this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
259 points (95.1% liked)

Anarchism and Social Ecology

1890 readers
36 users here now

!anarchism@slrpnk.net

A community about anarchy. anarchism, social ecology, and communalism for SLRPNK! Solarpunk anarchists unite!

Feel free to ask questions here. We aspire to make this space a safe space. SLRPNK.net's basic rules apply here, but generally don't be a dick and don't be an authoritarian.

Anarchism

Anarchism is a social and political theory and practice that works for a free society without domination and hierarchy.

Social Ecology

Social Ecology, developed from green anarchism, is the idea that our ecological problems have their ultimate roots in our social problems. This is because the domination of nature and our ecology by humanity has its ultimate roots in the domination humanity by humans. Therefore, the solutions to our ecological problems are found by addressing our social and ecological problems simultaneously.

Libraries

Audiobooks

Quotes

Poetry and imagination must be integrated with science and technology, for we have evolved beyond an innocence that can be nourished exclusively by myths and dreams.

~ Murray Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom

People want to treat ‘we’ll figure it out by working to get there’ as some sort of rhetorical evasion instead of being a fundamental expression of trust in the power of conscious collective effort.

~Anonymous, but quoted by Mariame Kaba, We Do This 'Til We Free Us

The end justifies the means. But what if there never is an end? All we have is means.

~Ursula K. Le Guin, The Lathe of Heaven

The assumption that what currently exists must necessarily exist is the acid that corrodes all visionary thinking.

~Murray Bookchin, "A Politics for the Twenty-First Century"

There can be no separation of the revolutionary process from the revolutionary goal. A society based on self-administration must be achieved by means of self-administration.

~Murray Bookchin, Post Scarcity Anarchism

In modern times humans have become a wolf not only to humans, but to all nature.

~Abdullah Öcalan

The ecological question is fundamentally solved as the system is repressed and a socialist social system develops. That does not mean you cannot do something for the environment right away. On the contrary, it is necessary to combine the fight for the environment with the struggle for a general social revolution...

~Abdullah Öcalan

Social ecology advances a message that calls not only for a society free of hierarchy and hierarchical sensibilities, but for an ethics that places humanity in the natural world as an agent for rendering evolution social and natural fully self-conscious.

~ Murray Bookchin

Network

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I've been part of the online left for a while now, part of slrpnk about 2 months, and if there's one recurring experience that's both exhausting and revealing, it's trying to have good-faith discussions with self-identified Marxist-Leninists, the kind often referred to as "tankies." I use that term here not as a lazy insult nor to dehumanize, but to describe a particular kind of online personality: the ones who dogmatically defend Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and every so-called "existing socialist state" past or present, without room for nuance, critique, or even basic empathy. Not all Marxist-Leninists are like this. But these people, these tankies, show up in every thread, every debate, every conversation about liberation, and somehow it always turns into a predictable mess.

It usually goes like this: I make a statement that critiques authoritarianism or centralized power, and suddenly I'm being accused of parroting CIA talking points, being a liberal in disguise, or not being a "real leftist." One time, I said "Totalitarianism kills" — a simple, arguably uncontroversial point. What followed was a barrage of replies claiming that the term was invented by Nazis, that Hannah Arendt (who apparently popularized it, I looked it up and it turns out she didn't) was an anti-semite, and that even using the word is inherently reactionary. When I clarified that I was speaking broadly about state violence and authoritarian mechanisms, the same people just doubled down, twisting my words, inventing claims I never made, and eventually accusing me of being some kind of crypto-fascist. This wasn’t a one-off, it happens constantly.

If you've spent any time in these spaces, you know what I'm talking about. The conversations never stays on topic. It always loops back to defending state socialism, reciting quotes from Lenin, minimizing atrocities as "bourgeois propaganda" and dragging anarchism as naive or counter-revolutionary. It's like they’re playing from a script.

I’ve spent a lot of time trying to understand why these interactions feel so uniquely frustrating. And over time, I’ve started noticing recurring patterns in the kind of people who show up this way. Again, a disclaimer here: not everyone who defends Marx or Lenin online falls into these patterns. There are thoughtful, sincere, and principled MLs who engage in real, grounded discussions. But then there are these other types:

  1. The Theory Maximalist

This person treats political theory like scripture. They’ve read the texts (probably a lot of them) and they approach every conversation like a chance to prove their mastery. Everything becomes about citations, dialectics, and abstract arguments. When faced with real-world contradictions, their default move is to bury it under more theory. They mistake being well-read for being politically mature, and often completely miss the human, relational side of radical politics.

  1. The Identity Leftist

For this person, being a leftist isn’t about organizing or material change. It’s an identity. They call themselves a Marxist-Leninist the way someone else might call themselves a punk or a metalhead. Defending state socialism becomes a cultural performance. They’re less interested in the complexity of history than in being on the “correct side” of whatever aesthetic battle they’re fighting. Anarchists, to them, represent softness or chaos, and that’s a threat to the image they’ve built for themselves.

  1. The Terminally Online Subculturalist

This one lives in forums, Discords, or other niche Internet circles. Their entire political world is digital. They've likely never been to a union meeting, a mutual aid drive, or a community organizing session. All their knowledge of struggle is mediated through memes and screenshots. They treat ideology like a fandom and conflict like sport. They love the drama, the takedowns, the purity contests. The actual work of liberation? Irrelevant.

  1. The Alienated Intellectual

This person is often very smart, often very isolated, and clings to ideology as a way of making sense of the world. They’re drawn to strict political systems because it gives them order and meaning in a chaotic life. And while they might not be malicious, they often struggle to engage with disagreement without feeling personally attacked. For them, criticism of Marxism-Leninism can feel like an existential threat, because it destabilizes the fragile structure they’ve built to cope with life.

These types don’t describe everyone, and they’re not meant to be a diagnosis or a dismissal. They're patterns I’ve noticed. Ways that a political identity can become rigid, defensive, and disconnected from real-world struggle.

And here’s the thing that’s always struck me as particularly ironic: Let's face it, a lot of these people would absolutely hate to be part of real socialist organizing. Because the kind of organizing that builds power, the kind that helps people survive, defend themselves, and grow; it's messy, emotionally challenging, and full of conflict. It requires flexibility, listening, and compromise. It doesn’t work if everyone’s just quoting dead guys and calling each other traitors. Anarchist or not, actual socialist practice is grounded in real life, not in endless internet warfare.

That’s why this whole cycle feels so tragic. Because behind all the posturing, the purity tests, and the ideological gatekeeping, there’s a legit reason these people ended up here. Of all the ideologies in the world, they chose communism. Why? Probably because they hurt. Because they saw the ugliness of capitalism and wanted something better. Because, at some point, they were moved by the idea that we could live without exploitation.

And somewhere along the way, that desire got calcified into a set of talking points. It got buried under defensiveness and online clout games. The pain turned inward, and now they lash out at anyone who doesn’t match their script. That’s not an excuse. But it is something to hold with empathy.

I don’t write this to mock anyone. I write it because I want us to do better, recognize our differences and hopefully come to a fair conclusion. And Idk, I still believe we can. Ape together strong 💖

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 10 points 5 days ago (2 children)

I have seen so many tankies deny the pain of others

That's as often as not tit-for-tat. In my experience, particularly when "Tankie" is flung out as a slur rather than a serious material analysis, you'll see people respond in what is effectively an in-kind retort. "My grandparents left Cuba because they were being persecuted by the villainous Castro government! You're a tankie if you support them!" often signals a person (or online persona) that's aligned itself with a class of Cuban who profited from the abusive practices of slave plantations and child brothels, pre-Revolution.

Go straight back to the term's root - the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and the subsequent quashing by Khrushchev's armored cavalry - and what you're effectively advocating in defense of is a CIA/Nazi collaborative stay-behind network that ushered in the Years of Lead. Are we expected to show empathy for the Hungarian Rebels if they'd been bombing and butchering civilians a decade earlier without compunction?

One unspoken, implicit tenet of their beliefs is the denying others the same humanity they claim to uphold and represent.

Empathy cuts both ways. It isn't merely a sense of naive compassion and maudlin despair at the atrocity du jour. Empathy can be a source of fiery opposition and vengeful passion, in response to historical crimes and horrors committed by the current-day self-professed victims.

that’s why I have a hard time to show them empathy

Understandable. But again, that's exactly the position these "tankie" types are coming from. They're reading the history from a different angle and viewing the revolutionary violence of a given period as social justice extracted by an empowered proletariat. They're reading your defense of the historic persecutors as a defense of prior persecutions and an obstruction of justice - possibly even an apology for revanchism and a return to the old horrors.

To reference Mark Twain

“THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.”

― Mark Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court

[–] squirrel@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

I am not going to respond to you in detail, because - I think - we mostly agree with each other, but allow me to explain where I am coming from with an anecdote: I was once part of a grassroots movement which aimed to unionize a particular sector of the entertainment industry. (Sorry, for being vague, even after all those years, the events are still a sore point for many involved.) There were a few hundred people taking part in all of this.

One chunk of people who joined the group were the worst kind of tankies who would hurl abuse at anyone who did not agree with them. The reasons for that behavior varied and ranged from the entirely trivial to the usual "Stalinism was great, anybody who says something different is a CIA plant."

One regular point of contention was tankies' demand to include praise for China in the group's official communications, which was way off topic for what the group was about. Of course, most of the group refused and - because the tankies were a very vocal minority, they could not ultimately prevent democratic decisions of the majority. Which - of course - annoyed them even more and created even more drama. Rinse and repeat.

The group ultimately imploded during the Black Lives Matter protests. One major reason for that was because the tankies prevented a statement of solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement. AFAIR the justification was something like "fighting racism is a distraction from the real struggle of the working class". Most of the PoCs left the group in exasperation because the group could not even speak out against racist police violence without the tankies completely derailing the proceedings.

The reason why I bring this up is because this was a group of workers who were actively working on organizing a worker's movement. But it was not enough for the tankies, they had to bring in their political sectarianism and demanding adherence to it, while simultaneously claiming that the others in the group did not represent workers like they did and thus the tankies were justified to pressure and abuse the other members until they agreed with the tankies' positions.

So yes, empathy cuts both ways. And I may have empathy for tankies on a personal level, but if people can't leave their ill behavior at the door and show solidarity towards their fellow workers when trying to get a grassroots movement off the ground, then these people have no place in it.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

So, obviously, I wasn't at these meetings and have no experience with them. That said, I do have a DSA group in Houston and they've got a fairly wide range of views that regularly causes degrees of friction. I do see the periodic heated argument over Israel/Palestine or China/Taiwan or any other number of foreign policy issues. And that does periodically cause someone to storm off or some local person to get involved. But I'm not seeing "chunks" of people with these views nearly so much as I see particular individuals from particular backgrounds with an unorthodox ideology.

When I was (very tangentially) working with people on the Starbucks union drive, there were definitely a few people with these more radical views in the group. But I can't recall any instance of it being raised as part of the union organizing drive. Everyone at the meeting seemed to be on the same page - that working in these coffee shops was unnecessarily immiserating and the goal of the meetings was to address the immediate labor concerns first and foremost.

Where I see people lashing out against one another for being "Tankies" is almost entirely online. Internet communities where an administrator imposes some kind of auto-ban rule for using keywords they don't like. Or power users posting spam in the chats because they've got the tact of a ball-peen hammer.

Admittedly, I'm out in Houston, TX. Finding a dozen lefties to rub together is a challenge. People are much more reserved about their left-leaning political views for fear of reprisal or alienation. So maybe just being in a deeply conservative setting mutes the discord between left-groups off-line. But what you're experiencing is the sort of thing I've only ever heard about from the extraordinarily fringe groups (Black Hammer, for instance).

[–] squirrel@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Internet communities where an administrator imposes some kind of auto-ban rule for using keywords they don't like. Or power users posting spam in the chats because they've got the tact of a ball-peen hammer.

Well, as I have done some modding here on Lemmy and previously Reddit, you can probably count me among one of those administrators/mods, because that's where I encountered many of them, apart from the particular incident in my previous comment.

The communities I have managed always had tight rules in regards to what was allowed and what was not. Yet far too many tankies did not care much about those rules at all. A particular favorite of the tankies was...

R-SlurLibtard

...and it was explicitly forbidden for anyone to use that. So guess, how much "fun" it was to argue with tankies in modmail why they were supposed to be allowed to use that term because they were "suffering under capitalism" and the users they argued with "deserved" to be called that.

It was not only the disregard for the rules that was aggravating, but their complete lack of empathy for whoever they argued with. They completely denied that other users could "suffer under capitalism" too, showing exactly the lack of empathy for others that I decried in my original comment.

You may have made different experiences, but these interactions and the previously mentioned unionization effort shaped my perception of tankies. And ultimately that's where things come down for me: If people cannot leave their ill behavior at the door and show no respect for others who may be in a similar situation as they are (let alone work with them), they do not deserve to be part of that community.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I mean, I'm coming out of a background on Reddit community - particularly /r/neoliberal and /r/libertarian - where you regularly got all sorts of eliminationist rhetoric ("Helicopter Rides", "Franco did nothing wrong", lots of stanning of everyone from Chang Kai-Shek to Tony Blair). And the definition of "Tankie" was someone who though Che Guevera was a cool, smart guy and wasn't shy about supporting nationalization of domestic oil industry.

No shortage of R-slurs in these spaces. They just didn't carry the Lib prefix.

It was not only the disregard for the rules that was aggravating, but their complete lack of empathy for whoever they argued with.

When people see one another as adversarial, they tend to see the rules (particularly rules that are deliberately designed to censor a perspective) as obstacles to be overcome rather than amenities to be appreciated. Same shit happens in /r/conservative, with the mods periodically doing ban-waves aimed at anyone who doesn't adhere to the orthodoxy of the moment. People roll up new accounts to circumvent the bans. Tensions rise as the mods and the base users grow increasingly adversarial. And the end result is a bunch of spin-off communities that hot-house their outrage at one another until it explodes into people screaming at one another in some third space.

You may have made different experiences, but these interactions and the previously mentioned unionization effort shaped my perception of tankies.

If the biggest hurdle you've ever experienced in unionizing an office is "tankies", you've been truly blessed. Nothing I've read or heard about people trying to organize offices at Amazon or Walmart or Starbucks have suggested tankies were the problem. Virtually everything has been deliberately adversarial actions by corporate.

[–] squirrel@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I really do not appreciate the insinuations, particularly not "If the biggest hurdle you've ever experienced in unionizing an office is "tankies"". Have I said that? You have no basis for this claim and if you really want to question my union activities in order to score a point, that says more about you than me.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

I mean, we're two dudes on the internet. You could be Jimmy Hoffa, unionizing from beyond the grave. You could be a fucking Pinkerton, for all I know.

But this is so wildly outside every personal, professional, and anecdotal experience I've ever had, I'm forced to assume you're either an outlier or just a regular liar.

[–] squirrel@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

If you point boils down to: I never experienced this, therefore you must be lying; we can stop having this conversation.

[–] newfie@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 days ago

Your point seems to be that everyone must agree with you or else they are an Other.

Your behavior in this thread demonstrates the utilization of the same tactics you supposedly oppose.

Remove the beam from your eye before pointing out the splinter in another's

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

Go straight back to the term's root - the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and the subsequent quashing by Khrushchev's armored cavalry - and what you're effectively advocating in defense of is a CIA/Nazi collaborative stay-behind network that ushered in the Years of Lead. Are we expected to show empathy for the Hungarian Rebels if they'd been bombing and butchering civilians a decade earlier without compunction?

You are conflating the resistance to the Russian backed Hungarian regime with the 'years of lead' in Italy, which are two entirely unrelated events.. also you call the uprising a CIA/Nazi collaborative.

I've never read anything from any scholar (holding a degree in history) that has used those terms in discussing the Hungarian uprising and frankly... It smacks a bit of:

reading the history from a different angle and viewing the revolutionary violence of a given period as social justice extracted by an empowered proletariat.

That's your quote on what tankie terrific is like.

[–] newfie@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I've never read anything from any scholar (holding a degree in history) that has used those terms in discussing the Hungarian uprising

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2025/0318/104-10110-10525.pdf

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Thats no source from a scholar holding a degree in history, now is it?

[–] newfie@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It's a primary source directly from the US government. It's the best source possible

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Governements are rarely a good source. They are not usally in the bussiness of transparency. Furthermore it needs context. Anyone can xerox a typewritten page alledging something.

[–] newfie@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 days ago

It's from the declassified jfk files from last month

Also you can't spell

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You are conflating the resistance to the Russian backed Hungarian regime with the ‘years of lead’ in Italy

I'm drawing parallels between the various efforts by western anti-communist forces during Operation Gladio, which showed up all across southern and western Europe from the end of WW2 to the fall of the USSR.

I’ve never read anything from any scholar (holding a degree in history) that has used those terms in discussing the Hungarian uprising and frankly

Then you've never read a biography of Allen Dulles.

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I’m drawing parallels between the various efforts by western anti-communist forces during Operation Gladio, which showed up all across southern and western Europe from the end of WW2 to the fall of the USSR.

The 'Years of lead' did involve a pro-communist side, though, which is a typical thing to exclude.

Then you’ve never read a biography of Allen Dulles.

I havent. Point me to one written by a scholar of history and point me to the passages, please. Im not going to debate that McCarty era USA did anti-communist stuff, I want proof of your claim that it actively collaborated with nazis.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The ‘Years of lead’ did involve a pro-communist side, though

Famously. Quite a few celebrated union activists and popular labor leaders were its victims.

Point me to one written by a scholar of history

I mean, pretty much anyone writing a biography on Dulles is a scholar of history. But take your pick. He's an exhaustively well-documented public figure.

Im not going to debate that McCarty era USA did anti-communist stuff, I want proof of your claim that it actively collaborated with nazis.

You want proof that Walter Kopp was a Nazi?

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 0 points 4 days ago

You want proof that Walter Kopp was a Nazi?

No I want proof that the CIA colluded with Nazis to spurn the Hungarian Revolt. If you could point me to the direct evidence of that. No circumstantial stuff. Just that the CIA and Nazis caused the Hungarian uprising, scholarly sourced. I'll wait