What is your favorite form of government?

[Joe R. Golowka]

Re: Death to Fascism!

Originally posted by Giancarlo


.

The Republican side lost.

After three years of fighting, yep. The Stalinists were not a signifigant force on the left until they took advantage of events after the civil war started to seize power in '37. In the process, of course, this caused fighting between Anarchists & Communists (and later Communists & other anti-fascists) which helped Franco. Before that the war wasn't going to badly for the anti-Fascists.

He had to get support from somebody, most likely Mussolini and Hitler.

He didn't *have* to get help from foreigners. It's quite ironic that a Nationalist would approve of foreigners installing a different government in his country. I think it says quite a bit about how evil Franco was that he allied with people like Hitler.

Franco brought alone the economic boom of the 1960s... Encarta says that and that is apparent in Spain today.

That doesn't justify totalitarianism (and one can have booms without Fascists running things). Stalin industrialized Russia but that doesn't justify Communism. Franco's regime was quite similar to a Bolshevik regime, actually.

[Joe R. Golowka]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


It was a civil war are you telling me that they seriously expected any alliance to hold.

In hindsight it's easy to say that. Regardless, the Spanish Revolution is proof that Anarchy works. Just because the Fascists had more guns doesn't discount that.

Anyway what does the Paris Commune have to do with Catalonia?

There were anarchists involved in both.

I always thought that was more of a defeat for the Commies than the Anarchists.

Marxists actually were an insignifigant minority in the Commune. They later attempted to rewrite history to make it look like they were heavily involved.

At which point he would say that most forms of terror are directed against the State and ask you to differentiate between Anarchist terrorism from Communist terrorism.

Communist terrorism seeks to seize control of the state, which they use to inflict mass terror on the population. Anarchists seek to destroy the state, to stop it from terrorizing the population. Except for a brief period at the end of the 19th century/early 20th century very, very few Anarchists have ever used terrorism. Most statist ideologies have used much, much more violence. The association between Anarchism and terrorism has no basis in reality.

[KrazyHorse]

Jesus Christ, Giannie. You've just reached a new level of idiocy.

"He became popular after 1939"

Do we need to explain to you that:

a)The Republican government was democratically elected and without a doubt the "legitimate" government of Spain

b)Franco was a thug who grabbed power by using the Army against this legitimate government

c)Franco enlisted the support of two neighbouring thugs to aid in crushing this legitimate government, using German planes to bomb Spanish civilians

d)At the peak, I believe there were only 1000 or so Russians in the whole of Spain, and these only showed up after the German and Italian militaries had entered Spain in force

e)

My Grandfather fought in Catalonia on Franco's side

This should be a source of shame, not pride

[VetLegion]

Regardless, the Spanish Revolution is proof that Anarchy works. Just because the Fascists had more guns doesn't discount that.

ž

no, if anything Spanish civil war is proof that it doesnt work

[Giancarlo]

Who the **** do you people think you are saying what is right for my country or not? My country was a basket case before Franco took power and that changed by the 1960s when an economic boom was felt. You don´t even know anything about my country, so don´t go after me for knowing. Krazyhorse you have no right to say what I know or not especially when it comes to my country.

So you are a gay republican nationalist from Spain? I've heard about those nude pics, so don't deny the gay part.

No I said Nationalist, not republican. I never said anything about gays in this thread so that will be perceived as a flame.

[KrazyHorse]

Boo hoo hoo. Just cuz you share genes with the people involved doesn't mean you aren't ignorant.

[faded glory]

Democratic/Representitive (indirect) Republic. Obvoiusly the most efficeint and gives back the most. (America)


As for Anarchy! Kropotokin was just another derelict angry at the system. I would'nt take what he says to seroiusly. The Reason Catalonia fell was pretty damn simple, they couldnt support the city and keep the way of life forever. And in the end, outside influences put an end to the anarchy insurgence (as it would any other anarchy uprising). If all nations reverted to Anarchy today, gauruntee you that they would be snuffed out/conquered within two years. by the nation that didnt revert to such a system.

As for Fascism.....who voted that

[Berzerker]

If all nations reverted to Anarchy today, gauruntee you that they would be snuffed out/conquered within two years. by the nation that didnt revert to such a system.

All leaves 0 left

[faded glory]

Well yes.....for the anarchists the debate is not wether anarchy will work. But rather, will it survive and prosper? To that the simple answer is 'No'. So theres little point in trying it.

[Joe R. Golowka]

Originally posted by faded glory
As for Anarchy! Kropotokin was just another derelict angry at the system. I would'nt take what he says to seroiusly.

Yeah, like Thomas Jefferson, Voltaire, John Locke and other revolutionary thinkers. Just derlicts angry at the system.

The Reason Catalonia fell was pretty damn simple, they couldnt support the city and keep the way of life forever.

Um, this is simply untrue. You apparently haven't studied the Spanish Revolution in much depth. First off, Catalonia is a region of Spain, not a city. There are cities in it, including Barcelona, which the Anarchists were quite capable of supporting. Second, the revolution was not limited to Catalonia. Aragon, Levant, and other areas also experienced Social Revolutions.

Catalonia wasn't taken until the Stalinists had already implemented a counter-revolution in Catalonia and elsewhere, thereby demoralising the population. It's fall to Fascists is evidence against Stalinism, not Anarchism. And the Stalinist counter-revolution came about as a result of (IMO) mistakes made by the Anarchists including allying with the Stalinists in the hope that they could form a united front against the Fascists.

Go to http://www.struggle.ws/spaindx.html and read about the revolution.

And in the end, outside influences put an end to the anarchy insurgence (as it would any other anarchy uprising). If all nations reverted to Anarchy today, gauruntee you that they would be snuffed out/conquered within two years. by the nation that didnt revert to such a system.

Besides being wrong, at most all this proves is that the whole world would have to be in Anarchy for it to work & that a world revolution is needed. That doesn't show that Anarchy doesn't work.

Regardless, there are a number of ways an Anarchist society could defend itself from foreign aggressors:

Propaganda. Talk to the other side. See if you can talk them out of fighting. Try to get their soldiers to mutiny, their workers to strike, etc.

Civil Disobedience. Simply refuse to cooperate with the attackers. Utilize all the civil disobedience tactics that have been used in the Civil Rights movement and a number of other movements. If Ghandi could drive the British out of India with this tactic then it's at least theoretically possible for an Anarchist society to successfully use it against attackers.

Arm the population. An Armed population intent on defending its freedom is not easy to conquer. This is basically what was done during the Spanish Revolution. After crushing Franco's coup in most of Spain we organized militias who battled the Fascists and were rather successfull at it. Aragon was liberated and the Fascists kept out of Madrid & Catalonia. A condition of aid from the USSR, however, was that these militias be ended and a regular military built. By the time the Fascists won, the Stalinists were in charge and using a normal military.

Anarchists also used this strategy in Ukraine during the Russian Revolution. In 1918 the Ukrainian peasants revolted and implemented Anarchist, often Anarcho-Communist, ideas. They, however, faced attacks from numerous different groups. The Germans invaded, but Anarchist militias beat them. The Austrians invaded, but Anarchist militias beat them. Ukrainian Nationalists attempted to impose a new, independent, state on Ukraine, but Anarchist militias defeated them. General Denikin, a White (pro-capitalist Russian) general, invaded, but Anarchist militias beat him. General Wrangal, another White, faced the same fate. Were it not for the Anarchists battles against the Whites there's a good chance the Bolsheviks would have been defeated since Denikin came closest to victory of all the White generals. Unfortunetly, in 1921 they fell victim to Marxist Imperialism when the newly formed Bolshevik regime in Russia use their vastly superior resources to conquer Ukraine and impose their "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" on the population. That they were able to beat 5 out of 6 of their opponets, and with inferior equiptment often being outnumbered, shows that this is a viable strategy. It may not work all of the time, but no defense does.

As for being prosperous, the record also supports Anarchy on that. Numerous eyewitness accounts from the Spanish revolution indicate that, without parasitic capitalists & landlords, the collectives were much more efficient then under capitalism. Poverty was abolished, wages went up, more was produced with less effort.

[Giancarlo]

Joe:

Anarchy doesn't do that you mumbling fool! It doesn't cause anything to grow... instead it causes violence. Somalia is the classic case of this.

And anarchy does not work in my own country. It can't. My people back a capitalist system and always have. They were imprisoned by the paramilitary murderous stalinist republican forces and they broke free from that. BTW, I am part Catalonian and part Castile-Leónian. So I would just shut your mouth when it comes talking about my country.

[faded glory]

Besides being wrong, at most all this proves is that the whole world would have to be in Anarchy for it to work & that a world revolution is needed. That doesn't show that Anarchy doesn't work.

You've answered my question Since Anarchy will never happen on a world level...it can never work. Hence, its not worth trying.


The world is fine the way it is. Who would want to change it that dramatically

[Cal]

Originally posted by faded glory
Democratic/Representitive (indirect) Republic. Obvoiusly the most efficeint and gives back the most. (America)

America is a plutocracy.

[Goingonit]

Joe, have you read the short story Cloak of Anarchy by Larry Niven? The premise is that someone has found a way to impose anarchy (is that the right way to say it?) on a large park. The results include an impromptu timocracy (rule of the strong) where the gangs control the goings-on. Under anarchy, people are too likely to destroy things and less likely to repair them. As well, it never lasts, because someone comes to power sooner or later.

Anarchy assumes that people will behave well if there's no immediate reason to do so. However, there is no evidence for this.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Cal

America is a plutocracy.

No it isn't. You are just misled. America is a republic.