"Oh, this is calamity! Calamity! Oh no, he's on the floor!"
Welcome to MoG!
Meanwhile On Grad
Documenting hate speech, conspiracy theories, apologia/revisionism, and general tankie behaviour across the fediverse. Memes are welcome!
What is a Tankie?
Alternatively, a detailed blog post about Tankies.
(caution of biased source)
Basic Rules:
Sh.itjust.works Instance rules apply! If you are from other instances, please be mindful of the rules. — Basically, don't be a dick.
Hate-Speech — You should be familiar with this one already; practically all instances have the same rules on hate speech.
Apologia — (Using the Modern terminology for Apologia) No Defending, Denying, Justifying, Bolstering, or Differentiating authoritarian acts or endeavours, whether it be a Pro-CCP viewpoint, Stalinism, Islamic Terrorism or any variation of Tankie Ideology.
Revisionism — No downplaying or denying atrocities past and present. Calling Tankies shills, foreign/federal agents, or bots also falls under this rule. Extremists exist. They are real. Do not call them shills or fake users, as it handwaves their extremism.
Off-topic Discussion — Do not discuss unrelated topics to the point of derailing the thread. Stay focused on the direct content of the post, rather than engaging in arguments that lack mutual agreement.
Brigading/Trolling — If you're here because this community was linked in another thread, please refrain from maliciously voting, commenting, or manipulating the post in any way. This includes alt accounts. All votes are public, and if you are found to be brigading, you will be banned. Good-faith and honest communication is an exception.
Tankies can explain their views, but may be criticised or challenged for them. Any minor infraction of the rules may result in a warning and possibly a temporary ban.
You'll be warned if you're violating the instance and community rules. Continuing poor behaviour after being warned will result in a ban or removal of your comments. Bans typically last only 24 hours, but each subsequent infraction doubles the duration. Depending on the content, the ban time may be increased. You may request an unban at any time.
They're just like maga, "Debate me bro." And then they proceed to reject all the facts and logic that you provide, while getting upset when you dismiss the alternative "facts" that they make up.
Like, what is this? "Argues without insulting us" AND "Argues without tone policing"? So, what, tankies want to be the only ones who can tone police and insult their counterparts in an argument?
Like, pick one or the other and apply the same rules to both sides. Ideally neither side throws insults, and either side can tone police. But don't say "we can do both, and you can do neither." That's the same "rules for thee, not for me" rhetoric that all authoritarians use, whether on the left or on the right.
Tankies are just covert fascists. Prove me wrong.
I don't think they're quite fascist because of the economic difficreneces and social wellbeing policies.
But they are undoubtedly both authoritarian, and that's pretty much the biggest problem because it practically makes the two identical.
Tankies are sometimes called red fash since they argue in support of fascism as opposed to actually caring for the people. I mentioned it before, Tankies don’t operate on the basis of parties or workers. They are authoritarians, so when they mean CCP, they mean Xi. When they mean Russia, they mean Putin. That's why if you explore their spaces and engage with them, they will almost never actually argue for the workers or people
They love their "strong" leaders and deify them -- I mean, really, who has photos of a dead dictator in their room? What is that?
If you take their theory at face value, correct. If you observe their attitudes and actions, you see that they don't really care about implementing those theories. They only discuss them to give themselves a veneer of moral superiority.
Stalin didn't lift the proletariat out of poverty; he merely starved and murdered all the peasants who didn't join his party. He didn't liberate the masses, he implemented a highly oppressive surveillance/police state.
The average anarchist will be the first to try to bully someone into complying with their preferred systems of social order. They only want there to be no government so that nothing can stop them from forcing everyone else to conform to their will.
That's what I mean by "covert" fascist. Nominally leftist, practically not.
Equating anarchists to fascists is genuinely in the top five most stupid fucking political takes I have ever heard in my life. What the fuck do you think anarchists want force on you?
"Fuck these anarchists, they want to get rid of hierarchy and government so I won't have a boot to suck the polish off of." Is what you fucking sound like. The comm is for shitting on tankies. Anarchists are not tankies. Tankie does not mean leftist, it means authoritarian communist.
Anarchists aren't tankies, no. But a shocking amount of them, on Lemmy at least, cosy up with Tankies and even argue in favour of authoritarian states, or defend them. From my experience, the average anarchist hates the liberal more than the tankie, despite the latter being in direct opposition to their principles.
Yes, and I actively distance myself from them. Its why I moved from dbzer0 to quokk.au and from Lemmy to Piefed. Anarchists who cosy up to MLs are naive and fail to learn from a hundred years of history. Anarchism is just as incompatible with statism and authority as it is with capitalism. That is not to say I wont work with liberals and marxists, just that I would never trust them.
that's actually really respectful to your ideals.
why do you think so many anarchists, like those from dbzer0, cosy up to tankies?
Its scary fighting back. You want allies, and many of them so the odds dont feel so impossible. Its hard not to fall into the thinking that capitalism is the bigger threat, so we should work together against the common enemy. "We'll figure out which communism is best after the revolution" is what I often hear. Issue is, looking at history, we get backstabbed before we get to see the end of the revolution. In the end though, its hard not to end up trusting those you spend time working with.
Succinctly said. Personally, I think communists will have a better chance of achieving true communism™ by cosying with liberals and democracy, suggesting socialist and universal systems, pensions, healthcare, transport -- Systems that most democratic nations already have implemented.
It's telling that China, the de facto "communist" state, which isn't exactly Marxist, lacks some of these universal systems, such as healthcare and worker rights and of course, the class disparity.
What I mean is that I don't think an immediate, instantaneous uprising is absolutely necessary to achieve these concepts.
I think anarchists have more in common with communists, the issue is that the kind of communists that dominate the spaces are Marxist-Leninists who are the problem. I would be much more inclined to trust a council communist or a luxemburgist than I am a liberal or an ML. The reason being that (good) statist communists at least agree with anarchists on needing to abolish private property and capitalism, but disagree overmatters regarding the state. Liberals still believe in both capitalism and the state. I do not see a situation where liberals would ever allow anarchists to exist outwardly. I do not see it with MLs either. But I could see a very small chance of it happening if democratic communists (like council communists and luxemburgists) were the dominant force in statist radical left circles. Unfortunately though they are not. So unfortunately anarchists are pretty isolated for allies.
Do you think anarchism is even possible without an apocalypse? It's very telling that, throughout history, there's been no long-lasting anarchist community, unless you consider nomadic towns and villages anarchist.
No, I believe it is possible. The Ukrainian Black Army and CNT-FAI came remarkably close. There are other examples as well, but most relevant is the Zapatistas who have existed since 1994 and still exist today. I think it is simply really fucking hard, and we are still learning what works versus what doesnt. I feel it is telling that anarchists are successful right up until the are betrayed and end up having to fight everyone at once. It tells me it takes everyone teaming up to beat us. It tells me we are a threat, and we are a threat becauss we could win
Well, I'm certainly not opposed to anarchism, though I do have some worries about its feasibility
"At the Cafe" by Errico Malatesta paired with the documentary "Living in Utopia" (available on Zoe Baker's youtube channel) was what convinced me of its feasibility. But I was also already a Council Communist by then so it wasnt a huge leap for me.
I think one of the strongest arguments about anarchism is how do you ensure a group of armed, violent men does not take over the entire group? How do you avoid it from collapsing?
You know, I've been political, and political about the fringes, for a very long time. I remember arguing with anarchists in high school. Ah, nostalgia! And for years and years I argued with anarchists, and I was always frustrated that they seemed to have the core of something good, but kept asserting the strangest things in support of it.
You know what helped me legitimately understand their views?
"Libertarian socialism" is, historically, a synonym for "anarchism".
Replace that mentally every time you see "anarchism", and "state" with "authoritarians" whenever anarchists speak, and the whole thing makes much more sense.
I've spent literal dozens of hours of my life over the years arguing with anarchists over the singular issue of "How is a state defined", and got nowhere. I still think they're wrong, but I accept that most aren't going to change their views on how to define a state from an internet quarrel.
But if you get around to the fact that, to the eyes of people like us, what they're advocating for is a much more democratic, much less hierarchical state, which is what their policy proposals for their theoretical community amount to, it shakes out to a much more sustainable model. When I'm sitting here defining state as "Decision-making bodies' monopoly on communal coercion" and they're sitting there defining it as "Unjustified hierarchy", their argument of "Get rid of the state" is going to sound insane to my ears, but 'translated', so to speak, is less objectionable.
Now, one of the core issues that I still have is that I'm uncertain about the long-term viability of highly-mobile military conflict with a powerful organized state, but that has much more to do with questions of scale and OODA loops than an inability to effectively respond to violence conceptually. As far as internal stability or fending off groups of similar size (or even somewhat larger size, considering that modern warfare in particular privileges the defender), I think the historical performance of libertarian socialist militias shows that it's far from an insurmountable task.
Hey! Those are excellent ways of describing it. I kind of neglected the fact that it's democratic in the extreme. Everything is voted on.
And yes, the concept of a State is non-existent.
Ukraine has had a long history of it for example. It never quite died either. And even plays a role in today's conflict against Russian invasion.
Right at the start of the 2022 offensive, everyone east of Kiev was making improvised weapons, barricades etc, because they knew Russia would roll over them before the Ukrainian Military had moved enough personnel to evacuate.
They didn't do it because it was their job, they didn't do it for a sense of Ukrainian pride. They did it because it was their home.
Hey, question. If Anarchists want to dissolve the entire slate and start fresh, no hierarchy, why do they call themselves leftists? Wouldn't it make more sense to completely avoid labels?
Since if you're a leftist, you think of yourself above those on the right or draw a distinction from them. And vice versa.
We don't think ourselves as "above" anyone. It's fine for anyone to believe that they need someone telling them what they can and can't do.
Anarchists reject the notion that anyone can tell us what we can and can't do beyond the rule of "do unto others as you would have them do to you."
I would not murder someone to obtain their land, as I would not have them murder me so they could take my land.
However, it would be naive to think that no one had the desire to take my land, and there for would defend it, and ask fellow anarchists to help. The reason why they would is because if they needed to defend their land, they would want help too.
As far as labels go, you are correct. We would prefer to not label our alignments. It's why you see so many different interpretations of what being a leftist or anarchist is to them. But not only do we have the differences, we celebrate them.
Thank you for this. I think it is a good way of explaining it all. Anarchists tend to have very specific definitions for things (whether they are academically accurate or not certainly varies, we sometimes like to change the definitions of things lol) that tend not to be understood by everyone else. Issue is we don't really have better ways of explaining things. Cause I do feel defining being anti-state as simply being anti-authoritarian does lose some of the nuance, but when people either don't agree with or don't understand our definition of a state that nuance was lost to begin with anyways.
Since coming over to the fediverse I have always considered you to be an honorary anarchist. Its rare to see non-anarchists defending and supporting anarchists lol
Thank you for this. I think it is a good way of explaining it all. Anarchists tend to have very specific definitions for things (whether they are academically accurate or not certainly varies, we sometimes like to change the definitions of things lol) that tend not to be understood by everyone else. Issue is we don’t really have better ways of explaining things. Cause I do feel defining being anti-state as simply being anti-authoritarian does lose some of the nuance, but when people either don’t agree with or don’t understand our definition of a state that nuance was lost to begin with anyways.
Of course - it's really just a starting point for people who can't wrap their heads around it. I was in that position myself for years.
More realistically, and with more nuance, I would regard anarchists as generally being opposed to rigid and enduring institutions. For people like me who still believe in a traditional state, those institutions - even with all their potential for corruption, abuse, and hierarchy - are valuable stores of institutional and tribal knowledge which would be lost with a majority-ad hoc system of government reliant on direct democracy.
Not only that, but what anarchists would probably regard as my inner authoritarian coming out, people do sometimes need to be told what to do. Anarchism, in my view, scales until the unified group is no longer capable of exercising overwhelming authority (and I apologize for the term) over the un-unified. Cities and even regions can be integrated into an anarchist framework, but I'm of the opinion that it begins to fall apart beyond that, as people of different communities struggle to equate each other as exactly as important as themselves/their neighbors. The NIMBY problem on a large scale.
While I find the State useful in more situations than just this, it's here where I find the traditional State truly necessary in cracking the whip on enforcement of regionally unpopular initiatives. People who find agreement on abstract principles can still become very 'loose' with those principles when it comes to being applied to them. I'm unconvinced that anarchist federative models have the same capacity to enforce static decision-making like that without coming to resemble a traditional state in basic form and function in the long-term.
That being said, I'd also be happy to be proven wrong - even if the theoretical display doesn't impress me enough to prefer it over a traditional state, I'm happy to see other forms of power structure (that aren't inherently ultra-shitty) remind the traditional state it's not the only game in town.
Since coming over to the fediverse I have always considered you to be an honorary anarchist. Its rare to see non-anarchists defending and supporting anarchists lol
I consider that high praise! 🙏
While I definitely do have disagreements with even the basic end-goal of anarchists, I generally regard anarchism as both possible and desirable compared to present capitalist society; and that the anarchist undertaking of creating parallel systems of low-hierarchy power structures outside of the state to be both moral and necessary for a just, non-anarchist society. In my thinking, all power is based on implicit negotiation; having alternatives to state institutions for community services (including charity, regulation, security, etc) strengthens the negotiating position of the people relative to the state, which is almost always good.
We may disagree on whether to take Ol' Yeller behind the shed and put the State down for good, but there's a lot of room for cooperation leading up to that 'end-decision' - starting with restraining the ill-trained dog so he can't savage anyone he damn well pleases.
Excellently said. I too was vehemently anti-anarchist, when I was younger. simply because I couldn't stand the idea of not having any "order".
It's not that rules don't exist in anarchy, it's just that they are not static. Everything is dynamic to address the needs of people at that specific point in time.
We do it by empowering the communities itself, and teaching them to liberate themselves. Its not perfect, but afterall no solution is. You still get cases like the atrocities individuals of the Black Army committed against the Mennonites, and the ones committed by the CNT-FAI against nuns and priests. They are horrible actions, and while I still support and admire the groups I still condemn those actions and wish to learn from and prevent them in the future. And not that I am excusing it with whataboutism (just trying to avoid anybsort of singling out of anarchists about this), but this is not a unique problem with anarchists. Every group is guilty of doing similar stuff, and I feel anarchists are better about reducing, resisting, and condeming those actions than other groups. I think part of it is simply the culture and beliefs of anarchists that helps prevent these kinds of acts, but also like I said the community empowerment that comes with anarchism. I think it is also important to build a culture of accountability within anarchist groups, and to develop structures that reinforce that. What all of that looks like is stuff we are still figuring out and learnjng from, but we have progress made in that regard. "What about the rapists" is a good book discussing ideas on community safety and justice without cops, which some could be extrapolated to revolutionary militias
What about the rapists
Read some of it, but like most anarchist readings, it's too unrealistic. When people ask 'what about the rapists?' They don't mean sexual transgressions, they mean powerful people with powerful friends not caring for an anarchist society, or rules, and instead having their way with anyone they want through force or coercion. The book seems to larp on with the typical naive approach of 'Oh, in our society, we'd change the system so no one actually thinks about rape or crime!'
That's impossible so long as people remember what the previous system was like.
That's not even mentioning that some people are more naturally inclined towards violence, and by natural, I mean biologically. This isn't mentioned at all in the text.
Unless I read it wrong, if so, can you direct me to what parts actually go on about how to punish and prevent criminals without forming a state apparatus? Group therapy and magically waving a wand of 'nuh the system is different' isn't going to stop criminals.
It's not that different in anarchy, it just doesn't work the way you are accustomed to.
When I mention a 'trial' it doesn't refer to someone being a judge - judges are individuals who are supposed to be impartial, and that is impossible.
There is no requirement for how the equivalent of a trial would proceed, but people would discuss it in an open forum, figure out evidence, ask questions, and build a consensus on both the perpetrator and actions to take.
Any action taken, of course, is open to consequences. If it turns out that the people who formed an opinion on guilt and punishment were prejudice against the accused, then they would have to face that too.
There is no requirement for how the equivalent of a trial would proceed, but people would discuss it in an open forum, figure out evidence, ask questions, and build a consensus on both the perpetrator and actions to take.
This just sounds like every trial will be like DSA conventions where they vote on everything and then vote on having votes and then argue about the voting.
Apropos that, what about the violent groups I suggested?
The groups of rapists? Do you intend to prosecute them as a group?
Edit: and modern systems are incapable of preventing rape, or any crime. The threat of prison time does not prevent crime. Crime still happens. Crimes are not identical to one another.
no, i mean. In this anarchist society, how will it defend itself from a group of violent thugs who don't care for anarchism and only want to enact their will onto others?
I already went over that - anarchists aren't pacifists.
Someone will see them, and inform others, and they will self organize into a temporary militia.
but doesn't that make a group hiearchy or is everyone in this society packing?
A large number of anarchists are armed, yes.
Two things can be true like everything in life.
Anarchists/radical leftists want a society where weapons are unnecessary. Many are armed until that is possible precisely because the existing establishments are prone to violence.
Again, pre-soviet Ukraine is an excellent example of this.
Some of us choose not to be. But that isn't to say we won't take up arms, or provide other means of defending ourselves.
In an anarchist society we would rather work to end the conditions that encourage violence - usually that is inequality. Many people with disabilities can still participate, with no expectations on how they do. Some simply cannot, so we would provide support as possible. Something else to remember is that while people can certainly choose to specialize in a role within the community, polymaths are exceptionally valuable.
We harbor no illusions that the society is easy to obtain. But that can't be a surprise giving wars have been fought over taxes.
Idunno man, this all sounds impossible without an apocalypse.
Hey, how would an anarchist society look like if everyone was immortal?
This is a wild question i know. But if people couldn't age, didn't die, and didn't need to eat, would they naturally become anarchist?
If people didn't die, and didn't need to eat, it sounds to me like they have all the resources they need to survive.
That would be no different than an anarchist society where people did die and needed to eat, as the anarchist makes sure needs are met.
So it's one less burden on the society. Authorities would still be unnecessary. Everyone would only be entitled to what they can use, just like in a mortal society.
One of my favorite ideas of anarchy is their view of ownership. Property is essentially meaningless. Instead you have possession. When you occupy a house, it is under your possession - for your needs. There is no weekend cabin, there is no beach front vacation home. There is no landlord.
I don't know that it would form anything particular, just because of immortality.
China is third world?
Way to not even read anything I said, but rather make a series of assumptions about me based on what you thought would be easiest to knock down. Tankies are the kings of strawmen.
I said tankies are covert fascists. I never called anarchists tankies. I said they're bullies. And you're only proving my point.
I don't suck any boots, I don't know what world you're living in if you have to do that every day but it's not the world I'm living in. Anarchists want to get rid of government because they want to be the bullies and get their boots sucked for a change, and they make that clear by their behavior. That's not any better than the system we currently have.
Also, tankies generally consider themselves leftist. Which is the argument for not saying they're overt fascists. But I didn't call them overt fascists, I called them covert fascists; meaning they use a veneer of leftist ideology to cover the fact that they're authoritarian and generally behave like fascists.
And before you put more words in my mouth, I never said all leftists are tankies. If you have an ounce of intelligence then you'll know that all apples are fruits but not all fruits are apples.
I like the idea of anarchism, but it'll only be possible if the state and all those who recall it were completely wiped out. Come on nuclear armageddon, come on nuclear armageddon!
There will never be a time where principled anarchists are not also called "tankies" by liberals. If you believe in the use of revolutionary violence and the defense of a revolution, you will be called a "tankie."
But you guys can't handle violence despite how much you larp on about it.
Genuinely would rather be called anarkiddie lmao. You know what they say, scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds
If you're going around making people bleed for being liberal, then you're a fascist.
wonderfully said
I hear this phrase a lot, and I'm curious to hear what you think it means
To me it means liberals will side with fascists when push comes to shove. I wont fail to recognize that there are examples of liberals resisting fascism, but you also have many more instances where they enable, defend, or outright join fascists. Hitler drew a lot of inspiration from the US's Jim Crow laws, and Hitler was chosen as New York Times Person of the year. The social democrats of Weimar Germany used proto-fascist to eradicate a communist revolution. The Weimar Republic is who put Hitler in power. The Kingdom of Italy as well allowed Mussolini into power. You also have situations like Pinochet and Franco. Pinochet being put into power by the US, and Franco's fascist government being left untouched and allowed to exist.
That's all true, but it's also worth noting that fascism was new back then, or at least in name and during the early 1920s it wasn't entirely in power. (Just need to make a disclaimer that fascism is awful, stupid and that fascists deserve what happened to them and what will happen to them. Punch a nazi, counting or not counting gang violence, etc)
But does today's liberal stand with fascists when push comes to shove? It appears to me that liberals in the US, where fascism is almost out of its proto-stage, seem to oppose it. The rest of the democratic world also seems to have decided not to replicate the turmoil the US is pushing forth, with overwhelming victories for the comparatively progressive parties in each nation.
To me Russia is largely a fascist state, my Russian pals can't talk about certain topics and often need to keep their queer identity secret. Yet it is the tankies who are largely supportive of Russia, particularly Putin.
So is the phrase still true despite this? Or is it perhaps authoritarian projection?
I am yet to be convinced. We are still only resisting through peaceful protest. That is the easy part, and I do not believe it will be enough. So will liberals escalate, or will they turn into bystanders? I don't know. I want them to prove me wrong, but I will plan based on history until proven otherwise. I also won't ignore nuance. There will be liberals who resist, there will be ones that hide, and there will be ones that become fascists. I go out and support the protests as best as I can, but I am also paying attention to whether they can keep momentum. Paying attention to how many will continue to resist, and how many turn in the towel to protect their privilege and comfort.
I do agree that the US populace is largely pathetic and cowardly, Tankies absolutely included, and it's one of the reasons I no longer take people from the US seriously when talking to them. Maybe a more apt phrase is 'Scratch a coward and a fascist bleeds.'
But what of the larger world? Is the phrase still true? Because when I hear liberal, I assume the status quo, the average European, the average Commonwealth nation, someone who values democracy, individualism and equality.
Anarchists threaten the status quo far more than a fascist. Liberals still want government, hierarchy, property. And as long as you are not a minority or dissident, fascists will not threaten that. Anarchists however do. How an anarchist expresses individualism, equality, and democracy is fundamentally different from a liberal's. Do I think all liberals would side with a fascist over an anarchist? No, but I would probably bet on it.
That is a good point, I can't think of any anarchist parties from the top of my head that had as much attention as fascist parties.
I don't like a lot of the self-proclaimed anarchists for that specific reason. They give the rest of us a really bad look. They miss the whole point of being anti-authoritarian, anti-heirchical, anti-coercisive, and anti-capitalist.
I understand why they are that way, I'm like 99% sure it's a neurodivergent thing (black-and-white thinking, rejection of authority, failure to recognize social norms, we pretty much all do it to some degree, and some are much more obvious than others).
Like a doctor is an authority on health. Why? Because they earned it. They put their livelihood on the line by licensure and risk to avoid malprat. Governments where only a select few are voted for and the rest of the representation is all because of Republic stances rather than democratic ones are not deserving of authority.
Also, it might be that the anarchists you have met are not anarchists at all. It sounds much more like the communists I know.
Hey, probably don't blame it 99% on neurodivergence. I'm autistic, and why I do reject authority and struggle with social norms, I don't see people and views in black and white.
it might be that the anarchists you have met are not anarchists at all. It sounds much more like the communists I know.
I can think of one in particular, a very arrogant and loud-mouthed, self-proclaimed anarchist, who if he had his way would force everyone to be vegan.
I understand animal rights, and I myself have been vegetarian for a few years. But if he's truly an anarchist, then how does he expect to enforce veganism on everyone? Just seems cognitively dissonant...
For that matter, how do anarchists plan to stop racists and homophobes from doing racist and homophobic things? It just seems short-sighted, especially from people who profess to be vulnerable minorities. You'd think they would at least want a government that protects them and ensures their equal rights, no?
Yeah as soon as the word "force" comes into play, he's not an anarchist.
A lot of anarchy depends on the concept of equity. If someone in particular is against the equity of his peers, then that individual would likely be kicked out of the collective for violating that tenet.
More than likely, the racist/homophobic individual was never allowed to join the group. If that racist/homophobe was a child raised in the anarchist society and held these views as an adult, then the real question becomes why did that individual form those beliefs if they were intolerable to the group. Action needs to be taken there.
Isn't that liberalism?
No, though some aspects are shared.
Liberalism has very different views in terms of economics.
that's true, I don't agree with liberal economics
To me, at least, you sound a lot more anarchist than you might realize.
I recommend reading up on some - Dorothy Day, Lucy Parsons, Noam Chomsky, Robert Wolff.
Remember it's a philosophy, not a method of government.
I have pondered anarchism, but I believe it will always descend into feudalism, totalitarianism, or the formation of a government by those who seek power. Anarchism will only be possible through an extreme apocalypse, it's impossible so long as those who remember how things were still exist.
Ultimately I choose not to label myself as anything, it's all distractions. The only thing that truly matters to identify is class, everything else is pointless.
I'll consider reading more of it, but for now I'm reading the Quran, then the hadiths, then the Satanic Verses.
I don't think he ever said "force" explicitly, but he seemed to be in favor of bullying anyone who didn't agree with him, so what's the difference?
Also, what would anarchists do if there's a whole group of racist homophobes? What if the racist homophobes outnumber the anarchist commune? How is ostracizing them going to address that?
We don't need to imagine how a child raised in an anarchist society could grow up to be racist; we already live in a world where racists exist and there's no practical way of bringing about an abrupt halt in that generational pattern. Describing a society that has already been anarchic for generations is merely an abstraction.
If the group of racist homophobic people outnumber us, how did we form our collective? They weren't anarchist to begin with. They aren't entitled to our resources.
Because the world is more complex than simply one community forming an anarchist collective and then suddenly all groups of people are involved some harmonious syndicalism where everyone agrees on a basic set of standard social norms and ethical behavior.
You might form an anarchist commune, and maybe a few miles away a remnant of the Hells Angels forms a white supremacist commune based on their own organizational structure. If they decide they want to attack and take your resources, you need a viable means of common defense. Which implies some form of social organization.
If there's an overarching government, if it's well-designed and effective, with the correct goals and priorities, then it should at a bare minimum protect against basic things like violence, theft, extortion, racketeering, abduction, and human trafficking.
And if your commune is powerful enough that it decides to be the one to enforce those norms, then it is a de facto government, no matter how decentralized you try to make it.
You can organize a response. The response does not need to remain organized after it's accomplished what it's purpose was.
Also no institutions in existence prevent violence, theft, extortion, abduction or human trafficking. They can only respond to it.
what if they just take the resources since they're stronger and greater in number?
Anarchists aren't pacifists.
They would do what any collective would do against an invasion at that point. Shoot back. If they are greatly outnumbered, then, unfortunately that society collapses. Hopefully there are survivors who can spread the word amongst other collectives to improve the changes for the next one.
You don't think there should be some overarching institutions that protect against violence in order to prevent the biggest, strongest, meanest organizations with the most firepower from taking over and becoming the dominant force?
There have been no institutions that protect against violence in an equitable way.
Doesn't mean a better system is impossible. But no system at all just seems unreasonable
When you encounter this anarchist, I implore you to question them on how China treats animals. Very curious to see what will happen.
Just some inarticulate posturing and vague implications that I don't know what I'm talking about, probably.
Like when someone else wore a PLA hat and I asked him how many civilians died in the great leap forward, clearly the reason he didn't have an answer was because I was the ignorant one. "Oh, you wanna talk to me about the great leap forward?" Acting all insulted
That's probably how it will go.
I think it's telling that they can't admit their ideology has faults or has made mistakes. It'll never get anywhere.
They lack self-awareness for sure. I would never follow someone who can't admit when they've been wrong about something.
Like a doctor is an authority on health. Why? Because they earned it.
If I were to design a novel political system, there would be privileged places for PhD holders. Political philosophy, political science, history, sociology, etc. I'm not quite certain of the mechanism of selection, whether they're elected or appointed or something else. Perhaps there would be a direct pipeline from university faculties to the upper-echelons of government. Enough to fill a cabinet with a representative from each department, at least. The departments and agencies would be run by people who spent their lives gaining expertise in their respective fields.
Maybe the public could still elect a head of state, but they would have a more ceremonial role as a figurehead (like the President of Ireland). And the chief of state would be a prime minister. The legislative branch would be parliamentary, with proportional representation.
I say this because, I recognize that the current system in the US is ass. It had some good ideas, for an early iteration of a democratic-republic, but it's been a few centuries of learning and some things could certainly be done better.
But just because this system is ass, doesn't mean all systems are inherently ass. There has to be some means of organizing society to keep the gears turning and preventing everything from breaking down into disorder and chaos.
For the record, I'm totally in favor of the workers seizing the means of production, but it doesn't have to be done violently. If the ultimate outcome is worker's unions taking over in place of boards of investors, and running former corporations as co-operative enterprises where workers keep most of the value of their labor, and the rest goes to public coffers to fund social programs and civic infrastructure that benefit everybody; if that's the goal, then it can be done without shedding a drop of blood. Only, the right people need to be in power to make that happen.
Hence why I mention the communist thing.
Anarchy and communism have a LOT of overlap.
Most anarchists are anarcho-communists. I mean anarcho-capitalists exist but those are just oligarchs in favor of technofeudalism
Anarcho-capitalism isn't remotely anarchy. It's fuedalism full stop.
That's what I said
Yes I was agreeing with you.
I keep seeing it pop up everywhere as if there are attempts to legitimize it.
I see. It's hard to tell sometimes, with some lemmy users literally repeating what I said as if I had said the opposite and they were correcting me
summed up beautifully.
every commie/anarchist I know IRL, and I've known quite a few, are HUGE bullies/assholes, and they tend to only be friends with people they have control over or can intimidate into submission to them. They HATE people who are independent of their mentality and character assassinate them.
It's the typical use of high minded ideals to justify their shitty and hypocritical personal behavior.
That's really more of what I've seen in the communist communities rather than anarchists.
But they too have a tendency of being all or nothing.
The ones who demand "social order" truly aren't anarchist anyway. The whole point of anarchy is to approach an egalitarian community that rejects the idea of unearned authority.
Genuinely curious. How do true anarchists propose to prevent crime syndicates from gaining power and becoming a de facto government, committing extortion, racketeering, and human trafficking?
Or are they just running on the assumption that after the collapse of society, people's appetites for wealth, power, and influence will simply evaporate?
Anarchism is a philosophy, not a means of governing.
But any anarchist would tell you that all actions have consequences. In one scenario - where human trafficking is discovered, a group of anarchists might play Dredd to bring justice to the syndicate. That group would then face consequences and be subject to investigation by the community. It could even look like a trial.
What if the human traffickers are more powerful than them? Have more resources, firepower, etc.?
Also, that system sounds a lot like vigilantism. How is there any guarantee that every commune will use that power responsibly and not abuse it? What's stopping the most powerful communes from taking over and punishing dissenters, or any smaller communes that won't submit to them?
To me, it just seems to set the stage for a return to neofeudalism. The most powerful communes become the barons, and smaller communes become vassals. Over time, I don't see it turning out any other way. The system isn't stable.
Isn't it better to have an institution that protects against that, a system governed by rule of law to prevent abuses of authority?
I'm aware that the current systems have done a bad job of that, but humans are capable of learning and improving. And civilization has come a long way since the time of kings and empires; it would be a shame to throw out all that progress just because we haven't got it perfectly right quite yet.
No one said stability was a goal. The idea is to always approach better, which involves change. I disagree with rapid revolutionary change because those often result in authoritarians cropping up.
Optimally there would be a balance between stability and progress. After all, what's the point in crafting a perfect society if a few decades later someone can come along and overturn all the principles that made it great, and convert it back into an oppressive system?
The problem with the US Constitution isn't that it enshrined immutable human rights; the problem was that it took compliance for granted and didn't build in enough safeguards for enforcement. Yes, there needs to be a mechanism to improve upon what's already been done (such as making constitutional amendments), but it also needs to be permanent enough that the progress can't simply be overturned.
The problem with anarchy is that there's no guarantee that civility will be an enduring principle. There's nothing in place to prevent a powerful individual with enough followers from installing a new oppressive regime.
So the group of dredd anarchists create a government?
What? Where did you get that?
The trial part? I said it would look like a trial. The community is self-governing so the community would have to be involved in agreeing with the consequences.
Well when I think of a trial I think of laws and statutes and torts and legislation that go along with legal proceedings.
So is it basically mega democracy where everyone gets involved? how will the majority ensure the minority will be protected? like that pesky john family who refuse to let us eat their dogs?
Yes it is a mega democracy.
Anarchy can only exist when everyone is at an equitable level.
Minority oppression arises from someone becoming an authority. That someone could be an organization that has formed, and that organization would have to be dismantled.
Edit: also - anarchists believe in property possession, rather than ownership. So you would not be entitled to eat anyone's dogs but your own. How they got the dogs isn't of importancez what is of importance is who is feeding and caring for them.
hm. tangibly related, but I'm curious what you think of the Plurbs from Pluribus, if you've seen that show. Is perfect anarchism peace on Earth?
I haven't seen the show, but peace without needing to enforce it is the ultimate goal.
they don't. they, like communists, tend to ignore human nature and think their ideal society will have no scarcity or struggle.
they basically ignore human psychology and social behavior
Why do you reckon that is? Naivety?
wishful thinking mostly. it's a form of escapism/fantasizing about a better future, rather than actually dealing with the complex problems of ones current reality.
just like a lot of poor people gamble their disposable income in the hope they will become rich, because saving it and investing it is too abstract/difficult of a concept for them. and the momentary hope/high of the activity is provides immediate gratification.
where as richer people see gambling as a leisure activity, they don't see it as a path to riches. they understand getting richer requires saving their income and investing it and waiting for the payout 10-20 years in the future when those investments double/triple in value.
I mean, I was super into communist/anarchistic when I was a teenager. Then I went to college and realized the world is way more complex/chaotic than anything those theories can cope with, and most theory is really. But generally I prefer theories that acknowledge the basic truths of reality and don't pretend there is a ideal form of anything.
Sometimes I see people say stuff like "Anyone who says 'the situation is more complex than that' is just using it as a cop out because they don't want to face the solution"
And I'm like, can we not normalize seeking simple solutions to complex problems? That's partly what got us here today, and every "simple solution" that people try only ends up adding another layer of complexity to the problem for someone else to try to figure out later.
Anyone who thinks the world and its problems aren't complex is too ignorant to be in a position to demand everyone accept their simplistic solutions.
Yes, but those people are also the ones most prone to violence. Because rather than acknowledge ea complex reality (and feel dumb/inadequate) they would rather use force to compel others to agree with them.
Hence why 'implementation' of simplistic theories into a government... comes with a big helping mass murder, incarceration, and a police state.
One of the most telling social trends I've noticed of late, is how now for some reason it's viewed as a weakness to acknowledge the other's viewpoint that you don't agree with, or even to preemptively discuss counterargument to your own point. Both of which things that are classically encouraged in literature on healthy debate skills.
But now, as soon as you say "I hear that you're saying _____, but..." it's like you get cut off and they think the conversation is over and they just won. Like, no, not at all. Why is society rewarding that behavior?
Another one is addressing intrinsic biases. Like, you practice self-awareness by saying "I may be biased in this respect, but..." and then they go, "See! You're biased! I win!" Like they're missing the whole point that everyone has biases, and by pretending to be unbiased they're actually revealing the extent of their ignorance and lack of self-awareness. But for some reason society today tends to favor the people who don't admit to having biases, as if it means that person is the unbiased one.
It's infuriating, but I don't even try to talk to people anymore. There's just no good faith discussion left to be had in the world, it seems...
seeking instant emotional gratification.
the concept of controlling your emotions or rejecting them as misleading/destructive is now considered 'oppression'.
this is actaully why i gave up becoming a teacher, when i was training i saw the writing on the wall that admin/staff just wanted to give into every childs/parents emotional whim and never say no to them or combat them, and doing so was considered 'hostility'.
That's concerning. And yet they call anyone a fascist who doesn't support their cause. Tsk tsk. Projection at its finest.
Exactly! I'm sorry a tankie got butthurt and downvoted you.
Oh, I'm sure all that income equality was so beneficial to all the victims who died in the holodomor and other atrocities committed by the soviet union.
Also, try using a color scheme that doesn't burn the eyes. I'm not giving myself a migraine just so you can lick soviet boots.
By the way, I'm not against socialism; I'm against tankies. You would know the difference if you were well-versed in "theory," wouldn't you?
Wonderful graphs, thank you. But how can you ensure that the state, which now has unopposed power, didn't simply lie about how much they have? Personally I find it telling that those in state power never walk the streets of the peasants or live in the same houses, no, they have their palaces and mansions and armed military guards and personal army protecting them, and you're telling me there's income equality there?
Not convinced.
They also don't really have any "social wellbeing policies". They spend almost zero time discussing those, and almost all of the time discussing how evil "the libs" are.
It's because they don't care for communism or any sort of communist or even socialist values. They only care about "west bad"
thats why i offered the baseline lol
There's no rationally debating them. It's like trying to rationally debate maga. They'll ignore everything you say and make up scenarios that would make you the clear loser, and then bludgeon the strawman to death with insults and repeat themselves over and over no matter how many times you point out how irrational they're being...
"What is not reasoned in, cannot be reasoned out."
Something all too common with extremists. It's fruitless to argue with facts and logic™ since they live in a different reality.
The only way to get through to them is playing therapist and figuring out their emotions and getting them to question themselves. Questions like, why does China have a stock exchange? Why can't you be gay in Russia? Why did Lenin say don't let Stalin take control? That's why they band together so much and silence all opposition that ask questions, they can't risk thinking inwards. They need to affirm each other, while non-extremists don't need to, since reality is on their side.
I agree mostly with that but i also, personally, need to keep on top of adequately questioning my own reasoning.
Just because i think reality is on my side doesn't make it automatically true, I'm not immune to propaganda or fallacious logic.
Even worse (for me personally) is the trap of assuming my subjective (and relatively well reasoned ) correctness in other conversations carries over in to whatever conversation I'm having right now.
A sense of conversational and intellectual superiority can be an insidious path to closed mind.
Absolutely, that's why introspection is so important
Yeah, all extremists do that. It's such a shame.
Fortunately Tankies are extremely passive and weak, they're not at all like MAGA, who are full-blown fascists.
Unfortunately tankies haven't realized that yet. They still think they have a chance in hell of waging a successful revolution 🙄
Oh they realise it, that's why they larp about violence and their fantasies of it.
Which facts and logic were provided?
In which context? I'm not gonna summarize every argument I've ever had with a tankie for you. Be reasonable.
Well, you're posting about a thread that went down on Hexbear where goat was engaging with us. I'm curious to know what facts and logic were actually provided that the "tankies" rejected.
And you're posting in a thread that's not. Your point? I'm not here to pick up goat's debate. I'm not even talking about that thread. I'm talking about literally every argument that I've ever personally had with a tankie, and I'm not going to summarize them all for you.
Also, you can hardly blame him for engaging with you on a post that literally said "Gee, I wish someone who isn't a tankie would engage with us." And it looks like y'all didn't even get to the debate part, because you just told him to fuck off as soon as he said he would.
We did get to the debate part, you can click the link and see how it went down. Goat was asked to provide a defense for points they made stating that Palestine ought to resist only by adopting Western liberal ideals, and that resistance by military means is illegitimate. They refused to actually elaborate on that point.
When prompted on forming revolutionary organizations in the United States, goat claimed that such an effort is useless because Americans will never amount to anything because they are too distracted.
When universal human rights are denounced as "Western liberal ideals", we know that you have no interest in an actual debate.
Those were Goat's words. Goat said the following:
don’t rape, don’t carry out terrorism on innocent civilians
The right way was using the internet and global attention, which Palestine was doing, raising awareness of how they are suffering and gaining sympathy for it. They should’ve adopted more Western ideals, or maybe liberalism, encourage foreigners to come and stay. The West Bank and Gaza near Rafah were also doing decently well in terms of growth, labelling itself as a trendy tourist destination.
Unfortunately, Hamas decided that raping women and killing innocent civilians was a better method of resistance, even going so far as to film themselves carrying out the massacre and taking hostages – Which incurred the Israeli military and ended up with Gaza being turned to rubble. Sure, people are much more aware of Palestine now, but only the most radical of “progressives” think Israel can be defeated and that Palestine can do no wrong. These people are vocal minorities and hold no power.
The whole relationship between Israel and the US isn’t as buddy-buddy as people think it is. Israel previously attacked US forces and regularly threatens US personnel. No clue what goes on behind the scenes, but clearly Israel has something major on the US, or the US sees Israel as a base for Middle-East operations and considers the chaos that comes with it as a necessary sacrifice. Or maybe it’s both, or maybe it’s neither.
I'd say rather than Western ideals, they should support the human rights some Western ideals are based on. My biggest contentions with Islamist regimes are women's and queer rights. Sure acceptance of queer people is a long road for such societies, but you can make sure that the government doesn't persecute them and that the government even enforces non-discrimination regulations.
I considered saying human rights, but Israel doesn't give a shit about those and seemingly no other power does either.
You don't see why saying this about Gaza is patently absurd? They don't have a functioning government. The whole place is nothing but rubble and families trying to find the bodies of their loved ones buried underneath that rubble. They've been subjected to 2 years of constant aerial bombardment, as if the previous decades of occupation, no access to clean water or any economic contact with the rest of the world wasn't bad enough. It just strikes me as something one can only say if they don't know anything about the situation at hand, and they only know that Gaza is a city and Palestine is a country.
Like seriously, they live in a concentration camp. Would you say anything like this about the inmates of Auschwitz? Oh no, some of them are misogynists! Oh no, some of them have backwards social views on queer people! Can you do something about the gas chambers first before you deal with those topics, though?
Gaza doesn't have a functioning government, no. That's one of the reasons why I hate Hamas, since they had time and resources to establish a functioning government and present themselves as such, but they actively refused to do so, instead seeking out militarism and oppression.
And yes, you can argue Israel was influencing Hamas, which in my opinion is even more reason why you shouldn't be in support of them.
I'm also curious. Why do you think some parts of Gaza, before the recent conflict, had no supply of clean water? As you know, Israel, when it occupied Gaza, built extensive infrastructure since they planned on colonisation until the international community booted them out. So what happened to the water pipes? Israel couldn't remove them per stipulation, so where did they go?
You can reply with your main alt, I won't ban it.
That wasn't a debate at all lol
I never argued for any of my points because I didn't see why I should bother to argue them, it wouldn't convince any tankie and hearing the same slogans from the same redsails sources and talking points won't do much to convince me (perhaps if it was from something more reputable or argued in favour of individual freedoms, such as the workers) -- I don't really bother with any argument unless there's a baseline we can fall back on, which I offered.
Rape is also not resistance, it's predation, it's poison. Do you think the civil rights movement succeeded with raping their oppressors? No. They primarily used non-violence -- And if you're going to argue that violence was what succeeded, know that racists make the same arguments.
And I stand by what I said on the US populace, they are too cowardly, and so are Tankies, as evidently displayed.
(This was removed by automod, I've gone ahead and restored the comment)