You should check out Vincent Bevins’ book The Jakarta Method. He covers the genocide of leftists in Indonesia but throughout it talks to people who’ve been victims of the Jakarta Method, people who were ostensibly where you are, they were communists who were against the use of force. And do you know what happened to them and their friends? They had to flee for their lives while their friends got murdered because as it turns out Capitalists will absolutely use authority to squash and kill anything that even remotely threatens their power. They’ve since changed their mind.
300 years after the revolution people who talk about ‘communism’ will be using your definition. For now when people say ‘communism’ they’re talking about the ML(M) project of achieving that goal. This is a conversation that’s been going on for 150 years now. Not only have people argued out what you’re talking about, they’ve been able to see in real life what happens when you try to put principle to practice. You can’t have communism without class war. And if you don’t suppress the ruling class they will inevitably erode and destroy whatever victories you take from them. You have to use ‘authority’.
Who gives a shot what you believe in, when your actions and ideology supports the dictatorship of the bourgeoise? It doesn’t matter what esoteric strain you are, it matters what you do and it matters what the end of those actions are
I know this will sound patronising, but have you read Engels ‘Socialism: Scientific and Utopian’ and Lenin’s ‘State and Revolution’. If not, these would basically answer your implicit question as to why we can’t just wish a perfect society into existence.
“Authoritarian”, like so many other liberal concepts, is an idea that - while not completely without reality - is designed to obfuscate how power really operates. For example, non-authoritarian states have freedom of the press. But that press is owned by and will only give the point of view of the Bourgeoisie. The point of Communism is to put power into the hands of the proletariat rather than the parasitic Bourgeois.
Before “tankie” became such a popular term the difference was framed as a question of “socialism from above” versus “socialism from below,” as discussed in this Hal Draper pamphlet.
Yeah but still I wanted to draw extra attention to it because you made the point so briefly that it may not come off as the important sticking point that it is.
Looking back “why do you believe the thing you do” should be such an obvious line of interrogation if you disagree with someone it’s some kind of miracle you never see it in any of these all/active threads
So, someone who supports totalitarian rule to achieve communism? Like… A revolution vs voting? I’m asking in good faith btw, I am legit trying to understand
I mean, there’s pretty clearly a difference between the Cuban approach of letting capitalists leave vs the Russian approach of imprisoning them.
There’s also a difference between the Bolivian approach of arming and training the peasantry and the GDR approach of maintaining an armed military police into peace time.
There is a meaningful difference between methods of protecting working class power, and pretending there isn’t serves more heavy handed approaches.
For those of us who are abolitionists, this is a central question.
I don’t understand your response. How is what you’ve described authoritarian, especially in order to achieve communism as op stated? Those were all communist governments.
I could be mistaken, but this sounds people in different revolutions at different times defend themselves differently against the threats of the bourgeoisie. I don’t see how that is authoritarian, especially if the people are the ones involved, heard, and implementing decisions
“A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?”
― Frederick Engels
Moreover, the natural development of economic antagonisms, the waking consciousness of an important fraction of the proletariat, the constantly increasing number of unemployed, the blind resistance of the ruling classes, in short contemporary evolution as a whole, is conducting us inevitably towards the outbreak of a great revolution, which will overthrow everything by its violence, and the fore-running signs of which are already visible. This revolution will happen, with us or without us; and the existence of a revolutionary party, conscious of the end to be attained, will serve to give a useful direction to the violence, and to moderate its excesses by the influence of a lofty ideal.
The beginning of that quote is worth adding for context for folks unfamiliar with Engel’s argument here:
Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution?
And his conclusion:
Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don’t know what they’re talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.
I was comparing more or less heavy handed ways of doing it. I’m advocating for as light a touch as possible. I’m trying to say that authority is a meaningful concept and that we should engage with it because it’s actually very important.
It’s like how some US cities put you on a payment plan for debts, while others put you in jail. They’re both situations of capitalist class rule, but it’s fair to call the latter authoritarian.
Those approaches came as a result of the material conditions. The capitalists in Russia had a literal army. The USSR was invaded by the us and the UK as well as the white army.
How is human society organized? What do humans do? They create things and they consume things. What is politics? It is deciding who in a society resources are taken from and what they applied to.
Why do you draw a line between these things? Especially as a socialist who presumably wants to bring democracy to the workplace?
But you live in a world that does, and therefore you are forced to relate to it wether or not you believe in it.
It does not matter what you believe in, what.matters is the material reality in which we all exist
Communism is most definitely a political system as it has an inherent system of power relations, representation of workers, ownership of the means of production by the workers themselves, and distribution of decisions among the people until the state can be dissolved. Internationalism is a huge part of communism as is real politik, historical materialism, and other political approaches.
What I don’t understand is what you mean by authoritarian? Do you mean a literal dictatorship like in Latin America? I don’t know if a single communist country that has not had better representation than the USA as far as voting goes. I guess maybe the Khmer Rouge (I don’t know anything beyond Wikipedia for that one)?
authoritarianism is when you do things and get results, the more results you get the more authoritarian it is
true democracy is when so much nothing is happening that everyone is stochastically dissolving into elementary particles like it’s the heat death of the universe
Communism is indissociable from its three components, which includes a political system: dialectical materialism (the philosophical part), the labour theory of value (the economic part), and the class struggle (the social thus political part).
Anything other than Marxism is ineffectual in the real world and leads to nothing as exemplified by 200 years of history. “Tankies” don’t “happen” to have an economic theory, it’s an integral part to the whole of Marxism and Marxism could not exist without the economic basis for it. Why do we dislike capitalism? Because through math we can prove it is rife with contradictions and invariably leads to imperialism. Otherwise why would we want communism? Just because it’s cool to be a communist? Just because it’s a hobby? There has to be an actual justification for what we want.
I appreciate the attempt to engage in discussion about it, but it is an interesting position. Do you not think your position directly competes with assertions from The Communist Manifesto, or State and Revolution, or most communist texts?
deleted by creator
And as an actual communist, that’s a good thing
deleted by creator
Yeah communism is great, or as you call it, “tankieism”
deleted by creator
So you support communism you just insist it exist within the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie
deleted by creator
You should check out Vincent Bevins’ book The Jakarta Method. He covers the genocide of leftists in Indonesia but throughout it talks to people who’ve been victims of the Jakarta Method, people who were ostensibly where you are, they were communists who were against the use of force. And do you know what happened to them and their friends? They had to flee for their lives while their friends got murdered because as it turns out Capitalists will absolutely use authority to squash and kill anything that even remotely threatens their power. They’ve since changed their mind.
deleted by creator
300 years after the revolution people who talk about ‘communism’ will be using your definition. For now when people say ‘communism’ they’re talking about the ML(M) project of achieving that goal. This is a conversation that’s been going on for 150 years now. Not only have people argued out what you’re talking about, they’ve been able to see in real life what happens when you try to put principle to practice. You can’t have communism without class war. And if you don’t suppress the ruling class they will inevitably erode and destroy whatever victories you take from them. You have to use ‘authority’.
Who gives a shot what you believe in, when your actions and ideology supports the dictatorship of the bourgeoise? It doesn’t matter what esoteric strain you are, it matters what you do and it matters what the end of those actions are
Every government is authoritarian. The US is authoritarian.
deleted by creator
Cool. I’m a government that can exist in the world we live in communist.
deleted by creator
I know this will sound patronising, but have you read Engels ‘Socialism: Scientific and Utopian’ and Lenin’s ‘State and Revolution’. If not, these would basically answer your implicit question as to why we can’t just wish a perfect society into existence.
“Authoritarian”, like so many other liberal concepts, is an idea that - while not completely without reality - is designed to obfuscate how power really operates. For example, non-authoritarian states have freedom of the press. But that press is owned by and will only give the point of view of the Bourgeoisie. The point of Communism is to put power into the hands of the proletariat rather than the parasitic Bourgeois.
Define “tankieism”
Leave them a alone it’s a good bit.
deleted by creator
Can you explain this new socialost tendency that you’ve created? What is “democratic” communism?
Before “tankie” became such a popular term the difference was framed as a question of “socialism from above” versus “socialism from below,” as discussed in this Hal Draper pamphlet.
I don’t this this person has any idea about any of this
I thought I’d err on the side of being charitable but that error just looks bigger and bigger, doesn’t it?
deleted by creator
You sound like you heard what communism is through word of mouth in a country with 80 years of genocidal anticommunism
deleted by creator
Okay, you’ve described communism as a theoretical state that we as socialist want to arrive at as we resolve the contridictions within society.
How is this different than what people like me that you call tankies are talking about. What fo you know that we don’t?
deleted by creator
And how do you envision that coming about in a world ruled by capitalists that are unwilling to let go of power?
deleted by creator
How do you expect that to happen?
tankie is just a prejorative the neolibs throw at anyone left of the fine oligarchic capitalism we currently enjoy. I’m fine with it
deleted by creator
I’m not saying you’re a lib bro, I’m saying they’re the ones missing the term
Check out this fed over here
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
What is a tankie
Communists who want to actually have a communist system instead of just pretending to.
Every single liberal in this thread should engage with this point.
They won’t because they are intellectual cowards.
Yeah but still I wanted to draw extra attention to it because you made the point so briefly that it may not come off as the important sticking point that it is.
Looking back “why do you believe the thing you do” should be such an obvious line of interrogation if you disagree with someone it’s some kind of miracle you never see it in any of these all/active threads
A real communist instead of a fake, ineffective one that has no interest in communism succeeding anywhere.
deleted by creator
So, someone who supports totalitarian rule to achieve communism? Like… A revolution vs voting? I’m asking in good faith btw, I am legit trying to understand
I mean, there’s pretty clearly a difference between the Cuban approach of letting capitalists leave vs the Russian approach of imprisoning them.
There’s also a difference between the Bolivian approach of arming and training the peasantry and the GDR approach of maintaining an armed military police into peace time.
There is a meaningful difference between methods of protecting working class power, and pretending there isn’t serves more heavy handed approaches.
For those of us who are abolitionists, this is a central question.
I don’t understand your response. How is what you’ve described authoritarian, especially in order to achieve communism as op stated? Those were all communist governments.
I could be mistaken, but this sounds people in different revolutions at different times defend themselves differently against the threats of the bourgeoisie. I don’t see how that is authoritarian, especially if the people are the ones involved, heard, and implementing decisions
“A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?” ― Frederick Engels
–Ericco Malatesta, Anarchy and Violence
The beginning of that quote is worth adding for context for folks unfamiliar with Engel’s argument here:
And his conclusion:
The short entire essay is worth reading for other folks reading.
I was comparing more or less heavy handed ways of doing it. I’m advocating for as light a touch as possible. I’m trying to say that authority is a meaningful concept and that we should engage with it because it’s actually very important.
It’s like how some US cities put you on a payment plan for debts, while others put you in jail. They’re both situations of capitalist class rule, but it’s fair to call the latter authoritarian.
Those approaches came as a result of the material conditions. The capitalists in Russia had a literal army. The USSR was invaded by the us and the UK as well as the white army.
deleted by creator
This distinction is pure capitalist ideology
deleted by creator
How is human society organized? What do humans do? They create things and they consume things. What is politics? It is deciding who in a society resources are taken from and what they applied to.
Why do you draw a line between these things? Especially as a socialist who presumably wants to bring democracy to the workplace?
But you live in a world that does, and therefore you are forced to relate to it wether or not you believe in it.
It does not matter what you believe in, what.matters is the material reality in which we all exist
Communism is most definitely a political system as it has an inherent system of power relations, representation of workers, ownership of the means of production by the workers themselves, and distribution of decisions among the people until the state can be dissolved. Internationalism is a huge part of communism as is real politik, historical materialism, and other political approaches.
What I don’t understand is what you mean by authoritarian? Do you mean a literal dictatorship like in Latin America? I don’t know if a single communist country that has not had better representation than the USA as far as voting goes. I guess maybe the Khmer Rouge (I don’t know anything beyond Wikipedia for that one)?
authoritarianism is when you do things and get results, the more results you get the more authoritarian it is
true democracy is when so much nothing is happening that everyone is stochastically dissolving into elementary particles like it’s the heat death of the universe
Interesting! Are there any Communist countries that you would classify as non-authoritarian/tankie?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Kibbutzism would fall under a non authoritarian communism, I think.
ooh, a “small government” communist
deleted by creator
You’re not getting all your theory from Websters, are you?
Fantastic bit
Communism is indissociable from its three components, which includes a political system: dialectical materialism (the philosophical part), the labour theory of value (the economic part), and the class struggle (the social thus political part).
Anything other than Marxism is ineffectual in the real world and leads to nothing as exemplified by 200 years of history. “Tankies” don’t “happen” to have an economic theory, it’s an integral part to the whole of Marxism and Marxism could not exist without the economic basis for it. Why do we dislike capitalism? Because through math we can prove it is rife with contradictions and invariably leads to imperialism. Otherwise why would we want communism? Just because it’s cool to be a communist? Just because it’s a hobby? There has to be an actual justification for what we want.
I appreciate the attempt to engage in discussion about it, but it is an interesting position. Do you not think your position directly competes with assertions from The Communist Manifesto, or State and Revolution, or most communist texts?
deleted by creator
you should read more Marx if you think Marx only said things about economics
The guy is just waiting for the movie to come out
Tries to act like he’s read anything, clearly hasn’t, opinion discarded
This commenter thinks that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves.
Amirite my fellow communists?
Please tell me about this actual communism?
No actual communist even uses that dumb term but sure bud you do you
Define Tankie without using the word authoritarian.
Then define authoritarian
No “actual communist” considers the word tankie meaningful
what does “actual communist” mean because you sound mad snobby
deleted by creator