• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    182 years ago

    Honest question - what’s a tankie? I feel like I’ve seen them mentioned a ton on Lemmy but I’d never heard the term prior to a few days ago. From the image it looks like a maga/skinhead combo?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      692 years ago

      They’re communists, but not your every day “people should hold the power” communists. More like “tianenmen never happened, and if it did it wasn’t that bad” type

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      67
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Tankie was first used for that kind of communist supporter who kept singing Russia’s praises/defending Russia even when Russia was sent 5000 tanks to crush a popular uprising in Czechoslovakia (the “Prague Spring”) on August 20, 1968. Some people just couldn’t accept that a communist country could do something bad, so defended the action.

      Nowadays, it’s used to refer to those that are strongly supportive of Russia, completely ignoring the awful things they do. Often these days there’s a lot of anti American bent to it. Like, anything anti America and American “imperialism” must be good - even blatant and awful Russian Imperialism.

      These days they calmly explain how Ukraine just needs to come to the table and discuss peace (ignoring that Ukraine wouldn’t exist if they did so) and blame America for the war in Ukraine for… well… they’re America. The people who want war, or are causing the war, are those giving Ukraine weapons - not the country that is literally invading it.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        172 years ago

        Thanks for the explanation. I believe they are also called Rashists, at least Ukrainians call them that.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        62 years ago

        I think a better term is “Campist” which is the trend within revisionist marxists to side with one imperialist camp to oppose another. it’s the same shit the SPD did during WW1

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                102 years ago

                Sometimes its about helping the right people. Sometimes that means taking direction, working together, and not simply following your own bloated ego.

                Liberals seem to get that when they’re vote canvassing, fund raising, and brigading on some social media jerk off sight.

                But as soon as they see anyone to their left with any kind of organization or even a respect for their forebearers, a switch flips in their brains and all they see or hear is “tyranny”.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                22 years ago

                If you are not willing to oppress the capitalist class how will a revolution ever survive? How will you quash racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. without oppression? But then again you liberals only care about these people when it benefits them🤷‍♀️

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                102 years ago

                yes because it’s not anything intelligent enough to be thoughtfully argued against. a 7 year old could see the holes in such an idea

                • WabiSabiPapi
                  link
                  fedilink
                  3
                  edit-2
                  2 years ago

                  I oppose one more system of authority than you do, in the interest of ideological consistency, intellectual honesty.

                  are you taking the position of a literal child?

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    42 years ago

                    is revolution not putting the authority of the people over those in power, and bringing those people low? that’s “hierarchy”

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                1
                edit-2
                2 years ago

                how is a small group of people commanding a big mass better?
                at least over time there will always be power hungry asshole or just an idiot in position of power.

                no power for no one is the only concept that can really work over time. but you need self-responsible and educated people for that

                edit: and yeah, it is a utopian idea, but one I believe it is worth working for

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            42 years ago

            Then every social structure is authoritarian.

            Anarchists usually distinguish between just and unjust hierarchies, by the way, and svoid the word “authoritarian” when describing just ones. Anarchists still need to organize themselves to have leadership and delegation.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      29
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      From the image it looks like a maga/skinhead combo?

      For context, the image originally said kick nazis out of punk.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          62 years ago

          Okay but some of them are in power right in front of you and vastly more bloodthirsty and likely to be responsible for your misery.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          12 years ago

          Funny how liberals who say this only seem to disagree with communism, I guess capitalism offers you enough treats to not give a fuck about other people😘

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        172 years ago

        Concrete views like the idea that the government being able to jail dissenters at will is bad? That unlimited state power inevitably leads to authoritarianism? That labeling yourself socialist doesn’t necessarily mean you’re actually a socialist state?

        • Krause [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          3
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          That labeling yourself socialist doesn’t necessarily mean you’re actually a socialist state?

          Can you give me a single state that you consider to be socialist today and that has your support? If not, has there ever been a socialist state that is worthy to be considered as that by you?

            • Krause [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              3
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              No, I was just wondering if you could name any, but it looks like no state so far has been pure and beautiful enough to at least get critical support from you. I don’t suppose this will change, idealism is one hell of a drug.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                02 years ago

                I am sorry, but ethnic cleansings are not good. If I had to pick, I think Cuba has the highest probability of achieving communism. Sadly, I have not had the time to learn all the nuances of Cuban society and political system.

                • Krause [he/him]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  2
                  edit-2
                  2 years ago

                  ethnic cleansings are not good

                  Not sure why you’re saying this, did I say they were?

                  I think Cuba has the highest probability of achieving communism

                  Why? By what metric?

                  Also be careful out there, people smear Cuba with lies the same way they do to China, Vietnam, DPRK and Lao, some people will also call you a “tankie” for defending the “cuban regime”.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        9
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        You’re so insufferably cocksure in your positions everywhere else, but when someone honestly asks what a tankie is, you just get defensive and can’t master up the courage to just say what it is that you stand for? I really get the impression that you’re just here to stir up shit.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      132 years ago

      Originally, it was used to describe communists who followed the party line and supported suppressing Hungarian workers with tanks.

      Today it means ultra-authoritarian marxist-leninist.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      102 years ago

      It’s an insult used by liberals to punch left. Because liberals, as a rule, don’t really read history or politics with any depth, they don’t use it consistently. Sometimes it is conflated with communist. Sometimes they throw it at liberals that are just a bit less racist and xenophobic than them.

      Originally it meant communists who supported the 1956 invasion of Hungary, and was used by British communists to split up their own parties on the issue.

    • Krause [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      4
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Or, to put it another way: socialism has powerful enemies. Those enemies don’t care how you feel about Marx or Makhno or Deleuze or communism in the abstract, they care about your feelings towards FARC, the Naxals, Cuba, North Korea, etc. They care about your position with respect to states and contenders-for-statehood, and how likely you are to try and emulate them. They are not worried about the molecular and the rhizomatic because they know that those things can be brought back into line by the application of force. It’s their monopoly on force that they are primarily concerned to protect. When you desert real socialism in favor of ideal socialism, the kind that never took up arms against anybody, you’re doing them a favor.

      https://redsails.org/tankies/