ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]

Asking you if something crucially needed to defeat the nazis was even documented as on the radar of contemporary anarchists isnt writing a novel.

That’s how they get you! taps forehead

If the goal is to get you to read yes, that is the secret tankie plot, to make you a better anarchist who is able to grow from previous failures instead of acting like an aggrieved post ww1 german soldier.

It’s pretty manipulative to posit a major historical event going completely differently would have worked out the same way except that it would have led this one really horrible thing. Cmon…

Were any anarchists talking about the need for massive industrialization at any cost in the late 1920s early 1930s in the soviet union? No? Then if the anarchists were in charge, yes, the nazis would have won and been able to implement plan ost.

Ah, nice try, but I already told you I’m not going to debate you on the Spanish Civil War.

I asked you if you’ve even read anything about it, not if you want to debate me about it.

You implied that not crushing anarchists would have directly led to a successful genocide. Ye it’s pretty manipulative.

It isnt manipulative to point out that my family would have been killed if the anarchists won, it is giving you an explanation for why I have little sympathy for complaints by anarchists repeating the “stabbed in the back” myth instead of actually digging into the history of their project and learning from its failures to do better next time.

Have you read anything about the failures of coordination among the anarchist militias in Catalonia? Or their failures of economic coordination beyond the local level?

Have you even absorbed the critiques enough that you are in a place to argue against them?

Because this is serious stuff that you should be educated about before you make judgements about it.

I’m very sympathetic to anarcho syndicalism, but it showed its weaknesses in Spain and sectarian anarchists blame it on the USSR instead of learning from it.

PS: I like how you sneaked in that call to emotion at the end. Very manipulative. Love it!

It is not socially well adapted to declare “appeal to emotion” when someone is communicating why something is personally important to them. What I’m doing is expressing myself in a normal human way, and you consider that manipulative?

If the anarchists in the soviet union were allowed power, general plan Ost would have come to fruition. Anarchists have historically not been able to lead mass industrialization in a coordinated way, and have not been able to lead successful military campaigns across territories as large as the USSR. If the soviet leadership didn’t protect the revolution from anarchists, part of my family would have died in a death camp instead of being liberated from one by red army soldiers.

But the tankies stabbed the pure hearted anarchists in the back! Okay, maybe the anarchists shouldn’t have been idealists who cared more about coops than actually prosecuting a successful socialist transition. Literally read Lenin’s interaction with the anarchist prince.

It isnt first past the post. It is bourgeois democracy. Things would be the same if there was one party or twenty so long as the bourgeoisie own the state.

I work in software development. Almost all modern architecture would collapse without the open source ecosystem.

Also without open source the capitalist tech sector would collapse

1 and 3 are pretty directly political lol

Wow it is almost like when Trump put them on the state sponsor of terror list for literally no reason and Biden kept them there their standard of living has gone down. Shocking.

Weird, it is almost like you’re in an anti-communist media ecosystem that doesn’t broadcast it.

Cuba has higher living standards than the US under a 60 year siege lmao

“Tankie” is to liberals as “woke” is to conservative liberals and fascists.

You know that real world socialist states don’t have a homelessness problem anywhere approaching the west, especially the US, right?

The only fantasy here is in your capitalist realism soaked brain.

A socialist state where housing is a guarantee and where poverty doesn’t lead to widespread drug use because it doesn’t exist. Also addiction recovery programs in the transitional state.

Why. What is yours, push them into a comically large blender? Or a prison, how about a prison?

The people en-masse being in control. Representative democracy, by it’s nature, creates a “ruling class”, the representatives. Only a direct democracy asks the people what they think of each and every issue, but that is impractical in my opinion.

No, that’s just our government/s. You can have representative democracy where representatives are beholden to their constituents, and where they are easily recallable if they do not follow those interests to a T. This is one of the many reforms socialists want to make to the democratic process.

…and I don’t feel that leaders of state owned capital are particularly any different from leaders of privately owned capital. Both are individuals in privileged positions of power that work to maintain themselves above the workers. To me it’s not the ownership that matters but the fact you have a ruling class at all.

Genuinely no offense but this is a position born of ignorance. Under a democratically run state economy the representatives only get rich through corruption. Under capitalism the owners get rich through the extraction of surplus labor value and the politicians in their pockets get rich through corruption.

Corruption is a drop in the bucket compared to surplus labor value theft. Compare how wealthy Pelosi is to how wealthy Jeff Bezos or Elon musk are. And people like Pelosi are only that rich because of insider trading, which couldn’t exist under socialism.

What specifically is at odds?

You do realize that the incentives of capitalism necessitate that right?

I agree but in this context I’m literally telling them to read about it.

Okay, well, I’ve studied everything from all sorts of marxist tendencies to syndicalism to anarchism, to classical economics, and I think you’re either using terms wrong or have the wrong idea. Can you define your terms or rephrase what you mean?

I apologize if this is too blunt.