this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023
21 points (95.7% liked)

196

16423 readers
1943 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Remember kids, Tankies wants to undermine democracy - same as facists.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They absolutely did, their inability to coordinate and make compromises during wartime absolutely led to their failures as revolutions.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Oh... being (respectively) stabbed in the back by Bolsheviks and being sabotaged by Stalin had absolutely nothing to do with it, eh?

No, tankie... I don't think you've read any anarchist literature at all.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yes, the Spanish anarchists were unsuccessful because Stalin, and not because they refused to be integrated with the popular front(which even the fucking liberals joined), including militarily until the war was already well lost, which made coordinated actions against the fascists with the popular front impossible

The lessons of the Spanish civil war dont reflect well on the anarchist movement there.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, the Spanish anarchists were unsuccessful because Stalin

Yes. That's why, tankie. And no... they didn't lose because they decided not to take orders from your outrageously incompetent and cynical two-faced realpolitking fetish object Stalin.

Okay?

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Okay so how much did you actually study the Spanish civil war because this comes off as really ignorant? Like, what books have you read on the subject that have led you to the conclusion that Stalin was controlling all of the Spanish Republicans except for the anarchists? You seem to deify Stalin much more than me, who generally considers him a very flawed leader who was a better revolutionary, but doesn't consider him some octopus with his tentacles in literally everything.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not the one demonstrating weaponized ignorance on the subject, tankie - you are.

But hey... bring it on.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But hey… bring it on.

It is a self dunk to get combative when someone asks you what books you've read on a subject you're opining about

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why would I compare books with you, tankie? You've already claimed to have read things you so obviously haven't.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Hey, just cause I disagree with their analysis doesn't mean I haven't read it.

For example, forming a secret vanguard party isn't the way to anarchism, and the Kronstadt rebellion wasn't the pinnacle of revolution, even though the Soviets fucked up their response to it.

And you would know what I'm referring to if you've read some of their main works.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

forming a secret vanguard party isn’t the way to anarchism

Gee, you needed a book to tell you why nobody except your ilk gives a flying fuck about your precious vanguardism, eh? Most people don't need a book to see the obvious.

[–] doidera@lemmy.eco.br 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, tankie… I don’t think you’ve read any anarchist literature at all.

so now we are gonna start calling names. Cool, very mature.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Well, then... what do you think we should call them? Do remember... it was Marxist-Leninists themselves that came up with that term.