The Democratic Socialists of America pulled its endorsement of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York this week, accusing the progressive congresswoman of being insufficiently supportive of the Palestinian cause and efforts to end the war in Gaza…
Her approach has increasingly strained her relationship with some of the left’s most strident critics of Israel. When she rallied last month in the Bronx with Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Jamaal Bowman, dozens of pro-Palestinian demonstrators angry over her endorsement of Mr. Biden chanted “You’re a fraud, A.O.C.”
What does tankie mean to you in this context? Actually curious, because I don’t get it… it’s starting to become like “woke” in my mind.
“Tankie” is absolutely the chronically online moderate Democrat’s version of woke.
I laughed reading all the responses below… you’re the most correct just based on that alone.
It’s like The People’s Front of Judeah sketch playing out in real time. Tribalism and the need for absolutism in uncertainty.
ok, so people who pretend like the Russians and/or Chinese being communists and justifying their fascistic imperialist actions, while going on about American imperialism as the literal sole antagonist of the universe are by definition tankies.
and the DCA are tankies, you can find it in a lot of their publications if you read them, for example, the basis for supporting the free Palestine students movement isn’t to support the Palestinian people in the creation of their own state, as a principle right of any group of peoples, but rather because they believe it would hemm in American imperialist power in the Middle East
I’m pretty confident that DCA is not tankie. The DSA has social democratic caucuses which I have linked, here.
Not OP but I think the groupthink here is just using tankie as a catch all whereas their main gripe is accelerationism.
Accelerationism is the new Nihilism for the disenfranchised. It doesn’t take much to grasp and requires little to no input from its supporters in this phase.
Accelerationism is not the answer. I am old enough to see what the traditional tactics have bought us. That doesn’t mean I am willing to watch the world burn so the soil is enriched.
Which sucks because nihilism wasn’t a doomer outlook
https://www.openculture.com/2017/10/the-philosophy-of-optimistic-nihilism-or-how-to-find-purpose-in-a-meaningless-universe.html
Yes and no. As with most things, it’s more complicated than that. While it’s true that not many philosophers would claim to be “pure” nihilists, instead opting to qualify their position, there are nihilists who do have a very doomer outlook so to speak.
This is why in the article you linked, nihilism is qualified as “optimistic”. This kind of nihilism is often associated with Nietzsche and later as your article mentioned, Sartre. Though I’m not sure Sartre would say he was a nihilist; Sartre was a huge figure for the existentialists. However, the two movements have a lot in common and one could argue that optimistic nihilism and existentialism are close enough to be considered the same thing. I am aware of some scholars who consider, for example, Nietzsche to be an early existentialist. It must be noted, however, that the optimistic qualification is of utmost importance. Nihilism says flatly that there is no meaning, existentialism says that we are able to decide what is meaningful.
Anyway, this is all to say that Nihilism (with a capital N) is a pretty pessimistic and “doomer” idea to have. Nietzsche himself argued that the solution to nihilism was to destroy all interpretations of the world so that we can start from zero and hopefully realize some actual meaning. Perhaps my understanding of doomer is wrong, but from where I’m standing, nihilism and doomerism are pretty much the same thing. Different flavours of nihilism will produce different conclusions about this connection.