• ancomOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    4 years ago

    I mean the 2. rule of lemmy.ml is “Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.” So just mere criticism could be read as being a violation of that rule.

    If that’s the case, I think lemmy is nothing for me.

    • ttmrichter
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 years ago

      You seriously can’t fathom the notion of disagreeing respectfully? Of respectful criticism? Really?

    • southerntofu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 years ago

      Rule n°2 is pretty generic. Feeling welcome is not exactly the same as feeling comfortable. Being faced with our own contradictions on a public forum is in my view a good thing, but being assigned a specific role based on a label (“anarchist”, “communist”) is in my view counter-productive.

      I don’t think criticizing an ideology is a lack of respect. I would personally support strong explicit language against authoritarian communists to denounce their attacks against popular self-determination in the present times. But i’m not in favor of “all marxists are genociders” kind of discourse, if that’s what you had in mind.

      That’s just my two cents, and honestly i’m tempted to open a dedicated anarchist lemmy, if only for concerns of resilience ;)

        • nBee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          4 years ago

          The word originally referred to communists that supported the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in their suppression of “[…] the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and later the Prague Spring of 1968 […]”[1] . As I do not really have much information about the former, I will focus on the latter instead:

          Alexander Dubček succeeded Antonín Novotný as the first secretary of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia in October 1967. His government had planned new political reforms, a so-called “Socialism with a human face”: social/cultural/political democratization, decentralization and liberalization. After political negotiations did not resolve the disagreements other states of the Warsaw Pact had with these plans, the member states resorted to a military intervention: On 21. August 1968, soldiers from members of the Warshaw Pact invaded and occupied Czechoslovakia, without any prior request from the Czechoslovakian government (this is where the term stems from, as the Warsaw Pact rolled in with tanks). Dubček and other officials were arrested. Few days later, they signed the Moscow Protocol that repealed most of the enacted reforms.[2]

          The antisocialist elements in Czechoslovakia actually covered up the demand for so-called neutrality and Czechoslovakia’s withdrawal from the socialist community with talking about the right of nations to self-determination.

          However, the implementation of such “self-determination,” in other words, Czechoslovakia’s detachment from the socialist community, would have come into conflict with its own vital interests and would have been detrimental to the other socialist states.

          Such “self-determination,” as a result of which NATO troops would have been able to come up to the Soviet border, while the community of European socialist countries would have been split, in effect encroaches upon the vital interests of the peoples of these countries and conflicts, as the very root of it, with the right of these people to socialist self-determination.

          Discharging their internationalist duty toward the fraternal peoples of Czechoslovakia and defending their own socialist gains, the U.S.S.R. and the other socialist states had to act decisively and they did act against the antisocialist forces in Czechoslovakia.

          – Leonid Brezhnev, 1968[3]

          This justification for a military intervention in a ‘brother-state’, now also known as the Brezhnev Doctrine, was supported by some members of the Communist Party of Great Britain – which were then called ‘Tankies’. That’s the historical origin at least.

          Today, the word is mostly used as a negative descriptor for people who support, apologize or defend militaristic or authoritarian means of enforcing a communist or socialist system.


          References

          [1] Wikipedia contributors (2021, February 23). Tankie. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tankie&oldid=1008394377

          [2] Karner, Stefan (2008). Der “Prager Frühling”. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, B 20. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, Bonn. https://www.bpb.de/geschichte/deutsche-geschichte/68er-bewegung/52007/prager-fruehling?p=all

          [3] Brezhnev Doctrine (2019, July 22). In Wikisource. https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Brezhnev_Doctrine&oldid=9467309

          • southerntofu
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 years ago

            I only learned the etymology lately, but “tankism” is not an ad-hominem attack. It’s a political critique of authoritarianism, which uses tanks (and other repressive measures) against the people in order to defend existing power structures, in the name of a hypothetical socialist State (which is arguably just another form of State capitalism).

            So i usually critique marxism/leninism specifically, but “tankism” appears to be a valid umbrella term for all kinds of abuses of power in the name of (illusory) social progress.

              • southerntofu
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 years ago

                Never heard that one. Glad to be a grown-up utopian anarkiddie then ;)

              • ancomOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                4 years ago

                Anarkiddie is an insult because it’s using Adultism to communicate a critique, that has absolutely nothing to do with being of young age. Tankie is not an insult, because it describes those that are in favor of oppressing self organized elements with military force, as long as those rolling the tanks have a red flag or something.

                See: the one thing is just ad hominem, while the other is a direct critique of specific behavior and politics.

                  • ancomOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    4 years ago

                    By using adultism, that is a “prejudice and accompanying systematic discrimination against young people”.

      • ancomOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 years ago

        I corrected my question to be more perceive what I actually wanted to ask. Thought rule in /c/anarchism is pretty clear on that point: “Argue about the point and not the person”

      • 🏴MAE-161💣🟢✝️
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        4 years ago

        A fucking slur? What kinda cishet white male nonsense is this?? I can’t believe we’re mutuals on mastodon wtf is this bullshit? I think tankie is a dumb term that is so broad and varied that its useless, but calling it a slur is just fucking laughable. I’ve been called actual slurs before for being queer. Have you ever had to face that in your life? Doubtful.