Anarchists are extremely critical of the concept of ‘the State’ itself, tend to want to either totally abolish it, or at least strip it down so much or break it apart that it essentially isn’t a ‘State’ any more.
Tankies embrace, and essentially worship the State.
… Also, in basically every single recorded instance of a succesful or attempted leftist revolution in modern human history, tankies ally with anarchists to overthrow the existing State, and then murder all of them after they’ve established themselves as the new State or proto-State.
One could argue that it seems to be in the material interest of authoritarian statists to extend false allyship to ‘fellow leftists’, and then betray them as quickly as they abandon their ideal of a ‘classless society’ and begin to assert themselves as the new ruling class.
There’s a 101 level answer for your ‘why so antagonistic’ question.
Tankies historically cry ‘Unity! Unity!’ and do exactly what you are doing, trying to shame those who are skeptical… and then the rhetoric flips on a dime and the cry switches to ‘Purity! Faith!’
…
Also worth noting is your framing of this as antagonistic in the first place.
I guess you find the evidence of history thus far to largely be antagonistic to your worldview?
I don’t know, I wouldn’t want to put words in your mouth, but that is my assumption.
I’ve studied economics and poli sci academically, have degrees in both, did my own independent research, came to the conclusion that the anarchist perspective is ultimately the most useful approach to analyze and critique… all societies, throughout all history, with the least ideological blindspots, with the most at least broadly accurate predictive power.
But sure, ok, I am one of the liberals whom I frequently argued against and critqued, ok.
Anyways, do you have an actual retort, or just a form of ideologically flavored ad hominem?
My wife also has advanced degrees in economics, she’s a senior economist professionally and has also studied world history indepth. She disagrees with your assessment and thinks a vanguard and a socialist state are necessary intermediaries to get any kind of lasting libertarian anarchism.
I could easily find 100+ economists with better credentials who disagree with both you and my wife so what’s the point of jerking off your qualifications? If you have something persuasive to say just say it; vaguely telling us why you’re qualified is weak as hell. Why don’t you post your resume or link to any of the books you’ve published if you’re such an expert?
Your wife sounds like she’d be potentially interesting to talk to then, genuinely.
But uh, I wasn’t ‘flashing my credentials’ to assert authority by way of the number of fancy pieces of paper I have.
I was responding to the charge of having been ‘brainwashed’ by the US government, and mentioned my academic pursuits to hopefully be able to indicate that I have spent an inordinate and uncommon amount of time and effort attempting to do my own research and learn more.
…
I don’t have anything that I think would be persuasive to say, in general, to an ML Vanguardist.
Mostly because they tend to be very, very ideologically inflexible.
Again, I was responding to a single general concept with that section of what I wrote:
The idea that an ML/Tankie does not understand why Anarchists are skeptical of left-unity.
Apparently my error was to assume that the person I was responding to was… being serious, actually expressing that idea in good faith, earnestly.
…
I will not be posting my resume or any PII as I value my privacy here on lemmy.
…
You’re so very hostile and demanding of people you claim are or should be your allies…
…almost as if we have a fundamentally, radically distinct approach to basic human to human communication, to say nothing of how to grow a mass political movement.
So just to be clear, you’re the only free thinker and everyone who doesn’t agree with you is a mindless sheep blindly following their ideology as a religion?
Do all tankie/MLs engage in what could otherwise be an actually productive and insightful conversation with the absolutely most badfaith and toxic rhetoric that is humanly possible, immedeately, right out of the gate, like rabid cult members defending their beliefs?
In my experience, not 100% of the time, but 95% of the time, yes.
So I guess thanks to you that 95% is getting closer to rounding over to 96%.
You claimed I was brainwashed by the government, I told you I wasn’t.
Your response is ‘Ridiculous!’ and then a strawman.
… this is evidently your strategy for fostering left-unity, to just attempt to rhetorically insult me until I submit to your way of thinking?
You ‘argue’ like a power tripping narcissist sociopath, it is actually funny to me that you seemingly lack awareness of how vindictive and manipulative you come across.
I guess the only good revolution is the one that is openly antagonistic to tbose whom it claims to represent, speak for, advocate for with unity.
I’m not trying to foster left unity with you, because frankly to consider you an anarchist would be such rank anti-anarchist sectarianism that Hexbear mods would be correct to permaban me. You’re a liberal.
Btw, I think that accusing anarcho-communists of having an ideology that inevitably leads to ecocide is pretty sectarian also (or again, maybe not sectarian. It’s not sectarian for a liberal [you] to be anti-anarchist, just shitty), and you haven’t engaged with this point but you’re posting ziq’s articles and this is one of their states positions so that’s something you need to deal with for yourself.
You called Marxism a religion before my comment, which was about your initial ad hominem comparison to religion, and frankly suggesting that the ideologies that you are opposed to are the ones the US government wants you to oppose is an objective fact.
I am not aware of any anarchists that even predict that some kind of anarchist revolution is any kind of inevitable.
And if there were some, I would disagree with them.
I am not purpoting to have some kind of perfect plan to ‘achieve anarchism’.
I don’t need to.
It’s ya’ll that tend to have a dogmatic, ideological faith in a perfect way to do things, that things should be done, that things inevitably will be done.
…
Anyway, the evidence of history I am referring to is that basically all self described ‘Communist’ states/societies haven’t ever really come close to Marx’s utopian conception of a classless society at the proverbial ‘end’ of Communism…
They mostly either reform or transform themselves into a highly state-managed form of capitalism, or into something with less overt direct state control over a hybrid state/capitalist economy, allowing private businesses and capitalists to operate under fairly significant levels of regulation…
Both of those will almost always only ever allow a single political party, clamp down on freedom of political association/expression, speech, etc… these societies very much still do have significant wealth disparity, ergo, social classes.
…
And those’re pretty much the best case scenarios.
They can also just collapse into… well basically, roughly fascism; a totalitarian, nationalistic, jingoistic central state that works with, grants favors to various capitalist oligarchs, corporations, as opposed to directly managing them or heavily regulating them…
In these societies, wealth disparity and thus class disparity tends to be even more significant… and they tend to put on a show of pretending to be liberal and democratic, though the extent of that effort ebbs and flows back toward social and governmental illiberalism over time.
It can get worse than that, but then we tend to get into ‘thats not real communism’ or basically just meme/schrodinger’s irony level argument territory, at least in my prior experience or discussions with tankies.
…
I don’t have a problem admitting that no anarchist revolution has succeeded in making a stable anarchist society at the scope and scale of a nation-state, with some kind of … assumed authoritative forceful control over a defined physical region.
Partially because… that isn’t really what at least I personally view as any kind of useful goal of my idea of anarchism.
…
If you doubt the history of tankies back stabbing anarchists… hold please, will update with source.
This person’s works also include Burn the Bread Book, an anti-Anarcho-Communist screed in which they advocate for the end of civilization, and return to each person producing all their own food, an idea that is openly ecofascist and would kill billions, first and foremost a large number of disabled and chronically ill people.
I think you should carefully consider where your ideas are coming from.
but then we tend to get into ‘thats not real communism’ or basically just meme/schrodinger’s irony level argument territory
That was fast!
Sorry, I was trying to specifically use Lenin’s conception/phrasing of “socialism” as the progressive process that builds society toward the idealized, but possibly not ever truly, perfectly achievable “communism”.
Thats what I get for trying to use ML terms with an ML, I suppose.
So anyway, if a classless society is not the ultimate end goal of Marx, of Marxism… what would you describe the end goal of Marxism as?
You don’t think perhaps it was the word “utopian,” a word which in the discussion of various different socialist tendencies generally refers to the Utopian Socialists, a group that Marx vocally criticized?
Does it ever occur to you that mandating a mastery of an esoteric vocabulary and history as the first step toward being elligible for ‘left-unity’… is not exactly appealing to, or a reasonable expectation for prospective new members of such a ‘left-unity’ broad social movement?
Are you trying to be an elitist clique, or a movement that broadly represents large masses of poor, tired, busy, overworked, poorly educated people?
You’ve been talking down to me this entire time and you claim to have degrees in both economics and political science, and you’re now complaining that I’m being elitist for pointing out that you’re not actually familiar with my ideology in any depth?
Oof yeah, words can have multiple meanings in different contexts and change over time as well.
I meant it in the more common lingo that normal people mean by the word utopian, an idealized human society that is the best for all its members of any possible society.
Sorry, I don’t spend that much time getting into online arguments with MLs and Socialism Understanders these days, as they tend to be so very, very pedantic and unproductive.
See how you almost got me to not notice you didn’t even attempt to answer my most pertinent question?
… You don’t get it?
This is an Anarchist instance.
Anarchists are extremely critical of the concept of ‘the State’ itself, tend to want to either totally abolish it, or at least strip it down so much or break it apart that it essentially isn’t a ‘State’ any more.
Tankies embrace, and essentially worship the State.
… Also, in basically every single recorded instance of a succesful or attempted leftist revolution in modern human history, tankies ally with anarchists to overthrow the existing State, and then murder all of them after they’ve established themselves as the new State or proto-State.
One could argue that it seems to be in the material interest of authoritarian statists to extend false allyship to ‘fellow leftists’, and then betray them as quickly as they abandon their ideal of a ‘classless society’ and begin to assert themselves as the new ruling class.
There’s a 101 level answer for your ‘why so antagonistic’ question.
Tankies historically cry ‘Unity! Unity!’ and do exactly what you are doing, trying to shame those who are skeptical… and then the rhetoric flips on a dime and the cry switches to ‘Purity! Faith!’
…
Also worth noting is your framing of this as antagonistic in the first place.
I guess you find the evidence of history thus far to largely be antagonistic to your worldview?
I don’t know, I wouldn’t want to put words in your mouth, but that is my assumption.
I could be wrong though.
The way you liberals need to define ideologies the US government taught you to hate as “religions” is pretty interesting to me.
I’ve studied economics and poli sci academically, have degrees in both, did my own independent research, came to the conclusion that the anarchist perspective is ultimately the most useful approach to analyze and critique… all societies, throughout all history, with the least ideological blindspots, with the most at least broadly accurate predictive power.
But sure, ok, I am one of the liberals whom I frequently argued against and critqued, ok.
Anyways, do you have an actual retort, or just a form of ideologically flavored ad hominem?
-yawn-
My wife also has advanced degrees in economics, she’s a senior economist professionally and has also studied world history indepth. She disagrees with your assessment and thinks a vanguard and a socialist state are necessary intermediaries to get any kind of lasting libertarian anarchism.
I could easily find 100+ economists with better credentials who disagree with both you and my wife so what’s the point of jerking off your qualifications? If you have something persuasive to say just say it; vaguely telling us why you’re qualified is weak as hell. Why don’t you post your resume or link to any of the books you’ve published if you’re such an expert?
Your wife sounds like she’d be potentially interesting to talk to then, genuinely.
But uh, I wasn’t ‘flashing my credentials’ to assert authority by way of the number of fancy pieces of paper I have.
I was responding to the charge of having been ‘brainwashed’ by the US government, and mentioned my academic pursuits to hopefully be able to indicate that I have spent an inordinate and uncommon amount of time and effort attempting to do my own research and learn more.
…
I don’t have anything that I think would be persuasive to say, in general, to an ML Vanguardist.
Mostly because they tend to be very, very ideologically inflexible.
Again, I was responding to a single general concept with that section of what I wrote:
The idea that an ML/Tankie does not understand why Anarchists are skeptical of left-unity.
Apparently my error was to assume that the person I was responding to was… being serious, actually expressing that idea in good faith, earnestly.
…
I will not be posting my resume or any PII as I value my privacy here on lemmy.
…
You’re so very hostile and demanding of people you claim are or should be your allies…
…almost as if we have a fundamentally, radically distinct approach to basic human to human communication, to say nothing of how to grow a mass political movement.
So just to be clear, you’re the only free thinker and everyone who doesn’t agree with you is a mindless sheep blindly following their ideology as a religion?
Am I the only free thinker?
No, of course not?
Do all tankie/MLs engage in what could otherwise be an actually productive and insightful conversation with the absolutely most badfaith and toxic rhetoric that is humanly possible, immedeately, right out of the gate, like rabid cult members defending their beliefs?
In my experience, not 100% of the time, but 95% of the time, yes.
So I guess thanks to you that 95% is getting closer to rounding over to 96%.
You got anything other than an ad hom?
In constantly calling all your interlocutors cultists, you’re making it pretty hard to see anyone else as the bad faith adhom abusers here
Pot calling the kettle black, holy shit that’s hilarious.
“not everyone, just almost everyone” isn’t the gotcha you think it is.
Ridiculous statement for someone who incessantly calls the most predominant socialist tendency on earth a “religion.”
Edit: also lmao poli sci and economics degree
“Excuse me, the only real socialists are people with professional level liberal ideological education”
You claimed I was brainwashed by the government, I told you I wasn’t.
Your response is ‘Ridiculous!’ and then a strawman.
… this is evidently your strategy for fostering left-unity, to just attempt to rhetorically insult me until I submit to your way of thinking?
You ‘argue’ like a power tripping narcissist sociopath, it is actually funny to me that you seemingly lack awareness of how vindictive and manipulative you come across.
I guess the only good revolution is the one that is openly antagonistic to tbose whom it claims to represent, speak for, advocate for with unity.
I’m not trying to foster left unity with you, because frankly to consider you an anarchist would be such rank anti-anarchist sectarianism that Hexbear mods would be correct to permaban me. You’re a liberal.
Btw, I think that accusing anarcho-communists of having an ideology that inevitably leads to ecocide is pretty sectarian also (or again, maybe not sectarian. It’s not sectarian for a liberal [you] to be anti-anarchist, just shitty), and you haven’t engaged with this point but you’re posting ziq’s articles and this is one of their states positions so that’s something you need to deal with for yourself.
You called Marxism a religion before my comment, which was about your initial ad hominem comparison to religion, and frankly suggesting that the ideologies that you are opposed to are the ones the US government wants you to oppose is an objective fact.
LMAO holy shit what a toolbag
Ah yes, the evidence of history. Like all the successful anarchist revolutions?
I am not aware of any anarchists that even predict that some kind of anarchist revolution is any kind of inevitable.
And if there were some, I would disagree with them.
I am not purpoting to have some kind of perfect plan to ‘achieve anarchism’.
I don’t need to.
It’s ya’ll that tend to have a dogmatic, ideological faith in a perfect way to do things, that things should be done, that things inevitably will be done.
…
Anyway, the evidence of history I am referring to is that basically all self described ‘Communist’ states/societies haven’t ever really come close to Marx’s utopian conception of a classless society at the proverbial ‘end’ of Communism…
They mostly either reform or transform themselves into a highly state-managed form of capitalism, or into something with less overt direct state control over a hybrid state/capitalist economy, allowing private businesses and capitalists to operate under fairly significant levels of regulation…
Both of those will almost always only ever allow a single political party, clamp down on freedom of political association/expression, speech, etc… these societies very much still do have significant wealth disparity, ergo, social classes.
…
And those’re pretty much the best case scenarios.
They can also just collapse into… well basically, roughly fascism; a totalitarian, nationalistic, jingoistic central state that works with, grants favors to various capitalist oligarchs, corporations, as opposed to directly managing them or heavily regulating them…
In these societies, wealth disparity and thus class disparity tends to be even more significant… and they tend to put on a show of pretending to be liberal and democratic, though the extent of that effort ebbs and flows back toward social and governmental illiberalism over time.
It can get worse than that, but then we tend to get into ‘thats not real communism’ or basically just meme/schrodinger’s irony level argument territory, at least in my prior experience or discussions with tankies.
…
I don’t have a problem admitting that no anarchist revolution has succeeded in making a stable anarchist society at the scope and scale of a nation-state, with some kind of … assumed authoritative forceful control over a defined physical region.
Partially because… that isn’t really what at least I personally view as any kind of useful goal of my idea of anarchism.
…
If you doubt the history of tankies back stabbing anarchists… hold please, will update with source.
EDIT:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ziq-tankies-and-the-left-unity-scam
There it is!
No sense in me retyping all of this myself.
EDIT 2:
Or maybe its this one:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/various-authors-always-against-the-tanks/
This person’s works also include Burn the Bread Book, an anti-Anarcho-Communist screed in which they advocate for the end of civilization, and return to each person producing all their own food, an idea that is openly ecofascist and would kill billions, first and foremost a large number of disabled and chronically ill people.
I think you should carefully consider where your ideas are coming from.
People can can have some ideas or writings that are good, and some ideas or writings that are bad.
Other people can use their own brains to pick through those ideas on their own and formulate their own worldviews.
Which other genocidal anti-communist, anti-anarchist authors do you suggest have “some good ideas?”
Tell me you don’t understand Marx without telling me you don’t understand Marx
Edit: LMFAO YOU CITED ZIQ BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That was fast!
Sorry, I was trying to specifically use Lenin’s conception/phrasing of “socialism” as the progressive process that builds society toward the idealized, but possibly not ever truly, perfectly achievable “communism”.
Thats what I get for trying to use ML terms with an ML, I suppose.
So anyway, if a classless society is not the ultimate end goal of Marx, of Marxism… what would you describe the end goal of Marxism as?
You don’t think perhaps it was the word “utopian,” a word which in the discussion of various different socialist tendencies generally refers to the Utopian Socialists, a group that Marx vocally criticized?
(Which anyone with a decent understanding of Marx would know, and therefore avoid using the word in a description of Marxist goals.)
Does it ever occur to you that mandating a mastery of an esoteric vocabulary and history as the first step toward being elligible for ‘left-unity’… is not exactly appealing to, or a reasonable expectation for prospective new members of such a ‘left-unity’ broad social movement?
Are you trying to be an elitist clique, or a movement that broadly represents large masses of poor, tired, busy, overworked, poorly educated people?
So you also don’t know what “esoteric” means? Interesting.
-an anarchist btw
You’ve been talking down to me this entire time and you claim to have degrees in both economics and political science, and you’re now complaining that I’m being elitist for pointing out that you’re not actually familiar with my ideology in any depth?
I would expect someone trying to criticize something to have the most basic familiarity with it, yes.
Oof yeah, words can have multiple meanings in different contexts and change over time as well.
I meant it in the more common lingo that normal people mean by the word utopian, an idealized human society that is the best for all its members of any possible society.
Sorry, I don’t spend that much time getting into online arguments with MLs and Socialism Understanders these days, as they tend to be so very, very pedantic and unproductive.
See how you almost got me to not notice you didn’t even attempt to answer my most pertinent question?
Two faced dishonest hypocrite.
Note: this isn’t an ad hominem because I’m not trying to dismiss an idea here, just point out that you’re a contemptible person