Tankie is a floating signifier. If you ask twenty liberals what a tankie is you’ll get

1. Twenty different answers, and
2. Several people upset at being called a liberal because they don’t have even a Wikipedia-level understanding of liberalism or socialism.

Yes

Love how all of the tankies on this thread are open about their views while all of the non-tankies are wondering what the term even means, or think that people won’t self identify as a tankie. Reminds of that quote from the manifesto

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.

YES

They would have burned me as a heretic in the middle ages.

• Carl Jung

Just like calling someone a “witch” or heretic in the middle ages, a “barbarian”, or “savage”, or “commie” or “pinko” in the 20th century, these terms are less about the actual meaning, and more about a demonization, scapegoating, or a power relation between the dominant class, and a group they seek to malign and rally their people around.

Creating a useful enemy promotes group bonding, unity, a sense of strengthened identity, and self worth.

“Tankie” had a meaning that generally referred to non-pacifist leftists (or those that agreed with using violence to defend socialist projects), but now it just means, “any leftist I don’t like”.

It functions in the exact same way that “commie” did in the the McCarthy era, as a xenophobic and western-supremacist scapegoating of socialist countries, and an internal purging of the working-class communist movement.

It’s additionally useful because it deters people from reading or engaging with the worldwide communist / socialist movement.

If someone uses this term, this is what they’re doing without realizing it:

“Tankie” in the traditional sense of someone who uncritically supports the USSR in the handling of 1956’s uprising? Probably not.

While Kruschev’s use of tanks in 1956 was heavy handed, the Hungarian alliance with the Axis in WWII and participation of Operation Barbarossa, lingering fascist sympathisers and nationalists remained in Hungary.

This coupled with the Communist Party of Hungary’s less than equitable redistribution of land/castles/other properties earlier in the 1950’s (favouring giving properties to ranking CPH members instead of distributing it to the proletariat equally). This created resentment for the Party, and an image of the Communists as no better than the Monarchy that came before or the Fascists that came after.

The Hungarian uprising had elements of fascist sympathisers, monarchists, bourgeoisie, etc but also legitimate critics of the handling of the situation. It never should have come to that, and a more educated/self critical Communist Party in Hungary could have prevented things from getting that far. The people should have benefitted a lot more from a better redistribution of wealth.

The above issues coupled with Soviet distrust of Hungarians (since they did invade the Soviet Union in the 40’s) led to a swift and harsh reaction towards the uprising, seeing it as just a reactionary revolt.

Now, am I a tankie in the Reddit redefinition, of anyone that critically supports Cuba, China, Vietnam and their style of government? Yeah, I suppose I am. This is no more radical a position than Malcolm X or the Black Panthers who also supported the late USSR, China and Cuba.

I wish stalin drove tanks straight into west berlin, then france, then the UK, then atlantis, then NYC, then chicago, then seattle, then anchorage, then Tokyo, then Seoul, then Beijing, then KFC/tacobell.