My first months on Lemmy were spent on Lemmy.world, which was the biggest instance at the time. I had no experience with Hexbear because .world had defederated that instance. I sometimes saw it being described as a "tankie" instance, but it was nothing specific.

After I moved to .zip, I came across !games@hexbear.net, which seemed to be free from anything overtly political and reminded me of r/Gamingcirclejerk, so I subscribed to it and occasionally made comments related to gaming.

Today I made multiple comments to a post about an article on the STALKER game developers having removed the Soviet symbols and the Russian audio in the remastered edition of the game. I would argue that in the thread, there were no comments from me that could be construed by a reasonable person as defensive of Nazism, fascism, or even hinting at it. For example, in one of the comments, I linked a Ukrainian law that prohibits the use of Nazi symbols, though I highly advise looking through all my ten comments as to avoid any misunderstanding or false impressions.

Conversely, one comment posted by another user dismissed Holodomor as Nazi propaganda, which I reported, but a moderator of that community just ended up calling me out for that and taking no action, followed by them banning me.

The thread containing all of my untouched posts is still available via lemmy.zip. My comments are also available for viewing via my user page. They are not available on hexbear due to the ban.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] eureka@aussie.zone 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Ah, I see, yeah I was just talking about theory and ideology, the behaviour of activists rather than governments, which can be much simpler.

I'd assume a tankie perspective (based on my understanding of historical Lenin/Bolshevik perspectives, plus the event that the name 'tankie' came from) is that their government/party represents the worker class, and that when push comes to shove, the most important thing is to maintain the revolution and avoid capitalist counterrevolution, so if that ultimately demands sacrificing rule of law, property rights, liberties and even suspending democracy, they would insist the ends justify those means. Their view is that there's no point in pursuing ideals like property rights and rule of law if that means the government falls and those rights collapse anyway. So they justify pragmatic compromise. And what happened to Jack Ma is an example, they'd rather remove Ma's rights than permit that amount of capitalist power.