this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023
1561 points (99.9% liked)

196

16442 readers
2544 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Remember kids, Tankies wants to undermine democracy - same as facists.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] backhdlp@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

I still don't understand what a tankie is

Edit: From what I gathered, they're essentially authoritarian communists

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 47 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The type of "communist" that supports authoritarian, usually state capitalist regimes like the USSR, China, and the DPRK.

The lack of meaningful worker enfranchisement in any of those regimes should tell you all you need to know, really - they're red-coded fascist lunatics.

[–] Smorty@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Soo is it still okay to support good communism which doesn't spy on the people and is cool?

[–] Maven@lemmy.sdf.org 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Star Trek Socialism

End scarcity, deconstruct currency, and put me in space 😎

[–] jeremyparker@programming.dev 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Maven@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you think there's such a thing as species dysphoria in the Star Trek universe? God knows we saw them trivially change the crew's race and back for every random survey mission, I'd love to try being a cute Andorian for a few weeks.

[–] jeremyparker@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago

I would 100% spend at least one day a week as a cute young alien in a short skirt and a mod hairstyle (I didn't watch the show enough to know their species, but, like, one of the ones that look like humans with unusual foreheads). And the other 6 days as a cute young alien in Magnum PI shorts and a tshirt (but male this time).

[–] vonbaronhans@midwest.social 7 points 1 year ago

Yeah, go for it.

[–] HubertCumberdanes@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Smorty@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yes exactly. Is it acceptable to believe in a world where everyone can be happy and not have to worry about having enough money to afford a living? Would be super sick, but also quite the extremisticly positive imagination of the world.

[–] sirdorius@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Did peasants in the middle ages believe in a constitutional democracy? And yes, I'm aware we don't live in a perfect democracy, but it would still seem like utopia to people from a few centuries ago.

[–] Smorty@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago

Fair point. We have come a far way, but humans always want more, so we want more utopia.

[–] jeremyparker@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People who lived without all the convenience and comforts of our modern lives existed so everything's fine, no need to progress further. Pack it in folks, we're stopping progress here, it's not perfect but it's better than it ancestors had so our complaints are invalid.

[–] sirdorius@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Maybe it wasn't clear in my above comment, but I am not in favor of the status quo. My example was just to show how our current view is limited and we should very much strive for progress, since we don't know what is possible.

[–] Syndic@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

Sure, other people who lived a much harder life would think that our current times are fantastic. But of course our own perception is what counts when it comes to our own pursuit of happyness.

And of course, even today there are still millions of people who's life isn't that far removed from peasansts in the middle ages. Not to mention the still waste amount of difference in life quality and prosperity between different regions on this planet. Just because I'm happy enough to be born in one of the best places on this planet doesn't mean I can't realise, that many people have it much worse and that there is so much room for improvement if we overcome the greed of a few powerfull people.

[–] Sylvartas@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

What bothers me is that you get called a Tankie for simply acknowledging that this just isn't gonna happen without some violence nowadays.

[–] livus@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

@backhdlp the term was invented to describe those communists in the West who thought ~~Rákosi (a Hungarian Stalinist)~~ [edit: whoever it was, there's a communist historian correcting me downthread] did nothing wrong when he and Kruschev sent military tanks into Hungary to force them to stay in the Soviet Union. That was in the 1950s.

Wikipedia on Hungarian Revolution

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

When did stalin die and when did the hungarian revolt happen?

[–] livus@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

@OurToothbrush oops you're right, it was some of the Stalinists who succeded him. Have edited, thanks for educating me in such a polite way!

Edit this entire conversation takes place twice in this thread, to avoid spamming I'm replying to them elsewhere. Tl;dr is the tankies think Kruschev ~~and the Stalinist Hungarian, Rákosi,~~ did nothing wrong.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are you calling krushchev a stalinist? They guy who led destalinization?

[–] bermuda@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No. You should read their edited comment.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That makes even less sense? He wasn't involved in the decision making process?

[–] bermuda@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

Okay I'm not the person to ask about that. I just answered your question about whether they were talking about Krushchev. If you wanna get your pants in a twist then do it to OP.

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

IIRC it is specifically attributed to a magazine or paper that the British Communist Party had put out where one especially sadistic supporter of the authoritarians actually pre-empted the response by demanding the Soviets "send in the tanks."

[–] livus@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

@PhlubbaDubba thanks, that's interesting. Scary too.

[–] workerONE@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
[–] CatradoraSomething@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

It seems to be commies getting angry at other commies, which seems very counterproductive

[–] SpunkyMcGoo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

stalinists basically