The usage of “tankie” we see here in Lemmy (especially of late and from certain well known posters who tend to go around blaming American lefties for “electing Trump” by “not voting Democrat”) does not have that subtlety.

Similarly to what happenned with the term “terrorist”, “tankie” has been appropriated and is being used by people with certain specific political beliefs (mainly tribalist supporters of the US Democrat Party mainstream and similar - so basically hard neoliberals) as a form of slander against people with beliefs to the left of theirs, quite independently of them actually being Authoritarian, and the targets thus tend to be in a huge range of political beliefs since the people using “tankie” like that tend to be quite close to Fascism (but not quite) in almost every social domain but Morality.

Granted, this misuse of “tankie” is far more recent than the misuse of “terrorist” and has so far nowhere as bad real life impact as the other one (the Brits aren’t yet arresting old ladies for belonging to an anti-Genocide group that the Home Office has deemed “tankie”), though it’s good to keep in mind MacCarthism and the Red Scare and the current geostrategical situation were China seems to be growing to take the top place from the US and the Political and Propaganda discourse around China in certain countries is becoming more like Faith and treated as beyond question in any way form or shape, so who knows what this shit will evolve into.

First of all, all ideologies are “authoritarian,” including anarchism. The most practical definition of the term is the use of force, or authority, against another group. In all existing states, that either means the bourgeoisie oppresses the proletariat, or the proletariat oppresses the bourgeoisie. Anarchists also advocate force against the bourgeoisie. The only way out of “authoritarianism” is to remove class, which in the eyes of Marxists can only happen upon full collectivization of production.

As for Hungary in 1956, I’m not sure you want to back an anti-semitic, western-trained and supplied color revolution where Nazis were let out of jail and sicced on communists and Jewish peoples. They were marking their doors and lynching people. Framing that as a “democratic” revolution just full on accepts the western-reported events, even while they hid MI-6’s involvement, as well as that of the CIA, and minimized the pograms and lynchings.

“Tankie” is just a pejorative, one that lacks substance beyond caricature.

Exactly. I’m a communist, but not a tankie, as I do not support Russia or China.

It’s not very effective

Tankie means that you will enforce your ideology at the barrel of a tank

I’m ideologically anti-fascist, and I support enforcing that on the Nazis at the barrel of a tank. Guess I’m evil, only obligate pacifism is acceptable.

“Tankie,” again, is a pejorative levied against the same people “commie, pinko, and red” are. Every ideology supports using force against enemies of the ruling class, be that ruling class the bourgeoisie in liberalism and fascism, or the proletariat as it is in socialism. The “normal” communists you refer to, that reject using force to defend socialism, either do not exist or exist only in the west, in areas that have not seen revolution, and think it more akin to a dinner party.

I don’t “shill hostile regime propaganda,” whatever that means. I also do acknowledge real excess in socialist systems, for example the suppression of the LGBT community early on in Cuba, before they made huge strides in that department. What I deny is western propaganda, and I do so with sources.

Yes, you and I are not the same, I’m a communist that pays dues and actually organizes in the real world.

I’m glad you apologized for your previous comment and i accept it, thank you.

Minor tidbit, the Zapatistas directly and explicitly reject the label “anarchist,” they see their own movement as organic and self-driven more than anything. Not saying you can’t use them as an example of anarchist-adjacent structures, but they quite clearly dislike the term being applied to themselves.

kill all kulaks

Imagine thinking that expropriation of kulak property is both the same as calling for killing kulaks, and also that that is a bad thing.

You either don’t know what the word ‘kulak’ means, or you are malicious.

“If you change the word “Nazis” to “black people” then you see how rascist antifa are!”

• an idiot

Kulaks were not a “people,” they were owners of private property, specifically farmland, who had serfs work the land. They lived off of the exploitation of others. They were the feudal rough-equivalent of the petit bourgeois class. So of course they weren’t going to embrace socialism or land collectivization, or having to work a day in their lives.

This is what happens to all of us who’ve lived a lifetime of anti-communist propaganda. Unless you take the time & effort to go back and examine all of that received wisdom, you’ll continue believing that Kulaks were a people genocided by the evil Slavic Bolsheviks. And then we have to—as patiently as we can muster—explain the same basic things to people over and over again.

it takes some industrial grade turbo-shitlib horseshoe theory mental gymnastics to be able to puke up some verbal diarrhea like that.

Not the same, dude.

Like, nit necessarily good, but not the fucking same.

Kill all billionaires is also a call for genocide then??

you’ve got to be on some next level stupidity to believe that.

This is a well documented practice of the Chinese regimes going back 2000-2500 thousand years.

When their enabled for the incoming regime that’s literally their job. Drown out opposition and present the narrative as if it was already settled.

Just look at Russian propaganda early into ukraine war. You would have thought there was nobody left to fight in ukraine.

Fine, nobody here. You can also find plenty of talk conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism in the same amount of articles and people online.

Their history speaks for itself.

As does Russian history.

How can you say they don’t matter when you have a strong position on them and the importance of how they’re implemented?

It does dictate what people see first. It’s easy to bury a subject with a few bots.

Because of how the UN works, a statement from the UN that something isn’t a genocide isn’t necessarily evidence that it’s not a genocide under the definition the UN gives. Obviously, there’s the massive elephant in the room of not upsetting member states in a way that might make them less likely to engage (especially when they’re as capable of ignoring the UN as China due to their power and having a permanent veto on the Security Council), but there’s also the fact that the UN’s got lots of subcommittees and working groups that regularly put out statements that contradict each other. A few weeks ago, news was going around that the UN had released a report saying there was no evidence of a genocide against Palestinians, and it was true that they had, but it was from a body whose job was to represent Israel, and it contradicted hundreds of other reports saying there was overwhelming evidence of a genocide.

The Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights is a pretty big deal, though, so if they say whether or not something’s a genocide, it’s worth paying attention. However, the report you linked doesn’t make a statement one way or the other - in fact it doesn’t contain the word genocide even once. It does list an awful lot of things that the Genocide Convention includes in its definition, though. A report that presents a lot of evidence of genocide but little against, and says crimes against humanity are happening while stopping short of making a definitive claim of genocide isn’t something that says a there’s no genocide. The people who’ve shown you that report and said it says there’s no genocide are misrepresenting it to push an agenda. Several countries recognised a genocide based on the evidence the report gave (although obviously they weren’t all without an agenda of their own).

The tankie talking point is that nothing bad is happening to the Uyghurs, which is blatantly false.

Bad things have absolutely happened to them. They suffered violence from Salafi-Jihad terrorists[1][2] and suffered mass unemployment from the West’s (led by the US, ofc) embargoes on Xinjiang cotton, the region’s main export, which only adds tinder to terrorism potentially re-igniting. Given the last 25 years of the US showing the world that it doesn’t give a rat’s about Muslims, and given that it considers China to be its greatest adversary/enemy, one shouldn’t uncritically accept its professed motive: to protect poor, oppressed Uyghurs.

The ICJ is a court and as such slow. As for statements showing intent, there is a plethora of statements, from comparing Palestinians to biblical “Amalek” (Netanyahu), over saying it is “unfortunate” that the world won’t let Israel just starve all people in Gaza to death (Ben Gvir) to public broadcast employees saying they want to commit another Holocaust in Gaza.