Maybe ironically? But I think the article is pretty clear what they mean with tankie. It is a reasonable description in itself and certainly had a valid historical meaning.
However these days many people seem to be using it as a very broad term to discredit Marxists that made some authoritarian leaning argument that the person using the term tankie didn’t like. And my main objection to it is that it is a cop-out to actually engage with the argument itself and just put an almost slur like label on someone.
to discredit Marxists that made some authoritarian leaning argument
Marxists, like anyone else, are either authoritarian or anti-authoritarian. For sure anarchists are going to point out authoritarian arguments wherever they show up, even in the mouth of a pretend-anarchist.
That’s a pretty bleak view. Don’t you think people can have more nuanced views, authoritarian in some ways and anti-authoritarian in others? Or maybe they are staunchly anti-authoritarian but have a lapse in thinking (no ones perfect). Isn’t it worth explaining to them where that authoritarian argument has problems, instead to insulting them by throwing labels around like “tankie” (or “pretend-anarchist” ;) )?
Yes, isn’t that what i’m doing most times? But when your first encounter with someone is in ardent defense of bigoted views, then i understand that some people need to name the phenomenon and blow off some steam. Who knows, maybe naming someone a tankie will make them investigate what a tankie even is, and develop some critical thoughts in regards to authority? Not sure about that, but i’m not excluding the possibility either.
Maybe ironically? But I think the article is pretty clear what they mean with tankie. It is a reasonable description in itself and certainly had a valid historical meaning.
However these days many people seem to be using it as a very broad term to discredit Marxists that made some authoritarian leaning argument that the person using the term tankie didn’t like. And my main objection to it is that it is a cop-out to actually engage with the argument itself and just put an almost slur like label on someone.
Marxists, like anyone else, are either authoritarian or anti-authoritarian. For sure anarchists are going to point out authoritarian arguments wherever they show up, even in the mouth of a pretend-anarchist.
That’s a pretty bleak view. Don’t you think people can have more nuanced views, authoritarian in some ways and anti-authoritarian in others? Or maybe they are staunchly anti-authoritarian but have a lapse in thinking (no ones perfect). Isn’t it worth explaining to them where that authoritarian argument has problems, instead to insulting them by throwing labels around like “tankie” (or “pretend-anarchist” ;) )?
Yes, isn’t that what i’m doing most times? But when your first encounter with someone is in ardent defense of bigoted views, then i understand that some people need to name the phenomenon and blow off some steam. Who knows, maybe naming someone a tankie will make them investigate what a tankie even is, and develop some critical thoughts in regards to authority? Not sure about that, but i’m not excluding the possibility either.