This is something I always get in arguments about, whenever I use the word tankie hexbear and grad users argue that its just a term for socialists.
I’ve always just used it to referr to authoritarian communists, i.e, people who unironically support modern russia, and/or oppose ukraine, and think nothing happened to the uyghurs.
Supports ‘socalist’ authoritarianism
Fascists painted red. Issues like Uyghur genocide and support or neutrality on the imperialist invasion of Ukraine by Russia, and subsequent ethnic cleansing, are often clear indicators of tankieism; but really the root is tribalism without any deeper cause, principles, or thought process. Many are American exceptionalists who insist everything revolves around US policy.
Those who claim that ‘tankie’ just means ‘socialists’ and everyone who uses it is a bourgeois puppet or useful idiot are often the same kinds of people who will say things like “The Hungarian Revolution of 1956, led by workers and demanding a democratic and socialist government of the people, was counterrevolutionary fascism and they deserved to be crushed by Soviet tanks”
same kinds of people who will say things like “The Hungarian Revolution of 1956, led by workers and demanding a democratic and socialist government of the people, was counterrevolutionary fascism and they deserved to be crushed by Soviet tanks”
Which is, fittingly, where the term comes from to begin with
Yeah, I get a lot of arguments shot down by hexbear users and grad users because they take issue with the term. After I explain my stance, they say that not everyone has the same level of nuance when it comes to the term.
Tankies I define as Authoritarian state apologists, who support authoritarian states without any critical examination of that belief.
Pretty much this. I see a lot of arguments that their support of russia is “critical support” but there’s no criticism of it in their discussions. Being against the western imperialism, it seems, automatically grants a country a title of “lesser evil” and everything it does gets conveniently glossed over.
That said, I can’t in good faith assert that everyone or even majority of the users on so-called “tankie triad” instances are tankies. It’s more that the tankies have a loud presence there that isn’t moderated. Most of the people from hexbear and .ml I’ve interacted with have been polite and rational in explaining their worldview.
Authoritarian left who think the end justifies the means. They’re willing to use extreme systematic violence to achieve a communist society.
They’re not communists
Thats dangerously close to the “no true scotsman” fallacy.
It isn’t close to, it is the no true Scotsman fallacy.
Communism (from Latin communis, ‘common, universal’) is a sociopolitical, philosophical, and economic ideology within the socialist movement, whose goal is the creation of a communist society, a socioeconomic order centered on common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products to everyone in society based on need. A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes, and ultimately money and the state (or nation state).
Communists often seek a voluntary state of self-governance but disagree on the means to this end. This reflects a distinction between a libertarian socialist approach of communization, revolutionary spontaneity, and workers’ self-management, and an authoritarian socialist, vanguardist, or party-driven approach under a socialist state, which is eventually expected to wither away.
“No true Scotsman” is about redefining a term to suit the argument, not that purity tests or gatekeeping are inherently illegitimate.
their end goal is state capitalism though, so I don’t see the contradiction
Yeah. If they call the current state of China with literal billionaires, communist, then they aren’t communist in any economically defined sense of the world
It’s only a fallacy when used wrong
authoritarian communists, i.e, people who unironically support modern russia
🤦
