– and they both punch left; exactly as conservatives like to do.
The liberals are still doing this in 2025. We shouldn’t really be surprised I spose.
I consider tankies to be on the right end of the socialist spectrum, so when I say it I’m punching right. They’re still comrades even if they are miss guided by state-capitalist governments. Cheers
They’re still comrades even if they are miss guided
This is unironically the nicest and most reconciliatory anti-tank post I’ve ever seen. We have different assessments but neither of us are writing off the other as stupid or an LLM, which is actually a breath of fresh air. The bar for political discourse may be in hell these days, but I still appreciate your clearing it.
As for where our views diverge, I would like to understand the nature of the divergence. I guess my main question is: what decides your ideology’s position on the spectrum?
I love it when people call a transitional economy state capitalist because it betrays a lack of understanding of actually existing capitalism and the role the state plays in it.
I think if you’re comparing “degrees” of left vs right, at that point you’re missing the forest for the trees. Ultimately, Anarchists and Marxists disagree on strategy and end goal, but both oppose Capitalism and Imperialism. At that point, there really isn’t a “more” or “less” left, there’s just differences in analysis and what must be done to get from A to B, as well as what B itself is.
Agreed. I’ll come back to this when I’m not as busy. I made a simplistic argument and I’d like to expand on it. Cheers
lmao
anti-communism is always fascist. When you engage in “tankie punching” you engage in fascist anti-communism
Sure. Never analyze or critique anything. Got U
Cheers
Personally I’ve found that bashing myself in the head with the book is just as effective as reading it
Cheerze
Do you believe there has ever been a socialist state, even one?
Yes. Russia from 1917 till about 1928. A slow, but through counter revolution took place.
Because the Chinese state has fiat monetary sovereignty, it doesn’t function in the capitalist mode. It has no need to make a profit because it has infinite money[1]. It doesn’t need to extract surplus value from workers to satisfy investors, and it doesn’t even need to break even. The logic of capitalism doesn’t apply.
I’m not into that authoritarian stuff. Worshipping a fascist authoritarian state is not a leftist make.
Communism and fascism are entirely different, and conflating the two has roots in Double Genocide Theory, a form of Holocaust trivialization and Nazi Apologia. The Nazis industrialized murder and attempted to colonize the world, the Soviets uplifted the Proletariat and supported national liberation movements such as in Cuba, China, Algeria, and Palestine. I recommend reading Blackshirts and Reds.
Not my fault people are conflating them
You conflated them, though. It may not be originally your fault, though, that dishonor goes to figures like Joseph Goebbels.
What in the everlasting embrace of god. Soviets, who - I’ll admit - simply chose to work people to death painted as the good guys? The same soviets that starved, beaten and let people freeze to death? The same that put people in cattle wagons and rode them out to syberia in nothing more than clothes they had on their backs?
The USSR was perhaps the single most progressive movement in the entire 20th century. It was not free from flaw, of course not, but in total it was a massive leap forward for the Working Class not only within the Soviet Union, but its very existence forced western countries to adopt expanded social safety nets (along with the efforts of leftist organizers within these countries).
From a brutal, impoverished backwater country barely industrialized, to beating the United States into space, in 50 years. Mid 30s life expectancies due to constant starvation, homelessness, and outright murder from the Tsarist Regime, doubled to the 70s very quickly. Literacy rates from the 20s and 30s to 99.9%, more than Western Nations. All of this in a single generation.
Wealth disparity shrank, while productivity growth was one of the highest in the 20th century:
Supported liberation movements in Cuba, Palestine, Algeria, Korea, China, Palestine, and more. Ensured free, and high quality healthcare and education for all. Lower retirement ages than the US, 55 for women and 60 for men. Legalized, free abortion. Full employment, and no recessions outside of World War 2. Defeated the Nazis with 80% of the combat in the entire European theater. Supported armistice treaties that the US continuously denied.
The bad guys won the Cold War, and they did so by forcing the USSR to spend a huge amount of their resources on keeping up millitarily, as the United States had much more resources and could deal with it that way.
I’d have to challenge that “the bad guys won the Cold War” rhetoric. If the USSR was as successful as your argument claims, why did so many Soviet republics seek independence?
For the same reasons California or Texas keep entertaining independence ballot initiatives every 4 years; internal politics.
The USSR’s republics didn’t just debate independence, they actually left. If it was just “internal politics,” why did every non-Russian republic take the first opportunity to break away?
The Texas/California comparison is a weak false equivalence. The USSR suppressed nationalist movements (read on the Hungarian Revolution), while the U.S. allows open political discourse.
It’s the only equivalency there can be between the two countries; unlike the Soviet Union, the United States was not formed by colonial absorbtion of neighboring nations. The closest thing there is, is the Mexican land grab in the 19th century and Europe has a long history of nationalist movements being suppressed, so the Soviet Union is not unique in that regard.
And, just like the USSR, the US has a track record of not allowing political discourse that threatens its hegemony; the Black Panthers, Pinochet, and Cuba are probably the most glaring examples.
The answer is that most didn’t seek independence originally. The referendum on the preservation of the USSR, shortly before its dissolution, wanted it to persist. in looking at Soviet Nostalgia, most say they were better off under Socialism than Capitalism and say the dissolution was a bad thing.
Moreover, it directly compares, say, the Soviet treatment of Estonia with the fascist slaver regime over Cuba that the Soviets helped overthrow, or the Israeli treatment of Palestinians via genocide. It equates what can’t be equated. Further, that means that the US Confederacy should have been allowed to leave purely on the basis of wanting to. It’s not a real point, it’s cheap.
If you keep going with Blackshirts and Reds, it gets to the events surrounding its dissolution, such as the botched coup attempt, liberalization in order to try to make up for spending so many resources on the Cold War, and more, though not a full picture. If you genuinely want to know more after you finish Blackshirts, I recommend Parenti’s 1986 lecture, which is even more entertaining because Parenti is a fantastic and passionate speaker. I’d throw on Do Publicly Owned, Planned Economies Work? as an additional articls, around 30 minutes to read, going over the merits of the Soviet Economy and why it was dissolved.
All of that is well and good, but not enough to say that the Soviets were the good side. It’s also necessary to truly look at how disgustingly evil the United States is, and for that I recommend the podcast Blowback. If you listen to Blowback, there will be nothing but hatred and disgust of the highest order for the United States, from lying about WMDs to thoroughly destroy Iraq, to dropping more bombs on Korea than in the entire Pacific Front of World War 2, to countless war crimes intentionally done to make populations suffer and no longer support their governments just to make it stop.
Okay, so I’ve got a couple of issues with your response. First of all, the referendum only polled 9 out of the 15 republics. The other six boycotted it since they were already pushing for independence. Moreover, within months, nearly every republic declared full independence. If they truly didn’t want to secede from the USSR, would they have declared independence?
Secondly, I don’t think nostalgia is a good gauge of what people want. Individuals have a tendency to romanticize the past especially during hard times. For example, many citizens of African countries revel in reminiscing about the colonial era due to economic hardships faced today. Is that what they truly want? Probably not. It is usually due to poor knowledge of colonial history that they have these sentiments.
Furthermore, I’m well aware that the US is a despicable country, and my increasing knowledge about its history only fuels my hatred of it, but you’re bordering on whataboutism if the standard for the most progressive movement of the 20th century is being “not as bad as the US” which is a pretty low bar.
Edit: You can’t compare the confederacy - a slave-owning rebellion fighting to preserve human bondage to the soviet republics - nations seeking independence from an authoritarian superstate. If you really want to compare the USSR with the US civil war, it would be better to compare it to the 13 colonies fighting for independence from the British crown.
Besides, you still didn’t address the core argument: If Soviet rule was truly beneficial, why did so many nations (at least 5) risk war and economic collapse to escape it?
The small few that were boycotting it each deserve more investigation than a single Lemmy comment thread. The simplest answer is that they had reactionary, sometimes fascist rising nationalist movements. It isn’t sufficient to say that they boycotted it, therefore the USSR was evil, it’s more accurate to say that it needs investigation. I can’t do the intricacies of their nationalist movements any justice in a Lemmy thread other than telling you that they exist.
Secondly, yes, they did vote to leave months later. The mess with the botched coup, the existence of a weird new political position that stood against the Soviet balance of power in a way that messed up the economy (long story as well), and privatization had already been at play and came to a head months later. The USSR didn’t collapse so much as it was killed.
As for Soviet Nostalgia, that’s just the term. Look at the polling data, the questions specifically ask about economic situations or if it was bad that the Soviet Union fell. These numbers are more positive among older populations that actually lived there, times are harder now for most post-Soviet states. After the fall, an estimated 7 million people died due to the collapse of social safety nets and the destruction of the economy. Capitalism was and is disastrous for these nations, whose metrics are only just now approaching their Soviet Levels, such as life expectancy, while metrics like wealth disparity and poverty are massive.
What chapter are you on in Blackshirts? They get into almost all of this in deeper detail.
As for US bad, I’ll ask you to name a more influential country than the US or the USSR during the 20th century. In terms of sheer impact, the USSR was by far the most progressive. The alternative? A genocidal Empire that tried to crush the Soviets at every chance, and ultimately succeeded. It isn’t just a “low bar,” the United States is perhaps the single most evil country to ever exist outside of Nazi Germany, and the Soviets opposed both.
Did they support liberation movements in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland etc etc?
Bit of a cheap pivot, isn’t that? Not all nationalist movements are good, many are highly reactionary, even fascist in nature. On the whole, Soviet foreign policy was cleary in the interests of the working class, from helping Cuban workers liberate themselves from the fascist Batista regime, to helping Algeria throw off the colonizing French, to helping Palestinians resisting genocide, to assisting China with throwing off the Nationalists and Imperialist Japan.
Moreover, it directly compares, say, the Soviet treatment of Estonia with the fascist slaver regime over Cuba that the Soviets helped overthrow, or the Israeli treatment of Palestinians via genocide. It equates what can’t be equated. Further, that means that the US Confederacy should have been allowed to leave purely on the basis of wanting to. It’s not a real point, it’s cheap.
I don’t think it’s a cheap pivot at all. If you want to say “look at all these places where the people there wanted freedom!” While completely ignoring that they were violently surpressing those same scenarios within their own annexed territories? That’s just willful blindness.
How familiar are you with, for example, Estonian nationalism? How familiar are you with its treatment within the USSR? These were not at all the same conditions as, say, Algeria.
Really? Cheap pivot?
USSR walked into Poland to “save” it, shot it in the back, started massive executions of polish people, cooperated with Nazi Germany, stole most of resources, glorified brutalizing people, forced glorification of Lenin, made everyone stand for hours in lines to get basic products like flour or meat, made everyone distrust everyone because, their armies seen civilians as playthings with a little better approach to farm families…
I do not claim USSR had only bad influence. But there is no way in hell anybody who knows history can call them good guys. They had their own agenda.
And yeah, they marched against Nazi’s and won, but when was that? Ah, yes, only after Nazis betrayed them and failed. From this point onward, it was great way to make other countries back off from USSR whille making sure Nazis - already weakened by failed invastion of USSR and constant war with UK, USA and rebels - won’t be able to reorganize and strike again.
There’s a lot of historical inaccuracy here.
- The Soviets tried several times to form an alliance with Britain and France against the Nazis prior to the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression treaty. The west, of course, denied it, as they were friendly with the Nazis. The Soviets hated the Nazis, and the Communists in Germany were the first the Nazis killed, and saw an enemy in “judeo-bolshevism.”
Harry Truman had this to say:
If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don’t want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances.
-
Poland. The Nazis invaded Poland, and then the Soviets waited and tried to get the Western Powers involved. They did not, so weeks later the Soviets went in to prevent the Nazis from taking all of Poland. Of course, the Polish people saw the Soviets as aggressors, but at the time the Polish government had already collapsed, there remained nothing more than to be overtaken by the Nazis.
-
Social services. I think it’s very silly to complain about feeding those who need it. There were stores, and there were farms as well, and to fill in the gap there were social services. The US has also had Bread Lines, this isn’t an especially evil thing to do. Moreover, the Soviet Economy had stable and unceasing growth until its dissolution, outside of World War 2, despite having 50% of dwellings destroyed by the genocidal Nazis.
-
No idea what you mean by “made everyone distrust everyone.”
-
Again, the Soviets and Nazis hated each other from day 1. Read Blackshirts and Reds, you only need the first couple of chapters in an already short read.
Soviets also played a big role in helping India achieve independence which is one major reason why relations between India and Russia are so good to this day. https://actofdefiance.wordpress.com/2022/09/05/soviet-support-for-indian-independence/
If you look at the holodomor I think it’s hard to continue painting the Soviet Union as having uplifted the proletariat. Soviets starved their people to achieve rapid industrialization - a tradeoff that most of those who died would probably not have agreed with. IIRC most historians say that collectivization was a horrible failure and was not good for the working class.
First hand accounts of life during stalinism make it clear that people had to develop weird mannerisms to avoid making it seem like they were disloyal/anti-party; basically everyone walking on eggshells all the time.
What most historians agree on is that the famine happened, and that collectivization was botched. Kulaks burning their crops and killing their livestock, rather than handing it over, certainly accelerated the issue. However, outside of World War 2, where the Nazis took Ukraine (the USSR’s breadbasket), this was the last famine, and as such life expectancy doubled. I am sure that if anyone could go back in time and prevent the famine from happening, they would. The fact that famine went from common and regular to stable food supplies and no more going hungry is an important one.
Moreover, again, this is just one aspect of a country where the working class saw free, high quality education and healthcare, full employment, a dramatic lowering of wealth inequality with a dramatic raising in wealth, doubled life expectancy, lower retirement ages than the US from the State, women participating in the highest rungs of government, and more cannot be erased either.
Taken in total, again, there wasn’t a country better for the working class in the 20th century, certainly none that did not owe part of their existance to the support recieved from the Soviets, like Cuba and China. There were many far worse, such as the US Empire and Nazi Germany, and the Soviets opposed both.
*there wasn’t a country better for the working class that survived
Imo you can’t just ignore all the people who died as a result of the rapid industrialization and collectivization. And how great is your life if you have to change everything about what you say and how you act just to appease party officials?
I don’t want to ignore all the great things that happened during the Soviet era. I think you’re right about better access to education and many of these other things, but there are so many asterisks.
I argue that the same things could have been achieved without collectivization and without so much political violence. Social support programs are great, but they should be available to everyone, regardless of how much you support the prevailing political party.
And just how sure are you that Stalin would have gone back in time to prevent the Holodomor? I’m unconvinced - it quelled an inconvenient uprising.
I am not ignoring collectivization. I am noting that it ended famine in a country that had regular famines. I believe collectivization could have been done better, but industrialization of farming had to be done to stop famine regardless, be it Capitalist or Socialist.
As for the hundreds of millions that got to live to their 70s vs dying in their 30s thanks to Soviet Policy, I think they were quite happy to not be dying en masse. They didn’t have to change everything just to appease party officials.
As for whether or not these huge expansions in worker rights could have been achieved without Socialism, I believe the answer is no. The Soviets were the first to give such sweeping safety nets, and the Capitalist countries that expanded theirs did so in response as revolution became increasingly popular. Now that the USSR has fallen, these safety nets are eroding over time. Read Consessions. And yes, these were given to everyone, even immigrants without citizenship (including the right to vote if they worked there as well).
As for Stalin, here is archival evidence suggesting that he would rather not have had the famines happen. I’m not defending everything Stalin did, of course, but purely calling this point into question:
From: Archive of the President of the Russian Federation. Fond 3, Record Series 40, File 80, Page 58.
Excerpt from the protocol number of the meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist party (Bolsheviks) “Regarding Measures to Prevent Failure to Sow in Ukraine, March 16th, 1932.
The Political Bureau believes that shortage of seed grain in Ukraine is many times worse than what was described in comrade Kosior’s telegram; therefore, the Political Bureau recommends the Central Committee of the Communist party of Ukraine to take all measures within its reach to prevent the threat of failing to sow [field crops] in Ukraine.
Signed: Secretary of the Central Committee – J. STALIN
Letter to Joseph Stalin from Stanislaw Kosior, 1st secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine regarding the course and the perspectives of the sowing campaign in Ukraine, April 26th, 1932.
There are also isolated cases of starvation, and even whole villages [starving]; however, this is only the result of bungling on the local level, deviations [from the party line], especially in regard of kolkhozes. All rumours about “famine” in Ukraine must be unconditionally rejected. The crucial help that was provided for Ukraine will give us the opportunity to eradicate all such outbreaks [of starvation].
Letter from Joseph Stalin to Stanislaw Kosior, 1st secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, April 26th, 1932.
Comrade Kosior!
You must read attached summaries. Judging by this information, it looks like the Soviet authority has ceased to exist in some areas of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Can this be true? Is the situation invillages in Ukraine this bad? Where are the operatives of the OGPU [Joint Main Political Directorate], what are they doing?
Could you verify this information and inform the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist party about taken measures.
Sincerely, J. Stalin
Basically, the Ukranian Communists appeared to have tried to save face and lied about how bad the situation was, especially Kosior who tried to say the “rumors” of famine were false in the face of Stalin telling him to get his act together and do something, even sending supplies. You could chalk this up to fear of Stalin or whatever, but it seems pretty clear that Stalin was anti-famine.
How do you defend the “blacklisted” villages? I don’t detect any remorse in the material you have cited, just concern over making sure his policies are being properly enacted. It seems pretty clear to me that Stalin considered the loss of life in Ukraine to be worth it in order to drive his agenda forward - why else would he have allowed policies that forbid farmers themselves from eating the food from the fields they tended? Why else would he have allowed policies keeping farmers from traveling for any reason? To ensure that they produced food for the rest of the union, which would focus on industrial output. You can argue that he was right - without such rapid industrialization, they almost certainly would have lost to the Nazis imo.
Also, don’t conflate socialism with collectivism. I never said that the gains made in terms of education, life expectancy, etc. were possible without socialist policies. You can have socialism without collectivism/without stalinism. I think it’s much better that way.
I don’t need to defend every Soviet policy, nor do I try to. I can merely explain why they happened and wether it has been fairly judged or not in the west, and overwhelmingly that tends to be “not.” My opinion on the Soviets is that they were overall the best, not that they never committed errors or crimes.
Either way, Blacklisting was originally a punishment meant to counteract resistance to collectivization, the Kulaks often intentionally killed their livestock and burnt their crops. The execution of Blacklisting was obviously more hit or miss.
As for Stalin’s role, it seems clear to me that when collectivization was met with outright hostility from the semi-Capitalist kulaks, that his goal was to finish collectivization and try to prevent further famine, not intentionally killing people. You said it yourself, if collectivization did not complete after it was started, even more famine would have occured. I am not sure what should have been done, but I don’t think Stalin looks like he would have chosen for famine to happen, more that if anything he would have rather had it go off without a hitch.
As for Socialism vs Collectivism, I don’t know what you mean. Socialism is a Mode of Production, characterized by Public Ownership and Planning as being the primary force of an economy. It isn’t synonymous with Social Safety Nets.
Posting in a thread that will have 300 comments and 20 visible on hexbear
Probably for the best because if you click through to the .ml version you get worlders saying things like
I dunno, I perceive it more as a letft wing term for left-extremist fascists
Words mean nothing to these people lmao
It’s a very silly place here.
.ml is the best instance because you get to see the comments from all other instances
That also makes it a very draining instance where there is constant skirmishing, but the plus side is that it’s a good frontier to try to push Leftist ideals for other instances to see.
It provides a good balance between seeing mainstream right wing opinions without having to deal with full on Republican fascists.
Not being in an echo chamber helps to keep us grounded to what the layman CNN watcher believes.
Where are you seeing these right wing opinions? I batangas haven’t seen any since wolfballs dropped
.world is full of them.
Sure, but discussing the same points day after day is frequently unproductive. Hexbear and Lemmygrad, as an example, can be seen as an “echo-chamber” within the context of Lemmy, but Lemmy itself exists in the context of a western-dominated internet. It’s rare that a liberal wandering into Lemmy.ml brings a new argument to the table unheard of by leftists in their daily lives going against the grain.
The benefit of such “echo chambers” is that there’s potential for higher understanding and discussion. I’m not going to find nuanced discusdion of, say, Marx’s Law of Value or Dialectical and Historical Materialism here as applied to current events. There’s opportunity to give the briefest overview to visitors here, but such topics require being a particular nerd for Leftist politics and theory as well as reading more in-depth than Lemmy conversations can provide.
all “right wing opinions” are dogshit
The best instance is subjective to the user. That’s why the fediverse is so rad, people can join whichever digital commune that best reflects their values.
Some people like bowling with the little gutter bumpers raised up. Some like to throw bowling balls into the wall to see how many holes they can make. Something for everyone!
Truly. Any moderate support for AES? Immediately labeled a tankie, I’ve seen Anarchists and even Liberals labeled a tankie. The term only exists to punch left from the Liberal POV, just like “Woke” is used to punch anything left of fascism.
Any moderate support for a non-US aligned capitalist country as well
What are you referring to with “AES”? (I only know it as an encryption method and Google ain’t helping)
Actually Existing Socialism. Cuba, China, Vietnam, the former USSR, etc.
Shut up, tankie!
The term “tankie” was originally used by dissident Marxist–Leninists to describe members of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) who followed the party line of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). Specifically, it was used to distinguish party members who spoke out in defence of the Soviet use of tanks to suppress the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the 1968 Prague Spring, or who more broadly adhered to pro-Soviet positions.
I’ve never understood why there is any confusion over the word “tankie.” It applies to the pro-cop left. If a leftist believes that it’s necessary for cops to beat minorities and dissidents into submission for their society to function, they’re tankies. If they approach leftism in a way that does not involve state violence against civilians to enforce those ideas, they’re not tankies. To me there isn’t a lot of gray area.
I don’t think your second paragraph follows from the first. The cited revolts were largely fascist in origin, for example the Hungarian revolt had the fascists lynching Soviet Officials and freeing Nazis from prison in order to assist with lynching Soviet Officials. Calling them “dissidents” or pretending they were ethnic minorities is ridiculous. Not answering fascists lynchings with violence would be incredibly terrible.
The “rebels” were trained and supplied by MI6, and had marked the doors of Jews and Communists for extermination.
Really curious what a “non-tankie” would recommend doing in such a situation. Giving the Nazis that killed hundreds of people flowers?
What you claimed is very believable to me, and I’m also prepared to believe that the reality of your claims is heavily censored in the English language. That being said I haven’t been able to find evidence to support that the primary drivers of these respective uprisings were fascist or Western. I have only found evidence of other causes. I have no doubt opportunistic fascists and Western governments took advantage of these situations for their own benefit, but the origins of these situations seem to have been genuine domestic issues which were met with state violence causing the situation to escalate. Would you link me to your sources?
This is a decent overview of the background that led up to the events of 1956, and this is a decent overview of the darker side, where the lynchings happened. Content Warning: lynched corpses. Here is a source on MI6 training and arming the counterrevolutionaries. Those 3 articles give only the briefest overview of the events, but don’t do the real buildup to them, their complexities, what the people actually supported, or the real character in any depth. If you want to actually take a deep dive, these are additional sources:
The History of the Working Class Movement in Hungary
1956 Counter-Revolution in Hungary
Others can offer more sources.
Overall, when it comes to geopolitical enemies of the United States in particular, it would not be a bad idea to treat your current understanding with extreme skepticism until you’ve investigated counter-sources as well. That doesn’t mean the US always lies, in fact it frequently tells mostly the truth, but will distory either the quality or quantity of an event.
Tankie doesn’t really mean anything to me anymore. Even self-proclaimed tankies often have trouble defining it in a way that is consistent among leftist groups.
Tankie = derogatory term for Marxist. It’s that easy
No, and never was.
its the one with the… and they have ttank, with… the one with ehe tan, you takn. rhe tanker. tabker is the with the
generally it vaguely means “communists” as well as “anti-imperialists”, with the caveat that left communists are excluded as a separate thing
I thought it had to include the pro authoritarian and often pro war aspect of it. So a Marxist/communist or what not wouldn’t fall into tankies without the call for an authoritarian leader like Stalin.
Nope, you will get called a tankie if you support Palestine. Tankies are generally anti imperialist war while the squishier social Democrat types are pro-war. Tankie authoritarians were against WW1 while the “lib left” all voted along nationalist lines
This is why I don’t think this term will ever really leave usage on the internet moving forward.(not talking about historical use in GB and such). It seems many people believe it means something different. Not that I want it to be a mainstream media term.
Not that stack exchange users are the end all be all of what one should believe is correct, but this was what they showed as their agreed definition.
The parts about supporting the aggressive putting down of a rebellion with tanks is what usually has people tie in the supporting authoritarian violence. If you look at it from the other side one would would argue the ends justified the means which was to stop an escalation and thus a possible war as well. So really all sides of the term were going to be tied to aggression and supporting one mindedness ruling over another.
I don’t see anyone using it as a compliment for anyone anytime soon
That “authoritarian putting down of a revolution” was the squashing of anti-Semitic rightwing pogroms and mobs. Good riddance.
Every nation state in existence is authoritarian, the different is towards who. You are still deep in Liberal dogma
I didn’t say what I believed, I was discussing the usage of the term tankie in mainstream media. If it were used, I would assume western media would voice it with the red scare propaganda that is always pushed. With the media conglomerates jostling to find a way to fall in line with Trump’s administration I figure they’d label anything left of them a violent communistic extremest group.
The average lib who uses tankie has no idea of its origins, and it’s origins are now so irrelevant as it has nothing to do with the groups that are labeled. Only liberals bring up the Hungary thing instead of discussing how the term is used in modern context
I have some news about Stalin courtesy of, no shit, the CIA
I was under the impression it was the intersection of the venn diagram of communists and imperialists, as long as imperialist means imperialist (defined as using economic, military, diplomatic and cultural power to influence countries around you in a way that is beneficial to you, and may be either beneficial, inconsequential or detrimental to them) and not just “western and capitalist”
That’s generally a disagreement over what “Imperialism” even means. “Anti-Imperialists” are talking about Lenin’s identification of modern Monopoly Capitalism as it brutally expropriates wealth from the Global South through outsourcing and debt traps with the IMF, like Coke and the Columbian death squads.
A tankie is anyone to the left of whoever is using the pejorative. Usually because they expressed a critique of imperialism or aren’t sufficiently racist towards the Chinese.
This seems to be how I see it used most. I usually stick to calling people tankies when they walk around explicitly talking about how proud they are to be one.
Anyone you see self identifying as a tankie is just fucking around because of how meaningless the term is. If you want to insult a Marxist try directly engaging with whatever it is they’re saying that annoys you. You might even learn something along the way.
Knowing Marxists, we also will never shut up lol
If you want to insult a Marxist
try directly engagingcall them a lib.
Yeah I’m a tankie
Tankie always meant a fan of authoritarianism but not of the nazi variety. And hand to hand with that goes hate for America, but hate for America isn’t enough on it’s own, it should be paired with love of Strong Hand Of The East.
Tankie thinks China, Russia, North Korea are just swell, and not because of some underlying ideology, but because they have an authoritarian model of governance and generally in opposition to the west to some degree.
And that’s the reason why it’s so hard to define for some people, boiled down to it’s definition, it’s very hard to spin into something universally good, so talking to a general public they have to do what authoritarian lovers from the other side of the spectrum call “hiding the power lever”, which muddies the water.America is the most authoritarian nation in human history
They have the highest incarceration rate of all time, and have destroyed the sovereignty of billions of people
China, Russia, North Korea
Conveniently all enemies of the US State Department. Don’t those tankies know that these countries are bad because checks notes they do the authoritarianisms.
Countries that do authitarianism become bad, yes. That’s exactly how it works, glad you’re getting it.
I can’t believe anyone would enforce class interests with violence, instead of debating tenants out of houses they’re in arrears for. Smh
On some level when you’re doing sophistry like this do you understand you’re acting real stupid?
What’s authoritarianism, and how does a country do it?
Seriously?
Seriously.
Yes, seriously. Liberals love vaguely coded moralisms and ideals, but they never specify what they mean systematically. America is more “authoritarian” by any definition I can conceive due to its hundreds year history of slavery, imperialist war and mass incarceration than any other country on earth
I always just thought it meant leftists who are actively advocating violence.
No marxist does this, and the painting of communists as inherently violent is pure capitalist projection. But we do disagree with pacifism.
https://redphoenixnews.com/2011/08/11/pacifism-how-to-do-the-enemys-job-for-them/
I believe in reclaiming “tankie” in the same way as “queer.” Schoolyard bullies don’t really care to distinguish between the many different labels encompassed by LGBT+, and so they inadvertently invented a term that could be very inclusive and all encompassing, even if you’re still figuring out who you are, you call always fall back on “queer” to give the general idea.
In the same way, the term “tankie” gets applied to people of all sorts of different left ideologies. There are significant differences between different leftist ideologies, but our critics don’t care to understand or distinguish between them, so I consider tankie to be a similarly inclusive term. Do you support anything that any socialist government has ever done? Do you think Cuba had an effective literacy program? Congratulations, you’re a tankie, welcome to the club.
Note that my identifying with the term isn’t really an invitation for people to use it. But, you know, if people want to keep using it as this broad, meaningless term that lumps a bunch of people together, as I see it, it only works to our advantage as “tankies,” it pushes people towards us and helps us remember what we have in common instead of fighting over our differences. So I’m not exactly going to fight the label particularly hard.
True but only for terminally online liberals. I still haven’t heard anyone in real life ever use that word.
It will happen in a few years from now.
Bet is going to be conservatives using it to talk about anyone left to Hitler
Do people genuinely take badempanada seriously?
He starts a lot of shit, but dammit if he isn’t right most of the time.
“Liberal” is just
Authoritarianism is authoritarianism. Doesnt matter how you paint it.
Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?
On authority, by Frederick Engels 1872
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm
Do MLs consider anarchists liberals now?
Are a anarcho-capitalists considered anarchists here?
No, Anarcho-Capitalism is a deeply unserious ideology that doesn’t even understand Capitalism well enough to understand that it can’t exist at any significant length of time without a state enshrining Private Property Rights.
Generally not. Anarchists and Marxists want separate goals and have separate means, but Liberalism is a separate ideology.
I’m aware, I’ve just never heard/seen a liberal use the word “tankie”- though I don’t often expose myself to liberals… Are libs actually using that word now? I would literally laugh out loud at the hypocrisy if I witnessed that
I’ve seen many I definitely don’t think are Anarchists use it, and I’ve even seen Anarchists and Liberals get labeled “tankies.” It’s a generic term used like BadEmpanada is referring to, a largely meaningless catch-all for Leftists.
That is whack; thanks for sharing
No problem. There are many on Lemmy.world for sure who use it that way, same with Reddit.
Go to lemmy world. Any political comm. Or check in on reddit.
I block every liberal with a shit take I come across (like 200 .world users so far lol) so that could explain why I haven’t seen it much
Don’t go to Reddit, even to prove a point. It’s a very silly place.
That would be silly but tankie is also a silly term.
Anarchists tend to be smart enough to not use the word tankie.
There are exceptions of course.
That’s been my only exposure to the term, is hearing/seeing anarchists say it. Do liberals really use that term?
Liberals do use it since “commie” lost its zing. Go to any reddit thread where somebody is speaking sense and there’ll be a liberal going “don’t listen to him, I saw his history and he’s a tankie”, likewise with any Facebook thread when some blue no matter who page says something profoundly silly
Tank you very much
