4 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 state

"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.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        From their point of view, socialism could lead to anything they want it to lead, fascism is known to be much, much worse. Socialist societies even in their very crude stages in the 20th centuries led to outcomes that were average or slightly above average, while fascists openly admitted that they would cause cataclysmic war and attempt to kill hundreds of millions of people. One can delude themselves in order to justify pursuing their interests at the expense of the vast majority, that doesn't make it true. And this is known to be true. If you lie to yourself to convince yourself to support fascism, you are a fascist. Finally, I think you might like to investigate what tautologies and sophism are, because so far you've called for both when they obviously aren't true. Restating the situation to draw it into a before then non-accepted and crucial consequence is not redundant to the conversation.

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.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        From their point of view, socialism could lead to anything they want it to lead, fascism is known to be much, much worse. Socialist societies even in their very crude stages in the 20th centuries led to outcomes that were average or slightly above average, while fascists openly admitted that they would cause cataclysmic war and attempt to kill hundreds of millions of people. One can delude themselves in order to justify pursuing their interests at the expense of the vast majority, that doesn't make it true. And this is known to be true. If you lie to yourself to convince yourself to support fascism, you are a fascist. Finally, I think you might like to investigate what tautologies and sophism are, because so far you've called for both when they obviously aren't true. Restating the situation to draw it into a before then non-accepted and crucial consequence is not redundant to the conversation.