Disagree. Maybe as used by right wing folks but it’s definitely used to describe apologists of authoritarian regimes claiming to be communist, ie China and Russia.
It depends where, but I’ve only really seen it said on Lemmy in discussions regarding international relations and my time on Reddit has been significantly reduced.
I have also seen a lot of people on Lemmy who are obvious tankies argue that it is a slur against communist supporters rather than a specific criticism about tribalism, realpolitik, and internal imperialism engaged by communist countries.
It is in the vested interest of tankies to change the meaning of the word.
It is used as a slur against unapologetic socialists and communists sometimes, although actual tankies would like to pretend it’s only a slur and not descriptive of Stalinists.
Do you mean that in the original Marxist sense, where a dictatorship of the proletariat is contrasted to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie - ie that it is referring to the domination of one class over the structures of democratic government rather than a literal autocratic or oligarchic regime? Or the ML sense where it means “Everyone obeys the Party Line, please ignore who controls the Party”?
The classic Marxist sense, although i think Lenin’s ideology was necessary for a successful revolution to occur in his time. The Party went down hill majorly when Stalin took over instead of Trotsky.
I’m down. I understand support of Lenin, even if I personally disagree and side more with the SRs, and have sympathies for the Makhnovists. Post-Lenin is when it gets truly gruesome.
Eh, I think Trotsky and Lenin have some responsibility. While I am in full support of October (and Leninists ideology), I think the Bolshevik repression of the 20-21 strike wave was a troubling development demonstrating separation between the party and the class. (Kronstadt began in sympathy with that strike wave.) Then in the 10th Party Congress, the Workers Opposition took up some of the workers demands and pushed a program to keep party and state separate. They urged union control of the economy and democracy. In response, Trotsky argued that unions would no longer be necessary at all! Even Lenin thought that was going too far. But this is when democracy came under attack even within the party and factions were formerly banned.
The text was banned in Soviet Russia in March of 1921, by resolution of the 10th Congress of the Communist Party. The headings, “individual or collective management” and “bureaucracy and self activity of the masses” seem prescient.
Trotsky became a champion of democracy a little late, only after methods of repression he himself used were turned against him.
It is certainly a path. One which has failed repeatedly. I don’t quite understand the dogma which surrounds this particular bit of conventional wisdom. It seems to intentionally ignore an entire century of revisionist thought, and rapidly becomes a braindead purity test in my experience.
The dictator of the proletariat isn’t one guy. It’s the group of people who work. As opposed to now where most countries are a dictatorship of the wealthy.
It literally means the workers (like you and I) dictating the rules. If you’re a commie it means democratically. Who dictates the rules now? The wealthy.
Right, a dictatorship OF the class proletariat OVER the class bourgeoisie. And can, should, or even needs to be a democracy WITHIN the proletariat.
Unfortunately, tankies turn the phrase into an excuse for authoritarianism, which they wank over.
Marx himself called the Paris Commune to be an example of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The Commune had universal suffrage and recall of neighborhood representatives on demand.
“Long before me, bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this struggle between the classes, as had bourgeois economists their economic anatomy. My own contribution was (1) to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; [and] (3) that this dictatorship, itself, constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.”
Oh don’t worry. People say a lot of dumb things. I have been called a „atheist communist jew“ once. Followed by „catholic nazi“. Come to think of it, that would make a killer plot for a action movie.
Are they fighting in that movie? Or is it one, incredibly conflicted individual coping with existence? Could be an action flick or introspective philosophy piece
Cultural Genocide is wrong. -someone who has been called a tankie alot.
There are certainly people who misuse the term. Only bootlickers for authoritarian regimes painted a thin coat of red are tankies.
I do support a dictatorship of the Prolitariat as a necessary step if achieving true Communism, dont get me wrong.
Yeah, but being a Tankie isn’t liking communism, it is saying that the Soviet Union did nothing wrong in Hungary in 1956.
Yes that’s the OG definition, but as of late it has become a catch all for people anywhere left of classical lib.
Disagree. Maybe as used by right wing folks but it’s definitely used to describe apologists of authoritarian regimes claiming to be communist, ie China and Russia.
Hence my usage of “as of late”
It depends where, but I’ve only really seen it said on Lemmy in discussions regarding international relations and my time on Reddit has been significantly reduced.
I have also seen a lot of people on Lemmy who are obvious tankies argue that it is a slur against communist supporters rather than a specific criticism about tribalism, realpolitik, and internal imperialism engaged by communist countries.
It is in the vested interest of tankies to change the meaning of the word.
It is used as a slur against unapologetic socialists and communists sometimes, although actual tankies would like to pretend it’s only a slur and not descriptive of Stalinists.
Do you mean that in the original Marxist sense, where a dictatorship of the proletariat is contrasted to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie - ie that it is referring to the domination of one class over the structures of democratic government rather than a literal autocratic or oligarchic regime? Or the ML sense where it means “Everyone obeys the Party Line, please ignore who controls the Party”?
The classic Marxist sense, although i think Lenin’s ideology was necessary for a successful revolution to occur in his time. The Party went down hill majorly when Stalin took over instead of Trotsky.
I’m down. I understand support of Lenin, even if I personally disagree and side more with the SRs, and have sympathies for the Makhnovists. Post-Lenin is when it gets truly gruesome.
Eh, I think Trotsky and Lenin have some responsibility. While I am in full support of October (and Leninists ideology), I think the Bolshevik repression of the 20-21 strike wave was a troubling development demonstrating separation between the party and the class. (Kronstadt began in sympathy with that strike wave.) Then in the 10th Party Congress, the Workers Opposition took up some of the workers demands and pushed a program to keep party and state separate. They urged union control of the economy and democracy. In response, Trotsky argued that unions would no longer be necessary at all! Even Lenin thought that was going too far. But this is when democracy came under attack even within the party and factions were formerly banned.
Here is the text of the Workers Opposition manifesto. https://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1921/workers-opposition/index.htm
The text was banned in Soviet Russia in March of 1921, by resolution of the 10th Congress of the Communist Party. The headings, “individual or collective management” and “bureaucracy and self activity of the masses” seem prescient.
Trotsky became a champion of democracy a little late, only after methods of repression he himself used were turned against him.
It is certainly a path. One which has failed repeatedly. I don’t quite understand the dogma which surrounds this particular bit of conventional wisdom. It seems to intentionally ignore an entire century of revisionist thought, and rapidly becomes a braindead purity test in my experience.
Drake meme:
Archieve true communism
Stay dictator of the proletariat for just a bit longer
The dictator of the proletariat isn’t one guy. It’s the group of people who work. As opposed to now where most countries are a dictatorship of the wealthy.
It literally means the workers (like you and I) dictating the rules. If you’re a commie it means democratically. Who dictates the rules now? The wealthy.
Red scare propaganda is so exhausting…
Right, a dictatorship OF the class proletariat OVER the class bourgeoisie. And can, should, or even needs to be a democracy WITHIN the proletariat.
Unfortunately, tankies turn the phrase into an excuse for authoritarianism, which they wank over.
Marx himself called the Paris Commune to be an example of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The Commune had universal suffrage and recall of neighborhood representatives on demand.
It really is exhausting, i hate that there is effectively zero Marxist lit in libraries in the USA and if there is, somone stole it or hid it.
There’s no dictatorship of the proletariat in Marx, though.
“Long before me, bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this struggle between the classes, as had bourgeois economists their economic anatomy. My own contribution was (1) to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; [and] (3) that this dictatorship, itself, constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.”
No mention of the dictatorship falling on the shoulders of a strong man and keeping it there though.
Oh don’t worry. People say a lot of dumb things. I have been called a „atheist communist jew“ once. Followed by „catholic nazi“. Come to think of it, that would make a killer plot for a action movie.
Are they fighting in that movie? Or is it one, incredibly conflicted individual coping with existence? Could be an action flick or introspective philosophy piece
“Split”, but with a chance of being half decent.
I was thinking of a time travelling Jean-Claude van Damme who fights against himself.