A tankie is a leftist who doesn’t agree with mainstream geopolitical opinions or shows any interest in nuance
Tankies [1] don’t usually believe that Stalin or Mao “did nothing wrong,” although many do use that phrase for effect (this is the internet, remember). We believe that Stalin and Mao were committed socialists who, despite their mistakes, did much more for humanity than most of the bourgeois politicians who are typically put forward as role models (Washington? Jefferson? JFK? Jimmy Carter?), and that they haven’t been judged according to the same standard as those bourgeois politicians. People call this “whataboutism” [2], but the claim “Stalin was a monster” is implicitly a comparative claim meaning “Stalin was qualitatively different from and worse than e.g. Churchill,” and I think the opposite is the case. If people are going to make veiled comparisons, us tankies have the right to answer with open ones.
The reason we “defend authoritarian dictators” is because we want to defend the accomplishments of really existing socialism, and other people’s false or exaggerated beliefs about those “dictators” almost always get in the way — it’s not tankies but normies [4] who commit the synecdoche of reducing all of really existing socialism to Stalin and Mao. Those accomplishments include raising standards of living, achieving unprecedented income equality, massive gains in women’s rights and the position of women vis-a-vis men, defeating the Nazis, raising life expectancy, ending illiteracy, putting an end to periodic famines, inspiring and providing material aid to decolonizing movements (e.g. Vietnam, China, South Africa, Burkina Faso, Indonesia), which scared the West into conceding civil rights and the welfare state. These were greater strides in the direction of abolishing capitalism than any other society has ever made. These are the gains that are so important to insist on, against the CIA/Trotskyist/ultraleft consensus that the Soviet Union was basically an evil empire and Stalin a deranged butcher.
Tankies [1] don’t usually believe that Stalin or Mao “did nothing wrong,” although many do use that phrase for effect (this is the internet, remember)
Fair enough. Though I do disagree that they don’t usually deny their shortcomings but both sides of that claim are pretty hard to prove so I concede.
We believe that Stalin and Mao were committed socialists who, despite their mistakes, did much more for humanity than most of the bourgeois politicians who are typically put forward as role models (Washington? Jefferson? JFK? Jimmy Carter?), and that they haven’t been judged according to the same standard as those bourgeois politicians.
Ok you can make that argument
People call this “whataboutism”
“Tankies” do often use whataboutism, that’s irrefutable. Is this specific claim whataboutism? I’d say borderline, but I can see why it’s still a point worth bringing up.
but the claim “Stalin was a monster” is implicitly a comparative claim
No, it’s not - or at least not in the way he’s implying. The claim is overly vague (how do we define a monster?) but it’s not comparative. Whether Churchill committed atrocities (he did) and whether Stalin committed atrocities (he did) have no bearing on one another. All we have to do is define a monster - then we can measure whether a given leader was a monster. The only comparison needed is between the leader and the definition.
If people are going to make veiled comparisons, us tankies have the right to answer with open ones.
Sure, that’s true. Except like I said that “Stalin was a monster” is not comparative. If someone says “Stalin was worse than Churchill” than Churchill is relevant. But if someone says “Stalin committed atrocities” then it is whataboutism to answer “So did Churchill.” Churchill’s atrocities bear no relevance to Stalin’s.
A tankie is a leftist who doesn’t agree with mainstream geopolitical opinions
This is a stretch. Leftism, by and large, doesn’t agree with “mainstream geopolitical opinions” so this doesn’t properly distinguish them from other Leftists.
A tankie is a leftist who… shows any interest in nuance
Laughable. Tankies originate from Leftists walking the party line so claiming that all non-tankies lack “nuance” is a very… interesting accusation.
“Really existing socialism” of course meaning “a system wherein workers have zero effective political power.”
Just because it’s true that the ML movement was an essential part of decolonialization, and because it isn’t true that the USSR was some evil empire, doesn’t mean that the ideologies that underpin(ned) those societies aren’t deeply flawed.
The USSR was not an evil empire, no, but the political structure of a hierarchical, command-based politic lead exactly where critics said it would lead. The “ultraleft”, as you call them, including Luxemburg and Anarchist communists warned Lenin exactly what would go wrong in the USSR, and Lenin did not listen.
That’s why Lenin is a counter-revolutionary by deed if not by intent. By his actions, the power of the people’s and worker’s soviets were shattered and replaced with corrupt bureaucracy.
Also, hey, go tell a Tartar, Kalmykk or other displaced ethnic group who were victim of Stalin’s genocides that he wasn’t a deranged butcher. Maybe if you survive you can tell me what you learned.
A tankie is a leftist who doesn’t agree with mainstream geopolitical opinions or shows any interest in nuance
https://redsails.org/tankies/
Fair enough. Though I do disagree that they don’t usually deny their shortcomings but both sides of that claim are pretty hard to prove so I concede.
Ok you can make that argument
“Tankies” do often use whataboutism, that’s irrefutable. Is this specific claim whataboutism? I’d say borderline, but I can see why it’s still a point worth bringing up.
No, it’s not - or at least not in the way he’s implying. The claim is overly vague (how do we define a monster?) but it’s not comparative. Whether Churchill committed atrocities (he did) and whether Stalin committed atrocities (he did) have no bearing on one another. All we have to do is define a monster - then we can measure whether a given leader was a monster. The only comparison needed is between the leader and the definition.
Sure, that’s true. Except like I said that “Stalin was a monster” is not comparative. If someone says “Stalin was worse than Churchill” than Churchill is relevant. But if someone says “Stalin committed atrocities” then it is whataboutism to answer “So did Churchill.” Churchill’s atrocities bear no relevance to Stalin’s.
This is a stretch. Leftism, by and large, doesn’t agree with “mainstream geopolitical opinions” so this doesn’t properly distinguish them from other Leftists.
Laughable. Tankies originate from Leftists walking the party line so claiming that all non-tankies lack “nuance” is a very… interesting accusation.
“Really existing socialism” of course meaning “a system wherein workers have zero effective political power.”
Just because it’s true that the ML movement was an essential part of decolonialization, and because it isn’t true that the USSR was some evil empire, doesn’t mean that the ideologies that underpin(ned) those societies aren’t deeply flawed.
The USSR was not an evil empire, no, but the political structure of a hierarchical, command-based politic lead exactly where critics said it would lead. The “ultraleft”, as you call them, including Luxemburg and Anarchist communists warned Lenin exactly what would go wrong in the USSR, and Lenin did not listen.
That’s why Lenin is a counter-revolutionary by deed if not by intent. By his actions, the power of the people’s and worker’s soviets were shattered and replaced with corrupt bureaucracy.
Also, hey, go tell a Tartar, Kalmykk or other displaced ethnic group who were victim of Stalin’s genocides that he wasn’t a deranged butcher. Maybe if you survive you can tell me what you learned.