- 2 Posts
- 25 Comments
Honest examination of material reality does on occasion change opinion
honest examination == low effort sarcasm? Deeply unserious…
No it’s not really confused. I think you’re just repeating yourself.
Marxist socialism does not at all behave as capitalism does
It behaves very much like Capitalism. Wage slavery for the working class. Luxury for the bourgeoisie (I.e. Chinese Billionnaires) and the state which enables them. When the Bourgeoisie doesn’t nominally exist, it’s because the state administrators simply act as the bourgeoisie by extracting the wealth and acting like parasites, like every manager in any capitalist company ever who claims they deserve their hundreds of multiples of the wealth of the working class because they are managing.
At its best a “State Socialism” acts like any other Capitalist Social Democracy. At its worst, it’s practically indistinguishable from nominally “benevolent” feudalism (i.e. red fascism)
Before we continue; do you know anything about Greece, or even which dictator I’m talking about?
Capitalism unchecked would indeed devolve into neo-feudalism if working class reaction didn’t prevent that.
I’m not confusing anything
For anarchists, the idea that socialism can be achieved via state ownership is simply ridiculous. For reasons which will become abundantly clear, anarchists argue that any such “socialist” system would simply be a form of “state capitalism.” Such a regime would not fundamentally change the position of the working class, whose members would simply be wage slaves to the state bureaucracy rather than to the capitalist class. Marxism would, as Kropotkin predicted, be “the worship of the State, of authority and of State Socialism, which is in reality nothing but State capitalism.”
- [quoted by Ruth Kinna, “Kropotkin’s theory of Mutual Aid in Historical Context”, pp. 259-283, International Review of Social History, No. 40, p. 262]
Just a tiny, insignificant problematic aspect like widespread support for fascism
“widespread”
Moreover, present day Russia is a creation by the West itself. It was your governments that wanted the USSR to collapse, your goverments that elevated individuals like Putin post-collapse. Now you get a brutal, capitalist, Anti-LGBT hellpit, that the people of the West somehow pretend just materialized out of nothing, and wasn’t a result of their own negligence, their own unwillingness to prevent mass suffering in Eastern Europe and Asia after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Sounds to me USSR revolution wasn’t that “successful” afer all
Pithy sarcasm in the face of nuance doesn’t change opinions
No state capitalism is a very accurate description when the state plays the role of the bourgeoisie and wage work is the primary mode of production
Bandera was also a national liberation actor. One person who understands nuance could usually understand that national liberation actors tend to be lionized and their misdeeds trivialized. It happens constantly. Campists don’t have a problem with mass murderers like Bandera, or Assad, or, Putin, they only have a problem when they’re not in their camp.
And for a national liberation actor, Bandera is receiving comparatively little praise, especially from the current government.
This line of reasoning is therefore purposefully simplistic to paint a narrative, while of course ignoring the rampart fascism in the Russian aggressor who would of course impose a much worse form of fascism over Ukraine
This chain of argument perfectly proves my point
Sure That’s totally the same thing /s
Yes the amazing proof of rampart fascism that is, <check notes>, street names…
We have streets and buildinga named after a known fascist dictator in Greece who privately complained that Hitler didn’t ask him to join the axis. This proves nothing except that time and war fog glorifies figures that don’t always deserve it. This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. Purposefully disregard all nuance to paint a narrative.
Tankies finding one problematic aspect in any movement they oppose and blowing it all out of proportion to justify repression. Also see Kronstadt rebellion, Hungarian revolution etc.
However any problematic aspect in camps they support is just an “unfortunate mistake” nevertheless worth “critical support” to oppose Western imperialism.
Sure, Successful in converting agrarian societies into state capitalism which eventually devolves into other forms of capitalism due to its own internal contradictions.
EDIT: Nevermind, I don’t care enough to insult you for your thought terminating cliches
Then they should try to not be theocratic shitheads. I hear it helps against revolutions
Desperate people for freedom tend to not have a choice on whose help they accept, I can’t begrudge them that.
Every popular movement will have agents of other nations hostile to the current regime acting in it. This isn’t a reason to oppose revolutionary movements, especially ones fighting against theocracies killing their own citizens. What we should be doing is opposing foreign intervention, but ultimately it doesn’t matter what we say online
Yea there was definitely no reason for Iranians to ever revolt against a fucking theocracy.
I never said I support the US intervening
'Tis what MLs perpetually do for every Anarchist revolution.
I’m not erasing anything. I consider the USSR revolution a great success for capitalism, as it turned an agrarian society into an industrialized capitalist nation. It’s the only thing all such ML revolutions every achieved and the only thing they can achieve. It’s an abject failure at achieving communism though.