But yet again (because this happens on every critical vote) they won’t face any consequences for their “betrayal”. The real traitors are the Democratic leadership like Chuck Schumer who once again allowed this to happen, and who according to some sourced, “negotiated” the deal in the first place.

In total, anarchists should uphold the soviet experience, and disprove bourgeois framing of Stalin and the USSR. This weakens bourgeois cultural hegemony, strengthening both anarchist and Marxist movements. I know this was long, but I hope it was at least interesting to read!

I appreciate the interesting read! Just been a bit hectic irl. Personally, I’m sympathetic to the fact that the West has collectively demonized the USSR with propaganda ever since 1917. Objectively, yes, the USSR achieved a lot in a very hostile environment, both military and economic, and they also did a lot of stuff I don’t agree with, but that’s not confined to the Soviets, of course.

I guess I just don’t see the point in the exercise though. You’re never gonna get much traction trying to rehabilitate Stalin, because anti-Soviet propaganda is so deeply ingrained. Like why even fight that fight? You’re gonna hit a brick wall every time, because it’s a “toxic brand” of sorts. Arguing over Stalin’s legacy feels genuinely counterproductive to me, compared to just advocating for community groups, socialism and direct action. I guess we are just coming at the same task from different angles. Thanks for sharing your perspective.

How do you see his critique? Do you think that anarchism cares less about wider social emancipation?

I don’t think it’s accurate. And no, definitely not. It seems like he is describing libertarians more than anarchists imo, as mutual aid and community building are core principles of anarchism.

I suspect for some folks Stalin is bad because […]

For most folks in the west, stalin is considered to be a brutal authoritarian dictator who made a deal with the nazis to carve up europe into spheres of influence. It should not be surprising to anyone that a lot of anarchists hold to that view, especially given stalin’s view of anarchists (see below).

We are not the kind of people who, when the word “anarchism” is mentioned, turn away contemptuously and say with a supercilious wave of the hand: “Why waste time on that, it’s not worth talking about!” We think that such cheap “criticism” is undignified and useless.

Nor are we the kind of people who console themselves with the thought that the Anarchists “have no masses behind them and, therefore, are not so dangerous.” It is not who has a larger or smaller “mass” following today, but the essence of the doctrine that matters. If the “doctrine” of the Anarchists expresses the truth, then it goes without saying that it will certainly hew a path for itself and will rally the masses around itself. If, however, it is unsound and built up on a false foundation, it will not last long and will remain suspended in mid-air. But the unsoundness of anarchism must be proved.

Some people believe that Marxism and anarchism are based on the same principles and that the disagreements between them concern only tactics, so that, in the opinion of these people, it is quite impossible to draw a contrast between these two trends.

This is a great mistake.

We believe that the Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism. Accordingly, we also hold that a real struggle must be waged against real enemies. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the “doctrine” of the Anarchists from beginning to end and weigh it up thoroughly from all aspects.

So if I may ask you a question - if marxism and anarchism are fundamentally enemies, as stalin himself argued, why would any anarchist support the modern day ML penchant for rehabilitating stalin’s reputation? It makes no sense. But sure, keep telling yourself anarchists hate stalin because of his virtues and not because of his other characteristics.

They should still do it and bring the country to a standstill if necessary. If extreme measures aren’t applicable now, when will they be? It’ll cause some short term pain, but it’ll get everyone out in the streets.

In reality the Dems will do none of those things though. They won’t nationalize anything because they are neoliberals. They won’t fully defund ICE because they want racists to vote for them too. They’ll just reduce the budget and maybe stop putting kids in cages. They won’t shut down funding for the exec branch because they’ll say it is “irresponsible”.

More things they’ll never do:

• Demilitarise and defund the police
• Provide free public healthcare and education for all
• Raise taxes on billionaires
• Stop mass surveillance programs
• Reform the electoral system to allow proportional representation
• Properly regulate and tax corporations
• Stop providing weapons to their genocidal allies

I’d love to be proved wrong, but I’m not gonna get my hopes up.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2024/10/30/kamala-harris-has-more-billionaires-prominently-backing-her-than-trump-bezos-and-griffin-weigh-in-updated/

Remind me again which Iraqi or Palestinian lives are you saving by bootlicking Nazis?

Lol ok anarchists are Nazis now? Have you had an aneurysm?

[Supporting a democrat?] would be an awful price to pay for millions of human lives.

What millions of lives are you talking about? Fantasy lives? How many real lives would be saved if the US stopped Israel from committing genocide instead of arming them to the teeth? But neither the Dems or the Republicans have any desire to stop that conflict.

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/50196829

Don’t know why you’re assuming I’m American, ableist bigot. But even if I was, I still wouldn’t vote for a genocide, even if one of the pro-genocide candidates promised to respect my pronouns.

It’s not all about you. Remind me again, why are American lives more important than Iraqi lives or Palestinian lives?

Republicans and Democrats are both perfectly ok with state violence so long as it’s against brown people, and preferably overseas. How many millions have died from lack of access to affordable health care and an almost non-existent social safety net in the US over the past century? But those aren’t counted as ideological deaths for some reason? If you think that choosing either of the two main parties which both have an official policy of supporting foreign genocides is the lesser evil somehow, you’ve been duped. America has killed more people in wars in the past 20 years than nearly any other state, except perhaps for Russia. You’re just bent out of shape because that state violence has been turned on the domestic population for once. Anything has got to be better than the status quo.

Running terrible, unpopular candidates is kind of their whole schtick though. So it might well happen.

It’s wrong to hate Jews because they are Jewish. That’s antisemitism. But it’s the right thing to do to unequivocally condemn the Israeli government and their enablers because of their right wing genocidal policies towards their neighbours. The pattern you are following is that of claiming Israel cannot be criticised without it being antisemitic, which is the same bullshit Netanyahu is trying to pull.

I know you are joking but somehow I don’t think a Nazi style eugenics program is the solution.

I don’t think that’s true tbh. The Dems have never managed to nominate a popular woman as their presidential candidate before. Clinton was almost universally disliked by the public (for lots of good reasons other than her gender), and ex-prosecutor Harris’s campaign was hamstrung by Biden, as well as being seen as an other pro-corporate Democrat stooge. AOC might actually have a fighting chance compared to her predecessors. But she’ll never be able to be the Democratic candidate until the old guard of leadership is replaced, let’s face facts.

It’s just mass delusion at this stage if anyone believes the democrats will embrace leftism.

Never gonna happen though, sadly. If the Dems ever turn anti corporate I’ll happily eat my hat though.

Unfortunately the Democratic establishment is against ranked choice voting just as much as the Republicans, because it would challenge the two party system.

Will never happen though, sadly.

Gotta say, that article really cheered me up lol.