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