this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2025
606 points (90.7% liked)

Fediverse memes

1183 readers
872 users here now

Memes about the Fediverse.

Rules

General
Specific

Elsewhere in the Fediverse

Other relevant communities:

founded 6 months ago
MODERATORS
 

Apologies to the mods.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HexPat@lemm.ee 32 points 5 days ago (37 children)
[–] Irelephant@lemm.ee 79 points 5 days ago (4 children)

Originally, it meant people who supported the soviet union's use of tanks to crush uprisings.
Now its used to describe people who support Authoritatian Communist regimes, like the ussr, north korea or china.
On lemmy.ml and lemmygrad.ml there is a high amount of them.

[–] rockerface@lemm.ee 49 points 5 days ago (4 children)

Somehow they even support modern russia which is as far from communism as it's possible to be without being US

[–] Irelephant@lemm.ee 39 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Their reasoning is that its anti-us imperialism, despite russia being pretty imperialistic itself.

[–] rockerface@lemm.ee 29 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Ah, the classic "only western countries can be imperialist"

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 17 points 5 days ago

Don't forget that only US Capitalism is the root of moneys evils

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago

It’s not a classic because no one says that. Japan did it for sixty years, until it was made a vassal of the US, which it still is today[1][2].

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 17 points 5 days ago (3 children)

the other vein of pro-russian tankies i've seen is that it's impossible for a once communist country to backslide into fascis. how they square that and russia's claim that they must destroy Ukraine, a country that was once not just communist, but anarcho-communist, in order to stop their backslide into fascism, i have no idea. perhaps if a person is actually familiar with history and not just a single pro-hegemonic propaganda, they wouldn't be tankies.

i've been developing a theory, more of a hypothesis, really, that tankies, hoteps, white feminists, etc have figured out a part of the puzzle of oppression, and in their anger at waking up to that aspect of their reality, reject all other discourse surrounding the system of oppression that doesn't mesh with their experienced oppression. this, in many ways, is the root of leftist infighting. everyone sees everyone else's fight for liberation as a distraction from their own fight for liberation. the trick is, none of them are. they are simply different expressions of how the ruling class controls us.

when a tankie says shit like "the trans issue is a distraction" the are sparking leftist infighting, charitably unknowingly. our trans brothers, sisters, and thembers are our allies in this, and are generally speaking (not universally of course, i don't want to give the impression anyone is a homogenous group) left as hell. we need them to help us in our fight because they are experienced, battle hardened, and see things the rest of us don't see because they are tuned in.

the thing is that… yes. the culture wars are distractions. but that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight in them. that's like saying the best response to being bullied in school is to take your beating and tell no one because you're focused on a bigger issue. that's a great way to get your legs broke. the answer is to push back against the culture wars and say why we push back, and say that our enemy combatants are distracted from the real war. that they are acting as class traitors from a deep system of manipulation.

tankies don't realize it, or maybe they do, but they're conservatives. they seek to maintain a hegemony that oppresses us, the working classes, that has been shown not to work. authoritarian communism is still authoritarianism, and also expresses somewhere between most and all of the features of ur-fascism. it will never save us from our oppression. they also tell on themselves when they say "read theory" and all the books they reference were published before WWII. the world has moved on. we have learned more about our oppressors. they're leaving out a century of theory when they say to read theory. they are practitioners of the religion of Marxist-Leninism

[–] frank@frank.casa 11 points 4 days ago

A lot of people don't realize they are being manipulated to fight each other instead of dealing with the people who are actually causing the problems, the ones pulling the strings and syphoning off all the wealth for themselves and their friends.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 14 points 4 days ago (3 children)

What people tend not to realize is they don't support Russia because they think it's still communist, but because of a combination of campism, accelerationism, and revolutionary defeatism. If you want to argue with someone in good faith you should try to understand their position first, otherwise they will just see you as a reactionary and dismiss what you say. I still occasionally get my comments removed from .ml but I've been able to get through to people somewhat by leading with an actual understanding of where they're coming from.

[–] eureka@aussie.zone 6 points 4 days ago

I don't think it's fair to categorize it as accelerationist, although definitely campism and critical support (that is, taking a side while remaining critical of it) - like you said, they know and despair that Russia is no longer socialist, they only side with the RF in this conflict as a 'lesser evil' than the dominant NATO camp. We saw the US prolong the proxy war (it's not their soldiers dying) until the they openly threw Ukraine away and negotiated terms with the RF when the war seemed no longer useful (this part usually happens more diplomatically and privately in a proxy war, but it usually happens).

If you want to argue with someone in good faith you should try to understand their position first, otherwise they will just see you as a reactionary and dismiss what you say.

Absolutely. The .ml instances are stricter than most and don't cater to anyone they perceive as ignorant and parroting propaganda in bad faith. From their point of view, it's just as simple as how most instances would ban conservatives coming in and starting bigoted, ignorant oft-debunked Fox News arguments about racism and transphobia. Why bother platforming it?

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Campism is Trotskyist criticism and not a term we use. Accelerationism is an edgelord meme that some baby leftists might subscribe to, but is generally a very dumb concept.

However, I'll give props for knowing about revolutionary defeatism, which is a factor in our analysis. It was, pretty indisputably, the correct position to take in WWI, when it was developed. In fact, before the war, socialist parties across Europe came together and, seeing the possibility of the war on the horizon, agreed that in the event of such a war they would work together against their own governments. Once the war actually started, however, "socialists" in Britain, France, and Germany all fell in line behind their government in support of their own side in the imperialist war. They either succumbed to pressure or sought to advance their own positions as careerists and opportunists. Only in Russia did the socialists stay true to their promise and used the opportunity to turn the imperialist war into a civil war, and eventually managed to nope out of the meat grinder everyone else was stuck in.

Whether revolutionary defeatism is generally applicable is another question, but it is sort of our, "null hypothesis," you might say. But more important are the underlying ideas that support revolutionary defeatism. We don't just agree with it because Lenin said it, but because it tracks with our own analysis, which is based on class and realpolitik. Furthermore, history cautions us to be skeptical when our country tells us a war is justified, as we see many examples throughout history where people fell in line behind narratives that did not hold up, whether it was WWI or Vietnam or Iraq - whenever any country goes to war, there is a strong pressure and lots of propaganda that is able to convince the vast majority of people to support it, everyone always thinks, "but this time, it's different," and more often than not, they're wrong.

Generally speaking, arguments that are grounded on things like territorial integrity or national sovereignty don't really have traction with us. Revolution involves aggressively violating national sovereignty, after all. If you want to speak our language, then you have to frame your arguments in terms of the benefit to the common people.

[–] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Campism is Trotskyist criticism and not a term we use.

That's not a response to the criticism, just a dismissal of it based on who it originated from. I personally think it's a valid criticism of many who consider themselves marxist-leninists, and I am not a trotskyist. People I've spoken with in the past have had a tendency to dogmatically subscribe to a campist mindset in total disregard for the particulars of any given situation, and for how much shit MLs give liberals for practicing lesser-evilism, many sure seem to love their own version of it.

Accelerationism is an edgelord meme that some baby leftists might subscribe to, but is generally a very dumb concept.

It's far more prevalent than you're giving it credit for, and in my experience many MLs' understanding of revolutionary defeatism tends to boil down to accelerationism when questioned.

However, I'll give props for knowing about revolutionary defeatism, which is a factor in our analysis. It was, pretty indisputably, the correct position to take in WWI, when it was developed.

Indisputable suggests it's largely undisputed now, which you must know is absolutely not the case. I am currently disputing it. There is no significant historical pattern of countries that faced a military defeat becoming socialist or even having better revolutionary conditions afterwards.

Only in Russia did the socialists stay true to their promise and used the opportunity to turn the imperialist war into a civil war, and eventually managed to nope out of the meat grinder everyone else was stuck in.

Starting a civil war while the country is in the middle of an imperialist war is not an example of revolutionary defeatism working. If Russia had been defeated in their imperialist war and then had a socialist revolution that would be an example, but even then one example is not a pattern.

Furthermore, history cautions us to be skeptical when our country tells us a war is justified, as we see many examples throughout history where people fell in line behind narratives that did not hold up, whether it was WWI or Vietnam or Iraq - whenever any country goes to war, there is a strong pressure and lots of propaganda that is able to convince the vast majority of people to support it, everyone always thinks, "but this time, it's different," and more often than not, they're wrong.

I agree completely, but this is just an argument for being anti-imperialist and anti-war, not an argument for revolutionary defeatism.

Generally speaking, arguments that are grounded on things like territorial integrity or national sovereignty don't really have traction with us. Revolution involves aggressively violating national sovereignty, after all.

Those sorts of arguments don't have any traction with me either, I'm an anarchist. I don't believe I have made any such arguments, unless you conflate collective self-determination with national sovereignty.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 15 points 5 days ago (14 children)

I really haven't seen that? A while ago I looked into HexBear's opinion on it and it wasn't good.

Check out this thread, there really isn’t any Putin worship in these spaces.

https://hexbear.net/post/148426?scrollToComments=false

In this one some of the top comments are hoping Putin gets shot in the face. https://hexbear.net/post/3270551

[–] Binette@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 days ago

shhhh! They haven't finished building their strawman

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Vanilla_PuddinFudge@infosec.pub 10 points 4 days ago (2 children)

The authoritarian part waxes and wanes, there's a few anarchists in their ranks who have no real solution after "tear it all apart".

What then, boys?

"Tear it all apart" is only aimed at Western democracies. The then is that the authoritarian "communist" countries invade and subjugate you.

I'm sure there's a couple of genuine ones but tbh any anarchist who mostly hangs out with tankies is pretty sus imo

[–] HexPat@lemm.ee 7 points 5 days ago

Thanks for taking the time to explain. Much appreciated.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (36 replies)