I shared it for you, to save you from the effort. Now I’ll admit that I don’t know really much about the Spanish civil war, or the Zapatista uprising in Mexico (the two examples of “non-tankie communism” mentioned in the comments), so if anyone has any good resources or insights on these I’d be happy to read those.
First I’ll say I don’t have anything against anarchists or AnComs on principle. Whatever works in class struggle, we’re all comrades. That being said there seems to be some idealism and misconceptions related to the comments especially. Comments like
Authoritarian and hierarchy types don’t have a lot of imagination and are kind of bad at creative exercises for building new ideas. Their creativity is iterative so requires an existing idea. There has only been Soviet style centralized authoritarian communism so that’s all they imagine. Literally unable to imagine any alternative (unless they read political philosophy).
As we all know “authoritarian” is a meaningless term. This has been gone through so many times. Now if “there has only been Soviet style centralized authoritarian communism” is true, why is that bad? Why shouldn’t people work by what has been proven to be viable by past experience? Every socialist experiment has always been born to be besieged by imperialism constantly working towards its downfall using any means necessary. Idealism or “creating new ideas” is shunned among MLs because it hasn’t really produced any real change. It seems to me the commenters are actually only against “the tankies” because of “the tanks”, which usually refers to the Hungarian counterrevolution which itself was proven to be a CIA-backed counterrevolution attempt by recently declassified CIA-archives. It could refer to the tanks in Tiananmen Square, which was funnily enough also a similar attempt. Afaik there were organic protesting related to both incidents, but in both the government’s response was specifically towards the western aligned violent agitators.
Furthermore one could argue against the statement itself, as for example Yugoslavia, China, and the Soviet Union itself engaged in different kinds of economic and authoritative decentralization, with differing results. So this seems to be a misconception.
idk, just had some issues with some of the comments there. which are pretty much the same issues I have trying to present anarchism as a viable alternative: that is to say mainly the issue of armed struggle against imperialists (that would inevitably happen) without a central authority.
I shared it for you, to save you from the effort. Now I’ll admit that I don’t know really much about the Spanish civil war, or the Zapatista uprising in Mexico (the two examples of “non-tankie communism” mentioned in the comments), so if anyone has any good resources or insights on these I’d be happy to read those.
First I’ll say I don’t have anything against anarchists or AnComs on principle. Whatever works in class struggle, we’re all comrades. That being said there seems to be some idealism and misconceptions related to the comments especially. Comments like
As we all know “authoritarian” is a meaningless term. This has been gone through so many times. Now if “there has only been Soviet style centralized authoritarian communism” is true, why is that bad? Why shouldn’t people work by what has been proven to be viable by past experience? Every socialist experiment has always been born to be besieged by imperialism constantly working towards its downfall using any means necessary. Idealism or “creating new ideas” is shunned among MLs because it hasn’t really produced any real change. It seems to me the commenters are actually only against “the tankies” because of “the tanks”, which usually refers to the Hungarian counterrevolution which itself was proven to be a CIA-backed counterrevolution attempt by recently declassified CIA-archives. It could refer to the tanks in Tiananmen Square, which was funnily enough also a similar attempt. Afaik there were organic protesting related to both incidents, but in both the government’s response was specifically towards the western aligned violent agitators.
Furthermore one could argue against the statement itself, as for example Yugoslavia, China, and the Soviet Union itself engaged in different kinds of economic and authoritative decentralization, with differing results. So this seems to be a misconception.
idk, just had some issues with some of the comments there. which are pretty much the same issues I have trying to present anarchism as a viable alternative: that is to say mainly the issue of armed struggle against imperialists (that would inevitably happen) without a central authority.
Figures you have no counter to that
I just did. But I have another one queued up if you want it:
“Nuh-uh!” Isn’t actually a counter.
name a non-authoritarian country