Remember kids, Tankies wants to undermine democracy - same as facists.

  • @TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    2388 months ago

    Just like fascists, tankies could theoretically hang out here without getting the boot. It’s just that genocide denying authoritarians cannot be tolerated in a tolerant, democratic society. The reason tankies and fascists get the boot is because they can’t resist trying to bully and intimidate those that find their views abhorrent. They simply can’t resist being terrible.

    They’re cultists with views that can’t stand up to scrutiny, so they need use other tactics to spread their shit and gain power. They use the real downsides and weaknesses of democracy to argue we need an even worse system. Then they argue you actually hold the worst views of their enemies, even though they usually support exactly the same things that make those enemies bad. Tankies claim you’re a free-market liberal for opposing them, when the countries they support are state capitalists. Fascists claim you’re against freedom of speech, while they are always trying to ban ideas they hate. Some of them are misguided and believe their own lies, but others are just awful people.

    • @takeda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      908 months ago

      Tankies traditionally are associated with communists, but today’s tankies (even those that call themselves communists) are really after authoritarianism than communism, and given the history of the name (that they supported using tracks on civilians). I don’t think they’re is much difference between current communists and current fascists, both groups seem to support authoritarianism and feels like term “tankies” fits both of them well.

      • @Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        28
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I learned about a week ago why they are the way they are. See the soviet union was the closest in their mind the world has ever come to communism, so even though it’s fallen into fascist oligarchy, they still hold hope that the anticommunist putin is going to rise up and reestablish global communism once more. The only problem with that is that… well Russia doesn’t want communism. This is their playbook Yeah, that doesn’t look socialist, that looks like “we tried communism it didn’t work so lets do fascism this time” so they end up throwing their support towards red flavored fascism since it’s the best chance (in their minds) at getting global communism. When the alternative is an american nazi world order, or tiny countries with no power, you don’t really have much choice.

        But here’s something I want every single one of you to realize having read all of that: Even the most fascist redfash still would have killed the nazis. The same cannot be said for the average (in-power) liberal today. Anticommunism is always pro-fascism. Never let your critiques of the left turn into support for the right.

        EDIT: Case in point, the person i’m responding to is never going to see this post because they’re on a nazi bar instance that banned me.

        • @antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          26
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Even the most fascist redfash still would have killed the nazis.

          They’d kill who they define as nazis. I find that tankies’ (especially Hexbear) definition of nazism doesn’t entirely correspond to mine or that of most other people. So this is not something to be super optimistic about.

          • @Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            8
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            It is a bare minimum that the current world order can’t even pass. They can’t even go a week without funding a mass ethnic genocide.

        • @Cockmaster6000@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          218 months ago

          Lol redfash killing nazis isn’t worth praise. Redfash kill each other the first chance they get. They are so paranoid when they come to power they purge anyone and everyone they can.

          • @Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            28
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            The users are a mixed bag but the mods/admins absolutely are in the business of running a nazi bar. They’re doing the classic strategy of passively protecting fascists while actively suppressing those calling out the fascists. They also ban people who are open communists.

            • @Socsa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              12
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              Meanwhile, .ml keeps banning my accounts for just commenting on c/worldnews these days.

              I’m not a troll. You can go look at my contributions. I made some hexbears look like idiots and now they’ve got me on a leash.

              • @Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                108 months ago

                I’ve learned the fun way not to bother with hexbear users. They’re only here to antagonize nazis so best not to get in the way of that.

                • @eestileib@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  88 months ago

                  I muted a couple dozen hexbear accounts when the whole instance was out seemingly trying to antagonize the entire fediverse.

                  Turns out that got the vast majority of annoying trolls from there.

                  • @Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    58 months ago

                    It feels shitty until you see them do it to an especially crap person, then you can’t help but sit back and distribute upvotes.

        • @OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          10
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          so even though it’s fallen into fascist oligarchy,

          You know any left wing project after being overthrown by the US would also end up a fascist oligarchy right? As was the case with the illegal and undemocratic dissolution of the Soviet Union brought about by the US.

          Even the most fascist redfash

          A mainstream Jewish holocaust scholar on equating fascism and communism and why it is bad

          https://jewishcurrents.org/the-double-genocide-theory

          • @Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            4
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Yeah I was making a point that even the most “fascist” communist is still a zillion times less fascist than your average liberal. I love that you brought that article because it reinforces my point that anti-communism is always pro-fascism.

      • Franzia
        link
        fedilink
        108 months ago

        Wait but I’m a communist. As in communes first, no state, no hierarchy, collective ownership, and all that jazz. I’m not super well read on the theory. Its really easy to see the difference, we’re not splitting hairs here.

        • @Val@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          68 months ago

          That is why I use anarchist instead. It means all of that while also making it clear that authoritarianism is not ok.

          • @GiveMemes@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            18 months ago

            That’s called collective anarchism. Anarchism is what the name implies… and most lemmy users wouldn’t last especially long lmao

            • @Val@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              28 months ago

              More specifically, yes. It is collective anarchism, but in this context I think it is obvious enough that I don’t need to clarify it further.

              Also I think that any type of anarchism allows for collective anarchism, and by extension could be used to mean collective anarchism.

              • @GiveMemes@jlai.lu
                link
                fedilink
                18 months ago

                I mean if your definition of collectivism is men with guns taking what they want then yeah that sounds likely. I’m also a collective anarchist, but it’s important to note how far we must come as a species before we can actually engage meaningfully in such a philosophy, otherwise it will just regress on progress made in other spheres. Bolstering of education is a good step in this process, but also moral and philosophical teachings.

                Collective anarchism, along with all utopias, is unachievable, but a system incorporating its tenets is certainly possible, I just question whether it would devolve into men with guns taking what they want.

                • @Val@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  28 months ago

                  I most certainly do not mean men with guns taking whatever they want. That is authoritarian. The revolution is an ongoing process to redefine society as a non-hierarchical. I see it as non-violent: only defending against violence, never inciting it.

                  Between writing that comment I read through the anarchist FAQ on revolution.
                  https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full#text-amuse-label-secj7
                  And I agree with it wholeheartedly.

                  We as a species are far enough for anarchism to work, people just have to stop believing in authority, and we have to help them.

                  I also do not think anarchism is a utopia. There is nothing about it that couldn’t work. Non-hierarchical societies have existed, and their dissolution just means people aren’t ready yet.

                  • @GiveMemes@jlai.lu
                    link
                    fedilink
                    1
                    edit-2
                    8 months ago

                    Yes, but in the anarchic society, what stops men with guns from taking what they want?

                    You understand that you can still have anarchy without collectivism right? It’s just called lawlessness, and when that happens, men with guns take what they want. Literally just look at any period of political instability in pretty much any country for just about all of history. What stops our current society from devolving into that if anarchic revolution were to occur?

                    Also, I’m not reading the book you linked. If there’s relevant information, feel free to point out which paragraph/section.

        • @Airazz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          28 months ago

          Wanting all of that but without the authoritarian bit should be called something else. I’m from a country which was occupied by communists (collective ownership was a thing) and it sucked big time.

          • Franzia
            link
            fedilink
            28 months ago

            Ouch. Thats really disappointing to hear and like I think more important for me as a western leftist is probably not reading theory but how these things go wrong and lead to bad outcomes.

            • @Airazz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              18 months ago

              There is no perfect system, textbook wonderland communism has lots of flaws too. In my ideal world it should be a mix of everything. Communal gardens or hobby workshops are great, communal workplaces not so much. I mean, people should be allowed to get rich if they can do it without abusing others. You should be able to start and grow your company, and get paid for it accordingly.

              • Franzia
                link
                fedilink
                18 months ago

                That could make a fine compromise. If we can remove that capital barrier to starting your own business, we can remove the profit incentive to pay rent or loans. Working for an enterprising person would be really nice.

      • @Eldritch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        68 months ago

        Yes, when it comes to the axis from authoritarian to anarchist. Things all tend to narrow in to a single point at either end. In regards to authoritarians, it’s all about the hierarchy and holding power for themselves. They don’t give a shit what form of government sits under that. When it comes to anarchists and libertarians, no government other than a largely flat form of socialism is acceptable. Simply because they are focused on freedoms both individual and social. And large monolithic hierarchies tend to get in the way of that.

        And when I use the term libertarian I of course mean actual libertarians. Not temporarily embarrassed Republicans, or teenage capitalists. The easiest test to find out whether someone might accidentally be a libertarian or not. Is to find out if they belong to the Libertarian party, or ever plan to vote for their candidates. No one who would ever do that could ever be a libertarian lol

        • @kameecoding@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          98 months ago

          those “libertarians” are just anarcho-capitalists who think the issue isn’t the system itself but they couldn’t get access to the pie soon enough and get a bigger piece than everyone else so they think we should do a reset do this time they can come out on top

          it’s enough to look at how Crypto works with it’s deflationary system where first buyers are much stronger than late comers or the MOAS /ape crowd

          • @Eldritch@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            38 months ago

            Absolutely. Though even calling them in Arco capitalist is still to generous and a blight to the term anarchist. (I’ve met a few anarchists that were too idealistic and unreasonable for their own good. But they are generally pretty chill, reasonable people otherwise.) They are no true libertarians. Actual libertarians push not just for freedom from things like government. But also the freedom for everyone in society to be able to do the things they desire. One without the other is not a libertarian.