196 is a shitpost sub where you must post something when you vist
a tankie is a authoritarian that believes they’re a communist. they support the imperialist invasion of Ukraine, and they deny the tianaman square massacre, where the CCP ran tanks over college students protesting the authoritarian government. they deny a bunch of other atrocities as well, these are the only two i can think of right now.
a lot of tankies are going to be posting an essay by Engles that defends authoritarianism, asserting that authoritarianism is compatible with communism. which, while sure, isn’t ideal because one person having power always ends in genocide. well, it doesn’t end in genocide, genocide just… happens under authoritarianism.
“Really existing socialism” of course meaning “a system wherein workers have zero effective political power.”
Just because it’s true that the ML movement was an essential part of decolonialization, and because it isn’t true that the USSR was some evil empire, doesn’t mean that the ideologies that underpin(ned) those societies aren’t deeply flawed.
The USSR was not an evil empire, no, but the political structure of a hierarchical, command-based politic lead exactly where critics said it would lead. The “ultraleft”, as you call them, including Luxemburg and Anarchist communists warned Lenin exactly what would go wrong in the USSR, and Lenin did not listen.
That’s why Lenin is a counter-revolutionary by deed if not by intent. By his actions, the power of the people’s and worker’s soviets were shattered and replaced with corrupt bureaucracy.
Also, hey, go tell a Tartar, Kalmykk or other displaced ethnic group who were victim of Stalin’s genocide that he wasn’t a deranged butcher. Maybe if you survive you can tell me what you learned.
Tankies [1] don’t usually believe that Stalin or Mao “did nothing wrong,” although many do use that phrase for effect (this is the internet, remember)
Fair enough. Though I do disagree that they don’t usually deny their shortcomings but both sides of that claim are pretty hard to prove so I concede.
We believe that Stalin and Mao were committed socialists who, despite their mistakes, did much more for humanity than most of the bourgeois politicians who are typically put forward as role models (Washington? Jefferson? JFK? Jimmy Carter?), and that they haven’t been judged according to the same standard as those bourgeois politicians.
Ok you can make that argument
People call this “whataboutism”
“Tankies” do often use whataboutism, that’s irrefutable. Is this specific claim whataboutism? I’d say borderline, but I can see why it’s still a point worth bringing up.
but the claim “Stalin was a monster” is implicitly a comparative claim
No, it’s not - or at least not in the way he’s implying. The claim is overly vague (how do we define a monster?) but it’s not comparative. Whether Churchill committed atrocities (he did) and whether Stalin committed atrocities (he did) have no bearing on one another. All we have to do is define a monster - then we can measure whether a given leader was a monster. The only comparison needed is between the leader and the definition.
If people are going to make veiled comparisons, us tankies have the right to answer with open ones.
Sure, that’s true. Except like I said that “Stalin was a monster” is not comparative. If someone says “Stalin was worse than Churchill” than Churchill is relevant. But if someone says “Stalin committed atrocities” then it is whataboutism to answer “So did Churchill.” Churchill’s atrocities bear no relevance to Stalin’s.
A tankie is a leftist who doesn’t agree with mainstream geopolitical opinions
This is a stretch. Leftism, by and large, doesn’t agree with “mainstream geopolitical opinions” so this doesn’t properly distinguish them from other Leftists.
A tankie is a leftist who… shows any interest in nuance
Laughable. Tankies originate from Leftists walking the party line so claiming that all non-tankies lack “nuance” is a very… interesting accusation.
Tankie is a pejorative label for communists, particularly Stalinists, who support the authoritarian tendencies of Marxism–Leninism or, more generally, authoritarian states associated with Marxism–Leninism in history. The term was originally used by dissident Marxist–Leninists to describe members of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) who followed the party line of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). Specifically, it was used to distinguish party members who spoke out in defense of the Soviet use of tanks to crush the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the 1968 Prague Spring uprising, or who more broadly adhered to pro-Soviet positions.
Tankies are far left Marxists/Communists that are so anti- USA/West that they gladly defend almost anything that opposes the USA. Even authoritarian states like Russia and China. To be clear not every Communist is a Tankie through. And if you critizises on of this countries for horrible stuff, the Tankies will see you automatically as a USA chill. Because, from my online interactions with them, they see the world in black and white.
Huh, thanks for the info. I’ve never heard that term before nor have I ever run into any of those people on the internet though I guess platforms like this attract people like that more because of the lack of any central moderation team
Literally just made an account and am just a Reddit pleb. What exactly are tankies and what is 196? Guessing it’s a Lemmy server but otherwise unsure
196 is a shitpost sub where you must post something when you vist
a tankie is a authoritarian that believes they’re a communist. they support the imperialist invasion of Ukraine, and they deny the tianaman square massacre, where the CCP ran tanks over college students protesting the authoritarian government. they deny a bunch of other atrocities as well, these are the only two i can think of right now.
a lot of tankies are going to be posting an essay by Engles that defends authoritarianism, asserting that authoritarianism is compatible with communism. which, while sure, isn’t ideal because one person having power always ends in genocide. well, it doesn’t end in genocide, genocide just… happens under authoritarianism.
Removed by mod
Citate deez nuts in your mouth
Why are you threatening me with a good time
i made it up
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
“Really existing socialism” of course meaning “a system wherein workers have zero effective political power.”
Just because it’s true that the ML movement was an essential part of decolonialization, and because it isn’t true that the USSR was some evil empire, doesn’t mean that the ideologies that underpin(ned) those societies aren’t deeply flawed.
The USSR was not an evil empire, no, but the political structure of a hierarchical, command-based politic lead exactly where critics said it would lead. The “ultraleft”, as you call them, including Luxemburg and Anarchist communists warned Lenin exactly what would go wrong in the USSR, and Lenin did not listen.
That’s why Lenin is a counter-revolutionary by deed if not by intent. By his actions, the power of the people’s and worker’s soviets were shattered and replaced with corrupt bureaucracy.
Also, hey, go tell a Tartar, Kalmykk or other displaced ethnic group who were victim of Stalin’s genocide that he wasn’t a deranged butcher. Maybe if you survive you can tell me what you learned.
Fair enough. Though I do disagree that they don’t usually deny their shortcomings but both sides of that claim are pretty hard to prove so I concede.
Ok you can make that argument
“Tankies” do often use whataboutism, that’s irrefutable. Is this specific claim whataboutism? I’d say borderline, but I can see why it’s still a point worth bringing up.
No, it’s not - or at least not in the way he’s implying. The claim is overly vague (how do we define a monster?) but it’s not comparative. Whether Churchill committed atrocities (he did) and whether Stalin committed atrocities (he did) have no bearing on one another. All we have to do is define a monster - then we can measure whether a given leader was a monster. The only comparison needed is between the leader and the definition.
Sure, that’s true. Except like I said that “Stalin was a monster” is not comparative. If someone says “Stalin was worse than Churchill” than Churchill is relevant. But if someone says “Stalin committed atrocities” then it is whataboutism to answer “So did Churchill.” Churchill’s atrocities bear no relevance to Stalin’s.
This is a stretch. Leftism, by and large, doesn’t agree with “mainstream geopolitical opinions” so this doesn’t properly distinguish them from other Leftists.
Laughable. Tankies originate from Leftists walking the party line so claiming that all non-tankies lack “nuance” is a very… interesting accusation.
Removed by mod
To quote wikipedia
196 is the server you’re in right now, tankies is a slang term for the more authoritarian types of communists (like Stalinists and such)
can we please not let the discord brainrot spread here? this is a post on the
lemmy.blahaj.zoneserver, in the 196 community.Tankies are far left Marxists/Communists that are so anti- USA/West that they gladly defend almost anything that opposes the USA. Even authoritarian states like Russia and China. To be clear not every Communist is a Tankie through. And if you critizises on of this countries for horrible stuff, the Tankies will see you automatically as a USA chill. Because, from my online interactions with them, they see the world in black and white.
Huh, thanks for the info. I’ve never heard that term before nor have I ever run into any of those people on the internet though I guess platforms like this attract people like that more because of the lack of any central moderation team