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)
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.
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.
I'm not from this instance, so probably not totally relevant to this poll, that said
NO, I'm not a tankie.
I think, however, it's worth considering that a lot of people that could be considered tankies probably wouldn't apply the term to themselves, and that could skew the results of your poll. First of all, tankie is sort of a pejorative term, and many wouldn't want to apply it to themselves for that reason alone. Secondly a lot of people just may not consider themselves to be a tankie, and genuinely do not recognize their own tankieness.
I don't think I'm the guy to come up with a definitive checklist of what does or does not make someone a tankie, but for the sake of getting the conversation going (and feel free to disagree with me here, I welcome the discussion) I think two of the biggest hallmarks of being a tankie are
Communism- not all communists are tankies, but all tankies at least claim to subscribe to some sort of communist ideology.
Authoritarianism- tankies either are authoritarians themselves, or are willing to support or overlook authoritarians as long as they see them as being in some way opposed to "the west"/capitalism/etc.
I think the authoritarianism aspect is going to trip some people up trying to answer this truthfully. A lot of authoritarians probably wouldn't consider themselves authoritarians, most people like to think they're standing for freedom, justice, liberty, equality, etc. even if their actual actions tell another story. Don't get me wrong, there are people out there who are openly authoritarian and proud of it, but a lot of authoritarians are a little brainwashed to the point they've lost sight of what they're actually supporting (take a look at the MAGA crowd, they think they're about free speech and anti-censorship but want to keep books they don't like out of libraries, they think they're about small government but want to regulate what kind of medical care you can get, they think they stand for law and order but also proudly proclaim that they are all domestic terrorists and have a convicted felon as their poster boy)
And politics are messy, full of moral grey areas and times where you have to choose between the lesser of two evils, make uncomfortable alliances, difficult choices, and kick some cans further down the road to deal with later while you tackle the current crisis. It's not always easy or feasible to draw a crisp line in the sand and say "we will not ally with/support/turn a blind eye to these authoritarian regimes," sometimes you have to play a little bit of the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" game if you want to actually make any progress against that enemy, or you may have to prioritize and deal with something else before you deal with them. There is a whole lot of grey area to explore about when, why, how, how long, and how much you can support or ignore them before you're advancing their cause as much or more than your own.
I think there's probably some tankies who have been taken for a ride on the propaganda wagon and don't truly realize how authoritarian they are, and there's others who have justified it, thinking that they're only going to be/support authoritarians temporarily to achieve a specific goal and will pivot away from that later, but have gone too far or keep moving the goalposts.
Couple last thoughts from me.
There can always be bad actors who are falsely claiming to be (or not to be) tankies for their own purposes. Not really much you can do about that.
Personally, a lot of the criticism I've seen about tankies here has been directed towards the mods and admins, not necessarily the rank average users.
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.
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)_/¯
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.
No. I'm a non-tendency leftist. But I disagree with tankies being labelled as "fascists". They're not. They're just Marxist-Leninists/Stalinists and I find their views pretty consistent with orthodox ML-ism.
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.
The last time I smiled was on August 19th, 1991. I wear a dirty ushanka at all times, do not shave, and only take cold sponge baths because hot running water is bourgeoisie decadence. Every day at exactly noon I have the same meal of an expired Maoist MRE I store in a pit covered in old issues of a revolutionary newspaper. I sleep in a bed made of flags from every failed revolution so that they are never forgotten. In the evenings I stare at a picture of vodka by candlelight, but I do not allow myself to drink because there is nothing to celebrate. Every local org has banned me after I attempted to split it by assassinating the leadership. There is no plumbing in my house I shit in a brass bucket with a picture of Gonzalo and Deng french kissing in the bottom of it. My house is actually an overturned T34 in an abandoned junkyard in Wisconsin. I have a single friend in this world and it is a tapeworm named Bordiga that I met after ingesting spoiled borscht on 9/11 in the ruins of building 7 (I blew it up after finding that a nominally leftist NGO inside of it wasn’t sufficiently anti-imperialist, the attacks on the world trade center were a perfect revolutionary moment for me to enact direct praxis against liberalism). My source of income is various MLM schemes in the former soviet bloc that have been running for so long no one remembers who I am, they just keep sending money. I have not paid taxes since McGovern lost the Democratic nomination for president and my faith in electoralism died more brutally than my childhood dog after it got into an entire jar of tylenol. I own 29 fully automatic rusted kalashnikovs and three crates of ammunition entirely incompatible with them or any other firearms I own. My double PHD in marxist economics and 18th century Swiss philosophy (required to understand Engels) sits over the fireplace of my home, my fireplace is a salvaged drum from a 1950s washing machine that was recalled for locking children inside of it. I chose that washing machine model on purpose because I am anti-natalist. During the latest BLM protests I firebombed a Nikes outlet in the middle of a peaceful candlelit vigil. William F Buckley and I wrote hatemail to one another for 47 years until my final letter gave him an aneurysm. The only water I drink is from puddles. George Lucas and I dropped acid together during an MKULTRA southern baptist summer camp and he went on to write the movie Willow about our time together. The best way to test whether an electrical wire is live is to drool on it and shrimp salad is racist. You can make an IED out of potassium and the instructions are online thanks to Timothy McVey, who was actually a committed antifascist communist slandered by the deep state as part of operation condor. Every time a liberal files a restraining order against me, I carve a mark into the wall. I am running out of walls. When Amerika finally collapses I will be ready to lead the revolution. I am very smart and people like being around me.
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:
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 a, let's say, social democrat says something critical of the CCP and then is immediately censured or banned, they are going to be left with a very negative impression that feeds into the stereotypes that already exist about these instances.
Creating a useful enemy promotes group bonding, unity, a sense of strengthened identity, and self worth.
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.
It's a shame that leftist infighting exists to such a degree when we often share about 95% of the same views, compared to the general public.
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.
Not so. There are many progressives who stand with Marxists on issues like social justice, LGBTQ issues, and Palestine but who do not feel welcome on instances like Hexbear because they also criticize the CCP.
And they sometimes get called "tankies" too by people to the right of them. That's why I both think it's a useless term (if everybody is a tankie, then nobody is) and why I think I fall in the definition (as most leftists do, I've seen pretty mild social democrats being called "tankies" by liberals)
Plus ultimately these blanket descriptions are pretty useless IMO, you'll find extremely heated debates between "tankies" themselves on many topics, there's no consensus, and there are many different ideologies "tankies" subscribe to. It would be like saying that Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Greens are all the same thing. We could call them "dronies" maybe.
Idk. I'm really bad at history and such cause I never pay attention. I used to take everything I saw on the internet at face value, so I decided to slow down on current news. Doesn't help that I like programming and video games a lot, so I don't spend a lot of time thinking about world events.
I just like communities that are tolerant and won't let people bully the lgbt or the disabled. It feels less tiring.
Then again, I rarely participate in political discussions that I don't know about. I try to read as much as possible to get an idea, but I never go in dept, like read sources.
I'm going to go to uni soon. I'll try to spend more time into learning history properly.
What the heck is a tankie, anyways? Every person I have asked has had a different answer, and the vast majority of these definitions don't really fit any major communities on Lemmy, not even Hexbear or Lemmygrad.
I have been called a tankie for numerous reasons, like saying that people should read Marx, to saying the US is a net negative on global stability.
Is being a Marxist sufficient for being a tankie? What about a Marxist-Leninist? Are only Dengists tankies? Is Anarchism the only non-tankie leftist position? I've even seen Anarchists be called tankies over on Lemmy.world, which is currently undergoing Red Scare-era anti-leftist witch hunts (like return2ozma's recent ban for "bad-faith spam").
I think this question needs a definition first. If you ask 10 different people what a "tankie" is, you'll get 11 different answers.
I don't actually know what a "Tankie" is. I tend to try to steer away from labels; I consider them a form of intellectual laziness. People will use them to either try to gain a feeling of belonging by adopting a line of thinking shared by their peers, or they will use them to smear those who they have defined as "others" without consideration of why these "others" might hold opinions that they don't. Labels and label-based thinking lead to tribalism and division.
If you want to know what I think about something, ask with specifics. If you want to convince me of something, present an argument with reason and evidence, and be prepared for me to pick it apart and look for flaws. There is nothing I respect more than somebody who takes a comment I make and considers it, researches it and then comes back to me with a response, or presents me with a perspective that compels me to do the same. I find both depressingly rare.
I always love when people answer my questions with an "I need to do some research", that's how you know you have a valid argument with someone.
Last time I can remember getting that response in an actual conversation was during the NFL kneeling protests. I guy I work with kept repeating how disrespectful it was to kneel, so I asked "Is it disrespectful to God when you kneel in prayer?" You could practically see the hamster fall off the wheel, and he said he needed to speak with his pastor.
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.
Maybe I'm way off the mark here but... I think the reaction to tankies seems very overblown. No one you could describe as a "tankie" is currently in charge of any of the countries/companies/organizations that are busy destroying the world right now, so I don't super understand why everyone's talking about them like they're at all a priority? The authoritarians that tankies are obsessed with are all either long dead, or totally unaware of their existence.
Maybe some people on the left are just trying to look at future dangers here, like tankies are gonna be "Bolsheviks Part 2", somehow come into power, and then purge all the anarchists or something. But didn't Bolsheviks actually have a lot of power and influence prior to the revolution? Tankies don't seem to.
why everyone’s talking about them like they’re at all a priority?
Because the red scares and the cold war[1][2] never actually ended, and our government, think tanks, and corporate media still feed us a constant drip of spooky stories.
...you know, that definitely sounds pretty plausible! Massive wave of fascism happening internationally right now, and we're screaming about these people instead because the red scare was so incredibly effective? That is sadly very believable.
A lot of people who use that term to describe other tankies seem to be using it the correct way while people who are tankies seem to want to change it to something else because of the implications of that definition.
This isn't my standard instance but I do take a look at it sometimes. I'm definitely very far left leaning, I don't have a label that clearly fits me but I'm probably close enough to anarcho-communism or syndicalism. I live in the UK so it's pretty common for my views to fall further left of the USA.
I'm not particularly good at actually adhering to my own views, infact I don't think I've ever done e anything substantial to bringing my ideals into reality. My dream would be for small federated housing / workers co-ops and unions to get a good handle in my area, and then have the stability to grow.
The crucial reason I'm not a tankie is that I actively oppose top down leadership structures, and I'm actually more against authoritarianism than I am against the right, but I feel that in my country, conservatism and authoritarianism are deeply linked, and a bottom up power structure would do more to actively oppose facism and power consolidation than a far left authoritarian regime.
In short, No. My principles may make me a commie, but I'm an anarchist first.
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 support democracy and oppose authoritarianism. Capitalism needs better regulations today, but I don't believe that the government controlling all business would lead to anything besides more authoritarianism.
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?
I don't consider myself a tankie, because I'm an anarcho-syndicalist.
I've been called a tankie for suggesting that workers should organize tenant unions to kill the apartment bidding wars in NYC. I've been called a tankie for pointing out that their image of a tankie needs to almost have power to be any kind of threat worth warning against, and there are no tankies anywhere near power with the global rise of fascism. I've been called a tankie for asking someone to clarify what they meant by tankie. I've been told that scientific socialism both is and is not tankie behavior. The term is utterly meaningless. I've come to the conclusion that it's part of a 3rd red scare in an effort to sow division amongst the anticapitalist left.
No. I had no idea about this instance's reputation when I joined Lemmy but it's nothing like the other instance you mentioned.
It gets very tiring trying to have a conversation with contrarians who think everything Western is bad and anything Chinese/USSR is good. Or worse, that their highly suspicious news sources (some random blog usually) are telling you the real truth, while using any mainstream news media source makes you a deluded Lib
“The modern revisionists and reactionaries call us Tankies, thinking that they insult us and, in fact, that is their aim. On the contrary, however, they glorify us with this epithet: it is an honour for us to be Tankies, because, since we were Tankies, the enemy could not conquer us, and never will conquer us as long as we remain Tankies.”
--Enver Hoxha, paraphrased.
(As far as Hungary is concerned, I don't advocate for anything that Khrushchev did)
This is a dumb question. That's like asking TERFs if they self-identify as bigots. They're going to respond that no, of course they aren't, they're just gender realists (or gender critical, or whatever).
That's interesting.... Communism is by definition stateless and without significant hierarchy. I don't think other Tankies would disagree with me there.
The ideological difference is in how we achieve communism. I would really suggest reading 'What is to be Done' by Lenin. It's a real short read but was one of the things that sold me on Marxism-Leninism vs. regular "Communism is a neat idea"
Capitalism will sell you the "you're your own boss, go forth an conquer" all while keeping you under their heel. There is no equality or opportunity there; but even worse is that they will worm their way into any system that does not harshly and consistently fight back against them. Ergo the need for a 'communist' (or rather pursuing communism) state.
That then leads into "Well how does the state go away once we've got communism?" That's a whole 'nother can of worms....
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.
Well... i wouldn't say i am full authoritarian, but i definitely identify on the left. I have maybe false ideas of tankies, but i just want that the world change without going full revolution, so i would say NO.
Marxists and Anarchists share 90% of views, they just disagree on the presence of a government. The natural enemies of both Marxists and Anarchists are liberals and fascists.
Tankie originally referred to authoritarian communists, but over the past couple of years I've seen it referred to, like, anyone significantly to the left of the Democratic Party. Former suck, very much aspire to be part of the latter.
I'm going to work hard to redefine 'Tankie' as someone who cosplays as a Decepticon, just so that political discourse becomes even more intolerably meaningless.
/s I'm not going to do this, it would take effort.
My understanding is that a tankie is defined as someone who seeks to promote global peace, understanding, and equality, with nuanced views that incorporate marginalized and international perspectives, grounded in historical evidence.
Long story, won't explain, I don't remember many details since it's been years since I cared about any of this stuff; other than "Gonzalo did nothing wrong, there is no AES, CCP and Russia lost their way due to Deng in China and the assassination of Lenin in Russia blah blah I'm an ultra or maoist or something blah blah".
Open source movement is the only thing I care about now.
On economic policy I am quite far left - I support a low Gini coefficient, achieved through a mixed economy, but with state provided options (with no 'think of the businesses' pricing strategy) for the essentials and state owned options for natural monopolies / utilities / media.
But on social policy, I support social liberties and democracy. I believe the government should intervene, with force if needed, to protect the rights of others from interference by others (including rights to bodily safety and autonomy, not to be discriminated against, the right to a clean and healthy environment, and the right not to be exploited or misled by profiteers) and to redistribute wealth from those with a surplus to those in need / to fund the legitimate functions of the state. Outside of that, people should have social and political liberties.
I consider being a 'tankie' to require both the leftist aspect (✅) and the authoritarian aspect (❌), so I don't meet the definition.
If Tankie means somewhat supporting what the URSS/China did, then YES.
I'm not communist, I've never read the manifesto but I'm more aligned with their ideals and the materialism philosophy than anything else, and I saw this quote that marked me. I paraphrase: "... the worst communist implementation was still better/on par than the best capitalist country".
The Communist Manifesto was basically a pamphlet written to be understood by mostly uneducated workers... There's not much reason to have never read it at this point, regardless of personal politics.
We're not talking Atlas Shrugged or Das Kapital. It's like 30 pages or something.
My understanding is that tankies believe that groups that have partially or completely followed far-left principles should be exempt from all criticism. I disagree. As long as it is honest criticism, it should not only be allowed but encouraged.
I've also heard that tankies are historic revisionists to an extreme. While I agree Western history is not telling us the real version of things, I don't think other countries are either. I won't say that an event happened one way or the other just because country A or country B says so. If historians and other experts are still debating an event and its details, I prefer to watch from a distance as I have no way to contribute to those debates.
Oppression is oppression independent of the ideological basis, people who support oppressive governments based on a loose ideological basis deserve the worse.
If wanting to receive basic human rights (food, housing, etc.), attend education without being discriminated against for my income and mental condition, control my workplace, earn the full value of my wages, have a government actually controlled by the people, all while being politically educated in past socialist movements and their theory to achieve all these things, then I'm sure as hell am a tankie, and I don't care what online liberals say.
Why does Stalin "rule"? This is a question from a fellow "leftist."
Either ignorant, or you're just a really bad person. Just such a stupid fucking thing to say. Take a step back from the Internet and read a book. Saying "Stalin rules ✊" doesn't make you cool, it just makes you look like an idiot.
Stalin was a paranoid, murderous dictator responsible for the unnecessary deaths of countless millions of people. Or does it not count because he didn't murder them himself?
Can't wait to hear about how the holomodor wasn't his fault...
You are engaging in what is known as the "double genocide" theory, which is a soft form of Holocaust denial. Cut that shit out, you are repeating literal nazi propaganda.
I'm looking towards the violent shifting of power and ideology after the French Revolution. Its people coming to power through struggle, wreaking revenge on the other side of the Isle and then the balance of power shifting again, with the same violent results.
Unchecked power isn't pretty. There need to be balance. However the discourse is creeping to the right almost everywhere and that fudges a lot up.
Tbf, there's no "right" anymore in the USA - it got eaten up, vomited back out, re-eaten again, with that process repeated a few times, and is now known as the "Alt-Right", before being subsequently rebranded yet again as "Q".
In other words, the old "GOP" (e.g. Mitch McConnell) is virtually dead at this point, or at least barely hanging on by the slimmest of threads, while now long live the "GQP", that is an entirely different beast.
And I think I am hearing similarly of the UK as well, with Brexit?
So if you meant that we need a healthy balance of diverse viewpoints, then I am 100% with you, but if you mean that we need to pollute true scientific facts with the craziest batshit insanity that anyone has ever heard of, then not so much:-). Diversity among viable solutions = good, whereas a literal Civil War b/c the "right" is throwing a temper tantrum = not so much. Even/especially the very people in charge... they are so scared of what is happening, the dissolution of a nation right before all of our eyes, and on their watch too.
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.