I've read the sentence about anarchists ten times and I have no idea WTF he is on about. Btw the nerd's name is Peter Hudis.

Edit: FFS Tankies and anarchists stop shitting on each other here. Take your struggle session elsewhere. You're both my comrades.

  • Tachanka [comrade/them]
    ·
    2 years ago

    Perhaps I shouldn't give the the translator the benefit of the doubt, but are they even shitting on people, or are they just rather annoyingly stating the unfortunate fact that our historical paths to revolution are still in development and we are still ruled by the bourgeoisie, regardless of tendency?

    • CyborgMarx [any, any]
      ·
      2 years ago

      I made a comment elsewhere pointing out this person most likely lacks any conception or theory of state violence, just going by his use of terms like "defective conception" or phrasing like "The result has been one failure and halfway house after another" this is not how someone would talk if they understood the absolute centrality of military affairs to the history of 20th century socialism (i.e. Allied invasion during the Russian Civil War)

      Instead, his opposition seems to be ideological/theoretical and there aren't a lot of good places for that to go and his gibberish snipe at anarchists along with his bizarre use of the term "reformist social democratic version of socialism" which was apparently "taken over" by Leninists and Stalinists points to him being some social liberal who probably takes Hayek's nonsense critiques seriously

      It's especially damning, considering our worst enemies have always had a clear if hostile understanding of the military history of socialism while shitlibs who write propagandistic intros to our books ignore it completely

      In a further speech at the National Press Club, Washington D.C. in June 1954, Churchill lamented:

      If I had been properly supported in 1919, I think we might have strangled Bolshevism in its cradle, but everybody turned up their hands and said, ‘How shocking!

      Historian John Thompson argues that while the intervention failed to stop the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, it did prevent its spread to central Europe

      However, it did succeed in so thoroughly engaging the forces of revolutionary expansionism that the countries of war-torn eastern and central Europe, potentially most susceptible to the Bolshevik contagion, were able to recover enough social and economic balance to withstand Bolshevism. The interventionist attempt left an ugly legacy of fear and suspicion to future relations between Russia and the other great powers, and it strengthened the hand of those among the Bolshevik leadership who were striving to impose monolithic unity and unquestioning obedience on the Russian people.