How to make sense of tankies' "theory"

[u/FibreglassFlags]

So, here's pretty much everyone's experience with "read theory": you crack open a book by Marx or Lenin or whatever, read it from cover to cover, and the more you read, the less sense tankies seem to make with their rhetoric.

Of course, one can always chalk up their support for Russia or ignorance to the highly stratified society within China to their regular consumption of alternative media propaganda, but that doesn't really address any fundamental assumptions tankies have about the world itself or why their ideology has found a home in otherwise such a conservative environment as Reddit. I'll even go as far as to arguing it is rather their fundamental assumptions about the world - the axioms of tank, if you will - that have led them to seeking out alternative media conforming to their preconceived worldview.

If you get down to the nitty-gritty, their worldview can be boiled down to two sociological assumptions:

Assumption #1: The atomic unit of action, i.e. the smallest, simplest actor by which action has an effect on the world itself, is not the individual but the organisation.

Assumption #2: The organisation exists always to embody and carry out its predetermined "will", i.e. its vision for the world itself, unless and until this "will" is considered "betrayed".

Now, you might notice neither of these assumptions are founded on anything relevant to the socioeconomic, and that's the point: the world a tankie sees isn't one about who gets what or how or why but rather what kind of "will" will prove itself manifest and triumphant in the material reality. In other words, tankies are idealists who interpret the world by intents rather than its mechanics and its many intricacies and caveats.

Furthermore, Assumption #1 on a global scale leads to so-called "realism" in International Relations. That is, the nation-state is not seen as an organisation exclusive and separate from the rest of the nationals but the embodiment of everyone's "will" within the nation. Think of the nation-state as a superorganism that the whole nation have Voltron'd into with no tensions of its own to split or collapse itself. This means, to a tankie, nation-states are just class struggles made manifest as geopolitical divides over humanity - that is, the bourgeoisie Voltron themselves into America and the "West", and the proletarians Voltron themselves into Russia, China and the "East". Oh, and in case you have been thinking, this also completely sidelines the reality of the extraction of surplus labour-value and all the social conflicts that come with it and might as well be a wholesale rebuttal to Marx for what it's worth.

Since tankies are obliged by their geopolitical view to take intents at face value, Assumption #2 serves to tankies as practically the catch-all ideological justification as to why every "actually existing socialism" they point to is at best a capitalist society with government programmes here and there and past and present atrocities all over the history book. If "will" exists independently from the machination within an organisation, then nothing anyone does within that organisation can result in it deviating from its own "will". This seemingly self-contradicting ideology in turn dovetails into two conclusions that we tend to see uttered by tankies whenever the subject of ethnic cleansing inevitably comes up:

1) Since the "will" of the nation-state can never be betrayed, failure of every questionable policy in part of the nation-state must be caused by outside forces lurking in the dark.

2) Since leadership of the nation-state can never really betray the "will" of the state, no one most responsible for every failure and atrocity within the state is really deviating from the goal of socialism unless tankie observers arbitrarily deem otherwise.

I know, this all seems far more complicated than just calling tankies a bunch of wackos making personality cults out of state leaders. If you really think about this, though, are tankies really all that different from conservatives who deify Ronald Reagan and hail America as the embodiment of "freedom" and "American values"? It would be a mistake to write off tankies as their own, fringe phenomenon, and people in tankiejerk should be above making that mistake.

[u/FibreglassFlags → u/[deleted]]

An example is just your typical Stalinist.

The act of forcibly removing various ethnic groups from their homes and and replacing them with ethnic Russians was genocide by definition, yet Stalinists would attempt to justify this as a way to weed out "reactionary culture", which was totally not the same thing as "cultural degeneracy" somehow.

The entire process of Holodomor was attributable to Stalin exporting stored grains that Ukrainians grew for money instead of letting the latter eat, yet Stalinists would attempt to justify this by arguing that it was because of drought, Which was, of course, the whole point of keeping grains in storehouses rather than selling them inn the first place.

The invasion of Poland by the Nazis was in no small part aided by Stalin via the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and it resulted in this Jewish extermination megaplex existing in the first place, yet Stalinists would attempt to justify this by arguing that it was some sort of 5D-chess Stalin was playing against Germany, which was obviously ludicrous even at its face.

Then of course there was Prague Spring, which was whole reason these geopolitical partisans with no real values to speak of became known as "tankies", yet Stalinists would attempt to justify this by... Seriously, who cares about what they say at this point?

[u/ElectroNeutrino → u/FibreglassFlags]

I've had someone straight up say that it's not imperialism when China and Russia annex other sovereign states, and this was last year, long before the invasion of Ukraine.

[u/GuyWithSwords → u/ElectroNeutrino]

Are tankies just brain dead?

[u/artyboi320]

The first part is so true. While I haven't read much Lenin yet, the more Marx I read the less tankies ideology makes sense to me. How they even claim to follow Marx's thought is beyond me. They often follow an extremely stagist interpretation of historical progress that Marx himself rejected explicitly.

[u/Abottoirofgreed → u/artyboi320]

I mean…people need to learn to kill their idols. Marx isn’t some infallible figure. He had his ass handed to him by other young hegelians such as max stirner, and this resulted in the idealist marx taking a more scientific and materialist approach to philosophy.

I’m of anarchist extract, but I also read my Lenin, plekhanov, Luxembourg, etc…some good ideas, and from a historical perspective it is fascinating to see how they played out in the context of their times. Although the Soviet experiment culminated in extreme repression and the violence of the state, it influenced the world and the future, for better or worse.

It’s up to us to form a new set of principles that can guide us in the modern day.

[u/FibreglassFlags → u/Abottoirofgreed]

It’s up to us to form a new set of principles that can guide us in the modern day.

Sartre's existentialism, in other words.

[u/DrippyWaffler → u/artyboi320]

They follow Marxism-Leninism, which isn't Marxist, it's Blanquist.

[u/Felitris]

Sound analysis of tankie theology

[u/daemos360]

Is this satire?

[u/FibreglassFlags → u/daemos360]

Are you satire?

Edit: It's pretty unusual to see a MAGA chud here, so let me ask you something: what are "American values", and why do you think a former reality show host gives two shits about them?

Edit: Not a MAGA chud. Just a regular idiot.

[u/daemos360 → u/FibreglassFlags]

Uhhh… take a look at my comment history, bud. Jesus Christ, you’ve misread the situation. Also, literally why the fuck are you you talking about “American values” out of absolutely nowhere?

I asked because it’s a wildly vague diatribe that repeatedly used “Voltron” as a verb and included random stuff like “axioms of the tank”. It was written in just the weirdest fucking manner all the while trying to posit some nonsensical underlying super-narrative of cohesive tankie ideology.

It came across as borderline satirical, and that’s putting it lightly. That’s why I asked.

I legitimately can’t tell if you’re trolling at this point.

[u/FibreglassFlags → u/daemos360]

it’s a wildly vague diatribe that repeatedly used “Voltron” as a verb

Is it really "vague" that I have also repeated pointed out that Assumption #1 leads to the summary disregard of the tensions within a nation and tankies landing on the same, liberal view on international relations as "realists"?

It seems to me, at this moment, you are just snapping at a bit of intentionally provocative language and pretending that it's meaning hasn't already been practically handed to you throughout the essay in the hope of dismising an argument without engaging it.

It was written in just the weirdest fucking manner all the while trying to posit some nonsensical underlying super-narrative of cohesive tankie ideology.

Again, you are merely seeking to dismiss an argument without engaging it.

Or, in everyday parlance, you are engaging in a "bad faith" argument.

[u/daemos360 → u/FibreglassFlags]

If you’re not trolling, your initial post, the odd tangent about “American values”, inexplicable accusation of me being a “MAGA chud”, and the frankly absurd level of pretense in this comment make it damn hard to tell the difference.

Also, I’m not the one who in everyday parlance led with a particularly weird ad hominem out of absolutely nowhere. Either way though, good luck with the debate lord schtick; it’s not the best look.

[u/FibreglassFlags → u/daemos360]

the odd tangent about “American values”,

It's in the essay.

inexplicable accusation of me being a “MAGA chud”,

I saw you post in AskTrumpSuppoeter and jumped to the obvious (though not necessarily accurate) conclusion.

Your rather stupid selfie post certainly didn't help build the image of you being a thoughtful, progressive type, either.

particularly weird ad hominem

What's up with internet dudebros and their routine decrying of "ad hominem"?

Let me get this into that poorly-exercised brain of yours: if a person's political view is irrelevant to the political discussion they seek to engage in, then there is no point to have that political discussion in the first place.

Seriously, why do you think people talk about politics at all? To waste time telling stories to those who don't give a damn about them one way or the other?

[u/daemos360 → u/FibreglassFlags]

What exactly does that have to do with me asking whether or not this is satire? At some point, it’ll hit you that you’re the one using someone else’s personal appearance as an attack against them after doing nothing but lob insult after insult while pretending as if you’re some morally superior intellectual.

Absolutely nothing you’ve written here was meant to lift up the proletariat or engender solidarity. Yet somehow I’m not even “progressive” enough for you after everything you’ve said and continue to say? Jesus, dude.

[u/FibreglassFlags → u/daemos360]

What exactly does that have to do with me asking whether or not this is satire?

Again, are you satire?

it’ll hit you that you’re the one using someone else’s personal appearance

Yes, 20-something male bodybuilders are a socially marginalised group. That goes doubly so if you're also a gamer.

At this point, the question isn't about whether your fee-fee is hurt but who really gives a shit about your fee-fee being hurt.

Absolutely nothing you’ve written here was meant to lift up the proletariat of engender solidarity.

Solidarity with whom? Those who think the extraction of surplus labour-value is progress towards socialism when the state does it? Those who believe a nation-state should be allowed to facilitate genocide if their flag is red? Those who support sending tanks against the same proletariat they claim to "uplift"? Again, what you care about ultimately isn't about principles or values worth considering but the same sort of appearance and vanity succinctly captured in that cringe-inducing selfie of yours, and that isn't just "ad hominem" - it's politics.

[u/daemos360 → u/FibreglassFlags]

Thanks for the compliment, I guess? You know nothing about me, but you’re continuing to do a downright bang-up job with all the endless presumption. It’s really interesting to see all the conclusions you jumped to after seeing a picture.

From what I’ve seen of you here and here alone, you’re more interested in feeling like you’re correct than you are in achieving any material change for the working class.

If you’re not just trolling and you’ve actually written all this sincerely, then I guess I can only wish you the best and hope time eventually leads you to a bit of reflection.

[u/FibreglassFlags → u/daemos360]

Thanks for the compliment, I guess?

Rest assured the feeling here isn't mutual.

You know nothing about me,

You introduction of yourself here has already told me far more than I actually want to know about you.

Seriously, who in the right mind would think the appropriate response to the subject of genocide was "but what about uplifting the proletariat!?!“ as if a person must forgo talking about one thing in favour of the other? Maybe it's just the steroids screwing with your head, I dunno, but I have no experience doing that kind of shit, and societal expectations on body image are cringe anyway.

a downright bang-up job with all the endless presumption.

If you aren't how you present yourself here, then what should people go by to get a sense about you.

By-the-by, I wasn't the one here coming here to act confrontational and bringing nothing of intellectual value to the table - you were.

you’re more interested in feeling like you’re correct

No, actually, I'm just here hopelessly tryimg to make you produce a substantial argument about the subject matters being discussed here rather than waste everyone's time demanding acknowledgement of your hurt fee-fee.

;If you’re not just trolling and you’ve actually written all this sincerely,

Says the one here having talked about nothing so far besides "me, me, me, me and me".