This is something I always get in arguments about, whenever I use the word tankie hexbear and grad users argue that its just a term for socialists.

I’ve always just used it to referr to authoritarian communists, i.e, people who unironically support modern russia, and/or oppose ukraine, and think nothing happened to the uyghurs.

    • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
      5·
      2 days ago

      It isn’t close to, it is the no true Scotsman fallacy.

      Communism (from Latin communis, ‘common, universal’) is a sociopolitical, philosophical, and economic ideology within the socialist movement, whose goal is the creation of a communist society, a socioeconomic order centered on common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products to everyone in society based on need. A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes, and ultimately money and the state (or nation state).

      Communists often seek a voluntary state of self-governance but disagree on the means to this end. This reflects a distinction between a libertarian socialist approach of communization, revolutionary spontaneity, and workers’ self-management, and an authoritarian socialist, vanguardist, or party-driven approach under a socialist state, which is eventually expected to wither away.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.worldMEnglish
      3·
      2 days ago

      “No true Scotsman” is about redefining a term to suit the argument, not that purity tests or gatekeeping are inherently illegitimate.

      • FundMECFS@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        42·
        2 days ago

        Yeah. If they call the current state of China with literal billionaires, communist, then they aren’t communist in any economically defined sense of the world