cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/8181688
undefined
this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
258 points (82.7% liked)
Anarchism
1287 readers
1 users here now
Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ah, at least we come to the crux of the disagreement. "Anarchists, babies! MLs, strong!". It always comes down to that, but it's refreshing to see you just straight up say it sometimes, so that people can see it.
Anyway, please take your historic fiction in the appropriate places. I can pull stories out of my ass as well, but that convinces no-one.
PS: I like how you sneaked in that call to emotion at the end. Very manipulative. Love it!
Have you read anything about the failures of coordination among the anarchist militias in Catalonia? Or their failures of economic coordination beyond the local level?
Have you even absorbed the critiques enough that you are in a place to argue against them?
Because this is serious stuff that you should be educated about before you make judgements about it.
I'm very sympathetic to anarcho syndicalism, but it showed its weaknesses in Spain and sectarian anarchists blame it on the USSR instead of learning from it.
It is not socially well adapted to declare "appeal to emotion" when someone is communicating why something is personally important to them. What I'm doing is expressing myself in a normal human way, and you consider that manipulative?
Ah, nice try, but I already told you I'm not going to debate you on the Spanish Civil War. Why don't you go to the places where there's anarchists up for that sort of thing?
You implied that not crushing anarchists would have directly led to a successful genocide. Ye it's pretty manipulative.
I asked you if you've even read anything about it, not if you want to debate me about it.
It isnt manipulative to point out that my family would have been killed if the anarchists won, it is giving you an explanation for why I have little sympathy for complaints by anarchists repeating the "stabbed in the back" myth instead of actually digging into the history of their project and learning from its failures to do better next time.
That's how they get you! taps forehead
lol, yea it is. You don't have any idea what would have happened if the anarchists won. Maybe they Spanish revolution would have worked without the backstab and Hitler would have expended himself. Who the fuck knows. It's pretty manipulative to posit a major historical event going completely differently would have worked out the same way except that it would have led this one really horrible thing which everyone has an emotional reaction to. Cmon...
If the goal is to get you to read yes, that is the secret tankie plot, to make you a better anarchist who is able to grow from previous failures instead of acting like an aggrieved post ww1 german soldier.
Were any anarchists talking about the need for massive industrialization at any cost in the late 1920s early 1930s in the soviet union? No? Then if the anarchists were in charge, yes, the nazis would have won and been able to implement plan ost.
Tell me when the novel comes out.
Asking you if something crucially needed to defeat the nazis was even documented as on the radar of contemporary anarchists isnt writing a novel.
This is the same USSR that invaded poland alongside nazi germany in 1939 yeah?
If you masturbate any more furiously in this thread you might faint from dehydration.
The difference is that I shit my pants and cry when you respond to me
Apparently shitting my pants is enough to have two dozen hexbears hopping mad to the point that they're trolling through the comments days later trying to dunk on me. Stay mad, bby!
Everybody who calls me on my behavior is mad and no that's not a transparent coping mechanism
Oh sorry I didn't know "you shit your pants" and similar terms was your collective hexbest at a call out.
In that case I do apologize for thinking the random shitposts on random comments were due to anger. You're clearly trying.
Not sure where you think you have the standing to call other people out for not putting effort into their posts when that is exactly the criticism being directed at you that you're choosing to wallow in rather than address.
You are shitting your doo doo pants trying to maintain your smug sense of self all over this thread. You can't engage in good faith so you're pulling boomer quotes about pigeons playing chess and mugging at the crowd like they're on your side to begin with.
You want to be treated respectfully, you seem to be implying. Deserve it first. Stop acting like a smirking piece of shit and you'll be taken seriously. Or as seriously as you deserve to be taken when you're in the barrel for posting something extremely stupid in the first place.
Only about everything else, one-handedly.
I mean you are the one who has left your containment instance to fight over a meme.
Go back to Reddit.
When Reddit sends their smuglords, they're not sending their best.
I like it
I love it
It's funny that
It's ironic that
It's interesting that
Reddit-brained smug enlightened centrist liberals like yourself try to mask your rage with tedious "totally not mad" sentence openers.
I don't even need to check what instance you come from hexie
Anyone paying attention to what they actually said and not your petulant response will notice how far your characterization is off from the actual source. You're putting on a shameful display.
@[email protected] hey why not this specific criticism?
Remember when you acted like I was only insulting you and not making valid criticisms? Why don't you reply to the valid criticisms instead of the insults you deserved when it became clear you refused to engage in good faith?