Hi! I am a stranger on this instance, I have read a lot of warnings about the "tankie triad", but wanted to see for myself and keep an open mind.
I watched this video, and it made me want to take a deep dive into socialism/communism, with
as much objectivity as I can.
https://youtu.be/BeRjTtKFlVM
I understand how capitalism works, and I have doubts that it is a sustainable system for society long term, but social democracy has been a good way of keeping capitalism in-check in Norway. So even if capitalism is not ideal, it is in theory possible to tax the rich more and keep the whole thing going in the future. I also understand the exploitation and the extraction of surplus value, rent seeking etc.
Other capitalist countries such as the US is currently struggling with basic human needs. And that is "the shining beacon of capitalism".
In Norway it has for a long time been common to use the US as an example of what not to do.
What I am interested in learning is how society would operate and function under socialism / communism. More about the differences. Preferably from less dry sources than The Capital from Marx. Where can I learn more? Preferably a bit entertaining.
It is important to me that it is historically accurate and factually correct.
Look forward to your replies 😊
I think the Tankie Triad term is more about linking certain people with support for authoritarian policy, rather than socialism as a whole. There are a ton of people across Lemmy instances that think of themselves as socialist and reject authoritarianism. They might use the term "tankies" to distinguish between themselves and those socialists who might support "using tanks" to suppress dissent. So the distinction you see some draw could be more about that instead of socialists vs non-socialists. People on one side tend to paint socialists as liberals, and people in the other side tend to paint socialists as tankies. Reactionary comments are easy to make and aren't useful but people make them anyway for a myriad of understandable reasons so that's that. 🥹
That's my understanding on this part of the issue so far.
The biggest thing with the label of "authoritarian Socialism" is that "authoritarian" is ill-defined and meaningless, and is applied arbitrarily towards Marxists as a holdover from Red Scare accusations from the US. Authoritarian is a sliding target that can just apply to anything with a government, it's an emotionally charged word used more as a thought-terminating cliché than anything else.
I've come around to the idea that ultimately socialist countries live under constant pressure from capitalists to collapse, from birth. Thinking about the history of the USSR in particular, it went from counterrevolution, to WW2/Nazi invasion to open US backed sabotage with very little breathing room.
The birth of liberal nations was also messy. The US started with probably the largest genocide, that of native Americans, in known history. Revolutionary France was no picnic either.
On the other side of the coin, lib socialists/anarchists have unfortunately been crushed by their neighbours repeatedly. Thinking about the Paris commune, revolutionary Catalonia, etc. I think we would all love to live in a world of nothing but love and peace, but there are bad, selfish guys out there who will smoosh your utopia in a heartbeat.
This ends up necessitating some degree of authoritarianism as a self-defense mechanism.
We are now being presented with the reality: that it was never a choice between peaceful exploitation under capitalism and idealistic but authoritarian socialism, just that the capitalists were biding their time and building support for just long enough to make it seem like a viable driver of increased living standards. The capitalists are done with worker power and are bringing down the hammer. They are bored and want us to war again.
The Soviets were accused of creating Potemkin villages, the capitalists created entire Potemkin "service economies" that barely produce anything, funded/enabled by historical imperial wealth and power dynamics.
We are then presented with a choice, do we want working people to be in charge? Or do we want to let the wealthy treat us like their property?
I had a complementary thought about this recently. I think it's less so about bad, selfish guys, than the capitalist system fighting for survival. The capitalist economy produces a small number of grand winners of power and wealth at the expense of everyone else. The one unavoidable thing that persistently threatens the winners is the working class organizing and taking away that power and/or wealth. And if the working class does that, it effectively undoes the capitalist system. Well if that's a persistent threat, and there's a country in the world that's gone through this process and survived, then that could serve as a guiding example for the working class in any capitalist country, wouldn't it. All of a sudden, people can not only imagine an alternative but see one where people have it alright. And so the mere existence of a successful socialist country increases the threat of working classes overthrowing their capitalists.
You're 100% correct about this, which is why the formation of the USSR in the early 20th century led to Capitalist countries adopting sweeping social programs, to bribe the proletariat from seeing it as an example. I recommend reading Concessions.