cross-posted from: https://pawb.social/post/42620143

Their lives are blissful… free from the burden of self doubt.

Revolutionary Spain represents an example of extremely effective armed resistance to the rise of fascist forces backed by Hitler and Mussolini, surviving for years. By contrast, many established democracies collapsed relatively quickly when invaded.

For more information, you can check out an anarchist FAQ’s answer to the question, “Does revolutionary Spain show that libertarian socialism can work in practice?”. For a more current example of an anarchist society working in practice, you could also check out the Zapatista movement, an anarchist society which today consists of at least 300,000 people.

If you’re unfamiliar with anarchism, you probably have some misconceptions about it, so I encourage you to watch the Q&Anarchy video series by Thought Slime or have a look through an Anarchist FAQ, because it’s almost definitely nothing like what you think.

  • bearboiblake [he/him]OP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    Why don’t we compare to some other nations, to see how long they lasted before falling to fascism?

    • Greece: 7-8 months

    • Norway: 2 months

    • France: 6 weeks

    • Poland: 5 weeks

    • Belgium: 18 days

    • Netherlands: 5 days

    • Denmark: 6 hours

    • Revolutionary Spain: 2 years, 9 months

    • FiniteBanjo@feddit.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      That implies that the Anarchists ever took control of the nation away from the Nationalist party which knelt down to the Nazis IMMEDIATELY. So not only was it a failed state, but a failed revolution which never controlled the state.

      • CrocodilloBombardino@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        the point of anarchism is not to control the state, but rather to stop having one. for the territory that made up anarchist Spain, that was successfully achieved. it’s no weakness of anarchism itself to be defeated militarily; all kinds of societies have been defeated militarily.

        • FiniteBanjo@feddit.online
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          That’s kind of my point. They didn’t manage to do that. Spain still existed, and even stamped out the anarchists.

          • CrocodilloBombardino@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            they did it for years in a significant territory. the state had no power there during that time. that was a success, even if it was rolled back by a nationalist military (supported by nazi Germany) and undermined by authoritarian communists. also, again, there’s rojava & zapatista Mexico currently, plus other historical examples.

            why are you demanding an impossible standard of perfection before you are willing to fight for a better life for yourself and everyone else? that’s just doomerism and it serves the capitalists.

            • CrocodilloBombardino@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              it’s hard to keep your brand new society when the tanks show up immediately. this is not a weakness of anarchism or any political system.

              you can look to rojava and the zapatistas for an example of defense that has worked for years despite long odds.

            • FiniteBanjo@feddit.online
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              It’s not an “impossible standard” to expect a movement to create any lasting changes, or even at a bare minimum oppose fascism, to be considered a success.

              • bearboiblake [he/him]OP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 day ago

                You’ve had multiple examples of things pointed out to you that meet that standard. It just doesn’t look like anything to you.

                Liberalism embraces fascism. Liberalism becomes fascism.

                You are a fascist.

      • bearboiblake [he/him]OP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        The Nationalists were the fucking nazis, my guy, the clue is right there in the name. They were backed by Hitler and Mussolini.

        Clearly, unless the anarchists somehow defeated the German Reich and Italy pretty much single-handedly, you view it as a failure. Yet, while neoliberalism is failing now, you don’t see the failures of liberalism.