I keep hearing the term in political discourse, and rather than googling it, I’m asking the people who know better than Google.

  • IWW4@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 hours ago

    OP I am glad you asked this because I don’t know. Also based on the horseshit answers you have gotten in this post it seems like no one else does either.

  • redhilsha@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    When a South Asian calls the British monarchy fascist or Churchill a genocider in my experience.

  • wieson@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 hour ago

    This term goes back to the 1968 Prague spring.

    It was an uprising, an attempt by the Czechoslovak communist party at reformation towards more democracy and freedom of the press. Then troops from other members of the Warsaw pact marched in and subdued it.

    From then on, communists who supported more democracy and freedom called the pro-quelling communists “tankies” as they marched in with tanks.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        19 minutes ago

        Velvet was '89, as far as I know it was the CIA’s involvement with nationalist groups in Hungary that was revealed.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      52 minutes ago

      It was actually the 1956 fascist counter-revolution in Hungary, not the 1968 fascist counter-revolution in Prague, where “tankie” originated in the Communist Party of Great Britain. The term was coined because of the British tendency towards silly-sounding insults, and because the Soviet Union sent in the Red Army to stop the western-backed fascist insurrection. This caused a split in the party (as it always does in western orgs).

      The Hungarian revolt in 1956 was infested with anti-semetic pograms. MI6 funded, supplied, and trained the Hungarian counter-revolutionaries. These counter-revolutionaries were allied with fascists who were lynching Jewish people and Communists.

      "The special correspondent of the Yugoslav paper, Politika, (Nov. 13, 1956) describing the events of those days, said that the homes of Communists were marked with a white cross and those of Jews with a black cross, to serve as signs for the extermination squads. “There is no longer any room for doubt,” said the Yugoslav reporter, “it is an example of classic Hungarian fascism and of White Terror. The information,” continued this writer, “coming from the provinces tells how in certain places Communists were having their eyes put out, their ears cut off, and that they were being killed in the most terrible ways.”

      “But the forces of reaction were rapidly consolidating their power and pushing forward on the top levels, while in the streets the blood of scores of massacred Communists, Jews, and progressives was flowing.”

      “Some of the reports reaching Warsaw from Budapest today caused considerable concern. These reports told of massacres of Communists and Jews by what were described as 'Fascist elements’ …” (N.Y. Times, Nov. 1. 1956)

      “The evidence is conclusive that the entry of Soviet troops into Budapest stopped the execution of scores, perhaps thousands of Jews, for by the end of October and early November, anti-Semtic pogroms - hallmark of unbridled fascistic terror - were making their appearance, after an absence of some ten years, within Hungary.”

      "A correspondent of the Israeli newspaper Maariv (Tel Aviv) reported:

      During the uprising a number of former Nazis were released from prison and other former Nazis came to Hungary from Salzburg . . . I met them at the border . . . I saw anti-Semitic posters in Budapest . . . On the walls, street lights, streetcars, you saw inscriptions reading: “Down with Jew Gero!” “Down with Jew Rakosi!” or just simply “down with the Jews!”

      Leading rabbinical circles in New York received a cable early in November from corresponding circles in Vienna that “Jewish blood is being shed by the rebels in Hungary.” Very much later-in February, 1957-the World Jewish Congress reported that “anti-Semitic excesses occurred in more than twenty villages and smaller provincial towns during the October-November revolt.” This occurred, according to this very conservative body, because “fascist and anti-Semitic groups had apparently seized the opportunity, presented by the absence of a central authority, to come to the surface.” Many among the Jewish refugees from Hungary, the report continued, had fled from this anti-Semitic pogrom-like atmosphere (N.Y. Times, Feb. 15, 1957). This confirmed the earlier report made by the British Rabbi, R. Pozner, who, after touring refugee camps, declared that “the majority of Jews who left Hungary did so for fear of the Hungarians and not the Russians.” The Paris Jewish newspaper, Naye Presse, asserted that Jewish refugees in France claimed quite generally that Soviet soldiers had saved their lives."

      Further, the CIA also backed Hungarian resistance forces:

      Prague in 1968 was a similar fascist uprising in both cases there were some elements of progressive protest, but these were greatly overshadowed by the fascist movements. Dubcek wanted to sell out to the IMF, and restore capitalism. The idea that any of this was about “democracy” or “freedom” is silly, it was always about Cold War tactics to destabilize socialism.

      TL;DR imagine if the January 6th rioters were armed and trained by foreign governments, started lynching officials and Jewish people, and the US sent in the army to put down the insurrection. The MAGA chuds would claim that it was about “freedom” and “democracy,” but we all know that they just wanted Trump in office.

  • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Something funny about posting the question to .ml and seeing the renoved comments at the top hah

  • BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Like most words it can mean different things depending on context. I’ll do my best to cover a few without spoiling it with my own opinions.

    The most common usage is as a blanket pejorative aimed at anyone who identifies as leftist but also openly endorses authoritarian means or ends.

    There are also those who embrace the term and they are also not all the same. There are Marxist-Leninists who believe the only path to a stateless egalitarian society is through a revolutionary vanguard party. There are also those who argue that egalitarian society can only be achieved and maintained through benevolent authoritarianism.

    In any case, the term carries an implication of authoritarianism and/or revolutionary violence, hence “tanks.”

  • Korkki@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    12 hours ago

    A slur mainly on the internet against those leftist (usually Marxists-leninist) who oppose western interventions, sanctions, coups and wars against countries and governments labeled as “authoritarian”.

    originally used by UK communists party trotskyist wing in support of Hungarian -56 crushed uprising against those who opposed it, calling them tankies. Vaguely same as “stalinist”, but it pretty much has lost that meaning in modern use.

  • BarrelsBallot@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 hours ago

    I need my Tankie siblings to look at these comments and tell me it’s worth conversing with any of these people lmao, let them play in their own shit. If they’ll ever be convinced, the material failures of their worldview will do it for us, if not- the future’s ash and fertilizer welcome them.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      29
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      No communist calls the ROK an “occupier,” it’s the US Empire that is occupying Korea, with the ROK’s government set up directly by them. This whole comment is really bad, to be honest. In practice, “tankie” is essentially a pejorative for “communist.” I recommend the Prolewiki article on “Tankies,” as well as Nia Frome’s essay “Tankies.”

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          19
          ·
          edit-2
          15 hours ago

          No, the government of the southern half of Korea, the Republic of Korea, is not an “occupier.” The democratically elected state was the People’s Republic of Korea (PRK), which spanned the entire peninsula before the US Empire came in, declared it illegal, and split the country in two, against the will of Koreans, and installed the dictator Rhee Syngman in place. The PRK was a quasi-socialist state that predated both the DPRK and ROK’s governments.

          Again, “tankie” in practice is just a pejorative for communists, akin to “pinko” or “commie.” The fact that you’re getting very basic communist stances on Korea completely wrong here betrays any sense of legitimacy you have on the subject.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              21
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              15 hours ago
              1. The ROK has a liberal democracy, but it was forced on the people of southern Korea without their consent. The US Empire staffed it with prior compradors that were in power during Japanese colonialism. The ROK is currently a dictatorship of capital under a special class of people referred to as “chaebol,” under the occupation of the US Empire.

              2. All states are “authoritarian,” in that all states are means by which one class exerts its authority over the others. Communists support the working class being in charge of that authority, all communists (unless you count anarchists) support the use of the state against capitalists and fascists, and the majority of practicing communists support socialist states.

              3. I don’t like being referred to like “one of you.” I don’t care what they posted, I am explaining directly to you.

              4. The ROK essentially being a comprador government set up by a colonizer does not mean it’s occupying itself. The US Empire is occupying Korea, not the comprador government.

  • the_mighty_kracken@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    10 hours ago

    There are far too many comments that just got removed by the moderator! I asked the question, and while I might not agree with all the replies, I was glad that people felt like it was okay to do so.

    • KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      If you want to know about any subject, ask a person that is a proponent of said subject first and then get the harshest criticism second and see how the first holds up. You will find an answer eventually in this hegelian dialectic. E.g. You don’t want an anti-feminists explaining feminism to you, without hearing from a feminist first.

      you asked what a “tankie” is in one of the very few places on the internet that is a tankie space/instance. Let them explain to you first. The removed comments are “dronies” (politically confused people that hold the same views as western imperialists and are subject to their hegemony) are outsiders that come from other parts of the fediverse repeating the same talking points you read about everywhere else on the (western) internet. (To stay with the analogy: similar to an anti-feminist saying that feminists hate men, when its not true). Comments get removed here when they are factually wrong

      • the_mighty_kracken@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        “Factually wrong” might be a bit slippery when it comes to this issue. I get the impression that the term is going through some changes in use (as words tend to do) and some groups might legitimately disagree with each other on the definition. Some of the comments that got removed were not in any way helpful to the conversation, but others seemed to have their own definitions. Now they are deleted, who can say? The last definition standing wins?

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          41 minutes ago

          You asked with a .world account, meaning you’re defederated from 2/3 biggest communist spaces on Lemmy, on Lemmy.ml, the last third. As such, it became quite a mess, because communists are outnumbered by anti-communists if you cut out 2/3s of communists.

          The ones that had their comments removed were picking a definition that does not correspond to reality.

          It’s kinda like asking what the word “woke” means. MAGA people are going to give you this elaborate strawman, and others are going to tell you that it’s just a pejorative strawman.

          If you want to see all sides, read the wikipedia page for “tankies,” first, as it’s the liberal understanding. Then compare that to the prolewiki entry for “Tankies,” for a communist perspective on it, then read “Tankies” by Nia Frome to get someone to elaborate on how it’s actually used today, beyond its origins and the strawman characteristics it holds.

    • whaleross@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      Notice how all that is left are comments that support authoritarian communism and defend totalitarian states they identify with¹ including crimes against humanity and historical revisionism. That is a prime example of what other leftists call tankies. Censorship, brigading and other bad behaviours because only their reality tunnel is acceptable. Even reasonable and nuanced comments explaining a different point of view have been downvoted and removed.

      ¹ interestingly a lot of them support Russia today despite it’s a prime capitalist oligarchy since the fall of CCCP over thirty years ago and China that too has strayed closer to a corrupt capitalist kleptocracy than communism in anything than name. Obviously they support North Korea too, adopting the state ideology that no criticism is allowed. Hence the common assumption is that the tankie hive is a mix of ideological hardliners, paid trolls of said states and random contrarians that are in it for the ego.