So if it’s a concept, but one that cannot be measured or objectively defined, then it loses its functional utility. The group “tankie” is a nebulous but acknowledged group of people that support existing socialist states, ones commonly referred to as “authoritarian” by “non-tankies.” Since this is not a measured approach, but instead a principle, this is now a meaningless allegation without someone doing the legwork to prove that unitary worker democracy negatively impacts individual agency beyond any other approach.
To explain the Marxist position, nebulous allegations of “authoritarianism” have no weight because they do not explicitly address distribution of power, class dynamics, etc. All the allegations do is create categories of “authoritarian vs. less/non-authoritarian” that cannot be objectively understood from the allegations alone. This returns us to the idea that “authoritarianism” is meaningless, it isn’t a useful term and everyone has different ways of understanding its application to real systems.
First: I don’t consider the term “Tankie” nebulous because I only apply it to people who self-identify as such.
Similarly, I don’t go around bringing up authoritarianism. When someone else brings it up to defend it, I generally roll my eyes and move along.
Personally, I find this line of reasoning about definitions semantic in the least productive way. It’s just Loki’s Wager. So with all due respect, I don’t wish to debate you. I answered your question in good faith and I’m content to leave it at that.
I think you’re running into a problem, though. You may not call anyone a tankie unless they call themselves one, but my point is that the group commonly called tankies does exist. People argue over what the definition of a tankie actually is, but people aren’t arguing over what this group is, and that’s what we have to work with. Tankies are essentially people that support socialist states, and authoritarianism isn’t a particularly useful word in discussing shortcomings or successes of these states. It isn’t a meaningful signifier of anything different from capitalist states, because there’s little objectivity to its use.
So if it’s a concept, but one that cannot be measured or objectively defined, then it loses its functional utility. The group “tankie” is a nebulous but acknowledged group of people that support existing socialist states, ones commonly referred to as “authoritarian” by “non-tankies.” Since this is not a measured approach, but instead a principle, this is now a meaningless allegation without someone doing the legwork to prove that unitary worker democracy negatively impacts individual agency beyond any other approach.
To explain the Marxist position, nebulous allegations of “authoritarianism” have no weight because they do not explicitly address distribution of power, class dynamics, etc. All the allegations do is create categories of “authoritarian vs. less/non-authoritarian” that cannot be objectively understood from the allegations alone. This returns us to the idea that “authoritarianism” is meaningless, it isn’t a useful term and everyone has different ways of understanding its application to real systems.
First: I don’t consider the term “Tankie” nebulous because I only apply it to people who self-identify as such.
Similarly, I don’t go around bringing up authoritarianism. When someone else brings it up to defend it, I generally roll my eyes and move along.
Personally, I find this line of reasoning about definitions semantic in the least productive way. It’s just Loki’s Wager. So with all due respect, I don’t wish to debate you. I answered your question in good faith and I’m content to leave it at that.
I think you’re running into a problem, though. You may not call anyone a tankie unless they call themselves one, but my point is that the group commonly called tankies does exist. People argue over what the definition of a tankie actually is, but people aren’t arguing over what this group is, and that’s what we have to work with. Tankies are essentially people that support socialist states, and authoritarianism isn’t a particularly useful word in discussing shortcomings or successes of these states. It isn’t a meaningful signifier of anything different from capitalist states, because there’s little objectivity to its use.