Which has more Sectarianism? Anarchist or Tankies?

I have a feeling ☭TANKIE☭s are more Sectarian thanks to Trots and due to the fact that more ☭TANKIE☭ groups have a tendency to have a leadership who sees themselves as potential future "Lenins" so they quarrel more. Perhaps I am overseeing it?

Attached: Synthesis Anarchism.jpg (717x713, 74.13K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=2u3hmZCsXoE

What the fuck is a ☭TANKIE☭ nowadays, how can a word distort so much.

Why do anarchists do this?
youtube.com/watch?v=2u3hmZCsXoE

Any form of Marxist-Leninist and its various subtypes I think.

I think that the pic is self-explanatory, like imagine getting two of those to agree on the most basic shit.

Tankies according to liberals: Anyone who likes the USSR
Tankies according to MLs: Khrushchevites, Brezhnevites, revisionist MLs, etc.
Tankies according to anarchists: Anyone who supports authoritarianism.

T.ankies, given my experience. Lashing out at anarchists while having little comprehension of their theory is a problem.
Finbol being a prime example.

That being said, T.ankies do also go out of their way to utterly annihilate dengists and supporters of Chinese/Russian imperialism. Historically speaking this isn't anything new, from MLs calling each other revisionists or too bureaucratic. Prime examples of this is Hoxha and Mao calling the USSR revisionist, with the former later denouncing the latter and going so far to advocate for a workers revolution within the DPRK.

However, what's funny is that historically speaking anarchists have had their share of shitflinging, from anarchs-communists and anarcho-sydncialists in Japan, platformists voicing their disdain for anarcho individualists. The Illegalists were met with disdain amongst lib-soc groups in Paris, Kropotkin hated the idea of Bakunin's labour vouchers and even though I wouldn't call them anarchists by any margin, need I say more about ayn-craps?

Well synthesist anarchism does exist. And there libertarian socialist bodies that have been able to co-opt both marxist and anarchist ideologies into their praxis. Case and point: the zapatistas.

I always use a ☭TANKIE☭ flag when I make fun of anarkiddies. I Imagine i'm not the only one who does this.

Anarchists are both more and less sectarian than ☭TANKIE☭s, at the same time.

You see, when your whole "theory" is just "that's, like, oppressive, man", there's only so many ways you can actually have a disagreement. On the flip side, that also means that everyone else is, like, oppressing you, man.

It says something that you'll probably find more splits in anarchism over fucking gender theory than you will over praxis or whatever utopia they happen to be jerking off to.

also now that I think about it, I use a leftcom flag to criticize ☭TANKIE☭s lmao

Given the fact that tanks or leftcoms would make fun of you for the current flag you post under, I can understand why you would.

...

I personally use it as does, but that's just me.

...

Probably anarchists. At least ☭TANKIE☭s degenerate into state capitalism with left-wing characteristics instead of radfem or outright liberal bullcrap (i.e. Sontag). I'm concerned that liberals are most attracted to anarchism just cuz it sounds cool rather than actually having class consciousness or reading theory, and they use our symbols on hipster teen clothing lines.

Also, I have also had the misfortune of coming across anarchists who get extremely worried whenever I say that ☭TANKIE☭s states weren't quite as bad as most people say.

Attached: 1522032402395.png (1703x2272, 946.62K)

P.S. I can understand why Bookchin changed his views

You get those on Holla Forums too.

At least he understands only ☭TANKIE☭s are allowed to bully anarchists.

My disagreements with anarchism are rooted in Hobbes and ☭TANKIE☭s are kind of Hobbesian, so I use that flag for that purpose.

I'm an anarchist and I take the line of the MLs with a addition. Anyone who supports Hitler in his quest for ethnic cleansing under the guse of Anti-imperialism. (I'm looking at you, Turkroach)

Hobbes was the only sort-of materialist anglo liberal philosopher though.

As someone who co-owns an infoshop with an-prims, an-coms, an-fems, an-syns, demsocs, insurrectionists and is themselves a transhumanist, anarchists actually get along pretty fucking well.

The only true animosity that I've seen is that some primmies are vocally hostile to transhumanists in the collective in regards to theory, but we still debate civilly and go out for drinks so it's whatever. I think we both have this unspoken "let's settle that after the revolution" thing going on. It makes sense, we agree on so much it would be pretty genial to fight over it considering neither of the parties breaks the other's ethic as of right now and there's a mountain of work we can both work on together.

yes, Hobbes may have been a proto-liberal, but he is also my husbando.

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-02-16 at 11.43.07 PM.png (850x962 402.12 KB, 279.5K)

Anarchists have radfems and MLs have Juche / caliphate apologists. Pick your poison.

Juche is just Marxism-Leninism applied to Korean conditions.

I have no fucking idea why you think MLs would support a fucking caliphate. The only actually existing caliphate in 2018 is Daesh.

From my personal experience, Anarchists. They basically lash out against anybody who tries to impose any form of orderly organization on them, and spend 99% of their time attacking "tankies" and shitting on Marxist-Leninist states. You know something is wrong when somebody spends more time doing that than critcizing capitalist states.

Anarchists and Trots almost use this as a recruitment trick, approaching people like "you know about all those atrocities happening under red.fascism??! Well, this is not real socialism and we are totally different!!". As a result, you get a bunch of unprincipled socialists who see the USSR as their big other, and loose debates against liberals and right-wingers all the time because "real socialism hasn't been tried" is a ridiculous argument - one of the main reasons so many Trots and Anarchists "grow out of it" and become Neocons (Trots) or Hillbots (Anarchists).

I don't know about Leftcoms, because I have never seen a Leftcom outside of the Internet.

Attached: 1469848822405.jpg (263x395, 19.13K)

And why the fuck are totskyists included in ☭TANKIE☭s

Trotskyism isn't really a distinct ideology so much as a catch all for anti-Stalinist Leninism. I know the CWI holds that the USSR was socialist, but the hardships of the Russian Civil War lead to a rise in the power of the bureaucracy and the Soviet Union's degeneration into a "deformed workers' state" where the Nomenklatura was basically in charge.

Most of us think ISIS is backed by the US/Israel and oppose it accordingly actually. Only that one Italian MLM group really did otherwise.

Fun fact: the same group had a close relationship with the Communist Party of Kampuchea, even after the invasion of Cambodia by Vietnam. A PMLI leader visited a CPK-controlled zone of Cambodia in 1987. After Pol Pot's arrest in 1997, the PMLI denounced the Khmer Rouge's betrayal.

Trots and ☭TANKIE☭s (ML) are both bolsheviks.
I guess OP consider any bolshevik as ☭TANKIE☭, which I disagree with even if I'm not a trot.

The only real sectarianism in Anarchism I see is anprims vs. the rest of the anarchist schools because anprims are the most reactionary yet still communists. Also take out the fucking ayncrap from that image, it's not sectarianism, ayncraps are not anarchists, they're neofeudalist corporate shills masquerading as revolutionaries to further a youtube career, and frankly, I'm disgusted.

Attached: aaaaaa.png (250x250, 69.32K)

i.e. just another flavour of Anti-Soviet pseudo-leftism.

Actual Trotskyism differs little from Stalinism, as it's just a matter of foreign policy - guarded opportunism, or active belligerence.

I don't understand why ☭TANKIE☭s are considered sectarian, when historically they are a piss-easy ally to make.

I consider a ☭TANKIE☭ to be anybody who irrationally defends the USSR despite all its obvious flaws. There are also sub types like Stalin fanboys who say that he USSR went to shit immediately after he died, and the Brezhnev bros who defend it right up until 1991. Not all MLs are ☭TANKIE☭s imo, and some of them are actually smart and bros.

Not really, it's pretty easy to be anti-Stalin. I doubt Trotsky would have murdered 600,000 plus communists including most of the Old Bolsheviks. There's foreign policy differences, sure, but there's also differences in the view of the Soviet Union (Trotsky called it a "deformed workers' state") and criticisms about the beurocratization in Soviet-style socialist countries.

Though, I think the most important thing to note about the Soviet Union is that it collapsed 25 years ago. Whether or not you "support" a defunt former state is irrelevant in terms of politics, and is essentially little more than propaganda. One of the reasons Trots are popular is because they don't go on defending the Soviet Union or Stalin when there is no political advantage to doing so. The point is that we should want to create a new system, not be stuck in the 20th century forever.

Are you sure? Trotsky was narcissistic as fuck.

Based on what pray tell? Trotsky was plenty brutal during the Civil War, no reason he would not continue that streak going on. And he wasn't even a Bolshevik himself until 1917, stop trotting out the "Old Bolsheviks".

Tbh ☭TANKIE☭s are some of the worst offenders when it comes to SJW shit. I almost got banned from a ☭TANKIE☭ dominated FBIbook group after I said that there were more pressing issues than fat shaming.

And anarchist groups are not SJW at all? Get real man. Internet Twitter ☭TANKIE☭s are very different from actual organized ☭TANKIE☭s in the real world.

trots are popular in the west, and were popular in the west because they were anti-soviet
imagine being a westerner during the cold war
it was one of the few ways to also be socialist without being locked up for soviet sympathies

I'm not claiming that Trotsky was some kind of pacifist Ghandi. I'm fully aware that he was pretty fucking brutal, being essentially the architect of the Red Terror. But most of his brutality was at the expense of reactionaries, I have difficulty seeing Trotsky mass murdering other communists. Suppressing them, sure. Arresting them, sure. I doubt he would have had them executed, though.

Stalin killed more people than Trotsky. Most famous example being Bukharin.

Except on here. Holla Forums ☭TANKIE☭s are pretty educated compared to the rest of the internet

When you cuck out to "not real socialism", you already lost.

Attached: b0341e37c42e6cc8f51f5821e96168b745d385af5170cd7498d258939b2257d3.jpg (1849x906, 223.2K)

The "deformed workers' state" criticism acknowledges the socialist nature of the Soviet Union, but criticizes it as essentially a bureaucratic dictatorship.

That's just massively speculative tbh.
People might be saying the same sort of things about Stalin if it was Trotsky who came into power in his place.

Opportunity makes the thief. Historical necessity makes the Stalin. If I take Trotsky at his word about his commitment to Leninism, and put him in a position where he had the influence Stalin had, I'm am entirely certain he would have acted in a like manner. At the very least, he would have purged Stalin sympathizers, many of whom were in fact also senior party members.

I don't think people would be saying anything about Stalin if Trotsky came to power in his place. He was a nobody until Lenin died. He's famous for having climbed the leadership of the Communist Party and replaced Lenin as party leader. If he hadn't done that, he would have just been another high-ranking Bolshevik no one remembers. The reason people care so much about Trotsky is because he was a political theorist in his own right well before the October Revolution, was the leader of the Red Army and was the hier-apparant for the position of party leader after Lenin. He was well known well before his leadership dispute with Stalin.

Probably, but "purged" here probably means just kicked out of the party, maybe even arrested. Stalin wouldn't have been the threat to Trotsky that Trotsky was to Stalin.

That's not exactly a confident sell. Certainly not enough to merit all the Trotsky fanboyism that permeates leftism.

FUCKING LIBERAL

why must you hurt me like. What did I do to you, OP? WHAT THE FUCK DID I DO?

Attached: hide the pain.gif (486x273, 3.48M)

They’re both terrible is what I’m saying. Leftypol is the only leftist space that I’ve ever encountered that wasn’t riddled with idpol.

Oh, the USSR is still around and didn't suffer a political collapse? Then show me where it is on a map.

Anarchists agree on the bare details, except ancaps and to an extent national anarchists (neither of which are traditionally accepted into the fold)

Leninists will literally drop everything and kill each other over minutiae

Anarchists can't win a war so they don't stick around long enough to split acrimoniously.

Depends.

Marxism has more sects on theoretical ground, but ☭TANKIE☭s generally stick together, while anarchists have a thousand and one little subgroups that don't really infight all too much because it all basically boils down to "fuck the cops" with no set in stone alternative to replace "the system bruh".

This can lead to hilariously sad situations like in Spain where all the marxists wrote shit about each other and sabatoaged each other, especially the anarchists, while the anarchists build what amounted to a marxist dictatorship of the proletariat, complete with overly violent persecution of the church.