Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Dialectical wrote

This is a great point that you never see anarchists address. Catalonia wasn't just a state, it was an "authoritarian" state. The anarchists carried out great atrocities against members of the clergy e.g. nuns and other counter-revolutionaries to create their society.

1

black_fox wrote

why do i have to speak for and defend other anarchists? sounds annoying

3

RedOctopus wrote

If you don't admit to the failures made by your fellow anarchists (Catalonia) how can you learn?

0

db0 wrote

Nonsense.

3

Dialectical wrote

They murdered people, burnt down churches, outlawed and prohibited many goods.

How do you explain any of this as not being "authoritarian"? Their programs were not much different than the programs of Marxists like Lenin.

There was forced conscription in both Ukraine and Spain. There were also "anarchist" politicians in both societies. Also, anarchist military leaders placed themselves above the laws they themselves invented and troops roamed about plundering and pillaging from the peasantry.

And most importantly, production dropped when anarchist workers seized the factories.

Bolloten via Caplan describing the coops crying for a bailout by the Spanish state:

Both in Catalonia and in the rest of Republican Spain, this situation created grave economic problems for the CNT collectives. So desperately did some of them require funds that Juan Peiro, the Anarcho-syndicalist minister of industry, openly recommended intervention by the central government, having received in his department eleven thousand requests for funds in January 1937 alone.

0

db0 wrote (edited )

Oh no, economic problems in the midst of a civil war without any outside support and internal betrayal by "allies". It's definitelly caused by internal anarchist contradictions...

3

redgreenexplosion OP wrote

tbf, their argument isn't that it's a contradiction, it's that authoritarianism is required to establish any form of communism, including anarchist forms. That Marxism and anarchism both require coercion and violent suppression to work.

2

db0 wrote

Their argument is not supported by what we know of this era, where catalonians overwhelmingly supported anarchist forms of organization without "state violence". The murder of hated counter-revolutionaries in the form of the Catholic church which has been oppressive as fuck is a response to the horror of war and past grievances, not a result of anarchism per se.

5

redgreenexplosion OP wrote

Would a modern anarchist revolution need to kill billionaires?

2

db0 wrote

Like, actively go and murder them? No.

2

redgreenexplosion OP wrote

Then what would stop them from forming armies to crush the revolution?

1

ziq wrote

when you pin all your hopes on 'revolution', don't be surprised when it turns you into the very thing you seeked to destroy. every revolution is a counter-revolution because every revolution is a quest for power and the only thing that can destroy power is another revolution for power.

6

RedOctopus wrote

This is fucking stupid circular logic. You think revolution is bad?? What kind of reactionary propaganda is this?

0

ziq wrote (edited )

I think revolution is a beautiful little lie people tell themselves so they can fall asleep with a smile on their face every night.

0

ziq wrote

China: No communism achieved.

Cuba: No communism achieved.

Russia: No communism achieved.

France: Monarchy replaced by oligarchy. Same shit, different dressing.

Mexico: Nope.

1

db0 wrote

To answer that question, you have to ask yourself: How would the revolution have started?

3

RedOctopus wrote

And most importantly, production dropped when anarchist workers seized the factories.

This is the thing that anarchists don't understand. ML is efficient. It maintains order. The anarchist will sacrifice order for the sake of being "anti-hierarchies" and this will mean starvation for all the society.

−1

ziq wrote

Because no one ever starved under Marxism Leninism.

2