Lmao this is hilarious. The mods removed (highly upvoted) comments that were pushing back on the post, including deleting the comments of the only person who actually met “tankies” irl.
“Anti-authoritarians” and suppression of “free speech”, name a more iconic duo. Shit spins like clockwork.
And some people here thought we should refed with blahaj after the drama with /c/196 lmao
anticommunists continue to run wild on an instance run by an anticommunist, what a surprise (/s)
Tankies aren’t anywhere near the levers of power fascists are. You’d think a mfer could keep their eyes on the prize but- well here we are.
Hey not trying to belittle you, English isn’t my first language so I understand making errors and being frustrated by corrections, but I feel the need to tell you it’s “levers” not “leavers”
Thanks comrade
♥️
🖤
Recently I have been thinking over why I find this sort of liberal anti-communism so pathetic, and I think its because there is something particularly aggravating about being scolded by a person whose level of ideological development so closely resembles a past version of myself.
If you are an atheist, you have probably encountered the specific form of anti-atheist propaganda wherein which a religious person will say something like “I used to be an atheist, I was so mad at god every day and hated him, but then I found blah blah”. These anecdotes usually make me want to laugh; its obvious they were never former atheists, and are simply (and sloppily) trying to create a strawman atheist to convince you of how bad it is. The point im trying to make is that there probably aren’t a lot of serious atheists who go on to convert to religion; its a cognitive step that, once made, is hard to take back.
The argument I am trying to make is that being a communist is the same thing. If I asked you to show me a committed, well read marxist-leninist who decided to become a liberal, I imagine you would be hard pressed to find one. I specify “committed” and “well read” because I’m sure some lemmitor would counter-argue “But I loved to play the soviet anthem out loud on the school bus when i was in middle school, and now I love Joe Biden!”. However, if I asked you to show me a committed liberal who became a communist, many of you would raise your hands, as would I!
And this is sort of the crux of the point im trying to make. Its really frustrating seeing the smugness of these individuals with regards to their hate for tankies, because I see myself in them. I know that they are literally just who I was in high school; before I had read any communist works, before I had tried to study history, etc. When I see a particularly arrogant comment from one of them, I cant help but imagine my 16 year old self saying it instead, and I just want to explain to him that he is literally just a version of me that knows less about the world, and that therefore his smugness is unwarranted.
I would like to find a way to explain this to a liberal that isnt too condescending, because I imagine it could be a powerful source of doubt for their neoliberal beliefs. Something along the lines of “I reached your level of political development many years ago, and surpassed it. You, on the other hand, were never a communist, let alone did you “surpass it””, except thats incredibly smug redditor speak and I think it would aggravate someone too much for them to process it. I used religion as the blueprint because thats where I have obviously seen this dynamic play out the most; if any of you are formerly religious and were convinced to stop being religious by a person who once belonged to your religion, maybe you have a useful anecdote for how they were able to arouse doubt in your beliefs without insulting your intelligence.
This hits on something I feel very keenly, and have boiled down to “I’ve been where you are, you’ve never been where I am.”
if any of you are formerly religious and were convinced to stop being religious by a person who once belonged to your religion, maybe you have a useful anecdote for how they were able to arouse doubt in your beliefs without insulting your intelligence.
I’m Catholic, was before my radicalization and still am, but obviously had a lot of homophobia and transphobia to unlearn. More relevant to this question though, the way I thought about Marxists before I radicalized had to change, and while I still don’t use the label Marxist I’d say I use Marxist thought to analyze basically all social phenomena. I think the critical thing for me was understanding that the conflict between Communist states in history (and to some extent, the French Revolution) and religion didn’t stem out of the left’s hatred of religion, but out of the Church’s resistance to social change. I had to understand that the Church was kind of a load-bearing structural member of the social order and legitimized all the oppressive institutions, so naturally the radicals who aimed to abolish said social order needed to take measures against religious institutions. If I could talk to myself before I was politically conscious, I’d tell him that he should consider that the way things were arranged in the Russian Empire, Feudal China, France, etc. the only possible way to get the masses to throw off their shackles was to attack corrupt religious institutions that were literally conspiring and collaborating with the secular states to keep peasants down. That the violent measures that I was taught about were used as a last resort, and were only a reflection of the violence that the overthrown institutions had used liberally for centuries.
As to how this pertains to anti-authoritarian leftists, I think you could modify this argument a little bit, and apply it to whatever they think authoritarianism is. “Tankies” don’t want to use authoritarian tactics because they hate freedom, or because they want to restrict individuality. They want to use those tactics to achieve the same political goals as all leftists: to abolish capitalism.
The point im trying to make is that there probably aren’t a lot of serious atheists who go on to convert to religion; its a cognitive step that, once made, is hard to take back.
As a former serious Atheist who could currently be described as religious, I can confirm that this is true - I do not think I have ever met anyone else who went from Atheist to Theist. In my case, it required - as you said regarding the Liberal to Communist transition - further information about the world that I lacked when I was an Atheist. Granted, I am somewhat unusual in this respect, as I was raised as an Atheist unlike most in America but - even still, it required what I perceived as hard evidence that there was more than just the material. Of course, this perceived hard evidence came in the form of personal experiences that I cannot transmit to others, as typically seems to be the case with this stuff, for better or worse.
This often also seems to be the case for the Liberal to Communist transition - I’m not sure I’ve ever seen someone actually be successfully convinced through rhetoric alone - it always requires some kind of personal experience that provides a bedrock of hard evidence that their current beliefs are inadequate for understanding and navigating the world in which they exist. After that bedrock exists - then rhetoric and reading and all that can have a meaningful effect.
Musk is doing the Nazi salute inside the Capitol while on live TV, and the thing they are worried about is tankies? Wild.
- ∞ 🏳️⚧️Edie [it/its, she/her, fae/faer, love/loves, ze/hir, des/pair, none/use name, undecided]@hexbear.netEnglish69·2 days ago
Liberals and focusing on communists while facists are taking power and being a 100x threat than even their made up communists are.
Actually it’s the tankies’ fault Trump is the president because we told people not to vote for Kamala.
Real 1930s Germany vibes going on
Should we just copy/paste the same tactics nazis use?
“I’m not a communist, there’s no such thing as communism anymore. Cold war’s over, bro. If anyone’s a communist it’s YOU mr. National SOCIALIST!”
literally falling for the rightwing talking point that communists are everywhere. they’re as delusional as those rightwingers who think kraft is run by commies.
That’s because they either: 1. Believe Musk wasn’t actually doing it, or 2. Believe nazism is better than leftists
Well you see, the left is a low hanging fruit and you’re not allowed to criticize the right…but the left controls the mainstream narrative!
“Do you see anyone tolerating fascists in here??”
every comment is about the double genocide theory
I love how the only person in there who has actually met tankies online says that the don’t mind tankies because the were all queer and opposed capitalism/colonialism
Literally everybody else in there is fighting against ghosts. As much as our lib hate can be unhealthy, at least we have met such people irl (unfortunate, I know).
Papering over anti-fascist art to make it be instead about a nonsensical anti-communist vendetta?
It’s liberal time!
three_arrows.jpg
Radlib on the train to the camps labeled “tankies”
“Excuse me, mr Nazi, sir. I think I’m not on the correct train I’m not a tankie I’m a real communist”
Radlibs do not get send to the camps, they sit in the Reichstag singing Deutschland Deutschland über alles with the fash themselves.
90% of online leftism is plauged by the fear of coherent tactics or strategy.
Yes, we will (critically) support any means to enable the ends we want.
And yes, that involves teaming up with unsavoury characters at times
It involves with dealing with the messy transition to socialism (which is not a pure ideal that can be implemented simply because “I wanna”)
And most importantly, it involves using violence to defend revolutionary gains.
I would much rather we win the climate wars rather than die to roving bands of fascists militants/states looking to hunt minorities.
Yes, we will (critically) support any means to justify the ends we want.
I won’t support, even critically, any means to justify the end we want. I will support some means and make a moral balance, but I won’t support just any means
And most importantly, it involves using violence to defend revolutionary gains.
To me, more than “using violence to defend revolutionary gains”, it’s being aware that the ones in power right now in class war aren’t afraid of using such violence, and we need to defend ourselves, sometimes preemptively, from such violence.
I won’t support, even critically, any means to justify the end we want. I will support some means and make a moral balance, but I won’t support just any means
In practice I’d keep some things off the table as well, but our attitude should reflect the seriousness of the situation we are facing. Possibly hundreds of millions of people are going to die needless deaths in the coming decades.
Balkan Odyssey has a video on the death toll of capitalism and the number is on the hundreds of millions already. I’m just saying that there are some means I won’t support, without needing to specify which or why I guess. Morality is a grey thing
The .ml instances are meant to stand for “Maoist/Leninist” so you’ll see a lot of tankies from those .ml instances…
79% literacy rate strikes again
Also it’s Mali
They aren’t sending their best.
The depressing part is that they are.
Look I’m trying okay?
We’re such a threat to these Vaushite radlib clowns when we have no influence or power in the West, while fascists are actively winning elections everywhere. Shows you how deeply unserious they are about their “leftism”.
I wish one of them would wander in here so I could ask a question:
(gonna focus on American politics here but this maps to other Western contexts) Obviously if you’re an anarchist/radical liberal/whatever you have a lot of disagreements with the “tankies.” I’m gonna assume a tankie to be someone with the views of Vijay Prashad, Losurdo, Parenti, something in that vicinity. They want a socialist state to oppress the bourgeoisie, while still maintaining some capitalist production relations as a means to develop productive forces (obviously some anti-Dengists will disagree here, but you know, general vibes). That’s a reasonable ideological disagreement. But here’s what I don’t get: the difference in what you aim to achieve is meaningful, but still quite small; whereas the difference between your goals and the Democratic Party’s goals couldn’t be more different. You want to abolish all unjust hierarchies, right? How can you be so hostile to “tankies” that wish to preserve like 20% of the unjust hierarchies you dislike, but vote for the Democratic Party which is actively preserving 100% of the hierarchies? If you have any principles at all, why are you so hostile to “tankies” yet you seem to be quite comfortable with a political party that is actively committing genocide. Are tankies not an even lesser evil? What reasoning could lead you to think that they aren’t?
The people throwing around “tankie” like this are nearly universally unaware of even their own stated political theoretical background. They hold these views because they have absorbed liberal anticommunism, including the anticommunism that their ideological predecessors absorbed and published about, like anti-Soviet propaganda that some US anarchists embraced in the 30s. Generally speaking, their complaints are not based in any coherent criticism that is actually rooted in political theory. So their entire complaint is often as ridiculoys as labeling people as authoritarian and leveraging this as a thinking-terminating cliché and throwing a tantrum when the absurdity is pointed out.
For example, there are several comments in that linked thread that are blanket declarations against hierarchy and calling themselves anarchist. There haa never been an anarchist collective that actually did anything that did not have hierarchy and being blanket opposed to all hierarchy is not, historically, an actual anarchist position. Instead, they have historically embraced a critique of hierarchy and seek to dismantle those that are unjust and most oppressive is the common theme, e.g. fighting capitalists and capitalism.
These are the “anarchists” that are just liberals with an aesthetic, not our comrades that work to dismantle oppression. They are appropriators of the tradition and are even hostile to it when you aak them to read about it. Hell, they complain about the Red Army’s suppression of Makhnovschina but get angry when you suggest reading publications by those in the Black Army when it doesn’t completely support their anticommunism.
They can be reached but I’ve only seen this irl when actual anarchists correct them.
i think the thing that keeps me on this side of the “tankie” line is I just can’t understand how anarchists plan on dealing with antagonistic capitalist states. Look at the world socialist countries exist in. You have to be decisive with putting down opposition and you should get nuclear weapons because otherwise the CIA is gonna be in there causing trouble. Without considering the realities of a communist state or whatever they want to call it coming into existence it’s just idealism.
if you want some sectarian commentary that explores this divide check out
Woah that was a good read
I’m not an anarchist myself but there’s definitely some tentative solutions to those problems. I don’t think it’s a problem with anarchism as an ideology, but with this specific type of online leftist who seems to be very preoccupied with being ideologically correct (while never reading theory) above actually carrying out meaningful actions. That’s the idealist part. The whole horizontal organizing and statelessness while still having ways to defend yourself (not sure about nuclear weapons) from hostile capitalist states I think isn’t idealism, it’s just a different way to fight capitalism from what we’ve synthesized on the “authoritarian” left.
Are tankies not an even lesser evil? What reasoning could lead you to think that they aren’t?
Cointelpro?
@flicker@lemmy.dbzer0.com Why are you like this?
Neurodivergence, a boatload of childhood trauma, and like a smidge of drugs (to manage the first two)!
I suggest taking a look at the thread here.
I looked at it. I agree with yall that liberals are the greater threat, but I’m one of those people who prefers to say that all the things I disagree with are things I disagree with.
I’m an idealist. I don’t agree to authoritarianism of any type. As far as authoritarianism goes, I’d prefer communist, but overall, I’d rather we didn’t at all.
Idealist is not an actual ideology, it’s a term describing the vibes-based shadow-puppet analysis liberalism teaches us to engage in
authoritarianism
Hannah Arendt trick y’all
It’s not a problem that you think that way, but when it’s time to go outside, touch grass, and unionize a workplace/volunteer to help marginalized people/do community outreach/other praxis, do you consider other people in the organization having an “authoritarian” ideology a dealbreaker?
I’ve been known to unite against a common enemy with most kinds. That doesn’t mean I agree with them or like them or empower them.
But most direct action I’m involved in is with the tribe I’ve found IRL, who think like I do, or it’s done anonymously. So there’s not a lot of room for quizzing about some kind of needless hierarchy of beliefs. If someone shows up at a protest supporting an issue, and they’re supporting that issue, I’m not going to stop and quiz them about their other beliefs.
We’re online. I’m allowed to be vocal in my dislike of any specificity. It’s usually needless to rank those dislikes.
the tribe I’ve found IRL
imagine being a radlib and using this nomenclature to refer to your org
Imagine assuming everyone needs an organization to do anything.
That kind of needless hierarchy is exactly what I’m talking about.
Fuck everyone who tries to maintain or implement hierarchies.
Let’s just leave the 12-year-olds alone
Anarcho-bedtimeism
It’s unjust hierarchies by the way. Teachers teaching students isn’t inherently unjust. Parenting children, guiding them, and making medical decisions on their behalf isn’t inherently unjust. Even older/more developed students setting an example for less developed students can promote the general welfare.
It’s like an immature reading of anprim where you cut all your hair off because you get lice, so you’re stoned to death for the medical advancement. Then the people who stoned you are punched to death for creating weapons.
Nobody who is actually going to organize and cooperate well is going to be so adamant about the tendencies as to not work together. The “press the communism and betrayal button instead of just the communism button” is a fiction from where western leftists stand. It’s the kind of thing that’ll have you critiquing Castro’s revolution for reclaiming the island from gambling gangsters. "Well, actually you didn’t need Soviet missiles to resist the most bloodthirsty empire post WW2 who are also pointing missiles at you "
And what’s silly is there are anarchist writings about how to organize non-heirarchal families and education. But instead of mentioning that and directing Marxists to this type of material, these fucking libs say libshit because they don’t actually learn about their self-proclaimed ideology. Only a skimming of Wikipedia articles on atrocities and sectarianism written by other libs.
I’d be open to conversations about how to not rely on the contrived atomic family unit and educational structures that teach you how to take a standardized test (as opposed to literacy). Something tells me their disagreement with Marxism is different and dumber.
Literally a parody of anarchist beliefs. The word “justified” in “justified hierarchies” does a lot of work at times
But we need to enforce their bedtime!
One of them posting that while the rest of the thread is full of libs deriding “tankies” for not voting for Kamala is so goddamn funny, these fuckers turn hypocrisy and Dunning-Kruger into an art form