It’s absolutely an attack on my character, you opened this conversation attacking me with an anti-communist pejorative and have refused to engage with my points, preferring to just call them “divorced from reality” and “vacuous nonsense” as though those rhetorical attacks erase the points raised.
I backed up why I said all states are authoritarian: all are instruments by which the ruling class oppresses others and retains control, and the degree to which it oppresses is aligned with the degree to which it is opposed. I even used Germany as an example, Nazi Germany wasn’t more oppressive because they wanted to be, but because the bourgeoisie was responding to a crisis in their mode of production and needed to violently assert itself, but the mode of production fundamentally did not change.
it’s not an anti-communist pejorative. it’s an anti-authoritarian pejorative. but for you, it’s the same, because you’re an authoritarian who supports other authoritarians as long as they are red.
look, saying “all states are authoritarian” is something YOU assumed. you’d need to prove that first before we even get to anything else.
socailist thought, political parties, gatherings, etc, can all exist in liberal democracies. that’s not the mark of authoritarianism.
i suspect you will say they exist to the extent that they are not a threat to the capitalists, but will be crushed if they were to actually gain power.
then i’d say you’d still need to prove that also, but first, how about getting a populace to actually vote for your views and win elections before crying foul.
whereas in an authoritarian state, straight to the gulag or shot. ie. Stalin, Mao, Kim, your heroes.
“Tankie” is absolutely an anti-communist pejorative, it’s used for the same people that have been called “reds,” “pinkos,” “commies,” etc. It’s levied at supporters of existing socialist systems, which includes the likes of W.E.B. Dubois, Nelson Mandela, Fanon, Malcolm X, etc.
As for saying all states are authoritarian, I did prove it. Do you disagree with the notion that all states are elements of class oppression, and that whichever class controls the state oppresses the rest? That’s the standard Marxist position, which since you’re not a Marxist it’s understandable that you wouldn’t, but it would be best for you to be honest about your anti-communism.
i suspect you will say they exist to the extent that they are not a threat to the capitalists, but will be crushed if they were to actually gain power.
I actually agree with this, yes.
then i’d say you’d still need to prove that also, but first, how about getting a populace to actually vote for your views and win elections before crying foul.
Why would Marxists try to accomplish something proven to never work in theory nor in practice? The principles of Marxism are to unite unity and practice, learn from the past and apply it to the present. Why would we not learn from the failures of electoral socialism learned by the coup against Salvador Allende in Chile? Why would we not learn from the success of revolutionaries?
not that UD is some kind of godly authority, but in my experience this is the common historical meaning, specifically in contrast of other communists. if ppl use it to deride all communists, i can’t speak to that, but it would not be accurate. as i’ve said, i associate with non-tankie and former tankie Commies.
you never acknowledge this and prefer to wash it all away by claiming it’s an empty slur against all Commies, which is pretty divorced from the overarching context.
re: authoritarian states
you didn’t prove it, you made a claim and presented evidence.
i am not yet convinced of your (Marxist) claim that “all states are elements of class oppression, and that whichever class controls the state oppresses the rest.”
if i were anti-communist, i’d just tell you. but you are correct that i am not communist, nor socialist. not yet at least, mostly due to tankies. we’ve had this discussion before, i don’t particularly want to drag this on.
re: practice
then why not learn from the failings of the USSR, DPRK, PRC in their human rights violations? that would make we take your position more to heart, because when you can’t do that, it makes everything else you say empty, because you remain inhuman in your willingness to oppress others.
The UD definition outright states that “tankies” are those who are inflexible and incapable of nuance or critique, so I am not a “tankie” according to your UD link. The vast majority of communists are supportive of AES states, while providing genuine critique, which is what I do as well. Your only rhetorical purpose in calling me a “tankie” is to erase the nuanced critique I provide of AES states and replace it with some dogmatic version of myself, one that doesn’t exist anywhere except your mind.
You cling to this caricature because it’s integral to your points, if it turns out that I am indeed capable of nuance and critique but just disagree with you, then you have to actually engage with my points. You use “tankie” as a thought-terminating cliché and a cover for you being blanketly anti-communist.
As for authoritarianism, you just dismissed my points out of hand and never engaged with them. As far as I know, this is the first time we’ve had this conversation, unless you’ve changed your username or something. I don’t really remember everyone I talk to. If you have critique or a counter-argument, I’d appreciate that, as of now you just insult me for making a point and backing it with evidence.
You may not want to think of yourself as anti-communist, but if you oppose the vast majority of communists theoretically and in practice, then you’re anti-communist. It isn’t like you’re just ambivalent, you have stances. It seems more likely that you just don’t want to take on the label of anti-communist, while being an anti-communist in action.
As for critique, I do. I don’t agree with the standard western narratives surrounding AES failures, but I do agree with real critiques based in material reality. Me dismissing bourgeois narratives and doing so with evidence doesn’t mean I am incapable of critique, just that I believe the baseline for that critique is different in character. I find that it’s usually Marxist-Leninists that are the most critical of AES along genuine lines, as we’ve done the due dilligence of sepparating fact from fiction so we can learn what went wrong and what went right.
As an example, early revolutionary Cuba was quite homophobic, based on machismo. Homosexuals were persecuted and jailed. Over time, this was seen as an error, and now Cuba has one of the most progressive family codes in the world, with Fidel himself recognizing it as a horrible mistake that needed to be rectified.
You don’t see that critique, though. You’ve already invented a version of me in your head, and are arguing against it. It’s dishonest.
i don’t do any of that, but that is your go-to response for the term.
this has come of my lived experience of interacting with you. it has been what you have put forth to me in your full-throated support of, as you say, AES states.
NOW, having said that, if you have some examples to show me of your nuanced critique of the human rights abuses of these authoritarian states, i’d actually love to see them. they did not come up in our last interaction. maybe they will change my view of you and of your brand of communism.
re: authoritarianism
we have interacted in the past, and of course you wouldn’t recall. no reason you would, and that’s totally ok. but you are active enough i’m sure you realize that ppl remember you.
i’m ok with being anti-communist if that is indeed what i am. but because i am actively inquiring into Socialist thought to see if i can be Socialist, it’s just not a category i am sure of yet (either pro/anti communism, socialism, insert-Leftist-ideology-here, etc). i do know i am anti-authoritarian, and that will not change.
re: critique
“I find that it’s usually Marxist-Leninists that are the most critical of AES along genuine lines, as we’ve done the due dilligence of sepparating fact from fiction so we can learn what went wrong and what went right.”
i’ve heard you say this before. it strikes me as a bit hubristic and if i were you i’d remain concerned about the accuracy of reports/data from AES states, same as i don’t trust the US’s opinion of itself.
nevertheless, i remain open and interested in what you can present of this.
I support AES, like the overwhelming majority of Marxist-Leninists, who in turn make up the overwhelming majority of Marxists, to begin with. I don’t know what you mean by “full-throated.” Do you mean I am loudly supportive, or uncritically supportive? If it’s the former, I should hope so! A better world is possible! I refuse to cede ground to those whose stances align more with bourgeois narratives about AES states than proletarian narratives.
If it’s the latter, then I disagree vehemontly. Criticism and self-criticism are core principles of Marxism-Leninism. The CPC, the largest Marxist-Leninist party in the world at ~96 million members, paints both Stalin and Mao at “70% good, 30% bad.” That’s hardly uncritical support. What is opposed is dogmatic rejection of socialist leaders. Critique based on dogma cedes the narrative to the bourgeoisie.
As far as examples, I already noted early Cuba’s homophobia, the same applies to the Soviet Union (though some areas like the GDR became more progressive over time, and the USSR in general was extremely progressive from a feminist point of view compared to its peers), and the PRC as well, as an example. Socially, the PRC is behind Cuba and Vietnam, despite having a better economic model. Things are improving steadily, but they have a long way to go.
Does that satisfy, or are you just going to endlessly move the goalposts?
Re: “authoritarianism”
Marxist-Leninists are anti-authoritarian too. Hear it straight from Lenin:
While the State exists there can be no freedom; when there is freedom there will be no State.
Since all states are authoritarian, we need to abolish the state. But, we can only do that once class ceases to exist, and we can only do so once everyone’s social relation to production is interchangeable and the same, ie a classless society based on collectivization. The goal of socialism is to accomplish this, and until all property is sublimated there will be class, and as such until then the state will remain, as it must.
If you’re actively inquiring into socialist thought, then you owe it to yourself to explore Marxism-Leninism. It’s the most significant and largest branch of Marxism, which in turn is the most significant and largest umbrella under the “socialist” banner. Here’s an introductory ML reading list I made, check it out if you wish. If you’re “anti-authoritarian,” then you should explore what that actually means, beyond just supporting systems when they aren’t in crisis and going back on that when they are (see the Nazi Germany vs. Modern Germany example for what I mean, both are equally “authoritarian” in that their class structure is the same but the extent of oppression was based on circumstance)
Re: Critique
I don’t purely trust data from AES, I trust data that has significant historical evidence. This is hard to prove without specific examples, but in absence of that, here’s my critique of the Gang of Four period of the PRC:
More ad-hominem. Rather than explaining why the points are “bullshit,” you just attack me personally and make excuses for why you can’t respond.
it’s not an ad hominem, for goodness sake, get it right. it’s not an attack on your person or character.
i consider what you said non-sequitous poppycock. i reject your statements out of hand.
“all states are authoritarian.” this is the kind of vacuous nonsense you create to support your paradigm.
It’s absolutely an attack on my character, you opened this conversation attacking me with an anti-communist pejorative and have refused to engage with my points, preferring to just call them “divorced from reality” and “vacuous nonsense” as though those rhetorical attacks erase the points raised.
I backed up why I said all states are authoritarian: all are instruments by which the ruling class oppresses others and retains control, and the degree to which it oppresses is aligned with the degree to which it is opposed. I even used Germany as an example, Nazi Germany wasn’t more oppressive because they wanted to be, but because the bourgeoisie was responding to a crisis in their mode of production and needed to violently assert itself, but the mode of production fundamentally did not change.
it’s not an anti-communist pejorative. it’s an anti-authoritarian pejorative. but for you, it’s the same, because you’re an authoritarian who supports other authoritarians as long as they are red.
look, saying “all states are authoritarian” is something YOU assumed. you’d need to prove that first before we even get to anything else.
socailist thought, political parties, gatherings, etc, can all exist in liberal democracies. that’s not the mark of authoritarianism.
i suspect you will say they exist to the extent that they are not a threat to the capitalists, but will be crushed if they were to actually gain power.
then i’d say you’d still need to prove that also, but first, how about getting a populace to actually vote for your views and win elections before crying foul.
whereas in an authoritarian state, straight to the gulag or shot. ie. Stalin, Mao, Kim, your heroes.
“Tankie” is absolutely an anti-communist pejorative, it’s used for the same people that have been called “reds,” “pinkos,” “commies,” etc. It’s levied at supporters of existing socialist systems, which includes the likes of W.E.B. Dubois, Nelson Mandela, Fanon, Malcolm X, etc.
As for saying all states are authoritarian, I did prove it. Do you disagree with the notion that all states are elements of class oppression, and that whichever class controls the state oppresses the rest? That’s the standard Marxist position, which since you’re not a Marxist it’s understandable that you wouldn’t, but it would be best for you to be honest about your anti-communism.
I actually agree with this, yes.
Why would Marxists try to accomplish something proven to never work in theory nor in practice? The principles of Marxism are to unite unity and practice, learn from the past and apply it to the present. Why would we not learn from the failures of electoral socialism learned by the coup against Salvador Allende in Chile? Why would we not learn from the success of revolutionaries?
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tankie
not that UD is some kind of godly authority, but in my experience this is the common historical meaning, specifically in contrast of other communists. if ppl use it to deride all communists, i can’t speak to that, but it would not be accurate. as i’ve said, i associate with non-tankie and former tankie Commies.
you never acknowledge this and prefer to wash it all away by claiming it’s an empty slur against all Commies, which is pretty divorced from the overarching context.
re: authoritarian states
you didn’t prove it, you made a claim and presented evidence.
i am not yet convinced of your (Marxist) claim that “all states are elements of class oppression, and that whichever class controls the state oppresses the rest.”
if i were anti-communist, i’d just tell you. but you are correct that i am not communist, nor socialist. not yet at least, mostly due to tankies. we’ve had this discussion before, i don’t particularly want to drag this on.
re: practice
then why not learn from the failings of the USSR, DPRK, PRC in their human rights violations? that would make we take your position more to heart, because when you can’t do that, it makes everything else you say empty, because you remain inhuman in your willingness to oppress others.
red boots, blue boots, still boots.
The UD definition outright states that “tankies” are those who are inflexible and incapable of nuance or critique, so I am not a “tankie” according to your UD link. The vast majority of communists are supportive of AES states, while providing genuine critique, which is what I do as well. Your only rhetorical purpose in calling me a “tankie” is to erase the nuanced critique I provide of AES states and replace it with some dogmatic version of myself, one that doesn’t exist anywhere except your mind.
You cling to this caricature because it’s integral to your points, if it turns out that I am indeed capable of nuance and critique but just disagree with you, then you have to actually engage with my points. You use “tankie” as a thought-terminating cliché and a cover for you being blanketly anti-communist.
As for authoritarianism, you just dismissed my points out of hand and never engaged with them. As far as I know, this is the first time we’ve had this conversation, unless you’ve changed your username or something. I don’t really remember everyone I talk to. If you have critique or a counter-argument, I’d appreciate that, as of now you just insult me for making a point and backing it with evidence.
You may not want to think of yourself as anti-communist, but if you oppose the vast majority of communists theoretically and in practice, then you’re anti-communist. It isn’t like you’re just ambivalent, you have stances. It seems more likely that you just don’t want to take on the label of anti-communist, while being an anti-communist in action.
As for critique, I do. I don’t agree with the standard western narratives surrounding AES failures, but I do agree with real critiques based in material reality. Me dismissing bourgeois narratives and doing so with evidence doesn’t mean I am incapable of critique, just that I believe the baseline for that critique is different in character. I find that it’s usually Marxist-Leninists that are the most critical of AES along genuine lines, as we’ve done the due dilligence of sepparating fact from fiction so we can learn what went wrong and what went right.
As an example, early revolutionary Cuba was quite homophobic, based on machismo. Homosexuals were persecuted and jailed. Over time, this was seen as an error, and now Cuba has one of the most progressive family codes in the world, with Fidel himself recognizing it as a horrible mistake that needed to be rectified.
You don’t see that critique, though. You’ve already invented a version of me in your head, and are arguing against it. It’s dishonest.
re: tankie
i don’t do any of that, but that is your go-to response for the term.
this has come of my lived experience of interacting with you. it has been what you have put forth to me in your full-throated support of, as you say, AES states.
NOW, having said that, if you have some examples to show me of your nuanced critique of the human rights abuses of these authoritarian states, i’d actually love to see them. they did not come up in our last interaction. maybe they will change my view of you and of your brand of communism.
re: authoritarianism
we have interacted in the past, and of course you wouldn’t recall. no reason you would, and that’s totally ok. but you are active enough i’m sure you realize that ppl remember you.
i’m ok with being anti-communist if that is indeed what i am. but because i am actively inquiring into Socialist thought to see if i can be Socialist, it’s just not a category i am sure of yet (either pro/anti communism, socialism, insert-Leftist-ideology-here, etc). i do know i am anti-authoritarian, and that will not change.
re: critique
“I find that it’s usually Marxist-Leninists that are the most critical of AES along genuine lines, as we’ve done the due dilligence of sepparating fact from fiction so we can learn what went wrong and what went right.”
i’ve heard you say this before. it strikes me as a bit hubristic and if i were you i’d remain concerned about the accuracy of reports/data from AES states, same as i don’t trust the US’s opinion of itself.
nevertheless, i remain open and interested in what you can present of this.
Re: “tankies”
I support AES, like the overwhelming majority of Marxist-Leninists, who in turn make up the overwhelming majority of Marxists, to begin with. I don’t know what you mean by “full-throated.” Do you mean I am loudly supportive, or uncritically supportive? If it’s the former, I should hope so! A better world is possible! I refuse to cede ground to those whose stances align more with bourgeois narratives about AES states than proletarian narratives.
If it’s the latter, then I disagree vehemontly. Criticism and self-criticism are core principles of Marxism-Leninism. The CPC, the largest Marxist-Leninist party in the world at ~96 million members, paints both Stalin and Mao at “70% good, 30% bad.” That’s hardly uncritical support. What is opposed is dogmatic rejection of socialist leaders. Critique based on dogma cedes the narrative to the bourgeoisie.
As far as examples, I already noted early Cuba’s homophobia, the same applies to the Soviet Union (though some areas like the GDR became more progressive over time, and the USSR in general was extremely progressive from a feminist point of view compared to its peers), and the PRC as well, as an example. Socially, the PRC is behind Cuba and Vietnam, despite having a better economic model. Things are improving steadily, but they have a long way to go.
Does that satisfy, or are you just going to endlessly move the goalposts?
Re: “authoritarianism”
Marxist-Leninists are anti-authoritarian too. Hear it straight from Lenin:
Since all states are authoritarian, we need to abolish the state. But, we can only do that once class ceases to exist, and we can only do so once everyone’s social relation to production is interchangeable and the same, ie a classless society based on collectivization. The goal of socialism is to accomplish this, and until all property is sublimated there will be class, and as such until then the state will remain, as it must.
If you’re actively inquiring into socialist thought, then you owe it to yourself to explore Marxism-Leninism. It’s the most significant and largest branch of Marxism, which in turn is the most significant and largest umbrella under the “socialist” banner. Here’s an introductory ML reading list I made, check it out if you wish. If you’re “anti-authoritarian,” then you should explore what that actually means, beyond just supporting systems when they aren’t in crisis and going back on that when they are (see the Nazi Germany vs. Modern Germany example for what I mean, both are equally “authoritarian” in that their class structure is the same but the extent of oppression was based on circumstance)
Re: Critique
I don’t purely trust data from AES, I trust data that has significant historical evidence. This is hard to prove without specific examples, but in absence of that, here’s my critique of the Gang of Four period of the PRC:
That should cover it, I think?
mUh AuThOrItHaRiAnIsM!!!11!
📕 On Authority by Engels
📺 We Need To Talk About “Authoritarianism” by Second Thought