“Anyone who thinks themselves a tankie is too self aware to be one” sounds like one of those fallacies you’d learn about in highschool. (What is a tankie, btw? I’ve been too scared to ask…)*
A tankie is, broadly, someone who wants to effect left-wing ideology using authoritarian methods. It originally referred to those who defended the USSR using tanks to suppress the Hungarian Revolution, but it could be aptly used to describe those who defend China’s actions in Tiananmen Square. It’s rightfully used as a perjorative, since authoritarian enforcement is antithetical to leftism, particularly communism.
Tankies are hypocrites who didn’t understand their self-proclaimed ideologies. If someone’s idea of communist praxis is lining up dissenters for the firing squad, you’re dealing with a tankie.
Tankies are hypocrites who didn’t understand their self-proclaimed ideologies.
Tankies are very frequently the only people in the room who’ve done the reading. If you believe that so called “authoritarian methods” are antithetical to leftism, then I recommend you read the following pamphlet by Engels.
Tankies have read Marx and Engels, yes, but there are many other forms of leftism and even other forms of communism that aren’t ML. You are right about ML communists, in particular, but many other leftist movements are anti-authoritarian by their nature, so the point still stands.
Also, it’s possible to do the reading and disagree with the methods of implementation. I agree with the economics and the stated goals of communism, but I don’t believe authoritarianism is the best way to go about it.
I hop off the train at the part where the top-down dictatorship comes into play. Probably a bit before the level of authoritarianism where the Joseph Stalin type starts killing people for having a dissenting opinion, and what not.
Using the state to enforce good wages and end the terribleness of the stock market/landlord culture does not need to involve a top down dictatorship and a lack of democracy.
I know about the “dictatorship of the proletariat” and all that, and in my opinion, it should involve all of the workers, not one person or a small group of people. A top down dictatorship just makes it all that easier for the party to be infiltrated and controlled by bourgeois interests. If said dictatorship is a true democracy, with each worker having an equal say, it makes it pretty hard to control the proles.
So you wouldn’t accept any system that’s not a direct democracy? Where every single person is involved in every single vote? It’s a coherent position I suppose, but IMO totally impractical and idealistic.
I don’t think it’s realistic or pragmatic to expect a perfect direct democracy system. Trying to get as close to one as feasibly possible can be a goal though, and once we’re at that point, try to continually and slowly improve that direct democracy system until it’s even closer and closer and closer, ad infinitum.
You completely disregard, that the soviet union did number 3 and crushed all unions not falling in line. Or that they ignore the will of the proletariat during the 1917 and 1918 elections numerous times.
The authoritarian way isnt being critized for coming down on Capitalists. Its critized for how it treated every deviation from the party line. And especially, how it turned into a political chess game at the top, which prioritized amassing personal power and wealth over the actual well being of the state.
If by “not falling in line” you mean “actively sabotaging the working class for selfish reasons” then I suppose you have a point, but I would argue that in class war those organizations which do not support the working class are fair targets.
the will of the proletariat during the 1917 and 1918 elections
By the time the Bolsheviks were disregarding the results of elections, the People’s Soviets were the state power in the former Russian Empire, and they were a hundred times more democratic than the Duma ever was.
amassing personal power and wealth
I’m sorry comrade but the Soviets simply never did this. The benefits enjoyed by even top Party officials paled in comparison to the lavish lifestyles of the former Russian Empire’s aristocracy or those of the ruling class of any of their contemporary capitalist rivals - even fucking Stalin lived in a shared apartment!
Objectively speaking the Soviet Union was one of the most democratic and equal societies on this Earth during the time of its existence, and you can very clearly see in the data how their system equalized wealth (not “perfectly”, just “better than everyone else has ever done it”), and how the destruction of their system undid all of their progress.
By your metric Stalin should have been shot for undermining soviet defensive capabilities by purging almost every capable military leader? What did Tukhachevsky, Bukharin, Blyukher or Yegorov do to get executed? What were their sabotages? Their names got dropped by tortured officers and in turn they got shot. Setting the red army back years in experience.
And lets not forget the ethnic targetting: Between 1936 and 1938 nearly all ethnic Baltic People were cleansed put of the upper echelon.
I never said mistakes weren’t made. Class war is war and war has collateral damage. The problem here is the total idealistic rejection of “authoritarianism”, where every single thing that has ever worked is classed as such and therefore made off-limits.
There’s a difference between someone-needs-to-coordinate-and-manage-complex-undertakings “authoritarian” and line-the-dissidents-up-against-the-wall “authoritarian”. Tankies are the latter.
We have class war waged against us by the bourgeoisie, and thousands of people are casualties of that war every single day. Expecting to turn the tide against them without getting our hands dirty in turn is useless idealism.
I’m a tankie. What tankie is supposed to mean is someone who blindly supports anything anyone does so long as they claim to be communist and wave a red flag. There’s maybe a handful of edgy teens who actually fit that description, but the way it’s actually used is to punch left at anyone who supports anything a socialist country has ever done, or who is insufficiently patriotic/nationalistic and is willing to consider things from an internationalist perspective.
If you say for example that Cuba under Castro had a successful literacy program, then there are people who will accuse you of being a tankie just for that. Because it gets used this way, some people like myself chose to reclaim the insult and wear it proudly.
Generally, the actual term for most “tankies” would be Marxist-Leninist. But I actually prefer tankie because it’s a more general, big tent label. It’s used so broadly that even anarchists can be called tankies. It’s basically like “woke” where it doesn’t actually have any real meaning.
Well I think there are probably a half dozen interpretations that people on Lemmy use. One I have heard repeated is that they view the Tiananmen Square event as something that China rightfully did… hence “Tankie”
The idea that that’s the origin of the term is a common misconception. The actual origin was about the USSR under Kruschev sending in the military in response to a rebellion in Hungary. Some British communists supported the move, while other communists opposed it and labeled the supporters as tankies.
But regardless of the origin, it’s changed to where now it’s liberals using it to criticize socialists in general.
If you say for example that Cuba under Castro had a successful literacy program, then there are people who will accuse you of being a tankie just for that.
$COUNTRY had a successful literacy program under $LEFT_GOVERMENT.
I am by no means an expert, but the test that was explained to me is that if you look at the famous tianamen square picture of the guy holding grocery bags facing down a line of tanks, and then proceed to side with the line of tanks, then you’re a tankie.
When I say that I am not an expert, what I actually mean is that I’m a random idiot from the internet, so don’t take anything I say as gospel truth.
I’ve only been on lemmy for a few months, and I’ve never heard the term tankie on any other platform. My understanding is that a tankie is a militant supporter of communism, who completely disregards (or is in support of) how every time it’s ever actually been done it turns into an authoritarian dictatorship (or something similarly unpleasant to live under).
My own biases exposed: I am an american, and most of what I know I learned in the absolutely fucked american public education system, which says communism = evil, because of the red scare a while back.
If you do some googling, there’s a wikipedia article on the subject. I’ve forgotten most of the content of that article shortly after I read it, I should look at it again and maybe it will stick this time.
“Anyone who thinks themselves a tankie is too self aware to be one” sounds like one of those fallacies you’d learn about in highschool. (What is a tankie, btw? I’ve been too scared to ask…)*
A tankie is, broadly, someone who wants to effect left-wing ideology using authoritarian methods. It originally referred to those who defended the USSR using tanks to suppress the Hungarian Revolution, but it could be aptly used to describe those who defend China’s actions in Tiananmen Square. It’s rightfully used as a perjorative, since authoritarian enforcement is antithetical to leftism, particularly communism.
Tankies are hypocrites who didn’t understand their self-proclaimed ideologies. If someone’s idea of communist praxis is lining up dissenters for the firing squad, you’re dealing with a tankie.
Tankies are very frequently the only people in the room who’ve done the reading. If you believe that so called “authoritarian methods” are antithetical to leftism, then I recommend you read the following pamphlet by Engels.
Tankies have read Marx and Engels, yes, but there are many other forms of leftism and even other forms of communism that aren’t ML. You are right about ML communists, in particular, but many other leftist movements are anti-authoritarian by their nature, so the point still stands.
Also, it’s possible to do the reading and disagree with the methods of implementation. I agree with the economics and the stated goals of communism, but I don’t believe authoritarianism is the best way to go about it.
Humor me for a moment, which of the following do you consider authoritarian?
I hop off the train at the part where the top-down dictatorship comes into play. Probably a bit before the level of authoritarianism where the Joseph Stalin type starts killing people for having a dissenting opinion, and what not.
Using the state to enforce good wages and end the terribleness of the stock market/landlord culture does not need to involve a top down dictatorship and a lack of democracy.
I know about the “dictatorship of the proletariat” and all that, and in my opinion, it should involve all of the workers, not one person or a small group of people. A top down dictatorship just makes it all that easier for the party to be infiltrated and controlled by bourgeois interests. If said dictatorship is a true democracy, with each worker having an equal say, it makes it pretty hard to control the proles.
So you wouldn’t accept any system that’s not a direct democracy? Where every single person is involved in every single vote? It’s a coherent position I suppose, but IMO totally impractical and idealistic.
I don’t think it’s realistic or pragmatic to expect a perfect direct democracy system. Trying to get as close to one as feasibly possible can be a goal though, and once we’re at that point, try to continually and slowly improve that direct democracy system until it’s even closer and closer and closer, ad infinitum.
You completely disregard, that the soviet union did number 3 and crushed all unions not falling in line. Or that they ignore the will of the proletariat during the 1917 and 1918 elections numerous times.
The authoritarian way isnt being critized for coming down on Capitalists. Its critized for how it treated every deviation from the party line. And especially, how it turned into a political chess game at the top, which prioritized amassing personal power and wealth over the actual well being of the state.
If by “not falling in line” you mean “actively sabotaging the working class for selfish reasons” then I suppose you have a point, but I would argue that in class war those organizations which do not support the working class are fair targets.
By the time the Bolsheviks were disregarding the results of elections, the People’s Soviets were the state power in the former Russian Empire, and they were a hundred times more democratic than the Duma ever was.
I’m sorry comrade but the Soviets simply never did this. The benefits enjoyed by even top Party officials paled in comparison to the lavish lifestyles of the former Russian Empire’s aristocracy or those of the ruling class of any of their contemporary capitalist rivals - even fucking Stalin lived in a shared apartment!
Objectively speaking the Soviet Union was one of the most democratic and equal societies on this Earth during the time of its existence, and you can very clearly see in the data how their system equalized wealth (not “perfectly”, just “better than everyone else has ever done it”), and how the destruction of their system undid all of their progress.
By your metric Stalin should have been shot for undermining soviet defensive capabilities by purging almost every capable military leader? What did Tukhachevsky, Bukharin, Blyukher or Yegorov do to get executed? What were their sabotages? Their names got dropped by tortured officers and in turn they got shot. Setting the red army back years in experience.
And lets not forget the ethnic targetting: Between 1936 and 1938 nearly all ethnic Baltic People were cleansed put of the upper echelon.
I never said mistakes weren’t made. Class war is war and war has collateral damage. The problem here is the total idealistic rejection of “authoritarianism”, where every single thing that has ever worked is classed as such and therefore made off-limits.
There’s a difference between someone-needs-to-coordinate-and-manage-complex-undertakings “authoritarian” and line-the-dissidents-up-against-the-wall “authoritarian”. Tankies are the latter.
We have class war waged against us by the bourgeoisie, and thousands of people are casualties of that war every single day. Expecting to turn the tide against them without getting our hands dirty in turn is useless idealism.
Uh huh, and historically violent authoritarian transitional regimes are always so willing to step aside after the transition.
Getting our hands dirty means shooting comrades who carried the revolutionary wars for being a bit yucky.
I’m a tankie. What tankie is supposed to mean is someone who blindly supports anything anyone does so long as they claim to be communist and wave a red flag. There’s maybe a handful of edgy teens who actually fit that description, but the way it’s actually used is to punch left at anyone who supports anything a socialist country has ever done, or who is insufficiently patriotic/nationalistic and is willing to consider things from an internationalist perspective.
If you say for example that Cuba under Castro had a successful literacy program, then there are people who will accuse you of being a tankie just for that. Because it gets used this way, some people like myself chose to reclaim the insult and wear it proudly.
Generally, the actual term for most “tankies” would be Marxist-Leninist. But I actually prefer tankie because it’s a more general, big tent label. It’s used so broadly that even anarchists can be called tankies. It’s basically like “woke” where it doesn’t actually have any real meaning.
Well I think there are probably a half dozen interpretations that people on Lemmy use. One I have heard repeated is that they view the Tiananmen Square event as something that China rightfully did… hence “Tankie”
The idea that that’s the origin of the term is a common misconception. The actual origin was about the USSR under Kruschev sending in the military in response to a rebellion in Hungary. Some British communists supported the move, while other communists opposed it and labeled the supporters as tankies.
But regardless of the origin, it’s changed to where now it’s liberals using it to criticize socialists in general.
$COUNTRY had a successful literacy program under $LEFT_GOVERMENT.
Militant leftist, in the most basic sense.
But anti-leftists tend to co-opt the term to replace ‘fascist’ or ‘nazi’ in their discourse.
People that are happy to run people over in tanks to force their communist version of society on everyone else.
I am by no means an expert, but the test that was explained to me is that if you look at the famous tianamen square picture of the guy holding grocery bags facing down a line of tanks, and then proceed to side with the line of tanks, then you’re a tankie.
When I say that I am not an expert, what I actually mean is that I’m a random idiot from the internet, so don’t take anything I say as gospel truth.
I’ve only been on lemmy for a few months, and I’ve never heard the term tankie on any other platform. My understanding is that a tankie is a militant supporter of communism, who completely disregards (or is in support of) how every time it’s ever actually been done it turns into an authoritarian dictatorship (or something similarly unpleasant to live under).
My own biases exposed: I am an american, and most of what I know I learned in the absolutely fucked american public education system, which says communism = evil, because of the red scare a while back.
If you do some googling, there’s a wikipedia article on the subject. I’ve forgotten most of the content of that article shortly after I read it, I should look at it again and maybe it will stick this time.