They still believe all of the atrocity propaganda. To them, socialism is this pure thing that deserves defending, but if they were required to defend socialist states, they would also have to disprove all of the stuff that they still believe.
So, in their minds, they are defending against tankies who just want to make the same "mistakes" as previous attempts at socialism. they are keeping socialism modern and adapting it to new circumstances with the power of hindsight. It's also easier to convert other people to socialism if you can convince them it won't be anything like those "evil authoritarian" socialist states.
In fact, if all the shit the state department said about socialist states was true, then I think it would probably be the right approach. But it's not, so it isn't.
You are right regarding some types of soicalists, but the Trots and other so-called Marxists who say "real Marxism has never been tried [or was immediately thwarted]" are the ones who have a completely incoherent position. "Yeah, I follow the principal of historical materialism, which means supporting an ideology that, in my own view, has 150 year history of uninterrupted failure and deceit."
They still believe all of the atrocity propaganda. To them, socialism is this pure thing that deserves defending, but if they were required to defend socialist states, they would also have to disprove all of the stuff that they still believe.
So, in their minds, they are defending against tankies who just want to make the same "mistakes" as previous attempts at socialism.
But that's why it doesn't make sense. That's why it doesn't stand up to the most basic of critical thinking, any conversation with literally any marxist-leninist starts with acknowledging mistakes were made but refusing to completely disavow them, taking a measured approach to their successes and their errors.
They don't allow ANY critical thought on the topic, because they are wholly committed to their nationalist and anticommunist position. If they weren't nationalists they wouldn't feel committed to defending the propaganda of the US, and would be far more interested in a balanced and nuanced take on the socialist states, just as balanced takes on capitalist states are deserved. They are committed to emotionally reacting and sticking to their trained response of "no thought allowed" on these topics instead of pursuing a proper understanding.
And the "tankie" that they describe publicly as a person who wholly defends everything with a red flag is a cartoon caricature that does not exist. Simply a demon used to make people treat communists as heretics before they've said a word that might sway them. It's almost religious in a way, like the way that the church of the middle-ages used to keep "believers" from listening to anyone outside of the faith.
Tankie at this point just means anyone who has said anything even mildly positive about the USSR or China. I was called a tankie for saying that Gorbachev's shock doctrine dissolution of the Soviet Union was a disaster for the standard of living for the average person - soon as I said it I had people asking about the Hungarian Revolution, like that shit mattered in any way
It makes logical sense to me.
They still believe all of the atrocity propaganda. To them, socialism is this pure thing that deserves defending, but if they were required to defend socialist states, they would also have to disprove all of the stuff that they still believe.
So, in their minds, they are defending against tankies who just want to make the same "mistakes" as previous attempts at socialism. they are keeping socialism modern and adapting it to new circumstances with the power of hindsight. It's also easier to convert other people to socialism if you can convince them it won't be anything like those "evil authoritarian" socialist states.
In fact, if all the shit the state department said about socialist states was true, then I think it would probably be the right approach. But it's not, so it isn't.
You are right regarding some types of soicalists, but the Trots and other so-called Marxists who say "real Marxism has never been tried [or was immediately thwarted]" are the ones who have a completely incoherent position. "Yeah, I follow the principal of historical materialism, which means supporting an ideology that, in my own view, has 150 year history of uninterrupted failure and deceit."
But that's why it doesn't make sense. That's why it doesn't stand up to the most basic of critical thinking, any conversation with literally any marxist-leninist starts with acknowledging mistakes were made but refusing to completely disavow them, taking a measured approach to their successes and their errors.
They don't allow ANY critical thought on the topic, because they are wholly committed to their nationalist and anticommunist position. If they weren't nationalists they wouldn't feel committed to defending the propaganda of the US, and would be far more interested in a balanced and nuanced take on the socialist states, just as balanced takes on capitalist states are deserved. They are committed to emotionally reacting and sticking to their trained response of "no thought allowed" on these topics instead of pursuing a proper understanding.
And the "tankie" that they describe publicly as a person who wholly defends everything with a red flag is a cartoon caricature that does not exist. Simply a demon used to make people treat communists as heretics before they've said a word that might sway them. It's almost religious in a way, like the way that the church of the middle-ages used to keep "believers" from listening to anyone outside of the faith.
Tankie at this point just means anyone who has said anything even mildly positive about the USSR or China. I was called a tankie for saying that Gorbachev's shock doctrine dissolution of the Soviet Union was a disaster for the standard of living for the average person - soon as I said it I had people asking about the Hungarian Revolution, like that shit mattered in any way