Gotta counter the Lemmygrad propaganda going on here lately.
the Korean one is really funny. assassinating an anarchist leader to make their movement fall apart would be considered too on the nose in a work of fiction. i know the russian and spanish civil war ones are conveniently leaving out a lot of details that make the soviet actions a lot more reasonable.
Worth noting that the DPRK upholds Kim Chwa-Chin, as does the ROK, as a vital independence figure.
yeah, i hadn’t ever heard of that one either. a brief look at wikipedia puts it in 1929-31, so before china was actually communist and immediately preceding the imperial occupation of china by japan, who was also at least partially responsible for it’s short existence. that’s a period i need to study up on as well, but it’ll be a while before i can prioritize reading a book about it.
The KPAM existed in the context of Japanese colonization, many Koreans were members of the CPC and fighting alongside them against the Japanese. Japanese colonization of Korea was from 1910 to 1945, which puts the KPAM in the middle of that, and right before full colonization of Manchuria by Japan. Really messy period.
Yeah, wasn’t Makhno a huge piece of shit?
can’t really comment on his personality, but he was far from a consistent ally of the bolsheviks. given the precarity of the soviet state in the early days, their decision to deal harshly with rebellions from former allies is very understandable.
Makhno was actually relatively good. There were plenty of much shittier anarchist and anarchist-adjacent leaders, whom no one likes to remember.
IIRC wasn’t one of the big problems with Makhno the inconsistent control over the territory and discipline among armed forces leading to various element committing pogroms on their own initiative?
This was absolutely everyone’s problem during the Civil War. Makhno, at least, made a serious effort to combat it, like Bolsheviks.
This was absolutely everyone’s problem during the Civil War.
Europe moment.Edit: except the Whites, who I don’t think viewed it as a problem.
Some White generals also viewed it as a problem, not because they cared about Jews, but because their troops were pillaging instead of following orders, and all the loot made them not very mobile. They didn’t do anything about it in the end.
I was thinking the same, but I guess being a shit anarchist (or an impression of one) doesn’t stop you from being a great man proponent
All Western Leftists: Achieve literally nothing
Western Anarchist: The real problem right now is that Communists will kill us
I refuse to believe any infighting like this, before even 1% of socialism has been achieved, isn’t fedposting. We can discuss whatever, but why have a real fight about the kind of socialism before we escape the concentration camp? There’s just no good reason.
What do you mean by “Literally nothing”?
If the standard of success is the maintenance of a state then anarchism will by definition never succeed. But if the standard of success is making the world better then you will need to change your perspective to be able to see the work of anarchists.
Our motto is security culture. If there were big glaring examples to point to then we wouldn’t exactly be good anarchists. ;p
I’m not talking of ‘state maintenance’ or QoL or whatever. I mean in terms of progressing western society out of its current fascist state, which I very much believe to be a fundamental part of achieving basically any definition of socialism and/or anarchism (beyond tiny communes). It seems like Fascism/Capitalism has as strong a hold as it ever did, and any slow crumbling its doing is just from its inherent contradictions.
I can point to nothing at all that suggests any leftists are making steady progress to actual change.
Do we all not share the largest hurdle of achieving any meaningful societal progress - booting our current fascistic societal structure to the curb?
Before I say anything else, I’m not going to refer to meatspace praxis as we are not in meatspace and if I say “go talk to people irl” then I’m merely perpetuating reactionary ableism.
A contradiction Marx overlooked is that so long as there is an underclass (Lumpenproletariat) all the ruling class needs to do to halt revolutionary action is to redefine the underclass to displace revolutionary momentum.
Why am I bringing this up? Because anarchism is the belief that by rejecting the class system we can bring about a more stable revolution.
“… The blossom is brother to the weed.” A weed is simply a plant you didn’t intend to grow, which has found refuge in the niches you left bare – and evolution loves a niche. If we leave niches and pluck out whatever grows there then all we will grow is thorns.
I’d write more, but I’m at work rn. Hope that makes sense.
Edit: I just realized that I kind of misread your reply. Ignore this.
I love how they will refuse to read responses and make up some bullshit instead, then complain about that.
They tried to say Cuba isn’t socialist because it has a state, basically redefining socialism as either anarchism or communism. I know telling people to read theory doesn’t work, but when they also refuse to even read lemmy replies I’m unsure if anything can be done without serious retrospection on their part.
literally crawling all over db0
tankies
db0They tried to say Cuba isn’t socialist because it has a state, basically redefining socialism as either anarchism or communism.
extremely telling that trying to explain the nuances of how time and external aggression affect revolutionary movements is ‘trust me bro’, they are clearly happy living in a land of pure imagination
hey how’d you get a picture of me?
extremely telling that trying to explain the nuances of how time and external aggression affect revolutionary movements is ‘trust me bro’, they are clearly happy living in a land of pure imagination
Bingo, they just repeated that I “despise the working class” for supporting Cuba’s system.
I find it incredibly intriguing when you in your efforts run into the liberal brainworm of “well I define the concept like this”.
I see it happen most often when you explain what imperialism is to someone and they just can’t get that words have meanings and it’s not just a free-for-all of how we assign that meaning. Got really infuriating when you gave a bunch of academic sources for the concept of imperialism and the other user basically kept going back to “yeah, but that’s not how I think people use it”ughhh I just ran into someone who was insisting that advocating for a two state solution wasn’t zionism, because they could imagine a two state solution where israel wasn’t a violent settler state running an apartheid government. Me wanting to judge someone for advocating for a two state solution based on the actual-reality ‘two state’ solutions on offer was considered 'narrow and obtuse"
Some people just prefer to live in the mind palace.
Someone on here once wrote “sure, if everything was rainbows and gumdrops then that’s how it would work” and I’ve used that a lot since
Yep, then the argument becomes about why words and concepts have the definitions they do. It’s far more frustrating when you have to explain the utility of understanding what we call “imperialism” as a process driven by monopoly finance capital, how it works, etc, rather than just something broad like “influence.” It’s useful to understand concepts more deeply because you can do more with it in practice, like finding weak points and whatnot, but at that point the argument is entirely off of what it was originally about.
That’s what I like about materialism, if you’re not dogmatic it’s infinitely extendable
Yep!
It’s a classic debatebro tactic. Making things about semantics makes it basically entirely subjective and completely pointless.
I used to do this thing where I’d predict their behaviour before they did something and it’d usually shut them down. It’s only something that should be done with people arguing in obvious bad faith, but still.I’ve joked elsewhere about making a flowchart, but I do seriously think it’d be a useful tool to make users realise how much of their thoughts are just deeply ingrained propaganda
Agreed! It’s constant and doesn’t actually say anything. I don’t take issue with imperialism because of its name, but because of its real world causes and effects!
You have the patience of a saint, I could never do what you do. You also have a wealth of knowledge. o7 to you for all your hard work
That’s too much, I’m just a former libbed-up debatebro that’s trying to put an addiction to a better use. I appreciate the kind words though, comrade!
That korean one is also pretty bullshit. The anarchists were allies with the Chinese communists and they were pretty well protected as a result. The CPC got pushed out of the area by the kuomintang and then the anarchists were dispersed by the KMT after their leader was killed.
The death of their leader was caused by the CPC getting pushed out of the area that led to his death. They literally collapsed without communists as neighbours to defend the territory nearby.
Mao was very fond of the anarchists. A lot of his rural theory was obviously inspired by them.
Cool story but this is actually what happened to the most of the Anarchist horizontal/decentralized movements.
But it’s always nice to see anarchists regurgitate the same anti-communist propaganda that the right-wing does, because it further proves that they are indeed part of the ‘Compatible Left’ and possess no threat to the capitalists like the organized Marxists do.
“Compatible left” is an interesting choice of words. It comes from CIA documents if I remember correctly.
I have a question. Do you trust the CIA?
Internal documents? Yes.
And do you trust the CIA not to lie about that?
Because if I were a fed I would probably leak false internal memos filled with bad information.
There’s a difference between ‘leaked’ documents and ‘declassified’ documents. For example, CIA recruited non-communist leftist writers and intellectuals in Mexico .
Do you trust the CIA not to lie?
To people? No. That’s their entire business. To their own chain of command? Why Would they be writing fiction about their daily report on what they already were doing, you idiot!?
It’s like saying the Iran coup wasn’t their work, they just ‘leaked’ the fake documents 40 years later.
First of all, watch the ableism. There’s no reason to cast dispersions on innocent people just because you can’t articulate your grievances.
Second, don’t try to delegitimize my point by contrasting it with an unrelated incident such as the Iran coup.
Now, my question is still unanswered. Do you as a leftist with presumably some knowledge of the CIA and their actions trust the CIA not to falsify documents that they know are going to be released to the public? If your claim is that the chain of command keeps them honest then perhaps we should ask about that. Do you trust the US federal government not to falsify documents with the understanding that it will provide a niche to wedge their opposition apart from?
It’s amazing how this persecution complex always results in whitewashing fascists. Yeah, a
CPCKorean communist party member killed a leading figure among the Korean anarchists, but the anarchists were also under siege from Japan and it was Japan that wiped them out. If killing one member was the deciding factor in Japan wiping them out, then it sure seems like their organizational structure wasn’t remotely anarchist to begin with.I don’t really have know why the guy was killed or if it was justified and I certainly am not defending it, but between that and militarily overrunning the anarchists, I’m relatively confident about which was the greater contributing factor to their failure.
Not a CPC member, it was a Korean communist party member. The CPC were allies and it was their control of the neighbouring territory that kept the KMT from being a problem for the anarchists, and also kept the Korean communists from being belligerent. Mao liked them. The CPC however were pushed out of the region by the KMT and then everything that followed occurred.
It is truer to argue that this anarchist zone only existed successfully because it had the CPC as its friendly neighbour to keep it safe. As soon as it lost that neighbour it lost the ability to defend itself.
Thank you for the correction. I should have looked it up first.
As a Spaniard, anarchists here claim the same thing: Soviet agents murdered a proven total of 10 anarchists in Spain (at least some of them sponsored by Nazis, knowingly or not), which of course gets used to say that “the USSR made Republican and Anarchist Spain lose the civil war”, never mind them being the ONLY country to sell weapons to the antifascists.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised but I’m impressed that people blame the USSR not just for the anarchists failing but even for the Republicans failing despite the extremely (imo overly) conciliatory attitude the USSR took toward the Republicans, meanwhile the anarchists couldn’t help themselves but repeatedly try to sabotage Republican logistics with their little communications building, but no, it’s the “Stalinists” who committed a crime by helping the Republicans take the building in response. No matter what they do, they are wrong from every perspective.
The argument usually goes “the only way to win the civil war was to spread an anarchist revolution over to the fascist side, and the USSR prevented this because they’re evil/dumb”. It’s just non-falsifiable bullshit that can be regurgitated ad-infinitum despite a total of 0 examples of Anarchism defeating fascism on a country-wide level.
the only way to win the civil war was to spread an anarchist revolution over to the fascist side
excuse me what
Didn’t Spanish anarchists also launch a rebellion in 1870s and got owned, because they relied on local militias and didn’t create a unified army? Or am I mistaken?
There have been several “commoneer revolts” in Spain over the years, but I’m unaware of the particular one you’re talking about. If I had to guess, anything before 1900s was done without much ideological development on the way
I think they meant Cantonal Rebellion
Probably this, but I’m not entirely sure.
I think I might have been the proximate cause of this. I posted the “great war of justice” meme on dbzer0’s leftymemes comm and Deceptichum crashed out in the comments and got temp-banned.
they also made an entirely new community after getting a 1 day ban for acting like an asshole
For a self-identified anarchist they sure seem to love being a cop about where other people post
Why are they such a child?
They prefer social democrats to communists, are/were highly active in PJ and PTB comms, and cosplay like they’re an anarchist for the purposes of wrecking. They’re either a cop or someone doing their work for free.
Here is the subthread that prompted this, if people want to see for themselves the kind of attitude at play.
Copied text from the modlog of the three removed comments in the order they appear.
- Oh now I’m really confused, do you LeninWeave like North Korea or not? That’s a very new account you have, are you new to Lemmy?
- Nah I just want to know why a Lemmygrad fuckwit made an ML account to break containment.
- I don’t ignore shit takes, so I’ll pass on that offer. If you don’t like people commenting on them, feel free not to make them. And you caring about ableism? Haha that’s a good joke.
deleted by creator
Fascists literally killing people in the streets but yeah us tankies are clearly the larger threat and deserve their priority
why are people subscribing to ideologies invested in beef literally generations removed from their context
as i type that i realize i could just be ignorant - is there any actual grievance between anarchists and socialists that’s older than like, the 20th century revolutions?
like, let’s say you found enough class consciousness in the west in 2026 (lmfao but roll with it) such that ancoms and socialists began working together again, is there even any likelihood that “history repeats itself” in terms of that conflict resurfacing?
anarchy kinda is closer to how i’d like to see things be, it feels like you could make a pretty cool swiss cheese’d world where colonial nations are destroyed and replaced with a socialism and ancom model that has the benefit of over a century of hindsight to work out past failures and adapt to culture. Like, i’d love to see a socialist state permit areas where ancoms reign, seeing what can be made to work in that and adapt the state around it to creating processes to accellerate their propagation.
but that’s me being like “i like ancom more in my heart but getting there doesn’t feel possible at scale without some interstitial something with the centralization to fight Empire”.
like, socialists and ancoms should be getting along and not relitigating historical events that happened outside of their culture, time, and place. there’s probably like, fruitful lasting symbiosis that can be achieved?
but if i’m being foolish let me know and accept my apology please
it’s even more annoying when they do the whole “us” “we” “our” bullshit when talking about these projects, as if they contributed anything other than steal valor from movements they barely discovered 3 years ago on /r/politicalcompassmemes
I’ve seen anarchists do a lot of fucked up things to communists in “coalition spaces.”
I won’t work with anarchists anymore because of how often “anarchism” is just a cover for reactionaries who spend more time trying to keep out “tankies” than oppose capitalism
It’s because a lot of people like to larp but they don’t want to admit it, so they do this stuff instead. Also it makes them feel clever, like they’ve figured something out others haven’t - it’s like when libs come in and “you guys are leftists? But don’t you know communism is when no iPhone?”
A lot of the conflict dates back to Marx personally. He was pressed because Proudhon cited his college rival when he wrote “The Philosophy of Poverty.” so Marx wrote a book length review titled “The Poverty of Philosophy.” Then because Marx had issues with Proudhon he naturally also had issues with Bakunin, thus leading to their constant arguments. Then when Bakunin was running late for the International – he stopped to fight nationalists in Poland – Marx debated the only anarchists who made it – they didn’t do well. Afterwards Marx called to have Bakunin removed and also to move the International to New York. This led to Bakunin forming his own International.
Then once the old guard died you had Kropotikin who introduced Anarcho-Communism, and rumor has it that Lenin adored the guy. Gave him a house Named a city after him. Temporarily allowed anarchists to come out of hiding just for the guy’s funeral. Named a mountain range after him. But Lenin still had beef with the anarcho-individualist like Proudhon and Bakunin (Which would probably make them proud given they defined their own success based on how reactionary future leftists will think of them.). So a lot of young leftists read the State and Revolution without context and assume that there’s this huge feud between us. But truthfully, we’re all communists, we just disagree on whether or not cops should exist.
Worth noting that both Proudhon and Bakunin had… another problem with Marx on a both more and less personal level.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/1847/jews.htm
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/zoe-baker-bakunin-was-a-racist
Good thing I’m an anarchist then. Would be pretty embarrassing to have to make excuses for long dead reactionaries rather than learning from their mistakes and reading theory written in the past century.
Yes, of course. I didn’t mean to imply that that was an attack on you (or on anarchism), I just wanted to note what was likely a source of personal animosity between these individuals that also worsened the conflicts between them.
Ah, I see. I guess I’m used to mote animosity. I won’t excuse their blatant bigotry, and the lack of intersectionality has obviously set movements back. But it also doesn’t negate his work much in the same way that Marx “overlooking” (Despising) the permanent underclass doesn’t make his work obsolete. And that’s actually the only reason I bring up Bakunin anymore. There are countless authors who have rewritten and evolved anarchism to the point where the works of mutualists no longer make sense to cite. Which is exactly what Bakunin tried to emphasize in much of his work. Even the most radical of the past are nothing but reactionary by future standards.
a socialist state permit areas where ancoms reign
100%. The world is big enough, I don’t see what all the fighting’s about.
Oh the comments section hasn’t started yet? Good, I just got my popcorn.
It’s mostly bullshit or horribly framed.
In the Russian revolution, anarchists were a minority of the red army, though it’s true that they helped. What is unstated, however, is that there was no blanket “kill anarchists” order, instead some of the factions of anarchists, such as Makhno’s, turned on the bolsheviks and thus were combatted by the red army. Kronstadt was led by a Tsarist, Stepan Petrichenko, that spread lies about the bolshevik, and their demands were tantamount to stopping the revolution (such as requiring the bolsheviks dissolve and be unable to be voted in in the soviets).
Unsure about the Mexican revolution, communists appeared to play an extremely minor role, so not sure what Deceptichum is referring to. Zapata wasn’t an anarchist, and the modern Zapatistas reject the label, primarily being an indigenous movement with influence from anarchism and Marxism-Leninism.
Looks like a member of the CPK did kill Kim Chwa-Chin, yes. I actually don’t know much about this, but considering he’s remembered similarly to Makhno, I imagine it wasn’t a one-sided affair. Seems both the DPRK and ROK uphold Kim-Chwa-Chin as an independence figure which leads me to believe that this was genuine fault on the CPK’s part, but info is sparse. Anarchists and communists worked alongside each other, however, against Japan. I want to learn more about this, honestly.
As for Spain, the soviets didn’t sabotage their support, and were the only ones to genuinely support the anarchists. This is an example of where weak alliance is deemed “backstabbing” by anarchists, which is a clear spin. There’s a ton of legitimate friction between the soviets and anarchists here, but it’s all conveniently left out.
I’m also unsure of Greece. I don’t doubt that fighting has occured, but given the framing of the other events I’m not sure.
What’s missing from this list? The fact that anarchists and Marxist-Leninists have worked alongside each other in Russia, Spain, China, Mexico, and probably Greece as well. It’s simply false to think that infighting will never happen, or that it’s always Marxists’ fault, or that there aren’t legitimate ideological divides, but throughout the last century and a half there’s been tons of working together.
Edit: Changed CPC to CPK, not to be confused with the WPK.
I always upvote a Cowbee comment
His instance is new to the flotilla and I regret it joining. It seems all this dude does is instigate leftist division. One thing to also note is that we are not the people of the past. Anarchists and communists today probably should form some sort of alliance to combat all capitalists countries hatching from their fascists cocoons.
We very often do work together! It’s important to of course recognize the differences between anarchism and Marxism (both means and ends), but in the real world orgs work together all the time.
Hell, the soviets named one of their largest rail stations Kropotkinskaya, after Kropotkin.
They seem to relish being a wrecker. Which is weird since it’s only seemed to be happening recently or I just completely missed the earlier ones?
Im newish to anarchist nexus so I cant say for sure either. They also aren’t the only ones. I never heard anarkiddy until I came here. Not that I really care. The right just seems so massive right now that infighting is like cheering for your ingrown toe nail.
I never heard anarkiddy until I came here.
If anyone calls you that on here, I believe it violates rule 8. But I’ve not seen it frequently, to be honest. My experience of spaces outside of here is that the “tankie” and “red fascist” accusation is constant, including against anarchists who make the mistake of going against the crowd in any way - though while I don’t have a lot of experience with anarchist.nexus from what I’ve seen it’s way better than a lot of other places and seems like a pretty good, chill space.
Edit: I used the search and found 34 comments containing the word “anarkiddy” and approximately 200 using “anarkiddie” on this instance over the course of its entire existence, a huge number of which were ironic, jokes, or criticisms of the word. I think most instances where “tankies” are decried probably fill that quota within a few days. That’s not to say that “anarkiddy” is the only possible form of sectarianism against anarchists, of course, but I don’t think the word is used frequently enough to say it’s symptomatic of a particular problem on here.
10·23 days agoThe Korean one was a CPK member, not CPC, as far as I can tell
ⓘ This user is suspected of being a cat. Please report any suspicious behavior.
Interesting! Do you have a source for that? Not that I doubt it, I just want to read more if you found something.
Just wikipedia.
ⓘ This user is suspected of being a cat. Please report any suspicious behavior.
Ah, gotcha.
Kronstadt
Kronstadt drives me crazy because once you look into it you’re like oh it’s just the same place? That’s all.
Like most of the revolutionary sailors from 1917 had been swept up and displaced via the last 4 years of revolution and civil war? And that civil war was still going on?
Oh okay.
Yep, it was a manipulated and counter-revolutionary movement that put the entire revolution at risk.
Seems both the DPRK and ROK uphold Kim-Chwa-Chin as an independence figure
Does the DPRK uphold him? I thought they didn’t.
From the scarce information I can find in english, he’s included in museums of revolutionary figures in the DPRK. By no means upheld like Kim Il-Sung and the rest of the revolutionary fighters, and not upheld the same way he is in the ROK, but generally seen as a positive.
Perhaps “uphold” is the wrong word.
Could you point me to the museum thing?
This is just a reddit post, but it’s mentioned here. Trying to find something else.
He’d be in the Korean Revolution Museum, which includes the anti-Japanese resistance, and Kim Chwa-chin’s most significant battle is victory at Cheongsanri, which would be significant enough to include. Can’t find any exhibit lists though.
I ask just because I was told that Kim Chwajin was nearly ignored, so this’d be another in the endless stream of lies if you’re correct.
That’s fair! I really wish I had access to the Korean Revolution Museum’s exhibit list or some DPRK textbooks, but that’s difficult.
A Reddit link was detected in your comment. Here are links to the same location on alternative frontends that protect your privacy.
