u/IceonBC - originally from r/GenZhou
History of the word tankie:

Started as an insult to people who supported the suppression of the 1958 Hungarian Revolt

Then it was used to describe Marxist/Communists of any variety

Finally, modern day, it is used to describe any other with Anti-Capitalist tendencies

u/tennessee_jedi - originally from r/GenZhou
Just the newest iteration of an anti-communist red-scare style slur. The current version of “red”, “commie”, “pinko”, etc.

u/CCPbotnumber69420 - originally from r/GenZhou
It’s kind of a slur to be used against marxist-leninists, usually by anarchists and other left-leaning liberals

u/Sihplak - originally from r/GenZhou
The term “tankie” originated as a derogatory term to disparage those Communists who defended (IIRC) the 1956 Soviet action against the so-called “Hungarian revolution”, which involved moving tanks into Hungary (I might be wrong – it may be in reference to Prague in the 1960’s, but I think it was Hungary).

It became archaic, from what I understand, later in the 20th century and early 21st, especially as Communists in the West became less powerful, etc.

It started to regain popularity, from my awareness, in the 2000s and early 2010s as internet Marxist-Leninist personalities such as Jason Unruhe, The Finnish Bolshevik, etc were prevalent in early leftist discourse online in the sphere of Western media like YouTube. In disagreement with these personalities and other Marxist-Leninists, as online forums and social media became more prevalent, the term “tankie” saw a revival, but now as an exaggeration to refer to Marxist-Leninists in general, primarily levied by Anarchists.

In essence, it is the modern slang version of the word “Stalinist”, but that has a modern context to it that makes it more relevant to many of those who use it.

It spread to the broader population in the late 2010’s, mainly as Western MLs began to recognize the reality of China being a Socialist state and subsequently defending China in public forums. Anarchists and others in leftist spheres opposed to pro-China MLs would deride them as “tankies” confusing outsiders like regular Liberals, who would then ask what the term means, and boom, “tankie” spreads like wildfire.

Then, of course, “tankie” becomes morphed by Liberals against all Leftists and even non-Leftists. People will accuse someone of being a “tankie” for opposing American wars, supporting any kind of self-proclaimed Leftist organization, etc.

This is my understanding and description of the term based on my past 10 years on the internet and involvement in politics. Hopefully it helps.

u/newcomradthrowaway - originally from r/GenZhou
A tankie is anybody to the left of them.

u/parentis_shotgun - originally from r/GenZhou

• What about the term tankies / stalinists? What’s the meaning of the term? What about the 1956 Hungarian revolt?, 2, 3. MI6 trained the hungarian opposition to fight soviets in the 1956 revolt. 3 4, 5
• RedSails - on “Tankies”
• Hakim - Why the USSR was socialist - A critique of left-communism.

u/Bruh081817463 - originally from r/GenZhou
It originates from british communists using the term against those british communists who supported the ussr using force to crush the 1956 Hungarian (counter)revolution.

Since then it has lost most of its meaning. It is an insult usually used when calling someone on the left “aurhoritarian”. Mostly used by anarchists against MLs, but in no way is that the only usage it gets. I have even heard it said against anarchists by other anarchists.

Some people self identify as tankies “reclaiming” the word to mean someone who is anti imperialist, supports modern day china, etc.

u/boppitybop6969 - originally from r/GenZhou
now it’s just a term liberals and anarchists use(esp online) when you disagree with them and they have no arguments.

u/FamousPlan101 - originally from r/GenZhou
Its a meaningless insult to anyone deemed authleft, originally intended to label communists who supported the suppression of Hungarian fascists. It’s often used by libs and anarchists when they are losing an argument.

u/emisneko - originally from r/GenZhou
https://redsails.org/tankies/

u/sanriver12 - originally from r/GenZhou
It’s just a derogatory term/strategy to shut down anti imperialist, counter hegemonic narratives.

https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/tankie-conspiracy-theorist-and-other

https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZedong/comments/t2wolx/this_entire_site_is_seething_over_us/hyq6534/

https://twitter.com/ChengxinPan/status/1439133957472219136

https://web.archive.org/web/20210818104742/https:/theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

https://redsails.org/tankies/

u/VinceMcMao - originally from r/GenZhou
It’s normally an insult but I think many who are posting answers here on this are in denial about some things internal to the eclectic politics which they hold. The reason being that while it’s used as a slur there’s also a scientific and accurate usage of the term which denotes a more formal slur to denote a very specific politics which are known as “Brezhenevite revisionism”. Within Marxism revisionism has a different definition then the revisionism generally, and it means the interpenetration of Marxism with bourgeoisie ruling ideology in which much of its core theoretical components representing the interest of the proletariat are revised. This specific type of revisionism was named after Leonid Brezhnev and his policies which have several features. They include what he called “real socialism”, the theory of “national democratic revolution”, replacing class analysis in realm of foreign policy with pragmatist expediency, and the tendency to treat contradictions among the people the same way you treat contradictions between the people and the enemy. It should be mentioned that while Brezhnev and the USSR are obviously gone this politics still takes a life of its own with other eclectic formulations.

‘Real Socialism’ was a term which meant that what the USSR had at the Brezhnev period was the most feasible and practical application of “Socialism” and thus it represented “Actually Existing Socialism”. The basic justification was that so long as even a state or party on paper said it was socialist that itself was enough. There was no room here to actually elaborate what actual transition to a classless society meant especially at the level of superstructure or even the engagement of the masses in this transition, so more than anything it served to justify the status quo.

National democratic revolution was a theory which revised basic theoretical and practical lines established by the experience of the road to the completion of democratic revolution in countries oppressed by imperialism. The whole idea was that instead of the proletariat in these countries leading the democratic revolution which could immediately transition to Socialist revolution, any class so long as they were a “popular” class(be they petty-bourgeoisie, urban middle classes, national bourgeoisie) etc., could lead the democratic revolution and the socialist revolution. There was no need for the working class and it’s party guided by Marxism to accomplish such tasks. And it would be even beneficial for the working class to play a passive or tailist role while such national democrats enact reforms from high on up while keeping the bourgeoise state apparatus intact. As a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist as much as I critically uphold Stalin this did originate with his advice to the CPC early during the Chinese revolution and also had quite horrible consequences for the Communist Party of Indonesia, many whose members are still being discovered in unmarked graves.

Interconnected with this was abandoning class analysis at the level of foreign policy for providing military aid to anyone who just claimed themselves to be a Communist or wave the red flag. It was guided by a bourgeoisie pragmatist outlook which instead of judging such aid by revolutionary conditions such as political line, organization, relationships to the masses, i.e. looking at developments internal to such countries as the criteria, aid was given based on the willingness for a given figure to just toe the line set by Moscow. This can be seen with the example of Mengistu a careerist military officer who in the midst of the Ethiopian Revolution against the monarchy only received aid from Moscow once the derg took power and claimed itself ‘Marxist-Leninist’.

This politics also has the tendency to treat contradictions among the people as those between the people and the enemy. All dissent within the first feature outlined almost becomes interpreted as primarily the work of outside forces, rather than the indication of something internal to a party, state, such as an incorrect policy taken, being the primary thing which generates such dissent in the first place. As such there’s a tendency to paint all dissent as enemy action and to treat it as such. And no attempts to resolve such dissent through persuasion or democratic methods, etc. It can explain why the Soviet backed forces in Afghanistan while able to make changes in the cities had a difficult time with their commandist approach to resolving problems related to the agrarian question in the rural areas, let alone incapable of engaging in self-criticism and genuine rectification. This specific feature would be the primary reason why many leftists figure the slur warrants usage especially with many of those with such politics have on views on particular situations such as the Hong Kong protests, Tiananmen Square 1989, etc.

Here are two good articles which talk more about this:

Marxism-Leninism or Eclecticism by Ray Nunes

Brezjnev and the National Democratic Revolution by Ludo Martens

[deleted] - originally from r/GenZhou
a “tankie” is functionally just any one who is too historically literate to get co-opted by liberalism anymore.

that’s the part they actually give a damn about - nothing to do with tanks/“totalitarianism” really.

Liberals are perfectly at home with “genocide apologists” and “those who glorify violence” when said person has politically convenient (i.e. capitalist sympathetic) positions.

Liberalism embraces:

1. Actual ideological liberals
2. Anyone willing to enforce liberalism materially (even fascists)
3. Anyone who gets duped into promoting liberalism (even if this just means failing to oppose it)
4. The apolitical

If you don’t meet one of the above criterion then you default to “tankie” because when you can’t be duped you become inconvenient and must be stigmatized.

u/parentis_shotgun - originally from r/GenZhou
No low effort answers, this isn’t /r/socialism_101

[deleted] - originally from r/GenZhou
[removed]