/ourguy/

Complete buzzword.
Have fun with your peaceful romantic liberal revolution. It's gonna be like, you and your awesome comrades throwing molotovs and rocks at a police force while cheering and singing dank as fuck communist songs, dancing around while not noticing the cops are no longer loaded only with rubber bullets and tear gas, but are about to mow all of you down to preserve national security.
It's going to be so radical dawg.

Attached: 73ad57bebb942f02d1c786344cc7078ef9135bb14ea711e17f841008f62faf98.jpg (604x371, 41.41K)

Nice strawman I'll admit

If you don't want to be "strawmanned", then why don't you share your ideas with us? Why don't you give us some of your hot takes on stalin?

No wonder Stalin was called the gravedigger of the revolution.

With """comrades""" like Stalin who needs enemies?

lmao this

If you think about it, wanting to bring about meaningful change and abolish the status quo is at the heart of "totalitarianism" that liberals always cry about. How convenient for the status quo pushers.

Attached: 110119.jpg (600x450, 163.79K)

Attached: 7a8a95d78b3575022b3eadb2526aa6cd07e0e4e6f7a3017c3baeb62b067e0e47.jpg (762x516, 143.58K)

ITT buttblasted liberals.

Pretty savage tbh fam.

Attached: gendo34.jpg (400x320, 18.95K)

Stalin did make some genuine mistakes such as the effective disbanding of the Politburo after ww2 and the effective One-Man state Rule until his death which was not only a obvious breach of DemCen but led to a Power struggle after his death and his powers being distributed among his inner circle (Beria / Malenkov etc)

I really wish ☭TANKIE☭s would stop trying to erase the difference between actual revolutionary terror (used against reactionaries) and silencing dissent within the party and murdering committed party members and comrades. Line every Tsarist rat and porky up against the wall, but anybody who thinks that being a Trot ought to be a capital offence is retarded.

this

Attached: unknown.png (1080x1036, 1009.05K)

I agree with cat-user, poking fun is alright, but when your only responses to well worded posts by Trots are
It kinda gets boring and shows what an absolute brainlet you are

Why is it that hard for people to imagine that the USSR was legitimately the target of constant espionage and sabotage? That Western powers which literally invaded, embargoed and slandered the republic of the Soviets the whole way through could have funded subversion within the country and Party? That attempts to destroy the USSR didn't end when the last White Guard was killed or forced into exile?

There's constant paranoia (usually justified) about glow in the dark CIA niggers infiltrating everything today, but for some reason to the same people it is unthinkable that the first socialist state could be under constant attack. No, as soon as the Civil War ended porky just shrugged and left the Soviets to their devices, and Stalin just killed people for fun.

Attached: download-3.jpg (1024x768, 97.38K)

I don't think that anyone actually believes that the USSR wasn't a target of western subversion and propaganda.

Pretty sure nobody here is suggesting that the USSR wasn’t the target of constant subversion. Given that context repressive measures are understandable, but it would be idiotic to say that the situation justified any and all measures against people who were clearly not reactionaries. Even if we take shit like the Moscow trials at face value and assume that Bukharin and co were guilty, it’s hard to believe that these guys actually wanted to restore capitalism (although Bukharin probably wanted more NEP). If anything Stalin made terrorism within the party more likely by cracking down on the opposition and effectively removing the possibility of changing policy through legal channels. That’s of course if you take the trials seriously, which most credible historians don’t.

The first thing to note is that Engels doesn't have a good definition of authority. Certainly "the imposition of the will of another upon ours" is a component of authority, but it's not the whole story. What Engels describes here is the use of force. There is a distinction between force and authority. Consider a simple example: a wild beast attacks me and I kill it in self-defense. This is an instance of the use of force, it is not an instance of authority. Consider another example: I notice that my friend is in the path of a speeding car and pull them away. Again, force - not authority.

So, what is authority then? Authority is not simply an isolated instance of the use of force, but an ongoing social relationship between two parties. It is a relationship where one party has the socially legitimized right to command, and the other party has the corresponding obligation to obey.

We can see now that revolutionary violence must involve force, but it doesn't have to involve authority. Anarchists have never opposed the use of force. The use of force, especially in response to force, and in order to overthrow authority is always seen as legitimate by anarchists. Consider the social conditions preceding a revolution: what we have is a state of affairs where one class constantly and unfailingly imposes its will on another. In a revolution, the proletariat only "imposes its will" on the bourgeoisie to the extent that it prevents the bourgeoisie from imposing its will on the proletariat. And the authority of the bourgeoisie is always maintained through the direct or implicit / concealed threat of violence. To quote Malatesta:

(1/?)

We want to overthrow the government, all governments - and overthrow them with violence since it is by the use of violence that they force us into obeying - and once again, not because we sneer at freedom when it does not serve our interests but because governments are the negation of freedom and it is not possible to be free without being rid of them.

It's also clear why the other examples Engels uses don't require authority either. Running a factory requires self-management in that a group of individuals decide to follow certain norms in order to complete certain tasks. This does not require the right to command or the obligation to obey.

Finally, in the case of delegation, Engels mixes up authority and trust. This is a distinction anarchists have always been at pains to make, so it simply isn't true that we have simply "changed the names of things." If I decide to listen to someone because I trust them based on my own rational evaluation of their capabilities, such a relationship is entirely absent of authority. In fact, it's often the case that authority is present precisely in those instances where there isn't trust. Consider one of Bakunin's famous quotes in God and the State:

What Bakunin is doing here is pointing out the imprecise ways in which we use the word "authority" in everyday language. We sometimes use it to mean expertise (E.g.: "Stephen Hawking is an authority on cosmology."). This is likely the source of Engels' confusion. When it comes to delegation, we trust experts. And there's nothing wrong with that, because they don't have the right to command us, nor do we have the obligation to obey them. Again, no authority.

are you saying that people who were part of illegal activities and the overthrowing of a government wouldn't necessarily just stop and be content when things didn't go their way?
hmmm, interesting take

those people knowingly took the risk by chosing that path, it was their failure to popularize their line

I didn’t say that, in fact I admitted the possibility of his guilt.

And how were they supposed to popularize their line through legitimate means when Stalin clamped down on any real opposition with the party, and threatened dissenters with expulsion or exile?

Have you considered the possibility that they were exiled because they were or knew of plotting against the USSR? If you're going to admit that ⛏️rotsky most likely at least knew about the violent opposition it's really no surprise why they cracked down on dissenters huh?

There is no evidence that ⛏️rotsky was involved with violent opposition prior to his exile. Besides, that wasn’t even cited as the reason for his expulsion. Try harder, because it’s pretty clear to me that exiling ⛏️rotsky and disbanding the opposition within the party has no good justification.

Trots are pretty authoritarian, family.

Attached: f368a981091d1df0495455ed5f7156366470dbc2f3b080750d7d1fed481eef4d.jpg (1076x1395, 184.48K)