111
What's a Tankie? (lemmy.world)
submitted 11 months ago by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
332 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I keep hearing the term in political discourse, and rather than googling it, I'm asking the people who know better than Google.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 19 points 11 months ago* (15 children)

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."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [+] 7 points 11 months ago* (14 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 21 points 11 months ago* (13 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [+] 8 points 11 months ago (10 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (9 children)

    "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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 11 months ago (3 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    The current usage is as an anticommunist pejorative and McCarthyite strawman.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 1 point 11 months ago* (1 child)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 16 points 11 months ago

    1. 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.

    2. All states are β€œauthoritarian,” 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.

    3. I don't like being referred to like "one of you." I don't care what they posted, I am explaining directly to you.

    4. 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent