Flippanarchy

1577 readers

12 users here now

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.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com

It's not often that one scratches a lib quite so much to see them go full masks-off, but it does happen on occasion (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

72 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

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

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

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.

The following day, the Revolutionary Committee called on the workers of Berlin to stage a general strike on 7 January and overthrow Ebert's government. The call was answered by up to 500,000 people who poured into the city center.

KPD leader Liebknecht, initially against the advice of Luxemburg, supported the plan to unleash a civil war. The Council of People's Deputies was to be overthrown by force of arms and the elections to the National Assembly scheduled for 19 January prevented.[24] Liebknecht feared that the KPD might otherwise isolate itself too much from the workers who sought the overthrow of the government.

- 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.

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.

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.

I think that seeing malice in an attempt to stop elections from occurring is not unwarranted,

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:

On 6 January the Revolutionary Committee began negotiating with Ebert through the mediation of USPD leadership. The negotiations failed on 7 January due to the unwillingness of either side to compromise. The Council of People's Deputies demanded the evacuation of the occupied newspaper buildings, while the insurgents insisted on Eichhorn's reinstatement. The chance for a nonviolent settlement of the conflict was thus lost.

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.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

I'm well aware; that doesn't change their goals or idolization.

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.

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.

KPD leader Liebknecht, initially against the advice of Luxemburg, supported the plan to unleash a civil war. The Council of People's Deputies was to be overthrown by force of arms and the elections to the National Assembly scheduled for 19 January prevented.

The mass of the working class followed the call for a general strike to prevent a counterrevolution, but it did not want to have anything to do with military struggles. On the contrary, they continued to demand the unity of the socialist forces and, at a large meeting in the Humboldthain Park on 9 January, demanded the resignation of all the leaders responsible for the "fratricide". Both the Ebert government and Ledebour and Liebknecht were seen as responsible for the situation. Numerous resolutions from the factories called for an end to the street fighting and the creation of a government in which all socialist parties would be represented.[15] In the view of historian Sebastian Haffner, the executive committee of the Berlin USPD and KPD had failed the uprising, which was "entirely the spontaneous work of the masses of Berlin workers who had made the November Revolution; the masses were overwhelmingly Social Democrats, not Spartacists or Communists, and their January uprising was no different than their November revolution had been."[4]

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.

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.

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.

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.

"SPD repression" is a very curious way to say "The SPD responding to a police chief kidnapping a politician to hold as hostage"

If the goal was to prevent elections, they would’ve never negotiated with the SPD*.

"Put us in a better position to seize power and we'll think about allowing electoins"

Wow much negotation

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?

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.

You should read the Wikipedia article before responding.

I have. As quoted parts contradict your arguments, I must question if you have as well.