He is right though. It isn’t a fallacy, the usage of the word tankie is so far removed from content that it is a bad term and more thought terminating than anything.
Tankies were originally a small subset of some Western and some, mostly East European, socialists and communists which were in favour of a (para-)military response to the revolt in Hungary in 1956. It was a complex situation and even people not on the side of Nagy within Hungary were in favour of the Soviet action.
The term now was used, and amplified by intelligence agencies and Western media, to decry the Soviet action and more importantly de-legitimize several communist groups. In that sense the functional usage of the term is similar, but the question is where would the slur hit actually?
In principle it would hit a small sub section of MLs who followed Khrushchev’s decision. Many people within the pact did see the de-Stalinisation and how it was communicated as problematic, as it enabled opposition forces to claim ground in countries. Nagy tried to do introduce reforms, the most far reaching: “Hungary to leave the Warsaw Pact and declare neutrality in the Cold War.”
Countries thinking about leaving the dominant two powers spheres of influence during the Cold War were often met with violence. See the Jakarta Method for more information about that (i.e. Vietnam, Korea, Indonesia, the whole of South America). During that time colonialism was also still relevant and colonial powers did use excessive violence, this is another part of the book.
Now what you and others do is labeling people who are to the left of the Soviets at that point as Tankies. Which is doubly wrong and cynical. What is interesting is that the slur can be traced back for the last 6 years to the US and there to more right wing places. It wasn’t primarily a phrase that was used by leftists. However after the heating chamber of the alt right online people used it to label even people who are democratic socialists at best.
In that sense it is a continuity to the Red Scare, to not have to engage with content.
Bullshit. Everyone’s a tankie. My dog is a tankie. Tankie doesn’t mean shit, in the four years it’s been revived, nobody has ever been able to give me a universal definition. It literally just means “people I don’t like”.
I’ve seen anarchists get called tankies. I myself am a Marxist-Leninist but because I may be better at conveying my thoughts and opinions I don’t get called a tankie, while other MLs do. I literally have the same opinions they do, but anarchists sometimes think I’m cool with them lol.
tl:dr “Tankie” means someone who’s more interested in following a communist team rather then a communist ideal. Even if the team leader is just a grifter.
If you acknowledge the short comings of certain states that don’t really follow the “from each according to his ability to each according to his need”, you’re not a tankie.
By your definition, every community is a tankie because every communist rejects idealism. If these are the only two options, the only option left is to choose a team. But that can’t be right because you imply that some communists aren’t tankies.
Further, does it count as a definition if other people use the term in different ways?
If so, how do you know who is a communist and who is a tankie without asking them how they decided to show (critical) support for XYZ?
By your definition, you must first know whether someone has strong reasons to support XYZ before being able to decide that they really decided because XYZ was on the right team. That would be exhausting and fraught with the problem that nobody is going to say they didn’t do the reading; if they give an argument, how do you determine whether it’s valid or a cover for ‘choosing by reference to team’?
I’m unsure if it’s possible to define ‘tankie’ by reference to ‘communist’ without also defining the latter and showing how they’re different.
![The Whole Fediverse is Wholesome [fixed]](https://media.kbin.social/media/75/34/7534fdd6766a8bc7f83436386577e62a42333384f5e0e25621c1ee00ac70f675.jpg){kind=link}
Ah the classic “No True Tankie” fallacy
Edit: whoops, replied to the wrong comment
Ah the classic pretending to invoke fallacies instead of just telling me what a “tankie” is supposed to be…
If you really just mean “commie,” just say it
He is right though. It isn’t a fallacy, the usage of the word tankie is so far removed from content that it is a bad term and more thought terminating than anything.
Tankies were originally a small subset of some Western and some, mostly East European, socialists and communists which were in favour of a (para-)military response to the revolt in Hungary in 1956. It was a complex situation and even people not on the side of Nagy within Hungary were in favour of the Soviet action.
The term now was used, and amplified by intelligence agencies and Western media, to decry the Soviet action and more importantly de-legitimize several communist groups. In that sense the functional usage of the term is similar, but the question is where would the slur hit actually?
In principle it would hit a small sub section of MLs who followed Khrushchev’s decision. Many people within the pact did see the de-Stalinisation and how it was communicated as problematic, as it enabled opposition forces to claim ground in countries. Nagy tried to do introduce reforms, the most far reaching: “Hungary to leave the Warsaw Pact and declare neutrality in the Cold War.”
Countries thinking about leaving the dominant two powers spheres of influence during the Cold War were often met with violence. See the Jakarta Method for more information about that (i.e. Vietnam, Korea, Indonesia, the whole of South America). During that time colonialism was also still relevant and colonial powers did use excessive violence, this is another part of the book.
Now what you and others do is labeling people who are to the left of the Soviets at that point as Tankies. Which is doubly wrong and cynical. What is interesting is that the slur can be traced back for the last 6 years to the US and there to more right wing places. It wasn’t primarily a phrase that was used by leftists. However after the heating chamber of the alt right online people used it to label even people who are democratic socialists at best.
In that sense it is a continuity to the Red Scare, to not have to engage with content.
Luckily the US would never in the 1950s use regime change in countries, for example it would never use military force in Guatemala to ensure the profits of the United Fruit company and the CIA director’s family or
alike
Bullshit. Everyone’s a tankie. My dog is a tankie. Tankie doesn’t mean shit, in the four years it’s been revived, nobody has ever been able to give me a universal definition. It literally just means “people I don’t like”.
I’ve seen anarchists get called tankies. I myself am a Marxist-Leninist but because I may be better at conveying my thoughts and opinions I don’t get called a tankie, while other MLs do. I literally have the same opinions they do, but anarchists sometimes think I’m cool with them lol.
Tankie doesn’t mean anything. You’re a tankie.
tl:dr “Tankie” means someone who’s more interested in following a communist team rather then a communist ideal. Even if the team leader is just a grifter.
If you acknowledge the short comings of certain states that don’t really follow the “from each according to his ability to each according to his need”, you’re not a tankie.
By your definition, every community is a tankie because every communist rejects idealism. If these are the only two options, the only option left is to choose a team. But that can’t be right because you imply that some communists aren’t tankies.
Further, does it count as a definition if other people use the term in different ways?
If so, how do you know who is a communist and who is a tankie without asking them how they decided to show (critical) support for XYZ?
By your definition, you must first know whether someone has strong reasons to support XYZ before being able to decide that they really decided because XYZ was on the right team. That would be exhausting and fraught with the problem that nobody is going to say they didn’t do the reading; if they give an argument, how do you determine whether it’s valid or a cover for ‘choosing by reference to team’?
I’m unsure if it’s possible to define ‘tankie’ by reference to ‘communist’ without also defining the latter and showing how they’re different.
That’s a pretty vague definition you came up for to dismiss people.