this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023
1559 points (99.9% liked)

196

16574 readers
1903 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Remember kids, Tankies wants to undermine democracy - same as facists.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 year ago (8 children)
[–] AmberPrince@kbin.social 55 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's a pejorative term to describe authoritarian Chinese government apologists. Historically it was used to describe communist members that defended the use of tanks against civilians during a Hungary uprising.

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago

TIL. Thank you.

[–] NathanUp@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 31 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Authoritarian ~~communists~~.

You can only have one or the other, not both, since they are inherently incompatible. People calling themselves communists, doesn't mean that's what they are.

[–] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 year ago

I think theoretically communism requires a society with no state, but I think historically a vanguard party has come in and said "yeah we will do bureaucracy for a while and then dissolve the state" aaaaaand now you have a dictator and stazi and gestapo and thought crimes and a gulag. Oops 😋

[–] ichmagrum@feddit.de 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Bit of a no true scotsman discussion.

[–] CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

How so? Communism ultimately describes a society where power is spread amongst the people, while authoritarianism describes a system where power is concentrated at the top. What could possibly be communist about an authoritarian regime?

[–] mycorrhiza@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

Look at Indonesia in 1965–66 to see what happens to peaceful communists. Or Chile in 73. They’re rounded up and slaughtered by US-backed fascists. The reason ML theory prescribes a period of authoritarianism is to defend against this.

[–] Meowoem@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

But power being spread among the people doesn't mean there's no rules or organisation, just because you work in a communist run flour mill doesn't mean you can piss in the flour.

So we get into structure issues, we can all vote on if pissing in the flour should be allowed and what the punishment should be for doing it - this is the difference between communism and anarchy, literally living without a ruler Vs living in commune under shared values.

We dont all want to spend all day voting on what we can piss on so we could theoretically vote for a representative we like to do that for us - if all the local villages did that the representatives could all get together and debate and vote somewhere but to stop everyone talking over each other you'd want a secretary so they could vote for one and if the secretaries all got together for a regional or national meeting they would want a secretary too...

It would be natural to expect these people to act in the best interest of the people without ruining and asking everyone to vote on every little thing but of course they're not going to be acting in the best interests of the flour pissers - from the flour pissers perspective if the top secretary passes a bill to say no flour pissing then they're a big bad authoritarian.

(And don't confuse dictator with authoritarian, they're not synonyms)

[–] ichmagrum@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's entirely secondary to whether people get called communists. If everyone calls them communists, including themselves, it's ultimately futile to try to call them anything else.

[–] Leviathan@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

North Korea calls itself democratic, does that make it so? No.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

I too believe that anarcho-monarchism is valid and not at all contradictory

[–] lemillionsocks@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This kind of parsing is dangerous and its how bad actors are able to infiltrate and get into power. Yes totalitarian communists didnt practice it in their true form and were totalitarian dictatorships, but its dangerous to pretend like they didnt sprout organically from a communist movement, and didnt identify and define communism for decades.

Stalin wasnt a nazi no matter how much he fits the bill more and it's important to recognize them in your ranks clawing for power and waiting to take advantage of good will.

[–] Donger@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] DragonTypeWyvern 15 points 1 year ago

That's impossible, I shoved all those counter-revolutionaries into a ditch and ran them over with t-

Uh oh

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

"Tankie" is a term that was originally coined (ironically, by Marxist-Leninists themselves) to describe members of the CPGB (Communist Party of Great Britain) who justified the Soviet Union's invasion of Hungary in 1956. It has since become a catch-all term used to describe (self-described) leftists that slavishly adhere to the propaganda of or justify the actions of authoritarian regimes that are (or are perceived to be) "socialist" such as China or (bizarrely enough) modern-day Russia.

[–] lntl@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

they're communist scum, wannabe terrorists

[–] Leviathan@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Tankies are not Communists, they're authoritarian fascists. About as communist as North Korea is democratic.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

I strongly encourage you to read this article from a mainstream Jewish holocaust scholar on why equating "tankies" and fascists carries water for the holocaust

https://jewishcurrents.org/the-double-genocide-theory

[–] lntl@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

we've got ourselves a tankie here