131–140 of 168 posts
He always used to tell me about how he had to bury some hand grenades at the base of a tree as he didn't know how to use them.
What I find interesting, is the great number of people - specially in the last decade when reading 1984 suddenly became popular - that keeps telling us all that Orwell's works are a warning specifically against fascism and point Orwell's role in Spain as proof that he was himself a communist. Orwell left quite clear that after having seen both Nazism and Communism in action, he was staunchly against both forms of tot…
Indeed! But unlike capitalism, communism does not require totalitarian structures of power. They're actually quite incompatible.
Empires describing themselves as "communist" are more so "state capitalist". The USSR was not a classless society nor a free society so it cannot be called communism: some people had more rights/resources than others (the opposite of "communism").
In marxist views, dictatorship of the pretend-proletariat (red elites are usually not common people) is a capitalist stage of a society advancing towards communism but cannot be considered communism. No pretend-communist country ever outgrew this phase (because power structures do not dissolve by themselves, we have to destroy them).
Orwell was a trotskyist. If we forget just for a minute the lies and inconsistencies of Trotsky (who was a mass-murdering psychopath), trotskyists are libertarian communists. They advocate self-organized cooperation/sharing without central authority (no state). Orwell was therefore close to anarchist ideas. You can feel his admiration for anarchists in his book "Homage to Catalonia".
When the USSR started to overthrow the CNT-led anarchist revolution in Catalunya, anarchists allied with trotskyist militias to fight against fascism and authoritarian communism. They failed of course, because what can you do to survive against two power-hungry emperors (Franco/Staline) who agree to destroy you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Such an overstatement is not honest and doesn't help to analyze the current political situation in Spain, nor helps to understand why the Civil War is a touchy subject. Vox is a far-right party but it isn't a fascist one because they play under the Spanish Constitution rules. Describing PP in that same political spectrum is a bad joke, the same kind you make when saying 'Spain has a disgraceful recent history of anti…
> Can you honestly say that you can't speak freely in Spain? Yes, I believe you can. Where to start? The disgusting re-appearance of political prisoners in Spain, for Catalan leaders expressing the idea that Catalunya should determine its own destiny, while Spanish politicos laughably and hypocritically complain about the same in Venezuela (but to the twisted fascist mind, their political prisoners are just 'criminal…
Their imprisonment without bail follows the Spanish Law, based on democratic principles, and it's quite dishonourable to compare Spain and Venezuela political situations.
On the other hand, nobody destroyed any edition of 'El Jueves', please see https://www.eldiario.es/sociedad/Jueves-retira-ejemplares-po...
Every cover is available even online, even the controversial ones https://twitter.com/eljueves/status/834078228541165568
They make fun of the Catalonian nationalists too by the way https://twitter.com/eljueves/status/1171369631786917888
About Valtonyc, the rapper you're talking about 'in exile to avoid being remanded for singing about the king' that's not true. He was judged and sentenced to 3 and a half years of prison for 'crimes of threats, insults to the Crown, and glorification of terrorism'. To avoid going to prison, he fled.
Yes, free speech is well protected in Spain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's where we need to police it. Now maybe thats cap/trade, carbon tax, or whatever. Maybe its geoengineering. Remember this isn't just a capitalism problem, the Soviet Unions centralized economy wasn't exactly environmentally friendly. This is a humanity problem. Not many people share my optimism, but humans have been pretty good about surviving so far.
> this isn't just a capitalism problem, the Soviet Unions centralized economy (...) Despite the label, USSR/PRC can hardly be called communism. They are various forms of State-capitalism: all the institutions (wage slavery, prisons, secret police, industry, propaganda) remain that of any capitalist society. See "There is no communism in Russia" or "Trotsky protests too much" by Emma Goldman for historical context abo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not at all, most democratic socialists like the Fabian society are willing to change their approach when they try something and it doesn't work. The result is mere inefficiency, not corpses piling up. If the SRs, say, had won the Russian Revolution things would probably have turned out basically all right. But it was the Bolsheviks with their plan of communism immediately, not in 20 years, who won. They treated their…
Is it fair to say that democratic socialists are communists? I've met more than a few self-described democratic socialists who would object to that characterization.
Authoritarian communism (marxism) is a historically very tiny branch of socialism/communism, with anarchists being an overwhelming majority.
This tiny marxist/bolshevik minority killed its way to the top, and was used by capitalist empires as a strawman example of what would happen with "communism". Both sides find advantages in confusing communism with marxism, while in practice, dictatorship of the proletariat has nothing to do with communism at all.
Someone claiming one of the three labels without the two others, either has no clue about the history of communism, or just wants to avoid being assimilated with genocidal authoritarian communists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Can you honestly say that you can't speak freely in Spain? Yes, I believe you can. Where to start? The disgusting re-appearance of political prisoners in Spain, for Catalan leaders expressing the idea that Catalunya should determine its own destiny, while Spanish politicos laughably and hypocritically complain about the same in Venezuela (but to the twisted fascist mind, their political prisoners are just 'criminal…
Sorry but that is not true at all. There aren't 'political prisoners' by any means in Spain. There are politicians in prison, and that's quite different. Their imprisonment without bail follows the Spanish Law, based on democratic principles, and it's quite dishonourable to compare Spain and Venezuela political situations. On the other hand, nobody destroyed any edition of 'El Jueves', please see https://www.eldiario…
>> to the twisted fascist mind, their political prisoners are just 'criminals'
QED
What I find interesting, is the great number of people - specially in the last decade when reading 1984 suddenly became popular - that keeps telling us all that Orwell's works are a warning specifically against fascism and point Orwell's role in Spain as proof that he was himself a communist. Orwell left quite clear that after having seen both Nazism and Communism in action, he was staunchly against both forms of tot…
> he was staunchly against both forms of totalitarianism Indeed! But unlike capitalism, communism does not require totalitarian structures of power. They're actually quite incompatible. Empires describing themselves as "communist" are more so "state capitalist". The USSR was not a classless society nor a free society so it cannot be called communism: some people had more rights/resources than others (the opposite of…
This is not true. The Soviet backed militias forced Anarchists to either fight for their militias or be part of their purge. The Soviets used force to squash the growing (and large) anti-authoritarian sentiment among the Spanish Civil War Republicans.
The USSR seized control over the revolution (murdering all the anarchists) because the French and UK parliaments refused to support the war against Franco. They were afraid it would start a war with Hitler and Mussolini who were big supporters (both material and ideological) of the Franco regime, and that anarchism would then spread to their home country (threatening their own privileges).
The year is 1936. To anyone with an understanding of how imperialism/fascism operates, it's very clear that fascism has to be annihilated by force because it's an ideology that aims to kill all that does not fit.
But the moderate liberals/conservatives of the western world refuted this, claiming inaction was the best of actions against fascism. THIS is what led to the second world war: abandoning any idea of social progress in the name of an illusion of peace.
The social revolution in Catalunya was led by millions of anarchists, many of which were organized in the CNT union. But as western capitalist "democracies" refused to provide weapons to the anarchists, the USSR filled the power vacuum and seized power by organizing/supplying the republican military, on the condition they adopt authoritarian hierarchies.
Before that, the revolution was defended by self-organized militias federated from the bottom-up: no uniform, no authority. Just cooperation between autonomous units who had common interests in fighting fascism. Notably, this transition of military power from the people to the communist party forbid women from the battlefield!
All this is partially explained in Orwell's Homage to Catalonia. With the new rise of fascism from the US to Turkey, from France to India... i think there's plenty of lessons to learn from this era.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> he was staunchly against both forms of totalitarianism Indeed! But unlike capitalism, communism does not require totalitarian structures of power. They're actually quite incompatible. Empires describing themselves as "communist" are more so "state capitalist". The USSR was not a classless society nor a free society so it cannot be called communism: some people had more rights/resources than others (the opposite of…
> ... anarchists allied with trotskyist militias to fight against fascism and authoritarian communism. This is not true. The Soviet backed militias forced Anarchists to either fight for their militias or be part of their purge. The Soviets used force to squash the growing (and large) anti-authoritarian sentiment among the Spanish Civil War Republicans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Can you honestly say that you can't speak freely in Spain? Yes, I believe you can. Where to start? The disgusting re-appearance of political prisoners in Spain, for Catalan leaders expressing the idea that Catalunya should determine its own destiny, while Spanish politicos laughably and hypocritically complain about the same in Venezuela (but to the twisted fascist mind, their political prisoners are just 'criminal…
Sorry but that is not true at all. There aren't 'political prisoners' by any means in Spain. There are politicians in prison, and that's quite different. Their imprisonment without bail follows the Spanish Law, based on democratic principles, and it's quite dishonourable to compare Spain and Venezuela political situations. On the other hand, nobody destroyed any edition of 'El Jueves', please see https://www.eldiario…
Unless they are in prison because e.g. they were driving under influence, or stealing money, or hit someone, or some other such crime, then it's not different at all...
>About Valtonyc, the rapper you're talking about 'in exile to avoid being remanded for singing about the king' that's not true. He was judged and sentenced to 3 and a half years of prison for 'crimes of threats, insults to the Crown, and glorification of terrorism'. To avoid going to prison, he fled.
That is supposed to be a refutation of what the parent wrote?