I'm a liberal. I know the power that democracy bestows: vote.
Fighting fascism? Vote hard.
Fighting genocide? Vote harder.
Fighting cancer? You guessed it, just vote.
Vote solves everything, vote is beautiful.
I'm a liberal. I know the power that democracy bestows: vote.
Fighting fascism? Vote hard.
Fighting genocide? Vote harder.
Fighting cancer? You guessed it, just vote.
Vote solves everything, vote is beautiful.
I'm a moderate and believe in supporting the lesser of two evils, which means critical support for enemies of US imperialism. I'm also something of a centrist because I believe anarchists and Marxist-Leninists and other left tendencies all have good ideas.
So yeah, I'm a moderate centrist.
The question is, do you want to murder people who disagree with you?
No. I do absolutely support Khrushchev sending tanks to Hungary (very rare Khrushchev W), but i'm not British.
In that "tankie" is just a pejorative for a communist, yes. I'm a Marxist-Leninist, and I uphold AES as legitimate.
Workers of the world, unite! β
For those who don't know what a "tankie" is, it's essentially a pejorative for "communist." I recommend the Prolewiki article on "Tankies," as well as Nia Frome's essay "Tankies."
For those that want an introduction to Marxism-Leninism, I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list, check it out!
What is AES in this context? I'm pretty sure it's not encryption or a corporation lol
Actually Existing Socialism, countries like the PRC, Cuba, DPRK, Vietnam, Laos, former USSR, etc.
I can see the difference between these and EU, but isn't EU mostly socialist? Like France for example, isn't it considered so? Assuming socialist β Marxist.
No, the EU is all capitalist, in every economy (even the nordics) private ownership is the principle aspect and governs the large firms and key industries. Financial capital and by extension imperialism are the dominant forces in society.
In the countries I listed, it's the opposite, public ownership is at minimum the principle aspect. Some are more heavily publicly owned, like the DPRK and Cuba, and others have more market forces at play, like Vietnam and the PRC, but in all cases public ownership is principle.
If I may ask: Does my country Algeria count as AES then ?
Algeria is more complicated. It has had a long history of communists and socialist revolutionaries such as Frantz Fanon, but is currently a capitalist country. It's far better than imperialist countries like France, and has been very progressive in opposing imperialism and colonialism, but isn't considered socialist.
You're such a sweet nerd, I really appreciate you comrade <3
(I am finally doing this)
Tankie is a pejorative for authoritarians that advocate violence to further their political aims. The particular ideology is just window dressing.
George Washington is a Tankie. Hitler is a Tankie. Makhno is a Tankie. Elon Musk is a Tankie. Etc.
Obviously, the term "tankie" is only applied to the left. My point was that in that respect there is not really any difference between the extremes of the political spectrum. You could even say they converge in some way.
No, horseshoe theory is just liberalism trying to distance itself from fascism, when historically liberalism abd fascism correspond to capitalism doing okay and capitalism in crisis respectively.
Further, liberalism has also been responsible for mass violence, both the progressive kind such as in the French revolution, and the horribly reactionary kind when it comes to slavery, colonialism, genocide of Palestine, etc.
Redefining words and whataboutism. Name a more iconic duo.
What words did I redefine? What "whataboutism" did I do? I explained very clearly why your definition is bad, and applies to everyone. Comparison is not "whataboutism" inherently.
You literally just redefined the word take when called out for your shitty definition of it.
Also George Washington was a leftist extremist to the British monarchy.
You've expanded the definition to include nearly everyone. All states are authoritarian, in that they are all instruments by which one class wields its authority over other classes. Revolution is the most authoritarian action there is, as was liberating the slaves in Haiti, the Statesian south, etc. You've erased any analysis of what these political aims are, essentially saying only pacifists have validity, and historically pacifists have been some of the least effective, or even damaging to their movements.
The communists that wish the working class to wield that authority wield it for progressive means, and in the interest of the people. Eventually, when class is abolished, even the state itself will be too.
I suggest you read the articles I linked, you can read both in the span of ~15 minutes and you'll have a much better understanding of what "tankie" means.
Your theory has just one minor flaw: every violent revolution ever has resulted in one clique of repressive assholes being replaced with another. And every time they've betrayed every ideal they ever did it didn't have in order to cling on to power. How is your revolution going to be different?
Your comment has one major flaw: it's wrong.
Revolution in France, for example, ovethrew an oppressive monarchy. Napoleon took power, but it was still an improvement, and in the long run was even better. In Haiti, slavery was overthrown, in Algeria colonialism was overthrown. These are just for national liberation movements and general revolution.
Socialist revolution in Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Korea, and more have all dramatically improved key metrics like life expectancy, dramatically democratized society, increased literacy rates, and lowered disparity while dramatically developing society. Socialism achieves far better metrics at similar levels of wealth and development, even in the face of brutal sanctions.
There is no "betrayal of ideals," there's the real process of existing in the world and facing real struggles. Socialism isn't magic or perfect, it's simply a much better economic system than capitalism. It isn't immune to problems or struggles, and it doesn't gift those running the economy with prophetic visions. Liberal anti-communists hold socialism to a higher standard than liberal systems, refusing it outright if it isn't heaven on Earth, and call it a "betrayal" if it isn't immediately a perfect wonderland while giving liberalism a pass, or mild critique.
I expect revolution in the US Empire to go a similar way, only that it won't be at risk of being nuked or sanctioned to death by the US Empire.
I highly suggest doing more research on the topic at hand, I can make recommendations if you want.
So having all of Europe drenched in blood by Napoleon was an improvement? And you conveniently forgot the terror. Similar things could be said about your other examples. The rest is just assertions without evidence so I'll have to pull Hitchens' razor.
THERE were two βReigns of Terror,β if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the βhorrorsβ of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terrorβthat unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.
-Mark Twain
In the end, moving beyond feudalism to capitalism was progressive, just as moving on beyond capitalism to socialism was and is progressive. This is rarely bloodless, but it pales in comparison to the daily violence of the present system.
Secondly, I did offer evidence upon request, I find when I just dump sources people tune out. If you have specific questions, I can back them up with answers and evidence, otherwise the lack of evidence applies just as much to you.
The rest is just assertions without evidence
Literally all of your claims have been assertions without evidence
Tankie is when a third worlder socialist shares the most Milquetoast leftist opinion.
I'm still in doubt of what a tankie is, even though I've now seen it mentioned 1000 times. Also why is it called that?
It's essentially a pejorative for "communist." I recommend the Prolewiki article on "Tankies," as well as Nia Frome's essay "Tankies."
This is an oversimplification, but tldr..
Tankies are Authoritarian communist, as opposed to democratic or liberal communism. It refers to when the soviet union put down rebellion in Hungry and Czechoslovakia by rolling in the tanks. It prioritizes order over individual freedoms.
liberal communism
Lol
I think the confusing part is that liberal in there refers not to the ideology but to free in choice.
Maybe a better wording would've been "free" or just "democratic", leaving out the "liberal" entirely.
All communists believe in freedom and democracy
Then by definition, MLs aren't communists.
No, by definition Marxist-Leninists are supportive of freedom and democracy for the working class.
MLs absolutely believe in freedom and democracy; get a better dictionary
Yeah, sure. They frequently repress anarchocommunists.
There is no democracy without anarchy.
Communists have historically been the closest allies to anarchists. The fact that the two umbrellas have fought as well doesn't erase that there has been no other group anarchists or communists can claim as as close as each other.
When communists and anarchists do fight, it's usually in the context of civil war, or in the context of anarchist groups within socialist states working to undermine socialism and push for anarchism. The communists pushing back against this isn't "repressing anarchisn," so much as it is socialism protecting the existing system against those who would undermine it. The USSR supported the Spanish anarchists because at the time they shared common goals, but when anarchists organize for the overthrow of socialist states, that's when conflict arises.
We could flip this on its head just as easily: anarchism represses communism, in that both fundamentally come to opposite conclusions: anarchists seek full horizontalism and decentralization, while communists seek full collectivization, which means that though our goals are often fully aligned, they do diverge in the final analysis and as such no anarchist society would genuinely allow communism to be pushed for if it came to exist, and would have to oppress communists.
Liberals always repressed anarchocommunists too, and even anarchocommunists support repressing some people: anarcho capitalists, for example.
I guess they don't believe in freedom or democracy either
Except that MLs repress all of those.
Anarchocommunism represses none, as it favours freedom of speech, freedom from money and greed, and freedom from hierarchy.
Anarchocapitalism doesn't exist; it's mostly libertarians in disguise, who want a repressive Cyberpunk dystopia.
Anarchists necessarily must repress fascism, liberalism, and even communism in order to continue existing, if it came to be. This is historically true as well. You're confusing the liberatory aspects of such a theoretical system with the idea that nobody would oppose it.
Except that MLs repress all of those.
How is that "except"? Why is it ok when liberals do it then?
Anarchocommunism represses none
Really? So fascists are allowed to organize pogroms at will?
Anarchocapitalism doesnβt exist
As opposed to all those anarchocommunists societies, that definitely do exist.
All communists support freedom and democracy for the working class, the distinction between "authoritarian and democratic" is a purely invented one designed to disavow existing implementations of socialism and absolve the one taking up the mantle of having to grapple with how socialism exists in the real world, often letting Red Scare narratives run rampant and uncontested.
Tankies are Authoritarian communist, as opposed to democratic or liberal communism
All states are authoritarian; all communist states to date have followed a form of democratic centralism; and βliberal communismβ is an oxymoron because liberalism is founded on private ownership of the means of production.
It refers to when the soviet union put down rebellion in Hungry and Czechoslovakia by rolling in the tanks.
Neither of which were proletarian rebellions. Both were bourgeois counterrevolutions backed by western imperialist states. They were color revolutions, and these kinds of regime change operations are still happening today.
Except that, comrade, the Prague Spring organisers opposed a secret police, which is imho a fascist element. It also focused on decentralisation of the economy. The KGB infiltrated some of the organisations.
The Hungarian 1956 liberation struggle also demanded public ownership of land. While it is true that the CIA had been involved (e.g. inviting the fascist over for reform... gee, Hungary didn't change much eh?), neither of the revolutions appear 100% bourgeoise. It would have helped to imprison the fascist, and not inform the public.
While it is true that "pro-democracy" often in practice means "pro-bribery" (as oligarchs then are enabled to bribe politicians), the core problem is and remains money even being a thing of prestige.
What should be the rule, is that society must be as resistant to corruption as possible. This is especially critical for factions and cooperations. That means:
All must be obliged to organise according to decentralised worker democracy. No boss, no master. Freedom of discussion, freedom of action.
No one who ever has led/owned a private company may be part of a group.
The groups must finance themselves through the principle of a moneyless, barterless gift economy, and mutual aid.
Full transparency of finances is required, including ultimate sources. This will encourage people to make the 'stream' of resources as direct as possible.
If a group does not adhere to even one of these principles, it is automatically considered defunct and disbands; and the members will be part of a group that does adhere to it. Those who made the group no longer adhere to all principles, will be societally barred from mutual aid (transport, food, housing, and so on). In other words, don't be a corrupt person.
Groups can not be bigger than 150 people, but can mutually aid each other and cooperate in federations, which must also be organised through all above principles.
You're combining contradictory stances. You want extreme decentralization and horizontalism even to the extent that managers don't exist, but you want factories and the ability to unilaterally punish cells that don't pass the "moral test." Everything you listed is something that seems to sound cool, but is incredibly impractical, especially when taken all together. You also wish to punish former capitalists without retaining the authority to do so, leaving those people bitter and actively working against the rest of society.
This is all ignoring your misconception of fascism as "anything scary" and not as capitalism in crisis, and your minimization of, say, the anti-semites that were lynching Jewish people and communists in Hungary before the Red Army was sent in, etc.
From a practical basis, your vision is a non-starter, factories number in the several hundreds to thousands of workers with complex supply chains that need management and administration to avoid people getting killed by heavy machinery and to ensure production actually runs smoothly. You're asking to reformat every factory to work on a microscopic scale and yet work on a purely gift economy form, when goods would take more labor and resources to produce at such a small scale, rather than reaching abundance.
Most practical forms of anarchism try to make administration more accountable, they don't try to get rid of it entirely, and call it a "justifiable hierarchy."
It doesn't per se prioritise order inasmuch it prioritises state tyranny.
I view tankies as marginally better than fascists in that they at least strive for universal healthcare, universal housing, and so on. But when it comes to being able to choose, they're just as terrible.
Order can only be achieved through freedom from intolerance. The true answer lies in anarchocommunism.
Communism doesn't prioritize "order" or "state tyranny," it prioritizes working class control. In AES states, the bourgeoisie and fascists violently oppose the system, and as such this is contested by the state under the control of the working class. The state is not an independent entity, it's an extension of the ruling class and as such isn't a thing in and of its own volition. In economies where public ownership is principle, ie at least over the large firms and key industries, the working class can retain control of the economy (assuming they already smashed and replaced the state).
Communists are by no means "marginally" better than fascists. This is Holocaust trivialization and equates working class control with incredibly violent bourgeois control, on the basis of both having states. Even when it comes to choice, socialist countries have dramatically expanded democratization and worker participation in the economy.
Your last bit about intolerance is self-defeating, we must be intolerant towards fascists and the bourgeoisie, and this is often cast as "authoritarian" or "totalitarian" in countries dominated by capitalists fearful of the same being done to them.
It doesnβt per se prioritise order inasmuch it prioritises state tyranny.
This is a child watching Saturday morning cartoon level take. Imagining your enemies are one dimensional villains who value evil for evils sake.
Yes.
That answer is only for my own country America, I do not have strong opinions for other areas and countries.
And I realize the term is broad, and gives connotations I do not intend.
A socialist movement that is backed by force, and not using democratic methods, would save far more lives than it would destroy.
Americans do not understand democracy because they do not understand, at a fundamental level, that ballot counts need to be witnessed and recounts always allowed.
They cannot be taught that. This removes reform by democracy.
But when reform is imposed on by force there are many who would disagree . So the revolution would need to defend itself. That means time and time again, this would happen repeatedly. And the cost would be horrible.
Of course my preferred solution would raise new problems, and a rise of a new elite would have to countered, and history shows that is hard. But I think because tens of millions of Americans will die if this revolution not happen, then itβs worth it
No in the sense of back when anarchists used it to mean ML/Stalinist/AES types. No idea right now where the word seems to have no meaning. I don't think I've heard a definition of "tankie" that described my politics at least so probably still no. In general you should just say what you mean.
It's just a pejorative for communist at this point, alongside "pinko" and "red."
It was very bizarre seeing that change happen in real time. It was always a stupid word though, because even back when it was an anarchist term for a particular type of Marxist, the boundaries of what exact kinds of Marxists were encapsulated by it always changed from anarchist to anarchist. If you're actually talking politics and not memeing then you should say what exactly you mean.
To be fair, it still means something different to everyone, the common denominator is generally anti-imperialism, pro-communism, Marxism, etc.
I don't think it's fair to say that "anti-imperialism" was one of the requirements when many of the western ML/Stalinist groups that would generally fall under any anarchist's definition of "tankie" were very much chauvinist/nationalistic. Like that describes basically nearly every "communist party" in the west.
Obviously the modern anarchist usage of the term was fairly different to the origin of the term anyway, which meant a self-proclaimed communist who supported Soviet imperialism in Hungary, which Stalinists were/are opposed to. But I guess they re-used the term now that Khrushchevites are not really a thing anymore.
I don't really agree with classifying putting down the 1956 color revolution where fascists were let out of jail to lynch Jewish people and communist officials as "Soviet imperialism," but putting that all aside anti-imperialism still gets you labeled a "tankie." Opposing the west these days and its plunder of the world is sufficient to be called a "tankie" even if you reject Marxism-Leninism.
Sure, some people use it that way, but you listed it as a requirement. Chauvinists get called "tankies" too so clearly it's not a requirement.
I listed it as an option, not a requirement.
I've been called one, but fuck if I know what I am.
Probably? At least in the sense that Iβve managed to gather from the very confused online arguments about the term. Iβm a communist. While Iβd love it if we could all peacefully vote our way into a better society, I recognize that itβs probably not going to happen and whatever nastiness weβd have to do to actually make the change is worth moving past the endless awfulness that is capitalism. And for the existing countries, while theyβre not magical Christmas lands, Iβve learned theyβre not quite as bad as the capitalists have fear- mongered.
And I get Anarchists thinking itβs states all the way down butβ¦β¦β¦β¦. I donβt know what to tell you. Whatβs the alternative? Even if I want to get where youβre going, how do we get there? Where is the bus/train? I donβt see any running to get there.
Hey comrade, have you considered making an account on Lemmy.ml, Lemmygrad.ml, or Hexbear.net? Lemmy.world censors communist content, so you might at least prefer something like Lemmy.zip that can see the content communists are posting.
How does that work? I assumed one Lemmy account covered everything. Where do I go for each of these?
Lemmy instances are kinda like islands, but you can visit and see other islands that are on good terms, or "federated." Federation can be one-way, ie you can see and comment on another instance's posts but they can't see yours, or it can be two-way, and you can comment back and forth. You are on Lemmy.world's view of a Lemmy.ml post. There are comments from Hexbear and Lemmygrad users on this post that I can see, but you can't, like this one.
Lemmy.world is defederated from Hexbear.net and Lemmygrad.ml, the two biggest communist instances. In order to see their content and interact with their users, you need an account on an instance like those two, or Lemmy.ml, Lemmy.zip, etc. You don't need one for each instance, just one federated with what you want to see.
Does that make sense?
So I just pick one of them and I'm good? Any suggestion which one to pick? Just the biggest?
EDIT: Also, am I able to just be logged into both so I can see both sides at the same time or do I have to swap back and forth if I want to check out world or the commy instances?
Well, what is it that you want? Do you want one account that can see almost everything? Lemmy.zip or Lemmy.ml would be better than Lemmy.world, and you can chat with Hexbear and Lemmygrad users as well as Lemmy.world users that way. Do you just want to talk with communists? Lemmygrad.ml or Hexbear.net might be a better fit, you won't be able to interact with Lemmy.world that way. You can see Lemmy.world content and comment on it from Grad, but they can't see your content. Hexbear defederated from .world so it doesn't even show up.
Personally, I use all 3 depending on what I want to do.
I recommend checking out this guide by a good Lemmygrad comrade!
I am in a superposition of being a tankie and not being a tankie at the same time.
Tankies consider me a lib because I dislike DPRK.
Libs consider me a tankie because I dislike "the west".
Oh well
I don't mind people calling themselves tankies but I don't think using a "slur" as an identifier is in any way helpful. Nor does anyone who uses it demeaningly really know what happened in Hungary. I barely know anything about it.
For the sake of the poll, it's really asking "are you a communist?" I generally don't refer to myself as a "tankie" for similar reasons as you said, but clarified my position to expressly include that as far as this poll is about support for communism/leftism/etc, it applies to me. Just hoping the final numbers show a good amount of "yes" answers simply due to wanting a strong showing of leftists.
I really think the wording should be changed. Liberals will gladly rip everything out of context. The word Tankie is infinitely more loaded than Communist. Most Liberals even think it's about Tiannenmen square and the tank man and you already know how much propaganda they consumed about Tiannenmen square.
I align most with Nia Frome's viewpoint in Marketing Socialism. Essentially, we can't shy away from loaded terms, liberals will accuse us regardless, so it's more important to correctly demystify rather than taking the "easy" path of distancing ourselves from "tankies," as though "tankie" means anything other than "communist/leftist/anti-imperialist/etc."
We should correctly call out "tankie" as something to not be afraid of, it just means "commie" or "red" or "pinko," and not let the word have power over discourse when discussing leftist politics.
But 'Tankie' is not the ideology at all. There is no reason to defend anything which is not the ideology itself. The word Tankie is so meaningless and vague that the only reason to ever use it is if people are actually trying to push on it. In which case you'd first have to ask them what they even mean by the word Tankie because they probably don't know what it means to begin with (nobody really does at this point).
Using it as a self-identifier is self-defeating.
Using "tankie" as a self-identifier has the same effect as calling oneself a "commie," it signals that being accused of being a communist isn't anything to take offense to. If I am going to be called a "commie, pinko, red, tankie, etc" then it is best to call it out for what it is: Accurate insofar as it describes me as a communist. I'm not going to deny those who call me by such pejoratives, rather I'm just going to explain why I'm a communist. Using it as a self-identifier blunts the pejorative and makes it less effective in public discourse to shut down communist speech.
Except Communism is the ideology and "Tankie" isn't really anything anyone can define.
Using it as a self-identifier makes it so people are less willing to engage and you're fighting on an opponents terms.
I don't think anyone sincerely identifies as a tankie, I just made this thread so I can remake my funny chart with the title are tankies conspiring to make you have a bad time on the internet?
top 100 comments