cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/8181688
undefined
this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
236 points (82.4% liked)
Anarchism
1172 readers
1 users here now
Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.
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
To give a nore detailed answer... Tankies are "lefties" who have failed to realize one or two extremely important facts about the world:
"Strong men" are not a good thing. No matter your political opinion, using force to get it is literally incompatible with many leftist teachings. The very act of violent rebellion requires the use of force that many believe a government shoudn't have. Thusly, any violent revolution stands a STRONG chance of being shunned by those who do not want a government with sanctioned violence. Getting a "leftist" government through basic violence WILL result in a fascist government. Always.
Strong men cannot be allowed unjust power no matter how just they are. They cannot be allowed power because despite how cliche the expression, "power corrupts", it is wholly true. It doesn't matter how good a particular ruler is. If the levers of power exist, someone WILL pull them very bad directions.
Basically... Tankies are leftists who have not or cannot think through how authority is actually bad to allow to exist in any unchecked form. They think a ruler who does good things is good, when most leftists SHOULD be answering they don't want any ruler.
The horseshoe theory exists because of tankies and extremists. If you want leftist policy but want to achieve it through uncouth means, that's definitionally authoritarian in nature for many answers, and authoritarian answers should be antithetical to the left. Even forcing a utopia still creates a coercive government.
I disagree with this part. Violent revolution—violent opposition to our oppression—is absolutely necessary. However, turning it on ourselves—that is, in any direction other than that which opposes authority—is a recipe for disaster as you say.
It's not violence itself that is the problem. There are literally always forms of violence sanctioned by every single political philosophy (including absolute pacifism/non-violence, which sanctions violence performed by the state even if its subscribers often don't realize this). The question is how and when that violence is performed and by whom, and the anarchist/non-authoritarian answer is that it must only be in the struggle for liberation, not the fight to gain and maintain power over others.
Maybe this is a silly nitpick, but: you can say it unintentionally empowers or enables state violence, but it doesn't sanction state violence. (FWIW I'm not a pacifist)
I'd say that's a meaningless distinction, and that actions speak louder than words. But as you will.