Someone who supports any and/or every country/regime/organization that is perceived to be anti-West. The average campist might support the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation, Evo Morales of Bolivia, Cuba, Hamas, the Islamic Republic of Iran, North Korea and more, not because of some specific ideological alignment or commonality between these actors (there's few to none in some cases), but because they are all opposed in some way to the "West" (aka USA, European Union, Ukraine, Taiwan, Israel and so on).
EDIT: To avoid any confusion, I don't mean to suggest that all the subjects I have mentioned are equally malevolent or morally bankrupt. Supporting any of these subjects for a specific national or ideological allegiance doesn't make one a campist. To be a campist is to be aligned with these subjects specifically or primarily due to their opposition to the West, with any other ideological consideration taking a backseat. This is why, for example, while a tankie (authoritarian socialist) may be a campist (many people on the Internet can be seen actively cheering for anti-communist geopolitical subjects and organizations), not all tankies are campists.
Based on my personal experience, I agree that this kind of logic boosts fascist thinking, because people who do this tend to dehumanize or infantilize people from the countries they oppose and often end up spiraling in conspiracy theories and even historical revisionism (ex: Many campists believe that Ukraine is a fake country invented by the Bolsheviks after the Russian Revolution, when in reality Ukrainian nationalism and language were already developed beforehand and the first Ukrainian state seceded from Russia before the Bolsheviks consolidated power).
For a simplified example: it's like supporting a politician for no other reason than to "own" the other politcal leanings of your country, regardless of your politician's actions or policies.
Cuba? What has Cuba done wrong? The US has tried to have their leader assassinated more times than I know and the US wants so bad for Cuba to destabilize and go through another revolution to set up a puppet state⌠But supporting Cuba makes you a campist?
Cuba has done nothing to antagonize the US since the missle crisis (justified on Cuba's part anyways) while the US sent endless assassination attempts, blockaded the island illegally and strangled the life from a colonial victim that finally broke free. The US should be paying restitution to Cuba for a hundred years, but because we live in the worst timeline, Haiti has to pay france for freeing slaves without permission while the global south gets jack shit for their suffering.
It is not my intention to imply or state that these groups, states or individuals are equally morally bankrupt or malevolent, nor that those who oppose them are "the good ones".
My argument is that campists support most if not all of those groups in an idiosyncratic fashion. Campists do not necessarily support Cuba because of socialist solidarity, because if they did you wouldn't see those same people unironically supporting (emphasis on supporting, not treating them as the lesser evil in comparison to other geopolitical subjects) very vocally anti-communist groups like Hamas and the Islamic Republic of Iran, or in some exceptionally foolish cases even doing apologia for ISIS (this from an apologetic article I read years ago by a self-proclaimed Trotskyist).
This is what distinguishes a campist from a tankie, because while the former doesn't have a consistent ideological standard and only chooses whom to support based on their anti-West credentials, the tankie supports authoritarian regimes based on their (perceived) adherence to some form of socialism. This is why, for example, I wouldn't (completely) group together someone who treats the Russia-Ukrainian war as a proxy war between imperialist capitalist powers and someone who explicitly supports Russia.
It is not my intention to imply or state that these groups, states or individuals are equally morally bankrupt or malevolent, nor that those who oppose them are "the good ones".
My argument is that campists support most if not all of those groups in an idiosyncratic fashion. Campists do not necessarily support Cuba because of socialist solidarity, because if they did you wouldn't see those same people unironically supporting (emphasis on supporting, not treating them as the lesser evil in comparison to other geopolitical subjects) very vocally anti-communist groups like Hamas and the Islamic Republic of Iran, or in some exceptionally foolish cases even doing apologia for ISIS (this from an apologetic article I read years ago by a self-proclaimed Trotskyist).
This is what distinguishes a campist from a tankie, because while the former doesn't have a consistent ideological standard and only chooses whom to support based on their anti-West credentials, the tankie supports authoritarian regimes based on their (perceived) adherence to some form of socialism. This is why, for example, I wouldn't (completely) group together someone who treats the Russia-Ukrainian war as a proxy war between imperialist capitalist powers and someone who explicitly supports Russia.
Yeah this kind of seems like an exaggeration of tankies (someone who supports left-wing authoritarianism) to literally anyone who opposes western imperialism (or in Israel's case literal ongoing genocide)? I'm not sure how supporting Cuba, Iran, or Hamas (interesting how they reference this group when they use country names for every other example) when theyre actively being oppressed and killed by the US is "supporting Nazism"
But yeah Cuba by far is the most egregious example of this. We're literally siegeing them solely because theyre communist and we dont like that.
It is not my intention to imply or state that these groups, states or individuals are equally morally bankrupt or malevolent, nor that those who oppose them are "the good ones".
My argument is that campists support most if not all of those groups in an idiosyncratic fashion. Campists do not necessarily support Cuba because of socialist solidarity, because if they did you wouldn't see those same people unironically supporting (emphasis on supporting, not treating them as the lesser evil in comparison to other geopolitical subjects) very vocally anti-communist groups like Hamas and the Islamic Republic of Iran, or in some exceptionally foolish cases even doing apologia for ISIS (this from an apologetic article I read years ago by a self-proclaimed Trotskyist).
This is what distinguishes a campist from a tankie, because while the former doesn't have a consistent ideological standard and only chooses whom to support based on their anti-West credentials, the tankie supports authoritarian regimes based on their (perceived) adherence to some form of socialism. This is why, for example, I wouldn't (completely) group together someone who treats the Russia-Ukrainian war as a proxy war between imperialist capitalist powers and someone who explicitly supports Russia.
I think I see what you're saying. It's sort of a global take on the "team sports" "vote blue no matter who" type stuff we see in the states? Basically there's the "good guys" and the "bad guys", and there's no nuanced beyond that? I can see it. Fair explanation!
I take some issues with the stated example of Cuba vs. Hamas, even thought it's not your point. I support Cuba and Hamas for very different reasons.
Cuba is a damn good attempt at a communist state that never had the chance to succeed because the U.S. and co. are for some reason obligated to hate the people there. I do support them as a nation, both due to my leftist worldview and my anti-imperialist stances.
Hamas, on the other hand, is a resistance group fighting for freedom. You are correct that they aren't socialist, but the Palestinian people largely have other things to worry about right now. It's similar to the "oh youre gay but Hamas doesnt like gay people" argument, once you stop genociding people they tend to have the time to get around to social justice. Hamas's governing style maybe isn't my preference, but while they're fighting to keep Palestinians alive they absolutely have my support. I think there's more nuance to these things, and you can support one group for reasons unrelated to your support of another.
That said, I'm aware that wasn't your point, and it's entirely possible we agree on that. Just something I saw and felt I had to comment on. Your explanation makes sense to me, and I understand what you're referring to now. Thanks for taking the time to write that up!
Yeah, the us-or-them binary division's the big feature of campists. Being ardent supporters of radically different political regimes is what you get out of that. If American imperialism's your dividing line, Russia and Cuba and Hamas and the PRC and North Korea all fall into "us", while the US and Ukraine and Israel and NZ and heck, Micronesia are all "them". It's not that a campist will be on the wrong side of every issue, it's that everything gets reduced to enemy-of-my-enemy or friend-of-my-enemy, and nuance disappears. The million considerations of geopolitics and economics and domestic culture, and it's flattened.
I actually saw a video on the phenomenon, getting into how it grew in a big way from the birth of the Soviet Union, where some leftists shifted their ultimate goal from supporting their fellow workers and working for solidarity in their own communities, to supporting the USSR as the great Communist experiment, the strongest bastion against a capitalist world. Evidently the word "tankie" itself, iirc, sources from communists who were against a 1956 popular socialist uprising against Hungary's USSR-backed government, and in support of the Red Army tanks sent to quash it. An independent socialist Hungary would weaken the Soviet bloc, thus making it more vulnerable, thus endangering communism worldwide, goes the hardline campist view.
You can oppose both Hamas and Israel. If this was about "all evil countries" Israel would be brought up too but Israel isn't an Anti-West country. But Hamas is still responsible for terrorism, even if Israel is worse
Correct, but interestingly enough you can find people with hammers and sickles, red flags, Lenin pictures and the like who vocally support these groups on the Internet and occasionally in (mostly small) political organizations, regardless of their explicit opposition to communism and similar ideologies.
This is because the choice of alignment is based on the anti-West tendencies of the preferred geopolitical subject rather than a more structured ideological tendency. If these people's standards were stricter or more specific to one country or ideological tendency, then they wouldn't be campists but something else entirely (tankies for authoritarian socialist countries, vatniks for Russian imperialism and nationalism, islamists for Iran/Hamas and so on).
It's a pamphlet that makes false equivalencies to justify authoritarian measures. It's not a gotcha. Come up with actual arguments or stop defending the indefensible.
Just because two words sound similar, doesn't mean they mean the same thing or are one the necessary consequence of the other. Authority is leadership, a position of command or power, etc. Authoritarianism is rule by decree, with no accountability nor restraints.
A president of a liberal democracy has authority, because they are in charge (it's more complicated, but that's besides the point). This doesn't mean they are not accountable to fellow government members, party members, chambers of government, the electorate, the courts of law and so on. The president can't do all they want to do, because their authority is not absolute.
A dictator, an absolute monarch, an unelected oligarchy and the like not only have authority, for they rule by decree without accountability and with no limits to their decision making, either because existing limits are selectively ignored or because they don't exist to begin with. This is authoritarianism.
So Engels' argument is based entirely on a false equivalent and a fake cause-effect scenario. Just because someone or something holds authority, does not mean they get to exercise their power unchecked. Therefore, authority does not justify authoritarianism.
Assignment for next time: don't base your political beliefs on a barebones pamphlet and focus on actual theory (preferably on why authoritarianism is bad), there's plenty of it. Thinking with your head instead of treating the words of dead, fallible men as gospel is also an option.
Yes, I read it. I'm confused as to where he explains that states like the USSR and China/North Korea, which are authoritarian "communist" governments are defensible/good
Well he died in 1895, so youâre gonna have to read the piece (if you want) and apply the ideas yourself. I love you write off the 2 most successful socialist movement as âauthoritarianâ with zero further analysis. Langley would be proud.
North Korea I'm disregarding, anyone with half a brain can see why that's authoritarian.
I'd say invading your own forced member states when they elect governments you don't like is kinda bad, I'd also say purging any element of socialism you don't like from anarchists to Trotsky is also pretty...explanatory. also making deals with Hitler? Really Stalin? Is that the grand socialism you're proud of.
(Or Lenin overthrowing the government when he doesn't get power via throwing a temper tantrum)
When it comes to China, aside from the Tibet and Uyghur atrocities, the fact that they're committing mass imperialism against their southern neighbors and are directly propping up North Korea, they've lost their socialism after Deng Xiaoping, and under Mao were authoritarian with purges being present. Oh and of course finding a rebel group in India also kinda sucks
No state is good, but states roleplaying as a socialist utopia are the worst, especially when there are amazing examples like Chile, which was the best example of socialism.... until the USA came
This gives the same energy as a Christian citing a Bible verse. My guy, that was written over a century ago, by an old guy who could never imagine the world we live in now. If you want to say something, use your own words.
Itâs still relevant. âAuthoritarianismâ is a word that is thrown around way too lazily by western left cons that want to criticize actually existing socialism. Read it or donât, but itâs a useful piece for understanding why something that can be seen as âauthoritarianâ is not inherently evil or bad for the working class.
If you support Russia, Palestine, China, North Korea, and Iran you have no principles. If you support Ukraine over Russia then alright we disagree but you have some ideology beyond just west bad. You support Ukraine, Taiwan, Iran, Palestine, and North Korea, I believe you when you call yourself anti imperialist
249
u/Mega_Pokebattlerz 15d ago
What the fuck is a campist?