Same old nearly 100 year old argument. The soviet union doesn’t even exist anymore for 30 years and most modern day Marxist were not even born when the term “tankie” had actual meaning.
I have about as much to disagree with anarcho-primitivists (look up some other texts by that author) as I have with modern day Marxists. Yet I feel that both of them are still part of a common emancipatory struggle.
Does that mean I favor unquestioned “left unity”? Hell no! But these stupid out-group turf wars make no sense at all.
The soviet union doesn’t even exist anymore for 30 years
I think this adds an unecessary weakness to your point.
as it would automatically create resistence to the point you made…
it’s easy to think : if we forget history we are doomed to repeat it etc…
Sometimes building bridges is hard and one wrong word could lead to disaster, I still remember the day that I pronounced the word Krondstadt in front of a trotskist. So much regret.
I have about as much to disagree with anarcho-primitivists (look up some other texts by that author) as I have with modern day Marxists.
That’s fine. Same here I guess.
Yet I feel that both of them are still part of a common emancipatory struggle.
Sure. Agree.
But I don’t know why you reply this to a text called “Tankies and the Left-Unity Scam”
You can be a Marxist, without being a Tankie.
Same old nearly 100 year old argument. The soviet union doesn’t even exist anymore for 30 years and most modern day Marxist were not even born when the term “tankie” had actual meaning.
The point is, modern day tankies, use what happened in the USSR as part of their ideological foundation. They admire Lenin and often also Stalin. That leads to political consequences that are harmful for any emancipatory struggle. I’m not saying everything they do is harmful, but that there are very specific elements that are, and it’s important to address them.
And no, it doesn’t make sense to invalidate that criticism, because Marxist-Leninists have Marxist in their name. That’s an absurd method to silence such criticism, yet very common.
I guess we agree then, except that I dislike the inflationary use of the term “tankie” to describe what for the most part are quite reasonable (even though in my personal view ultimately misguided) Marxists.
quite reasonable (even though in my personal view ultimately misguided)
Well most people are quite reasonable though misguided. Same goes with bosses, or fascists, or cops. Are they all, as individuals, sociopaths that cannot be redeemed? I don’t think so. But as a group/movement, they are an objective threat to the well-being of society as a whole.
There is a big difference between analyzing problems in society by using groups as imperfect shortcuts and using groups to dehumanize people and agitate against them. I am sure you don’t mean it that way, but the way you write it one could easily add “immigrants” or “refugees” etc. In fact that is an argument right-wing people often make when confronted with actual refugees in person.
Yes, but you do understand that right-wing people think the exact opposite using the same logic and words as you do, right?
Edit: in a way that is the same logical fallacy autocratic-left make. Thinking that they can use the exact same means as their opponents to achieve different goals. But I am sure you know that in theory :)
Sure. I can elaborate on my worldview with a detailed analysis of why that is the case, just like they also could. But the facts i’m presenting for my arguments are, in my view, much more true and consistent than an opposite side blaming immigrants and queers for all their problems in life. We all have different points of views (and truths), does that invalidate my argument? In order to protect myself and my surroundings from a phenomenon, i need to be able to name it and describe it and understand it. In this case, authoritarianism it is.
Personally, i find more value in point out authoritarian discourse/actions themselves rather than labeling individuals. But that’s also because i have mental energy available to engage in debates, which is a privilege (time/energy is not available equally to all). So i understand why people develop different self-defense strategies and i respect that.
Same old nearly 100 year old argument. The soviet union doesn’t even exist anymore for 30 years and most modern day Marxist were not even born when the term “tankie” had actual meaning.
I have about as much to disagree with anarcho-primitivists (look up some other texts by that author) as I have with modern day Marxists. Yet I feel that both of them are still part of a common emancipatory struggle.
Does that mean I favor unquestioned “left unity”? Hell no! But these stupid out-group turf wars make no sense at all.
I think this adds an unecessary weakness to your point. as it would automatically create resistence to the point you made… it’s easy to think : if we forget history we are doomed to repeat it etc… Sometimes building bridges is hard and one wrong word could lead to disaster, I still remember the day that I pronounced the word Krondstadt in front of a trotskist. So much regret.
Ok fair point.
yeah this, when you trigger prerecorded answers, it’s so frustrating.
That’s fine. Same here I guess.
Sure. Agree.
But I don’t know why you reply this to a text called “Tankies and the Left-Unity Scam” You can be a Marxist, without being a Tankie.
The point is, modern day tankies, use what happened in the USSR as part of their ideological foundation. They admire Lenin and often also Stalin. That leads to political consequences that are harmful for any emancipatory struggle. I’m not saying everything they do is harmful, but that there are very specific elements that are, and it’s important to address them. And no, it doesn’t make sense to invalidate that criticism, because Marxist-Leninists have Marxist in their name. That’s an absurd method to silence such criticism, yet very common.
I guess we agree then, except that I dislike the inflationary use of the term “tankie” to describe what for the most part are quite reasonable (even though in my personal view ultimately misguided) Marxists.
Well most people are quite reasonable though misguided. Same goes with bosses, or fascists, or cops. Are they all, as individuals, sociopaths that cannot be redeemed? I don’t think so. But as a group/movement, they are an objective threat to the well-being of society as a whole.
There is a big difference between analyzing problems in society by using groups as imperfect shortcuts and using groups to dehumanize people and agitate against them. I am sure you don’t mean it that way, but the way you write it one could easily add “immigrants” or “refugees” etc. In fact that is an argument right-wing people often make when confronted with actual refugees in person.
Yes, but refugees are not a problem for society by any standard. The same cannot be said of autocrats, bosses, patriarchs and cops.
Yes, but you do understand that right-wing people think the exact opposite using the same logic and words as you do, right?
Edit: in a way that is the same logical fallacy autocratic-left make. Thinking that they can use the exact same means as their opponents to achieve different goals. But I am sure you know that in theory :)
Sure. I can elaborate on my worldview with a detailed analysis of why that is the case, just like they also could. But the facts i’m presenting for my arguments are, in my view, much more true and consistent than an opposite side blaming immigrants and queers for all their problems in life. We all have different points of views (and truths), does that invalidate my argument? In order to protect myself and my surroundings from a phenomenon, i need to be able to name it and describe it and understand it. In this case, authoritarianism it is.
Personally, i find more value in point out authoritarian discourse/actions themselves rather than labeling individuals. But that’s also because i have mental energy available to engage in debates, which is a privilege (time/energy is not available equally to all). So i understand why people develop different self-defense strategies and i respect that.