agamemnonymous comments on How do people actually fall into the "Tankie" mindset?

How do people actually fall into the "Tankie" mindset? (anarchist.nexus)

submitted 10 months ago by stinky@anarchist.nexus to c/anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com

423 comments fedilink hide all child comments

After seeing a megathread praising Mao Zedong, an actual mass killer, and a post about a guy saying "99% of westerners are 100000000000% sure they know what happened in 'Tiny Man Square' [...] the reasons for this are complex and involve propaganda [...]," I am genuinely curious what leads people to this belief system. Even if propaganda is involved when it comes to Tiananmen Square, it doesn't change the atrocities that were/are committed everywhere else in China.

I am all for letting people believe what they want but I am lost on why one would deliberately praise any authoritarian system this hard.

Can someone please help me understand why this is such a large and prominent community? How have these ideals garnered such a following outside of China?

EDIT: Thank you to everyone who has responded! This thread has been very insightful :)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 5 points 10 months ago* (35 children)

Uh, I don't think you understood their point. Tankies aren't communists, they're authoritarians with a red paint job. We're not talking about nuanced Marxist thinkers, we're taking about people who think "Just line everyone who doesn't accept my exact interpretation of communism up against the wall" is rational praxis.

There are plenty of ways to rationally arrive at Communism, but really the only way to get to Tankie is, as the top comment says, rejecting Western propaganda in favor of the propaganda of so-called "communists".

parent

hideshow 35 child comments

[–] FlyingCircus@lemmy.world -3 points 10 months ago (27 children)

Those people don’t exist. You’re making things up.

parent

hideshow 27 child comments

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (26 children)

Unfortunately not, I have had conversations with them. And I know your next line is going to be "But they're just trolling, no one really thinks that", and I call horseshit. That "trolling", when so religiously adhered to, inspires weak-willed onlookers into sincere belief.

parent

hideshow 26 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago (20 children)

Unfortunately not, I have had conversations with them.

Any examples? As it stands, you're not beating the "I use a strawman as a club to terminate discussions" allegations.

parent

hideshow 20 child comments

[–] AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago (19 children)

This is just intellectual dishonesty. We both know that every side has its extremists, and to deny their existence simply makes you look like a liar.

parent

hideshow 19 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago (18 children)

Sure, so we can say the people OP is referring to in their post do not actually share the views described by the comment I replied to, if that makes you feel better. The people that get the word "tankie" thrown at them that actually meet that comment's description are extremely few in number, perhaps a dozen on the entirety of Lemmy.

parent

hideshow 18 child comments

[–] AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (17 children)

Personally, I think you're making an unconvincing argument.

parent

hideshow 17 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 10 months ago (16 children)

In what way?

parent

hideshow 16 child comments

[–] AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (15 children)

Because even if the statement was hyperbole when referring to the majority of the tankie population, it still rings true for some of them- an inconvenient truth that you outright denied initially and were forced to backpedal on/reframe.

Most rational people are going to see this, see someone obviously using hyperbole, see someone obfuscating reality to serve their purposes, and dismiss you outright.

Beyond that, while it IS hyperbole to say tankies as a monolith believe in executing political dissidents, it is NOT hyperbole to say tankies as a monolith continue to support several states which DO believe in executing political dissidents.

I wouldn't color myself an anarchist necessarily, but I do find myself increasingly believing that anarchists are, for the most part, some of the only internally consistent ideologues. Fuck all states seems to be the only reasonable position when all existing states fucking suck.

parent

hideshow 15 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 10 months ago (14 children)

Marxists and anarchists support using violence against fascists, capitalists, landlords, slavers, etc. The major difference is that Marxists acknowledge the utility of the state for doing so, while anarchists go for more horizontalist structures (even if they also end up forming states and semi-states, like the Spanish anarchists did). The idea that either of us want to wholesale slaughter everyone that disagrees with us is just fantasy, though.

parent

hideshow 14 child comments

[–] AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago* (13 children)

What purpose did this comment serve? You just refused to acknowledge the observational truth in my comment and steam rolled past it with a claim that wasn't disputed or relevent to the conversation, and then ended it with a strawman.

Edit: as long as you continue to utilize deceitful rhetoric while talking to me, I will continue to call it out, and everyone outside of the echo chamber will acknowledge your delusional behavior. Refusing to acknowledge reality is not a persuasive argument.

parent

hideshow 13 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 10 months ago (12 children)

What observational truth? The people in the OP aren't as the user described. The number of people that meet the definition given is close to nil on the Fediverse, yet people get called a tankie all the time.

"Tankie" is just a pejorative for those who uphold existing socialist states as legitimate, which covers the large majority of Marxists and a decent number of anarchists. The people in the OP are "tankies" by the definition I gave, it's consistent and clear. They uphold existing socialist states as legitimate, and this is the norm among Marxists.

Call out whatever you like, it's going to backfire, because what I'm saying is more in line with reality. Unless your point is that Marxism itself is extremist and therefore "tankie," calling the norm position among Marxists extremist isn't particularly useful.

parent

hideshow 12 child comments

[–] AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago (11 children)

Yeah, for sure. I'm not interested in your willful misinterpretation/misrepresentation or incessant reframing to escape valid points. Don't worry, nothing will backfire on me because I have nothing to lose- no skin in the game, no ideology to dogmatically adhere to. I just call out people that argue in bad faith. And you either are, or you're not reading carefully enough to articulate a valid response.

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 10 months ago (10 children)

I'm not seeing any valid arguments here. I'm good-faith, and I'm reading the arguments, I just disagree with them. Calling me bad-faith for disagreeing with you isn't a point, nor does it mean I am actually bad-faith.

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago (9 children)

Do you really want me to go point back at the strawmen or the spots where you failed to even respond to what I was saying? But by all means, please, keep downvoting me for calling out your behavior. I know you can do better, so maybe you just need time to calm down and reassess.

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 10 months ago (8 children)

Uh, I don’t think you understood their point. Tankies aren’t communists, they’re authoritarians with a red paint job. We’re not talking about nuanced Marxist thinkers, we’re taking about people who think “Just line everyone who doesn’t accept my exact interpretation of communism up against the wall” is rational praxis.

This is the original comment I replied to, which is a strawman. The people that think “Just line everyone who doesn’t accept my exact interpretation of communism up against the wall” is rational praxis don't exist in any significant numbers, yet the word "tankie" is thrown around willy nilly these days.

There are plenty of ways to rationally arrive at Communism, but really the only way to get to Tankie is, as the top comment says, rejecting Western propaganda in favor of the propaganda of so-called “communists”.

This argument is that existing socialist states aren't to be trusted and are equally bad, but becoming a communist isn't just about agreeing with a nice picture of it in our heads, but to also see what communists have done in real life.

The original comment was itself a strawman, and you didn't offer any compelling argument beyond "extremists exist," which is true but not relevant. We aren't talking about outliers, but a common phenomenon, that being communists on the fediverse that uphold existing socialist states and are called "tankies" for it.

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago* (7 children)

How do you think replying to someone else's comment is, in any way/shape/form, relevant to the strawman arguments you propped up against me to deflect against my entire comment? Here, I'll make you read it again. Maybe this time you can meaningfully respond to it.

Because even if the statement was hyperbole when referring to the majority of the tankie population, it still rings true for some of them- an inconvenient truth that you outright denied initially and were forced to backpedal on/reframe.

Most rational people are going to see this, see someone obviously using hyperbole, see someone obfuscating reality to serve their purposes, and dismiss you outright.

Beyond that, while it IS hyperbole to say tankies as a monolith believe in executing political dissidents, it is NOT hyperbole to say tankies as a monolith continue to support several states which DO believe in executing political dissidents.

I wouldn't color myself an anarchist necessarily, but I do find myself increasingly believing that anarchists are, for the most part, some of the only internally consistent ideologues. Fuck all states seems to be the only reasonable position when all existing states fucking suck.

Edit: here's a hint in being consistent. You cannot literally interpret another person's words when it benefits you and choose to respond with a wishy-washy non-literal deflection that requires reframing to fit the prompt.

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 10 months ago (6 children)

I never denied that outliers existed, my point is that outliers that actually fit the label are small in number yet the label is applied to non-outliers as a way to equate them. I'm consistent with my critique, and you haven't engaged with my point, just dodged it and claimed to be doing everyone a service.

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago* (5 children)

I don't know how you are incapable of processing the situation rn.

I don't need to engage with your point. I made a point that you didn't engage with.

You need to engage that point instead of attempting to use this opportunity to sanitize the pejorative "tankie".

Reread my comment that I already requoted for you again. Keep rereading it. Keep rereading it. You can stop rereading it whenever you engage with it.

Edit: hell, maybe reread the entire thread for context. You seem lost as hell.

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 10 months ago (4 children)

I processed the situation fully, you're getting lost in the sauce a bit here. I'll spell it out for you paragraph by paragraph though:

Because even if the statement was hyperbole when referring to the majority of the tankie population, it still rings true for some of them- an inconvenient truth that you outright denied initially and were forced to backpedal on/reframe.

This is the point I made about outliers existing, I didn't outright deny that they did in my original comment. The ones it rings true for, the "outliers," are an extreme minority. I wasn't forced to backpedal on it, when you interpreted my comment as denying their existence I clarified for you.

Most rational people are going to see this, see someone obviously using hyperbole, see someone obfuscating reality to serve their purposes, and dismiss you outright.

See, the problem with this statement is that I didn't do that.

Beyond that, while it IS hyperbole to say tankies as a monolith believe in executing political dissidents, it is NOT hyperbole to say tankies as a monolith continue to support several states which DO believe in executing political dissidents.

That's not what the original comment said, though. "Executing political dissidents" like using state violence against fascists and sabateurs is supported by the overwhelming majority of Marxists, but that was not the statement made:

Just line everyone who doesn’t accept my exact interpretation of communism up against the wall” is rational praxis

This is what you're now interpreting as any "executing of political dissidents." It's true that Marxists are revolutionary, and support using the state to protect that, but it isn't true that there's a significant number of us that want to line everyone up against the wall for thought crime.

I wouldn’t color myself an anarchist necessarily, but I do find myself increasingly believing that anarchists are, for the most part, some of the only internally consistent ideologues. Fuck all states seems to be the only reasonable position when all existing states fucking suck.

I really don't care what you think about this considering your lack of understanding the current argument being made to begin with. Marxism is internally consistent, whether someone misinterpreting an argument believes so or not.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago (3 children)

Those people don’t exist. You’re making things up.

Here is the comment that another poster originally made, and is the originating comment of this argument, and the position you have been defending this entire time. "Those people don't exist. You're making things up." Do I need to quote it for you a third time? You clarified after being forced to. Stop trying to sanitize your behavior and own up to it.

Anyway, as for the rest of your comment...

Are you just being dumb or? Do you not see how you just said "we like this thing, but we don't like the same thing phrased in a slightly different way"

Nice one, dawg. You lost. GG.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

In the context of OP talking about a specific group of people that don't measure up to what that commenter stated? No, they don't exist, and they did make it up. The subject of the OP is not something that their comment applies to.

Nice one, dawg. You lost. GG.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

lol good try champ

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 10 months ago

🪞

parent

[–] FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (4 children)

No, I don't think they're trolling. I think that you mistake any comment that is vaguely supportive of China or Russia or that contradicts the mainstream western narrative about those countries as wholesale support for anything those countries do.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

You would be incorrect, I do no such thing. I'm speaking about a specific phenomenon, as I described.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

Can you link to an example? Because I haven’t encountered such a person yet in my 6 months on Lemmy (admittedly not a long time).

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago

I have deliberately avoided interacting with people like that for a while, and I don't really feel like digging back like a year to find a specific examples, especially since you came out of the gate unshakably convinced that it never ever happens.

But I assure you they exist. No I'm not generalizing pro- Russia/China sentiment. I'm talking about people who advocate the forceful spread of their ideology through violence.

parent

[–] bufalo1973@piefed.social 0 points 9 months ago

Communists know that the theory and the real world are not the same and that people can see thing in different light.

Tankies and fascists can't. And for the same reason: they see the world in black and white. "100%with me or you are the enemy". Not the rival or the opposition. The enemy.

parent

[–] poopsmith@lemmy.ml 0 points 10 months ago (5 children)

You're making a semantic argument and wrapping it up with a "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

OP is making an assumption about his opposition with zero evidence to support his claim. It's a claptrap for people who want to feel intellectually superior, even if it's to a straw man.

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

Not really, no. Words have definitions. It's not a "semantic argument' to clarify the definition of a word. It's not "no true Scotsman" either, that's when you define a group by some unrelated or incidental quality. What I've referred to is the definition of a tankie. The quality described is neither unrelated nor incidental.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] poopsmith@lemmy.ml -1 points 9 months ago (3 children)

What I’ve referred to is the definition of a tankie.

Oh, I see, you're the authority on definitions, so whatever you say goes. Even the term "semantic argument" will be bent to mean whatever is convenient for your argument. Can you define "bad faith argument," lol?

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

Uh, no. I just have the ability to look up definitions. The word means what it means

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] poopsmith@lemmy.ml 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

You said...

Tankies aren’t communists, they’re authoritarians with a red paint job.

Per the definition:

Tankie is a pejorative label generally applied to authoritarian communists

So you have the ability to look up definitions, just not to read them, apparently.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 point 9 months ago

I know what it says, but "authoritarian communist" is an oxymoron, like "carnivorous vegan". They may call themselves communists, they may be members of a party that calls itself "communist", but authoritarianism cannot coexist with a stateless, classless, moneyless society.

Sloppy editing does not change that fact, and there is extensive literature and commentary providing clarification.

parent

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml -4 points 10 months ago

Uh, I don’t think you understood their point. Tankies aren’t communists, they’re authoritarians with a red paint job. We’re not talking about nuanced Marxist thinkers, we’re taking about people who think “Just line everyone who doesn’t accept my exact interpretation of communism up against the wall” is rational praxis.

These people don't exist, so effectively the purpose for maintaining this as your definition is to use it as a discussion-terminating club against those that uphold socialism as it exists in real life, tacking on the sins of this strawman like a scarlet letter A.

parent