I have only seen it used in reference to people who support dictatorial regimes with socialist aesthetics, mostly MLs. I have yet to see an anarchist be called a tankie. Also you can hear it IRL, not commonly though since most MLs are on twitter and the like and not IRL.
I have only seen it used in reference to people who support dictatorial regimes with socialist aesthetics, mostly MLs.
yet to see an anarchist be called a tankie
https://hexbear.net/post/214901
https://hexbear.net/post/374789
https://hexbear.net/post/126901
There’s more in the_dunk_tank if you’re willing to dig
https://hexbear.net/c/the_dunk_tank
Pro Tip: Sort by Top All. Anarchists getting called tankie tends to get a lot of upbears because we have anarchist comrades on our instance. We’re a left unity instance
No idea what the first link is even about, seems incomprehensible. The second link seems true but I have no idea what was said prior. The third link is about programming. Seems there is one potential example of an anarchist being called a tankie. Seems like the vast majority of times it’s being used in reference to MLs still.
In all seriousness there are plenty of people who misuse words but tankie seems to have a very clear and easily defined definition, it has even remained the same historically. Comparing it to the crazies using ‘woke’ is dishonest at best.
it has even remained the same historically
lmao no it hasn’t. It originally referred specifically to people that supported the USSR putting down the Hungarian anti-communist protests. By the time “tankie” became a word (that only really ever had relevance in the UK) Stalin was long dead.
Based on your answer, I’ve discovered what tankie means: Tankie = Marxist.
Successful Marxist movement results in a dictatorship of the proletariat. Dictator = tankie.
Hence tankie is a term used to describe any Marxist.
Thanks for contributing to this scientific breakthrough!
Nah, first premise is false in more than one way. You are conflating the ideology Stalin made with Marxism.
The second error is that there has never been a dictatorship of the proletariat, every time it has been a political party that seizes power for themselves and not the workers. In doing so they become the ruling class with differing class interests than the workers.
Marx must be rotating in his grave with the speed to power the whole globe at this point.
What my society looks like when a party seizes power for themselves and not the workers
(Source: Thomas Piketty’s World Inequality Report 2022, for fun maybe try poking around and finding a non socialist state with any comparable inversion of income inequality.)
Yeah, clearly the Soviet, Chinese and Cuban workers had completely different interests than being raised out of poverty and squalor. Damn those dastardly political parties and their… diligent work towards eradictaing poverty while promoting actual, decentralized democracy.
You didn’t do the reading :(. Dictatorship of the proletariat is a concept Marx and Engles adopted. Stalin didn’t create it.
I don’t know what you think the proletariat taking control of the state is suppose to look like, but there will always be a communist party involved. The mechanisms of power exist to be ruled by a party.
Communist parties should be judged by what they do for their poorest citizens. With that in mind, AES countries are doing a decent job. Things get better when they are in power, and get way worse if they are overthrown
And I assume by “dictatorial regimes” you mean any actually existing socialist country, right?
No, I do not. I made it clear multiple times that dictatorships with socialist aesthetics aren’t socialist in any other way.
