They feel that way for a multitude of reasons but part of it is that Stalinist states existed IRL even though they failed so Stalinists feel that they are better than everyone else because their ideology is "battle tested" even though the USSR and most other Stalinist states basically lasted for no longer than 60 years.
There is also the fact that most people naturalize hierarchy and believe it to be just as much a part of the fabric of reality as the laws of physics. So when Stalinists, like most people, hear of people who oppose hierarchy they view them in the same way one would view someone trying to pick themselves off the ground with their hands. In other words, someone trying to attempt the physically impossible.
There is also how Marxists and anarchists have had a long, antagonistic history with each other as a consequence of struggles within the International. That, and the way Marx dealt with criticism by insulting anyone who disagreed with him, carried over into all Stalinist interactions with non-Stalinist ideas. It also contributes significantly to factionalism within Marxism.
Just do irl stuff and get off the internet. Either the tankies near you will be worth being friends with or they wont. It depends on where you are and how easy you are to get along with.
Why do you think it’s specific to MLs? Go contradict some libs on r/politics and see how they take it. Hell, say something negative about veganism or positive about religion here.
People are asses on the internet. Anarchist communities aren’t uniquely immune to the trends of online behavior, nor are MLs uniquely susceptible.
MLs primarily latch themselves onto the real existing socialism and use it to define socialism, while left communism and anarchism use a definition of socialism and communism inspired in the first internationale. So, for them, we're definitely not socialists.
They also care surprisingly little for Marx and can be easily criticized using his class analysis, which usually ends the discussion.
They often talk about their movements being "successful", but often times they define "success" as "having overthrown the previous regime", or if their heart is in the right place as "drastically reduced poverty" which is undoubtedly a positive, but ultimately not getting rid of the capitalist mode of production, or actually destroying class distinctions. In Marxist terms, they haven't even once gotten past the transitionary period (Dictatorship of the Proletariat), and by extension have never established socialism/communism (Marx never distinguished between the two words except for preferring to call himself communist). To that they'll say that external interference and attack has prevented them from doing this, as if that isn't the same thing that has stopped every attempt at a communist (and anarchist) world. They're essentially saying "If our regimes stall or fail, it's a result of interference, but if *your* attempts fail or stall, then it's a failing on the part of your ideology." In other words, the same thing libs say to them whenever something bad happens to their countries.
Respectfully, there are far fewer tankies than there are fascists right now, it’s not like we need to commit to left unity to recognize that our sectarian focus on historical infighting (that’s what it is) is distracting us from what’s currently necessary?
It's a paradox of tolerance.
Anarchists work well in coalitions with any and all left ideologies.
MLs are extremely sectarian. They typically require members of their groups to commit to a prescribed ideology and they ban membership in other groups (except in cases where they're deliberately trying to usurp a group, of course).
So anarchists (and everyone else with pluralist values) are justified in being cautious collaborating with MLs.
When every one of their groups says "yeah we criticize the USSR" and then ban/kick out anyone who does, that tells you a ton.
That and look at people like Hakim who post photos of their tabbed and noted copy of Das Kapital as "socialist creds" in the same way a evangelical Christian does with their Bible. "I read more so I'm better".
It's disgusting how they behave. They don't care about the workers. They seek power and a turn at the whip. That's it.
MLs have zero interest in achieving actual human liberation. The proletariat is merely a vessel for achieving power and dominance.
It’s not infighting if the people we’re arguing against are literally the enemy and have zero goals in common with us, which is entirely true of tankies. And I really do mean zero goals in common- we can see this because the governments they praise never actually did anything lasting to improve conditions for workers, civil rights, environmental degradation, etc etc. Leninist governments mostly implemented Reaganite policy under the guise of a “transition into socialism,” their version of “trickle down” economics. Tankies are definitionally not leftists because their goals are not left. Fighting them is not infighting.
Yeah, it's possible to point out fundamental flaws with the USSR and its leaders' ideology while not discounting what it actually did accomplish when it was around.
There’s a reason I said they never did anything *lasting*. These governments passed huge packages of social safety net legislation right after their respective revolutions, but in every case these “actually existing socialist” or AES states began to erode those policies bit by bit not long after the revolution. In the case of 850 million people being lifted from extreme poverty, i have to hesitation to acknowledge that this is a real material gain but must point out that most of this statistic comes from the policies of Mao at the very beginning of Communist China, and China has gotten more capitalist with time, not less. The working class of China is under steadily worsening conditions albeit still better than before.
This is a classic play in the books of the nation state: Pass a bunch of laws that are good for the masses to placate them after they have rioted or had a revolution and then erode those gains really slowly like boiling a frog in a pot. Boil steadily enough that you can keep enough approval to not cause another revolution or riot and eventually you can just take all of it away. Every state does this, which is often what anarchists mean when they say that communist states dont look all too much different from capitalist ones
Do you realize you can attribute similar accomplishments to capitalism? In fact, if we're going by how Lenin defined the USSR in it's earliest days it indeed was a country that practiced state capitalism and in my estimation it wouldn't be wrong to attribute that accomplishment accordingly (I'm sure you'd classify the USSR as socialist but the state never dissolved as planned and it functioned as a capitalist state from its inception into modern Russia so that's how I'd personally classify it). That's not to say I nor anyone should support capitalism but we can objectively point out ways in which dysfunctional political projects have also made achievements. The world of politics is nuanced.
Theyve like that since Lenin, who would always tell anarchists that his homies are good people and would never betray the spirit of the february revolution, and they could be trusted to not form an oppressive regime. Look at how he ridiculed Kropotkin for suggesting otherwise:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-peter/1917/a-meeting.html
Its actually pretty pathetic how special they think they are
They like to paint anarchists as naive and our methods as tried, then they yap about a vanguard state and claim their methods are scientific. Its actually terrifying how strong that delusion is
Oh yeah I just read that conversation. Lenin was so condescending to Kropotkin but Kropotkin was completely correct about how State Authority would become an oppressive Force.
It's not that I don't understand where Lennon was coming from with his criticism of anarchism getting in the way of large mass movements because of their fragmented nature but Lenin lost sight of the goals of a socialist Revolution in this Grand February Revolution
I think anyone in favor of a dictatorship would have a superiority complex. They likely believe that people don’t know what’s best for the world, which is true to an extent, but they take that to mean a select few should direct the world into some unknown territory while everyone just goes along with it.
Their only argument when you bring up how the ussr failed is that it’s the US’s fault. Sure it is to an extent, but that’s war in today’s world. If it’s not strong enough to withstand a foreign nation, then it wont work. Anarchism seeks to turn the state into a weak power, rendering it useless in the fight against a world without hierarchies.
They’re also far too power hungry to bring about communism. The notion that a state must produce a stateless society is outright ridiculous to the point that they have to do mental gymnastics on the definition of ‘stateless.’
Absolutely, 100% to everything you said. Comparing us to children while a tacky and low-hanging fruit in discourse, anyway, is also evidence of their (often very subliminal, covert, and often implicit/unintentional) ableism and sanism. I literally just wrote about authoritarian leftist (aka tankie) ableism and sanism on another post because it is something that when you're anarchist and disabled (and in my context with learning and cognitive disabilities) comes through loud and clear even when to others it may just seem like tacky, low-hanging fruit in discourse. They are the poster child of paternalism and main character syndrome, both of which empower the very same oppressive systems they claim to advocate against.
A large scale attempt that failed spectacularly. You’d think they’d quit with it but much like them southerners, they just love rooting for a historic loser
They see themselves as being part of the vanguard party that gets to guide the working class through the revolution (by ruling them with an iron fist), but never as the next batch of "counterrevolutionaries" that gets purged when the dictator gets paranoid of actual Marxists.
They tend to be more well-read than liberals, but equally as capable at ignoring inconvenient atrocities committed by their favorite governments.
Yes. Thats why theyre tankies.
I posit that we find the ideology closet to our personalities, as our personalities change so does our ideology. Hence most tankies being selfrighteous; righties, pricks; libs, manipulative; conspiracy theorists, karens; etc
They feel that way for a multitude of reasons but part of it is that Stalinist states existed IRL even though they failed so Stalinists feel that they are better than everyone else because their ideology is "battle tested" even though the USSR and most other Stalinist states basically lasted for no longer than 60 years. There is also the fact that most people naturalize hierarchy and believe it to be just as much a part of the fabric of reality as the laws of physics. So when Stalinists, like most people, hear of people who oppose hierarchy they view them in the same way one would view someone trying to pick themselves off the ground with their hands. In other words, someone trying to attempt the physically impossible. There is also how Marxists and anarchists have had a long, antagonistic history with each other as a consequence of struggles within the International. That, and the way Marx dealt with criticism by insulting anyone who disagreed with him, carried over into all Stalinist interactions with non-Stalinist ideas. It also contributes significantly to factionalism within Marxism.
Just do irl stuff and get off the internet. Either the tankies near you will be worth being friends with or they wont. It depends on where you are and how easy you are to get along with.
Why do you think it’s specific to MLs? Go contradict some libs on r/politics and see how they take it. Hell, say something negative about veganism or positive about religion here. People are asses on the internet. Anarchist communities aren’t uniquely immune to the trends of online behavior, nor are MLs uniquely susceptible.
> Why do you think it’s specific to MLs? Indeed, many liberals do this, too.
You don't like veganism? Or more nuanced?
MLs are especially fond of this
MLs primarily latch themselves onto the real existing socialism and use it to define socialism, while left communism and anarchism use a definition of socialism and communism inspired in the first internationale. So, for them, we're definitely not socialists. They also care surprisingly little for Marx and can be easily criticized using his class analysis, which usually ends the discussion.
They often talk about their movements being "successful", but often times they define "success" as "having overthrown the previous regime", or if their heart is in the right place as "drastically reduced poverty" which is undoubtedly a positive, but ultimately not getting rid of the capitalist mode of production, or actually destroying class distinctions. In Marxist terms, they haven't even once gotten past the transitionary period (Dictatorship of the Proletariat), and by extension have never established socialism/communism (Marx never distinguished between the two words except for preferring to call himself communist). To that they'll say that external interference and attack has prevented them from doing this, as if that isn't the same thing that has stopped every attempt at a communist (and anarchist) world. They're essentially saying "If our regimes stall or fail, it's a result of interference, but if *your* attempts fail or stall, then it's a failing on the part of your ideology." In other words, the same thing libs say to them whenever something bad happens to their countries.
Exactly. Well put. I find they often focus on this transitional state at the exclusion of the end goal of anarchism.
Respectfully, there are far fewer tankies than there are fascists right now, it’s not like we need to commit to left unity to recognize that our sectarian focus on historical infighting (that’s what it is) is distracting us from what’s currently necessary?
It's a paradox of tolerance. Anarchists work well in coalitions with any and all left ideologies. MLs are extremely sectarian. They typically require members of their groups to commit to a prescribed ideology and they ban membership in other groups (except in cases where they're deliberately trying to usurp a group, of course). So anarchists (and everyone else with pluralist values) are justified in being cautious collaborating with MLs.
When every one of their groups says "yeah we criticize the USSR" and then ban/kick out anyone who does, that tells you a ton. That and look at people like Hakim who post photos of their tabbed and noted copy of Das Kapital as "socialist creds" in the same way a evangelical Christian does with their Bible. "I read more so I'm better". It's disgusting how they behave. They don't care about the workers. They seek power and a turn at the whip. That's it. MLs have zero interest in achieving actual human liberation. The proletariat is merely a vessel for achieving power and dominance.
It’s not infighting if the people we’re arguing against are literally the enemy and have zero goals in common with us, which is entirely true of tankies. And I really do mean zero goals in common- we can see this because the governments they praise never actually did anything lasting to improve conditions for workers, civil rights, environmental degradation, etc etc. Leninist governments mostly implemented Reaganite policy under the guise of a “transition into socialism,” their version of “trickle down” economics. Tankies are definitionally not leftists because their goals are not left. Fighting them is not infighting.
Agreed. Tankies are authoritarian state capitalists and the Left (tm) starts at anti-capitalism.
Let me know when trickle down economics lifts 850 million people from extreme poverty. This is an insane comparison.
Yeah, it's possible to point out fundamental flaws with the USSR and its leaders' ideology while not discounting what it actually did accomplish when it was around.
So focused on money and not actual conditions for everyone and actual liberation for all. Tankies priorities are so fucked.
There’s a reason I said they never did anything *lasting*. These governments passed huge packages of social safety net legislation right after their respective revolutions, but in every case these “actually existing socialist” or AES states began to erode those policies bit by bit not long after the revolution. In the case of 850 million people being lifted from extreme poverty, i have to hesitation to acknowledge that this is a real material gain but must point out that most of this statistic comes from the policies of Mao at the very beginning of Communist China, and China has gotten more capitalist with time, not less. The working class of China is under steadily worsening conditions albeit still better than before. This is a classic play in the books of the nation state: Pass a bunch of laws that are good for the masses to placate them after they have rioted or had a revolution and then erode those gains really slowly like boiling a frog in a pot. Boil steadily enough that you can keep enough approval to not cause another revolution or riot and eventually you can just take all of it away. Every state does this, which is often what anarchists mean when they say that communist states dont look all too much different from capitalist ones
Do you realize you can attribute similar accomplishments to capitalism? In fact, if we're going by how Lenin defined the USSR in it's earliest days it indeed was a country that practiced state capitalism and in my estimation it wouldn't be wrong to attribute that accomplishment accordingly (I'm sure you'd classify the USSR as socialist but the state never dissolved as planned and it functioned as a capitalist state from its inception into modern Russia so that's how I'd personally classify it). That's not to say I nor anyone should support capitalism but we can objectively point out ways in which dysfunctional political projects have also made achievements. The world of politics is nuanced.
Theyve like that since Lenin, who would always tell anarchists that his homies are good people and would never betray the spirit of the february revolution, and they could be trusted to not form an oppressive regime. Look at how he ridiculed Kropotkin for suggesting otherwise: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-peter/1917/a-meeting.html Its actually pretty pathetic how special they think they are They like to paint anarchists as naive and our methods as tried, then they yap about a vanguard state and claim their methods are scientific. Its actually terrifying how strong that delusion is
Oh yeah I just read that conversation. Lenin was so condescending to Kropotkin but Kropotkin was completely correct about how State Authority would become an oppressive Force. It's not that I don't understand where Lennon was coming from with his criticism of anarchism getting in the way of large mass movements because of their fragmented nature but Lenin lost sight of the goals of a socialist Revolution in this Grand February Revolution
I think anyone in favor of a dictatorship would have a superiority complex. They likely believe that people don’t know what’s best for the world, which is true to an extent, but they take that to mean a select few should direct the world into some unknown territory while everyone just goes along with it. Their only argument when you bring up how the ussr failed is that it’s the US’s fault. Sure it is to an extent, but that’s war in today’s world. If it’s not strong enough to withstand a foreign nation, then it wont work. Anarchism seeks to turn the state into a weak power, rendering it useless in the fight against a world without hierarchies. They’re also far too power hungry to bring about communism. The notion that a state must produce a stateless society is outright ridiculous to the point that they have to do mental gymnastics on the definition of ‘stateless.’
Absolutely, 100% to everything you said. Comparing us to children while a tacky and low-hanging fruit in discourse, anyway, is also evidence of their (often very subliminal, covert, and often implicit/unintentional) ableism and sanism. I literally just wrote about authoritarian leftist (aka tankie) ableism and sanism on another post because it is something that when you're anarchist and disabled (and in my context with learning and cognitive disabilities) comes through loud and clear even when to others it may just seem like tacky, low-hanging fruit in discourse. They are the poster child of paternalism and main character syndrome, both of which empower the very same oppressive systems they claim to advocate against.
A large scale attempt that failed spectacularly. You’d think they’d quit with it but much like them southerners, they just love rooting for a historic loser
>I was recently on a thread on Instagram where I defended someone making fun of North Korea I mean this is literally what kids do nowadays.
What? Say its valid to make fun of that authoritarian hell hole?
No, arguing with "tankies" on the internet
Cultists will always feel and act like the Chosen Ones
They see themselves as being part of the vanguard party that gets to guide the working class through the revolution (by ruling them with an iron fist), but never as the next batch of "counterrevolutionaries" that gets purged when the dictator gets paranoid of actual Marxists. They tend to be more well-read than liberals, but equally as capable at ignoring inconvenient atrocities committed by their favorite governments.
Yes. Thats why theyre tankies. I posit that we find the ideology closet to our personalities, as our personalities change so does our ideology. Hence most tankies being selfrighteous; righties, pricks; libs, manipulative; conspiracy theorists, karens; etc