What Is a Tankie—and Why You Don’t Want to Be One

On authoritarianism, anti-imperialism, and the betrayal of socialist principles

In leftist discourse, few terms carry as much heat as “tankie.” It’s hurled in online arguments, whispered in organizing meetings, and increasingly invoked to describe a certain strain of pro-authoritarian “leftism” that defends dictators under the banner of anti-imperialism.

But the term isn’t just internet slang. It has a precise historical origin—and a political meaning that every socialist should understand.

“Maximum Tankie” by Red & Black Salamander (9mmballpoint.blogspot.com). Used under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

The Origin of the Term

The word “tankie” emerged in 1956, when Soviet tanks rolled into Budapest to crush the Hungarian Revolution—a popular uprising of workers and students demanding democratic socialism. Members of the Communist Party of Great Britain who defended this violent suppression were derisively called “tankies” for their loyalty to Moscow over the Hungarian people.

The term resurfaced in 1968, when the USSR invaded Czechoslovakia to end the Prague Spring. Again, those who justified the use of military force to preserve one-party rule earned the label.

At its core, a tankie is not a communist—they are an apologist for authoritarianism who hides behind the language of Marxism while abandoning its emancipatory heart.

The Tankie Playbook: Campism Over Class Analysis

Modern tankie discourse often begins with a kernel of truth: U.S. imperialism is real, destructive, and hypocritical. From Vietnam to Iraq, from Chile to Libya, American foreign policy has overthrown democracies and installed dictators.

But from this valid critique, tankies leap to a dangerous conclusion: if the U.S. opposes a regime, that regime must be progressive.

This binary thinking leads to grotesque moral contortions—defending China’s mass detention of Uyghurs as “counter-terrorism,” excusing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as “anti-NATO resistance,” or praising Bashar al-Assad as a “secular bulwark” while ignoring his torture chambers.

This isn’t anti-imperialism. It’s campism—the reduction of global politics to a team sport where “our side” can do no wrong. It replaces class analysis with geopolitical tribalism and abandons the very people socialism claims to liberate.

Stalinism Is Not Socialism

Let’s be unequivocal: Stalinism betrayed the promise of the Russian Revolution. What began as a workers’ uprising in 1917 was transformed, under Stalin, into a bureaucratic dictatorship that executed revolutionaries, collectivized agriculture at the cost of millions of lives, and imposed a police state that crushed free speech, assembly, and thought.

To defend this legacy—not as a historical tragedy to be learned from, but as a model to emulate—is to reject the emancipatory core of Marxism. Marx envisioned a society of free producers, not forced labor camps. Lenin spoke of soviets (workers’ councils) as the form of the future state—not a vanguard party ruling in perpetuity.

True communism is democratic, participatory, and internationalist. It cannot coexist with censorship, secret police, or the suppression of LGBTQ+ rights, feminist movements, or ethnic minorities—all of which have been hallmarks of so-called “actually existing socialist” states defended by tankies.

Why This Matters Now

In an era of rising fascism and climate collapse, the left cannot afford to be morally compromised. When tankies spread disinformation about U.S. biolabs in Ukraine or deny China’s surveillance state, they undermine trust in leftist movements and feed right-wing narratives that “all socialists are authoritarians.”

Moreover, they alienate the very communities we need to organize: young people who value human rights, migrants fleeing authoritarianism, and workers who know that a socialism that doesn’t protect dissent is just another form of domination.

Be a Comrade, Not a Tankie

You don’t have to be perfect to be a socialist. But you do have to stand with the oppressed—not with the tanks that crush them.

Rejecting tankie politics doesn’t mean endorsing U.S. empire. It means holding both imperial powers and authoritarian regimes to the same standard: Do they empower ordinary people? Do they expand freedom? Do they serve human need over state or capital?

If the answer is no—no matter the flag or the rhetoric—we must oppose them.

Because communism isn’t about defending states. It’s about abolishing the conditions that make states of oppression necessary.

And that begins with refusing to call tyranny “socialism.”

“Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people who are oppressing them.”
— Assata Shakur

Further Reading

If you’re interested in anti-authoritarian socialist thought, see our piece on the revolutionary legacy of Assata Shakur, or explore the history of America’s fascist blueprint.

This article is original reporting and analysis by Comrade KAS. All views expressed are those of the author.