tankie is almost always someone who claims to be a socialist but has not read marx
20 yards of linen, now put down the knife before someone gets buttered
It's essentially cope for them not just supporting "nominally" socialist countries because their stance is one of anti-imperialism. Iran should have nukes.
Isn't Putin's invasion of Ukraine and the Russo-Georgian war imperialism? I still don't get them, except being blinded by their hate of USA's war crimes, which I can understand, but it still seems like an irrational conclusion to become a tankie. They end up supporting or refusing to criticize regimes that generate similar war crimes.
Wait, are you saying Saakashvili has done an imperialism? Because even western/EU reports have confirmed that Georgia started that war, not Russia.
"From 24 February 2022, which marked the start of the large-scale armed attack by the Russian Federation, to 30 July 2023, OHCHR recorded 26,015 civilian casualties in the country: 9,369 killed and 16,646 injured"
Almost 10 thousand civilians killed is horrible. But compare this to Iraq: it's less than the first month of the war in Iraq, and no US politicians was tried for war crimes. Maybe you should ponder this factoid.
If you live in a NATO country maybe you should demand Blair and Bush to be tried for their war crimes. If you live in the west you should spend more energy of criticizing the ruling class above you.
"supporting or refusing to criticize" This is a made up leftist. Per definition there is no leftist that uncritically supports a right wing capitalist country.
Marxists, following Lenin, define imperialism as the monopoly of finance capital. Not as a synonym for 'conquest', 'annexation', 'empire' (not that I'm saying all three necessarily apply to Russia in Ukraine—a conclusion on that isn't relevant, here).
When US (Anglo-European) finance capital dominates the world through the IMF, World Bank, WTO, and petrodollar, supported by a network of however many hundreds of military bases, all paid for by it's vassals and enemies due to said dominance, there's little to no room for anyone else to even consider being imperialist.
We can discuss that if you like. I'll likely need others to chip in. I'm not proposing that I have all the answers. It's not something with a clear answer. But we can't have the debate at all unless we agree on common definitions and frames of reference. Otherwise it feels as though liberals simply do not understand what's being said. It's just talking past one another, where one side has a coherent definition and framework and the other side… doesn't.
I'll let you decide whether you can honestly say you have a theoretically sound concept of imperialism depending on how much dedicated literature on imperialism you've read.
Yeah it's important that we, as Marxists, therefore proceeding scientific,ally, make very clear from the onset as to what we mean when we use the term 'imperialist' with this more specific, narrow, Leninist definition which only really applies to modern capitalism, or more precisely the modern capitalist world-system. Conceptual clarification is essential for any scientific endeavor, including Marxism.
Even on this definition however, we can note that it is perfectly possible (and concretely, empirically, historically confirm this possibility by looking at the international situation pre-WW1) that there be several powers or polarized groups of powers each of which behaves imperialistically in the Leninist sense. The difference today is that we currently still have a more or less unipolar as opposed to multipolar imperialist (Leninist sense) world-system.
If someone calls Russia 'imperialist' in a different sense, then they might not be wrong, and saying that they are because our definition doesn't apply isn't relevant beyond the fact that there's confusion over the concepts being used because people are equivocating between them, simply because we are using the same term/sound/word/signifier. If we do the latter we are engaging in a semantic debate disguised as, because confused with, a substantive debate.
Good points. I also wouldn't be opposed to accepting that capitalists in Russia would/will try to become imperialistic in the monopoly of finance capital sense. In the one hand, the logic of capital might force their hand. On the other hand, capitalists are gonna capitalist, in part because they fetishise the hoarding of wealth like everyone else living under capitalism.
Whether Russian imperialism becomes a realistic possibility, though… I'd be interested in seeing some stats on that, interpreted in light of the idea that the next type of multipolarity will be quite different to the one at the turn of the twentieth century. Ig if anyone's done that leg work it'd be Michael Hudson but I've not come across it if he has.
There's a concept called "critical support", which most "tankies" are practicing. You have criticism of a side but its the lesser evil so you support it despite your criticism. You won't hear much of that criticism publicly though because that's counterproductive.
Like if I want the US to recognize the DPRK as a sovereign state so we can at least begin discussing Korean reunification, why would I bother mentioning my criticism of Juche?
I would avoid saying "lesser evil" for critical support cases, because revolutionary defeatism exists for lesser evil situations where nothing is progressing against the primary contradiction. It's more a recognition that a shitty thing can be progressive/forward moving relative to its opposition. Russia winning/getting a peace deal with Donbas and Crimea out of Ukraine gets us much closer to ending global imperialism than Ukraine getting it's land back or worse.
We want the larger capitalist empire to loose to the smaller capitalist empire because that leads to better outcomes. Saying otherwise is telling half truths at best.
No. Both are bourgeois states and yes I prefer the weaker one winning in this case, but the framing of "big vs small" is very ignorant of any reason to support something critically
Please elaborate because as far as I see you just dont like that framing because you think its counter productive messaging, not because its wrong.
Because its not relevant. It HAPPENS to be the case now, but it's in no way a defining feature. Sure, I'm absolutely fine with that detail being described so, because it's true. But you minimized the analysis to that. "Framing" is ambiguous and I'm ignoring that, I guess you could call it framing, but your framing is irrelevant to my analysis
It IS relevant because its the fundamental reason why we can say we'll get positive outcomes from this case. It was even baked into your explanation "ending global imperialism".
Fair enough on the framing, just meant that I ignored it for the first half, otherwise the reply was not engaging with you up to that point, but I wrote sloppily.
But you did not originally say "bigger and smaller IMPERIALIST" you said capitalist empire. It's a totally different discussion which is where we started speaking past on another. I still don't think that's correct, because I don't think a new analysis like Lenin made of imperialism would find Russia as materially equivalent in form or content of imperialism at all (maybe requiring a new word for the type of imperialism done by the US/NATO like super-imperialism or so. That's why I still hold the point that it's not just "bigger v smaller" that matters, but the Qualitative difference that then arose from the quantity of Imperialism performed/exported capital and coerced labour. They should be understood as 2 phenomenon at this point, not a big and small
The general "tankie" position is that the people of Donbas, who mostly do not want to remain part of Ukraine, will not stop suffering attacks without Russia fighting Ukraine off. Russia does not seem interested in siphoning resources from or subjugating the people of Donbas, as they did not the people of Crimea, who merely became Russian citizens. This is very different from US carpetbombing for oil.
US bombing is bad, but Russian bombing is ok? Why do you not apply the same critical spirit to both the USA war crimes and the Russian war crimes?
deleted by creator
If it constitutes war crimes according to neutral analysts, it's not.
There is no such thing as a neutral analyst but yes, even neoliberals talked about the civil war at one point and the Nazi problem and the pogroms and so on. Given this, and given the popular support Russia has among the people of that same region, and that it tried for 8 years to negotiate peaceful secession while Ukraine participated in those talks in bad faith, it sure seems like something very different from, and I cannot stress this enough, flying to the opposite side of the world to carpet bomb in the name of freedom and in the service of oil companies.
Yeah it's just like they're Sudeten-Russians, happy to become real Russians once again
I don't think that the Germans had the popular support of Sudetenland in their annexation.
That's no problem, we call all learn new things every day. You can read about the history of Conrad Henlein (?) and the politics of the annexation to understand the analogy here
This makes your analogy make less sense. No nazi party came to power in the donbass. In fact they precieved that had happened in keiv and seceded.
The analogy is that the invading country came to rescue their ethnic brethren. How does it 'make less sense' when it's correct that they had popular support in the region?
The crisis wasnt started the donbass seceded. The crisis started because there was a coup in keiv. The new government was shelling the donbass long before the invasion. None of that happened in your example.
It's weird how you want to pivot from separatists being propped by their 'big brothers' to "they weren't using exactly the same weapons so it doesn't count".
Nazi's were certainly using armed provocations to provoke the Czechoslovak government into intervention so they could pounce. The only big difference is actually that the latter were much more reluctant and appeasing to the separatists. Which didn't help because annexation was the only goal for the nazi's anyway.
You're in a thread with half a dozen comments like "wow libs and tankies are celebrating this?", followed by a bunch of "tankies" explaining (again) that they do not actually like modern Russia.
you say that as if its a bad thing
I do think that extremism is counter-productive, it uses fallacious arguments and generally only generates more violence.
but violence has already been generated against us, why is it bad when we use it to end that violence?
Because instead we can spend the energy into the development of social-democracy, which has a better track record.
Social Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism, so no. I don't accept such imperialist half measures
deleted by creator
In the end, the nazis died under soviet steel. All's well that ends well.
deleted by creator
Ah thank you, I was too hasty and didn't see the name. I had thought you were a lemmy referring to the molotov ribbentrop. Thank you for correcting me, do you have any recommendations for what I should I read to be more knowledgeable in this subject?
deleted by creator
thank you for the rec, I needed to jumpstart getting back into regular readings anyway
Ah, I didn't expect this one, qualified of objective on top of that. I understand discussion is not possible.
Extremists get shit done. When was the last time voting ever solved anything?
It regularly does, social-democracy seems to generally ensure better living condition to its people. I don't see any extreme left or right regime that provided better conditions than social-democracies.
Do social democracies also ensure better living conditions for the impoverished nations they continue to exploit so they can support their own standards of living?
I'm not sure what you define as an "extreme regime" but you can try looking at Cuba, China, or the USSR, for starters.
I think they could improve their impact on developing nations, especially if we consider the impact of colonialism, but otherwise, yes, I think they contribute to their economic growth which keeps lifting people out of poverty.
It doesn't seem like USSR or Cuba's people had on average better lives than in social-democracies. For China, I think it's getting better, mostly thanks to the intense economical ties with the rest of the world that they tied once they decide to abandon the communist economy. However, they continue having notable issues with authoritarianism, which seem to be getting worse with the current leader.
lol, they (european "social-democracies" and US/EU finance capital) are the root cause of colonialism and the financial system has been built around the global south's over-exploitation at gunpoint. That has never really stopped. Any over-exploited, colonized country that expresses too much democracy or sovereignty ends up invaded, sanctioned, or couped...
Cuba is much better now than before the revolution, when mobsters ruled its cities and landlords ruled over the peasantry with an iron fist. There was no democracy there before, and the moment Cuba had a more democratic system it was under assault from the US. The USSR and Cuba were able to develop the way they did in spite of the bourgeois democracies that invaded or assaulted them at every opportunity
Other countries has intense economical ties to western capital, like India. But their development is nothing compared to China's. They have incredible levels of poverty and a lack of development. I am sure you will invent some alternative theory as to why China was able to eliminate extreme poverty, but the truth is that "social democracies" in Europe and NA have notable issues with authoritarianism against the global south. They looted the rest of the world at gunpoint and now tell them their development is all because they are lazy or corrupt.
"Better conditions than social-democracies" is a tall order considering that most (every?) Marxist-Leninist state was formed in impoverished, exploited countries, and have frequently been targeted by sanctions, boycotts, and so on. If you told a Chinese peasant in the 40's that their country's life expectancy would someday exceed that of the US, they'd call you a liar. Certainly it wasn't about to happen under the Nationalists or anybody else.
Not everyone is allowed to have social democracy. For example, Norway's economy benefits greatly from their oil revenues, but in much of the world, the presence of oil resources is called an "oil curse," because Western governments destabilize and overthrow governments that bring those profits back to the people. When Iran's left-leaning (but not communist) government in the 50's tried to reclaim control of their oil from their British colonial overlords, the CIA did a coup and installed a fascist. There are countless other stories of this happening all around the world.
No country has lifted more people out of poverty and extreme poverty than China. Granting developing countries a second option for investment is an enormous boon for the world, especially since China is much less restrictive over other countries' domestic economic policies compared to the IMF.
This is why I would argue that, even if you disagree with China's system, if you want any other system besides capitalism to be available to people in the developing world, then you should recognize that China is furthering that goal. I don't consider China's system to be perfect or ideal by any stretch of the imagination, but I've read enough history to see more ideal systems get crushed time and again.
I assume that means you haven't read “Left-wing” communism, an infantile disorder by Lenin.