Author: Josephius Page 1 of 5

I’ve noticed in recent years an odd development, which is the rise of what are perjoratively called “tankies” among the online political discourse. Though it has negative connotations, I’ll try to use “tankie” in this essay in a neutral sense, because it works as a convenient label for a particular set of beliefs. These are people who not only defend a staunch version of Marxist Leninism, but also defend many countries that are ostensibly Marxist Leninist (at least in theory) and their often sordid and controversial histories, most notably China.

Now, I do think China is somewhat unfairly villainized in mainstream western media, but I’m also fairly critical of the Chinese government. Tankies seem to espouse a very all-or-nothing viewpoint that because America is the preeminent imperialist power in the world, that any force that opposes it is inherently a force for good. Thus, they cast China as a defender of socialism and bulwark against the evils of capitalism.

This, quite obviously I think, does not do justice to the complex reality of the situation. For one thing, America is more of a hegemony than an empire. For another, China has significantly embraced capitalism in recent decades. The tankies often contort themselves to try to explain away this latter contradiction, arguing that China is simply going through a phase of harnessing capitalism to build the forces of production and will someday switch back to communism, biding their time for when the moment is right.

It’s not clear that this is actually the case. Nationals who have actually lived in China tend to have a much more nuanced view of the capitalism that has taken hold in their country. On the one hand, the cutthroat competitiveness is discouraging. On the other hand, the economic growth has lifted millions out of poverty. To that extent, I begrudge that the CPC has done a decent job of improving livelihoods on a material level. But that’s different from saying they are the righteous defenders of socialism.

It’s also popular among tankie discourse to defend as mere “mistakes”, the terrible events of things like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. I do think they somewhat have a point here, that western discourse often paints these historical events as acts of pure malice and evil, when the truth is more complex. People like Mao, to me at least, seem like they were genuinely trying to implement the ideal of communism in their countries. The results of these efforts were, unfortunately, disasterous at times, no matter how well-meaning they might have been. Many millions died in famine and violence, and the CPC was in charge at the time, and were therefore responsible for the consequences. Minimizing these tragedies for the sake of ideology is crass and insensitive.

The idea that America is an evil empire that must be destroyed at all costs is also a rather simplistic view. America is a product of classical liberalism in the same way the Soviet Union and modern China were and are a product of the Marxist Leninist strain of socialism. They’re different worldviews that share a common ideal of equality, reason, and progress, but take very different methods in how to go about things. The people in the American government are often idealists who want to create a better world through the Pax Americana, to spread their understanding of democracy, and try to improve material conditions through the wealth generating effects of trade and capitalism. They generally see themselves as the “good guys”, just as tankies see themselves as such.

Similarly, though democracy is very much limited in China (they have local elections but the candidate selection is vetted by the party and so there’s not much real choice), I don’t doubt that many in the CPC and the government do believe they are working in the interests of their citizens, and possibly even the world. People don’t devote their time and energy to often altruistic and thankless endeavours like public service unless they genuinely believe they are making a positive difference.

That being said, this is not the same thing as saying they can do no wrong. Both the American and Chinese establishments are very capable of making short-sighted decisions that are harmful and dangerous to world peace and justice.

Tankies often argue that even though China and other “actually existing socialist countries” aren’t perfect, they should nevertheless toe the party line and refrain from criticizing their brethren. This often is described as “democratic centralism”, which is justified to them by the idea that socialism is constantly under attack from the forces of bourgeous imperialism, and must stand in solidarity and unity if it is to survive.

Personally, I disagree fundamentally with this idea. The truth matters to me. A system or ideology that can’t sustain itself through serious criticism both inside and outside the movement, is not a serious contender for the truth and for functional governance. The adversarial tone of calling your opponents names like “bourgeous imperialists” is also uncivil and a kind of ad hominem attack that shows a lack of rigor in their arguing and a very dark, cynical view of their opponents. If their ideology is right, they should attack arguments and ideas, and they should be able to face a steelman rather than a strawman.

While there is some merit to the concern that the concentration of media ownership in the hands of a few powerful corporations in the west may compromise liberal democracy, the idea that the best alternative is a socialist dictatorship, rather than say, a better democracy, is at best flawed. To me, both systems have issues that merit criticism. Neither side has a monopoly on either truth or righteousness, and I believe strongly that we should respect and give the benefit of the doubt to those who disagree with us. They are, after all, still human beings with legitimate and real concerns.

In that sense, I do sympathize with the tankie’s drive towards righteous indignation and desire to create a more just world. I just think their black and white viewpoint is mistaken.