Anarchists have more in common from the fact that liberals support a capitalist framework alone. Tankies support socialism via weird means that don’t get there in the end.
One wants to do something similar, one defends capitalism. One wants to stop fascists, one defends fascists.
disagree. in my opinion anarchists and liberals have kind of the same goal, freedom for the people, but with very different means. all the while for tankies that’s not important at all, as we can see with how they cheer up on china and russia, surveillance states where your life can get destroyed for wrongthink.
Tankies are morons who have the right intentions but the wrong idea how to get it. They read Marx and saw Stalin and went “sure that seems good.”
Liberals haven’t read Marx, saw Stalin and went “anything he stood for was evil.” And they’re mostly right, but they have the wrong intentions with the new ways of avoiding it. All of which lead to Trump’s iron grip.
Tankies are morons who have the right intentions but the wrong idea how to get it. They read Marx and saw Stalin and went “sure that seems good.”
“They read Marx and missed his point entirely, instead embracing fascism, therefore, they’re better than people who haven’t read Marx.”
Liberals haven’t read Marx, saw Stalin and went “anything he stood for was evil.” And they’re mostly right, but they have the wrong intentions with the new ways of avoiding it. All of which lead to Trump’s iron grip.
What exactly is the fucking difference, then, between tankies and liberals in this conception in terms of where it leads to?
“Tankies are better than liberals because they oppose capitalism” in this conception, which acknowledges that tankies are aiming for Stalin-esque bureaucratic control of the means of production, is no more coherent than “Strasserists are better than liberals because they oppose capitalism”, or “Theocratic clientists are better than liberals because they oppose capitalism” - the latter, bizarrely enough, being something I have actually heard tankies on Lemmy espouse. Apparently the whole fascist conception of a “third way” was lost on them - or worse, appears appealing.
You could just as easily say “Liberals are morons who have the right intentions (democracy) but the wrong idea how to get it (capitalism)”
Tankies are dumbasses who simp for dictators, liberals have more intelligence but apply it incorrectly.
Most liberals are liberal for lack of a better idea. Most liberals have not even been exposed to serious conceptions of socialism. If given the choice between fighting with liberals or fighting with tankies to see the point of a democratic and socialist society, liberals are by far the easier fight.
For that matter, if given the choice between fighting with a liberal regime, whose insufficient opposition to authoritarianism is likely to result in an eventual capitulation to fascism; or a tankie regime, which is and has its goal as fascism painted red; the former is much easier to fight and organize in.
Of those two choices - and the real world is not composed of such a binary - I would argue, albeit admittedly as a demsoc rather than an outright anarchist - that anarchists, whom I disagree with moderately at most, shouldn’t have anything in common with fucking tankies, who are despicable. If ‘opposition to capitalism’ is a valid point of ‘agreement’ then, as I pointed out, literal fascist regimes are no less ‘allies’ in that conception in contrast to the liberal menace.
Worth mentioning that this is US-defaultism. Outside the US everyone has experienced socialised healthcare or other such social services
Welfare states originated with Otto von Bismarck in an effort to combat socialism, which is worker ownership of the means of production. For that matter, Americans are eminently familiar with social services.
Capitalism in decay turns into authoritarianism, as the state becomes part of the market system.
Authoritarianism is bad, by fascists, capitalists, and states pretending to be socialist/communist.
Edit: if this place doesn’t like extremism, why am I being downvoted for saying extremism is a bad thing and we need to avoid it? Did I call out a method of it that you agree with, like .ml and .world?
A bunch of weirdos who think they know better by defending countries that don’t care about them, that aren’t socialist, and are just as power hungry as western nations, they just go about it a different way.
They support the same things just with a new coat of paint.
Anarchists have more in common from the fact that liberals support a capitalist framework alone. Tankies support socialism via weird means that don’t get there in the end.
One wants to do something similar, one defends capitalism. One wants to stop fascists, one defends fascists.
disagree. in my opinion anarchists and liberals have kind of the same goal, freedom for the people, but with very different means. all the while for tankies that’s not important at all, as we can see with how they cheer up on china and russia, surveillance states where your life can get destroyed for wrongthink.
Oh indeed, anarchists are more about freedom. It’s why I detest tankies.
“Tankies support socialism via fascism!”
Average red fash bootlicker.
Tankies are morons who have the right intentions but the wrong idea how to get it. They read Marx and saw Stalin and went “sure that seems good.”
Liberals haven’t read Marx, saw Stalin and went “anything he stood for was evil.” And they’re mostly right, but they have the wrong intentions with the new ways of avoiding it. All of which lead to Trump’s iron grip.
“They read Marx and missed his point entirely, instead embracing fascism, therefore, they’re better than people who haven’t read Marx.”
What exactly is the fucking difference, then, between tankies and liberals in this conception in terms of where it leads to?
“Tankies are better than liberals because they oppose capitalism” in this conception, which acknowledges that tankies are aiming for Stalin-esque bureaucratic control of the means of production, is no more coherent than “Strasserists are better than liberals because they oppose capitalism”, or “Theocratic clientists are better than liberals because they oppose capitalism” - the latter, bizarrely enough, being something I have actually heard tankies on Lemmy espouse. Apparently the whole fascist conception of a “third way” was lost on them - or worse, appears appealing.
You could just as easily say “Liberals are morons who have the right intentions (democracy) but the wrong idea how to get it (capitalism)”
Tankies are dumbasses who simp for dictators, liberals have more intelligence but apply it incorrectly.
Honestly, fair.
Most liberals are liberal for lack of a better idea. Most liberals have not even been exposed to serious conceptions of socialism. If given the choice between fighting with liberals or fighting with tankies to see the point of a democratic and socialist society, liberals are by far the easier fight.
For that matter, if given the choice between fighting with a liberal regime, whose insufficient opposition to authoritarianism is likely to result in an eventual capitulation to fascism; or a tankie regime, which is and has its goal as fascism painted red; the former is much easier to fight and organize in.
Of those two choices - and the real world is not composed of such a binary - I would argue, albeit admittedly as a demsoc rather than an outright anarchist - that anarchists, whom I disagree with moderately at most, shouldn’t have anything in common with fucking tankies, who are despicable. If ‘opposition to capitalism’ is a valid point of ‘agreement’ then, as I pointed out, literal fascist regimes are no less ‘allies’ in that conception in contrast to the liberal menace.
Worth mentioning that this is US-defaultism. Outside the US everyone has experienced socialised healthcare or other such social services
Welfare states originated with Otto von Bismarck in an effort to combat socialism, which is worker ownership of the means of production. For that matter, Americans are eminently familiar with social services.
Experiencing it is a much different thing than knowing it
That seems a little US-centric
Does capitalism breed fascism?
Capitalism in decay turns into authoritarianism, as the state becomes part of the market system.
Authoritarianism is bad, by fascists, capitalists, and states pretending to be socialist/communist.
Edit: if this place doesn’t like extremism, why am I being downvoted for saying extremism is a bad thing and we need to avoid it? Did I call out a method of it that you agree with, like .ml and .world?
Pretending is an interesting term. You think there’s states pretending to be communist? Which ones?
China, the Soviet Union, Cuba. North Korea used to, until its Juche reform in like 2019 (?) completely gave up on it.
Communism requires no state. A state claiming ot be communist is an oxymoron.
so what’s your take on tankies then?
A bunch of weirdos who think they know better by defending countries that don’t care about them, that aren’t socialist, and are just as power hungry as western nations, they just go about it a different way.
They support the same things just with a new coat of paint.
so what do you look for in this community? since you don’t seem to enjoy it here