Communism is explicitly an economic framework. “Tankie” defines authoritarians who believe in the Communist economic framework. That leaves a lot of room for all other sorts of Communists.
You know, that would be a worthwhile discussion to have; but that hinges on the mods not banning and removing the comments of anyone with a critical perspective. As of now, this is not possible on lemmy.ml.
Tankie was coined by trotskyists to insult a slightly different kind of Leninist. Then anarchists picked it up and started calling trotskyists tankies. Now liberals call anarchists tankies. It’s the circle of life, in a few years if you say tankie people will assume you’re talking about Kamala Harris.
i thought tankie was universally accepted to just be a russia dick sucker but also commie. Why would this ever be applied to anarchists? That’s so vastly different i couldn’t see a world where that would even make sense.
From a liberal perspective what’s the difference between MLs having “critical support” for the Soviets or China and anarchists celebrating historical anarchists like Makhno and the CNT-FAI who burned churches and killed kulaks too? If anarchists are online supporting US foreign policy then liberals can assume you’re just a liberal and any claimed anarchism is just larping, but if anybody throws a brick through a Starbucks window that’s tankie authoritarianism stealing rights and freedoms from the Starbucks shareholders.
the most obvious difference is that the soviet union and china are massive government entities.
Most anarchists don’t really give a shit about much outside of the general tenants of anarchist structure. I for example like it because it’s like libertarianism but if it wasn’t stupid, and it’s also equally as much of a shitpost. Personally i believe anarchy is the state of government between two significant governmental entities, i don’t believe that anarchy holds a true state of power, merely an independent one.
I think that’s where its strength lies, it can be extremely decentralized and extremely productive when correctly utilized. It can very quickly spring up where needed, and very quickly break down when something more complete shows up to the party. It’s a lot more relevant on the individual to individual basis, as opposed to governments which often tend to overreach or extend past what they realistically should be doing. So it’s a nice stand in in that regard.
one thing i’ve noticed, is that a lot of “tankies” will be kind of, stupid for lack of a nicer term, they might believe that the russian government is the best, or the russian military is the strongest in the world for example. Which is not only silly, but arguably wrong. Anarchists don’t generally do this kind of thing. We’re a lot less directly ingrained with these sorts of power structures on a fundamental level.
Granted a lot of us are political active, as is the norm for political types, like i said we aren’t extremely attached to any one thing. I’m sure there are people in my instance who would disagree with what i’ve said, but that’s part of anarchism IMO. It doesn’t really ascribe anything in particular.
you can also look into this instance specifically, as it’s anarchy adjacent. There’s some fun stuff over here.
In my experience you can’t have one without the other. To be a communist you need to completely ignore the issues with it. Communism isn’t successful without prohibiting the spread of information. Even then it breaks down after a few decades. It is more about hiding the state of things and crushing descent.
I’m far from a noted communist and I’m pretty sure none of those things are definitionally related to communism. Why would a diminishing of public property necessitate prohibiting the spread of information?
Communist != Tankie.
Communism is explicitly an economic framework. “Tankie” defines authoritarians who believe in the Communist economic framework. That leaves a lot of room for all other sorts of Communists.
True, but only tankies remove/ban you if you’re even mildly critical of China or Russia
Yes, we know. .ml are authoritarian boot suckers.
You know, that would be a worthwhile discussion to have; but that hinges on the mods not banning and removing the comments of anyone with a critical perspective. As of now, this is not possible on lemmy.ml.
Too most on world tankie just means someone I don’t like
Tankie was coined by trotskyists to insult a slightly different kind of Leninist. Then anarchists picked it up and started calling trotskyists tankies. Now liberals call anarchists tankies. It’s the circle of life, in a few years if you say tankie people will assume you’re talking about Kamala Harris.
i thought tankie was universally accepted to just be a russia dick sucker but also commie. Why would this ever be applied to anarchists? That’s so vastly different i couldn’t see a world where that would even make sense.
From a liberal perspective what’s the difference between MLs having “critical support” for the Soviets or China and anarchists celebrating historical anarchists like Makhno and the CNT-FAI who burned churches and killed kulaks too? If anarchists are online supporting US foreign policy then liberals can assume you’re just a liberal and any claimed anarchism is just larping, but if anybody throws a brick through a Starbucks window that’s tankie authoritarianism stealing rights and freedoms from the Starbucks shareholders.
the most obvious difference is that the soviet union and china are massive government entities.
Most anarchists don’t really give a shit about much outside of the general tenants of anarchist structure. I for example like it because it’s like libertarianism but if it wasn’t stupid, and it’s also equally as much of a shitpost. Personally i believe anarchy is the state of government between two significant governmental entities, i don’t believe that anarchy holds a true state of power, merely an independent one.
I think that’s where its strength lies, it can be extremely decentralized and extremely productive when correctly utilized. It can very quickly spring up where needed, and very quickly break down when something more complete shows up to the party. It’s a lot more relevant on the individual to individual basis, as opposed to governments which often tend to overreach or extend past what they realistically should be doing. So it’s a nice stand in in that regard.
one thing i’ve noticed, is that a lot of “tankies” will be kind of, stupid for lack of a nicer term, they might believe that the russian government is the best, or the russian military is the strongest in the world for example. Which is not only silly, but arguably wrong. Anarchists don’t generally do this kind of thing. We’re a lot less directly ingrained with these sorts of power structures on a fundamental level.
Granted a lot of us are political active, as is the norm for political types, like i said we aren’t extremely attached to any one thing. I’m sure there are people in my instance who would disagree with what i’ve said, but that’s part of anarchism IMO. It doesn’t really ascribe anything in particular.
you can also look into this instance specifically, as it’s anarchy adjacent. There’s some fun stuff over here.
This is true if you ignore what words mean
In my experience you can’t have one without the other. To be a communist you need to completely ignore the issues with it. Communism isn’t successful without prohibiting the spread of information. Even then it breaks down after a few decades. It is more about hiding the state of things and crushing descent.
I’m far from a noted communist and I’m pretty sure none of those things are definitionally related to communism. Why would a diminishing of public property necessitate prohibiting the spread of information?