this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2025
30 points (74.2% liked)
Asklemmy
50732 readers
1727 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In that "tankie" is just a pejorative for a communist, yes. I'm a Marxist-Leninist, and I uphold AES as legitimate.
Workers of the world, unite! ☭
For those who don't know what a "tankie" is, it's essentially a pejorative for "communist." I recommend the Prolewiki article on "Tankies," as well as Nia Frome's essay "Tankies."
For those that want an introduction to Marxism-Leninism, I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list, check it out!
Oh god oh fuck I'm the type of commie that isn't obsessed with millitary equipment I didn't study oh god oh fuck
What is AES in this context? I'm pretty sure it's not encryption or a corporation lol
Actually Existing Socialism, countries like the PRC, Cuba, DPRK, Vietnam, Laos, former USSR, etc.
I can see the difference between these and EU, but isn't EU mostly socialist? Like France for example, isn't it considered so? Assuming socialist ≠ Marxist.
No, the EU is all capitalist, in every economy (even the nordics) private ownership is the principle aspect and governs the large firms and key industries. Financial capital and by extension imperialism are the dominant forces in society.
In the countries I listed, it's the opposite, public ownership is at minimum the principle aspect. Some are more heavily publicly owned, like the DPRK and Cuba, and others have more market forces at play, like Vietnam and the PRC, but in all cases public ownership is principle.
If I may ask: Does my country Algeria count as AES then ?
Algeria is more complicated. It has had a long history of communists and socialist revolutionaries such as Frantz Fanon, but is currently a capitalist country. It's far better than imperialist countries like France, and has been very progressive in opposing imperialism and colonialism, but isn't considered socialist.
Tankie is a pejorative for authoritarians that advocate violence to further their political aims. The particular ideology is just window dressing.
George Washington is a Tankie. Hitler is a Tankie. Makhno is a Tankie. Elon Musk is a Tankie. Etc.
Obviously, the term "tankie" is only applied to the left. My point was that in that respect there is not really any difference between the extremes of the political spectrum. You could even say they converge in some way.
No, horseshoe theory is just liberalism trying to distance itself from fascism, when historically liberalism abd fascism correspond to capitalism doing okay and capitalism in crisis respectively.
Further, liberalism has also been responsible for mass violence, both the progressive kind such as in the French revolution, and the horribly reactionary kind when it comes to slavery, colonialism, genocide of Palestine, etc.
Redefining words and whataboutism. Name a more iconic duo.
What words did I redefine? What "whataboutism" did I do? I explained very clearly why your definition is bad, and applies to everyone. Comparison is not "whataboutism" inherently.
You literally just redefined the word 'tankie' when called out for your shitty definition of it.
Also George Washington was a leftist extremist to the British monarchy.
You've expanded the definition to include nearly everyone. All states are authoritarian, in that they are all instruments by which one class wields its authority over other classes. Revolution is the most authoritarian action there is, as was liberating the slaves in Haiti, the Statesian south, etc. You've erased any analysis of what these political aims are, essentially saying only pacifists have validity, and historically pacifists have been some of the least effective, or even damaging to their movements.
The communists that wish the working class to wield that authority wield it for progressive means, and in the interest of the people. Eventually, when class is abolished, even the state itself will be too.
I suggest you read the articles I linked, you can read both in the span of ~15 minutes and you'll have a much better understanding of what "tankie" means.
Your theory has just one minor flaw: every violent revolution ever has resulted in one clique of repressive assholes being replaced with another. And every time they've betrayed every ideal they ever did it didn't have in order to cling on to power. How is your revolution going to be different?
Your comment has one major flaw: it's wrong.
Revolution in France, for example, ovethrew an oppressive monarchy. Napoleon took power, but it was still an improvement, and in the long run was even better. In Haiti, slavery was overthrown, in Algeria colonialism was overthrown. These are just for national liberation movements and general revolution.
Socialist revolution in Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Korea, and more have all dramatically improved key metrics like life expectancy, dramatically democratized society, increased literacy rates, and lowered disparity while dramatically developing society. Socialism achieves far better metrics at similar levels of wealth and development, even in the face of brutal sanctions.
There is no "betrayal of ideals," there's the real process of existing in the world and facing real struggles. Socialism isn't magic or perfect, it's simply a much better economic system than capitalism. It isn't immune to problems or struggles, and it doesn't gift those running the economy with prophetic visions. Liberal anti-communists hold socialism to a higher standard than liberal systems, refusing it outright if it isn't heaven on Earth, and call it a "betrayal" if it isn't immediately a perfect wonderland while giving liberalism a pass, or mild critique.
I expect revolution in the US Empire to go a similar way, only that it won't be at risk of being nuked or sanctioned to death by the US Empire.
I highly suggest doing more research on the topic at hand, I can make recommendations if you want.
So having all of Europe drenched in blood by Napoleon was an improvement? And you conveniently forgot the terror. Similar things could be said about your other examples. The rest is just assertions without evidence so I'll have to pull Hitchens' razor.
-Mark Twain
In the end, moving beyond feudalism to capitalism was progressive, just as moving on beyond capitalism to socialism was and is progressive. This is rarely bloodless, but it pales in comparison to the daily violence of the present system.
Secondly, I did offer evidence upon request, I find when I just dump sources people tune out. If you have specific questions, I can back them up with answers and evidence, otherwise the lack of evidence applies just as much to you.
Neocon Iraq war supporting Christopher Hitchens? weems like a weird guy to quote if you're opposed to the state murdering people but ok
Literally all of your claims have been assertions without evidence