collectivisation

2

Hotel Ritz, Barcelona’s most luxurious hotel, collectivised and turned into a soup kitchen during the Revolutionary Catalonia period.

Barcelona, 1936.

every precolonial culture in the Pacific, the region i’m most familiar with, is based on the absolute subsumption of the individual into the collective. our societies depend on interconnected roles within tribal groups to ensure that the fish are caught, the birds are snared, the taro is planted, the weapons are carved, and absolutely all of these relations are mediated through ideology which upholds the wellbeing of the social grouping over the will of any given individual.

it’s insane to me that stirnerites on this website are arguing that they understand the nature of precolonial societies better than me, and also, that our societies are actually about the individual flourishing of whichever egotist elevates themselves above the rest. tribal societies are not libertarian free associations, they’re desperate struggles against hunger, the cold, and the unknown in which failure or refusal to fulfil your role in society means every single person you know dies. 

these are not individualist, nihilist anarchist wonderlands. these are the birthplace and cradle of collectivism - a Maori village has more in common with a collectivised Soviet farm than with whatever union of egoists you’re projecting onto it out of a misplaced and racist fantasy.

anonymous asked:

..... You do realize that Hitler, the leader of the ultimate fascist regime, was not capitalist, but socialist? He enforced controlled speech, the abandonment of women raising children at home, placing the mothers in factories and children into Nazi daycares. Taxes were increased 70% onto the wealthy to render them the same as proles. There was no room for any thought other than what was allowed by him. Anything conservative you don't like is labeled fascist. You're the fascists here :/

Mike Stuchbery said it best, so:

“Ok, dickhead, I did this politely to someone else earlier, but now I’m going to rinse you. Prepare. Yeah, the Nazis called themselves the ‘National Socialists’, and they even nicked some (incredibly benign) socialist policies. It is, however, a total misnomer, it’s like the World Series, or Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, or ‘ethics in gaming journalism’. The Nazis were fascists. Indisputably. They drew their ideology from Italy’s fascists, who arose in reaction to the Left. The Italian Right, still mired in 19th century thought, could not tackle the explosion in left-wing organization. Mussolini gives us the first fascist platform - national/racial superiority, rearmament & expansion, and consolidation of capital. The Italian Fascists appropriated, wholesale, Roman imagery, such as the 'fasces’, to evoke renewed national pride & a sense of superiority. The Italian Fascists sought to expand & reclaim historically Italian lands (mirroring a large portion of the old Roman Empire). After nicking some socialist economic policies (public works & spending), fascist government formed corporate cartels, enriching the few. Hitler & his Deutcher Arbeiter Partei mates see this and decide that they need to steal support from actual socialists, so the DAP rebadge themselves as the NSDAP… Socialism still being a relatively new ideology. It’s like adding 'e-’ to a product name. Otherwise, they were fascist - 1. Saw themselves as racially/nationally superior, 2. Wanted rearmament & expansion, 3. Consolidated capital.

Do I really need to go into their views on race & their feelings towards the Jews?

Do I really need to go into their designs on a 'Greater German Reich’?

The Germans used socialist economic policies, before retreating to a corporate cartel base. Companies like Krupp made $$$. The actual socialists who emerged after Marx wanted three things - 1. Removal of classes. 2. World socialism. 3. Distribution of capital. There was a huge gap between rich & poor in Tsarist Russia. The Bolsheviks sought to eliminate this division (yes, by violent revolt). After they succeeded, the Bolsheviks wanted to take the Revolution worldwide. Heard of 'Comintern’? No race, no nations, only socialism. As for redistribution of capital, do I really need to explain the difference between collectivisation & cartels, Mr Tax Haven?

So, you see, there’s a big fucking difference between fascism and socialism, in that they’re COMPLETE FUCKING OPPOSITES. If you’re peddling this 'munuhmunuh NAZIS ARE SOCIALISTS’ bullshit you’re either massively dense or an evil prick.”

Stop collectivising people based on the circumstances of their birth. Just stop. Just because people happen to share a race, gender, or sexual orientation doesn’t mean they’ve had the same experiences. It doesn’t mean they have the same ideas. It doesn’t mean they have to share a political alignment.

People are individuals and should be treated as such. Ignoring people’s personal agency in order to push some collectivist political agenda where you paint yourself as the spokesperson for everyone who you happen to share a single inconsequential trait with is increadbly reductionist. You can speak for no one but yourself.

anonymous asked:

How can China have reverted to a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie if there was no counterrevolution?

*Obviously time froze over once Mao Zedong died and all class struggle was thrust into its zenith, breaching a new ethereal dimensional plane only perceptible to those gifted enough in the proletarian™ gaze*

At the essence of this otherwise ridiculous part question part statement is the abandonment of historical materialism, class struggle, and the vulgar revisionist Marxism-Leninism practised in the global north by ostentatious soft-imperialism ‘leftist’ parties.

It’s quite strange really, that we are all expected to ignore (and collectively forget) the ascension of Deng Xiaoping’s reactionary capitalist faction to power within the CPC.

A road which was built on the purges that were carried previous to Mao Zedong’s death in relation to Lin Biao’s attempt to seize state power over conflicts and certain suspicion regarding Zhou Enlai’s intentions, suspicion that in light of today’s China warrants certain credibility as Deng Xiaoping was his protégé. The purged membership was quickly replaced with party members loyal to the Zhou Enlai line.

According to some who exist in a different reality, class struggle did not intensify in China following both Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai’s death. The campaign against the Gang of Four, who had assumed the mantle of securing the dictatorship of the proletariat and the communist party, their arrest and the mass purges of party members who had ‘stormed the headquarters’ during the Cultural Revolution are historic events that in the mindset of some people do not constitute a counter-revolution – one is left wondering what is a counter-revolution is, if not the destruction of the workers’ state and its pillars, and the full bourgeosification of the communist party.

But as the sender of this message pretending to be a question said: “no counter-revolution happened!”

We are left dumbstruck when looking back at the economic reforms pursued by the wise, revolutionary Deng Xiaoping. The proletarian character of these reforms was extraordinary: the elimination of the socialist planned economy, the introduction of market capitalism, the de-collectivisation of agriculture, the legalisation of private enterprises and foreign investment through special economic zones, the growth of mass scale corruption, the destruction of welfare, mass inequality, and so on.

According to the astute mediocre minds that carry the white-flag-painted-red of revisionism (AES MLs, Brezhnevites, Marcyites), these reforms uplifted the poor, undeveloped Maoist China into a sprawling stronghold of socialism for workers, by the workers. Like a majestic parrot, they repeat and toe the line and history as painted by the counter-revolutionaries. To such a service, we find nothing but comradely that they request a small pension from the CPC for doing propaganda work in the global north.

Today’s Communist Party of China stands as the shining beacon of internationalist exploitation of third world countries, of third world country workers, and third world country resources. This political organisation that puts emphasis on class struggle and workers seizing the means of production  houses several billionaires while workers continue to be exploited and plunged into large income disparities, poor working conditions, and political suppression. Such is the spirit of proletarian solidarity that China even supplies firearms and other materials to countries where they know such items will be used to suppress (and murder) communists.

After all this, one bold hard rebellious question remains: “How can China have reverted to a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie if there was no counterrevolution?”

Short answer? Study Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.           

Luidzhia

anonymous asked:

Do you know of any concise works about how anarchist controlled areas of Spain, Ukraine, etc. functioned? Thank you!

you can find plenty of stuff on this on libcom, some are more concise than others, as a basic start you could check these out:

Spain

Collectives in the Spanish Revolution - Gaston Leval

An account of agrarian collectives in Aragon - Augustin Souchy

Industrial Collectivisation during the Spanish Revolution - Deirdre Hogan

The anarchist collectives: workers’ self-management in the Spanish Revolution 1936-1939 - Sam Dolgoff

Workers’ power and the Spanish revolution - Tom Wetzel

Ukraine

Nestor Makhno: Anarchy’s Cossack - Alexandre Skirda

History of the Makhnovist movement, 1918-1921 - Peter Arshinov

Nestor Makhno in the Russian civil war - Michael Malet

Famous people of Basque descent

Buenaventura Durruti (León 1896 - Madrid 1936), was a Spanish antifa anarchist.

He’s better known for his role in the Spanish Civil War, where he gathered lots of militia men in what was later known as “the Durruti column”. These men were peasants and hadn’t enough weapons to free Zaragoza, so they liberated all the surrounding areas: they abolished private property, collectivised farms, and established communism with a huge popular support.

With more and more militia men in the column, he headed towards Madrid, where he was shot dead. His death remains a mystery even nowadays, since we don’t know for sure if he was killed by fascists, anarchists who didn’t like him, Trotskyists,… he sure had lots of enemies.

His surname, Durruti, comes from Iparralde. It’s the Spanish form of French D’Urruti, that is, “of the Urruti family”. Urruti means “far away” in Euskara.

Here’s a quote of his that can very well describe nowadays situation:

No government fights against fascism to destroy it. When bourgeoises see that power slips through their hands, they raise fascism to maintain their privileges.

We’re sure @serialcomposer loves this guy ^_~.

QUEER FEMINIST ACTIVISM IN FRANCOPHONE WEST AFRICA - SHAPING OUR UNDERSTANDING, ISSUES AND PRIORITIES

QAYN’s third Activist School aims to bring together over 30 queer women, gender non-confirming and trans* activists from 7 countries in the sub-region and Cameroon for five days of learning, sharing, imagining a queer feminist movement in Francophone West Africa and Cameroon, and defining its vision(s), principals and priorities. Together, we will aim to:

  • Examine the historical roots of our engagement as individual and organizations through a critical analysis of our different identities, our personal journey towards activism and the state of our current organizing.  
  • Engage in a mutual political education to develop the theoretical and conceptual tools to broaden and deepen our collective action. In particular, pool together our experiences to contextualize our understandings of queer and feminism politics grounded in our everyday lives and activism.
  • Define the essence of our work - by developing a shared vision(s), principals and an agenda to shape the cultural and political foundation of our organizing as a queer feminist movement; define our priorities at national and sub-regional levels; and identify promising practices for genuine collaboration. 

ACTIVISME QUEER FÉMINISTE EN AFRIQUE DE L’OUEST FRANCOPHONE – DÉFINITIONS, ENJEUX ET OPPORTUNITÉS
La troisième Ecole activiste de QAYN a pour ambition de réunir plus de 30 activistes LBQFSF et trans* venant de 7 pays de la sous-région et du Cameroun pour 5 jours d’apprentissage à travers des discussions politiques. A cette fin, les objectifs de cette Ecole activiste visent à permettre aux participant-e-s de :

  • Examiner le POURQUOI de nos engagements à travers une analyse critique et une prise de conscience de notre situation individuelle et collective.  
  • Situer nos luttes dans un contexte plus large en tissant un lien entre l’individuel et le collectif dans le but de collectiviser nos expériences et développer une compréhension commune de l’activisme queer féministe  en Afrique de l’Ouest Francophone.
  • Définir le comment, les valeurs et principes de l’activisme queer, LBFSF et trans* – Se questionner sur les idées de « se mobiliser » et « être mobilisé-e » ; identifier les enjeux clés au niveau pays et sous régional d’une part et des revendications sous régionales d’autres. Définir les valeurs et principes de notre activisme et mouvement.

A la fin de ces 5 jours de travaux, les participant-e-s auront :

  • Défini une notion commune de l’identité queer féministe dans le contexte de l’Afrique de l’Ouest Francophone et au Cameroun.
  • Développer une analyse critique des enjeux qui aliment notre engagement entant que activistes féministes queer, LBFSF et trans* dans le but de renforcer nos revendications et développer des actions.
  • Prendre conscience des richesses de nos groupes, les valoriser, les utiliser et les faire connaître.
  • Elaborer une  charte des valeurs et principes fondamentaux quisont à la base de notre activisme et nos actions entant que militant-e-s et mouvement féministes queer, LBFSF et trans*.

hows-my-drivin  asked:

Isn't nationalism identity politics?

Hmm… I would say no, not necessarily. To me nationalism is just taking pride in and supporting your nation. Identity politics is about collectivising people based on really shallow characteristics. 

anonymous asked:

i’m an anti communist and i don’t blame you for the atrocities of stalin rather i wish to inform you that stalin enacted communism and communism killed the people. he didn’t have to kill the people but if he didn’t then the country wouldn’t be communist anymore because the people that he killed didn’t like it because they starved and froze. if he didn’t kill them then he would be overthrown because his government hasn’t shown any backbone

I’ll apologise in advance because this is going to be long, but such a topic kind of can’t avoid a long reply!

when I first started studying communism, I admit my main hang-up with calling myself a communist was the atrocities committed in communism’s name by Stalin. growing up with a Western idea of communism I was basically taught that it was bad because Stalin liked it, end of story. since then I have done a lot of research – on communism, on Cold War history, on the USSR under Stalin, and lots of other things in between. I quickly realised that, to put it simply, Stalin’s regime was not communism.

this isn’t a cheap excuse. this isn’t refusing to acknowledge problems by saying “but it’s not real ____!”. it’s basic facts. what Stalin did was a brutal corruption of communism because he was a cruel, paranoid dictator. unfortunately he took something that was, at root, designed to help people and he and his government bastardised it for his own gain. they used it to oppress, to line their pockets, to punish, to terrify, and to ensure they stayed at the top. these are not issues unique to communism. unfortunately, people have a habit of doing this no matter what ideology they profess to support. the reason capitalism has gone so wrong is because of this same kind of greed – the people in power and their governments are using it to oppress, to line their pockets, to punish… you get the idea. 

I’ve read the Communist Manifesto, I’ve done the research, I understand the theory. communism is not perfect. there is no simple answer. but nowhere in the manifesto does the ideology call for what Stalin did. nowhere does it say to create a police state. nowhere does it say to purge so-called “enemies of the state” for making a joke about the country’s leader or spilling something on a photograph of him (both things people were exiled to labour camps for under Stalin, by the way). nowhere does it say to send the secret police out to execute hundreds every day. nowhere does it say to forcibly collectivise people and starve them to death so you can use the heightened profits to get ahead in a world war. nowhere does it say to terrify, murder, torture, and oppress your citizens. that wasn’t communism. that was Stalin. funnily enough, his attitude towards this isn’t called communism – it’s called Stalinism. his regime was a total bastardisation and whatever he was enacting, it wasn’t anything remotely resembling communism.

in all ideologies and social structures, there are going to be people who take advantage. communism has fallen victim to it, so has capitalism, so has everything in between. I don’t know how to fix this yet. I don’t know how to safeguard communism against this yet. it’s something that we have to accept as fact. people are going to be people, but that doesn’t mean we should stop trying. we should look back at history, we should learn from mistakes, we should change and adapt and put in safeguards and hold one another accountable. we should make sure a cruel, paranoid dictator doesn’t wield 100% of the power. we can learn. no revolution succeeds overnight. no revolution can get everything correct on the first try, or the second try, or the third try, or… well, you get it. we need to keep learning and keep trying and keep adapting, and we cannot let an oppressive dictator become the face of an ideology meant to unite everyone in equality.

because that, at the root, is what communism is all about. from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. or, to put it simply, from everyone only what they can give, to everyone everything they need. that is what it’s actually about – fairness, support, equality, safety, mutual benefit, empathy – and I really don’t see anything even remotely resembling Stalinism in that.

kulaks arent an ethnic group they were a class of rural landlords who destroyed food stores during a famine to stop grain being collectivised and its price dropping on the black market. they were famine profiteers and absolutely needed to be suppressed as a class. it wasn’t racist read a fucking book please