You dont understand, my centralized power structure is based on giving. It could never be commandeered by power hungry psychopaths and used for their own gain like the rest of the power structures around the globe.
We don’t believe socialism to be pure of corruption, but that it’s both more resistant to it and more effective in general at meeting the needs of the people. The problem isn’t with power structures, but the mode of production and distribution, and the class character of the state. States run by the working classes as a consequence take better care of their people and those they rely on than capitalist ones do. Even the nordics, which are generally nice for their own population, rely on imperialism and foreign plunder to keep going, while socialist countries do not.
So either anarchism has no power structures, thus implicitly admitting that it is fundamentally incapable of bringing about the political change that it advocates for, or it has a power structure and thus it is liable to be commandeered by power hungry psychopaths and used for their own gain like the rest of the power structures around the globe.
Anarchism is a network of smaller structures. Yes, a psychopath would be able to a tribe into a cult. However, the rest of the network would work a check on that psychopath’s power. Better that than a psychopath turning a nation into a cult.
If you “don’t believe in power structures” you’re not even a fucking anarchist, you’re a child out here larping. Anarchism isn’t “the abolition of all power structures” it’s the abolition of unjust and arbitrary power structures. You literally cannot have a fucking functioning society without some form of hierarchy to it, there has to be some sort of decision making body whose decisions need some sort of enforcement structure. The whole fucking point to anarchism is ensuring that all is based on democratic participation and not “the bourgeoisie or nobility have all the power”
NATO “anarchists” out here acting like the Catalonian syndicalists just magically got shit done without having any officers elected to direct work
you’re not even saying anything tho. you understand that right? saying “kill your states” doesn’t do anything or mean anything. it doesn’t negate or even try to refute anything leeeroooy said lol.
The excuses some of y’all come up with for not doing anything never cease to amaze me, do you really think you can bring about revolutionary political change by just asking nicely? If actual anarchists were like you the ideology of anarchism would rightfully be taken about as seriously as Posadism
You dont even know what I do locally and now we’re all making uneducated guesses cause I wanted to make a joke about centralized power structures. Chill.
Local work is good and commendable, but wider societal change requires centralized leadership and the use of force to counter the violence which the capitalist class will engage in to protect its existence both during and after any revolution
Anarchist cells operating simulteanously can accomplish the same thing without relying on a single point of failure or granting a figurehead to attack.
Well, to be fair, Islamic resistance groups (not ideologically communist but progressive) have recently developed cells and flexible leadership methods which are sustainable and relatively successful. This is not what anarchist are usually referring to, though, because that still works strictly in a heirarchical structure and wields state power (good)
Revolutionary Catalonia was not in any way a collection of independent anarchist cells. If you actually read the work of historians on Catalonia you’d realize that they had basically everything in terms of state apparatuses that someone like you would be ideologically opposed to, if you were consistent in your politics.
Workers couldn’t even leave their villages without the permission of the village council in Revolutionary Catalonia my guy. I don’t know how to tell you this but that sounds awfully like a repressive state doing what a repressive state does, even if it flies a black (and red) flag.
They were still sustainable. The same thing is going to happen to any startup anarchist collective as nations and corporations hold an ungodly amount of power and material wealth. It was destroyed because it was actually working but couldn’t defend itself completely from a nation. That is a flaw but its one any up and coming revolution starts with.
One of the tent-poles of Marxism is the idea that actions are driven by material conditions. It seems so obvious to me that the material conditions of a self-appointed vanguard class (regardless of their original intentions) will lead them to be tyrants. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely” as they say.
Vanguards are not “self-appointed,” they are chosen and backed by the broader working class, which is how they have any powwr in the first place. Secondly, the idea that “absolute power corrupts absolutely” is closer to idealism than materialism.
The constituent assembly, the bourgeois institution the workers had already abandoned in favor of the soviet government? Why would anyone hold legitimacy to that? The workers rallied around the bolsheviks, and the SRs backed the overthrow of the state and following the soviets anyways. The bolsheviks had their power from mass support, and because the other groups rallied around them, rather than the SRs, whites, etc.
No? It was the truth. The majority of the faction vote supported overthrowing the constituent assembly and only recognizing the soviet government, which was by that time the government recognized by the working classes. That means that the total of the SRs, Mensheviks, and Bolsheviks voted in outweighed the votes the Right SRs and other factions, and thus support for overthrowing the constituent assembly in favor of the soviets was popular.
Shortly after, the Left SRs and Bolsheviks formed a coalition, and won against the Right SRs among the peasantry, effectively a vote to support the soviet government. After the overthrow of the Tsar, the workers threw the broad majority of their support behind the bolsheviks, with most Left SRs and Mensheviks joining the bolsheviks and the rights split between the whites and the bolsheviks.
I really don’t know what you’re trying to get at, here, do you think the Kerensky government was popular?
Yes, the “truth” as written by Soviet historians afterwards 🙄
The Bolshevik were deeply unpopular and could not claim at all to represent the working class. They only got into power through political maneuvering and outright violence. Maybe at the time they were seen as the lesser evil, but that sure turned out to be a big miscalculation after Lenin started to purge his former political allies.
Source: you made it the fuck up, lmao. Repeating Red Scare fearmongering about the “evil commies” and wielding it like a club, regardless of the truth of the matter, is how you operate. You’ll go to any lengths to disavow socialism in action.
The bolsheviks were chosen because Marxism is correct, and the bolsheviks represented both the workers and the peasantry. The Mensheviks represented only the petite bourgeoisie, the Left SRs were more popular among the peasantry, and the Right SRs supported the outright bourgeoisie. The bolsheviks, on the other hand, were able to unite the workers and peasants soviets and won the Russian Civil War, creating the world’s first socialist state, which managed to:
You dont understand, my centralized power structure is based on giving. It could never be commandeered by power hungry psychopaths and used for their own gain like the rest of the power structures around the globe.
We don’t believe socialism to be pure of corruption, but that it’s both more resistant to it and more effective in general at meeting the needs of the people. The problem isn’t with power structures, but the mode of production and distribution, and the class character of the state. States run by the working classes as a consequence take better care of their people and those they rely on than capitalist ones do. Even the nordics, which are generally nice for their own population, rely on imperialism and foreign plunder to keep going, while socialist countries do not.
So either anarchism has no power structures, thus implicitly admitting that it is fundamentally incapable of bringing about the political change that it advocates for, or it has a power structure and thus it is liable to be commandeered by power hungry psychopaths and used for their own gain like the rest of the power structures around the globe.
Which way, western anarchist?
Anarchism is a network of smaller structures. Yes, a psychopath would be able to a tribe into a cult. However, the rest of the network would work a check on that psychopath’s power. Better that than a psychopath turning a nation into a cult.
So we’re talking about the platonic ideal of anarchism and not the examples of anarchism in the real world then?
If you “don’t believe in power structures” you’re not even a fucking anarchist, you’re a child out here larping. Anarchism isn’t “the abolition of all power structures” it’s the abolition of unjust and arbitrary power structures. You literally cannot have a fucking functioning society without some form of hierarchy to it, there has to be some sort of decision making body whose decisions need some sort of enforcement structure. The whole fucking point to anarchism is ensuring that all is based on democratic participation and not “the bourgeoisie or nobility have all the power”
NATO “anarchists” out here acting like the Catalonian syndicalists just magically got shit done without having any officers elected to direct work
Chuki chuki pokopo
Kill your states
you’re not even saying anything tho. you understand that right? saying “kill your states” doesn’t do anything or mean anything. it doesn’t negate or even try to refute anything leeeroooy said lol.
Yeah it wasn’t supposed to be a serious response. Thats why the Hatsune Miku lyrics are there.
the idealism of a literal child but ok
banned for being objectively correct, lol
isn’t that an abuse of your power structures, mods?!
yeah that’s you talking about the state having an aneurysm when anybody asks “ok so how do you organize literally anything you fucking moron”
Oh calm down. You guys talk down to anarchists all day and I ignore it because ya’ll are funny. I make one joke and your stick is in a knot over it.
They’re right to do so, you are inferior
yeah thats not what marxists believe. you’re the one making bogus uneducated claims rofl
The excuses some of y’all come up with for not doing anything never cease to amaze me, do you really think you can bring about revolutionary political change by just asking nicely? If actual anarchists were like you the ideology of anarchism would rightfully be taken about as seriously as Posadism
You dont even know what I do locally and now we’re all making uneducated guesses cause I wanted to make a joke about centralized power structures. Chill.
Local work is good and commendable, but wider societal change requires centralized leadership and the use of force to counter the violence which the capitalist class will engage in to protect its existence both during and after any revolution
Anarchist cells operating simulteanously can accomplish the same thing without relying on a single point of failure or granting a figurehead to attack.
Can it? When in history has that ever actually worked?
Well, to be fair, Islamic resistance groups (not ideologically communist but progressive) have recently developed cells and flexible leadership methods which are sustainable and relatively successful. This is not what anarchist are usually referring to, though, because that still works strictly in a heirarchical structure and wields state power (good)
It worked in Revolutionary Catalonia for one.
It didn’t, considering how revolutionary Catalonia did not survive the war.
This is peak western leftism. Only supporting failed movements because they are able to remain “pure”.
Crazy, I remember saying those words exactly, “I only support failed movements” was an actual comment that I made in those words.
Revolutionary Catalonia was not in any way a collection of independent anarchist cells. If you actually read the work of historians on Catalonia you’d realize that they had basically everything in terms of state apparatuses that someone like you would be ideologically opposed to, if you were consistent in your politics.
Workers couldn’t even leave their villages without the permission of the village council in Revolutionary Catalonia my guy. I don’t know how to tell you this but that sounds awfully like a repressive state doing what a repressive state does, even if it flies a black (and red) flag.
They lasted less than a year before they were destroyed by nationalist forces.
They were still sustainable. The same thing is going to happen to any startup anarchist collective as nations and corporations hold an ungodly amount of power and material wealth. It was destroyed because it was actually working but couldn’t defend itself completely from a nation. That is a flaw but its one any up and coming revolution starts with.
What is continuous revolution?
spoiler
there’s no Mao-think emoji?!
Marx stared at the turntable in wide-eyed amazement.
“Seventy-two revolutions per minute!?”
One of the tent-poles of Marxism is the idea that actions are driven by material conditions. It seems so obvious to me that the material conditions of a self-appointed vanguard class (regardless of their original intentions) will lead them to be tyrants. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely” as they say.
Vanguards are not “self-appointed,” they are chosen and backed by the broader working class, which is how they have any powwr in the first place. Secondly, the idea that “absolute power corrupts absolutely” is closer to idealism than materialism.
By a wopping 23.27% after which they decided to just take power anyways.
The constituent assembly, the bourgeois institution the workers had already abandoned in favor of the soviet government? Why would anyone hold legitimacy to that? The workers rallied around the bolsheviks, and the SRs backed the overthrow of the state and following the soviets anyways. The bolsheviks had their power from mass support, and because the other groups rallied around them, rather than the SRs, whites, etc.
Right, that is what Lenin said afterwards to justify this blatant power grab by force. You are really funny 🤡
No? It was the truth. The majority of the faction vote supported overthrowing the constituent assembly and only recognizing the soviet government, which was by that time the government recognized by the working classes. That means that the total of the SRs, Mensheviks, and Bolsheviks voted in outweighed the votes the Right SRs and other factions, and thus support for overthrowing the constituent assembly in favor of the soviets was popular.
Shortly after, the Left SRs and Bolsheviks formed a coalition, and won against the Right SRs among the peasantry, effectively a vote to support the soviet government. After the overthrow of the Tsar, the workers threw the broad majority of their support behind the bolsheviks, with most Left SRs and Mensheviks joining the bolsheviks and the rights split between the whites and the bolsheviks.
I really don’t know what you’re trying to get at, here, do you think the Kerensky government was popular?
Yes, the “truth” as written by Soviet historians afterwards 🙄
The Bolshevik were deeply unpopular and could not claim at all to represent the working class. They only got into power through political maneuvering and outright violence. Maybe at the time they were seen as the lesser evil, but that sure turned out to be a big miscalculation after Lenin started to purge his former political allies.
Source: you made it the fuck up, lmao. Repeating Red Scare fearmongering about the “evil commies” and wielding it like a club, regardless of the truth of the matter, is how you operate. You’ll go to any lengths to disavow socialism in action.
The bolsheviks were very popular, throughout their existence, to the point that George Orwell’s Animal Farm’s main critique is the assumption that the Russian working class simply went along with the bolsheviks because they were too stupid to know any better. Liberals and fascists had to invent conspiracy theories of communist mind control in order to explain the popularity of socialism while painting it as the supreme evil.
The bolsheviks were chosen because Marxism is correct, and the bolsheviks represented both the workers and the peasantry. The Mensheviks represented only the petite bourgeoisie, the Left SRs were more popular among the peasantry, and the Right SRs supported the outright bourgeoisie. The bolsheviks, on the other hand, were able to unite the workers and peasants soviets and won the Russian Civil War, creating the world’s first socialist state, which managed to:
The bolsheviks weren’t a “lesser evil,” they were immensely popular, to the point that today the vast majority of those still alive that lived in the USSR want it back.
🤡 🐝