Never before in the history of the left has a single word ever caused so much kerfuffle.

While the term “tankie” may appear to internet-savvy leftists as restricted to the web, it has been used in memoriam. It’s been observed by friends of mine in Liverpool that even some old timers have been heard spurting the word whilst practicing politics at the pub.

The term officially arose when the Soviet Union sent tanks into Hungary in 1956 to crush the revolution that was occurring. As a result of this, The Communist Party of Great Britain split, with those holding true to the Kremlin being labeled by the splitters as “tankies”.

But let’s not fret around here. When people are using the word “tankie”, they are hardly ever referring to 1956, as the issue is rarely ever brought up. When the word is being used, it is instead referring to a wide range of other issues that have little to do with it:

- Someone who supports Stalin or Mao

- Someone who supports the repression of Kulaks

- Someone who supports the Great Purge

- Or all the above (strange considering all of this happened removed from the Hungarian revolution).

It can even refer to more recent issues, such as supporting the DPRK and China as Socialist states or tactical support for Maduro or Assad in the face of imperialist intervention. In other words, “THOSE PEOPLE”.

It is important to point out the difference in official definition and usage, as when it comes to the delivery of the word, there come about many contradictions or even sly free passes given based on nebulous grounds.

These holes begin to emerge once you start pressing the word to its natural conclusions.

Originally, I was going to list a few names and give testimony: Paul Robeson, Harry Haywood, W.E.B DuBois, Angela Davis, Chris Hati, The Black Panther Party, Young Lords, and even Nelson Mandela. These people are examples of those who, in some form, paid homage, defenses, or used similar line structure to the AES states or leaders, yet are still revered by the left at large.

It is certainly worth remembering these people as there is a long legacy of folks who were supportive to some extent and do showcase some double standards that emerge from the usage of “tankie”. In retrospect, it’s largely petty of me or anyone else to just go, “Look at this person” as a gotcha in the same way many will also try and noodle out a few anarchists from the BPP as evidence they can be absolved.

What I find more interesting is the way that the term has evolved from where it started. Remember that the word tankie began as MLs (Marxist-Leninists) criticizing other MLs, not MLs being criticized by differing factions of the left. It’s only been more recently that the term was adopted, and more correctly stolen, by the lower-left strata.

What’s interesting is that the so called OG tankies were those who stood with Khrushchev, who had already denounced Stalin by that point, making the usual word association with Stalin of all people strange. If anything, the folks who were more in line with Stalin probably would’ve been the ones who left?

As we can see here, the precise founding of the definition gets foggy. I’ve often been accused by a fair few folks of being a tankie. But in my discussions pointing out the complexities of it, I’ve found many arguments often switch to a different course, deciding instead that tankieis strictly defined by those that defend the acts of 56’.

But this is rather weasley, since:

1. They revert to the vague definition the moment the conversation is over, and

2. Practically, most Marxist-Leninists do on some level defend innumerable acts committed by ML governments, let alone 56’.

It’s rather like saying that “True Scotsmen are only those who use grain in their porridge” … all porridge contains grain.

When I think back to those old names that I mentioned a couple paragraphs up, I happen upon an interesting observation, which I’ll demonstrate with the use of two popular Communists: one present, one historic.

If you’ve ever listened to his lyrics, you’ll know that popular hip-hop artist Boots Riley is well versed in the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. Not to mention, the fact that Boots has been a skeptic of the general Western view of the Tiananmen Square protests (tanks were used), and has beyond wholeheartedly defended Venezuela against reactionary (and even some leftist) attacks — a stance given further commendation, considering it was all done during awards season.

Is Boots not the definition of a tankie? Yes. This is the crux of my discussion. If I or anyone else made similar remarks, we’d be considered as such. But because Boots is a high-profile player with a legacy of grassroots action, hip-hop artistry, and film making, he — like the others I previously mentioned — gets a free pass.

I don’t blame them. You’d be real silly to put him down. Still, it does get me thinking. Perhaps this is what defines ‘tankie’- it all depends on your aesthetics and perceived track record.

Che Guevara was by all means a ‘Stalinist’. He supported Stalin’s policies, he implemented similar ones of his own, took part in show trials, shot dissidents arbitrarily, so on and so on.

But it’s also common knowledge that Che fought in a protracted war through the mud and heat of the Cuban countryside for over 2 years. And his experience with the dispossessed whilst traveling across the Americas grants him a more personal, intimate backstory. His Guerrillero Heroico has become a symbol of t-shirt resistance the world over. And, like Lenin and Rosa, he died too soon to reach his full potential.

I can’t help feeling that all these caveats work to shield Che from the critique and slander that is attributed to others, making it easier for the lower left strata to look past his actions. Maybe track record and perspective is indeed a very large qualifier.

Yet the most telling example I’ve found as of note, and again, further evidence of how arbitrary the word has come to be, is the strange grey area surrounding the application of the word to Maoists.

Whilst Maoism itself can vary in definition, the most coherent descriptor — that of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as developed in the 90s — is the one we are going with today (for the record, I’m a bit of a fan).

Despite holding theoretical disagreements with MLs — mainly that of the understanding of the contradiction between party and masses — they are generally in agreement with most of the historic engagements made by the USSR prior to the death of Stalin, and the overall structure of Democratic Centralism. And by agreement, I am accounting around 90%. Kulaks, purges, Molotov-Rippentrop pact, the whole lot.

Maoists, then, would fit the description of tankie quite well. So why don’t they?

Because reasons…Maoists tend to be more critical of Stalin in areas where others may avidly defend. Maoists tend to find fault with Soviet actions in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan. Maoists tend to be a bit more sympathetic to anarchists.

Despite being “tankie” in 90% of what adherents define and use the term in, including aesthetics, Maoists get a free pass because of a perceived difference — a difference which doesn’t really exist when being consistent with the common usage.

When we talk about the term tankie, I’m often reminded of another word: ‘Dengist’. Whilst those labeled as such obviously don’t like the word or the use of ‘ist’ wording (IST usually implies an evolutionary development in Marxism, of which neither Deng nor Stalin made), it nonetheless carries a coherent, consistent definition: Those who uphold China as a Socialist state post-Mao, or something to that effect.

“Tankie” does not carry such a specific meaning. It is vague when it wants to be vague and direct when not. At best, it is a term thrown upon people who support the 20th century communist legacy and aren’t of significant status to get away with labeling them as such. In other words, it represents an aesthetic and little more. It has been noted that “tankie” is effectively the left’s version of “SJW” — you might be able to sift some substance out of the word, but it’s arbitrary.

Though if I wanted to be charitable, I’ll concede some vague idea about what tankies are, which in the majority of cases are just relegated to the internet in the form of an antagonistic, stubborn, uncritical Twitter head running to the defense of some figure when it’s not even relevant, or in real life certain armchair political parties with traditional views on gender. They exist, and I will admit that there is an issue with folks who get a little too caught up in the romances.

The difference here is that we already have a far more succinct and understandable word for these people. It’s called ‘dogmatist’(and somehow, I can imagine the spread of this word being far more reduced considering its more coherent and less spammable meaning).

But please, can we all just stop acting like this is a serious word anymore? Because many of us do genuinely want to talk about topics that will seriously matter but are instead swept away under the veneer of tankie-dom.

What are you going to do in a situation where a minority — free market capitalists by any other name — control the majority of agrarian land?

If you think the purges or cultural revolutions were hideous, how do you think it’s all going to work out in a nation with tens of millions of God-fearing anti-communist conservatives with hundreds of millions of guns?

And even if I could just take us back to 1956 for a moment. I am genuinely skeptical as to whether there was gonna be any happy ending to any of this? Even if the participants in the revolution were solidly in favor of more communism, not less, we don’t make history as we choose, do we?

The fall of the Eastern bloc from Soviet hegemony did not result in a grand socialist finale, with a new Lenin and Rosa to top it off. Instead it resulted in NATO rubbing its bloodied hands all over the shop, selling off public assets and shifting the monetary focus to the West, whilst leaving masses unemployed and destitute.

I for one am unsure. I don’t know if that would’ve been the same result had the tanks not crashed into Budapest or Prague, it’s not exactly the hill I seek to die on though.

But for what it’s worth, I do feel those questions are at least worth clearing up, because when we come to building a revolution this is the sort of stuff we must consider. We have to figure out the balance between our standards and what the full nature of the situation is.

It’s one thing to say, “That was a bad move.’’ But a much harder question to answer is, “Given every example we’ve come across so far, would you really have done much better?”

*Edit. Its been made aware to me that Che wasn’t the butcher history has hearlded him as but only oversaw the administration of appeals during the trials of 59'.