!asklemmy@lemmy.ml - ARE YOU A TANKIE? - informal poll results ~ 2025
😱
This process was undertaken to determine if so-called "tankies" are conspiring to make you (yes, you) have a bad time on the internet!
vague or informal answers were interpreted by the central authority (me). Only top level comments were counted. I did not provide further instructions or clarifications.
spoiler
A ridiculous question. “Tankie” isn’t a term anyone self-identifies with, it’s mostly a term used by liberals to hurl at anyone to the left of them or anyone who agrees with western foreign policy. The survey results will be as meaningless as the term “tankie” itself.
^ wish I'd remembered to include that in the new "poll", there was a lot of confusion in the comments!
Image description: various pie charts and text, indicating the results of an informal poll from lemmy.ml, full results in spoiler
spoiler
@hexbear.net 4
@lemmy.libertarianfellowship.org 1
@lemmy.ml 8
@lemmy.world 1
@lemmy.zip 1
@lemmygrad.ml 2
Total Yes 17 (38.6%)
@feddit.org 1
@feddit.uk 2
@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1
@lemmy.ca 1
@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1
@lemmy.ml 8
@lemmy.world 3
@lemmy.zip 2
@lemmygrad.ml 1
@pawb.social 1
@piefed.social 1
@sh.itjustworks 2
@thebrainbin.org 1
Total No 27 (61.4%)
***
didn't think to actually include the year on year comparison, so it's below.
yes no total
2024 24 20 44
2025 17 27 44
whole website's gone to the dogs if you ask me 🐶
results from this thread Archived
Link to previous results (very serious) hexbear / lemmy,ml
Link to previous "are you a tankie?" thread
thanks for playing, see you next time 😎
So you say that there are no “non-authoritarian” communists. I guess I take a slight issue with this. Just because a lot of historical communist states have become one party dictatorships doesn’t mean that all of them have to be. I don’t see why you couldn’t have a communist state with democratic values, separation of powers, and plurality. Even if you believe that the state is the sole authority and does have authority to do things, it doesn’t mean it can’t have a concept of inalienable or unenumerated rights which the state can’t take away.
Sure you can say that the working class has authority in a communist state. But that’s somewhat of a transitory period isn’t it? Eventually that society over time becomes classless, and then everyone must be represented to avoid autocracy.
I think you misunderstand, existing socialist states are and have been comprehensive unitary socialist democracies, rather than multi-party, competitive liberal democracies. The latter idea of plurality is one that is specifically capitalist, in a worker-centric democracy you don't need society working against itself, but together, cooperating. They have all been dictatorships of the working class against the bourgeoisie. I think you're running into the issue of imagining a society and thinking said society would work, but to the contrary historical experience shows that it's far more important for people to drive policy than to pick parties.
And yes, eventually, the state will wither as class conflict dies. The only way for that to happen, though, is full collectivization of production and distribution along a common plan. Until then, a state is necessary, as you can't eliminate the basis of private property with the stroke of a pen.