Yes, the Spanish anarchists were unsuccessful because Stalin, and not because they refused to be integrated with the popular front(which even the fucking liberals joined), including militarily until the war was already well lost, which made coordinated actions against the fascists with the popular front impossible
The lessons of the Spanish civil war dont reflect well on the anarchist movement there.
Oh look Nazi propaganda. I've yet to see anything indicating the red army was exceptionally bad compared to other armies in this regard.
Yeah I mean the DPRK has had much more local democracy, especially since the taean work system has increased worker self management
They absolutely did, their inability to coordinate and make compromises during wartime absolutely led to their failures as revolutions.
so even though it’s fallen into fascist oligarchy,
You know any left wing project after being overthrown by the US would also end up a fascist oligarchy right? As was the case with the illegal and undemocratic dissolution of the Soviet Union brought about by the US.
Even the most fascist redfash
A mainstream Jewish holocaust scholar on equating fascism and communism and why it is bad
I hate it when threads like this make me have to repeatedly post the mainstream Jewish holocaust historian "stop conflating fascism and communism" article
It’s possible to be opposed to authoritarian state-capitalism and opposed to Nazism at the same time!
As an idea or as a practice? Because historically anti ML movements have relied on fascists in order to function, have you invented a new way to oppose MLs that doesn't rely on fascism?
Tankies aren’t socialists or communists (not that those two things are the same either). They are the purist ideologues of communism, where compromise is defeat.
They literally support a transitionary period and a capture of the bourgeois state for the interests of the proletariat instead of its immediate dissolution, compromise is the thing ultralefts criticize them for.
As someone who's read Marx and lenin, and Bakunin and Goldman... not to mention kroptikin(god damn that guy bullshat his way through conquest of bread)
The anarchists always decry practical steps that are needed for the transition, but they have a poverty of ideas when it comes to propose better alternative solutions to the problems faced by actual revolutions. And frankly, reading their literature I understand why. They're still hung up on ideas and values and not material analysis much more than MLs. They're still trapped within liberal hegemonic thought though they are against liberal capitalism.
Social democrats are still imperialist.
Okay so how much did you actually study the Spanish civil war because this comes off as really ignorant? Like, what books have you read on the subject that have led you to the conclusion that Stalin was controlling all of the Spanish Republicans except for the anarchists? You seem to deify Stalin much more than me, who generally considers him a very flawed leader who was a better revolutionary, but doesn't consider him some octopus with his tentacles in literally everything.