Eh, just a synonym for tankie, mostly. Found on revolupedia:
Campism is a revisionist position among nominal communists which believes that the current world is divided into two geopolitical "camps" — the imperialist West led by the United States and European Union and the "anti-imperialist" East led by the Russian Federation and People's Republic of China. Campists omit the capitalist and imperialist nature of both Russia and China, the latter of which they view as being "socialist," and combine this view with the belief that these imperialist powers will create a state of "multipolarity" without reference to the condition of each bloc's exploited proletariat and its liberation.[1] Most campists are followers of Dengism.
Campism can be viewed as a modern iteration of the social-chauvinist and militarist views adopted by the Second International during the First World War, in which opportunist parties supported the imperialism and bourgeoisie of their home country against the working class of another. Both versions of this chauvinist view are contrasted with the Marxist–Leninist understanding of revolutionary defeatism.
A cute quote from a write up about campists:
The logic is something like this: X is an enemy of the United States, therefore X is anti-imperialist, therefore we support it, and since it is anti-imperialist, it must be progressive. It follows that any criticism of country X is reactionary. People who criticize any anti-imperialist nation such as X must be on the side of imperialism. So, for example, since the United States is an imperial power, and China opposes the United States, then China must be progressive (some will even say socialist). So then, the argument goes, those who criticize China for putting some 1.5 million Uyghurs in concentration camps or for its crushing of the democratic movement in Hong Kong, must be allied with the United States government and are objectively pro-imperialist. This is the campist logic.
Is the author legit? I glossed over the article, and that paragraph in particular stood out to me because it completely omits that the reason many people dismiss the Uyghur genocide is because there's is ample evidence that it never happened. So I wrote it off pretty immediately