How is 1 a half truth? It seems we agree, the western bourgeoisie democracies failed to provide aid to the Republicans while the fascists did. I guess I didn’t mention that the soviets gave aid, but not as much as the fascists so they had the advantage on that front.
Why would you say the civil war was lost then? I agree the fascist aid wasn’t decisive, and the Republicans could win in spite of it, but they didn’t. It wasn’t because the communist turned on the anarchists, the republicans were losing the war prior to that. The anarchists had ample time and supplies to martial an army and relieve Madrid but they never did, they were content to hold there lines in aragon and wait for Franco to mop up the basque country before turning on them because the fundamental military issue of anarchism, no one is going to vote to go on the offensive.
I’m not a tankie, I just recognize the military weakness of the anarchist cause, just as I recognize the communist weakness of devolving power. I recognize anarchists can’t win wars and communists can’t give up power once the war is won. History has shown both to be true in every scenario its come up. Understanding the weaknesses of both causes is necessary if we want to achieve liberation from oppression and exploitation.
I guess I didn’t mention that the soviets gave aid,
Stalin didn’t “give” aid. The Republicans had to buy it from him with cold, hard gold reserves. And, of course, Stalin made sure the “aid” came with the Cheka in tow.
Why would you say the civil war was lost then?
It’s really simple. If your only external logistics depends on a power that is actively attempting to sabotage you victory becomes an impossibility. You didn’t see the Nazis sending the Gestapo over to make sure Franco did fascism correctly, did you?
The anarchists had ample time and supplies
LOL!
What “ample supplies?” If the anarchists had “ample supplies” the Bolsheviks would have had zero leverage over the Republican side, wouldn’t they?
to martial an army and relieve Madrid but they never did,
WTF are you on about? Durruti and 4000 anarchists marched into Madrid early on in the battle - Durruti literally died there.
the fundamental military issue of anarchism
Do tell… WHAT “fundamental military issue of anarchism” have you managed to “identify,” eh?
I just recognize the military weakness of the anarchist cause,
Again… WHAT “fundamental military issue of anarchism” have you managed to “identify,” eh?
I recognize anarchists can’t win wars
There are TWO (2) constant, identifiable factors present in the failure of armed anarchist resistance in the two available case studies. TWO.
You have miserably failed to identify either of them, and instead substitute cartoonish tankie propaganda as an explanation.
So do tell… why would an (alleged) “non-tankie” be peddling cartoonish tankie propaganda, eh?
How is 1 a half truth? It seems we agree, the western bourgeoisie democracies failed to provide aid to the Republicans while the fascists did. I guess I didn’t mention that the soviets gave aid, but not as much as the fascists so they had the advantage on that front.
Why would you say the civil war was lost then? I agree the fascist aid wasn’t decisive, and the Republicans could win in spite of it, but they didn’t. It wasn’t because the communist turned on the anarchists, the republicans were losing the war prior to that. The anarchists had ample time and supplies to martial an army and relieve Madrid but they never did, they were content to hold there lines in aragon and wait for Franco to mop up the basque country before turning on them because the fundamental military issue of anarchism, no one is going to vote to go on the offensive.
I’m not a tankie, I just recognize the military weakness of the anarchist cause, just as I recognize the communist weakness of devolving power. I recognize anarchists can’t win wars and communists can’t give up power once the war is won. History has shown both to be true in every scenario its come up. Understanding the weaknesses of both causes is necessary if we want to achieve liberation from oppression and exploitation.
Stalin didn’t “give” aid. The Republicans had to buy it from him with cold, hard gold reserves. And, of course, Stalin made sure the “aid” came with the Cheka in tow.
It’s really simple. If your only external logistics depends on a power that is actively attempting to sabotage you victory becomes an impossibility. You didn’t see the Nazis sending the Gestapo over to make sure Franco did fascism correctly, did you?
LOL!
What “ample supplies?” If the anarchists had “ample supplies” the Bolsheviks would have had zero leverage over the Republican side, wouldn’t they?
WTF are you on about? Durruti and 4000 anarchists marched into Madrid early on in the battle - Durruti literally died there.
Do tell… WHAT “fundamental military issue of anarchism” have you managed to “identify,” eh?
Again… WHAT “fundamental military issue of anarchism” have you managed to “identify,” eh?
There are TWO (2) constant, identifiable factors present in the failure of armed anarchist resistance in the two available case studies. TWO.
You have miserably failed to identify either of them, and instead substitute cartoonish tankie propaganda as an explanation.
So do tell… why would an (alleged) “non-tankie” be peddling cartoonish tankie propaganda, eh?