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 💖

  • perestroika@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    The literal definition of Tankie is supporting USSR tanks being sent for regime change/suppression of eastern Europe post war. Russia happened to peacefully give liberation to all of these countries, and to all of USSR. That US/NATO has continued its demonic diminishment of Russia after this point, including nazi coups under fake liberal colour revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine…

    What follows is a brief detour into Eastern European history, with a focus on conflicts.

    Tanks were sent in 1956 to crush the Hungarian Revolution and 1968 to crush the Prague Spring, and of course in 1979 to invade Afghanistan, triggering a 10-year war.

    While Gorbachev (in office from 1985 to 1991) deserves a lot of praise for being fairly incorruptible (he didn’t enrich himself), ending the war in Afghanistan, organizing nuclear disarmament initiatives, organizing the first semi-democratic elections in the USSR (which brought about the end of the power monopoly of the communist party) and some policies (one of which I’ve hijacked as my username) that favoured transparency and reconstruction… sadly, even he did likely authorise tanks: for seizing the Vilnius TV tower in January 1991 (some unfortunate folks got killed there). It must be noted that mass protest erupted in Russian cities when the event was reported (media was already partly independent as a result of his reforms) and protesters were definitely mostly Russian, not Baltic or Ukrainian. In the late stages of the USSR, there was a functioning sense of solidarity (a bit like solidarity of prisoners escaping together, but having different life goals) between different nations against the system.

    Later, it went thus that some republics went down the tubes into calamity and corruption (and some like Armenia and Azerbaijan into war between each other) while others managed to swim out of the spiral. Economic and demographic damage was very serious all across the country, and this probably “wound up” people. Gorbachev became the most hated leader in Russia, blamed for everything and some more things, and people did start thinking that someone with an iron fist might suit them better. Yeltsin seized the opportunity during the Russian constitutional crisis of 1993 and ordered tanks to fire at the Supreme Soviet, overhthrowing the constitutional order and bestowing himself powers like a monarch, which he later gave to Putin, who entrenched himself twice as deep. [sidenote: US residents beware, I sense a risk that this could happen at your place within 2 years]

    Later on, when the USSR was already multiple years gone and Putin acted as prime minister under Yeltsin, the Chechnian independence movement was drowned in blood in such manner, reminiscent of today’s Gaza sector.

    The war in Georgia was an extremely stupid thing. Both sides contributed to provocations and Georgia, having raised the stakes, decisively lost. The subsequent turning of Georgia into a Russian vassal state under the supervision of Putin’s allies was a slow-motion coup in favour of the Kremlin (which is finished by now) and likely encouraged Putin.

    Now, as for Ukraine, unlike the other countries, for whatever reason they maintained a culture of mass protest. They protested in great numbers during the Orange Revolution and during Euromaidan. The escalation of the Euromaidan protest into a revolution was likely triggered by the beatdown which president Yanukovich ordered. If he hadn’t had the protesters beaten and dispersed, it would have fizzled out. He escalated however, and protesters also escalated. Other political parties sided with protest, leaving his Party of the Regions isolated. When police started using lethal violence (claiming about 100 lives) and protesters responded (claiming about 13 lives), the situation took an unexpected turn for Yanukovich. The army refused to intervene, his police force was overwhelmed and he took the decision to flee the country to Russia. The parliament organized new elections in his absence. Putin however used the opportunity to annex Crimea (surprisingly, this was not bloody) and tried to annex Donetsk and Lugansk (which turned bloody really fast). Subsequently, a contingent of about 30…40 000 Russian soldiers held parts of those oblasts against the Armed Forces of Ukraine, while superficially pretending to be rebel separatists.

    As for Belarus, when Lukashenka falsified the elections for what was probably the seventh time, mass protest finally started. He relied on Putin’s assistance to beat and imprison thousands of people.

    I hope this helps. I have the feeling that you lack a historical understanding of our region. From the viewpoint an anarchist: in Ukraine and most of the rest of Eastern Europe, as an anarchist, you work above the ground but may get name-called often because everyone thinks you’re their preferred sort of demonic creature. :) Meanwhile in Russia, the communist party is Putin’s lap dog and the anarchist movement is underground, in emigration and in prison. In Belarus, only the potato dictator rules, and allows their territory to be used for war against Ukraine, but tries to stay out of it.

    • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Tanks were sent in 1956 to crush the Hungarian Revolution and 1968 to crush the Prague Spring, and of course in 1979 to invade Afghanistan, triggering a 10-year war.

      I don’t know the context of the first 2, but Afghanistan was not invaded. Russia assisted a newly elected (presumably) communist government against uprising.

      Yeltsin seized the opportunity during the Russian constitutional crisis of 1993 and ordered tanks to fire at the Supreme Soviet, overhthrowing the constitutional order and bestowing himself powers like a monarch, which he later gave to Putin, who entrenched himself twice as deep.

      Don’t like this account of history. Yeltsin was a CIA puppet responsible for rise of Russian oligarchy with western financing. I also do not know the specifics of “fire at Supreme Soviet”, but by the name some uppitiness at his extreme corruption would have been cause. Putin is reformist that reigned in corruption and oligarchy. Propaganda blames him as being same as Yeltsin, but the complete shift of western narrative of “Russia is progressing under Yeltsin” changed because Putin isn’t open to same corruption.

      The subsequent turning of Georgia into a Russian vassal state under the supervision of Putin’s allies was a slow-motion coup in favour of the Kremlin (which is finished by now) and likely encouraged Putin.

      Pre 2008, you could call Georgia a Russian vassal state the same way Canada is a US vassal state. These countries need to be friendly with more powerful neighbour for trade, and Canadians and Georgians liking their neighbour/people is a normal peaceful attitude. When US/CIA installed Ukrainian nazi puppet forces secessionist destabilization movements immediately after his power is imposed, that is demonic piece of shit CIA behaviour, as is blaming Russia for intervening to stabilize the country and protect its ethnic minority. US/NATO complaining in last election that “true democracy must result in their NGOs rigging election so that the outcome is yet another war on Russia” in Georgia is some more demonic NAFO nazi piece of shit behaviour.

      The escalation of the Euromaidan protest into a revolution was likely triggered by the beatdown which president Yanukovich ordered.

      Narrative that shooting of protesters was a black flag nazi operation blamed on Yanukovich is the more likely reality.

      Putin however used the opportunity to annex Crimea (surprisingly, this was not bloody) and tried to annex Donetsk and Lugansk (which turned bloody really fast). Subsequently, a contingent of about 30…40 000 Russian soldiers held parts of those oblasts against the Armed Forces of Ukraine, while superficially pretending to be rebel separatists.

      Nazi puppets, again installed by CIA/US coup, supporting Odessa massacre, openly hating Russian minority was repeat of Georgia playbook. Crimea is more Russian than Donbas. Total enthusiasm for rejoining Russia (Krushev gift in 1957). Donbas only wanted autonomy, and Russia assisted against Nazi paramilitary ethnic cleansing operations. Russia spent 8 years pursuing peaceful resolution process through Minsk accords, which NAZI/CIA/NATO subhuman filth admit was a dishonest process to give time for Ukraine to provoke a full war.

      As for Belarus, when Lukashenka falsified the elections for what was probably the seventh time, mass protest finally started. He relied on Putin’s assistance to beat and imprison thousands of people.

      Don’t really know details, but democracy is only valid when CIA wins is the nature of NAFO subhuman demonism. CIA doesn’t invest in queer/feminist rights/supremacism for the goodness of humanity/people. It is only a trojan horse for neocon demonism and warmongering.

      From the viewpoint an anarchist

      Anarchism is possible as an improvement during peace and prosperity/civil satisfaction. Disempowerment of the state (loosely comparable to constructive anarchism. Destructive anarchism is the temporary power vacuum of collapse when destructive anarchists can lie in wait to impose their new supremacism) becomes possible. The state is always very adept in leveraging misery, so that the champions of the miserable can promise supremacism for the miserable. Keeping you miserable is a path to forcing you to keep faith in the champions of your future supremacism. Prioritizing warmongering is easy, and human sustainability/prosperity has no chance of competing against such evil, and the necessity to protect from demonic warmongering also means denying dissent, if not pluralism, if these are just CIA vectors for destroying your society. Blaming the defensive necessity instead of the warmongering demonism for Empire’s rule over the world is misplaced. Defense from collapse will always be prioritized, as in retrospect, the Paris Commune should have put more resources/restrictions to protect itself.

      Anarchism/power hierarchy minimization is humanist. Humanism is impossible when US empire is tolerated, and its desperation last gasp domination agenda. US/CIA promoting progress in your nation is just a trojan horse for demonic puppet that will diminish US enemies, hopefully killing you all in the process.

      • perestroika@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Thanks for sharing your opinion. It is interesting, but I can’t say I agree.

        Can I ask which sources do you primarily use to draw information about history and (geo)politics?