"Tankism" isnt a thing, do you mean Marxism-Leninism? In general, you can criticise anything you want, as long as it is based on facts and not on baseless insulting.
this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2021
8 points (83.3% liked)
Anarchism
376 readers
15 users here now
Are you an Anarchist? The answer might surprise you!
Rules:
- Be respectful
- Don't be a nazi
- Argue about the point and not the person
- This is not the place to debate the merits of anarchism itself. While discussion is encouraged, getting in your “epic dunks on the anarkiddies” is not. As a result of the instance’s poor moderation policies and hostility toward anarchists by default, lemmygrad users are encouraged not to post here, though not explicitly disallowed if they aren’t just looking to start a fight.
See also:
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
"Tankism" from my understanding is an umbrella term for various forms of authoritarianism. Marxism-Leninism is definitely one of those, and so is trotskyism and maoism.
Marxism has strong overlap with "tankism" but the two groups are not equivalent, as there's a (growing?) number of anti-authoritarian marxists.
You should read the text On Authority by Engels, it is quite short and explains the Marxist stance in this regard.
Well, that text...have you ever tried to read critiques to such? If so, why do you come do a different conclusion, then that Engels renders the term authority useless? In his definition, authority is is justified because it can mean everything. Mutual aid is authority, plants living in symbioses is authority, plants producing oxygen is authority over humans...sure, you can use that definition, but by doing so you simply sneak around a critique against authority by stating it's inevitable, so the issue can't be authority itself.
Serious question: which critiques of authority have your read, to which you disagree to such a great amount, that you feel compelled to go with Engels analysis here, that is in short: everything is authority, and because it is inevitable to exist, it invalidates the critique against, without actually engaging with the actual brought up arguments of those that critique authority.
I did read "the conquest of bread", but wasnt convinced at all by its suggestion that people would just spontaneously organise themselves one day, without any planning or preparation at all. And I dont see Engels as "justifying" authority, rather, authority is simply something that exists in objective reality, whether you like it or not.
It is true that there are forms of authority which need to be fought against, such as the authority of the boss over the worker, or bourgeosie over the working class. But a certain form of authority is necessary to wage a revolution, because there will always be a bourgeous minority who opposes it.
What’s “tankism”? There’s just been a statement about the political ideologies of devs / mods on Lemmy.
If you just want to share a spicy meme there are other communities like /c/completeanarchy and /c/dankleft.
Seems appropriate at this point that here you should at least put some effort into your critique and at least define if you’re talking about Marxism, ML, MLM, or some other ideology.
As with most political slurs, while originally having some (albeit often overstated) meaning, "tankie" boils down today to "you person with whom I disagree". C.f. "Nazi" or "SJW" or "MAGAt" or any number of other tribal signalling mechanisms.
Generally I find people who resort to such political slurs prone to using them in place of thoughtful discourse, so upon hearing them used—no matter which political ideology is being slurred thusly—I assume the person using them has nothing valid to say and skip to the next post. As such I advocate strongly for people using them as often as they like. It helps me bypass the chaff that much more quickly.
All those labels you quoted have actual meaning. They may not be always used accurately, but they are not derailed from reality. There's millions of nazis around spreading their ideology, as much as there's marxist-leninists trying to rewrite history of the bolshevik coup d'État and political repression as some form of popular justice. These people deserve to be criticized for their genocidal aspirations.
Correction: all those labels I quoted had meaning. Meaning in language is determined by usage, not by fiat. (If you don't agree, I'd ask you to point me to the authority you recognize for language meaning…) In usage outside of very specific technical contexts they have all lost meaning because grandstanders and ignoramuses love to reach for the worst word they used when dismissively labelling someone with whom they disagree.
Why reach for "authoritarian right-winger", after all, when "YOU'RE A LITERAL NAZI!" packs a more solid punch (in their minds)? Why reach for "authoritarian left-winger" when you could screech "TANKIE!" at the top of your lungs?
Terms which become epithets follow this inevitable downhill path: term of the art → symbolic term → epithet → "person with whom I mildly or greatly disagree, along with an annotation of my tribal involvement".
I want to share analysis about their abusive practice. Starting from the Bolshevik suppression of the soviet revolution and ending with the modern form that tries to follow these footsteps.
That seems fine. I’m just thinking it’s best to do so with some substantial analysis / critique.
If you just start a thread with the title of “Am I allowed to criticize tankism in this forum?” and saying nothing else, it’s just going to come off as inflammatory trolling without substance. You’re not going to convince anyone that way.
I mean the 2. rule of lemmy.ml is "Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here." So just mere criticism could be read as being a violation of that rule.
If that's the case, I think lemmy is nothing for me.
You seriously can't fathom the notion of disagreeing respectfully? Of respectful criticism? Really?