A question for Anarchists

We've had a bit of a discussion on Spanish Civil War in Orwell's thread.

Now I need an independent assessment: is this a genuine non-authoritarian and very Socialist revolution of Anarchists - in the process of being betrayed by Stalin? Because I need a good explanation of why people who support Catalonia keep trash-talking ML.

Peirats, The CNT in the Spanish revolution, volume 2 (2005), p108:
> About this same time there were the La Fatarella incidents, sparked by this sowing of hatred on the land. La Fatarella, a tiny village in the province of Tarragona, between Gandesa and the Ebro, numbered 600 inhabitants, most of them smallholders with a backward-looking mentality. Here the collectivisation idea encountered steadfast resistance which would possibly have amounted to nothing more important, had not Stalinism intervened, with its policy of whipping up passions and atavistic prejudices.
> Given the mentality of the bulk of the residents, the emissaries of the PSUC found it child's play to excite the hostility of this majority against the minority who, egged on by their like-minded colleagues from other collectivised villages, intended to introduce the economic gains of the revolution in their village. Eventually, nearly all of the residents joined the UGT en bloc, promptly sparking a tension between collectivists and small holders which was soon complicated by the more or less interested pressures brought to bear by the respective lobbies outside the village.
>The revolt came on 23 January, when the majority of the residents rose up in arms against a party of CNT members which had come to the village to help settle the problem at the bottom of all the agitation. The outsiders quit the village and dug in on the outskirts, sending to Barcelona and to the largest towns in the area for reinforcements. The news reached almost all of these in the form of a rumour that the Fifth Column had risen up in La Fatarella. Instantly two truckloads of the control patrols and a company of Assault Guards (which opened fire upon reaching the entrance to the village) were dispatched to the scene. During the attack and mopping-up operation which went on for several hours, some of the attackers were killed or wounded and this gave the pretext for a drastic repression directed against the rebels, who left 30 dead upon the ground.

tl;dr: Anarchists gun down anyone who doesn't want to join their freedom cult (IRL shakedowns; there were money to be had by higher-ranking Anarchists who were selling produce of the collective), and then blame it on Stalin.

Other urls found in this thread:


Not an anarchist, but I thought libcom was anti-communist?

Yes. But I'd like to avoid (if possible) wasting time on accusations of spreading Soviet propaganda.

sage to cheery-picking Stalinist

Becasue of all blanqism and criminal anti-social activity of Bosheviks since fucking begining and everywhere they were.

Are you saying Anarchist collectivization was not forced at gunpoint upon peasantry?

Specifics, please.

It's a revolution that failed before anyone posting on this board was born, possibly before anyone's parents or even grandparents were born. "Authoritarian" is a meme, anarchists were right to kill counterrevolutionaries and their biggest mistakes were cooperating with liberals and not training militias before the war broke out.
I don't see how it's possible to support something that no longer exists, but ML parties in the west don't do anything of note and ML states were all destroyed by revisionism, with the possible exception of the DPRK. We're not trashing you because we're spooked about muh grogillions, we're trashing you because you seem to think you're a party member sometime between 1933 and 1953 instead of another faggot on the internet like everyone else on this board.
There is nothing wrong with killing counterrevolutionaries and it would take less resources than imprisoning them.
It wasn't Stalin's fault, Spain was bound to lose because the West hated the revolutionary parts of the republic more than they hated fascists and the Republic didn't have the resources to stop Franco.

Excuse me but how in the fuck is libcom ani-communist?


Co-operating with radical liberals (think Jacobins) in the defence of the republic was of critical importance, if anything the anarchists were too unwilling to compromise. In general the 'narchies seemed to have an aversion to actually winning the civil war. pic related, source is Kitchen, M: Europe Between the Wars
Juche is post-communist

Tankies call everyone critical of the USSR anti-communists.

This criticism doesn't have any value because every other tendency is even less important than Marxism-Leninism in the West. Unless you count social democracy. Marxist-Leninist parties can not force revolutionary conditions, all they do is organizing, agitating and educating, what else would you suggest? People hate on Marxist-Leninist parties for "not doing anything" but don't suggest a single thing what they could actually do. You do realize that many people, including myself, waste a lot of their free time and energy on this without getting paid at all, and many people who make fun us do absolutely fucking nothing? So, enlighten me, what should we do, and don't you dare suggesting cooperating with SuccDems.

Additionally, the Bolsheviks themselves grew in size shortly before the Russian Revolution up to 200.000 almost out of nothing. When revolutionary conditions exist, history rewards those who were consequential and anti-opportunist. When shit really hits the fan, people are going to turn to the most cohesive and credible organization.

It wasn't "in the process," the Stalinist policy from day one was a popular front with the bourgeois republicans to defend private property and oppose the social revolution.

It was mostly to defeat fascists. In Weimar, a popular front didn't make sense, therefore the anti-opportunist stance of the KPD, in Spain, it did, since the conflict grew militant.

I know, I know, "realpolitik" and "geopolitics" just never class-politics.

What the fuck is "class politics". Class struggle is always present, but class struggle doesn't mean to be an utopian and let fascists run all over you. Worked out great for those Catalonian anarchists to split in the middle of a civil war, right? Oh wait, it's the Bolsheviks fault for not giving the most ineffective fighting force in the Spanish Civil War free stuff…

I'm sorry but nobody wants to bet on a dead horse.

I honestly excuse any violence that occurs during civil wars and revolutions, that’s just how those things go down.

How is being against Communist International does not make you anti-communist? There are no other communists. It was ComIntern that brought back the term into use. Even LeftCom begun as part of it.

In what way? Is it arrests of poor innocent gangsters?

shock status: imagined

Disingenuous cancer. Try harder. CNT did nothing wrong.

Let's bump this.

Durruti did nothing wrong.

losing the war was something they did wrong

How can libcoms be anticommunists? They ARE communists.

Can anybody elaborate on why Stalin killed the Bolsheviks in the Great Purge?

Was there a reason for killing his own party members?

Communists are Third International. PERIOD. That's what the term means. There were no other Communists at the time. If you are against them - you are anti-Communist. You don't get to invent bullshit Communisms just because original got popular.

Libertarian "Communism" just as Communist, as Cultural "Marxism" is Marxist, or National "Socialism" is Socialist.

He didn't.

Because they opposed him or his plans, or he believed they did. It's really not that complicated.

kek, you don't know? even the Finnish Bolshevik calls it that



the same way I can be a communist and e critical of pol pot you dumb cunt

< Communism is what I want it to be

Conditions of Admission to the Communist International (1920):

When did ComIntern support Pol Pot, you retard?

This might be the least self-awareness I've ever seen on Holla Forums

Step back and think what you just said for a moment. If you need help, look up the definition of the word "tautology". This comment should give you a good hint if you're still not getting it>>2321091

Juche is not only revisionist, it's downright reactionary is many aspects. Juche is hardly Marxist.

Untrue, Juche is anti-revisionist. Read Kim Jong-il. The fact that they still exist means they've done something correct. The whole "grooming the new leader" thing might turn some people off, but in terms of Realpolitik it did prevent another incarnation of Krushchev/Deng/Ramiz Alia from taking power.

Can you be any more pathetic? Make an argument.

What the fuck why did Stalin abolish communism??

Please, consider either re-formulating your statement or providing factual evidence of its veracity.


Read the primary source:

I don't even see Stalin among the signatories.

It is well known that Stalin wanted to dissolve it since 1941 and the dissolution was most likely done on his request. He strongly approved of it, too: marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1943/05/28.htm

Not that it actually matters: by your standard, there can be no communists past 1943 or before 1919.

makes you think

Come on. This is 100% undiluted conjecture.

> He strongly approved of it, too: marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1943/05/28.htm
Why are you singling Stalin out? Was he alone who approved of it? No. You have no reason to do it, unless you follow Liberal narrative of impossibility of DotP and conclude (without checking facts) that there was no collective decision-making and Stalin alone decided everything. It is only then that you need to look at Stalin alone. Is this the case here?

"By my standard" the term "Communist" was defined and came into popular discourse through the Communist International. This doesn't mean that definition that was developed by ComIntern cannot apply to people that were before or after.

It is through ComIntern do we recognize Marx & Engels as Communists - rather than Social-Democrats (since they were members of SPD). The same logic applies to post-ComIntern movements: unless you actually subscribe to the ideas of Third International, you can't pretend to be Communist.


literal cult tier logic.

Or maybe because Marx and Engels considered themselves communists?

No. Do some reading, please.

Communist League had been dissolved by 1853. Afterwards, Marx and Engels both associated themselves with SPD - Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPAD initially). For example, Critique of Gotha Programme - is the critique of SPD's programme.

This is why pre-Comintern Marxists predominantly referred to themselves as Social-Democrats. For example, Bolshevik part was Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party.

If you need proof, you may try reading Lenin's "What Is To Be Done?" (1902):

This is one of the defining texts of Communist movement, but when Lenin is talking about Communism (Marxism) he extensively using "Social-Democracy" to refer to it.

As a demonstration, wordcount:
"Communism" - 0
"Communist" - 1 (in a quote)
"Marxist" - 24
"Marxism" - 34
"Social-Democracy" - 93
"Social-Democrats" - 97
"Social-Democratic" - 120

It was only after Socialist International fell apart and Communist International was created that the modern use of SocDem (as a centrist position) and Communist (as Marxist) came into being.

Let's bump this

I have no idea if you're right half the time but I'll give you credit for actually making threads that create actual discussion. Thanks guy.

Let's just say Gavrilo Princip also considered himself an anarchist.

Early anarchists were high on nationalism. That's why the distinction "anarcho-communism" exists. Giving anarchists shit for having garbage praxis isn't hard.

is it possible that the second international completely misunderstood marx when they considered socdem tactics to be a viable path to communism?

or is questioning not only stalin, but also kautsky, apostasy?

fucking ☭TANKIE☭s man

Except the very next paragraph of that book refutes that you disingenuous fuck.

This story certainly doesn't imply that. Maybe find one that does and then we can talk.

I'm sure Stalinists should be proud that during the civil war they were known as the valiant protectors of private property against the revolutionary working class.

The Conquest of Bread repeatedly refers to Anarchist Communism and it was written in 1892.
You cite a book in the OP talking about precisely in which ways and then pretend that it didn't happen. Even Stalinists admit the policy was collaboration with the Republic now and revolution later.

Stop making shit up.

I would love to see that source. It'd always be nice to add another anarchist who assassinated a ruler to the list.
I would also like to see this source, just so that I can say I've seen real magic in my life.
No it exists because at the time there would also Mutualists, Collectivists, and Individualists.
Truly [suppresses soviet power] Leninists [suppresses a revolution in Ukraine] know [suppresses revolution in Spain to aid the bourgeois Republic] about [suppresses revolution in Hungary turning half of the socialist world against you] garbage [succumbs to revisionism in nearly every single Leninist state] praxis [reforms into sweatshop-tier capitalist hellholes]. And I didn't even bring up China.

NRx pls leave

So you acknowledge the word existed before the Soviet Union hijacked it to further a nationalist agenda?


There was no "SocDem tactics".

Social Democracy became derogatory word and started to denote Centrist position only after the destruction of the Second International - during World War I, when many leaders of Marxist parties went Revisionist, betrayed Proletariat, and sided with the Capitalists. First major Revisionism (second happened in the 1950s).

Until that point, SocDem was considered revolutionary. As I said: Bolsheviks (who were explicitly illegal and planned to overthrow of the state) also called themselves SocDem.

You aren't making much sense here.

It existed, but wasn't in use. As I already pointed out - it was the term "Social Democracy" that was used to denote Marxists. Take works of Rosa Luxburg - you'll see the same pattern as in Lenin's early works.

Even Engels was using "Social-Democracy". For example, text of 1895:

Tell me, how creation of the Third International (which united multiple Communist parties around the world) is a "hijacking" of anything?

Jesus, why are you such a dumb worm? You literally just did what you accused him of doing.

Was Kautsky a communist because he was in the second international?

Except it doesn't, you fucking hypocrite.

Who was the initiator of the conflict - for no good reason? Anarchists.
Who antagonized the village until it "rose in arms"? Anarchists.
Who then called the Assault Guards and - without any explanation, nor attempts to negotiate - simply ordered the attack? Anarchists.

Peirats himself admits all of that. It is a height of hypocrisy to claim that "everyone was guilty" just because some of the Assault Guards weren't Anarchists and got conned into murdering innocent people.

< villagers literally gunned down for refusing to collectivize
< doesn't imply anything
Good one. Would you mind telling me what the the actual position of Anarchists on collectivization?

I do not consider Fascists to be "revolutionary working class". That said, I'm not an Anarchist.

If you are trying to imply that Kropotkin laid claim to the term "Communism", you need to try better. Your own words refute this: it is only "Anarchist Communism", not "Communism".

And it's easier to just go for Kropotkin's "Communism and Anarchy", rather than deal with your vague hints - since you didn't dare to explain what your words are supposed to mean - to see how people were perceiving the term Communism in 1901:

Tell me, is this the "true" Communism that is not ComIntern? I think, the answer is clear - no. We are uniquely unfamiliar with this kind of "Communism". It is the "Authoritarian Communism" (as Kropotkin describes it in the article) that fits the modern understanding of the term "Communism".

It is obvious that our meaning of the term got developed and codified by ComIntern, not by a bunch of Christian cults which we can't even recognize as Communism.

No, the book quotes defence of personal property. And even if it was private (which is incorrect), it still doesn' explain how the "social revolution" was opposed.

Yes. But I want to know specifics of this "social revolution".

Please, provide a list of Communist movements as of 1914, or - at least - explain your position (even without evidence) that contradicts my statement.

Yeah okay. We know he read anarchist and socialist pamphlets, but he was principally a nationalist doing the work of the Serbian government.

Who you are in a dream is not the same as who you are in real life.

It doesn't say who initiated what, it said that a group of CNT militiamen who were trying to mediate the conflict were attacked, and this spooked the fuck out of everyone, including Republic forces, who thought it was a Nationalist uprising.
It didn't say that either.
It didn't fucking say that either. The Assault Guards were ordered there by the Generalitat. It was a fucked up situation but it wasn't the exclusive fault of the anarchists.
Everyone was guilty because everyone was involved. If you act on faulty information it's still your fault for acting.

Since when was complimenting socialism a bad thing?