Asklemmy

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[–] QuietCupcake@hexbear.net 21 points 9 months ago (2 children)

For anyone reading this who might be scratching their head as to what "tankie" means, you can find descrriptions of its history a number of places, but for all intents and purposes here on the fediverse, it simply refers to the people who have the most education in history and socioeconomics. Since reality is in direct contradiction with most of the prevailing narratives pushed by the powerful beneficiaries of the dominant systems (the most obvious of these systems being capitalism), there will always be a contingent of true believers in the dominant narrative who are shocked to find that there are others who openly reject those narratives. The former will clutch their pearls, aghast that the propaganda they've believed all their lives is being questioned by these... these... muckrakers! And so a pejorative is used (hence the word "tankies") to otherize and sequester the individuals best able to challenge those narratives, individuals whose presence tends to trigger the uncomfortable feeling of cognitive dissonance in those who aren't yet ready or able to put their beliefs to honest questioning.

In short, if you have no problem with seeing and reading perspectives that might make you question your own perspective, then you should have no problem with the "tankies." And as for those who would actively defederate from those vile tankie instances so as to avoid having to confront even the possibility that their own beliefs are riddled throughout with deep misconceptions, well that should tell you something about the priorities of those tankie-fearing communities.

parent

[–] wolfinthewoods@lemmy.ml 11 points 9 months ago

Thank you friend. That is the most succinct explaination of 'tankies' I ever read.

parent

[–] ThirdConsul@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago

The former will clutch their pearls, aghast that the propaganda they’ve believed all their lives is being questioned by these… these… muckrakers

Well, to be fair, you should add that this definition matches also crazies on hexbear or ml who will defend EVERYTHING done by AES or Russia or China, because since Europe and USA are bad, then surely not those are always good.

(Population of crazies is significantly smaller than 100%, but they tend to be remembered by the people throwing "tankies" at them).

parent

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 16 points 9 months ago (1 child)

No major instances block Lemmy.ml, by the way. Some users take issue with the pro-communist stance of Lemmy.ml, but that's nothing new for communists to deal with.

parent

[+] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com -9 points 9 months ago* (5 children)

[removed by mod]

hideshow 10 child comments

parent

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 17 points 9 months ago (2 children)

"Tankie" is a strawman. It's a pejorative for Marxists and anti-imperialists, filled with falsehoods and contradictions. The purpose of calling someone a "tankie" is to turn them into this strawman in the eyes of onlookers, it terminates the conversation. An example of this is you claiming so-called "tankies" think Russia is still a socialist country governed by a communist party, which is absurd. Russia does maintain strong ties to socialist countries like China, does oppose the western Empire, and does have rising socialist sentiment in the broader population, but absolutely isn't socialist.

The PRC is socialist, though. Public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the working classes are in control of the state. Huge state owned industries are the backbone of the economy, while mixed forms of ownership make up the small and medium firms. Socialism isn't the absence of private property, even under Mao and the Gang of Four there were still large numbers of private firms.

As for what you call "authoritarianism," what we communists support is the working class using state authority against capitalists. Authority should be used by the working classes. This confusion of yours is why you misunderstand China. The PRC is by no means "late stage capitalist," rather it's relatively early in socialist development:

All in all, I suggest you listen more to these so-called "tankies," rather than letting your imagination run wild.

parent

[–] robot_dog_with_gun@hexbear.net 7 points 9 months ago (1 child)

I-was-saying

i probably would have supported sending tanks into hungary at the time, with the information available to british communists

parent

[–] Camille_Jamal@lemmy.ml [S] 2 points 8 months ago

Nice username

parent

[–] AnarchoBolshevik@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 9 months ago (1 child)

Socialism isn’t the absence of private property

Heh.

parent

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 14 points 9 months ago

It's one of those things where if we treat socialism as something wholly different from all previous modes of production, or as just the next mode of production. No socialist state has ever had a pure economy, yet they've all delivered consistent results entirely different from capitalist economies.

parent

[–] Edie@lemmy.ml 14 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Show me someone claiming modern day Russia is communist. I usually do not actually see this.

parent

[–] TankieTanuki@hexbear.net 14 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I've never seen it once. People love making stuff up apparently. Like "Ultra-mega-hyper-super-authoritarianism!"

parent

[–] Camille_Jamal@lemmy.ml [S] 3 points 8 months ago

Nice username

parent

[–] TankieTanuki@hexbear.net 13 points 9 months ago (1 child)

What is an example of an extant state that isn't "ultraauthoritarian" in your view?

parent

[+] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 9 months ago (3 children)

[removed by mod]

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] TankieTanuki@hexbear.net 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Any one with a somewhat working democracy, and decent social freedoms.

What is an example?

parent

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 13 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

Notice that they asked for an example and couldn't provide one.

more due to the incompetence of the governing fascists than to lack of intent.

Oh ok, so the fascist is governing the US are well intentioned and want democracy and freedom, they just aren't competent enough to achieve it. All of the USs enemies, though, are just evil.

And you call other people ultra-nationalist.

parent

[–] Camille_Jamal@lemmy.ml [S] 1 point 8 months ago

Happy cake day

parent

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 11 points 9 months ago

It’s not due to incompetence. The US has never been a democracy by design. In fact, it’s working as intended. Previously:

The US government was never not captured by the bourgeoisie, because the US was born of a bourgeois revolution[1]. The wealthy, white, male, land-owning, largely slave-owning Founding Fathers constructed a bourgeois state with “checks and balances” against the “tyranny of the majority”. It was never meant to represent the majority—the working class—and it never has, despite eventually allowing women and non-whites (at least those not disenfranchised by the carceral system) to vote. BBC: [Princeton & Northwestern] Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy

parent

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 11 points 9 months ago (1 child)

They’re pro-authoritarianism

At this point you might as well just say that they're "pro-badguyism", because you're operating on the level of Saturday morning cartoon logic where villains are evil for evils sake. Like seriously: "They just clumsily try to disguise themselves as being communists, but actually they just love evil!"? Are you listening to yourself?

parent

[+] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

[removed by mod]

parent