It’s not so much being “run” by tankies, as it is being developed. So that should be respected. And it’s being built in a way that seems in line with anarchist principles, which allows for federation. If there’s a problem another instance could easily be created. If you don’t like it, take direct action and spin up a server.
Right now I think this instance is fine. It’s much better than a place like Reddit which is full of libs, or other sites full of nazis - and all run for profit with targeted advertising and tracking.
I also think it’s good to at least engage with each other. Even if you consider yourself an anarchist, it’s still good to read theory from other schools of thought, and at least take on board some of the tankie criticisms. You might also change some minds along the way.
Anyway, there’s a lot to be done in unionizing our workplaces, building mutual aid networks, spreading propaganda, building software, etc. etc. So this topic is probably a bit of a dead end.
I like it. In fact, it is one of the reasons why I support this social network. I love the community and I love that it’s so different from Reddit (in terms of content and user comments). Plus, it’s great to have anarchist communities as well. This way we can learn from each other, even if we are not 100% supporters of the opposing ideas (as in my case, I’m not an anarchist but I find it an interesting movement and worth studying).
since all anarchists are gathering under this post, what is some good beginner level anarchist theory?
i’ve been introduced to veganarchism a few days ago and found the ideas very close…
Anarchism is definitely a huge field with a lot of contradictions between branches. However we have some common understanding of domination and privilege, and a common desire to set fire to all systems that prevent us from living a free and happy life.
Some people use the “anarchist” label as a synonym for chaos and violence, where the individual is free to oppress others if they’re strong enough. But that is a misconception constructed by the elite to discredit anarchists. This “rule of the strongest” is what social scientists call anomy (absence of structure), whereas anarchy designates the absence of authority/domination. We often refer to “anarchy” as the absence of power, however depending on anarchist branches, some would claim there is a distinction between personal/collective power (capacity to action) and authority (someone else’s capacity of action over others).
“Anarchy is order without power” or “Anarchy is order, government is civil war” are famous anarchist quotes from the 19th century.
Anarchism is also without a doubt a collectivist (left-wing) ideology founded on property of usage (what i use belongs to me), not private property (what a piece of paper says belong to me) which is understood as a theft of the commons (“property is theft”). For example, here in France there are according to official statistics (INSEE) 3 million empty apartments (not counting secondary housing, only abandoned apartments) so for every person sleeping on the streets there’s several apartments waiting to be occupied. Private property is the State-mandated religion (taught in schools and media) that says people should continue to sleep on the streets, and apartments should stay empty.
So anarchism is a form of communism. How exactly libertarian communism (anarchism) is implemented is up to debate between the collectivists, the mutualists, the syndicalists… However there is a common understanding that power must come from below (not from a higher authority), and at the end of the day a neighborhood/community (we usually refer to as a commune) has every right to organize itself according to their own principles, and to federate or not with other communes.
This basic principle of self-organization (autogestion) was the basis of both the Russian revolution (1917) and the Spanish revolution (1936) (among others). But the power-hungry bolsheviks hijacked the revolution and all its principles, and built a “communist State” which had nothing to do with communism.
According to marxists and anarchists alike, socialism/communism is the state of absolute freedom and equality between the people. We anarchists also consider “anarchy” to be a synonym to that. But marxist-leninists will tell you in order to reach communism (freedom & equality) we need to build a State to repress people (“police of the people”, “prisons of the people”), while we anarchists believe (and practice) that we can only build more freedom & equality by building more freedom & equality in the here and now, without intermediary steps.
Also, where “communism” is often understood as merely class struggle, most anarchists of the past decades have an intersectional understanding of domination/oppression. Anarchism has a rich history from all struggles: anti-colonialism, feminism, anti-speciesm. But contrary to authoritarian movements, we do not have “party speakers” to advertise: anarchism has had many interpretations/approaches over the years, and is by far the most diverse field of thinking in my view.
You may enjoy:
- (post) a recent post of mine about why anarchism is left-wing, with some intro to anarchism
- (series) Trouble, a series of mini-documentaries about social struggles produced by an anarchist WebTV
- (post) What is anarchy? on raddle wiki
- (video) To Change everything: a short introduction to anarchist principles
- (film) Libertarias or Land and freedom about the spanish revolution (in which millions of anarchists took part)
- (docu) End:Civ about how capitalism and modern civilization is fundamentally incompatible with protecting the environment, and what to do about it
- (docu) Fascism Inc about how fascists came to power in Europe with the support from the bosses/industry
- (news) lurking on raddle.me to see what kind of topics pop up
Unfortuantely i’m less knowledgeable about good reads about gender/race in english (i read those in french) but Angela Davis, Bell Hooks and Audre Lorde are always good reads and in my view very anarchist though i’m not sure they identify as anarchists themselves.
What does “tankie” even mean these days? To me it seems to be a 70 year old label from some long irrelevant cold-war leftist in-fighting dragged back out as some sort of run-away meme.
Don’t get me wrong, I am fully against pulling a banket over the historical atrocities of the Soviet Union (or the PRC), but this stupid labeling of people makes no sense to me.
I would say let actions speak for themselves, and there I can’t see much at fault with Lemmy…
What annoys me most about the people around and behind Lemmy is probably the PRC fan-boyism that very much looks like soccer fans cheering for a team just because they appear to be winning the championship and who doesn’t want to be part of the “winning team”? /s
P.S.: I personally suspect that this “tankie” meme was started by some former anarchists turned right-wing liberitarians. So chose your friends wisely…
What does “tankie” even mean these days?
I don’t know the historical reference. For me tankie is just US slang for marxist-leninists. But i agree i strongly dislike this label because it’s not easy to understand (internal reference) and does not point out actual problems. I have no problem calling out some marxist-leninists for being would-be tyrants and genocide deniers. However, not all marxists are the same and not all folks waiving a sickle and a hammer are dangerous psychopaths.
I would say let actions speak for themselves
Agreed. That’s a very anarchist principle, not dividing people along party lines but along practices. This is also a useful approach for restorative justice and community accountability, to recognize that one’s intentions and one’s result of an action are not the same. No matter what the intentions are, actions can be good or bad.
PRC fan-boyism
That’s very worrying. There was a lot of that with Russia and Turkey a few years back at the height of the Syria wars. Authoritarians of all stripes sure love them some tyranny ;) It’s like i’m not happy with my master so i’ll advertise another one instead… what could possibly go wrong? :P
As for the historical reference: It is a slur about parts of the 1950-1980ish political left in the UK that defended the brutal crackdowns (with troops and tanks) of the Soviet Union on popular uprisings in eastern Europe and Afghanistan as a necessary evil in the fight against global imperialism/capitalism. I think it has to be seen in the context of these people having a living memory of the Soviet’s costly defeat of Nazi Germany being turned into a “victory” by the US/UK in western propaganda, while actual real-life fascists continued to play a big role in much of the west. But this doesn’t make the later actions by the Soviet Union any less bad.
As for PRC fan-boyism: I think it is mostly harmless and based on a very limited understanding of the actual modern-day China combined with some lacking introspective. I can somewhat relate at times, but then again I am too much of a cynic who has always cheered for the losing side ;)
defended the brutal crackdowns (with troops and tanks) of the Soviet Union on popular uprisings in eastern Europe
Aaaaaah that makes entire sense! Thanks for the explanation!
I think it is mostly harmless
I don’t think cheering on any kind of blood-hungry empire (whether China, USA, France, India or Brasil or any other) is harmless. These people are literally preparing the next world war, or are you not noticing the huge increase in border control and military propaganda in the past years?
Yes, I agree. But playing the devils advocate here: it is the west that will likely start a world war with the PRC (to suppress a rival power) and not the other way around (long story… the the PRC might end up looking like starting a war, but that is another story). As it stands it is not in the best interest of the PRC to start anything but minor localized wars. On the other hand there are a lot of things where the PRC looks very good to an outside observer (especially in relation to the failings of the west in similar fields), such as poverty elevation or technological progress.
it is the west that will likely start a world war
I agree it’s more likely but you never know for sure. We are just speculating :)
poverty elevation or technological progress
This is partially true. But social progress in China is driven not by the party but by huge popular movements, strikes and protests. The party stands by its repression until a certain movement grows too large/popular and then they revoke local officials and claim they were responsible for going against the party member’s desire for progress in sketchy trials.
It’s important to note also that ecological concern is growing in China. China has become a giant factory/dumpster for the entire planet and this has dire ecological consequences. Pollution and ecological damage is one of the many factors that encouraged western corporations to outsource production over there. The ecological movements in China are facing repression and the corruption of the State with big industry players ; the same can be said about the land/housing preservation movement against gentrification.
All this is my very limited (french-based) understanding of chinese politics but it doesn’t seem much better than over here in terms of popular autonomy and aspirations for social justice.
I’m pretty new here so i have no clue. I heard bad reputation about lemmy from many places and that it was really hostile towards anarchism in the first days. Now that the community has grown the situation looks better?
Personally i don’t have a problems with marxist-leninists (or anyone) as individuals. I mean authoritarian communism is pretty dissonant (“let’s free the people by building more prisons”, “let’s share with our neighbors by giving everything away to the central planning committee who’s pointing guns at us”) but individuals are mostly harmless. That is, unless they’re obviously rewriting history by pretending Lenin/Trotsky protected the revolution against counter-revolutionaries (when they in fact were the counter-revolutionaries who attacked the soviets) or that Staline never committed genocide against the muslim communities of the USSR (eg. the tchetchens). I’m pretty ok with a person being disconnected from reality when it comes to future perspectives (we’ve got that to address that), but advocating for genocidal figures who appropriated then destroyed (in blood) genuine popular revolutions is not ok to me.
I have met some anti-authoritarian marxists (who are not leninists) and while these people are usually using very complex vocabulary to discuss simple things, they are fine. I’ve also met quite a bunch of disillusioned Communist Party members and other trotskyists who started questioning authority after noticing so much injustice and manipulation within their own ranks. A one-time ML doesn’t have to stay ML all their life ;)
Anyway i’m also a member on raddle.me and tilde.news which are really friendly communities with a lot of tech-friendly anarchists around. But i strongly prefer the federated approach. Who knows, maybe some day lemmy will be able to federate with postmill and lobsters.
