I love my anarchist comrades and I love my communist comrades. I hate seeing memes like this. May we all be lucky enough to argue in the midst of a real revolution. Until then, focus on the fucking fascists.
Unity above all else. Absolutely. However Tankie rhetoric in good faith or from an agent provocateur is something that needs to be addressed directly. Any power structure without egalitarian praxis is antithetical to the movement. Communism and Anarchism are very similar to the point where there are anarcho communists.
I want to make sure that there is space for us to figure out self governance immediately after the revolution. I don’t want to rely on a nascent “interim” government to hand it down to me.
we dont need power to the people after some magical revolution somewhere in the future. we need to prefigure non-hierarchical structures in the here and now, and while even building the capacity for violent insurrection.
i dont trust a revolutionairy army, that is build on authoritairian principles, to give power away to a newly forming anarchist society, once in power. if all that people know is hierarchy, thats the structures they will tend to recreate.
looking at real revolutionairy movements, it appears to me that they either turn anarchist during the prolonged struggle or forever stay authoritairian despite their best efforts.
The thing is historically leftists ally with anarchists until they get power and then they execute the anarchists. They want unity as long as it’s convenient for their agenda, but that’s true of any philosophy that encourages power structures of any kind.
Also, tankies are that not because they’re communists (they’re not, no matter how hard they insist) but because they support an oppressor on the same scale as the one they demand we unite with them to oppose, simply because said oppressor calls themselves communist (again, they’re not), seemingly without understanding how that might make those of us opposed to all oppression mistrust them, and be unwilling to simply overlook their values and actions.
Historically yes. Any transition of power is a dangerous time. There’s a history of communists factions and bad faith actors working with fascists in Italy to murder anarchists who were planning to kill Mussolini. However that’s not a conversation that’s necessary this very second. Stratification of power and the way in which it’s weilded is not lost on me. The problem with people that make bombs is sometimes the only cause they have is the one that necessitates bombings.
I’m someone with a leg in both tendencies, as it were. I purposely avoid getting too into the theory weeds, in favor of interacting with actual people. I see the word “tankie” used veeerrryyy liberally lately, and it feels like it doesn’t signify very much. Respectfully, thinking about “immediately after the revolution” is getting way ahead of yourself, at least in relation to who you work with today.
I love my anarchist comrades and I love my communist comrades. I hate seeing memes like this. May we all be lucky enough to argue in the midst of a real revolution. Until then, focus on the fucking fascists.
Unity above all else. Absolutely. However Tankie rhetoric in good faith or from an agent provocateur is something that needs to be addressed directly. Any power structure without egalitarian praxis is antithetical to the movement. Communism and Anarchism are very similar to the point where there are anarcho communists.
I want to make sure that there is space for us to figure out self governance immediately after the revolution. I don’t want to rely on a nascent “interim” government to hand it down to me.
https://viewpointmag.com/2018/06/11/intercommunalism-the-late-theorizations-of-huey-p-newton-chief-theoretician-of-the-black-panther-party/#f 9945 1 6
we dont need power to the people after some magical revolution somewhere in the future. we need to prefigure non-hierarchical structures in the here and now, and while even building the capacity for violent insurrection.
i dont trust a revolutionairy army, that is build on authoritairian principles, to give power away to a newly forming anarchist society, once in power. if all that people know is hierarchy, thats the structures they will tend to recreate.
looking at real revolutionairy movements, it appears to me that they either turn anarchist during the prolonged struggle or forever stay authoritairian despite their best efforts.
The thing is historically leftists ally with anarchists until they get power and then they execute the anarchists. They want unity as long as it’s convenient for their agenda, but that’s true of any philosophy that encourages power structures of any kind.
This.
Also, tankies are that not because they’re communists (they’re not, no matter how hard they insist) but because they support an oppressor on the same scale as the one they demand we unite with them to oppose, simply because said oppressor calls themselves communist (again, they’re not), seemingly without understanding how that might make those of us opposed to all oppression mistrust them, and be unwilling to simply overlook their values and actions.
Historically yes. Any transition of power is a dangerous time. There’s a history of communists factions and bad faith actors working with fascists in Italy to murder anarchists who were planning to kill Mussolini. However that’s not a conversation that’s necessary this very second. Stratification of power and the way in which it’s weilded is not lost on me. The problem with people that make bombs is sometimes the only cause they have is the one that necessitates bombings.
I’m someone with a leg in both tendencies, as it were. I purposely avoid getting too into the theory weeds, in favor of interacting with actual people. I see the word “tankie” used veeerrryyy liberally lately, and it feels like it doesn’t signify very much. Respectfully, thinking about “immediately after the revolution” is getting way ahead of yourself, at least in relation to who you work with today.