Tankie’s original use was for British communists who supported Soviet military expansion. In the modern sense, it is used to describe communist who are authoritarian-apologists. For example, a communist who romanticizes the Soviet Union or makes excuses for the Uyghur genocide is a tankie. I’ve also seen it stretched to include militant anti-capitalist, or more commonly, “militant,” anti-capitalists who call for violent resistance to capitalism from the safety of a keyboard.
Democratic-Socialists are not tankies. Socialists are not tankies. I don’t even think most communists qualify as tankies. Criticizing Democrats does not make you a tankie. Condemning Jo
[reads post] Yep, I’m using it right.
What do all serious auths have in common? The plan to use mass murder, at some point or another, as a means to an end. Unironically, my favorite thing about Tankies is how they’ll go from “communists aren’t violent murderers actually” to “you’ll get the bullet, too” in the span of two posts.
But there is something that separates a communist from a tankie. It isn’t the willingness to use violence, but their willingness to do so against their beliefs if it benefits “the communist side” even though it is an oppressive act.
Supporting violent resistance in Gaza doesn’t make someone a tankie, but supporting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine does.