Comradeship // Freechat

12 readers

1 users here now

Talk about whatever, respecting the rules established by Lemmygrad. Failing to comply with the rules will grant you a few warnings, insisting on breaking them will grant you a beautiful shiny banwall.

A community for comrades to chat and talk about whatever doesn't fit other communities

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

felipeforte@lemmygrad.ml

152

Seeing libs seethe about “too many tankies” is really funny. (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 2 years ago by aidnic@lemmygrad.ml to c/comradeship@lemmygrad.ml

331 comments fedilink hide all child comments

On stuff outside of lemmygrad, we are receiving a lot of hate, especially by those who just moved from Reddit. Guess they lost their hidden privilege at Reddit as their rhetoric used to be almost universal over there, while genzedong and our other subs get censored and banned. And now, on lemmy, their stuff isn’t universal, as we are more prevalent here. Seems like they really want that hidden privilege back

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] OrnluWolfjarl@lemmygrad.ml 36 points 2 years ago (6 children)

You've missed the rest of the quote, and indeed the whole point of the complete text you are quoting:

Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

Are you opposed to revolts against monarchies in favour of mass participation polities, like the French Revolution? Unfortunately, history shows that violent revolts are far more successful than peaceful ones, and if the goal is to establish a proletarian-led democracy, then the reactionary forces NEED to be contained by any means necessary.

Any attempts for peacefully enacting change against the ruling classes, have resulted in, either violent oppression from the ruling class and failure, or in successful change then an incremental regression back to the previous conditions.

Pacifist purists (Engels' anti-authoritarians) are in essence supporters of the status quo.

[+] mounderfod@lemmy.blahaj.zone -28 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Are you opposed to revolts against monarchies in favour of mass participation polities, like the French Revolution?

No, and if such a revolt must be violent then so it must be. I apologise if I have misunderstood the text, because I am not wholly familiar with it. My overarching point, however, is that it is strange to me that you say that authority and the State is wholly negative when one of the crucial figures of your ideology is known as one of history's most brutal dictators.

[–] GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml 24 points 2 years ago (3 children)

If you've seen a self-proclaimed Marxist say that the state is wholly negative, they were not, in fact, a Marxist, but most likely an anarchist.
Stalin being "one of history's most brutal dictators" is imperialist drivel; even internal CIA documents stated that the USSR had collective leadership. If you're talking about the leadership as a whole, there are certainly things to criticize -- there were undoubtedly excess imprisonments and executions during wartime, because they were defending humanity against fascism, there were fascist collaborators in various republics (such as Solzhenitsyn, the liberal darling), and the survival of the USSR was at stake, but such excess could be found in many other countries (perhaps most prominently the concentration camps for Japanese people in the US, whose survival was very much not at stake). This propaganda has not been accepted by many countries in the Global South, and I would challenge you to provide some actual evidence (on par with that provided for Nazi Germany, the US, Israel, or other fascist regimes).

[–] FuckBigTech347@lemmygrad.ml 14 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Stalin being “one of history’s most brutal dictators” is imperialist drivel; even internal CIA documents stated that the USSR had collective leadership.

Here is one such document for anyone that is curious: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf

[–] GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 2 years ago

that's the one 👍

[–] ComradePupIvy@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 2 years ago

Thank you I had been looking for this

load more comments (1 replies)