ThereRisesARedStar

Asking you if something crucially needed to defeat the nazis was even documented as on the radar of contemporary anarchists isnt writing a novel.

That's how they get you! taps forehead

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.

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. Cmon...

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.

Ah, nice try, but I already told you I'm not going to debate you on the Spanish Civil War.

I asked you if you've even read anything about it, not if you want to debate me about it.

You implied that not crushing anarchists would have directly led to a successful genocide. Ye it's pretty manipulative.

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.

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.

PS: I like how you sneaked in that call to emotion at the end. Very manipulative. Love 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?

If the anarchists in the soviet union were allowed power, general plan Ost would have come to fruition. Anarchists have historically not been able to lead mass industrialization in a coordinated way, and have not been able to lead successful military campaigns across territories as large as the USSR. If the soviet leadership didn't protect the revolution from anarchists, part of my family would have died in a death camp instead of being liberated from one by red army soldiers.

But the tankies stabbed the pure hearted anarchists in the back! Okay, maybe the anarchists shouldn't have been idealists who cared more about coops than actually prosecuting a successful socialist transition. Literally read Lenin's interaction with the anarchist prince.

It isnt first past the post. It is bourgeois democracy. Things would be the same if there was one party or twenty so long as the bourgeoisie own the state.

I'd argue you're just describing vulgar idealist(as opposed to materialism, not cynicism) philosophy.

What I meant was that if we didn't have it to start with, things would've likely still developed albeit much more slowly.

I dont think we will ever know, but Im not sure I agree. I dont know what the landscape would look like without relying on open source and patent theft. A lot of the stuff would probably not be financially viable.

I work in software development. Almost all modern architecture would collapse without the open source ecosystem.

:gulp:

I have no formal training in philosophy maybe I need to read less philosophy if philosophy undergrads aren't being exposed to it

suppose you could make an argument that a non-communist dialectical materialist is also a Marxist

That's my argument

though I’ve never seen it used that way in practice.

Sometimes capitalists spout marxist shit and it is recorded. Marxist capitalists are the worst because they have an understanding of the contradictions their counterparts dont. More commonly there are non communist Marxists in philosophy.

I agree that almost all Marxists are communists, I just felt your initial response was a simplification that lost more meaning in the simplification than it necessarily needed to.

No, marxism is a lense through which to analyze capitalism. It isnt communist by itself, although marx was a communist.