I think the problem of left unity is a symptom capitalism. Models of anarchism, communism, and socialism have wildly differing systems of social relations, organizing, governance, economics, etc. Even the sub-models in each of these categories have vast differences. But in our political discourse they’re all compressed into the same box of the “left”, because our prevailing system so dominates the narrative that these other systems are all erroneously viewed through a lens that presumes private property and redistribution of wealth vs no redistribution of wealth as the dividing line. Nevermind the hypocrisy of “redistribution of wealth,” as corporations are speedrunning to unjustly pump virtually all forms of wealth into their coffers.
I remember when I was young and dumb and finding myself fascinated by the Venus Project and Zeitgeist Movement. The basic idea seemed so elegant and promising to me: we can use technology to solve our problems, to use technological progress to obsolete scarcity itself!. I tried to chat with people about it, and on more than one occasion somebody would just shut the conversation down with, “But that’s socialism.” That was the first time I realized something was very broken in our discourse, because it was like, yeah kind of technically, but it’s also something very different from what we normally think of what socialism is.
That’s kind of what a lot of these labels are, ultimately. Thought stopping cliches.
Marxism-Leninism explicitly calls on using technology to eliminate scarcity. That’s what collectivized agriculture and mass electrification were for. Along the development pathway the leadership sort of forgot this because they ran into a lot of problems (not the least of which was an incredible amount of hostility from the capitalist powers).
In my view Zeitgeist was just an update on The State and Revolution, but somehow without the armed overthrow of the government. Like technology will somehow allow us to surpass our class antagonisms and ingrained social structures (eapecially militarism) without toppling the ruling elite. I think it turned out to be a naive view unfortunately.
Yeah, its hard to discuss with someone how the soviets could have worked but they hemorrhaged themselves with war cost when they’ve been taught “socialism=communism and communism bad”. We can still be a republic but have economic socialism.
When I was an anarchist during the Bush years I remember telling an exceptionally crunchy gutterpunk they could use a shower. They accused me of being a Nazi telling them I wanted them to go to the gas chambers. They were then in a grant writing class I took the following summer.
I see this kind of dynamic playing out quite often in online debates about leftism.
Fuck leftist unity, if leftist unity means sacrificing the revolution for some some tyrant to twist class consciousness into a “dictatorship of the proletariat” im not playing along.
DEATH TO REACTION, DEATH TO DECEIT, DEATH TO TYRANNY
Left unity is a lie to use anarchist labor into making their own graves when the state-based socialists get into power.
deleted by creator
This meme is from a movie based on the Kangoroo Chronicles books. Atleast the original german versions are quite funny
The People’s Front of Judea vs the Fucking Judean People’s Front
Anarchists have different goals than communists and use different means/strategies to achieve those goals while using different modes of organization. Just hating capitalism is not enough of a basis to just gloss over those things.
Apart from certain instances when the goals align like antifascist action, international solidarity or support of prisoners, why would working together / doing unity actually be beneficial to achieving anarchist goals?
Many communists would be ideologically open to working with Food Not Bombs. Many anarchists would work with a communist organization to promote universal healthcare.
I don’t consider myself an anarchist, but in my personal experience, I see more anarchists practicing praxis. As a noob leftist, I’m going to see who is contributing to my community and help them out.
I suppose these are the “certain instances” you mentioned, but I feel like there are enough of these to comprise all the activism I personally am capable of. I’m studying theory. I listen when people talk about goals and how to restructure society, but I’ll be happy if we can pass socialized medicine in my lifetime. We can worry about “after the revolution” when we come to it.
Why would communists not get along with anarchists? Communists are anarchists
Also it needs to be remembered that political parties are corporations
Because we have conflicting methods of achieving our system and because for many Marxists, their “communism” would look very different than ours
What makes you think communists are anarchists? Communism takes democracy to its logical extent. Social democracy is where we govern as a community and we vote on everything that is anything. Laws get voted on and business gets voted on. Communism > the masses decide. Anarchism > I’ll do what I think is good for me.
Both are without government
Anarchism > No government
Communism > people work together without classes (means no government because that would put people above others. Your idea of communism being the tyranny of the majority does not stand)
Communism is just a form of anarchy
No, communism is absolutely a form of government. There are elected leaders and policy is still passed. Arguably there is more bureaucracy than in socialist countries if real communism is implemented.
A leader would create class divide, it can’t exist
Wikipedia describes communism as a stateless society.
A communist society entails the absence of private property and social classes, and ultimately money and the state.
In response to the question “What will be the course of this revolution?” in The Principles of Communism (1847), Friedrich Engels wrote: “Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat.” While Marxists propose replacing the bourgeois state with a proletarian semi-state through revolution (dictatorship of the proletariat), which would eventually wither away, anarchists warn that the state must be abolished along with capitalism. Nonetheless, the desired end results (a stateless communal society) are the same.
How do you explain the existence of anarchist communism if the two are mutually exclusive?
I was reading George Orwell’s hommage to Catalonia the other day and was just shocked by how brutal this was.
For context Orwell served in the POUM (anti-authoritarian marxists) in the spanish civil war against the facist-conservative-feudalist camp. However over time the liberal bourgeoisie and the Stalinist side of the republic (anti-facist forces), allied themselves together and started brutally repressing the Anarchist and Anti-Stalinist Marxist Factions. They basically handed the victory over to the facists by purging the left.
The testimony of Paul Robeson before the HUAC, after he was snitched on by George Orwell.
The fascists won because
-
They had more foreign aid from nazi Germany and fascist Italy. The luftwaffa especially was a key advantage for the fascists as they had air superiority and were able to bomb republican positions with little cost. If France, the UK and the US had a backbone and sent aid the Republicans would have won.
-
They had more military expertise and discipline. Pluralism and anarchism are great in peace time but you can’t win a war with them. The anarchist system was a wonder to behold in Catalonia, but they were never going to be able to spread it to the rest of Spain because they were never able to win a battle after the opening skirmishes in aragon. Say what you will about the communists, they had discipline and had proven there system can win a civil war in russia. If only they had a trotsky and lenin to competently lead the fight against fascism.
Did the communists go too hard on repressing the anarchists? Yes
Did the communist have a valid reason to suppress a movement about not following orders and leadership during a war? Yes
What the actual fuck are you doing on slrpnk.net you complete bootlicker?
“We don’t understand their military command structure” is totally a valid justification for stabbing allied anarchist groups in the back and throwing a civil war to fascists, as long as you don’t go “too hard” on repressing them
is not a take that belongs on an anarchist instance.
I would very much recommend reading Orwell’s Hommage to Catalonia.
Especially the Appendixes. Even though written before the war even ended he explains quite well how the arguments you make were quite meticulously crafted by the republican government’s ministry of propaganda, and broadcast to the communist press worldwide through soviet intervention.
At the end, Orwell comes to the chilling conclusion which is actually fairly common amongst historians, that the Stalinists saw the worker controlled revolution of Spain as more of a threat than both the bourgeois state of things and the Facists. Hence why the allied with the bourgeois liberals and rolled back the revolution.
Here’s a quote
Except for the small revolutionary groups which exist in all countries, the whole world was determined upon preventing revolution in Spain. In particular the Communist Party, with Soviet Russia behind it, had thrown its whole weight against the revolution. It was the Communist Party thesis that revolution at this stage would be fatal and that what was to be aimed at in Spain was not workers’ control, but bourgeois democracy. It hardly needs pointing out why ‘liberal’ capitalist opinion took the same line.
Quotes I think illustrate the tension well
It was queer how everything had changed. Only six months ago, when the Anarchists still reigned, it was looking like a proletarian that made you respectable. On the way down from Perpignan to Cerbères a French commercial traveller in my carriage had said to me in all solemnity: ‘You mustn’t go into Spain looking like that. Take off that collar and tie. They’ll tear them off you in Barcelona.’ He was exaggerating, but it showed how Catalonia was regarded. And at the frontier the Anarchist guards had turned back a smartly-dressed Frenchman and his wife, solely – I think – because they looked too bourgeois. Now [under the stalinists] it was the other way about; to look bourgeois was the one salvation.
On one side the CNT [Anarchists], on the other side the police [Stalinist]. I have no particular love for the idealized ‘worker’ as he appears in the bourgeois Communist’s mind, but when I see an actual flesh-and-blood worker in conflict with his natural enemy, the policeman, I do not have to ask myself which side I am on.
“I have no particular love for the idealized ‘worker’ as he appears in the bourgeois Communist’s mind, but when I see an actual flesh-and-blood worker in conflict with his natural enemy, the policeman, I do not have to ask myself which side I am on.”
This quote goes hard, I love it. Onto the reading list it goes
I wouldn’t recommend reading anything from orwell personally. Dude was a cop and a hitler apologist. I prefer isaac asimov’s review of 1984.
In this chapter, I will discuss the book, but first: Who was Blair/Orwell and why was the book written?
Blair was born in 1903 into the status of a British gentleman. His father was in the Indian civil service and Blair himself lived the life of a British Imperial official. He went to Eton, served in Burma, and so on. However, he lacked the money to be an English gentleman to the full. Then, too, he didn’t want to spend his time at dull desk jobs; he wanted to be a writer. Thirdly, he felt guilty about his status in the upper class. So he did in the late 1920s what so many well-to-do American young people in the 1960s did. In short, he became what we would have called a ‘hippie’ at a later time. He lived under slum conditions in London and Paris, consorted with and identified with slum dwellers and vagrants, managed to ease his conscience and, at the same time, to gather material for his earliest books.
He also turned left wing and became a socialist, fighting with the loyalists in Spain in the 1930s. There he found himself caught up in the sectarian struggles between the various left-wing factions, and since he believed in a gentlemanly English form of socialism, he was inevitably on the losing side. Opposed to him were passionate Spanish anarchists, syndicalists, and communists, who bitterly resented the fact that the necessities of fighting the Franco fascists got in the way of their fighting each other. The communists, who were the best organised, won out and Orwell had to leave Spain, for he was convinced that if he did not, he would be killed
From then on, to the end of his life, he carried on a private literary war with the communists, determined to win in words the battle he had lost in action.*
*And he would be heavily propped up as an author by the CIA for doing so:
George Orwell’s novella remains a set book on school curriculums … the movie was funded by America’s Central Intelligence Agency.
The truth about the CIA’s involvement was kept hidden for 20 years until, in 1974, Everette Howard Hunt revealed the story in his book Undercover: Memoirs of an American Secret Agent. ]
- Martin Chilton. (2016). How the CIA brought Animal Farm to the screen
During World War II, in which he was rejected for military service, he was associated with the left wing of the British Labour party, but didn’t much sympathise with their views, for even their reckless version of socialism seemed too well organised for him.
He wasn’t much affected, apparently, by the Nazi brand of totalitarianism, for there was no room within him except for his private war with Stalinist communism. Consequently, when Great Britain was fighting for its life against Nazism, and the Soviet Union fought as an ally in the struggle and contributed rather more than its share in lives lost and in resolute courage, Orwell wrote Animal Farm which was a satire of the Russian Revolution and what followed, picturing it in terms of a revolt of barnyard animals against human masters.
This would make him a bit of a hypocrite in that regard, no? Perhaps a bit of projection happening?
Went through the Wikipedia for it and read appendix 6. I still stand by my opinion that the anarchists were doomed by either fascist or communist hands due to there lack of discipline. Yeah everyone was aligned against the anarchists, but everyone was aligned against the bolsheviks in 1917 and they were still able to win a civil war and establish a government.
Most of the appendix I read was litigating the conflicts in Barcelona in May and how the communist press distorted and lied about what happened. I’m willing to accept the communists did a coup and tried to cover it up and blame it on the POUM. The question is whether that was the right strategic move given the circumstances, and Orwell recognizes this:
Of course it is arguable that the C.N.T. workers ought to have handed over the Telephone Exchange without protest. One’s opinion here will be governed by one’s attitude on the question of centralized government and working-class control.
And elsewhere he emphasizes the difference between communists and anarchists:
So, roughly speaking, the alignment of forces was this. On the one side the C.N.T.-F.A.I., the P.O.U.M., and a section of the Socialists, standing for workers’ control: on the other side the Right-wing Socialists, Liberals, and Communists, standing for centralized government and a militarized army.
In a war you need centralized military control to win, and war has never been won without a commander and a hierarchy below them controlling the troops. Orwell seems to be of the mind that a revolutionary discipline can be achieved through a sincere belief for a cause. This makes sense for a foreign volunteer who signed up for there belief in socialism, but your average person isn’t motivated enough by ideology to voluntarily risk there life.
This is shown by the anarchists unwillingness to relieve Madrid. By the time of the POUM purge the Republicans were losing the war. What needed to be done was a mass conscription drive and then a push to relieve Madrid. The anarchists couldn’t do that because conscription was authoritarian and a democratic militia is never going to vote to leave there defensive lines and go on the offensive as that would mean more danger and casualties. So they were content to man the front in aragon and not much else. Orwells account shows this.
I share Orwells love for the worker control and true democracy of Barcelona during the civil war, but I don’t think that system can survive the realities of a civil war. I’d love to be proven wrong but I haven’t found any evidence to the contrary. If you have one please let me know, it’d restore my faith in the ability of man to overcome oppression.
I still stand by my opinion that the anarchists were doomed by either fascist or communist hands due to there lack of discipline.
Ie, you’re full of shit.
Perhaps you should get your military education from something other than video games?
Great argument, really debunked all my bullshit there
Perhaps you should get your military education from something other than video games?
?
Where’d that come from, i didnt cite any games, and as far as I know there aren’t even any games about the Spanish civil war .
If your such a military history expert could you point me to a civil war where an anarchist faction won and wasn’t eventually defeated by authoritarians?
I’m not going to read the rest of your comment but starting it with “I read on Wikipedia” is a good way to make sure people don’t listen to what you have to say if they have read primary sources.
I read appendix 6 and even gave some quotes from the source showing my point. I’m not gonna read the whole thing in a day to reply to a comment, most of it is his war memoir and has little to do with the discussion. Appendix 6 was the one talking about propaganda that op directed me to.
They had more foreign aid from nazi Germany and fascist Italy.
Misleading half-truth. Franco received copious amounts of logistic support from Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy while the US and Britain went out of their way to ensure that the Republican side couldn’t receive the same. This forced the Republicans to accept poisoned “aid” from Stalin, virtually ensuring eventual fascist victory. Even so, Franco’s fascists had a hard time achieving any of their objectives.
They had more military expertise and discipline.
Another misleading half-truth. George Orwell himself expressed a wish to join an anarchist formation, not because he shared their ideology, but rather because (in his view) they were the most dedicated of the combatants on the Republican side.
Also see what George Orwell had to say about the numbers of defectors they received from the fascist side - so much for your vaunted “discipline.”
Did the communist have a valid reason to suppress
How would a tankie even know what the word leadership means?
How is 1 a half truth? It seems we agree, the western bourgeoisie democracies failed to provide aid to the Republicans while the fascists did. I guess I didn’t mention that the soviets gave aid, but not as much as the fascists so they had the advantage on that front.
Why would you say the civil war was lost then? I agree the fascist aid wasn’t decisive, and the Republicans could win in spite of it, but they didn’t. It wasn’t because the communist turned on the anarchists, the republicans were losing the war prior to that. The anarchists had ample time and supplies to martial an army and relieve Madrid but they never did, they were content to hold there lines in aragon and wait for Franco to mop up the basque country before turning on them because the fundamental military issue of anarchism, no one is going to vote to go on the offensive.
I’m not a tankie, I just recognize the military weakness of the anarchist cause, just as I recognize the communist weakness of devolving power. I recognize anarchists can’t win wars and communists can’t give up power once the war is won. History has shown both to be true in every scenario its come up. Understanding the weaknesses of both causes is necessary if we want to achieve liberation from oppression and exploitation.
I guess I didn’t mention that the soviets gave aid,
Stalin didn’t “give” aid. The Republicans had to buy it from him with cold, hard gold reserves. And, of course, Stalin made sure the “aid” came with the Cheka in tow.
Why would you say the civil war was lost then?
It’s really simple. If your only external logistics depends on a power that is actively attempting to sabotage you victory becomes an impossibility. You didn’t see the Nazis sending the Gestapo over to make sure Franco did fascism correctly, did you?
The anarchists had ample time and supplies
LOL!
What “ample supplies?” If the anarchists had “ample supplies” the Bolsheviks would have had zero leverage over the Republican side, wouldn’t they?
to martial an army and relieve Madrid but they never did,
WTF are you on about? Durruti and 4000 anarchists marched into Madrid early on in the battle - Durruti literally died there.
the fundamental military issue of anarchism
Do tell… WHAT “fundamental military issue of anarchism” have you managed to “identify,” eh?
I just recognize the military weakness of the anarchist cause,
Again… WHAT “fundamental military issue of anarchism” have you managed to “identify,” eh?
I recognize anarchists can’t win wars
There are TWO (2) constant, identifiable factors present in the failure of armed anarchist resistance in the two available case studies. TWO.
You have miserably failed to identify either of them, and instead substitute cartoonish tankie propaganda as an explanation.
So do tell… why would an (alleged) “non-tankie” be peddling cartoonish tankie propaganda, eh?
the fundamental military issue of anarchism
Do tell… WHAT “fundamental military issue of anarchism” have you managed to “identify,” eh?
Did you read the next sentence? No one is going to vote to go on the offensive except zealots. Yeah you had durrutti leading an offensive at the beginning of the war but that was full of literal die hards committed to the cause. Once they are all dead you need to conscript, you need to give top down orders, you need to requisition supplies from civilians, which are all anathema to anarchist ideology. Everyone but hardcore partisans aren’t going to volunteer and even if they do they aren’t going to vote to risk there lives further by going on the offensive. You see this in every case of a democratic military, once the initial wave of zeal wears off they start to hunker down and go on defense. You see it in the Paris commune, black Ukraine and Barcelona.
What are these 2 constant factors if not for the inability to take initiative? And why are these factors not present in other revolutionary movements that were able to succeed like the bolsheviks in 1917? They too had no foreign aid, and the near entirety of the domestic political establishment against them.
Do you think any criticism of anarchism makes someone a tanky? That just seems like the same follow the party line logic that we criticize actual tankies for. I could go on and on extolling the virtues and beauty of the system in Barcelona and condemning the multiple atrocities and failures of the communists but as soon as I suggest democratic militaries don’t work I become a tankie?
Did you read the next sentence?
Yes I did. Garbage in, garbage out - just like everything else you’ve spawned here so far.
No one is going to vote to go on the offensive except zealots.
It’s difficult for you to understand anyone risking their lives without a commissar standing behind them with a gun pointed at their head.
That tracks perfectly.
I guess tankies truly don’t understand anything other than brutally press-ganging the working-class into building your backwards and bloodthirsty “worker’s utopia” for you, eh?
full of literal die hards committed to the cause.
Right, right… when your bullshit take gets demolished by actual history you explain it away as “die-hard-ism.”
Do you tankies ever fucking listen to the bullcrap emanating out of your own holes?
Everyone but hardcore partisans aren’t going to volunteer and even if they do they aren’t going to vote to risk there lives further by going on the offensive.
Oh, look… here comes the military expertise you gained by playing “Civilization” games again. Remember what I told you about getting your education from video games?
You see this in every case of a democratic military,
Oh really? I guess the Makhnovists decisively defeating a logistically and numerically superior PROFESSIONAL military force at the Battle of Perehonivka and pursuing this brouted enemy all the way back to the Crimea while the press-ganged and (supposedly) “disciplined” Bolshevik goons squads could manage little more than terrorising unarmed Ukrainian peasants is an example of anarchist militaries “hunkering on the defensive.”
Blow it out of your ass.
in other revolutionary movements that were able to succeed like the bolsheviks in 1917?
Such as? The Spartacist Uprising, perhaps? Much succesful, that one. The Cuban Revolution, perhaps? You know, the very same Cuban Revolution that had the benefit of being logistically supported by the newly-minted CIA while the Batista regime was placed under an arms embargo? The anarchists of Ukraine and Spain would have LOVED that level of “non-aid.”
What examples of “unsupported” movements do you have?
Do you think any criticism of anarchism makes someone a tanky?
Again… why would an (alleged) “non-tankie” be peddling cartoonish tankie propaganda?
Why are you so hostile? Every other “refutation” your giving is half name calling and half obscenities.
EDIT: looking at your post history it seems your this way to nearly everyone. Your a combative entrenched ideologue who is convinced they know everything and anyone who disagrees is an idiot. Usually see this in tankies but I guess anarchists can be convinced of the infallibility of there ideology as well. I’d recommend reading some zizek and examining your relationship to your ideology. Any way just going to block you now since you seem opposed to any constructive conversation.
It’s difficult for you to understand anyone risking their lives without a commissar standing behind them with a gun pointed at their head.
It’s not for me, I recognize that there are committed partisans who will risk there lives for the cause, you seem to be, or at least claim to be, one of them. If you are, I recommend volunteering to defend rojava, they look like the sdf could use you about now and they’re probably the closest thing we have to barcelona on this planet right now. I’m saying that’s not most people. There were tons of people volunteering to fight the fascists in WWII but they were not the majority of troops, a majority were drafted, because if the allies stuck to an only volunteer force they would’ve lost. Is it difficult for you to understand that most people, even if you explain it to them well, aren’t going to want to die for anarchism or any sort of ideology for that matter? If you don’t you really need to touch grass.
Oh, look… here comes the military expertise you gained by playing “Civilization” games again.
Idk where you are getting this from, seems sort of a projection since you keep bringing it up and are the one using video game terms like “spawn”.
What examples of “unsupported” movements do you have?
There’s one literally in the sentence you quoted, the October revolution. The allies flooded aid to anyone opposing the bolsheviks, the right, liberals and a lot of the Socialists opposed them, the best they got was a temporary de facto ceasefire from the central powers. Against all this they won the civil war, i wish they hadn’t, but they did.
Even the original modern revolution, the French revolution succeeded for a while despite every nation in Europe opposing them and was only taken down by napoleon’s ego. They didn’t do all this by relying on a democratic all volunteer force, they did it with the levee en mass and a top down military hierarchy.
Ignore that the Ukrainian Black Army was pretty helpful in beating the White Army and only lost after the Red Army had finished all of its other opponents and decided to focus all its efforts on beating its former Black Army allies.
Seems like there is a bit of a trend of Marxist-Leninists thinking their anarchist allies are prime for a knife to the back
You forgot about the part where the Soviets called in anarchist leaders to plan next actions in the war and then straight up murdered them.
Authoritarians tend to hate when people don’t fall in line.
Yeah, the meme is accurate. After the right has been defeated the anarchists and authoritarians will turn on each other, both sides understand this. The blacks didn’t defeat the reds because of lack of will or a naive commitment to left unity, they lost because they lacked the discipline and organizational capacity to win a civil war.
Or maybe its because the Red Army had 10x the manpower than the Black Army did and the Black Army also hadn’t finished fighting its own civil war yet so it was now fighting a war on multiple fronts. Unlike the Red Army which had just finished off the White Army and now could focus all of its effort on the Black Army.
they lacked the discipline and organizational capacity
Really? Seems to me that Bolsheviks only got any kind of “discipline” after they defected to the Makhnovists…
-
Tankies are not that honest.
And there comes the infighting lmao
What “infighting?”
There is no “in” here - tankies are enemies. No ifs, ands or buts.
This thread:
I mean, at least they’re up front about it. If a Nazi is breathing, they’re lying, but I’ve had commies straight up tell me that I’d get the bullet too.
Lol, came here to say the opposite. Communists will talk about left unity until they have enough power to get rid of their “friends”
This discussion is the most boring, larpiest shit ever, neither communists nor anarchists are anywhere close to power anywhere in the western world, get your head out your ass.
It’s all larping until it isn’t. The tavern discussions were much like this when our great great grandfathers were talking.
Granted there is no path forward right now, to improvement. But when there is, many will think of what was said here, or elsewhere, and it will influence some. Just like yesteryear.
How many communists have you talked to in real life?
More than two
And all three told you they would murder anarchists after the revolution?
They are all kind people , so I doubt they would.
IRL or online? and who qualifies as a communist. I call myself an Anarcho-communist but I don’t think you would count me in your ranks…
Oh, look… a tankie with a self-portrait!
We already know what you look like, tankie.
I already posted this elsewhere in the thread but i case it hasnt been seen yet, I think this illustrates your point well
Thanks! I wanted to add this but didn’t find it in my collection
Yeah, friends with reds. Do all the hard work for them lazy asses to be backstabbed in the end.
The reds where I live come to rallies to recruit people into a very cult like group that constantly demands money from it’s members, to sell expensive tickets to meetings and their newspaper, even when we make a point to say no stalls are welcome and to not profit off of our work. They’re very icky and I feel very bad for the students they recruit because they get all the flack for being duped.
Lemme guess: SAlt?
Yuuuup
Yeah we have those people too unfortunately.
Can we focus on the common enemy for now? Can we all agree that of there is going to be a repeat of a dynamic from 100 years ago, it isn’t likely going to happen real soon? Just seems like a waste of energy at this point of political reality.
Anarchists and State Communists do not have the common enemy as both have many differing enemies.
Fascists and capitalists? Those are the enemies I see right now, and it is going to take a lot more revolutionary energy (and time) to defeat them. I am someone with a foot in both Anarchism and Communism. I’m not “choosing a side” in some fight that we will only get the chance to have after we defeat capitalism! I’ve got criticisms and admirations for how both types organize, but I can’t stand seeing people waste their energy tearing down comrades when there’s actual work to be done.
“Can we focus on our mutual enemy?”
Says the person planning on murdering anarchists if they ever get their way.
Get a fucking grip.
I do, on my rifle. Now do us both a favor and fuck off, tankie scum.
I train anarchists to shoot rifles dipshit.
my impression is that the person you are replying to is a 16-25 year old angry usamerican man who thinks posting online about the glorious revolution is praxis.
Wouldn’t invest the time.
I get it. But we need them too. They’re angry and they have energy. I don’t care who they organize with, I just want them to get some perspective and focus on the task at hand.
You and 100 other people. imho you gotta focus your effort or you’ll burn out but you do whatever makes you happy.
I wish it was this but instead its constant infighting. Btw im a socdem(socialist if tou stretch the definition), tear me apart lol
I know you were joking but it’s fucking hilarious seeing people actually arguing about it in the reply threads
Sure, this guy thinks socdems are socialists, everyone point and laugh!
(It’s not your fault that all the other liberals bully and gaslight you, we accept you as the only good kind of liberal ❤️)
Oh no i meant that as im a socdem but if we had that system properly in place and it didnt work i would support trying socialism. Theres extremely little data about any proper socdem, socialist, communist government in the world that actually functioned(mainly because of the us and ussr).
we accept you as the only good kind of liberal
Speak for yourself only.
Gross, this guy likes neocons.
Go peddle it to your fascist brethren, liberal.
You need them. We don’t.
Ok buddy
We are not buddies.
we accept you as the only good kind of liberal ❤️
Good enough for me as another socdem 😂
I was a socdem once. My elders told me I would move right when I paid taxes. Now, I’m “friends” with a kangaroo until the revolution or something. From what I understand, the kangaroo believes in a classful, stateful communism.
Not true. The left are always fighting. Always disagreeing methods. If the left would be one strong front we would actually achieve something and fight nazis better.
The problem is trying to group vastly different ideologies such as Marxism and anarchy as one “left”. You can’t reduce political/social ideologies to a one-dimensional slider. Maybe if you project them on an axis that represents some “issue” they might fall close to each other, but they can also be at the opposite ends depending on how you choose that axis.
Marx was pretty anarchist compared to most people these days who call themselves marxists.
Most people who call themselves Marxists haven’t read more than quotes of his work.
deleted by creator
Nazis are a tool against communism. If you fight nazis you exhaust yourself as intended.
Does the movie actually have a social democratic Koala bear, or not?
The second one does (according to Wolfgang M Schmidt).
