I don’t think people are generally against nuance (or at least they shouldn’t be) but it’s not like actualtankies – ie. authoritarian communists – have very nuanced views. So yes, of course there’s a whole gradient between “idolization” and “incompetent psycho” and I was being hyperbolic, but especially with Mao I’d argue that he really was fairly incompetent. Likely not an actual psychopath like Stalin seemed to be, but a shining example of competence he wasn’t (Four Pests is just one example). This doesn’t mean that nothing good happened under his rule though.
“Actual” tankies don’t exist, outside of perhaps a handful of edgy teens. The way I use the term is defined by common use, regardless of the stated definition. In actual practice, anyone who defends anything a communist government has ever done, even if it’s something as minor as acknowledging the success of Cuba’s literacy program, is liable to be called a tankie by someone. I could try to fight it but I’d be fighting virtually every time the term is used, and I prefer to just reclaim it. You might as well ignore it, or love the word instead, because you ain’t done nothing if you ain’t been called a Red
Yes. Hexbears do not defend everything any communist government has ever done, and therefore do not meet the stated definition of tankies.
It’s virtually impossible for anyone to be an “actual” tankie. The Soviet Union collapsed, so obviously it had to have flaws. The Sino-Soviet split happened, so clearly at least one of them had to have been in the wrong. Khrushchev criticized Stalin and Deng criticized Mao, so in both cases, either the criticism was correct and the target was flawed or the criticism was incorrect so the person doing the criticism must have been flawed. Even if you tried to, you couldn’t knee-jerk support every communist leader.
I don’t think people are generally against nuance (or at least they shouldn’t be) but it’s not like actual tankies – ie. authoritarian communists – have very nuanced views. So yes, of course there’s a whole gradient between “idolization” and “incompetent psycho” and I was being hyperbolic, but especially with Mao I’d argue that he really was fairly incompetent. Likely not an actual psychopath like Stalin seemed to be, but a shining example of competence he wasn’t (Four Pests is just one example). This doesn’t mean that nothing good happened under his rule though.
“Actual” tankies don’t exist, outside of perhaps a handful of edgy teens. The way I use the term is defined by common use, regardless of the stated definition. In actual practice, anyone who defends anything a communist government has ever done, even if it’s something as minor as acknowledging the success of Cuba’s literacy program, is liable to be called a tankie by someone. I could try to fight it but I’d be fighting virtually every time the term is used, and I prefer to just reclaim it. You might as well ignore it, or love the word instead, because you ain’t done nothing if you ain’t been called a Red
Have you seen Hexbear? Honestly, saying they don’t exist outside of a few edgy teens seems a bit myopic
Yes. Hexbears do not defend everything any communist government has ever done, and therefore do not meet the stated definition of tankies.
It’s virtually impossible for anyone to be an “actual” tankie. The Soviet Union collapsed, so obviously it had to have flaws. The Sino-Soviet split happened, so clearly at least one of them had to have been in the wrong. Khrushchev criticized Stalin and Deng criticized Mao, so in both cases, either the criticism was correct and the target was flawed or the criticism was incorrect so the person doing the criticism must have been flawed. Even if you tried to, you couldn’t knee-jerk support every communist leader.