Dude you arent even debating me, when the fuck did I say there aren’t fair elections? You are literally hitting me with a loaded question. If thats the way this is going to go, then I’m done engaging with this cause you clearly don’t give a shit about having a mutual conversation.
Bro all I am trying to tell you is communism does not inherently mean authoritarian dictatorship. Also if we care so much about how Marx defined communism and that that definition is all that matters then no, socialism and communism are the same thing because that is how he defined them. Lenin is who changed that. But since all we apparently care about is how Marx defined it I guess we can toss out Lenin’s adaptions (fine by me, I hate Lenin).
You gotta stop giving people so much authority. Marx didn’t invent communism, he just created the most popular interpretation and analysis of it. And other people have taken that and adapted and expanded it, Marx does not own the idea. There are hundreds of different ideas and adaptions to Marx’s ideas, if your whole perception of communism is based on Marx and the Marxist-Leninist versions you are working with a very narrow understanding of communism.
Dude, you have no idea what communism is. Any example you pull for communism is likely going to be Marxist-Leninism. And yes the differences between various communist ideologies does matter, because there are various ideologies of democracy and yes some work better than others.
Literally all communism is boiled down to is workers owning their workplaces cooperatively.
You have an issue with Marxist-Leninism, which fair it fucking sucks. Marxist-Leninism differs from other communist ideologies because it believes the working class is not prepared to own their workplaces yet and so require a vanguard party made up of revolutionaries who know better than everyone else and they will manage everything on behalf of the workers.
You me, and most other people can spot the issue with this. That being, power is centralized into a one party state and thus becomes a dictatorship hell bent on maintaining its control. Democracy and communism are not antithetical to each other. Rosa Luxemburg believed freedom of speech and democracy were necessary for communism. Council Communism is also a communist ideology that puts a lot of emphasis on a free and democratic government made up of democratic workers councils.
Yes we have a common enemy, and I never said we shouldn’t work together to fight it. But that cooperation to me is coming with a ten foot pole cause I know that as soon as it stops being advantageous I’ll be stepped on
I do not agree those demands would have been suicide, and I ain’t claiming Stepan is a perfect individual. I definitely think he made stupid decisions. But it is incorrect that he officially joined the white army. He tried to, but was denied because of his former Bolshevik affiliation. Plus he ended up coming back to the soviet union and joined the Red Army Intelligence Agency, which is something else I criticize him for along side trying to join the White Army. I do not hold any anarchist on a pedestal just because they are anarchist. Proudhon was a piece of shit, and Bakunin was an antisemite. They are flawed people and exactly why I am an anarchist. Because anarchism does not rely on people being perfect as it doesnt allow anyone to hold power over anyone else.
Lastly, soviets ruled by only bolsheviks is not a soviet, thats a one party system and yes does not properly represent the workers like the Kronstadt stated.
In any event I wish to move on. I will say this was a more pleasant debate than I usually have with marxists, so thank you for that. Ciao comrade, I will be expecting your boot when the day comes lol
Anarchists see the state as another system of class. A socialist state does not create a classless society, it changes the class dynamic from capitalists and workers to bureaucrats and workers. The workers themselves do not own the means of production and have to answer to the politicians and bureaucrats that manage the means of production.
And if that is your perspective then I do not see how anarchists and marxists could ever cooperate, as you said our goals are not aligned. Which is to say I do not see how you could be surprised by anarchists not trusting marxists. Doesnt sound like we have enough in common from your perspective to work together without one of us betraying the other.
Also no the Kronstadt Rebellion was an anarchist revolt, freedom of the press and speech for socialists including anarchists was one of the demands of the rebellion and so was bringing back the workers soviets that Lenin got rid of, among other things that, to me, are just asking for a more democratic and free system that doesnt centralize all the power to one party. The link I attached is the demands of the rebellion and it has nothing like you speak of.
I aint saying anarchists dont have agency, but its because Marxists insist on it being their way or the highway and use positions of power to disenfranchize anarchists. Anarchists obviously do not like this and resist. That is not the anarchists fault. It wasnt the CNT-FAI’s fault for not wanting to disband their militias and integrate them into the Spanish Republican military structure, and it wasn’t the Kronstadt Rebellion’s fault for wanting the worker’s soviets and freedom of speech to be brough back after Lenin centralized control to the Bolshevik party. And it certainly wasn’t the Ukrainian Black Army’s fault when Trotsky decided they had no use for them anymore and turned the rifle on them. Anarchists and marxists have and still do work together, the issue is the relationship is not built on mutual respect and cooperation. Marxists seem to see anarchists as a tool, that when its use is no longer needed, is expected to go back to the drawer and sit quietly while the marxists take over.
I definitely could see a situation where marxists and anarchists could cooperate on a mutual and equal level. I just do not expect it to happen.
Personally I would want protections for anarchists to freely establish anarchist organized communes and other organizations like workplaces that are independent and autonomous from the marxist state. The two would still share resources and have open borders, but the two would be free to manage their own internal affairs. To me this meets anarchist principles of free association, and still allows for a marxist state to exist. Plus I feel it would meet the marxist’s principle of a transitionary state. The marxist state pops up, and the state would wither away to a stateless, classless, and moneyless society as people transition to the autonomous anarchist communes.
Do I think this would work? Possibly. Do I think an agreement like that would ever be made? No, not likely. The anarchists would still have the threat of being betrayed, and maybe even possibly the anarchists try to betray the marxist state. It would be an uneasy dynamic. And historically, marxists have shown they don’t want to make room for anarchists. But unless some sort of guarantee and protections were to be placed for anarchists in some way, I don’t see anarchists and marxists to ever get along.
Hey I don’t trust yall, but I still give yall the opportunity to prove me wrong (and so far I have been proven wrong by some individuals, so its not impossible). Same as I do with a liberal. I’m just prepared to get backstabbed.
Unfortunately the difference between anarchists and Marxists (pro-state or anti-state) seems to be a disagreement that ends in anarchists getting betrayed, disenfranchized, and shot. So I gotta stay diligent cause I’d rather learn from history rather than repeat it.
We aren’t saying there aren’t different kinds of liberals, what we are trying to tell you is that liberalism is not a left wing ideology anymore. It is centrist and anti-communist. Yes you have left leaning liberals and right leaning. But that still only makes yall center-left and center-right.
Leftists issues with liberals is because liberals, no matter what are pro-capitalist and anti-communist. Communists are anti-property and liberals are pro-property. Yes a leftist has more in common with a left leaning liberal than they do a right leaning liberal, but that does not make their interests aligned. Historically anytime liberals and communists team up, communists get backstabbed. And more often than not, it never even gets to teaming up. Historically, liberals are the ones to team up with authoritarians to crush communists.
And I’m an anarchist. I trust Marxist communists just about as much as I do liberals. That is to say not much. And I have more interests aligned with a Marxist than I do a liberal
Dude do you even know what liberal means?
Liberalism is an ideology founded in a few core principles. Capitalism and the right to own property, the power of the government originating from the masses rather than god, and inalienable rights for its citizens.
You guys are the ones redefining old words cause you don’t like the idea of not being considered leftist anymore. The overton window has shifted since the 1700s, yall are centrists now.
Nah, if my support of them results in that money going to fascists, I don’t care how much good they do. I am not going to support them. Expecting the people you work with and support to uphold certain basic values is not a huge expectation. The people they are supporting actively advocate and support racist and fascistic conspiracies. It is not that much to ask that Framework avoid them and support other open source developers. Its insane to not even have that level of standards. There are loads of open source developers, and people are just asking them to avoid the ones openly being racist.
If you don’t think boycotting them till they renounce that support is reasonable, then I don’t think we have any common ground to work with.
If Framework would drop support, I’ll gladly get onw of their computers and support them. Till then, I ain’t touching them and will stick with my current computer
Damn, I didn’t even know about Framework. Wish they weren’t supportin fascists, cause I’d totally get a laptop from them.
Because those same countries were never ideologically opposed to fascism in the first place. America was a major inspiration for Hitler, namely in its jim crow laws and eugenics. Before world war 2, America loved Hitler. And the western powers are the reason why Zionism exists as an influential ideology to begin with. Britain gave the land for zionists to colonize to begin with. All of these same countries also committed the same atrocities themselves when colonizing places like the Americas, Africa, and Asia. Liberal governments have never been opposed to colonialism, genocide, or fascism.
The issue is our society encourages it. When the most important thing in life is money, people are gonna do shit like this to exploit others. Take away the possibility of profit for grifting people and the incentive to do this drops. Would it completely go away? No, there will always be stupid grifters striving to gain popularity or attention, but I think that without the monetary factor it would be a negligible presence.