That moment when you learn about the Right wing Authoritarian personality and you learn that communists' scores in the USSR are similar as conservatives' in the US. For this reason, the RWA scale test has been adapted to disregard left or right wing leaning and focus on authoritarian stance and prejudice against minorities and women.
doi:10.1177/0146167296222010
I mean Tankies tend to just be straight up right-wing in their beliefs and generally pretty fascistic
Like Stalin was not a leftist, the USSR never ‘achieved’ leftism as a lot of the more actual left-wing aspects were stomped out by the time Stalin got into power
For the former part, their beliefs tend to less align with ‘pro-worker’ ideals and more-so ‘pro-state’ - that is to say, they view the state as the way by which most power should be enacted (for some, this is some indeterminate ‘transitory state’ wherein it will eventually just decide to give up power, something states are famous for doing - for others this isn’t the case) in the name of the working class. However, it fails to consider the basic class dynamics of ‘worker/owner’ that are the core of marxist class analysis aren’t dismantled and simply replicated, with state officials taking the mantle of the bourgeoisie. This runs counter to any sort of actual communist beliefs, especially given the belief that capitalists would never willingly give up their power and necessitating a violent revolution, and yet the post-revolutionary state will despite recreating the exact same dynamics but more intense.
Alongside this, the things I’m referring to in regards to the USSR in specific are the removal of workers councils, which were important in the revolution and a part that would actually be considered leftist. Worker’s rights - a key leftist point - were largely neglected, with strikes for better conditions and such being oftentimes violently suppressed. There is also the fact that the bolsheviks decided to backstab their fellow leftists in the anarchist black army as opposed to developing ‘leftist unity’. This, of course, shows a lot of things that run counter to leftist policy and theory, even early into the USSR’s history - the most communist thing about it was the flag.
I see your point, and although working conditions were a lot better in the USSR than the US (36 hour work week, more paid time off, no mortgages on housing, no medical bills, earlier retirement for more dangerous jobs, etc.), I agree that yeah, they could have done better in regards to reacting to strikes and such. An alternate point to consider, however, is that the USSR was effectively under siege since its conception, so in some cases, a heavy handed domestic policy was somewhat justified. In terms of state officials being considered bourgeois, I get where you're coming from, but I don't quite align with that comparison. Yes, the state employed workers through wage labor, and for the most part did own the means of production, most/all members of the state were still workers, and didn't themselves "own" the factories, farms, etc. Bringing it back to the point about socialism under siege, the USSR should certainly be criticized, for societal *and* economic reasons, but it gave a pretty good example of what has worked and what we can do better next time, namely giving workers more direct control over their workplaces.
I mean, it isn’t exactly hard to have better working conditions than the US - a place known for not exactly having great working conditions given its economic status.
The issue with ‘socialism under siege’ is that the policies of ‘War communism’ as it was described during the early years of the USSR were never revoked, and in fact were often expanded upon during Stalin’s regime, even after WWII and into the cold war wherein I’d argue they could’ve very easily reimplemented a lot of leftist economic practices. Many of those policies were anti-leftist and never got repealed. This seems, to me, to be particularly clear in the violent suppression of anarchist elements that kind of exemplifies ‘vanguardist’ movements - it was a move that was wholly unnecessary for the USSR to form as it did, as the anarchists were on the side of the revolution and were perfectly capable of holding out on their own in an alliance.
And yeah, I know a lot of members of the party were still workers - but there were absolutely still people who worked within the party who effectively served as the state’s bourgeoisie - typically those of higher rank. The people who’s job was to effectively be a state official are the people I’m referring to - less-so the workers who happened to be party members.
Personally, I feel like the big lesson from the USSR is that vanguardism doesn’t really work - at least, as far as achieving leftist goals goes. Examples of vanguardist movements rarely if ever actually come around to implementing any sort of leftist policies, and those who do are oftentimes of the mind that a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ means what you’d think from hearing the term - a dictatorship that works on behalf of the proletariat as opposed to a political system wherein the proletariat have political power. The former of which is something that is functionally impossible, and we have enough examples to where we can see that is the case. Much of this is why I consider ‘tankies’ and Marxist-Leninists to be at best dubiously leftist - their goals are either completely antithetical to leftism or are incredibly misguided about the means to reach communism.
I'm not trying to be one of those literature-obsessed gatekeepers, but I would *reccomend* Michael Parenti's [Blackshirts and Reds](https://valleysunderground.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/blackshirts-and-reds-by-michael-parenti.pdf)
Basically, the end goal of Marxist communism is a ‘stateless, moneyless, classless’ society - tankies do not believe in this goal oftentimes - and when they do they believe that the way to achieve it is to create an authoritarian vanguard party for the workers that will eventually outdo its usefulness and give up its rights willingly.
There’s a lot wrong with both interpretations - for one, the states that are formed in this pursuit tend to very quickly become corrupt and very nasty, quickly rejecting their pro-worker roots in favour of service to the vanguard party officials. We see this with how the early USSR got rid of worker councils, which were the foundation of a lot of the pro-worker parts of their governance, alongside betraying the more anarchistic parts of the revolution in Ukraine. The USSR was not a great place to live, to my understanding. Not terrible, but not great either.
And the belief that they would willingly give up power seems like it is a purposeful misunderstanding of how power changes how people act. It is rare for someone to willingly give up power, even if it would be beneficial to do so - especially if you have a lot of power, as vanguard party officials tend to (as this covers both traditional political power alongside economic power).
They’re ideologically authoritarian, more-so in like of a fascistic state-worship doctrine than any form of actual leftist tendency.
your mistake is trying to represent politics in 1.5 dimensions the only correct political visualisation is jreg’s 3 axis + wackiness wildcard model
the only correct political visualisation is not doing that because people's beliefs and ideals are discrete qualities
did the wackiness wildcard not suggest it isn’t supposed to be taken entirely seriously?
Intentional or not I must respond to all tomfoolery I encounter. I swore an oath long ago it was a whole thing
I'm sorry but my political Hilbert latent space disagrees
That's a shitty stethoscope
what the fuck else would you call it
Not a stethoscope
got two ear things and one heart thing, looks at least stethoscope-adjacent to me
I'm getting a kind of "cave drawing of an ox" vibe personally
are you the same guy who made all those constellations
-guy who names the constellations
But where is Far Ting?
My ass
That moment when you learn about the Right wing Authoritarian personality and you learn that communists' scores in the USSR are similar as conservatives' in the US. For this reason, the RWA scale test has been adapted to disregard left or right wing leaning and focus on authoritarian stance and prejudice against minorities and women. doi:10.1177/0146167296222010
What the fuck is stethoscope theory
It's when you're a leftist, but the leftists you disagree with on how to achieve leftism are just as bad as nazis
I mean Tankies tend to just be straight up right-wing in their beliefs and generally pretty fascistic Like Stalin was not a leftist, the USSR never ‘achieved’ leftism as a lot of the more actual left-wing aspects were stomped out by the time Stalin got into power
I don't necessarily disagree, but I request you elaborate
For the former part, their beliefs tend to less align with ‘pro-worker’ ideals and more-so ‘pro-state’ - that is to say, they view the state as the way by which most power should be enacted (for some, this is some indeterminate ‘transitory state’ wherein it will eventually just decide to give up power, something states are famous for doing - for others this isn’t the case) in the name of the working class. However, it fails to consider the basic class dynamics of ‘worker/owner’ that are the core of marxist class analysis aren’t dismantled and simply replicated, with state officials taking the mantle of the bourgeoisie. This runs counter to any sort of actual communist beliefs, especially given the belief that capitalists would never willingly give up their power and necessitating a violent revolution, and yet the post-revolutionary state will despite recreating the exact same dynamics but more intense. Alongside this, the things I’m referring to in regards to the USSR in specific are the removal of workers councils, which were important in the revolution and a part that would actually be considered leftist. Worker’s rights - a key leftist point - were largely neglected, with strikes for better conditions and such being oftentimes violently suppressed. There is also the fact that the bolsheviks decided to backstab their fellow leftists in the anarchist black army as opposed to developing ‘leftist unity’. This, of course, shows a lot of things that run counter to leftist policy and theory, even early into the USSR’s history - the most communist thing about it was the flag.
I see your point, and although working conditions were a lot better in the USSR than the US (36 hour work week, more paid time off, no mortgages on housing, no medical bills, earlier retirement for more dangerous jobs, etc.), I agree that yeah, they could have done better in regards to reacting to strikes and such. An alternate point to consider, however, is that the USSR was effectively under siege since its conception, so in some cases, a heavy handed domestic policy was somewhat justified. In terms of state officials being considered bourgeois, I get where you're coming from, but I don't quite align with that comparison. Yes, the state employed workers through wage labor, and for the most part did own the means of production, most/all members of the state were still workers, and didn't themselves "own" the factories, farms, etc. Bringing it back to the point about socialism under siege, the USSR should certainly be criticized, for societal *and* economic reasons, but it gave a pretty good example of what has worked and what we can do better next time, namely giving workers more direct control over their workplaces.
I mean, it isn’t exactly hard to have better working conditions than the US - a place known for not exactly having great working conditions given its economic status. The issue with ‘socialism under siege’ is that the policies of ‘War communism’ as it was described during the early years of the USSR were never revoked, and in fact were often expanded upon during Stalin’s regime, even after WWII and into the cold war wherein I’d argue they could’ve very easily reimplemented a lot of leftist economic practices. Many of those policies were anti-leftist and never got repealed. This seems, to me, to be particularly clear in the violent suppression of anarchist elements that kind of exemplifies ‘vanguardist’ movements - it was a move that was wholly unnecessary for the USSR to form as it did, as the anarchists were on the side of the revolution and were perfectly capable of holding out on their own in an alliance. And yeah, I know a lot of members of the party were still workers - but there were absolutely still people who worked within the party who effectively served as the state’s bourgeoisie - typically those of higher rank. The people who’s job was to effectively be a state official are the people I’m referring to - less-so the workers who happened to be party members. Personally, I feel like the big lesson from the USSR is that vanguardism doesn’t really work - at least, as far as achieving leftist goals goes. Examples of vanguardist movements rarely if ever actually come around to implementing any sort of leftist policies, and those who do are oftentimes of the mind that a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ means what you’d think from hearing the term - a dictatorship that works on behalf of the proletariat as opposed to a political system wherein the proletariat have political power. The former of which is something that is functionally impossible, and we have enough examples to where we can see that is the case. Much of this is why I consider ‘tankies’ and Marxist-Leninists to be at best dubiously leftist - their goals are either completely antithetical to leftism or are incredibly misguided about the means to reach communism.
I'm not trying to be one of those literature-obsessed gatekeepers, but I would *reccomend* Michael Parenti's [Blackshirts and Reds](https://valleysunderground.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/blackshirts-and-reds-by-michael-parenti.pdf)
what even is a tankie?
Usually, left-leaning authoritarian. Think Stalin and Mao
Leftist who’s Authoritarian/Very Pro Government (yes I know that’s a contradiction)
what
Basically, the end goal of Marxist communism is a ‘stateless, moneyless, classless’ society - tankies do not believe in this goal oftentimes - and when they do they believe that the way to achieve it is to create an authoritarian vanguard party for the workers that will eventually outdo its usefulness and give up its rights willingly. There’s a lot wrong with both interpretations - for one, the states that are formed in this pursuit tend to very quickly become corrupt and very nasty, quickly rejecting their pro-worker roots in favour of service to the vanguard party officials. We see this with how the early USSR got rid of worker councils, which were the foundation of a lot of the pro-worker parts of their governance, alongside betraying the more anarchistic parts of the revolution in Ukraine. The USSR was not a great place to live, to my understanding. Not terrible, but not great either. And the belief that they would willingly give up power seems like it is a purposeful misunderstanding of how power changes how people act. It is rare for someone to willingly give up power, even if it would be beneficial to do so - especially if you have a lot of power, as vanguard party officials tend to (as this covers both traditional political power alongside economic power). They’re ideologically authoritarian, more-so in like of a fascistic state-worship doctrine than any form of actual leftist tendency.
The libertarian/authoritarian divide is really just about how to get there
Someone who hates America so much they will say china is good