Not to mention socialism isn’t apart of the meaning at all as you’ve described it.
Have you tried clicking on the “authoritarian communists” link for a definition?
Comment on .ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this
binux@sh.itjust.works 2 days agoThis 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 description 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 “Jew” by sourcing Mein Kampf.
leftascenter@jlai.lu 2 days ago
binux@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
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.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
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.
binux@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
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
silentjohn@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
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.
binux@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
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!
silentjohn@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
I ain’t reading all that. Free Palestine.
mattyroses@lemmy.today 2 days ago
Guy who hates communism is getting publicly owned
binux@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
Agreed! Sorry for giving you that “nuance” you craved, in any case.