Do they think the Catalan Anarchists had no bourgeois blood on their hands? Do they think the Makhnovites never executed counterrevolutionaries? Fucking idiots. I preferred it when anarchists actually threw pipe bombs.
Anti-communist messaging and its consequences have been a disaster for anarchists. Too many people take the label because they recognize that capitalism isn’t great, but don’t go far enough to see the propaganda the state perpetuates. I desperately wish these “anarchists” would read theory, or join a cool anarchist group, and see the error in their ways.
To quote myself “Vaush and “anarch-bidenism” have done terrible things to the online anarchist community.”
I used to be an anarchist before vaushites took over all the anarchist discourse. Them and the “anprims,” of couse.
That’s tragic. We really need to get to work on educating the general populace on what anarchism actually is.
It’s weird how people can recognize that the government and the rich control what you see, know the terrorist and propaganda pushing actions of the CIA, but will not put two and two together and realize how it follows that they’re not getting the complete story on the USSR, AES etc from them.
I know because I was one of them and I still struggle with holding opposing opinions than what is constantly broadcasted by media and propagated by others.
Trying to figure out if the people doing the revolution are justified in their violence…
Alright, I think I’ve got it.
Doesn’t really work, Soviets of all races and ethnicities along with French and German communists are still horrifically despised. Their violence is also seen as “unjustifiable”.
Soviets of all races and ethnicities along with French and German communists are still horrifically despised
I don’t think they’re really recognized as a cohort. When you talk about the German proletariat, its presumed you’re talking about some blue collar auto worker or engineer or PMC banker. What’s more, any kind of media coverage of Germany always fixates on the far-right elements of anti-government action. You’d never know East Germany was a thing, much less that German communists exist as a political force.
With France, you get a vague acknowledgement of labor unions and riotous dissidents. But they’re also traditionally described in the context of far-right parties, xenophobic ideology, and a blanket disdain for Anglophones rather than any kind of Internationalist labor sentiments. French communism as a movement is also heavily occluded in international media monologues.
When you do get into anything resembling leftist ideology, it is typically described as a foreign element - Muslim/Hindu family homes/rejection of modern banking/vegetarianism or anarchism/anti-police sentiment in African ghettos or the insidious influence of the Chinese Communist Party on French/German domestic economies. I guess, we get a bit of an inversion of the trope. Less that “revolt is bad because foreign” and more “foreign is bad because its revolutionary”.
Eastern Europeans are a whole different thing. You’ve got the “good” Eastern Europeans (your Latvians and Estonians and Orbans and Navalneys) who align with the western finance sector. And then you’ve got the “bad” Eastern Europeans (your Putins and Lukashenkos and Serbs and Moldovians) who operate as a foreign policy boogieman that justify more NATO spending.
Slavs aren’t “really white.” You expect western “leftists” to know about the Paris commune or German revolution?
And it kinda is, even Lenin said things along the lines that and revolution is a group forcing it’s view onto society(only those views are dope and for the good of the people), it requires authority and structure therefore anarchists are either anti revolutionary or hypocritical about their revolutionary ideals
No, because the overthrow of the government, which every day commits violence against the workers, is the legitimate self-defense of the people. You should read what the revolutinary anarchists wrote. And look at examples of anarchist uprisings, like the Makhnovists or Spanish anarcho-syndicalists
Still, it’s the anarchists view of a better world and of defense, which not necessarily is shared by all workers agree, many of them believe the state is something that defends them, so you are still imposing onto people your will, you can beat around the bush as much as.you want revolutions are authoritarian things, furthermore no anarchist revolutions had any lasting success which corroborates the idea that anarchy is not the most sensible platform for ending cptalism
The state protects, of course, but not the majority, but the minority, which has the power. This is the very essence of the state, it was made that way on purpose, because capitalists need the power of the minority, not the majority. The goal of socialists is to give power to the majority so that people can have freedom. You can’t use a hammer to drill a hole. About failed revolutions - first of all, they took place in difficult conditions and in fact died because of the betrayals of Marxists, secondly, nevertheless, they gave experience and showed that it is quite possible to organize a society without the state and protect it, even in spite of “objective circumstances”, which are justified by the Bolsheviks to take power away from the workers. And as Marxists themselves say about socialism when arguing with the right-wingers - airplanes didn’t take off the first time either About authoritarianism - if a thief attacks you to rob you by force, and you knock him out, would that be authoritarian? No, it was the thief who behaved authoritarian, who wanted to impose his will on you, and you self-defended to preserve your freedom. I suggest you read this: https://www.anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionH.html#sech4
The issue is not just that a society can be organized without the state but one of the main reasons for the socialist state is to prevent the outside capitalist forces from taking back control, and that could have something to do with the lack of lasting anarchist experiences, furthermore the organization of a revolutionary force has issues with some of the anarchists that say that no authority is justified, which makes any sort of army force nearly unsustainable. Furthermore the thief analogy somewhat works but the fact of the matter is that any revolutionary force will impose one view on detriment of others in an authority manner, there is no analogy that makes it less so, the state sucks but how to bring it down and what to do afterwards is a choice, that will be made by the revolutionary force, and that is the authoritatary measure, the thief did wrong I do not deny it, but you are deciding the sentence as well, and unilaterally so. And I think its an inevitable property of revolution, just one that anarchy tends to struggle with.
