you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 69 points 3 weeks ago (40 children)

"Far left"

"Tankie"

Choose one

  • source
  • hideshow 40 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 weeks ago (24 children)

    You can be left and authoritarian. At least outside of the US you can, in America all politics get squashed into a single binary choice, so it seems weird.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [+] -17 points 3 weeks ago* (23 children)

    You can also be left and be right, and dumb and wise, and black and white, all simultaneously! Up is down, back is forwards, authoritarian is left!

    No, left is against hierarchy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 weeks ago (17 children)

    No, left is socialist (in the broad sense, opposed to individualism)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago* (16 children)

    * Anarchism has entered the chat*

    Yea just gonna full sail disagree with you on this claim.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 weeks ago (15 children)

    Many types of anarchism fit under the socialist umbrella

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 weeks ago (14 children)

    Yes, I agree, which would disagree with the other comment's point that socialism inherently opposes individualism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago*

    Interesting. Where/when are they not opposed?

    Edit: Noting that I didn't mean that they are mutually exclusive outside of social structure.. You can take individual actions in a socialist society. The question is just around which is the core principle of the organisation of society.

    Edit 2: to me anarchy isn't inherently individualistic, it is just opposed to power-over social structures. You can have a voluntary socialism. Look at Chiapas, for instance.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago* (12 children)

    As much as i know, anarchy is not indivualist since the entire point of anarchism should be that the community works togheter to do stuff

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago (8 children)

    While respecting the rights and autonomy of the individual. It is entirely about respecting individual freedom while also encouraging work together as a community.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

    so its a fell good circlejerk with no framework on how to organize and overthrow capitalism. Hah

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

    Tell me you know nothing about Anarchist philosophy or history with explicitly saying so.

    !["The ultimate goal of our oppressors is to limit our imagination about what is possible without them, so that we might never imagine more for ourselves and the world we live in. We can only imagine what is in front of us because the power structure decrees that there are no alternatives other than what currently exists. We humans have lived the alternative for tens of thousands of years. We are capable of building a free society, a brighter future, because we already have ideas about what that might look like. We know what societies without bureaucracies are capable of."

    — David Graeber, cultural anthropologist](https://slrpnk.net/pictrs/image/84d97534-b030-4f03-9732-7e73c587306b.png)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 3 weeks ago* (5 children)

    you still didnt explain

    • How would you organize people and overthrow the bourgeosie state?
    • How would you maintain siginificant resistance against foreign imperialist attacks without some kind of heirarchy?
    • How would you incentivize people to actually work in jobs which dont have good reputation?
    • How would you counter reactionary tendencies and stop reactionary mobilization?

    This whole quote seem like motivation speech

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

    Try reading a book and you'll get those answers explained in full. I'm not gonna sit here and paraphrase volumes of anarchist theory just so you can play judge nitpicking the specifics. I have explained my position well enough. If you want specifics, go read the source materials.

    Kropotkin, Graeber, Bakunin, Proudhon, Luxembourg, Parsons, etc ... All have explained the mechanisms of decentralized resistance and horizontally structured systems of authority as well as the incentive structures of how people decide what to labor on and organize with their communities to ensure desired services are rendered alongside how this change of incentives and authoritative structure would counteract reactionary efforts.

    FYI, that quote is from renowned anthropologist, David Graeber, who wrote multiple books on these very subjects. You should try reading them. You'll learn something.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 weeks ago* (3 children)

    lol. Read Lenin and Stalin - People who actually did something in real life.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    You mean those who started an authoritarian regime who committed untold acts of oppression upon the working class they claimed to represent? Whose only reason they succeeded was due to the anarchists who helped build the revolution in the first place only to be stabbed in the back by your idols?

    Get bent tankie.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Bolsheviks succeded due to anarchists? lmfao

    anways, symbol of anarchism is usually a graffiti under a bridge, flag of marxism leninism has been flown over big nations and once encapsulated 1/3rd of humanity

    Thats the difference.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago*

    Telle you don't understand what Anarchism is without explicitly telling me.

    You're a joke.

    The majority of human history is anarchist in nature. Far longer than your little authoritarian bullshit flag. You'd know this if you'd have read Graeber.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago

    It's about a community of individuals. The individual is celebrated, but in a way that's far more akin to Mr. Rodgers (you're special and unique just like everyone else) rather than of say a heroic society (where the ability to command attention and stand uniquely above others is valued).

    An anarchist would say that you need to figure out how you can best contribute to your community in a way that fits with your unique self rather than taking away from it. It's akin to a family, where various things need to be done and it's up to the members of the household to figure out how to get it done in a way most associated with everyone's wants and needs, but also in the discussion are the nice to haves like someone may grow an herb garden, while another household may decide nobody wants it enough to do it or push for it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    The left-right spectrum makes less sense to me by the day.

    However, I personally define tankies as authoritians who do some mental gymnastics to think that a benevolent "socialist" dictatorship equates to control of society by the workers. (It obviously doesn't. A dictatorship by a minority is exactly that)

    Anyone who defines North Korea as socialist needs to reconsider their political positions, in my opinion.

    Just because they're in opposition to the capitalist South Korea and the worst imperialist nation in the world, the USA, doesn't mean you need to stand behind the North Korean regime...

    All the cool socialists think campism is brainrot (my opinion)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (8 children)

    Tankies are what happens when you go all the way left and all the way up into Authoritarianship

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

    end up being right wing. authoritarian in nature is often conservative leaning.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago

    Right wing and left wing are economic labels communism and capatalism. Right wing people tend to cluster towards the authoritarian side of the authority and liberty scale but so do left wingers.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

    Yeah but right wing in tankie states were called the nomenclature, the old guard

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (4 children)

    We clearly are having a communication issue here. Right wing has meant pro-capitalism for over 200 years

    mint > meant I blame speech to text.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago* (3 children)

    The distinction between left and right wing comes from the French Revolution. Everyone who wanted to keep the King lined up on the right. Everyone who wanted to try sonething new lined up on the left. Leftism is certainly inherently anti-monarchical, and I would argue also inherently anti-hierarchical. Tankies are right-wing communists; that's why left wing communists tend to disagree with them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago*

    right wing is support of capitalism left wing is support of Communism You're not going to change the definition by selectively copy pasting the answer that you got by googling the definition of left right spectrum. You are conflating conservatism with capitalism they are two separate human conditions.

    I can also copy paste from Google

    Conservatism is a social and political philosophy focused on preserving traditional values, social order, and established institutions. Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership, market competition, and profit. While often closely allied in modern politics, they represent distinct concepts that can sometimes conflict

    I do want to stress that I'm not calling you stupid. I'm just trying to let you know that the words you are using do not mean what you think they mean.

  • source
  • parent