this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2024
338 points (79.0% liked)
Tankiejerk
639 readers
1 users here now
Dunking on Tankies from a leftist perspective.
A tankie is someone who defends/supports authoritarian or even totalitarian regimes who call themselves "socialist". The term originated from people supporting the 1956 invasion of Hungary by the Soviet Union. Nowadays they are just terminally online, denying genocides, and falling for totalitarian propaganda and calling such regimes "true democracies". remember to censor usernames when necessary.
Please be sure to obscure usernames on posts to prevent doxxing.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Is this a comment on the inevitably of human nature, or a misunderstanding of communism (which if done properly is stateless)?
Communism if done properly is Stateless insofar as it means there is no Class, and therefore no aparatus like the Police that uphold the dominance of one class over another.
Communism was always, in Marxist tradition, meant to have a democratically accountable world republic.
You may or may not be referring to Anarcho-Communism, which rejects both the transitional state of Socialism and prefers more decentralized networks of Mutual Aid.
Yeah it's like I said, communism done properly.
It's fine to be an Anarcho-Communist, but I think it's silly to claim that Marxism isn't also "Communism done properly." Communism done better can be argued, but both should be seen as proper.
Yeah that's fair.
Probably just that every rendition of communism so far has been authoritarian.
Hippie communes are a counterexample.
Every large scale rendition, then.
Goal posts successfully moved
The previous comments were specifically talking about communist "regimes," and I clarified what I thought they meant to say. You shifted the framing to be pedantic, unless you genuinely count hippy communes as communist regimes.
Well if that's what you meant, then no shit a "regime" is authoritarian -- that's basically true by definition. But that just means your comment was tautological and vacuous, so what was your point?
Ok, swap out regime for a country. Show me a country where communism has run well (as in not an authoritarian state).
Answer: none
Goal post was successfully moved when hippie communities were brought up as a “regime”.
Hippie communes are not countries and are dependent on the goodwill of everyone else around them.
I would argue that an authoritarian state cannot be communist, though plenty have called themselves so.
There can be no other rendition.
Is it better if I rephrase it as “all regimes founded on communist ideas and visions are authoritarian by nature”?
A truly communist "regime" is not something that should ever exist as communism is a stateless philosophy thus inherently not authoritarian by its very nature.
It's the bit in between capitalism and communism that historically has been coopted by bad actors to create authoritarian regimes, these regimes tend to still call themselves communist because "lol fuck your revolution I'm in charge now" doesn't have the same PR value.
In short: a true communism cannot exist.
Communism is authoritarian because it puts the needs of a social construct (a "commune" or "society") over the needs, rights and freedoms of an individual. It doesn't matter how you want to paint it, it's always authoritarian.
I think that's a gross misunderstanding on your part.
No, I think that's a gross misunderstanding on YOUR part.
Well you would wouldn't you, what with the whole gross misunderstanding part?
Are you talking to a mirror?
As should be the fucking case, you chimp. Otherwise, I am free to bash your head on the pavement as part of my "individual freedom".
Oh look, Nazis are here.
Right, the famously Nazi Communists... can you make a single sensible remark, or is it all brain rot?
Come back when Commies start supporting human rights and freedoms.
All brain rot, got it
Visit a doctor then.