- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
I’d love to see those Hexbears have an answer for this!
You must log in or register to comment.
WTF is a Libertarian Socialist? Isn’t that like an oxymoron?
Basic summary is its supposed to be Communism without as hard of a grip on the state and structures of society, “without the authoritarianism” as ideological of an explanation as that is.
So communism without even the conditions for socialism
Materialism, not even once.
Thanks. I’m a silly
that only knew Libertarian from the 
“I got mine fuck you” types we have here.What if we made a proletarian state without capitalism then implemented absolutely nothing to protect itself from the re-establishment of capital?
Sounds really hot for those with a perpetual losing fetish.
Think Kropotkin-style anarchism. “Libertarian” used to refer to anarcho-communism–communism without states, hierarchies, and so on–until Rothbard and company started using it to mean laissez-faire capitalism during the 20th century. Some anarchists will still call themselves libertarian socialists or left-libertarians (not to be confused with “bleeding heart libertarians” or “liberaltarians,” which are as awful as you’d expect).
Ahh Captured term from
Thanks.Being an
and only knowing Libertarian as Ayn Rand and 
makes it a bit 
Yeah, that was their deliberate plan. Rothbard wrote:
For the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy. ‘Libertarians’ had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we have taken it over.
He was successful to the point that very few people use it in the old sense anymore, unfortunately. This is especially true in
Probably worth pointing out that Hitler talks about doing the same thing with the word socialism.
Socialism with kid-diddling characteristics
Really it’s “socialist economy with a significant emphasis on individual rights, e.g., free speech.” It doesn’t sound too bad until you (paraphrasing Parenti here) contemplate the difficulties of actually running a state, confronting capitalist attacks on your state, handling reactionary groups within your state, etc. Basically “do you let the fascists publish their newspaper the day after the revolution?”
It’s often a superficially leftist label slapped over “DON’T TELL ME WHAT TO DOOOOOOOOOOOO” no-veggies-at-dinner-no-bedtimes attitude.
Was that “no bedtimes” struggle session on twitter real?
I don’t know, but threads like the one this one is sourced from make me wonder if it was.
Why don’t the libertarians and anarchists simply acquire larger guns?
or for once organize a big enough movement that has a chance of success, then they can actually deal with “tankies”. Instead they join every Western supported protest movement with their tiny insignificant numbers, thinking they can actually change the course of these pro-West colour revolutions.
anarcho-comrades shouldn’t have exploded bukharin tho, dumbest target selection in history of selections. *And shot leninBut ussr should have allowed internal factionalism after nep and/or after ww2
wasn’t Bukharin a W tho
Hate them for shooting lenin, it was directly instrumental to their death. But the “anarchist” who did that were allied with mostly russian nationalists.
Not that much, he was mildly sympathetic to anarchists (closer to lenin, than stalin/trotsky). He was temperating influence i feel, so collectivization may have gone smoother with him being more influential. I have kinda confusing feelings on him, as his theoretical work at first was bleh, but his economic outlook/general aims were more humane
Na, should have gone full Stalin until now.
Unsure where the author of this meme has heard either Lenin or Stalin call for left unity? Both were pretty clearly and consistently hostile towards Anarchism/Libertarian Socialism as well as what we’d call modern Social Democratic tendencies.
Only not including Mao because I havent read enough Mao and Khruschev because I honestly don’t expect him to have written or spoken in particular about left tendency conflicts.
Really funny to just put “intellectuals” under Mao though.
Mao was an anarchist for a minute and actually tried to set up a representational system where multiple anti-capitalist parties could hold office, but no liberals (it was during the Civil War and lasted about 5 minutes before getting replaced by a single party system)
Didn’t mao write scathing critiques of anarchism after his experience with it?
tbf he did seem to incorporate some anarchist principles into his theory and he wasn’t some kind of anarchist-hunter as the head of the CPC, he just concluded that they were substantially in error (as he separately said of many ML contingents).
mao really was his own thing wasn’t he lol
If they wanted a remotely accurate meme they should have put “no unity with counter-revolutionaries” as the dialogue, since that at least gets at the core divide and argument of the conflict, both then and now.
Edit: Actually the more I look at it the funnier it gets, like theres no Kronstadt? You put “factory councils” over like the one specific thing everyone gets to hear about and have to have an opinion on? What is this, a crypto-Trotskyist meme?
One of the (more legitimate) grievances put forward by the anarchists is that the bolsheviks ended elections in the soviets and replaced elected delegates with Bolshevik appointees. During the Civil War and consolidation it made sense, but the fact that the soviets weren’t democratize again during peace time was a failing (although, obviously, the time between the Civil War and the German invasion was brief). I think that’s probably what it was in reference to?
the german invasion kinda fucked up the soviet union permanently, didn’t it
Lenin did kind of revere Kropotkin, but you are right that it was explicitly part of their organization that “there is one party line, not two” and that the vanguard must behave in a unified fashion following the results of a vote or other method of decision-making.
and that the vanguard must behave in a unified fashion following the results of a vote or other method of decision-making
This is democratic centralism: Freedom of debate - Unity of action.
There were plenty of anarchist and libertarian socialists in the Soviet Union that weren’t insurrectionist counter-revolutionary opportunists that thought the best time for them to seize power and hit the full Communism button without building anything to actually achieve it was during times of duress, such as the civil war, the build-up to then during the second world War, the post-war rebuilding period in former fascist countries, the post-war rebuilding period in a reunified country freed from imperialist conquest, and so forth.
If I was as historically illiterate and ideologically ignorant as the person that made this and all the clapping circus seals applauding this, I would say something completely out of line like “in the history of left unity, anarchism and libertarian socialism has only attempted to emerge into the world in the form of a cancerous tumor on the Communist movement and never has nor is able to emerge into the world on its own feet.” A completely unfair and intellectually dishonest statement that ignores the existence of anarchist communes in both the Sino and former Soviet states and erases their contributions to the defense of humanity and the revolution they made in fending off the imperialists and fascists and their contributions to the benefit of humanity and the revolution in their work among the people.
Also love the casual racism against Asians by depicting Mao with slit eyes.
Any recs on where to learn about those anarchist communes you mentioned?
I’ll be real with you, it’s info that I read in passing and later lost because I keep fucking up and not saving my tabs. (My web browser on desk top has “close individual tab” and “close all tabs except this one” right next to each other, and I have at multiple times lost a few years of research because of a slip of the finger)
From my recollection it was on a Russian history site I was translating that mentioned their existence through out the life of the Soviet Union as forms of experiments in alternative organizations of societies on a micro level.
Anarcho-bidenists have this weird habit of talking about themselves like they are Jewish or something in the sense of having a history of brutal persecution, even if the speaker in question is just some white guy from a liberal family with absolutely no connection to those historical anarchists except for that they now also call themselves an anarchist. Is really weird and LARPy.
Its a way for boring people who hate reading to tap into that “the communists KILLED my PEOPLE” narrative, its like a politcal personality starter pack. You get an underdog “subversive” ideology, a formative tragedy and an eternal enemy!
I got banned from that comm for “harassment” because I argued with more than one person
But they’re so not mad bro no they’re not mad they’re laughing actually they think its so funny they’re not own they’re not owned-
“Totally not debating you, you’re the debater” master debater is a masterclass in
deleted by creator
How’d that go?
they got banned lol
there’s someone in the original .world thread lumping in anyone who opposes capitalism as being a tankie and someone else saying that anyone who doesnt support israel is a “genocidal tankie” and repeatedly accusing one of the anti-tankies in the thread of being a tankie because they haven’t condemned hamas yet
More proof that tankie means woke
Doing god’s work by making that word make even less sense
Why is Kruschev in a completely different style?
Because all of this is stolen art copy and pasted into a single meme
it looks like oversimplified :shudder:
oh god that channel is horrendous
nobody understands just how oversimplified it is (super fucking simplified) and just how weirdly he interprets his sources sometimes.
Those videos keep fucking appearing on my recommended section despite having clicked “Don’t recommend channel” at least three times now.
Half of this dork’s posts are “everyone in this thread is angry except for me!” lmao
Not Pictured: Uncle Sam applauding Rojava for their help in stealing 80% of Syria’s daily oil output.
Something something no sectarianism and all, but it’d be nice if some fairweather comrades (the kind that stick around until their personal treat flow seems vaguely threatened, or even criticized, or until someone tells them what they should do for the sake of society or the planet) stopped dumping steaming smelly takes into the middle of the room while expecting everyone watching to nod along and congratulate them or run the risk of seeming sectarian.
If they could stop treating politics like a form of Opinion Show & Tell, with points for “creativity,” that’d be great.
Also so many Philosophy majors on campuses would drop out instantly
If anyone, anywhere, is ever told what to do for any length of time for any reason, that may as well be a firing squad according to No Veggies At Dinner No Bedtimes unexamined theory-free “DON’T TELL ME WHAT TO DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO” pop anarchists.
Hit them with this, even if it’s wrong, it makes them very not mad:
Left unity has always existed in real communist/anti-imperialist revolutions. Not every revolutionary was a bleeding heart Marxist, nor every anti-imperialist revolution. One example is Suharto of Indonesia. In any case it is misleading to present Marxism as a dogmatic procedure for revolution in each country. Most revolutions were primarily nationalist and anti imperialist, it just so happens that Marxism is the most useful and popular theoretical framework for such a movement.
On the other hand, utopian and ideal thought is often counter revolutionary. Shutting that down isn’t LeFtIsT iNfIgHtInG, it is necessary for a sustained revolution.
All mortal men are sinners compared with the Christian god which is perfect. No concrete thing can be made ideal. For this reason idealist thought is toxic to any real movement, even one which is progressive. It cannot allow the “birthmarks” of capitalism which Marx wrote about in his critique of the Gotha program. Any progressive movement that allows for idealist thinking is doomed to fail and exposes itself to the bourgeois elements that are eager to return to power.
