LWDT V: Completing the Five Thread Plan

[Torrocca]

Fair enough, but that doesn't mean social order broke down in Revolutionary Catalonia.

Well I wouldn't say that vigilante mobs committing summary executions is "working fine and dandy".

Tbh, I'm not even opposed to anarchism, Free Territory was pretty beast. I'm just a bit more torn on Revolutionary Catalonia.

True, the vigilantism was pretty shit, but understandable considering the conditions they were in: namely, the whole Nationalist uprising and their own revolution.

[Ostroeuropa]

Well I wouldn't say that vigilante mobs committing summary executions is "working fine and dandy".

Tbh, I'm not even opposed to anarchism, Free Territory was pretty beast. I'm just a bit more torn on Revolutionary Catalonia.

True, the vigilantism was pretty shit, but understandable considering the conditions they were in: namely, the whole Nationalist uprising and their own revolution.

The problem is the anarchists were acting like anyone who even wanted a nation was a fascist, and pulling precisely the same disingenuous shit that progressives do in the modern day that has led to the rise of the far-right in the modern day. They played directly into the propaganda of the fascists and validated their rhetoric and arguments. Same as modern progressives are playing directly into the hands of the far-right and validating a lot of their points.

Dogmatists never learn.

[Torrocca]

True, the vigilantism was pretty shit, but understandable considering the conditions they were in: namely, the whole Nationalist uprising and their own revolution.

The problem is the anarchists were acting like anyone who even wanted a nation was a fascist, and pulling precisely the same disingenuous shit that progressives do in the modern day that has led to the rise of the far-right in the modern day. They played directly into the propaganda of the fascists and validated their rhetoric and arguments. Same as modern progressives are playing directly into the hands of the far-right and validating a lot of their points.

Dogmatists never learn.

Kinda like they were busy enduring a civil war against Nationalists that very explicitly were against the Anarchists or something.

[Ostroeuropa]

The problem is the anarchists were acting like anyone who even wanted a nation was a fascist, and pulling precisely the same disingenuous shit that progressives do in the modern day that has led to the rise of the far-right in the modern day. They played directly into the propaganda of the fascists and validated their rhetoric and arguments. Same as modern progressives are playing directly into the hands of the far-right and validating a lot of their points.

Dogmatists never learn.

Kinda like they were busy enduring a civil war against Nationalists that very explicitly were against the Anarchists or something.

Which they lost because of this kind of flippant and dismissive attitude that led to millions of people deciding the anarchists wanted them dead for thinking a government is a good idea.

Not everyone who wants a nation is a reactionary or a fascist, but they acted like it, murdered people over it, and then were shot to the last one of them for their ridiculous behavior.

[Pilarcraft]

Kinda like they were busy enduring a civil war against Nationalists that very explicitly were against the Anarchists or something.

Which they lost because of this kind of flippant and dismissive attitude.

Not everyone who wants a nation is a reactionary or a fascist.

To be fair, the Anarchists weren't the only ones in the Republican Spain's team

[Chestaan]

Well I wouldn't say that vigilante mobs committing summary executions is "working fine and dandy".

Tbh, I'm not even opposed to anarchism, Free Territory was pretty beast. I'm just a bit more torn on Revolutionary Catalonia.

True, the vigilantism was pretty shit, but understandable considering the conditions they were in: namely, the whole Nationalist uprising and their own revolution.

I don't agree that its understandable at all. Revolution or not, its never acceptable to murder Catholics or even priests just because of who they are. I can understand summary justice against captured enemy combatants and spies in cases like this but when a movement starts killing on a whim or on the flimsiest of pretexts it loses it's claim to legitimacy. Not to mention that in many case people were not just killed but tortured and humiliated. There is no justification for such behaviour.

From a purely leftist self-interest point of view, it's horrible PR, for want of a better term, and can be used as effective propaganda to suppress leftist ideas. This is why such events need to be condemned without qualification, because if we don't condemn them then it lends credence to the false narrative that leftists will do the same again if the opportunity arises.

[Ostroeuropa]

Which they lost because of this kind of flippant and dismissive attitude.

Not everyone who wants a nation is a reactionary or a fascist.

To be fair, the Anarchists weren't the only ones in the Republican Spain's team

No, but they acted sufficiently unhinged that it was a propaganda and recruiting godsend for the fascists, especially when it was demonstrated the republicans couldn't control them and reign them in and they kept defying the republican government and escalating in their extremism, something that eventually resulted in the republicans calculating that spending resources fighting the anarchists was necessary to prevent them losing the war.

Imagine being such a shit ally that your own side thinks they're better off fighting you than the enemy because you're causing just that many problems.

The republicans went to crack down on anarchists to stop them essentially being Franco's chief recruiters.

[Torrocca]

Kinda like they were busy enduring a civil war against Nationalists that very explicitly were against the Anarchists or something.

Which they lost because of this kind of flippant and dismissive attitude.

But Franco's people won with that same flippant and dismissive attitude when they went and massacred thousands for even remotely suggesting that Anarchist movements like Anarcho-Syndicalism was a good idea.

Strange how squashing dissent in one faction's territory somehow is seen as the sole reason as to why they lost the civil war, and how squashing dissent in the other faction's territory has no effect on them either winning or losing said civil war that they started, despite the extent of their atrocities far exceeding those of the first faction.

Not everyone who wants a nation is a reactionary or a fascist.

It's like you have no idea what actually happens in civil wars or revolutions. Every group's gonna crush dissent within their territory, that's just how shit works.

[Torrocca]

True, the vigilantism was pretty shit, but understandable considering the conditions they were in: namely, the whole Nationalist uprising and their own revolution.

I don't agree that its understandable at all. Revolution or not, its never acceptable to murder Catholics or even priests just because of who they are.

To be entirely fair here, the church was the leading supporter of the Nationalist movement.

Not to mention that in many case people were not just killed but tortured and humiliated. There is no justification for such behaviour.

Fair point, that shit's abhorrent and should've been stamped out immediately.

From a purely leftist self-interest point of view, it's horrible PR, for want of a better term, and can be used as effective propaganda to suppress leftist ideas. This is why such events need to be condemned without qualification, because if we don't condemn them then it lends credence to the false narrative that leftists will do the same again if the opportunity arises.

Agreed.

[Ostroeuropa]

Which they lost because of this kind of flippant and dismissive attitude.

But Franco's people won with that same flippant and dismissive attitude when they went and massacred thousands for even remotely suggesting that Anarchist movements like Anarcho-Syndicalism was a good idea.

Strange how squashing dissent in one faction's territory somehow is seen as the sole reason as to why they lost the civil war, and how squashing dissent in the other faction's territory has no effect on them either winning or losing said civil war that they started, despite the extent of their atrocities far exceeding those of the first faction.

Not everyone who wants a nation is a reactionary or a fascist.

It's like you have no idea what actually happens in civil wars or revolutions. Every group's gonna crush dissent within their territory, that's just how shit works.

It's like you have no idea how fringe an ideology anarchism is and how "Let's kill ISIS" is not equivalent to "Let's kill everyone who isn't ISIS", both in terms of practicality and in terms of just how many people you have to kill and which of those is more feasible, which of those is a giant massacre involving murdering most of society and which is merely a policing action against a violent minority group.

"Crushing dissent" in the manner the anarchists did didn't crush dissent, it bolstered the enemy by chasing anyone vaguely religious or not anarchist into the ranks of the enemy.

"A social democrat! Clearly they're a reactionary fascist pig! Kill Bernie Sanders he's as bad as Hitler!" said the anarchists.

They were so ridiculous and extreme their own side turned on them.

[Torrocca]

But Franco's people won with that same flippant and dismissive attitude when they went and massacred thousands for even remotely suggesting that Anarchist movements like Anarcho-Syndicalism was a good idea.

Strange how squashing dissent in one faction's territory somehow is seen as the sole reason as to why they lost the civil war, and how squashing dissent in the other faction's territory has no effect on them either winning or losing said civil war that they started, despite the extent of their atrocities far exceeding those of the first faction.



It's like you have no idea what actually happens in civil wars or revolutions. Every group's gonna crush dissent within their territory, that's just how shit works.

It's like you have no idea how fringe an ideology anarchism is

Just because it's fringe internationally doesn't mean it was fringe in Spain in the 30s. How do you think Anarchists were able to practically secure entire regions?

and how "Let's kill ISIS" is not equivalent to "Let's kill everyone who isn't ISIS", both in terms of practicality and in terms of just how many people you have to kill and which of those is more feasible, which of those is a giant massacre and which is merely a policing action.

Oof, comparing Anarchists to ISIS. Classy.

Also >implying what Franco's group did was merely a policing action despite all the rapes and the murders that exceeded all atrocities committed by the entire Republican side by a factor of three

"Crushing dissent" in the manner the anarchists did didn't crush dissent, it bolstered the enemy by chasing anyone vaguely religious or not anarchist into the ranks of the enemy.

I'm really gonna need proof that this shit went to that much of an extent.

"A social democrat! Clearly they're a reactionary fascist pig! Kill Bernie Sanders he's as bad as Hitler!" said the anarchists.

Now that's a hefty bit of straw, man. :^)

[Chestaan]

It's like you have no idea what actually happens in civil wars or revolutions. Every group's gonna crush dissent within their territory, that's just how shit works.[/quote]

Think about this statement for a second and imagine all of the atrocities carried out throughout the world that can be just written off if we accept such a statement. Does that mean that the Khmer Rouge gets a pass? Could even go so far as to say that Holocaust gets a pass, because they were at war and Jews, Roma, leftists etc. were more likely to be dissenters due to the regime's hatred of them.

[Torrocca]

It's like you have no idea what actually happens in civil wars or revolutions. Every group's gonna crush dissent within their territory, that's just how shit works.

Think about this statement for a second and imagine all of the atrocities carried out throughout the world that can be just written off if we accept such a statement. Does that mean that the Khmer Rouge gets a pass? Could even go so far as to say that Holocaust gets a pass, because they were at war and Jews, Roma, leftists etc. were more likely to be dissenters due to the regime's hatred of them.

Fuck, man, I'm not saying it's acceptable by any measure. It's atrocious no matter who or what did it. I'm just saying that these events tend to take place amidst armed conflicts, especially civil wars and revolutions.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's like you have no idea how fringe an ideology anarchism is

Just because it's fringe internationally doesn't mean it was fringe in Spain in the 30s. How do you think Anarchists were able to practically secure entire regions?

and how "Let's kill ISIS" is not equivalent to "Let's kill everyone who isn't ISIS", both in terms of practicality and in terms of just how many people you have to kill and which of those is more feasible, which of those is a giant massacre and which is merely a policing action.

Oof, comparing Anarchists to ISIS. Classy.

"Crushing dissent" in the manner the anarchists did didn't crush dissent, it bolstered the enemy by chasing anyone vaguely religious or not anarchist into the ranks of the enemy.

I'm really gonna need proof that this shit went to that much of an extent.

"A social democrat! Clearly they're a reactionary fascist pig! Kill Bernie Sanders he's as bad as Hitler!" said the anarchists.

Now that's a hefty bit of straw, man. :^)

1. It was more popular but there's a reason they lost.
2. Burning down cultural and historic buildings and monuments for being against their ideology and hurting their feelings, slaughtering those who disagree with them, demanding rigid adherence to a doctrine and terrorizing people who don't do it, yes i'm comparing them to ISIS. (Specifically Rev Cat.)
3. Figures for the Red Terror range from 38,000 to 172,344.
4. It's literally not a strawman, it's the kind of shit that happened and it's the kind of thing you're dancing around excusing and calling "Crushing dissent" rather than recognize it for what it is.

[Torrocca]

Just because it's fringe internationally doesn't mean it was fringe in Spain in the 30s. How do you think Anarchists were able to practically secure entire regions?



Oof, comparing Anarchists to ISIS. Classy.



I'm really gonna need proof that this shit went to that much of an extent.



Now that's a hefty bit of straw, man. :^)

1. It was more popular but there's a reason they lost.

And it had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the tens of thousands of battle-hardened Italians, and hundreds of tanks and planes from Italy, Germany, and the thousands of international supporters of Nationalist Spain helping to bolster their strategic strengths to the point where they heavily outnumbered and outgunned the Republicans. No siree.

2. Burning down cultural and historic buildings and monuments for being against their ideology and hurting their feelings, slaughtering those who disagree with them, demanding rigid adherence to a doctrine and terrorizing people who don't do it, yes i'm comparing them to ISIS. (Specifically Rev Cat.)

I'd like some proof on a few of those as well, to be frank.

3. Figures for the Red Terror range from 38,000 to 172,344.

Okay, and how do numbers prove that Anarchists were going after people vaguely religious or nationalist?

4. It's literally not a strawman, it's the kind of shit that happened and it's the kind of thing you're dancing around excusing and calling "Crushing dissent" rather than recognize it for what it is.

"Said the Anarchists," said he, as if implying every or even most Anarchists want to kill SocDems and think they're equivalent to Hitler is actually true whatsoever.

Nope, it's definitely a strawman.

[West Leas Oros]

Supporters of constitutional democracy don’t say the state should oppress you either. The very concept of a constitution is to limit the governments power, and the legal system that we currently have is among the fairest. The people have rights that the government cannot infringe, and the government promises to protect the rights of its people from other people. The elected officials (elected BY THE PEOPLE) make the law, interpret the law, and execute the law. The people influence the legal system, this is why we have due process, the 5th amendment, and other nice things.

You're still not getting it. The fact that The Constitution does not have an legitimate body to enforce it means that we, as the people, only enjoy the freedoms given to us by it so long as the State wishes so. All it takes for a constitution to go to dogs is an illiberal monarch (Charles of England, for example), or a bit of panic (The Patriot Act... or pretty much the entirety of The Terror).
If you don't understand this, there isn't much I can tell you.

But under a democracy, you at least have the option to oppose such things. A lot of people opposed, and still do oppose the patriot act, and this is why we need more referenda in our system. Besides, I’d much rather have a few judicial complications than simply be hanged by an angry mob.

[Torrocca]

You're still not getting it. The fact that The Constitution does not have an legitimate body to enforce it means that we, as the people, only enjoy the freedoms given to us by it so long as the State wishes so. All it takes for a constitution to go to dogs is an illiberal monarch (Charles of England, for example), or a bit of panic (The Patriot Act... or pretty much the entirety of The Terror).
If you don't understand this, there isn't much I can tell you.

But under a democracy, you at least have the option to oppose such things. A lot of people opposed, and still do oppose the patriot act, and this is why we need more referenda in our system. Besides, I’d much rather have a few judicial complications than simply be hanged by an angry mob.

>Implying Anarchy doesn't have democracy

[Proctopeo]

But under a democracy, you at least have the option to oppose such things. A lot of people opposed, and still do oppose the patriot act, and this is why we need more referenda in our system. Besides, I’d much rather have a few judicial complications than simply be hanged by an angry mob.

>Implying Anarchy doesn't have democracy

>implying biker gangs aren't the ultimate form of government

[Thermodolia]

But under a democracy, you at least have the option to oppose such things. A lot of people opposed, and still do oppose the patriot act, and this is why we need more referenda in our system. Besides, I’d much rather have a few judicial complications than simply be hanged by an angry mob.

>Implying Anarchy doesn't have democracy

Ewww. Anarchy. Yucky.

Therm no want to eat the yucky anarchy

[Torrocca]

>Implying Anarchy doesn't have democracy

Ewww. Anarchy. Yucky.

Therm no want to eat the yucky anarchy

but anarchists are more pro LGBT than rainbow capitalists ever will be comrade

>Implying Anarchy doesn't have democracy

>implying biker gangs aren't the ultimate form of government

>implying biker gang democracy wouldn't happen

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

>r/CA

ewwwww edgelord anarchy

>implying r/C@ isn't leagues better than r/FC

r/PrequelMemes is the best ideology, heretic.

[West Leas Oros]

>implying r/C@ isn't leagues better than r/FC

r/PrequelMemes is the best ideology, heretic.

This is where the fun begins.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

But what about Cat Girls?

/r/socialism is a n g e r y

*literal commodification intensifies*

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

r/COMPLETEANARCHY just got 20,000 more subscribers!

r/FULLCOMMUNISM wants a word with you.

Oros, no. Please. You were the chosen one. You were meant to debunk the tankies, not join them. Bring balance to the left, not leave it in darkness.

[West Leas Oros]

>Implying Anarchy doesn't have democracy

Ewww. Anarchy. Yucky.

Therm no want to eat the yucky anarchy

Me neither. Anarchy tastes of oil and fire, the primary components of a Molotov cocktail.