Originally, it meant people who supported the soviet union’s use of tanks to crush uprisings.
Now its used to describe people who support Authoritatian Communist regimes, like the ussr, north korea or china.
On lemmy.ml and lemmygrad.ml there is a high amount of them.
This recent thread is pretty insightful on lemmygrad.ml’s position. Their own users repeatedly emphasize that they are critical of the RF, which shouldn’t be a surprise given that it’s a capitalist country with plenty of reactionary domestic policies. (OP didn’t get banned)
Literally the very first comment in that thread I see is the instance admin speaking in support of russia for no other reason than it being opposed to the US.
What people tend not to realize is they don’t support Russia because they think it’s still communist, but because of a combination of campism, accelerationism, and revolutionary defeatism. If you want to argue with someone in good faith you should try to understand their position first, otherwise they will just see you as a reactionary and dismiss what you say. I still occasionally get my comments removed from .ml but I’ve been able to get through to people somewhat by leading with an actual understanding of where they’re coming from.
Campism is Trotskyist criticism and not a term we use. Accelerationism is an edgelord meme that some baby leftists might subscribe to, but is generally a very dumb concept.
However, I’ll give props for knowing about revolutionary defeatism, which is a factor in our analysis. It was, pretty indisputably, the correct position to take in WWI, when it was developed. In fact, before the war, socialist parties across Europe came together and, seeing the possibility of the war on the horizon, agreed that in the event of such a war they would work together against their own governments. Once the war actually started, however, “socialists” in Britain, France, and Germany all fell in line behind their government in support of their own side in the imperialist war. They either succumbed to pressure or sought to advance their own positions as careerists and opportunists. Only in Russia did the socialists stay true to their promise and used the opportunity to turn the imperialist war into a civil war, and eventually managed to nope out of the meat grinder everyone else was stuck in.
Whether revolutionary defeatism is generally applicable is another question, but it is sort of our, “null hypothesis,” you might say. But more important are the underlying ideas that support revolutionary defeatism. We don’t just agree with it because Lenin said it, but because it tracks with our own analysis, which is based on class and realpolitik. Furthermore, history cautions us to be skeptical when our country tells us a war is justified, as we see many examples throughout history where people fell in line behind narratives that did not hold up, whether it was WWI or Vietnam or Iraq - whenever any country goes to war, there is a strong pressure and lots of propaganda that is able to convince the vast majority of people to support it, everyone always thinks, “but this time, it’s different,” and more often than not, they’re wrong.
Generally speaking, arguments that are grounded on things like territorial integrity or national sovereignty don’t really have traction with us. Revolution involves aggressively violating national sovereignty, after all. If you want to speak our language, then you have to frame your arguments in terms of the benefit to the common people.
Campism is Trotskyist criticism and not a term we use.
That’s not a response to the criticism, just a dismissal of it based on who it originated from. I personally think it’s a valid criticism of many who consider themselves marxist-leninists, and I am not a trotskyist. People I’ve spoken with in the past have had a tendency to dogmatically subscribe to a campist mindset in total disregard for the particulars of any given situation, and for how much shit MLs give liberals for practicing lesser-evilism, many sure seem to love their own version of it.
Accelerationism is an edgelord meme that some baby leftists might subscribe to, but is generally a very dumb concept.
It’s far more prevalent than you’re giving it credit for, and in my experience many MLs’ understanding of revolutionary defeatism tends to boil down to accelerationism when questioned.
However, I’ll give props for knowing about revolutionary defeatism, which is a factor in our analysis. It was, pretty indisputably, the correct position to take in WWI, when it was developed.
Indisputable suggests it’s largely undisputed now, which you must know is absolutely not the case. I am currently disputing it. There is no significant historical pattern of countries that faced a military defeat becoming socialist or even having better revolutionary conditions afterwards.
Only in Russia did the socialists stay true to their promise and used the opportunity to turn the imperialist war into a civil war, and eventually managed to nope out of the meat grinder everyone else was stuck in.
Starting a civil war while the country is in the middle of an imperialist war is not an example of revolutionary defeatism working. If Russia had been defeated in their imperialist war and then had a socialist revolution that would be an example, but even then one example is not a pattern.
Furthermore, history cautions us to be skeptical when our country tells us a war is justified, as we see many examples throughout history where people fell in line behind narratives that did not hold up, whether it was WWI or Vietnam or Iraq - whenever any country goes to war, there is a strong pressure and lots of propaganda that is able to convince the vast majority of people to support it, everyone always thinks, “but this time, it’s different,” and more often than not, they’re wrong.
I agree completely, but this is just an argument for being anti-imperialist and anti-war, not an argument for revolutionary defeatism.
Generally speaking, arguments that are grounded on things like territorial integrity or national sovereignty don’t really have traction with us. Revolution involves aggressively violating national sovereignty, after all.
Those sorts of arguments don’t have any traction with me either, I’m an anarchist. I don’t believe I have made any such arguments, unless you conflate collective self-determination with national sovereignty.
That’s not a response to the criticism, just a dismissal of it based on who it originated from.
many MLs’ understanding of revolutionary defeatism tends to boil down to accelerationism
If you want to argue with someone in good faith you should try to understand their position first,
It seems kind of contradictory to talk about “trying to understand our position in good faith first” before criticizing it, and then characterizing it in critical terms that we don’t use. If you want to “understand a position in good faith first” then you should describe that position in a way that the people who hold it would find fair and agreeable - and then you can tear into it all you want. It seems that you don’t actually want to understand our position or explain it, but rather just jump into criticizing it.
If you actually followed your own (good) advice, the form of your argument should look like:
Here’s a neutral description of what they say:
And here’s my critical view of what that position actually amounts to, and the reasons why I see it that way:
The issue I take with you using the terms “campism” and “accelerationism” is that they belong in the second part, but you’ve presented them as being in the first.
Indisputable suggests it’s largely undisputed now, which you must know is absolutely not the case. I am currently disputing it. There is no significant historical pattern of countries that faced a military defeat becoming socialist or even having better revolutionary conditions afterwards.
What you’re describing is not revolutionary defeatism, it is accelerationism. I have to withdraw my props for only learning the term without actually understanding what it means. You’re not really disputing it, you’re disputing a completely different concept that you’ve incorrectly labelled.
Revolutionary defeatism is not the descriptive belief that a country facing a military defeat will always or even generally become socialist, rather, it is the proscriptive tactic that, when both sides of a conflict are roughly equally enemies of the people, socialists should primarily oppose their own country’s side, with the aim of turning it into a revolution/civil war, taking advantage of the difficulties faced by the state.
Starting a civil war while the country is in the middle of an imperialist war is not an example of revolutionary defeatism working.
That is literally what revolutionary defeatism is. Again, you demonstrate that you don’t understand the concept. Turning the imperialist war into a civil war was Lenin’s very explicitly stated goal.
Your own Wikipedia link explains this:
“Workers would gain more from their own nations’ defeats, he argued, if the war could be turned into civil war and then international revolution.”
If Russia had been defeated in their imperialist war and then had a socialist revolution that would be an example, but even then one example is not a pattern.
Again, that’s accelerationism, not revolutionary defeatism.
I don’t know where you picked up this idea that revolutionary defeatism just means accelerationism, but it’s certainly not from reading theory. If you want to practice what you preach and make a good faith attempt to understand it, Lenin spells out the concept very clearly here
I would never call a leftist a “tankie” because they are a leftist. People who do that are idiots. The important part of the word is the support of authoritarian regimes.
Which is pretty weird nowadays because neither Russia, China nor North Korea are even communist/leftist anymore.
China and the DPRK are still Socialist, though different forms. China has a Socialist Market Economy, the DPRK is closer to the Soviet model. Russia is no longer Socialist, that is correct, but is occasionally seen as a temporary ally as they seek to destabilize US Hegemony, a goal they seek for profit and Leftists seek so that Socialism has a better chance worldwide.
If you define leftism as a pure economy model, then you could call right-wing authoritarian countries with state-controlled economies “socialist” which makes no sense.
I don’t know what you mean by a “pure economy model” or how a fully publicly owned economy would be right wing, unless it’s a different form of ownership like Monarchism.
That isn’t true though: the Nordic countries are undeniably authoritarian from a leftist perspective, but you never see Nordic model socdems being called “tankies”. Failed leftist projects like Catalonia or the Paris Commune were also undeniably “authoritarian” by the definition applied to more successful projects, but supporters of them are never called tankies. The Black Panthers, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, all supported “authoritarian regimes”
What it really boils down to is serious opposition to Western liberalism.
Sort of person that, in the UK, might be just to the left of the current Labor party leadership (but right of a lot of the party) or on the SocDem end of the LibDems.
Do you know who else was right about landlords? A shit ton of people that didn’t get millions of their own citizens killed through incompetence and mismanagement.
It’s actually especially focused on Khrushchev, who was the one who sent tanks into Hungary which is where the term originates. It’s notable that it focuses on him rather than Stalin, because the real point of the term was to guard against people who might be more sympathetic towards the USSR after “destalinization.” The literal meaning may be, “people who support socialist countries no matter what they do,” but the actual meaning has always been more like, “people who support anything any socialist country has ever done.”
Ok, what’s a tankie?
Anyone to the left of morning Joe?
Originally, it meant people who supported the soviet union’s use of tanks to crush uprisings.
Now its used to describe people who support Authoritatian Communist regimes, like the ussr, north korea or china.
On lemmy.ml and lemmygrad.ml there is a high amount of them.
The authoritarian part waxes and wanes, there’s a few anarchists in their ranks who have no real solution after “tear it all apart”.
What then, boys?
deleted by creator
Thanks for taking the time to explain. Much appreciated.
Somehow they even support modern russia which is as far from communism as it’s possible to be without being US
Their reasoning is that its anti-us imperialism, despite russia being pretty imperialistic itself.
Ah, the classic “only western countries can be imperialist”
It’s not a classic because no one says that. Japan did it for sixty years, until it was made a vassal of the US, which it still is today[1][2].
Don’t forget that only US Capitalism is the root of moneys evils
I really haven’t seen that? A while ago I looked into HexBear’s opinion on it and it wasn’t good.
Check out this thread, there really isn’t any Putin worship in these spaces.
https://hexbear.net/post/148426?scrollToComments=false
In this one some of the top comments are hoping Putin gets shot in the face. https://hexbear.net/post/3270551
Plenty of examples from .ml. Not sure how one 3 year old thread disproves it?
I gave you two links, one which is much newer.
I’m looking at this community you linked I’m not sure I can see how you’re proving that “tankies” admire the modern Russian government.
The part where they ban people for being critical of it?
This recent thread is pretty insightful on lemmygrad.ml’s position. Their own users repeatedly emphasize that they are critical of the RF, which shouldn’t be a surprise given that it’s a capitalist country with plenty of reactionary domestic policies. (OP didn’t get banned)
https://lemmygrad.ml/post/7374513?sort=Top
Literally the very first comment in that thread I see is the instance admin speaking in support of russia for no other reason than it being opposed to the US.
shhhh! They haven’t finished building their strawman
What people tend not to realize is they don’t support Russia because they think it’s still communist, but because of a combination of campism, accelerationism, and revolutionary defeatism. If you want to argue with someone in good faith you should try to understand their position first, otherwise they will just see you as a reactionary and dismiss what you say. I still occasionally get my comments removed from .ml but I’ve been able to get through to people somewhat by leading with an actual understanding of where they’re coming from.
Campism is Trotskyist criticism and not a term we use. Accelerationism is an edgelord meme that some baby leftists might subscribe to, but is generally a very dumb concept.
However, I’ll give props for knowing about revolutionary defeatism, which is a factor in our analysis. It was, pretty indisputably, the correct position to take in WWI, when it was developed. In fact, before the war, socialist parties across Europe came together and, seeing the possibility of the war on the horizon, agreed that in the event of such a war they would work together against their own governments. Once the war actually started, however, “socialists” in Britain, France, and Germany all fell in line behind their government in support of their own side in the imperialist war. They either succumbed to pressure or sought to advance their own positions as careerists and opportunists. Only in Russia did the socialists stay true to their promise and used the opportunity to turn the imperialist war into a civil war, and eventually managed to nope out of the meat grinder everyone else was stuck in.
Whether revolutionary defeatism is generally applicable is another question, but it is sort of our, “null hypothesis,” you might say. But more important are the underlying ideas that support revolutionary defeatism. We don’t just agree with it because Lenin said it, but because it tracks with our own analysis, which is based on class and realpolitik. Furthermore, history cautions us to be skeptical when our country tells us a war is justified, as we see many examples throughout history where people fell in line behind narratives that did not hold up, whether it was WWI or Vietnam or Iraq - whenever any country goes to war, there is a strong pressure and lots of propaganda that is able to convince the vast majority of people to support it, everyone always thinks, “but this time, it’s different,” and more often than not, they’re wrong.
Generally speaking, arguments that are grounded on things like territorial integrity or national sovereignty don’t really have traction with us. Revolution involves aggressively violating national sovereignty, after all. If you want to speak our language, then you have to frame your arguments in terms of the benefit to the common people.
That’s not a response to the criticism, just a dismissal of it based on who it originated from. I personally think it’s a valid criticism of many who consider themselves marxist-leninists, and I am not a trotskyist. People I’ve spoken with in the past have had a tendency to dogmatically subscribe to a campist mindset in total disregard for the particulars of any given situation, and for how much shit MLs give liberals for practicing lesser-evilism, many sure seem to love their own version of it.
It’s far more prevalent than you’re giving it credit for, and in my experience many MLs’ understanding of revolutionary defeatism tends to boil down to accelerationism when questioned.
Indisputable suggests it’s largely undisputed now, which you must know is absolutely not the case. I am currently disputing it. There is no significant historical pattern of countries that faced a military defeat becoming socialist or even having better revolutionary conditions afterwards.
Starting a civil war while the country is in the middle of an imperialist war is not an example of revolutionary defeatism working. If Russia had been defeated in their imperialist war and then had a socialist revolution that would be an example, but even then one example is not a pattern.
I agree completely, but this is just an argument for being anti-imperialist and anti-war, not an argument for revolutionary defeatism.
Those sorts of arguments don’t have any traction with me either, I’m an anarchist. I don’t believe I have made any such arguments, unless you conflate collective self-determination with national sovereignty.
It seems kind of contradictory to talk about “trying to understand our position in good faith first” before criticizing it, and then characterizing it in critical terms that we don’t use. If you want to “understand a position in good faith first” then you should describe that position in a way that the people who hold it would find fair and agreeable - and then you can tear into it all you want. It seems that you don’t actually want to understand our position or explain it, but rather just jump into criticizing it.
If you actually followed your own (good) advice, the form of your argument should look like:
Here’s a neutral description of what they say:
And here’s my critical view of what that position actually amounts to, and the reasons why I see it that way:
The issue I take with you using the terms “campism” and “accelerationism” is that they belong in the second part, but you’ve presented them as being in the first.
What you’re describing is not revolutionary defeatism, it is accelerationism. I have to withdraw my props for only learning the term without actually understanding what it means. You’re not really disputing it, you’re disputing a completely different concept that you’ve incorrectly labelled.
Revolutionary defeatism is not the descriptive belief that a country facing a military defeat will always or even generally become socialist, rather, it is the proscriptive tactic that, when both sides of a conflict are roughly equally enemies of the people, socialists should primarily oppose their own country’s side, with the aim of turning it into a revolution/civil war, taking advantage of the difficulties faced by the state.
That is literally what revolutionary defeatism is. Again, you demonstrate that you don’t understand the concept. Turning the imperialist war into a civil war was Lenin’s very explicitly stated goal.
Your own Wikipedia link explains this:
“Workers would gain more from their own nations’ defeats, he argued, if the war could be turned into civil war and then international revolution.”
Again, that’s accelerationism, not revolutionary defeatism.
I don’t know where you picked up this idea that revolutionary defeatism just means accelerationism, but it’s certainly not from reading theory. If you want to practice what you preach and make a good faith attempt to understand it, Lenin spells out the concept very clearly here
A non .ml user arguing in good faith? That’s as rare as it is welcome!
Also, I think you forgot anti-Americanism and anti imperialism in your list.
Half a century ago it meant people who supported the soviet union using tanks to put down a cia backed coup in Hungary.
Modern times in the west it means anyone left of AOC.
I would never call a leftist a “tankie” because they are a leftist. People who do that are idiots. The important part of the word is the support of authoritarian regimes.
Which is pretty weird nowadays because neither Russia, China nor North Korea are even communist/leftist anymore.
China and the DPRK are still Socialist, though different forms. China has a Socialist Market Economy, the DPRK is closer to the Soviet model. Russia is no longer Socialist, that is correct, but is occasionally seen as a temporary ally as they seek to destabilize US Hegemony, a goal they seek for profit and Leftists seek so that Socialism has a better chance worldwide.
If you define leftism as a pure economy model, then you could call right-wing authoritarian countries with state-controlled economies “socialist” which makes no sense.
I don’t know what you mean by a “pure economy model” or how a fully publicly owned economy would be right wing, unless it’s a different form of ownership like Monarchism.
That isn’t true though: the Nordic countries are undeniably authoritarian from a leftist perspective, but you never see Nordic model socdems being called “tankies”. Failed leftist projects like Catalonia or the Paris Commune were also undeniably “authoritarian” by the definition applied to more successful projects, but supporters of them are never called tankies. The Black Panthers, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, all supported “authoritarian regimes”
What it really boils down to is serious opposition to Western liberalism.
That would be a large swathe of Europe, so… no.
Oh I meant the US framing.
Here. Bernie Sanders is literally Stalin. In Europe he’s what? Left leaning moderate?
Fairly normal social democrat.
Sort of person that, in the UK, might be just to the left of the current Labor party leadership (but right of a lot of the party) or on the SocDem end of the LibDems.
Or, hear me out, it actually means people who support authoritarian communism. Especially focussed on Stalin and Mao.
Mao was right about landlords. If nothing else. He was right about landlords.
Do you know who else was right about landlords? A shit ton of people that didn’t get millions of their own citizens killed through incompetence and mismanagement.
Everyone who ever killed one.
Rare Pol Pot W
Whoa, watch out, you might hit someone with that goalpost, swinging it around like that
It’s actually especially focused on Khrushchev, who was the one who sent tanks into Hungary which is where the term originates. It’s notable that it focuses on him rather than Stalin, because the real point of the term was to guard against people who might be more sympathetic towards the USSR after “destalinization.” The literal meaning may be, “people who support socialist countries no matter what they do,” but the actual meaning has always been more like, “people who support anything any socialist country has ever done.”