I keep hearing the term in political discourse, and rather than googling it, I’m asking the people who know better than Google.

  • HubertManne@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 days ago

    I never encountered its usage outside of the fediverse but appears to mean someone who espouses communist things but also is a russia/china apologist politically. Appears to be derogetory.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 days ago

      The term was coined because of the British tendency towards silly-sounding insults, and because the Soviet Union sent in the Red Army to stop the western-backed fascist insurrection. This caused a split in the party (as it always does in western orgs).

      The Hungarian revolt in 1956 was infested with anti-semitic pograms. MI6 funded, supplied, and trained the Hungarian counter-revolutionaries. These counter-revolutionaries were allied with fascists who were lynching Jewish people and Communists.

      "The special correspondent of the Yugoslav paper, Politika, (Nov. 13, 1956) describing the events of those days, said that the homes of Communists were marked with a white cross and those of Jews with a black cross, to serve as signs for the extermination squads. “There is no longer any room for doubt,” said the Yugoslav reporter, “it is an example of classic Hungarian fascism and of White Terror. The information,” continued this writer, “coming from the provinces tells how in certain places Communists were having their eyes put out, their ears cut off, and that they were being killed in the most terrible ways.”

      “But the forces of reaction were rapidly consolidating their power and pushing forward on the top levels, while in the streets the blood of scores of massacred Communists, Jews, and progressives was flowing.”

      “Some of the reports reaching Warsaw from Budapest today caused considerable concern. These reports told of massacres of Communists and Jews by what were described as 'Fascist elements’ …” (N.Y. Times, Nov. 1. 1956)

      “The evidence is conclusive that the entry of Soviet troops into Budapest stopped the execution of scores, perhaps thousands of Jews, for by the end of October and early November, anti-Semtic pogroms - hallmark of unbridled fascistic terror - were making their appearance, after an absence of some ten years, within Hungary.”

      "A correspondent of the Israeli newspaper Maariv (Tel Aviv) reported:

      During the uprising a number of former Nazis were released from prison and other former Nazis came to Hungary from Salzburg . . . I met them at the border . . . I saw anti-Semitic posters in Budapest . . . On the walls, street lights, streetcars, you saw inscriptions reading: “Down with Jew Gero!” “Down with Jew Rakosi!” or just simply “down with the Jews!”

      Leading rabbinical circles in New York received a cable early in November from corresponding circles in Vienna that “Jewish blood is being shed by the rebels in Hungary.” Very much later-in February, 1957-the World Jewish Congress reported that “anti-Semitic excesses occurred in more than twenty villages and smaller provincial towns during the October-November revolt.” This occurred, according to this very conservative body, because “fascist and anti-Semitic groups had apparently seized the opportunity, presented by the absence of a central authority, to come to the surface.” Many among the Jewish refugees from Hungary, the report continued, had fled from this anti-Semitic pogrom-like atmosphere (N.Y. Times, Feb. 15, 1957). This confirmed the earlier report made by the British Rabbi, R. Pozner, who, after touring refugee camps, declared that “the majority of Jews who left Hungary did so for fear of the Hungarians and not the Russians.” The Paris Jewish newspaper, Naye Presse, asserted that Jewish refugees in France claimed quite generally that Soviet soldiers had saved their lives."

      Further, the CIA also backed Hungarian resistance forces:

      Prague in 1968 was a similar fascist uprising in both cases there were some elements of progressive protest, but these were greatly overshadowed by the fascist movements. Dubcek wanted to sell out to the IMF, and restore capitalism. The idea that any of this was about “democracy” or “freedom” is silly, it was always about Cold War tactics to destabilize socialism.

      TL;DR imagine if the January 6th rioters were armed and trained by foreign governments, started lynching officials and Jewish people, and the US sent in the army to put down the insurrection. The MAGA chuds would claim that it was about “freedom” and “democracy,” but we all know that they just wanted Trump in office.

      As for Lemmygrad.ml , it’s entirely serious, and their positions are in line with other Marxist-Leninist orgs around the world. As for the USSR, the capitalists were deposed and the working class was in charge. I have no idea what you’re referring to there, nor to “ultra-authoritarianism.”

  • SpookyBogMonster@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    The word Tankie originates from 1950s British Communist circles. Specifically, it was used by British Communists to derisively describe their comrades who supported the 1956 invasion of Hungary by the Soviet Union.

    Images of the Soviet invasion featured a lot of tanks, hence, “Tankie”.

    After that died down, the term didn’t come back into use really, until the 2010s, when leftists on the internet started using it in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way. It was fun to bring back a stupid sounding, incredibly niche, British slang word.

    At some point the word breached containment and started to be used by liberals, in a very cavilier sort of way. I’ve seen people use Tankie to describe anyone from Marxist-Leninists, to Marxists generally, to Leftists generally, weird right-wingers who converted to Russian Orthodoxy, pro-Palestine activists, mods of Lemmy instances someone doesn’t like.

    Shit, I’ve seen literal Anarchist get called Tankies.

    Basically, it’s a meaningless nothing word now, that’s a bit like your boomer grandpa who still thinks it’s the Red Scare, calling Joe Biden a Commie Pinko.

    So don’t worry about it too much.

    • SippyCup@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      Nixon was a tankie according to them. He’s responsible for the EPA and OSHA.

      Left of Reagan.

    • Drewfro66@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 days ago

      You say this ironically, but there are several relatively recent U.S. presidents or people in their administration who have said things that would get them branded tankies today.

      I’m thinking specifically of a speech Jimmy Carter gave where he said it’s no wonder North Korea ended up the way it had, considering we bombed every building over two stories into the ground.

      Kissinger is also obviously evil but only because of his realpolitik - by modern ideological standards where any anti-Western power is treated as worse than Hitler by even social Democrats, his dispassionate readings would get him labeled a Marxist.

  • redhilsha@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    When a South Asian calls the British monarchy fascist or Churchill a genocider in my experience.

  • limer@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 days ago

    A lot of these comments reminds me of people posting on conservative chats asking what a socialist is. About the same amount of mouth foaming.

    I would like to remind people about vaccinations against rabies

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      50
      arrow-down
      31
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      No communist calls the ROK an “occupier,” it’s the US Empire that is occupying Korea, with the ROK’s government set up directly by them. This whole comment is really bad, to be honest. In practice, “tankie” is essentially a pejorative for “communist.” I recommend the Prolewiki article on “Tankies,” as well as Nia Frome’s essay “Tankies.”

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          42
          arrow-down
          21
          ·
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          No, the government of the southern half of Korea, the Republic of Korea, is not an “occupier.” The democratically elected state was the People’s Republic of Korea (PRK), which spanned the entire peninsula before the US Empire came in, declared it illegal, and split the country in two, against the will of Koreans, and installed the dictator Rhee Syngman in place. The PRK was a quasi-socialist state that predated both the DPRK and ROK’s governments.

          Again, “tankie” in practice is just a pejorative for communists, akin to “pinko” or “commie.” The fact that you’re getting very basic communist stances on Korea completely wrong here betrays any sense of legitimacy you have on the subject.

  • Korkki@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    9 days ago

    A slur mainly on the internet against those leftist (usually Marxists-leninist) who oppose western interventions, sanctions, coups and wars against countries and governments labeled as “authoritarian”.

    originally used by UK communists party trotskyist wing in support of Hungarian -56 crushed uprising against those who opposed it, calling them tankies. Vaguely same as “stalinist”, but it pretty much has lost that meaning in modern use.

  • BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 days ago

    Like most words it can mean different things depending on context. I’ll do my best to cover a few without spoiling it with my own opinions.

    The most common usage is as a blanket pejorative aimed at anyone who identifies as leftist but also openly endorses authoritarian means or ends.

    There are also those who embrace the term and they are also not all the same. There are Marxist-Leninists who believe the only path to a stateless egalitarian society is through a revolutionary vanguard party. There are also those who argue that egalitarian society can only be achieved and maintained through benevolent authoritarianism.

    In any case, the term carries an implication of authoritarianism and/or revolutionary violence, hence “tanks.”