- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Cross-posted from “TRUE communism!” by @[email protected] in [email protected]
Cross-posted from “TRUE communism!” by @[email protected] in [email protected]
Always good to fight other leftists as fascism closes its grip on the imperial core. Great strategy.
(Posts like this aren’t allowed on Hexbear, and for good reason. What value is there in shitstirring like this? Why be needlessly antagonistic? I really don’t get it.)
Authoritarian leftists and marxist lenninists are not leftists.
Never were. Never will be.
Belief that someone relinquishes power after seizing it is just childish, at best. Borderline moronic given the historic evidence.
If you like authoritarian assholes in power, one that purges the ranks, seizes power and gets control of the eeconomy. All for the good of people. That is Fascism. Capital F. Get. Fucking. Real.
The whithering of the state is not “relinquishing power.” The state, for Marxists, is made up of the elements of society that perform class oppression. It isn’t administration, nor is the state a unique class. Once all property is collectivized, concepts like special bodies of armed people to uphold class oppression have no need to exist, as class doesn’t exist and doesn’t have class contradictions. There’s no “abolish the state” button, it simply has no use when you have a fully collectivized and planned economy.
No. A democratic state that oppresses the bourgeoisie and uplifts the proletariat is not fascism. Read Blackshirts and Reds.
Marxists are absolutely leftists, if your definition of leftism is exclusionary towards Marxists and only accepts anarchists, then you’re being deeply unserious.
Dont care
So you have no clue what the Marxist position is, no clue what fascism is, and don’t care to learn either, yet are comfortable left-punching? Deeply unserious behavior.
Dont care
You don’t get it we’re not leftists, we’re red fascists.
Also
So on Hexbear, attacking communism as capitalism is not allowed, but attacking anarchism as fascism is?
Nobody attacks anarchists as fascists, they attack illiterate “anarchist” liberals who spend all their time crying about “red fascist tankies” as being the ignorant morons that they are, especially when they coincidentally and repeatedly repeat literal U.S. State Dept propaganda in their efforts to argue with the “red fascists” i.e. the fucking uigher genocide hallucination that you fucking morons are still on about
No, he’s referring to communists there.
Ah, I misunderstood. Sorry.
I think your reading comprehension is poor, or you’re referring to something outside of this thread. This is definitely not allowed in Hexbear.
I think so. It’s a tankie space. Their shit posts still average high qualitu.
We’re not a “tankie” space, we’re a left-unity space where most of our users just happen to be MLs. We actually have rules against sectarianism and left-infighting.
We have a fair number of anarchist users, though to be fair they’d probably also be called “tankies” by most online anarchists as they’ve got more nuanced positions on AES than you guys.
Happens to me all the fucking time lmao.
shit on this account I’ve been accused of being a tankie for having positions like: hating and fearing china is pretty stupid given their lack of militarism, massive improvements in quality of life for the working class, and frankly astounding technological progress in sustainable technologies.
Apparently wanting to end hierarchy and being sceptical of stateist projects means I have to ignore when they work at all and be constantly at war with like the entire world for not being pure enough. There’s enough shit keeping me busy in my own life to make up drama about the spooky red threat that seems to be a surveillance state like… every other highly industrialised society right now.
If they find my hexbear account I will be thrown out of town ;)
We don’t ban hexbears just because they’re from hexbear. I’ve known you’ve had an account there for years.
Well of course you know
It is a joke about the content of said account.
I once said something about hating tankies and got name-checked into a thread there. I explained that I don’t care for authoritarianism of any kind, and one mouthy punk kept trying to rile me up.
Y’all got a reputation for a reason.
(There were others who were chill about it, but people tend to remember loud assholes better than chill people.)
Hexbear and its influences have been a disaster for the fediverse.
How would left unity work?
Anarchism and MLism are so different from each other that any unity between supporters of either would be short lived. Like the unity between the USSR and the USA during WW2.
I don’t agree with that at all. We all have fundamentally the same goals, just slightly different ways of organising and reaching them. There are far, far more things we agree on than disagree on, and on the latter we’re able to disagree on things respectfully.
You’ve also got to remember, we’re not revolutionaries or a party, we’re just people on a webforum. If a revolution was suddenly magicked out of thin air we might have a falling out, but until then what’s the problem? Most of our posting now is just criticism of our current world anyway, which is something we’re all very much aligned on.
Sure, but those methods are severly different.
FWIW: I think left unity is pretty important now, during another rise in fascism, but I don’t think it will last long.
That’s a really good take, actually.
Personally, I dont think its important if left-unity its temporary or permanent so long as it last long enough to overthrow the capitalist system.
Glad we’re on the same page on this at least
As a wise kangaroo once said
Since when was it anarchist’s goal to enslave the working class to party bureaucrats?
Yeah true, that’s quite different to the anarchist goal of burning down every structure and having us all live in a state of violent primitive chaos.
Oh wait, I’m not an idiot so I don’t actually believe that.
In my ideal postrevolutionary society, there would be special political/economic zones where anarchists could live and try to build a model for the society of the future, sheltered from external threats by the communist state. I don’t think anarchists and MLs necessarily need to be at odds.
That’s an interesting idea
You realize that that idea basically means that anarchists would have to help MLs seize power their way, and then hope they stick to their promises (because they’re then at their mercy). For me, It’s an absurd idea on its face and only serves to make us willing tools.
Soooo… a tankie space.
No? We’re majority ML but we have lots of anarchist members? Unless you’re saying anarchists can be tankies or something?
Terminally online radlibs call me a tankie too so apparently yes…
Oh, look… an adherent of factory-owner ideology called me a “radlib…”
Your MOM gas a more nuanced position on AES than us.
Would she consider a lecture series?
Or… Or maybe an intimate one on one explainer over coffee?
She’s a liberal but she’s well-travelled so she unironically does.
…well?
I’m too much of a coward to askher myself.
Why would I want a coward as my new dad?
Yep, Russia did the thing.
In the meme image.
Authoritarian Communism broke, then it flipped back to Authoritarian Capitalism.
Yep, it had enemies.
Yep those enemies were very involved in helping it to break.
But this still is what happened.
Yep, it took a while.
Sorry the comic is ~80 years long?
Horrible line of reasoning. Anarchist projects have all reverted to capitalism much faster than the Soviet Union did.
Not without being conquered by fascists or red fash. I.e they’re internally consistent.
Imagine equating a state and related movements that massively improved working-class people’s lives, including in terms of life expectancy, literacy rates, including by providing guaranteed housing, universal healthcare, fundamental women’s rights that are taken for granted today, and which not only fought off settler-colonialism in the form of the Lebensraum and the Holocaust, but also helped many other countries liberate themselves from European powers, with things like Germany under NSDAP, the US, Pissrael, and NATO in general.
Okay, so stop being a literal child and draw that thought out to its logical conclusions. I did that fifteen fucking years ago and realized, oh, hey, China isn’t Literally Evil for Doing Authoritarianism. They exist in a world with the fucking CIA, and all the feel good anarcho idealism in the world isn’t going to protect them from their literal fucking terrorism.
If you actually use your fucking brain you’d understand that it matters what “authority” is used “for.” Let me spoil it for you- using it to defend a revolution from internal and external reaction and imperialism IS GOOD, UNLESS YOU’RE A FUCKING REACTIONARY.
You don’t need hierarchies to defend against imperialism
You sure you don’t need those hierarchies buddy? You suuuuuuuure?
Yep, I don’t want to help bring about a system which will only revert to capitalism on its own.
this is why people like me just laugh and call you a fucking child, because like, what are you even on? What does your revolutionary society look like? How is it organized?
You just out yourself as an ignorant, illiterate fuck who doesn’t realize that political anarchism is about the abolition of unjust and arbitrary hierarchies, not some idealist bullshit ass “we need a non hierarchical society” and a belief that you just get there by fucking magic. You are going to need to have a political organization of some kind, and guess what? The establishment of that is inherently fucking hierarchical!
What makes it good is not being a hierarchy based on fucking nobility or property ownership or oppressive class relations, dipshit. You are better off jerking yourself to death in your goon cave than chasing after some platonic ideal of A Lack of Hierarchy when here in the fucking real world the bourgoisie, fascists and cops are closing the noose around your neck and mine.
I’d tell you to grow the fuck up but I know you’re just going to keep crying about authority and hierarchy while every single fucking lying weaselly ass statement from your mouth assists the imperialists and the bourgeoisie, whether you know it or not
There’s entire books about that. If you want to criticize something so passionately, you should understand what you’re criticizing and read up on theory. Or ask your local (instance’s) anarchists.
Tankies :“immature”, “anakiddie”, “liberal”, “reactionary”, “ignorant”, “waaaa”
Also tankies : “what about that left unity doe?”
A tale repeated since the nonsense that is “on authority”
But thanks for reinforcing to the audience why one just not align with (nevermind trust) MLs.
the only good revolution is the one that fails
The USSR was also destroyed by encirclement and (nearly 100 years) of pressure from reactionaries.
But again, you and and the people on the comm you named after yourself are the ones hypocritically positing that any socialist project that fails is evidence that that project’s ideology inevitably leads to capitalist takeover. None of the “tankies” on Hexbear are saying that because it’s asinine, but if you actually believe it, to be ideologically consistent, would require condemning anarchism also.
Deeply unserious
Yeah, right… it had absolutely nothing to do with the batshit-insane economic and social blundering of the CPSU.
Nothing at all.
It was literally the fastest growing economic system of all time. It went from wooden hand-drawn plows to spaceflight in a single generation, while defeating the most devastating invasion in human history. The nation once called “the India of Europe” became the first interplanetary civilization.
Then, after the entire collective might of the capitalist world had slaughtered dozens of millions of the bravest and most committed communists, it started falling apart because liberals took over. It was dissolved illegally, against the wishes of 70% of the population that voted in a referendum to keep the Union, in a bloody coup that killed over 2000 people fighting against its destruction. By the end of the 90s there had been 7-10 million excess deaths above the death rate of the 80s in Russia alone, making it one of the worst non-war human-caused humanitarian disasters of all time.
In short, the people of the USSR were revolutionaries and heroes, whereas you are a grotty little chauvinist from the imperial core who doesn’t want to improve the world, because if you did you would want to win, and if you wanted to win you would read history, and if you read history you would come to the same conclusion.
Yeah… I think Marxism-Leninism is the only ideology that dictates that you do colonialism against yourself.
Lol! Been overdoing the sci-fi a bit, tankie?
Just to clarify… you are not talking about the ones murdered on Stalin’s orders, right?
Stop fooling yourself, tankie - the fact that a large majority of the Soviet population saw no need to dismember the Union doesn’t mean they also wanted your faux-socialism.
Oh, really? So where did those liberals come from, then?
You mean… unlike you?
Disengage
Internally consistent, externally non-existent
If your ideology can’t stand up against outside forces then surely it’s just not a good ideology?
I was an anarchist myself for a long time, and I’m still really sympathetic to anarchist ideas and movements, but for me it’s just hard to see it as anything but utopianism when, despite all the good intention and internal consistency, it just can’t ever seem to survive contact with the real world.
So…
Well at least communism has consistently survived contact with the real world.
Oh, wait.
Yeah… the main one being the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
This is so disgustingly wrong it actually pisses me off. Our enemies were fascists and imperialists for the most part. Fuck dude Lenin even aided Makhno.
https://redlib.catsarch.com/r/Anarchism/comments/11ecblx/marxists_betray_anarchists/
The commenters on that site use Pol Pot as an example lmao. I cannot take them seriously.
Also this drivel.
Anarchism is a branch of communist thought, socialism is a branch of communist thought, “libertarian” was a rebranding of anarchism originally in places where it was made illegal to disseminate anarchist literature and speak of anarchist philosophy. So libertarian socialist is an oxy-moron and no less contradictory than American modern Libertarians who simply want corporations to supplant the state.
Like it or not we have to take a diversity of tactics to build duel power and engage in a prolonged defensive war against the forces of reaction and that means aligning with others whose ultimate goal is communism. This goes doubly so within the imperial core. Weakening the core takes pressure off of besieged socialist movements in the periphery, and support for anti-imperialist forces against the west makes the empire less capable of repression at home having to exert force on more and more fronts.
Actual anarchists are teaming up with people of all sorts of tendencies and groups like Palestine Action are quite diverse. The people doing the most effective below ground action aren’t arguing about 100 year old mistakes and ideological hangups, they are learning together from them and doing what needs to be done.
What are you going to do about it, tankie?
There is no “our” here, tankie - you are the enemy here.
Really? Is that why the Bolsheviks perpetrated mass-slaughter in Ukraine to repress the Makhnovists? To “aid” them?
Because people need to be reminded of the lessons anarchists learned the hard way to prevent another Spain, Ukraine and even Russia.
The anarchist understanding of Spain is so weird. You must realise it takes two to tango; infighting absolutely came from both sides. The May Days specifically started when anarchists were fucking around with government telephone calls, and rose up when government forces made them stop. It wasn’t a communist coup or anything like that, the communist just had solidarity with the Republican government and its war effort. Also, importantly, the May Days ended when anarchist leadership told their radicals to stand down. Again, not some communist purge.
And surely the communist ‘war first, revolution later’ position was vindicated by the fact that revolutionary Barcelona crumbled at first contact with the fascists, while communist-dominated Madrid held out for years? I’m not saying the Republicans would have definitely won if the anarchists had committed more to the war effort over their revolution, but it would have surely helped.
No surprises there… anything that isn’t tankie propaganda seems “weird” to tankies.
Prove it.
Really? Is that why all Spain’s gold reserves (the third largest in the world at the time) ended up in Moscow?
Tankies have a weird understanding of the term “solidarity.”
I’m not saying that the only reason Barcelona didn’t fall to the fascists right at the start of the war was because of the anarchists… oh, wait - that’s exactly what I’m saying.
I’m not saying that anarchist plans to turn Barcelona into a death trap for the fascists was quashed by the cowardly Negrin-regime (the very same Negrin that helped Stalin steal all of Spain’s gold reserves)… oh, wait - that’s exactly what I’m saying.
Come, tankie… let’s see how well your faux-history holds up.
Oh I see, they’re called ‘tankies’ because the USSR gave 731 tanks to the Republicans, being the only nation to provide them any material support
What would you prefer we call you? Considering that the Bolsheviks managed the greatest single gold heist of the 20th century (from a nation being invaded by fascists, of course), would you prefer we call you “Goldies?”
Me when I’m an anarchist who cares about state gold reserves.
Anyway, it was payment for the
That the USSR provided. Should they have given it for free? Should they have not given support at all? Would it have been better for the Republicans to just accept they were going to lose anyway and die with their gold? Would you prefer that gold to have been captured by the Fascists?
Besides, the actual greatest gold heist of the century was during Indian independence, when their entire gold reserves were airlifted to the UK in exchange for… nothing. Which I’m sure you knew about, having devoted a proportional amount of your time to looking into the actual crimes of capitalist nations as you have the fictional crimes of socialist ones.
I don’t care much for gold… but it seems to be one of the few things you tankies actually do care about.
But hey, tankie… good news! Now at least we know that there are at least two reasons tankies would actually bother to fight fascists at all, eh?
That is all the third largest gold reserve in the world at the time paid for? Just that measly amount of “aid?”
The Soviet Union got 7,411 aircraft from the western allies during WW2 - was Tankie Nr.3 forced to ship all his gold reserves to Washington DC, perhaps?
You were the only person to bring up gold…
On: “the May Days specifically started when anarchists were fucking around with government telephone calls”
This is really lazy but I’m just gonna link a source another poster posted here. You seem well read enough on the subject to know who Paul Preston is, but if you haven’t read his books I highly recommend.
What’s the issue here? My understanding was that the Republic voluntarily sent its gold to Russia to avoid it falling into fascist hands. If you’ve got a source on the contrary I’d be genuinely interested.
And the Soviets, whether in solidarity or because they were paid in gold, sent considerable vital war materiel, and organised the International Brigades. They were the only power to support the Republican effort. Their policy, and the policy of the aligned Spanish communist parties, was supporting the Republic and the war. Again I’ve seen no evidence to suggest that this wasn’t genuinely the case.
Yeah, I absolutely think the Republic would have stood a better chance of defeating Franco if the anarchists had been more committed to the war and less focussed on immediate revolution, I’m just not saying they would have definitely won. I understand their desire for revolution, and the work they did in Catalunya and Aragon was fantastic, I just think their priorities were in the wrong place if they wanted to sustain it.
Horseshit, tankie.
Revolution and Counterrevolution in Catalonia – Carlos Semprún Maura
Seems like Azaña’s (alleged) “interrupted phone call” didn’t bother Azana enough to declare war on the anarchists - if such an event ever ocurred at all.
Right, right… the Republic decided democratically to give all it’s gold reserves to one of the most untrustworthy realpolitickers of the 20th century, eh? You tankies have a weird understanding of the term “voluntary,” too.
Support it or hijack it? Can you tankies actually tell the difference?
Yeah, I absolutely think the Republic would have stood a better chance if the liberals holding hands with tankies were more interested in fighting the fascists than sabotaging the anarchists.
Ok, I’m just gonna disengage. You’re being really hostile, your understanding of history is bad, and you’re weirdly bitter about events you have absolutely nothing to do with. Please remember we’re just on the internet, not on opposite sides of the barricades.
Removed by mod
Disengage
We’re not ‘engaged’, what are you talking about?
You can just not reply if you don’t want to reply.
I don’t want to be seen as conceding the point when I’m not in the mood to argue with tankies.
I think it comes across as more of a concession to be honest…
This is just a silly webforum though, you’re under no obligation to reply to anyone ever if you don’t feel it’s worth your time, so no hard feelings either way.
Spain?
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/may/06/george-orwell-homage-to-catalonia-account-spanish-civil-war-wrong
Was the lesson that they stop doing literally what you’re doing here?
Disengage
Sure thing. I encourage others seeing this to read this article, on the guardian of all places, however.
… You don’t get it?
This is an Anarchist instance.
Anarchists are extremely critical of the concept of ‘the State’ itself, tend to want to either totally abolish it, or at least strip it down so much or break it apart that it essentially isn’t a ‘State’ any more.
Tankies embrace, and essentially worship the State.
… Also, in basically every single recorded instance of a succesful or attempted leftist revolution in modern human history, tankies ally with anarchists to overthrow the existing State, and then murder all of them after they’ve established themselves as the new State or proto-State.
One could argue that it seems to be in the material interest of authoritarian statists to extend false allyship to ‘fellow leftists’, and then betray them as quickly as they abandon their ideal of a ‘classless society’ and begin to assert themselves as the new ruling class.
There’s a 101 level answer for your ‘why so antagonistic’ question.
Tankies historically cry ‘Unity! Unity!’ and do exactly what you are doing, trying to shame those who are skeptical… and then the rhetoric flips on a dime and the cry switches to ‘Purity! Faith!’
…
Also worth noting is your framing of this as antagonistic in the first place.
I guess you find the evidence of history thus far to largely be antagonistic to your worldview?
I don’t know, I wouldn’t want to put words in your mouth, but that is my assumption.
I could be wrong though.
The way you liberals need to define ideologies the US government taught you to hate as “religions” is pretty interesting to me.
I’ve studied economics and poli sci academically, have degrees in both, did my own independent research, came to the conclusion that the anarchist perspective is ultimately the most useful approach to analyze and critique… all societies, throughout all history, with the least ideological blindspots, with the most at least broadly accurate predictive power.
But sure, ok, I am one of the liberals whom I frequently argued against and critqued, ok.
Anyways, do you have an actual retort, or just a form of ideologically flavored ad hominem?
-yawn-
My wife also has advanced degrees in economics, she’s a senior economist professionally and has also studied world history indepth. She disagrees with your assessment and thinks a vanguard and a socialist state are necessary intermediaries to get any kind of lasting libertarian anarchism.
I could easily find 100+ economists with better credentials who disagree with both you and my wife so what’s the point of jerking off your qualifications? If you have something persuasive to say just say it; vaguely telling us why you’re qualified is weak as hell. Why don’t you post your resume or link to any of the books you’ve published if you’re such an expert?
Your wife sounds like she’d be potentially interesting to talk to then, genuinely.
But uh, I wasn’t ‘flashing my credentials’ to assert authority by way of the number of fancy pieces of paper I have.
I was responding to the charge of having been ‘brainwashed’ by the US government, and mentioned my academic pursuits to hopefully be able to indicate that I have spent an inordinate and uncommon amount of time and effort attempting to do my own research and learn more.
…
I don’t have anything that I think would be persuasive to say, in general, to an ML Vanguardist.
Mostly because they tend to be very, very ideologically inflexible.
Again, I was responding to a single general concept with that section of what I wrote:
The idea that an ML/Tankie does not understand why Anarchists are skeptical of left-unity.
Apparently my error was to assume that the person I was responding to was… being serious, actually expressing that idea in good faith, earnestly.
…
I will not be posting my resume or any PII as I value my privacy here on lemmy.
…
You’re so very hostile and demanding of people you claim are or should be your allies…
…almost as if we have a fundamentally, radically distinct approach to basic human to human communication, to say nothing of how to grow a mass political movement.
So just to be clear, you’re the only free thinker and everyone who doesn’t agree with you is a mindless sheep blindly following their ideology as a religion?
Am I the only free thinker?
No, of course not?
Do all tankie/MLs engage in what could otherwise be an actually productive and insightful conversation with the absolutely most badfaith and toxic rhetoric that is humanly possible, immedeately, right out of the gate, like rabid cult members defending their beliefs?
In my experience, not 100% of the time, but 95% of the time, yes.
So I guess thanks to you that 95% is getting closer to rounding over to 96%.
You got anything other than an ad hom?
In constantly calling all your interlocutors cultists, you’re making it pretty hard to see anyone else as the bad faith adhom abusers here
Pot calling the kettle black, holy shit that’s hilarious.
“not everyone, just almost everyone” isn’t the gotcha you think it is.
Ridiculous statement for someone who incessantly calls the most predominant socialist tendency on earth a “religion.”
Edit: also lmao poli sci and economics degree
“Excuse me, the only real socialists are people with professional level liberal ideological education”
You claimed I was brainwashed by the government, I told you I wasn’t.
Your response is ‘Ridiculous!’ and then a strawman.
… this is evidently your strategy for fostering left-unity, to just attempt to rhetorically insult me until I submit to your way of thinking?
You ‘argue’ like a power tripping narcissist sociopath, it is actually funny to me that you seemingly lack awareness of how vindictive and manipulative you come across.
I guess the only good revolution is the one that is openly antagonistic to tbose whom it claims to represent, speak for, advocate for with unity.
I’m not trying to foster left unity with you, because frankly to consider you an anarchist would be such rank anti-anarchist sectarianism that Hexbear mods would be correct to permaban me. You’re a liberal.
Btw, I think that accusing anarcho-communists of having an ideology that inevitably leads to ecocide is pretty sectarian also (or again, maybe not sectarian. It’s not sectarian for a liberal [you] to be anti-anarchist, just shitty), and you haven’t engaged with this point but you’re posting ziq’s articles and this is one of their states positions so that’s something you need to deal with for yourself.
You called Marxism a religion before my comment, which was about your initial ad hominem comparison to religion, and frankly suggesting that the ideologies that you are opposed to are the ones the US government wants you to oppose is an objective fact.
LMAO holy shit what a toolbag
Ah yes, the evidence of history. Like all the successful anarchist revolutions?
I am not aware of any anarchists that even predict that some kind of anarchist revolution is any kind of inevitable.
And if there were some, I would disagree with them.
I am not purpoting to have some kind of perfect plan to ‘achieve anarchism’.
I don’t need to.
It’s ya’ll that tend to have a dogmatic, ideological faith in a perfect way to do things, that things should be done, that things inevitably will be done.
…
Anyway, the evidence of history I am referring to is that basically all self described ‘Communist’ states/societies haven’t ever really come close to Marx’s utopian conception of a classless society at the proverbial ‘end’ of Communism…
They mostly either reform or transform themselves into a highly state-managed form of capitalism, or into something with less overt direct state control over a hybrid state/capitalist economy, allowing private businesses and capitalists to operate under fairly significant levels of regulation…
Both of those will almost always only ever allow a single political party, clamp down on freedom of political association/expression, speech, etc… these societies very much still do have significant wealth disparity, ergo, social classes.
…
And those’re pretty much the best case scenarios.
They can also just collapse into… well basically, roughly fascism; a totalitarian, nationalistic, jingoistic central state that works with, grants favors to various capitalist oligarchs, corporations, as opposed to directly managing them or heavily regulating them…
In these societies, wealth disparity and thus class disparity tends to be even more significant… and they tend to put on a show of pretending to be liberal and democratic, though the extent of that effort ebbs and flows back toward social and governmental illiberalism over time.
It can get worse than that, but then we tend to get into ‘thats not real communism’ or basically just meme/schrodinger’s irony level argument territory, at least in my prior experience or discussions with tankies.
…
I don’t have a problem admitting that no anarchist revolution has succeeded in making a stable anarchist society at the scope and scale of a nation-state, with some kind of … assumed authoritative forceful control over a defined physical region.
Partially because… that isn’t really what at least I personally view as any kind of useful goal of my idea of anarchism.
…
If you doubt the history of tankies back stabbing anarchists… hold please, will update with source.
EDIT:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ziq-tankies-and-the-left-unity-scam
There it is!
No sense in me retyping all of this myself.
EDIT 2:
Or maybe its this one:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/various-authors-always-against-the-tanks/
This person’s works also include Burn the Bread Book, an anti-Anarcho-Communist screed in which they advocate for the end of civilization, and return to each person producing all their own food, an idea that is openly ecofascist and would kill billions, first and foremost a large number of disabled and chronically ill people.
I think you should carefully consider where your ideas are coming from.
People can can have some ideas or writings that are good, and some ideas or writings that are bad.
Other people can use their own brains to pick through those ideas on their own and formulate their own worldviews.
Which other genocidal anti-communist, anti-anarchist authors do you suggest have “some good ideas?”
Tell me you don’t understand Marx without telling me you don’t understand Marx
Edit: LMFAO YOU CITED ZIQ BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That was fast!
Sorry, I was trying to specifically use Lenin’s conception/phrasing of “socialism” as the progressive process that builds society toward the idealized, but possibly not ever truly, perfectly achievable “communism”.
Thats what I get for trying to use ML terms with an ML, I suppose.
So anyway, if a classless society is not the ultimate end goal of Marx, of Marxism… what would you describe the end goal of Marxism as?
You don’t think perhaps it was the word “utopian,” a word which in the discussion of various different socialist tendencies generally refers to the Utopian Socialists, a group that Marx vocally criticized?
(Which anyone with a decent understanding of Marx would know, and therefore avoid using the word in a description of Marxist goals.)
Does it ever occur to you that mandating a mastery of an esoteric vocabulary and history as the first step toward being elligible for ‘left-unity’… is not exactly appealing to, or a reasonable expectation for prospective new members of such a ‘left-unity’ broad social movement?
Are you trying to be an elitist clique, or a movement that broadly represents large masses of poor, tired, busy, overworked, poorly educated people?
Oof yeah, words can have multiple meanings in different contexts and change over time as well.
I meant it in the more common lingo that normal people mean by the word utopian, an idealized human society that is the best for all its members of any possible society.
Sorry, I don’t spend that much time getting into online arguments with MLs and Socialism Understanders these days, as they tend to be so very, very pedantic and unproductive.
See how you almost got me to not notice you didn’t even attempt to answer my most pertinent question?
Two faced dishonest hypocrite.
Note: this isn’t an ad hominem because I’m not trying to dismiss an idea here, just point out that you’re a contemptible person
Ukraine for example, before the “allied” communists betrayed and hunted down the anarchists
Look, I’m not trying to justify everything the Bolsheviks did during the Russian Civil War. I don’t know enough of the history to make a judgment call on most of that stuff. So I’m going to leave the question of morality entirely aside on this one.
But I don’t think you can call your revolution successful if, within a few years, some external force is able to show up, wreck everything you were doing, and take over. It’s not enough to just temporarily wrest control away and set up your committees and your resource distribution system and declare victory. You have to establish long-term security and stability. If you don’t, you haven’t had a successful revolution.
Valid point. I’d say that it’s inevitable for a large force with popular legitimacy and support to best a force with a similar percentage of but less-due-to-geographical-resources popular legitimacy and support, but I see arguing that would be moving the goalposts. So to engage that directly I would say that the AANES (Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, commonly known as Rojava) is as anarchist as the USSR was communist. It’s been there for well over a decade now.
I could quibble over the circumstances (and, unfortunately, likely outcomes in the near future), or argue about your dig at the USSR, but honestly I’m more inclined to cede the point on this. I don’t really have anything against anarchists or anarchism; I was mostly just giving a flippant answer to that other commenter, who was being a smug jerk.