No, it's a term with a long history and a specific meaning regarding a deficiency of proper analysis of competing national bourgeoisies, and a tendency for Marxists in one country to align with an oppositional country instead of embracing a proper revolutionary-defeatist line. Nothing like "tankie" at all. Do you understand the term yourself?

Tankie was a specific term regarding people who sided with the Soviets crushing the uprisings of 1956 and 1968. It has now morphed into "anything I don't like, which is typically people being anti-American". The same thing, though to a lesser degree, is happening with "campist".

Russia is an anti-communist dictatorship of the bourgeoisie which would and has stamped out actual revolutionary movements in countries it holds a degree of influence over.

Of course it does! It's an oligarchic nation ruled by people who the United States literally installed into power! It also happens to be at the beginning of a long period of change which none of us know the end result of but seems to be geared towards an anti-American role, even if primarily fueled by those oligarchs' selfishness.

You claim that no "principled Marxist-Leninist" (what does this actually mean, just MLs who agree with you?) would disagree with the notion that Russia is an imperialist nation, but you were quite literally telling people to "SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT RUSSIA BEING 'IMPERIALIST' ". Which is it? These are contradictory statements.

No, I didn't. That was a different person.

Super-imperialism is not a phenomenon that exists, the theory was completely dismantled by Lenin, it was one of the main reasons he wrote Imperialism. There are competing imperial interests and some of them have more influence, a larger theatre of exploitation, than others. This is not what super-imperialism is.

While Lenin's descriptions of imperialism are pretty good, the mechanism of how imperialism operates now as opposed to the 1910s and 1920s are obviously extremely different and involve different mechanisms. Superimperialism is a real enough theory that the fucking CIA bought up copies of Michael Hudson's book to better understand what the United States was doing in the world today. Call it whatever you want - hegemonic imperialism, blorglepong, whatever - the United States is the hegemon, the world virtually revolves around it, it invades and pillages other nations on a scale far beyond what non-western states are doing, and so state actors weakening that hegemon and bringing back multipolarism (which is an unstable global order and thus gives us opportunities for revolution) and strengthening industrial capitalism (which communists have a pretty good idea about how to overthrow) is meaningfully progressing us towards world revolution.

But if I have to, my own view is that the severe and total crisis being experienced across almost every bourgeois-capitalist nation represents a truly final crisis, one which is driving us into a Third World-Imperialist War, and the eventual consequence of this war is going to be global proletarian revolution

I think we're describing the same thing but from different perspectives. I unequivocally do not support multipolarism as an endstage for societal development - such a thing is incompatible with communism from the basic definitions of words. You are describing the exact same crisis that I am - I (and others) are merely making the observation that the world, in the crises facing western nations currently, is transitioning to multipolarism, which will allow communists in that relative chaos to enact a revolution. Multipolarism is thus the arena in which we can take power. If we do not act or are unsuccessful, the world will transition to unipolarism once more because that is what monopoly capitalism dictates.

You also muddy the waters here by bringing the PRC into the discussion, a far more complicated case than Russia in terms of whether they represent an imperialist-capitalist state. I wasn't talking about them. It is demonstrative of a lack of thoughtful analysis that you conflate the two states and their relationship to the third world.

Given how the two countries are becoming ever more closely interlinked, I do not think you can have a complete or even really adequate description of geopolitics by discussing one without bringing up the other most of the time.