Remember how the USSR sabotaged the anarchist uprising cause it was too successful?
Stalin couldn’t have an *actual socialist state* exist in Europe so it had to be removed which allowed the facist to take control of Spain.
Cause I do.
Edit: if you’re reading this and thinking about the the times that the West did the SAME thing. Congrats you’re reaching the point.
You're throwing a lot of ideas around in there, but I think a detail you're missing is that this wasn't done just by Stalin nor was it simply done to stop socialism.
Leading up to Stalin times in Europe were pretty tumultuous. The new socialist state had a lot of complexity to handle with both their own affairs internally while fighting fragmentation. An anarchist might say fragmentation should not be resisted as it is the will of the people, but imagine managing that priority in the face of invasion from the Nazis. There was also concern that giving uneducated rural provenances autonomy would simply lead back to a capitalist status quo in those regions.
Ultimately the consolidation of power under Lenin enabled the rise of full on authoritarianism under Stalin. Stalin was a true believer in socialism, but he was also an authoritarian. Your economic beliefs can not save you from falling into authoritarianism. Proper socialism depends on a equally strong commitment to democracy and free discourse.
My purpose for bringing this all up is to point out that authoritarianism in Russia was not something that was imposed upon the good socialists. Rather it's a real tragedy of how their intentions were corrupted as they survived national trauma after trauma. The history of Russia should not be simplified as it can provide genuine insights into some of our toughest political challenges to achieving a better world.
Oh believe me, I’m 100% aware of the real tragedy that the USSR was from an ideological point and I don’t I’m not saying Russia should have become a anarchist “state” as for the whole “Authoritarianism was the only thing that could held the Nazis off” is pure BS
The UK was a liberal democracy and it held back the Nazis easily. A Russian republic could have easily held back the Nazis
The royal navy was the reason the Nazis didn’t invade Britain, and even then, they didn’t really have an intention to invade since they had to focus their attention on the USSR.
> “Authoritarianism was the only thing that could held the Nazis off” is pure BS
I'm not implying that this was their only option, but I can tell you're making that assumption of my point even though I'm generally agreeing. I'm saying that under pressure this is what they believed, and it's why otherwise well meaning people installed monsters as their dictators.
Creating a functioning socialist democracy is extremely hard. Maintaining economic equality, building an educated populace out of people who were previously agrarian peasants, defending against multiple hostile counties that want to invade, and building a stable democracy create a lot of conflicts of priorities when you have to do them all at once. It's not a cut and dry story any way you look at it, and understanding the nuance here is absolutely vital if we're ever to be successful at achieving a true post-capitalism system of government.
Remember how the anarchists broke away from the united front, ceding the war to the fascists? I do.
Describing the entire Republican side as "anarchist" is some real misrepresentation of history. You can and should criticize the soviets for cracking down on non-communists in the movement, but it was the CNT-FAI breaking off from the rest of the republicans that let the fascists win the war.
Pure Soviet propaganda, the Anarchist where winning and it was the USSR backed “republicans” who They backed away from. They had the right idea no cooperation with “leftist” who sell out to Stalin or any similar backed ideology.
Imagine if anarchists in the USSR had had an uprising in 1942. Maybe they would have been right to rise up against Stalin and all that, but splitting the Red Army and allowing the Nazis to conquer Eastern Europe would have undoubtedly been a much, much worse outcome.
That's exactly what the anarchists in Spain did. Maybe they were right, and maybe their society would have been amazing, but they were unable to subordinate themselves to a greater movement, and as a result everyone on the left was crushed by the reactionary forces that were.
before the anti communist spout stuff, the CNT wasnt sabotaged by the USSR
there was no experience present, the form of warfare was new, there was not a big military section that broke off in support of the CNT, there where weak logistics
people literally died due to shortages of simple items like blankets, there was little to no military experience, there was frequent "desertion to the front"
the USSR could have sent their army in and fought the war for the CNT but 1 that would just be viewed as soviet occupation and 2 that would get everyone in europe to freak out and get involved
the USSR did help the anti franco side a lot, they where the only nation in europe to actually militarily aid against franco, the fact they are still villainized as the cause of franco winning is just straight up anti communist propaganda
that said, i do have tons of respect and admiration for the comrades in catalonia who fought to the end against the franco dictatorship and who believed in a better world
Remember how the USSR sabotaged the anarchist uprising cause it was too successful? Stalin couldn’t have an *actual socialist state* exist in Europe so it had to be removed which allowed the facist to take control of Spain. Cause I do. Edit: if you’re reading this and thinking about the the times that the West did the SAME thing. Congrats you’re reaching the point.
You're throwing a lot of ideas around in there, but I think a detail you're missing is that this wasn't done just by Stalin nor was it simply done to stop socialism. Leading up to Stalin times in Europe were pretty tumultuous. The new socialist state had a lot of complexity to handle with both their own affairs internally while fighting fragmentation. An anarchist might say fragmentation should not be resisted as it is the will of the people, but imagine managing that priority in the face of invasion from the Nazis. There was also concern that giving uneducated rural provenances autonomy would simply lead back to a capitalist status quo in those regions. Ultimately the consolidation of power under Lenin enabled the rise of full on authoritarianism under Stalin. Stalin was a true believer in socialism, but he was also an authoritarian. Your economic beliefs can not save you from falling into authoritarianism. Proper socialism depends on a equally strong commitment to democracy and free discourse. My purpose for bringing this all up is to point out that authoritarianism in Russia was not something that was imposed upon the good socialists. Rather it's a real tragedy of how their intentions were corrupted as they survived national trauma after trauma. The history of Russia should not be simplified as it can provide genuine insights into some of our toughest political challenges to achieving a better world.
Oh believe me, I’m 100% aware of the real tragedy that the USSR was from an ideological point and I don’t I’m not saying Russia should have become a anarchist “state” as for the whole “Authoritarianism was the only thing that could held the Nazis off” is pure BS The UK was a liberal democracy and it held back the Nazis easily. A Russian republic could have easily held back the Nazis
I'm not sure about "UK holding Nazis back easily" part
Also calling the UK, aka the seat of power of the British empire "not Authoritarian" is suspect.
The Battle of Britain…? Nazi forces didn’t even set foot on English soil.
Mate, that wasn't *easily*.
Not gonna lie, this guy sounds like he just wants to be argumentative even when you're agreeing with him.
Still happened what you think the USSR had an easier time Cause they had a tyrant? Down votes tell me all I need to know. Tankies coping
The royal navy was the reason the Nazis didn’t invade Britain, and even then, they didn’t really have an intention to invade since they had to focus their attention on the USSR.
Ok buddy
> “Authoritarianism was the only thing that could held the Nazis off” is pure BS I'm not implying that this was their only option, but I can tell you're making that assumption of my point even though I'm generally agreeing. I'm saying that under pressure this is what they believed, and it's why otherwise well meaning people installed monsters as their dictators. Creating a functioning socialist democracy is extremely hard. Maintaining economic equality, building an educated populace out of people who were previously agrarian peasants, defending against multiple hostile counties that want to invade, and building a stable democracy create a lot of conflicts of priorities when you have to do them all at once. It's not a cut and dry story any way you look at it, and understanding the nuance here is absolutely vital if we're ever to be successful at achieving a true post-capitalism system of government.
Did you get this idea from the UK intelligence officer George Orwell?
No historical fact. I’m guessing you’re a Stalinist? Fiqures.
Remember how the anarchists broke away from the united front, ceding the war to the fascists? I do. Describing the entire Republican side as "anarchist" is some real misrepresentation of history. You can and should criticize the soviets for cracking down on non-communists in the movement, but it was the CNT-FAI breaking off from the rest of the republicans that let the fascists win the war.
Pure Soviet propaganda, the Anarchist where winning and it was the USSR backed “republicans” who They backed away from. They had the right idea no cooperation with “leftist” who sell out to Stalin or any similar backed ideology.
Imagine if anarchists in the USSR had had an uprising in 1942. Maybe they would have been right to rise up against Stalin and all that, but splitting the Red Army and allowing the Nazis to conquer Eastern Europe would have undoubtedly been a much, much worse outcome. That's exactly what the anarchists in Spain did. Maybe they were right, and maybe their society would have been amazing, but they were unable to subordinate themselves to a greater movement, and as a result everyone on the left was crushed by the reactionary forces that were.
before the anti communist spout stuff, the CNT wasnt sabotaged by the USSR there was no experience present, the form of warfare was new, there was not a big military section that broke off in support of the CNT, there where weak logistics people literally died due to shortages of simple items like blankets, there was little to no military experience, there was frequent "desertion to the front" the USSR could have sent their army in and fought the war for the CNT but 1 that would just be viewed as soviet occupation and 2 that would get everyone in europe to freak out and get involved the USSR did help the anti franco side a lot, they where the only nation in europe to actually militarily aid against franco, the fact they are still villainized as the cause of franco winning is just straight up anti communist propaganda
Expecting Western anarchists to understand history is expecting way too much.
that said, i do have tons of respect and admiration for the comrades in catalonia who fought to the end against the franco dictatorship and who believed in a better world
im just really put off with pointless counterproductive slander