I keep seeing “fuck tankies” everywhere, and seem to see people getting called “tankie” for any number of things–I used to feel like I knew what it meant (the formal definition, which I thought was the only application) but that’s clearly not the case anymore. Saw someone get called one because they… Liked the idea of universal basic income and wanted walkable cities? And now the same sentiment is on a large number of Lemmy communities, lol.

I feel like I’ve been living under a rock.

Edit: Wow, I guess it’s just as meaningless of a term now as it seemed. At least it’s a nice, bright flag for ghouls not worth engaging with meaningfully, lol. I saw “fuck tankies” on a genderqueer community and got pretty confused on how the two ideas correlated in the slightest, so I guess that was the tipping point on me finally asking about it.

  • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    It means whatever it needs to mean in the context in which it is deployed.

    It’s a tool deployed by liberals against people to the left of them in exactly the same way that woke is a tool deployed by reactionaries against people to the left of them.

    It gets deployed against everything from ML to anarchist to even socdems, depending on whether you say something that goes against the US’ imperial core goals.

    The purpose of the tool is thought-termination. To prevent people from listening to the person that it is deployed against. Reactionaries use woke to prevent people among their ranks from listening to anything reasonable the ““woke”” person might say, and liberals use tankie to prevent people among their ranks from listening to anything reasonable the left might say.

    It is an adaptation of mccarthyite behaviour.

    You ain’t done nothing if you ain’t been called a Red applies now to this word just as much as it applied back then.

      • footfaults [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        67
        ·
        6 months ago

        because there are some Stalinists or just dumb people who are proud of their country or a country they didn’t even live in.

        The Soviet Union won World War 2 and saved the world from fascism. Millions of Red Army soldiers and Russian civilians died at the hands of fascists and we are in their debt

        • spacesweedkid27 [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          I don’t get how doing what is so obviously good makes you a good leader, that just makes the west bad because they basically helped hitler. Also this "we are in their dept thinking isn’t really a productive argument.

          Why can people just admit that there are some truths and not everything was good.

          Communism is not an ideology that can be done by just reading a basic rulebook and blindly believing historic anecdotes that are hard to verify or just straight up wrong.

          I also want to believe that there were good and powerful communist leaderships, I can understand that.

          How does wanting to understand make me a lib? Isn’t this kind of flagging people what left ideologies criticise?

          Just give me some real facts or evidence and I am happy, if you can’t show me these you are reactionistic and conter-revolutionary.

          • TreadOnMe [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            47
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Why? You haven’t provided shit outside your opinions, which are clearly just ahistorical propogandistic horseshit. If you think Lenin was ‘less harsh’ than Stalin I have some bad fucking news for you, according to everybody but Khrushchev, that was very much not the case. Molotov famously discussed this in his memoirs.

            We have no obligation to educate you, you are not a known party member in an organization, you are on an anonymous leftist shit posting forum. Go be a liberal debate pervert elsewhere.

          • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            35
            ·
            6 months ago

            I don’t get how doing what is so obviously good makes you a good leader

            doing good is not the mark of good leadership? what, pray tell, makes a good leader then?

          • TheLepidopterists [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            50
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Stalin was a “bad” “dictator?”

            You “think” that Lenin wasn’t a “bad” “dictator?”

            Mao “turned evil in his last years?”

            Do you not understand why these liberal nerd opinions are not well received on a communist forum?

            EDIT: Also “Stalinists?” How about fuck off.

                • axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  31
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  We don’t believe Stalin, Lenin, or Mao were dictators. We believe they were elected party officials who did not exercise ultimate authority. Stalin for instance attempted to resign 4 times and was overruled. We also believe Stalin exercised authority in much of the same way that Lenin would have.

                  In terms of Mao we tend to go with the 70/30 split of good/bad. We also don’t tend to say he was evil in his later years, but rather, more like he became a little inefficient and China was going through a rough spot that had a course correction with Deng.

                  I hope that helps. I think some people here are seeing you as some kind of troll talking to us in bad faith. I try to assume the best.

      • AlkaliMarxist@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        38
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Even in Stalin’s time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist power structure.

        - Declassified CIA report from the 1950’s

        Even the CIA knew that calling Stalin a dictator was bullshit.

        Also Mao “turned evil”? Come on.

        Clearly you have totally internalized the “pop-history” view of socialism in the 20th century, surely you realize such a simplified narrative cannot help but hide ideological bias.

      • CannotSleep420
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        6 months ago

        Stalin was a bad dictator

        Technically true since he followed democracy.

  • axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    6 months ago

    Liberals think it means someone who lies about wanting socialism and instead just wants to kill people. They think it refers to a proponent of a society where all decisions are made by a single crackpot dictator. They think they have a correct view on how to create and institute socialism, which would involve things like voting in elections, organizing pickets, and very slowly seizing power through mass appeal. As a corollary to this, liberals believe this type of socialism has already been achieved in places like Sweden and Denmark. Depending on how much they’ve read socialist theory they may also point to Catalonia or the Zapatistas, but they’ll usually be referring to completely imaginary mangled versions of these events that don’t reflect history.

    What tankie means in practice though is something more like “race traitor.” Or “nation traitor.” Liberals will say they hate the west’s actions and what it stands for, but what they really mean is they hate everywhere else more. Any designated enemies of western countries are permanent enemies and outside of liberal values. People who call themselves socialists will still use this dichotomy. Tankie means someone who expresses sympathy for countries that have been designated as enemies to the west. You’ll notice that Xi Jinping himself isn’t called a tankie. Stalin’s not a tankie. Figures like that get called authoritarians or dictators. Tankie is someone in the west who has broken convention and gone to the bad guys. That’s all it means at this point.

    I really believe there’s been a decades long project to usurp socialist rhetoric by liberals, whether they realize it or not. The existence of tankies threatens their reputation, because it draws socialist terminology back into scary communism. Liberals have spent decades trying to position themselves as the true, good leftists. That only works if they can paint socialist movements worldwide as liars and their own internal socialists as traitors

  • GnastyGnuts [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    6 months ago

    It’s supposed to mean “authoritarian leftist” (the concept of authoritarianism as a distinct political trait / goal is a key part of horse-shit theory), but the assholes who say that also insist that “true leftism” is inherently libertarian and cannot be authoritarian, and so actually tankies are just red-fash masquerading as leftists – they hate to even acknowledge a family resemblance.

    So these people based their understanding on the political compass (which is trash), but then also decided that their own frame of understanding was shitty and broken because by having an authoritarian-left axis at all, it didn’t condemn tankies enough.

    • dannoffs [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I’ve been called a tankie, an anarckiddie, a snowflake, and a lib. I consider it the online left equivalent of an EGOT

  • TheLepidopterists [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Eventually it drifted from it’s original meaning to instead mean “Marxist-Leninist, or an adjacent Marxist ideology (anything from Trots to MLM or MTW, but mostly ML) which is an ideology I hate due to American propaganda,” and I think it was basically used that way for a long time; then more recently it’s become a term for “Anyone who doesn’t unequivocally condemn designated enemies of the US state.” This more recent drift means an anarchist or even a social democrat who doesn’t support Azov Battalion, the IOF or Syrian “moderate rebels” can be labeled a tankie, making it essentially a meaningless term.

    The nice thing is that if someone calls someone else a tankie you can basically immediately know that the first person is some disgusting globe emoji ghoul.

    EDIT: Of course, you sound like you already know this, but for anyone who doesn’t, the original meaning was “ML who didn’t support the fascist counterrevolution in Hungary.”

  • Tachanka [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    6 months ago

    opposing imperialism, colonialism, racism, capitalism, patriarchy, animal abuse, domestic violence, or pollution in a way that is not utterly ineffectual or pacifistic

    spoiler

    even pacifists get called tankie for having rhetoric that’s too “mean”

  • carpoftruth [any, any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    6 months ago

    it’s a term used only to signify ingroup versus outgroup in the context of right wing debate nerd circles.

    it’s the political equivalent of ‘slut’ or ‘hipster’ in the way those terms functionally mean ‘person who is having more sex than me’ and ‘person who is cooler than me’