I forgot to set a reminder so I’m a little late getting to this, but here we are again:
Are you a “tankie”?
Respond “yes” or “no”, I’ll collate results later
This process is being undertaken to determine if so-called “tankies” are conspiring to make you (yes, you) have a bad time on the internet!
vague or informal answers will be interpreted by the central authority (me). Only top level comments will be counted. I will not be providing further instructions or clarifications.
🤯
Link to previous results (very serious) hexbear / lemmy,ml
Link to previous “are you a tankie?” thread
I’ll likely check back in a week, my old pc died so itll take a little bit of time to prettify the results and write a report
Ciao, and of course, imperialism must be destroyed.
Probably? At least in the sense that I’ve managed to gather from the very confused online arguments about the term. I’m a communist. While I’d love it if we could all peacefully vote our way into a better society, I recognize that it’s probably not going to happen and whatever nastiness we’d have to do to actually make the change is worth moving past the endless awfulness that is capitalism. And for the existing countries, while they’re not magical Christmas lands, I’ve learned they’re not quite as bad as the capitalists have fear- mongered.
And I get Anarchists thinking it’s states all the way down but…………. I don’t know what to tell you. What’s the alternative? Even if I want to get where you’re going, how do we get there? Where is the bus/train? I don’t see any running to get there.
A communist isn’t a tankie per sé. Tankies are people who blindly follow authoritarians of a communist regime and defend/deny the gruesome acts committed by said authoritarians. The idea behind communism is a valid one. In a perfect world, communism would lead to the star Trek utopia. Problem is, assholes will always take advantage and turn everything to shit. I still prefer communism over the heap of flaming shit most of the world lives in.
Hey comrade, have you considered making an account on Lemmy.ml, Lemmygrad.ml, or Hexbear.net? Lemmy.world censors communist content, so you might at least prefer something like Lemmy.zip that can see the content communists are posting.
How does that work? I assumed one Lemmy account covered everything. Where do I go for each of these?
Lemmy instances are kinda like islands, but you can visit and see other islands that are on good terms, or “federated.” Federation can be one-way, ie you can see and comment on another instance’s posts but they can’t see yours, or it can be two-way, and you can comment back and forth. You are on Lemmy.world’s view of a Lemmy.ml post. There are comments from Hexbear and Lemmygrad users on this post that I can see, but you can’t, like this one.
Lemmy.world is defederated from Hexbear.net and Lemmygrad.ml, the two biggest communist instances. In order to see their content and interact with their users, you need an account on an instance like those two, or Lemmy.ml, Lemmy.zip, etc. You don’t need one for each instance, just one federated with what you want to see.
Does that make sense?
So I just pick one of them and I’m good? Any suggestion which one to pick? Just the biggest?
EDIT: Also, am I able to just be logged into both so I can see both sides at the same time or do I have to swap back and forth if I want to check out world or the commy instances?
Well, what is it that you want? Do you want one account that can see almost everything? Lemmy.zip or Lemmy.ml would be better than Lemmy.world, and you can chat with Hexbear and Lemmygrad users as well as Lemmy.world users that way. Do you just want to talk with communists? Lemmygrad.ml or Hexbear.net might be a better fit, you won’t be able to interact with Lemmy.world that way. You can see Lemmy.world content and comment on it from Grad, but they can’t see your content. Hexbear defederated from .world so it doesn’t even show up.
Personally, I use all 3 depending on what I want to do.
I recommend checking out this guide by a good Lemmygrad comrade!
Thanks. Do only some of the instances have an old version? I see one for lemmy.zip but it doesn’t show up for ml or lemmygrad.
I think? Not actually sure, really!
I don’t think so, I like USSR as a response to imperialism, current China is quite cool in many ways, but I don’t automatically support whatever governments agrees on just cuz they’re better than their competition.
Also Karl Marx was kinda genius, but not sure how he uses violence in his theory, of course a political theory must contain a corner for violence, but it is hard for me to trace what exactly was Marx’s exact plan.In that “tankie” is just a pejorative for a communist, yes. I’m a Marxist-Leninist, and I uphold AES as legitimate.
Workers of the world, unite! ☭
For those who don’t know what a “tankie” is, it’s essentially a pejorative for “communist.” I recommend the Prolewiki article on “Tankies,” as well as Nia Frome’s essay “Tankies.”
For those that want an introduction to Marxism-Leninism, I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list, check it out!
Oh god oh fuck I’m the type of commie that isn’t obsessed with millitary equipment I didn’t stufy oh god oh fuck
What is AES in this context? I’m pretty sure it’s not encryption or a corporation lol
Actually Existing Socialism, countries like the PRC, Cuba, DPRK, Vietnam, Laos, former USSR, etc.
I can see the difference between these and EU, but isn’t EU mostly socialist? Like France for example, isn’t it considered so? Assuming socialist ≠ Marxist.
No, the EU is all capitalist, in every economy (even the nordics) private ownership is the principle aspect and governs the large firms and key industries. Financial capital and by extension imperialism are the dominant forces in society.
In the countries I listed, it’s the opposite, public ownership is at minimum the principle aspect. Some are more heavily publicly owned, like the DPRK and Cuba, and others have more market forces at play, like Vietnam and the PRC, but in all cases public ownership is principle.
If I may ask: Does my country Algeria count as AES then ?
Algeria is more complicated. It has had a long history of communists and socialist revolutionaries such as Frantz Fanon, but is currently a capitalist country. It’s far better than imperialist countries like France, and has been very progressive in opposing imperialism and colonialism, but isn’t considered socialist.
Tankie is a pejorative for authoritarians that advocate violence to further their political aims. The particular ideology is just window dressing.
20·4 days agoGeorge Washington is a Tankie. Hitler is a Tankie. Makhno is a Tankie. Elon Musk is a Tankie. Etc.
Obviously, the term “tankie” is only applied to the left. My point was that in that respect there is not really any difference between the extremes of the political spectrum. You could even say they converge in some way.
No, horseshoe theory is just liberalism trying to distance itself from fascism, when historically liberalism abd fascism correspond to capitalism doing okay and capitalism in crisis respectively.
Further, liberalism has also been responsible for mass violence, both the progressive kind such as in the French revolution, and the horribly reactionary kind when it comes to slavery, colonialism, genocide of Palestine, etc.
Redefining words and whataboutism. Name a more iconic duo.
What words did I redefine? What “whataboutism” did I do? I explained very clearly why your definition is bad, and applies to everyone. Comparison is not “whataboutism” inherently.
You literally just redefined the word ‘tankie’ when called out for your shitty definition of it.
Also George Washington was a leftist extremist to the British monarchy.
You’ve expanded the definition to include nearly everyone. All states are authoritarian, in that they are all instruments by which one class wields its authority over other classes. Revolution is the most authoritarian action there is, as was liberating the slaves in Haiti, the Statesian south, etc. You’ve erased any analysis of what these political aims are, essentially saying only pacifists have validity, and historically pacifists have been some of the least effective, or even damaging to their movements.
The communists that wish the working class to wield that authority wield it for progressive means, and in the interest of the people. Eventually, when class is abolished, even the state itself will be too.
I suggest you read the articles I linked, you can read both in the span of ~15 minutes and you’ll have a much better understanding of what “tankie” means.
Your theory has just one minor flaw: every violent revolution ever has resulted in one clique of repressive assholes being replaced with another. And every time they’ve betrayed every ideal they ever did it didn’t have in order to cling on to power. How is your revolution going to be different?
Your comment has one major flaw: it’s wrong.
Revolution in France, for example, ovethrew an oppressive monarchy. Napoleon took power, but it was still an improvement, and in the long run was even better. In Haiti, slavery was overthrown, in Algeria colonialism was overthrown. These are just for national liberation movements and general revolution.
Socialist revolution in Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Korea, and more have all dramatically improved key metrics like life expectancy, dramatically democratized society, increased literacy rates, and lowered disparity while dramatically developing society. Socialism achieves far better metrics at similar levels of wealth and development, even in the face of brutal sanctions.
There is no “betrayal of ideals,” there’s the real process of existing in the world and facing real struggles. Socialism isn’t magic or perfect, it’s simply a much better economic system than capitalism. It isn’t immune to problems or struggles, and it doesn’t gift those running the economy with prophetic visions. Liberal anti-communists hold socialism to a higher standard than liberal systems, refusing it outright if it isn’t heaven on Earth, and call it a “betrayal” if it isn’t immediately a perfect wonderland while giving liberalism a pass, or mild critique.
I expect revolution in the US Empire to go a similar way, only that it won’t be at risk of being nuked or sanctioned to death by the US Empire.
I highly suggest doing more research on the topic at hand, I can make recommendations if you want.
So having all of Europe drenched in blood by Napoleon was an improvement? And you conveniently forgot the terror. Similar things could be said about your other examples. The rest is just assertions without evidence so I’ll have to pull Hitchens’ razor.
THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.
-Mark Twain
In the end, moving beyond feudalism to capitalism was progressive, just as moving on beyond capitalism to socialism was and is progressive. This is rarely bloodless, but it pales in comparison to the daily violence of the present system.
Secondly, I did offer evidence upon request, I find when I just dump sources people tune out. If you have specific questions, I can back them up with answers and evidence, otherwise the lack of evidence applies just as much to you.
The rest is just assertions without evidence so I’ll have to pull Hitchens’ razor.
Neocon Iraq war supporting Christopher Hitchens? weems like a weird guy to quote if you’re opposed to the state murdering people but ok
The rest is just assertions without evidence
Literally all of your claims have been assertions without evidence
Yes.
That answer is only for my own country America, I do not have strong opinions for other areas and countries.
And I realize the term is broad, and gives connotations I do not intend.
A socialist movement that is backed by force, and not using democratic methods, would save far more lives than it would destroy.
Americans do not understand democracy because they do not understand, at a fundamental level, that ballot counts need to be witnessed and recounts always allowed.
They cannot be taught that. This removes reform by democracy.
But when reform is imposed on by force there are many who would disagree . So the revolution would need to defend itself. That means time and time again, this would happen repeatedly. And the cost would be horrible.
Of course my preferred solution would raise new problems, and a rise of a new elite would have to countered, and history shows that is hard. But I think because tens of millions of Americans will die if this revolution not happen, then it’s worth it
“In many cases, to avoid conflict is to prolong suffering”
-Ture
YesI’m still in doubt of what a tankie is, even though I’ve now seen it mentioned 1000 times. Also why is it called that?
Removed by mod
It’s essentially a pejorative for “communist.” I recommend the Prolewiki article on “Tankies,” as well as Nia Frome’s essay “Tankies.”
This is an oversimplification, but tldr…
Tankies are Authoritarian communist, as opposed to democratic or liberal communism. It refers to when the soviet union put down rebellion in Hungry and Czechoslovakia by rolling in the tanks. It prioritizes order over individual freedoms.
It doesn’t per se prioritise order inasmuch it prioritises state tyranny.
I view tankies as marginally better than fascists in that they at least strive for universal healthcare, universal housing, and so on. But when it comes to being able to choose, they’re just as terrible.
Order can only be achieved through freedom from intolerance. The true answer lies in anarchocommunism.
Communism doesn’t prioritize “order” or “state tyranny,” it prioritizes working class control. In AES states, the bourgeoisie and fascists violently oppose the system, and as such this is contested by the state under the control of the working class. The state is not an independent entity, it’s an extension of the ruling class and as such isn’t a thing in and of its own volition. In economies where public ownership is principle, ie at least over the large firms and key industries, the working class can retain control of the economy (assuming they already smashed and replaced the state).
Communists are by no means “marginally” better than fascists. This is Holocaust trivialization and equates working class control with incredibly violent bourgeois control, on the basis of both having states. Even when it comes to choice, socialist countries have dramatically expanded democratization and worker participation in the economy.
Your last bit about intolerance is self-defeating, we must be intolerant towards fascists and the bourgeoisie, and this is often cast as “authoritarian” or “totalitarian” in countries dominated by capitalists fearful of the same being done to them.
It doesn’t per se prioritise order inasmuch it prioritises state tyranny.
This is a child watching Saturday morning cartoon level take. Imagining your enemies are one dimensional villains who value evil for evils sake.
liberal communism
Lol
I think the confusing part is that liberal in there refers not to the ideology but to free in choice.
Maybe a better wording would’ve been “free” or just “democratic”, leaving out the “liberal” entirely.
All communists believe in freedom and democracy
Then by definition, MLs aren’t communists.
No, by definition Marxist-Leninists are supportive of freedom and democracy for the working class.
MLs absolutely believe in freedom and democracy; get a better dictionary
Yeah, sure. They frequently repress anarchocommunists.
There is no democracy without anarchy.
All communists support freedom and democracy for the working class, the distinction between “authoritarian and democratic” is a purely invented one designed to disavow existing implementations of socialism and absolve the one taking up the mantle of having to grapple with how socialism exists in the real world, often letting Red Scare narratives run rampant and uncontested.
Tankies are Authoritarian communist, as opposed to democratic or liberal communism
All states are authoritarian; all communist states to date have followed a form of democratic centralism; and “liberal communism” is an oxymoron because liberalism is founded on private ownership of the means of production.
It refers to when the soviet union put down rebellion in Hungry and Czechoslovakia by rolling in the tanks.
Neither of which were proletarian rebellions. Both were bourgeois counterrevolutions backed by western imperialist states. They were color revolutions, and these kinds of regime change operations are still happening today.
- JFK Files Reveal CIA Role in the 1956 Hungarian Uprising The tankies were right
- The 1968 Prague Spring — Counterrevolution as the “Trojan Horse” of Imperialism
- The blueprint of regime change operations How regime change happens in the 21st century with your consent
Except that, comrade, the Prague Spring organisers opposed a secret police, which is imho a fascist element. It also focused on decentralisation of the economy. The KGB infiltrated some of the organisations.
The Hungarian 1956 liberation struggle also demanded public ownership of land. While it is true that the CIA had been involved (e.g. inviting the fascist over for reform… gee, Hungary didn’t change much eh?), neither of the revolutions appear 100% bourgeoise. It would have helped to imprison the fascist, and not inform the public.
While it is true that “pro-democracy” often in practice means “pro-bribery” (as oligarchs then are enabled to bribe politicians), the core problem is and remains money even being a thing of prestige.
What should be the rule, is that society must be as resistant to corruption as possible. This is especially critical for factions and cooperations. That means:
-
All must be obliged to organise according to decentralised worker democracy. No boss, no master. Freedom of discussion, freedom of action.
-
No one who ever has led/owned a private company may be part of a group.
-
The groups must finance themselves through the principle of a moneyless, barterless gift economy, and mutual aid.
-
Full transparency of finances is required, including ultimate sources. This will encourage people to make the ‘stream’ of resources as direct as possible.
-
If a group does not adhere to even one of these principles, it is automatically considered defunct and disbands; and the members will be part of a group that does adhere to it. Those who made the group no longer adhere to all principles, will be societally barred from mutual aid (transport, food, housing, and so on). In other words, don’t be a corrupt person.
-
Groups can not be bigger than 150 people, but can mutually aid each other and cooperate in federations, which must also be organised through all above principles.
You’re combining contradictory stances. You want extreme decentralization and horizontalism even to the extent that managers don’t exist, but you want factories and the ability to unilaterally punish cells that don’t pass the “moral test.” Everything you listed is something that seems to sound cool, but is incredibly impractical, especially when taken all together. You also wish to punish former capitalists without retaining the authority to do so, leaving those people bitter and actively working against the rest of society.
This is all ignoring your misconception of fascism as “anything scary” and not as capitalism in crisis, and your minimization of, say, the anti-semites that were lynching Jewish people and communists in Hungary before the Red Army was sent in, etc.
From a practical basis, your vision is a non-starter, factories number in the several hundreds to thousands of workers with complex supply chains that need management and administration to avoid people getting killed by heavy machinery and to ensure production actually runs smoothly. You’re asking to reformat every factory to work on a microscopic scale and yet work on a purely gift economy form, when goods would take more labor and resources to produce at such a small scale, rather than reaching abundance.
Most practical forms of anarchism try to make administration more accountable, they don’t try to get rid of it entirely, and call it a “justifiable hierarchy.”
-
Thank you for the explanation! 😊
yes
I think I’m more of a wankie myself
No
No, while I do hold countries like China and Cuba in higher regard than America, I don’t hold them in higher regard than any real democracies and I hold countries like Russia and North Korea in even lower regard than America.
real democracies
Those glorious democracies where money is king, teeth are a luxury and it’s illegal to be against Palestinian genocide
and I hold countries like Russia and North Korea in even lower regard than America.
So you don’t like america but you hate it’s designated state enemies more? Damn, how enlightened of you. Truly a worldview beyond reproach or control.
I’m a moderate and believe in supporting the lesser of two evils, which means critical support for enemies of US imperialism. I’m also something of a centrist because I believe anarchists and Marxist-Leninists and other left tendencies all have good ideas.
So yeah, I’m a moderate centrist.
😂
No. I do absolutely support Khrushchev sending tanks to Hungary (very rare Khrushchev W), but i’m not British.
I’m a liberal. I know the power that democracy bestows: vote.
Fighting fascism? Vote hard.
Fighting genocide? Vote harder.
Fighting cancer? You guessed it, just vote.
Vote solves everything, vote is beautiful.
I’m an anarchist though I do get called a tankie quite a lot as a pejorative.
I’m opposed to all states. That said as someone who lives in the west I don’t really care to spend a lot of energy being mad about what my governments state enemies are doing.
‘democracy’ in capitalist states is a cruel facsimile of actual democracy. If you don’t have money for rent you might as well be unpersoned, corporations are people and money is free speech.
The question is, do you want to murder people who disagree with you?
Obviously not. Not sure what you’re trying to get at here though.
Yes but do note that most people who call themselves a Tankie do it ironically to make fun of those who do not know its meaning if it even has one nowadays, It’s commonly used by liberals and even leftists to simply refer to anyone to the left of their own politics, although not sure why I’m answering this since my instance and profile is practically wearing a red beret.
The Bhaghat Singh profile picture is quite awesome
