This is framing the term “tankie” disingenuously if not intentionally. According to the Wikipedia article:
Tankie is a pejorative label generally applied to authoritarian communists, especially those who support or defend acts of repression by such regimes, their allies, or deny the occurrence of the events thereof.
It’s only ‘ignorant and combative’ in the same way that people call right-wing authoritarianism fascism, which is perfectly reasonable if not sympathetically misguided. Not to mention socialism isn’t apart of the meaning at all as you’ve described it.
I also find it funny that your source for the meaning of tankie is from lemmy.ml, as if that isn’t the exact instance this post is criticizing. It would be like if I corrected someone on the meaning of the term “National Socialism” by sourcing Mein Kampf.
especially those who support or defend acts of repression by such regimes, their allies, or deny the occurrence of the events thereof.
Who defines “acts of repression”? Capitalists? Western Imperialists who commit acts of repression daily? It’s not a good faith argument. Many of the “acts of repression” usually listed [by western media, western/capitalist countries] can almost always be debunked or explained with nuance. For example the comment by the other user that “Xi is literal dictator” … I can’t even take this comment seriously.
It’s only ‘ignorant and combative’ in the same way that people call right-wing authoritarianism fascism
It’s ignorant and combative because it hand waves away all successful socialist states (China, Cuba, etc) without any nuance.
Not to mention socialism isn’t apart of the meaning at all as you’ve described it.
Socialism and Communism are one in the in the same according to Marx. As we use the terms today, from actual Socialists, is that Socialism is a beginning, transitory state before full Communism. This is the general agreed upon consensus at a high level. Among non-Socialists or Liberals, Socialism is usually interpreted as a “safer, more desirable, version of Communism”, whatever that means. As such, using the the term “tankie” insults Socialists and Communists alike, as we’re all working towards the same goal.
I also find it funny that your source for the meaning of tankie is from lemmy.ml
Where was I supposed to find a succinct rebuttal to this other than the people against whom the term is used? Wikipedia? Fox News? Where? Talk about bias…
It would be like if I corrected someone on the meaning of the term “Jew” by sourcing Mein Kampf.
I can already tell this isn’t a good faith response based on the first paragraph lol, you clearly didn’t read the article nor do you know the history of the term Tankie. Again, Wikipedia:
As you can see (if you care to be sincere here) it’s a pejorative term created by leftists to describe other leftists. Neither are acts of oppression defined by any of the groups you listed in this context. Be serious, please.
It’s ignorant and combative because it hand waves away all successful socialist states (China, Cuba, etc) without any nuance.
Inherently biased counter-point. You can’t just pose a government as having a successful ideology, at that point we might as well say there exists such a thing as utopia. It’s entirely rhetorical and has nothing solid to stand on.
Socialism and Communism are one in the in the same according to Marx. As we use the terms today, from actual Socialists, is that Socialism is a beginning, transitory state before full Communism.
Sure, but hopefully we can agree that contemporary socialists as a whole certainly do not agree on that definition. The ideology is far too diversified at this point for that to be the case. You can’t say “they aren’t socialists then” because again, that’s entirely rhetorical. In that case Protestants aren’t Christians, and Shia Muslims aren’t Islamic. Sure that’s religion, and you can say that’s different, but at the end of the day both religion and politics encompass ideological systems. They cover different niches, but what they fundamentally are stays the same.
This is the general agreed upon consensus at a high level.
This part really gets me. What are we defining as high level? Lemmy.ml mods? Even experts on the matter wouldn’t unanimously agree, they’re not a hivemind.
the term “tankie” insults Socialists and Communists alike, as we’re all working towards the same goal.
See my third point. Generalizations out the wazoo in this statement.
Where was I supposed to find a succinct rebuttal to this other than the people against whom the term is used? Wikipedia? Fox News?
Oh, I dunno… Academic sources would be a good place to start. I wouldn’t say a lemmy community is very close to that.
False equivalence and you know it.
Fair, though I edited it right after from Jew to National Socialism as I realized the error right away. You can’t say that’s a false equivalence, so ha!
Not sure if you’re referring to me, but I’m a card-carrying Communist and I’d hardly consider getting fed Western propaganda from a Lemmy Lib as “getting owned”. I’ve already blocked him and moved on with my life…
Notice I wrote ‘as you’ve described it’. I shouldn’t have to explain that the criticism the term tankie is calling attention to in theory is authoritarianism, not communism or socialism as a whole (as the term was literally created by communists). Unless you’re arguing that authoritarianism is a good thing. I guess I wouldn’t be all that surprised.
It isn’t so much that “authoritarianism is a good thing,” and more that it isn’t a useful term. All states are a tool by which one class exerts its authority, all states are therefore “authoritarian,” including socialist states. Therefore, “authoritarian communists” just means “communists” in practice.
Yes, exactly, it’s a purely semantic distinction that serves no useful purpose other than to decontextualize regular-ass socialist democratic policy and recast it as some kind of dark foreign despotism.
It must look strange to those who conflate authority with power. A state that has power without authority is a state that is in crisis. Calling a government authoritarian is to say it’s authority comes from it’s exercise of power.
It’s come to my attention that you’re someone who genuinely believes Russia is not an imperialist nation (where you ironically also attempt to hand-wave the definition of imperialism as forceful authority over another nation and imply that the only right one is that it’s a direct and unique result of capitalism—as if a word can’t have more than one definition), so I doubt you’re someone I can have a rational discussion about authoritarianism with regardless.
And again, you’re fixing the term based on your own perception to make it support your point, which doesn’t really have any merit when it comes to using these words as they are by academics essentially ubiquitously. Until we can both accept that authoritarianism has a set definition independent of many ideologies and therefore cannot be universally applied to them, this will remain a purely rhetorical argument.
Imperialism is a stage of monopoly capitalism where domestic markets are saturated, and thus you must go outward. In this process, bank capital merges with industrial capital to form finance capital, and this dominates the economy, forcing export of capital rather than commodity. The world itself has already been entirely split up amongst the imperialist powers by World War I, as this was the primary cause behind it.
The Soviet Union was anti-imperialist and anti-colonial, and the dissolution of socialism in the USSR was devastating for all countries involved. As such, even if we were to assume Russia would be imperialist if it could, it inherited no colonies, only a broken economy, and the west had already split the world amongst themselves.
Russia is closer to something like Brazil than an imperialist country like the US, France, Germany, the UK, etc.
This isn’t hand-waving anything. I am talking about a specific, observable stage capitalism inevitably results in over time. When you’re trying to say that it’s about trying to get your way forcefully, then this means it was imperialism when the Statesian North invaded the Statesian South and liberated the slaves. It means it was imperialism when the Soviets defeated the Nazis in World War II. In other words, it’s clear that you’re interested in imperialism as far as it can be used as a condemnation, and not as an actual observable system.
For the sake of argument, let’s call imperialism as I described it “finance plundering.” Is your point that “finance plundering” isn’t a stage of capitalism, and that western countries are not "financial plunderers?* Is your argument that Russia also has the ability to stand with the west in that realm? Academics already recognize this as a real system, and it’s what is understood to be imperialism as it manifests in the modern era.
As for “authoritarianism,” I agree that it’s broad, that’s my point. It applies to anything with a state, as all states are tools by which the authority of one class is exerted over others.
This is framing the term “tankie” disingenuously if not intentionally. According to the Wikipedia article:
It’s only ‘ignorant and combative’ in the same way that people call right-wing authoritarianism fascism, which is perfectly reasonable if not sympathetically misguided. Not to mention socialism isn’t apart of the meaning at all as you’ve described it.
I also find it funny that your source for the meaning of tankie is from lemmy.ml, as if that isn’t the exact instance this post is criticizing. It would be like if I corrected someone on the meaning of the term “National Socialism” by sourcing Mein Kampf.
Who defines “acts of repression”? Capitalists? Western Imperialists who commit acts of repression daily? It’s not a good faith argument. Many of the “acts of repression” usually listed [by western media, western/capitalist countries] can almost always be debunked or explained with nuance. For example the comment by the other user that “Xi is literal dictator” … I can’t even take this comment seriously.
It’s ignorant and combative because it hand waves away all successful socialist states (China, Cuba, etc) without any nuance.
Socialism and Communism are one in the in the same according to Marx. As we use the terms today, from actual Socialists, is that Socialism is a beginning, transitory state before full Communism. This is the general agreed upon consensus at a high level. Among non-Socialists or Liberals, Socialism is usually interpreted as a “safer, more desirable, version of Communism”, whatever that means. As such, using the the term “tankie” insults Socialists and Communists alike, as we’re all working towards the same goal.
Where was I supposed to find a succinct rebuttal to this other than the people against whom the term is used? Wikipedia? Fox News? Where? Talk about bias…
False equivalence and you know it.
I can already tell this isn’t a good faith response based on the first paragraph lol, you clearly didn’t read the article nor do you know the history of the term Tankie. Again, Wikipedia:
As you can see (if you care to be sincere here) it’s a pejorative term created by leftists to describe other leftists. Neither are acts of oppression defined by any of the groups you listed in this context. Be serious, please.
Inherently biased counter-point. You can’t just pose a government as having a successful ideology, at that point we might as well say there exists such a thing as utopia. It’s entirely rhetorical and has nothing solid to stand on.
Sure, but hopefully we can agree that contemporary socialists as a whole certainly do not agree on that definition. The ideology is far too diversified at this point for that to be the case. You can’t say “they aren’t socialists then” because again, that’s entirely rhetorical. In that case Protestants aren’t Christians, and Shia Muslims aren’t Islamic. Sure that’s religion, and you can say that’s different, but at the end of the day both religion and politics encompass ideological systems. They cover different niches, but what they fundamentally are stays the same.
This part really gets me. What are we defining as high level? Lemmy.ml mods? Even experts on the matter wouldn’t unanimously agree, they’re not a hivemind.
See my third point. Generalizations out the wazoo in this statement.
Oh, I dunno… Academic sources would be a good place to start. I wouldn’t say a lemmy community is very close to that.
Fair, though I edited it right after from Jew to National Socialism as I realized the error right away. You can’t say that’s a false equivalence, so ha!
I ain’t reading all that. Free Palestine.
Guy who hates communism is getting publicly owned
Not sure if you’re referring to me, but I’m a card-carrying Communist and I’d hardly consider getting fed Western propaganda from a Lemmy Lib as “getting owned”. I’ve already blocked him and moved on with my life…
no, I was referring to who you were responding to
Agreed! Sorry for giving you that “nuance” you craved, in any case.
Have you tried clicking on the “authoritarian communists” link for a definition?
Notice I wrote ‘as you’ve described it’. I shouldn’t have to explain that the criticism the term tankie is calling attention to in theory is authoritarianism, not communism or socialism as a whole (as the term was literally created by communists). Unless you’re arguing that authoritarianism is a good thing. I guess I wouldn’t be all that surprised.
It isn’t so much that “authoritarianism is a good thing,” and more that it isn’t a useful term. All states are a tool by which one class exerts its authority, all states are therefore “authoritarian,” including socialist states. Therefore, “authoritarian communists” just means “communists” in practice.
This is a semantic argument so it’s pretty much a nothingburger. I’m just gonna go ahead and apply Alder’s razor and call it here
Yes, exactly, it’s a purely semantic distinction that serves no useful purpose other than to decontextualize regular-ass socialist democratic policy and recast it as some kind of dark foreign despotism.
It must look strange to those who conflate authority with power. A state that has power without authority is a state that is in crisis. Calling a government authoritarian is to say it’s authority comes from it’s exercise of power.
I think it’s pretty critical to the discussion, considering it tries to designate some communists as “authoritarian” and others presumably as not so.
It’s come to my attention that you’re someone who genuinely believes Russia is not an imperialist nation (where you ironically also attempt to hand-wave the definition of imperialism as forceful authority over another nation and imply that the only right one is that it’s a direct and unique result of capitalism—as if a word can’t have more than one definition), so I doubt you’re someone I can have a rational discussion about authoritarianism with regardless.
And again, you’re fixing the term based on your own perception to make it support your point, which doesn’t really have any merit when it comes to using these words as they are by academics essentially ubiquitously. Until we can both accept that authoritarianism has a set definition independent of many ideologies and therefore cannot be universally applied to them, this will remain a purely rhetorical argument.
Imperialism is a stage of monopoly capitalism where domestic markets are saturated, and thus you must go outward. In this process, bank capital merges with industrial capital to form finance capital, and this dominates the economy, forcing export of capital rather than commodity. The world itself has already been entirely split up amongst the imperialist powers by World War I, as this was the primary cause behind it.
The Soviet Union was anti-imperialist and anti-colonial, and the dissolution of socialism in the USSR was devastating for all countries involved. As such, even if we were to assume Russia would be imperialist if it could, it inherited no colonies, only a broken economy, and the west had already split the world amongst themselves.
Russia is closer to something like Brazil than an imperialist country like the US, France, Germany, the UK, etc.
This isn’t hand-waving anything. I am talking about a specific, observable stage capitalism inevitably results in over time. When you’re trying to say that it’s about trying to get your way forcefully, then this means it was imperialism when the Statesian North invaded the Statesian South and liberated the slaves. It means it was imperialism when the Soviets defeated the Nazis in World War II. In other words, it’s clear that you’re interested in imperialism as far as it can be used as a condemnation, and not as an actual observable system.
For the sake of argument, let’s call imperialism as I described it “finance plundering.” Is your point that “finance plundering” isn’t a stage of capitalism, and that western countries are not "financial plunderers?* Is your argument that Russia also has the ability to stand with the west in that realm? Academics already recognize this as a real system, and it’s what is understood to be imperialism as it manifests in the modern era.
As for “authoritarianism,” I agree that it’s broad, that’s my point. It applies to anything with a state, as all states are tools by which the authority of one class is exerted over others.