Seriously though, I don’t know how anarchists can look at the consequences of the Perestroika, Glasnost and eventual dissolution of the Eastern Block, the millions of lives lost to unemployment, alcoholism, drugs and suicide, and still use the word “tankie” (coined to degrade the communists in support of the intervention of the USSR in Hungary when it went down that very path).
It’s precisely because we saw the path of the USSR. Because we can see that ML regimes always leads to oppression and capitalism. They’re just another way to convert poor agrarian/feudalist societies to capitalism and have no socialist potential. Terrible system.
Because we can see that ML regimes always leads to oppression and capitalism
Marxism-Leninism saved Eastern Europe from Nazism, the level of genocide we would have seen in Eastern Europe if it hadn’t been for the existence of the USSR is unimaginable. Anarchists, on the other hand, have been proven absolutely incapable of stopping fascism, as was the case of the Spanish Second Republic, with some Anarchist unions such as the CNT numbering ONE MILLION members, and refusing to take action against the growth of fascism because “taking action would make us as bad as them :(”. The consequence were 40 years of fascist dictatorship. At least AES countries, flawed as they were, can claim to bring industrialization, wealth redistribution, meaningful fight against fascism, a stop to unequal exchange, solid and moral geopolitical positions and support for emancipatory movements elsewhere in the world. Anarchism doesn’t have a single serious historical claim other than Rojava and Zapatistas, two extremely small movements without much potential for growth, with one of them directly supporting the regional interests of US imperialism.
You’re buying the framework of the ruling class of your country, ask yourself why you reach the same conclusions about socialism than libs
Mhm, so we agree that “AES” is just capitalism yes? Sorry but I’m a socialist. I’m not planning to do a revolution just to get capitalism again, but painted red. Especially when it’s just more oppressive and homophobic as well.
You’re buying the framework of the ruling class of your country, ask yourself why you reach the same conclusions about socialism than libs
No, I dont agree that AES is capitalism, it’s just that you don’t have historical knowledge of the decision-making power of the working class over policy and the means of production in AES countries.
Strong unions with legal power and decision-making capabilities, local committees supervising political and administrative activity, extremely high social mobility, participation in state politics through the party and through discussion in the press, and most importantly, the absence of a capitalist class. There is no capitalism without surplus extraction from one class to the other, and without a receiving class to absorb whatever metric of surplus value you want to define, there isn’t capitalism. It obviously was flawed, as all systems ever in humanity, but it’s the best we’ve got so far in the struggle against capitalism.
Thank you also for not addressing how anarchism has historically consistently failed in creating an alternative to capitalism and to fighting fascism even in countries with strong anarchist tradition.
There is no capitalism without surplus extraction from one class to the other, and without a receiving class to absorb whatever metric of surplus value you want to define, there isn’t capitalism.
There was wage slavery, therefore it was capitalist. QED. The extracting class where the party bureaucracy. I don’t even need to debate this. The USSR devolved into kleptocracy with the party bureaucracy at the top immediately after it dissolved and its satellite states immediately splintered and switched to capitalism at the first chance they got which shows just how much the soviet experiment failed at all its goals and how hated it was for persisting only through oppression.
Same is true in other “AES” like China, which have literal billionaires ffs.
Thank you also for not addressing how anarchism has historically consistently failed in creating an alternative to capitalism and to fighting fascism even in countries with strong anarchist tradition.
The failure to succeed in a revolution long term doesn’t mean the movement is ideologically inconsistent. It just means it’s time hadn’t come yet. The collapse of “AES” or coversion into capitalism however does prove that it’s an internally unstable movement whos only goal is to convert feudalism to capitalism.
There was wage slavery, therefore it was capitalist. The extracting class where the party bureaucracy.
Same old bullshit argument. “The bureaucracy” loosely defined by a select group of party members who didn’t disproportionally enjoy a much higher standard of living, isn’t enough of an argument to talk of a class division. There were no markets, there was no imperialism, there was no generational consolidation of a class (with most political positions being taken by non bureaucratic families)… Talking of capitalism in the USSR is simply delusional and portrays a lack of understanding of the meaning of capitalism itself, or more likely, willing misinterpretation and mental gymnastics to bash on other form of socialism that are more compatible with US state propaganda.
Same is true in other “AES” like China, which have literal billionaires ffs
China is currently a capitalist economy. Markets, the existence of a capitalist class appropriating themselves of the surplus value generated by workers, and the only “redeeming” factor being a high participation of the state in the economy. Until proven otherwise I won’t call modern China socialist.
its satellite states immediately splintered and switched to capitalism at the first chance they got which shows just how much the soviet experiment failed at all its goals and how hated it was for persisting only through oppression.
Ignoring the influence of cold war and the material conditions of the moment into all of this is crazy, you literally have no regard of material and historical conditions. BTW, the overwhelming majority of USSR citizens voted for the continuation of the country in a referendum towards the end of the eastern block. Surprise surprise: if you don’t exercise a certain level of oppression, you can’t fight capitalism… one of the many reasons why anarchism never seems to take off and always seems to be incapable of fighting capitalism and fascism.
select group of party members who didn’t disproportionally enjoy a much higher standard of living
Imagine believing this while people criticizing said party members are regularly gulaged and disappeared. Imagine thinking that having widespread wage slavery means you’re not capitalist.
There were no markets, there was no imperialism
Lol, USSR allied with Nazis to split Poland and invaded Hungary with Tanks which is literally why their supporters are known as Tankies. They literally invaded almost every neighbour they had. They were so fucking imperialist that everyone they conquered ditched them immediately when they were weak. A main reason they collapsed was because their imperialism in Afganistan weakened them too much. Just absolute delusion.
or more likely, willing misinterpretation and mental gymnastics to bash on other form of socialism that are more compatible with US state propaganda.
US state propaganda was all too happy to call USSR socialist/communist. You remember that, right? Should probably make you think why you agree with US state propaganda, but I doubt you will.
. one of the many reasons why anarchism never seems to take off and always seems to be incapable of fighting capitalism and fascism.
More like being too naive about allying with red-fash :D
Aliens!
Seriously though, I don’t know how anarchists can look at the consequences of the Perestroika, Glasnost and eventual dissolution of the Eastern Block, the millions of lives lost to unemployment, alcoholism, drugs and suicide, and still use the word “tankie” (coined to degrade the communists in support of the intervention of the USSR in Hungary when it went down that very path).
It’s precisely because we saw the path of the USSR. Because we can see that ML regimes always leads to oppression and capitalism. They’re just another way to convert poor agrarian/feudalist societies to capitalism and have no socialist potential. Terrible system.
Marxism-Leninism saved Eastern Europe from Nazism, the level of genocide we would have seen in Eastern Europe if it hadn’t been for the existence of the USSR is unimaginable. Anarchists, on the other hand, have been proven absolutely incapable of stopping fascism, as was the case of the Spanish Second Republic, with some Anarchist unions such as the CNT numbering ONE MILLION members, and refusing to take action against the growth of fascism because “taking action would make us as bad as them :(”. The consequence were 40 years of fascist dictatorship. At least AES countries, flawed as they were, can claim to bring industrialization, wealth redistribution, meaningful fight against fascism, a stop to unequal exchange, solid and moral geopolitical positions and support for emancipatory movements elsewhere in the world. Anarchism doesn’t have a single serious historical claim other than Rojava and Zapatistas, two extremely small movements without much potential for growth, with one of them directly supporting the regional interests of US imperialism.
You’re buying the framework of the ruling class of your country, ask yourself why you reach the same conclusions about socialism than libs
Mhm, so we agree that “AES” is just capitalism yes? Sorry but I’m a socialist. I’m not planning to do a revolution just to get capitalism again, but painted red. Especially when it’s just more oppressive and homophobic as well.
Lol
No, I dont agree that AES is capitalism, it’s just that you don’t have historical knowledge of the decision-making power of the working class over policy and the means of production in AES countries.
Strong unions with legal power and decision-making capabilities, local committees supervising political and administrative activity, extremely high social mobility, participation in state politics through the party and through discussion in the press, and most importantly, the absence of a capitalist class. There is no capitalism without surplus extraction from one class to the other, and without a receiving class to absorb whatever metric of surplus value you want to define, there isn’t capitalism. It obviously was flawed, as all systems ever in humanity, but it’s the best we’ve got so far in the struggle against capitalism.
Thank you also for not addressing how anarchism has historically consistently failed in creating an alternative to capitalism and to fighting fascism even in countries with strong anarchist tradition.
There was wage slavery, therefore it was capitalist. QED. The extracting class where the party bureaucracy. I don’t even need to debate this. The USSR devolved into kleptocracy with the party bureaucracy at the top immediately after it dissolved and its satellite states immediately splintered and switched to capitalism at the first chance they got which shows just how much the soviet experiment failed at all its goals and how hated it was for persisting only through oppression.
Same is true in other “AES” like China, which have literal billionaires ffs.
The failure to succeed in a revolution long term doesn’t mean the movement is ideologically inconsistent. It just means it’s time hadn’t come yet. The collapse of “AES” or coversion into capitalism however does prove that it’s an internally unstable movement whos only goal is to convert feudalism to capitalism.
Same old bullshit argument. “The bureaucracy” loosely defined by a select group of party members who didn’t disproportionally enjoy a much higher standard of living, isn’t enough of an argument to talk of a class division. There were no markets, there was no imperialism, there was no generational consolidation of a class (with most political positions being taken by non bureaucratic families)… Talking of capitalism in the USSR is simply delusional and portrays a lack of understanding of the meaning of capitalism itself, or more likely, willing misinterpretation and mental gymnastics to bash on other form of socialism that are more compatible with US state propaganda.
China is currently a capitalist economy. Markets, the existence of a capitalist class appropriating themselves of the surplus value generated by workers, and the only “redeeming” factor being a high participation of the state in the economy. Until proven otherwise I won’t call modern China socialist.
Ignoring the influence of cold war and the material conditions of the moment into all of this is crazy, you literally have no regard of material and historical conditions. BTW, the overwhelming majority of USSR citizens voted for the continuation of the country in a referendum towards the end of the eastern block. Surprise surprise: if you don’t exercise a certain level of oppression, you can’t fight capitalism… one of the many reasons why anarchism never seems to take off and always seems to be incapable of fighting capitalism and fascism.
Imagine believing this while people criticizing said party members are regularly gulaged and disappeared. Imagine thinking that having widespread wage slavery means you’re not capitalist.
Lol, USSR allied with Nazis to split Poland and invaded Hungary with Tanks which is literally why their supporters are known as Tankies. They literally invaded almost every neighbour they had. They were so fucking imperialist that everyone they conquered ditched them immediately when they were weak. A main reason they collapsed was because their imperialism in Afganistan weakened them too much. Just absolute delusion.
US state propaganda was all too happy to call USSR socialist/communist. You remember that, right? Should probably make you think why you agree with US state propaganda, but I doubt you will.
More like being too naive about allying with red-fash :D