this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2025
220 points (91.4% liked)
Anarchism
2671 readers
99 users here now
Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.
Other anarchist comms
- !anarchism@slrpnk.net
- !anarchism@lemmy.blahaj.zone
- !anarchism@hexbear.net
- !anarchism@lemmy.ml
- !anarchism101@lemmy.ca
- !flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not a tankie, but this kind of framing is reductionist and condescending. It's possible for someone to study the spectrum of political ideology and rationally decide that Communism is the best system. It's honestly disheartening that a non-falsifiable claim presented with zero evidence would garner this many upvotes on this platform.
THANK you. I was considering saying something similar here, and did in response to another ignorant, self-assuaging user elsewhere in the thread. So I'll just say the same thing I said to them, as a response to WatDabney above:
And to add to that, when first coming to realize the lies you've been told by the state you live under, it is a lack of nuance to immediately jump to the false premise that just because your state is bad, that must mean all states are bad. That's just the easy and childish answer. That doesn't make it inherently wrong, but it does make it the one that requires further examination and sometimes a hard look at ones misconceptions. MLs are the ones who have done that hard work, not the ones who have fallen for the easy, un-nuanced end point. As someone else here went into a lot of detail describing but I can't find at the moment, the typical and more easy trajectory for a young leftist is to go from disillusionment at their own state to anarchism. It is only after a lot more learning, examination, and recognition of nuance, that a person comes to see that the understandable kneejerk reaction that "all of them are evil!" is naive, simplistic, and totally lacking the nuance these things need.
It takes more internal work to conclude that "oh wow, all these other things I assumed were just the flat truth, common knowledge, - like how evil the communist states were and how bad they were for their people - were actually just more lies I was being told for a reason." Which is why we have so many young anarchists who over time become ML's but only rarely the other way around. @WatDabney@lemmy.dbzer0.com has it exactly backwards.
Uh, I don't think you understood their point. Tankies aren't communists, they're authoritarians with a red paint job. We're not talking about nuanced Marxist thinkers, we're taking about people who think "Just line everyone who doesn't accept my exact interpretation of communism up against the wall" is rational praxis.
There are plenty of ways to rationally arrive at Communism, but really the only way to get to Tankie is, as the top comment says, rejecting Western propaganda in favor of the propaganda of so-called "communists".
You're making a semantic argument and wrapping it up with a "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
OP is making an assumption about his opposition with zero evidence to support his claim. It's a claptrap for people who want to feel intellectually superior, even if it's to a straw man.
Not really, no. Words have definitions. It's not a "semantic argument' to clarify the definition of a word. It's not "no true Scotsman" either, that's when you define a group by some unrelated or incidental quality. What I've referred to is the definition of a tankie. The quality described is neither unrelated nor incidental.
Those people don’t exist. You’re making things up.
Unfortunately not, I have had conversations with them. And I know your next line is going to be "But they're just trolling, no one really thinks that", and I call horseshit. That "trolling", when so religiously adhered to, inspires weak-willed onlookers into sincere belief.
Any examples? As it stands, you're not beating the "I use a strawman as a club to terminate discussions" allegations.
This is just intellectual dishonesty. We both know that every side has its extremists, and to deny their existence simply makes you look like a liar.
Sure, so we can say the people OP is referring to in their post do not actually share the views described by the comment I replied to, if that makes you feel better. The people that get the word "tankie" thrown at them that actually meet that comment's description are extremely few in number, perhaps a dozen on the entirety of Lemmy.
Personally, I think you're making an unconvincing argument.
In what way?
Because even if the statement was hyperbole when referring to the majority of the tankie population, it still rings true for some of them- an inconvenient truth that you outright denied initially and were forced to backpedal on/reframe.
Most rational people are going to see this, see someone obviously using hyperbole, see someone obfuscating reality to serve their purposes, and dismiss you outright.
Beyond that, while it IS hyperbole to say tankies as a monolith believe in executing political dissidents, it is NOT hyperbole to say tankies as a monolith continue to support several states which DO believe in executing political dissidents.
I wouldn't color myself an anarchist necessarily, but I do find myself increasingly believing that anarchists are, for the most part, some of the only internally consistent ideologues. Fuck all states seems to be the only reasonable position when all existing states fucking suck.
Marxists and anarchists support using violence against fascists, capitalists, landlords, slavers, etc. The major difference is that Marxists acknowledge the utility of the state for doing so, while anarchists go for more horizontalist structures (even if they also end up forming states and semi-states, like the Spanish anarchists did). The idea that either of us want to wholesale slaughter everyone that disagrees with us is just fantasy, though.
What purpose did this comment serve? You just refused to acknowledge the observational truth in my comment and steam rolled past it with a claim that wasn't disputed or relevent to the conversation, and then ended it with a strawman.
Edit: as long as you continue to utilize deceitful rhetoric while talking to me, I will continue to call it out, and everyone outside of the echo chamber will acknowledge your delusional behavior. Refusing to acknowledge reality is not a persuasive argument.
What observational truth? The people in the OP aren't as the user described. The number of people that meet the definition given is close to nil on the Fediverse, yet people get called a tankie all the time.
"Tankie" is just a pejorative for those who uphold existing socialist states as legitimate, which covers the large majority of Marxists and a decent number of anarchists. The people in the OP are "tankies" by the definition I gave, it's consistent and clear. They uphold existing socialist states as legitimate, and this is the norm among Marxists.
Call out whatever you like, it's going to backfire, because what I'm saying is more in line with reality. Unless your point is that Marxism itself is extremist and therefore "tankie," calling the norm position among Marxists extremist isn't particularly useful.
Yeah, for sure. I'm not interested in your willful misinterpretation/misrepresentation or incessant reframing to escape valid points. Don't worry, nothing will backfire on me because I have nothing to lose- no skin in the game, no ideology to dogmatically adhere to. I just call out people that argue in bad faith. And you either are, or you're not reading carefully enough to articulate a valid response.
I'm not seeing any valid arguments here. I'm good-faith, and I'm reading the arguments, I just disagree with them. Calling me bad-faith for disagreeing with you isn't a point, nor does it mean I am actually bad-faith.
Do you really want me to go point back at the strawmen or the spots where you failed to even respond to what I was saying? But by all means, please, keep downvoting me for calling out your behavior. I know you can do better, so maybe you just need time to calm down and reassess.
This is the original comment I replied to, which is a strawman. The people that think “Just line everyone who doesn’t accept my exact interpretation of communism up against the wall” is rational praxis don't exist in any significant numbers, yet the word "tankie" is thrown around willy nilly these days.
This argument is that existing socialist states aren't to be trusted and are equally bad, but becoming a communist isn't just about agreeing with a nice picture of it in our heads, but to also see what communists have done in real life.
The original comment was itself a strawman, and you didn't offer any compelling argument beyond "extremists exist," which is true but not relevant. We aren't talking about outliers, but a common phenomenon, that being communists on the fediverse that uphold existing socialist states and are called "tankies" for it.
How do you think replying to someone else's comment is, in any way/shape/form, relevant to the strawman arguments you propped up against me to deflect against my entire comment? Here, I'll make you read it again. Maybe this time you can meaningfully respond to it.
Edit: here's a hint in being consistent. You cannot literally interpret another person's words when it benefits you and choose to respond with a wishy-washy non-literal deflection that requires reframing to fit the prompt.
I never denied that outliers existed, my point is that outliers that actually fit the label are small in number yet the label is applied to non-outliers as a way to equate them. I'm consistent with my critique, and you haven't engaged with my point, just dodged it and claimed to be doing everyone a service.
I don't know how you are incapable of processing the situation rn.
I don't need to engage with your point. I made a point that you didn't engage with.
You need to engage that point instead of attempting to use this opportunity to sanitize the pejorative "tankie".
Reread my comment that I already requoted for you again. Keep rereading it. Keep rereading it. You can stop rereading it whenever you engage with it.
Edit: hell, maybe reread the entire thread for context. You seem lost as hell.
I processed the situation fully, you're getting lost in the sauce a bit here. I'll spell it out for you paragraph by paragraph though:
This is the point I made about outliers existing, I didn't outright deny that they did in my original comment. The ones it rings true for, the "outliers," are an extreme minority. I wasn't forced to backpedal on it, when you interpreted my comment as denying their existence I clarified for you.
See, the problem with this statement is that I didn't do that.
That's not what the original comment said, though. "Executing political dissidents" like using state violence against fascists and sabateurs is supported by the overwhelming majority of Marxists, but that was not the statement made:
This is what you're now interpreting as any "executing of political dissidents." It's true that Marxists are revolutionary, and support using the state to protect that, but it isn't true that there's a significant number of us that want to line everyone up against the wall for thought crime.
I really don't care what you think about this considering your lack of understanding the current argument being made to begin with. Marxism is internally consistent, whether someone misinterpreting an argument believes so or not.
Here is the comment that another poster originally made, and is the originating comment of this argument, and the position you have been defending this entire time. "Those people don't exist. You're making things up." Do I need to quote it for you a third time? You clarified after being forced to. Stop trying to sanitize your behavior and own up to it.
Anyway, as for the rest of your comment...
Are you just being dumb or? Do you not see how you just said "we like this thing, but we don't like the same thing phrased in a slightly different way"
Nice one, dawg. You lost. GG.
In the context of OP talking about a specific group of people that don't measure up to what that commenter stated? No, they don't exist, and they did make it up. The subject of the OP is not something that their comment applies to.
Nice one, dawg. You lost. GG.
lol good try champ
🪞
No, I don't think they're trolling. I think that you mistake any comment that is vaguely supportive of China or Russia or that contradicts the mainstream western narrative about those countries as wholesale support for anything those countries do.
You would be incorrect, I do no such thing. I'm speaking about a specific phenomenon, as I described.
Can you link to an example? Because I haven’t encountered such a person yet in my 6 months on Lemmy (admittedly not a long time).
I have deliberately avoided interacting with people like that for a while, and I don't really feel like digging back like a year to find a specific examples, especially since you came out of the gate unshakably convinced that it never ever happens.
But I assure you they exist. No I'm not generalizing pro- Russia/China sentiment. I'm talking about people who advocate the forceful spread of their ideology through violence.
'i assure you my straw man exists'
"Every anecdote that challenges my biases is a lie".
Bad faith bullshit
ya get what ya give
this describes every state on earth. calling revolutionary violence 'the forceful spread of ideology' only works if you pretend policing, prisons, borders, coups, and wars aren't already doing exactly that for capitalism.
feel free to step out of your bubble and read some of the responses here from the 'tankies' commenting from instances you're defederated from.
These people don't exist, so effectively the purpose for maintaining this as your definition is to use it as a discussion-terminating club against those that uphold socialism as it exists in real life, tacking on the sins of this strawman like a scarlet letter A.
Seems you're assuming all communists are tankies, when they wrote about communist nations, ie, communist states which are all some variety of Marxism-Leninism, not general communism. Who's being reductive here?
Hey I can understand your frustration at their supposedly misplaced reasoning. But you have to let them have that view for some time so their own experience can align it closer to what you believe is happening. It shouldn't be disheartening that people might have incorrect explanations of how the world works for some time.
You are right that we cannot know and understand the life of every individual in a group, but we may observe typical or aggregate behavior, and we may seek reasonable inferences.
Tankies express a general pattern of behavior that is bad faith.
They quote passages instead of explaining from personal comprehension. They attack individuals against an opportunity to discuss ideas. They defer to doctrine instead of reasoning independently. They anchor to absurd lies about anarchists. They lie and deny instead of admitting to problems. They rely on disingenuous rhetoric such as the motte-and-bailey fallacy.
Such observations converge on a pattern of anchoring to convictions for reasons that are unrigorous, prejudiced, and generally misguided.
The problem with your argument is that it relies entirely on anecdotal evidence and personal experience, which is heavily influenced by confirmation bias.
Politics is not an empirical science.
Where are these tankies? Are they in the room with us right now??
Literally, yes, there are people in comment threads in this post doing the read theory meme. You not acknowledging their existence doesn't mean they aren't real. You make leftists look like fools.
"read theory" is never a valid response. Articulate the point to me or forfeit.
Telling someone to look into something is only a valid counterpoint in reference to evidence. Theory is not evidence.
Tankie is just the flavour du jour for the modern version of red scare. It's easier to call someone a tankie when they disagree with the current narrative about the war in Ukraine or the Palestinian genocide than meet them at their argument and have an honest discussion. To this day nobody has been able to explain to me, if Putin elected Trump and the pedo is a Russian asset, why did Putler decide to invade precisely when his asset was not in power. Also, why did Macron and Scholtz beelined to Moscow to stop a war while Bojo and Biden went full hawk? An aggressor is always in the wrong, period. That said, if Mexico and Canada entered a military alliance with North Korea or China do you think the US would sit idly by? Is it so hard to believe that Biden, after the traitorous IRA (stealing industry from the EU), was all too happy to wreck the EU industry by just precipitating the war rather than collaborate on its avoidance? Nobody ever does the "qui bono" analysis before they chest thump about "DeMoCrAcY". That's why the name tankie exists, it's too hard for the average hollywood consuming joe to understand the grey in international politics. They just understand absolutes, especially within the anglosphere, which if PISA is anything to go by, is fast losing reading comprehension and ability to process complex problems. If you go agaist the narrative you're a tankie, even if you're on the side of the victims of genocide or argue we should support Ukraine because it's the only way to assure a positive outcome for the EU rather than "we're the good guys".