79
The term Tankie has a clear definition that Cowbee likes to ignore:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie Tankie is a pejorative label generally applied to authoritarian communists, especially those > who support or defend acts of repression by such regimes, their allies, or deny the > occurrence of the events thereof.
Join the lemmy.ml boycott today and help foster a better Lemmy-verse! No more posts, comments (except to counter their propaganda ofc!) or upvotes on any comms on the > Lemmy.ml instance! To make this easy you can do an instance block at Settings > Block Tab > Scroll to bottom > Input "lemmy.ml" and apply
And consider donating to individual instances instead.
Check the megathread for more!
So, tankie is a term used to describe communists that push back against any liberal propaganda, because obviously liberals never say anything wrong or disparaging about communism, they are only ever truthful and correct.
The communists that don't push back against liberal propaganda? They're good not-tankies.
This is basically "anyone that disagrees with liberals is a tankie". It's a non-falsifiable thought-terminating cliche intended to prevent people from listening to anyone to their left other than the people that claim to be leftists but ultimately only reinforce liberal propaganda.
"Communist" that supports liberal narratives = good
Communist that performs any struggle against liberals = tankie.
It's painfully obvious why Cowbee just defaults to "Tankie just means communist". It's true and correct. Liberals consider any communist that disagrees with them a tankie, and any communist that does not disagree with liberals is obviously still a liberal, that's kinda how ideology works.
Liberals believe in a hypothetical good communist that would not qualify as a tankie. This imaginary communist was cooked up by liberals out of first principles for how they believe a communist should act and behave, because the core instinct of the liberal is to accuse their enemies of being secret right-wingers who are lying about their intentions. The hypothetical good communist would have ideals that we would say are similar to an ultra-leftist, or the completely fictional "patriotic communist" thing. As in:
So under their metric for a non-tankie leftist, Che Guevara would be a bad communist because he seized state power and used violent means. Whereas a good communist would be someone like Vaush, an internet streamer who advocates for the election of Democrats to public office.
Right and Vaush is just Destiny dressed up in red and black. Not a leftist but a liberal claiming to be a leftist but everything they advocate people do is just liberalism.
Their non-tankie is just a liberal pretending to be a communist. Every communist that actually poses any argument to liberals and opposes action that reinforces liberalism is a tankie.
Therefore every communist is a tankie. Therefore tankie just means, communist.
That's not even getting into the fact that the very definition itself applies to all communists. Let's go through each group:
MLs: Support all AES. Tankies
Trots: Support Cuba. Authoritarian state. Tankies
Maoists: Don't support China. Support USSR. Tankies.
DemSocs: Support Cuba. Some support USSR (jeremy corbyn and all Euro DemSocs for example). Tankies
This effectively amounts to 95% of all people that call themselves communists. Going into increasingly more niche sects of communist is pointless.
They're hypothetical non-tankie communist is Bernie Sanders
So, a liberal...
Even before I consider myself more mix and more anarchist I was often called a tankie by neo liberals. Was some pretty basic shit to normally
It's a really piss poor definition, coming from Wikipedia that's not a surprise. As a pejorative it is a communist who is PERCIEVED to support non specific repression. These atrocious acts of repression are such a truism that I guess no examples are needed.
"No investigation, no right to speak" are words I take very seriously as a Tankie who loves the ontologically evil Mao. I hage no fucking patience for people who spout bullshit on important issues, like how the world should work om a fundamental basis. If you don't care enough to have some rigor and discipline then be fucking humble about it. Not all voices are equal cause a lot of voices are talking out their asses. I despise how unqualified and unsubstantiated rhetoric just slides. There's a lot of shit I know next to nothing about, i'm not gonna argue with someone who clesrly knows what they're talking about and I wouldn't hold onto any pre conceived conceptions with any tenacity either..if you dont wanna learn stuff. Dont express opinions on the topic.
I had to go to a funeral recently and I forget ehat brought it on, but my dad was about to repeat his thing about 'modern art' meaning non representational art (we're talking paintings here). Heard it a million times and im pretty sure its not even a real thing, where he went to an art museum (this is why I think its a bs story that over the years became his memory) amd apparently amongst all the good art of men on horses or boats or whatever, there was a piece lit up and specially displayed of a single line going across the top of the frame and a single line going down the left side and I guess he's still upset. I have pointed out before that it's the only piece he remembers from this supposed exhibit and it clearly has had a long lasting effect because he brings it up often. He thinks artistic ability is a genetic trait and not a skill you learn, my family is amazed I can draw and play music cause non of them can. They dont get that most people dont start out good at this stuff, so he would even admit he doesnt know art well. Anyway, I cut him off and pointed out thst Modern Art isn't weird at all and it's shit like Van Gough cause the modern was a long ass time ago. And went on to explain art history from the turn of the century to his supposed painting of lines and how the person who made the piece would most likely be delighted that he's been mad about it for like 50 years. So many people think their tiny little bit of osmotic trivia on a topic means their opinion means a fucking thing. Being that arrogant all the time must be tiring.
Isn't most of that stuff building on former stuff too? So like, maybe to someone who isn't deep into art can't understand it but someone who knows what's led up to a certain piece being made, what artists it's influenced by and why, what it's saying, what it's critiquing, who it's speaking to, all these things are important aspects.
It's like... Most advanced science is completely nonsense if you don't have the basic science to understand it? I think that's what I'm getting at.
More or less
I hate that asinine shit when it comes to modern art. Not the art itself but the ridiculous blubbering over whether or not it's real. You have to ask what qualifies as art to these people. Is it the finished product? Is it just skill that it takes to create it? Is it the feeling one gets while creating it? Or is it the feeling one gets when consuming it? Perhaps it is a combination of all these things. If any of these are true, then certainly the line painting he saw qualifies.
I got called a tankie by one of the worst people, formerly of world now feddit online, and when asked why they just said I don't need to prove anything and called me and others more names.
It's entirely meaningless which those who still worship Biden and Obama use because they think it's the dirtiest word out there as everyone just laughs at those who earnestly use it as a slur