"throw capitalism at it" ad absurdum

[iolo]

Yes the Anarchists were being attacked by several distinct supporters of dictatorship.

Nothing prevented these supporters of dictatorship from fighting each other too.

Except the motto of the Communists were the same, "Workers unite, bosses suck" and this two groups fought heavily within each other. All one can say,s "A great miracle must happen and it will"

Was the working class in power in the Soviet Union? Capitalists always use slogans that have nothing to do with their real aims

 

[untermensche]

Except the motto of the Communists were the same, "Workers unite, bosses suck" and this two groups fought heavily within each other. All one can say,s "A great miracle must happen and it will"

Was the working class in power in the Soviet Union? Capitalists always use slogans that have nothing to do with their real aims

That was not a Communist slogan. They never said anything about bosses.

Only the Anarchists did.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The one that lasted a whopping 3 years? Communism was very inefficient but lasted 50 years. When they were running did they include official statistcis such as unemployment, GDP, GDP growth, productivity per GDP, poverty measures? Or was efficiency defined as Orwell saying it might be better?

I think for a short period efficiency would increase and the drop over time.

The reason the Anarchists didn't last is because they eliminated dictators and were more efficient than the capitalists.

They were attacked by all the supporters of dictatorship who don't like being reminded that dictatorships are not needed in any form.

You side with dictators over freedom. You have no moral position, just a position that is convenient for dictators.

Orwell explains why it didn't last in Homage to Catalonia. Since they didn't have a central authority dictating policy and gathering funds, they also didn't have a ministry of propaganda/psychological warfare. That meant that when any of their opponents slagged them off in the International press, there were no anarchists situated to meet their attacks. Their enemies could make up any outrageous lie and it would always go completely unopposed. In a modern war you're pretty fucked without support in the International community.

This is even more true today than it was back then. And a seemingly unsolvable problem for anarchism.

 

[untermensche]

The reason the Anarchists didn't last is because they eliminated dictators and were more efficient than the capitalists.

They were attacked by all the supporters of dictatorship who don't like being reminded that dictatorships are not needed in any form.

You side with dictators over freedom. You have no moral position, just a position that is convenient for dictators.

Orwell explains why it didn't last in Homage to Catalonia. Since they didn't have a central authority dictating policy and gathering funds, they also didn't have a ministry of propaganda/psychological warfare. That meant that when any of their opponents slagged them off in the International press, there were no anarchists situated to meet their attacks. Their enemies could make up any outrageous lie and it would always go completely unopposed. In a modern war you're pretty fucked without support in the International community.

This is even more true today than it was back then. And a seemingly unsolvable problem for anarchism.

It didn't last because others attacked it.

That is not an unsolvable problem.

It requires democracy and people demanding their governments stop attacking others.

Something Americans are presently incapable of doing.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Orwell explains why it didn't last in Homage to Catalonia. Since they didn't have a central authority dictating policy and gathering funds, they also didn't have a ministry of propaganda/psychological warfare. That meant that when any of their opponents slagged them off in the International press, there were no anarchists situated to meet their attacks. Their enemies could make up any outrageous lie and it would always go completely unopposed. In a modern war you're pretty fucked without support in the International community.

This is even more true today than it was back then. And a seemingly unsolvable problem for anarchism.

It didn't last because others attacked it.

That is not an unsolvable problem.

It requires democracy and people demanding their governments stop attacking others.

Something Americans are presently incapable of doing.

Sorry. I just mentioned the reason Orwell gave in the book. What he believed. It's not the reason I believe.

I believe that the Spanish civil war was a proxy war between the main belligerents of what became WW2. The anarchists were basically noise. Bugs swatted when they got annoying to the big boys. Spain had had political instability for half a century prior to the outbreak of the war. Even before the outbreak all the Spanish wanted was peace and stability. I doubt most Spanish gave a rats ass who won. By that time they were just sick of revolutions.

It's a similar situation in Syria. Any reasonable home grown rebel force just gets steamrolled. The ideas or ideology, in that war, is pretty much irrelevant. It's more important who your allies are. But your allies will inevitably take over and obliterate your independence. Play along or get exterminated.

That's got nothing to do with ideology. That's purely real politik.

 

[untermensche]

It didn't last because others attacked it.

That is not an unsolvable problem.

It requires democracy and people demanding their governments stop attacking others.

Something Americans are presently incapable of doing.

Sorry. I just mentioned the reason Orwell gave in the book. What he believed. It's not the reason I believe.

I believe that the Spanish civil war was a proxy war between the main belligerents of what became WW2. The anarchists were basically noise. Bugs swatted when they got annoying to the big boys. Spain had had political instability for half a century prior to the outbreak of the war. Even before the outbreak all the Spanish wanted was peace and stability. I doubt most Spanish gave a rats ass who won. By that time they were just sick of revolutions.

It's a similar situation in Syria. Any reasonable home grown rebel force just gets steamrolled. The ideas or ideology, in that war, is pretty much irrelevant. It's more important who your allies are. But your allies will inevitably take over and obliterate your independence. Play along or get exterminated.

That's got nothing to do with ideology. That's purely real politik.

Despite your delusions of grandeur you do not speak for Orwell.

The Anarchists only needed the things you mentioned because they were attacked by Communists and fascists.

Get rid of Communists and fascists and the Anarchists will be just fine.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Sorry. I just mentioned the reason Orwell gave in the book. What he believed. It's not the reason I believe.

I believe that the Spanish civil war was a proxy war between the main belligerents of what became WW2. The anarchists were basically noise. Bugs swatted when they got annoying to the big boys. Spain had had political instability for half a century prior to the outbreak of the war. Even before the outbreak all the Spanish wanted was peace and stability. I doubt most Spanish gave a rats ass who won. By that time they were just sick of revolutions.

It's a similar situation in Syria. Any reasonable home grown rebel force just gets steamrolled. The ideas or ideology, in that war, is pretty much irrelevant. It's more important who your allies are. But your allies will inevitably take over and obliterate your independence. Play along or get exterminated.

That's got nothing to do with ideology. That's purely real politik.

Despite your delusions of grandeur you do not speak for Orwell.

And you do? I just re-read his book on the subject!

The anarchists had no money and no weapons. Important things to have if you have any plans on winning a war.

The Anarchists only needed the things you mentioned because they were attacked by Communists and fascists.

The government sat in the lap of USSR. They had to do what they were told if they wanted to get weapons. If the governmental side (of which the anarchists were a part) hadn't received arms from the USSR they'd been royally fucked much earlier. Obviously the USSR had no interest in supporting a democratic government. The anarchists was a nuisance which they got rid of.

The anarchists would have been fucked no matter how they tried to play the game. The nature of their politics meant they had no way of finding a powerful ally to supply them with weapons. And that means = no victory for you.

The critical factor was getting France on the Republican side. But Leon Blum's government was left centre. Way to the right of the Republican Spanish government and way to the right of the anarchists. If they would have had any hope of getting French support they would have had to ditch their anarchist ideals. Which they didn't and therefore lost.

And if we look at it a little wider, the Republicans would have lost no matter what. It was a military coup. "Military" is the key word here. Franco had all the military leadership talent. The Franco side was well managed. The Republican side, a disaster.

Get rid of Communists and fascists and the Anarchists will be just fine.

That's like saying, if only I had no opponents then everything will be fine. No shit, Sherlock.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Sorry. I just mentioned the reason Orwell gave in the book. What he believed. It's not the reason I believe.

I believe that the Spanish civil war was a proxy war between the main belligerents of what became WW2. The anarchists were basically noise. Bugs swatted when they got annoying to the big boys. Spain had had political instability for half a century prior to the outbreak of the war. Even before the outbreak all the Spanish wanted was peace and stability. I doubt most Spanish gave a rats ass who won. By that time they were just sick of revolutions.

It's a similar situation in Syria. Any reasonable home grown rebel force just gets steamrolled. The ideas or ideology, in that war, is pretty much irrelevant. It's more important who your allies are. But your allies will inevitably take over and obliterate your independence. Play along or get exterminated.

That's got nothing to do with ideology. That's purely real politik.

Despite your delusions of grandeur you do not speak for Orwell.

The Anarchists only needed the things you mentioned because they were attacked by Communists and fascists.

Get rid of Communists and fascists and the Anarchists will be just fine.

Zoldberg beat me to it. If there was only one person left on Earth, anarchy would work.

 

[untermensche]

Get rid of Communists and fascists and the Anarchists will be just fine.

That's like saying, if only I had no opponents then everything will be fine. No shit, Sherlock.

WOW!! Hard to make a more insane conclusion.

Without those specific brutal groups all would have been fine for the Anarchists.

 

[iolo]

Was the working class in power in the Soviet Union? Capitalists always use slogans that have nothing to do with their real aims

That was not a Communist slogan. They never said anything about bosses.

Only the Anarchists did.

In the Rhondda the CP said a great deal about bosses, all the time.

 

[untermensche]

That was not a Communist slogan. They never said anything about bosses.

Only the Anarchists did.

In the Rhondda the CP said a great deal about bosses, all the time.

If they talked about it they stole it from the Anarchists.

It represents the next step in human freedom so recognizing it is not surprising.

 

[coloradoatheist]

In the Rhondda the CP said a great deal about bosses, all the time.

If they talked about it they stole it from the Anarchists.

It represents the next step in human freedom so recognizing it is not surprising.

So the communist manifesto that ends with workers of the world unite was not something communists supported?

 

[untermensche]

If they talked about it they stole it from the Anarchists.

It represents the next step in human freedom so recognizing it is not surprising.

So the communist manifesto that ends with workers of the world unite was not something communists supported?

In practice Communism is a totalitarian dictatorship.

No bigger boss than that.

The Communists in Spain were being propped up by Stalin. They had no problem with bosses.

 

[iolo]

In the Rhondda the CP said a great deal about bosses, all the time.

If they talked about it they stole it from the Anarchists.

It represents the next step in human freedom so recognizing it is not surprising.

I don't think comparing slogans is particularly helpful. The problem with Anarchism is it lost Barcelona and now barely exists in Spain, as it lost the Ukraine, with similar results; the problem with Communism is the inevitable reliance on the Party, which you have to have to make successful Revolution, but which turns into a new form of capitalism under pressure. With us the South Wales Miner's Federation, basically syndicalist, was as good as a non-party class combat organisation gets, and the boys were forced back towards politics by economic conditions. It is something we need to learn from, history, not a place to learn how to score off one another.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So the communist manifesto that ends with workers of the world unite was not something communists supported?

In practice Communism is a totalitarian dictatorship.

No bigger boss than that.

The Communists in Spain were being propped up by Stalin. They had no problem with bosses.

I do agree with you that because organization requires bosses and to keep people in line with an oppresive thought they needed dictators to do it. Would have happened in Spain and there were accounts that it did.

 

[untermensche]

In practice Communism is a totalitarian dictatorship.

No bigger boss than that.

The Communists in Spain were being propped up by Stalin. They had no problem with bosses.

I do agree with you that because organization requires bosses and to keep people in line with an oppresive thought they needed dictators to do it. Would have happened in Spain and there were accounts that it did.

This was once said about government.

We need Kings to get anything done.

Your thinking is only a few hundred years behind the times.

 

[untermensche]

If they talked about it they stole it from the Anarchists.

It represents the next step in human freedom so recognizing it is not surprising.

I don't think comparing slogans is particularly helpful. The problem with Anarchism is it lost Barcelona and now barely exists in Spain, as it lost the Ukraine, with similar results; the problem with Communism is the inevitable reliance on the Party, which you have to have to make successful Revolution, but which turns into a new form of capitalism under pressure. With us the South Wales Miner's Federation, basically syndicalist, was as good as a non-party class combat organisation gets, and the boys were forced back towards politics by economic conditions. It is something we need to learn from, history, not a place to learn how to score off one another.

Capitalists have a stranglehold on world power.

And they gladly attack anything that threatens their dominance.

Anarchism can gain power only through democratic means. Not through force.

It actually flows naturally as democracy and democratic thinking increases.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I do agree with you that because organization requires bosses and to keep people in line with an oppresive thought they needed dictators to do it. Would have happened in Spain and there were accounts that it did.

This was once said about government.

We need Kings to get anything done.

Your thinking is only a few hundred years behind the times.

Compared to your response of, "Pigs don't fly now, but maybe they could" When the FFers formed the current government they knew the issues with how people in power will react. You falsely believe that everyone will just agree with you and there will be no discord.

 

[ksen]

Fine.

What gives one the moral right to dictate over another? Excluding adults dictating over children.

Freely given mutual consent of all adult parties involved. I start my moral basis with freely given mutual consent, and proceed from there. There are some exceptions to my use of that principle; criminals no doubt would never say they consent to going to jail, and children do not have adult agency to give consent.

Man walks by house on fire and hears a woman yelling for help from inside. He says, "For me to help you it will cost you butt sex."

She says, "No way!"

Man walks away and woman burns to death.

Was he acting morally?

If she accepted his deal would it have been a non-coercive transaction?

 

[DrZoidberg]

That's like saying, if only I had no opponents then everything will be fine. No shit, Sherlock.

WOW!! Hard to make a more insane conclusion.

Without those specific brutal groups all would have been fine for the Anarchists.

Oh, like support from USA you mean? That's always ended in workers paradise. Or France or England. Colonialist oppression you say? Never. China? Lol.

If you're going to fight a war you're going to need money from somewhere. What rich fantasy nation would support the anarchist cause?

There is always a well organised authoritarian group waiting in the wings, ready to exploit any opening. And guess what, there's always at least one rich country willing to back that group, no matter how nuts they are. History has taught us that much.

I think your naive rose tinted view of the world is dangerous. It's people like you that lead to pointless revolutions, started by people who don't understand how politics work which inevitably lead to authoritarian regimes. Nothing is more dangerous than naive idealists. Africa and South America is full of examples of this going bad.