119
"Just once I'd like these people to come in and engage with us" - 'Hello' - "Fuck off"
(sh.itjust.works)
this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2026
119 points (90.5% liked)
MeanwhileOnGrad
2091 readers
147 users here now
"Oh, this is calamity! Calamity! Oh no, he's on the floor!"
Welcome to MoG!
Meanwhile On Grad
Documenting hate speech, conspiracy theories, apologia/revisionism, and general tankie behaviour across the fediverse. Memes are welcome!
What is a Tankie?
Alternatively, a detailed blog post about Tankies.
(caution of biased source)
Basic Rules:
Sh.itjust.works Instance rules apply! If you are from other instances, please be mindful of the rules. — Basically, don't be a dick.
Hate-Speech — You should be familiar with this one already; practically all instances have the same rules on hate speech.
Apologia — (Using the Modern terminology for Apologia) No Defending, Denying, Justifying, Bolstering, or Differentiating authoritarian acts or endeavours, whether it be a Pro-CCP viewpoint, Stalinism, Islamic Terrorism or any variation of Tankie Ideology.
Revisionism — No downplaying or denying atrocities past and present. Calling Tankies shills, foreign/federal agents, or bots also falls under this rule. Extremists exist. They are real. Do not call them shills or fake users, as it handwaves their extremism.
Off-topic Discussion — Do not discuss unrelated topics to the point of derailing the thread. Stay focused on the direct content of the post, rather than engaging in arguments that lack mutual agreement.
Brigading — If you're here because this community was linked in another thread, please refrain from voting, commenting, or manipulating the post in any way. This includes alt accounts. All votes are public, and if you are found to be brigading, you will be banned.
Tankies can explain their views, but may be criticised or challenged for them. Any minor infraction of the rules may result in a warning and possibly a temporary ban.
You'll be warned if you're violating the instance and community rules. Continuing poor behaviour after being warned will result in a ban or removal of your comments. Bans typically last only 24 hours, but each subsequent infraction doubles the duration. Depending on the content, the ban time may be increased. You may request an unban at any time.
Don't engage with Antiyanks -- DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANTIYANKS. YOU DO NOT RECOGNISE ANTIYANKS. YOU DO NOT RECOGNISE ANTIYANKS.
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
Equating anarchists to fascists is genuinely in the top five most stupid fucking political takes I have ever heard in my life. What the fuck do you think anarchists want force on you?
"Fuck these anarchists, they want to get rid of hierarchy and government so I won't have a boot to suck the polish off of." Is what you fucking sound like. The comm is for shitting on tankies. Anarchists are not tankies. Tankie does not mean leftist, it means authoritarian communist.
Anarchists aren't tankies, no. But a shocking amount of them, on Lemmy at least, cosy up with Tankies and even argue in favour of authoritarian states, or defend them. From my experience, the average anarchist hates the liberal more than the tankie, despite the latter being in direct opposition to their principles.
Yes, and I actively distance myself from them. Its why I moved from dbzer0 to quokk.au and from Lemmy to Piefed. Anarchists who cosy up to MLs are naive and fail to learn from a hundred years of history. Anarchism is just as incompatible with statism and authority as it is with capitalism. That is not to say I wont work with liberals and marxists, just that I would never trust them.
that's actually really respectful to your ideals.
why do you think so many anarchists, like those from dbzer0, cosy up to tankies?
Its scary fighting back. You want allies, and many of them so the odds dont feel so impossible. Its hard not to fall into the thinking that capitalism is the bigger threat, so we should work together against the common enemy. "We'll figure out which communism is best after the revolution" is what I often hear. Issue is, looking at history, we get backstabbed before we get to see the end of the revolution. In the end though, its hard not to end up trusting those you spend time working with.
Succinctly said. Personally, I think communists will have a better chance of achieving true communism™ by cosying with liberals and democracy, suggesting socialist and universal systems, pensions, healthcare, transport -- Systems that most democratic nations already have implemented.
It's telling that China, the de facto "communist" state, which isn't exactly Marxist, lacks some of these universal systems, such as healthcare and worker rights and of course, the class disparity.
What I mean is that I don't think an immediate, instantaneous uprising is absolutely necessary to achieve these concepts.
I think anarchists have more in common with communists, the issue is that the kind of communists that dominate the spaces are Marxist-Leninists who are the problem. I would be much more inclined to trust a council communist or a luxemburgist than I am a liberal or an ML. The reason being that (good) statist communists at least agree with anarchists on needing to abolish private property and capitalism, but disagree overmatters regarding the state. Liberals still believe in both capitalism and the state. I do not see a situation where liberals would ever allow anarchists to exist outwardly. I do not see it with MLs either. But I could see a very small chance of it happening if democratic communists (like council communists and luxemburgists) were the dominant force in statist radical left circles. Unfortunately though they are not. So unfortunately anarchists are pretty isolated for allies.
Do you think anarchism is even possible without an apocalypse? It's very telling that, throughout history, there's been no long-lasting anarchist community, unless you consider nomadic towns and villages anarchist.
No, I believe it is possible. The Ukrainian Black Army and CNT-FAI came remarkably close. There are other examples as well, but most relevant is the Zapatistas who have existed since 1994 and still exist today. I think it is simply really fucking hard, and we are still learning what works versus what doesnt. I feel it is telling that anarchists are successful right up until the are betrayed and end up having to fight everyone at once. It tells me it takes everyone teaming up to beat us. It tells me we are a threat, and we are a threat becauss we could win
Well, I'm certainly not opposed to anarchism, though I do have some worries about its feasibility
"At the Cafe" by Errico Malatesta paired with the documentary "Living in Utopia" (available on Zoe Baker's youtube channel) was what convinced me of its feasibility. But I was also already a Council Communist by then so it wasnt a huge leap for me.
I think one of the strongest arguments about anarchism is how do you ensure a group of armed, violent men does not take over the entire group? How do you avoid it from collapsing?
We do it by empowering the communities itself, and teaching them to liberate themselves. Its not perfect, but afterall no solution is. You still get cases like the atrocities individuals of the Black Army committed against the Mennonites, and the ones committed by the CNT-FAI against nuns and priests. They are horrible actions, and while I still support and admire the groups I still condemn those actions and wish to learn from and prevent them in the future. And not that I am excusing it with whataboutism (just trying to avoid anybsort of singling out of anarchists about this), but this is not a unique problem with anarchists. Every group is guilty of doing similar stuff, and I feel anarchists are better about reducing, resisting, and condeming those actions than other groups. I think part of it is simply the culture and beliefs of anarchists that helps prevent these kinds of acts, but also like I said the community empowerment that comes with anarchism. I think it is also important to build a culture of accountability within anarchist groups, and to develop structures that reinforce that. What all of that looks like is stuff we are still figuring out and learnjng from, but we have progress made in that regard. "What about the rapists" is a good book discussing ideas on community safety and justice without cops, which some could be extrapolated to revolutionary militias
You know, I've been political, and political about the fringes, for a very long time. I remember arguing with anarchists in high school. Ah, nostalgia! And for years and years I argued with anarchists, and I was always frustrated that they seemed to have the core of something good, but kept asserting the strangest things in support of it.
You know what helped me legitimately understand their views?
"Libertarian socialism" is, historically, a synonym for "anarchism".
Replace that mentally every time you see "anarchism", and "state" with "authoritarians" whenever anarchists speak, and the whole thing makes much more sense.
I've spent literal dozens of hours of my life over the years arguing with anarchists over the singular issue of "How is a state defined", and got nowhere. I still think they're wrong, but I accept that most aren't going to change their views on how to define a state from an internet quarrel.
But if you get around to the fact that, to the eyes of people like us, what they're advocating for is a much more democratic, much less hierarchical state, which is what their policy proposals for their theoretical community amount to, it shakes out to a much more sustainable model. When I'm sitting here defining state as "Decision-making bodies' monopoly on communal coercion" and they're sitting there defining it as "Unjustified hierarchy", their argument of "Get rid of the state" is going to sound insane to my ears, but 'translated', so to speak, is less objectionable.
Now, one of the core issues that I still have is that I'm uncertain about the long-term viability of highly-mobile military conflict with a powerful organized state, but that has much more to do with questions of scale and OODA loops than an inability to effectively respond to violence conceptually. As far as internal stability or fending off groups of similar size (or even somewhat larger size, considering that modern warfare in particular privileges the defender), I think the historical performance of libertarian socialist militias shows that it's far from an insurmountable task.
Thank you for this. I think it is a good way of explaining it all. Anarchists tend to have very specific definitions for things (whether they are academically accurate or not certainly varies, we sometimes like to change the definitions of things lol) that tend not to be understood by everyone else. Issue is we don't really have better ways of explaining things. Cause I do feel defining being anti-state as simply being anti-authoritarian does lose some of the nuance, but when people either don't agree with or don't understand our definition of a state that nuance was lost to begin with anyways.
Since coming over to the fediverse I have always considered you to be an honorary anarchist. Its rare to see non-anarchists defending and supporting anarchists lol
Of course - it's really just a starting point for people who can't wrap their heads around it. I was in that position myself for years.
More realistically, and with more nuance, I would regard anarchists as generally being opposed to rigid and enduring institutions. For people like me who still believe in a traditional state, those institutions - even with all their potential for corruption, abuse, and hierarchy - are valuable stores of institutional and tribal knowledge which would be lost with a majority-ad hoc system of government reliant on direct democracy.
Not only that, but what anarchists would probably regard as my inner authoritarian coming out, people do sometimes need to be told what to do. Anarchism, in my view, scales until the unified group is no longer capable of exercising overwhelming authority (and I apologize for the term) over the un-unified. Cities and even regions can be integrated into an anarchist framework, but I'm of the opinion that it begins to fall apart beyond that, as people of different communities struggle to equate each other as exactly as important as themselves/their neighbors. The NIMBY problem on a large scale.
While I find the State useful in more situations than just this, it's here where I find the traditional State truly necessary in cracking the whip on enforcement of regionally unpopular initiatives. People who find agreement on abstract principles can still become very 'loose' with those principles when it comes to being applied to them. I'm unconvinced that anarchist federative models have the same capacity to enforce static decision-making like that without coming to resemble a traditional state in basic form and function in the long-term.
That being said, I'd also be happy to be proven wrong - even if the theoretical display doesn't impress me enough to prefer it over a traditional state, I'm happy to see other forms of power structure (that aren't inherently ultra-shitty) remind the traditional state it's not the only game in town.
I consider that high praise! 🙏
While I definitely do have disagreements with even the basic end-goal of anarchists, I generally regard anarchism as both possible and desirable compared to present capitalist society; and that the anarchist undertaking of creating parallel systems of low-hierarchy power structures outside of the state to be both moral and necessary for a just, non-anarchist society. In my thinking, all power is based on implicit negotiation; having alternatives to state institutions for community services (including charity, regulation, security, etc) strengthens the negotiating position of the people relative to the state, which is almost always good.
We may disagree on whether to take Ol' Yeller behind the shed and put the State down for good, but there's a lot of room for cooperation leading up to that 'end-decision' - starting with restraining the ill-trained dog so he can't savage anyone he damn well pleases.
Hey! Those are excellent ways of describing it. I kind of neglected the fact that it's democratic in the extreme. Everything is voted on.
And yes, the concept of a State is non-existent.
Ukraine has had a long history of it for example. It never quite died either. And even plays a role in today's conflict against Russian invasion.
Right at the start of the 2022 offensive, everyone east of Kiev was making improvised weapons, barricades etc, because they knew Russia would roll over them before the Ukrainian Military had moved enough personnel to evacuate.
They didn't do it because it was their job, they didn't do it for a sense of Ukrainian pride. They did it because it was their home.
Way to not even read anything I said, but rather make a series of assumptions about me based on what you thought would be easiest to knock down. Tankies are the kings of strawmen.
I said tankies are covert fascists. I never called anarchists tankies. I said they're bullies. And you're only proving my point.
I don't suck any boots, I don't know what world you're living in if you have to do that every day but it's not the world I'm living in. Anarchists want to get rid of government because they want to be the bullies and get their boots sucked for a change, and they make that clear by their behavior. That's not any better than the system we currently have.
Also, tankies generally consider themselves leftist. Which is the argument for not saying they're overt fascists. But I didn't call them overt fascists, I called them covert fascists; meaning they use a veneer of leftist ideology to cover the fact that they're authoritarian and generally behave like fascists.
And before you put more words in my mouth, I never said all leftists are tankies. If you have an ounce of intelligence then you'll know that all apples are fruits but not all fruits are apples.
I like the idea of anarchism, but it'll only be possible if the state and all those who recall it were completely wiped out. Come on nuclear armageddon, come on nuclear armageddon!
There will never be a time where principled anarchists are not also called "tankies" by liberals. If you believe in the use of revolutionary violence and the defense of a revolution, you will be called a "tankie."
But you guys can't handle violence despite how much you larp on about it.
Genuinely would rather be called anarkiddie lmao. You know what they say, scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds
If you're going around making people bleed for being liberal, then you're a fascist.
wonderfully said
I hear this phrase a lot, and I'm curious to hear what you think it means
To me it means liberals will side with fascists when push comes to shove. I wont fail to recognize that there are examples of liberals resisting fascism, but you also have many more instances where they enable, defend, or outright join fascists. Hitler drew a lot of inspiration from the US's Jim Crow laws, and Hitler was chosen as New York Times Person of the year. The social democrats of Weimar Germany used proto-fascist to eradicate a communist revolution. The Weimar Republic is who put Hitler in power. The Kingdom of Italy as well allowed Mussolini into power. You also have situations like Pinochet and Franco. Pinochet being put into power by the US, and Franco's fascist government being left untouched and allowed to exist.
That's all true, but it's also worth noting that fascism was new back then, or at least in name and during the early 1920s it wasn't entirely in power. (Just need to make a disclaimer that fascism is awful, stupid and that fascists deserve what happened to them and what will happen to them. Punch a nazi, counting or not counting gang violence, etc)
But does today's liberal stand with fascists when push comes to shove? It appears to me that liberals in the US, where fascism is almost out of its proto-stage, seem to oppose it. The rest of the democratic world also seems to have decided not to replicate the turmoil the US is pushing forth, with overwhelming victories for the comparatively progressive parties in each nation.
To me Russia is largely a fascist state, my Russian pals can't talk about certain topics and often need to keep their queer identity secret. Yet it is the tankies who are largely supportive of Russia, particularly Putin.
So is the phrase still true despite this? Or is it perhaps authoritarian projection?
I am yet to be convinced. We are still only resisting through peaceful protest. That is the easy part, and I do not believe it will be enough. So will liberals escalate, or will they turn into bystanders? I don't know. I want them to prove me wrong, but I will plan based on history until proven otherwise. I also won't ignore nuance. There will be liberals who resist, there will be ones that hide, and there will be ones that become fascists. I go out and support the protests as best as I can, but I am also paying attention to whether they can keep momentum. Paying attention to how many will continue to resist, and how many turn in the towel to protect their privilege and comfort.
I do agree that the US populace is largely pathetic and cowardly, Tankies absolutely included, and it's one of the reasons I no longer take people from the US seriously when talking to them. Maybe a more apt phrase is 'Scratch a coward and a fascist bleeds.'
But what of the larger world? Is the phrase still true? Because when I hear liberal, I assume the status quo, the average European, the average Commonwealth nation, someone who values democracy, individualism and equality.
Anarchists threaten the status quo far more than a fascist. Liberals still want government, hierarchy, property. And as long as you are not a minority or dissident, fascists will not threaten that. Anarchists however do. How an anarchist expresses individualism, equality, and democracy is fundamentally different from a liberal's. Do I think all liberals would side with a fascist over an anarchist? No, but I would probably bet on it.
That is a good point, I can't think of any anarchist parties from the top of my head that had as much attention as fascist parties.