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.
Revolutionary Catalonia[1] (21 July 1936 – 8 May 1937) was the period in which the autonomous region of Catalonia in northeast Spain was controlled or largely influenced by various anarchist, syndicalist, communist, and socialist trade unions, parties, and militias of the Spanish Civil War era. Although the constitutional Catalan institution of self-government, the Generalitat of Catalonia (led by the Republican Left of Catalonia, ERC), remained in power and even took control of most of the competences of the Spanish central government in its territory, the trade unions were de facto in command of most of the economy and military forces, which includes the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT, National Confederation of Labor) which was the dominant labor union at the time and the closely associated Federación Anarquista Ibérica (FAI, Iberian Anarchist Federation). The Unión General de Trabajadores (UGT, General Worker’s Union), the POUM (Workers’ Party of Marxist Unification) and the Unified Socialist Party of Catalonia (PSUC, which included the former Communist Party of Catalonia) were also prominent.
Idk seems like they were already a collective. Do you think adding a figurehead or singular leader would have stopped the establishment government from using their already existing material wealth to crush dissent?
Do you think adding a figurehead or singular leader would have stopped the establishment government from using their already existing material wealth to crush dissent?
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
And therein lies the problem. I’m not questioning that it was sustainable, but without centralized leadership and the use of force to protect itself, any anarchist cell is going to lose to the much more organized and better equipped capitalist forces aiming to disrupt and overturn them. Anarchist projects cannot be successful while capitalists continue to wield power.
I can agree with that. I dont think the human zeitgeist is really ready for decentralized governance at this point in time. Thats why the path currently has to start with socialism > communism > stateless.
Depends on what your time frame is and what you consider a state. Anarchists tend to analyze states as unjustifiable hierarchies entrenched through monopolies on violence, and that they form a “class” in and of themselves. Marxists analyze class by its relation to production and distribution, as a social relation, and see the state as a result of class struggle for the purposes of oppressing other classes. What statelessness looks like, therefore, differs.
Anarchism is primarily about communalization of production. Marxism is primarily about collectivization of production.
When I say “communalization,” I mean anarchists propose horizontalist, decentralized cells, similar to early humanity’s cooperative production but with more interconnection and modern tech. When I say collectivization, I mean the unification of all of humanity into one system, where production and distribution is planned collectively to satisfy the needs of everyone as best as possible.
For anarchists, collectivized society still seems to retain the state, as some anarchists conflate administration with the state as it represents a hierarchy. For Marxists, this focus on communalism creates inter-cell class distinctions, as each cell only truly owns their own means of production, giving rise to class distinctions and thus states in the future.
For Marxists, socialism must have a state, a state can only wither with respect to how far along it has come in collectivizing production and therefore eliminating class. All states are authoritarian, but we cannot get rid of the state without erasing the foundations of the state: class society, and to do so we must collectivize production and distribution globally. Socialist states, where the working class wields its authority against capitalists and fascists, are the means by which this collectivization can actually happen, and are fully in-line with Marx’s beliefs. Communism as a stateless, classless, moneyless society is only possible post-socialism.
Abolishing the state overnight would not create the kind of society Marxists advocate for advancing towards, and if anything, would result in the resumption of competition and the resurgance of capitalism if Marx and Engels predictions are correct.
Communism itself is not static either. It will have its own contradictions that resolve and propel it forward. Gradually, habit replaces more and more of what is already formalized by the state today, but it doesn’t look like the communalist, decentralized cell formation anarchists propose.
I admire how clearly you can answer difficult questions and you general patience in explaining theory. I always learn something from your comments. Thank you for being part of this community and sticking around.
People in the west are shrouded (including me) by the most effectice propaganda bubble ever. We hold fault but at the same time the powers that be need us workers of the world to fight each other and not see that we are all more alike than different. They need that. Thats where the “NAGO anarchist”, “tanky”, and all the other pejoratives spawn from. If they didnt do it we’d have banded together a long time ago and toppled them
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.
The Bolsheviks defended themselves completely from 15.
Damn, I wonder if there’s anything they could have done to address this problem
Idk seems like they were already a collective. Do you think adding a figurehead or singular leader would have stopped the establishment government from using their already existing material wealth to crush dissent?
You mean Lluis Companys right?
Sustainable except in regard to actually existing lol, being unable to defend yourself is kind of a big deal
And therein lies the problem. I’m not questioning that it was sustainable, but without centralized leadership and the use of force to protect itself, any anarchist cell is going to lose to the much more organized and better equipped capitalist forces aiming to disrupt and overturn them. Anarchist projects cannot be successful while capitalists continue to wield power.
I can agree with that. I dont think the human zeitgeist is really ready for decentralized governance at this point in time. Thats why the path currently has to start with socialism > communism > stateless.
Is communism not stateless tho?
I haven’t read enough theory. Wheres cowbee?
To try to answer your question; yes, I believe the original intention would call for a dissolution of the state if successful.
So I’d say communists and anarchists should be besties.
Depends on what your time frame is and what you consider a state. Anarchists tend to analyze states as unjustifiable hierarchies entrenched through monopolies on violence, and that they form a “class” in and of themselves. Marxists analyze class by its relation to production and distribution, as a social relation, and see the state as a result of class struggle for the purposes of oppressing other classes. What statelessness looks like, therefore, differs.
Anarchism is primarily about communalization of production. Marxism is primarily about collectivization of production.
When I say “communalization,” I mean anarchists propose horizontalist, decentralized cells, similar to early humanity’s cooperative production but with more interconnection and modern tech. When I say collectivization, I mean the unification of all of humanity into one system, where production and distribution is planned collectively to satisfy the needs of everyone as best as possible.
For anarchists, collectivized society still seems to retain the state, as some anarchists conflate administration with the state as it represents a hierarchy. For Marxists, this focus on communalism creates inter-cell class distinctions, as each cell only truly owns their own means of production, giving rise to class distinctions and thus states in the future.
For Marxists, socialism must have a state, a state can only wither with respect to how far along it has come in collectivizing production and therefore eliminating class. All states are authoritarian, but we cannot get rid of the state without erasing the foundations of the state: class society, and to do so we must collectivize production and distribution globally. Socialist states, where the working class wields its authority against capitalists and fascists, are the means by which this collectivization can actually happen, and are fully in-line with Marx’s beliefs. Communism as a stateless, classless, moneyless society is only possible post-socialism.
Abolishing the state overnight would not create the kind of society Marxists advocate for advancing towards, and if anything, would result in the resumption of competition and the resurgance of capitalism if Marx and Engels predictions are correct.
Communism itself is not static either. It will have its own contradictions that resolve and propel it forward. Gradually, habit replaces more and more of what is already formalized by the state today, but it doesn’t look like the communalist, decentralized cell formation anarchists propose.
I admire how clearly you can answer difficult questions and you general patience in explaining theory. I always learn something from your comments. Thank you for being part of this community and sticking around.
Thanks, comrade!
Philosophically I’m an anarchist, so pragmatically I’m a communist, and currently I’m a socialist [that supports Actually Existing Socialism].
This is what gets called ‘red fash tankie’ by western chauvinists claiming to be leftists.
People in the west are shrouded (including me) by the most effectice propaganda bubble ever. We hold fault but at the same time the powers that be need us workers of the world to fight each other and not see that we are all more alike than different. They need that. Thats where the “NAGO anarchist”, “tanky”, and all the other pejoratives spawn from. If they didnt do it we’d have banded together a long time ago and toppled them
@[email protected] or @[email protected] the bat signal has been lit
Roger!