On stuff outside of lemmygrad, we are receiving a lot of hate, especially by those who just moved from Reddit. Guess they lost their hidden privilege at Reddit as their rhetoric used to be almost universal over there, while genzedong and our other subs get censored and banned. And now, on lemmy, their stuff isn’t universal, as we are more prevalent here. Seems like they really want that hidden privilege back
No, it’s a reference to Khrushchev sending tanks into Hungary during the 1956 revolt. Leftist supporters of this policy within Western nations were referred to as “Tankies” since then the term came to generally just refer to Marxist-Leninists. That is until more recently when Tankie has come to mean just any leftist a person disagrees with.
If you’re interested in leftist theory then go to Marxists.org, it has plenty of free literature. I suggest starting with the communist manifesto just to get a general idea of the principles of communism before delving deeper into Marx and Engel’s work. (And maybe sprinkle in some Lenin too cause he’s sassy and a great read.)
OK thanks for clarification (:
I read the manifesto in h.s. I was super into it back then, im very out of the loop though. Now if I’m gonna read some russian lit gimme some dostoyevsky. (;
Politics are kinda, I dunno, empty feeling to me anymore. I’m jaded AF though lol. I have some communist writings in my little library, maybe I’ll dig through it for fun…but notes from the underground has my name on it. I read crime and punishment for the first time about 9 months ago and Whew what a doozy. Love that fever dream style.
That emptiness is a very common feeling. Learning and doing more absolutely helps with it, though. Look into the concept of revolutionary optimism a little bit if you start reading again.
I’m not a huge fan of folks reading The Communist Manifesto as their first forray into socialism/communism. It was a pamphlet for workers in the 19th century and has some weaknesses if you’re not part of that audience.
I would recommend Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti to most people instead. We live under a more advanced stage of capitalism and it does a great job of explaining a lot of how “the reds” worked, who opposed them, and dispels common myths.
I figured as much. I was young lol.
I think The Communist Manifesto is on liberal curricula specifically because it doesn’t teach the core ideas very well to a modem audience. Not your fault!
That makes sense ig. It wasnt on any curriculum though. I sought this stuff out. I was pretty political at one time, but i was pretty young. I think i understand the tenants of communism fairly well at a basic level but don’t know the lingo and am out of the loop and would probably need a refresher (:]】
One of the main knocks, or at least an opinion or attitude I’ve developed towards communism is that it makes a whole lot of sense, and is quite possibly a “perfect” system, but humans themselves are extremely flawed, and don’t lend themselves to the common good for the most part. Hence why you end up with heavy handed tactics for everyone to fall in line and stuff like oligarchy.
If you have any thoughts on that, feel free to jab at my little thought. For real I’m not that knowledgeable about it. I am into history and pretty much everything and try to self teach as much as I can yknow.
Understandable. Socialists need a glossary, lol. We use a bunch of terms basically nobody else does.
Communism, in terms of a state of being described by Marx, isn’t utopia. It’s just a predicted transformation of how humans relate to each other, and thr economic system under which they live, created through a basic liberation: what if the people who work to make all the stuff got the reins of power? And while the logic is more complex, the basic idea is that they would make their own lives easier and they would prevent other classes from taking over, and because of the nature of how stuff is made, that would result in the abolition of economic classes and high levels of production that sustain rich lives with less work over time.
Marxist thought attempts to reject idealistic thinking and instead ground its ideas in what is truly possible relative to how power and economic relations really work. It does not require any assumptions that humans are purely altruistic or anything like that.
With that said, humans have far more capacity for mutual cooperation and sharing and equitable justice than is commonly believed. Under capitalism, there is a cult of greed that tries to depict the extractive and violent relationship its own ruling class has with the others as a natural and even beneficial thing, and this cult of greed is very popular for a variety of reasons, the most important of which is that it keeps people from directing their frustrations at the party responsible for the aforementioned extraction and violence (the ruling class). This cult of greed is conflated with “human nature” despite the fact that both current and past societies exhibit all kinds of variation in how people relate to one another, and the most common forms for the longest periods of time were built on mutual giving and soft debts that were often communally written off.
Buy communism doesn’t even really depend on societies becoming particularly altruistic like a light switch gets flipped or anything like that.
Finally, I should mention that communism is framed more as a long-term eventuality, and one that requires work and struggle to achieve. No communists expect to see it in their lifetimes. Instead, we expect that we can instead achieve socialist revolutions, which put the working class on top, a necessary precondition and also a massive intrinsic good in itself, as you can see in how peoples’ lives are improved in countries run by socialists.
I think the historical impact of the text is probably the larger factor, though it certainly would be more likely to have been struck in the intervening time if it was more effective.
The Manifesto was written initially in German by two Germans, though Engels was a polyglot so he probably did several translations himself, at least the English and French ones.
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
Sure 🙄
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?
They were persecuted, sadly. Communist countries stopped doing that shit earlier than capitalist ones.
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?
Hey, I am one of them. The usa is always 100x worse, arguing does not change this reality.
Nobody was arguing that, two things can both do bad.
There is a world war going on and I have picked the side that fights against the usa.
thats fine honey
Words that can only be spoken by someone who’s never tried to get together with others to change things for the better. You don’t get to take an entire society and immediately make it equitable and free it of centuries of hangups. You do the revolution with the people in your country, warts and all, and struggle to make them better at the same time. You do not have the luxury of only organizing people that already 100% agree with you, nor will you be “in charge”. And, let’s be honest: any of us in charge would bring our own hangups, because all of us look back on ourselves 5-10 years ago and say, “wow that person believed some problematic things”.
For example, the October Revolution and Russuan Civil War were fought by, believe it or not, Russians born (mostly) in the 1800s in a semi-feudal country without universal education and a large peasantry. The communists were incredibly progressive in comparison to the rest of thr country. But because they retained some of the harmful biases of their culture at the time, you write off the whole project and carry around little lists in your head about how actually they were also just “bad”.
Only that it is almost never the case. And never when people start giving your talking point.
What is my talking point?
“Two things can be bad” - never the case it situations when people start saying it. It ignores scale and often takes hearsay as fact.
The point there is not that the USA is bad but that it is order of magnitudes worse, which means that opposing its enemies must be considered through the lens of “Does this help the US?”
To say nothing of the incredible amount of State Department propaganda that many western so-called leftists readily accept at the same time as “disavowing” the US as “also bad”. If you believe the same things about the US’s enemies that the US is actively campaigning to make you believe, that is a red flag.
I agree
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.
“endlessly excusing” is mutually exclusive with “critically engage”
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.