192
Seeing libs seethe about “too many tankies” is really funny.
(lemmygrad.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2023
192 points (100.0% liked)
Comradeship // Freechat
22 readers
15 users here now
Talk about whatever, respecting the rules established by Lemmygrad. Failing to comply with the rules will grant you a few warnings, insisting on breaking them will grant you a beautiful shiny banwall.
A community for comrades to chat and talk about whatever doesn't fit other communities
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
While there are undoubtedly people that use the term like that, I think there is a general understanding that it refers to people that can excuse or support authoritarian or oppressive actions
But the terminology 'authoritarian and oppressive' doesn't really make sense in leftist circles where all states are understood to be just that by definition. I mean, that's why people are socialists. Tankie is lib terminology referencing anything that undermines liberal democracy. It only makes sense when coming from anarchists.
You've never had the pleasure of interacting with someone that can produce endless excuses for the USSR or PRC?
Found the lib
Yes, but that doesn't make them more authoritarian or oppressive because no matter what every state is using what it deems the most effective path to enforcing its will and if that means violence it will always resort to violence. It makes them bad communists.
It's not a matter of oppression or no oppression but a matter of oppressing the right people. If the USSR and PRC were perfect they would be a contradiction to their own purpose, no?
Look amigo, I get there is a lot of depth to be had in a discussion like this, but I'm just explaining what people generally mean when they say tankie.
I would agree they are bad Communists, but unfortunately they are extremely visible and influence how non-Leftists see Communists, which is why many Leftists are quick and eager to disavow any connection with them.
They are bad because they oppress the privileged, I assume. The privileged do not need communism. Leave communism to the unprivileged people.
No I mean like how homosexuals were persecuted
and im a trans communist, and so are many people on this site. you think we dont know our own history?
Are you are defending, excusing, or justifying the persecution of LGBT people?
what?
They were persecuted, sadly. Communist countries stopped doing that shit earlier than capitalist ones.
True, an example of this was homosexuality being decriminalized in the GDR (East Germany) in 1957, it was only in 1969 that the FRG (West Germany) did it.
for real. compare cuba and china with other countries in their regions.
It took West Germany 2 decades to catch up with East Germany re: LGBTQ rights. Tge USSR was the primary opponent of the Nazis, do you know what they did to anyone falling outside of the sexual or gender norms? Germany was a bastion for queer people before the Nazis took over - Nazis quietly supported by Western powers under the hope that they would kill the Soviets (spoiler alert: they tried to kill every Slav). During the cold war in capitalist countries, homosexuality was generally illegal, often criminal, and was used to blackmail people, and notably used against high profile civil rights activists.
Does that make the oppression that did exist in some socialist countries okay? Of course not. But they did much better than the capitalists, so it's ridiculous to choose that as your primary criticism. Socialism isn't a utopia and no socialists ever claim it is. It is a struggle, and the earlier it starts the better we can progress.
Cubs is currently running circles sround capitalist countries with its new family code. Were you aware of this?
I don't think reunified Germany has even caught up with East Germany on trans rights, though I don't follow it that closely.
Hey, I am one of them. The usa is always 100x worse, arguing does not change this reality.
It's good to endlessly excuse the USSR and PRC, as most criticisms of them are bullsit that is only believable by people with poor knowledge of history and zero capacity to critically engage with the media. Unfortunately, this is basically everyone under capitalism.
It really isn't
I suggest you read the entire argument before responding to it.
Usually it means someone that actually reads history and will specifically debunk common anticommunist myths about it, i.e. historical revisionism.
The term "authoritarian" is also used selectively by anticommunists and this pervades capitalist societies, who continue to teach cold war nonsense. It is implicitly reserved for actions of the state, for example, but this is a false distinction made solely because after any kind of a left takeover, the state is the most powerful tool the people have. Universal government healthcare is authoritarian by this selective definition. On the other hand, the assertion of massive control over people's lives is not described as authoritarian when it comes from the private sector. Workers spend 8-16 hours per day working in petty dictatorships, working around the personalities and whims of business owners and managers, just to ensure some kind of steady income lest they lose basic human security. They are forced to migrate by poverty forced by capitalism, this system creates marginalised groups and then (sometimes slowly) treats them genocidally. Much of it was built on colonialism and neocolonialism, with the richness of the West built on uneven exchange with everyone else, a system set up at gunpoint. None of this is described as authoritarian.
Please read more widely.
I would agree those are authoritarian
After being prompted, sure
I would gladly recognize the American empire's atrocities, I just didn't think it was necessary since most left-leaning spaces are up to date on them, and it would largely be preaching to the choir.
My point is about the unconscious selective use of language, in this case to vilify communists. It's not a coincidence that the term pops up so often in the imperial core to crap on (usually BIPOC-led) successful revolutions and their theory, usually anti-imperialist struggles. Double standards and uneven emphasis are the primary tools of propaganda and they'll have you doing their work for them for free.
That's true, the Red Scare has had a lasting impact on American culture, and that impact can still be seen in vocabulary today.
There is certainly a racial aspect to it, some of the most dehumanizing things I've ever read were about China and Communism specifically, but I don't think that precludes legitimate criticisms of authoritarianism.
The inconsistency of even using the term makes it more or less useless for categorizing anything meaningfully. In practice, it has become an aimless pejorative that seems to have more utility as an anarchist dog whistle for identifying each other than having anything meaningful to say about anything else.