I keep hearing the term in political discourse, and rather than googling it, I’m asking the people who know better than Google.
Removed by mod
No communist calls the ROK an “occupier,” it’s the US Empire that is occupying Korea, with the ROK’s government set up directly by them. This whole comment is really bad, to be honest. In practice, “tankie” is essentially a pejorative for “communist.” I recommend the Prolewiki article on “Tankies,” as well as Nia Frome’s essay “Tankies.”
Removed by mod
No, the government of the southern half of Korea, the Republic of Korea, is not an “occupier.” The democratically elected state was the People’s Republic of Korea (PRK), which spanned the entire peninsula before the US Empire came in, declared it illegal, and split the country in two, against the will of Koreans, and installed the dictator Rhee Syngman in place. The PRK was a quasi-socialist state that predated both the DPRK and ROK’s governments.
Again, “tankie” in practice is just a pejorative for communists, akin to “pinko” or “commie.” The fact that you’re getting very basic communist stances on Korea completely wrong here betrays any sense of legitimacy you have on the subject.
Removed by mod
“Tankie” isn’t a political ideology, it’s a McCarthyite strawman with ready-made characteristics designed to make it so that you don’t have to respond to the points communists make. The origin of the term being in putting down the 1956 CIA supported and MI6 armed fascist counter-revolution in Hungary where the fascists let Nazis out of prison to lynch Jews and communists doesn’t make any difference on today’s usage.
16·12 days agoYour image is really bad quality, you should get a better one, https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2025/0318/104-10110-10525.pdf
Thank you!
Removed by mod
The current usage is as an anticommunist pejorative and McCarthyite strawman.
Tankie isn’t a political ideology, it is a commentary on the practice of policy in comparison to stated beliefs.
how dare those damn tankies improve material conditions.
No, it’s a pejorative and McCarthyite strawman.
Removed by mod
-
The ROK has a liberal democracy, but it was forced on the people of southern Korea without their consent. The US Empire staffed it with prior compradors that were in power during Japanese colonialism. The ROK is currently a dictatorship of capital under a special class of people referred to as “chaebol,” under the occupation of the US Empire.
-
All states are “authoritarian,” in that all states are means by which one class exerts its authority over the others. Communists support the working class being in charge of that authority, all communists (unless you count anarchists) support the use of the state against capitalists and fascists, and the majority of practicing communists support socialist states.
-
I don’t like being referred to like “one of you.” I don’t care what they posted, I am explaining directly to you.
-
The ROK essentially being a comprador government set up by a colonizer does not mean it’s occupying itself. The US Empire is occupying Korea, not the comprador government.
-
If I wanted to make a high engagement post I would post something like this. Are there any other controversial, not clearly defined words to ask about?
Socialism and communism seem to be very misunderstood outside of places like Grad, Hexbear, Lemmy.ml, etc. Some thing social programs are socialism, others think the Marxist conception of communism is incompatible with administration, some think any form of market or private property has to be eradicated for socialism to exist, some think it’s about worker/employer relationships, etc. I think it would be a decent idea to form a better understanding.
For clarity, socialism is best described as a transitional status between capitalism and communism, by which public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy (controls the large firms and key industries at a minimum) and the working class is in control of the state. This fits cleanly with socialism in practice and with Marxist conceptions of socialism.
I honestly saw someone use the word, wondered what they actually meant by it, and came here to ask. TBF, I didn’t know much about what “here” was, at the time.
Lemmy is developed by communists, and Reddit banned a bunch of leftist subreddits like r/chapotraphouse, r/GenZedong, and r/TheDeprogram. As a consequence, a bunch of communists are on Lemmy by ratio compared to Reddit, though Lemmy.world is defederated and blocks 2/3rds of the major communist instances, so you can’t actually see them. They usually are on Lemmygrad.ml or Hexbear.net if you want to see the communist side of Lemmy.
Lemmy.ml is the dev’s testing instance, so that’s why a lot of communists are here but also why it’s not defederated by Lemmy.world.
Removed by mod
Lol
Shit, my comment got deleted, do you remember what it said? I can’t remember. Im sure it was probably something irritating for a communist…
Complaining about communists like you’re trapped in the 1950’s
Dont forget the past, lest youre doomed to repeat it.
In 1950s everyone learned the horrors of a communist system, and now 70ish years later, those with 1st hand experience are mostly dead.
I mean, yall confuse me. In your opinion, should we not have fought communism in the 50s?
Removed by mod
Someone mentioned that, but I have yet to see why dot world blocked the commie instances. Care to share?
Here’s Lemmy.world explaining why. Essentially, for having stances common to communists (opposing western hegemony is a big one they took issue with). Lemmy.world is run by your standard DNC-style liberals, they generally oppose Marxism and communism, and uphold the DNC as good. Some are also zionists.
Now, that’s my perspective as a communist. I’m a Marxist-Leninist, my perspective is as someone who reads theory, does light org work, etc. I’m not a fan of the DNC, I support socialist states, etc. Others may give a different perspective, but it’s also worth noting that there are entire drama communities dedicated to taking comments out of context, witch-hunting communists, etc and this is made even worse by defederation because it creates this “boogeyman” that .world can’t actually see.
Hope that helps, honestly you can just scroll grad and hexbear yourself for a bit without making an account to see what’s up.
Thank you for the reasonable reply that didn’t attack my character for asking. Apparently, that’s too much to ask of some people.
Just be warned, Cowbee is very much misrepresenting things here.
I urge you to read the thread he linked, and not take his summary seriously.
As I explained in my reply to you, I misrepresented nothing. Lemmy.world admins banned Hexbear because of ideological disagreements they deemed unacceptable before even federating. Hexbear never said they were going to “wage a propaganda war,” they just suggested that if their users were to discuss politics in federated threads that they try to be more professional about it.
No worries! A lot of people get emotionally invested in drama, which is why tons of the definitions you’ve been given for “tankie” are people that don’t actually exist. It’s like saying “communist but boogieman.” This creates the response from communists defending ourselves from slander, which is why this became a mess. Kinda like if you went into a random room and asked people what “woke” meant.
Lemmy has few conservatives (outside of instances like sh.itjust.works), so the biggest ideological conflict is communist vs liberal, with anarchists kinda doing their own thing and aligning more or less with the former or the latter.
Reading that thread, it’s clearly not for “having stances”. Very, very clearly it’s about their intention to push anti-liberal propaganda and dismantle liberalism across the fediverse.
Yours is a clearly disingenuous reading, and I hope people here aren’t just taking you at your word.
It’s absolutely for having stances deemed unacceptable by the admin team. For the admin team, only liberal propaganda is allowable. Any left-critique of liberalism is deemed “extreme,” and was pre-emptively silenced. The admins are trying to have their cake and eat it too, by saying that it’s unacceptable to push viewpoints systemically while cutting out anyone that goes against their own viewpoints.
If you’re really gonna say deliberately connecting to an instance with the stated goal of dismantling and inserting a communist ideology via a propaganda war is tantamount to “just having a stance” then it should be clear to everyone what a bad actor you are.
Imagine if I publicaly stated that the goal of my instance was to build a userbase, infiltrate .ml, dismantle communist ideology, and spread liberal propaganda. Are you really gonna pretend you’d leap to my defense when Dessalines obviously banned/defederated me?
Hell, he loves to abuse rule 2 to silence “Liberals” constantly. Yet you don’t seem to have anything to say about that…
From what I’ve seen, it appears a very vocal minority of .world users cannot tolerate any criticism or viewpoints opposing capitalism/liberialism or NATO.
I need my Tankie siblings to look at these comments and tell me it’s worth conversing with any of these people lmao, let them play in their own shit. If they’ll ever be convinced, the material failures of their worldview will do it for us, if not- the future’s ash and fertilizer welcome them.
you sound bitter as fuck about it
So you had this outburst just to make them look better?
… what?
Removed by mod
Yes.
try to genuinely understand where your siblings are coming from. you might not change your mind but you will at least be more chill about it.
Use DuckDuckgo?
DuckDuckgo uses Google. So do I. Sometimes I want to have a conversation with people. That’s why I asked here.
A lot of these comments reminds me of people posting on conservative chats asking what a socialist is. About the same amount of mouth foaming.
I would like to remind people about vaccinations against rabies
OP, what have you unleashed.
I just thought this was where you came to ask questions.
It is, I’m just kidding around. Your question was innocent enough, it’s just that the comments look like a battlefield.
you’re on the .ml instance, which is an incredibly political place, so you’re gonna get a lot of flack
I think every instance has pretty strong political views
Removed by mod
Mccarthyite redditors out in force today.
I’m betting the guy without an original thought is a fed, along with his buddy.
lost redditors always come out of the woodwork in these threads
Like most words it can mean different things depending on context. I’ll do my best to cover a few without spoiling it with my own opinions.
The most common usage is as a blanket pejorative aimed at anyone who identifies as leftist but also openly endorses authoritarian means or ends.
There are also those who embrace the term and they are also not all the same. There are Marxist-Leninists who believe the only path to a stateless egalitarian society is through a revolutionary vanguard party. There are also those who argue that egalitarian society can only be achieved and maintained through benevolent authoritarianism.
In any case, the term carries an implication of authoritarianism and/or revolutionary violence, hence “tanks.”
It’s essentially a pejorative for “communist.” I recommend the Prolewiki article on “Tankies,” as well as Nia Frome’s essay “Tankies.”
For those that want an introduction to Marxism-Leninism, I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list, check it out!
Removed by mod
All states are “authoritarian,” in that all states are means by which one class exerts its authority over the others. Communists support the working class being in charge of that authority, all communists (unless you count anarchists) support the use of the state against capitalists and fascists, and the majority of practicing communists support socialist states.
Ha ha yeah, the good ol “authoritarianism exists everywhere!” Argument
You know well and good when someone says a government is authoritarian they mean things like speech being controlled and unable to criticize the government, being heavily restricted in your freedom of movement, being heavily restricted in the information you’re allowed to access or possess and so on and so forth
Those tactics are employed by every state in the interest of whichever class is in control, against whichever class is in opposition, to the extent necessary to preserve the existing property relations. All communists support wielding the state against capitalists, fascists, and reactionaries that would topple the socialist system.
There it is again. The classic “everything is authoritarian so the word doesn’t mean anything” routine. It’s funny how that only shows up when someone calls tankies authoritarian. Communism isn’t bad because some western pundit said so, it’s bad when it turns into an excuse to justify control.
The idea of giving power to the people is great, but pretending censorship and repression are just “necessary tactics” ruins it. If the system can’t survive without silencing people, it’s not socialism anymore, it’s just another hierarchy wearing red paint.
Analysis of authority isn’t to “make excuses.” Analysis of authority is critical in analyzing class struggle and the state. You’re saying it’s just as bad for workers to silence fascists and capitalists as it is for capitalists to silence workers, then hide behind phrasemongering.
it’s just another hierarchy wearing red paint
If that were the case, we would expect similar social and economic outcomes in both cases. Then, why did the USSR have the lowest recorded wealth and income inequality in history? Why did it have guaranteed employment, guaranteed housing at a cost of 3% of the average income, universal free healthcare and free education to the highest level? Why did it have walkable and public transit-oriented urban planning with services accessible by foot (look up the word “mikroraion” on Wikipedia)? Why could unions remove factory managers if they so decided, and why was there a newspaper to each workplace in which workers could write their complaints and their ideas? Why were the highest-earning individuals university professors and artists and not political bureaucrats?
why was there a newspaper to each workplace in which workers could write their complaints and their ideas
In which more than just airing complaints, something would be done
at least as far as Pat Sloan writes in ~1937
The editorial committee of a Soviet newspaper, whether of a factory wall-newspaper or of the Government’s newspaper Izvestia, does not deal with its correspondence in this light-handed way. For on every Soviet newspaper, from the very smallest to the very largest, there are members of the editorial staff whose entire work is to deal with the complaints of readers, to investigate these complaints, and to see what can be done to remedy their grievances, if any real grievances exist.
The editorial staff of the wall-newspaper, receiving these topical comments on the life of the factory, is under an obligation, not merely to publish them, but to investigate the complaints; and to publish the letters with a statement of what has been done to redress the grievances expressed. […]
The chapter “A People’s Press” https://comlib.encryptionin.space/epubs/soviet-democracy/
The problem with this argument is that you’re looking for some idealistic version of communism without any regard as to it’s actual feasibility. You want communism with western liberal democratic packaging, a communism that explicitly rejects any kind of violence or force against class enemies, afraid of being accused of repression, and that leaves the door wide open for counterrevolutionary forces to seize back control. You want something that works better as protest than as practical implementation. It’s just Eurocommunism for the 21st century. There’s a reason why this kind of communism only exists in the developed western world. It clings onto the notion of western superiority, and regards communists of the global south to be barbaric, authoritarian, and oppressive.
There’s also a reason why this ideology is not the platform of practically any active and actually existing communist party in the world. It’s the communism of idealists who haven’t read theory, or understood theory. It borrows heavily from the “marketplace of ideas” where the opponents of the revolution can be defeated purely by a good argument.
Furthermore, I’m wondering “authoritarian compared to whom, exactly?” Look around you. Violence unleashed on peaceful protesters everywhere, asking for anything from less police violence to don’t cut or freeze wages to tax dollars for citizens not genocide.
Tankies are authoritarian communists
I’m not exactly optimistic about socialists winning elections in my country, maybe I can ask the billionaires politely?
I never encountered its usage outside of the fediverse but appears to mean someone who espouses communist things but also is a russia/china apologist politically. Appears to be derogetory.
That seems pretty accurate
A leftist. Someone with political beliefs, empathy, and conviction.
Removed by mod
You would accuse your grandmother defending herself from an attacker as a tankie.
Not all leftists are tankies the same way not all right wingers are fascists. A tankie is an authoritarian leftist
What makes them authoritarian?
They believe in an authoritarian government systems. Where the state has extra power that they can use to enforce their goals. That is in contrast to anarcho communists where the state is dissolved.
Logically most leftists fall somewhere in the middle as not wanting full on authoritarian government but also not wanting a complete lack of government
In theory if the state has the best interests of the people, then by giving the state extra power all you are doing is reducing bureaucracy and increasing efficiency. That however also makes it easier for the state to abuse that power so I am not saying one is better or worse than the other
This is not how any communist views authority or the state. All communists are in favor of abolishing the state. This requires erasing the basis of the state, which is class society, and that requires collectivizing production and distribution. With production and distribution collectivized, class doesn’t exist, and as such the state withers as it loses its reason to function.
It isn’t about “giving the state power.” It’s about taking state power from the capitalist class, and creating a working class state. This socialist state does not have “more power” than a capitalist state, the class it serves is what’s distinct.
Leftists usually fall into the Marxist umbrella or anarchist umbrella. Marxists are for collectivization, while anarchists are for communalization.
When I say “communalization,” I mean anarchists propose horizontalist, decentralized cells, similar to early humanity’s cooperative production but with more interconnection and modern tech. When I say collectivization, I mean the unification of all of humanity into one system, where production and distribution is planned collectively to satisfy the needs of everyone as best as possible.
For anarchists, collectivized society still seems to retain the state, as some anarchists conflate administration with the state as it represents a hierarchy. For Marxists, this focus on communalism creates inter-cell class distinctions, as each cell only truly owns their own means of production, giving rise to class distinctions and thus states in the future.
For Marxists, socialism must have a state, a state can only wither with respect to how far along it has come in collectivizing production and therefore eliminating class. All states are authoritarian, but we cannot get rid of the state without erasing the foundations of the state: class society, and to do so we must collectivize production and distribution globally. Socialist states, where the working class wields its authority against capitalists and fascists, are the means by which this collectivization can actually happen, and are fully in-line with Marx’s beliefs. Communism as a stateless, classless, moneyless society is only possible post-socialism.
Anarchists obviously disagree with this, and see the state more as independent of class society and thus itself must be abolished outright.
This is not at all about being more “authoritarian” or “libertarian.” It’s a fundamentally different understanding of class and power dynamics, and both seek a liberated society. The political compass cannot depict this, even if the liberal view of anarchism and Marxism wants to point them as two extremes on a tidy graph with most people in the middle of them. What’s important is that politics is not a bell curve, Marxism and anarchism are consistent ideologies with specific tendencies under them that fundamentally contradict. People don’t just pick what they like from each (usually), because then they cease to be internally consistent.
Where the state has extra power that they can use to enforce their goals
Extra power in comparison to what? What is the normal amount of state power?
That’s a debate since authoritarianism to libertarianism is a spectrum so there is no official “normal” and its generally used qualitatively on individual polices
Regulated and censoring speech - auth Absolute freedom of speech - lib Limiting speech to prohibit only speech that can cause harm to others - somewhere in the middle
Requiring the state to dispense all drugs - auth No drug regulations, no dea, no fda- lib Some drug regulations including requiring “generally recognized as safe and effective”- somewhere in the middle
No country is full auth or full lib
That’s a debate since authoritarianism to libertarianism is a spectrum so there is no official “normal” and its generally used qualitatively on individual polices
So, essentially, it’s subjective?
not all right wingers are fascists
I don’t follow.
On the political compass there are 4 directions. Left, right, libertarian, authoritarian.
A tankie is auth left a fascist is auth right
Saying everyone on the left is a tankie ignores the lib left it’s the same as saying that everyone on the right is a fascist which is also not accurate
The political compass was quite literally made by a right-winger that wished to perpetuate liberalism as the moderate, standard option. You can’t actually put ideologies on a graph like that, it results in absurdities and contradictions.
You quite easily can, the contradictions that happen are due to humans having complex views and not everything being black and white.
Liberalism isn’t the moderate option on the political compass but is just one of the axis that has an extreme…
Yes, nothing is black and white, correct. That doesn’t mean you can try to force quantitative measuring of higjly qualitative and contextual policy. Further, I did not say libertarianism, I said liberalism, which is the dominant ideology of capitalism. Left vs right is broadly okay if framed as collectivized ownership as principle vs privatized ownership as principle, but economies in the real world aren’t “pure,” and trying to gauge how left or right a country is by proportion of the economy that is public vs private can be misleading.
The next part, “libertarian vs authoritarian,” is a false binary. The state is thoroughly linked to the mode of production, you don’t just pick something on a board and create it in real life. There’s no such thing as “libertarian capitalism,” as an example. Centralization vs decentralization may make more sense, but that can also be misleading, as centralized systems can be more democratic than decentralized systems.
This is a pretty good, if long, video on the subject. The creator of the compass is, as I said, politically biased towards liberalism.
As a fun little side-note, I can answer the standard political compass quiz and get right around the bottom-left while being a Marxist-Leninist that approves of full collevtivization of production and central planning. Yet, at the same time, the quiz will put socialist states in the top left, seemingly based on how the creator wants to represent things. It’s deeply flawed. Add on the fact that it’s more of an idealist interpretation of political economy than a materialist one, and you’ve got a recipe for disaster.
All states are authoritarian in that they uphold one class and oppress others. It’s a good thing when the class in charge is the working class, throughout history socialist states have resulted in dramatic improvements in living standards for the vast majority of society. These socialist states, and the ones who support them, are labeled “authoritarian” whenever these states practice land reform, nationalize industries, etc, and are met with mountains of hostility and slander from the west.
Even an anarchist revolution is “authoritarian,” as it involves violently taking control. In practice, “authoritarianism” is more of a vibe than an actual thing we can measure or a policy to be implemented. It’s used as a club against socialist states by those who’ve lost property to land reform or nationalization.
It’s a spectrum and a person who supports the government having more control of their citizens is considering authoritarian. A person who wants to limit government control over their citizens is more libertarian.
It’s a very valid belief that someone might want leftist policies with limited government control over individual citizens so calling them all tankies is inaccurate and confusing
When you utterly erase class analysis, and just group everyone under “citizens,” you run into utter contradictions. Socialist states have been far more liberating for their populace overall, even if they’ve been oppressive towards fascists, capitalists, etc, meaning they would technically belong in the “libertarian” quadrant if we define it the way you claim we should. The entire idea of a “libertarian-authoritarian” spectrum, or even a left-right spectrum and not just various right and left ideologies that cannot be abstracted into a graph-based system, is actively harmful to our understanding of political ideology.
Anarchists want communalism, whereas Marxists want collectivization. Neither is more or less “authoritarian” or “libertarian,” in that even horizontalist systems actually erase the democratic reach of communities to within their communities and immediate surroundings, while collectivization spreads power more evenly globally. This isn’t something that can be represented on the graph in any way, yet results in fundamentally different approaches and outcomes.
This is an intentional strawman right? Like there is no way you are truly misunderstanding this much?
Auth governement dictates what individual citizens can/ can not do
Lib government limits what power the government has over individual citizens
You can’t say we are actually lib because we only are targeting the “bad people”
Show your conviction and don’t dance around your point if you want a government that has more power over its citizens that’s fine, that’s your belief and you are fully entitled to it but if you can’t acknowledge your own beliefs that’s its own problem
Again, you need to look at things from a class analysis. There is no such thing as “libertarian capitalism,” capitalism requires the state, and freedoms for citizens are restricted because they don’t have as much access to necessities and democracy doesn’t extend to the economy.
Socialist countries that provide better access to necessities have more freedom for the average person than capitalist countries. They don’t have the same privledged class of capitalists with unlimited political power, but the people have more power.
This is a false-binary. It isn’t a strawman, the political compass is entirely bogus and cannot accurately depict ideology or structure as they exist in the real world. It does more harm than helps.
I’m not dancing, I’ve said it firm: I want the working class to use the state in their own interests, against capitalists and fascists, to meet the needs of the people and liberate society.
You are the one making it binary when it isn’t and when I say it isn’t you bring it back to being binary. You can have libertarian beliefs without wanting a complete dissolution of the government the same way you can have authoritarian beliefs while still wanting people to have individual freedoms. So yes you can have libertarian capitalism which is simply a less regulated form vs authoritarian capitalism. We can see this in the UK vs EU where the UK is requiring people to submit official IDs to see porn (auth) vs the EU passing data privacy laws (lib)
You are inventing all these other arguments that I am not making. I have never said socialist countries have less freedoms and don’t even remotely believe that so if you are not making a strawman then try rereading what I am saying because you are arguing against an argument I am not making which is the literal definition of a strawman
That’s called being authoritarian, there is nothing wrong with that and as long as the state is using that power fairly that can create a great society but you must realize that on a 1-10 scale of government authority with a 1 being full on anarchy and 10 being the state has full control to make all decisions that you are closer to a 10 then a 1
As soon as you give the state power to go after people with different beliefs (even if those beliefs are deplorable) you are being authoritarian
This term goes back to the 1968 Prague spring.
It was an uprising, an attempt by the Czechoslovak communist party at reformation towards more democracy and freedom of the press. Then troops from other members of the Warsaw pact marched in and subdued it.
From then on, communists who supported more democracy and freedom called the pro-quelling communists “tankies” as they marched in with tanks.
It was actually the 1956 fascist counter-revolution in Hungary, not the 1968 fascist counter-revolution in Prague, where “tankie” originated in the Communist Party of Great Britain. The term was coined because of the British tendency towards silly-sounding insults, and because the Soviet Union sent in the Red Army to stop the western-backed fascist insurrection. This caused a split in the party (as it always does in western orgs).
The Hungarian revolt in 1956 was infested with anti-semitic pograms. MI6 funded, supplied, and trained the Hungarian counter-revolutionaries. These counter-revolutionaries were allied with fascists who were lynching Jewish people and Communists.
"The special correspondent of the Yugoslav paper, Politika, (Nov. 13, 1956) describing the events of those days, said that the homes of Communists were marked with a white cross and those of Jews with a black cross, to serve as signs for the extermination squads. “There is no longer any room for doubt,” said the Yugoslav reporter, “it is an example of classic Hungarian fascism and of White Terror. The information,” continued this writer, “coming from the provinces tells how in certain places Communists were having their eyes put out, their ears cut off, and that they were being killed in the most terrible ways.”
“But the forces of reaction were rapidly consolidating their power and pushing forward on the top levels, while in the streets the blood of scores of massacred Communists, Jews, and progressives was flowing.”
“Some of the reports reaching Warsaw from Budapest today caused considerable concern. These reports told of massacres of Communists and Jews by what were described as 'Fascist elements’ …” (N.Y. Times, Nov. 1. 1956)
“The evidence is conclusive that the entry of Soviet troops into Budapest stopped the execution of scores, perhaps thousands of Jews, for by the end of October and early November, anti-Semtic pogroms - hallmark of unbridled fascistic terror - were making their appearance, after an absence of some ten years, within Hungary.”
"A correspondent of the Israeli newspaper Maariv (Tel Aviv) reported:
During the uprising a number of former Nazis were released from prison and other former Nazis came to Hungary from Salzburg . . . I met them at the border . . . I saw anti-Semitic posters in Budapest . . . On the walls, street lights, streetcars, you saw inscriptions reading: “Down with Jew Gero!” “Down with Jew Rakosi!” or just simply “down with the Jews!”
Leading rabbinical circles in New York received a cable early in November from corresponding circles in Vienna that “Jewish blood is being shed by the rebels in Hungary.” Very much later-in February, 1957-the World Jewish Congress reported that “anti-Semitic excesses occurred in more than twenty villages and smaller provincial towns during the October-November revolt.” This occurred, according to this very conservative body, because “fascist and anti-Semitic groups had apparently seized the opportunity, presented by the absence of a central authority, to come to the surface.” Many among the Jewish refugees from Hungary, the report continued, had fled from this anti-Semitic pogrom-like atmosphere (N.Y. Times, Feb. 15, 1957). This confirmed the earlier report made by the British Rabbi, R. Pozner, who, after touring refugee camps, declared that “the majority of Jews who left Hungary did so for fear of the Hungarians and not the Russians.” The Paris Jewish newspaper, Naye Presse, asserted that Jewish refugees in France claimed quite generally that Soviet soldiers had saved their lives."
Further, the CIA also backed Hungarian resistance forces:
Prague in 1968 was a similar fascist uprising in both cases there were some elements of progressive protest, but these were greatly overshadowed by the fascist movements. Dubcek wanted to sell out to the IMF, and restore capitalism. The idea that any of this was about “democracy” or “freedom” is silly, it was always about Cold War tactics to destabilize socialism.
TL;DR imagine if the January 6th rioters were armed and trained by foreign governments, started lynching officials and Jewish people, and the US sent in the army to put down the insurrection. The MAGA chuds would claim that it was about “freedom” and “democracy,” but we all know that they just wanted Trump in office.
Hungary Freedom Fighters Federated Inc isn’t the same thing as Hungary Freedom fighters. The inc was established after they escaped to the USA. It doesn’t prove that they had ties before or during the revolution.
The Hungarian counter-revolutionaries were armed and trained by MI6, this was already confirmed (as linked earlier). It’s highly unlikely that the UK was just doing its own thing and then some of the terrorists established ties with the CIA after the fact.
I’m definitely not saying anything else was wrong. Just seeing that one specific letter floating around. It’s 100% likely that the CIA has something to do with it, as it’s definitely in their playbook, but that letter isn’t the smoking gun people say it is.
It made waves a bit ago because it was another piece of information building up the case, it’s not a smoking gun but instead is, when combined with what else we know, more evidence to support that not only was the UK involved, but so was the US.
You can at least see the way you presented it in your comment wasn’t the full picture.
Never tried to claim it, it’s just a short Lemmy comment. Entire books have been written on the subject.
sure
Yes.
Wasn’t it recently declassified that the ~velvet revolution~ was indeed a CIA plot?
Edit: oof wrong one, I was talking about 1956 not 1989
Velvet was '89, as far as I know it was the CIA’s involvement with nationalist groups in Hungary that was revealed.
Oof mb, I was talking about 68 but got mixed up.
No worries! Either way it was '56 though, lol.
Yup, I’m mixing up my counter revolutions lol
Not that it matters much, we’re just a few years away from declassification for those anyway
We’ll see!
A slur mainly on the internet against those leftist (usually Marxists-leninist) who oppose western interventions, sanctions, coups and wars against countries and governments labeled as “authoritarian”.
originally used by UK communists party trotskyist wing in support of Hungarian -56 crushed uprising against those who opposed it, calling them tankies. Vaguely same as “stalinist”, but it pretty much has lost that meaning in modern use.
People fed up with the the (false) sin/cos dichotomy and want to get people to use tan more often.
the (false) sin/cos dichotomy
but… but… if sin/cos is false, that is literally tan ! (yes, I was frequently bullied in high school, why do you ask?)
Tan is the tao out of which the sin and cos arise
I don’t mind those people, I just wish they wouldn’t go off on tangentially related subjects.
Removed by mod
The term was coined because of the British tendency towards silly-sounding insults, and because the Soviet Union sent in the Red Army to stop the western-backed fascist insurrection. This caused a split in the party (as it always does in western orgs).
The Hungarian revolt in 1956 was infested with anti-semitic pograms. MI6 funded, supplied, and trained the Hungarian counter-revolutionaries. These counter-revolutionaries were allied with fascists who were lynching Jewish people and Communists.
"The special correspondent of the Yugoslav paper, Politika, (Nov. 13, 1956) describing the events of those days, said that the homes of Communists were marked with a white cross and those of Jews with a black cross, to serve as signs for the extermination squads. “There is no longer any room for doubt,” said the Yugoslav reporter, “it is an example of classic Hungarian fascism and of White Terror. The information,” continued this writer, “coming from the provinces tells how in certain places Communists were having their eyes put out, their ears cut off, and that they were being killed in the most terrible ways.”
“But the forces of reaction were rapidly consolidating their power and pushing forward on the top levels, while in the streets the blood of scores of massacred Communists, Jews, and progressives was flowing.”
“Some of the reports reaching Warsaw from Budapest today caused considerable concern. These reports told of massacres of Communists and Jews by what were described as 'Fascist elements’ …” (N.Y. Times, Nov. 1. 1956)
“The evidence is conclusive that the entry of Soviet troops into Budapest stopped the execution of scores, perhaps thousands of Jews, for by the end of October and early November, anti-Semtic pogroms - hallmark of unbridled fascistic terror - were making their appearance, after an absence of some ten years, within Hungary.”
"A correspondent of the Israeli newspaper Maariv (Tel Aviv) reported:
During the uprising a number of former Nazis were released from prison and other former Nazis came to Hungary from Salzburg . . . I met them at the border . . . I saw anti-Semitic posters in Budapest . . . On the walls, street lights, streetcars, you saw inscriptions reading: “Down with Jew Gero!” “Down with Jew Rakosi!” or just simply “down with the Jews!”
Leading rabbinical circles in New York received a cable early in November from corresponding circles in Vienna that “Jewish blood is being shed by the rebels in Hungary.” Very much later-in February, 1957-the World Jewish Congress reported that “anti-Semitic excesses occurred in more than twenty villages and smaller provincial towns during the October-November revolt.” This occurred, according to this very conservative body, because “fascist and anti-Semitic groups had apparently seized the opportunity, presented by the absence of a central authority, to come to the surface.” Many among the Jewish refugees from Hungary, the report continued, had fled from this anti-Semitic pogrom-like atmosphere (N.Y. Times, Feb. 15, 1957). This confirmed the earlier report made by the British Rabbi, R. Pozner, who, after touring refugee camps, declared that “the majority of Jews who left Hungary did so for fear of the Hungarians and not the Russians.” The Paris Jewish newspaper, Naye Presse, asserted that Jewish refugees in France claimed quite generally that Soviet soldiers had saved their lives."
Further, the CIA also backed Hungarian resistance forces:
Prague in 1968 was a similar fascist uprising in both cases there were some elements of progressive protest, but these were greatly overshadowed by the fascist movements. Dubcek wanted to sell out to the IMF, and restore capitalism. The idea that any of this was about “democracy” or “freedom” is silly, it was always about Cold War tactics to destabilize socialism.
TL;DR imagine if the January 6th rioters were armed and trained by foreign governments, started lynching officials and Jewish people, and the US sent in the army to put down the insurrection. The MAGA chuds would claim that it was about “freedom” and “democracy,” but we all know that they just wanted Trump in office.
As for Lemmygrad.ml , it’s entirely serious, and their positions are in line with other Marxist-Leninist orgs around the world. As for the USSR, the capitalists were deposed and the working class was in charge. I have no idea what you’re referring to there, nor to “ultra-authoritarianism.”
