this post was submitted on 09 May 2025
534 points (98.0% liked)
Flippanarchy
1080 readers
512 users here now
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Misleading half-truth. Franco received copious amounts of logistic support from Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy while the US and Britain went out of their way to ensure that the Republican side couldn't receive the same. This forced the Republicans to accept poisoned "aid" from Stalin, virtually ensuring eventual fascist victory. Even so, Franco's fascists had a hard time achieving any of their objectives.
Another misleading half-truth. George Orwell himself expressed a wish to join an anarchist formation, not because he shared their ideology, but rather because (in his view) they were the most dedicated of the combatants on the Republican side.
Also see what George Orwell had to say about the numbers of defectors they received from the fascist side - so much for your vaunted "discipline."
How would a tankie even know what the word leadership means?
How is 1 a half truth? It seems we agree, the western bourgeoisie democracies failed to provide aid to the Republicans while the fascists did. I guess I didn't mention that the soviets gave aid, but not as much as the fascists so they had the advantage on that front.
Why would you say the civil war was lost then? I agree the fascist aid wasn't decisive, and the Republicans could win in spite of it, but they didn't. It wasn't because the communist turned on the anarchists, the republicans were losing the war prior to that. The anarchists had ample time and supplies to martial an army and relieve Madrid but they never did, they were content to hold there lines in aragon and wait for Franco to mop up the basque country before turning on them because the fundamental military issue of anarchism, no one is going to vote to go on the offensive.
I'm not a tankie, I just recognize the military weakness of the anarchist cause, just as I recognize the communist weakness of devolving power. I recognize anarchists can't win wars and communists can't give up power once the war is won. History has shown both to be true in every scenario its come up. Understanding the weaknesses of both causes is necessary if we want to achieve liberation from oppression and exploitation.
Stalin didn't "give" aid. The Republicans had to buy it from him with cold, hard gold reserves. And, of course, Stalin made sure the "aid" came with the Cheka in tow.
It's really simple. If your only external logistics depends on a power that is actively attempting to sabotage you victory becomes an impossibility. You didn't see the Nazis sending the Gestapo over to make sure Franco did fascism correctly, did you?
LOL!
What "ample supplies?" If the anarchists had "ample supplies" the Bolsheviks would have had zero leverage over the Republican side, wouldn't they?
WTF are you on about? Durruti and 4000 anarchists marched into Madrid early on in the battle - Durruti literally died there.
Do tell... WHAT "fundamental military issue of anarchism" have you managed to "identify," eh?
Again... WHAT "fundamental military issue of anarchism" have you managed to "identify," eh?
There are TWO (2) constant, identifiable factors present in the failure of armed anarchist resistance in the two available case studies. TWO.
You have miserably failed to identify either of them, and instead substitute cartoonish tankie propaganda as an explanation.
So do tell... why would an (alleged) "non-tankie" be peddling cartoonish tankie propaganda, eh?
Did you read the next sentence? No one is going to vote to go on the offensive except zealots. Yeah you had durrutti leading an offensive at the beginning of the war but that was full of literal die hards committed to the cause. Once they are all dead you need to conscript, you need to give top down orders, you need to requisition supplies from civilians, which are all anathema to anarchist ideology. Everyone but hardcore partisans aren't going to volunteer and even if they do they aren't going to vote to risk there lives further by going on the offensive. You see this in every case of a democratic military, once the initial wave of zeal wears off they start to hunker down and go on defense. You see it in the Paris commune, black Ukraine and Barcelona.
What are these 2 constant factors if not for the inability to take initiative? And why are these factors not present in other revolutionary movements that were able to succeed like the bolsheviks in 1917? They too had no foreign aid, and the near entirety of the domestic political establishment against them.
Do you think any criticism of anarchism makes someone a tanky? That just seems like the same follow the party line logic that we criticize actual tankies for. I could go on and on extolling the virtues and beauty of the system in Barcelona and condemning the multiple atrocities and failures of the communists but as soon as I suggest democratic militaries don't work I become a tankie?
Yes I did. Garbage in, garbage out - just like everything else you've spawned here so far.
It's difficult for you to understand anyone risking their lives without a commissar standing behind them with a gun pointed at their head.
That tracks perfectly.
I guess tankies truly don't understand anything other than brutally press-ganging the working-class into building your backwards and bloodthirsty "worker's utopia" for you, eh?
Right, right... when your bullshit take gets demolished by actual history you explain it away as "die-hard-ism."
Do you tankies ever fucking listen to the bullcrap emanating out of your own holes?
Oh, look... here comes the military expertise you gained by playing "Civilization" games again. Remember what I told you about getting your education from video games?
Oh really? I guess the Makhnovists decisively defeating a logistically and numerically superior PROFESSIONAL military force at the Battle of Perehonivka and pursuing this brouted enemy all the way back to the Crimea while the press-ganged and (supposedly) "disciplined" Bolshevik goons squads could manage little more than terrorising unarmed Ukrainian peasants is an example of anarchist militaries "hunkering on the defensive."
Blow it out of your ass.
Such as? The Spartacist Uprising, perhaps? Much succesful, that one. The Cuban Revolution, perhaps? You know, the very same Cuban Revolution that had the benefit of being logistically supported by the newly-minted CIA while the Batista regime was placed under an arms embargo? The anarchists of Ukraine and Spain would have LOVED that level of "non-aid."
What examples of "unsupported" movements do you have?
Again... why would an (alleged) “non-tankie” be peddling cartoonish tankie propaganda?