It’s actually especially focused on Khrushchev, who was the one who sent tanks into Hungary which is where the term originates. It’s notable that it focuses on him rather than Stalin, because the real point of the term was to guard against people who might be more sympathetic towards the USSR after “destalinization.” The literal meaning may be, “people who support socialist countries no matter what they do,” but the actual meaning has always been more like, “people who support anything any socialist country has ever done.”
I would never call a leftist a “tankie” because they are a leftist. People who do that are idiots. The important part of the word is the support of authoritarian regimes.
Which is pretty weird nowadays because neither Russia, China nor North Korea are even communist/leftist anymore.
China and the DPRK are still Socialist, though different forms. China has a Socialist Market Economy, the DPRK is closer to the Soviet model. Russia is no longer Socialist, that is correct, but is occasionally seen as a temporary ally as they seek to destabilize US Hegemony, a goal they seek for profit and Leftists seek so that Socialism has a better chance worldwide.
If you define leftism as a pure economy model, then you could call right-wing authoritarian countries with state-controlled economies “socialist” which makes no sense.
I don’t know what you mean by a “pure economy model” or how a fully publicly owned economy would be right wing, unless it’s a different form of ownership like Monarchism.
That isn’t true though: the Nordic countries are undeniably authoritarian from a leftist perspective, but you never see Nordic model socdems being called “tankies”. Failed leftist projects like Catalonia or the Paris Commune were also undeniably “authoritarian” by the definition applied to more successful projects, but supporters of them are never called tankies. The Black Panthers, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, all supported “authoritarian regimes”
What it really boils down to is serious opposition to Western liberalism.
Sort of person that, in the UK, might be just to the left of the current Labor party leadership (but right of a lot of the party) or on the SocDem end of the LibDems.
Half a century ago it meant people who supported the soviet union using tanks to put down a cia backed coup in Hungary.
Modern times in the west it means anyone left of AOC.
Or, hear me out, it actually means people who support authoritarian communism. Especially focussed on Stalin and Mao.
Mao was right about landlords. If nothing else. He was right about landlords.
Whoa, watch out, you might hit someone with that goalpost, swinging it around like that
It’s actually especially focused on Khrushchev, who was the one who sent tanks into Hungary which is where the term originates. It’s notable that it focuses on him rather than Stalin, because the real point of the term was to guard against people who might be more sympathetic towards the USSR after “destalinization.” The literal meaning may be, “people who support socialist countries no matter what they do,” but the actual meaning has always been more like, “people who support anything any socialist country has ever done.”
I would never call a leftist a “tankie” because they are a leftist. People who do that are idiots. The important part of the word is the support of authoritarian regimes.
Which is pretty weird nowadays because neither Russia, China nor North Korea are even communist/leftist anymore.
China and the DPRK are still Socialist, though different forms. China has a Socialist Market Economy, the DPRK is closer to the Soviet model. Russia is no longer Socialist, that is correct, but is occasionally seen as a temporary ally as they seek to destabilize US Hegemony, a goal they seek for profit and Leftists seek so that Socialism has a better chance worldwide.
If you define leftism as a pure economy model, then you could call right-wing authoritarian countries with state-controlled economies “socialist” which makes no sense.
I don’t know what you mean by a “pure economy model” or how a fully publicly owned economy would be right wing, unless it’s a different form of ownership like Monarchism.
That isn’t true though: the Nordic countries are undeniably authoritarian from a leftist perspective, but you never see Nordic model socdems being called “tankies”. Failed leftist projects like Catalonia or the Paris Commune were also undeniably “authoritarian” by the definition applied to more successful projects, but supporters of them are never called tankies. The Black Panthers, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, all supported “authoritarian regimes”
What it really boils down to is serious opposition to Western liberalism.
That would be a large swathe of Europe, so… no.
Oh I meant the US framing.
Here. Bernie Sanders is literally Stalin. In Europe he’s what? Left leaning moderate?
Fairly normal social democrat.
Sort of person that, in the UK, might be just to the left of the current Labor party leadership (but right of a lot of the party) or on the SocDem end of the LibDems.
More like anyone left of Regan or when something I disagree with