I don't get tankies

 So, as we know, socialism is a contentious topic for me. It's a lot like identity politics. Highly overrated among the populace, people think it would revolutionize everything, but at the end, it changes little. Most differences from capitalism are abstractions in my eyes, and I really just don't see socialism as solving the biggest issues I have with capitalism. I have flirted with very mild forms of socialism in the past, as the idea of democratic control of workplaces is appealing to me on a purely ideological level. But yeah, generally speaking, overrated. 

What I really don't get though, are tankies. Tankies are essentially a form of communist that defends authoritarian communist states. Like, unlike libertarian, democratic, and market socialists who fill the ranks of "the far left" in the US, these guys are actual defenders of countries like the USSR, or China, or North Korea, or Cuba. And I'm going to be honest, do those countries sometimes get too bad of a rap? Sure. I mean, not everything about them is as bad as capitalist propaganda would indicate, those states, while not having the highest GDP, or lacking a lot of personal freedoms, they have done some good things. I hear cuba has a decent healthcare system. I hear the USSR solved homelessness and former states have a high home ownership rate to this day. They gave people guaranteed jobs and incomes. And while I kind of find that to be a bit dystopian (and everything else about them, really), they actually can claim some victories here and there.

But, for people to defend them seems weird. I mean, most of these countries have a horrid track record at human rights. China is locking up the Uighurs, most such states have highly censored media, they shut down political protests, and they exert control over the lives of their citizens to insane degrees we westerners would find unacceptable. Most of them can claim massive purges in their early days, as anyone who didn't fit was executed (and this amounted to millions of people). There were massive famines. I mean, they're not really all good. Maybe not as bad as we like to portray them, but still not a desirable model.

I just find it odd a class of people exists who defend these guys with a zealous passion. I mean, I look at the problems with the US, and I'm like, okay, if we were that system instead, life would improve in some ways but probably greatly decline in others. I might gain materially, but then be forced to work jobs I dont want to work, and live in places I dont want to live, and be told what to do all the time. I find American society authoritarian enough in a lot of ways. I don't believe communism would be a straight upgrade for me. I'm an indepentarian for a reason. I want all the benefits of more left wing ideologies, without sacrificing the freedom. I believe that social democracy is a worthwhile third way to have. I might not like the excesses of American capitalism but I don't believe all capitalism is bad. And I think a form of human centered capitalism would be good.

Even the forms of mainstream lib-left socialists seem to want to have their cake and eat it too. They want the benefits of socialism, without the costs of the authoritarian states. So why die on a hill of defending authoritarian countries with questionable ideas regarding human rights? I don't get it. There are just so many better compromise models if you hate capitalism so much. Some more capitalist, some more socialist. Being a tankie is as irrational as being a right libertarian who defends the gilded age.