I forgot to set a reminder so I’m a little late getting to this, but here we are again:
Are you a “tankie”?
Respond “yes” or “no”, I’ll collate results later
This process is being undertaken to determine if so-called “tankies” are conspiring to make you (yes, you) have a bad time on the internet!
vague or informal answers will be interpreted by the central authority (me). Only top level comments will be counted. I will not be providing further instructions or clarifications.
🤯
Link to previous results (very serious) hexbear / lemmy,ml
Link to previous “are you a tankie?” thread
I’ll likely check back in a week, my old pc died so itll take a little bit of time to prettify the results and write a report
Ciao, and of course, imperialism must be destroyed.
Tankie is a pretty cool sounding word, so yes.
I am in a superposition of being a tankie and not being a tankie at the same time.
Tankies consider me a lib because I dislike DPRK.
Libs consider me a tankie because I dislike “the west”.
Oh well
Pretty much in the same boat
Can I join the club?
In that “tankie” is just a pejorative for a communist, yes. I’m a Marxist-Leninist, and I uphold AES as legitimate.
Workers of the world, unite! ☭
What is AES in this context? I’m pretty sure it’s not encryption or a corporation lol
Actually Existing Socialism, countries like the PRC, Cuba, DPRK, Vietnam, Laos, former USSR, etc.
I can see the difference between these and EU, but isn’t EU mostly socialist? Like France for example, isn’t it considered so? Assuming socialist ≠ Marxist.
No, the EU is all capitalist, in every economy (even the nordics) private ownership is the principle aspect and governs the large firms and key industries. Financial capital and by extension imperialism are the dominant forces in society.
In the countries I listed, it’s the opposite, public ownership is at minimum the principle aspect. Some are more heavily publicly owned, like the DPRK and Cuba, and others have more market forces at play, like Vietnam and the PRC, but in all cases public ownership is principle.
If I may ask: Does my country Algeria count as AES then ?
Algeria is more complicated. It has had a long history of communists and socialist revolutionaries such as Frantz Fanon, but is currently a capitalist country. It’s far better than imperialist countries like France, and has been very progressive in opposing imperialism and colonialism, but isn’t considered socialist.
Tankie is a pejorative for authoritarians that advocate violence to further their political aims. The particular ideology is just window dressing.
You’ve expanded the definition to include nearly everyone. All states are authoritarian, in that they are all instruments by which one class wields its authority over other classes. Revolution is the most authoritarian action there is, as was liberating the slaves in Haiti, the Statesian south, etc. You’ve erased any analysis of what these political aims are, essentially saying only pacifists have validity, and historically pacifists have been some of the least effective, or even damaging to their movements.
I suggest you read the articles I linked, you can read both in the span of ~15 minutes and you’ll have a much better understanding of what “tankie” means.
Your theory has just one minor flaw: every violent revolution ever has resulted in one clique of repressive assholes being replaced with another. And every time they’ve betrayed every ideal they ever did it didn’t have in order to cling on to power. How is your revolution going to be different?
Your comment has one major flaw: it’s wrong.
Revolution in France, for example, ovethrew an oppressive monarchy. Napoleon took power, but it was still an improvement, and in the long run was even better. In Haiti, slavery was overthrown, in Algeria colonialism was overthrown. These are just for national liberation movements and general revolution.
Socialist revolution in Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Korea, and more have all dramatically improved key metrics like life expectancy, dramatically democratized society, increased literacy rates, and lowered disparity while dramatically developing society. Socialism achieves far better metrics at similar levels of wealth and development, even in the face of brutal sanctions.
There is no “betrayal of ideals,” there’s the real process of existing in the world and facing real struggles. Socialism isn’t magic or perfect, it’s simply a much better economic system than capitalism. It isn’t immune to problems or struggles, and it doesn’t gift those running the economy with prophetic visions. Liberal anti-communists hold socialism to a higher standard than liberal systems, refusing it outright if it isn’t heaven on Earth, and call it a “betrayal” if it isn’t immediately a perfect wonderland while giving liberalism a pass, or mild critique.
I expect revolution in the US Empire to go a similar way, only that it won’t be at risk of being nuked or sanctioned to death by the US Empire.
I highly suggest doing more research on the topic at hand, I can make recommendations if you want.
So having all of Europe drenched in blood by Napoleon was an improvement? And you conveniently forgot the terror. Similar things could be said about your other examples. The rest is just assertions without evidence so I’ll have to pull Hitchens’ razor.
The rest is just assertions without evidence
Literally all of your claims have been assertions without evidence
THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.
-Mark Twain
In the end, moving beyond feudalism to capitalism was progressive, just as moving on beyond capitalism to socialism was and is progressive. This is rarely bloodless, but it pales in comparison to the daily violence of the present system.
Secondly, I did offer evidence upon request, I find when I just dump sources people tune out. If you have specific questions, I can back them up with answers and evidence, otherwise the lack of evidence applies just as much to you.
The rest is just assertions without evidence so I’ll have to pull Hitchens’ razor.
Neocon Iraq war supporting Christopher Hitchens? weems like a weird guy to quote if you’re opposed to the state murdering people but ok
0·1 month agoGeorge Washington is a Tankie. Hitler is a Tankie. Makhno is a Tankie. Etc.
Obviously, the term “tankie” is only applied to the left. My point was that in that respect there is not really any difference between the extremes of the political spectrum. You could even say they converge in some way.
No, horseshoe theory is just liberalism trying to distance itself from fascism, when historically liberalism abd fascism correspond to capitalism doing okay and capitalism in crisis respectively.
Further, liberalism has also been responsible for mass violence, both the progressive kind such as in the French revolution, and the horribly reactionary kind when it comes to slavery, colonialism, genocide of Palestine, etc.
Redefining words and whataboutism. Name a more iconic duo.
What words did I redefine? What “whataboutism” did I do? I explained very clearly why your definition is bad, and applies to everyone. Comparison is not “whataboutism” inherently.
You literally just redefined the word ‘tankie’ when called out for your shitty definition of it.
Also George Washington was a leftist extremist to the British monarchy.
You’re such a sweet nerd, I really appreciate you comrade <3
(I am finally doing this)
Aww, thanks comrade <3
Oh god oh fuck I’m the type of commie that isn’t obsessed with millitary equipment I didn’t study oh god oh fuck
nice try, CIA
A lil one
I’ve been called one, but fuck if I know what I am.
Are you a communist?
I think I interacted with one? They were denying the prosecution of the Muslim Uygurs by China
Interesting that the outright Islamophobe seems to be defending muslims against China. Either way, it’s likely you were told that the situation is more complicated. The best and most comprehensive resource I have seen so far is Qiao Collective’s Xinjiang: A Resource and Report Compilation. Qiao Collective is explicitly pro-PRC, but this is an extremely comprehensive write-up of the entire background of the events, the timeline of reports, and real and fake claims.
I also recommend reading the UN report and China’s response to it. These are the most relevant accusations and responses without delving into straight up fantasy like Adrian Zenz, professional propagandist for the Victims of Communism Foundation, does.
Tourists do go to Xinjiang all the time. You can watch videos like this one on YouTube, though it obviously isn’t going to be a comprehensive view of a complex situation like this.
Lol, it was the very same “bear or man” but I just changed man with Muslim because that’s what you’re all being stupid about. The bear or man point stayed but mine got “moderated” for islamophobia. And yeah this “outright islamophobe” is against the concept of ethnic cleansing, wowe.
While I appreciate you actually bringing up sources unlike that other asshole, I can’t really take you seriously throwing out claims like the first one.
Now, I won’t admit I’m an expert and it’s a fairly way back event. But what I was told was that they basically corraled all those Muslims and didn’t let them practice their faith.
Why can’t people admit countries do shitty things? It’s happened with mine, it’s happened with China and it’s happened with the US.
Being islamophobic “ironically” doesn’t get a pass, though. All that looks like is looking for an excuse to be bigoted in a socially acceptable manner.
Either way, you admit to not being an expert and haven’t dug into sources, yet fully accept what you are told and agree that China is committing ethnic cleansing just because “countries do shitty things?” High accusations like ethnic cleansing need actual proof, not just people parroting the claims of Adrian Zenz uncritically.
There’s a political reason the idea of genocide is pushed, it’s to undermine the PRC’s international image and delay the Belt and Road Initiative in the Xinjiang Autonomous Zone, which is a key point connecting mainland China to Europe and the Middle East.
Again, being islamophobic “ironically” to get upset at someone complaining about systemic violence against women is not okay.
I simply replaced the words that referenced me with someone else. Why is it OK when done to me but not when done to some other group?
Simply put. Zip it with the virtue signaling, stupid talk like this will just get more people voting trump. Why’d I support a group that talks about me like this?
Women and muslims are both systematically oppressed groups, you used someone complaining about violence against women as a springboard to make an incredibly poor “joke” about muslims, just repeating standard islamophobic talking points as the “joke.” This isn’t about virtue signalling, you were in the wrong and it was right to remove your comment.
Who said it was a joke. I straight up just replaced the word men with Muslim. Why is it to OK to say that about one group of people and not the other?
You aren’t gonna convince the man who’s been told in the face “All men are predators” that this kind of talk is OK to be directed at anyone.
I am simply done with anyone who believes this stupid black or white rethoric. Look, you already caged me as the “oughtright islamophobe”, move on as nothing I say will ever move you and nothing you say will ever move me.
So it wasn’t a joke, you were just being openly islamophobic after all? Incredible.
Again, women and muslims are both systemically oppressed. No, nobody said “all men are predators,” you took personal offense to someone talking about widespread systemic oppression of women. Do some self-crit, you talked down on someone speaking against oppression and added your own islamophobic take.
no
No, I don’t think so?
I was expecting a questionnaire. Um, no…
No. But my anarchist friends consider me one. Also I don’t consider the term tankie to be synonymous with communist or socialist.
If there were no meddling from the imperialist special interest abroad, there would have been no need for the tanks. Unfortunately the siege is ever present and ubiquitous.
“Tankie” isn’t synonymous with communist in the same way “pinko” isn’t, both are just pejoratives for communists.
I’m an anarchist though I do get called a tankie quite a lot as a pejorative.
I’m opposed to all states. That said as someone who lives in the west I don’t really care to spend a lot of energy being mad about what my governments state enemies are doing.
‘democracy’ in capitalist states is a cruel facsimile of actual democracy. If you don’t have money for rent you might as well be unpersoned, corporations are people and money is free speech.
The question is, do you want to murder people who disagree with you?
Obviously not. Not sure what you’re trying to get at here though.
No
No
no
