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
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:
now it just means, “any leftist I don’t like”.
With respect, there’s a bit more to it than that.
The way political discussions are often policed on this server, Lemmygrad, and Hexbear is not conducive to welcoming new people to your point of view. If a, let’s say, social democrat says something critical of the CCP and then is immediately censured or even banned then they are going to depart with a very negative impression, which only feeds into the stereotypes about these instances and stifles healthy political discussion.
Also, aren’t people on .ml, Lemmygrad, and Hexbear also guilty of the same thing when they use of the word “liberal” in a pejorative sense to denote “anyone left-of-centre who doesn’t support communist party rule”?
It’s a shame that leftist infighting exists to such a degree we often share about 95% of the same views to an external observer.
Aren’t people on ML instances also doing the exact same thing when they shout down and decry the wretched “liberals” (which seems to refer to anyone left-of-centre who doesn’t support communist party rule)?
Liberal is a well defined category though. Liberalism as a self-described ideology opposed to both communism and monarchy has been around for centuries at this point. Most people being decried as liberals would themselves identify as liberals.
The way political discussions are often policed on ML instances (This one, Lemmygrad, and Hexbear) is not conducive to helping new people see your point of view.
If you ask in earnest, you’ll get good responses. A good number of people ask questions not to learn a different point of view, but to reinforce their own existing biases, which naturally becomes exhausting. Kind of like how POC get tired of justifying their existence to white supremacists, communists often for good reason get tired of trying to justify the existence of countries who choose to follow their own path, outside of the model of bourgeois democracy.
Aren’t people on ML instances also doing the exact same thing when they shout down and decry the wretched “liberals” (which seems to refer to anyone left-of-centre who doesn’t support communist party rule)? Whether it’s “tankie” or “liberal”, it only further entrenches the us vs them mindset.
Liberal, unlike tankie, has a fairly precise meaning in political discourse. It can be used too loosely IMO, but it generally means pro-capitalism, pro-individual freedom (including to exploit labor power to earn surplus value), pro free-market, pro-free speech (for all including reactionaries), pro wage-slavery, as well as specific limitations imposed on those considered outside of the “community of the free”. Its important to realize that even the US mis-definition of liberal (as vaguely socially progressive) includes all of the above, and the internationally accepted definition of liberal, is right wing (for example, the right wing party in Australia is the liberal party). The best book I can recommend here, is Losurdo’s Liberalism - A counter-history.
Not only that, but liberals rule most of the world, and especially most of the economies and governments of anglo-speaking countries, extracting a surplus from the sale of their labor power (who are mostly extremely poorly paid proletarians in the global south), and are responsible for most of the suffering of working-class people worldwide.
If you ask in earnest, you’ll get good responses.
This is not the case. Every time I’ve asked in earnest, I’ve faced mobs of lunatics.
[Citation needed]
If you ask in earnest, you’ll get good responses. A good number of people ask questions not to learn a different point of view, but to reinforce their own existing biases, which naturally becomes exhausting.
That is understandable, however I was more talking about good-faith attempts to express views that are contrary to ML orthodoxy being dogpiled, removed, and banned. I have personal direct experience with this, as do many others who have attempted to engage in political discussions in ML communities. Perhaps users of the ML persuasion are used to being attacked and this why contrarian views are so heavily moderated on ML instances, but quite often this defensive response only leads to alienating other leftists who could be sympathetic to your point of view.
Also, I already understand quite well the differences between classical, social, and neo-liberalism, and how the term is used in the US; I have degree in political science. My point was that users on ML instances weaponize the term in the same way that other users utilize the term “tankie” in order to dismiss people who disagree with them, ad hominem.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
None of them are considered Marxist or even Socialist in the country hiw unfortunately. They have been successfully whitewashed as nationalist heroes.
Removed by mod
Wtf. Talk about twisting truths.
Don’t like people putting up a mirror to you?
Does it count if I’ve actually driven tanks?
Not unless you enjoyed the crunching sounds
A ridiculous question. “Tankie” isn’t a term anyone self-identifies with, it’s mostly a term used by liberals to hurl at anyone to the left of them or anyone who agrees with western foreign policy. The survey results will be as meaningless as the term “tankie” itself.
no. I’m probably a communist but authoritarianism can fucking shove it
At what point does a leftist system become authoritarian? Where is the line? Is it just a vibe check, or is there a definitive metric we can check?
I mean that’s a good question but there’s no reason to apply it just to leftist governments
There is, for the purpose of this question.
You have separated “Authoritarians” from the rest of “Communists.” At what point does Communism become authoritarian?
I’m framing this question in this manner to try to understand what you believe Communism should look like in a manner that goes against what people often described as tankies want it to look like.
The line is when the communist system collapses as usual and a dictatorship seizes power.
So Cuba, China, Vietnam, and the DPRK are by your definition not authoritarian, got it.
Does that make you a tankie?
Fredrich Engels, 1872: On authority
Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is. It is the act by which one part of the population imposes its will on the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannons — by the most authoritarian means possible; and the victors, if they do not want to have fought in vain, must maintain this rule by means of the terror which their arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if the communards had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach them for not having used it enough?
Therefore, we must conclude one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don’t know what they’re talking about, in which case they are only sowing confusion; or they do know, in which case they are betraying the proletarian movement. In either case, they serve reaction.
How about, I don’t know, establishing some sort of democracy? Just a crazy idea
Oh, but they did.
It just doesn’t resemble the bourgeois ‘democracy’ we have in the west, but rather something else entirely that better fits the 'for the people, by the people, of the people" definition of democracy.
Remind me what happened to the Soviet union with their “Democracy”?
Got captured by anti-communists, who then proceeded to march tanks through moscow to bomb the supreme soviet (ironic, right?) and dissolved the union, strip all of its capital assets leading to one of the largest peacetime drop in living standards in human history.
Maybe capitalist states should do that, but they won’t because they’re capitalist states. They’ll form bourgeois democracies at best and fascism at worst[1][2][3].
You misunderstood me. I’m saying after the revolution. The Engels quote implies that because revolution is authoritarian, so is whatever system it implements. Which I disagree with
What your genius idea is missing is that there is an already established society with a ruling class, is your plan to ask nicely? 😅
The point Engels is making is that revolution is about establishing one group authority over the already established authority. In a society where might makes right, only might can resolve it.
Yeah we should never rebel, just listen to authority…
Big \ S
READ THE FIRST 3 SENTENCES.
Found the tankie! ☝️
Yes
I think people would probably call me a tankie
Why
What’s the definition of tankie ?
Dealers choice, no wait thats me, colour me surprised, it feels like one of those words that basically means whatever you want it to mean ay this point, answer the question bub ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
NO
Supporters of Lenin and/or China and/or Russia shall go in front of firing squad
beep beep beep
Salty takie calling others Nazi… Cope harder 😏
If you don’t want to be called a nazi, simply don’t have the same opinion of communists as adolf eichmann. it’s that easy!
Lmao
If you are commie then you must love sending people to gulags, right ?
it’s that easy!
Cool, face the wall lib.
Ahhh, only tankie haters are libs ??
I must have forgoten the memo 🙄
People who root for the tanks when pictures of tiananmen square are posted.
“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 defense 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.”
See: Tankie - Wikipedia
Where do people get this stuff from when Wikipedia is right there?
But since you brought it up, I’ll copypasta myself.
Explained in this post to !nostupidquestions@lemmy.world.
Supposedly it is a pejorative label applied to authoritarian communists, particularly Marxist–Leninist socialists. I presume it is the “pejorative” part that people do not like, b/c many of the places labelled as tankies by others unabashedly do precisely that!
I’ve only used the term twice myself, both kinda self-questioning what it even means, but if it is truly pejorative, then I should stop regardless.
I wouldn’t feel bad using a pejorative for fascists. Neither do I feel bad using a pejorative for other authoritarians. Their disrespect for human dignity, liberty, and worth disqualifies them for protection against such a minor indignity.
Tankies is fine for anyone on the side of the tanks at Tiananmen Square.
That’s not even where the term originates. Come on, if you’re going to use the term at least do the 10 second Google search.
As EchoCT said, do you even Wikipedia?
But since you brought it up:
It originally meant someone who supported the USSR’s intervention in the 1956 Hungarian revolution. Now it means whatever the labeler wants it to mean, usually as a means of punching left.
No
NO
I’ve never even been called one erroneously.
Oh, I’ve been called a communist, just never a tankie.
That’s embarrassing
NO
Neither do I self-identify as a tankie, I don’t think anyone who’d identify themselves as tankies would think of me as one.
I dont think there’s anyone worth taking seriously who self identifies as a tankie, thanks being earnest though
No
To clear definitions, at least for me"tankies" are a subset of communists, who praises/defends the actions of all/most communist states far more than similar actions from capitalist states. The difference between communists and tankies is a bias in favor of communist states when looking at things like human rights violations. Very few people will self identify as a tankie, since it’s hard to see your own bias.
So Tankies are just Communists sympathetic towards other Communists? What would a non-tankie Communist look like?
Supporting communism’s ideas, while still fairly condemning terrible things done by historical attempts at implementing it.
What constitutes “fairly?” Maybe because I am on Lemmy.ml and thus can see Hexbear and Lemmygrad, I don’t think I’ve seen many people genuinely refusing to condemn horrible or tragic events within Communist countries or by Communists. Perhaps a vast minority, but at that point, why is this even an issue in the first place?
Are there examples of “good” Communists that aren’t tankies that you can point me to?
i am a meat popsicle
Wrong answer
I have a new favorite description for human that I hear today: terrified electric meat. Perfectly sums up the human experience
DEPENDS
Probably I’m neither a tankie nor not a tankie, but I like tossing grenades in these sorts of surveys.
neither a tankie nor not a tankie
Bruh. You seem like a negative person… 🙃
No, don’t know what it is either
NO, I’m also not from this instance for similar reasons
Not one of my pronouns. Never been in a tank. I don’t even own a tank top. It sounds like a sophomoric pejorative neologism. Why would I adopt such a label? No.
in other words “yes”
