I am an ML.
I never said I’m an anarchist I’m just explaining what anarchism is and it’s not what a lot of people here think it is.
Red_Scare [he/him]
- 0 Posts
- 62 Comments
Joined 5 years ago
Cake day: November 19th, 2020
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
how do you expect to protect your revolution with no vanguard or DoTP?
This is literally what I wrote in my first comment:
My disagreement with anarchism is different: I think only a state with a strong coercive apparatus can survive sustained imperial pressure and capitalist encirclement.
Early Soviets maybe, before war communism, for like less than a year… There was a reason anarchists tried to assassinate Lenin as a counterrevolutionary.
The “delegation and recall” part of it? Totally! The “vanguard party” and “DotP” parts? Not so much.
You can call a federation of communes a “state” if you want. Anarchists are not against this kind of “state”. As long as power flows bottom-up by delegation and recall.
I’m not an anarchist, but a lot of people here are misrepresenting anarchism. Anarchists don’t reject coordination or planning, only hierarchical state control. Large infrastructure would be built by federated councils, unions, and communes, with common plans and technical bodies coordinated by accountable, recallable delegates. Central coordination without a state hierarchy is entirely possible.
My disagreement with anarchism is different: I think only a state with a strong coercive apparatus can survive sustained imperial pressure and capitalist encirclement.
It’s hilarious to me because it’s exactly the kind of “political” joke you would hear in the Soviet Union, where ideological proclamations of party leaders are put in absurd or sexual contexts.
Probably the most famous one:
Dzerzhinsky and Trotsky are arguing: which is better, a wife or a mistress?
Dzerzhinsky says: “A mistress.”
Trotsky says: “A wife.”
They can’t agree, so they ask Lenin.
Lenin replies:
“Both! Tell your wife you’re with your mistress, tell your mistress you’re with your wife… and meanwhile, go up to the attic and study, study, and study again.”
(“Study, study, and study again” was the most famous Lenin quote in the USSR, the placard with those words would hang in every single classroom of every school).
That’s not fair to Leon
8·6 months agoWhen Russia took over Crimea, Ukraine cut water supply to the peninsula, depriving civilian population of water for drinking and agriculture (which is a human rights violation) and causing a humanitarian crisis.
So Russia built the longest bridge in Europe to provide water and other essential supplies.
On the first day of the invasion Russian forces reopened the water flow into Crimea, but on the third day of the Ukrainian counteroffensive the Kakhovka Dam was destroyed, causing massive flood in Kherson region and again water shortage and agriculture crisis in Crimea, so the bridge remains vital infrastructure.
Since the beginning of the war Ukraine is trying to blow it up, when they do, Western outlets report it with absolute fucking glee:
Pressure on Putin grows as his ‘jewel in the crown’ bridge to Crimea is blown up
Long threatened, the hated $4bn Russian symbol of Moscow’s occupation of Crimea – one that Russia had boasted was impossible to attack – had been blown up.
The symbolism of the moment – a day after Russian president Vladimir Putin’s 70th birthday and just over a week after he announced the illegal annexation of four more Ukrainian territories amid huge pomp in Moscow – was lost on nobody.
But it is not simply the fact this is Putin’s bridge that underlines the symbolism. The blast has real-term consequences too for Putin’s war, coming hard on the heels of a series of humiliating defeats on the eastern and southern fronts that has seen large-scale Russian retreats.
NP! I liked it so I reverse searched for a high quality version.
Free high quality version on the artist page:
https://www.davidrevoy.com/article43/yin-and-yang-of-world-hunger/show
Isn’t it basically petty bourgeoisie + labour aristocracy?
There’s exactly the same sentiment expressed in one of the exhibits in the Berlin Stasi museum (predictably).
I think the term originated within CPGB (a Marxist-Leninist party in the UK) so Trots had nothing to do with this one.
By the way, Vijay Prashad explained it very well a few years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsqE9kEsDVY
Stalin had nothing to do with Hungary though, that was Khrushchev.
Eton Mouse
“Everyone should do as they please” is such entitled bullshit.
People were provided homes, jobs, education, healthcare, maternal leave, holidays for children in pioneer camps, and so on and forth, in a poor country that didn’t benefit from imperialism and didn’t exploit other nations.
To achieve that, able-bodied people were expected to contribute and parasitism was not tolerated.
(Edit) You probably grew up in a capitalist society so maybe you just have trouble imagining a different one.
Under capitalism, the most vulnerable people end up homeless and unemployed, but in the USSR nobody was left behind, vulnerable people were provided homes and given jobs they were able to perform. People with mental health issues were treated, as a matter of fact Western propaganda painted the high number of hospitalised people as an example of how repressive USSR is, instead of recognising that in the West many of those people would be homeless, freezing to death in winter and suffering all kinds of abuse.
Hospitalisation was not the first thing to do either - USSR had a huge “sanatorium” industry, with entire towns built in beautiful locations like seaside, mountain ranges, etc. Workers who were suffering from stress, anxiety etc would be sent there by their doctors to rest and rehabilitate from entire USSR in hundreds of thousands - someting only the rich could afford in the West at the time. Of course now those huge sanatorium complexes are mostly empty ruins, one of the most striking examples is Tskhaltubo in Georgia (https://wander-lush.org/visit-tskaltubo-travel-guide-tips/)
If people were unhappy with their housing situation they could apply to change it and enter a queue for a new accomodation, similarly those unhappy with their jobs had all kinds of free evening education courses available, re-training schemes, and so forth.
Laws against vagrancy and parasitism didn’t victimise the vulnerable, rather they existed to control the criminality. If you didn’t work legally, where were you getting money from? If you didn’t live under your registered address, how did you get an unregistered accomodation?
I’m just answering a poster saying anarchism is a lot like democratic centralism. Some parts are similar (delegation and recall), others are not at all (vanguard party, dotp)