This would go a whole lot easier if you were. Liberals aren’t zealots either… have you ever tried arguing with one, though? I wouldn’t recommend it - they cling to their privilege (whether real or perceived) harder than most fascists.
That isn’t a position I argued in favor of.
That doesn’t matter - it happened whether we think it was dumb or not.
You don’t think if the US had a successful Anarchist revolution in the 30’s, that it wouldn’t be in a far better position in every possible way
Absolutely not. An anarchist insurgency in 30s US of A would have ended up very much like the Spartacist uprising in Germany did - and that would happen even if it had somebody like ole’ Smedley Butler to lead it. It would have started off in a logistically worse position than the Spanish anarchists were… even if it managed to take over an entire state it would still be child’s play for the US government to isolate it economically. And even if they managed to seize a sizable gold reserve (which the Spanish anarchists failed to do) there’d be absolutely no chance of even buying anything with it from any foreign military-industrial complex thanks to the US Navy. And there’d be no question of which side the liberals would be on here, giving the anarchists absolutely no chance of playing allies off against enemies and vice versa. The fact that the liberals of Spain did not immediately take hands with Franco makes the Spanish situation somewhat unique - a situation which would absolutely not have happened in the US at any point in it’s history, including today.
How on earth can you say things like that don’t matter?
That’s not what I said. When an insurgency becomes allied to a military-industrial complex it’s only because said insurgency is a useful catspaw to said military-industrial complex. Iran does not support the resistance in Gaza and Lebanon because it actually gives a damn about the people in those two places. The French supported the US colonists because they were a useful weapon against the British, not because they gave a damn about those colonists.
Think about your scenario - an anarchist insurgency in 30s US, or even today, for that matter. Would anybody need this insurgency as a tool of disruption against the US? If the answer is yes… then there’s potential. If not…
Do not be fooled by the events of 1917 Russia - an insurgent element managing to seize a large industrial complex under those conditions in those times in that manner is probably a once-in-a-millenium event.
but it’s at least on the table if the people agree to try it via consensus.
When there’s a war going on, no… they can’t. War is not the time for pie-in-the-sky economic experiments run by people whose ideology dictates that they refuse to understand how economies work. I’d say that it’s a pretty bad idea in peacetime as well - just ask the Ukrainians about that - but that might just be me.
Are you dismissing that entire documentary because the person who wrote the description
No, I’m dismissing the documentary because I saw it years ago and it contains absolutely nothing I do not already know.
did a poor job of specifying what they meant by democracy?
The fact that they did not feel the need to specify what they meant with the term is telling in itself - ie, they used the term in the exact same way any liberal does.
instead of voting for someone else to decide for them.
So you, also, only view democracy through a liberal lens, I take it?
The first red scare happened pre-WWII, before the Cold War,
I know. During the (so-called) “Cold War,” the CIA weren’t fighting anarchism in Latin America. It wasn’t fighting anarchism in Oceania, in Africa, the middle-east or even the place they deported Emma Goldman to. They barely spent any resources repressing it in Europe.
The reason? They didn’t have to.
Something is seriously wrong with this picture… and it can’t all be explained away by state-led crackdowns during the 10s, 20s and 30s.
This would go a whole lot easier if you were. Liberals aren’t zealots either… have you ever tried arguing with one, though? I wouldn’t recommend it - they cling to their privilege (whether real or perceived) harder than most fascists.
That doesn’t matter - it happened whether we think it was dumb or not.
Absolutely not. An anarchist insurgency in 30s US of A would have ended up very much like the Spartacist uprising in Germany did - and that would happen even if it had somebody like ole’ Smedley Butler to lead it. It would have started off in a logistically worse position than the Spanish anarchists were… even if it managed to take over an entire state it would still be child’s play for the US government to isolate it economically. And even if they managed to seize a sizable gold reserve (which the Spanish anarchists failed to do) there’d be absolutely no chance of even buying anything with it from any foreign military-industrial complex thanks to the US Navy. And there’d be no question of which side the liberals would be on here, giving the anarchists absolutely no chance of playing allies off against enemies and vice versa. The fact that the liberals of Spain did not immediately take hands with Franco makes the Spanish situation somewhat unique - a situation which would absolutely not have happened in the US at any point in it’s history, including today.
That’s not what I said. When an insurgency becomes allied to a military-industrial complex it’s only because said insurgency is a useful catspaw to said military-industrial complex. Iran does not support the resistance in Gaza and Lebanon because it actually gives a damn about the people in those two places. The French supported the US colonists because they were a useful weapon against the British, not because they gave a damn about those colonists.
Think about your scenario - an anarchist insurgency in 30s US, or even today, for that matter. Would anybody need this insurgency as a tool of disruption against the US? If the answer is yes… then there’s potential. If not…
Do not be fooled by the events of 1917 Russia - an insurgent element managing to seize a large industrial complex under those conditions in those times in that manner is probably a once-in-a-millenium event.
When there’s a war going on, no… they can’t. War is not the time for pie-in-the-sky economic experiments run by people whose ideology dictates that they refuse to understand how economies work. I’d say that it’s a pretty bad idea in peacetime as well - just ask the Ukrainians about that - but that might just be me.
No, I’m dismissing the documentary because I saw it years ago and it contains absolutely nothing I do not already know.
The fact that they did not feel the need to specify what they meant with the term is telling in itself - ie, they used the term in the exact same way any liberal does.
So you, also, only view democracy through a liberal lens, I take it?
I know. During the (so-called) “Cold War,” the CIA weren’t fighting anarchism in Latin America. It wasn’t fighting anarchism in Oceania, in Africa, the middle-east or even the place they deported Emma Goldman to. They barely spent any resources repressing it in Europe.
The reason? They didn’t have to.
Something is seriously wrong with this picture… and it can’t all be explained away by state-led crackdowns during the 10s, 20s and 30s.