this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2025
82 points (97.7% liked)
Slop.
321 readers
594 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/gossip
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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
https://lemmygrad.ml/post/3353112/3457999
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.
Cointelpro?