472
T(rule)kies (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
submitted 1 year ago by lobster_teapot to c/196
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] barsoap@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

We'd have more than two if it hadn't been for tankies stabbing us in the back. But go, go on, tell me how Makhno was a counter-revolutionary or something. Kulak? Or was it about not being able to tolerate a non-authoritarian alternative.

As to successful tankie revolutions... there's none. They devolved into either state capitalist tyranny, capitalist tyranny, or straight tyranny. Cuba and Vietnam don't count they were wars for independence from colonial powers first, communist second in Vietnam's case and in Cuba's fourth or fifth or something.

[-] Valbrandur@lemmygrad.ml 19 points 1 year ago

We’d have more than two if it hadn’t been for tankies stabbing us in the back.

This is a phrase that keeps popping up in anarchist spaces but once you look at what it makes reference to it's... Simply not true? It's mostly used to refer to the Spanish Civil War, but one only needs to pick up a high school history book to learn that the May Days were a result of the anarchists attempting to antagonize the entirety of the Republican side by hindering war efforts, and not only the PCE or other Soviet-alligned communists, who held a rather small amount of power inside the Republican government.

But go, go on, tell me how Makhno was a counter-revolutionary or something. Kulak? Or was it about not being able to tolerate a non-authoritarian alternative.

If to not be authoritarian is a priority for you, reading Voline's accounts of his participation in the makhnovist movement should be enough to realize that his project is probably not the one you want to rally behind the most.

[-] Comrade_Spood@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Just ignore the Zapatistas who are a current example of anarchism in practice.

And saying the Soviets held little power in the Spanish Republic is just a bald faced lie. The Soviets withheld supplies from non-soviet militias and actively damaged the war effort because they'd rather focus on garnering power than actually fighting fascists.

[-] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You know it's kinda rich of you to refer to, of all people, Voline. If he was critical of Platformism guess what he had to say about Bolshevism. Even before Trotsky tried to have him killed.

See one factor of Anarchism is that you invariably don't end up having the same ideas of how to do stuff once the dust has settled and power is secured. Yes, Makhno was quite a bit of a Bonarparte. That doesn't mean that he would've crushed disagreements with tanks, he would've taken an offer of "Comrade, we thank you for all you've done but you're a fighter not a politician, here's a nice Dacha", and then written his memoirs. Anarchism adapts itself, Anarchists adapt themselves to local circumstances and culture, shaping it as much as the utopia is shaping people. As a gestalt, it is shapeless, therefore, it can succeed: Because it does not need to, must not, fight the people.

...somehow you also ignored the two successful ones. I kinda wonder whether you even know which I'm talking about.

Also, if you bother answering at all I'd like you to give an example of a revolution of yours that didn't end in tyranny. Shouldn't actually be that hard for a tankie as you don't think tyranny is bad, so why not admit it that there's none?

this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2023
472 points (100.0% liked)

196

16459 readers
2089 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS