Used to mean someone who would support sending in tanks to crush capitalist rallies like in Hungary (which most people who get labelled “tankies” these days obviously don’t), but nowadays it’s just an anti-communist term for anyone that supports any socialist revolution that has successfully built a socialist nation.
All states are inherently “authoritarian” and enforce certain principles over others. What matters is if those principles materially prioritize workers over capitalists, which socialist states do.
You can’t create a stateless, classless communist society from capitalism without a transitional socialist state that breaks the monopoly on force and propaganda that capitalist states have — specially in a world ruled by capitalist superpowers like the US which constantly coups and invades non-capitalist states. Thinking otherwise is just delusional and utopian.
No non-capitalist state will survive in the modern world if they don’t sufficiently get rid of propaganda and deal with capitalist funded insurgencies, which capitalist states will label as “authoritarian”; they’d immediately be coup’d and overthrown by imperial core countries otherwise, as many socialist states have (Chile, Libya, etc).
And regardless, socialist states are a massive improvement over capitalist states when it comes to “authoritarianism” anyway, same as most other metrics. The US has 0.8% of its population in prison for example, while China has 0.1%. Similar stats on most metrics for the USSR vs USA; socialist Russia’s human rights were also far better than capitalist Russia’s, obviously.
You can’t create a stateless, classless communist society from capitalism without a transitional socialist state that breaks the monopoly on force and propaganda that capitalist states have — specially in a world ruled by capitalist superpowers like the US which constantly coups and invades non-capitalist states.
Ask the Zapatista. Yes, the US tried to get rid of them, couldn’t, learned better and now is just letting them be. Rojava is an even better example as the US wilfully allied with them.
Figures if your revolution isn’t centrally organised by Moscow or China post-McCarthy US doesn’t actually care. Present-day US would’ve also let Cuba be SocDem, as was the original intent of the revolutionaries, instead of pushing them into alliance with the USSR.
The Zapatistas are cool comrades who fought off the US and other capitalist forces as all socialist projects have to. Different from most successful socialist revolutions in that it didn’t establish a state (though it was managed centrally by the EZLN), but it has since succumbed to pressure from the government and cartels and has dissolved its municipalities last year — so it’s not quite as successful of a revolution as those that establish a state, some of which have already managed to become nations of millions or global superpowers.
Cuba be SocDem, as was the original intent of the revolutionaries
“Social democracy” back then just meant socialism. The Bolsheviks who established the USSR were also “social democrats”
And your fantasies of the US ever letting a US-backed military dictatorship be overthrown and develop are funny, specially when it’s currently committing a genocide in Palestine and not even letting them get rid of a western colony.
And the USSR was a centralised state capitalist system. China has even left the “state” part behind and is nowhere nearer abolishing class than it was at the start of the revolution. It actually regressed in that regard.
But, fine, call Rojava that if you will. Just shows how you can’t see any possible roads to communism that don’t involve the failed experiment that is state capitalism.
though it was managed centrally by the EZLN
The EZLN does not manage centrally. The EZLN is not even a governing body. It’s a decentralised milita that councils tasked with matters of military security. It is those councils which are the governing body, not the EZLN. Rojava operates alongside the same lines, though details differ because cultural, material, and other differences.
I know it might be incomprehensible to you: A literal army, with all the capability it could wish for to order the local population around, sat down with the local population and told them about their ideas. The population then told them about theirs. They discussed, mutually refined their ideas until there was a consensus on how to move ahead, leading to what you see now. No shot was fired, noone was sent to gulag. They’ve also been capable of large organisational reforms, deliberated to consensus, implementation happened just a couple of months ago.
Maybe you should set aside some time and actually study those regions, not just read tankie cliff notes about how they supposedly work, or don’t, or are secretly authoritarian, or whatever.
The Bolsheviks who established the USSR were also “social democrats”
The Bolsheviks were never democrats and the French social democrats still call themselves communists. But that’s rather besides the point: The Cuban revolution was in the late 50, by then the split between SocDems and communists (both liberal and authoritarian) was not just done it had hardened. Heck the revolution ended in 59, after the word tankie had been established, which was 56, in direct reaction to the Soviet invasion of Hungary.
The point I’m making here is that Fidel & Co came to the US, said “We’re eyeing doing something like your European allies are doing and want to be friends, you know, unions, welfare, worker’s rights”, the US said “nope, can’t have you not be slaves to Bacardi and United Fruit you’re our colony after all”, Cuba said “never mind then we thought we could be friends then we’ll go with our second choice, the USSR”. The USSR, then, demanded from their allies a heavily authoritarian slant, so Cuba adopted it, in the interest of national survival not out of preference. Which is also why they are by far the furthest along among the surviving ML states when it comes to democratisation. Vietnam is second, with quite some distance, China makes no moves in that regard and North Korea, well, North Korea is only ever getting worse, not better. Oh, Eritrea. Same.
Used to mean someone who would support sending in tanks to crush capitalist rallies like in Hungary (which most people who get labelled “tankies” these days obviously don’t), but nowadays it’s just an anti-communist term for anyone that supports any socialist revolution that has successfully built a socialist nation.
Nah, its not anticommunism. Its anti authoritarianisnm
All states are inherently “authoritarian” and enforce certain principles over others. What matters is if those principles materially prioritize workers over capitalists, which socialist states do.
You can’t create a stateless, classless communist society from capitalism without a transitional socialist state that breaks the monopoly on force and propaganda that capitalist states have — specially in a world ruled by capitalist superpowers like the US which constantly coups and invades non-capitalist states. Thinking otherwise is just delusional and utopian.
No non-capitalist state will survive in the modern world if they don’t sufficiently get rid of propaganda and deal with capitalist funded insurgencies, which capitalist states will label as “authoritarian”; they’d immediately be coup’d and overthrown by imperial core countries otherwise, as many socialist states have (Chile, Libya, etc).
And regardless, socialist states are a massive improvement over capitalist states when it comes to “authoritarianism” anyway, same as most other metrics. The US has 0.8% of its population in prison for example, while China has 0.1%. Similar stats on most metrics for the USSR vs USA; socialist Russia’s human rights were also far better than capitalist Russia’s, obviously.
Ask the Zapatista. Yes, the US tried to get rid of them, couldn’t, learned better and now is just letting them be. Rojava is an even better example as the US wilfully allied with them.
Figures if your revolution isn’t centrally organised by Moscow or China post-McCarthy US doesn’t actually care. Present-day US would’ve also let Cuba be SocDem, as was the original intent of the revolutionaries, instead of pushing them into alliance with the USSR.
Rojava is a decentralized capitalist region with no plans of being socialist/anarchist/etc whose leadership allows the US to use it as a imperialist proxy and military base in the region. Of course the US likes that lmao; the US National Security Council calls it another “israel” in the region.
The Zapatistas are cool comrades who fought off the US and other capitalist forces as all socialist projects have to. Different from most successful socialist revolutions in that it didn’t establish a state (though it was managed centrally by the EZLN), but it has since succumbed to pressure from the government and cartels and has dissolved its municipalities last year — so it’s not quite as successful of a revolution as those that establish a state, some of which have already managed to become nations of millions or global superpowers.
“Social democracy” back then just meant socialism. The Bolsheviks who established the USSR were also “social democrats”
And your fantasies of the US ever letting a US-backed military dictatorship be overthrown and develop are funny, specially when it’s currently committing a genocide in Palestine and not even letting them get rid of a western colony.
And the USSR was a centralised state capitalist system. China has even left the “state” part behind and is nowhere nearer abolishing class than it was at the start of the revolution. It actually regressed in that regard.
But, fine, call Rojava that if you will. Just shows how you can’t see any possible roads to communism that don’t involve the failed experiment that is state capitalism.
The EZLN does not manage centrally. The EZLN is not even a governing body. It’s a decentralised milita that councils tasked with matters of military security. It is those councils which are the governing body, not the EZLN. Rojava operates alongside the same lines, though details differ because cultural, material, and other differences.
I know it might be incomprehensible to you: A literal army, with all the capability it could wish for to order the local population around, sat down with the local population and told them about their ideas. The population then told them about theirs. They discussed, mutually refined their ideas until there was a consensus on how to move ahead, leading to what you see now. No shot was fired, noone was sent to gulag. They’ve also been capable of large organisational reforms, deliberated to consensus, implementation happened just a couple of months ago.
Maybe you should set aside some time and actually study those regions, not just read tankie cliff notes about how they supposedly work, or don’t, or are secretly authoritarian, or whatever.
The Bolsheviks were never democrats and the French social democrats still call themselves communists. But that’s rather besides the point: The Cuban revolution was in the late 50, by then the split between SocDems and communists (both liberal and authoritarian) was not just done it had hardened. Heck the revolution ended in 59, after the word tankie had been established, which was 56, in direct reaction to the Soviet invasion of Hungary.
The point I’m making here is that Fidel & Co came to the US, said “We’re eyeing doing something like your European allies are doing and want to be friends, you know, unions, welfare, worker’s rights”, the US said “nope, can’t have you not be slaves to Bacardi and United Fruit you’re our colony after all”, Cuba said “never mind then we thought we could be friends then we’ll go with our second choice, the USSR”. The USSR, then, demanded from their allies a heavily authoritarian slant, so Cuba adopted it, in the interest of national survival not out of preference. Which is also why they are by far the furthest along among the surviving ML states when it comes to democratisation. Vietnam is second, with quite some distance, China makes no moves in that regard and North Korea, well, North Korea is only ever getting worse, not better. Oh, Eritrea. Same.
Rojava, Zapatistas? Sorry, but Anarchists can form States without hierarchy
Zapatistas flexed and built a centralized structure it because they weren’t getting anything done.