Tankies don’t even really fit most definitions for leftism that try to use something more concrete than vibes. They just think they’re far left because they like the aesthetics of governments that tried to be or at least called themselves communist.
If we’re using the original definition of left and right, they’d technically be on the right.
The original meaning was whether or not you supported the monarchy. I’d say that a dictatorship is close enough that it applies.
Of course, politics isn’t one dimensional. Even the “political compass” isn’t really enough, here, there’s probably an axis of the political graph for each major axiom of governance.
Honestly the best descriptor for tankies is just “authoritarian communists.” That tells you where they stand better than any attempt at a spectrum or graph.
The original meaning was whether or not you supported the monarchy
So then AnCaps are leftist because by nature of anarchism they don’t support any “-archy?”
In fact, that would make any democrat (as in believer in democracy, not Democrat™) or republican (as in believer in a republic, not Republican™) leftists as well, since they believe in democracies or republics instead of a monarchy.
Maybe it’s just me, but it seems everyone has strayed from the French revolution’s definitions in the late 16th century by now, except those intentionally seeking to sow confusion and discord. Language evolves ‘n’ such.
In fact, that would make any democrat (as in believer in democracy, not Democrat™) or republican (as in believer in a republic, not Republican™) leftists as well, since they believe in democracies or republics instead of a monarchy.
Or that’s what you’d think, but the guy who created conservatism was a monarchist trying to figure out a way for the aristocracy to exist within democracy. The right is stanning for monarchy under a different name, as proudly admitted by their ideological leader. For details look up Edmund Burke.
Parenti, in Blackshirt in Reds, covers this topic excellently. He does not gloss over the flaws and corruptions in the USSR, but he is realistic in giving a fair assessment of their successes in the midst of their failures. A big point being what you mentioned above: the USSR had to continue focusing production towards just being on even footing with the US in terms of defense, to protect against the very real threat of the US overthrowing the government as they were doing in so many other communist countries. At no time during the USSR’s existence were they ever not under attack by some outside force or another (the NAZIs, CIA, multi-national capitalist interests etc). Here’s a good quote talking about the Stalin era and progressive policies during that time:
During the years of Stalin’s reign, the Soviet nation made dramatic gains in literacy, industrial wages, health care, and women’s rights. These accomplishments usually go unmentioned when the Stalinist era is discussed. To say that “socialism didn’t work” is to ignore that it did. In Eastern Europe, Russia, China, Mongolia, North Korea, and Cuba, revolutionary communism created a life for the mass of people that was far better than the wretched existence they had endured under feudal lords, military bosses, foreign colonizers, and Western capitalists. The end result was a dramatic improvement in the living conditions for hundreds of millions of people on a scale never before or since witnessed in history.
Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism by Michael Parenti
Sure thing lib. Stalinism, the thing that nearly solely killed fascism, is fascism. You’re welcome on behalf of stalin, by the way, for killing nazis when you people wouldn’t.
I dont call people tankies for thinking that communism is cool. Or that the west sucks.
I call people tankies, when they defend the ethnic cleansings and the great purge of Stalin by saying “we just had to defend ourselves” or portraying them as an integral part of the struggle better peoples lives.
Because i personally dont think that deporting entire ethnic groups from their homelands is needed to better peoples lives. I dont think the paranoid xenophobia of Stalin helped anyone and at worst crippled the ability of the Red Army to withstand the initial invasion of the Wehrmacht. I think his usage of the word “counterrevolutionary” completely devalued the word because calling Zinoviev, Kamenev and Trotzky counterrevolutionaries for calling for collectivization, only to turn around and calling Bukharin counterrevolutionary for opposing collectivization is a sign for devolving into a byzantine power struggle.
I thought tankies were the far left? Or are they… further left than that?
Tankies don’t even really fit most definitions for leftism that try to use something more concrete than vibes. They just think they’re far left because they like the aesthetics of governments that tried to be or at least called themselves communist.
If we’re using the original definition of left and right, they’d technically be on the right.
The original meaning was whether or not you supported the monarchy. I’d say that a dictatorship is close enough that it applies.
Of course, politics isn’t one dimensional. Even the “political compass” isn’t really enough, here, there’s probably an axis of the political graph for each major axiom of governance.
Honestly the best descriptor for tankies is just “authoritarian communists.” That tells you where they stand better than any attempt at a spectrum or graph.
So then AnCaps are leftist because by nature of anarchism they don’t support any “-archy?”
In fact, that would make any democrat (as in believer in democracy, not Democrat™) or republican (as in believer in a republic, not Republican™) leftists as well, since they believe in democracies or republics instead of a monarchy.
Maybe it’s just me, but it seems everyone has strayed from the French revolution’s definitions in the late 16th century by now, except those intentionally seeking to sow confusion and discord. Language evolves ‘n’ such.
Or that’s what you’d think, but the guy who created conservatism was a monarchist trying to figure out a way for the aristocracy to exist within democracy. The right is stanning for monarchy under a different name, as proudly admitted by their ideological leader. For details look up Edmund Burke.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
As brilliant as the previous comment was your reply couldn’t be more confidently wrong.
Removed by mod
Parenti, in Blackshirt in Reds, covers this topic excellently. He does not gloss over the flaws and corruptions in the USSR, but he is realistic in giving a fair assessment of their successes in the midst of their failures. A big point being what you mentioned above: the USSR had to continue focusing production towards just being on even footing with the US in terms of defense, to protect against the very real threat of the US overthrowing the government as they were doing in so many other communist countries. At no time during the USSR’s existence were they ever not under attack by some outside force or another (the NAZIs, CIA, multi-national capitalist interests etc). Here’s a good quote talking about the Stalin era and progressive policies during that time:
Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism by Michael Parenti
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Sure thing lib. Stalinism, the thing that nearly solely killed fascism, is fascism. You’re welcome on behalf of stalin, by the way, for killing nazis when you people wouldn’t.
I dont call people tankies for thinking that communism is cool. Or that the west sucks.
I call people tankies, when they defend the ethnic cleansings and the great purge of Stalin by saying “we just had to defend ourselves” or portraying them as an integral part of the struggle better peoples lives.
Because i personally dont think that deporting entire ethnic groups from their homelands is needed to better peoples lives. I dont think the paranoid xenophobia of Stalin helped anyone and at worst crippled the ability of the Red Army to withstand the initial invasion of the Wehrmacht. I think his usage of the word “counterrevolutionary” completely devalued the word because calling Zinoviev, Kamenev and Trotzky counterrevolutionaries for calling for collectivization, only to turn around and calling Bukharin counterrevolutionary for opposing collectivization is a sign for devolving into a byzantine power struggle.