• Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    The use of the word “tankie” these days is so over-used it has become synonymous with “left of the DNC.” I’ve even seen Anarchists described as “tankies,” it’s getting ridiculous. Still, the word “tankie” is most often used by liberals against Marxists, though they won’t admit to having an anti-Marxist bias, mostly because they think they agree with Marx generally but are unfamiliar with Marxist analysis.

    Really, more people need to read theory before having an opinion on it to avoid speaking past each other. I wrote an introductory reading list for Marxism-Leninism if anyone wants to get a better understanding of Marxism.

    • FrostyTrichs@walledgarden.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      Back when I used reddit it seemed like everyone threw around Fascist in a similar way. Lemmy seems to prefer Tankie. For a lot of people the thinking doesn’t go any farther than “I disagree with you, therefore you are ________ist” or whatever.

      It is what it is.

    • MarxMadness@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      4 days ago

      It’s both overused in the way you describe and yet obscure enough that only terminally-online political people have even heard of it.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        Yep, it’s a deeply unserious term. It’s only used unironically, in my experience, by people who haven’t read theory yet devote a huge chunk of time to debating online, which is largely a waste of time to begin with. That’s why I focus on just trying to correct misconceptions and provide my reading list when appropriate, debating is just an outlet for frustration for most people. It’s truly rare that debate convinces anyone.

    • eldavi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      thank you for that and the “what is socialism” post; but i’m encountering that theory is somehow still a HEAVY read for someone like who me has been inside the leftist sphere of influence for his entire life; there’s needs to be some sort of sound-bite-able way of sharing these messages and i wish that ml’s had the capitalists’ deep pockets that guarantees a deep bench of talent that could figure something like this out.

      it reminds of my own own experience of going from technical support to software engineering by simply reading. your ignorance makes it daunting as first and you have to put in A LOT of effort to understand it when you don’t even know the basics and you’ll get there eventually if you stick with it; but most won’t stick with it and if you’re REALLY knowledgeable at it, it becomes difficult to understand why it’s difficult for other people.

    • Whopraysforthedevil@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      4 days ago

      As I said in another comment, Tankies are often in support of the modern Russian state and the modern CCP. These are not positions that are “left of the DNC”.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        Supporting the PRC is absolutely a Leftist position, as a Socialist country and a rising superpower it’s the current best hope for Socialism, whether you agree with all of the CPC’s actions or only some.

        Critical, reserved support for Russia’s temporary and strategic anti-US Hegemony stance does not mean Leftists critically supporting Russia agree with the Russian state or support it.

        • Whopraysforthedevil@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          4 days ago

          Support for Russia’s genocidal invasion of Ukraine in no way supports anti-US hegemony stances. They’re literally stealing children and indoctrinating them-the same thing the US did while committing genocide against the First Peoples.

          Just opposing the US doesn’t make Russia the good guys.

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            29
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            4 days ago

            Russia’s invasion of Ukraine isn’t “genocidal,” what would be closer to genocidal is the West’s intention to fight Russia to the last Ukranian standing. Several times, Russia has tried to reach a peace deal, only for the UK and US to step in and tell Ukraine not to take it. The “stealing of children” is taking orphans from warzones and making sure they don’t die.

            Russia’s goal isn’t to ethnically cleanse Ukraine, nor is it to “de-Nazify” Ukraine. Russia’s goal is to totally ruin Ukraine’s military capabilities as a means to prevent further extension of NATO encirclement around it’s borders. This is a consequence of the 2014 Euromaidan coup, and goes all the way back to the dissolution of the USSR. When the USSR was sliced up and sold to the West for profit, 7 million people died, and a Nationalist movement led to domestic Nationalist bourgeoisie reclaiming industry from the West, beginning a long series of NATO expansion and encirclement to force Russia to open themselves up again for the West to profit.

            No, Russia are not the “good guys.” No Communist believes Russia has morally just intentions and is here to save everyone. Communists believe Russia is acting in its own material interests, and those interests happen to align against US-Hegemony, which Communists see as the primary block for progress.

            Communists have as such advocated for both countries to negotiate a cease-fire since the beginning of the invasion. An ideal situation would be a cessation of NATO expansion and no bloodshed, but Communists have no real control over that.

            • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              edit-2
              4 days ago

              nor is it to “de-Nazify” Ukraine

              I think they do want to do this, since the Nazis are extremely hostile to Russia, so it’s crushing the opposition. Obviously this is pretty different from the historical de-Nazification efforts whose corpse Putin cynically puppets as cover for his actions.

              If there are meaningful factions of Greater Russia Nazis in Ukraine, he’d obviously be fine with those as he is fine with them in Russia.

              • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                11
                ·
                4 days ago

                Sure, there is some element to that, but the mover and pusher is a removal of threats, not out of any anti-fascist dedication, hence why like you said Putin is fine with “Greater Russia” Nazis.

          • Kieselguhr [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            4 days ago

            They’re literally stealing children and indoctrinating them

            Let’s say there’s a war going on, and let’s say there are war orphans, or children who were already orphans before the war
            Let’s say these children are also native Russian speakers, like many many people in Eastern Ukraine

            1. What should the Russian government do? Send these orphans to orphanages far from the front?

            2. Or: put them on the bus and send them to the Ukrainian government where they ban the Russian language and there are Bandera pictures everywhere?

            Do you seriously believe this is the same as what the Canadians did to the natives?

            I think the extreme version of this, “stealing children”, is on the same level as the “Gaddafi ‘supplies troops with Viagra to encourage massremoved’”

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            4 days ago

            Generally yes, I support the CPC. I’m a Marxist, and their dedication to developing Socialism, eliminating poverty, developing green energy, and presenting an alternative for the Global South should be admired. The PRC and CPC aren’t perfect, not by any stretch, but among the major world powers they are the least problematic and present the greatest potential for Humanity moving forward.

            • Krafty Kactus@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              15
              ·
              4 days ago

              I cannot take you seriously if you think the CCP is anything other than an authoritarian spy-state

              • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                4 days ago

                Why do you say that? First of all, the CPC is the party in charge of the PRC, not the PRC itself. Secondly, which of the things I said do you disagree with? We can discuss them if you want, but otherwise I can’t really take you seriously either if that is your response to me answering your question honestly.

                • I mean I would argue saying “party in charge of” is a bit much, while they are the Majority party in total, and the majority party in the coalition, there are 8 parties in the coalition, so its not like they are the only party, instead they are the largest party in the PRC

                  • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    ·
                    4 days ago

                    That’s fair! My point is more generally that they ought to explain what they disagree with and get their terms straight.

    • Emotional@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      4 days ago

      I, for one, haven’t seen people over-using the word “tankie”, I haven’t seen people getting called tankies for the reason alone that they are leftists or even communists.

      However, I’ve seen many tankies insisting that the word is meaningless or that it just means anybody on the left.

      People I’ve seen using the word tankie have been surprisingly consistent about who they call a tankie: supporters of authoritarianism, especially Putin and the CCP.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 days ago

        The only Communists that don’t support the PRC are Maoists, generally, Marxists and Marxist-Leninists consistently support the CPC. None of them support Putin, only critical, reserved support for the Russian Federation’s temporary and strategic opposition to US Hegemony, which Communists see as the primary obstacle in the way of Socialism across the world.

        • gcheliotis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          Oh I know quite a few communists who would absolutely not support the PRC. They wouldn’t shill for the US either. Nor for Russia nor the USSR for that matter.

      • Klear@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        They’re using the same playbook as the fascists, insisting the word is overused and meaningless while painting themselves as victims. It’s actually fascinating how similar hexbear snd the_donald feel.

    • rainynight65@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Marxism and Marxism-Leninism are not the same, and should not be treated as the same. One is an economic theory/philosophy, one is an ideology. I’ll leave it to you to figure out which is which.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        Marxism is broken up into 3 major components:

        1. Dialectical and Historical Materialism

        2. Critique of Capitalism via the Law of Value

        3. Advocacy for Revolutionary and Scientific Socialism.

        Marxism-Leninism carries these 3 foundations forward, and analyzes Capitalism as it reaches Imperialism, as well as numerous expansions on the foundations of revolutionary theory and practice.

        They are not “the same,” but the vast majority of Marxists are Marxist-Leninists, because Lenin’s application of Marxism to higher stages of Capitalism are invaluable to Marxism.

        • rainynight65@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          4 days ago

          Marxism-Leninism was not actually thought out by Lenin, but by Stalin. The Stalin.

          And how invaluable were Lenin’s ideas about violently suppressing opposition, resistance, and unwanted societal classes?

          • Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn’t that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful. How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense?

            It won’t do!

            It won’t do!

            You must investigate!

            You must not talk nonsense!

            Oppose Book Worship

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            Stalin synthesized Marxism-Leninism, yes. He did so on the basis of Lenin’s theoretical advancements on Marxism. Stalin himself wasn’t that much of a theoretician, hence why it’s Marxism-Leninism, though Stalin has a few works under his belt. Yes, the Stalin. You’re free to read my introductory reading list if you want to learn more about Marxism.

            Secondly, you have no idea what you’re talking about if you’re pretending Lenin came up with the idea of revolution and using the Dictatorship of the Proletariat to suppress fascists and the bourgeoisie. Such ideas came from Marx and Engels, who always advocated for revolution. From Marx:

            “We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.”

            I suggest you take the advice of @Edie@lemmy.ml and read up on Marxist theory and history before speaking nonsense from a pedestal.

            • rainynight65@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              That quote is extremely hinged on context in which it was made, and it would serve you well to internalise that context before throwing this quote around pretending it to have been something Marx lived by.

              Secondly, you have no idea what you’re talking about if you’re pretending Lenin came up with the idea of revolution and using the Dictatorship of the Proletariat to suppress fascists and the bourgeoisie.

              That was not my claim, but thank you for so generously misinterpreting what I said. Lenin implemented the violent oppression of dissenters and opposition in a socialist system. That was carried further by Stalin, under whom ‘counter-revolutionary’ became an extremely malleable term that could mean anything not fully aligned with his ideas. The fact that you think political violence and terror is a core tenet of Marxism tells me that you’re the one who might need to brush up on their history a little bit.

              In fact, authoritarian socialism - as practiced in virtually every single Marxist-Leninist country that ever existed - was completely counter to the ideals of Marx and Engels. The people we have to thank for creating the violent authoritarianism that pervaded communist countries in practice are Lenin and Stalin. “Dictatorship of the proletariat” may have been a phrase used by Marx, but he never fully elaborated on what that should or could look like. And fascism as created by Mussolini and unleashed upon the world by Hitler didn’t even exist during Marx’s lifetime. Even Marx’s views on religion were a lot more complex and multifaceted than what Marxist-Leninist governments turned them into.

              I don’t know if either of you have ever lived in a Marxist-Leninist country (as in lived, not just visited). I was born in one. I lived in another for five years. I’ve seen the before and after, first-hand. That’s my pedestal. How’s the weather up there on yours?

              • Naadan@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 days ago

                I don’t know if either of you have ever lived in a Marxist-Leninist country (as in lived, not just visited). I was born in one. I lived in another for five years. I’ve seen the before and after, first-hand.

                Could you please name those countries? And share your experiences. Were they not Marxist?