edit: this is now closed future comments won’t be counted
I keep seeing this instance is overrun with tankies so hey, lets do an informal survey like I’ve seen on hexbear
respond with YES or NO in the first line of your comment and i’ll tally everything in a couple of days, lets say I’ll try and collect everything on the sunday the 9th (10+gmt sorry)
not sure thisll work, be nice, have fun
YES
They would have burned me as a heretic in the middle ages.
- Carl Jung
Just like calling someone a “witch” or heretic in the middle ages, a “barbarian”, or “savage”, or “commie” or “pinko” in the 20th century, these terms are less about the actual meaning, and more about a demonization, scapegoating, or a power relation between the dominant class, and a group they seek to malign and rally their people around.
Creating a useful enemy promotes group bonding, unity, a sense of strengthened identity, and self worth.
“Tankie” had a meaning that generally referred to non-pacifist leftists (or those that agreed with using violence to defend socialist projects), but now it just means, “any leftist I don’t like”.
It functions in the exact same way that “commie” did in the the McCarthy era, as a xenophobic and western-supremacist scapegoating of socialist countries, and an internal purging of the working-class communist movement.
It’s additionally useful because it deters people from reading or engaging with the worldwide communist / socialist movement.
If someone uses this term, this is what they’re doing without realizing it:
now it just means, “any leftist I don’t like”.
With respect, there’s a bit more to it than that.
The way political discussions are often policed on ML instances (This one, Lemmygrad, and Hexbear) is not conducive to helping new people see your point of view. If a, let’s say, social democrat says something critical of the CCP and then is immediately censured or banned, they are going to be left with a very negative impression that feeds into the stereotypes that already exist about these instances.
Creating a useful enemy promotes group bonding, unity, a sense of strengthened identity, and self worth.
Aren’t people on ML instances also doing the exact same thing when they shout down and decry the wretched “liberals” (which seems to refer to anyone left-of-centre who doesn’t support communist party rule)? Whether it’s “tankie” or “liberal”, it only further entrenches the us vs them mindset.
It’s a shame that leftist infighting exists to such a degree when we often share about 95% of the same views, compared to the general public.
The way political discussions are often policed on ML instances (This one, Lemmygrad, and Hexbear) is not conducive to helping new people see your point of view.
If you ask in earnest, you’ll get good responses. A good number of people ask questions not to learn a different point of view, but to reinforce their own existing biases, which naturally becomes exhausting. Kind of like how POC get tired of justifying their existence to white supremacists, communists often for good reason get tired of trying to justify the existence of countries who choose to follow their own path, outside of the model of bourgeois democracy.
Aren’t people on ML instances also doing the exact same thing when they shout down and decry the wretched “liberals” (which seems to refer to anyone left-of-centre who doesn’t support communist party rule)? Whether it’s “tankie” or “liberal”, it only further entrenches the us vs them mindset.
Liberal, unlike tankie, has a fairly precise meaning in political discourse. It can be used too loosely IMO, but it generally means pro-capitalism, pro-individual freedom (including to exploit labor power to earn surplus value), pro free-market, pro-free speech (for all including reactionaries), pro wage-slavery, as well as specific limitations imposed on those considered outside of the “community of the free”. Its important to realize that even the US mis-definition of liberal (as vaguely socially progressive) includes all of the above, and the internationally accepted definition of liberal, is right wing (for example, the right wing party in Australia is the liberal party). The best book I can recommend here, is Losurdo’s Liberalism - A counter-history.
Not only that, but liberals rule most of the world, and especially most of the economies and governments of anglo-speaking countries, extracting a surplus from the sale of their labor power (who are mostly extremely poorly paid proletarians in the global south), and are responsible for most of the suffering of working-class people worldwide.
If you ask in earnest, you’ll get good responses. A good number of people ask questions not to learn a different point of view, but to reinforce their own existing biases, which naturally becomes exhausting.
That is understandable, however I was more talking about good-faith attempts to express views that are contrary to ML orthodoxy being dogpiled, removed, and banned. I have personal direct experience with this, as do many others who have attempted to engage in political discussions in ML communities. Perhaps users of the ML persuasion are used to being attacked and this why contrarian views are so heavily moderated on ML instances, but quite often this defensive response only leads to alienating other leftists who could be sympathetic to your point of view.
Also, I already understand quite well the differences between classical, social, and neo-liberalism, and how the term is used in the US; I have a degree in political science. My point was that users on ML instances weaponize the term in the same way that other users utilize the term “tankie” in order to dismiss people who disagree with them, ad hominem.
If you ask in earnest, you’ll get good responses.
This is not the case. Every time I’ve asked in earnest, I’ve faced mobs of lunatics.
[Citation needed]
social democrat says something critical of the CCP
You mean the same ones that support their western establishment and its narratives? Or the anti-China/Russia rhetoric that CIA, Bilderberg, USAID and Murdoch invent and push, that these socdems also help in pushing? Such people can never be aligned ultimately, and are subservient to western empire.
You think Bernie supporting the bombing of Yugoslavia was a one off incident? Name one US president that has not been a warmongerer.
I do not want the likes of Bernie, Vaush, Destiny, Keffals and such clowns to be representative of, and make the Left a populist thing.
My only regret in that photo is not seeing Bhagat Singh, because him and his Marxist comrades were responsible for liberating India from British Raj. Bhagat seems to be less recognised or celebrated among the poster boy global Marxist figures.
None of them are considered Marxist or even Socialist in the country now unfortunately. They have been successfully whitewashed as nationalist heroes.
Bhagat Singh has an entry on Marxists.org, which is even more absurd. There is no way these were nationalist people. If that is the case, every socialist is basically a nationalist, every nationalist a patriot, and every patriot a rightwinger. Whoops, did I do something wrong?
deleted by creator
Don’t like people putting up a mirror to you?
Nope, I’m for social democracy and think a healthy government is a balance between left and right. This balance has been lost lately.
I do believe that the discourse need some more leftism, however not of the stalinist (or Marxist-Leninist as people call it) kind.
Tbf, there’s no “right” anymore in the USA - it got eaten up, vomited back out, re-eaten again, with that process repeated a few times, and is now known as the “Alt-Right”, before being subsequently rebranded yet again as “Q”.
In other words, the old “GOP” (e.g. Mitch McConnell) is virtually dead at this point, or at least barely hanging on by the slimmest of threads, while now long live the “GQP”, that is an entirely different beast.
And I think I am hearing similarly of the UK as well, with Brexit?
So if you meant that we need a healthy balance of diverse viewpoints, then I am 100% with you, but if you mean that we need to pollute true scientific facts with the craziest batshit insanity that anyone has ever heard of, then not so much:-). Diversity among viable solutions = good, whereas a literal Civil War b/c the “right” is throwing a temper tantrum = not so much. Even/especially the very people in charge… they are so scared of what is happening, the dissolution of a nation right before all of our eyes, and on their watch too.
Why does there need to be a balance of left and right to be healthy? Why do you believe this balance has been lost, if it’s healthier to have it?
I’m looking towards the violent shifting of power and ideology after the French Revolution. Its people coming to power through struggle, wreaking revenge on the other side of the Isle and then the balance of power shifting again, with the same violent results.
Unchecked power isn’t pretty. There need to be balance. However the discourse is creeping to the right almost everywhere and that fudges a lot up.
Revolution is a response to current society failing. Revolution doesn’t happen because random people do it spontaneously, but is a result of declining material conditions.
Unchecked power may not be pretty, but I fail to see what that has to do with left vs right. It seems to me that retaining Capitalist hedgemony for the sake of “balance” is just idealism.
Well in a well balanced system the industry and high captial woudn’t have the most influence on politics. Redistribution of wealth can be archieved without bloodshed.
In my opinion that is, I don’t think capitalist he
dgemony is evil per se, only if it’s allowed to run rampant, which it does without proper checks and blances.Having Capitalism at all means you have outsized influence on the state from Capitalists.
Capitalist hedgemony is evil because it necessarily grows and decays like a cancer, resulting in Imperialism, hyper-exploitation, and power consolidation in fewer and fewer hands. You cannot check it.
I didn’t think we would see eye to eye, but I wish to do so amically.
Thanks for the discussion!
(btw it’s hegemony, without the d. No hedgefunds in there)
NO. We have had enough already
I’m not from this instance, so probably not totally relevant to this poll, that said
NO, I’m not a tankie.
I think, however, it’s worth considering that a lot of people that could be considered tankies probably wouldn’t apply the term to themselves, and that could skew the results of your poll. First of all, tankie is sort of a pejorative term, and many wouldn’t want to apply it to themselves for that reason alone. Secondly a lot of people just may not consider themselves to be a tankie, and genuinely do not recognize their own tankieness.
I don’t think I’m the guy to come up with a definitive checklist of what does or does not make someone a tankie, but for the sake of getting the conversation going (and feel free to disagree with me here, I welcome the discussion) I think two of the biggest hallmarks of being a tankie are
-
Communism- not all communists are tankies, but all tankies at least claim to subscribe to some sort of communist ideology.
-
Authoritarianism- tankies either are authoritarians themselves, or are willing to support or overlook authoritarians as long as they see them as being in some way opposed to “the west”/capitalism/etc.
I think the authoritarianism aspect is going to trip some people up trying to answer this truthfully. A lot of authoritarians probably wouldn’t consider themselves authoritarians, most people like to think they’re standing for freedom, justice, liberty, equality, etc. even if their actual actions tell another story. Don’t get me wrong, there are people out there who are openly authoritarian and proud of it, but a lot of authoritarians are a little brainwashed to the point they’ve lost sight of what they’re actually supporting (take a look at the MAGA crowd, they think they’re about free speech and anti-censorship but want to keep books they don’t like out of libraries, they think they’re about small government but want to regulate what kind of medical care you can get, they think they stand for law and order but also proudly proclaim that they are all domestic terrorists and have a convicted felon as their poster boy)
And politics are messy, full of moral grey areas and times where you have to choose between the lesser of two evils, make uncomfortable alliances, difficult choices, and kick some cans further down the road to deal with later while you tackle the current crisis. It’s not always easy or feasible to draw a crisp line in the sand and say “we will not ally with/support/turn a blind eye to these authoritarian regimes,” sometimes you have to play a little bit of the “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” game if you want to actually make any progress against that enemy, or you may have to prioritize and deal with something else before you deal with them. There is a whole lot of grey area to explore about when, why, how, how long, and how much you can support or ignore them before you’re advancing their cause as much or more than your own.
I think there’s probably some tankies who have been taken for a ride on the propaganda wagon and don’t truly realize how authoritarian they are, and there’s others who have justified it, thinking that they’re only going to be/support authoritarians temporarily to achieve a specific goal and will pivot away from that later, but have gone too far or keep moving the goalposts.
Couple last thoughts from me.
There can always be bad actors who are falsely claiming to be (or not to be) tankies for their own purposes. Not really much you can do about that.
Personally, a lot of the criticism I’ve seen about tankies here has been directed towards the mods and admins, not necessarily the rank average users.
-
I wish stalin drove tanks straight into west berlin, then france, then the UK, then atlantis, then NYC, then chicago, then seattle, then anchorage, then Tokyo, then Seoul, then Beijing, then KFC/tacobell.
Sorry nerd, that was Trotsky that wanted that, and your boi put an icepick in his brain for being good at it.
Love Trotsky and hate how they did him after all he did for the revolution, but Trotskyists annoy the fuck out of me.
Oh, yeah, with all the tanks the USSR had in 1923
He was that good! Also the Red Army actually captured some tanks from Allied forces that were helping the Whites during the war.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War
Bonus fun fact: Three of the captured Mark Vs were recommissioned to defend Stalingrad
NO
Neither do I self-identify as a tankie, I don’t think anyone who’d identify themselves as tankies would think of me as one.
I dont think there’s anyone worth taking seriously who self identifies as a tankie, thanks being earnest though
NO. Communism is interesting, but I’m heavily anti-authoritarian.
That’s interesting… Communism is by definition stateless and without significant hierarchy. I don’t think other Tankies would disagree with me there.
The ideological difference is in how we achieve communism. I would really suggest reading ‘What is to be Done’ by Lenin. It’s a real short read but was one of the things that sold me on Marxism-Leninism vs. regular “Communism is a neat idea”
Capitalism will sell you the “you’re your own boss, go forth an conquer” all while keeping you under their heel. There is no equality or opportunity there; but even worse is that they will worm their way into any system that does not harshly and consistently fight back against them. Ergo the need for a ‘communist’ (or rather pursuing communism) state.
That then leads into “Well how does the state go away once we’ve got communism?” That’s a whole 'nother can of worms…
When does Communism become authoritarian? Like, where in the process?
I never said that Communism necessarily becomes authoritarian. But, as someone who has a strong dislike for authoritarianism, I’m not interested in Communism which involves it.
Sure, but I mean at what point, right?
To cut to the chase, I’m asking what specifically separates Tankies from Communists. Where is the line drawn? I see a lot of people (myself included) labeled a tankie for recommending people read Marx, or saying that Lenin was a Marxist, regardless of if you agree with him or not.
At what point would a Communist be considered a tankie?
I thought that the line was that one supports owning the means of production and the other supports authoritarian governments, am I confused?
Socialists support some form of Workers owning the Means of Production, of various types.
Communists are Marxists, that advocate for a specific form of Socialism, a worker state, that will eventually result in a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society.
Tankie has been used to slander all manner of leftists, but the number of people that actually fit the definition of the slander is very small. Many people who do not fit that actual definition are still called a tankie.
The hard part of politics is drawing hard lines. But I think many would say it’s authoritarian at the point when a government is enforcing a specific ideology with force and violence, and limiting personal freedoms.
I personally don’t understand how someone can be authoritarian and communist when communism is classless, but to be authoritarian there must essentially be an authority in a separate hierarchical class. But I also likely have more to learn so feel free to correct me
I would say by that definition, every system is authoritarian to different degrees, and as such we all just pick whatever degree we are okay with. It’s vibes based, not metrics based.
Communism is classless, yes, but Communism must be built, as it is the eventual elimination of contradictions. You may wish to read Critique of the Gotha Programme, where Marx makes a good critique of a bad Socialist program and advocates for a different Socialist method of reaching Communism.
Not that I know of.
No.
This isn’t my standard instance but I do take a look at it sometimes. I’m definitely very far left leaning, I don’t have a label that clearly fits me but I’m probably close enough to anarcho-communism or syndicalism. I live in the UK so it’s pretty common for my views to fall further left of the USA.
I’m not particularly good at actually adhering to my own views, infact I don’t think I’ve ever done e anything substantial to bringing my ideals into reality. My dream would be for small federated housing / workers co-ops and unions to get a good handle in my area, and then have the stability to grow.
The crucial reason I’m not a tankie is that I actively oppose top down leadership structures, and I’m actually more against authoritarianism than I am against the right, but I feel that in my country, conservatism and authoritarianism are deeply linked, and a bottom up power structure would do more to actively oppose facism and power consolidation than a far left authoritarian regime.
In short, No. My principles may make me a commie, but I’m an anarchist first.
Yeah. By your self-description, I wouldn’t call you a tankie.
No
I’m as tankie as they come.
No, I think?
I don’t actually know what a “Tankie” is. I tend to try to steer away from labels; I consider them a form of intellectual laziness. People will use them to either try to gain a feeling of belonging by adopting a line of thinking shared by their peers, or they will use them to smear those who they have defined as “others” without consideration of why these “others” might hold opinions that they don’t. Labels and label-based thinking lead to tribalism and division.
If you want to know what I think about something, ask with specifics. If you want to convince me of something, present an argument with reason and evidence, and be prepared for me to pick it apart and look for flaws. There is nothing I respect more than somebody who takes a comment I make and considers it, researches it and then comes back to me with a response, or presents me with a perspective that compels me to do the same. I find both depressingly rare.
NO
I like having no boots on my neck, not just changing out what demographic is wearing it
NO
Tankie is a meaningless word. If you point out China has undeniably made progress under communism, you’re a tankie. If you point out Stalin wasn’t the evil dictator westerners make him out to be (even though it’s disproven by the literal CIA itself) you’re a tankie, if you think capitalism is causing problems in the USA you’re a tankie. If you criticise US or NATO foreign policy you’re a tankie. If you criticise the Republicans you’re a Tankie. If you criticise the Dems, guess what also a tankie. If you think that the USSR and the PRC are/were perfect little angels that never made any mistakes or did anything wrong ever then you’re also a Tankie.
It’s just too broad a term for me or anyone to identify with any way. It’s not an ideology. It’s a dumb insult to dismiss the opinions of others you disagree with without having to engage with their point at all or critically analyse your own beliefs in any meaningful way.
Organizing a union? Pushing for higher wages? Defending your people from reactionary aggression?
Not voting? Don’t hate the US’s main enemies, like Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Syria, Palestine, the DPRK?
Believe it or not, tankie.
Eat beans instead of meat for protein? No trial, no jury, straight to being a Tankie. Not eat a specific brand of beans I.e. Goya? Believe it or not also a Tankie. We have the best diets in the world.
Yeah Stalin was a real peach.
What the fuck are you on?
Edit:
Also
FUCK YOU FOR POSTING A LINK TO A GODDAMN DOWNLOAD YOU FUCKING SCUMBAG
That’s a lot of mod interventions for a one month old account.
You’re what I might call “high maintenance.”It’s a PDF file from a .gov website. Are you fucking dumb?
You are a little dense for implying a PDF link to CIA government website is out to get you.
Maybe?
What the heck is a tankie, anyways? Every person I have asked has had a different answer, and the vast majority of these definitions don’t really fit any major communities on Lemmy, not even Hexbear or Lemmygrad.
I have been called a tankie for numerous reasons, like saying that people should read Marx, to saying the US is a net negative on global stability.
Is being a Marxist sufficient for being a tankie? What about a Marxist-Leninist? Are only Dengists tankies? Is Anarchism the only non-tankie leftist position? I’ve even seen Anarchists be called tankies over on Lemmy.world, which is currently undergoing Red Scare-era anti-leftist witch hunts (like return2ozma’s recent ban for “bad-faith spam”).
I think this question needs a definition first. If you ask 10 different people what a “tankie” is, you’ll get 11 different answers.
I mean we asked you and got six, so…
I’ve seen all of them, I don’t personally endorse any of those definitions, haha
This is the crux of it: where once there was some kind of definition, now it’s just a snarl word for “leftist who makes points I can’t refute.”
Yep, it’s Lemmy’s Red Scare.
I am curious if there is going to be a schizm between .world aligned instances and Hexbear/grad/.ml aligned instances, where .world sees an eventual gradual exodus of leftists as they recieve a steady influx of liberals from Reddit.
Lemmy’s own multipolar world.
I just don’t see the point of using lemmy unless they’re a leftist in the first place.
Reddit already exists, and has a much bigger userbase that’s already pro-US and heavily anti-communist.
If it’s just because reddit took away the app treats, that’s kind of a sad reason to use an explicitly anti-corporate software, but I’m sure there’s a chunk of ppl on lemmy don’t think much past that.
Fwiw, a lot of us were ready to leave it anyway. Reddit used to be a place for left-leaning people, though I would guess more of the progressive liberal-relative-to-center variety, due to it being started from within the USA (I joined it quite late so not totally sure).
Its downhill slide was long and convoluted and not evenly distributed across all subs. There were pockets of resistance, and probably some niche communities remain even now that are halfway tolerable. Anything worth doing takes real effort to build, and some people have put in those efforts and held on tenaciously. And, to be very clear, morally as well: e.g. places that try to reach the maximum audience possible to combat misinformation, or suicidal or similar behaviors - those places NEED to be on Reddit, yes and even Twitter/X, and 🤮 Facebook too, to achieve their aims of maximal outreach (at which point they could do dual duty to funnel people to the real places too:-).
For those of us that want deeper discourse, Reddit was not meeting that need, but Lemmy/Mbin very much does:-). Btw fascinating related article: https://medium.com/@max.p.schlienger/the-cargo-cult-of-the-ennui-engine-890c541cebcb.
So that’s one category of people, and another is the set of those who just needed to be awakened in order to realize what was going on. Maybe they were busy with children irl or some such and didn’t notice Reddit’s slide. I am glad that we can provide a home to them as well - it enriches us all to have more people here (mostly).
Let’s analyze it.
Reddit is declining in a way liberals can’t deny. The more ideological among these liberals attempt to leave, but without theory, without knowledge of Marxism, or even Anarchism, without a firm understanding of Historical and Dialectical Materialism, their world view is framed in a manner that casts Capitalism as bad, in an almost Ultraleftist manner, but Red Scare propaganda still makes Marxism spooky.
They occupy a space that considers Capitalist countries with pure nuance and critical support, but only judge leftist movements as though they are Ultras, and nothing is satisfactory.
From there, Liberals seek a replacement, and further still they don’t quite accept federation, so they go to the largest generalist instance. This is Lemmy.world, so they get to have a space filled with ex-redditors kicked out by Capitalism’s failings, but unwilling to embrace any actual alternative, occupying a weird middle ground.
Therefore, Lemmy.world appeals to radical, theoryless liberals, with no specific or niche interests, and creates an echo-chamber around that specific anti-specificity.
Just my 2 cents.
Dialectically, I believe eventually .world will defed from .ml, or vice-versa, from some unimportant inciting incident, creating a multi-polar Lemmy, so to speak, but that’s a bit odd to say directly to you. Either way, I see a contradiction that appears to be growing, so Dialectically there will likely be a shift from the quantitative to qualitative, so to speak.
but only judge leftist movements as though they are Ultras
the radlib/ultra/maoist overlaps are a source of fascination for me.
IMO it stems from a reaction to Red Scare Propaganda, a counter to it, combined with Marx himself being thoroughly de-fanged into being “good, but outdated.” Marxists are harmless, or even have a few good points, but Capitalism won!
They believe Red Scare Propaganda was purely about Marx himself and not leftist movements, they realize America is Imperialist but also believe their propaganda to be true.
It’s a weird and likely unique overlap that will simply no longer exist as time goes on and we move beyond the Red Scare ever further, and Capitalism continues to decline.
That makes sense. lemmy.ml won’t be the one to defed from any of the larger servers, because we want to promote an interconnected fediverse, even if it does mean a lot of cross interaction and potential fights between pro and anti-communists.
Other servers are free to defederate if they wish, obvi its up to a server-owner to run their server how they see best. Even if there’s more rifts in the fediverse, I’m not too worried… the long-term trend though will be towards instances that connect with the most people, and don’t shut themselves out.
I agree with promoting inter-connectedness, I am on Lemmy.ml as opposed to grad or hexbear precisely because I believe in fostering that connection. I do think it’s more likely .world defeds, but currently they want to maintain that same vision of interconnectedness. I can see .world putting it to a vote and letting users defed, to save face, eventually.
I agree, if there does become a multi-polar Lemmy, there will be healthier growth from the more open instances.
If there is to be a shift from the quantitative to the qualitative, then I think that—whatever of the proximate cause that breaks the camel’s back—this US election will be the ultimate cause.
That’s a good point, and I’m inclined to agree. I hadn’t actually put 2 and 2 together there, haha, but it makes a lot of sense.
We will see if the saber rattling actually goes anywhere this time, but it won’t be gone for long if it doesn’t.
