I don't really consider myself a liberal or a communist. Maybe some mixture of both? I have my own ideals that probably align mostly with eastern philosophy, and maybe some more "esoteric" practices. Id like to think im well read, for being a mostly uneducated person, and I'm very accepting of just about everyone outside of violence or blind hatred, but I have never heard the term "tankie" until reddit. Is it a reference to Tiannemen Sq or something? Just curious as I like to know as much as I can. Thanks.

Also, as someone who's coming from reddit as of yesterday, it's kinda cool seeing more than one political ideal, as I really don't think there is a "perfect" system. Humans are flawed in their very nature, and tbh, we're a little late to "get it right".

Is it a reference to Tiannemen Sq or something? Just curious as I like to know as much as I can. Thanks.

No, it's a reference to Khrushchev sending tanks into Hungary during the 1956 revolt. Leftist supporters of this policy within Western nations were referred to as "Tankies" since then the term came to generally just refer to Marxist-Leninists. That is until more recently when Tankie has come to mean just any leftist a person disagrees with.

If you're interested in leftist theory then go to Marxists.org, it has plenty of free literature. I suggest starting with the communist manifesto just to get a general idea of the principles of communism before delving deeper into Marx and Engel's work. (And maybe sprinkle in some Lenin too cause he's sassy and a great read.)

That is until more recently when Tankie has come to mean just any leftist a person disagrees with.

While there are undoubtedly people that use the term like that, I think there is a general understanding that it refers to people that can excuse or support authoritarian or oppressive actions

Usually it means someone that actually reads history and will specifically debunk common anticommunist myths about it, i.e. historical revisionism.

The term "authoritarian" is also used selectively by anticommunists and this pervades capitalist societies, who continue to teach cold war nonsense. It is implicitly reserved for actions of the state, for example, but this is a false distinction made solely because after any kind of a left takeover, the state is the most powerful tool the people have. Universal government healthcare is authoritarian by this selective definition. On the other hand, the assertion of massive control over people's lives is not described as authoritarian when it comes from the private sector. Workers spend 8-16 hours per day working in petty dictatorships, working around the personalities and whims of business owners and managers, just to ensure some kind of steady income lest they lose basic human security. They are forced to migrate by poverty forced by capitalism, this system creates marginalised groups and then (sometimes slowly) treats them genocidally. Much of it was built on colonialism and neocolonialism, with the richness of the West built on uneven exchange with everyone else, a system set up at gunpoint. None of this is described as authoritarian.

Please read more widely.

Much of it was built on colonialism and neocolonialism, with the richness of the West built on uneven exchange with everyone else, a system set up at gunpoint. None of this is described as authoritarian

I would agree those are authoritarian