this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
944 points (92.1% liked)

Memes

45656 readers
1639 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Please ignore the history of Anarchists fighting the Communists, it simply must have been the dirty Marxists betraying the noble Anarchists.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Are you referring to instances in which Anarchist groups in the Spanish Civil War took actions to hurt Communist groups? I won't claim it didn't happen, but I don't know of examples.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm referring to the general distrust of Anarchists by the Communists. They fought against the Anarchists of Russia during the Russian Civil War, yet still supplied the Spanish Anarchists with weapons and vehicles. The general fact that Anarchists struggle with organization and Communists generally don't to nearly the same degree compounded this.

By what manner do you say the Communists betrayed the Anarchists?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

USSR-aligned groups, where they had power in Spain, in many instances used that power to imprison, smear, and seize weapons from, and attack non-USSR-aligned groups. You can look up José Cazorla's anti-subversion measures in Madrid, or PSUC's attacks on POUM during the Barcelona May Days.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yes, and the anti-USSR groups used their power to imprison, smear, seize weapons from, and attack USSR-aligned groups.

It wasn't a "betrayal," it was a conflict in how the war should be fought. The Anarchists tried to stick to decentralization even within the context of war, and lost. Had the Anarchists adopted a more Marxist line, they may have succeeded.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm not sure they did, at least not preemptively. Do you have examples?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What's your understanding of the entire situation? Are you suggesting that it was going well until the Communists backstabbed the Anarchists? Taking a real, materialist analysis of the situation is necessary. Historically, Communists and Anarchists have had uneasy alliances until differences in organizational theory lead to friction and then conflict.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don't know how the war would have gone if those events hadn't taken place, but it seems to have undermined the strength of the popular front. And from what I've read the anarchists were sufficiently organized. The type of Anarchism popular amongst the Spanish was a syndicalist strain very different from the hyper-individualism people expect from anarchists today.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Why do you think it happened? You implied the fighting was one-sided and a betrayal.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Why what happened? As far as why Anarchists were attacked by communists, it is ppssible the USSR was more interested in developing a strategic ally than simply fighting Fascists. As far as why Franco won, I think the biggest reason was his much greater international support from Germany, Italy, and even American corporate powers.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You're dancing around the issues, I'm asking why you say the Communists "betrayed" the Anarchists, as though it was a one-sided afair.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I mentioned examples. I don't know of any counter-examples.