Left wing rage gave us the bloody USSR, gulags, and lets not forget when the RAF kidnapped and killed politicians, and hijacked a plain trying to get their leaders out of jail.
The USSR were authoritarians cloaking themselves with leftist words, the non-authoritarians refer to them as red-fash, and we don’t consider them to be actually left, just power trippers who want to rule with an iron fist.
Politics is mostly just tribalism. Radicalization is just having more loyalty to a tribe that wants to destroy the status quo. Whether far left or far right, people in these tribes are more likely to show a blind devotion to the leaders of those tribes. When the leaders of either the far left or far right gain power, the abuse of power will be similar.
Historical problems that stemmed from far right and far left movements in the past are something people pushing these things need to address. The far right goes for “accusing others of that which you’re guilty” which is typical of them. The far left sometimes uses this tactic, but tends to make rationalizations. Tankies go for “didn’t happen, Stalin was great, nananana I can’t hear you!” Non-tankies go for “that stuff that happened in all the other countries won’t happen if we did it here, they started as agrarian socialism and therefore there was no issues in the power dynamics involved with giving all of the power to a small group of people.”
But in the end all radical movements are just variations of “give me all of the power I’ll make you stronger/equal, you can totally trust me!”
Anarchism is the only ideology that says “Don’t give me power, instead spread all power out as much as possible to prevent dictatorships and any ability for corporations or a state to exploit others.”
Most of Europe in the 1940s was defeated by the very same forces that defeated Spain in the 1930s. Except they had the ability to learn the lessons of Spain and had the backing of international capital and the world’s most renowned militaries.
Does that prove the failures of capitalism, representative democracy, or parliamentary monarchies?
Blitzkrieg was a brand new warfare technique which the Spanish had to contend with and they lasted 3 years against the Axis powers whilst also trying a new form of political, social, and economic organisation. I think you should read up on the Spanish civil war some more, it’s an incredible period of history which if anything proves the strengths of anarchism despite the Republicans ultimately losing.
I think you should read up on WWII. After going through a civil war, Spain was not in any shape to contribute much of anything to the fascist side in WWII. After WWII, France wanted the allies to do a regime change in in Spain, since they weren’t comfortable with fascists on their border for obvious reasons. But instead the allies opted for containment and isolation. It sucked for people in Spain for decades, but after Franco died they moved on from fascism. Regime change eventually happened in Spain without the need for other countries to invade.
Right now nobody in the Middle East is all that happy living next to Iran. Iran is pretty fascist, so do you think Trump is right in going to war with Iran?
I think you’ve got some tunnel vision on WWII and think it has to go that way and aren’t understanding all of the instances where regime change has not gone well. Maybe you think guys like Saddam Hussein and the Ayatollah of Iran are good guys and not oppressive authoritarian leaders or something? But they were/are horrible authoritarians and the same rationalization for other countries to get involved in some war in the US is the same rationalization for why the US gets involved in regime change operations in various parts of the world.
Left wing rage gave us the bloody USSR, gulags, and lets not forget when the RAF kidnapped and killed politicians, and hijacked a plain trying to get their leaders out of jail.
The USSR were authoritarians cloaking themselves with leftist words, the non-authoritarians refer to them as red-fash, and we don’t consider them to be actually left, just power trippers who want to rule with an iron fist.
Politics is mostly just tribalism. Radicalization is just having more loyalty to a tribe that wants to destroy the status quo. Whether far left or far right, people in these tribes are more likely to show a blind devotion to the leaders of those tribes. When the leaders of either the far left or far right gain power, the abuse of power will be similar.
Historical problems that stemmed from far right and far left movements in the past are something people pushing these things need to address. The far right goes for “accusing others of that which you’re guilty” which is typical of them. The far left sometimes uses this tactic, but tends to make rationalizations. Tankies go for “didn’t happen, Stalin was great, nananana I can’t hear you!” Non-tankies go for “that stuff that happened in all the other countries won’t happen if we did it here, they started as agrarian socialism and therefore there was no issues in the power dynamics involved with giving all of the power to a small group of people.”
But in the end all radical movements are just variations of “give me all of the power I’ll make you stronger/equal, you can totally trust me!”
Anarchism is the only ideology that says “Don’t give me power, instead spread all power out as much as possible to prevent dictatorships and any ability for corporations or a state to exploit others.”
From historical records, when it’s able to be tried, it works like it says on the tin.
Spain in the 1930s?
Yeah great, anarchism works until it gets taken over by a dictator.
An ideology that only works if you can get everyone in the world to believe in it is more of a religion than a viable political movement.
Most of Europe in the 1940s was defeated by the very same forces that defeated Spain in the 1930s. Except they had the ability to learn the lessons of Spain and had the backing of international capital and the world’s most renowned militaries.
Does that prove the failures of capitalism, representative democracy, or parliamentary monarchies?
Blitzkrieg was a brand new warfare technique which the Spanish had to contend with and they lasted 3 years against the Axis powers whilst also trying a new form of political, social, and economic organisation. I think you should read up on the Spanish civil war some more, it’s an incredible period of history which if anything proves the strengths of anarchism despite the Republicans ultimately losing.
I think you should read up on WWII. After going through a civil war, Spain was not in any shape to contribute much of anything to the fascist side in WWII. After WWII, France wanted the allies to do a regime change in in Spain, since they weren’t comfortable with fascists on their border for obvious reasons. But instead the allies opted for containment and isolation. It sucked for people in Spain for decades, but after Franco died they moved on from fascism. Regime change eventually happened in Spain without the need for other countries to invade.
Right now nobody in the Middle East is all that happy living next to Iran. Iran is pretty fascist, so do you think Trump is right in going to war with Iran?
I think you’ve got some tunnel vision on WWII and think it has to go that way and aren’t understanding all of the instances where regime change has not gone well. Maybe you think guys like Saddam Hussein and the Ayatollah of Iran are good guys and not oppressive authoritarian leaders or something? But they were/are horrible authoritarians and the same rationalization for other countries to get involved in some war in the US is the same rationalization for why the US gets involved in regime change operations in various parts of the world.
Left wing rage gave you the revolution, then stalin moved in in true right fashion and co-opted the whole shebang
Oh neat. One of the guys in the top picture.
gulags pre-date the ussr.
ussr was actually the one that eventually abolished them in 1960