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?
Do tell… WHAT “fundamental military issue of anarchism” have you managed to “identify,” eh?
Did you read the next sentence? No one is going to vote to go on the offensive except zealots. Yeah you had durrutti leading an offensive at the beginning of the war but that was full of literal die hards committed to the cause. Once they are all dead you need to conscript, you need to give top down orders, you need to requisition supplies from civilians, which are all anathema to anarchist ideology. Everyone but hardcore partisans aren’t going to volunteer and even if they do they aren’t going to vote to risk there lives further by going on the offensive. You see this in every case of a democratic military, once the initial wave of zeal wears off they start to hunker down and go on defense. You see it in the Paris commune, black Ukraine and Barcelona.
What are these 2 constant factors if not for the inability to take initiative? And why are these factors not present in other revolutionary movements that were able to succeed like the bolsheviks in 1917? They too had no foreign aid, and the near entirety of the domestic political establishment against them.
Do you think any criticism of anarchism makes someone a tanky? That just seems like the same follow the party line logic that we criticize actual tankies for. I could go on and on extolling the virtues and beauty of the system in Barcelona and condemning the multiple atrocities and failures of the communists but as soon as I suggest democratic militaries don’t work I become a tankie?
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?
Did you read the next sentence? No one is going to vote to go on the offensive except zealots. Yeah you had durrutti leading an offensive at the beginning of the war but that was full of literal die hards committed to the cause. Once they are all dead you need to conscript, you need to give top down orders, you need to requisition supplies from civilians, which are all anathema to anarchist ideology. Everyone but hardcore partisans aren’t going to volunteer and even if they do they aren’t going to vote to risk there lives further by going on the offensive. You see this in every case of a democratic military, once the initial wave of zeal wears off they start to hunker down and go on defense. You see it in the Paris commune, black Ukraine and Barcelona.
What are these 2 constant factors if not for the inability to take initiative? And why are these factors not present in other revolutionary movements that were able to succeed like the bolsheviks in 1917? They too had no foreign aid, and the near entirety of the domestic political establishment against them.
Do you think any criticism of anarchism makes someone a tanky? That just seems like the same follow the party line logic that we criticize actual tankies for. I could go on and on extolling the virtues and beauty of the system in Barcelona and condemning the multiple atrocities and failures of the communists but as soon as I suggest democratic militaries don’t work I become a tankie?