There are a lot of pro-putin (and other shitty regime) tankies, that’s really my problem with them. If they were just militant communist types I wouldn’t have too much of an issue with them, I may not agree with them, but I’d at least understand their position, maybe even be somewhat sympathetic in some cases.
When you dig into their reasoning, it’s usually something like they support them because they’re also against the US/NATO/the west, sort of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” kind of deal, but that argument doesn’t really hold water for me, throwing your lot in with someone pulling the kinds of shit Putin does is totally indefensible, even if your plan is to ultimately turn on them after you’ve successfully toppled the west or whatever, you’ve still been supporting or at least turning a blind eye to some pretty horrific shit.
It’s like how the far right tries to gaslight everyone by trying to change the meaning of the word “nazi”. E.g.
“Oh, you call all right wingers nazis!”
“It’s a historical term! Nazis don’t exist anymore!”
etc
Tankies are doing the same with the word “tankie”. Even “militant communists” aren’t tankies – unless they cheer on brutal oppression by authoritarian regimes.
i think it’s relatively clear and obvious that there needs to be a word that describes regimes which systematically inflict violence upon their own civilians via mechanized artillery and the simps who support these regimes,
and that word is ‘tankie’
now, if I had my way, it’d be a different word, which would have served the purpose of freeing up ‘tankie’ for another purpose (a pejorative for people who brainlessly and uncritically gobble up the bullshit of think-tanks) but that’s not the world we live in. In this world, tankie refers to the scenario wherein,
Civilian Population: “We don’t like what’s happening” *peacefully protests and/or elects local leaders The Regime doesn’t like* The Regime: *dispatches tanks and/or shells the Civilian Population with artillery fire to brutalize them into submission or slaughter them if they don’t submit*
Granted, the present usage of “tankie” also carries implications about a given regime’s economic system (which is to imply that the regime’s economic system is Centrally Planned) but frankly that’s a stupid distinction to make when even capitalist regimes will do this to their own civilians too.
Ironically, the “Russian Speaking Civilians” that Russia claimed they were invading to “protect” have suffered greater casualties directly from Russian-fired munitions than they ever had before, so even though they are actually, in fact, UKRAINIAN civilians that they’re murdering, taking them at their word about these victims being Russian civilians would literally make Russia’s actions a tankie move.
By my more utilitarian definition of what constitutes tankie behavior, it also includes the actions of the previous Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko, who launched artillery strikes against the very same Ukrainian civilians back in 2014 (and subsequently had his ass kicked electorally by Zelenskyy on the basis that Zelenskyy was NOT going to be attacking civilians) so… it stopped being ukrainian policy by the time russia invaded. Russia stopped nothing, and on the contrary resumed needless civilian slaughter.
And there are some witless shitstains around the lemmy fediverse who unironically defend this abject fuckery.
(AKA Tankies)
TL;DR: Yes I concur my friend. The definition and usage of Tankie is indeed quite well established, ACTUALLY.
There’s no excuse for it, really. They always get involved with anti-(US)imperialism, and end up having high ranking members of their parties shake hands with reactionaries. You can support lifting sanctions on Iran, Syria, etc. without actually supporting Bashar al-Assad or Holocaust-deniers. They went to far in pursuit of geopolitcs rather than recognizing that one’s domestic bourgeosie is the major threat.
Imagine if Trump won 2024 and backed out of NATO. Who cares if Trump (a hardline anti-labor conservative) gets us out of wars if he thinks Joe Biden is a Communist. Of course, anyone to the left of Nick Fuentes would be sent to jail for “anti-patriotic actions” or some shit.
The same excuse of “the enemy of my enemy…” was used when the USSR told the Chinese Communists to just fully join with the Kuomintang after defeating Japan (which were backed by Americans that got rich off the Opium Wars and massacred leftists); or when China under Mao called the USSR social-imperialist and backed the Pol Pot regime.
There are a lot of pro-putin (and other shitty regime) tankies, that’s really my problem with them. If they were just militant communist types I wouldn’t have too much of an issue with them, I may not agree with them, but I’d at least understand their position, maybe even be somewhat sympathetic in some cases.
When you dig into their reasoning, it’s usually something like they support them because they’re also against the US/NATO/the west, sort of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” kind of deal, but that argument doesn’t really hold water for me, throwing your lot in with someone pulling the kinds of shit Putin does is totally indefensible, even if your plan is to ultimately turn on them after you’ve successfully toppled the west or whatever, you’ve still been supporting or at least turning a blind eye to some pretty horrific shit.
Exactly. I’m cool with communists, but fuck Hexbear and also kind of Lemmygrad for spreading authoritarian propaganda.
It’s like how the far right tries to gaslight everyone by trying to change the meaning of the word “nazi”. E.g.
Tankies are doing the same with the word “tankie”. Even “militant communists” aren’t tankies – unless they cheer on brutal oppression by authoritarian regimes.
i think it’s relatively clear and obvious that there needs to be a word that describes regimes which systematically inflict violence upon their own civilians via mechanized artillery and the simps who support these regimes,
and that word is ‘tankie’
now, if I had my way, it’d be a different word, which would have served the purpose of freeing up ‘tankie’ for another purpose (a pejorative for people who brainlessly and uncritically gobble up the bullshit of think-tanks) but that’s not the world we live in. In this world, tankie refers to the scenario wherein,
Granted, the present usage of “tankie” also carries implications about a given regime’s economic system (which is to imply that the regime’s economic system is Centrally Planned) but frankly that’s a stupid distinction to make when even capitalist regimes will do this to their own civilians too.
Ironically, the “Russian Speaking Civilians” that Russia claimed they were invading to “protect” have suffered greater casualties directly from Russian-fired munitions than they ever had before, so even though they are actually, in fact, UKRAINIAN civilians that they’re murdering, taking them at their word about these victims being Russian civilians would literally make Russia’s actions a tankie move.
By my more utilitarian definition of what constitutes tankie behavior, it also includes the actions of the previous Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko, who launched artillery strikes against the very same Ukrainian civilians back in 2014 (and subsequently had his ass kicked electorally by Zelenskyy on the basis that Zelenskyy was NOT going to be attacking civilians) so… it stopped being ukrainian policy by the time russia invaded. Russia stopped nothing, and on the contrary resumed needless civilian slaughter.
And there are some witless shitstains around the lemmy fediverse who unironically defend this abject fuckery.
(AKA Tankies)
TL;DR: Yes I concur my friend. The definition and usage of Tankie is indeed quite well established, ACTUALLY.
There’s no excuse for it, really. They always get involved with anti-(US)imperialism, and end up having high ranking members of their parties shake hands with reactionaries. You can support lifting sanctions on Iran, Syria, etc. without actually supporting Bashar al-Assad or Holocaust-deniers. They went to far in pursuit of geopolitcs rather than recognizing that one’s domestic bourgeosie is the major threat.
Imagine if Trump won 2024 and backed out of NATO. Who cares if Trump (a hardline anti-labor conservative) gets us out of wars if he thinks Joe Biden is a Communist. Of course, anyone to the left of Nick Fuentes would be sent to jail for “anti-patriotic actions” or some shit.
The same excuse of “the enemy of my enemy…” was used when the USSR told the Chinese Communists to just fully join with the Kuomintang after defeating Japan (which were backed by Americans that got rich off the Opium Wars and massacred leftists); or when China under Mao called the USSR social-imperialist and backed the Pol Pot regime.