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.
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
Seeing someone "vaguelly left" unironically defending the extrajudicial murder of Rosa fucking Luxembourg was not in my bingo card.
Note that even Germany itself celebrates Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht
This is a massive turbolib take don't get me wrong, but I don't see Pug defending the murder of those two. They defended the recruitment of the Freikorps for the violent suppression of the uprising, which is also a shity turbolib take but not really the same thing.
Well, he did call Rosa a fascist
I'm not quite sure what point Pug was trying to make (I think it's against violent coups as a form of socialist revolution), but they weren't criticizing Rosa here. They're appealing to her authority as a socialist figure to make their point.
Not universally - but pointing out that Rosa Luxemburg herself was opposed to the coup attempt when there were reasonably democratic elections coming up that the KPD could've very easily made significant gains in.
If the reaction to "There are democratic elections coming up, and they look to be relatively fair and probably reflect the will of the majority" is "We need to take power by force before that can happen!", you've edged into some pretty fucking questionable territory. Combine that with the fact that the Spartacist Uprising explicitly modeled itself after the Bolsheviks in Russia, who had, the year before, dissolved a democratically elected and leftist legislature to seize power for themselves, and it becomes difficult to not see it as a form of early red fascism.
Disclaimer: I have nothing but disdain for the Bolsheviks/Communists, and believe there's a serious argument that they're just a branch of fascism with leftwing dressing. This argument is not coming from a place of ML sympathy.
You're misrepresenting/misunderstanding the cause of the Spartacist uprising. The uprising wasn't planned to prevent the democratic elections; it kind of just happened as some saw an opportunity where none existed and everyone jumped the gun. Also note that the KPD wanted to establish a council republic similar to what the Bolsheviks had set up, which was flawed but not inherently authoritarian; Bolshevik authoritarianism came through corruption of a democratic system with winning the war as their excuse. It's no coincidence that anti-Bolshevik uprisings would feature chants of "soviets without communists" in the tail end of the civil war. Point being: The uprising was a bad idea in hindsight, but you're seeing malice on the part of the KPD where there's none. The KPD, after being swept up by an uprising they did not plan but that had effectively started anyway, saw an opportunity to replace a form of democracy (parliamentary democracy) with what they considered a better form of democracy (council democracy); whether you agree with them on that or not, nothing about the uprising was fascist of the red or any other variety.
That the uprising wasn't planned, and that the KPD turning it into an uprising was intended to prevent the upcoming elections are not mutually exclusive positions; that it was unplanned is apparent by the reaction of the vast majority of the protesters who initially sparked the KPD's insane idea that they could take over - the vast majority of protesters were, themselves, trade unionists who did not desire a coup, and did not join the attempted uprising.
As I mentioned, the Bolsheviks had already shown their true colors in dissolving the democratically elected legislature the year before for not returning a sufficiently Bolshevik legislature. They did not prevent it from meeting because it was the 'wrong kind' of democracy - only once it was apparent that they had not won the elections and the resulting representatives were unwilling to bend to their wishes did they opt to dissolve it. Furthermore, at this point, purges of leftist groups on the Bolshevik side had already begun - and, on top of that, the entire point of the Bolsheviks was that they were believers in an anti-democratic Vanguardist state. That was the point of the split with the Mensheviks.
I think that seeing malice in an attempt to stop elections from occurring is not unwarranted, especially considering what party they sought to imitate. Even at that early point, the Bolsheviks were not exactly friends of democracy.
I'm not sure if you're misremembering or making things up, but many of your claims aren't historically supported at all. Also when I say KPD that's a shorthand for the uprising leadership in general, because those guys weren't all KPD.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacist_uprising#Mass_demonstrations_and_general_strike
Enough demonstrators supported the uprising to force the KPD's hand in starting/continuing it. The uprising petered out due to a divided leadership unable to seize the momentum, not because the demonstrators were uninterested in a second revolution to overthrow the bourgeoisie. Also you keep saying "coup" but, like, when you have half a million workers marching around to overthrow the government that's not a coup anymore; that's a revolution.
True, but irrelevant. Using Bolshevik actions to morally implicate the KPD is fallacious logic. The uprising was meant to create a socialist and democratic society in the form of a council republic, not replicate everything the Bolsheviks did. If you have criticism of the KPD, criticize the KPD; everyone worth having this conversation with already knows the Bolsheviks were terrible people.
Again, that is literally not what happened. The uprising was a spontaneous affair emerging from SPD repression that the KPD attempted to control after the fact. If the goal was to prevent elections, they would've never negotiated with the SPD*. Even if we accept your claim, though, your position only makes sense if you view bourgeois parliamentary democracy as exceptionally democratic and worthy of preservation compared to socialist forms of democracy. Would you condemn an uprising to overthrow a constitutional monarchy and establish a republic in a similar manner?
*See:
Point being: The January uprising was entirely in line with democratic principles and not at all a repeat of the Bolshevik coup a year earlier. Treating those two as in any way the same is nothing short of liberal "socialism is fascism" rhetoric. You should read the Wikipedia article before responding.
I'm well aware; that doesn't change their goals or idolization.
Further on you chide me to read the wikipedia article, yet demonstrate that you have no interest in the parts of the Wikipedia article that contradict your narrative.
The interest in bringing down the government was not the revolutionary abolition of the newborn Weimar government, but the resignation of Ebert's government in a parliamentary sense.
Oh, okay, I should just ignore the coup's leadership openly idolizing the Bolshevik process because they weren't literally the Bolsheviks themselves. I'm sure that their attempt to prevent democratic elections was completely holsum and that they would've been utterly unlike the Bolsheviks in victory.
"SPD repression" is a very curious way to say "The SPD responding to a police chief kidnapping a politician to hold as hostage"
"Put us in a better position to seize power and we'll think about allowing electoins"
Wow much negotation
Yes, abso-fucking-lutely? If the UK is having elections in two weeks, those elections look free and fair, and Labour says "Instead of participating in elections, we want to have a coup", that's a pretty damning admission that they don't think they can fucking win free and fair elections.
"But a Republic would be better!" Yes, a republic would be better - but if your opinion is that a republic would be better even against the wishes of the majority of the population, maybe you aren't such a believer in the basic idea of a democratic republic to fucking begin with.
I have. As quoted parts contradict your arguments, I must question if you have as well.
It was a questionable decision by the SPD, but also raises the question of what should they have done in their position.
With few independent paramilitaries, and with the army gutted by the armistice, what immediate forces did they have to call upon to prevent the coup attempt? Even with the call for the Freikorps, the Weimar government's forces numbered only ~3,000 troops during the uprising's suppression - and this after the navy servicemen had proven unwilling to engage the putschists.
Compromise left rather than rightward. If they could work with literal fascists, they could've seen what the KPD had to say. Also, not using the army to attack their supposed allies, or even agreeing to reinstate Eichhorn after the fact, would've averted this whole thing. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacist_uprising#Background_and_causes.
Fuckin wonder why.
As you yourself admit, negotiations were had. They saw what the KPD had to say - and one of their core demands was to restore to power someone who had taken leftist politicians hostage for being insufficiently leftist.
Their supposed allies who were attempting a coup? This leads back around to the idea that the SPD should've rolled over and fucking died.
Because the navy was extremely left-wing at the time?
Not to be rude but like, was your major in alt history? You clearly need a heavy refresher on the German revolution before you're qualified to talk about this, so I'd suggest you start with that before responding. To be clear, I'll downvote and move on if your next response isn't at least mostly rooted in fact.
Nope. See:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacist_uprising#Background_and_causes
Eichhorn's "fault" in all this was not using the police to crack down on leftist allies with legitimate grievances. He was not at all involved in the hostage taking, which the navy men didn't do because the politician "wasn't sufficiently leftist;" as clearly stated in the article, it was a dispute over back pay.
No "coup" ("revolution" makes a lot more sense as a label) yet. The army thing is referring to this:
Eichhorn would be subsequently dismissed, not for anything you stated but because he wouldn't "reliably" immediately resort to deadly force against fellow leftists. This would be the immediately spark of the uprising.
Because the people Ebert called the army on were the navy servicemen. They knew firsthand how ghoulish that asshole really was.
Sorry that you don't like your own source being quoted to contradict you?
Yep
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Wels
"It's a revolution because I like this attempt to prevent democratic elections"
As mentioned and quoted above, it's not "a dispute over backpay"
"It's okay if a police chief approves of military forces taking politicians hostages if I really agree with them"
"Ghoulish is when the civilian government doesn't allow the military to make its own orders and take hostages whenever it likes"
If you think my position is unnecessarily prejudiced against the uprising and not worth responding to, that's fine. But I think you're really downplaying the connection between the Bolsheviks and the thinking of the leadership of the Spartacist Uprising.