Damn those tankies. They're right too often for our own good. They were right about Obama, and now, at long last, they are proven right about Hungary in 1956.
The irony is that Khrushchev would have allowed a lot of the reforms the Hungarian protesters wanted, and the thing that made it a bridge too far was the CIA. It's almost as if they didn't want the Soviets to do any reforms that might actually help their system survive.
Exactly! It was exciting reading the minutes of Moscow's meeting to handle the crisis. Khrushchev sounded sympathetic to the protestors and was against a military invasion. Only when they crossed a line (and the Hungarian party asked) did they step in.
So, I usually agree with almost everything you write, and while this article is fascinating and there is certainly no doubt that the CIA is a force of evil, I think part of the problem here is that the word "tankie" in some ways works as a floating signifier in that everybody does kind of have their own subjective definition of it. The closest you come to defining it (or at least defining it in the way that I use it and try to teach others to use it) is when you call them supporters of "authoritarian leftism."
A large portion of the people who'd call you a tankie for saying you support Khruschev rolling in the tanks wouldn't be calling you that because they're pro-CIA, or think that the CIA's actions as provocateurs were in any way justified (because they obviously weren't), rather they'd be calling you that if you were saying that Khrushchev brutally putting down the movement wasn't morally wrong because the CIA did or somehow using it to completely absolve his actions.
The people I identify as tankies essentially sanction horrendous actions like Putin's invasion of Ukraine because NATO exists, or describe the PRC as utopian while completely ignoring things like the threats against Taiwan or the numerous human rights abuses (or even genocidal actions) against groups like the Uyghurs because the United States is also an imperialist nation with a history of human rights abuses. Both of these things are true, but neither is justified and don't even get me started on the tankie views on Syria or Iran. In the case of the latter, if you're supporting a fundamentalist theocracy solely because it also opposes the West, you're exhibiting obvious tankie behavior.
Essentially, my issue with tankies is that they villify liberal democracies while absolving (nominally) leftist regimes, or even theocratic regimes, in terms bordering on hagiography in which they're heroes fighting an evil empire. The United States has done tons of evil imperialist shit, but so has pretty much every government in existence. Just because a government appears on the surface to be more ideologically aligned with your beliefs, it doesn't mean they are perfect or should be forgiven for their abuses.
I've also found tankies often have a tendency to shut down dissent and punish differing opinions within their own ranks. It's absolutely critical for these kinds of conversations to happen and for people to be able to voice their own opinions within their own movements and venues.
I don't really disagree with anything you said. There's undoubtedly an archetype of people who think because America is evil, its rivals are automatically good. That's not my position. But what I do think it's important to call out is that far too often people who counter the US's narrative are slandered as just that — "oh, you just think America bad."
In this scenario, there is a legitimate reason for the Soviet Union to use force. Someone was trying to overthrow their country. Any government would respond to that with force. It's not so much if you think that decision is good or bad, but rather understanding the context of the situation. In my opinion, America's geopolitical rivals are stripped of that broader understanding in favor of a simplified, US-friendly narrative that says they do bad things because they're evil.
No, I definitely appreciate the context, and while I understand the reasoning behind Khrushchev's use of force, it also resulted in the deaths of many of the original students behind the uprising. It's a complex situation and the only ones I view as blameless in it are the students who started the revolt.
There are situations where it's a little easier to assign blame, though, like in the case of the '89 Democracy Movement and June 4th Incident/Tiananmen Square Massacre. I've had a tankie try to tell me that the CCP was entirely justified and blameless because the CIA propped up the whole movement. I don't know if the CIA was actually involved, but I honestly would not be surprised if there was at least some involvement in an attempt to co-opt the movement in a similar to fashion to what happened in Hungary, but I know for a fact that it was by and large an organic, grassroots movement and largely nonviolent, and the immediate response and decades of censorship and crackdowns that resulted from it were disproportionate and part of a larger trend of illiberalism that makes me skeptical of anybody who views the PRC as some leftist utopia.
There are plenty of people who reflexively defend the United States and buy wholeheartedly into US narratives, but I tend to have a similar amount of scorn towards them as I do towards tankies. I'll fully admit that I'm biased towards democracies as systems of government, though I much prefer more social democracies at minimum and would prefer democratic socialism even more over the capitalistic democracy we have in the United States. Even with the United States, though, I do think our democratic system is in some ways better because there's a higher possibility that we would be able to enact change. That doesn't mean I don't recognize, or would any way forgive, all of the evil things done by the United States Government.
Apologies for the typos in there, let me know if any of them make it harder to understand the point and I can elaborate. Also before anybody states that I'm somehow making a tankie strawman, I'd be happy to point more than a few out who do these exact things. I saw an article written last night saying BRICS+ was morally superior to the United States because the countries involved "seek nonviolent solutions as opposed to the United States" after having immediately identified that Russia is a key player in the cartel. That's not a direct quote, but pretty close to one.
> outright destruction of the Soviet Union in less than two weeks
Hyperbole here - even the maximalist demands to leaves WARPAC would only be heading for an Austria or Yugoslavia style neutrality. That’s not demanding the breakup of the USSR.
Not disputing your central thesis that CIA/MI6 pushed across a red line. Just the kind of cynical thing they would do - doom a moderate revolt by turning it extreme.
My uncle and his brother fled the Hungarian uprising and made it to the UK. I wonder if MI6 had any hand in that. They’re both dead now so I guess I’ll never know.
Stellar job being soft on both the democrats and Stalinist dictatorship. In what world wouldn't an imperialist government interfere in popular uprisings for their own interests. The german goverment helped lenin return to Russia in 1917 to exacerbate the revolution. Some people (idiots) argued that lenin was a German spy and the workers revolution was a foreign plot to destroy the great Russian empire. They were siding with one imperial camp over the other just like you are. The soviet invasion of hungary slaughtered revolutionary workers and soldiers; destroying the workers councils inspired by 1917 that sprung up during the revolution. You are biased towards the ussr not workers revolution. When bloody counter revolution is right infront of you can only search for anything that could possible implicate the other side, when even by your account both sides are equally at ease buddying up with the nazis.
Framing cia involvement as the main tragedy of the hungarian revolution trialises the actual imperialist invasion and crushing of workers revolution by the ussr.
The CIA is a transnational crime syndicate.
Damn those tankies. They're right too often for our own good. They were right about Obama, and now, at long last, they are proven right about Hungary in 1956.
The irony is that Khrushchev would have allowed a lot of the reforms the Hungarian protesters wanted, and the thing that made it a bridge too far was the CIA. It's almost as if they didn't want the Soviets to do any reforms that might actually help their system survive.
Exactly! It was exciting reading the minutes of Moscow's meeting to handle the crisis. Khrushchev sounded sympathetic to the protestors and was against a military invasion. Only when they crossed a line (and the Hungarian party asked) did they step in.
It’s true, you don’t have to be a Stalinist to oppose the CIA!
Extremely interesting article Joe.
Thanks! I found it fascinating myself.
So, I usually agree with almost everything you write, and while this article is fascinating and there is certainly no doubt that the CIA is a force of evil, I think part of the problem here is that the word "tankie" in some ways works as a floating signifier in that everybody does kind of have their own subjective definition of it. The closest you come to defining it (or at least defining it in the way that I use it and try to teach others to use it) is when you call them supporters of "authoritarian leftism."
A large portion of the people who'd call you a tankie for saying you support Khruschev rolling in the tanks wouldn't be calling you that because they're pro-CIA, or think that the CIA's actions as provocateurs were in any way justified (because they obviously weren't), rather they'd be calling you that if you were saying that Khrushchev brutally putting down the movement wasn't morally wrong because the CIA did or somehow using it to completely absolve his actions.
The people I identify as tankies essentially sanction horrendous actions like Putin's invasion of Ukraine because NATO exists, or describe the PRC as utopian while completely ignoring things like the threats against Taiwan or the numerous human rights abuses (or even genocidal actions) against groups like the Uyghurs because the United States is also an imperialist nation with a history of human rights abuses. Both of these things are true, but neither is justified and don't even get me started on the tankie views on Syria or Iran. In the case of the latter, if you're supporting a fundamentalist theocracy solely because it also opposes the West, you're exhibiting obvious tankie behavior.
Essentially, my issue with tankies is that they villify liberal democracies while absolving (nominally) leftist regimes, or even theocratic regimes, in terms bordering on hagiography in which they're heroes fighting an evil empire. The United States has done tons of evil imperialist shit, but so has pretty much every government in existence. Just because a government appears on the surface to be more ideologically aligned with your beliefs, it doesn't mean they are perfect or should be forgiven for their abuses.
I've also found tankies often have a tendency to shut down dissent and punish differing opinions within their own ranks. It's absolutely critical for these kinds of conversations to happen and for people to be able to voice their own opinions within their own movements and venues.
I don't really disagree with anything you said. There's undoubtedly an archetype of people who think because America is evil, its rivals are automatically good. That's not my position. But what I do think it's important to call out is that far too often people who counter the US's narrative are slandered as just that — "oh, you just think America bad."
In this scenario, there is a legitimate reason for the Soviet Union to use force. Someone was trying to overthrow their country. Any government would respond to that with force. It's not so much if you think that decision is good or bad, but rather understanding the context of the situation. In my opinion, America's geopolitical rivals are stripped of that broader understanding in favor of a simplified, US-friendly narrative that says they do bad things because they're evil.
No, I definitely appreciate the context, and while I understand the reasoning behind Khrushchev's use of force, it also resulted in the deaths of many of the original students behind the uprising. It's a complex situation and the only ones I view as blameless in it are the students who started the revolt.
There are situations where it's a little easier to assign blame, though, like in the case of the '89 Democracy Movement and June 4th Incident/Tiananmen Square Massacre. I've had a tankie try to tell me that the CCP was entirely justified and blameless because the CIA propped up the whole movement. I don't know if the CIA was actually involved, but I honestly would not be surprised if there was at least some involvement in an attempt to co-opt the movement in a similar to fashion to what happened in Hungary, but I know for a fact that it was by and large an organic, grassroots movement and largely nonviolent, and the immediate response and decades of censorship and crackdowns that resulted from it were disproportionate and part of a larger trend of illiberalism that makes me skeptical of anybody who views the PRC as some leftist utopia.
There are plenty of people who reflexively defend the United States and buy wholeheartedly into US narratives, but I tend to have a similar amount of scorn towards them as I do towards tankies. I'll fully admit that I'm biased towards democracies as systems of government, though I much prefer more social democracies at minimum and would prefer democratic socialism even more over the capitalistic democracy we have in the United States. Even with the United States, though, I do think our democratic system is in some ways better because there's a higher possibility that we would be able to enact change. That doesn't mean I don't recognize, or would any way forgive, all of the evil things done by the United States Government.
Apologies for the typos in there, let me know if any of them make it harder to understand the point and I can elaborate. Also before anybody states that I'm somehow making a tankie strawman, I'd be happy to point more than a few out who do these exact things. I saw an article written last night saying BRICS+ was morally superior to the United States because the countries involved "seek nonviolent solutions as opposed to the United States" after having immediately identified that Russia is a key player in the cartel. That's not a direct quote, but pretty close to one.
> outright destruction of the Soviet Union in less than two weeks
Hyperbole here - even the maximalist demands to leaves WARPAC would only be heading for an Austria or Yugoslavia style neutrality. That’s not demanding the breakup of the USSR.
Not disputing your central thesis that CIA/MI6 pushed across a red line. Just the kind of cynical thing they would do - doom a moderate revolt by turning it extreme.
Good catch. I'll revise it.
You’re a bigger person than me Joe.
My uncle and his brother fled the Hungarian uprising and made it to the UK. I wonder if MI6 had any hand in that. They’re both dead now so I guess I’ll never know.
That's super interesting! I would've loved to hear their account.
Stellar job being soft on both the democrats and Stalinist dictatorship. In what world wouldn't an imperialist government interfere in popular uprisings for their own interests. The german goverment helped lenin return to Russia in 1917 to exacerbate the revolution. Some people (idiots) argued that lenin was a German spy and the workers revolution was a foreign plot to destroy the great Russian empire. They were siding with one imperial camp over the other just like you are. The soviet invasion of hungary slaughtered revolutionary workers and soldiers; destroying the workers councils inspired by 1917 that sprung up during the revolution. You are biased towards the ussr not workers revolution. When bloody counter revolution is right infront of you can only search for anything that could possible implicate the other side, when even by your account both sides are equally at ease buddying up with the nazis.
"In what world wouldn't an imperialist government interfere in popular uprisings for their own interests."
That's kind of my point. The US was being imperialistic, and I think that's bad.
Framing cia involvement as the main tragedy of the hungarian revolution trialises the actual imperialist invasion and crushing of workers revolution by the ussr.