this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2025
214 points (91.2% liked)
Anarchism
2637 readers
64 users here now
Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.
Other anarchist comms
- !anarchism@slrpnk.net
- !anarchism@lemmy.blahaj.zone
- !anarchism@hexbear.net
- !anarchism@lemmy.ml
- !anarchism101@lemmy.ca
- !flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ha ha "tankies" aka people who break through the empire wall of propaganda programming. So choosing to stop believing western propaganda rags and CIA psyops to answer your question
"Authoritarianism" isnt even real, its jus another CIA op from the 60s so they could label any bad scary commie country as it
I like how you didn't even remotely attempt to answer the question
Comon, at least put some effort into your liberal trolling, I even put in "to answer your question" right there ha ha!
How exactly does "So choosing to stop believing western propaganda rags and CIA psyops to answer your question" answer any of these three questions? Like it's ridiculous to think that {rejecting CIA propaganda} => {immortal science of Marxism-Leninism}, i.e. people can and do reasonably disagree with Marxist-Leninists and other state socialists out of an organic theoretical and practical desire to do things differently.
Also, western leftists have a problem swallowing CIA and pro-Western propaganda (myself included, something I'm trying to unlearn) — including western "tankies".
Go through my comment history. 95% of my comment history is screaming at liberals for being fucking liberals 😮💨
Sorry if I'm being curt but you came into our space and started being a jerk to people, and now you're all surprised Pikachu face that we're being less than polite back. If you want to actually have a productive discussion then great, but you're just not doing that right now.
They corrected you and you didn't even address it, you're losing
It is difficult for me to imagine how someone could possibly convince themselves of this. What do you call it when a leader consolidates power around themselves, removing checks on their position and making unilateral mandates that are enforced through state violence against all who dare oppose?
I call it "class society"
Which is authoritarian in nature.
That's circular
Explain.
I don't really believe that authoritarianism is materially possible in classless society
I believe that authoritarianism is the origin of class. All that it takes is for one person to draw a boundary, state "this is mine," and then enforce that with violence. There is no end of history. Even if we do manage to create a classless society, there's no guarantee that it will remain that way. To maintain such a society will require maintenance, and that means identifying and resisting authoritarianism when and where it inevitably emerges. It is therefore essential to have a word to describe the types of behaviour that can result in the reemergence of class society.
We call it a dictatorship. The term "authoritarian" was developed by the west to antagonize its enemies. It means nothing except "this country is bad" in the exact same way that "terrorist" means nothing except "this person is bad".
I remember seeing this argument before. It's something like all states are authoritarian, so you can't call out any single state for being authoritarian. Like the label only exists for some states to de-legitimize others even though the ones doing the labeling are also authoritarian. It appears to me to be an intentional attempt to strip the word of meaning so that authoritarians can no longer be criticized as such.
All states are authoritarian, some moreso than others. It's true that some states do cynically accuse others of doing what they do themselves to delegitimize them, but it is completely valid still to single out certain states that are particularly authoritarian, and to compare them to others.
This is why it's necessary to investigate the nature of authority and the state. The state is simply the tool by which one class establishes supremacy, and the degree to which said authority is used depends on the conditions the state finds itself in, and not on any individual's decision. Socialist states where the working class is in control have to develop instruments of state power to protect the gains of socialism, even anarchists do this as well in practice. Capitalist states where capitalists are in control oppress the working class to protect the free flow of capital and continuous circulation.
Trying to treat the level of authority employed as a policy choice, rather than a response to existing conditions, delegitimizes the use of necessary tools to defend the gains of socialism.
How you respond to existing conditions is a policy choice, and authoritarian methods are not necessary for defending the gains of socialism.
For example, one existing condition in the US is the fentanyl crisis. The US government has chosen to respond to this existing condition by continuing the criminalization of drug abuse and using the crisis as justification for imperialism in Venezuela. The US could have chosen to respond by funding addiction treatment centers and decriminalizing drug abuse.
Another example, an existing condition in China was population growing faster than their economy could keep up (ostensibly). China chose to respond with a one-child policy, restricting reproductive freedom. China could have chosen to respond by encouraging contraception and creating financial incentives and disincentives.
What you suggest is political determinism, implying that there is only one way that a state can respond to existing conditions, when in fact there is a vast range of possibility.
Flip it around. The US Empire didn't randomly choose to attack Venezuela, the imperialist system itself found justification for doing so. The mode of production takes priority over the what actions a system takes, its internal contradictions are what drives its change. The US Empire is in a state of decline, and thus needs to re-exert itself millitarily. The conditions are that imperialism is weakening, the outcome is the violent re-assertion of control. Had imperialism been working fine and Venezuela colonized by the US, it would not be attacking Venezuela right now, but the capacity for doing so already exists.
In 1954, condoms and cervical caps were already promoted over abortions for family planning. They continued to promote birth control, in the early 1970s they sent "barefoot doctors" to the rural areas where birth rates were higher to teach about contraceptives and provide abortions if needed. It wasn't until 1979, 25 years after they started promoting modern methods of birth control and incentives for lowering birth rates that they implemented the One Child Policy, exempting ethnic minorities. It wasn't the first, second, third, fourth, or fifth tactic, but one finally employed after 25 years, over a decade and a half from the baby boom in the 60s. The state responded to crisis in increasing measure because simply promoting awareness of birth control and providing it for free did not work at the rates needed.
Not quite. My point isn't that choice doesn't exist, but that the extent to which measures are employed and the types of measures employed depends on the class character of the state and the existing material conditions the state finds itself in. Modern Germany doesn't have a lesser potential for authority than Nazi Germany, it just hasn't had the need to thanks to benefiting from decades of imperialism. Now that imperialism is crumbling, it's trending to the far-right again. This isn't because of any choice for authority, but the state responding to real conditions.
Actually I think this comment unintentionally answers OP's question.
I think a common tankie story is:
Realization that much of western media is propaganda or influenced by propaganda.
Finding that enemies of the American empire (and Europe) with some semblance of power agree that western media is propaganda, and these people are MLM communists.
After they've established credibility with their accurate criticisms of western capitalist society, tell you that, oh, by the way, those propaganda outlets in the west also lie about us, actually almost all of what we do is awesome and people who claim otherwise are automatically suspect.
Number 3 is a mistake, I think, but it's an understandable one. This isn't super fair to tankies but the analogy I'd give is to people who fall under the spell of someone like Jordan Peterson: he sounds smart, and he lulls you into a sense of security with good advice about taking care of yourself, keeping your house clean, etc., and then once he's gotten your trust he gently introduces stuff like "oh by the way evolution proves that men and women shouldn't work together" or whatever, and because he's made sensible points up until then, your guard is down and you don't critique it in your head before accepting it.
Western propaganda outlets absolutely do like about their enemies though. It's verifiable. They lie about them more than anything else.
The primary goal of the empire is maintaining its hegemony. Since the biggest threats to that hegemony are its rival states, it undermines support for them by libeling and slandering them. The empire doesn't much care about how great you think it is. As long as you hate every alternative more, they're not threatened. The reason Stalin and Mao were demonized more than anyone else in modern history is because they scared the living shit out of the capitalists.
Example of their lies
My "tankie story", so to speak, began in 2019 just before the Hong Kong protests kicked off. I followed the progression of that story through Marxist news sources like Proles Pod:
A Chinese man murdered and dismembered his girlfriend, stashed her body parts in a suitcase, and fled to Hong Kong. China couldn't extradite him back to the mainland, so the Chinese authorities in Hong Kong crafted an extradition law. Hong Kong capitalists opposed it, fearing extradition for their financial crimes.
For a long time, I heard nothing about the story from mainstream American news sources. Then one day, NPR broached the subject. I thought "oh boy, someone is finally covering this story!"
All that NPR had to say about it was "There are protests in Hong Kong. The protesters want more democracy. China is against them because they hate democracy." I was flabbergasted! There was no substance at all to the reporting. Absolutely none of the inciting background was covered. I was introduced in real time to the way that even "good" liberal, Western news sources like NPR flatten all stories about enemy countries into simple good vs. evil narratives.
This is just a straw man. The reason the concept of "critical support" is so common in Marxist anti-imperialist spaces is because we acknowledge nuance and limit our support to productive actions.
I'm going to throw back once more to my experience with Proles Pod, a podcast that was widely criticized as being one of the most "Stalinist" media in existence. I was introduced to them through an interview with the hosts conducted by Breht O'Shea on Revolutionary Left Radio. They spent the first twenty minutes enumerating all their criticisms of the mistakes that Stalin made.
US propaganda: "Russia, China, and North Korea are hellscapes filled with mindless automatons ruled over by evil, ruthless dictators with unlimited, supernatural powers who sit on ivory thrones all day and press the human misery button. Their people yearn for freedom and will greet us as liberators if we nuke their governments, because every citizen is a prisoner."
Russian propaganda: "The West is full of d*gener*te queers^[Tankies reject this bigotry.], and the US repeatedly meddles in the affairs of other nations.^[Undoubtedly true]"
North Korean propaganda: "We built a row of houses in this rural village and gave them to the farmers that live there."
Chinese propaganda: "Look at this cute panda eating bamboo and rolling down a hill."
"it's okay that I support imperialism, the imperialists told me the anti imperialists will believe anything!"
Worshipping states is cringe
So China and Russia aren't authoritarianisms?
Every state is authoritarian