Okay, so you think the capitalist owned media would like anarcho-communism if they only knew the difference?
No? The writers may or may not know the difference, the people setting policies don’t. If you look around, you may find media coverage of lots of anarchist-adjacent events, most in an excessive “allegedly” “according to them” NPOV style that avoids explicitly saying anything positive, regardless if the event itself portrays them as “bad” or “good”. Although I am sure someone may say something positive if there’s a money incentive. In fact, I vaguely recall reading an article somewhere about the mostly-anarchist “resistance committee” in Ukraine’s army, it was mostly good things, probably since the topic of Ukraine became uncontroversial enough that even the investors would want it to be positive (I support Ukraine in the situation and am myself there btw).
“stalinism” (a fictional anti-communist propaganda term, not something that has ever existed in the real world)
Lots of people are tired of explaining this to .mls, but here’s the third sentence into the English Wikipedia article “Marxism-Leninism”:
It was developed in the Soviet Union by Joseph Stalin
Marxism-Leninism is the communist ideology created by Joseph Stalin, according to his own interpretation of Marxism and Leninism. Marxism-Leninism advocates for a centrally planned economy with a one-party socialist state and brutal repression of anything deemed “bourgeois” or “counter-revolutionary”, which, for virtually all Marxist-Leninist leaders, includes anyone or anything they don’t like.
Meanwhile, the first sentence into the English Wikipedia article “Stalinism”:
Stalinism (Russian: сталинизм) is the totalitarian[1][2][3] means of governing and Marxist–Leninist policies implemented in the Soviet Union (USSR) from 1927 to 1953 by General Secretary of The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin and in Soviet satellite states between 1944 and 1953.
So, in dumbed down terms, one is what is proposed (in doublespeak) and the other is the de-facto result. You may consider them the same, you may consider one “other than what is usually portrayed” or whatever, but saying it doesn’t exist by definition makes no sense.
{…} just try telling everyone about how great (anarcho)-communism is. But get in touch with some comrades first and let them know, so they can come to literally bail you out when state repression inevitably hits you hard.
Well, didn’t I already mention where I am from and organizations like the Resistance Committee? Short story is that my government is siding with the lib-left for the time being (and wise versa). And my opsec is unbelievably, irreversibly fucked, which is a separate, personal issue; not currently relevant. Also, there’s another example of such co-existence that goes directly against your argument, which is Freetown Christiania making tourist money for Denmark.
Everyone Marxist-Leninist knows Marxism-Leninism was synthesized by Stalin. The point being made that “Stalinism does not exist” is that Stalin’s contributions to Marxism-Leninism are minor compared to the work of Marx and Lenin. Referring to the real ideology of Marxism-Leninism as “Stalinism” is meant to make the former seem scary by associating it with the popular bourgeois mythos surrounding the figure of Stalin himself, what Losurdo calls his “black legend.”
Let’s break down Rationalwiki’s explanation:
Marxism-Leninism is the communist ideology created by Joseph Stalin, according to his own interpretation of Marxism and Leninism.
This is correct. The implication here is that Stalin may have doctored Marxism and/or Leninism if we are being uncharitable or may have misinterpreted if we are being charitable, but the basic fact is that Marxism-Leninism is the synthesis of Marxism and Leninism as created by Stalin, with little input from himself in the matter comparatively.
Marxism-Leninism advocates for a centrally planned economy
This is basic Marxism, not an invention of Stalin.
with a one-party socialist state
This is basic Leninism, not an invention of Stalin.
and brutal repression of anything deemed “bourgeois” or “counter-revolutionary”,
This is basic Marxism and basic Leninism, doctored in scary words. From the time of Marx it was understood that the proletariat must use its own dictatorship against the bourgeoisie and their collaborators to cement the gains of socialism and eradicate class society, as is their historical role. This is not an invention of Stalin.
which, for virtually all Marxist-Leninist leaders, includes anyone or anything they don’t like.
This is nonsense, and notably not backed up at all by example but instead relies on the gut reaction of anti-communism in the reader to fill in the blanks with their own imagination. It’s intellectual dishonesty, and relies on that same black legend from before.
Wikipedia at least tries to pretend “Stalinism” refers to the actual policies of Stalin during his era of leadership, which I can at least accept, but it also similarly doctors it up in scary words like “totalitarian,” without identifying anything about that.
Since “Totalitarianism” is a word with deeply emotional baggage, let’s see how Wikipedia defines it, and measure it up against Marxism-Leninism and “Stalinism.”
In short, any socialist system that has a unitary form of government, no matter how democratic, is “totalitarian.” The additional baggage of propaganda and the use of the word “dictator” are also there to beef this up in scary terms, but at face value any socialist system with a unitary form of government would be totalitarian by this. We will investigate the term dictator later, for now let’s continue:
Two versions of the World War II U.S. propaganda poster “Your Lot in a Totalitarian State” depicting a process of compulsory sham election which took place in totalitarian states, the flags of which – Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy[a] and the Soviet Union – are presented below. In the version on the right, produced after Operation Barbarossa, the flag of the Soviet Union (Allied member) is replaced with that of the Empire of Japan[b] (Axis member), which is not always regarded as totalitarian by Western scholars.[1] In regards to the USSR, the label has also received some criticism.[2][3]
Interesting! Wikipedia even acknowledges that labeling the USSR as “totalitarian” is criticized! Let’s continue a bit further, for the final paragraphs:
A totalitarian government uses ideology to control most aspects of human life, such as the political economy of the country, the system of education, the arts and sciences, and the private morality of its citizens.[5] In the exercise of power, the difference between a totalitarian government and an authoritarian government is one of degree. Whereas totalitarianism features a charismatic dictator and a fixed worldview, authoritarianism only features a dictator who holds power for the sake of holding power. The authoritarian dictator is supported, either jointly or individually, by a military junta and by the socio-economic elites who are the ruling class of the country.[6]
So, a socialist society with a unified ideology like Marxism-Leninism, and the working class as the rulers of society, is “totalitarian.” It’s doctored with scary language, but easily applies to any socialist state with a cohesive worldview. Continuing:
The word totalitarian was first used in the early 1920s to describe the Italian Fascist government.[7][8] The term totalitarianism gained wider usage in politics of the interwar period; in the early years of the Cold War, it arose from comparison of the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin to Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler as a theoretical concept of Western political science. The term achieved hegemony in explaining the nature of Fascist and Communist states, and later entered the Western historiography of Communism, the Soviet Union and the Russian Revolution; in the 21st century, it became applied to Islamist movements and their governments. The concept of totalitarianism has been challenged and criticized by some historians of Nazi Germany and Stalinist USSR. While the two states are defined as exemplary cases of totalitarianism, these historians argue that the main characteristics of the concept – total control over society, total mobilization of the masses, and a monolithic centralized character of the government – were never achieved by the dictatorships called totalitarian. To support this claim, the historians argue that the political structures of these states were disorganized and chaotic, and that despite the supposed external similarities between Nazism and Stalinism, their internal logic and structure were substantially different. The applicability of the concept to Islamism has also been criticized.[7][9][10]
Now we get to the juice! The word “Totalitarianism” arose to equate the Nazis and the Communists as “twin evils” with “twin devils!” The word itself arose to discredit communism during the cold war! The truth is that the communists uplifted the working class and oppressed the bourgeoisie, while the Nazis uplifted the capitalist class and oppressed the working classes. Superficial similarities are used to equate the entire systems with foundational opposition! This is a part of Double Genocide Theory, a form of Holocaust trivialization. Onto how Wikipedia identifies dictators, to complete this foray:
Considering that Wikipedia considers unitary socialist governments, no matter how democratic, to be “totalitarian,” they therefore use this to determine the leaders must be “dictators,” no matter the democratic process of selection. Moving on:
20th-century leaders typically described as dictators (from left to right and top to bottom): Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union; Adolf Hitler of Germany; Augusto Pinochet of Chile; Mao Zedong of China; Benito Mussolini of Italy; and Kim Il Sung of North Korea
If it wasn’t obvious before, we again return to the “twin evils, twin devils” comparisons meant to directly equate fascism with communism! It cannot be more clear, this is an attempt to equate any existing socialism with fascism. Continuing:
Dictatorships are often characterised by some of the following: suspension of elections and civil liberties; proclamation of a state of emergency; rule by decree; repression of political opponents; not abiding by the procedures of the rule of law; and the existence of a cult of personality centered on the leader. Dictatorships are often one-party or dominant-party states.[4][5] A wide variety of leaders throughout history have been described as dictators.[6]
More baggage and fearmongering onto the word. Given the careful, liberal construction of definitions, it’s clear that the only purpose on the Wikipedia entry for “Stalinism” is to contribute to the blanket equating of communism with fascism as twin evils, and liberalism as synonymous with democracy, even though socialist societies with communist governments have been more democratic than liberal democracies, and liberal democracies have far more in common with fascism than fascism with communism.
They’ll say all the same things we hear from the most clueless capitalist subjects, day in, day out. They will firehose their recieved propagands into the gap.
Freetown Christiania??? You’re fucking kidding me, right? The bourgeois suburb full of PMC types that work closely together with Copenhagens police in order to scare away the last vestiges of their squatter history so they can gentrify yet another tourist-trap shopping street? There is nothing anarchist about Christiania and if there was then that would be a massive indictment of anarchism. It’s a glorified HOA that, due to its history, did not pay property taxes for a good while. When a bunch of squatters tried to pull the same stunt with Søminen that was pulled in Christiania, then that place was shut down due to complaints from… The bougie fucks at Christiania. Same goes for the pirate harbor.
The only thing Christiania is a good example of is how the western lefts lack of a disciplined ideological guiding line led to a bourgeois class that clothes itself in the aesthetics of revolution.
Sorry, that may or may not be true, but my argument was that the media and bougie may, in fact, allow hired journalists to promote anarcho-communism at least to some extent when there’s a money incentive. Which has nothing to do with what they think of it (not much positive), if they know the difference (no), or if the people consuming the media may.
Right and my argument is that there is nothing anarcho-communist about Christiania, which I also wrote out quite explicitly. “The media” or “hired journalists” likewise do not promote anything anarcho-communist about Christiania. That is such a vague and pointless statement however, and even if the opposite were true then that would be in the interest of the bourgoisie since “Christiania sux” and it is thus not something to copy. Promoting it as some cool neat little ancom thing would in fact be detrimental to any leftist movement, since it is not something one should seek to replicate.
So you do agree that question was bullshit from the start? The media one. As for oppression, the borgies will always find a way to either monetize something and/or fight it, my point was, and I am in only the former right now.
EDIT: before anyone even replies, the ideological passive monetizing of mine is in what I believe to be the lesser evil anyway right now, in the fight of two borgies. There’s no way forward to the left around here while they are having fun in this way.
No? The writers may or may not know the difference, the people setting policies don’t. If you look around, you may find media coverage of lots of anarchist-adjacent events, most in an excessive “allegedly” “according to them” NPOV style that avoids explicitly saying anything positive, regardless if the event itself portrays them as “bad” or “good”. Although I am sure someone may say something positive if there’s a money incentive. In fact, I vaguely recall reading an article somewhere about the mostly-anarchist “resistance committee” in Ukraine’s army, it was mostly good things, probably since the topic of Ukraine became uncontroversial enough that even the investors would want it to be positive (I support Ukraine in the situation and am myself there btw).
Lots of people are tired of explaining this to .mls, but here’s the third sentence into the English Wikipedia article “Marxism-Leninism”:
Here’s a quote from RationalWiki:
Meanwhile, the first sentence into the English Wikipedia article “Stalinism”:
So, in dumbed down terms, one is what is proposed (in doublespeak) and the other is the de-facto result. You may consider them the same, you may consider one “other than what is usually portrayed” or whatever, but saying it doesn’t exist by definition makes no sense.
Well, didn’t I already mention where I am from and organizations like the Resistance Committee? Short story is that my government is siding with the lib-left for the time being (and wise versa). And my opsec is unbelievably, irreversibly fucked, which is a separate, personal issue; not currently relevant. Also, there’s another example of such co-existence that goes directly against your argument, which is Freetown Christiania making tourist money for Denmark.
Everyone Marxist-Leninist knows Marxism-Leninism was synthesized by Stalin. The point being made that “Stalinism does not exist” is that Stalin’s contributions to Marxism-Leninism are minor compared to the work of Marx and Lenin. Referring to the real ideology of Marxism-Leninism as “Stalinism” is meant to make the former seem scary by associating it with the popular bourgeois mythos surrounding the figure of Stalin himself, what Losurdo calls his “black legend.”
Let’s break down Rationalwiki’s explanation:
This is correct. The implication here is that Stalin may have doctored Marxism and/or Leninism if we are being uncharitable or may have misinterpreted if we are being charitable, but the basic fact is that Marxism-Leninism is the synthesis of Marxism and Leninism as created by Stalin, with little input from himself in the matter comparatively.
This is basic Marxism, not an invention of Stalin.
This is basic Leninism, not an invention of Stalin.
This is basic Marxism and basic Leninism, doctored in scary words. From the time of Marx it was understood that the proletariat must use its own dictatorship against the bourgeoisie and their collaborators to cement the gains of socialism and eradicate class society, as is their historical role. This is not an invention of Stalin.
This is nonsense, and notably not backed up at all by example but instead relies on the gut reaction of anti-communism in the reader to fill in the blanks with their own imagination. It’s intellectual dishonesty, and relies on that same black legend from before.
Wikipedia at least tries to pretend “Stalinism” refers to the actual policies of Stalin during his era of leadership, which I can at least accept, but it also similarly doctors it up in scary words like “totalitarian,” without identifying anything about that.
Okay… While I don’t always agree with Wikipedia ('s policies), go ahead, try editing that out and seeing what the community says about that.
Since “Totalitarianism” is a word with deeply emotional baggage, let’s see how Wikipedia defines it, and measure it up against Marxism-Leninism and “Stalinism.”
In short, any socialist system that has a unitary form of government, no matter how democratic, is “totalitarian.” The additional baggage of propaganda and the use of the word “dictator” are also there to beef this up in scary terms, but at face value any socialist system with a unitary form of government would be totalitarian by this. We will investigate the term dictator later, for now let’s continue:
Interesting! Wikipedia even acknowledges that labeling the USSR as “totalitarian” is criticized! Let’s continue a bit further, for the final paragraphs:
So, a socialist society with a unified ideology like Marxism-Leninism, and the working class as the rulers of society, is “totalitarian.” It’s doctored with scary language, but easily applies to any socialist state with a cohesive worldview. Continuing:
Now we get to the juice! The word “Totalitarianism” arose to equate the Nazis and the Communists as “twin evils” with “twin devils!” The word itself arose to discredit communism during the cold war! The truth is that the communists uplifted the working class and oppressed the bourgeoisie, while the Nazis uplifted the capitalist class and oppressed the working classes. Superficial similarities are used to equate the entire systems with foundational opposition! This is a part of Double Genocide Theory, a form of Holocaust trivialization. Onto how Wikipedia identifies dictators, to complete this foray:
Considering that Wikipedia considers unitary socialist governments, no matter how democratic, to be “totalitarian,” they therefore use this to determine the leaders must be “dictators,” no matter the democratic process of selection. Moving on:
If it wasn’t obvious before, we again return to the “twin evils, twin devils” comparisons meant to directly equate fascism with communism! It cannot be more clear, this is an attempt to equate any existing socialism with fascism. Continuing:
More baggage and fearmongering onto the word. Given the careful, liberal construction of definitions, it’s clear that the only purpose on the Wikipedia entry for “Stalinism” is to contribute to the blanket equating of communism with fascism as twin evils, and liberalism as synonymous with democracy, even though socialist societies with communist governments have been more democratic than liberal democracies, and liberal democracies have far more in common with fascism than fascism with communism.
Wikipedia uses Zbigniew Brzezinski as a neutral source on communism.
They’ll say all the same things we hear from the most clueless capitalist subjects, day in, day out. They will firehose their recieved propagands into the gap.
Freetown Christiania??? You’re fucking kidding me, right? The bourgeois suburb full of PMC types that work closely together with Copenhagens police in order to scare away the last vestiges of their squatter history so they can gentrify yet another tourist-trap shopping street? There is nothing anarchist about Christiania and if there was then that would be a massive indictment of anarchism. It’s a glorified HOA that, due to its history, did not pay property taxes for a good while. When a bunch of squatters tried to pull the same stunt with Søminen that was pulled in Christiania, then that place was shut down due to complaints from… The bougie fucks at Christiania. Same goes for the pirate harbor.
The only thing Christiania is a good example of is how the western lefts lack of a disciplined ideological guiding line led to a bourgeois class that clothes itself in the aesthetics of revolution.
Sorry, that may or may not be true, but my argument was that the media and bougie may, in fact, allow hired journalists to promote anarcho-communism at least to some extent when there’s a money incentive. Which has nothing to do with what they think of it (not much positive), if they know the difference (no), or if the people consuming the media may.
Right and my argument is that there is nothing anarcho-communist about Christiania, which I also wrote out quite explicitly. “The media” or “hired journalists” likewise do not promote anything anarcho-communist about Christiania. That is such a vague and pointless statement however, and even if the opposite were true then that would be in the interest of the bourgoisie since “Christiania sux” and it is thus not something to copy. Promoting it as some cool neat little ancom thing would in fact be detrimental to any leftist movement, since it is not something one should seek to replicate.
So you do agree that question was bullshit from the start? The media one. As for oppression, the borgies will always find a way to either monetize something and/or fight it, my point was, and I am in only the former right now.
EDIT: before anyone even replies, the ideological passive monetizing of mine is in what I believe to be the lesser evil anyway right now, in the fight of two borgies. There’s no way forward to the left around here while they are having fun in this way.
No it seems like a pretty fair question and one you failed to answer
Hahahah wow ok