To be fair, in the comments are some sources that made me go :bruh:

https://www.reddit.com/r/COMPLETEANARCHY/comments/p75ca8/context_unncessary/

Edit: I did find a “tankie” that says “prolonging the civil war + US occupation would be worse than a Taliban peace”, also coupmed with "the immediate fall of the Afghan military is proof that the Taliban are more legitimate rulers than the US puppet government". See for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1i0ipzS754

  • KollontaiWasRight [she/her,they/them]
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    The anarchists (if they studied the subject) would note that none of Trotsky's objections to Stalinism had to do with the degree of state repression and Trotsky's common position on repressive actions was "I'd have done that, but better". If they were cogent enough about USSR history to understand why it mattered, they'd note that Trotsky was just as much in agreement with Lenin as Stalin on the subject of the Worker's Opposition and that the roots of Stalinism were not on the silly debate over Socialism in One Country or Amorphous Posturing Internationalism, but in the rejection of the program of the Worker's Opposition. If "tankie" meant anything anymore, they'd note that basically everyone on the left agreed that stopping a fascist revolution in Hungary was a good call. If "tankie" meant anything anymore and they bothered to study it, they'd note that it was initially used against British Trots.

    Unfortunately, we live in a really, really dumb world.

    • Barabas [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      I mean, they're the ones correctly calling the trots tankies and being mocked for it.

      • KollontaiWasRight [she/her,they/them]
        ·
        3 years ago

        I figure it is easier to gently correct people by letting them continue mocking the people they're mocking than to point out that they are mocking people for being correct.

        Besides, the core problem is still that the word doesn't mean anything at this point.