‘Tankies’ (for the lack of a better word) have been against communism throughout history. It’s disingenuous to assume they could be capable of unity
If your action is to punch left, your output is to move the current situation rightwards.
This goes for both anarchists and lemmygrad types, who equally harm the collective movement by punching left at one another.
If the marxist brigades, (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine(DFLP), Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC)) in Palestine can prioritise the need for cooperation even with hamas in order to put up a resistance against oppression, we can all do the same when we have fewer reasons to fight.
Sure, but there’s a reason the anarchist presence on Hexbear haa dramatically waned over the years. Like how much is anyone actually valuing left unity while federating with an instance that memes about killing anarchists? A lot of the early drama came out of specifically ML’s harassing people associated with anarchists, like that John Kerry shit, including accusations of an “anarchist cabal” (which to be fair remains extremely funny to this day).
And this exists alongside an attitude that left unity in fact is a waste of time, that communists and anarchists want fundamentally different things. And when you combine that with memes about anarchists being reactionaries and feds (oh, but not our anarchists!) and glorification of figures that killed a lot of anarchists and the occasional “anarchists get the wall” memes, like you can’t be comrades with people who fundamentally see you as a problem to one day violently remove. There cannot be useful criticism without mutual trust, and I don’t think there has been that trust in quite a while.
What’s a Tankie?
EDIT: The range of definitions below is interesting
To give a nore detailed answer… Tankies are “lefties” who have failed to realize one or two extremely important facts about the world:
-
“Strong men” are not a good thing. No matter your political opinion, using force to get it is literally incompatible with many leftist teachings. The very act of violent rebellion requires the use of force that many believe a government shoudn’t have. Thusly, any violent revolution stands a STRONG chance of being shunned by those who do not want a government with sanctioned violence. Getting a “leftist” government through basic violence WILL result in a fascist government. Always.
-
Strong men cannot be allowed unjust power no matter how just they are. They cannot be allowed power because despite how cliche the expression, “power corrupts”, it is wholly true. It doesn’t matter how good a particular ruler is. If the levers of power exist, someone WILL pull them very bad directions.
Basically… Tankies are leftists who have not or cannot think through how authority is actually bad to allow to exist in any unchecked form. They think a ruler who does good things is good, when most leftists SHOULD be answering they don’t want any ruler.
The horseshoe theory exists because of tankies and extremists. If you want leftist policy but want to achieve it through uncouth means, that’s definitionally authoritarian in nature for many answers, and authoritarian answers should be antithetical to the left. Even forcing a utopia still creates a coercive government.
Thusly, any violent revolution stands a STRONG chance of being shunned by those who do not want a government with sanctioned violence.
I disagree with this part. Violent revolution—violent opposition to our oppression—is absolutely necessary. However, turning it on ourselves—that is, in any direction other than that which opposes authority—is a recipe for disaster as you say.
It’s not violence itself that is the problem. There are literally always forms of violence sanctioned by every single political philosophy (including absolute pacifism/non-violence, which sanctions violence performed by the state even if its subscribers often don’t realize this). The question is how and when that violence is performed and by whom, and the anarchist/non-authoritarian answer is that it must only be in the struggle for liberation, not the fight to gain and maintain power over others.
I absolutely agree. Peaceful protest has never brought meaningful or lasting change. Violent uprisings are the only way to reduce unjust hierarchy, because those in power have never given it up willingly.
-
