the_mighty_krackenWhat's a Tankie?
Florencia (she/her)It’s communists who see no problem with the Tianamen Square situation of tanks running over protesters. Supporters of the tanks.
DJ PutlerAre you referring to the like twenty minute video where a guy stands in front of a tank and even jumps on top of it before two other protestors come by and he walks off with them willingly? Not even the US embassy in China claimed there was a “massacre”. Was the embassy full of tankies?
Onno (VK6FLAB)
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆oh hey I know how to paste links too
- telegraph.co.uk/…/Wikileaks-no-bloodshed-inside-T…
- wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/89BEIJING18828_a.html
- redsails.org/another-view-of-tiananmen
- rumble.com/v233t44-tiananmen-square-chai-ling-hop…
- worldaffairs.blog/…/tiananmen-square-massacre-fac…
- johnmenadue.com/the-tiananmen-square-massacrethe-…
- mango-press.com/the-tiananmen-square-massacre-the…
- johnmenadue.com/how-psy-ops-warriors-fooled-me-ab…
- web.archive.org/web/…/the_myth_of_tiananmen.php
No you ignorant fuck, Tienaman Square. They said the event, and the guy standing in front was not Tienaman Square.
First step, learn the name of the historical locationevent you want to pretend you know about. Second, use internet search to look up where Tank Man was Tankmanning. Your browser should automatically search the web if you type appropriate keywords in the navigation bar. You can also use this to learn how things are spelled.
First step for you is to not parrot propaganda that protects people that do not even share your pretend values, dumb piece of shit.
Cowbee [he/they]There was no massacre on the square, though. All deaths happened around Beijing, but the dispersal of the protestors on the square was peaceful.
What do you mean? Of the few hundred people that died in the riots and fighting, the square was dispersed peacefully. Marxists in general, on Tian’anmen is that hundreds of protestors and PLA officers were killed in Beijing that day as the PLA advanced towards the square, but that the square itself was evacuated peacefully, which matches leaked US cables and the CPC’s official stance on what it calls the “June 4th incident”. This is a rejection of the commonly reported story of 10,000 people being killed on the square itself, which originated from a British diplomat’s cable. Said diplomat was later confirmed to have evacuated well before.
Western nations intentionally sensationalize the quantity of deaths and the character of the events. This is also why Western Nations don’t frequently report on the South Korean Gwang-Ju massacre that occured around the same era, where the South Korean millitary murdered thousands of High School and College students protesting against Chun Do-Hwan’s dictatorship. All of what I said is backed up by the Wikipedia page for Tian’anmen Square Protests and Massacre, such as Alan Donald revising his estimate from 10,000 to the low thousands yet BBC continuing to report the 10,000 figure:
In a disputed cable sent in the aftermath of the events at Tiananmen, British Ambassador Alan Donald initially claimed, based on information from a “good friend” in the State Council of China, that a minimum of 10,000 civilians died,[237] claims which were repeated in a speech by Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke,[238] but which is an estimated number much higher than other sources provided.[239][240] After the declassification, former student protest leader Feng Congde pointed out that Donald later revised his estimate to 2,700–3,400 deaths, a number closer to, but still much higher than, other estimates.[241]
DessalinesPost the video coward
Sleepless OneYeah, they totally ran protestors over with tanks. You can even see it in the full tank man video.
Oh, huh, that’s weird. He didn’t get run over. It even seems like the tanks are trying to avoid him. Maybe the perfidious chicoms are the ones who are telling the truth and it’s our free and fair liberal press who are lying 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔.
A tankie is a fascist who wants everyone in the concentration camp to share a toothbrush. They’re typically rejects from their own community that crave revenge against people who want a truly better world.
I don’t know that Kier Starmer wants anything concrete in particular, but tankies are certainly people who simp for dictatorships like Russia or China while claiming that the capitalist abusive governments of them are ‘communist’.
No communist “simps” for the Russian Federation, support for the RF extends to the fact that it does a lot of trade with socialist countries like China and Cuba, opposes western imperialism, and has a populace increasingly in support of a return to socialism. Communists do tend to support China, as China is a socialist country. Public ownership is the principle aspect of their economy.
ordnance_qf_17_pounderI’ve never bought into the accusation that communists uncritically support Russia. It’s a bit more nuanced. They still recognise that Russia is capitalist and that the events that happened after the fall of the USSR were incredibly bad, such as the selling off of state assets creating a capitalist oligarchy. I have seen these views expressed by communists.
Personally though, I think some communists need to be more willing to put forward criticisms of the Russian state for the purpose of demonstrating their commitment to socialism. To me there’s an issue with the messaging, leading to a common perception that communists are fully and uncritically supportive of Putin.
I think that’s more a result of people interpreting communist views in the worst, least charitable way possible more than anything.
Please point to a single person on Lemmy who calls the Russian government communist and supports it
Did you drop this? I think it was meant to go at the end of your post, but maybe it fell off
</hyperbolic sarcasm>
Just figured you might want to make it clearer when you drop weapons grade sarcasm like “Obama and Kid Starver want a truly better world” That’s really funny, but it can often be hard to distinguish dead-pan sarcasm apart from bootlicking of imperialist ass-hats on the internet sometimes without proper closing tags.
Please use /s tags, because its impossible to tell sarcasm otherwise. There are unfortunately a large number of ppl who believe your statement unironically.
Tankie is a pejorative label generally applied to authoritarian communists, especially those who support or defend acts of repression by such regimes, their allies, or deny the occurrence of the events thereof.
Asking on this instance though, the Basecamp for them essentially, you’re going to get a lot of answers ranging from “it’s a meaningless term” to “Just something liberals slap on everything anti Communist!”
No communist calls the ROK an “occupier,” it’s the US Empire that is occupying Korea, with the ROK’s government set up directly by them. This whole comment is really bad, to be honest. In practice, “tankie” is essentially a pejorative for “communist.” I recommend the Prolewiki article on “Tankies,” as well as Nia Frome’s essay “Tankies.”
that is occupying Korea
Yes exactly, the government of SK is called an occupier by tankies, despite being democratically elected by the people of SK
Tankies do not automatically communists, that’s just a tactic you guys use to conflate the term
No, the government of the southern half of Korea, the Republic of Korea, is not an “occupier.” The democratically elected state was the People’s Republic of Korea (PRK), which spanned the entire peninsula before the US Empire came in, declared it illegal, and split the country in two, against the will of Koreans, and installed the dictator Rhee Syngman in place. The PRK was a quasi-socialist state that predated both the DPRK and ROK’s governments.
Again, “tankie” in practice is just a pejorative for communists, akin to “pinko” or “commie.” The fact that you’re getting very basic communist stances on Korea completely wrong here betrays any sense of legitimacy you have on the subject.
No, the government of the southern half of Korea, the Republic of Korea, is not an “occupier.” The democratically elected state was the People’s Republic of Korea (PRK), which spanned the entire peninsula before the US Empire came in, declared it illegal, and split the country in two, against the will of Koreans, and installed the dictator Rhee Syngman in place.
Cool, that happened decades ago though, who is currently running the SK government?
Again, “tankie” in practice is just a pejorative for communists, akin to “pinko” or “commie.”
No not really, I’m sure there are people around who throw the term around loosely, but the majority associate it with authoritarian communists
The fact that you’re getting very basic communist stances on Korea completely wrong here betrays any sense of legitimacy you have on the subject.
There was just a meme by one of you the other day where you declared the SK government as being illegitimate along with the government of Taiwan and Israel
If you say the Government of SK is illegitimate then it’s an occupier is it not?
The ROK has a liberal democracy, but it was forced on the people of southern Korea without their consent. The US Empire staffed it with prior compradors that were in power during Japanese colonialism. The ROK is currently a dictatorship of capital under a special class of people referred to as “chaebol,” under the occupation of the US Empire.
All states are “authoritarian,” in that all states are means by which one class exerts its authority over the others. Communists support the working class being in charge of that authority, all communists (unless you count anarchists) support the use of the state against capitalists and fascists, and the majority of practicing communists support socialist states.
I don’t like being referred to like “one of you.” I don’t care what they posted, I am explaining directly to you.
The ROK essentially being a comprador government set up by a colonizer does not mean it’s occupying itself. The US Empire is occupying Korea, not the comprador government.
Again, “tankie” in practice is just a pejorative for communists
It isn’t, though. Tankies want the term to be a pejorative term for communists because it hides the criticism for the term. Calling someone a tankie is a criticism that their values don’t match what they support politically. After all, the term comes from supporters of the Soviet Union using tanks to crush a local revolution that didn’t comply with Soviet power politics.
“Tankie” isn’t a political ideology, it’s a McCarthyite strawman with ready-made characteristics designed to make it so that you don’t have to respond to the points communists make. The origin of the term being in putting down the 1956 CIA supported and MI6 armed fascist counter-revolution in Hungary where the fascists let Nazis out of prison to lynch Jews and communists doesn’t make any difference on today’s usage.
That was almost 70 years ago, it’s irrelevant, words change their meaning all the time. It’s how human language works.
The current widely accepted definition is the one defined by the previously linked Wikipedia article. Oh sorry, do you guys call it “NATOpedia” now? Or was it “Libopedia”?
The current usage is as an anticommunist pejorative and McCarthyite strawman.
That’s just what you want it to mean so you can distance yourselves from the term entirely.
Wikipedia has a pretty clear cut definition, and it’s the one the majority of people (who aren’t one themselves anyways) use
I gave a clear-cut and more useful definition that actively reflects reality. There are no groups liberals would consider “non-authoritarian” and communist that have any relevance. It’s in practice a pejorative for communists, full-stop.
Tankie isn’t a political ideology, it is a commentary on the practice of policy in comparison to stated beliefs.
No, it’s a pejorative and McCarthyite strawman.
☂️-
∞🏳️⚧️Edie [it/it/its/its/itself, she/her/her/hers/herself, fae/faer/faer/faers/faerself, love/love/loves/loves/loveself, des/pair, null/void, none/use name]Oct 15Your image is really bad quality, you should get a better one, www.archives.gov/files/…/104-10110-10525.pdf
Thank you!
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!
Incorrect, those are incredibly biased sources.
Tankies are authoritarian communists. There’s more than one flavor of communists. I do love how you guys try to make it seem like you’re the only kind of communists or the “true leftists” out there
All states are “authoritarian,” in that all states are means by which one class exerts its authority over the others. Communists support the working class being in charge of that authority, all communists (unless you count anarchists) support the use of the state against capitalists and fascists, and the majority of practicing communists support socialist states.
Ha ha yeah, the good ol “authoritarianism exists everywhere!” Argument
You know well and good when someone says a government is authoritarian they mean things like speech being controlled and unable to criticize the government, being heavily restricted in your freedom of movement, being heavily restricted in the information you’re allowed to access or possess
Those tactics are employed by every state in the interest of whichever class is in control, against whichever class is in opposition, to the extent necessary to preserve the existing property relations. All communists support wielding the state against capitalists, fascists, and reactionaries that would topple the socialist system.
There it is again. The classic “everything is authoritarian so the word doesn’t mean anything” routine. It’s funny how that only shows up when someone calls tankies authoritarian. Communism isn’t bad because some western pundit said so, it’s bad when it turns into an excuse to justify control.
The idea of giving power to the people is great, but pretending censorship and repression are just “necessary tactics” ruins it. If the system can’t survive without silencing people, it’s not socialism anymore, it’s just another hierarchy wearing red paint.
Analysis of authority isn’t to “make excuses.” Analysis of authority is critical in analyzing class struggle and the state. You’re saying it’s just as bad for workers to silence fascists and capitalists as it is for capitalists to silence workers, then hide behind phrasemongering.
it’s just another hierarchy wearing red paint
If that were the case, we would expect similar social and economic outcomes in both cases. Then, why did the USSR have the lowest recorded wealth and income inequality in history? Why did it have guaranteed employment, guaranteed housing at a cost of 3% of the average income, universal free healthcare and free education to the highest level? Why did it have walkable and public transit-oriented urban planning with services accessible by foot (look up the word “mikroraion” on Wikipedia)? Why could unions remove factory managers if they so decided, and why was there a newspaper to each workplace in which workers could write their complaints and their ideas? Why were the highest-earning individuals university professors and artists and not political bureaucrats?
∞🏳️⚧️Edie [it/it/its/its/itself, she/her/her/hers/herself, fae/faer/faer/faers/faerself, love/love/loves/loves/loveself, des/pair, null/void, none/use name]Oct 17why was there a newspaper to each workplace in which workers could write their complaints and their ideas
In which more than just airing complaints, something would be done
at least as far as Pat Sloan writes in ~1937> The editorial committee of a Soviet newspaper, whether of a factory wall-newspaper or of the Government’s newspaper Izvestia, does not deal with its correspondence in this light-handed way. For on every Soviet newspaper, from the very smallest to the very largest, there are members of the editorial staff whose entire work is to deal with the complaints of readers, to investigate these complaints, and to see what can be done to remedy their grievances, if any real grievances exist. > The editorial staff of the wall-newspaper, receiving these topical comments on the life of the factory, is under an obligation, not merely to publish them, but to investigate the complaints; and to publish the letters with a statement of what has been done to redress the grievances expressed. […] The chapter “A People’s Press” comlib.encryptionin.space/…/soviet-democracy/
The problem with this argument is that you’re looking for some idealistic version of communism without any regard as to it’s actual feasibility. You want communism with western liberal democratic packaging, a communism that explicitly rejects any kind of violence or force against class enemies, afraid of being accused of repression, and that leaves the door wide open for counterrevolutionary forces to seize back control. You want something that works better as protest than as practical implementation. It’s just Eurocommunism for the 21st century. There’s a reason why this kind of communism only exists in the developed western world. It clings onto the notion of western superiority, and regards communists of the global south to be barbaric, authoritarian, and oppressive.
There’s also a reason why this ideology is not the platform of practically any active and actually existing communist party in the world. It’s the communism of idealists who haven’t read theory, or understood theory. It borrows heavily from the “marketplace of ideas” where the opponents of the revolution can be defeated purely by a good argument.
ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠It’s what centrists call anyone to the left of netanyahu.