Truly. Any moderate support for AES? Immediately labeled a tankie, I've seen Anarchists and even Liberals labeled a tankie. The term only exists to punch left from the Liberal POV, just like "Woke" is used to punch anything left of fascism.

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 43 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

-- and they both punch left; exactly as conservatives like to do.

[+] u_die_for_elmer@lemm.ee -12 points 7 hours ago (12 children)

I consider tankies to be on the right end of the socialist spectrum, so when I say it I'm punching right. They're still comrades even if they are miss guided by state-capitalist governments. Cheers

[–] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 16 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

They're still comrades even if they are miss guided

This is unironically the nicest and most reconciliatory anti-tank post I've ever seen. We have different assessments but neither of us are writing off the other as stupid or an LLM, which is actually a breath of fresh air. The bar for political discourse may be in hell these days, but I still appreciate your clearing it.

As for where our views diverge, I would like to understand the nature of the divergence. I guess my main question is: what decides your ideology's position on the spectrum?

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Because the Chinese state has fiat monetary sovereignty, it doesn’t function in the capitalist mode. It has no need to make a profit because it has infinite money[1]. It doesn’t need to extract surplus value from workers to satisfy investors, and it doesn’t even need to break even. The logic of capitalism doesn’t apply.

Ultras fear the scroll.

load more comments (10 replies)

[–] TherapyGary@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 8 hours ago (4 children)

Do MLs consider anarchists liberals now?

[–] liyunxiao@sh.itjust.works 12 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Anarchists tend to be smart enough to not use the word tankie.

There are exceptions of course.

[–] TherapyGary@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

That's been my only exposure to the term, is hearing/seeing anarchists say it. Do liberals really use that term?

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 12 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Generally not. Anarchists and Marxists want separate goals and have separate means, but Liberalism is a separate ideology.

[–] TherapyGary@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

I'm aware, I've just never heard/seen a liberal use the word "tankie"- though I don't often expose myself to liberals... Are libs actually using that word now? I would literally laugh out loud at the hypocrisy if I witnessed that

[–] liyunxiao@sh.itjust.works 7 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Go to lemmy world. Any political comm. Or check in on reddit.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 16 points 7 hours ago

Don't go to Reddit, even to prove a point. It's a very silly place.

[–] TherapyGary@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 6 hours ago

I block every liberal with a shit take I come across (like 200 .world users so far lol) so that could explain why I haven't seen it much

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I've seen many I definitely don't think are Anarchists use it, and I've even seen Anarchists and Liberals get labeled "tankies." It's a generic term used like BadEmpanada is referring to, a largely meaningless catch-all for Leftists.

[–] TherapyGary@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

That is whack; thanks for sharing

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 hours ago

No problem. There are many on Lemmy.world for sure who use it that way, same with Reddit.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Are a anarcho-capitalists considered anarchists here?

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] ocean@lemmy.selfhostcat.com 2 points 8 hours ago

That would be silly but tankie is also a silly term.

[–] __nobodynowhere@lemm.ee -2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (19 children)

I'm not into that authoritarian stuff. Worshipping a fascist authoritarian state is not a leftist make.

load more comments (19 replies)

[–] Plaidboy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

The conversation around "tankies" reminds me heavily of "neolibs" - loosely defined in the minds of the folks discussing them. Basically a catch-all term for your own idea of what a liberal outgroup should be.

load more comments (1 replies)

[+] UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world -12 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

I dunno, I perceive it more as a letft wing term for left-extremist fascists

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 22 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Communism and Fascism are entirely different, and purely antagonistic. I suggest reading Blackshirts and Reds.

[–] BrokenGlepnir@lemmy.world -4 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Fascism is also antagonistic to other fascism once it served it's purpose. See a good chunk of the night of long knives.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 16 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

That doesn't mean the target of fascism is fascism, though, so I'm not sure what that adds. In the Night of Long Knives, the Nazis purged the millitant labor organizers that they had used to purge the Communists beforehand, as these right-wing labor organizers were beginning to take on a leftward character and served to risk the overall purposes of the Nazi movement, violent suppression of leftward movement in a country at risk of Communist revolution. They were used like tools and discarded as such.

[–] BrokenGlepnir@lemmy.world -1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I mean the target of one's fascism is not the same fascism. It's one that is arbitrarily less "correct". For example the Slovenian fascists turned on the Germans, and the Germans turned on Vichy as soon as it suited them. My point was being "antagonistic" to fascist groups doesn't mean you "cannot" be one. It is correct they did turn on their leftmost group after they'd served there purpose. They still (wrongly) called themselves socialist afterwards though. I wonder if anyone else could have done that.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 13 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Hitler proudly claimed to have "stolen Socialism from the Marxists," meanwhile the Soviets and Nazis hated each other. The Soviets held to Marxism and worked to uplift the Proletariat, while the Nazis held to an incoherent ideology only explainable by what it served, wealthy Capitalists.

Again, calling things "fascism" that don't meet the definition just obfuscates what you're trying to talk about.

[–] BrokenGlepnir@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I completely agree with what you said about Hitler. In fact, even worse. His stealing of the word socialism for his own purposes did major damage to the concept people had of socialism. Calling a system that exploits workers and laborers socialism, when the whole idea was to put the workers in charge, damages the idea in people's minds.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 7 points 6 hours ago

Hey, just so you know for when you make decisions in the future, calling socialist states fascists is rooted in double genocide theory.

This Wikipedia article has a good list of sources about double genocide theory and how it serves to trivialize and obscure the holocaust: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_genocide_theory

load more comments