Nah, first premise is false in more than one way. You are conflating the ideology Stalin made with Marxism.
The second error is that there has never been a dictatorship of the proletariat, every time it has been a political party that seizes power for themselves and not the workers. In doing so they become the ruling class with differing class interests than the workers.
Marx must be rotating in his grave with the speed to power the whole globe at this point.
Yea, people that supported a dictatorial regime with socialist aesthetics as in the USSR. What part of that has changed?
No idea what the first link is even about, seems incomprehensible. The second link seems true but I have no idea what was said prior. The third link is about programming. Seems there is one potential example of an anarchist being called a tankie. Seems like the vast majority of times it's being used in reference to MLs still.
In all seriousness there are plenty of people who misuse words but tankie seems to have a very clear and easily defined definition, it has even remained the same historically. Comparing it to the crazies using 'woke' is dishonest at best.
I have only seen it used in reference to people who support dictatorial regimes with socialist aesthetics, mostly MLs. I have yet to see an anarchist be called a tankie. Also you can hear it IRL, not commonly though since most MLs are on twitter and the like and not IRL.
Currently our group has been working on raising avereness of unions since there are a lot of white collar workers that aren't a member of any union. We are also trying to popularise the coop business model especially in the public sector. We are also advocating for wealth redistribution reforms. The USSR kinda ruined calling yourself a socialist(And calling yourself a communist here will more likely get you punched here) so a lot of advocacy has been about pushing for socialist ideas with different wording.
For more long term we are hoping to get unions more involved in government and possibly form a worker's party with the union members.
As you yourself said: it's untainted by existing practice, there is no existing strategy as in its new. In relation to the numerous failed attempts at socialism through dictatorship it's better to try something new and not keep shooting the working class in the foot.
You attributed some failed strategy to me and then accused me of purity testing states that are only aesthetically socialist. That response had nothing to do with what I said.
Was Stalin the president of the US? Is the US the leader of socialism or something? The US has nothing to do with socialism, like I have been part of my local anarchist group for years and no one has ever even mentioned the US.
Neither did you.
No, me and my family lived under Soviet rule in an annexed satellite state. Workers had no power here, people who were friendly to high ranking party members had power and if workers did not comply they got sent to slave camps in siberia where they were not likely to return.
I really don't care about the US and it's quite weird how literally everyone who is trying to paint the USSR in a good light says that with no prompting. Like lung cancer is also bad but bringing that up in every single conversation about anything is weird.
What I support is workers organising. What I don't support is Stalinist strongmen oppressing workers. Socialism without power of the workers is meaningless and not worth achieving, that's literally the current system. If I wanted capitalism with socialist aesthetics I can just move to China, that already exists. What I want is actual power to the workers and nothing else.
No, I do not. I made it clear multiple times that dictatorships with socialist aesthetics aren't socialist in any other way.