To give a nore detailed answer… Tankies are “lefties” who have failed to realize one or two extremely important facts about the world:
“Strong men” are not a good thing. No matter your political opinion, using force to get it is literally incompatible with many leftist teachings. The very act of violent rebellion requires the use of force that many believe a government shoudn’t have. Thusly, any violent revolution stands a STRONG chance of being shunned by those who do not want a government with sanctioned violence. Getting a “leftist” government through basic violence WILL result in a fascist government. Always.
Strong men cannot be allowed unjust power no matter how just they are. They cannot be allowed power because despite how cliche the expression, “power corrupts”, it is wholly true. It doesn’t matter how good a particular ruler is. If the levers of power exist, someone WILL pull them very bad directions.
Basically… Tankies are leftists who have not or cannot think through how authority is actually bad to allow to exist in any unchecked form. They think a ruler who does good things is good, when most leftists SHOULD be answering they don’t want any ruler.
The horseshoe theory exists because of tankies and extremists. If you want leftist policy but want to achieve it through uncouth means, that’s definitionally authoritarian in nature for many answers, and authoritarian answers should be antithetical to the left. Even forcing a utopia still creates a coercive government.
Thusly, any violent revolution stands a STRONG chance of being shunned by those who do not want a government with sanctioned violence.
I disagree with this part. Violent revolution—violent opposition to our oppression—is absolutely necessary. However, turning it on ourselves—that is, in any direction other than that which opposes authority—is a recipe for disaster as you say.
It’s not violence itself that is the problem. There are literally always forms of violence sanctioned by every single political philosophy (including absolute pacifism/non-violence, which sanctions violence performed by the state even if its subscribers often don’t realize this). The question is how and when that violence is performed and by whom, and the anarchist/non-authoritarian answer is that it must only be in the struggle for liberation, not the fight to gain and maintain power over others.
I absolutely agree. Peaceful protest has never brought meaningful or lasting change. Violent uprisings are the only way to reduce unjust hierarchy, because those in power have never given it up willingly.
I am not advocating for peace above reason. I am advocating for wisdom in violence. Violence is UGLY no matter who is doing it or why. If you mistakenly think ignorant people will view a conflict and rightfully determine who is fighting for a “good” cause, then you are quite an ignorant fool yourself.
Just look at the Palestinian conflict. Basically ANY activist that believes in violence would be OK with violence happening. Violence happens.
Do people guess who the good guys are correctly? Or are tensions flaring up HARD despite there being ample information about who is killing whom?
Indeed it is not violence itself, otherwise even getting arrested would be more contentious of a topic. Though the point I’m trying to point at is: Doing so in a revolution is COMPLETELY opening up the Paradox of Tolerance.
My point is not that violence cannot be used. It’s that you step fully in to the realm of the Paradox of Tolerance, where less intelligent or less informed people can and DO misconstrue whos violence is just and whos is not.
The point is to aim for the least possible violence so there is far less noise for people to sort through. It is a warning about how a well intentioned revolution can (and has many times in the past) turn in to just another fascistic movement.
I am NOT saying violence is useless. I’m saying don’t be an ignorant hick and think a gun is the answer to every problem. It very often can make situations much worse than they have to be.
pacifism/non-violence, which sanctions violence performed by the state
Maybe this is a silly nitpick, but: you can say it unintentionally empowers or enables state violence, but it doesn’t sanction state violence. (FWIW I’m not a pacifist)
To give a nore detailed answer… Tankies are “lefties” who have failed to realize one or two extremely important facts about the world:
“Strong men” are not a good thing. No matter your political opinion, using force to get it is literally incompatible with many leftist teachings. The very act of violent rebellion requires the use of force that many believe a government shoudn’t have. Thusly, any violent revolution stands a STRONG chance of being shunned by those who do not want a government with sanctioned violence. Getting a “leftist” government through basic violence WILL result in a fascist government. Always.
Strong men cannot be allowed unjust power no matter how just they are. They cannot be allowed power because despite how cliche the expression, “power corrupts”, it is wholly true. It doesn’t matter how good a particular ruler is. If the levers of power exist, someone WILL pull them very bad directions.
Basically… Tankies are leftists who have not or cannot think through how authority is actually bad to allow to exist in any unchecked form. They think a ruler who does good things is good, when most leftists SHOULD be answering they don’t want any ruler.
The horseshoe theory exists because of tankies and extremists. If you want leftist policy but want to achieve it through uncouth means, that’s definitionally authoritarian in nature for many answers, and authoritarian answers should be antithetical to the left. Even forcing a utopia still creates a coercive government.
I disagree with this part. Violent revolution—violent opposition to our oppression—is absolutely necessary. However, turning it on ourselves—that is, in any direction other than that which opposes authority—is a recipe for disaster as you say.
It’s not violence itself that is the problem. There are literally always forms of violence sanctioned by every single political philosophy (including absolute pacifism/non-violence, which sanctions violence performed by the state even if its subscribers often don’t realize this). The question is how and when that violence is performed and by whom, and the anarchist/non-authoritarian answer is that it must only be in the struggle for liberation, not the fight to gain and maintain power over others.
I absolutely agree. Peaceful protest has never brought meaningful or lasting change. Violent uprisings are the only way to reduce unjust hierarchy, because those in power have never given it up willingly.
I am not advocating for peace above reason. I am advocating for wisdom in violence. Violence is UGLY no matter who is doing it or why. If you mistakenly think ignorant people will view a conflict and rightfully determine who is fighting for a “good” cause, then you are quite an ignorant fool yourself.
Just look at the Palestinian conflict. Basically ANY activist that believes in violence would be OK with violence happening. Violence happens.
Do people guess who the good guys are correctly? Or are tensions flaring up HARD despite there being ample information about who is killing whom?
Unending storms of propaganda do a lot to influence how ignorant people react in a situation. And it serves to keep them ignorant as well.
(Not the person you were responding to, but that’s my take on how people often react regarding Palestine.)
Exactly. That is why choosing words carefully is very important when wording political messages, and even more important when deploying violence.
Without basically every major media outlet backing Israel, they would’ve been condemned even harder than China did over the ongoing Uyghur genocide.
Indeed it is not violence itself, otherwise even getting arrested would be more contentious of a topic. Though the point I’m trying to point at is: Doing so in a revolution is COMPLETELY opening up the Paradox of Tolerance.
My point is not that violence cannot be used. It’s that you step fully in to the realm of the Paradox of Tolerance, where less intelligent or less informed people can and DO misconstrue whos violence is just and whos is not.
The point is to aim for the least possible violence so there is far less noise for people to sort through. It is a warning about how a well intentioned revolution can (and has many times in the past) turn in to just another fascistic movement.
I am NOT saying violence is useless. I’m saying don’t be an ignorant hick and think a gun is the answer to every problem. It very often can make situations much worse than they have to be.
Yeah. Totally fair.
Maybe this is a silly nitpick, but: you can say it unintentionally empowers or enables state violence, but it doesn’t sanction state violence. (FWIW I’m not a pacifist)
I’d say that’s a meaningless distinction, and that actions speak louder than words. But as you will.