Is there like a punch card or??
If you're in Israel, 0.
what actually is a tankie? I mean I just have an appreciation for the engineering that goes into mechanical stuff like tanks, helicopters and jets...but not cars
It's a pejorative for Marxists, usually Marxist-Leninists, in the same vein as "commie," "pinko," and "red." That's about it.
I think everyone has their own definition, though it’s definitely a crude slur.
I dunno a more respectful term, and my political leanings have changed over time, including recently…
Like I will nod my head as whatever capitalism or NATO or whatever has done. 'Yep, probably right, beyond awful'… But whatever the word/slur is, I draw the threshold at sheer inability to see self criticism, to an extreme. That’s a “tankie” to me.
I think would call extreme hyper capitalist apologists the same thing, where every awful thing capitalism and associated isms have done is just communist propaganda or whatever. That’s just too much for me.
The problem with having your own definition of a social term is that whenever you use it, others all generally see it as a negative term for a communist. For what it's worth, I don't really see people unable to perform self-crit among Marxists, but I see the word "tankie" thrown nonetheless.
I've seen Marxists use the word too. It usually refers to authoritarian communists.
"Authoritarian" is a meaningless word, usually attributed to those who support proletarian states against landlords and capitalists. The "Marxists" that call other Marxists "tankies" tend to be the extremely western chauvanistic types that wish to endlessly critique society, not change it.
To clarify, I was referring specifically to Russia, China, and North Korea.
To clarify, the overwhelming majority of Marxists support AES overall, except the very western, chauvanistic types that wish to endlessly critique society, not change it.
What does AES mean in this context?
"Actually Existing Socialism," countries like the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, and former USSR. Countries that have shifted to a mode of production where the large and key industries are publicly owned, rather than privately owned. The vast majority of Marxists worldwide support these countries, to varying degrees and of course with nuances. The ones who claim the title "Marxist" yet condemn them and those who support them as "tankies" are the chauvanistic western type devoid of meaningful practice.
It means exactly the same thing that "commie" meant during the cold war, it's just an updated version to for people who don't want to sound like red scare era boomers.
Directly 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.[6][7] The term has extended to describe people who endorse, defend, or deny the actions of communist leaders such as Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong. In recent times, the term has been used across the political spectrum and in a geopolitical context to describe those who have a bias in favour of anti-Western states, authoritarian states, or states with a socialist legacy, such as Belarus, Cuba, China,[8][9] Nicaragua, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela.
So OP is basically saying they love it when governments crack the will of their people by force as long as its their team doing it.
Using your own definition, the conclusion doesn't follow, what follows is that OP is a Marxist-Leninist. The concluding bit is your personal mischaracterization of Marxism-Leninism.
So OP is basically saying they love it when governments crack the will of their people by force as long as its their team doing it.
Amazing how this doesn't' even match up with the definition you just posted yourself.
I mean, it does match the original definition pretty well. Aa always it's an issue of people having different definitions for the same word.
It doesn't, though. The bit Sanctus added to the end was their personal evaluation of Marxism-Leninism, not something that matched the Wiki definition.
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
huh?
Correct, the reasons Marxist-Leninists support the suppression of western-backed and trained fascist counter-revolutions and widespread lynchings of communists and Jewish peoples are not about "good side crushing bad side."
Idk about that. Seems there were conflicting opinions about whether this was good or bad. And while yeah it makes sense the CIA would back this. I dont see Amy fascist shit here.
On the night of 20–21 August 1968, military forces from several Warsaw Pact member states (Albania, Romania and East Germany did not participate[58]) invaded Czechoslovakia. Soviet media cited a call for help from unnamed representatives as the cause of the "fraternal intervention", publishing an unidentified appeal as proof on 22 August 1968; However, as it became clear from the first day that virtually the entire responsible leadership of the Czechoslovak government and communist parties, including Dubček, were being blamed as causes of the invasion, and even the Soviet-supported leadership fell into accusations against each other, most allied communist parties around the world rejected the Soviet pretext as a thin disguise for gross violation of national party autonomy.[59] Even President Ludvík Svoboda had publicly issued a statement calling on occupying forces to withdraw and for reforms to continue, while Czechoslovakia's UN representatives were calling for international support against the invasion.
Wikipedia is a western-centric overview, not a historical document. The anti-communists in Hungary were marking up the doors of Jews and communists, lynching them. For Czechoslovakia, again, the counter-revolutionaries were anti-communist nationalists who wanted to install a far-right government. It's cut and dry among Marxist-Leninists that intervention was correct these days.
I'd be happy to learn another viewpoint. But so far I dont see your claims backed up anywhere. Maybe if I could read some of your sources I could agree with them.
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.
Thank you, I'll read the epubs of those books. I was trying to dig more into Dubcek but the Wikipedia entry glosses over how he arrived at his conclusion and ideals. The US doesnt always lie, but it does a lot, especially very recently. I dont trust governments of any sort. I tend towards arnarchism.
Well, there's a big difference between a government run by the working class, and one run by representatives of the capitalist class.
It was not. Its my personal evaluation of a self described tankie. Which I dont think is an actual ideology. Just an insult. But OP said they were one so.
The only self-described "tankies" are Marxist-Leninists being tongue-in-cheek, like those who call themselves commies.
I wouldn't be so sure. There are definitely authoritarian lefties, no matter how back asswards it seems.
"Authoritarianism" isn't really a thing. What ultimately matters is which class in society has control of the state, and that determines how it responds to class conflicts. What determines the strength of state force in those conflicts is the circumstances society is found in, not the whims of random individuals.
Wikipedia is owned by someone who's married to a federal agent, not a valid source of information for anything like this
OK Boomer.
They're right, cry about it
Why cry? I understand the tools of the modern world 😁
Says a rando anon online. Oooh, so credible. Rawr.
They're right, cry about it
If the right wingers in my country are vehemently against it. It must have something going for it. Otherwise they wouldnt have made their own conservopedia.
What a terrible metric. Literally reactionary
You never engage with me positively. So I couldn't care less what you have to say. I never even engage with you first. You come to me to be a dick every time I post anywhere near an ml account.
me over here enjoying the entire vitriol between the two groups because everyone is soooooooo edgy
