From this livestream: https://youtube.com/live/Mx_N17nI0aASign up for *MeansTV* and get 20% off with this link https://means.tv/orders/customer_info?o=70845&...
I’m not a zealot, and Anarchism does not hold to the idea that everyone 100 years ago had everything perfectly figured out like ML’s do, it’s constantly changing and adapting as we learn what does and does not work.
Are you telling me that the FAI ignoring the CNT’s attempts to create a banking system […]
That isn’t a position I argued in favor of. The anarchists did get bit in the ass by the liberal government who still had control of the purse strings that would’ve given them more access to global trade. The 6-part documentary goes over that very situation, and even interviews the asshat who denied the Anarchists money for control.
The internal banking system doesn’t really relate to that, though, the issue was that the internationally accepted currency wasn’t under Anarchist control. So the lesson learned from that conflict is that the liberals will fuck them over just as the tankies will, but again, the specific war needs combined with the political situation of that period did not realistically allow for the Anarchists to just swiftly take those rivals out of the game.
Also, I mentioned how the CNT discussed taking control of the gold reserves by stealing it, the reasons they didn’t, and how they later regretted not doing it, which is another mistake to learn from.
That is not something that will ever change no matter where or when the socialist experiment takes place.
That’s just… Not how war works, though. You don’t think if the US had a successful Anarchist revolution in the 30’s, that it wouldn’t be in a far better position in every possible way compared to a successful revolution in say, Belgium right before WWII? The North America is geographically isolated by an ocean that makes it very difficult to invade, had access to plentiful resources, and had large industry that would make arming themselves quick and easy in comparison to Spain.
Where and when an revolution takes place, and the logistical and military ability of nearby rivals at that time, are huge impacts on its chances of success. A large part of why the 1775 US revolution had any chance of succeeding is due to Britain already being very much occupied with fighting the French, meaning they couldn’t bring the entire weight of their military and logistical might against the colonies. The US also had military aid from a friendly power will vast resources at its disposal (France). How on earth can you say things like that don’t matter? If those fortunate events and allies weren’t there, the US revolution probably would’ve failed, regardless of its ideology.
it’s really hard to die on a hill nobody else even wants.
I mentioned it as something some of them tried. There is no tenant that Anarchism must abolish money, but it’s at least on the table if the people agree to try it via consensus. If a community wants markets and money, they can stick with it if they want. It is not a hive-mind.
It’s literally there in the description
Are you dismissing that entire documentary because the person who wrote the description did a poor job of specifying what they meant by democracy? If anything, anarchism is the natural evolution of democracy; it’s basically just going an one extra step beyond democracy where communities can decide for themselves what is best for their own situational, instead of voting for someone else to decide for them.
Here’s that same documentary with a description below that simply reads “This is the BBC documentary about Carne’s life and ideas”, if that helps, I guess? I only linked to the peertube upload as I try to avoid linking to Youtube when possible.
Face it… the CIA spent most of the (so-called) “Cold War”
The first red scare happened pre-WWII, before the Cold War, before the CIA or even the OSS existed. That was when they cracked down on Anarchism hard.
This would go a whole lot easier if you were. Liberals aren’t zealots either… have you ever tried arguing with one, though? I wouldn’t recommend it - they cling to their privilege (whether real or perceived) harder than most fascists.
That isn’t a position I argued in favor of.
That doesn’t matter - it happened whether we think it was dumb or not.
You don’t think if the US had a successful Anarchist revolution in the 30’s, that it wouldn’t be in a far better position in every possible way
Absolutely not. An anarchist insurgency in 30s US of A would have ended up very much like the Spartacist uprising in Germany did - and that would happen even if it had somebody like ole’ Smedley Butler to lead it. It would have started off in a logistically worse position than the Spanish anarchists were… even if it managed to take over an entire state it would still be child’s play for the US government to isolate it economically. And even if they managed to seize a sizable gold reserve (which the Spanish anarchists failed to do) there’d be absolutely no chance of even buying anything with it from any foreign military-industrial complex thanks to the US Navy. And there’d be no question of which side the liberals would be on here, giving the anarchists absolutely no chance of playing allies off against enemies and vice versa. The fact that the liberals of Spain did not immediately take hands with Franco makes the Spanish situation somewhat unique - a situation which would absolutely not have happened in the US at any point in it’s history, including today.
How on earth can you say things like that don’t matter?
That’s not what I said. When an insurgency becomes allied to a military-industrial complex it’s only because said insurgency is a useful catspaw to said military-industrial complex. Iran does not support the resistance in Gaza and Lebanon because it actually gives a damn about the people in those two places. The French supported the US colonists because they were a useful weapon against the British, not because they gave a damn about those colonists.
Think about your scenario - an anarchist insurgency in 30s US, or even today, for that matter. Would anybody need this insurgency as a tool of disruption against the US? If the answer is yes… then there’s potential. If not…
Do not be fooled by the events of 1917 Russia - an insurgent element managing to seize a large industrial complex under those conditions in those times in that manner is probably a once-in-a-millenium event.
but it’s at least on the table if the people agree to try it via consensus.
When there’s a war going on, no… they can’t. War is not the time for pie-in-the-sky economic experiments run by people whose ideology dictates that they refuse to understand how economies work. I’d say that it’s a pretty bad idea in peacetime as well - just ask the Ukrainians about that - but that might just be me.
Are you dismissing that entire documentary because the person who wrote the description
No, I’m dismissing the documentary because I saw it years ago and it contains absolutely nothing I do not already know.
did a poor job of specifying what they meant by democracy?
The fact that they did not feel the need to specify what they meant with the term is telling in itself - ie, they used the term in the exact same way any liberal does.
instead of voting for someone else to decide for them.
So you, also, only view democracy through a liberal lens, I take it?
The first red scare happened pre-WWII, before the Cold War,
I know. During the (so-called) “Cold War,” the CIA weren’t fighting anarchism in Latin America. It wasn’t fighting anarchism in Oceania, in Africa, the middle-east or even the place they deported Emma Goldman to. They barely spent any resources repressing it in Europe.
The reason? They didn’t have to.
Something is seriously wrong with this picture… and it can’t all be explained away by state-led crackdowns during the 10s, 20s and 30s.
I’m not a zealot, and Anarchism does not hold to the idea that everyone 100 years ago had everything perfectly figured out like ML’s do, it’s constantly changing and adapting as we learn what does and does not work.
That isn’t a position I argued in favor of. The anarchists did get bit in the ass by the liberal government who still had control of the purse strings that would’ve given them more access to global trade. The 6-part documentary goes over that very situation, and even interviews the asshat who denied the Anarchists money for control.
The internal banking system doesn’t really relate to that, though, the issue was that the internationally accepted currency wasn’t under Anarchist control. So the lesson learned from that conflict is that the liberals will fuck them over just as the tankies will, but again, the specific war needs combined with the political situation of that period did not realistically allow for the Anarchists to just swiftly take those rivals out of the game.
Also, I mentioned how the CNT discussed taking control of the gold reserves by stealing it, the reasons they didn’t, and how they later regretted not doing it, which is another mistake to learn from.
That’s just… Not how war works, though. You don’t think if the US had a successful Anarchist revolution in the 30’s, that it wouldn’t be in a far better position in every possible way compared to a successful revolution in say, Belgium right before WWII? The North America is geographically isolated by an ocean that makes it very difficult to invade, had access to plentiful resources, and had large industry that would make arming themselves quick and easy in comparison to Spain.
Where and when an revolution takes place, and the logistical and military ability of nearby rivals at that time, are huge impacts on its chances of success. A large part of why the 1775 US revolution had any chance of succeeding is due to Britain already being very much occupied with fighting the French, meaning they couldn’t bring the entire weight of their military and logistical might against the colonies. The US also had military aid from a friendly power will vast resources at its disposal (France). How on earth can you say things like that don’t matter? If those fortunate events and allies weren’t there, the US revolution probably would’ve failed, regardless of its ideology.
I mentioned it as something some of them tried. There is no tenant that Anarchism must abolish money, but it’s at least on the table if the people agree to try it via consensus. If a community wants markets and money, they can stick with it if they want. It is not a hive-mind.
Are you dismissing that entire documentary because the person who wrote the description did a poor job of specifying what they meant by democracy? If anything, anarchism is the natural evolution of democracy; it’s basically just going an one extra step beyond democracy where communities can decide for themselves what is best for their own situational, instead of voting for someone else to decide for them.
Here’s that same documentary with a description below that simply reads “This is the BBC documentary about Carne’s life and ideas”, if that helps, I guess? I only linked to the peertube upload as I try to avoid linking to Youtube when possible.
The first red scare happened pre-WWII, before the Cold War, before the CIA or even the OSS existed. That was when they cracked down on Anarchism hard.
This would go a whole lot easier if you were. Liberals aren’t zealots either… have you ever tried arguing with one, though? I wouldn’t recommend it - they cling to their privilege (whether real or perceived) harder than most fascists.
That doesn’t matter - it happened whether we think it was dumb or not.
Absolutely not. An anarchist insurgency in 30s US of A would have ended up very much like the Spartacist uprising in Germany did - and that would happen even if it had somebody like ole’ Smedley Butler to lead it. It would have started off in a logistically worse position than the Spanish anarchists were… even if it managed to take over an entire state it would still be child’s play for the US government to isolate it economically. And even if they managed to seize a sizable gold reserve (which the Spanish anarchists failed to do) there’d be absolutely no chance of even buying anything with it from any foreign military-industrial complex thanks to the US Navy. And there’d be no question of which side the liberals would be on here, giving the anarchists absolutely no chance of playing allies off against enemies and vice versa. The fact that the liberals of Spain did not immediately take hands with Franco makes the Spanish situation somewhat unique - a situation which would absolutely not have happened in the US at any point in it’s history, including today.
That’s not what I said. When an insurgency becomes allied to a military-industrial complex it’s only because said insurgency is a useful catspaw to said military-industrial complex. Iran does not support the resistance in Gaza and Lebanon because it actually gives a damn about the people in those two places. The French supported the US colonists because they were a useful weapon against the British, not because they gave a damn about those colonists.
Think about your scenario - an anarchist insurgency in 30s US, or even today, for that matter. Would anybody need this insurgency as a tool of disruption against the US? If the answer is yes… then there’s potential. If not…
Do not be fooled by the events of 1917 Russia - an insurgent element managing to seize a large industrial complex under those conditions in those times in that manner is probably a once-in-a-millenium event.
When there’s a war going on, no… they can’t. War is not the time for pie-in-the-sky economic experiments run by people whose ideology dictates that they refuse to understand how economies work. I’d say that it’s a pretty bad idea in peacetime as well - just ask the Ukrainians about that - but that might just be me.
No, I’m dismissing the documentary because I saw it years ago and it contains absolutely nothing I do not already know.
The fact that they did not feel the need to specify what they meant with the term is telling in itself - ie, they used the term in the exact same way any liberal does.
So you, also, only view democracy through a liberal lens, I take it?
I know. During the (so-called) “Cold War,” the CIA weren’t fighting anarchism in Latin America. It wasn’t fighting anarchism in Oceania, in Africa, the middle-east or even the place they deported Emma Goldman to. They barely spent any resources repressing it in Europe.
The reason? They didn’t have to.
Something is seriously wrong with this picture… and it can’t all be explained away by state-led crackdowns during the 10s, 20s and 30s.