The pure (libertarian) socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.
At least it’s something new instead of a method that has failed to bring about socialism time and time again through history. All those transitory government systems just end up being dictatorships that give as much power to the workers as the fucking US, less even.
You will never achieve socialism if you just prop up a ruling class with vastly different class interests, they will never cede power to the workers.
What I support is workers organising. What I don’t support is Stalinist strongmen oppressing workers. Socialism without power of the workers is meaningless and not worth achieving, that’s literally the current system. If I wanted capitalism with socialist aesthetics I can just move to China, that already exists. What I want is actual power to the workers and nothing else.
Workers had more power and say in democracy in the USSR then they have ever had in a Western capitalist country, and American police are more brutal, more violent, more repressive, and kill more people than any “strong men” under Stalin. You’ve consumed too much anti-communist propaganda.
No, me and my family lived under Soviet rule in an annexed satellite state. Workers had no power here, people who were friendly to high ranking party members had power and if workers did not comply they got sent to slave camps in siberia where they were not likely to return.
I really don’t care about the US and it’s quite weird how literally everyone who is trying to paint the USSR in a good light says that with no prompting. Like lung cancer is also bad but bringing that up in every single conversation about anything is weird.
Was Stalin the president of the US? Is the US the leader of socialism or something? The US has nothing to do with socialism, like I have been part of my local anarchist group for years and no one has ever even mentioned the US.
You attributed some failed strategy to me and then accused me of purity testing states that are only aesthetically socialist. That response had nothing to do with what I said.
You attributed the failed strategy to yourself, and I accused you of it because that’s exactly what you were doing. That’s a response, to your comment.
Look, I agree that it’s dumb to call yourself a socialist and have zero respect for most attempts at socialism, especially when your critique doesn’t come from anything serious but just parroting of cold war propaganda. I agree that these countries weren’t literally the devil, nor fascist, not “pretending”, that’s all fine.
But it’s still so dishonest of MLs to dig for quotes and smugly boastbout how “libertarians never succeed”. Even if we completely ignore all the very explicit and deliberate attempts at sabotage anarchists had to endure from their statist “comrades” (which we shouldn’t but we always casually seem to be forced to do in the name of “unity”), it doesn’t change the fact that vanguardist revolutions have all been incredibly flawed too.
You all are very often willing to recognize your failures, most of the people like you I have talked to seem to agree that at some point the revolution was “hijacked”, usurped, corrupted, lost aim, usually coinciding with a figure they don’t like taking over the revolutionary government and messing things up.
The supposed “strong state that crushes all opposition” being taken over by the reformist opposition and then the capitalist one in the case of the USSR and Leninists. The market reforms of Deng in the case of China and Maoists. But you all never seem to ask yourselves the question “Why was that allowed to happen?”. Why am I supposed to put my trust in some authoritarian bullshit solution specifically justified as a means to protect the revolution when it failed at doing so? Why do you have to be so smug and condescending at me for not trusting in things that didn’t work?
Why do you instead of learning from the mistakes in your methods that most of the time you yourself recognize and trying to come up with new ideas and systems for the current age, insist on still clinging to material analysis of the world of a hundred years ago as the gospel, the sole undying and absolute truth on how to Make Socialism, merely saying “it’ll totally work right this time” instead? Why do you insist on mocking and “”“dunking”“” on anyone who refuses to do that?
They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted.
This is all completely false. It genuinely is just lies. You can disagree with the explanations, but to claim there literally aren’t any is just ignorance and a complete lack of good faith. Look, if you’re a socialist in the internet, you probably have dealt with confidently incorrect liberals whining about strawmen that you don’t believe, because they haven’t read anything about it - and it’s probably been incredibly frustrating. So why do you never think twice before doing the same thing with anarchists?
I’m always told to read Lenin and a ton of authoritarian essays and I always do in good faith, but it’s extremely rare for me to ever be afforded the same honour, and then all the conversations I have end up with people telling me shit like this and me having to explain anarchism 101 to them because they genuinely don’t actually know anything.
No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.
I am also always told to be charitable and nuanced about the failures and mistakes of vanguardist revolutions, but no one ever has the same honour with anarchist ones.
Sorry to disappoint. I don’t have hard opinions about anarchists vs MLs. I generally think Engels was more convincing on authority, but I’m not well read enough to have a formed opinion on it and haven’t read anything from the last decade or so. I especially don’t think the things that you’re asking here because I didn’t write the statement, Parenti did, and he did so for rhetorical effect against western leftists putting ideology over AES. I’m happy to receive some recs I can follow up on.
I am sorry for being agressive. I mostly assumed you thought the same things as the person you were quoting. I appreciate that you at least admit you aren’t well read enough, that’s more than most people I talk to.
I’m happy to receive some recs I can follow up on.
I really appreciate this too. Thank you. I think as a direct expanding on what I’m talking about, this essay is very good:
Cheers pal, I’ve favorited this post to come back too. I’ve read Bakunin before, but I haven’t read the rebuttal on On Authority or the other essays you linked. Looking forward to it! Appreciate the time you put into this
Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle.
No, it’s pretty simple. It’s called “profit sharing” where workers get the lions share of profits. It’s more realistic than alternatives in a country that thinks Joe Biden is a communist.
The pure (libertarian) socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.
At least it’s something new instead of a method that has failed to bring about socialism time and time again through history. All those transitory government systems just end up being dictatorships that give as much power to the workers as the fucking US, less even.
You will never achieve socialism if you just prop up a ruling class with vastly different class interests, they will never cede power to the workers.
It’s very far from new, and it has failed entirely to bring about socialism time and time again through history.
You will never achieve socialism if you just passively support the status quo while condemning all forms of AES for not being pure enough.
What I support is workers organising. What I don’t support is Stalinist strongmen oppressing workers. Socialism without power of the workers is meaningless and not worth achieving, that’s literally the current system. If I wanted capitalism with socialist aesthetics I can just move to China, that already exists. What I want is actual power to the workers and nothing else.
Workers had more power and say in democracy in the USSR then they have ever had in a Western capitalist country, and American police are more brutal, more violent, more repressive, and kill more people than any “strong men” under Stalin. You’ve consumed too much anti-communist propaganda.
No, me and my family lived under Soviet rule in an annexed satellite state. Workers had no power here, people who were friendly to high ranking party members had power and if workers did not comply they got sent to slave camps in siberia where they were not likely to return.
I really don’t care about the US and it’s quite weird how literally everyone who is trying to paint the USSR in a good light says that with no prompting. Like lung cancer is also bad but bringing that up in every single conversation about anything is weird.
What decade were you born in?
1993 every time. They always “know” what the USSR was like better than their tankie grandparents
Yup, it’s shocking how consistent it is.
When and where did you live in a SSR?
My sibling in Christ you mentioned Stalin, a leader of the USSR, and this entire thread is about socialist states
Was Stalin the president of the US? Is the US the leader of socialism or something? The US has nothing to do with socialism, like I have been part of my local anarchist group for years and no one has ever even mentioned the US.
Are you seriously not aware of what the US has been doing to crush left-wing movements around the world for the last 80 years?
Did an AI write this? You didn’t actually respond to anything I said.
Neither did you.
I clearly did, but by all means, go with “no u” and see how convincing it is.
You attributed some failed strategy to me and then accused me of purity testing states that are only aesthetically socialist. That response had nothing to do with what I said.
You attributed the failed strategy to yourself, and I accused you of it because that’s exactly what you were doing. That’s a response, to your comment.
Hexbear users don’t operate in good faith so no point in actually trying to engage them in good faith. They will wear you out if you do.
We engage in good faith only so long as we are met with good faith, if you aren’t going to respect us we have no reason to respect you
Well as long as you have a sub dedicated to “dunking on libs” we both know that is not true.
You aren’t new you are in a tradition of 200 years of stepping onto rakes. Your face plant is not innovative
Look, I agree that it’s dumb to call yourself a socialist and have zero respect for most attempts at socialism, especially when your critique doesn’t come from anything serious but just parroting of cold war propaganda. I agree that these countries weren’t literally the devil, nor fascist, not “pretending”, that’s all fine.
But it’s still so dishonest of MLs to dig for quotes and smugly boastbout how “libertarians never succeed”. Even if we completely ignore all the very explicit and deliberate attempts at sabotage anarchists had to endure from their statist “comrades” (which we shouldn’t but we always casually seem to be forced to do in the name of “unity”), it doesn’t change the fact that vanguardist revolutions have all been incredibly flawed too.
You all are very often willing to recognize your failures, most of the people like you I have talked to seem to agree that at some point the revolution was “hijacked”, usurped, corrupted, lost aim, usually coinciding with a figure they don’t like taking over the revolutionary government and messing things up.
The supposed “strong state that crushes all opposition” being taken over by the reformist opposition and then the capitalist one in the case of the USSR and Leninists. The market reforms of Deng in the case of China and Maoists. But you all never seem to ask yourselves the question “Why was that allowed to happen?”. Why am I supposed to put my trust in some authoritarian bullshit solution specifically justified as a means to protect the revolution when it failed at doing so? Why do you have to be so smug and condescending at me for not trusting in things that didn’t work?
Why do you instead of learning from the mistakes in your methods that most of the time you yourself recognize and trying to come up with new ideas and systems for the current age, insist on still clinging to material analysis of the world of a hundred years ago as the gospel, the sole undying and absolute truth on how to Make Socialism, merely saying “it’ll totally work right this time” instead? Why do you insist on mocking and “”“dunking”“” on anyone who refuses to do that?
This is all completely false. It genuinely is just lies. You can disagree with the explanations, but to claim there literally aren’t any is just ignorance and a complete lack of good faith. Look, if you’re a socialist in the internet, you probably have dealt with confidently incorrect liberals whining about strawmen that you don’t believe, because they haven’t read anything about it - and it’s probably been incredibly frustrating. So why do you never think twice before doing the same thing with anarchists?
I’m always told to read Lenin and a ton of authoritarian essays and I always do in good faith, but it’s extremely rare for me to ever be afforded the same honour, and then all the conversations I have end up with people telling me shit like this and me having to explain anarchism 101 to them because they genuinely don’t actually know anything.
I am also always told to be charitable and nuanced about the failures and mistakes of vanguardist revolutions, but no one ever has the same honour with anarchist ones.
I am quoting Parenti. You’ll need to read Blackshirts & Reds to get an answer – that’s where the quote is from – or one of his other books.
Thanks for ignoring everything I said.
Sorry to disappoint. I don’t have hard opinions about anarchists vs MLs. I generally think Engels was more convincing on authority, but I’m not well read enough to have a formed opinion on it and haven’t read anything from the last decade or so. I especially don’t think the things that you’re asking here because I didn’t write the statement, Parenti did, and he did so for rhetorical effect against western leftists putting ideology over AES. I’m happy to receive some recs I can follow up on.
I am sorry for being agressive. I mostly assumed you thought the same things as the person you were quoting. I appreciate that you at least admit you aren’t well read enough, that’s more than most people I talk to.
I really appreciate this too. Thank you. I think as a direct expanding on what I’m talking about, this essay is very good:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anark-the-state-is-counter-revolutionary
It’s available on video form too, but the video doesn’t have citations.
Here’s a good rebuttal of On Authority:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/london-anarchist-federation-the-problems-with-on-authority
A modern and a classical reading on how anarchists view authority and power:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anark-power
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/mikhail-bakunin-what-is-authority
Cheers pal, I’ve favorited this post to come back too. I’ve read Bakunin before, but I haven’t read the rebuttal on On Authority or the other essays you linked. Looking forward to it! Appreciate the time you put into this
No, it’s pretty simple. It’s called “profit sharing” where workers get the lions share of profits. It’s more realistic than alternatives in a country that thinks Joe Biden is a communist.
Not sure what your point here is mate
I didn’t expect you to
Lmao good talk