Remember kids, Tankies wants to undermine democracy - same as facists.
this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023
1444 points (94.5% liked)
196
16591 readers
3187 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Tankies traditionally are associated with communists, but today's tankies (even those that call themselves communists) are really after authoritarianism than communism, and given the history of the name (that they supported using tracks on civilians). I don't think they're is much difference between current communists and current fascists, both groups seem to support authoritarianism and feels like term "tankies" fits both of them well.
I hate it when threads like this make me have to repeatedly post the mainstream Jewish holocaust historian "stop conflating fascism and communism" article
https://jewishcurrents.org/the-double-genocide-theory
Are you aware how obnoxious it is to spam a 5,000 word article while refusing to provide any summation or distillation of its thesis?
Paste it into ChatGPT if you're having reading challenges
I'd like to respond, but I'm going to need you to read 5,000 words on my personal philosophy towards online commenting before I do.
im sorry you have a problem reading
I'm sorry you have a problem summarizing
Wait but I'm a communist. As in communes first, no state, no hierarchy, collective ownership, and all that jazz. I'm not super well read on the theory. Its really easy to see the difference, we're not splitting hairs here.
That is why I use anarchist instead. It means all of that while also making it clear that authoritarianism is not ok.
That's called collective anarchism. Anarchism is what the name implies... and most lemmy users wouldn't last especially long lmao
More specifically, yes. It is collective anarchism, but in this context I think it is obvious enough that I don't need to clarify it further.
Also I think that any type of anarchism allows for collective anarchism, and by extension could be used to mean collective anarchism.
I mean if your definition of collectivism is men with guns taking what they want then yeah that sounds likely. I'm also a collective anarchist, but it's important to note how far we must come as a species before we can actually engage meaningfully in such a philosophy, otherwise it will just regress on progress made in other spheres. Bolstering of education is a good step in this process, but also moral and philosophical teachings.
Collective anarchism, along with all utopias, is unachievable, but a system incorporating its tenets is certainly possible, I just question whether it would devolve into men with guns taking what they want.
I most certainly do not mean men with guns taking whatever they want. That is authoritarian. The revolution is an ongoing process to redefine society as a non-hierarchical. I see it as non-violent: only defending against violence, never inciting it.
Between writing that comment I read through the anarchist FAQ on revolution.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full#text-amuse-label-secj7
And I agree with it wholeheartedly.
We as a species are far enough for anarchism to work, people just have to stop believing in authority, and we have to help them.
I also do not think anarchism is a utopia. There is nothing about it that couldn't work. Non-hierarchical societies have existed, and their dissolution just means people aren't ready yet.
Yes, but in the anarchic society, what stops men with guns from taking what they want?
You understand that you can still have anarchy without collectivism right? It's just called lawlessness, and when that happens, men with guns take what they want. Literally just look at any period of political instability in pretty much any country for just about all of history. What stops our current society from devolving into that if anarchic revolution were to occur?
Also, I'm not reading the book you linked. If there's relevant information, feel free to point out which paragraph/section.
I think it is best to clarify my terms. Anarchy to me is a structured society built entirely out of free associations. It isn't lawless. Anarchy has rules. A lawless society will naturally take the shape of the people in that society. If all the people are anarchists, they will create an anarchist society, if they are statists, they will create a state. Society is a collection of people living together there is no reason it has to be hierarchical. The people are the ones who make it like that.
An anarchist revolution is the complete transformation of society to use non-hierarchical power structures. If after the revolution the society falls back into hierarchy then that means the people were not willing to let go their addiction to authority.
The link is for an FAQ, technically not a book, since most books are shorter than 3077 pages. However it does contain every question one might have about anarchy and answers it pretty neatly.
After it happens, and there are no hierarchies or authorities, what stops men with guns from taking what they want?
I don't appreciate your pedantics about my use of hyperbolic verbiage in order to bring an element of humor to my argument.
Also good job dodging the question.
I apologize you couldn't find the answer to your question from my comment, and thus thought I was dodging it. I tried to explain it in the way that I see it. In my eyes I answered your question clearly, but I will try to be even clearer on my second try.
(hopefully this doesn't come off as patronizing)
I would also like to know what were the pedantics that you identified in my comment. If it was the final statement then that was my attempt to bring humor into the argument and wasn't in any way meant seriously. Perhaps I should have used /j
To get to your question (and hopefully answer it more clearly). An anarchist society forms when anarchists come together to create a society. If someone with guns came to destroy that society the anarchists would defend themselves. If one of the anarchists turns their gun against their comrades the others would respond in kind. If they don't the person takes power and the system stops being anarchistic.
Or to put it even more simply: In an anarchist society everyone is policing and protecting everyone else.
The lack of organizational structure for such militias formed by the anarchists and lack of authority mean though that a conspiracy to destroy the anarchist society will always be infinitely many steps ahead of the response of said society.
Furthermore, what stops the ~30% of people (whether nazi Germany or DJT, that's usually the percentage of votes recieved for right wing radicals) that will almost definitely not be interested in keeping the anarchist society functioning from attaining weapons and having their way? Even ignoring the historic context, tribalism seems baked into the human existence, how is that nullified?
Further, people will always be fearful, so it's great to say "their fellow anarchists would take up arms" but how many are truly willing to do that? Revolutions would be much more common if they were.
That's why I think there's significant cultural/educational changes needed before such a society (or something similar) could be attained.
I think it works great on a local level in small communities, but we have a globalized world, for better or worse, and have greatly outgrown the small communities in which such a philosophy would be most effective imo.
Also I totally misinterpreted your joke
That is exactly what I am saying. That is the anarchist revolution. Changing society to be non-hierarchical. It isn't replacing one government with another. It is transforming people to organize in non-hierarchical ways. The revolution is long and takes time and has been going on since the first anarchists thought their theory. It isn't fought with swords and guns but with thoughts and ideas. That is the revolution
(or to put it in another way)
The revolution I'm talking about isn't a coup. It isn't using weapons to destroy the government. It is teaching people that there is nothing inherently hierarchical about human society and we can live without it. If any government falls because of anarchism it will be because non-hierarchical associations have replaced the government or the government tried to stop anarchists from organizing and the anarchists fought back.
I hope that by clearing up what I mean about revolution. The other questions also get solved.
That's right, it seems baked into human existence because that's how most humans are raised. I believe humans are capable of moving past that.
I don't see how the ideas fall apart when scaled up. When applying the way you interact with others to interacting with other communities the same rules apply. instead of organizing society between individuals you organize society between collectives. Same basic structures apply.
@GiveMemes that's what current society is. You just happen to be on the side of the men with guns
It really isn't. There's reasons that we've created laws and it's because the vast majority can't be expected to do the right thing just because it's the right thing and this isn't a one time thing, this is the entirety of history. I'm not "on the side of the men with guns" just for pointing out the obvious issue with the utopia, just as I'm not a neo-liberal capitalist for pointing out the inherent issues with the communist utopia or a dirty commie for pointing out the obvious issued with a capitalist utopia.
As it turns out, when you just talk about something and don't actually encounter the hardships of reality, all the ideas are amazing and fantastic lol. In an anarchic society you would be killed, enslaved, or raped. Human society hasn't come to the point yet where we could transition to such an idea without those problems.
@GiveMemes you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying you're on the side of the men with guns because you're asking questions about anarchy. I'm saying that because you literally live in a world whose status quo is enforced by violence, and you are advocating for the institutions which enforce that status quo as necessary.
Every status quo is enforced by violence. That's kinda why we pursue utopian ideals is to minimize said violence. Shoot for the moon, land among the stars kinda thing.
An actual anarchist revolution would just lead to more violence tho without significant changes to our culture. Hatred, tribalism, and fear are all innate to humans. The question is how we overcome those base feelings in order to form a better society.
Anybody can give you a better society than the one that exists. It's exceedingly easy. The trick is to make it actually work.
Wanting all of that but without the authoritarian bit should be called something else. I'm from a country which was occupied by communists (collective ownership was a thing) and it sucked big time.
Ouch. Thats really disappointing to hear and like I think more important for me as a western leftist is probably not reading theory but how these things go wrong and lead to bad outcomes.
There is no perfect system, textbook wonderland communism has lots of flaws too. In my ideal world it should be a mix of everything. Communal gardens or hobby workshops are great, communal workplaces not so much. I mean, people should be allowed to get rich if they can do it without abusing others. You should be able to start and grow your company, and get paid for it accordingly.
That could make a fine compromise. If we can remove that capital barrier to starting your own business, we can remove the profit incentive to pay rent or loans. Working for an enterprising person would be really nice.
Yes, when it comes to the axis from authoritarian to anarchist. Things all tend to narrow in to a single point at either end. In regards to authoritarians, it's all about the hierarchy and holding power for themselves. They don't give a shit what form of government sits under that. When it comes to anarchists and libertarians, no government other than a largely flat form of socialism is acceptable. Simply because they are focused on freedoms both individual and social. And large monolithic hierarchies tend to get in the way of that.
And when I use the term libertarian I of course mean actual libertarians. Not temporarily embarrassed Republicans, or teenage capitalists. The easiest test to find out whether someone might accidentally be a libertarian or not. Is to find out if they belong to the Libertarian party, or ever plan to vote for their candidates. No one who would ever do that could ever be a libertarian lol
those "libertarians" are just anarcho-capitalists who think the issue isn't the system itself but they couldn't get access to the pie soon enough and get a bigger piece than everyone else so they think we should do a reset do this time they can come out on top
it's enough to look at how Crypto works with it's deflationary system where first buyers are much stronger than late comers or the MOAS /ape crowd
Absolutely. Though even calling them in Arco capitalist is still to generous and a blight to the term anarchist. (I've met a few anarchists that were too idealistic and unreasonable for their own good. But they are generally pretty chill, reasonable people otherwise.) They are no true libertarians. Actual libertarians push not just for freedom from things like government. But also the freedom for everyone in society to be able to do the things they desire. One without the other is not a libertarian.
It's called campism and it's dumb teenager stuff.