Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

-2

SpiritOfTito wrote (edited )

When anarchists ever hold power for more than two minutes let me know.

I'm all for anarchism ideas really as thats frankly how I see the world post world revolution when capitalism has been snuffed out for once and all and the cultural ideology is absoluely hegemonic communism much the way capitalist liberalism is now.

Stalin says in late 1931, after the failed german revolution in 1919 followed by the rise of fascism, that the USSR has 10 years to industrialise before its invaded again now being the only communist country and the various european revolutions from ireland to germany ending in massacres of leftists.

We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make up this gap in ten years. Either we do it or they will crush us

-Stalin, 1931

They go through a brutal industrial process and in 1938 what happens?

And they did that whilst pulling the bottom of their society up massively. From increased literacy rates to birth rates to womens rights. A legacy of the Ussr is that russia has more women in CEO positions (IE the lever software power in capitalist society) than any capitalist nation. While also helping liberation movements all over the globe from Cuba to South africa to China.

If anarchists had gained power the USSR would've been snuffed out, the leader of the SS who said "one in ten slavs should be slaughtered and the germanic peoples settle in what was once the USSR. The remaining 1 in 10 slavs should only know three things, how to count to ten and know their master is IE. The German 'master race'(forget the third one. Was a Heinrich Himmler quote, leader of the SS).

With anarchists in charge Generalplan Ost wouldve probably occured. Which is essentially the genocide of the Slavic peoples (their documents literally had %50, %55 markers for eastern european populations to be wiped out so Germanic peoples could settle their lands)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

Without a strong USSR to murder 7/8 nazi soldiers on the eastern front, coupled with the essential slave labour of the ex-soviets western europe doesnt stand a chance.

Britain lost 0.92 of its population in World war 2 compared to 14 percent (14 million) of the USSR. Britain falls in three days tops and you have a nazi empire stretching from russia to Ireland. It took britain years to build its arms and planes to be effective against Germany and the USSR bought the UK that time.

I'm no stalinist but this historical revisionism and divorcing the USSR from its material conditions of its day is annoying.

If Stalin is killed or was smothered at birth say, some equally ruthless bastard would have to take his spot for the survival of the USSR.

It just reeks of the socialists that idealise a "pure socialism" supporting revolutions everywhere except the ones that succeeded.

11

AnarchistCommunist wrote

A revolution that stays alive through death squads, forced labor, repression of ethnic groups, and social democracy is not a revolution, sorry.

Social ownership has never been achieved by any state socialist movement.

-2

SpiritOfTito wrote

Ah yes 'if the revolution doesn't go exactly the way I want its not a real revolution'

Theres that divorcing reality from its material conditions again.

Its not as if they'd just just come out of a world war, a bifter civil war and invasion by 12 capitalist nations with the white army doing pogroms and killing jews, followed by a famine in 1921.

And by 1930 realising the world was on the path to another war as fascism solidified into a political force.

4

AnarchistCommunist wrote

Ah yes "when you do dictatorial State Capitalism with workers having no say in their conditions while you systematically repress ethnic groups and execute libsocs its a real revolution"

Not better, and not worth it.

-5

SpiritOfTito wrote

Yeah tsarist russia was worth preserving. Jesus fucking christ

4

AnarchistCommunist wrote

No, Bolshevik Russia was just not worth creating. The military record of anarchist movements shows them doing exceptionally well for their conditions, even when woefully underarmed.

3

kestrel77 wrote

just remember, apparently your best argument for the soviet union is: "it was better than tsarist russia." that's uh not exactly the standard we're aiming for bud.

1

SpiritOfTito wrote

Fuck that. Better soviet union than tsarist russia. Ill take the people who fought and died to make the world a better place by attempting to build socialism with what reality and historical materialism gave them than stupid first world leftists dreams.

1

kestrel77 wrote

yeah that's not really what happened. in reality, a bunch of small-minded men held back the revolution because they believed in vanguardism, and then shit sucked in central asia for a long time. the people who fought and died to make the world a better place were the anarchists who fought and died at kronstadt and in the ukraine.

8

Pop wrote

Zapatistas 1994-present seems a pretty solid example of a decolonial anarchism that is really quite desirable

Revolutionary Catalonia - pretty sure they were also destroyed by russian communist power

Most of humanity was acephalous hunter-gatherer society and even moving out of that much of it was proto-anarchist at least by most people's best understanding, but there are large societies even today with strong affinity for anarchy

Loads of daoists were also proto-anarchist for significant periods as I understand it (nice book to look at here)

I don't think that the long term and predictable failures of politically-mediated socialisms are any better than the short term and predictable failures of those who start without a state in the first place

I think there's too much to unlearn for us to start from compromise with the state

0

SpiritOfTito wrote (edited )

You added more and frankly I'd disagree. You cannot divorce a society from their material conditions and just push into anarchist/communist utopia.

The capitalist nations of the world continue to use their tentacles like the IMF and the world bank to force the global ideology of neoliberalism while the US uses its dominant position to subvert all cultures into liberalism. They wont even tolerate welfare keynsianism capitalism. Look what happened to Greece when radical leftists tried to implement capitalist keynsianism. You think an anarchist movement is going to last 10 days without capitalist hostility?

The problem with anarchism is that it has never ever really wanted power. So when the eventual capitalists come to shut down their project it ends in a massacre for future anarchists to wax poetical about.

As such whilst I admire anarchists and anarchism for its noble goals, they never could've defeated nazi Germany, put the first man into space and the first woman into space or gotten the first satellite into orbit.

I'm of the belief the state will wither away - but that is not going to happen until the world markets are controlled by those espousing a communist/anarchist ideology.

I mean this is a long running dispute I'm sure we've both heard a million times before so ill leave it there with have a good weekend comrade.

4

Pop wrote

Cool, I'm not big on arguing on the internet, so I wasn't going to either, but it's been interesting reading what you're saying

I am not sure what you mean about me adding more - it's an unedited post

And I'm geniunely interested in what you mean, since it seems you're assuming I think you can divorce a society from their material conditions. Is your thought that we automatically are ignoring material conditions when we don't sign up for an intermediary state?

-1

SpiritOfTito wrote

PCE took over catalonia (communist) from the CNT and POEM (also communist) by 1937.

So congrats: An Anarchist group held Catalonia for less than a year before being thrown out.

I must admit my knowledge of Zapatistas is non existent so I need to do some reading.

From their wiki their ideology says neozapatistmo, Zapatismo and libertarian socialism

6

zorblax wrote

So your reasoning goes like this:

-anarchists defeat all other major military forces in the Russian Civil War

-anarchists are then unable to mount any defense against invaders

somehow, seems like the first point is contrary to the second point...

5

______deleted_ wrote (edited )

Anarchists holding power is kinda a contradiction.

-3

SpiritOfTito wrote

Agreed. And thats why they've only ever been a holier than thou protest movement.