this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
29 points (73.8% liked)

anarchism

2695 readers
1 users here now

Anarchism is a social movement that seeks liberation from oppressive systems of control including but not limited to the state, capitalism, racism, sexism, speciesism, and religion. Anarchists advocate a self-managed, classless, stateless society without borders, bosses, or rulers where everyone takes collective responsibility for the health and prosperity of themselves and the environment.

Theory

Introductory Anarchist Theory

Anarcho-Capitalism

Discord Legacy A collaborative doc of books and other materials compiled by the #anarchism channel on the Discord, containing texts and materials for all sorts of tendencies and affinities.

The Theory List :) https://hackmd.io/AJzzPSyIQz-BRxfY3fKBig?view Feel free to make an account and edit to your hearts content, or just DM me your suggestions ^~^ - The_Dawn

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think this is somewhat overblown. Aside from the regrettable instance of the Spanish Civil War Communists have generally supported Anarchist revolts, even if they've had (usually proto) states, as long as it isn't happening to them.

Lenin thought the Anarchists were not ready and supported the revolt anyway. Mao, in what should be famous but isn't, was a strong supporter of the ill-fated KPAM, the largest and longest lasting Anarchist experiment ever, and supplied it as much as possible. Refugees from its destruction fled to the CPC and had their hands in developing large sections of Maoist doctrine. The Great Leap Forward, in particular, tried to incorporate many anarchist ideas.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Aside from the regrettable instance of the Spanish Civil War Communists have generally supported Anarchist revolts

Care to elaborate on the Spanish Civil War? Afaik, USSR was the only state to sell weapons to the antifascists

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Just, the whole May Days shitfest...Stalin should have openly supported the CNT/FAI as well as the Republican government (I can understand him not wanting to back POUM) and to hell with the protests of the PF government in France. The Anarchists should probably have been a bit more compromising especially about military integration.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

Stalin should have openly supported the CNT/FAI as well as the Republican government

I guess Stalin should've deployed Soviet armor and airforces to help fight Spanish fascism, maybe even send Soviet armaments and training cadres.

Wait no he actually did that.

The actual blame, yet again, rests on France and England chosing "neutrality" while the Italian and German fascists were running hog wild in Spain before Soviet intervention.

There can be arguments made that there could've been more done by the Soviets, if we ignore historical conditions that the Soviets faced a very real possibility of a two-front war against the Japanese imperialists in Asia and the German-Italian fascists in Europe thus having to prepare for such events, yet insofar as I've seen the Soviets did the best they could in the limited capacity that they could afford.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

this is usually true for 99 percent of events in soviet history, they did their best.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I guess Stalin should've deployed Soviet armor and airforces to help fight Spanish fascism, maybe even send Soviet armaments and training cadres.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tanks_in_the_Spanish_Civil_War#Tanks_supplied_by_foreign_powers

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

Oh neat they had Renault, I wonder how well they worked

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

And they also supplied China against Japan at the same time.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm not talking about the material support which was good and cool and I am in fact more sympathetic to Stalin in this.

But I think he does open himself to critique on his support of the USPC's position of compromise with bourgeois Republican forces and their political position of not establishing a DOtP and, more damningly, rolling back the collectivisation established by the CCMA before it's dissolution.

It is my opinion that this lack of left unity fatally weakened Republican forces on a key front and moreover robbed us of a Western European Socialist experiment.

There were good reasons for these actions, but in hindsight, I feel left unity would have been more productive.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Pre-postscript message: Could you tell me what acronym USPC and CCMA stand for?


I disagree and stand with the decision made by the Comintern in pursuing the popular front strategy.

In the face of the contrarian trotskyite opposition and uncompromising anarchist uncooperativity, chosing to then immediately alienate the socialist, social democrat, and fellow traveler republican forces in an attempt to appease the vanity of the left opposition would've spelt a more immediate death to the Second Republic.

Trying to push the communism button when you're in a state of conflict and/ or instability is a form of dogmatism that puts the ideal ahead of the material. This was one of the bloody lessons that were learned during the Russian civil war.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

United Socialist Party of Catalonia, and the Central Committee of Anti-Fascist Militias.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Thank you I'll look into them