In that “tankie” is largely a pejorative used to describe those that support existing socialist states, yes, I’m pro-tankie, just like Cuba, the Black Panther Party, etc. You are fulfilling the premise of the meme to a T.
First, I promise I’m not trolling, but I do disagree with your conclusion.
In that “tankie” is largely a pejorative used to describe those that support existing socialist states
Perhaps coincidentally, but the “tankie” moniker is added to those who support authoritarian regimes that many times contradict socialist values. I find value in a number of socialist approaches, but I reject authoritarianism as a desired method of government.
Perhaps coincidentally, but the “tankie” moniker is added to those who support authoritarian regimes that many times contradict socialist values. I find value in a number of socialist approaches, but I reject authoritarianism as a desired method of government.
The only times I see it used online is by people insulting those to the left of fucking Reagan
What is “authoritarianism” as a method of government? I mean that quite literally. What is empirically true about socialist states that makes them worthy of dismissal, in the structure of their governments? The reason I described “tankies” as such is because this is something both “tankies” and non-“tankies” can agree “tankies” do. It’s a group of people that support existing socialist states, and the group that does not support existing socialist states uses the word as a pejorative to attack them.
And no, I don’t think you’re trolling, but I am not either. I am a communist, I support existing socialist states, as do the Cubans, Black Panthers, etc.
The reason I described “tankies” as such is because this is something both “tankies” and non-“tankies” can agree “tankies” do.
I disagree. I’m not a tankie. The authoritarian angle is my commonly understood distinction between a socialist and tankie.
What is “authoritarianism” as a method of government?
I’m not sure I have a full definition, but off the top of my head:
Suppression free speech, religion, association, assembly, and the cultural practices of minorities
Concentration of ultimate authority into one person at the top
Silencing those voicing critical opinions of the state
Marx himself was subjected to these things and spoke out against them. This is what bothers me about tankies is the hypocrisy the embrace of authoritarian regimes and pointing to them as examples good examples of socialism. I’m not naive enough to believe a government needs to be 100% perfect in all their ideals or execution of matters of state, but the trend lines should lean more away from authoritarianism than toward them.
I’m aware that you do not identify as a tankie, but I would also guess I’m correct in saying you do not support existing socialist states, which you label as “authoritarian.” However, you did provide a handy list of what you think constitutes “authoritarianism,” so I’ll respond.
Suppression free speech, religion, association, assembly, and the cultural practices of minorities
Religion and cultural practices of minorities are protected in socialist states, so I will ignore them for now as irrelevant. The more important bit is the liberal conception of free speech and assembly, vs. the Marxist understanding. “Free speech” does not exist. Speech is always dominated by the ruling class of society, in capitalism private media is the dominant force and squeezes out everything in opposition. In socialism, capitalist speech is censored. The same applies to association and assembly.
Concentration of ultimate authority into one person at the top
Silencing those voicing critical opinions of the state
This is just a return to the Marxist conception of freedom of speech. Criticism is fundamental to how socialist governments advance, capitalist criticism is silenced.
This is why, fundamentally, class must be the basis of our analysis. You erase it from yours, I make it central to mine.
This is why, fundamentally, class must be the basis of our analysis.
Do we? The high ideals vs the practical application go to the heart of the problem with tankies vs socialist. To quote Standord Beer, “The purpose of a system is what it does”. We can absolutely talk about class as theory, but the end goal of the theory isn’t simply logical analysis, its the resulting system that arises from it. I reject the notion that good socialist theory always will lead to authoritarianism. So the problem can’t be the theory, but instead the execution.
The more important bit is the liberal conception of free speech and assembly, vs. the Marxist understanding. “Free speech” does not exist. Speech is always dominated by the ruling class of society, in capitalism private media is the dominant force and squeezes out everything in opposition.
I think you’re referring to Marx’s historical observation was that free speech was restricted to those that could disseminate their voice (because of ownership of capital, press, media broadcast). I don’t believe that he was aligning with your assertion that it [can never] exist.
In socialism, capitalist speech is censored. The same applies to association and assembly.
That’s also a wrong reading I believe. Marx was talking about restricting speech *as a means to gain power in a regressive system, not as an ongoing means of control of the populous at-large forever.
I would also guess I’m correct in saying you do not support existing socialist states, which you label as “authoritarian.”
Lets remove the ambiguity here. You’ve named a total of one state in your post in this thread you identify as socialist: Cuba. What other nations exist on your list of described socialist states, which you also contend are not authoritarian?
I fully agree that the purpose of a system is what it does. That’s why the purpose of existing socialist states is to uplift the working people, and work towards a fully collectivized society where production and distribution are run according to a collective and scientific plan. The importance of the primacy of class as the basis for our understanding is that class is the basis of the state. There is no such thing as a state that is not a monopoly on violence in the hands of a ruling class, and this extends to states that are under the control of the working class.
Regarding freedom of speech, Marx observed that there is no such thing as freedom of speech in class society. Socialism is necessarily still within class society, and ergo capitalists must be oppressed by the state, lest they overturn it. In communism, there can be actual freedom of speech, because by that point class has been eradicated. Marx fully aligns with my analysis of class society, this is part of the theory of the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” of the proletariat as the masters of society.
The same applies to assembly and association. The working classes should be able to do so as a class. Capitalists should not be able to do so, nor should those that work against the interests of the working class.
As for removing ambiguity, I can hardly make an exhaustive list, but in short the same socialist states supported historically by Cuba and the Black Panther Party: the DPRK, Vietnam, Laos, PRC, and former USSR, to name a few. I explicitly mentioned Cuba and the Black Panther Party because both support every one of these states, including the DPRK, but those that oppose “tankies” tend to exclude Cuba and the Black Panther Party as “tankies” despite holding the same political positions and having/supporting similar structures and economies.
I believe all states necessarily are “authoritarian.” I think, therefore, the class in charge is the most important factor, meaning I support worker states and the authority they impose on capitalists and reactionaries, as far as is necessary to protect the gains of socialism.
Marx indeed was responding to a historical point in time: class society. You are confusing socialism with the abolition of class, and therefore arguing against the dictatorship of the proletariat and for a “state of all classes,” a class collaborationist take that goes directly against Marx.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is indeed temporary, it lasts precisely as long as class society exists, and class society exists as long as there is production and distribution that is not yet collectivized globally, and still longer than that. It is not a “permanent repression of the people,” but a temporary repression of capitalists and reactionaries. Again, you reveal your class collaborationist reading of socialism by pretending it’s the people repressed by socialism, and not the capitalist class.
The removal of “civil liberties” applies specifically to the capitalist class and those that oppose the working classes. Just like those civil liberties are de facto removed from the working class in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, so too are they removed from the bourgeoisie in the dictatorship of the proletariat. No society is permanent or static, this is a fundamental law of dialectical and historical materialism.
I’m honestly confused by how someone could take away such a class collaborationist reading of Marx and shudder at opposition to the bourgeoisie having any political power. If you think oppressing the bourgeoisie is terrifying, and democratizing society for the people is terrifying, I’m confused at how you could consider yourself a socialist at all.
In that “tankie” is largely a pejorative used to describe those that support existing socialist states, yes, I’m pro-tankie, just like Cuba, the Black Panther Party, etc. You are fulfilling the premise of the meme to a T.
First, I promise I’m not trolling, but I do disagree with your conclusion.
Perhaps coincidentally, but the “tankie” moniker is added to those who support authoritarian regimes that many times contradict socialist values. I find value in a number of socialist approaches, but I reject authoritarianism as a desired method of government.
The only times I see it used online is by people insulting those to the left of fucking Reagan
Bars.
What is “authoritarianism” as a method of government? I mean that quite literally. What is empirically true about socialist states that makes them worthy of dismissal, in the structure of their governments? The reason I described “tankies” as such is because this is something both “tankies” and non-“tankies” can agree “tankies” do. It’s a group of people that support existing socialist states, and the group that does not support existing socialist states uses the word as a pejorative to attack them.
And no, I don’t think you’re trolling, but I am not either. I am a communist, I support existing socialist states, as do the Cubans, Black Panthers, etc.
I disagree. I’m not a tankie. The authoritarian angle is my commonly understood distinction between a socialist and tankie.
I’m not sure I have a full definition, but off the top of my head:
Marx himself was subjected to these things and spoke out against them. This is what bothers me about tankies is the hypocrisy the embrace of authoritarian regimes and pointing to them as examples good examples of socialism. I’m not naive enough to believe a government needs to be 100% perfect in all their ideals or execution of matters of state, but the trend lines should lean more away from authoritarianism than toward them.
I’m aware that you do not identify as a tankie, but I would also guess I’m correct in saying you do not support existing socialist states, which you label as “authoritarian.” However, you did provide a handy list of what you think constitutes “authoritarianism,” so I’ll respond.
Religion and cultural practices of minorities are protected in socialist states, so I will ignore them for now as irrelevant. The more important bit is the liberal conception of free speech and assembly, vs. the Marxist understanding. “Free speech” does not exist. Speech is always dominated by the ruling class of society, in capitalism private media is the dominant force and squeezes out everything in opposition. In socialism, capitalist speech is censored. The same applies to association and assembly.
This does not exist in socialist societies, so again, I have to disregard this as irrelevant. See professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: on the History and Theory of Socialist Governance for scholarly work on the subject.
This is just a return to the Marxist conception of freedom of speech. Criticism is fundamental to how socialist governments advance, capitalist criticism is silenced.
This is why, fundamentally, class must be the basis of our analysis. You erase it from yours, I make it central to mine.
Do we? The high ideals vs the practical application go to the heart of the problem with tankies vs socialist. To quote Standord Beer, “The purpose of a system is what it does”. We can absolutely talk about class as theory, but the end goal of the theory isn’t simply logical analysis, its the resulting system that arises from it. I reject the notion that good socialist theory always will lead to authoritarianism. So the problem can’t be the theory, but instead the execution.
I think you’re referring to Marx’s historical observation was that free speech was restricted to those that could disseminate their voice (because of ownership of capital, press, media broadcast). I don’t believe that he was aligning with your assertion that it [can never] exist.
That’s also a wrong reading I believe. Marx was talking about restricting speech *as a means to gain power in a regressive system, not as an ongoing means of control of the populous at-large forever.
Lets remove the ambiguity here. You’ve named a total of one state in your post in this thread you identify as socialist: Cuba. What other nations exist on your list of described socialist states, which you also contend are not authoritarian?
I fully agree that the purpose of a system is what it does. That’s why the purpose of existing socialist states is to uplift the working people, and work towards a fully collectivized society where production and distribution are run according to a collective and scientific plan. The importance of the primacy of class as the basis for our understanding is that class is the basis of the state. There is no such thing as a state that is not a monopoly on violence in the hands of a ruling class, and this extends to states that are under the control of the working class.
Regarding freedom of speech, Marx observed that there is no such thing as freedom of speech in class society. Socialism is necessarily still within class society, and ergo capitalists must be oppressed by the state, lest they overturn it. In communism, there can be actual freedom of speech, because by that point class has been eradicated. Marx fully aligns with my analysis of class society, this is part of the theory of the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” of the proletariat as the masters of society.
The same applies to assembly and association. The working classes should be able to do so as a class. Capitalists should not be able to do so, nor should those that work against the interests of the working class.
As for removing ambiguity, I can hardly make an exhaustive list, but in short the same socialist states supported historically by Cuba and the Black Panther Party: the DPRK, Vietnam, Laos, PRC, and former USSR, to name a few. I explicitly mentioned Cuba and the Black Panther Party because both support every one of these states, including the DPRK, but those that oppose “tankies” tend to exclude Cuba and the Black Panther Party as “tankies” despite holding the same political positions and having/supporting similar structures and economies.
I believe all states necessarily are “authoritarian.” I think, therefore, the class in charge is the most important factor, meaning I support worker states and the authority they impose on capitalists and reactionaries, as far as is necessary to protect the gains of socialism.
Removed by mod
Marx indeed was responding to a historical point in time: class society. You are confusing socialism with the abolition of class, and therefore arguing against the dictatorship of the proletariat and for a “state of all classes,” a class collaborationist take that goes directly against Marx.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is indeed temporary, it lasts precisely as long as class society exists, and class society exists as long as there is production and distribution that is not yet collectivized globally, and still longer than that. It is not a “permanent repression of the people,” but a temporary repression of capitalists and reactionaries. Again, you reveal your class collaborationist reading of socialism by pretending it’s the people repressed by socialism, and not the capitalist class.
The removal of “civil liberties” applies specifically to the capitalist class and those that oppose the working classes. Just like those civil liberties are de facto removed from the working class in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, so too are they removed from the bourgeoisie in the dictatorship of the proletariat. No society is permanent or static, this is a fundamental law of dialectical and historical materialism.
I’m honestly confused by how someone could take away such a class collaborationist reading of Marx and shudder at opposition to the bourgeoisie having any political power. If you think oppressing the bourgeoisie is terrifying, and democratizing society for the people is terrifying, I’m confused at how you could consider yourself a socialist at all.