Because i believe a socialist revolution must be defended by any means necessary once it occurs, knowing full well the ruling class will do whatever they can in their power to prevent it from succeeding. And it is used critically to criticize socialist countries of using force to put down western backed uprisings.
Up front, I want to put out that I try not to overuse “tankie” when there are more specific criticisms to make, so I’m more likely to call out campists, or accelerationists, or terminally online do-nothing poseur-revolutionaries. I don’t think not voting makes someone a tankie, but it’s a position that seems, subjectively, to be popular in these overlapping circles.
With that out of the way, my problem with tankies is that they tend to dismiss any criticism over the use of force. They’ll quote Engels, but rather than view violence as a necessary evil in certain circumstances, it’s something to be simply dismissed without a second thought, or even celebrated so long as they support the cause—and if that person is a campist, they aren’t necessarily supporting a good cause.
The US has absolutely, indisputably backed uprisings across the globe, especially in the global south, but it’s also just an easy accusation to throw behind any movement to justify cracking down.
On top of that, you mention that it’s a fight against the ruling class, which is true… but vanguard parties are also, by definition, a ruling class. The idea is that it’s a necessary evil to eventually achieve a communist future, but nonetheless, they’re a ruling class, and ruling classes have vested interests in maintaining their own power. I can see the argument for it, and can’t deny the success of MLM organizing tactics as used by groups like the Black Panthers. However, great revolutionaries may or may not be great leaders, or maintain the ideals of the revolution.
Speaking of US-backed uprisings, and financial oppression via the IMF and World Bank, the economic ideology underpinning a lot of this comes from the Chicago School, especially chief ghoul of the capitalist death cult, Milton Friedman. You know who invited Friedman to consult on their economy? China. They liberalized their economy, and created a class of billionaires. Are they not the ruling class, and deserve our opposition for betraying a socialist revolution? You might have an argument to make against this, but as someone who opposes “tankies,” you must understand, that the way it looks is that authoritarians are simply celebrating authoritarianism, and giving up entirely on the communism side.
If you don’t support violent oppression from the state without reservation, you might not be who people are talking about when they talk about tankies, it may not actually describe your position, and you may not want to throw in with the kinds of people who aren’t bothered by any brutal regime so long as they have the right aesthetic.
What, in your view, makes you a tankie? And what do you think people mean when they use the term critically?
Because i believe a socialist revolution must be defended by any means necessary once it occurs, knowing full well the ruling class will do whatever they can in their power to prevent it from succeeding. And it is used critically to criticize socialist countries of using force to put down western backed uprisings.
Well alright.
Up front, I want to put out that I try not to overuse “tankie” when there are more specific criticisms to make, so I’m more likely to call out campists, or accelerationists, or terminally online do-nothing poseur-revolutionaries. I don’t think not voting makes someone a tankie, but it’s a position that seems, subjectively, to be popular in these overlapping circles.
With that out of the way, my problem with tankies is that they tend to dismiss any criticism over the use of force. They’ll quote Engels, but rather than view violence as a necessary evil in certain circumstances, it’s something to be simply dismissed without a second thought, or even celebrated so long as they support the cause—and if that person is a campist, they aren’t necessarily supporting a good cause.
The US has absolutely, indisputably backed uprisings across the globe, especially in the global south, but it’s also just an easy accusation to throw behind any movement to justify cracking down.
On top of that, you mention that it’s a fight against the ruling class, which is true… but vanguard parties are also, by definition, a ruling class. The idea is that it’s a necessary evil to eventually achieve a communist future, but nonetheless, they’re a ruling class, and ruling classes have vested interests in maintaining their own power. I can see the argument for it, and can’t deny the success of MLM organizing tactics as used by groups like the Black Panthers. However, great revolutionaries may or may not be great leaders, or maintain the ideals of the revolution.
Speaking of US-backed uprisings, and financial oppression via the IMF and World Bank, the economic ideology underpinning a lot of this comes from the Chicago School, especially chief ghoul of the capitalist death cult, Milton Friedman. You know who invited Friedman to consult on their economy? China. They liberalized their economy, and created a class of billionaires. Are they not the ruling class, and deserve our opposition for betraying a socialist revolution? You might have an argument to make against this, but as someone who opposes “tankies,” you must understand, that the way it looks is that authoritarians are simply celebrating authoritarianism, and giving up entirely on the communism side.
If you don’t support violent oppression from the state without reservation, you might not be who people are talking about when they talk about tankies, it may not actually describe your position, and you may not want to throw in with the kinds of people who aren’t bothered by any brutal regime so long as they have the right aesthetic.