Tankie is used primarily by people that have read history without a perspective of historical materialism. So they simplify the rule of nation states into being entirely defined by their economic systems and give zero interest in understanding what causes “Authoritarianism”.
Giving no analysis to why capitalist states like America resort to concentration camps and Nationalism during a period of conflict like WW2. But criticize communist states, with even worse material conditions, for resorting to similar forms of nationalism during a time of much higher threat from outside attackers. And only labeling the later as “Authoritarian” during these times of conflict.
If you’re a socialist/communist state in the last century you have been under constant threat of invasion; or a foreign supported coup. It’s silly to associate the economic structures of a nation based on that. And conclude “communism results in authoritarism”. When the real answer is that being communist means you are under constant threat from the American empire.
It’s such a “dumb guy” take to associate these states entirely in a vacuum of “communism vs. capitalism” while ignoring literally everything else.
The most Authoritarianist state in history has been the United States with its Imperialist invasion of most of the world. It’s such a dumb simplification and double standard to critize the economic system that has been most beneficial to combatting poverty and Imperialism while criticizing the flawed defensive structures that result from resisting poverty and Imperialism.
Its silly to criticize socialist states in a vacuum while ignoring that they are not in a vacuum and have been under constant siege from capitalist states from their very inception.
And unil something acknowledges that fact. It is pointless to attempt to engage in constructive criticism of the the flaws of past socialist experiments.
Yeah no, this isn’t a “everyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi” situation. I know what you’re trying to do here.
Tankie is used primarily by people that have read history without a perspective of historical materialism. So they simplify the rule of nation states into being entirely defined by their economic systems and give zero interest in understanding what causes “Authoritarianism”.
Giving no analysis to why capitalist states like America resort to concentration camps and Nationalism during a period of conflict like WW2. But criticize communist states, with even worse material conditions, for resorting to similar forms of nationalism during a time of much higher threat from outside attackers. And only labeling the later as “Authoritarian” during these times of conflict.
If you’re a socialist/communist state in the last century you have been under constant threat of invasion; or a foreign supported coup. It’s silly to associate the economic structures of a nation based on that. And conclude “communism results in authoritarism”. When the real answer is that being communist means you are under constant threat from the American empire.
It’s such a “dumb guy” take to associate these states entirely in a vacuum of “communism vs. capitalism” while ignoring literally everything else.
The most Authoritarianist state in history has been the United States with its Imperialist invasion of most of the world. It’s such a dumb simplification and double standard to critize the economic system that has been most beneficial to combatting poverty and Imperialism while criticizing the flawed defensive structures that result from resisting poverty and Imperialism.
Its silly to criticize socialist states in a vacuum while ignoring that they are not in a vacuum and have been under constant siege from capitalist states from their very inception.
And unil something acknowledges that fact. It is pointless to attempt to engage in constructive criticism of the the flaws of past socialist experiments.