this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2025
223 points (73.3% liked)

Memes

46437 readers
1584 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] garbagebagel@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)
[–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Wikipedia has a good article about the term

If you think Hitler is bad, wait until you hear what he has to say about the soviets!

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

But seriously this is an argument that has been over since before anyone alive today was ever born

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

authoritarianism = bad is literal baby brain

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

All it really boils down to is "supports AES," though. The article even says as much.

[–] DSTGU@sopuli.xyz 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I skimmed through the article and I have no clue what does being a tankie have to do with encryption algorithms

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 13 hours ago

Actually Existing Socialism. Cuba, Vietnam, China, Laos, the former USSR, etc.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 21 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Just replace "woke" with "russian".

[–] MetalMachine@feddit.nl 12 points 1 day ago

Its become the boomer equivalent of calling everything bad communist.

[–] VinesNFluff@pawb.social 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Whoever taught liberals that word, I hope they have diarrhea forever.

That would probably be some ultras, they are very desperate to be recognized by liberals as "true communists" unlike those "fake authoritarians". Liberals of course don't give a shit and immediately labeled ultras as tankies as well.

[–] Kwakigra@beehaw.org 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

From Wikipedia:

The term "tankie" was originally used by dissident Marxist–Leninists to describe members of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) who followed the party line of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). Specifically, it was used to distinguish party members who spoke out in defence of the Soviet use of tanks to suppress the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the 1968 Prague Spring, or who more broadly adhered to pro-Soviet positions.

I've never understood why there is any confusion over the word "tankie." It applies to the pro-cop left. If a leftist believes that it's necessary for cops to beat minorities and dissidents into submission for their society to function, they're tankies. If they approach leftism in a way that does not involve state violence against civilians to enforce those ideas, they're not tankies. To me there isn't a lot of gray area.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I don't think your second paragraph follows from the first. The cited revolts were largely fascist in origin, for example the Hungarian revolt had the fascists lynching Soviet Officials and freeing Nazis from prison in order to assist with lynching Soviet Officials. Calling them "dissidents" or pretending they were ethnic minorities is ridiculous. Not answering fascists lynchings with violence would be incredibly terrible.

The "rebels" were trained and supplied by MI6, and had marked the doors of Jews and Communists for extermination.

Really curious what a "non-tankie" would recommend doing in such a situation. Giving the Nazis that killed hundreds of people flowers?

[–] Kwakigra@beehaw.org 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What you claimed is very believable to me, and I'm also prepared to believe that the reality of your claims is heavily censored in the English language. That being said I haven't been able to find evidence to support that the primary drivers of these respective uprisings were fascist or Western. I have only found evidence of other causes. I have no doubt opportunistic fascists and Western governments took advantage of these situations for their own benefit, but the origins of these situations seem to have been genuine domestic issues which were met with state violence causing the situation to escalate. Would you link me to your sources?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

This is a decent overview of the background that led up to the events of 1956, and this is a decent overview of the darker side, where the lynchings happened. Content Warning: lynched corpses. Here is a source on MI6 training and arming the counterrevolutionaries. Those 3 articles give only the briefest overview of the events, but don't do the real buildup to them, their complexities, what the people actually supported, or the real character in any depth. If you want to actually take a deep dive, these are additional sources:

The History of the Working Class Movement in Hungary

1956 Counter-Revolution in Hungary

Others can offer more sources.

Overall, when it comes to geopolitical enemies of the United States in particular, it would not be a bad idea to treat your current understanding with extreme skepticism until you've investigated counter-sources as well. That doesn't mean the US always lies, in fact it frequently tells mostly the truth, but will distory either the quality or quantity of an event.

[–] Kwakigra@beehaw.org 4 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Thank you for taking my request in good faith; this is what I was looking for. I'll be taking some time to look through these.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 18 hours ago

No problem! I try to be good faith, haha. There's a lot to the events in Hungary, Prague, and so forth, so there's a lot to dig into beyond what I provided.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Carl@lemm.ee 25 points 2 days ago (2 children)

True but only for terminally online liberals. I still haven't heard anyone in real life ever use that word.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone 49 points 2 days ago (39 children)

Authoritarianism is authoritarianism. Doesnt matter how you paint it.

[–] prototype_g2@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 day ago

Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?


On authority, by Frederick Engels 1872

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

load more comments (38 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›