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
No.
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.
The global wave of fascism isn’t coming from nowhere, it’s largely the result of neoliberalism, which is a form of capitalism in decay. And you don’t have to be a Marxist to understand this: even Noam Chomsky and Chris Hedges get it. Noam Chomsky: Neoliberalism and the roots of fascism
i am a meat popsicle
I have a new favorite description for human that I hear today: terrified electric meat. Perfectly sums up the human experience
No I’d rather be morally righteous and sit on my ass and blame “the left” as the world collapses.
I am to the left of Ronald Reagan. A lot of people would classify that as tankie.
But that’s not a no.
I’ll take that as a yes for you. If you are a Tankie you should stand up for your values and be proud!
The only reason why you would deny it or hide it is if you have an agenda.
Tankie is a floating signifier, a pejorative, a thought-terminating cliché, a rhetorical cudgel.
The only reason why you would deny it or hide it is if you have an agenda.
Or because it’s a thought-terminating pejorative. And in any case, just as it is impossible to be unbiased, it is impossible to be agendaless. By implying that I have some secret agenda, you’re doubling down on McCarthyism.
Tankie is a floating signifier. If you ask twenty liberals what a tankie is you’ll get
- Twenty different answers, and
- Several people upset at being called a liberal because they don’t have even a Wikipedia-level understanding of liberalism or socialism.
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.
Like how fascists think liberals are marxists, despite liberals and marxists both knowing how dumb that is
Does it count if I’ve actually driven tanks?
Not unless you enjoyed the crunching sounds
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:
Removed by mod
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 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.
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.
Removed by mod
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. 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 a 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.
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]
Wtf. Talk about twisting truths.
Don’t like people putting up a mirror to you?
“Tankie” in the traditional sense of someone who uncritically supports the USSR in the handling of 1956’s uprising? Probably not.
While Kruschev’s use of tanks in 1956 was heavy handed, the Hungarian alliance with the Axis in WWII and participation of Operation Barbarossa, lingering fascist sympathisers and nationalists remained in Hungary.
This coupled with the Communist Party of Hungary’s less than equitable redistribution of land/castles/other properties earlier in the 1950’s (favouring giving properties to ranking CPH members instead of distributing it to the proletariat equally). This created resentment for the Party, and an image of the Communists as no better than the Monarchy that came before or the Fascists that came after.
The Hungarian uprising had elements of fascist sympathisers, monarchists, bourgeoisie, etc but also legitimate critics of the handling of the situation. It never should have come to that, and a more educated/self critical Communist Party in Hungary could have prevented things from getting that far. The people should have benefitted a lot more from a better redistribution of wealth.
The above issues coupled with Soviet distrust of Hungarians (since they did invade the Soviet Union in the 40’s) led to a swift and harsh reaction towards the uprising, seeing it as just a reactionary revolt.
Now, am I a tankie in the Reddit redefinition, of anyone that critically supports Cuba, China, Vietnam and their style of government? Yeah, I suppose I am. This is no more radical a position than Malcolm X or the Black Panthers who also supported the late USSR, China and Cuba.
Serious question, I mean I feel you dislike the “west” or jow it is governed (I guess) and to each their own but are you against democracy? And if so, how do you get rid of dictators like Putin if needed?
Cheers
Please find a Marxist against democracy. Your question is framed in an incorrect manner.
Okay you don’t want democracy, but how do you deal with dictators like putin always creeps into the system and takes over if you can’t vote them out?
I do want Democracy. What are you talking about?
See your first post…
But dodge the question again lol
I asked you to find a Marxist against Democracy because that mythical anti-Democracy Marxist doesn’t exist.
It isn’t a dodge, it’s like you asking veterinarians why they like screwing cats and dogs.
Dude. Get a history book lol.
You have to imagine other people have no idea about Marxism but what they’ve heard from US propaganda. When they hear you support China, Cuba, and Vietnam, they just hear you supporting dictator for life Xi Jinping and one party state Cuba and Vietnam. You guys need better answers than this.
The other person’s answer was pretty good, though.
My point is to get them to do some questioning on their own, and challenge the pretenses. Sometimes this approach works better as the other person comes to a new conclusion on their own.
Our definition of what is and isn’t a democracy is significantly different than that of liberals. We wouldn’t consider Europe and America to be democracies meaning that we have no sympathies for those style of governments and societies.
To contextualize this, one thing you have to understand is that there are many formulations of democracy that have existed historically. Athenian democracy is very different from liberal democracy, which is in turn very different from democratic centralism (the formulation most used by Marxist states). And there were probably many forms of democracy that hunter-gatherers and indigenous peoples used (which I unfortunately don’t know much about).
The main problems with how democracy is talked about in liberal philosophy (the hegemonic philosophy) is that only the liberal formulation of democracy is considered valid, even if its performance has historically been extremely subpar. Furthermore, class is completely ignored, as all “democracies” have existed in service of a class (in athens, for the slave owners, in liberal republics, for the bourgeoise, in ML republics, for the proles).
Because we do not consider liberal democracies to be a valid form of democracy, liberals take this disingenuously as if Marxists hate all democracy.
So how do you get rid of the likes of Putin?
Interesting theories there, a bit too generalisering for my taste, most people in the west are not liberals either.
As far as my understanding of the soviet style democratic centralist systems goes (I suppose DemCent could be implemented in many ways, just like liberal electoralism can), every country has a supreme soviet which convenes some times a year to appoint, remove and review the progress of the presidium. The members of the presidium themselves have a strong distribution of powers amongst each other, and so a dictator type like Putin shouldn’t really show up at all, and if he does, he should be removed by the supreme soviet. The supreme soviet itself was elected by lower level regional soviets, which were in turn elected by lower level soviets and so on until you had the fully local soviets, which were initially organizations the factory workers and soldiers during the revolution (so they predated even the USSR), and latter (after the 1936 constitution) became location based (so similar to the local councils in liberal systems).
I have heard compelling arguments that any new DemCent system should take ideas from ancient athenian democracy like sortition and direct democracy. I agree with them, but implementing such a system in reality would likely be challenging and require many preconditions to be met (such as having a highly educated population with good amounts of free time and no worries about war or imperialism).
Interesting, but no way removing a putin (and no, hopium won’t do it) that I see.
What even do you mean “a way of removing a putin” if what I have said does not suffice?
NO
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 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?
Ask these questions over on lemmygrad or hexbear, you’ll get good answers.
No.
Tankies are fascist that took the socialist part in national socialist serious.
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.
-
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.
So… no.
NO. We have had enough already
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
Yes, I imagine it would be tiring if anyone actually argued that. Since it’s a ridiculous strawman though, I think you’re in the clear
everything Western is bad
This one simple trick does get you 99% of correct though
It gets very tiring trying to have a conversation with contrarians who think everything Western is bad and anything Chinese/USSR is good.
Why do outsiders keep making shit up about lemmygrad and hexbear?
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
I use this instance regularly and more often than not, the articles posted on the news coms are from mainstream sites. And even the “random blogs” (not really, it’s a few relatively well known blogs) use mainstream news to get basic facts. As proof, [email protected] is a link to the world news com. Out of the 20 articles on the front page (as of writing this comment), 9 are from the typical mainstream sites (like reuters) and 5 are from sites that may be mainstream, but I don’t know them. Only 6 are from sources like FT or things like a youtube video (which again, may be from some mainstream author).
The fuck is a tankie? Outside of Lemmy, I’ve never seen nor H6eard the word. I assume it’s Lemmy slang for some group of people.
