This reflects a deep misunderstanding of anarcho-communism which I once shared. As someone who uses a broader definition of ‘state’ which comes into conflict with most anarchists’ narrower definition of ‘state’, I find it more helpful to think of anarcho-communism as an extremely decentralized, directly democratic state without bureaucratic specialists or private property. When someone fucks around, the community gets together to vote on what kind of ‘find out’ follows, and then, as a community, agrees to enforce it.
There are complete and functioning examples of anarcho-communism in the 20th century, but every individual piece of the puzzle also has historical precedent. Collective enforcement is very common in secure-but-isolated and rural areas before the modern-era; collective decision-making has precedent essentially wherever and whenever a community lacks long-standing decision-making institutions or a ‘strong-man’, etc etc.
What if a secure-but-isolated rural area has a group who enforces christo-fascist ideological beliefs such as banning maternal medication and care, but the small (comparative to share of total population) vocal group has better guns due to their larger organizational structure spanning churches in several psuedo-states? You think the community is going to line up to be slaughtered by the new might-makes-right societal structure?
I’m not misunderstanding shit, mate. You’re misunderstanding how powerless a supposed anarcho-anything is against human hostility.
BTW thanks for engaging with me on this subject, it feels nice to have a decent conversation where I’m not constantly suspicious the other person is some kind of bot, as with most shillery I argue against these days.
What if a secure-but-isolated rural area has a group who enforces christo-fascist ideological beliefs such as banning maternal medication and care, but the small (comparative to share of total population) vocal group has better guns due to their larger organizational structure spanning churches in several psuedo-states?
BTW thanks for engaging with me on this subject, it feels nice to have a decent conversation where I’m not constantly suspicious the other person is some kind of bot, as with most shillery I argue against these days.
Yeah, I know that feeling. As aggressive as I can get, I generally respect people who hold honest conversations.
I suppose if violently offing 1% of the lower class population and (with some outside help) plunging the western world into a decade of war is the cost of true freedom, it’s worth trying at least a few more times. /s
Didn’t realize the three years of the Spanish Civil War were responsible for ten years of war for the rest of the West.
And unironically, yes. Every revolution is preceded by a hundred failed revolutions against unjust power structures. I’m not an ancom, but I’m also not under the impression that the immensely fucked current state of society is as good as it can get. I’ll break out an old Twain quote that I do so adore:
There were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror — that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.
It’s a little disingenuous to believe every failed revolution contributes to the one successful good outcome. More often than not, overthrowing the previous powers just leads into militaristic groups taking control and becoming a dictatorship.
The Spanish Civil War oversimplified basically boils down to this: one side, the nationalists, that supported the military regime and the Nazis and provided supplies and mainly logistics for them, and one side who decided it was better to throw their bodies into the machine until it stopped turning. The side with the Nazis won the war. Since the Nazis were at war on multiple fronts, there few allies were key in prolonging the conflict and defending Germany.
It’s a little disingenuous to believe every failed revolution contributes to the one successful good outcome.
Contributes? No. But you don’t know which attempt will succeed until the whole conflict is over. That’s not an excuse to say “Well, this will be bloody, so maybe instead we just stay under feudal authority.” You can’t do that; you have to press forward.
The Spanish Civil War oversimplified basically boils down to this: one side, the nationalists, that supported the military regime and the Nazis and provided supplies and mainly logistics for them, and one side who decided it was better to throw their bodies into the machine until it stopped turning. The side with the Nazis won the war. Since the Nazis were at war on multiple fronts, there few allies were key in prolonging the conflict and defending Germany.
… I don’t know that I follow this? Nazi Germany wasn’t at war, for all intents and purposes, until '39, by which point the Spanish Civil War was wrapping up. The Republican side didn’t try to ‘throw bodies into the machine until it stopped turning’, the war was highly contested and anyone’s game for the first two years.
The Nationalists were still allied with Nazi Germany before the Nazis were at war as well as after the Spanish Civil War ended, because, once again, the bad guys who previously overthrew a democracy had won the war.
This reflects a deep misunderstanding of anarcho-communism which I once shared. As someone who uses a broader definition of ‘state’ which comes into conflict with most anarchists’ narrower definition of ‘state’, I find it more helpful to think of anarcho-communism as an extremely decentralized, directly democratic state without bureaucratic specialists or private property. When someone fucks around, the community gets together to vote on what kind of ‘find out’ follows, and then, as a community, agrees to enforce it.
There are complete and functioning examples of anarcho-communism in the 20th century, but every individual piece of the puzzle also has historical precedent. Collective enforcement is very common in secure-but-isolated and rural areas before the modern-era; collective decision-making has precedent essentially wherever and whenever a community lacks long-standing decision-making institutions or a ‘strong-man’, etc etc.
What if a secure-but-isolated rural area has a group who enforces christo-fascist ideological beliefs such as banning maternal medication and care, but the small (comparative to share of total population) vocal group has better guns due to their larger organizational structure spanning churches in several psuedo-states? You think the community is going to line up to be slaughtered by the new might-makes-right societal structure?
I’m not misunderstanding shit, mate. You’re misunderstanding how powerless a supposed anarcho-anything is against human hostility.
BTW thanks for engaging with me on this subject, it feels nice to have a decent conversation where I’m not constantly suspicious the other person is some kind of bot, as with most shillery I argue against these days.
Then you have the Spanish Civil War.
btw I do unironically think you’re a cool person.
Hah, well, thank you!
Yeah, I know that feeling. As aggressive as I can get, I generally respect people who hold honest conversations.
I suppose if violently offing 1% of the lower class population and (with some outside help) plunging the western world into a decade of war is the cost of true freedom, it’s worth trying at least a few more times. /s
Didn’t realize the three years of the Spanish Civil War were responsible for ten years of war for the rest of the West.
And unironically, yes. Every revolution is preceded by a hundred failed revolutions against unjust power structures. I’m not an ancom, but I’m also not under the impression that the immensely fucked current state of society is as good as it can get. I’ll break out an old Twain quote that I do so adore:
It’s a little disingenuous to believe every failed revolution contributes to the one successful good outcome. More often than not, overthrowing the previous powers just leads into militaristic groups taking control and becoming a dictatorship.
The Spanish Civil War oversimplified basically boils down to this: one side, the nationalists, that supported the military regime and the Nazis and provided supplies and mainly logistics for them, and one side who decided it was better to throw their bodies into the machine until it stopped turning. The side with the Nazis won the war. Since the Nazis were at war on multiple fronts, there few allies were key in prolonging the conflict and defending Germany.
Contributes? No. But you don’t know which attempt will succeed until the whole conflict is over. That’s not an excuse to say “Well, this will be bloody, so maybe instead we just stay under feudal authority.” You can’t do that; you have to press forward.
… I don’t know that I follow this? Nazi Germany wasn’t at war, for all intents and purposes, until '39, by which point the Spanish Civil War was wrapping up. The Republican side didn’t try to ‘throw bodies into the machine until it stopped turning’, the war was highly contested and anyone’s game for the first two years.
The Nationalists were still allied with Nazi Germany before the Nazis were at war as well as after the Spanish Civil War ended, because, once again, the bad guys who previously overthrew a democracy had won the war.
Removed by mod