Many people on lemmy.ml deeply respect and admire authoritarian governments and organizations.

Iran, China, North Korea, Soviet Union…

The West has many flaws. But our flaws are nothing compared to these guys.

Iran hangs homosexuals. Iran shot 30,000 people in less than than 2 weeks. The Soviet Union had to build a fucking Iron wall to prevent people from escaping. The Soviets lied about the Chernobyl nuclear explosion. China censors the internet. China wants to eliminate Islam. North Korea is a totalitarian hellscape. Watching anime is a crime.

Why is lemmy.ml so fascinated with authoritarians?

  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    2·
    15 hours ago

    I’m trying to bridge that gap, because the rest of your comment is, frankly, wrong.

    By saying “authoritarian”, we explicitly mean the ones who do not wish to use the authority properly.

    Socialist states in real life do use authority properly. Mistakes and excess can and do occur, but on the whole socialism has been incredibly liberating for the working classes.

    Cool, but none of us are the current ruling class, so… We’re not speaking from that perspective when we call certain types of communists authoritarian.

    It’s extremely easy to fall into “false consciousness.” Simply put, capitalists control the western press and media, and use it to demonize socialism. When the western press speaks of “Cuban tyranny,” they speak of it in the abstract, in general, when in reality it is tyranny against former slavers, forcibly appropriating their property and distributing it to the people. In this framing, it’s easy to fear the general fear capitalists do, as they control cultural hegemony.

    Nobody’s removed about communists having authority. We’re talking specifically about a type of communist who are perceived as very likely to abuse that authority if they’re given it. If it was wrong for the current ruling class to abuse that power against us, it’s going to be wrong for us to abuse it against them when we have it. That doesn’t mean the former ruling class can’t be punished. It doesn’t mean we allow the old ruling class to reform. It just means don’t be an abusive asshole. Which is what people tend to refer to as a tankie.

    But this is all based on, frankly, capitalist distortions of what actually happens in socialist countries. Socialism isn’t simply punishing capitalists, it uses authority to expropriate capital and redistribute it. It uses authority to establish healthcare and improve the lives of the people. The conception of the “authoritarianism” practiced in socialist countries is the authority against the capitalists and slavers presented as universal, while ignoring the liberation of the working classes, because capitalists control the press.

    • AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip
      11·
      14 hours ago

      Mistakes and excess can and do occur

      Okay, with this having been said, maybe I can reframe this in a way more agreeable to you. We can both agree, I think, that communist states in history have made some mistakes, have had some… lapses in judgement. That’s not a comment on the intentions of the people who did those things, no accusation of malice at all, just a statement that mistakes and lapses in judgment occurred. We may not agree on which events should be considered as such, so I won’t pick examples so we don’t get derailed, but we can probably at least agree that some events occurred that should be so considered.

      Tankies are those who embrace and laud events that are widely, but clearly not universally, perceived to be mistakes or lapses in judgement, especially when the mistake was one where their authority was used in excess to the significant detriment of at least some of their people. Even some communists consider tankies to be a particular kind of communist. Maybe you would argue they’ve fallen into the “false consciousness” that you speak of, but honestly, the one take I almost never hear is that tankies don’t deserved to be considered a separate kind of communist. I think I’ve heard it once or twice, buuuuuut before, it’s always from someone who is very clearly a tankie and just doesn’t like to be called one.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        21·
        14 hours ago

        Tankies are those who embrace and laud events that are widely, but clearly not universally, perceived to be mistakes or lapses in judgement, especially when the mistake was one where their authority was used in excess to the significant detriment of at least some of their people.

        These people don’t really exist, though, and that’s my point about “tankie” being a strawman. The vast majority of people labled as “tankies” do not laud events understood by communists to have been mistakes.

        • AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip
          11·
          14 hours ago

          Nah, I’ve seen enough communists agree that tankies are a thing to see this as just a No True ScotsmanCommunist fallacy. Anyone, even a professed communist who disagrees with you, must just not properly understand the true nature of communism. Honestly, should have known to drop this hours ago. I do, but against my better judgment, I thought maybe there’d be a good point here somewhere. Very typical tankie who hates to be called a tankie behavior.

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            21·
            13 hours ago

            Who have you seen? Random online self-professed communists, or actual serious organizations? And for what it’s worth, I’m not offended by being called a “tankie,” just like I don’t get offended when I get called “woke.” My issue is with anti-communists pretending they aren’t against communism by inventing a strawman to levy against communists in general.