The term “tankie” was originally used by dissident Marxist–Leninists to describe members of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) who followed the party line of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). Specifically, it was used to distinguish party members who spoke out in defence of the Soviet use of tanks to suppress the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the 1968 Prague Spring, or who more broadly adhered to pro-Soviet positions.[6][7] The term has extended to describe people who endorse, defend, or deny the actions of communist leaders such as Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong. In recent times, the term has been used across the political spectrum and in a geopolitical context to describe those who have a bias in favour of anti-Western states, authoritarian states, or states with a socialist legacy, such as Belarus, Cuba, China,[8][9] Nicaragua, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela.
So OP is basically saying they love it when governments crack the will of their people by force as long as its their team doing it.
Using your own definition, the conclusion doesn’t follow, what follows is that OP is a Marxist-Leninist. The concluding bit is your personal mischaracterization of Marxism-Leninism.
It doesn’t, though. The bit Sanctus added to the end was their personal evaluation of Marxism-Leninism, not something that matched the Wiki definition.
Specifically, it was used to distinguish party members who spoke out in defence of the Soviet use of tanks to suppress the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the 1968 Prague Spring
Correct, the reasons Marxist-Leninists support the suppression of western-backed and trained fascist counter-revolutions and widespread lynchings of communists and Jewish peoples are not about “good side crushing bad side.”
Idk about that. Seems there were conflicting opinions about whether this was good or bad. And while yeah it makes sense the CIA would back this. I dont see Amy fascist shit here.
On the night of 20–21 August 1968, military forces from several Warsaw Pact member states (Albania, Romania and East Germany did not participate[58]) invaded Czechoslovakia. Soviet media cited a call for help from unnamed representatives as the cause of the “fraternal intervention”, publishing an unidentified appeal as proof on 22 August 1968; However, as it became clear from the first day that virtually the entire responsible leadership of the Czechoslovak government and communist parties, including Dubček, were being blamed as causes of the invasion, and even the Soviet-supported leadership fell into accusations against each other, most allied communist parties around the world rejected the Soviet pretext as a thin disguise for gross violation of national party autonomy.[59] Even President Ludvík Svoboda had publicly issued a statement calling on occupying forces to withdraw and for reforms to continue, while Czechoslovakia’s UN representatives were calling for international support against the invasion.
Wikipedia is a western-centric overview, not a historical document. The anti-communists in Hungary were marking up the doors of Jews and communists, lynching them. For Czechoslovakia, again, the counter-revolutionaries were anti-communist nationalists who wanted to install a far-right government. It’s cut and dry among Marxist-Leninists that intervention was correct these days.
I’d be happy to learn another viewpoint. But so far I dont see your claims backed up anywhere. Maybe if I could read some of your sources I could agree with them.
It was not. Its my personal evaluation of a self described tankie. Which I dont think is an actual ideology. Just an insult. But OP said they were one so.
“Authoritarianism” isn’t really a thing. What ultimately matters is which class in society has control of the state, and that determines how it responds to class conflicts. What determines the strength of state force in those conflicts is the circumstances society is found in, not the whims of random individuals.
If the right wingers in my country are vehemently against it. It must have something going for it. Otherwise they wouldnt have made their own conservopedia.
You never engage with me positively. So I couldn’t care less what you have to say. I never even engage with you first. You come to me to be a dick every time I post anywhere near an ml account.
Directly from Wikipedia:
So OP is basically saying they love it when governments crack the will of their people by force as long as its their team doing it.
Using your own definition, the conclusion doesn’t follow, what follows is that OP is a Marxist-Leninist. The concluding bit is your personal mischaracterization of Marxism-Leninism.
Amazing how this doesn’t’ even match up with the definition you just posted yourself.
I mean, it does match the original definition pretty well. Aa always it’s an issue of people having different definitions for the same word.
It doesn’t, though. The bit Sanctus added to the end was their personal evaluation of Marxism-Leninism, not something that matched the Wiki definition.
huh?
Correct, the reasons Marxist-Leninists support the suppression of western-backed and trained fascist counter-revolutions and widespread lynchings of communists and Jewish peoples are not about “good side crushing bad side.”
Idk about that. Seems there were conflicting opinions about whether this was good or bad. And while yeah it makes sense the CIA would back this. I dont see Amy fascist shit here.
Wikipedia is a western-centric overview, not a historical document. The anti-communists in Hungary were marking up the doors of Jews and communists, lynching them. For Czechoslovakia, again, the counter-revolutionaries were anti-communist nationalists who wanted to install a far-right government. It’s cut and dry among Marxist-Leninists that intervention was correct these days.
I’d be happy to learn another viewpoint. But so far I dont see your claims backed up anywhere. Maybe if I could read some of your sources I could agree with them.
It was not. Its my personal evaluation of a self described tankie. Which I dont think is an actual ideology. Just an insult. But OP said they were one so.
The only self-described “tankies” are Marxist-Leninists being tongue-in-cheek, like those who call themselves commies.
I wouldn’t be so sure. There are definitely authoritarian lefties, no matter how back asswards it seems.
“Authoritarianism” isn’t really a thing. What ultimately matters is which class in society has control of the state, and that determines how it responds to class conflicts. What determines the strength of state force in those conflicts is the circumstances society is found in, not the whims of random individuals.
Wikipedia is owned by someone who’s married to a federal agent, not a valid source of information for anything like this
OK Boomer.
They’re right, cry about it
Why cry? I understand the tools of the modern world 😁
Says a rando anon online. Oooh, so credible. Rawr.
They’re right, cry about it
If the right wingers in my country are vehemently against it. It must have something going for it. Otherwise they wouldnt have made their own conservopedia.
What a terrible metric. Literally reactionary
You never engage with me positively. So I couldn’t care less what you have to say. I never even engage with you first. You come to me to be a dick every time I post anywhere near an ml account.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I’m not the one trying to pull the “I couldn’t care less what you have to say” while continuing to reply anyway