Can Leninism be Libertarian?
Lolberts are far too autistic to consider such a thing
Revolutions can't be libertarian.
The source cited is legit.
Just because you have to be authoritarian doesn't mean you have to make an oligarchy and not give the workers the means of production.
Maybe if your Muke.
Is that the best you can do? Admit that "being libertarian left" or whatever is synonymous to being a reformist, then say that this instantly means one is in support of repeating the political experiments of Stalin or Mao?
What of Shinmin, Catalonia, Rojava etc.?
Catalonia is the subject of the WEBM posted there.
Otherwise, same story: anarchist movements have either failed to achieve anything, or when they did it is because when faced with the necessity, started capturing a state or building a state-like structure to defend themselves from bourgeois interlocutors of their revolutions. Catalonia is the biggest example of this, but Rojava does not even pretend not to have a state. Shinmin lasted for next to no time before being crushed by the Korean reactionaries.
How libertarian is Trotskyism?
Is Muke still going to debate sargon or thatguyt?
Let's ask these friendly workers about Trotsky's great love of liberty and political disagreement.
Just shut up about stuff you have not clue about ok?
Maybe the ideology he preached not the one he practiced. Lets be honest. Lenin wasn't a leninist.
I was answering the guy's question on the subject of said movements, anarchist or not. Furthermore, for what it's worth Rojava is also often included into examples of anarchist movements, e.g.: en.wikipedia.org
his argument was unclear, but it was hardly a strawman.
But he said the opposite. he said "I support this authoritarian measure. that does not mean I support others. Either way "authoritarianism" as a concept generally doesn't make much sense.
I mean sure condemn CNT/FAI. fuck 'em. but at least directly cite the legit source i dunno. I just really don't like finnish bolshevik to be honest.
Source is in the video after the quotes:
A very good historical account of the Spanish revolution. Otherwise there's also: international-communist-party.org
At least libertarian ideologies try to avoid authoritarianism as much as possible.
I think it's more to do with the fact that statecraft and politics are irreconcilable. If there is going to be a "vanguard" it has to be based solely in the latter, rejecting the former
It's easier to spot who the petty-bourgeois counterrevolutionaries will be when you hear cries about "libertarianism" and freedom.
and realize how fucking stupid leftcoms are
Sounds like right-libertarianism to me.
Oh yeah I've been meaning to read workers against work. The ICP thing I've read. Anarchism fuckin sucks. I ain't defending those little shits. I just can't deal with ML youtube trash
a belief in democracy as a somehow "more legitimate" form of government requires you to believe that there is some formless "self" which exists separately from a person in the aether and is not affected by conditions. People form their expectations of society based on the society they already live in. This is why leftists oppose the concept of bourgeois democracy as a sign of legitimate "freedom." It's not a matter of "directness." Even if a majority of people think capitalism is better than communism, we still oppose the idea that capitalism is a free society or that the state is somehow legitimate. How bout you actually fuckin read bordiga's critique of the democratic principle before you go on with your trash.
are you a religious bordigist or is the flag ironic?
t. Joseph Stalin
There was some semi-prolific Catholic Bordigist on revleft years ago. Could be him.
not if it is a democracy where there is a credible possibility for individuals themselves to have control over their government, that is, democracy without representation. Read Rousseau.
Regardless, of course I'm against bourgeois democracy. Why do you think I'm posting a Luxembourg quote and not john locke?
I have read Bordiga's Democratic Principle. It was very basic shit that was not very convincing. Sure, democracy shouldn't be something sacred, but a vanguard party and state will always fail to produce communism for they each have their own self-sustaining logic. If you declare that only the vanguard and the state it controls will bring about communism, then according to your logic, anything that opposes the state must oppose communism. And if there's nothing to resist the state, nothing to hold it accountable, then it will be in its self interest to only declare what it has done as communism, no matter what that thing is. No, the resistance to the state in the dictatorship of the proletariat must be a part of the transition, something only possible through proletarian democracy without a single vanguard party.