Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

1

SpiritOfTito wrote (edited )

Short story: because anarchists and most socialists would immediately denounce the state(commune if you'd prefer) they'd created as not living up to their romantic, abstracted dreams and turn against it. They'd compare the ideal of socialism abstracted from it's material conditions and compare that against the physical building of communism in the mess that is reality and sure enough reality comes off a pure second.

They have no answer for how they'll protect themselves from the reactionary counter revolution that is absolutely sure to come. They've no answer to dealing with the kind of pervasive CIA subversion the entire globe was subjected to from 45 onward.

Long story: http://www.greanvillepost.com/2015/05/23/left-anticommunism-the-unkindest-cut/

5

[deleted] wrote

0

SpiritOfTito wrote

do you honestly believe those who take power in any communist revolution would one day relinquish that power? show me one example of this in the history of all of humankind.

Name me one anarchist state (commune or collective if you don't like the connotation of state) that has lasted longer than 3 years.

Most ended like the Paris commune - everyone against a wall shortly about to take a bullet in the head 3 months after taking power.

If anarchists can ever square the circle of producing an anarchist state without the Lenins/Castroites/Maoists brought together to last over 70 years then I'm all ears.

If we can simply skip the hard part and be in a land of Worker Owned Enterprises that'd be fantastic.

do you honestly believe those who take power in any communist revolution would one day relinquish that power? show me one example of this in the history of all of humankind.

You measure them against an ideal years and years after those communists attempted to build socialisms not with their dreams but what material reality gave them.

I measure pretty much all of the communist states in the 20th century as massive success.

Cuba: In Killing Hope (William Blum) there's a chapter where the US is trying to create a program to bring up the material conditions of latin american countries to a higher standard than Cuba to deter them from communism (they named it Alliance or something). It measured live expectancy , literacy rates, infant mortality etc. etc.

After 5 years Cuba was the only country in Latin America hitting Alliance programs goals. I call that a success.

65 percent of russians who were alive in the USSR want communism back

A country that suffered horrendous losses in ww2 and was subject to every form of subversion short of outright nuclear attack.

And still, they preferred their economic system

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/701026/russians-life-better-soviet-union-ussr-sixty-four-percent

China the same: prior to communism they were under the boot of the US and UK.

1 million of the 4 million population of Shanghai at the time were drug addicts.

Most people in the GDR preferred life in the GDR

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/homesick-for-a-dictatorship-majority-of-eastern-germans-feel-life-better-under-communism-a-634122-2.html

Romanians preferred their communism .

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/30/struggling-romanians-yearn-for-communism/

Now you can pull out the familiar "that was state capitalism" which I diasgree with. Why? Because the capitalists made such a distinction that it was a big deal and they never tired to point that out. The biggest spread of wealth was more like 4-1

If you compared a billionaire in a capitalist nation to it's more like 100,000-1

A wealth disparity you'd have to go back to ancient egypt to get.

But I think that's how it would go. Capitalist nations falling like dominos and strenghtening as they go. And through cultural hegemony a gradual shift.

4

[deleted] wrote

0

SpiritOfTito wrote

In my first comment I provided a link that explains in detail what I think

2

[deleted] wrote

0

SpiritOfTito wrote (edited )

It's frankly not a yes or no question. It depends would be my answer.

There's a reason why most anarchist societies end up against walls within 3 months of establishing their "horizontal society".

I agree though. That's how socialism would develop if it were ever allowed a normal development.

It never has so far apart from in small towns like Marinaleda.

3

[deleted] wrote

1

SpiritOfTito wrote

the key difference in our solution is that your approach leaves a possibility to be usurped

Your position leaves everyone murdered.

And your country returned to a bannana republic under US control.

Its idealist and has been shown to be absolutely incapable of obtaining and keeping power in a global capitalist ideology.

If you want my eloquent, thorough and thought out opinion of it I would suggest reading the link I posted of Michael Parents article, Left anti communism the unkindest cut.

It deals with pretty much everything in your post.

2

[deleted] wrote

0

SpiritOfTito wrote

A) if you read the article I linked you'd know I view you as nothing else as a left anti communist. Therefore I'm not mad. Youre a dime a dozen.

b) that article succintly says what I think. Theres no need for me to elaborate because the only thing id do is run a hackneyed version of that article. No need to reinvent the wheel.

c) if you're gonna deviate from what was a polite conversation thats on you. But go fuck yourself.

0

DissidentRage wrote (edited )

Personally the way I see things is that it's necessary for communists and anarchists to keep each other honest at different stages of revolution.

Yeah, there is definitely the question of whether or not a communist leader or political body will voluntarily and gracefully relinquish power. I think a strong anarchist movement is necessary to make sure that happens, by whatever means, when it's necessary. But I also think some form of organized coalition is necessary to defend any movement from capitalist aggressors. There has been an unfortunate historical precedent of anarchist suppression by communist regimes, and it's important to be careful not to repeat the same mistakes, but this is not indicative of an inherent "kill anarchists" imperative in communism.

But at the same time, there is also a major problem that comes up here from sectarian anarchists. It's not so much purity, because I think what you are going for is exactly where we need to go, but sectarian anarchists are very quick to throw the baby out with the bath water. SpitOfTito pointed out some major points of improvement, and instead of being addressed, they are discarded as moot because the method to reach those was not the right one.

Nobody seriously says communist experiments have been perfect, but there are important lessons to be learned from them. IMO tossing them aside seems impulsive and reflective of an inability to analyze in good faith. I believe that some form of government (not a state because it's not defending bourgeois interests) is necessary, to both defend the revolution and to migrate existing systems into functional post-revolution equivalents, but it must be organized from the bottom up, and anyone who tries a little too hard to move 'up' needs to be actively swatted down. I think this is where a combination of strategies is necessary.

I see a full anarchist movement as being easily snubbed. There is a unique tactical advantage by not having a system that is centralized, as it is harder to unequivocally stop a movement that is still capable of functioning if one part fails, but there are issues of cohesion that make it difficult to mobilize a large-scale effort with the level of efficiency necessary to defend the revolution long-term. It also seems like there is a very strong drive to make left membership largely exceptional, which is not a helpful mindset when you're an actively disparaged political minority.

2

[deleted] wrote

-1

DissidentRage wrote

but to call us all communists and pretend like we have the same goals is a bit much.

Are you not also aiming for a stateless society where the workers own the means of production, and capital and oppression no longer exist? Perhaps it is a naiveté to think that we're both going for that, or that this is a sufficient goal with implicit effects on other areas of life. If this is not what you're going for, or if this is not substantial enough to describe what you're going for, then I do not understand, and perhaps this is the case with others. My own perception has been that the divide has been a difference in tactics rather than goals.

i'm not sure what you mean by sectarian anarchists though, i've not heard that term. if you mean people who only give the time of day to other anarchists, then i certainly hope i don't appear to be one of those. that's just foolish.

There is the perception that differences between us are exaggerated or emphasized for the sake of making unity impossible (see the dogpiling elsewhere in the thread), while not even attempting to reconcile the differences. There is also the assertion that communists inherently desire rule or be ruled (see other threads in this sub where the question of motive has been posed), based on what has happened historically, regardless of what is actually said by many of its proponents and in spite of the conditions in which those events have occurred.

Personally the resolution of both has been a great area of interest for me, however as someone who is not as well-versed (owing to a lack of any formal political education or time to dedicate to thorough reading of leftist literary works) I'm only going to get so far and I'm sure I will make mistakes. A lot of what I've picked up has been through participation in and observation of discussion.

3

[deleted] wrote

1

DissidentRage wrote

communists don't really have an issue with that.

I think enough look back on the USSR and others as being examples of failures in that regard. At the very least it's accepted as an example of why the strong man theory doesn't work. Personally I think having a figurehead that is purely representative is fine but not locking up all that power in one person.

i think every faction has those kinds, but other than being a minor hinderance to conversation, i don't see them as much of a threat for our advancement.

I think they pose a problem in that they can sabotage a revolution if it doesn't go exactly the way they want it to, whether it's by divisive actions and rhetoric, or actively siding with counter-revolutionaries. A couple here have expressed that they will be content breaking away and committing individual actions that aren't tactically considerate of the larger movement.

but there is something to consider.....perhaps all of our differences cannot be reconciled. that may not be a bad thing. but we do need to be honest about our differences.

People in general are going to have different perceptions of things. There are always going to be differences, and yes, some may not be reconciled, but decisions must be made on what the larger points are, and which minor things can be compromised. I don't see the major points of our political views as necessarily incompatible as I pointed out a couple posts ago, and I think it's important to emphasize our commonalities so that we can be more effective.

3

PainlessEphemera wrote (edited )

The Acorn community has been around for over twenty years, and that’s an anarchist commune. There’s also Freetown Christiania, which has been around for forty years, if the Acorn community is too small for you.

3

GrimWillow wrote

No answer? Are you kidding? Being horizontally organized IS the answer because vertical organizing is the biggest element that is most corruptible by subversion. All you have to do is take control of the "authority" then BAM all the momentum of everyone in that system is now swinging hard for a direction that effectively works against everyone involved. I mean, isn't that the whole reason that communists supposedly desire "communism" for? To have a society that isn't susceptable to such corruption, and sustains an organized system that doesn't allow for "authority". To think that we need the vertical organizing is sure to lead us into the hands of a new sort of bulshevism.

2

Dolly wrote

With bullets, ffs. Don't need a dictator to tell us to shoot back.

0

SpiritOfTito wrote

That'd be an easy answer if subversion and destabilisation came in the form of a uniformed capitalist man coming up and saying "hey this isn't on".

The lengths of subversion and destabilisation they will go to are pretty well outlined in Killing Hope by William Blum. Including sabotaging ships arriving to communist nations to produce food shortages, paying people to protest, assasination attempts, bombing of food production facilities, bombing of farms (to make the "economy scream").

Your commune /state whatever you prefer is going to be under attack from day one and it's not going to be men in capitalist uniforms identifying themselves.

It's going to be your own people demanding you feed them because the americans have sunk your grain shipments in your own docking yards. It's going to be because they bombed your food production facilities and now your commune is starving.

And when people are starving and looking for answers they'll swoop in offering food/money/gifts to reactionaries and fascists and funding and arming their ascent to power.

I like the sentiment: It's simple and easy. But it's abstracted and doesn't make sense given what we know happened to every nation that deviated from Washington in the 20th century (Im not even talking about socialist states. There were plenty the US overthrew simply because they were against US interest).

0

sudo wrote

Exactly. If they fail to plan, their plan will fail.