this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
254 points (95.7% liked)

Anarchism and Social Ecology

1880 readers
79 users here now

!anarchism@slrpnk.net

A community about anarchy. anarchism, social ecology, and communalism for SLRPNK! Solarpunk anarchists unite!

Feel free to ask questions here. We aspire to make this space a safe space. SLRPNK.net's basic rules apply here, but generally don't be a dick and don't be an authoritarian.

Anarchism

Anarchism is a social and political theory and practice that works for a free society without domination and hierarchy.

Social Ecology

Social Ecology, developed from green anarchism, is the idea that our ecological problems have their ultimate roots in our social problems. This is because the domination of nature and our ecology by humanity has its ultimate roots in the domination humanity by humans. Therefore, the solutions to our ecological problems are found by addressing our social and ecological problems simultaneously.

Libraries

Audiobooks

Quotes

Poetry and imagination must be integrated with science and technology, for we have evolved beyond an innocence that can be nourished exclusively by myths and dreams.

~ Murray Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom

People want to treat ‘we’ll figure it out by working to get there’ as some sort of rhetorical evasion instead of being a fundamental expression of trust in the power of conscious collective effort.

~Anonymous, but quoted by Mariame Kaba, We Do This 'Til We Free Us

The end justifies the means. But what if there never is an end? All we have is means.

~Ursula K. Le Guin, The Lathe of Heaven

The assumption that what currently exists must necessarily exist is the acid that corrodes all visionary thinking.

~Murray Bookchin, "A Politics for the Twenty-First Century"

There can be no separation of the revolutionary process from the revolutionary goal. A society based on self-administration must be achieved by means of self-administration.

~Murray Bookchin, Post Scarcity Anarchism

In modern times humans have become a wolf not only to humans, but to all nature.

~Abdullah Öcalan

The ecological question is fundamentally solved as the system is repressed and a socialist social system develops. That does not mean you cannot do something for the environment right away. On the contrary, it is necessary to combine the fight for the environment with the struggle for a general social revolution...

~Abdullah Öcalan

Social ecology advances a message that calls not only for a society free of hierarchy and hierarchical sensibilities, but for an ethics that places humanity in the natural world as an agent for rendering evolution social and natural fully self-conscious.

~ Murray Bookchin

Network

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I've been part of the online left for a while now, part of slrpnk about 2 months, and if there's one recurring experience that's both exhausting and revealing, it's trying to have good-faith discussions with self-identified Marxist-Leninists, the kind often referred to as "tankies." I use that term here not as a lazy insult nor to dehumanize, but to describe a particular kind of online personality: the ones who dogmatically defend Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and every so-called "existing socialist state" past or present, without room for nuance, critique, or even basic empathy. Not all Marxist-Leninists are like this. But these people, these tankies, show up in every thread, every debate, every conversation about liberation, and somehow it always turns into a predictable mess.

It usually goes like this: I make a statement that critiques authoritarianism or centralized power, and suddenly I'm being accused of parroting CIA talking points, being a liberal in disguise, or not being a "real leftist." One time, I said "Totalitarianism kills" — a simple, arguably uncontroversial point. What followed was a barrage of replies claiming that the term was invented by Nazis, that Hannah Arendt (who apparently popularized it, I looked it up and it turns out she didn't) was an anti-semite, and that even using the word is inherently reactionary. When I clarified that I was speaking broadly about state violence and authoritarian mechanisms, the same people just doubled down, twisting my words, inventing claims I never made, and eventually accusing me of being some kind of crypto-fascist. This wasn’t a one-off, it happens constantly.

If you've spent any time in these spaces, you know what I'm talking about. The conversations never stays on topic. It always loops back to defending state socialism, reciting quotes from Lenin, minimizing atrocities as "bourgeois propaganda" and dragging anarchism as naive or counter-revolutionary. It's like they’re playing from a script.

I’ve spent a lot of time trying to understand why these interactions feel so uniquely frustrating. And over time, I’ve started noticing recurring patterns in the kind of people who show up this way. Again, a disclaimer here: not everyone who defends Marx or Lenin online falls into these patterns. There are thoughtful, sincere, and principled MLs who engage in real, grounded discussions. But then there are these other types:

  1. The Theory Maximalist

This person treats political theory like scripture. They’ve read the texts (probably a lot of them) and they approach every conversation like a chance to prove their mastery. Everything becomes about citations, dialectics, and abstract arguments. When faced with real-world contradictions, their default move is to bury it under more theory. They mistake being well-read for being politically mature, and often completely miss the human, relational side of radical politics.

  1. The Identity Leftist

For this person, being a leftist isn’t about organizing or material change. It’s an identity. They call themselves a Marxist-Leninist the way someone else might call themselves a punk or a metalhead. Defending state socialism becomes a cultural performance. They’re less interested in the complexity of history than in being on the “correct side” of whatever aesthetic battle they’re fighting. Anarchists, to them, represent softness or chaos, and that’s a threat to the image they’ve built for themselves.

  1. The Terminally Online Subculturalist

This one lives in forums, Discords, or other niche Internet circles. Their entire political world is digital. They've likely never been to a union meeting, a mutual aid drive, or a community organizing session. All their knowledge of struggle is mediated through memes and screenshots. They treat ideology like a fandom and conflict like sport. They love the drama, the takedowns, the purity contests. The actual work of liberation? Irrelevant.

  1. The Alienated Intellectual

This person is often very smart, often very isolated, and clings to ideology as a way of making sense of the world. They’re drawn to strict political systems because it gives them order and meaning in a chaotic life. And while they might not be malicious, they often struggle to engage with disagreement without feeling personally attacked. For them, criticism of Marxism-Leninism can feel like an existential threat, because it destabilizes the fragile structure they’ve built to cope with life.

These types don’t describe everyone, and they’re not meant to be a diagnosis or a dismissal. They're patterns I’ve noticed. Ways that a political identity can become rigid, defensive, and disconnected from real-world struggle.

And here’s the thing that’s always struck me as particularly ironic: Let's face it, a lot of these people would absolutely hate to be part of real socialist organizing. Because the kind of organizing that builds power, the kind that helps people survive, defend themselves, and grow; it's messy, emotionally challenging, and full of conflict. It requires flexibility, listening, and compromise. It doesn’t work if everyone’s just quoting dead guys and calling each other traitors. Anarchist or not, actual socialist practice is grounded in real life, not in endless internet warfare.

That’s why this whole cycle feels so tragic. Because behind all the posturing, the purity tests, and the ideological gatekeeping, there’s a legit reason these people ended up here. Of all the ideologies in the world, they chose communism. Why? Probably because they hurt. Because they saw the ugliness of capitalism and wanted something better. Because, at some point, they were moved by the idea that we could live without exploitation.

And somewhere along the way, that desire got calcified into a set of talking points. It got buried under defensiveness and online clout games. The pain turned inward, and now they lash out at anyone who doesn’t match their script. That’s not an excuse. But it is something to hold with empathy.

I don’t write this to mock anyone. I write it because I want us to do better, recognize our differences and hopefully come to a fair conclusion. And Idk, I still believe we can. Ape together strong 💖

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] an_angerous_engineer@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I appreciate that someone is trying to have a real conversation about this kind of thing. I don't think leftists have enough conversations where they're acknowledging the actual sources of conflict within their ranks.

I have a little experience with moderation (including in leftist spaces), and one of the things that I've found to be really helpful in understanding these sorts of problems is actually the modern theory of narcissism. A lot has been learned in the last decade about what happens when a person's empathy is physiologically impaired, and understanding this personality pattern is immensely helpful in navigating interpersonal conflicts at all scales. Tankies as you describe them are actually one of the more clear-cut cases of a narcissistic subculture within the left. The constant abuse of language, bad-faith argumentation, hypersensitivity to ideological or personal criticism of any kind, the dismissal of any legitimate concerns or established facts that would threaten their apparent worldview, etc... This is all classic narcissistic argumentation.

And somewhere along the way, that desire got calcified into a set of talking points. It got buried under defensiveness and online clout games. The pain turned inward, and now they lash out at anyone who doesn’t match their script. That’s not an excuse. But it is something to hold with empathy.

Unfortunately, this narrative is simply wrong. One of the things that you really have to understand about these sorts of people is that the cause and effect between their arguments and their beliefs is reversed from what you would expect. They do not believe things because they buy the arguments that they were given. They hold beliefs abut what is and is not acceptable because of how they want to be allowed to behave and what rights and privileges they feel they deserve, and then they seek out a narrative/ideology that allows them to justify all of that. We're not dealing with people who are making decisions based on any sort of rational process. We're dealing with people who are trying to find palatable justifications for them getting whatever it is that they want (power, status, accolades, etc...). The lack of empathy comes first!

The reason that some of these people find themselves in the left is that they can often misconstrue arguments in favor of broad freedom for all into justifications for a system of 'governance' where there is no such thing as personal accountability (at least for them, personally). This is where you get your anarcho-nihilists who don't want any sort of rule-enforcement structures at all, or anarcho-capitalists who believe that rules should be enforced by the people who can pay the private militias to enforce them (and they, of course, would be the sort of people who could afford such a service). Tankies lean on their disordered trait of 'living in their future success' more than most - believing that they will somehow rise to the top (or somewhere near it) of whatever authoritarian regime they're advocating for, essentially escaping any sort of accountability and holding absolute power, all while appealing to the desire for liberation from the disenfranchised.

If you don't believe me, then here's an experiment for you. Try to have a conversation about accountability with anyone who is acting suspect like this. Ask them about what sorts of systems of accountability they would like to see in a society, and ask them about where they see themselves fitting into that system. Ask them how they think that system should respond to some of their sketchier behaviors. Accountability is the #1 enemy of any narcissist. The responses you'll get will be absolutely insane.

[–] keepthepace@slrpnk.net 4 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Accountability is the #1 enemy of any narcissist. The responses you’ll get will be absolutely insane.

I think everyone agrees that there is a connection between narcissism and authoritarianism. This conversation makes me wonder though, if there is not more than a mere correlation. Could it be that authoritarianism is the political expression of narcissism and that there is literally nothing else there?

[–] an_angerous_engineer@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Could it be that authoritarianism is the political expression of narcissism and that there is literally nothing else there?

I believe that this is actually the case. There are plenty of studies showing strong correlation between political ideology and personality traits. In my personal experience, I've yet to meet someone with authoritarian politics who was not also lacking in empathy more generally.

I think that there is even more to it than that, though. There is a really interesting anthropological perspective on this to be had, where we can actually cast the development of authoritarian styles of governance as an expression of narcissism.

When we look at the actual timeline for the emergence of civilization, we see agriculture, then violence (increasingly organized as time goes on) then governance structures that resemble modern states. This is an account of the development of violence in northwestern Europe to help establish that timeline. That paper also cites other papers about the history of violence in other regions. Contrary to the popular narrative (thanks Hobbes /s), we don't actually see much evidence of violence at all prior to the development of agriculture. It is important to note that agriculture was developed about 40k years ago in response to a major worldwide drought that lasted about 1k years. (I would recommend reading "Civilized to Death" by Christopher Ryan for more on this topic.) Most sources arguing that pre-civilized society was terribly violent points at societies that existed in the 20k years between the development of agriculture and the emergence of modern-ish states (which, in some cases, were terribly violent). The traditional narrative about civilization and war would put the emergence of states before the invention of organized warfare, arguing that warfare was a response to the increasing complexity and scale of the conflicts that arose from the increased societal complexity of states. Archaeological evidence refutes this, so what gives?

There's more that makes this weird. We also know some things about how pre-civlized societies handled narcissism. Surprisingly often, these societies actually had a dedicated word for these people. The exact translation and connotation of the word varied from one population to the next, but the stories that they told were basically the same. (For reference, we learned this by interviewing members of indigenous societies that had not yet been heavily influenced by civilization. Some of these societies still existed as recently as a century ago - now there are almost none left.) These were the people who were 'unteachable', 'lazy', 'troublemakers' - they caused drama while contributing next to nothing. When these people didn't improve their behavior (or they did something heinous like commit murder or rape), they were exiled or killed. (Check out literature on 'rape-free' societies if you want to read more about this.) These individuals were pretty rare - around 1% of the population - so what little violence was necessary to keep the peace would not account for the evidence that we see from post-agricultural societies. We've no reason to believe that these pre-civilized societies suddenly stopped policing themselves when they were pushed into agriculture by the drought (and there's even some evidence that they did not - again, see "Civilized to Death"), yet the vast majority of us now live in a society where such a penalty for mere narcissism would be unthinkable.

Here's what I speculate happened. After settling down for agriculture, exile stopped being as lethal as it would have been before. Exiles could practice agriculture on their own and survive, when they wouldn't have been able to before (due to lack of technology, mostly). Also, stationary groups with fields that they can't watch literally 100% of the time and stores of food (they wouldn't have been storing much food prior to agriculture) are much easier to steal from. As such, we started to accumulate a population of these narcissistic individuals. These individuals are inherently self-centered and lazy. If they settled together (which they would have been incentivized to do, for many reasons), they would inevitably try to dominate each other in an attempt to gain power and status and the ability to exploit the labor power of the other exiles for their own personal gain. They would actually have a chance to learn ways of sneaking into other societies and hiding their toxic behavior with clever words. They could actually start working together as a violent force to bully whole other groups into submission, or even claim control of an area. Incidentally, we actually have some evidence that this sort of thing happened pretty early in the game with a riverhead and a group of bullies demanding tribute in exchange for access. These riverheads were an important source of easy food thanks to the salmon that would swim up there to reproduce, so this was a big deal. Here's an interview with an anthropologist who talks about that.

Naturally, these narcissists aren't very good at maintaining power over each other or their less-narcissistic peers in the beginning, but as time progresses, they would get better and better at it. They'd learn to pit different groups against each other so that no one group can get large enough to overthrow the minority that holds power (+ the other still-loyal groups). They'd learn that growing their population as fast as possible gives them a major edge over other societies, as it is far easier to bully other groups into submission when you outnumber them. Pretty much every major development in human history related to governance and economics gets cast in a new light with this perspective. Money becomes an ingenious solution to the problem of redistributing tribute/favors to one's cronies in order to keep them under control. The state monopoly on violence is the perfect hypocrisy for protecting one's own power with force while denying anybody else's right to do the same, regardless of where the threat to their power comes from. Not only does this allow you to crush any direct rebellion before it happens, but it also allows you to interfere in the development of various political groups, allowing you to maintain control over the entire political playing field. Capitalism becomes a brilliant way of taking power away from more rigid power structures like the church or the throne without needing to foment a violent rebellion.

A few other fun things result from such a narrative. The cause of sexism and the general disrespect for the rights and intelligence of children becomes obvious. Since all power ultimately comes from the use of force, women and children are at an inherent disadvantage compared to men due to their smaller size and lower physical strength. Forcing women to be breeders for that sweet sweet population growth was also a major contributor to their objectification. Agriculture was hard work, and the narcissistic men didn't want to do it, so their wives/children became de-facto slaves. (Note: Slave labor would not have existed prior to the development of these narcissistic societies.) Religious and racial discrimination is fundamentally about preventing foreign powers from interfering with local affairs, while also providing a convenient justification for using those out-groups as additional sources of slave labor. Also, we realize that literally no form of governance that has ever been invented since the development of the state has ever been designed to actually serve the people. They've always been various forms of compromise designed to consolidate and maintain power for the few while preventing the many from organizing a competent rebellion. The only form of governance that has ever existed to serve the people is anarchism, in the form of the aggressive egalitarianism practiced by pre-civilized societies. This isn't to say that we should go back to doing things exactly like we did in the stone age, but it does turn a lot of long-standing cultural assumptions about the nature governance and modern society on their head.

I could keep going, but I'll stop for now. This perspective is a real mind-bender, but way too many things fit into place when you think about history this way. It also makes sense that authoritarianism would be an invention of narcissism generally if authoritarianism was simply the political expression of narcissism on the individual level.

[–] banan67@slrpnk.net 4 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

This is very insightful. I'm really interested, are there any books or otherwise sources that helped you draw this conclusion? It makes a whole lot of sense, I guess I was kind of ignoring that possibility.

[–] an_angerous_engineer@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 hours ago

Pretty much everything on the topic by Dr. Ramani (Here's her YouTube channel) is worth looking at. I recommend starting here. She has also published a couple of books on the topic which are also good, and generally consolidate a lot of what she has on other platforms in one place, though her most up-to-date thinking on the matter will pretty much always be on her YouTube channel and podcast. Here's her website so that you can find everything else. If you read any of her books, "Don't you know who I am?" is probably the most relevant one here.

What you'll get from her is mostly information on the nature and behavior of narcissists themselves. The primary value of this information is that you'll be able to spot narcissists and narcissistic behaviors way more easily (and thus, way more frequently) than you would otherwise be able to. We've been culturally conditioned to ignore or even justify a lot of narcissistic behaviors, so learning about them is a big eye-opener for seeing just how prevalent the problem is. Simply being able to recognize narcissistic behavior for what it is will go a very long way in helping you see things from my perspective.

You can also talk to me about this kind of stuff if you want. The intersection of narcissism and politics/economics is something I spend a lot of time thinking about. I actually can't point at anyone else on the internet who is writing about this sort of thing.

[–] keepthepace@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 day ago

Some people are oppressors and these are usually found in the right wing. Inside of the rest though there's a lot of variety. Some wouldn't mind at all taking the rôle of the oppressors.

They are not from their caste or from their social circles. This is the only reason why they need a revolution. They look like comrades because they appear to have the same enemy. Yet their goal is just a reversal of the situation not an abolition of the oppression.

[–] honeynut@lemm.ee 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

those miserable fucks are mocking this thread https://hexbear.net/post/4671954?sort=Top

keep an eye out for brigaders (I see at almost a dozen sketchy comments here already) and report anyone you even get a whiff of being tankie alt. Even mild tankie apologetics or sympathy shouldn't be tolerated or else they start thinking this is a safe space for them.

[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

LMAO, my meme I made a bit back is ever relevant

"ThEy jUsT DonT wAnT To reAD [Theory]"

[–] punkisundead@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 day ago

As described by OOP, they just take parts out of context and think they somehow "won" the debate.

[–] SparroHawc@lemm.ee 5 points 1 day ago

I like how they respond to the first part of the sentence (they've read texts) and act like that is the entirety of the critique, despite including the second part in their quote.

[–] banan67@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 day ago

Yea, I skimmed through the comments. Yikes. Really just proves my point that they take these criticisms like a shot to the chest.

[–] locahosr443@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Sometimes it's hard to believe these people are real. It almost makes more sense they exist to make the left appear completely toxic to everyone, including left leaning people.

I hope that's the case anyway and all the above is just a lot of over analysing, cos man, they suck.

[–] Glent@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ding ding ding! The russian troll farms have had spectacular success on right wingers. "Tankies" are the attempt at a disinfo campaign on the left to cause division. Im not saying there are zero real world tankies just that 90% of them are an attempt to amplify and inflame.

[–] keepthepace@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 day ago

I am sure some troll farm amplify them but I have met some IRL. Left wing authoritarianism is a thing, historically and nowadays.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 4 points 1 day ago

Let’s face it, a lot of these people would absolutely hate to be part of real socialist organizing

Oh yeah. I've worked with an anarcho-socialist group, and shit was rough. And I was just volunteering because I believed--and still believe--in their cause. But eventually I had to give it up, because it was so chaotic that I never knew what my schedule was going to be, and I was wasting tons of time waiting for them to decide whether or not I would be useful that week.

I was a member of another group that was ostensibly anarchistic in theory that ended up being authoritarian in practice, and I quickly dipped.

Shit's messy and complicated. Getting groups of people to point in the same direction can be hard without some degree of arbitrary authority. But when it all comes together, it's amazing.

[–] Vanilla_PuddinFudge@infosec.pub 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I checked, guys. OP doesn't have .ml next to his name.

Sadly, this means we can't just call him out and we have to actually read the post this time.

[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

I read it, it's very much just going into more detail on what we've all been saying about tankies this whole time. In fact while reading it a few... infamous ... .ml tankie users popped in my head that fit the description I was reading perfectly LMAO

[–] jaxxed@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 day ago

I am relieved to read this.

I can't strictly identify with your beliefs, but the "this country versus that country" conversations are driving me nuts; as though any government is ideal, or free from corruption.

[–] perestroika@slrpnk.net 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Myself, I've seen a bit of similar stuff.

Since arriving on Lemmy, I've sometimes stumbled on instances where ideological purity is enforced with an iron fist, and dozens of communities have the same overlapping moderators (no point in appealing any decision).

In such places, I've sometimes ended up arguing - usually describing history from the viewpoint that Wikipedia takes, from the viewpoint which has the benefit of supporting evidence. In those few places, this has been deemed "reactionary" and I've been banned a few times.

Upon examining the moderation logs of the threads where I got banned, I've found other peculiarities, like people getting banned for voting the wrong way.

I've never been too sure about what the appropriate response is, but my response has been reminding the admin of a local Lemmy instance (I have accounts on multiple instances) that federating with strange places has adverse consequences.

If one federates with an authoritarian place where censorship occurs strongly, everyone will see the counterfactual narratives pushed there, but nobody can argue, since they'll get banned in those communities super fast. That's not a balanced exchange of views and I've come to dislike that.

[–] dawnglider@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I don’t write this to mock anyone. I write it because I want us to do better, recognize our differences and hopefully come to a fair conclusion. And Idk, I still believe we can. Ape together strong 💖

I've always defended that aswell, and I guess I've chosen my communities well enough to never see outright hatred towards anarchists within the ML circles I'm a part of. Not gonna argue that it's not the case when it comes to talking about liberals, there is a lot of frustration and resentment, but I think the current state of the world and the historical treatment of commies/anarchists alike justifies that.

There's disagreements of course (regarding the nature of authority and some historical events), and some unserious jokes, but the news sources, podcasts, online discussion that I consume often feature anarchists in a completely non-adversarial way. There's quite a few anarchists who I defer to first when it comes to current and historical analysis. I've recently discovered Greg Stoker on an ML podcast for example. He is a US army veteran turned anarchist, has great insights into US military and foreign policies and is someone I've listened to a lot ever since.

I do see a lot of hate aimed at Marxism-Leninism, but I choose to ignore it. I'm responding to this post because I think it is genuine. Marxism (dialectical materialism) has been the most valuable tool for me to make sense of the world, but the main drive that makes me desperately need to understand the world and try my best to move in the right direction is anti-imperialism.

It's not the need for an identity, dogmatism to fit in, or because I think it's "cool" (which would be delusional, even among leftist spaces). If there's one reason it's all the horrors I've seen and read about that keep me up at night. There's psychos in all our movements, and you won't see me stand for people defending the invasion of Ukraine for example (I'm not sure what's going on in those folks' heads to be honest, but it's definitely not theory). While I can't take seriously a lot of the accusations commonly thrown at Marxism-Leninism, I at least understand the fear and unease behind authority as a whole.

My informed belief is that this fear is manufactured in big part as a way to prevent oppressed people from seizing power (directing very real oppression towards "human nature" or the nature of authority), and this is something that has sunk its teeth so deeply in us that I can't seem to find a TV show or movie these days that doesn't feature the "false prophet that ended up being worse than the oppressor" trope.

Regardless, I've seen countless grounded, empathetic discussions between different leftists currents that didn't resort to name calling and willful mischaracterizations, so I second you entirely on this point comrade, I'd love to see more of that ❤️

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 53 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Personally I find their constant bad faith arguments tiring so I usually don't engage. Many campists have the right critique of the existing systems but are useless at knowing what to do to change it. Their best takes are usually to emulate socialist movements of the early 20th century like a cargo cult and hope if they do the same motions, it will magically lead to the same socialism (with them on the vanguard ofc). So ultimately worthless praxis built on stale rhetoric. It's telling that even the most "left unity" oriented campists manage to thoroughly alienating most of those they believe they should be united with.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It’s telling that even the most “left unity” oriented campists manage to thoroughly alienating most of those they believe they should be united with.

Every time they say left unity, it means "agree with us or you're ignored."

You don't want to have a state when where done? What about left unity! It'll go away in 5, 10 years tops.

You think having labor camps makes us as bad as capitalists? That's silly, what happened to left unity?

Every time an anarchist group works with a state socialist group, they are often the last ones removed when the Statists can secure enough of a foothold without them.

Every. Time. I might be willing to work with them to get something removed but if they want to just swap the flag of the state instead of abolishing it, they just want to be the person who stomps on the faces of the workers they claim to support.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] _bac@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I have never seen any discussion like you are describing. However I see a post complaining of tankies every day.

[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

You're on .world, you're isolated from the worst of the Tankie Triad (Hexbear and Lemmygrad), .ml admins in an effort to avoid larger calls for defederation like with hex and grad, try to do things far more subtlety through mod action or in action (e.g. removing comments and posts critical of their favored Authoritarian regimes but allowing known propaganda outlets from those Regimes to fester and spread)

Just a few days ago, for example, a users comment was removed and then banned for calling the USSR a Dictatorship and North Korea a monarchy using one of 2 "catch-all" instance rules they use to justify the removal of any speech they don't like (Rule 1 is "officially" no bigotry and Rule 2 is "officially" Be respectful)

and there's much much much more on !meanwhileongrad@sh.itjust.works documented

The posts "complaining" about the tankies are mostly from users like slrpunk or .ee that don't defederate from the Triad and thus are exposed to it far more often

[–] sunflowercowboy@feddit.org 5 points 1 day ago

I told people to vote to at least halt the hate machine. They involved gazan lives and said I was to blame.

I still don't understand how, I cannot vote, and have nothing but time in this fragmentary calmness we feel. I just wanted them to appreciate their days at least.

[–] socsa@piefed.social 7 points 1 day ago

The only thing I will add is that the "Theory Maximalists" don't actually seem to have read a lot of the theory they claim. Or when they do, they don't have a border background in political science to contextualize it. It's literally the leftist equivalent of Plato's cave.

[–] OpenStars@piefed.social 29 points 2 days ago (12 children)

I have noticed how they often use identical tactics to the Alt-Right movement in the USA, as described masterfully in Innuendo Studios' The Alt Right Playbook. As such, I've started thinking of tankies as a kind of Alt-Left, where facts matter little to none and instead feelings are supreme - though exclusively theirs, while yours count for little (although ironically not none, bc cruelty is the point).

And since algorithms that foster "engagement" tend to make this argumentation style more prevalent, it is becoming more prominent all over the world.

Sadly, it's fairly prominent in Lemmy as well, though tbf, we who came here from Reddit joined their space, not the other way around. This is why supporting independent development of software such as PieFed and Mbin is so crucial, bc otherwise authoritarianism seeps into everything. E.g. Lemmy has a modlog but no modmail, no notification sent to inform the recipient of a moderation action, no ability to enquire or dispute it even if you somehow find out about it - bc the modlog simply says it was done by a "mod" - and therefore Lemmy is actually somehow more authoritian than Reddit itself was!?!?!?!? (Caveat: admins have near total freedom, at the cost of potentially great efforts required to modify the codebase, and mods have elevated privileges as well, but for the end user... it is much the same, at least with regard to a specific community - they can take what it offers, or else leave).

What makes the Threadiverse fantastic and worth visiting is its userbase. Highly ironically then, what makes the Threadiverse toxic AF is its userbase. 🙃 (So many people over on r/RedditAlternatives saying how they could not tolerate it...) Thus, blocking it is then, with people who use such bad faith arguments chief among my own prioritization for such. (Btw it's not really possible to fully block all users from a specific instance on Lemmy - that feature would have far better been named as a "community mute" imho - unless you use the Sync or Connect app, switch to PieFed, or delve into making Ublock filters or creating your own instance to defederate them, none of them particularly easy to do, for a mainstream non-technical normie, who might otherwise be a fantastic content creator if the Threadiverse hadn't decided to run them off with its high level of toxicity.)

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›