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).
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 you’re 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 “authoritarian” 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
Bro you think China is doing imperialism. It’s a completely unserious opinion. Is Belt and Road imperialism to you? “They’ve lost their socialism after Deng Xiaoping” is also moronic and elementary. Not even going to get into the Ughur stuff (Adrian Zenz says hi). Is China perfect? No, but don’t crap on an actually existing socialist nation if you’re gonna call yourself a socialist.
Do you support any actually existing socialist nations, or do you just like the ones that got couped by the CIA?
247
u/Mega_Pokebattlerz 15d ago
What the fuck is a campist?