I keep hearing the term in political discourse, and rather than googling it, I’m asking the people who know better than Google.
I keep hearing the term in political discourse, and rather than googling it, I’m asking the people who know better than Google.
No communist calls the ROK an “occupier,” it’s the US Empire that is occupying Korea, with the ROK’s government set up directly by them. This whole comment is really bad, to be honest.
Yes exactly, the government of SK is called an occupier by tankies, despite being democratically elected by the people of SK
Tankies does not automatically mean communists, that’s just a tactic you guys use to conflate the term
No, the government of the southern half of Korea, the Republic of Korea, is not an “occupier.” The democratically elected state was the People’s Republic of Korea (PRK), which spanned the entire peninsula before the US Empire came in, declared it illegal, and split the country in two, against the will of Koreans, and installed the dictator Rhee Syngman in place.
Again, “tankie” in practice is just a pejorative for communists, akin to “pinko” or “commie.” The fact that you’re getting very basic communist stances on Korea completely wrong here betrays any sense of legitimacy you have on the subject.
It isn’t, though. Tankies want the term to be a pejorative term for communists because it hides the criticism for the term. Calling someone a tankie is a criticism that their values don’t match what they support politically. After all, the term comes from supporters of the Soviet Union using tanks to crush a local revolution that didn’t comply with Soviet power politics.
“Tankie” isn’t a political ideology, it’s a McCarthyite strawman with ready-made characteristics designed to make it so that you don’t have to respond to the points communists make. The origin of the term being in putting down the 1956 CIA supported and MI6 armed fascist counter-revolution in Hungary where the fascists let Nazis out of prison to lynch Jews and communists doesn’t make any difference on today’s usage.
Tankie isn’t a political ideology, it is a commentary on the practice of policy in comparison to stated beliefs.
how dare those damn tankies improve material conditions.
No, it’s a pejorative and McCarthyite strawman.
Your image is really bad quality, you should get a better one, https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2025/0318/104-10110-10525.pdf
Thank you!
That was almost 70 years ago, it’s irrelevant, words change their meaning all the time. It’s how human language works.
The current widely accepted definition is the one defined by the previously linked Wikipedia article. Oh sorry, do you guys call it “NATOpedia” now? Or was it “Libopedia”?
The current usage is as an anticommunist pejorative and McCarthyite strawman.
That’s just what you want it to mean so you can distance yourselves from the term entirely.
Wikipedia has a pretty clear cut definition, and it’s the one the majority of people (who aren’t one themselves anyways) use
I gave a clear-cut and more useful definition that actively reflects reality. There are no groups liberals would consider “non-authoritarian” and communist that have any relevance. It’s in practice a pejorative for communists, full-stop.
Cool, that happened decades ago though, who is currently running the SK government? A democratically elected body?
No not really, I’m sure there are people around who throw the term around loosely, but the majority associate it with authoritarian communists
There was just a meme by one of you the other day where you declared the SK government as being illegitimate along with the government of Taiwan and Israel
If you say the Government of SK is illegitimate then it’s an occupying government is it not?
The ROK has a liberal democracy, but it was forced on the people of southern Korea without their consent. The US Empire staffed it with prior compradors that were in power during Japanese colonialism. The ROK is currently a dictatorship of capital under a special class of people referred to as “chaebol,” under the occupation of the US Empire.
All states are “authoritarian,” in that all states are means by which one class exerts its authority over the others. Communists support the working class being in charge of that authority, all communists (unless you count anarchists) support the use of the state against capitalists and fascists, and the majority of practicing communists support socialist states.
I don’t like being referred to like “one of you.” I don’t care what they posted, I am explaining directly to you.
The ROK essentially being a comprador government set up by a colonizer does not mean it’s occupying itself. The US Empire is occupying Korea, not the comprador government.