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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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”
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.
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.
Exactly! I’m sorry a tankie got butthurt and downvoted you.
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?
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.
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.