826
submitted 1 year ago by Vuraniute@thelemmy.club to c/memes@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] carl_marks_1312@hexbear.net 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Too bad instances can't defederate HB.

Can you please elaborate?

They seem to not understand that they're tankies.

Tankie is a social construct and is used to lazily discredit everyone to the left of bernie. It functions to libs the same way as "woke" functions for chuds. As a term it's basically meaningless to anyone outside of the internet.

[-] BigNote@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

I love how you guys have decided that your definitions are the only correct ones. It's your primary weapon here, for obvious reasons.

[-] carl_marks_1312@hexbear.net 24 points 1 year ago

I love how you guys have decided that your definitions are the only correct ones.

You're strawmaning hard here, because I never said it's a definition or that it's the only one. It's just my understanding of the term. What part of it is wrong in your opinion? I want to consider it

It's your primary weapon here, for obvious reasons.

Because it's obvious that when you're challenged on your understanding of words you have nothing to say?

Communism is political science, words have meanings and we tend to use the correct ones, yes.

[-] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Annakah69@hexbear.net 23 points 1 year ago

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!

[-] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] WideningGyro@hexbear.net 16 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

Well, Cubans still live in pretty close proximity to squalor. They can't even afford to maintain their own buildings, don't have a functional transportation system, and people live on what, $20 a month? The one saving grace is out there health care system is decent. And by that, I mean much more equitable than in the United States.

[-] ThereRisesARedStar@hexbear.net 12 points 1 year ago

Theyre also a small island nation which has survived 60 years of brutal siege and sabotage by the imperial core 70 miles away.

[-] Ram_The_Manparts@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago

Do you think that US actions against Cuba such as sanctions and blockades is part of the reason Cuba is a poor country?

And if yes, to what extent?

[-] MF_COOM@hexbear.net 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.)

[-] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago

Do you believe capitalism is good because it helped some people? The whole point of socialism is to put the means of production into the hands of the workers and not a vanguard party. Yea, the USSR did quite a lot of imperialism which it used to reduce income inequality of the Russian people but it was never socialist.

[-] MF_COOM@hexbear.net 9 points 1 year ago

Do you know what imperialism means

[-] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Yes, the USSR annexing it's neighbours and then exporting their resources and people was very much imperialism.

[-] ThereRisesARedStar@hexbear.net 8 points 1 year ago

Read this book to stop seeming so silly.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/

Also the non Russian SSRs voted to keep the soviet union around at higher rates than the Russians.

[-] Annakah69@hexbear.net 15 points 1 year ago

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

[-] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

You're wrong, what Marx talked about was the whole class of workers being in power. Stalin perverted that idea to a vanguard party. Stalin's system has always resulted in a ruling class composed of a class that was no longer the proletariat (if they even were to begin with). That system is not socialist, it is in fact no better than a capitalist system, as the hierarchies at work are equally unjust.

[-] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

State capitalism with an authoritarian regime, if you will.

[-] uralsolo@hexbear.net 15 points 1 year ago

the ideology Stalin made

I would say Lenin was more instrumental in the creation of Marxism-Leninism, Stalin was just the guy who happened to be in charge when they named it. It's also a tendency that has evolved a lot from what it was in the 40s.

[-] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

You mean the guy in charge after the death of Lenin? Who Lenin warned against?

[-] uralsolo@hexbear.net 8 points 1 year ago

I mean the guy who had the support of 99% of the communists, yes.

[-] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

Russia and China were never Marxist.

[-] ThereRisesARedStar@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago

Have you read any marx?

[-] carl_marks_1312@hexbear.net 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

https://hexbear.net/search?q=tankie&type=All&listingType=All&communityId=31&page=1&sort=TopAll

[-] CommunityLinkFixer 1 points 1 year ago

Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn't work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: !the_dunk_tank@hexbear.net

[-] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Nakoichi@hexbear.net 16 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

Yea, people that supported a dictatorial regime with socialist aesthetics as in the USSR. What part of that has changed?

[-] ThereRisesARedStar@hexbear.net 10 points 1 year ago

The USSR was literally more democratic than bourgeois democracy.

[-] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

It really depends on which bourgeois democracy. I may agree if compared to the US (I'm not too educated on the US so I could be wrong) but few others.

Though I fail to understand how that has anything to do with the topic of tankie having a consistent definition.

[-] ThereRisesARedStar@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You claim that the USSR was a dictatorship with socialist aesthetics.

Also, no, no bourgeois democracy is or was as democratic as the USSR. Look up dictatorship of the bourgeoisie vs dictatorship of the proletariat.

[-] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

Dictatorship of the proletariat as Marx wrote has never been achieved and arguably(Depending on how naive you believe Lenin was) has never even been worked towards. MLs bastardization of that in the form of a vanguard party is just a different dictatorship of the bourgeoisie as it creates a ruling class.

[-] ThereRisesARedStar@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago

MLs bastardization of that in the form of a vanguard party is just a different dictatorship of the bourgeoisie as it creates a ruling class.

Have you read marxist theory? What have you read? This comes off as grossly misinformed.

[-] WideningGyro@hexbear.net 13 points 1 year ago

And I assume by "dictatorial regimes" you mean any actually existing socialist country, right?

[-] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

No, I do not. I made it clear multiple times that dictatorships with socialist aesthetics aren't socialist in any other way.

[-] ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago

Sure, but the evil potato chips are still Cuba, China, Vietnam etc, right?

Literally every one of our anarchist users have been called tankies, lmao

this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
826 points (85.7% liked)

Memes

45602 readers
1245 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