I used to be somewhere in the neighborhood of anarchist/social democrat, the way most people on lemmy who aren’t MLs are. I was just as “anti-tankie” as anyone.
While trying to really define what I believed, I stumbled across Progress and Poverty by Henry George, and it really clicked for me. It made the case that no one should have a specific right of ownership over land and natural resources, so they should be considered publicly owned and used to fund the state. Without getting into the details of the idea itself, I was convinced that it could work, as a compromise that would fix the worst parts of capitalism and essentially get the best parts of both. That, if it were enacted in a few small countries and able to compete on a level playing field, it would prove itself successful and serve as a model for everyone to follow. But this raised the question of, if that’s true, why hasn’t it happened already?
This question caused me to take an interest in a bunch of random small countries around the world that had experimented with asserting state control over their natural resources, and using them to fund social spending for the benefit of the people. And what did I find? Let’s look at a case study.
Mohammad Mossadegh of Iran was the prime example for me, because he wasn’t a Marxist at all, he had no ties whatsoever to the USSR, and did everything right. He attempted to assert control over Iran’s oil, which had been stolen outright by the British on a massive scale, in order to use it to uplift the people, who were incredibly poor and destitute. He believed in and upheld democratic ideals, and that exactly how the CIA was able to freely operate in Iran and oust him in favor of a literal monarchy.
Mossadegh refused to censor the press, when the CIA controlled 90% of the newspapers in the country, which constantly printed negative stories about him. He refused to suppress demonstrations, when the CIA was hiring them to march, both against him, and for him while wrecking shit and turning people against him. Finally, a US diplomat fed him a false story about the embassy receiving death threats from his supporters, and he was so moved, and so concerned about remaining friendly with the US, that he put out a radio message instructing his supporters to stand down. The next day, the CIA attacked his residence and there was no one to come to his aid.
It took me a long time to really wrestle with the full implications of that case study, and the similar stories that I found all around the world. But what I eventually realized is that the reason so many socialist states are authoritarian is not because they just want to be, it’s survivorship bias. And while the US is able to act as a global hegemon, the kind of system that I idealized, the kind of system Mossadegh was trying to build, will never be allowed to compete fairly. In fact, it is precisely because it might work to fix the worst parts of capitalism that it cannot be permitted, because a lot of powerful people get very, very rich off of those parts. It’s not about the food, it’s about keeping those ants in line.
I would much rather live in the world where the Marxist-Leninists were wrong. I would love it if countries around the world could try out all sorts of different systems, without fear of outside interference, so that different systems could compete and rise or fall on their own merits. If, when I looked into history I had found something different, I’d probably still agree with the criticisms I did before. But, unfortunately, that’s just not the world we live in. When you actually study history, what you’ll find in nearly every case is that the US tried to meddle in their affairs, to the detriment of the average person, and they were successful whenever they were not suppressed by force.
And that’s how I became a “tankie.”
From The Jakarta Method:
This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask:
“Who was right?”
In Guatemala, was it Árbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?
Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead. They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit’s unarmed party didn’t survive. Allende’s democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the détente between the Soviets and Washington.
Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported—what the rich countries said, rather than what they did. That group was annihilated.
Yeah, you have to assume your new society will be under constant attack. The problem with tankies is not that they are willing to fight back. The problem is they are fighting for systems already as corrupt, or worse, than “western capitalist” systems.
The problem with the Western system is not just corruption, it’s that it’s built on a structure of neocolonialism that dominates the entire world. We are opposed to that social relation. You can compare, say, the US vs Iran and say that the US system is more progressive, but opposing the Iran War should not imply that we like Iran, or that we want to make US society more like Iranian society. But, while the Iran War seems to be unpopular enough to be an exception, in other cases this kind of line is often used against us, and against anyone who genuinely opposes the imperial project. Those who opposed the war in Afghanistan, for example, were branded as terrorist sympathizers, regardless of how they actually felt about Al Qaida or their actual reasons for opposing the war.
Socialism isn’t authoritarian when done right. It should follow what works for the majority, like Nordic models and other places have done well for the people and the measures show it. Good systems use science and research to lead policy for healthy people. It’s not dualistic but demands proof, and real truth withstands scrutiny. The bad examples became authoritarian and benefited the wealthy rather than the majority, but there are good examples to follow and not repeat the same bad histories. The good ones upgraded their education systems to teach critical thinking and other good things for a healthy society. They’re not perfect but try to improve and great policies to start with.
The Nordic countries are allowed to do what they do because the cost benefit calculation was that it was easier to secure their loyalty by allowing them some progressive policies (likewise, this is why the US historically invested in a handful of regions like Germany, Taiwan, and South Korea). But there are many countries in the global south that have tried to follow the Nordic model, the trouble is, they’re not allowed to because the cost-benefit analysis is different. When they try, the CIA overthrows them and installs a dictator who will enact exploitative policies and keep the cheap goods flowing. When they take steps to stop that from happening, Western leftists denounce them as “authoritarian.”
Science and research are followed in AES (actually existing socialism) countries. Look at the response to COVID, for example. While in the US, people where crowding into stores to panic buy toilet paper, Vietnam was delivering free groceries directly to the doorsteps of people under lockdown.
What are the examples of “bad” socialism “benefiting the wealthy rather than the majority?” Socialist states, including Vietnam, Cuba, China, etc have implemented policies that have improved people lives by any objective metric, literacy, life expectancy, doctors and teachers per capita, etc. Granted, they sometimes have little choice but to allow some economic concessions, as a condition to participate in the global market. China’s reforms in the 80’s lead to 800 million people being lifted out of extreme poverty, for example. When a country doesn’t make such concessions and gets sanctioned or blockaded, things tend to go very poorly for them, which also gets held up as a “failure of socialism.” Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
If you actually evaluate AES countries, based on reasonable expectations or on what they had before, they are not failures at all. The problem is that people don’t understand the challenges and threats that they have to navigate, and so they have unreasonable, impossible expectations of them. Again, I wish we lived in a world where it was possible to simply copy-paste social democratic policies into the global south, but it isn’t. History has proven quite clearly that that isn’t the world we live in. Y’all just never bother to actually study the histories of global south countries, so you don’t understand the severity of the threats they face.
I dont understand how the US doing stupid evil shit makes you go from Georgism to tankie? Its the same argument american cuban expats use to fear monger about communism (except in their case they cite cases of the USSR doing stupid evil shit). To me economics and politics are correlated, but not that strongly. You can have Georgism without hegemony. You could have evil socialist hegemons (look at some of the nationalistic Israeli kibbutzim).
I used to be somewhere in the neighborhood of anarchist/social democrat, the way most people on lemmy who aren’t MLs are. I was just as “anti-tankie” as anyone.
While trying to really define what I believed, I stumbled across Progress and Poverty by Henry George, and it really clicked for me. It made the case that no one should have a specific right of ownership over land and natural resources, so they should be considered publicly owned and used to fund the state. Without getting into the details of the idea itself, I was convinced that it could work, as a compromise that would fix the worst parts of capitalism and essentially get the best parts of both. That, if it were enacted in a few small countries and able to compete on a level playing field, it would prove itself successful and serve as a model for everyone to follow. But this raised the question of, if that’s true, why hasn’t it happened already?
This question caused me to take an interest in a bunch of random small countries around the world that had experimented with asserting state control over their natural resources, and using them to fund social spending for the benefit of the people. And what did I find? Let’s look at a case study.
Mohammad Mossadegh of Iran was the prime example for me, because he wasn’t a Marxist at all, he had no ties whatsoever to the USSR, and did everything right. He attempted to assert control over Iran’s oil, which had been stolen outright by the British on a massive scale, in order to use it to uplift the people, who were incredibly poor and destitute. He believed in and upheld democratic ideals, and that exactly how the CIA was able to freely operate in Iran and oust him in favor of a literal monarchy.
Mossadegh refused to censor the press, when the CIA controlled 90% of the newspapers in the country, which constantly printed negative stories about him. He refused to suppress demonstrations, when the CIA was hiring them to march, both against him, and for him while wrecking shit and turning people against him. Finally, a US diplomat fed him a false story about the embassy receiving death threats from his supporters, and he was so moved, and so concerned about remaining friendly with the US, that he put out a radio message instructing his supporters to stand down. The next day, the CIA attacked his residence and there was no one to come to his aid.
It took me a long time to really wrestle with the full implications of that case study, and the similar stories that I found all around the world. But what I eventually realized is that the reason so many socialist states are authoritarian is not because they just want to be, it’s survivorship bias. And while the US is able to act as a global hegemon, the kind of system that I idealized, the kind of system Mossadegh was trying to build, will never be allowed to compete fairly. In fact, it is precisely because it might work to fix the worst parts of capitalism that it cannot be permitted, because a lot of powerful people get very, very rich off of those parts. It’s not about the food, it’s about keeping those ants in line.
I would much rather live in the world where the Marxist-Leninists were wrong. I would love it if countries around the world could try out all sorts of different systems, without fear of outside interference, so that different systems could compete and rise or fall on their own merits. If, when I looked into history I had found something different, I’d probably still agree with the criticisms I did before. But, unfortunately, that’s just not the world we live in. When you actually study history, what you’ll find in nearly every case is that the US tried to meddle in their affairs, to the detriment of the average person, and they were successful whenever they were not suppressed by force.
And that’s how I became a “tankie.”
From The Jakarta Method:
Yeah, you have to assume your new society will be under constant attack. The problem with tankies is not that they are willing to fight back. The problem is they are fighting for systems already as corrupt, or worse, than “western capitalist” systems.
The problem with the Western system is not just corruption, it’s that it’s built on a structure of neocolonialism that dominates the entire world. We are opposed to that social relation. You can compare, say, the US vs Iran and say that the US system is more progressive, but opposing the Iran War should not imply that we like Iran, or that we want to make US society more like Iranian society. But, while the Iran War seems to be unpopular enough to be an exception, in other cases this kind of line is often used against us, and against anyone who genuinely opposes the imperial project. Those who opposed the war in Afghanistan, for example, were branded as terrorist sympathizers, regardless of how they actually felt about Al Qaida or their actual reasons for opposing the war.
Socialism isn’t authoritarian when done right. It should follow what works for the majority, like Nordic models and other places have done well for the people and the measures show it. Good systems use science and research to lead policy for healthy people. It’s not dualistic but demands proof, and real truth withstands scrutiny. The bad examples became authoritarian and benefited the wealthy rather than the majority, but there are good examples to follow and not repeat the same bad histories. The good ones upgraded their education systems to teach critical thinking and other good things for a healthy society. They’re not perfect but try to improve and great policies to start with.
The Nordic countries are allowed to do what they do because the cost benefit calculation was that it was easier to secure their loyalty by allowing them some progressive policies (likewise, this is why the US historically invested in a handful of regions like Germany, Taiwan, and South Korea). But there are many countries in the global south that have tried to follow the Nordic model, the trouble is, they’re not allowed to because the cost-benefit analysis is different. When they try, the CIA overthrows them and installs a dictator who will enact exploitative policies and keep the cheap goods flowing. When they take steps to stop that from happening, Western leftists denounce them as “authoritarian.”
Science and research are followed in AES (actually existing socialism) countries. Look at the response to COVID, for example. While in the US, people where crowding into stores to panic buy toilet paper, Vietnam was delivering free groceries directly to the doorsteps of people under lockdown.
What are the examples of “bad” socialism “benefiting the wealthy rather than the majority?” Socialist states, including Vietnam, Cuba, China, etc have implemented policies that have improved people lives by any objective metric, literacy, life expectancy, doctors and teachers per capita, etc. Granted, they sometimes have little choice but to allow some economic concessions, as a condition to participate in the global market. China’s reforms in the 80’s lead to 800 million people being lifted out of extreme poverty, for example. When a country doesn’t make such concessions and gets sanctioned or blockaded, things tend to go very poorly for them, which also gets held up as a “failure of socialism.” Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
If you actually evaluate AES countries, based on reasonable expectations or on what they had before, they are not failures at all. The problem is that people don’t understand the challenges and threats that they have to navigate, and so they have unreasonable, impossible expectations of them. Again, I wish we lived in a world where it was possible to simply copy-paste social democratic policies into the global south, but it isn’t. History has proven quite clearly that that isn’t the world we live in. Y’all just never bother to actually study the histories of global south countries, so you don’t understand the severity of the threats they face.
I dont understand how the US doing stupid evil shit makes you go from Georgism to tankie? Its the same argument american cuban expats use to fear monger about communism (except in their case they cite cases of the USSR doing stupid evil shit). To me economics and politics are correlated, but not that strongly. You can have Georgism without hegemony. You could have evil socialist hegemons (look at some of the nationalistic Israeli kibbutzim).
They very clearly explained their position, your lack of understanding is a comprehension problem.