You must log in or # to comment.
The term tankies always confuses me. It seems to mean something different for anyone who uses it. Could you please give an example
The term “Tankie” originated in the UK during the Cold War to refer to British leftists who approved of the Russians using tanks to violently end the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. Broadly, it refers to any “leftist” who endorses authoritarian methods, so AuthLeft basically. If your vision of the revolution requires gulags and firing squads, you’re a tankie.
Thank you. That is a good definition. I personally am very careful not to judge others stances on stuff. That goes double for other leftists. I find slurs tend to dehumanize others instead of understanding them. But I do understand the frustration over people who seem to get it and then suddenly defends attack on civilians and the like.
This position has resulted in people calling me a tankie here on lemmy.
Would it be too much to ask of you come with an example instead of just a definition?
I mean, the definition is based on an example: supporters of the USSR’s use of tanks to crush the Hungarian Revolution of 1956.
But other examples include denying or excusing authoritarian behavior carried out by nominally “socialist” regimes: imprisoning or executing dissidents, imperialism, suppression of freedom of expression, etc. Usually there’s an undertone of double-standard where regimes that call themselves “Communist” or “Socialist” are excused for actions which would be considered authoritarian oppression under a liberal government.
It’s not a double standard, that’s just ignoring who is being oppressed.
How do you figure?
The oppression used in a socialist state is intended to be focused on the bourgeois and those who support counter-revolution, making it distinctly different from a liberal states oppression, which is focused on using oppression to further bourgeois goals. Bourgeois have power to drive counter-revolution as long as they have a foothold anywhere nationally and that presents a real threat to all socialist states. No communist “wants” a state, it is a recognition that as long as there are capitalists that threaten the people, there has to be some sort of system that can resist them at a national level.
The oppression used in a socialist state is intended to be focused on the bourgeois and those who support counter-revolution
The operative word being “intended”. Defending regimes that turn that focus to the proletariat is part of what distinguishes a tankie from an actual leftist.
No communist “wants” a state
Which is why only consider tankies to be nominally left. I don’t consider them to be real communists.
The “authoritarians” just coincidentally happen to be the only communists who don’t get fucking couped by the CIA, but I’m sure your specific version of horizontal heirarchy-free resistance will have better results
Tankies be more like, “I’ll put up with a little communism as long as I get all the authoritarianism I want.”
Yes, we are cartoon villains who just can’t get enough authoritarianism. Keep slathering it on me; I can always get more erect.
Do you even listen to yourself?
If you have enough self-awareness to identify yourself as a ‘tankie’, you’re probably not a tankie.
If that’s your definition of tankie, then tankies only exist in your imagination.
true, but the chance that it will become authoritarian is very high, which is why a lot of people dislike it.
boiled down, Communism and Oligarchy operate in starkly similar ways.
Oligarchy: Corporations run the Government
Communism: Government runs the Corporations
It doesn’t matter if under one it’s done for profit and under the other it is done to supply need, the people at the top will try to bend the system for their own benefit eventually.
