7 ms·

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

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.
        hutzlibu 6y ago
        "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. " So you like also tautologism. Because from the point of view of the burgeois, socialism means in the end total collapse, starvation, apocalypse. And fascism the known lesser evil. So rephrasing your sentence would be "If you think that socialism is the best option, that makes you a apocalypse fanatic" And to make a last disclaimer before I leave that conversation: I am neither a burgeois, nor a socialist, nor 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.

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.
        hutzlibu 6y ago
        "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. " So you like also tautologism. Because from the point of view of the burgeois, socialism means in the end total collapse, starvation, apocalypse. And fascism the known lesser evil. So rephrasing your sentence would be "If you think that socialism is the best option, that makes you a apocalypse fanatic" And to make a last disclaimer before I leave that conversation: I am neither a burgeois, nor a socialist, nor 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.