Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
It's important to understand the difference between intrinsic characteristics and beliefs because some beliefs are frankly wrong and go against the foundations of the rest. For example, if I said "climate scientists support the fact of climate change" and you said "some deny it," would you then ask me to rephrase the former statement as saying "specific climate scientists support the fact of climate change?" Of course not!
As I have been pointing out this entire time, this is the liberal conception of authority, devoid of class analysis. The missing factor is which class is using its power, and against which class? The state is not outside of class struggle, but within it.
For housekeeping, communism is a post-socialist mode of production and distribution without a state or class, and as such has no class using its authority over others. Socialism still has classes, as the basis of class cannot be abolished overnight, so it necessarily has a state, and therefore the working classes must have control of it for it to be a socialist state. Socialism is therefore necessarily "authoritarian" from the perspective of the former ruling classes, while being liberating for the working classes.
Authority is not a general spectrum of less to more, but instead a privledge for whichever class is in power and a tool for enforcing the will of that class. Therefore, the division between communists and "tankies" does not exist in any real manner beyond fringe western organizations that disagree with the core of Marxism in practice, the establishment of the socialist state as the necessary tool for bringing about communism by eradicating class.
Okay, but when you're talking to an environment that isn't explicitly communist, maybe try to bridge that gap instead of treating us like idiots for not sharing your view in a world that explicitly attempts to discourage understanding it. You're using words in a specialized way with people who do not share your specialization.
And this still doesn't invalidate the point being made. By saying "authoritarian", we explicitly mean the ones who do not wish to use the authority properly. Trying to claim we don't understand what we're talking about isn't addressing the point, it's just shutting down the discussion without a reasonable rebuttal. To say that all communists are authoritarian in the "liberal conception of authority" would be to say that a communist will still treat some people like absolute shit, but it's okay because those people deserve it. Judge a society not by how it treats the best of itself, but by how it treats the least. If all people are valid and worthy of basic necessities and freedoms, then all people are valid and worthy of basic necessities and freedoms. They should be prevented from running roughshod over anyone else, of course, so they shouldn't be allowed to reform a ruling class, and the ones who have committed abuses already should of course see reasonable punishment for those abuses, but they shouldn't be abused themselves for our own sadistic satisfaction. Some class-based restrictions are reasonable, but those who use the word tankie are speaking of those they perceive as taking things way too far, often to the point of cruelty.
Cool, but none of us are the current ruling class, so... We're not speaking from that perspective when we call certain types of communists authoritarian.
Nobody's bitching about communists having authority. We're talking specifically about a type of communist who are perceived as very likely to abuse that authority if they're given it. If it was wrong for the current ruling class to abuse that power against us, it's going to be wrong for us to abuse it against them when we have it. That doesn't mean the former ruling class can't be punished. It doesn't mean we allow the old ruling class to reform. It just means don't be an abusive asshole. Which is what people tend to refer to as a tankie.
I'm trying to bridge that gap, because the rest of your comment is, frankly, wrong.
Socialist states in real life do use authority properly. Mistakes and excess can and do occur, but on the whole socialism has been incredibly liberating for the working classes.
It's extremely easy to fall into "false consciousness." Simply put, capitalists control the western press and media, and use it to demonize socialism. When the western press speaks of "Cuban tyranny," they speak of it in the abstract, in general, when in reality it is tyranny against former slavers, forcibly appropriating their property and distributing it to the people. In this framing, it's easy to fear the general fear capitalists do, as they control cultural hegemony.
But this is all based on, frankly, capitalist distortions of what actually happens in socialist countries. Socialism isn't simply punishing capitalists, it uses authority to expropriate capital and redistribute it. It uses authority to establish healthcare and improve the lives of the people. The conception of the "authoritarianism" practiced in socialist countries is the authority against the capitalists and slavers presented as universal, while ignoring the liberation of the working classes, because capitalists control the press.
Okay, with this having been said, maybe I can reframe this in a way more agreeable to you. We can both agree, I think, that communist states in history have made some mistakes, have had some... lapses in judgement. That's not a comment on the intentions of the people who did those things, no accusation of malice at all, just a statement that mistakes and lapses in judgment occurred. We may not agree on which events should be considered as such, so I won't pick examples so we don't get derailed, but we can probably at least agree that some events occurred that should be so considered.
Tankies are those who embrace and laud events that are widely, but clearly not universally, perceived to be mistakes or lapses in judgement, especially when the mistake was one where their authority was used in excess to the significant detriment of at least some of their people. Even some communists consider tankies to be a particular kind of communist. Maybe you would argue they've fallen into the "false consciousness" that you speak of, but honestly, the one take I almost never hear is that tankies don't deserved to be considered a separate kind of communist. I think I've heard it once or twice, buuuuuut before, it's always from someone who is very clearly a tankie and just doesn't like to be called one.
These people don't really exist, though, and that's my point about "tankie" being a strawman. The vast majority of people labled as "tankies" do not laud events understood by communists to have been mistakes.
Nah, I've seen enough communists agree that tankies are a thing to see this as just a No True ~~Scotsman~~Communist fallacy. Anyone, even a professed communist who disagrees with you, must just not properly understand the true nature of communism. Honestly, should have known to drop this hours ago. I do, but against my better judgment, I thought maybe there'd be a good point here somewhere. Very typical tankie who hates to be called a tankie behavior.
Who have you seen? Random online self-professed communists, or actual serious organizations? And for what it's worth, I'm not offended by being called a "tankie," just like I don't get offended when I get called "woke." My issue is with anti-communists pretending they aren't against communism by inventing a strawman to levy against communists in general.