Not so keen on his harshness of DPRK and saying China and USSR are imperialist, but particularly for dipshits like Vaush, who are basically the liberal version of the tankie meme, it describes exactly their position as being neolib tankies.

Take, for example, my recent post about the controversy around the film The Interview and the DPRK. A commentator, clearly of the traditional “anti-tanky” way of thinking, complained about my supposed endorsement of the DPRK and argued that it would be progressive for the imperialists to invade and occupy North Korea. They were opposed to the supposed “tanky” arguments that have been made about the defense of the DPRK but had no problem arguing for the necessity of imperialist tanks (and planes and sanctions and guns and troops) to serve some sort of progressive role. That is, they were making the same argument as the tankies they were opposing, but in some sort of bullshit Second Internationalist kind of way. The tanky narrative, then, overcodes the reality of the DPRK, producing a very unscientific binary: either you’re a tanky who supports the DPRK unconditionally as a socialist paradise or you’re some sort of “critical” anti-tanky who supports the necessity of imperialist intervention––but since the latter demands a similar material reality as what it is opposing (i.e. military repression) then it makes no sense to argue about the errors of tankyism in the first place. [ . . . ]

And yet the assumption that tankyism is some significant barrier to revolutionary unity, that it is a phenomenon that must be combatted before anything else, has led to equally weird counter-positions. Invade the DPRK with imperialist tanks (which is somehow not “tanky”) because imperialist occupation is somehow progressive! Support the FSA in Syria because of Assad and Russian imperialism, that is somehow worse than US imperialism! Endorse sinophobia because China is a capitalist country but also somehow worse than US capitalism so we’ll hate it more with orientalist overtones! While it is true that it is not an authentic anti-imperialist position to support the nascent imperialisms of Russia or China over US imperialism, it is also an unabashed pro-imperialist position to endorse the US/Canada/EU imperialisms as correct. Again, it’s a second internationalist position: it’s a belief that some imperialists are better than others, without any reason beyond patriotism. In the period of the third international, for example, there was the acceptance of a common front against fascism––and a justification for uniting with some aspects of the imperialist camp against other aspects––but you would have to work very hard and deform reality so as to claim that the DPRK, Russia, or China are fascist threats. Indeed, the opposite is the fact: the world order promised by the US, Canada, and the EU closer resemble worldwide fascism. [ . . . ]

On the other hand, though, the extreme variant of this so-called “anti-tankyism” is critically pathetic. It is cruise missile socialism, as much of a radical charade as what it claims to reject. It is Pham Binh and Louis Proyect thinking that it is okay to invade Syria and Libya, that imperialism can support a progressive mission. It is Gilbert Achcar arguing for NATO to intervene in Libya, or Christopher Hitchens raving about how “Islamofascism” and supporting the most repellant uses of torture on brown bodies. It is a disguised patriotism, the assumption that US and/or Canadian imperialism is somehow better than its would-be competitors because these competitors are not US, Canadian, EU. (Even in the case of Russia in Ukraine what does this mean? A weird endorsement of this particular imperialism’s backing of outright fascism.) It’s a recognition that “tanky” defenses of revisionist or reactionary regimes hold no water, but assumes that the answer is the inverse tankyism of imperialism. It’s an abdication of thought because it results in the following kinds of judgments: if the DPRK is a terrible place to live then the solution is the US (where I live and I love living because, you know, first world privilege) invading and making things “better”. More importantly, though, it is determined by the same logic as the “tankyism” it is trying to reject: the ruling classes of nation-states can solve the problems of class struggle––not the masses, not revolutionary parties, just the tanks of some state or other. Hence, as aforementioned, this supposedly “left” critique of tankyism is a kind of reactionary tankyism because the solution requires the tanks of the most powerful and unabashed imperialists.