I keep seeing “fuck tankies” everywhere, and seem to see people getting called “tankie” for any number of things–I used to feel like I knew what it meant (the formal definition, which I thought was the only application) but that’s clearly not the case anymore. Saw someone get called one because they… Liked the idea of universal basic income and wanted walkable cities? And now the same sentiment is on a large number of Lemmy communities, lol.
I feel like I’ve been living under a rock.
Edit: Wow, I guess it’s just as meaningless of a term now as it seemed. At least it’s a nice, bright flag for ghouls not worth engaging with meaningfully, lol. I saw “fuck tankies” on a genderqueer community and got pretty confused on how the two ideas correlated in the slightest, so I guess that was the tipping point on me finally asking about it.
Removed by mod
The Soviet Union won World War 2 and saved the world from fascism. Millions of Red Army soldiers and Russian civilians died at the hands of fascists and we are in their debt
I don’t get how doing what is so obviously good makes you a good leader, that just makes the west bad because they basically helped hitler. Also this "we are in their dept thinking isn’t really a productive argument.
Why can people just admit that there are some truths and not everything was good.
Communism is not an ideology that can be done by just reading a basic rulebook and blindly believing historic anecdotes that are hard to verify or just straight up wrong.
I also want to believe that there were good and powerful communist leaderships, I can understand that.
How does wanting to understand make me a lib? Isn’t this kind of flagging people what left ideologies criticise?
Just give me some real facts or evidence and I am happy, if you can’t show me these you are reactionistic and conter-revolutionary.
Why? You haven’t provided shit outside your opinions, which are clearly just ahistorical propogandistic horseshit. If you think Lenin was ‘less harsh’ than Stalin I have some bad fucking news for you, according to everybody but Khrushchev, that was very much not the case. Molotov famously discussed this in his memoirs.
We have no obligation to educate you, you are not a known party member in an organization, you are on an anonymous leftist shit posting forum. Go be a liberal debate pervert elsewhere.
doing good is not the mark of good leadership? what, pray tell, makes a good leader then?
I swear to god I recognise this word for word from somewhere else
With this logic, i assume they think that Chernenko was the greatest Soviet General Secretary.
Huh? What?
Stalin was a “bad” “dictator?”
You “think” that Lenin wasn’t a “bad” “dictator?”
Mao “turned evil in his last years?”
Do you not understand why these liberal nerd opinions are not well received on a communist forum?
EDIT: Also “Stalinists?” How about fuck off.
huh? I am literally just trying to understand and see your points but ok, if you want to make fun of me, then you’re not even really trying to show me what my mistake is.
We don’t believe Stalin, Lenin, or Mao were dictators. We believe they were elected party officials who did not exercise ultimate authority. Stalin for instance attempted to resign 4 times and was overruled. We also believe Stalin exercised authority in much of the same way that Lenin would have.
In terms of Mao we tend to go with the 70/30 split of good/bad. We also don’t tend to say he was evil in his later years, but rather, more like he became a little inefficient and China was going through a rough spot that had a course correction with Deng.
I hope that helps. I think some people here are seeing you as some kind of troll talking to us in bad faith. I try to assume the best.
Deng was a right-deviationist at least as much as Mao was a left-deviationist, and he is given too much credit for “solving” an economic problem that was essentially invented by liberal accountants who didn’t understand the economy under Mao. It is also true that he protected China’s national sovereignty and that much of the damage he did was able to be undone in subsequent decades while the useful elements were preserved.
For anyone interested in this I am finding Gao Mobo’s The Battle for China’s Past a good accounting of the attitudes in China towards the Cultural Revolution and Mao in general. I feel like I’m missing a general background on some of the communist members he refers to, but otherwise so far I recommend it. Does a good job of debunking the more egregious caricatures of Mao
Thanks this is literally the first answer that helps. I actually did know from a leaked CIA document that there even were democratic processes in Stalin’s time.
What I don’t like that much about Mao is this propaganda reducation camps or something like that.
Look around at America, at the hate churches, nazi militias, qanon cults, and endless mass shootings. We are incredibly fucked up here, and any communist movement that might come to power is gonna need to put a whole lot of people in re-education. The alternatives are worse.
China did manage to rehabilitate and re-eduacte Emperor Puyi. That’s something.
In the words of Mao “No investigation, no right to speak”
Would you prefer prisoners simply be tortured or left to rot like they are in nearly every other prison system around the world?
Which reeducation camps would those be
It is amazing that you still do not believe in mandatory re-education camps after seeing all the shit takes libs drop.
❤️🐿️🚩
- Declassified CIA report from the 1950’s
Even the CIA knew that calling Stalin a dictator was bullshit.
Also Mao “turned evil”? Come on.
Clearly you have totally internalized the “pop-history” view of socialism in the 20th century, surely you realize such a simplified narrative cannot help but hide ideological bias.
(read my other comment pls)
It’s also liberal nonsense