Liberalism is collapsing into fascism right now. It always has, and it always will. It is inevitable.
No shortage of historical touchstones to support this theory.
If we want to resist the rise of fascism, it would be good to learn from an example which was more successful at doing so than every other nation in mainland Europe, no?
If all you care about is winning, your best odds are siding with the American imperialists. Liberals rule the world, one way or another, and have for centuries.
If you want an enduring experiment in left politics, you’d be safer with Lenin, Mao, Kim, Castro, Chavez, or Mandela.
But anarchism is far more radical of a political theory. It isn’t stable. It hasn’t produced a long track record of success. It doesn’t have a formula you can apply with any degree of confidence.
Maybe it can work. Maybe we’re just not forward thinking enough. But we’re not there yet.
Trying to argue for anarchism based on Spain in '36 is like pointing to the Branch Davidians in Waco as proof of the success of theocracy.
If all you care about is winning, your best odds are siding with the American imperialists.
You’re the worst historian I’ve ever heard of.
It isn’t stable. It hasn’t produced a long track record of success.
A “historian” unfamiliar with the Zapatistas, an anarchist group with over 300,000 people living under it, remaining stable in a very unstable environment for decades.
Zapatistas always rejected the anarchist label to my knowledge. Extremely cool and good, and I am glad anarchists take so much inspiration from it…but that movement doesn’t/didn’t spring from the European political theory of anarchism the way that the anarchist elements of the Paris commune or Spanish civil war did!
It’s definitely a counter example to a claim I don’t think that guy was making (he didn’t say “the only anticapitalist projects with longevity are Marxist Leninist ones” ).
Zapatistas always rejected the anarchist label to my knowledge.
They do the classic anarchist thing of being like, “we don’t need to put a label on it, we are who we are and do what we do”, despite clearly and evidently being organized around anarchist principles.
It’s definitely a counter example to a claim I don’t think that guy was making
He literally claimed that trusting marxist-leninist leaders would be “safer” than organizing by anarchist principles.
No shortage of historical touchstones to support this theory.
Tito’s Yugoslavia?
Oh, you’re a socialist? I don’t care enough to argue with you, I thought you were a liberal. Carry on!
I’m a historian.
If all you care about is winning, your best odds are siding with the American imperialists. Liberals rule the world, one way or another, and have for centuries.
If you want an enduring experiment in left politics, you’d be safer with Lenin, Mao, Kim, Castro, Chavez, or Mandela.
But anarchism is far more radical of a political theory. It isn’t stable. It hasn’t produced a long track record of success. It doesn’t have a formula you can apply with any degree of confidence.
Maybe it can work. Maybe we’re just not forward thinking enough. But we’re not there yet.
Trying to argue for anarchism based on Spain in '36 is like pointing to the Branch Davidians in Waco as proof of the success of theocracy.
You’re the worst historian I’ve ever heard of.
A “historian” unfamiliar with the Zapatistas, an anarchist group with over 300,000 people living under it, remaining stable in a very unstable environment for decades.
The Zapatistas aren’t running Mexico. They’re barely even running their own little corner of Mexico
You may be a terrible historian, but you’ve got a bright future as groundskeeper, with the expertise you’ve demonstrated in moving goalposts.
You might want to work on denying reality, though, that’s really only effective in very limited career paths.
Oh boy. I didn’t realize I was talking to a liberal.
?
!
Zapatistas always rejected the anarchist label to my knowledge. Extremely cool and good, and I am glad anarchists take so much inspiration from it…but that movement doesn’t/didn’t spring from the European political theory of anarchism the way that the anarchist elements of the Paris commune or Spanish civil war did!
It’s definitely a counter example to a claim I don’t think that guy was making (he didn’t say “the only anticapitalist projects with longevity are Marxist Leninist ones” ).
They do the classic anarchist thing of being like, “we don’t need to put a label on it, we are who we are and do what we do”, despite clearly and evidently being organized around anarchist principles.
He literally claimed that trusting marxist-leninist leaders would be “safer” than organizing by anarchist principles.