What's a Tankie?
I keep hearing the term in political discourse, and rather than googling it, I'm asking the people who know better than Google.
107
Comments286View original on lemmy.world
I keep hearing the term in political discourse, and rather than googling it, I'm asking the people who know better than Google.
The word Tankie originates from 1950s British Communist circles. Specifically, it was used by British Communists to derisively describe their comrades who supported the 1956 invasion of Hungary by the Soviet Union.
Images of the Soviet invasion featured a lot of tanks, hence, "Tankie".
After that died down, the term didn't come back into use really, until the 2010s, when leftists on the internet started using it in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way. It was fun to bring back a stupid sounding, incredibly niche, British slang word.
At some point the word breached containment and started to be used by liberals, in a very cavilier sort of way. I've seen people use Tankie to describe anyone from Marxist-Leninists, to Marxists generally, to Leftists generally, weird right-wingers who converted to Russian Orthodoxy, pro-Palestine activists, mods of Lemmy instances someone doesn't like.
Shit, I've seen literal Anarchist get called Tankies.
Basically, it's a meaningless nothing word now, that's a bit like your boomer grandpa who still thinks it's the Red Scare, calling Joe Biden a Commie Pinko.
So don't worry about it too much.
A cute water cistern.
That is an adorable tankie
No communist calls the ROK an "occupier," it's the US Empire that is occupying Korea, with the ROK's government set up directly by them. This whole comment is really bad, to be honest. In practice, "tankie" is essentially a pejorative for "communist." I recommend the Prolewiki article on "Tankies," as well as Nia Frome's essay "Tankies."
No, the government of the southern half of Korea, the Republic of Korea, is not an "occupier." The democratically elected state was the People's Republic of Korea (PRK), which spanned the entire peninsula before the US Empire came in, declared it illegal, and split the country in two, against the will of Koreans, and installed the dictator Rhee Syngman in place. The PRK was a quasi-socialist state that predated both the DPRK and ROK's governments.
Again, "tankie" in practice is just a pejorative for communists, akin to "pinko" or "commie." The fact that you're getting very basic communist stances on Korea completely wrong here betrays any sense of legitimacy you have on the subject.
"Tankie" isn't a political ideology, it's a McCarthyite strawman with ready-made characteristics designed to make it so that you don't have to respond to the points communists make. The origin of the term being in putting down the 1956 CIA supported and MI6 armed fascist counter-revolution in Hungary where the fascists let Nazis out of prison to lynch Jews and communists doesn't make any difference on today's usage.
Your image is really bad quality, you should get a better one, https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2025/0318/104-10110-10525.pdf
Thank you!
Tankie isn't a political ideology, it is a commentary on the practice of policy in comparison to stated beliefs.
No, it's a pejorative and McCarthyite strawman.
The current usage is as an anticommunist pejorative and McCarthyite strawman.
The ROK has a liberal democracy, but it was forced on the people of southern Korea without their consent. The US Empire staffed it with prior compradors that were in power during Japanese colonialism. The ROK is currently a dictatorship of capital under a special class of people referred to as "chaebol," under the occupation of the US Empire.
All states are “authoritarian,” in that all states are means by which one class exerts its authority over the others. Communists support the working class being in charge of that authority, all communists (unless you count anarchists) support the use of the state against capitalists and fascists, and the majority of practicing communists support socialist states.
I don't like being referred to like "one of you." I don't care what they posted, I am explaining directly to you.
The ROK essentially being a comprador government set up by a colonizer does not mean it's occupying itself. The US Empire is occupying Korea, not the comprador government.
A size of tank, smaller than normal tank, but bigger than tankette.
People fed up with the the (false) sin/cos dichotomy and want to get people to use tan more often.
but... but.... if sin/cos is false, that is literally tan ! (yes, I was frequently bullied in high school, why do you ask?)
Tan is the tao out of which the sin and cos arise
I don't mind those people, I just wish they wouldn't go off on tangentially related subjects.
OP, what have you unleashed.
I just thought this was where you came to ask questions.
It is, I'm just kidding around. Your question was innocent enough, it's just that the comments look like a battlefield.
you're on the .ml instance, which is an incredibly political place, so you're gonna get a lot of flack
I think every instance has pretty strong political views
When a South Asian calls the British monarchy fascist or Churchill a genocider in my experience.
Isn't monarchy already a bigger bad word in itself than fascism?
Not according to the Yakubians over at the miserable island.
I actually always wondered a bit about the line between fascism and monarchism. To the casual observer they might seem nearly identical, though I wonder if in historical materialist terms it's a reactionary attempt to backslide to feudalism rather than progress capitalism to socialism.
Fascism doesn't necessarily have the hereditary property of monarchism. Power can easily get transferred to other families, not related by blood.
no
Please expand upon that thought.
Anyone ideologically left of Richard Nixon according to our local blue conservatives.
Nixon was a tankie according to them. He's responsible for the EPA and OSHA.
Left of Reagan.
I had no idea this would ignite a shitstorm. I have so many responses now and less idea of what a tankie is now than when I asked.
Ask with an account federated with Hexbear and Lemmygrad, and you'll get more communist perspectives.
I am in the same boat. Been on here for about 2 years and I hear the words...but i dunno what it means? Thought it was just me.
I'm so happy I'm not as stupid as I thought because I have no idea either and now I still don't know
It's a loaded term by design. It started as a pejorative and morphed into a strawman pejorative, you can see many people throughout this thread describing people that don't exist.
You know that magnifying glass looking icon? You can search terms across instances.
Lol, my comment got removed, I guess you now know which vommunity you signed up on and how they function.
Cheers
Fascist apologia here gets banned, in .world you have people openly saying that Palestinians deserve to be genocided and you guys don't give a shit
Ah, the old "what about", now with .world instead of the USA.
I'm saying each community bans something different. I agree with banning fascist discourse, I dont agree with banning communist discourse. .world thinks otherwise and that's why it's shit IMO.
.ml bans goid reasoning and valid historical facts lol.
Such as?
I'm on lemmy.world I didn't sign up for this
Oh sorry, i confounded with this instance, my apologies.
Like most words it can mean different things depending on context. I’ll do my best to cover a few without spoiling it with my own opinions.
The most common usage is as a blanket pejorative aimed at anyone who identifies as leftist but also openly endorses authoritarian means or ends.
There are also those who embrace the term and they are also not all the same. There are Marxist-Leninists who believe the only path to a stateless egalitarian society is through a revolutionary vanguard party. There are also those who argue that egalitarian society can only be achieved and maintained through benevolent authoritarianism.
In any case, the term carries an implication of authoritarianism and/or revolutionary violence, hence “tanks.”
It's essentially just the modern day "commie", used to carry out mccarthyite witch-hunting against anyone perceived to be "anti-white".
It really is adult name calling, and it further polarizes the political spectrum by naming every single fucking mindset and ideology combination you can think of. It's just not constructive at all.
We need to talk about ideas and issues and how we can understand and compromise for one another.
A lot of these comments reminds me of people posting on conservative chats asking what a socialist is. About the same amount of mouth foaming.
I would like to remind people about vaccinations against rabies
A slur mainly on the internet against those leftist (usually Marxists-leninist) who oppose western interventions, sanctions, coups and wars against countries and governments labeled as "authoritarian".
originally used by UK communists party trotskyist wing in support of Hungarian -56 crushed uprising against those who opposed it, calling them tankies. Vaguely same as "stalinist", but it pretty much has lost that meaning in modern use.
It's what centrists call anyone to the left of netanyahu.
https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Tankie
https://redsails.org/tankies/
https://blackagendareport.com/western-marxism-loves-purity-and-martyrdom-not-real-revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie
It's what Liberals call a person who opposes genocide
Typically it refers to leftists who strongly defend/advocate for authoritarian statist approaches to socialism/communism.
This
OP I am glad you asked this because I don’t know. Also based on the horseshit answers you have gotten in this post it seems like no one else does either.
worth checking the modlog, seems there were answers that have since disappeared for mysterious reasons.
edit: damn, that's a high percentage of sodium for pointing at a thing that provably exists in the modlog.
Wassa tankie?
Feryerhealth
If I wanted to make a high engagement post I would post something like this. Are there any other controversial, not clearly defined words to ask about?
Socialism and communism seem to be very misunderstood outside of places like Grad, Hexbear, Lemmy.ml, etc. Some thing social programs are socialism, others think the Marxist conception of communism is incompatible with administration, some think any form of market or private property has to be eradicated for socialism to exist, some think it's about worker/employer relationships, etc. I think it would be a decent idea to form a better understanding.
For clarity, socialism is best described as a transitional status between capitalism and communism, by which public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy (controls the large firms and key industries at a minimum) and the working class is in control of the state. This fits cleanly with socialism in practice and with Marxist conceptions of socialism.
I honestly saw someone use the word, wondered what they actually meant by it, and came here to ask. TBF, I didn't know much about what "here" was, at the time.
Lemmy is developed by communists, and Reddit banned a bunch of leftist subreddits like r/chapotraphouse, r/GenZedong, and r/TheDeprogram. As a consequence, a bunch of communists are on Lemmy by ratio compared to Reddit, though Lemmy.world is defederated and blocks 2/3rds of the major communist instances, so you can't actually see them. They usually are on Lemmygrad.ml or Hexbear.net if you want to see the communist side of Lemmy.
Lemmy.ml is the dev's testing instance, so that's why a lot of communists are here but also why it's not defederated by Lemmy.world.
Someone mentioned that, but I have yet to see why dot world blocked the commie instances. Care to share?
Here's Lemmy.world explaining why. Essentially, for having stances common to communists (opposing western hegemony is a big one they took issue with). Lemmy.world is run by your standard DNC-style liberals, they generally oppose Marxism and communism, and uphold the DNC as good. Some are also zionists.
Now, that's my perspective as a communist. I'm a Marxist-Leninist, my perspective is as someone who reads theory, does light org work, etc. I'm not a fan of the DNC, I support socialist states, etc. Others may give a different perspective, but it's also worth noting that there are entire drama communities dedicated to taking comments out of context, witch-hunting communists, etc and this is made even worse by defederation because it creates this "boogeyman" that .world can't actually see.
Hope that helps, honestly you can just scroll grad and hexbear yourself for a bit without making an account to see what's up.
Thank you for the reasonable reply that didn't attack my character for asking. Apparently, that's too much to ask of some people.
No worries! A lot of people get emotionally invested in drama, which is why tons of the definitions you've been given for "tankie" are people that don't actually exist. It's like saying "communist but boogieman." This creates the response from communists defending ourselves from slander, which is why this became a mess. Kinda like if you went into a random room and asked people what "woke" meant.
Lemmy has few conservatives (outside of instances like sh.itjust.works), so the biggest ideological conflict is communist vs liberal, with anarchists kinda doing their own thing and aligning more or less with the former or the latter.
Just be warned, Cowbee is very much misrepresenting things here.
I urge you to read the thread he linked, and not take his summary seriously.
As I explained in my reply to you, I misrepresented nothing. Lemmy.world admins banned Hexbear because of ideological disagreements they deemed unacceptable before even federating. Hexbear never said they were going to "wage a propaganda war," they just suggested that if their users were to discuss politics in federated threads that they try to be more professional about it.
Reading that thread, it's clearly not for "having stances". Very, very clearly it's about their intention to push anti-liberal propaganda and dismantle liberalism across the fediverse.
Yours is a clearly disingenuous reading, and I hope people here aren't just taking you at your word.
It's absolutely for having stances deemed unacceptable by the admin team. For the admin team, only liberal propaganda is allowable. Any left-critique of liberalism is deemed "extreme," and was pre-emptively silenced. The admins are trying to have their cake and eat it too, by saying that it's unacceptable to push viewpoints systemically while cutting out anyone that goes against their own viewpoints.
If you're really gonna say deliberately connecting to an instance with the stated goal of dismantling and inserting a communist ideology via a propaganda war is tantamount to "just having a stance" then it should be clear to everyone what a bad actor you are.
Imagine if I publicaly stated that the goal of my instance was to build a userbase, infiltrate .ml, dismantle communist ideology, and spread liberal propaganda. Are you really gonna pretend you'd leap to my defense when Dessalines obviously banned/defederated me?
Hell, he loves to abuse rule 2 to silence "Liberals" constantly. Yet you don't seem to have anything to say about that...
From what I've seen, it appears a very vocal minority of .world users cannot tolerate any criticism or viewpoints opposing capitalism/liberialism or NATO.
Lol
Shit, my comment got deleted, do you remember what it said? I can't remember. Im sure it was probably something irritating for a communist...
Complaining about communists like you're trapped in the 1950's
Dont forget the past, lest youre doomed to repeat it.
In 1950s everyone learned the horrors of a communist system, and now 70ish years later, those with 1st hand experience are mostly dead.
I mean, yall confuse me. In your opinion, should we not have fought communism in the 50s?
It's essentially a pejorative for "communist." I recommend the Prolewiki article on "Tankies," as well as Nia Frome's essay "Tankies."
For those that want an introduction to Marxism-Leninism, I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list, check it out!
The problem with this argument is that you're looking for some idealistic version of communism without any regard as to it's actual feasibility. You want communism with western liberal democratic packaging, a communism that explicitly rejects any kind of violence or force against class enemies, afraid of being accused of repression, and that leaves the door wide open for counterrevolutionary forces to seize back control. You want something that works better as protest than as practical implementation. It's just Eurocommunism for the 21st century. There's a reason why this kind of communism only exists in the developed western world. It clings onto the notion of western superiority, and regards communists of the global south to be barbaric, authoritarian, and oppressive.
There's also a reason why this ideology is not the platform of practically any active and actually existing communist party in the world. It's the communism of idealists who haven't read theory, or understood theory. It borrows heavily from the "marketplace of ideas" where the opponents of the revolution can be defeated purely by a good argument.
Furthermore, I'm wondering "authoritarian compared to whom, exactly?" Look around you. Violence unleashed on peaceful protesters everywhere, asking for anything from less police violence to don't cut or freeze wages to tax dollars for citizens not genocide.
I’m not exactly optimistic about socialists winning elections in my country, maybe I can ask the billionaires politely?
All states are "authoritarian," in that all states are means by which one class exerts its authority over the others. Communists support the working class being in charge of that authority, all communists (unless you count anarchists) support the use of the state against capitalists and fascists, and the majority of practicing communists support socialist states.
Ha ha yeah, the good ol "authoritarianism exists everywhere!" Argument
You know well and good when someone says a government is authoritarian they mean things like speech being controlled and unable to criticize the government, being heavily restricted in your freedom of movement, being heavily restricted in the information you're allowed to access or possess and so on and so forth
Those tactics are employed by every state in the interest of whichever class is in control, against whichever class is in opposition, to the extent necessary to preserve the existing property relations. All communists support wielding the state against capitalists, fascists, and reactionaries that would topple the socialist system.
There it is again. The classic “everything is authoritarian so the word doesn’t mean anything” routine. It’s funny how that only shows up when someone calls tankies authoritarian. Communism isn’t bad because some western pundit said so, it’s bad when it turns into an excuse to justify control.
The idea of giving power to the people is great, but pretending censorship and repression are just “necessary tactics” ruins it. If the system can’t survive without silencing people, it’s not socialism anymore, it’s just another hierarchy wearing red paint.
Analysis of authority isn't to "make excuses." Analysis of authority is critical in analyzing class struggle and the state. You're saying it's just as bad for workers to silence fascists and capitalists as it is for capitalists to silence workers, then hide behind phrasemongering.
If that were the case, we would expect similar social and economic outcomes in both cases. Then, why did the USSR have the lowest recorded wealth and income inequality in history? Why did it have guaranteed employment, guaranteed housing at a cost of 3% of the average income, universal free healthcare and free education to the highest level? Why did it have walkable and public transit-oriented urban planning with services accessible by foot (look up the word "mikroraion" on Wikipedia)? Why could unions remove factory managers if they so decided, and why was there a newspaper to each workplace in which workers could write their complaints and their ideas? Why were the highest-earning individuals university professors and artists and not political bureaucrats?
In which more than just airing complaints, something would be done
::: spoiler at least as far as Pat Sloan writes in ~1937
The chapter "A People's Press" https://comlib.encryptionin.space/epubs/soviet-democracy/ :::
nuttin', wassa tankie wit' you?
There are far too many comments that just got removed by the moderator! I asked the question, and while I might not agree with all the replies, I was glad that people felt like it was okay to do so.
You asked the equivalent of "What's a limey bastard?" at a British pub. It's quite funny, but basically everything you kicked off answers your question.
If you want to know about any subject, ask a person that is a proponent of said subject first and then get the harshest criticism second and see how the first holds up. You will find an answer eventually in this hegelian dialectic. E.g. You don't want an anti-feminists explaining feminism to you, without hearing from a feminist first.
you asked what a "tankie" is in one of the very few places on the internet that is a tankie space/instance. Let them explain to you first. The removed comments are "dronies" (politically confused people that hold the same views as western imperialists and are subject to their hegemony) are outsiders that come from other parts of the fediverse repeating the same talking points you read about everywhere else on the (western) internet. (To stay with the analogy: similar to an anti-feminist saying that feminists hate men, when its not true). Comments get removed here when they are factually wrong
"Factually wrong" might be a bit slippery when it comes to this issue. I get the impression that the term is going through some changes in use (as words tend to do) and some groups might legitimately disagree with each other on the definition. Some of the comments that got removed were not in any way helpful to the conversation, but others seemed to have their own definitions. Now they are deleted, who can say? The last definition standing wins?
You asked with a .world account, meaning you're defederated from 2/3 biggest communist spaces on Lemmy, on Lemmy.ml, the last third. As such, it became quite a mess, because communists are outnumbered by anti-communists if you cut out 2/3s of communists.
The ones that had their comments removed were picking a definition that does not correspond to reality.
It's kinda like asking what the word "woke" means. MAGA people are going to give you this elaborate strawman, and others are going to tell you that it's just a pejorative strawman.
If you want to see all sides, read the wikipedia page for "tankies," first, as it's the liberal understanding. Then compare that to the prolewiki entry for "Tankies," for a communist perspective on it, then read "Tankies" by Nia Frome to get someone to elaborate on how it's actually used today, beyond its origins and the strawman characteristics it holds.
We removed many comments, since its a blanket term used to demonize leftists, like "commie", and carry out anti-communist witch-hunts (the instance you're currently on blocks the major leftist lemmy servers, so we're seeing a lot of witch-hunters).
Its kinda similar to going to a non-theist forum, and asking, "hey everyone, what's a heathen?" And a lot of the answers then demonize these supposed "heathens".
The problem here is that "tankie" is just a strawman with ready-made characteristics. In the minds of viewers, a tankie is exactly what McCarthy described, yet also someone who believes that the McCarthyian version of a communist is a good thing. The problem is that this doesn't describe real people. Communists disagree with common western, liberal viewpoints on existing socialist states, and believe them to be unfairly represented in western media. Communists aren't paid trolls, we aren't in it for ego. Many of us are members of communist parties, volunteer in our communities, etc.
You say these supposed "tankies" identify with crimes against humanity, but that's demonstrably false. I can say that, for example, the idea of the 1930s famine in the USSR being intentional is utter mythology. That doesn't mean I support the famine, it means based on evidence from the opening of the soviet archives, we know that it was a tragedy caused by adverse weather conditions made worse by kulaks destroying grain and livestock as resistance to collectivization, and that food output grew with collectivization. None of that "identifies with" the idea that the famine was intentional and is somehow good.
Even your points on the Russian Federation are wrong. Nobody thinks they are still socialist, critical support for the Russian Federation lies in the fact that it's forced into trade with socialist countries, resists western imperialism, and has a rising socialist public that wishes to reimplement socialism. The DPRK isn't the dystopian nightmare the west pitches it to be, and we know this by measuring up defector testimonies and comparing them to reporting both internally and externally. China is socialist, public ownership is the principle aspect of its economy.
All of this is to say, yourself and others are getting downvoted because you're treating the McCarthyite strawman as if it's a real thing.
So much arrogant, condescending chauvinism in this comment.
Post the video coward
Yeah, they totally ran protestors over with tanks. You can even see it in the full tank man video.
https://files.catbox.moe/7zvmf3.mp4
Oh, huh, that's weird. He didn't get run over. It even seems like the tanks are trying to avoid him. Maybe the perfidious chicoms are the ones who are telling the truth and it's our free and fair liberal press who are lying 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔.
Are you referring to the like twenty minute video where a guy stands in front of a tank and even jumps on top of it before two other protestors come by and he walks off with them willingly? Not even the US embassy in China claimed there was a "massacre". Was the embassy full of tankies?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests_and_massacre
Wow, so you're saying the embassy was infiltrated by Chicoms. How devious. Well, I'm glad Wikipedia wouldn't source some infiltrated Chicom embassy. They have higher standards.
First step, learn the name of the historical location + event you want to pretend you know about. Second, use internet search to look up where Tank Man was Tankmanning. Your browser should automatically search the web if you type appropriate keywords in the navigation bar. You can also use this to learn how things are spelled.
Sorry, I will try not to cite the US Embassy again. My apologies sir.
There was no massacre on the square, though. All deaths happened around Beijing, but the dispersal of the protestors on the square was peaceful.
rofl no
What do you mean? Of the few hundred people that died in the riots and fighting, the square was dispersed peacefully. Marxists in general, on Tian'anmen is that hundreds of protestors and PLA officers were killed in Beijing that day as the PLA advanced towards the square, but that the square itself was evacuated peacefully, which matches leaked US cables and the CPC's official stance on what it calls the "June 4th incident". This is a rejection of the commonly reported story of 10,000 people being killed on the square itself, which originated from a British diplomat's cable. Said diplomat was later confirmed to have evacuated well before.
Western nations intentionally sensationalize the quantity of deaths and the character of the events. This is also why Western Nations don't frequently report on the South Korean Gwang-Ju massacre that occured around the same era, where the South Korean millitary murdered thousands of High School and College students protesting against Chun Do-Hwan's dictatorship. All of what I said is backed up by the Wikipedia page for Tian'anmen Square Protests and Massacre, such as Alan Donald revising his estimate from 10,000 to the low thousands yet BBC continuing to report the 10,000 figure:
This term goes back to the 1968 Prague spring.
It was an uprising, an attempt by the Czechoslovak communist party at reformation towards more democracy and freedom of the press. Then troops from other members of the Warsaw pact marched in and subdued it.
From then on, communists who supported more democracy and freedom called the pro-quelling communists "tankies" as they marched in with tanks.
It was actually the 1956 fascist counter-revolution in Hungary, not the 1968 fascist counter-revolution in Prague, where "tankie" originated in the Communist Party of Great Britain. The term was coined because of the British tendency towards silly-sounding insults, and because the Soviet Union sent in the Red Army to stop the western-backed fascist insurrection. This caused a split in the party (as it always does in western orgs).
The Hungarian revolt in 1956 was infested with anti-semitic pograms. MI6 funded, supplied, and trained the Hungarian counter-revolutionaries. These counter-revolutionaries were allied with fascists who were lynching Jewish people and Communists.
Further, the CIA also backed Hungarian resistance forces:
Prague in 1968 was a similar fascist uprising in both cases there were some elements of progressive protest, but these were greatly overshadowed by the fascist movements. Dubcek wanted to sell out to the IMF, and restore capitalism. The idea that any of this was about "democracy" or "freedom" is silly, it was always about Cold War tactics to destabilize socialism.
TL;DR imagine if the January 6th rioters were armed and trained by foreign governments, started lynching officials and Jewish people, and the US sent in the army to put down the insurrection. The MAGA chuds would claim that it was about "freedom" and "democracy," but we all know that they just wanted Trump in office.
Hungary Freedom Fighters Federated Inc isn't the same thing as Hungary Freedom fighters. The inc was established after they escaped to the USA. It doesn't prove that they had ties before or during the revolution.
The Hungarian counter-revolutionaries were armed and trained by MI6, this was already confirmed (as linked earlier). It's highly unlikely that the UK was just doing its own thing and then some of the terrorists established ties with the CIA after the fact.
I'm definitely not saying anything else was wrong. Just seeing that one specific letter floating around. It's 100% likely that the CIA has something to do with it, as it's definitely in their playbook, but that letter isn't the smoking gun people say it is.
It made waves a bit ago because it was another piece of information building up the case, it's not a smoking gun but instead is, when combined with what else we know, more evidence to support that not only was the UK involved, but so was the US.
You can at least see the way you presented it in your comment wasn't the full picture.
Never tried to claim it, it's just a short Lemmy comment. Entire books have been written on the subject.
sure
Yes.
Wasn't it recently declassified that the
velvet revolutionwas indeed a CIA plot?Edit: oof wrong one, I was talking about 1956 not 1989
Velvet was '89, as far as I know it was the CIA's involvement with nationalist groups in Hungary that was revealed.
Oof mb, I was talking about 68 but got mixed up.
No worries! Either way it was '56 though, lol.
Yup, I’m mixing up my counter revolutions lol
Not that it matters much, we’re just a few years away from declassification for those anyway
We'll see!
It's just a pejorative for communists in the form of a McCarthyite strawman.
A bloody what now
A strawman based on the worst nightmares of communists from the Red Scare era.
From the bloody what now
Evil caricature of what Statesians think communists are like.
Something funny about posting the question to .ml and seeing the renoved comments at the top hah
Yeah, I really stepped in it. I honestly didn't know.
It's funny but also if nothing else at least you get different sort of perspective here than in other places
I never encountered its usage outside of the fediverse but appears to mean someone who espouses communist things but also is a russia/china apologist politically. Appears to be derogetory.
That seems pretty accurate
Not a single communist is "enamored by" the Russian Federation, we all wish the USSR had never dissolved. Communists do tend to support China, as it's the world's most developed socialist country. Further, all states are “authoritarian,” in that all states are means by which one class exerts its authority over the others. Communists support the working class being in charge of that authority, all communists (unless you count anarchists) support the use of the state against capitalists and fascists, and the majority of practicing communists support socialist states.
Libs take information at face value and don't consider it's context.
https://redsails.org/another-view-of-tiananmen/
Its white/western supremacy, every time.
I'm stealing the term wankies lol
Not a single communist believes the Russian Federation's structure is something to emulate. We all wish the USSR had never dissolved. Support for Russia extends to its trade with socialist countries, opposition to western imperialism, and the public's rising socialist sympathies:
Communists do tend to support China, as it’s the world’s most developed socialist country. Further, all states are “authoritarian,” in that all states are means by which one class exerts its authority over the others. Communists support the working class being in charge of that authority, all communists (unless you count anarchists) support the use of the state against capitalists and fascists, and the majority of practicing communists support socialist states.
Use DuckDuckgo?
DuckDuckgo uses Google. So do I. Sometimes I want to have a conversation with people. That's why I asked here.
I've always felt the best way to define them as someone so against westernism that they support authoritarian governments like China and Russia while ignoring the hypocrisy of said governments. They're not really communists, and they would violently oppose actual communism.
Chinese citizens are, by all polls, much happier with their government and feel more represented by it than westerners. Being able to choose every 4 years the colour of the party applying austerity policy isn't democracy. Germany ignored a referendum in Berlin to establish rent caps because an old fart with a wig said it was "un institutional". The EU forced Greece to act against the state-wide referendum to revise sovereign debt. China is much more of a democracy than western countries.
I don't know what you mean by "hypocrisy," communists support China as a socialist state and critically support Russia to the extent that they trade with socialist countries, oppose western imperialism, and have a populace increasingly sympathetic to socialism. Nobody supports Russia the same way communists actually support China, the USSR fell 3 decades ago. I also don't know what you mean by saying "tankies" aren't communists, "tankie" is just a pejorative for communist, nor do I know what you mean by the so called "actual communism" these supposed "tankies" would violently oppose.
While someone's political beliefs are highly multi-dimensional, there are two axes that are commonly used to define where someone sits:
Since there are independent axes, there are four quadrants:
That said, some people use tankie as cover for supporting socially authoritarian, economic right but formerly economic left countries(e.g. people who support Putin, who is not economically left in any sense).
This isn't accurate.
For starters, the "libertarian/authoritarian" axis makes no sense. All states uphold one class while oppressing others. If we took a look at the Soviet Union, for the broad majority of society, social liberty increased dramatically. The economy was democratized for the first time, healthcare and education were free and high quality, working hours lowered while real wages rose, housing was free or low-cost, employment was full, women began to take serious administrative roles. This was all accomplished by the working class taking control from the capitalists and Tsar.
The state will always be a tool for control, but the question isn't if it controls, but who? And for whose benefit? There isn't a sliding scale of more or less control, but which class a society serves. Socialist states aren't especially exerting authority, they just use it against capitalists, fascists, and reactionaries, instead of against the working class.
Finally, communists only support the Russian Federation to the extent that they oppose western imperialism, are a valuable trading partner for socialist countries, and have rising socialist sympathies. No communist wishes to adopt the Russian Federation's economic model, we understand full well that the USSR fell 3 decades ago.
Economy and social liberties are not independent axes. The mode of production of a society influences it's social life and the liberties afforded.
TIL that axes is the plural of axis and axe.
Unless "you" are a corporation and then a taxpayer-funded bailout is almost sure to arrive.
There is a single axis of geopolitics. Pro CIA/Zionazi demonic supremacist corrupt/rigged/controlled democracy evil vs resistors. Tankies are just an insult to the resistors. Speech is controlled by establishment everywhere, and just as money is speech, money/CIA is terrorism that will destabilize and diminish any country that supremacist speech is not exterminated.
A leftist. Someone with political beliefs, empathy, and conviction.
Not all leftists are tankies the same way not all right wingers are fascists. A tankie is an authoritarian leftist
I don't follow.
On the political compass there are 4 directions. Left, right, libertarian, authoritarian.
A tankie is auth left a fascist is auth right
Saying everyone on the left is a tankie ignores the lib left it’s the same as saying that everyone on the right is a fascist which is also not accurate
The political compass was quite literally made by a right-winger that wished to perpetuate liberalism as the moderate, standard option. You can't actually put ideologies on a graph like that, it results in absurdities and contradictions.
You quite easily can, the contradictions that happen are due to humans having complex views and not everything being black and white.
Liberalism isn’t the moderate option on the political compass but is just one of the axis that has an extreme…
Yes, nothing is black and white, correct. That doesn't mean you can try to force quantitative measuring of higjly qualitative and contextual policy. Further, I did not say libertarianism, I said liberalism, which is the dominant ideology of capitalism. Left vs right is broadly okay if framed as collectivized ownership as principle vs privatized ownership as principle, but economies in the real world aren't "pure," and trying to gauge how left or right a country is by proportion of the economy that is public vs private can be misleading.
The next part, "libertarian vs authoritarian," is a false binary. The state is thoroughly linked to the mode of production, you don't just pick something on a board and create it in real life. There's no such thing as "libertarian capitalism," as an example. Centralization vs decentralization may make more sense, but that can also be misleading, as centralized systems can be more democratic than decentralized systems.
This is a pretty good, if long, video on the subject. The creator of the compass is, as I said, politically biased towards liberalism.
As a fun little side-note, I can answer the standard political compass quiz and get right around the bottom-left while being a Marxist-Leninist that approves of full collevtivization of production and central planning. Yet, at the same time, the quiz will put socialist states in the top left, seemingly based on how the creator wants to represent things. It's deeply flawed. Add on the fact that it's more of an idealist interpretation of political economy than a materialist one, and you've got a recipe for disaster.
What makes them authoritarian?
They believe in an authoritarian government systems. Where the state has extra power that they can use to enforce their goals. That is in contrast to anarcho communists where the state is dissolved.
Logically most leftists fall somewhere in the middle as not wanting full on authoritarian government but also not wanting a complete lack of government
In theory if the state has the best interests of the people, then by giving the state extra power all you are doing is reducing bureaucracy and increasing efficiency. That however also makes it easier for the state to abuse that power so I am not saying one is better or worse than the other
This is not how any communist views authority or the state. All communists are in favor of abolishing the state. This requires erasing the basis of the state, which is class society, and that requires collectivizing production and distribution. With production and distribution collectivized, class doesn't exist, and as such the state withers as it loses its reason to function.
It isn't about "giving the state power." It's about taking state power from the capitalist class, and creating a working class state. This socialist state does not have "more power" than a capitalist state, the class it serves is what's distinct.
Leftists usually fall into the Marxist umbrella or anarchist umbrella. Marxists are for collectivization, while anarchists are for communalization.
When I say “communalization,” I mean anarchists propose horizontalist, decentralized cells, similar to early humanity’s cooperative production but with more interconnection and modern tech. When I say collectivization, I mean the unification of all of humanity into one system, where production and distribution is planned collectively to satisfy the needs of everyone as best as possible.
For anarchists, collectivized society still seems to retain the state, as some anarchists conflate administration with the state as it represents a hierarchy. For Marxists, this focus on communalism creates inter-cell class distinctions, as each cell only truly owns their own means of production, giving rise to class distinctions and thus states in the future.
For Marxists, socialism must have a state, a state can only wither with respect to how far along it has come in collectivizing production and therefore eliminating class. All states are authoritarian, but we cannot get rid of the state without erasing the foundations of the state: class society, and to do so we must collectivize production and distribution globally. Socialist states, where the working class wields its authority against capitalists and fascists, are the means by which this collectivization can actually happen, and are fully in-line with Marx’s beliefs. Communism as a stateless, classless, moneyless society is only possible post-socialism.
Anarchists obviously disagree with this, and see the state more as independent of class society and thus itself must be abolished outright.
This is not at all about being more "authoritarian" or "libertarian." It's a fundamentally different understanding of class and power dynamics, and both seek a liberated society. The political compass cannot depict this, even if the liberal view of anarchism and Marxism wants to point them as two extremes on a tidy graph with most people in the middle of them. What's important is that politics is not a bell curve, Marxism and anarchism are consistent ideologies with specific tendencies under them that fundamentally contradict. People don't just pick what they like from each (usually), because then they cease to be internally consistent.
Extra power in comparison to what? What is the normal amount of state power?
That’s a debate since authoritarianism to libertarianism is a spectrum so there is no official “normal” and its generally used qualitatively on individual polices
Regulated and censoring speech - auth Absolute freedom of speech - lib Limiting speech to prohibit only speech that can cause harm to others - somewhere in the middle
Requiring the state to dispense all drugs - auth No drug regulations, no dea, no fda- lib Some drug regulations including requiring “generally recognized as safe and effective”- somewhere in the middle
No country is full auth or full lib
So, essentially, it's subjective?
All states are authoritarian in that they uphold one class and oppress others. It's a good thing when the class in charge is the working class, throughout history socialist states have resulted in dramatic improvements in living standards for the vast majority of society. These socialist states, and the ones who support them, are labeled "authoritarian" whenever these states practice land reform, nationalize industries, etc, and are met with mountains of hostility and slander from the west.
Even an anarchist revolution is "authoritarian," as it involves violently taking control. In practice, "authoritarianism" is more of a vibe than an actual thing we can measure or a policy to be implemented. It's used as a club against socialist states by those who've lost property to land reform or nationalization.
It’s a spectrum and a person who supports the government having more control of their citizens is considering authoritarian. A person who wants to limit government control over their citizens is more libertarian.
It’s a very valid belief that someone might want leftist policies with limited government control over individual citizens so calling them all tankies is inaccurate and confusing
When you utterly erase class analysis, and just group everyone under "citizens," you run into utter contradictions. Socialist states have been far more liberating for their populace overall, even if they've been oppressive towards fascists, capitalists, etc, meaning they would technically belong in the "libertarian" quadrant if we define it the way you claim we should. The entire idea of a "libertarian-authoritarian" spectrum, or even a left-right spectrum and not just various right and left ideologies that cannot be abstracted into a graph-based system, is actively harmful to our understanding of political ideology.
Anarchists want communalism, whereas Marxists want collectivization. Neither is more or less "authoritarian" or "libertarian," in that even horizontalist systems actually erase the democratic reach of communities to within their communities and immediate surroundings, while collectivization spreads power more evenly globally. This isn't something that can be represented on the graph in any way, yet results in fundamentally different approaches and outcomes.
This is an intentional strawman right? Like there is no way you are truly misunderstanding this much?
Auth governement dictates what individual citizens can/ can not do
Lib government limits what power the government has over individual citizens
You can’t say we are actually lib because we only are targeting the “bad people”
Show your conviction and don’t dance around your point if you want a government that has more power over its citizens that’s fine, that’s your belief and you are fully entitled to it but if you can’t acknowledge your own beliefs that’s its own problem
Again, you need to look at things from a class analysis. There is no such thing as "libertarian capitalism," capitalism requires the state, and freedoms for citizens are restricted because they don't have as much access to necessities and democracy doesn't extend to the economy.
Socialist countries that provide better access to necessities have more freedom for the average person than capitalist countries. They don't have the same privledged class of capitalists with unlimited political power, but the people have more power.
This is a false-binary. It isn't a strawman, the political compass is entirely bogus and cannot accurately depict ideology or structure as they exist in the real world. It does more harm than helps.
I'm not dancing, I've said it firm: I want the working class to use the state in their own interests, against capitalists and fascists, to meet the needs of the people and liberate society.
You are the one making it binary when it isn’t and when I say it isn’t you bring it back to being binary. You can have libertarian beliefs without wanting a complete dissolution of the government the same way you can have authoritarian beliefs while still wanting people to have individual freedoms. So yes you can have libertarian capitalism which is simply a less regulated form vs authoritarian capitalism. We can see this in the UK vs EU where the UK is requiring people to submit official IDs to see porn (auth) vs the EU passing data privacy laws (lib)
You are inventing all these other arguments that I am not making. I have never said socialist countries have less freedoms and don’t even remotely believe that so if you are not making a strawman then try rereading what I am saying because you are arguing against an argument I am not making which is the literal definition of a strawman
That’s called being authoritarian, there is nothing wrong with that and as long as the state is using that power fairly that can create a great society but you must realize that on a 1-10 scale of government authority with a 1 being full on anarchy and 10 being the state has full control to make all decisions that you are closer to a 10 then a 1
As soon as you give the state power to go after people with different beliefs (even if those beliefs are deplorable) you are being authoritarian
You would accuse your grandmothers defending herself from an attacker as a tankie.
The term was coined because of the British tendency towards silly-sounding insults, and because the Soviet Union sent in the Red Army to stop the western-backed fascist insurrection. This caused a split in the party (as it always does in western orgs).
The Hungarian revolt in 1956 was infested with anti-semitic pograms. MI6 funded, supplied, and trained the Hungarian counter-revolutionaries. These counter-revolutionaries were allied with fascists who were lynching Jewish people and Communists.
Further, the CIA also backed Hungarian resistance forces:
Prague in 1968 was a similar fascist uprising in both cases there were some elements of progressive protest, but these were greatly overshadowed by the fascist movements. Dubcek wanted to sell out to the IMF, and restore capitalism. The idea that any of this was about "democracy" or "freedom" is silly, it was always about Cold War tactics to destabilize socialism.
TL;DR imagine if the January 6th rioters were armed and trained by foreign governments, started lynching officials and Jewish people, and the US sent in the army to put down the insurrection. The MAGA chuds would claim that it was about "freedom" and "democracy," but we all know that they just wanted Trump in office.
As for Lemmygrad.ml , it's entirely serious, and their positions are in line with other Marxist-Leninist orgs around the world. As for the USSR, the capitalists were deposed and the working class was in charge. I have no idea what you're referring to there, nor to "ultra-authoritarianism."
Mccarthyite redditors out in force today.
I'm betting the guy without an original thought is a fed, along with his buddy.
A leftist who believes any means necessary is justified to create a state ran society.
Even if that society isn't fair, even if innocent people get hurt in the process, even if the society is a dictatorship.
Nobody fits that definition, though.
I see you making these arguments frequently.
If you can't be honest about your beliefs, then people are going to think you are embarrassed about them.
And you should be embarrassed supporting dictatorships
I am extremely open and honest with my views. Nobody believes "any means are justified" in order to create "a state run society." Communists believe revolution is necessary to implement socialism, not that any means are justified nor that just any state run society is acceptable. We also don't believe in supporting "dictatorships" in the sense that one person or an elite few control everything. We support the working class having control.
You are making up ghosts and strawmen to fight. These "tankies" as you describe them do not exist.
We actually do see this in America too, with Trump. Who wouldnt say he is very authoritarian?
Oh, homophobia/misogyny, I was wondering when you'd pull that card.
Lol what a pathetic way to whine at ideas you don't like hearing.
Does the metaphor of ass kisser make sense to you? Maybe bootlicker?
They'd be less homophobic/misogynistic, that's for sure. They still aren't substitutes for a point, though, considering you've made up strawmen and started lashing out at people for disagreeing with you.
You need to stop with the projection.
You just embarrass yourself
🪞
You seem to have a strong opinion on the subject, but your definition also feels a little tilted.
Not really, i see tankies in this space constantly praise China and Russia for their ability to "control" their people.
Tankies come off as authoritarian lap dogs who claim to be communists or socialists but have lost sight of what society those beliefs are supposed to support.
If they don't want to be seen this way they should behave differently.
Nobody praises "China and Russia for their ability to control their people." These people do not exist, they are ghosts and strawmen you are fighting.
I see them pretty often around the fediverse
Their profiles are usually from hexbear or ml
Not a single one of them praises “China and Russia for their ability to control their people.” You're inventing ghosts and strawmen to fight.
One of your alts?
?
A tankie is a fascist who wants everyone in the concentration camp to share a toothbrush. They're typically rejects from their own community that crave revenge against people who want a truly better world, such as Barack Obama and Keir Starmer.
Please use /s tags, because its impossible to tell sarcasm otherwise. There are unfortunately a large number of ppl who believe your statement unironically.
Well I would prefer a clean game anyways, so I can manage that for sure
Did you drop this? I think it was meant to go at the end of your post, but maybe it fell off
</hyperbolic sarcasm>
Not sure what you mean. 🙂 Do I know you?
Just figured you might want to make it clearer when you drop weapons grade sarcasm like "Obama and Kid Starver want a truly better world" That's really funny, but it can often be hard to distinguish dead-pan sarcasm apart from bootlicking of imperialist ass-hats on the internet without proper closing tags.
I don't know that Kier Starmer wants anything concrete in particular, but tankies are certainly people who simp for dictatorships like Russia or China while claiming that the capitalist abusive governments of them are 'communist'.
No communist "simps" for the Russian Federation, support for the RF extends to the fact that it does a lot of trade with socialist countries like China and Cuba, opposes western imperialism, and has a populace increasingly in support of a return to socialism. Communists do tend to support China, as China is a socialist country. Public ownership is the principle aspect of their economy.
I've never bought into the accusation that communists uncritically support Russia. It's a bit more nuanced. They still recognise that Russia is capitalist and that the events that happened after the fall of the USSR were incredibly bad, such as the selling off of state assets creating a capitalist oligarchy. I have seen these views expressed by communists.
Personally though, I think some communists need to be more willing to put forward criticisms of the Russian state for the purpose of demonstrating their commitment to socialism. To me there's an issue with the messaging, leading to a common perception that communists are fully and uncritically supportive of Putin.
I think that's more a result of people interpreting communist views in the worst, least charitable way possible more than anything.
Please point to a single person on Lemmy who calls the Russian government communist and supports it
Glad we pulled you out of your shell after a day of not commenting. This is a very low-quality reply. Try to make more high-quality replies to contribute to discussions on Lemmy. Thanks.
This is what happens when you refuse to actually engage with Marxism, or the points we make, then try to come up with your own reasoning for why we support who we do. I encourage you to actually try to understand communists in our own words.
Nice bit of homophobia there. I do call myself a Marxist-Leninist, in matters where I believe it's more generally applicable to Marxism and not Marxism-Leninism I identify as such. Like, I'm not going to describe the law of value as a Marxist-Leninist thing, that's something general to Marxists. I also have no idea what you mean by Marxism-Leninism being "made-up," it's by far the most historically and currently relevant branch of Marxism with by far the largest number of practicing communists worldwide.
I display that I use he/they pronouns, and further using dickriding as an insult purely has roots in homophobia and misogny. It focuses on sexual shame in submission to someone with a dick.
Are you allergic to making a coherent point? You're narrowing in on the fact that I called out your homophobia, and are now doubling and tripling down on it, rather than returning to the other points I made. This is just shit-flinging.