17
proud to be a "tankie" cope lemmy libs (lemmy.ml)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/memes@lemmy.ml
48 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

all 48 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 29 points 1 month ago

On the one hand, Western Marxists and Marxist-Leninists are not the same, but on the other hand, both of them—and even anarchists sometimes—get called tankie by liberals anyway.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 28 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    funny thing about tankie is that they just revealed it's based on another cia coup attempt. it proves tankies right lmao.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    i don't mean this antagonistically but do you have a source to share for that?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    i should really have some good sources saved for this, the tankie thing is a perfect way to expose the irony. took me a while to find this again but it's worth digging deeper than me if you are interested in it:

    basically "tankie" comes from how soviets crushed the hungarians with tanks and the us said it was a brutal suppression of anarchists or something similar.

    soviets denied it and accused them of working for the empire, and now the cia under trump has declassified their role in trying for a color revolution in there.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 20 points 1 month ago (22 children)

    The funniest part about the whole tankie thing is that it was coined by British reactionaries in response to the suppression of a counter-revolution in Hungary, which has now been revealed to be a CIA op.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (21 children)

    I think calling it an op is going too far. There was a democratic students' movement that siezed the radio station, and they had mass support. The CIA gave support to an ex-Nazi who provided military training after this had happened. The crackdown by the Soviets was brutal and many innocent Hungarians were killed. Dismissing the whole thing as just a CIA op makes it sound like another Bay of Pigs, which this was not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (20 children)

    There was no mass support. The US was cultivating a proto color revolution, a formula that's been used time and again since then. What we do know is that in cases where there was no crackdown on Western funded reactionaries, then we got outcomes like in Chile. Thinking that this was some organic movement is frankly absurd. Also, can read up on precisely the tactics used, and how they have direct lineage in nazi propaganda https://november8ph.ca/psychological-warfare-in-the-strategy-of-imperialism-v-l-artemov/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (19 children)

    People hated the Rákosi government for its political repression and economic austerity measures. Imre Nagy was not a western-sponsored colonel in the Hungarian military, he was a communist. After the fighting in Budapest, revolutionary workers councils organized all over the country. You think the CIA and Radio Free Europe were responsible for that?

    My issue with this type of logic is that it's all or nothing. Thereis a sentence in the declassified document, therefore the whole thing was orchestrated by the US. There was more going on here than Operation Gladio.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (18 children)

    Read the book I linked to educate yourself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (17 children)

    Lol, yeah, totally reasonable way to engage with someone.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (16 children)

    Sorry, I always forget that books to a liberal are like garlic to a vampire.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    maybe you need to mask the garlic smell. Try writing Harry Potter on the book and you might just be able to get them to read.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    Comrades, we must engage in fierce ideological struggle to determine whether the correct reading of the current moment comes from The Hunger Games trilogy or the later, more mature work of The West Wing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (13 children)

    Have you ever been in a conversation with someone and told them "I can't talk to you because you're too ignorant, you have to read this book first"? How did that go?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (12 children)

    I try to avoid interacting with imbeciles in day to day life.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (11 children)

    So ignoring your namecalling and dogmatism, I read the first two chapters of the book, introduction and the chapter on psychological warfare in the 1950s and 1960s. The only thing it says about Hungary is that it was a counter-revolution. Do I have to keep reading into the 1970s and 80s to find out where it's revealed that the imperialists orchestrated the whole revolution? Should I cite histories by marxists and communists that talk about spontaneous worker councils?

    Here, just for kicks

    https://www.union-communiste.org/it/1996-12/30-hungary-1956-the-workers-councils-5619

    I look forward to the next round of insults, comrade, you're really doing your movement a service.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (10 children)

    Nobody said there weren't contradictions in Hungary. What was said is that the CIA was actively exploiting these contradictions to foment a counter revolution. And this precisely the formula that has been used since. And of course, history shows us how these spontaneous worker councils work out in practice. Also, somebody whitewashing western imperialism by using disingenuous arguments is not my comrade. People like you are the reason the west is where it is today. You reject practical ways of combating capitalism while peddling Utopian snake oil.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    I realize that continuing this is pointless but I'll just suggest that you attack the idea and not the person next time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    I suggest you work on your reading comprehension because I addressed your idea.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (7 children)

    No you didn't. You think the Hungarian Revolution was a counter-revolution initiated by bourgeois reactionaries funded by the CIA, with no popular support. I think it was an uprising initiated by students that then became a massive proletarian revolution against the repression of the Rákosi government. You didn't "address" this disparity. You just insulted me.

    The book you cited doesn't really talk about the revolution itself, so I have to infer that the author thinks that the psychological warfare waged by the West against the Warsaw Pact countries fooled the revolutionaries into revolting against their government because it convinced them that communism was bad. Again, although the CIA was present, I don't accept this as the primary motivation for the revolution.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 weeks ago (6 children)

    It's not what I think, it's what documents released by the CIA say. You're the one who keeps pretending that it was some organic worker movement. Meanwhile, the book describes with numerous examples, of how these reactionaries are groomed and used by the west. It's obvious that you're going to continue believing whatever you need to believe, so there's really no point continuing the discussion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 weeks ago (5 children)

    That's what's so baffling to me. If you read any history, e.g. the one I linked, you can also try the numerous ones on marxists.org, even wikipedia, honestly pick your source on any part of the political spectrum, you find out that there was a student movement, followed by mass protests, strikes at factories followed by a general strike, the Red Army was kicked out, a provisional worker's council committee was established that was democratically elected by workers, then the Red Army came back in force and ended it, after which there were more strikes and mass mobilizations that were repressed by the Soviet military and the Kádár government. There are many accounts of revolutionaries clarifying that they didn't want to return to capitalism, they just wanted the Red Army out so that they could build what they referred to as real socialism.

    I'm well aware that Radio Free Europe was propagandizing throughout the 1950s, there were leaflet drops, and the CIA document shows a relationship with Béla Király after the revolution, when they sponsored his organization. The Artemov book on page 36-38 talks about the information warfare waged on Hungary by the West but it doesn't give an account of what actually happened.

    The idea that Béla Király was training militants in the mountains with the CIA is also contradicted by the fact that he was imprisonned from 1951 until a few weeks before the revolution. As a sidenote, while he fought on the Axis side, he was later named one of the "Righteous Among Nations" by the World Holocaust Remembrance Center because of his relatively humane treatment of Jewish prisoners.

    Anyway I just don't see the weight of historical evidence on the side of "reactionary coup", but I guess I should thank you for forcing me to do more research on this. I did learn a lot.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 weeks ago (4 children)

    I don't know what's so hard for you here to understand to be honest. Genuine grievances did exist, but they were exploited and fomented artificially by the CIA. Both things happened at the same time. That's exactly how the CIA operates.

    The student movement, the factory strikes, the elected workers' councils, all of that is documented. They had real complaints about living conditions. But real anger doesn't mean the uprising wasn't steered and fomented externally. The CIA and Radio Free Europe agitated for unrest, amplified it, and pushed it toward insurrection. They advised insurgents on how to build barricades and fight Soviet troops. They dangled the false hope that the West would intervene. Dulles saying "we encouraged them but we cannot save them, the propaganda value was enough" tells you everything you need to know about this uprising. They never intended to help, but they wanted a spectacle for anti-communist propaganda and an opening for intelligence expansion, so they helped create the conditions for one.

    So the question isn't whether grievances were real. It's who exploited them and whose interests they served. The CIA fomented the uprising to advance its own Cold War agenda to manufacture the insurrection. That doesn't negate the legitimacy of the complaints in any way. It just means the uprising itself was not the organic expression of the Hungarian people that you're making it out to be.

    As for Béla Király, you're right that the timeline doesn't support him being a CIA plant before the revolution. He was arrested in 1951, sentenced to death in 1952, and only paroled in September 1956. The CIA relationship came after the revolution, when the Hungarian Freedom Fighter Federation was founded in New York in 1957 with Király as its chairman. But none of that actually matters here because the CIA didn't need a single agent inside to steer the uprising. They had Radio Free Europe, they had leaflet drops, they had a whole information warfare apparatus in place, the operation of which is explained in great detail in the book I linked you. They didn't need to train militants in the mountains when they could push people toward insurrection through propaganda.

    The weight of historical evidence isn't on the side of a reactionary coup in the sense that the grievances were fake. The uprising itself was exploited and fomented artificially by the CIA. Both things are true at the same time, and the real discontent of Hungarians was used to serve American imperial interests.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 4 weeks ago* (3 children)

    I just think the revolution was a legitimate response to these grievances, and the fact that Western propaganda helped to foment it doesn't delegitimize it. The CIA's role doesn't negate the essentially democratic nature of the revolution or the heavy-handed repression carried out by the Soviets. In my opinion your interpretation removes the Hungarians' agency, and they become proxies rather than people fighting for their own political freedom and material conditions. It gives the impression that sending tanks into the streets of Budapest, and later to prevent a worker committee meeting from happening, was ok because Western Imperialism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

    If you think that restoration of capitalism, which is what they were trying to accomplish was legitimate then there's really nothing else to say to you. And you're entitled to your opinion which conveniently ignores the power of western imperialism and what happened historically when it wasn't countered with force.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 32 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I was once called a tankie for saying that people should organize tenant unions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 19 points 1 month ago

    In liberal circles, "tankie" functions as the counterpart to conservatives' use of "woke."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    This is too fucked up. Yesterday, I was accused of being a rapist in an instance with a beef against "tankies", and their behavior was really shitty and shady. These instance wars are plainly stupid and sad.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    What does tankie mean

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] -4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (13 children)

    You know what? I'm gonna go make a reply meme.

    Should I link it? Or just let folks find it organically?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (12 children)

    https://lemmy.ml/post/53759200

    I shared it for you, to save you from the effort. Now I'll admit that I don't know really much about the Spanish civil war, or the Zapatista uprising in Mexico (the two examples of "non-tankie communism" mentioned in the comments), so if anyone has any good resources or insights on these I'd be happy to read those.

    First I'll say I don't have anything against anarchists or AnComs on principle. Whatever works in class struggle, we're all comrades. That being said there seems to be some idealism and misconceptions related to the comments especially. Comments like

    Authoritarian and hierarchy types don’t have a lot of imagination and are kind of bad at creative exercises for building new ideas. Their creativity is iterative so requires an existing idea. There has only been Soviet style centralized authoritarian communism so that’s all they imagine. Literally unable to imagine any alternative (unless they read political philosophy).

    As we all know "authoritarian" is a meaningless term. This has been gone through so many times. Now if "there has only been Soviet style centralized authoritarian communism" is true, why is that bad? Why shouldn't people work by what has been proven to be viable by past experience? Every socialist experiment has always been born to be besieged by imperialism constantly working towards its downfall using any means necessary. Idealism or "creating new ideas" is shunned among MLs because it hasn't really produced any real change. It seems to me the commenters are actually only against "the tankies" because of "the tanks", which usually refers to the Hungarian counterrevolution which itself was proven to be a CIA-backed counterrevolution attempt by recently declassified CIA-archives. It could refer to the tanks in Tiananmen Square, which was funnily enough also a similar attempt. Afaik there were organic protesting related to both incidents, but in both the government's response was specifically towards the western aligned violent agitators.

    Furthermore one could argue against the statement itself, as for example Yugoslavia, China, and the Soviet Union itself engaged in different kinds of economic and authoritative decentralization, with differing results. So this seems to be a misconception.

    idk, just had some issues with some of the comments there. which are pretty much the same issues I have trying to present anarchism as a viable alternative: that is to say mainly the issue of armed struggle against imperialists (that would inevitably happen) without a central authority.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Authoritarian and hierarchy types don’t have a lot of imagination and are kind of bad at creative exercises for building new ideas.

    Me when my totally new and radical ideology where nobody makes me read theory simply leads me to recreate liberal political phrenology against liberalism's enemies

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

    I was actually kinda expecting more from this person, I think they were in the comments claiming not to be attacking tankies. But I guess really just don't have shit to say in defence of their ideology, or this commenter's idealism. So my bad for being naive i guess.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Oh I didn't mean to criticize you at all, I apologize if it came across that way

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago*

    No no, it didn't come out like that at all! No worries there :) Nah I just kinda hoped I'd get some kind of a reply, other than snark. idk, silly me

    edit: i see they've made another "shitting on the tankies" circlejerk meme. i don't personally fuck with "shitting on the anarkiddies" circlejerking either, so maybe i had too high hopes of this individual :D

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (7 children)

    As we all know "authoritarian" is a meaningless term.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 weeks ago* (4 children)

    When you hear "authoritarian," are you referring to states in general as instruments of authority, specific forms of states, or a specific metric of, say, representation? The reason Marxists say authoritarianism is a meaningless descriptor is because it doesn't analyze what authority actually is in a way that is useful. I believe in a more unitary system of governance with democratic control by the working class. Some may say the democracy bit makes it non-authoritarian, some may say the unitary aspect makes it authoritarian, some may say the fact that it's a state at all makes it authoritarian, and yet these are all equally valid/invalid usages of the term because it isn't based on objectivity.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (3 children)

    I think "authoritarian" is a principle of concentration and protection of power in the same way "democracy" is a conceptual term for structured collective guidance and oversight of an operation, and "anarchy" is the principle of maximizing agency of groups and minimizing the ability of any party to wield coercive power, etc.

    They're concepts.

    My interest isn't in categorizing and ranking nation states, it's in examining and weighing the qualities of different approaches.

    When someone says that a term like "authoritarianism" is meaningless, I just don't feel like having an arugment. It's like 'I don't see color' or 'age of consent? I think maturity is what matters.' Alright, have a great day, I'm gonna go over there.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 weeks ago (2 children)

    So if it's a concept, but one that cannot be measured or objectively defined, then it loses its functional utility. The group "tankie" is a nebulous but acknowledged group of people that support existing socialist states, ones commonly referred to as "authoritarian" by "non-tankies." Since this is not a measured approach, but instead a principle, this is now a meaningless allegation without someone doing the legwork to prove that unitary worker democracy negatively impacts individual agency beyond any other approach.

    To explain the Marxist position, nebulous allegations of "authoritarianism" have no weight because they do not explicitly address distribution of power, class dynamics, etc. All the allegations do is create categories of "authoritarian vs. less/non-authoritarian" that cannot be objectively understood from the allegations alone. This returns us to the idea that "authoritarianism" is meaningless, it isn't a useful term and everyone has different ways of understanding its application to real systems.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 weeks ago* (1 child)

    First: I don't consider the term "Tankie" nebulous because I only apply it to people who self-identify as such.

    Similarly, I don't go around bringing up authoritarianism. When someone else brings it up to defend it, I generally roll my eyes and move along.

    Personally, I find this line of reasoning about definitions semantic in the least productive way. It's just Loki's Wager. So with all due respect, I don't wish to debate you. I answered your question in good faith and I'm content to leave it at that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 weeks ago

    I think you're running into a problem, though. You may not call anyone a tankie unless they call themselves one, but my point is that the group commonly called tankies does exist. People argue over what the definition of a tankie actually is, but people aren't arguing over what this group is, and that's what we have to work with. Tankies are essentially people that support socialist states, and authoritarianism isn't a particularly useful word in discussing shortcomings or successes of these states. It isn't a meaningful signifier of anything different from capitalist states, because there's little objectivity to its use.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent