One point I haven't seen brought up: anarchists and tankies have the best critiques of each others' ideas.
Think of all the bullshit attacks on socialist states that come from all parts of mainstream American politics. Anarchist critiques of socialist states are great because they address the problems inherent with states as hierarchical institutions without getting bogged down in anti-communist Cold War propaganda. They're also more than willing to criticize private institutions, which is almost totally lacking in any other school of thought that is willing to be so critical of states as states (e.g., libertarianism). As for tankies, the best challenges to anarchist thought are (a) "what if some form of state is necessary to defend people against hostile capitalist states?" and (b) "how many of the problems with hierarchical state institutions can be solved if the state is controlled by workers and run for the benefit of workers?" It's not dismissive of anarchism or purposefully ignorant of it (as many other attacks on anarchism are); it's acknowledging and agreeing with much of what anarchists say but arguing that there might be practical limits on the ideas. Both groups are much more honest with each other than any other group is with them.
The "I'm a centrist; I think anarchists and MLs both have some good points" bit is a meme, but it's unironically how I'd like to see government work. Where a state exists, it should be controlled by workers for the benefit of workers, and it should be regularly criticized on anarchist grounds so that it does not grow beyond what's necessary.
anarchists and tankies have the best critiques of each others’ ideas
This is the true meaning of left unity. Not "agree to disagree" but work together to achieve the mutual goals we have (which is most of them at least for a long time) while holding each other accountable, and the breadth of perspective and experiences allows us all to grow stronger and sharpen our edge. Its not about proving one tendency right, or everyone agreeing all the time, but about forging strong solidarity amongst each other so that we can all become the best we can be for the sake of each other
it's as if there's some kind of take by Anarchists...lets call it a "thesis". And then Tankies come out with some counterpoints, Let's call it an "antithesis". And then they merge these two through discussion and action into some kind of "Synthesis" that incorporates the best aspects of both.
There should be some kind of word for this process.
One point I haven't seen brought up: anarchists and tankies have the best critiques of each others' ideas.
Think of all the bullshit attacks on socialist states that come from all parts of mainstream American politics. Anarchist critiques of socialist states are great because they address the problems inherent with states as hierarchical institutions without getting bogged down in anti-communist Cold War propaganda. They're also more than willing to criticize private institutions, which is almost totally lacking in any other school of thought that is willing to be so critical of states as states (e.g., libertarianism). As for tankies, the best challenges to anarchist thought are (a) "what if some form of state is necessary to defend people against hostile capitalist states?" and (b) "how many of the problems with hierarchical state institutions can be solved if the state is controlled by workers and run for the benefit of workers?" It's not dismissive of anarchism or purposefully ignorant of it (as many other attacks on anarchism are); it's acknowledging and agreeing with much of what anarchists say but arguing that there might be practical limits on the ideas. Both groups are much more honest with each other than any other group is with them.
The "I'm a centrist; I think anarchists and MLs both have some good points" bit is a meme, but it's unironically how I'd like to see government work. Where a state exists, it should be controlled by workers for the benefit of workers, and it should be regularly criticized on anarchist grounds so that it does not grow beyond what's necessary.
This is the true meaning of left unity. Not "agree to disagree" but work together to achieve the mutual goals we have (which is most of them at least for a long time) while holding each other accountable, and the breadth of perspective and experiences allows us all to grow stronger and sharpen our edge. Its not about proving one tendency right, or everyone agreeing all the time, but about forging strong solidarity amongst each other so that we can all become the best we can be for the sake of each other
it's as if there's some kind of take by Anarchists...lets call it a "thesis". And then Tankies come out with some counterpoints, Let's call it an "antithesis". And then they merge these two through discussion and action into some kind of "Synthesis" that incorporates the best aspects of both.
There should be some kind of word for this process.
is this dialectics?
It’s called hexagonbear thought
deleted by creator
:marx: (since we don't have a Hegel and I don't know any greek dudes who developed the method)
Resolve the non-antagonist contradictions through dialectics!