9 ms·

"choice between a people’s revolution (only half realized when the fascists began to take over) and a fascist military dictatorship, often sided with the fascis

"choice between a people’s revolution (only half realized when the fascists began to take over) and a fascist military dictatorship, often sided with the fascists." When siding with the people's revolution means, loosing all you property and siding with the fascits means, keeping your property, one could allmost understand it, without declaring all burgeois as hidden fascists.

sascha_sl 6y ago
I hope you're not drawing a parallel between Russian revolutionaries, later soviets and CNT/FAI, these ideologies have exactly one thing in common: their stated end goal. The means to reach them are vastly different, and indeed the soviets had their own anarchist factions eliminated after the revolution. Property also refers to such property that requires workers to be productive (farm land, factories), not personal property (e.g. a house you live in). The fascists might not have cared about your property being under worker control, but they sure cared about the output being under their control, so I don't see too much of an advantage.
- hutzlibu 6y ago
  "I hope you're not drawing a parallel between Russian revolutionaries, later soviets and CNT/FAI, these ideologies have exactly one thing in common: their stated end goal" The idea that the factories and farms should belong to the workers and that the workers should take the factories by force, is not a parallel and shared goal?
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    That's exactly what GP is saying. Their stated end goal is the same, a multicultural, multiethnic, classless society. Beyond that, Marxism-Léninisme (Classic Marxism much less so) and Anarchism/Anarcho-Syndicalism do not have much in common.
    - hutzlibu 6y ago
      "That's exactly what GP is saying" No, it is not. As the shared end-goal of marxism and anarchism is the egalitarian stateless society. I was talking about the concrete steps before that. Like those that happened in spain. Communalisation of farmland and factories with guns in hand. This action was done side by side from anarchists in spain as well in russia. The fact that the marxists later stabbed the anarchists in the back, does not change that.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        "The means of productions should be owned by the workers" is a direct corollary of "we should have a stateless and classless society" Unless you can explain to me how you can have private ownership of factories and peasants working on land that isn't their own without having a class system, which is itself a contradiction in terms. The communalisation of farmland and factories by the CNT/FAI and by the CPSU were also completely different. The CPSU communalized them into the state, while the CNT/FAI generally put them into direct control of the workers, generally by putting them into the control of pre-existing unions.
        hutzlibu 6y ago
        So it seems, you like sophism? Because "The communalisation of farmland and factories by the CNT/FAI and by the CPSU were also completely different." for the former owners of that farmland and factories, it did not really matter - for them it was lost, uncompensated property. Which is why they supported fascism, when they were pushed towards it.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        This isn't a sophism. Just because the difference isn't material for this particular case does not have mean that they have much in common beyond their end goal, which is of course the only commonality I've seen raised. I agree that the bourgeois supported fascism because they judged that it was better for them to continue owning their factories in a fascists society, no matter how many genocides that meant. That makes them fascists. In the situation there were in, the solution was either a radical reconception of the economic system, or fascism. If you think that fascism is the best option, that makes you a fascist.
- yiyus 6y ago
  > I hope you're not drawing a parallel between Russian revolutionaries, later soviets and CNT/FAI. The differences are huge, but I don't think that was very relevant at the time. I do not think it was easy to understand, for example by an old catholic woman of the Spain of 1936, that the libertarian communism of Bakunin and Kropotkin those atheist were talking about had nothing to do with the communist revolution of Russia she had read about in the news some years ago. Even many people part of these movements did not have their differences clear at all, or were too pragmatic for that, and were just fighting fascism.
  - hutzlibu 6y ago
    "Even many people part of these movements did not have their differences clear at all, or were too pragmatic for that, and were just fighting fascism" Ask 5 people of a political movement what they exactly stand for and get 10 different answers.
dgb23 6y ago
Losing all your property? As I understand the surplus was socialized and they turned education, transportation, libraries and so on into public, free services. In real terms this meant you were able to just get your bread from a bakery without paying or otherwise trading directly, if you provided your services for free as well. Turns out that many don’t need greed, nor coercion as a motivation to contribute to their community, if that community is based on freedom and equality. I think this kind of society is something that is worth thinking about and even a goal worth working towards in some capacity. So much energy and time is lost by working against each other, which is really disheartening.
- hutzlibu 6y ago
  "I think this kind of society is something that is worth thinking about" It absolutely is worth thinking about, but not blinded by ideology. I first read about the temporary anarchistic areas in spain praised as a Utopia. And I thought something like, wow, those evil capitalist forces did hide that from me and others. Reading Orwells Catalonia set things straight a bit. And Orwell was a socialist. But not one blinded by ideology. He wrote about, what he saw. Not what he wished to be seeing. Allmost all anarchistic literature I read, were very much on the wishful fairy tale side of things, when it came to real world events, like spain. Anarchism can be without violence? Yeah well, how do you remove people from their property in reality? You come with guns and ask them nicely to fck off? Yeah, that works, but is not really nonviolent.
  - dgb23 6y ago
    I agree with what you’re saying. Political philosophy is and should be just a tool, to analyze ideas. Your portrayal of Anarchism seems a bit one sided however. There are many areas that can benefit from building on anarchic relationships to some degree, such as free software, foundational research, public service etc. And even on a micro level, in teams, communities that uphold the notion of equality and fluent leadership. So a pacifist implementation is rather about building and maintaining alternative relationships than abolishing existing ones by force.
    - 6y ago
sudosysgen 6y ago
Once liberalism collapses, there isn't much of a choice between the two. If you accept the premise that liberalism has failed and that re-establishing it is impossible, then as a bourgeois you have two choices. Either you do accept the socialization of your property, and live the life of an ordinary person, which is morally by far the best thing to do, or: In an attempt to maintain your capital, you decide that you'd rather see fascism with you in a privileged position. As far as anyone is concerned, if you decide that fascism is good for you because it helps you maintain your privilege, you are a fascist. No one has ever said that all bourgeois are hidden fascists, but history tells us that, when (if) liberalism collapses, most bourgeois follow their class interests and support fascism, instead of trying to maintain liberalism and becoming neutral when that fails. Why is this? Because the issues that historically led to the collapse of liberalism can always be linked back to economic issues. Therefore, trying to install a system that provides democracy, peace, and equality for all if/when liberalism collapses will necessarily require the revision of the economics that led to such an issue. This is why, in this event, there really isn't much of an alternative between severely limiting the private ownership of capital and fascism.
- hutzlibu 6y ago
  "If you accept the premise that liberalism has failed and that re-establishing it is impossible ... Either you do accept the socialization of your property, and live the life of an ordinary person, which is morally by far the best thing to do" Life is seldom made of binary choices like you imply. And what you think is "morally by far the best thing to do" really does not have to match others morals. My morals are, I do not judge absolute morals, like you. I judge only concrete situations. And since so far a egalitarian society is only a theory that failed multiple times in reality, I do not believe in supporting such a theory with all my energy and posession. Which would be "accept the socialization of your property, and live the life of an ordinary person, which is morally by far the best thing to do". In other words, if I would have to take the choice between fascism and socialism I would rather try to gather what I have and go away.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    >Life is seldom made of binary choices like you imply. And what you think is "morally by far the best thing to do" really does not have to match others morals. If there is another choice, then none of what I said applies. That being said, history has been such that there often has been no such other choice. >My morals are, I do not judge absolute morals, like you. I judge only concrete situations. If your morals are such that you would prefer fascism to any kind of socialism, then I do judge, and I think most do. If they aren't such, then the rest of my comment applies. >And since so far a egalitarian society is only a theory that failed multiple times in reality, I do not believe in supporting such a theory with all my energy and posession. Which would be "accept the socialization of your property, and live the life of an ordinary person, which is morally by far the best thing to do". No one, not even Karl Marx believed in an egalitarian society. What socialists do believe is that private property is an issue that will inevitably lead to the fall of liberalism, and that it must be heavily reformed, along with the removal of the class system. All socialist societies had some inequality in them, and no one complained about it, because everyone can agree that those more capable or who work harder should receive more. >In other words, if I would have to take the choice between fascism and socialism I would rather try to gather what I have and go away. That is an understandable choice, and I don't think anyone would object. Of course, getting your capital and other kinds of private property would be much harder as the fascists would certainly not let you do so.

sascha_sl 6y ago

I hope you're not drawing a parallel between Russian revolutionaries, later soviets and CNT/FAI, these ideologies have exactly one thing in common: their stated end goal. The means to reach them are vastly different, and indeed the soviets had their own anarchist factions eliminated after the revolution. Property also refers to such property that requires workers to be productive (farm land, factories), not personal property (e.g. a house you live in). The fascists might not have cared about your property being under worker control, but they sure cared about the output being under their control, so I don't see too much of an advantage.

hutzlibu 6y ago
"I hope you're not drawing a parallel between Russian revolutionaries, later soviets and CNT/FAI, these ideologies have exactly one thing in common: their stated end goal" The idea that the factories and farms should belong to the workers and that the workers should take the factories by force, is not a parallel and shared goal?
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  That's exactly what GP is saying. Their stated end goal is the same, a multicultural, multiethnic, classless society. Beyond that, Marxism-Léninisme (Classic Marxism much less so) and Anarchism/Anarcho-Syndicalism do not have much in common.
  - hutzlibu 6y ago
    "That's exactly what GP is saying" No, it is not. As the shared end-goal of marxism and anarchism is the egalitarian stateless society. I was talking about the concrete steps before that. Like those that happened in spain. Communalisation of farmland and factories with guns in hand. This action was done side by side from anarchists in spain as well in russia. The fact that the marxists later stabbed the anarchists in the back, does not change that.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      "The means of productions should be owned by the workers" is a direct corollary of "we should have a stateless and classless society" Unless you can explain to me how you can have private ownership of factories and peasants working on land that isn't their own without having a class system, which is itself a contradiction in terms. The communalisation of farmland and factories by the CNT/FAI and by the CPSU were also completely different. The CPSU communalized them into the state, while the CNT/FAI generally put them into direct control of the workers, generally by putting them into the control of pre-existing unions.
      - hutzlibu 6y ago
        So it seems, you like sophism? Because "The communalisation of farmland and factories by the CNT/FAI and by the CPSU were also completely different." for the former owners of that farmland and factories, it did not really matter - for them it was lost, uncompensated property. Which is why they supported fascism, when they were pushed towards it.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        This isn't a sophism. Just because the difference isn't material for this particular case does not have mean that they have much in common beyond their end goal, which is of course the only commonality I've seen raised. I agree that the bourgeois supported fascism because they judged that it was better for them to continue owning their factories in a fascists society, no matter how many genocides that meant. That makes them fascists. In the situation there were in, the solution was either a radical reconception of the economic system, or fascism. If you think that fascism is the best option, that makes you a fascist.
yiyus 6y ago
> I hope you're not drawing a parallel between Russian revolutionaries, later soviets and CNT/FAI. The differences are huge, but I don't think that was very relevant at the time. I do not think it was easy to understand, for example by an old catholic woman of the Spain of 1936, that the libertarian communism of Bakunin and Kropotkin those atheist were talking about had nothing to do with the communist revolution of Russia she had read about in the news some years ago. Even many people part of these movements did not have their differences clear at all, or were too pragmatic for that, and were just fighting fascism.
- hutzlibu 6y ago
  "Even many people part of these movements did not have their differences clear at all, or were too pragmatic for that, and were just fighting fascism" Ask 5 people of a political movement what they exactly stand for and get 10 different answers.

dgb23 6y ago

Losing all your property? As I understand the surplus was socialized and they turned education, transportation, libraries and so on into public, free services. In real terms this meant you were able to just get your bread from a bakery without paying or otherwise trading directly, if you provided your services for free as well. Turns out that many don’t need greed, nor coercion as a motivation to contribute to their community, if that community is based on freedom and equality. I think this kind of society is something that is worth thinking about and even a goal worth working towards in some capacity. So much energy and time is lost by working against each other, which is really disheartening.

hutzlibu 6y ago
"I think this kind of society is something that is worth thinking about" It absolutely is worth thinking about, but not blinded by ideology. I first read about the temporary anarchistic areas in spain praised as a Utopia. And I thought something like, wow, those evil capitalist forces did hide that from me and others. Reading Orwells Catalonia set things straight a bit. And Orwell was a socialist. But not one blinded by ideology. He wrote about, what he saw. Not what he wished to be seeing. Allmost all anarchistic literature I read, were very much on the wishful fairy tale side of things, when it came to real world events, like spain. Anarchism can be without violence? Yeah well, how do you remove people from their property in reality? You come with guns and ask them nicely to fck off? Yeah, that works, but is not really nonviolent.
- dgb23 6y ago
  I agree with what you’re saying. Political philosophy is and should be just a tool, to analyze ideas. Your portrayal of Anarchism seems a bit one sided however. There are many areas that can benefit from building on anarchic relationships to some degree, such as free software, foundational research, public service etc. And even on a micro level, in teams, communities that uphold the notion of equality and fluent leadership. So a pacifist implementation is rather about building and maintaining alternative relationships than abolishing existing ones by force.
  - 6y ago

sudosysgen 6y ago

Once liberalism collapses, there isn't much of a choice between the two. If you accept the premise that liberalism has failed and that re-establishing it is impossible, then as a bourgeois you have two choices. Either you do accept the socialization of your property, and live the life of an ordinary person, which is morally by far the best thing to do, or: In an attempt to maintain your capital, you decide that you'd rather see fascism with you in a privileged position. As far as anyone is concerned, if you decide that fascism is good for you because it helps you maintain your privilege, you are a fascist. No one has ever said that all bourgeois are hidden fascists, but history tells us that, when (if) liberalism collapses, most bourgeois follow their class interests and support fascism, instead of trying to maintain liberalism and becoming neutral when that fails. Why is this? Because the issues that historically led to the collapse of liberalism can always be linked back to economic issues. Therefore, trying to install a system that provides democracy, peace, and equality for all if/when liberalism collapses will necessarily require the revision of the economics that led to such an issue. This is why, in this event, there really isn't much of an alternative between severely limiting the private ownership of capital and fascism.

hutzlibu 6y ago
"If you accept the premise that liberalism has failed and that re-establishing it is impossible ... Either you do accept the socialization of your property, and live the life of an ordinary person, which is morally by far the best thing to do" Life is seldom made of binary choices like you imply. And what you think is "morally by far the best thing to do" really does not have to match others morals. My morals are, I do not judge absolute morals, like you. I judge only concrete situations. And since so far a egalitarian society is only a theory that failed multiple times in reality, I do not believe in supporting such a theory with all my energy and posession. Which would be "accept the socialization of your property, and live the life of an ordinary person, which is morally by far the best thing to do". In other words, if I would have to take the choice between fascism and socialism I would rather try to gather what I have and go away.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  >Life is seldom made of binary choices like you imply. And what you think is "morally by far the best thing to do" really does not have to match others morals. If there is another choice, then none of what I said applies. That being said, history has been such that there often has been no such other choice. >My morals are, I do not judge absolute morals, like you. I judge only concrete situations. If your morals are such that you would prefer fascism to any kind of socialism, then I do judge, and I think most do. If they aren't such, then the rest of my comment applies. >And since so far a egalitarian society is only a theory that failed multiple times in reality, I do not believe in supporting such a theory with all my energy and posession. Which would be "accept the socialization of your property, and live the life of an ordinary person, which is morally by far the best thing to do". No one, not even Karl Marx believed in an egalitarian society. What socialists do believe is that private property is an issue that will inevitably lead to the fall of liberalism, and that it must be heavily reformed, along with the removal of the class system. All socialist societies had some inequality in them, and no one complained about it, because everyone can agree that those more capable or who work harder should receive more. >In other words, if I would have to take the choice between fascism and socialism I would rather try to gather what I have and go away. That is an understandable choice, and I don't think anyone would object. Of course, getting your capital and other kinds of private property would be much harder as the fascists would certainly not let you do so.