Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

celebratedrecluse wrote

Reply to comment by Amorphous in Real socialism! by ziq

i don't want to get in the middle of the interpersonal stuff above, however i do want to address this:

Your ilk, you disgusting parasite who spends their time calling people fascists for doing their best to bring about the world you claim to want, will always side with the true fascists in the end.

Who are the "people...doing their best to bring about the world [anarchists] claim you want"? It seems like you are saying the current government of China, but I'm not really sure.

4

Amorphous wrote

All our comrades. The anarchists, the MLs, the maoists, everyone who is willing to work together to bring about a communist world.

−1

celebratedrecluse wrote

i think this is a very broadly elisive and rather naive view of politics. anarchists and statist communists have wildly divergent goals and methods in many cases. Similarities in rhetoric or between certain subgroups or particular individuals do not prove a rule, frankly.

4

Amorphous wrote

What is truly naive is the idea that we can build an effective communist movement by calling MLs fascists.

−1

celebratedrecluse wrote

What about Stalin, who signed a mutual non aggression pact with the Nazis, and proceeded to help them expand eastward for years and thus begin the second world war?

Or Stalin again, when he massacred strikers and protestors with military force in Hungary when people attempted to create an autonomous, non-colonized socialist movement/country?

Is merely calling yourself a ML or any label sufficient to earn our broad loyalty across significant ideological divides? Or is there a minimum standard of action/behavior which is needed to build that trust, rather than it being assumed and loyalty mandated, without consent?

3

Amorphous wrote

What about Stalin, who signed a mutual non aggression pact with the Nazis, and proceeded to help them expand eastward for years and thus begin the second world war?

With all due respect, have you ever read a history book, or do you get all your knowledge of history from hyperbolic anarchist memes?

There are so many things wrong with just this one sentence that it's difficult to even attempt to tackle them.

  1. There's nothing wrong with signing a non-aggression pact with a terrifying expansionist dictatorship which would quite likely threaten your territory otherwise. Yeah I'd have preferred if Stalin personally rode into Germany on the back of a bear and cut Hitler down with a sword the moment he took power, too, but that's not how it works. Preparing for war takes time.

  2. He didn't "help them expand eastward," he specifically stopped them from expanding any further eastward than a specific line he managed to draw. Again, yeah, would've been nice if he could've stopped them completely, but that's just not realistic.

Stalin had attempted time and time again to enter some form of pact or alliance with Britain and France in order to deal with Nazi Germany, but they wanted no part of it. So when Nazi Germany came along like "hey, want to not fight for a bit" what reason would they possibly have for saying no?

Or Stalin again, when he massacred strikers and protestors with military force in Hungary when people attempted to create an autonomous, non-colonized socialist movement/country?

I am unfortunately less informed on that story than I'd like to be. This comment is interesting, though.

Or is there a minimum standard of action/behavior which is needed to build that trust

I don't see why you'd need to frame it that way. I trust people who want to create a communist world by default, they would need to do something specifically to lose that trust. We're very, very weak, especially compared to those we oppose. We can't afford to be so paranoid.

−3

Bezotcovschina wrote (edited )

Reading this page AND some sources referenced in it, I think Stalin was FUCKING HYPED when he was hinted on the possibility of SU joining Axis - laying claims on British colonies, Turkey. Then, while the chance of SU joining Axis gradually becomes thinner, Stalin gradually reduced his appetites in territory, but not giving up.

Like: "Boys, boys, let me in your cool expansionist club, I only want India, Afghanistan, Iran, Bosporus, Dardanelles, Finland, Bulgaria and other. What? No answer? What if I drop India? Just let me in! Still no answer? Well, maybe Afghanistan is too much? Boys, boys, let me hang with you. What? You let fucking Hungary and Romania in and not me? I'm no longer asking for Iran, boys! Wait, you allowed fucking Bulgaria to join you? B-but my claims... Well, I guess I can gulp it. Just let me in, boys!".

Fucking humiliating. Fucking meme material.

4