edit: this is now closed future comments won’t be counted
I keep seeing this instance is overrun with tankies so hey, lets do an informal survey like I’ve seen on hexbear
respond with YES or NO in the first line of your comment and i’ll tally everything in a couple of days, lets say I’ll try and collect everything on the sunday the 9th (10+gmt sorry)
not sure thisll work, be nice, have fun
NO. Communism is interesting, but I’m heavily anti-authoritarian.
That’s interesting… Communism is by definition stateless and without significant hierarchy. I don’t think other Tankies would disagree with me there.
The ideological difference is in how we achieve communism. I would really suggest reading ‘What is to be Done’ by Lenin. It’s a real short read but was one of the things that sold me on Marxism-Leninism vs. regular “Communism is a neat idea”
Capitalism will sell you the “you’re your own boss, go forth an conquer” all while keeping you under their heel. There is no equality or opportunity there; but even worse is that they will worm their way into any system that does not harshly and consistently fight back against them. Ergo the need for a ‘communist’ (or rather pursuing communism) state.
That then leads into “Well how does the state go away once we’ve got communism?” That’s a whole 'nother can of worms…
When does Communism become authoritarian? Like, where in the process?
I never said that Communism necessarily becomes authoritarian. But, as someone who has a strong dislike for authoritarianism, I’m not interested in Communism which involves it.
Sure, but I mean at what point, right?
To cut to the chase, I’m asking what specifically separates Tankies from Communists. Where is the line drawn? I see a lot of people (myself included) labeled a tankie for recommending people read Marx, or saying that Lenin was a Marxist, regardless of if you agree with him or not.
At what point would a Communist be considered a tankie?
I thought that the line was that one supports owning the means of production and the other supports authoritarian governments, am I confused?
Socialists support some form of Workers owning the Means of Production, of various types.
Communists are Marxists, that advocate for a specific form of Socialism, a worker state, that will eventually result in a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society.
Tankie has been used to slander all manner of leftists, but the number of people that actually fit the definition of the slander is very small. Many people who do not fit that actual definition are still called a tankie.
The hard part of politics is drawing hard lines. But I think many would say it’s authoritarian at the point when a government is enforcing a specific ideology with force and violence, and limiting personal freedoms.
I personally don’t understand how someone can be authoritarian and communist when communism is classless, but to be authoritarian there must essentially be an authority in a separate hierarchical class. But I also likely have more to learn so feel free to correct me
I would say by that definition, every system is authoritarian to different degrees, and as such we all just pick whatever degree we are okay with. It’s vibes based, not metrics based.
Communism is classless, yes, but Communism must be built, as it is the eventual elimination of contradictions. You may wish to read Critique of the Gotha Programme, where Marx makes a good critique of a bad Socialist program and advocates for a different Socialist method of reaching Communism.