edit: this is now closed future comments won’t be counted
I keep seeing this instance is overrun with tankies so hey, lets do an informal survey like I’ve seen on hexbear
respond with YES or NO in the first line of your comment and i’ll tally everything in a couple of days, lets say I’ll try and collect everything on the sunday the 9th (10+gmt sorry)
not sure thisll work, be nice, have fun
deleted by creator
NO
Tankie is a meaningless word. If you point out China has undeniably made progress under communism, you’re a tankie. If you point out Stalin wasn’t the evil dictator westerners make him out to be (even though it’s disproven by the literal CIA itself) you’re a tankie, if you think capitalism is causing problems in the USA you’re a tankie. If you criticise US or NATO foreign policy you’re a tankie. If you criticise the Republicans you’re a Tankie. If you criticise the Dems, guess what also a tankie. If you think that the USSR and the PRC are/were perfect little angels that never made any mistakes or did anything wrong ever then you’re also a Tankie.
It’s just too broad a term for me or anyone to identify with any way. It’s not an ideology. It’s a dumb insult to dismiss the opinions of others you disagree with without having to engage with their point at all or critically analyse your own beliefs in any meaningful way.
Organizing a union? Pushing for higher wages? Defending your people from reactionary aggression?
Not voting? Don’t hate the US’s main enemies, like Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Syria, Palestine, the DPRK?
Believe it or not, tankie.
Eat beans instead of meat for protein? No trial, no jury, straight to being a Tankie. Not eat a specific brand of beans I.e. Goya? Believe it or not also a Tankie. We have the best diets in the world.
YES
They would have burned me as a heretic in the middle ages.
- Carl Jung
Just like calling someone a “witch” or heretic in the middle ages, a “barbarian”, or “savage”, or “commie” or “pinko” in the 20th century, these terms are less about the actual meaning, and more about a demonization, scapegoating, or a power relation between the dominant class, and a group they seek to malign and rally their people around.
Creating a useful enemy promotes group bonding, unity, a sense of strengthened identity, and self worth.
“Tankie” had a meaning that generally referred to non-pacifist leftists (or those that agreed with using violence to defend socialist projects), but now it just means, “any leftist I don’t like”.
It functions in the exact same way that “commie” did in the the McCarthy era, as a xenophobic and western-supremacist scapegoating of socialist countries, and an internal purging of the working-class communist movement.
It’s additionally useful because it deters people from reading or engaging with the worldwide communist / socialist movement.
If someone uses this term, this is what they’re doing without realizing it:
Yes
Love how all of the tankies on this thread are open about their views while all of the non-tankies are wondering what the term even means, or think that people won’t self identify as a tankie. Reminds of that quote from the manifesto
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.
No.
That said most MLs are my comrades anyway
Also liberals still always call me a tankie anyway so idk it doesn’t mean anything anymore.
Also no
I land somewhere on the anarcho side of politics, but I’m certainly not a tankie. Still get called one though.
A better world is possible and none of us can accurately predict how we will get there but if we don’t quit rehashing hundred year old ideological beefs that occurred within very different material conditions we’re all fucked anyway.
The tankies aren’t gonna murder the anarchists and at this juncture there is no revolution to speak of for anarchists to have a hand in betraying (for reasons that I have never heard a compelling case for its inevitability). If we don’t get our shit together the billionaires are gonna kill us all and who knows maybe it’s already too late but we have to at least try.
We’re all fighting for basically the same thing. Various flavours, but essentially the same. I personally wouldn’t betray the revolution should it come.
1000% agree, we need to collectively get our shit together, get over the little differences between what our end goals are, that can be sorted out later, and anyone who isn’t a fucking fascist would be willing to see other collectives have their own system and still work in harmony.
I wish stalin drove tanks straight into west berlin, then france, then the UK, then atlantis, then NYC, then chicago, then seattle, then anchorage, then Tokyo, then Seoul, then Beijing, then KFC/tacobell.
no. I’m probably a communist but authoritarianism can fucking shove it
“Tankie” in the traditional sense of someone who uncritically supports the USSR in the handling of 1956’s uprising? Probably not.
While Kruschev’s use of tanks in 1956 was heavy handed, the Hungarian alliance with the Axis in WWII and participation of Operation Barbarossa, lingering fascist sympathisers and nationalists remained in Hungary.
This coupled with the Communist Party of Hungary’s less than equitable redistribution of land/castles/other properties earlier in the 1950’s (favouring giving properties to ranking CPH members instead of distributing it to the proletariat equally). This created resentment for the Party, and an image of the Communists as no better than the Monarchy that came before or the Fascists that came after.
The Hungarian uprising had elements of fascist sympathisers, monarchists, bourgeoisie, etc but also legitimate critics of the handling of the situation. It never should have come to that, and a more educated/self critical Communist Party in Hungary could have prevented things from getting that far. The people should have benefitted a lot more from a better redistribution of wealth.
The above issues coupled with Soviet distrust of Hungarians (since they did invade the Soviet Union in the 40’s) led to a swift and harsh reaction towards the uprising, seeing it as just a reactionary revolt.
Now, am I a tankie in the Reddit redefinition, of anyone that critically supports Cuba, China, Vietnam and their style of government? Yeah, I suppose I am. This is no more radical a position than Malcolm X or the Black Panthers who also supported the late USSR, China and Cuba.
Serious question, I mean I feel you dislike the “west” or jow it is governed (I guess) and to each their own but are you against democracy? And if so, how do you get rid of dictators like Putin if needed?
Cheers
Please find a Marxist against democracy. Your question is framed in an incorrect manner.
Okay you don’t want democracy, but how do you deal with dictators like putin always creeps into the system and takes over if you can’t vote them out?
I do want Democracy. What are you talking about?
See your first post…
But dodge the question again lol
I asked you to find a Marxist against Democracy because that mythical anti-Democracy Marxist doesn’t exist.
It isn’t a dodge, it’s like you asking veterinarians why they like screwing cats and dogs.
Dude. Get a history book lol.
Our definition of what is and isn’t a democracy is significantly different than that of liberals. We wouldn’t consider Europe and America to be democracies meaning that we have no sympathies for those style of governments and societies.
To contextualize this, one thing you have to understand is that there are many formulations of democracy that have existed historically. Athenian democracy is very different from liberal democracy, which is in turn very different from democratic centralism (the formulation most used by Marxist states). And there were probably many forms of democracy that hunter-gatherers and indigenous peoples used (which I unfortunately don’t know much about).
The main problems with how democracy is talked about in liberal philosophy (the hegemonic philosophy) is that only the liberal formulation of democracy is considered valid, even if its performance has historically been extremely subpar. Furthermore, class is completely ignored, as all “democracies” have existed in service of a class (in athens, for the slave owners, in liberal republics, for the bourgeoise, in ML republics, for the proles).
Because we do not consider liberal democracies to be a valid form of democracy, liberals take this disingenuously as if Marxists hate all democracy.
So how do you get rid of the likes of Putin?
Interesting theories there, a bit too generalisering for my taste, most people in the west are not liberals either.
As far as my understanding of the soviet style democratic centralist systems goes (I suppose DemCent could be implemented in many ways, just like liberal electoralism can), every country has a supreme soviet which convenes some times a year to appoint, remove and review the progress of the presidium. The members of the presidium themselves have a strong distribution of powers amongst each other, and so a dictator type like Putin shouldn’t really show up at all, and if he does, he should be removed by the supreme soviet. The supreme soviet itself was elected by lower level regional soviets, which were in turn elected by lower level soviets and so on until you had the fully local soviets, which were initially organizations the factory workers and soldiers during the revolution (so they predated even the USSR), and latter (after the 1936 constitution) became location based (so similar to the local councils in liberal systems).
I have heard compelling arguments that any new DemCent system should take ideas from ancient athenian democracy like sortition and direct democracy. I agree with them, but implementing such a system in reality would likely be challenging and require many preconditions to be met (such as having a highly educated population with good amounts of free time and no worries about war or imperialism).
Interesting, but no way removing a putin (and no, hopium won’t do it) that I see.
What even do you mean “a way of removing a putin” if what I have said does not suffice?
NO. Communism is interesting, but I’m heavily anti-authoritarian.
When does Communism become authoritarian? Like, where in the process?
I never said that Communism necessarily becomes authoritarian. But, as someone who has a strong dislike for authoritarianism, I’m not interested in Communism which involves it.
Sure, but I mean at what point, right?
To cut to the chase, I’m asking what specifically separates Tankies from Communists. Where is the line drawn? I see a lot of people (myself included) labeled a tankie for recommending people read Marx, or saying that Lenin was a Marxist, regardless of if you agree with him or not.
At what point would a Communist be considered a tankie?
I thought that the line was that one supports owning the means of production and the other supports authoritarian governments, am I confused?
NO
When the current government is not doing a very good job at maximizing the happiness of its citizens, it’s a natural reaction to look for answers from a different type of government. America has some enormous problems with capitalism as it currently operates, and communism offers solutions to many of those problems. The issue is the top-down power structure. Democracy keeps the most power in the hands of the general population, and i will always oppose giving that up. Beyond that, I’m open to any solutions for modern problems, public or private.
I really recommend asking this question on lemmygrad or hexbear, bc you’ll get really good in-depth answers about the nature and differences between what’s labelled as “democracy” in capitalist countries, vs the reality of whether citizens of a capitalist dictatorship have anything resembling democracy.
American democracy definitely needs to be improved (ranked 36 in the world), but do you think I have less of a voice in the election process than I would under communism?
Ask these questions over on lemmygrad or hexbear, you’ll get good answers.
No.
Tankies are fascist that took the socialist part in national socialist serious.
Finland.
Tankie is a floating signifier. If you ask twenty liberals what a tankie is you’ll get
- Twenty different answers, and
- Several people upset at being called a liberal because they don’t have even a Wikipedia-level understanding of liberalism or socialism.
100 percent agreed. They’ll group anything too far left of them under the same name. Don’t care anymore. If they want to whine then fuck it, I’ll wear the term.
Like how fascists think liberals are marxists, despite liberals and marxists both knowing how dumb that is
