I’ve been part of the online left for a while now, part of slrpnk about 2 months, and if there’s one recurring experience that’s both exhausting and revealing, it’s trying to have good-faith discussions with self-identified Marxist-Leninists, the kind often referred to as “tankies.” I use that term here not as a lazy insult nor to dehumanize, but to describe a particular kind of online personality: the ones who dogmatically defend Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and every so-called “existing socialist state” past or present, without room for nuance, critique, or even basic empathy. Not all Marxist-Leninists are like this. But these people, these tankies, show up in every thread, every debate, every conversation about liberation, and somehow it always turns into a predictable mess.

It usually goes like this: I make a statement that critiques authoritarianism or centralized power, and suddenly I’m being accused of parroting CIA talking points, being a liberal in disguise, or not being a “real leftist.” One time, I said “Totalitarianism kills” — a simple, arguably uncontroversial point. What followed was a barrage of replies claiming that the term was invented by Nazis, that Hannah Arendt (who apparently popularized it, I looked it up and it turns out she didn’t) was an anti-semite, and that even using the word is inherently reactionary. When I clarified that I was speaking broadly about state violence and authoritarian mechanisms, the same people just doubled down, twisting my words, inventing claims I never made, and eventually accusing me of being some kind of crypto-fascist. This wasn’t a one-off, it happens constantly.

If you’ve spent any time in these spaces, you know what I’m talking about. The conversations never stays on topic. It always loops back to defending state socialism, reciting quotes from Lenin, minimizing atrocities as “bourgeois propaganda” and dragging anarchism as naive or counter-revolutionary. It’s like they’re playing from a script.

I’ve spent a lot of time trying to understand why these interactions feel so uniquely frustrating. And over time, I’ve started noticing recurring patterns in the kind of people who show up this way. Again, a disclaimer here: not everyone who defends Marx or Lenin online falls into these patterns. There are thoughtful, sincere, and principled MLs who engage in real, grounded discussions. But then there are these other types:

  1. The Theory Maximalist

This person treats political theory like scripture. They’ve read the texts (probably a lot of them) and they approach every conversation like a chance to prove their mastery. Everything becomes about citations, dialectics, and abstract arguments. When faced with real-world contradictions, their default move is to bury it under more theory. They mistake being well-read for being politically mature, and often completely miss the human, relational side of radical politics.

  1. The Identity Leftist

For this person, being a leftist isn’t about organizing or material change. It’s an identity. They call themselves a Marxist-Leninist the way someone else might call themselves a punk or a metalhead. Defending state socialism becomes a cultural performance. They’re less interested in the complexity of history than in being on the “correct side” of whatever aesthetic battle they’re fighting. Anarchists, to them, represent softness or chaos, and that’s a threat to the image they’ve built for themselves.

  1. The Terminally Online Subculturalist

This one lives in forums, Discords, or other niche Internet circles. Their entire political world is digital. They’ve likely never been to a union meeting, a mutual aid drive, or a community organizing session. All their knowledge of struggle is mediated through memes and screenshots. They treat ideology like a fandom and conflict like sport. They love the drama, the takedowns, the purity contests. The actual work of liberation? Irrelevant.

  1. The Alienated Intellectual

This person is often very smart, often very isolated, and clings to ideology as a way of making sense of the world. They’re drawn to strict political systems because it gives them order and meaning in a chaotic life. And while they might not be malicious, they often struggle to engage with disagreement without feeling personally attacked. For them, criticism of Marxism-Leninism can feel like an existential threat, because it destabilizes the fragile structure they’ve built to cope with life.

These types don’t describe everyone, and they’re not meant to be a diagnosis or a dismissal. They’re patterns I’ve noticed. Ways that a political identity can become rigid, defensive, and disconnected from real-world struggle.

And here’s the thing that’s always struck me as particularly ironic: Let’s face it, a lot of these people would absolutely hate to be part of real socialist organizing. Because the kind of organizing that builds power, the kind that helps people survive, defend themselves, and grow; it’s messy, emotionally challenging, and full of conflict. It requires flexibility, listening, and compromise. It doesn’t work if everyone’s just quoting dead guys and calling each other traitors. Anarchist or not, actual socialist practice is grounded in real life, not in endless internet warfare.

That’s why this whole cycle feels so tragic. Because behind all the posturing, the purity tests, and the ideological gatekeeping, there’s a legit reason these people ended up here. Of all the ideologies in the world, they chose communism. Why? Probably because they hurt. Because they saw the ugliness of capitalism and wanted something better. Because, at some point, they were moved by the idea that we could live without exploitation.

And somewhere along the way, that desire got calcified into a set of talking points. It got buried under defensiveness and online clout games. The pain turned inward, and now they lash out at anyone who doesn’t match their script. That’s not an excuse. But it is something to hold with empathy.

I don’t write this to mock anyone. I write it because I want us to do better, recognize our differences and hopefully come to a fair conclusion. And Idk, I still believe we can. Ape together strong 💖

  • dawnglider@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    2 days ago

    You’re a zionist. I frankly take offense on the behalf of all leftists to have someone like you pretend to represent our world view. You’re not a leftist, you’re a genocide supporting reactionary. The irony of you talking about “preying on the weak” and punching left in your psychoanalyzing drivel is clear as day. All you can do is punch left, because everyone here is left of you.

    Also funny that you would mention your own personal parasocial feud with a streamer when everyone else is trying to have an adult discussion about politics, while maintaining that a broad century old worldwide movement is a “fandom”.

    • Samskara@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      Zionist as in, I think Israel has a right to exist, sure. Palestinians have a right to self determination as well. I don’t support genocide.

      Hamas are Islamists, which is right wing extremist, if you haven’t noticed. They are against everything leftist.

        • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          But isn’t that irrelevant to whether the country has a right to exist as a country? Does a country only have a right to exist when they do nothing wrong? Are all people in a country responsible for the actions of leadership?

          Trump is crashing the entire world’s economy, because he’s a fucking short-bus slack-jawed special-ed moron. Does the harm that Trump and his oligarchs are causing mean that the US as a whole has no right to exist? Does Putin’s invasion of Ukraine mean that Ukraine has no right to exist?

          And let’s flip that; Hamas attacks and kills civilians as a political stand-in for the Israeli government. That’s the very definition of terrorism. Hamas is the government in Gaza. Does that mean that Palestinians have no right to a country of their own due to the actions of their gov’t?

          • dawnglider@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            20 hours ago

            You are confused and mix up country and state. Germany didn’t disappear magically after WW2. Do you believe the third reich had a right to exist? International law (as lacking as you might think it is) has prescriptions against that. Israel has been in constant and repeated breach of said law, including but not limited to the Rome Statute and Genocide convention, generally seen as the worst possible offense a state could ever commit. They’ve done nothing but ignore UN Sec Council resolutions.

            Using the fact that the US has committed similar atrocities, including this one which they are the main sponsor of, completely unabated is really not the argument you want to make. Also sorry but it’s hilarious to take Trump’s tariffs as an example of something so horrible it would justify the dissolution of the state, consider it’s the US we’re talking about.

            Ukraine’s invasion by Russia is illegal, immoral and indefensible and yet is still not even comparable to those atrocities. Russia has faced countless sanctions for their actions, from banks cut off from SWIFT, frozen assets, banned export of petrol and gas, wide international bans on tons of goods, military equipment, and many other sanctions around shipping and transport. To my knowledge, Israel hasn’t received any single coordinated material sanction for their innumerable crimes. I’m assuming you meant “does that mean that Russia has no right to exist”, because otherwise this makes even less sense.

            Hamas is but the latest governance of a people who have tried to defend themselves from said continued crimes. But this is just my meaningless opinion as some random guy on the internet, a court should be the judge of whether or not their actions should be sanctioned in the context of the atrocities they faced alongside their oppressor. You’re trying to defend the point of a genocide denier, but hopefully you’ll agree with me on that, right?

            • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              17 hours ago

              You’re trying to defend the point of a genocide denier, but hopefully you’ll agree with me on that, right [emphasis added]?

              First, that’s a manipulative way of stating something; it’s intended to force agreement. Although it’s phrased as a question, it’s not. This is a common tactic used by both high pressure salespeople, and by cults. It was one of the ways I was taught to pressure people into joining the Mormon church when I was a missionary. My suggestion is that, if you want to argue in good faith, then that’s a rhetorical device that you should stop using entirely.

              You are confused and mix up country and state.

              You are correct. I am confusing them. However, in the context of Israel and their genocide against Palestinians, they’re very nearly interchangeable. Hamas–and Iran, I believe–want to abolish Israel. Yes, the land itself would still be there, but it would not be a Jewish state/political entity. The country that Israel is would functionally cease to exist if Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran had their way.

              Do you believe the third reich had a right to exist?

              If you’re limiting the question to existence, then yes, I do believe that the 3rd reich had the right to exist. However, I don’t believe that they had the right to murder 6M+ Jews, Romani, LGBTQ+ people, and political dissidents, or to start a war of aggression. The force used to stop their murders and aggression also happened to be the same amount of force that ended the 3rd reich, but it’s not necessarily that way.

              They’ve done nothing but ignore UN Sec Council resolutions.

              Well. Not exactly. I’m pretty sure that it’s usually general assembly resolutions. I believe that the UN Security Council needs to be unanimous to pass a resolution, and the US–as a permanent member–always objects when it comes to condemning whatever atrocity Israel is currently committing. Which is pretty goddamn awful. And Russia does the same thing when one of their allies is doing awful shit. The ability of one member of the security council to hold up resolutions effectively de-fangs the council.

              But - to your point, I agree entirely that the government of Israel, with the support of the majority of the Israelis, is committing and has committed war crimes against Palestinians.

              “does that mean that Russia has no right to exist”,

              Yes, sorry, I flipped Russia and Ukraine there. Me no type good sometimes.

              But, at that–it is true that Russia has been severely sanctioned (…although $10 says Trumps ends most/all of those sanctions; did you see that Russia was the only country that didn’t get tariffs?). But should the state of Russia be entirely wiped out? Should Russia–as a state–cease to exist? (Russia certainly wants Ukraine to cease to exist as both a country and a state; Putin wants it to be part of Russia.) And no, Israel has not faced any consequences, and that is an utterly shameful failure of leadership in the US and in the rest of the world.

              …But it’s also not directly relevant to the narrow question of whether Israel should be allowed to exist.

              You’re trying to defend the point of a genocide denier

              How so? He lit. said that he thinks Palestinians should have the right to self-determination, and that he didn’t support Israel’s genocide. (“Palestinians have a right to self determination as well. I don’t support genocide.”)

              Israel commission of genocide is independent of their right to exist; they DON’T have the right to commit genocide, and the world should be–should be–united in stopping it. Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran want to wipe Israel out, and commit acts of terrorism in pursuit of that; despite their actions–which I can understand given the actions of Israel–Palestinians and a Palestinian state also have, or should have, a right to exist.

              I’m not sure where the disconnect is here.

              I think that a true 2-state solution is the only realistic option, with borders returning to the, what, 1947? borders. I think that the world probably needs to have UN Peacekeepers there for the next century or so, and those troops should be allowed and required to use force to stop aggression from any side. I think that it was probably a mistake to have shoehorned Israel into the middle east in the first place; we should have given them Florida instead. (…Except that hardline Zionist Jews really, really wanted Jerusalem, because that was the territory that the believed god have given to them.)

              • dawnglider@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                13 hours ago

                First, that’s a manipulative way of stating something

                That’s me being charitable and making the assumption that at least you recognize they should face a court of justice. Again, the argument starts at genocide denial here, I’m working with what I got.

                However, in the context of Israel and their genocide against Palestinians, they’re very nearly interchangeable

                This very confusion is often used to try to extrapolate something that I think is very reasonable, the dismantlement of the state of Israel, into something that is not, like the removal of all jews from the area, or the implicit support of their counter-genocide (which is an old fascist theory that’s very popular in my country, the great replacement).

                I do believe that the 3rd reich had the right to exist. However, I don’t believe that they had the right to murder 6M+ Jews, Romani, LGBTQ+ people, and political dissidents, or to start a war of aggression.

                I’m trying to assume your good faith, but you’re very conveniently talking about a state before it did any of those acts. Again if I’m being very charitable and assume you talk about the genesis of those states in the context of Israel being a colonial project, then no, of course Israel as a freshly conceived settler colonial state built on ethnic cleansing had no right to exist. But that only highlights the fact that Israel has never been justified, even if that’s not the point I was making.

                But should the state of Russia be entirely wiped out?

                Like you said, It doesn’t really matter because it’s not the subject. But yes, Russia wants to destroy the state of Ukraine. Russia however is not an apartheid ethnostate built and run on constant ethnic cleansing and genocide. You could argue that in court if you wanted, but as despicable and bloody as Russia is today, it’s not built on an inherently inhumane ideology.

                How so? He lit. said that he thinks Palestinians should have the right to self-determination, and that he didn’t support Israel’s genocide.

                This is why you misinterpreted my initial question, I didn’t catch it. He never said Israel is committing a genocide. You assume he did because he said he didn’t support genocide, I only asked the question because I know full well he wouldn’t answer. You seem to agree that Israel is currently committing a genocide, and I think you might not have been as exposed to liberal zionism as some of us. He will never admit to that, because he understands as well as I do that this is the greatest sin of states, and you don’t come back from it. If you think a state should survive a prolonged, livestreamed, unapologetic genocide, I urge you to reconsider your position.

                I think that a true 2-state solution is the only realistic option

                I disagree because it’s untenable. The Israeli state will refuse the presence of UN peacekeepers (the 3 of them that we have). If that was a possibility we could entertain it, but I don’t see another option other than UN administrative control, as has happened in the past in similar cases (Germany, Japan, Somalia, Kosovo, Timor-Leste). The two state solution was defended for decades with similar arguments as yours, but the reality is that an ethnostate is not something that we can ever let happen, and Israel continued existence is truly the perfect example of it.

                There had always been very strong opposition both Jewish and not (and way before the formation of Israel) to the creation of a Jewish ethnostate, even in the context of continued Jewish persecution. For fairly nefarious reasons, this was done anyway. I think we’re far enough now into the genocide that this idea should be permanently put to rest and left as one of many dark stains in our history. There’s a very long list of emancipations throughout history, and how oppressed people dealt with their aggressors. The idea that this would be any different in Palestine, especially if it’s done properly, is nothing more than good old fashioned racism, painting Arabs as monsters.

                This process certainly isn’t one I’d dare to outline exhaustively, but it would at the very least include the expulsion of settlers from the West Bank, reparations (I would personally consider it unthinkable if the US took on less responsibility than the sum they poured into arming this genocide), the rebuilding of the Gaza strip and of course an international trial of those responsible for this genocide. This might seem like a lofty ideal, but anything else is just defeatism and waiting for the last Palestinian to die or be expelled.