Tankies are morons who have the right intentions but the wrong idea how to get it. They read Marx and saw Stalin and went “sure that seems good.”
“They read Marx and missed his point entirely, instead embracing fascism, therefore, they’re better than people who haven’t read Marx.”
Liberals haven’t read Marx, saw Stalin and went “anything he stood for was evil.” And they’re mostly right, but they have the wrong intentions with the new ways of avoiding it. All of which lead to Trump’s iron grip.
What exactly is the fucking difference, then, between tankies and liberals in this conception in terms of where it leads to?
“Tankies are better than liberals because they oppose capitalism” in this conception, which acknowledges that tankies are aiming for Stalin-esque bureaucratic control of the means of production, is no more coherent than “Strasserists are better than liberals because they oppose capitalism”, or “Theocratic clientists are better than liberals because they oppose capitalism” - the latter, bizarrely enough, being something I have actually heard tankies on Lemmy espouse. Apparently the whole fascist conception of a “third way” was lost on them - or worse, appears appealing.
You could just as easily say “Liberals are morons who have the right intentions (democracy) but the wrong idea how to get it (capitalism)”
Tankies are dumbasses who simp for dictators, liberals have more intelligence but apply it incorrectly.
Most liberals are liberal for lack of a better idea. Most liberals have not even been exposed to serious conceptions of socialism. If given the choice between fighting with liberals or fighting with tankies to see the point of a democratic and socialist society, liberals are by far the easier fight.
For that matter, if given the choice between fighting with a liberal regime, whose insufficient opposition to authoritarianism is likely to result in an eventual capitulation to fascism; or a tankie regime, which is and has its goal as fascism painted red; the former is much easier to fight and organize in.
Of those two choices - and the real world is not composed of such a binary - I would argue, albeit admittedly as a demsoc rather than an outright anarchist - that anarchists, whom I disagree with moderately at most, shouldn’t have anything in common with fucking tankies, who are despicable. If ‘opposition to capitalism’ is a valid point of ‘agreement’ then, as I pointed out, literal fascist regimes are no less ‘allies’ in that conception in contrast to the liberal menace.
Worth mentioning that this is US-defaultism. Outside the US everyone has experienced socialised healthcare or other such social services
Welfare states originated with Otto von Bismarck in an effort to combat socialism, which is worker ownership of the means of production. For that matter, Americans are eminently familiar with social services.
“They read Marx and missed his point entirely, instead embracing fascism, therefore, they’re better than people who haven’t read Marx.”
What exactly is the fucking difference, then, between tankies and liberals in this conception in terms of where it leads to?
“Tankies are better than liberals because they oppose capitalism” in this conception, which acknowledges that tankies are aiming for Stalin-esque bureaucratic control of the means of production, is no more coherent than “Strasserists are better than liberals because they oppose capitalism”, or “Theocratic clientists are better than liberals because they oppose capitalism” - the latter, bizarrely enough, being something I have actually heard tankies on Lemmy espouse. Apparently the whole fascist conception of a “third way” was lost on them - or worse, appears appealing.
You could just as easily say “Liberals are morons who have the right intentions (democracy) but the wrong idea how to get it (capitalism)”
Tankies are dumbasses who simp for dictators, liberals have more intelligence but apply it incorrectly.
Honestly, fair.
Most liberals are liberal for lack of a better idea. Most liberals have not even been exposed to serious conceptions of socialism. If given the choice between fighting with liberals or fighting with tankies to see the point of a democratic and socialist society, liberals are by far the easier fight.
For that matter, if given the choice between fighting with a liberal regime, whose insufficient opposition to authoritarianism is likely to result in an eventual capitulation to fascism; or a tankie regime, which is and has its goal as fascism painted red; the former is much easier to fight and organize in.
Of those two choices - and the real world is not composed of such a binary - I would argue, albeit admittedly as a demsoc rather than an outright anarchist - that anarchists, whom I disagree with moderately at most, shouldn’t have anything in common with fucking tankies, who are despicable. If ‘opposition to capitalism’ is a valid point of ‘agreement’ then, as I pointed out, literal fascist regimes are no less ‘allies’ in that conception in contrast to the liberal menace.
Worth mentioning that this is US-defaultism. Outside the US everyone has experienced socialised healthcare or other such social services
Welfare states originated with Otto von Bismarck in an effort to combat socialism, which is worker ownership of the means of production. For that matter, Americans are eminently familiar with social services.
Experiencing it is a much different thing than knowing it