The tankies?

Those who literally deny the existence of the massacre in the Tiananmen Square, claiming that “nobody was killed” (or far more rarely, unapologetically stating that if they were, then they deserved it). Basically far-left extremists that exist in a world of “alternative facts” just like conservatives, the common denominator being that and simping for authoritarian regimes.

Words like “consent” tend not to matter to those holding that ideology.

“Tankie” does not come from Tiananmen Square, that is a common misconception. The term “tankie” is 33 years older than the Tiananmen Square massacre.

It originated to describe people who supported the 1956 Soviet Union military intervention in Hungary. Stalin sent in a bunch of T-35 tanks to crush the Hungarian Revolution. He was successful, and thousands of people died in the process.

Ever since then, “tankie” has been used as a derogatory term against Stalinists, Marxist-Leninists, communists, and leftists in general.

To be fair, tanks seem to be a favored tool of these oppressive regimes. I’m personally not against communism, they have some good ideas like universal child care, guaranteed jobs, and housing (even though the latter may be considered sub-par by some). The problem comes when these fucking authoritarian cheerleaders come out and say communist governments were never oppressive.

The “oppression” you’re referring to is confiscating the properties of bourgeois capitalists and landlords, and imprisoning them and their accomplices in case of resistance. This confiscation and appropriation by the state id what makes free, universal care and other social benefits possible. It’s absurd to expect the features of communism without the policies behind them.

Also, the idea that authoritarian socialist governments just have a sadistic tendency to oppress and torture poor peasants is deeply unserious and a work of imagination created by western capitalist propaganda.

The oppression they’re referring to is shooting at protestors wanting democratic reforms. The comment before that literally gives an example, the least you could do is look into it.

First of all, socialist governments, like any other government, did not use force on protestors unless provoked by seditious behavior (i.e. coup attempt or political unrest), and only in proportion, which was the case in Hungary and in China. Stories about tanks crushing the bodies of protestors is fictitious. Also, the history of the Soviet Union, the PRC and other socialist polities is filled with workers protests that were left unaltered because it is a natural conpartment in the process of building socialism. Thus, the idea that freedom of expression were present under socialism (albeit with limitations), which leads me to my second point.

The claim that the riots in socialist states called for “democratic” reforms is the furthest thing from the truth. In the case of Hungary, the 1956 uprising was orchestrated by the Prime Minister in order to establish a capitalist multi-party system and restore the property of the big landowners after they were purged in the preceding decade and their industries nationalized by the state. If you consider this to be “democracy” then you cannot consider yourself to be a leftist.