You're viewing a single thread.
Best way to explain it is to give a link to a really good definition I read. Here it is, and it's in-depth and gives you a real understanding of them.
The one benefit of ziq being an anarchist extremist is that his article is probably one of the least biased things you'll read against modern Tankies who try to hide behind their support of culturally progressive politics to defend their ideology and make it seem like they're good people. Because it's a critique from someone who is just as left-wing as they claim to be so they can't hide behind their usual excuse of the critic being pro-capitalism/anti-communism/culturally conservative because ziq is none of those things.
I second this article as a fantastic overview of what Tankies stand for and why they should not be tolerated. If the article is too long to sift through - one particular paragraph summarizes the main issue with Tankies:
Tankies celebrate Lenin and Trotsky's massacres of socialist revolutionaries, including the Mensheviks, the sailors of Petrograd, the Socialist Revolutionaries, the anarchists, unaffiliated peasants who had their food confiscated and so on. Tankies also celebrate murdering 'kulaks', a word they use to describe any peasant that resisted Soviet imperialism, but especially the Ukrainian peasants that resisted sending all their food to Russia, which they rightly guessed would lead to mass-starvation and one of the worst atrocities in history; the catastrophic Holodomor man-made famine.
The Holodomor is largely considered to be a genocide of the Ukrainian people - by 26 countries and the European Parliament. Tankies deny it ever happened, and if it did it wasn't their fault, and if it was their fault the kulaks deserved it.
That’s not a simple explanation, that’s a Ted talk.