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.
Do you think anarchism is even possible without an apocalypse? It’s very telling that, throughout history, there’s been no long-lasting anarchist community, unless you consider nomadic towns and villages anarchist.
No, I believe it is possible. The Ukrainian Black Army and CNT-FAI came remarkably close. There are other examples as well, but most relevant is the Zapatistas who have existed since 1994 and still exist today. I think it is simply really fucking hard, and we are still learning what works versus what doesnt. I feel it is telling that anarchists are successful right up until the are betrayed and end up having to fight everyone at once. It tells me it takes everyone teaming up to beat us. It tells me we are a threat, and we are a threat becauss we could win
Way to not even read anything I said, but rather make a series of assumptions about me based on what you thought would be easiest to knock down. Tankies are the kings of strawmen.
I said tankies are covert fascists. I never called anarchists tankies. I said they’re bullies. And you’re only proving my point.
I don’t suck any boots, I don’t know what world you’re living in if you have to do that every day but it’s not the world I’m living in. Anarchists want to get rid of government because they want to be the bullies and get their boots sucked for a change, and they make that clear by their behavior. That’s not any better than the system we currently have.
Also, tankies generally consider themselves leftist. Which is the argument for not saying they’re overt fascists. But I didn’t call them overt fascists, I called them covert fascists; meaning they use a veneer of leftist ideology to cover the fact that they’re authoritarian and generally behave like fascists.
And before you put more words in my mouth, I never said all leftists are tankies. If you have an ounce of intelligence then you’ll know that all apples are fruits but not all fruits are apples.
I like the idea of anarchism, but it’ll only be possible if the state and all those who recall it were completely wiped out. Come on nuclear armageddon, come on nuclear armageddon!
There will never be a time where principled anarchists are not also called “tankies” by liberals. If you believe in the use of revolutionary violence and the defense of a revolution, you will be called a “tankie.”
To me it means liberals will side with fascists when push comes to shove. I wont fail to recognize that there are examples of liberals resisting fascism, but you also have many more instances where they enable, defend, or outright join fascists. Hitler drew a lot of inspiration from the US’s Jim Crow laws, and Hitler was chosen as New York Times Person of the year. The social democrats of Weimar Germany used proto-fascist to eradicate a communist revolution. The Weimar Republic is who put Hitler in power. The Kingdom of Italy as well allowed Mussolini into power. You also have situations like Pinochet and Franco. Pinochet being put into power by the US, and Franco’s fascist government being left untouched and allowed to exist.
That’s all true, but it’s also worth noting that fascism was new back then, or at least in name and during the early 1920s it wasn’t entirely in power. (Just need to make a disclaimer that fascism is awful, stupid and that fascists deserve what happened to them and what will happen to them. Punch a nazi, counting or not counting gang violence, etc)
But does today’s liberal stand with fascists when push comes to shove? It appears to me that liberals in the US, where fascism is almost out of its proto-stage, seem to oppose it. The rest of the democratic world also seems to have decided not to replicate the turmoil the US is pushing forth, with overwhelming victories for the comparatively progressive parties in each nation.
To me Russia is largely a fascist state, my Russian pals can’t talk about certain topics and often need to keep their queer identity secret. Yet it is the tankies who are largely supportive of Russia, particularly Putin.
So is the phrase still true despite this? Or is it perhaps authoritarian projection?
I am yet to be convinced. We are still only resisting through peaceful protest. That is the easy part, and I do not believe it will be enough. So will liberals escalate, or will they turn into bystanders? I don’t know. I want them to prove me wrong, but I will plan based on history until proven otherwise. I also won’t ignore nuance. There will be liberals who resist, there will be ones that hide, and there will be ones that become fascists. I go out and support the protests as best as I can, but I am also paying attention to whether they can keep momentum. Paying attention to how many will continue to resist, and how many turn in the towel to protect their privilege and comfort.
I do agree that the US populace is largely pathetic and cowardly, Tankies absolutely included, and it’s one of the reasons I no longer take people from the US seriously when talking to them. Maybe a more apt phrase is ‘Scratch a coward and a fascist bleeds.’
But what of the larger world? Is the phrase still true? Because when I hear liberal, I assume the status quo, the average European, the average Commonwealth nation, someone who values democracy, individualism and equality.
Anarchists threaten the status quo far more than a fascist. Liberals still want government, hierarchy, property. And as long as you are not a minority or dissident, fascists will not threaten that. Anarchists however do. How an anarchist expresses individualism, equality, and democracy is fundamentally different from a liberal’s. Do I think all liberals would side with a fascist over an anarchist? No, but I would probably bet on it.
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.
Do you think anarchism is even possible without an apocalypse? It’s very telling that, throughout history, there’s been no long-lasting anarchist community, unless you consider nomadic towns and villages anarchist.
No, I believe it is possible. The Ukrainian Black Army and CNT-FAI came remarkably close. There are other examples as well, but most relevant is the Zapatistas who have existed since 1994 and still exist today. I think it is simply really fucking hard, and we are still learning what works versus what doesnt. I feel it is telling that anarchists are successful right up until the are betrayed and end up having to fight everyone at once. It tells me it takes everyone teaming up to beat us. It tells me we are a threat, and we are a threat becauss we could win
Way to not even read anything I said, but rather make a series of assumptions about me based on what you thought would be easiest to knock down. Tankies are the kings of strawmen.
I said tankies are covert fascists. I never called anarchists tankies. I said they’re bullies. And you’re only proving my point.
I don’t suck any boots, I don’t know what world you’re living in if you have to do that every day but it’s not the world I’m living in. Anarchists want to get rid of government because they want to be the bullies and get their boots sucked for a change, and they make that clear by their behavior. That’s not any better than the system we currently have.
Also, tankies generally consider themselves leftist. Which is the argument for not saying they’re overt fascists. But I didn’t call them overt fascists, I called them covert fascists; meaning they use a veneer of leftist ideology to cover the fact that they’re authoritarian and generally behave like fascists.
And before you put more words in my mouth, I never said all leftists are tankies. If you have an ounce of intelligence then you’ll know that all apples are fruits but not all fruits are apples.
I like the idea of anarchism, but it’ll only be possible if the state and all those who recall it were completely wiped out. Come on nuclear armageddon, come on nuclear armageddon!
There will never be a time where principled anarchists are not also called “tankies” by liberals. If you believe in the use of revolutionary violence and the defense of a revolution, you will be called a “tankie.”
But you guys can’t handle violence despite how much you larp on about it.
Genuinely would rather be called anarkiddie lmao. You know what they say, scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds
If you’re going around making people bleed for being liberal, then you’re a fascist.
wonderfully said
I hear this phrase a lot, and I’m curious to hear what you think it means
To me it means liberals will side with fascists when push comes to shove. I wont fail to recognize that there are examples of liberals resisting fascism, but you also have many more instances where they enable, defend, or outright join fascists. Hitler drew a lot of inspiration from the US’s Jim Crow laws, and Hitler was chosen as New York Times Person of the year. The social democrats of Weimar Germany used proto-fascist to eradicate a communist revolution. The Weimar Republic is who put Hitler in power. The Kingdom of Italy as well allowed Mussolini into power. You also have situations like Pinochet and Franco. Pinochet being put into power by the US, and Franco’s fascist government being left untouched and allowed to exist.
That’s all true, but it’s also worth noting that fascism was new back then, or at least in name and during the early 1920s it wasn’t entirely in power. (Just need to make a disclaimer that fascism is awful, stupid and that fascists deserve what happened to them and what will happen to them. Punch a nazi, counting or not counting gang violence, etc)
But does today’s liberal stand with fascists when push comes to shove? It appears to me that liberals in the US, where fascism is almost out of its proto-stage, seem to oppose it. The rest of the democratic world also seems to have decided not to replicate the turmoil the US is pushing forth, with overwhelming victories for the comparatively progressive parties in each nation.
To me Russia is largely a fascist state, my Russian pals can’t talk about certain topics and often need to keep their queer identity secret. Yet it is the tankies who are largely supportive of Russia, particularly Putin.
So is the phrase still true despite this? Or is it perhaps authoritarian projection?
I am yet to be convinced. We are still only resisting through peaceful protest. That is the easy part, and I do not believe it will be enough. So will liberals escalate, or will they turn into bystanders? I don’t know. I want them to prove me wrong, but I will plan based on history until proven otherwise. I also won’t ignore nuance. There will be liberals who resist, there will be ones that hide, and there will be ones that become fascists. I go out and support the protests as best as I can, but I am also paying attention to whether they can keep momentum. Paying attention to how many will continue to resist, and how many turn in the towel to protect their privilege and comfort.
I do agree that the US populace is largely pathetic and cowardly, Tankies absolutely included, and it’s one of the reasons I no longer take people from the US seriously when talking to them. Maybe a more apt phrase is ‘Scratch a coward and a fascist bleeds.’
But what of the larger world? Is the phrase still true? Because when I hear liberal, I assume the status quo, the average European, the average Commonwealth nation, someone who values democracy, individualism and equality.
Anarchists threaten the status quo far more than a fascist. Liberals still want government, hierarchy, property. And as long as you are not a minority or dissident, fascists will not threaten that. Anarchists however do. How an anarchist expresses individualism, equality, and democracy is fundamentally different from a liberal’s. Do I think all liberals would side with a fascist over an anarchist? No, but I would probably bet on it.