• SexUnderSocialism [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    11 months ago

    It really brings my piss to a boil when my identity as a trans and queer person is used in this manner. Almost implying that I can’t be queer because I’m ML. It reminds me of how shitlibs love doing the same sort of thing by basically telling queer that they should support them over the state department’s enemy of the month.

  • WithoutFurtherBelay@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    11 months ago

    We need to ban discussion of this shit, it’s just using bad takes by random internet anarchists as excuses to do digs at other anarchists. I’m not an anarchist at all but it makes me really angry

    • cleoburymortimer [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      peace deal, we’re allowed to make fun of the weirdo “abolish time” anarchists and they’re allowed to make fun of the weirdo “i pledge allegience to chairman gonzalo” communists, and we will build anticapitalist unity on this basis. as a show of good faith we won’t make any more jabs about Makhno and they won’t make any more about the Bolsheviks

      • WithoutFurtherBelay@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        That’s not a fair deal because most ML’s genuinely dislike Gonzalo, while this meme, although cringe, still states partially what anarchists fundamentally believe (they do not like the state, regardless of its class character)

    • HumanBehaviorByBjork [any, undecided]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      aS An aNaRcHiSt I think most of these kinds of “baby leftist” narkies can be educated, kicking and screaming, but something about “solarpunks” specifically makes me spit yellow bile. Like cool, you’re all in on industrial society, but also against planned economies, so you’re just a liberal who like anime. You do not have a politics, you have an aesthetics, and one informed by your settler fantasy of techno-agrarian self-reliance.

  • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    11 months ago

    the marginalized still tremble

    oh sorry can’t hear you over colonized people getting autonomy and cultural dignity never experienced under the imperial systems they emerged from

      • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        11 months ago

        they have it both ways in all cases. russians and jews supporting regional autonomy & “affirmative action” in the USSR? that’s a colonial patriarchal mindset toward the indigenous

        the indigenous people do it themselves but choose to associate with the former colonizers? that’s evidence that they are still under the thumb of the Russian Empire.

        it doesn’t actually matter to them, it’s just a fucking line. if indigenous rights meant anything to the west [gestures at everything] this wouldn’t fucking be here

    • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      11 months ago

      like actually where do these fucking people get off the reason i’m a communist is because i studied and examined the way the socialist states have treated women and cultural minorities, it’s fucking absurd

  • robinn_IV [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    “Why yes, I do reject a transitionary state due to its contradictions with my ‘anti-authoritarian’ principles, why do you ask?” clueless

  • ReadFanon [any, any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    11 months ago

    Imma tread delicately here but using the CNT/FAI as an example of a classless, moneyless, stateless, anti-authoritarian society doesn’t fit with a historically-grounded view of Revolutionary Catalonia and the larger Spanish Republic. At all.

    You might take issue with this and say that it’s unfair to expect a revolutionary movement under the conditions of open civil war against the forces of fascism to achieve their vision of statelessness and an anti-authoritarian society and I’d agree but… that’s why I see seizing the state as an absolute necessity and not as optional.

    I don’t believe that any revolution is above criticism and I also hold the position that there are going to be excesses. I don’t want to see them, I don’t like to see them, but they are going to happen and if we don’t have a ruthless criticism of all that exists then we will inevitably end up liable to repeat these excesses the next time around but we are also inclined to atrocity denialism etc. etc.

    I’m going to avoid discussing the broader implications for the Spanish Republic and my ideological position on this stuff because I don’t want to instigate any slapfights.

    In the Spanish Republic, it’s an undeniable fact that the Catholic church was targeted and subjected to a campaign of persecution. At certain points clergy were burnt alive inside their churches. Clergy were also simply executed. Skirting around the editorial commentary, this constitutes genocide in the formal definition.

    A sorely overlooked facet of the history of the Republic is when a Moroccan delegation from the Spanish colonial holdings in Morocco sued the Republican government for independence, on favourable terms for the Republic. This was rejected. Even if the terms for independence were accepted with the exact terms given the Moroccan delegation, there would still have existed a very clear colonial hierarchy.

    I will largely skip over military and government structures because that’s all pretty obvious and most of it can be inferred.

    The Republic operated forced labour camps.

    The government took measures to nationalise infrastructure and struggled to do so especially with their electricity grid. To be clear, I think that a modern state especially under conditions of war must have national control over critical infrastructure like electricity. But doing so is an inherently authoritarian measure.

    Likewise there were efforts at forced collectivisation of farms.

    The CNT/FAI operated “Control Patrols”'; a sort of de facto police force which had a repressive character and was infamous for arbitrary arrests and summary executions by firing squad, as well as for refusing to be accountable to the government structures of the Republic.

    In CNT controlled Puigcerdá, there was significant corruption and its mayor enforced collectivisation but continued to farm his own livestock privately. Puigcerdá was a hotbed of espionage and falsified passports due to its location and issues within its government.

    The CNT-UGT collectivised telephone infrastructure and controlled the Catalonian telephone exchange. When military command sought to coordinate with the government via telephone, one particular call was interrupted by an exchange worker saying that there is no government but only a Defence Committee. When the President of the Government of Catalonia was speaking to the President of the Spanish Republic via phonecall, the call was interrupted midway by a phone operator who said that the phone lines should be used for more important purposes than talk between presidents. It was a widely-held view that this telephone exchange closely surveilled calls made through it and it’s pretty obvious why that is.

    On the ground level, the government took a very dim view of what they considered to be vice and took steps to discourage and curb it.

    In factories, the Spanish Republic struggled desperately to balance the needs of war production against the demands of workers and their ideological positions. Ultimately this led to establishing far better terms for labour which often saw a precipitous drop in productivity and in response a course-correction of stripping workers’ rights and a program of enforcing labour discipline as an attempt to meet production requirements. The most obvious example of enforcement of labour discipline was the establishment of the role of Distributor of Tasks. This was a government official who answered only to the highest levels of government and who had vast discretionary powers over workers. Workers who were not sufficiently productive, who were deemed absent without just cause, who were late to work too often, and who showed a defeatist attitude or a lack of revolutionary zeal could be sanctioned by the Distributor of Tasks and even imprisoned.

    All workers were required to maintain a sort of journal of their employment history where their employers would record critical information about the worker’s work and their general character. This record was necessary for finding work. It can be inferred that being fired by a Distributor of Tasks or being sanctioned would make finding future employment extremely difficult.

    In CNT/FAI administered regions, workers were paid in labour vouchers redeemable in their local village. To travel outside of your village required exchanging your labour vouchers for currency, which could only occur with the express permission of the council. You were required to provide an explanation for what you were going to spend your money on. This effectively meant that free movement of people was strictly controlled and monitored.

    Ultimately it was the anti-communist coup would spell the end of the Spanish Republic.

    To sum up with the purpose of this comment, there’s a major problem in taking a team-sports mentality and projecting it onto history because you end up in what amounts to campism.

    It irks me that the kind of person who posts this kind of image is the same kind of person who will level unprincipled criticisms of communists as being campists and of having a political orientation that amounts to being on the side that is anti-USA, that communists support the same repressive structures as long as it comes with different aesthetics, that they worship the state uncritically, and that they are apologists for atrocities, and that their only defence when faced with the excesses of the movements they uphold in history is whataboutism. (I believe that these people do exist btw, it’s just not as common as it’s made out to be.) The reason why this irks me is that all of these criticisms apply equally to unprincipled anarchists who engage in this sort of sectarian bickering.

    I could create similar lists of criticisms of the actions of governments like the USSR, Cuba, and the communist faction of the Spanish Republic, for example, and I would be able to make these criticisms principled through a political analysis which I’ve largely avoided above because I wanted to illustrate a point about how some people engage with history through a primarily ideological lens and what implications that has for the consistency of how they apply their politics.

    I wonder if the people who post these kinds of memes would be able to provide any principled criticism of the CNT/FAI, the YPG, or the EZLN?

    • theposterformerlyknownasgood@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      In the Spanish Republic, it’s an undeniable fact that the Catholic church was targeted and subjected to a campaign of persecution. At certain points clergy were burnt alive inside their churches. Clergy were also simply executed. Skirting around the editorial commentary, this constitutes genocide in the formal definition

      Absolute baby brained nonsense. Not reading any more after that absolute embarrassment of a statement. Nope. Fuck off.

      Guys nooo, you can’t target the fascists for violent reprisal, you have to let them murder you nooooo

      • ReadFanon [any, any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        So you’re going to tell me that every member of the Catholic church in the Spanish Civil War was a fascist who was killing the people fighting on the side of the Spanish Republic?

        I can give you examples of when Catholic clergy attacked people on the Republican side. Can you?

        If you’re going to accuse me of having a baby-brained take then give me your biggest brain take on why the Catalan Generalitat put in extensive effort to protect Catholic clergy.

        Was the Generalitat defending fascism?

        Have you got a better source on this than Lawrence Fernsworth which I haven’t come across, one that disproves that the Generalitat protected the clergy?

        How do you feel about the protection extended to the Franscan monks by basically all of the Republic? Why would everyone go defend fascists like that?

        But try not to use too many sources because I’ve only got a little, tiny baby-brain so let’s agree to keep it to just 3-4 or otherwise I won’t be able to keep up with you and your big brain and all that history reading you must have been able to do with it.

        Or you can take your own advice and just fuck right off.

        • theposterformerlyknownasgood@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          I’m going to tell you that it isn’t genocide to target an institution that is openly siding with a fascist regime trying to murder you, actually. The fact that people have a strong attachment towards a major cultural institution doesn’t change that one iota. You are the one sitting on a massive burden of proof here that you absolutely do not engage with, instead doing the most obvious motte and bailey bullshit ever seen on the internet.

          • ReadFanon [any, any]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            11 months ago

            Yeah, tell me more about motte and bailey bullshit.

            I have explained that it meets the definition of genocide.

            Now you’re saying that you don’t think it’s genocide but you’ve retreated from the point about it meeting the formal definition of genocide to a point that it doesn’t meet your personal definition of genocide.

            There’s a term for that.

            You’ve retreated from the point that killing clergy isn’t genocide to the point that targeting an institution isn’t genocide.

            There’s a term for that too.

            The fact that people have a strong attachment towards a major cultural institution doesn’t change that one iota.

            Okay. Who is arguing that? How does this point change the fact that these actions meet the definition of genocide?

            You are the one sitting on a massive burden of proof here

            Is this your way of asking for a source?

            You’re doing your best imitation of a Redditor wringing your hands and using debatebro terms and being as edgy as possible, you ignore anything that I have said which is inconvenient to your argument, and you throw a whole bunch of stuff at me that you expect me to answer while you dodge any questions that I ask you.

            If you can’t find it in you to have an actual discussion then, as I said before, take your own advice and fuck right off.

            • theposterformerlyknownasgood@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              There is no discussion to be had, you’re wrong. You’re not the target of dishonest argumentation, you’re just arguing something stupid, badly. I have not retreated from anything, I have called you an idiot and wrong, and I stand by that because you are.

  • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    What even is an “anti authoritarian society”?

    I always thought the point of anarchism was to have a stateless society with the removal of unjust hierarchies, not a society with zero authority… Revolution is an exercise of authority in itself, in that the proletariat forces their class interests over that of the bourgeoisie. An anarchist revolution would also do this. As seen by the syndicalists in 1930s Spain.