For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
Gotta counter the Lemmygrad propaganda going on here lately.
the Korean one is really funny. assassinating an anarchist leader to make their movement fall apart would be considered too on the nose in a work of fiction. i know the russian and spanish civil war ones are conveniently leaving out a lot of details that make the soviet actions a lot more reasonable.
Worth noting that the DPRK upholds Kim Chwa-Chin, as does the ROK, as a vital independence figure.
yeah, i hadn't ever heard of that one either. a brief look at wikipedia puts it in 1929-31, so before china was actually communist and immediately preceding the imperial occupation of china by japan, who was also at least partially responsible for it's short existence. that's a period i need to study up on as well, but it'll be a while before i can prioritize reading a book about it.
The KPAM existed in the context of Japanese colonization, many Koreans were members of the CPC and fighting alongside them against the Japanese. Japanese colonization of Korea was from 1910 to 1945, which puts the KPAM in the middle of that, and right before full colonization of Manchuria by Japan. Really messy period.
Yeah, wasn't Makhno a huge piece of shit?
can't really comment on his personality, but he was far from a consistent ally of the bolsheviks. given the precarity of the soviet state in the early days, their decision to deal harshly with rebellions from former allies is very understandable.
All Western Leftists: Achieve literally nothing
Western Anarchist: The real problem right now is that Communists will kill us
I refuse to believe any infighting like this, before even 1% of socialism has been achieved, isn't fedposting. We can discuss whatever, but why have a real fight about the kind of socialism before we escape the concentration camp? There's just no good reason.
What do you mean by "Literally nothing"?
If the standard of success is the maintenance of a state then anarchism will by definition never succeed. But if the standard of success is making the world better then you will need to change your perspective to be able to see the work of anarchists.
Our motto is security culture. If there were big glaring examples to point to then we wouldn't exactly be good anarchists. ;p
I love how they will refuse to read responses and make up some bullshit instead, then complain about that.
They tried to say Cuba isn't socialist because it has a state, basically redefining socialism as either anarchism or communism. I know telling people to read theory doesn't work, but when they also refuse to even read lemmy replies I'm unsure if anything can be done without serious retrospection on their part.
literally crawling all over db0
tankies
db0
They tried to say Cuba isn’t socialist because it has a state, basically redefining socialism as either anarchism or communism.
extremely telling that trying to explain the nuances of how time and external aggression affect revolutionary movements is 'trust me bro', they are clearly happy living in a land of pure imagination
hey how'd you get a picture of me?
extremely telling that trying to explain the nuances of how time and external aggression affect revolutionary movements is 'trust me bro', they are clearly happy living in a land of pure imagination
Bingo, they just repeated that I "despise the working class" for supporting Cuba's system.
I find it incredibly intriguing when you in your efforts run into the liberal brainworm of "well I define the concept like this".
I see it happen most often when you explain what imperialism is to someone and they just can't get that words have meanings and it's not just a free-for-all of how we assign that meaning. Got really infuriating when you gave a bunch of academic sources for the concept of imperialism and the other user basically kept going back to "yeah, but that's not how I think people use it"
ughhh I just ran into someone who was insisting that advocating for a two state solution wasn't zionism, because they could imagine a two state solution where israel wasn't a violent settler state running an apartheid government. Me wanting to judge someone for advocating for a two state solution based on the actual-reality 'two state' solutions on offer was considered 'narrow and obtuse"
Some people just prefer to live in the mind palace.
Someone on here once wrote "sure, if everything was rainbows and gumdrops then that's how it would work" and I've used that a lot since
Yep, then the argument becomes about why words and concepts have the definitions they do. It's far more frustrating when you have to explain the utility of understanding what we call "imperialism" as a process driven by monopoly finance capital, how it works, etc, rather than just something broad like "influence." It's useful to understand concepts more deeply because you can do more with it in practice, like finding weak points and whatnot, but at that point the argument is entirely off of what it was originally about.
That korean one is also pretty bullshit. The anarchists were allies with the Chinese communists and they were pretty well protected as a result. The CPC got pushed out of the area by the kuomintang and then the anarchists were dispersed by the KMT after their leader was killed.
The death of their leader was caused by the CPC getting pushed out of the area that led to his death. They literally collapsed without communists as neighbours to defend the territory nearby.
Mao was very fond of the anarchists. A lot of his rural theory was obviously inspired by them.
It's amazing how this persecution complex always results in whitewashing fascists. Yeah, a ~~CPC~~ Korean communist party member killed a leading figure among the Korean anarchists, but the anarchists were also under siege from Japan and it was Japan that wiped them out. If killing one member was the deciding factor in Japan wiping them out, then it sure seems like their organizational structure wasn't remotely anarchist to begin with.
I don't really have know why the guy was killed or if it was justified and I certainly am not defending it, but between that and militarily overrunning the anarchists, I'm relatively confident about which was the greater contributing factor to their failure.
Not a CPC member, it was a Korean communist party member. The CPC were allies and it was their control of the neighbouring territory that kept the KMT from being a problem for the anarchists, and also kept the Korean communists from being belligerent. Mao liked them. The CPC however were pushed out of the region by the KMT and then everything that followed occurred.
It is truer to argue that this anarchist zone only existed successfully because it had the CPC as its friendly neighbour to keep it safe. As soon as it lost that neighbour it lost the ability to defend itself.
Thank you for the correction. I should have looked it up first.
As a Spaniard, anarchists here claim the same thing: Soviet agents murdered a proven total of 10 anarchists in Spain (at least some of them sponsored by Nazis, knowingly or not), which of course gets used to say that "the USSR made Republican and Anarchist Spain lose the civil war", never mind them being the ONLY country to sell weapons to the antifascists.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised but I'm impressed that people blame the USSR not just for the anarchists failing but even for the Republicans failing despite the extremely (imo overly) conciliatory attitude the USSR took toward the Republicans, meanwhile the anarchists couldn't help themselves but repeatedly try to sabotage Republican logistics with their little communications building, but no, it's the "Stalinists" who committed a crime by helping the Republicans take the building in response. No matter what they do, they are wrong from every perspective.
The argument usually goes "the only way to win the civil war was to spread an anarchist revolution over to the fascist side, and the USSR prevented this because they're evil/dumb". It's just non-falsifiable bullshit that can be regurgitated ad-infinitum despite a total of 0 examples of Anarchism defeating fascism on a country-wide level.
the only way to win the civil war was to spread an anarchist revolution over to the fascist side
excuse me what
Cool story but this is actually what happened to the most of the Anarchist horizontal/decentralized movements.
But it's always nice to see anarchists regurgitate the same anti-communist propaganda that the right-wing does, because it further proves that they are indeed part of the 'Compatible Left' and possess no threat to the capitalists like the organized Marxists do.
I think I might have been the proximate cause of this. I posted the "great war of justice" meme on dbzer0's leftymemes comm and Deceptichum crashed out in the comments and got temp-banned.
they also made an entirely new community after getting a 1 day ban for acting like an asshole
For a self-identified anarchist they sure seem to love being a cop about where other people post
Why are they such a child?
They prefer social democrats to communists, are/were highly active in PJ and PTB comms, and cosplay like they're an anarchist for the purposes of wrecking. They're either a cop or someone doing their work for free.
Fascists literally killing people in the streets but yeah us tankies are clearly the larger threat and deserve their priority
why are people subscribing to ideologies invested in beef literally generations removed from their context
as i type that i realize i could just be ignorant - is there any actual grievance between anarchists and socialists that's older than like, the 20th century revolutions?
like, let's say you found enough class consciousness in the west in 2026 (lmfao but roll with it) such that ancoms and socialists began working together again, is there even any likelihood that "history repeats itself" in terms of that conflict resurfacing?
anarchy kinda is closer to how i'd like to see things be, it feels like you could make a pretty cool swiss cheese'd world where colonial nations are destroyed and replaced with a socialism and ancom model that has the benefit of over a century of hindsight to work out past failures and adapt to culture. Like, i'd love to see a socialist state permit areas where ancoms reign, seeing what can be made to work in that and adapt the state around it to creating processes to accellerate their propagation.
but that's me being like "i like ancom more in my heart but getting there doesn't feel possible at scale without some interstitial something with the centralization to fight Empire".
like, socialists and ancoms should be getting along and not relitigating historical events that happened outside of their culture, time, and place. there's probably like, fruitful lasting symbiosis that can be achieved?
but if i'm being foolish let me know and accept my apology please
it's even more annoying when they do the whole "us" "we" "our" bullshit when talking about these projects, as if they contributed anything other than steal valor from movements they barely discovered 3 years ago on /r/politicalcompassmemes
I've seen anarchists do a lot of fucked up things to communists in "coalition spaces."
I won't work with anarchists anymore because of how often "anarchism" is just a cover for reactionaries who spend more time trying to keep out "tankies" than oppose capitalism
Oh the comments section hasn't started yet? Good, I just got my popcorn.
It's mostly bullshit or horribly framed.
In the Russian revolution, anarchists were a minority of the red army, though it's true that they helped. What is unstated, however, is that there was no blanket "kill anarchists" order, instead some of the factions of anarchists, such as Makhno's, turned on the bolsheviks and thus were combatted by the red army. Kronstadt was led by a Tsarist, Stepan Petrichenko, that spread lies about the bolshevik, and their demands were tantamount to stopping the revolution (such as requiring the bolsheviks dissolve and be unable to be voted in in the soviets).
Unsure about the Mexican revolution, communists appeared to play an extremely minor role, so not sure what Deceptichum is referring to. Zapata wasn't an anarchist, and the modern Zapatistas reject the label, primarily being an indigenous movement with influence from anarchism and Marxism-Leninism.
Looks like a member of the CPK did kill Kim Chwa-Chin, yes. I actually don't know much about this, but considering he's remembered similarly to Makhno, I imagine it wasn't a one-sided affair. Seems both the DPRK and ROK uphold Kim-Chwa-Chin as an independence figure which leads me to believe that this was genuine fault on the CPK's part, but info is sparse. Anarchists and communists worked alongside each other, however, against Japan. I want to learn more about this, honestly.
As for Spain, the soviets didn't sabotage their support, and were the only ones to genuinely support the anarchists. This is an example of where weak alliance is deemed "backstabbing" by anarchists, which is a clear spin. There's a ton of legitimate friction between the soviets and anarchists here, but it's all conveniently left out.
I'm also unsure of Greece. I don't doubt that fighting has occured, but given the framing of the other events I'm not sure.
What's missing from this list? The fact that anarchists and Marxist-Leninists have worked alongside each other in Russia, Spain, China, Mexico, and probably Greece as well. It's simply false to think that infighting will never happen, or that it's always Marxists' fault, or that there aren't legitimate ideological divides, but throughout the last century and a half there's been tons of working together.
Edit: Changed CPC to CPK, not to be confused with the WPK.
I always upvote a Cowbee comment
His instance is new to the flotilla and I regret it joining. It seems all this dude does is instigate leftist division. One thing to also note is that we are not the people of the past. Anarchists and communists today probably should form some sort of alliance to combat all capitalists countries hatching from their fascists cocoons.
We very often do work together! It's important to of course recognize the differences between anarchism and Marxism (both means and ends), but in the real world orgs work together all the time.
Hell, the soviets named one of their largest rail stations Kropotkinskaya, after Kropotkin.
They seem to relish being a wrecker. Which is weird since it's only seemed to be happening recently or I just completely missed the earlier ones?
Im newish to anarchist nexus so I cant say for sure either. They also aren't the only ones. I never heard anarkiddy until I came here. Not that I really care. The right just seems so massive right now that infighting is like cheering for your ingrown toe nail.
The Korean one was a CPK member, not CPC, as far as I can tell
ⓘ This user is suspected of being a cat. Please report any suspicious behavior.