• carl_marks_1312 [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Too bad instances can’t defederate HB.

    Can you please elaborate?

    They seem to not understand that they’re tankies.

    Tankie is a social construct and is used to lazily discredit everyone to the left of bernie. It functions to libs the same way as “woke” functions for chuds. As a term it’s basically meaningless to anyone outside of the internet.

    • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I have only seen it used in reference to people who support dictatorial regimes with socialist aesthetics, mostly MLs. I have yet to see an anarchist be called a tankie. Also you can hear it IRL, not commonly though since most MLs are on twitter and the like and not IRL.

      • Annakah69 [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Based on your answer, I’ve discovered what tankie means: Tankie = Marxist.

        Successful Marxist movement results in a dictatorship of the proletariat. Dictator = tankie.

        Hence tankie is a term used to describe any Marxist.

        Thanks for contributing to this scientific breakthrough!

        • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nah, first premise is false in more than one way. You are conflating the ideology Stalin made with Marxism.

          The second error is that there has never been a dictatorship of the proletariat, every time it has been a political party that seizes power for themselves and not the workers. In doing so they become the ruling class with differing class interests than the workers.

          Marx must be rotating in his grave with the speed to power the whole globe at this point.

          • Annakah69 [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            You didn’t do the reading :(. Dictatorship of the proletariat is a concept Marx and Engles adopted. Stalin didn’t create it.

            I don’t know what you think the proletariat taking control of the state is suppose to look like, but there will always be a communist party involved. The mechanisms of power exist to be ruled by a party.

            Communist parties should be judged by what they do for their poorest citizens. With that in mind, AES countries are doing a decent job. Things get better when they are in power, and get way worse if they are overthrown

          • WideningGyro [any]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, clearly the Soviet, Chinese and Cuban workers had completely different interests than being raised out of poverty and squalor. Damn those dastardly political parties and their… diligent work towards eradictaing poverty while promoting actual, decentralized democracy.

            • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Well, Cubans still live in pretty close proximity to squalor. They can’t even afford to maintain their own buildings, don’t have a functional transportation system, and people live on what, $20 a month? The one saving grace is out there health care system is decent. And by that, I mean much more equitable than in the United States.

          • uralsolo [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            the ideology Stalin made

            I would say Lenin was more instrumental in the creation of Marxism-Leninism, Stalin was just the guy who happened to be in charge when they named it. It’s also a tendency that has evolved a lot from what it was in the 40s.

    • BigNote@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I love how you guys have decided that your definitions are the only correct ones. It’s your primary weapon here, for obvious reasons.

      • carl_marks_1312 [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I love how you guys have decided that your definitions are the only correct ones.

        You’re strawmaning hard here, because I never said it’s a definition or that it’s the only one. It’s just my understanding of the term. What part of it is wrong in your opinion? I want to consider it

        It’s your primary weapon here, for obvious reasons.

        Because it’s obvious that when you’re challenged on your understanding of words you have nothing to say?