Seeing someone “vaguelly left” unironically defending the extrajudicial murder of Rosa fucking Luxembourg was not in my bingo card.
Note that even Germany itself celebrates Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht
The SPDs record is anti-democratic, they used elections to legitimize themselves then unleashed paramilitaries to crush organized workers. That’s not taking ‘democracy seriously,’ that’s narrowing what it means to protect the state.
Revolutionary democracy is more than just fucking ballots and voting. The entire point is mass participation, self organization and ongoing struggle.
just outright simping for an attempted coup along explicitly Bolshevik lines against a government that had announced national elections
The January uprising wasn’t a Bolshevik-style coup. It was a mass revolt sparked by SPD repression, which the KPD didn’t even plan and which Luxemburg herself thought was premature.
‘history major’
I mean elections can be pretty good at legitimizing if they’re free and fair
don’t think we disagree, though the point is more that they’re necessary, but insufficient. having elections can legitimize the process, but if you turn around and rely on right wing paramilitaries to suppress your opposition then it’s not really legitimate.
but if you turn around and rely on right wing paramilitaries to suppress your opposition then it’s not really legitimate.
‘The opposition’ here meaning… people literally attempting a coup.
Right, but they’re good because they’re supposed to give people a voice in their governance, the whole ‘by the people’ thing.
If you only use them to legitimize your program and then toss out the actual desires of the people; that is bad.
Revolutionary democracy is more than just fucking ballots and voting
But that means you are threatening my comfort and privileges!!! Emancipation is only worth it if it benefits me personally without having to do any effort.
On a more serious note, elections are all good and well but will not bring the possibilty of completely changing course, just look how any bourgeois democracy reacts the moment a candidate goes too far in “socialist” rhetoric, instantly the whole private and public sector will cooperate to stop this person, and we’re not even talking about full-blown communists, look at Corbyn, Melenchon,… becoming a full fascist state through the process of bourgeois elections is deemed acceptable and even necessary, anything else has to face the consequences, and they use violence as well, elections are fair and free until they become a menace to the ruling class.
Tbf, where one learns “history” can certainly skew their knowledge and understanding of “history.”
Not surprised personally, it was an easy block a long time ago lol.
I think this sort of take is painfully common, I don’t really get why even the weakest forms of lib propaganda are so effective at making their followers dismiss gigantic problems. It’s the same thing that makes people think the democrats are okay actually, and it’s why people here are okay with the prime minister doing insane shit like sentencing a species to extinction or actively advancing the rise of fascism…
Also fuck electoral democracy lol
Uh, basically its effective because the people convinced by the most pathetic and dubious of liberal propoganda are insecure cowards with normalcy bias and weak senses of identity, and, this is probably the most important part, significant levels of material/social privelege that they genuinely cannot concieve of themselves ever personally not having.
‘Things couldn’t actually get that bad, don’t be ridiculous!’
And then go look at the vast majority of human history that shows no actually things being pretty bad for most people in complex civilized societies is the norm, we currently live in an exceptionally complex and fragile abberation to that baseline.
Their idea of ‘progress’ and ‘progressivism’ … is faith based, literally not grounded in reality, a kind of secular religion of optimism.
When socioeconomic reality breaks down…
(ironically, usually significantly resulting from people like them ignoring all those messy details for too long),
… the faith based delusion becomes harder to maintain, they become despondent, catty and erratic.
…
Case in point:
Heyyyy go look at all the American milquetoast liberal Democrat social media influencers that are currently freaking the fuck out with deceptive, rambling panicked monologues of HR-speak and/or ‘how dare you, you bitch/bastard!’, jilted high school lover level diatribes…
…over their own little dark money superpac Chorus getting exposed in the last 24hrs.
I guess thats only supposed to be fun when it happens to Tim Pool and Benny Johnson or w/e.
…
There, thats my ‘hot take’ or w/e, apparently I do have more to say about all this… grrruggghh…
dark money superpac Chorus
first I’m hearing of this. would love to watch liberals freak out about it. would you provide some links?
https://www.wired.com/story/dark-money-group-secret-funding-democrat-influencers/
This is the article that broke the story, tons of big name, more or less Dem-Party-Line youtubers / tiktokkers are freaking out with response videos.
Looks like the article is more than 24hrs old, but in the last day-ish is when I’ve seen a bunch of those implicated… not taking it well.
I think you’re pretty on point with the normalcy bias and general sense of privilege, but I’m less inclined to agree on the insecurity and weak sense of identity. Of course I’m likely speaking from an entirely different political context given I’m not from the US (committing the sin of assuming you are though, correct me if I’m wrong).
Even when those traits are present in liberals, I think they’re generally symptoms rather than the cause. It’s suprisingly easy for one to be disenfranchised and not realise; the neoliberal discourse tends to suppress unique identity in favour of assimilation/conformity and cowardice is a side effect of convincing people that the power to effect change lies solely in the ballot.
I suppose the intentional disenfranchisement is how that faith is maintained. I tend to view the ignorant liberal as a victim and I know first hand that they can get free, but it either takes a lot of time or something big that realigns their worldview with reality, quite often both.
There’s a lot more I cut out from my comment, but the general gist is that the systems of oppression rely on abusive tactics to create class traitors, and it makes me sad to see the well meaning progressive oppose real change. “Soft on people hard on power structures” is a saying I keep in mind, although it’s not a rule by any means and it doesn’t excuse anyone’s actions: we still have to fight against the liberals.
I am USAsian, your inkling was correct.
What I was trying to say was specific to those convinced by that most basic, placid, wholesome and … obviously false upon any serious critical evaluation … that kind of just fucking frollicking in the fields level naïveté, that kind of rhetoric.
Liberals are obviously capable of making more logically compelling and rhetorically moving slogans and arguments … but I’m trying to focus on the most banal.
This type of shit is only convincing to … hopefully you are familiar with ‘Disney Adults’.
People who really do just base a massive amount of their personality off of a retreat into a dream world.
In my life, all the dumbest liberals I’ve known… have been Disney Adults, or something approximating that for some other… basically fandom.
You take that away, that consumerism enabled fantasy, and there’s almost nothing to them other than being a nervous wreck.
…
You are of course not wrong about the … sinister ways that neoliberalism creates and/or amplifies the conditions that make it more likely for people to be this way…
But I will freely admit this is personal, anecdotal, for and from me.
Anyway… in a weird way, these kinds of people would call themselves liberals or progressives or even leftists… but in actuality they are reactionaries of a kind, by way of escaping into nostalgia, always as a consistent behavior pattern in their own lives.
…
I hear you when you say you tend to view these people as victims.
But I have personally known and been fucked over by too many of these unstable idiots that lie, cheat, steal, break down and panic, at the worst possible times, and then they guilt trip you for noticing they did that, because they are in such inner turmoil that actually you should just give them endless leeway, emotional capacity, trust, material means, social favors, whatever.
They are not capable of holding themselves accountable for anything they do or believe, and because of this cowardice, they ruin those around them, mostly unintentionally.
Now just scale that up from a small social circle to… abdicating their responsibility to usefully give a fuck about their fellow human beings in this world.
They won’t tell you they don’t care, they do care.
They will tell you they are completely overwhelmed, and thus just do some token thing, because at least that gets them social credit with others like them.
Frankly, it sickens me.
I would more respect a completely apathetic or totally cynical and resigned person… they’re more likely to have at least a stable personality and set of behaviors, less likely to actively do harm via naive good intentions.
…
I am at least self aware enough to realize I am probably not the best person to rely on for motivating or radicalizing such people, lol.
But perhaps a useful insight here can be my attempt at an elucidation of the average mental state of these people, such that effective means could be developed toward the aim of … alleviating their condition.
Though I genuienly have no idea what that approach would be, neither in terms of something effective, nor … generally morally acceptable.
In my own experience, it does unfortunately seem that, as you say, such people only have even a chance at a significant world view shift if something catastrophic happens to them personally.
I don’t disagree with you at all. I think it’s true that they are both victims and a huge problem that needs to be fought against. Progressive/liberal activism is a massive problem for one of my collectives and we’re constantly suffering their attempts to undo every step forward.
I think I understand the “Disney adults” thing but that’s not as common here in my experience. There’s certainly an equivalent of it, but it’s less dream world and more “I’ve got mine” reinforced by being completely separated from those who don’t, rather than blindly ignoring reality. It’s a product of having a relatively large and comfortable middle class and a culture of individuality 🤮.
I also don’t really know how to push people to change, exposure to injustice works but I’ve only ever managed that when they’ve already started that process themselves. Get them involved in something that puts them in opposition with the state, like mainstream climate activism or something, and then provide more and more exposure to radical ideas and the suffering of those who aren’t favoured by the state. The problem is they have to be willing to engage with it at every stage…
Maybe a way I could better explain the ‘Disney Adult’… is that it is almost, kind of, maybe like a person with a fursona, who is /really/ deep into it.
The Disney Adult is … not the real them, 90% of the time. They are a child in an adult body who is ‘adulting’, ie, just performing at the concept of … being a mature and responsible person.
The “real” them is who they are when they take their annual trip to Disney Land (their own finances be damned, the pilgramage must be made), when they are rewatching the movies, when they are pretending to be a character from the movie and singing the song, when they are in costume as a Disney character… and acting like their idea of that character.
This is more advanced, more performative, disassociative, distinct than your typical ‘well i got mine, fuck them poors’ type of NIMBYism.
This is a person who does not have normal … plates, cups, pillows, etc…they are all branded with Disney stuff.
Full immersion in the Disney flavor of the neoliberal phantasia/hyperreality, they’ve fully bought (in many ways literally) their magical fantasy personality from Disney, a lifestyle as a consumer product.
This is the kind of person who would have no problem rebelling against say, Christianity, but would likely either view r34 pr0n of their favorite Disney characters as damnable heresy, or have a closeted and shameful, a publically denied, fetishized enjoyment of it.
… I swear I am not being hyperbolic, as… odd as this may seem… I’ve known multiple people like this.
… Perhaps the saddest thing is that yes this arises from a highly individualistic society, but what this is is simply purchasing a more or less prepackaged identity from a company… not actually formulating your own, which is why I say these people have very weak concepts of their own self identity.
They will tell you they are completely overwhelmed, and thus just do some token thing, because at least that gets them social credit with others like them.
Imo, this is exactly what’s going on with the subject of this post and their band of merry men.
I think all ideology is faith based. At the end of the day your ideology is based on some fundamental beliefs that you hold. And holding these beliefs even when evidence points to the contrary. I think of anarchism as a faith. A faith that there is a world worth fighting for. That people are kind. That it’s possible to dismantle these systems of oppression that have seeped into every facet of our society and culture.
I do not primarily think of anarchism as a faith.
I primarily think of it as a body of theory and theories (and also very often creative works that develop and showcase those concepts) that is quite useful and accurate at describing, explaining and predicting the mechanics of the world around me, as it pertains to social/societal/economic/political/moral/historical dynamics and systems, that yes, also describes (or attempts to describe) more ideal goals or end states, methods of potentially achieving them.
Yes, I do have what you would perhaps call a ‘faith’ in the idea that a better world can be built, more fulfilling lives can be had… but I do not have some kind of unshakeable certainty that this will one day happen.
I will always believe that a form, or forms of these better worlds were always a possible path that could have been chosen… but not that that path …was always inevitable, in the long run.
To me… that it to some degree, at some scale, in some sense… is a choice, is only a possibility, is not inevitable… that is what motivates me to make better choices, aimed toward increasing the liklihood of those better outcomes.
…
Rudolf Rocker:
… we should stop regarding social processes as deterministic manifestations of a necessary course of events.
Such a view can only lead to the most erroneous conclusions and contribute to a fatal confusion in our understanding of historical events.
I am an anarchist not because I believe anarchism is the final goal.
I am an anarchist because there is no such thing as a final goal.
Well said.
I actually accidentally submitted my previous comment but because it wasn’t really that cut off and I wanted to get started with other stuff so I left it.
I think the primary reason I think of anarchism as faith is that christians often say they have faith in god and that they believe everything that happens is part of his grand plan. To which I have made the anarchist counter of I don’t need to believe in god, I believe in people. That through working together we can create wonderful things and that we don’t need some omnipotent force to guide our movements. Both the evil and the good in this world is nothing but actions of people rippling through time. And I believe that most people are good.
It’s this weird way of looking all of this theory through a religious lens, but I find it gives me a lot of hope, which is the point of faith. It is dumb and kinda blind, but also very comforting.
Well first, thank you for the compliment, and likewise, you are also skilled at conveying what you mean. =D
However… I would argue that you should consider taking the next step and abandon God and … that kind of faith entirely… but I also would not demand that you do so.
I will try to explain what I mean by this.
…
I am of the ‘No Gods, No Masters’ school of thought here.
I would describe my philosophy or … opinion of faith as roughly absurdist/post-modernist:
Sure, faith can be ‘real’, in the sense that it operates as a kind of hypercharged placebo effect when we decide to make it ‘real’, in that we do genuienly seem to be biologically predisposed to some form of it, that it is obviously a huge part of our history…
But it isn’t ‘really real’, in that… it is ultimately baseless, there is no evidence that the claims of any particular faith are…big T True, universally.
Faith is a lense, a tool, a construct, perhaps even a hyperreality… but it is ultimately a delusion, comforting though it may be.
Faith is belief without, or in spite of reason.
You are very aware that … essentially you are still operating in the same, very ‘big’ mental framework of religion/god/faith, you’ve just shifted around the components of it, and that is very good, many people do something like this without even realizing that is what they have done, and this almost always leads to massive confusion for them later.
I would say you are staring into the void, the void has stared back into you… and you saw much of it, it changed you greatly… but there was still one aspect of it you would not allow yourself to see, one aspect of you that you did not allow it to destroy within you.
I … want to say ‘be brave, you can handle the full transformation… I believe in you that you can handle a more total reformation of your worldview’.
But the problem is that I know that many people just actually cannot handle that.
I have seen too many people in my own life suffer immensely from going through a more total deconstruction process.
I managed to come out the other end of it and would consider myself decently mentally and emotionally stable at the moment… but the process of deconstructing, of letting go of concepts … yes it was painful.
I know others from my own life who have been destroyed by the attempt… I do not want to encourage serious harm to others generally, and I do not know you well enough to hazard a guess as to how you would fare, and it… would also seem to be me imposing my will over your own to fully insist that you do, especially as you have directly stated it brings you stability, purpose, sanguinity.
And then, for me, this becomes a sort of meta-paradox that kind of proves my point, that… boundless faith in people is not justified, because people have limits, those limits vary, and I cannot fundamentally ‘know’ them in advance with certainty… many people do not even know their own limits in advance… thus … I am ‘correct’ in a way that is kind of useless in a person to person context.
…
Hopefully that all makes some sense and I do not sound like Nietzche in his latter years, hahaha!
Basically, you and I see things differently on this subject… and I think that though our views are different, we both understand the other person’s views are largely reasonable, we both have… concerns around the edges, so to speak.
Perhaps we are simply slightly different kinds of people… moving toward similar goals, in slightly different ways. =D
Hahaha, or maybe I’ve managed to just kill my own soul and you still possess one, ahahah!
That final sentence really made me laugh. Thank you. You have such a fun way of talking. I really like how frequently you use ellipses to give pauses. They really work.
I’m not that serious about religion. I wasn’t raised religious and have spent most of my life not really thinking about it. The anarchy as religion think is more just playing with thoughts. Approach ideas from angles that aren’t usual and see what you come up with.
Thinking about it more I think the main reason why I’ve started trusting more in anarchism as a faith than a process is that I live in an environment where anarchist thought really isn’t spread. I’m pretty isolated and so it’s hard to trust in it as something real because I don’t see it anywhere but through the computer. I guess Isolation really is the cause of faith.
But thinking about it further what I consider faith is really not baseless. As it is just “anarchy can exist if people try hard enough”. And that’s not baseless. pre-archy1 was pretty much the same as anarchy and many anarchist project have been incredibly successful. But does that mean that it’s not faith and rather a rational belief? And is that difference really that important when most of humanity would say that anarchy is naive and impossible? Making it seem like the belief that people can work together without oppressing each other is just blind faith.
1: All of the societies that existed before being invaded by a “civilisation”.
At the end of the day what is and isn’t rational is entirely based on the information you have available to you. I imagine there were times that prospect of democracy seemed like blind faith.
And I have no concerns about your beliefs. They seem really solid and nice. I’m just here to discuss a topic I’ve thought about recently.
oh also: “No Gods, No Kings, No Masters, No chains except the ones we choose ourselves.”
Sorry for taking a bit to get back to you in this… brain can only handle so much in a day, as can my broken body that has been doing basically only physical therapy for the last… 6? 9 months?
fucking yeeehaw…
Anyway:
Ok, it seems I have overestimated your religiosity, apologies for that, absolutely self-projection from my own experience there.
I come from a right wing, fundie family, and… basically had to deconstruct and reject all of it to be able to … move forward as an actually sentient and self-aware person, is how I would describe it, haha.
You sound like you have a … much less intense and extreme background with the concept of faith than I do, and that we do seem to have somewhat different conceptions of related concepts and terms.
As you describe it in this latest comment… yeah, that sounds reasonable, healthy, non delusional.
I don’t think I can find real fault with anything you’ve said here, which is a cumbersome way of saying I agree, hahaha!
Also, yes, I do not mean to be overly confrontational, I mean to have a constructive conversation where we can both learn =D
After all, as you say… beliefs derive from one’s knowledge and lived experiences, and I am happy that this convo has been one of those experiences.
…
I will freely admit I am literally traumatized from my own past… but I would also say that this is the case for a whole lot more people in the US, anarchist or not, than a lot of non US people seem to realize.
We really are just Ya’ll Qaeda over here, it is apparently just difficult for those who haven’t lived it to concieve of it.
I don’t mean that as an insult to your intelligence or anything like that, I just consistently find that … it is simply true that the US has a way worse homegrown religious extremism problem than many outside the US seem to understand… roughly once a month, somewhere on lemmy, I end up in some lengthy, polite and informative discussion with a European, where I show them stats, describe things in more detail… and they more or less go ‘oh holy shit I did not realize it was that bad and that commonplace’.
So… yeah, apologies again for trauma-projecting.
effective at making
They’re not. They already want to, the propaganda provides an excuse. Liberaliam is dtanding steadfastly for the easiest most convenient thing to think/do that makes me change the least, that makes me feel the least guilty with the least effort (so like a curtain is usually good enough) etc.
It’s why it’s the most popular claimed ideology of people who believe in nothing.
I am fucking tired and have nothing to say other than:
Holy fuck, how does this drama keep getting worse.
Apparently its just mask off day, week, for a ton of turbolibs on lemmy.
Well that, and:
Happy Labor Day!!!
Enjoy your teeny tiny pathetic token of maybe, kind-of, barely misremembering a society with a violent, broad and organized labor movement at one point, Americans!
deleted by creator
I need a history book and knowledge of all of Lemmy drama (which is pretty undocumented) to understand what’s going on in this post 😭
i’m so confused, I just came out of my “subscribed” section after like a month to doom scroll and there’s so much drama I missed
I made a post about how comfortable they are calling people degenerates on MoG, in the linked thread there db0 had upvoted a post and goat decided to start an interrogation.
This chain of events also has a post on YPTB, they ended up banning all of db0 from the MoG comm.
I just saw that exact thread and I still don’t know what’s going on
PugJesus defending murder of people he doesn’t like? Unheard of!
You’re defending fascism as usual, I see.
I thought I was a Tankie? Now I’m a fascist? Pick a label already.
Sorry that you don’t understand that there’s little difference between a totalitarian authoritarian hypermilitarized regime run by a vanguardist clique performing genocide and a totalitarian authoritarian hypermilitarized regime run by a vanguardist clique performing genocide painted red?
i’ve had pug jesus blocked for a long time. i wish there was a mechanism for commenting to yourself why you did something for later reference. but here we are. i don’t block individual users often so i must have been super frustrated with how they were generally conducting themselves
There’s some frontends which provide user tagging.
It was probably that their responses and posts are everywhere. Kinda like Blaze. I don’t use lemmy to mainline one person’s perspective.
great post . well composed.
I needed context, and it was provided without asking.
There’s a lot of extra context missing as well, as this brouhaha has been ongoing for a week or so, so all the “in-between dominoes” are missing but I can’t be arsed atm. You can search my username and you’ll find half a dozen threads in as many comms
I’ve been noticing people on dot-world in the last year, particularly the mods, have really ramped up calling people tankies and making a big fuss about it. Back when I used my account there, Hexbear might as well have been Satan’s personal instance for how it was discussed. Since I moved here (and can actually see them), it really seems quite overblown.
There’s definitely shitty users all over, and maaaybe the more radical instances let people get away with more bad behavior, but certainly banning whole instances over shit like this is obvious mod abuse.
It’s not like they run background checks on mods, literally anyone could infiltrate the positions and use their powers to sow dischord. I just don’t trust this extreme “we must purge the far left, the anarchist, the communists, etc” turn in Lemmy moderation at all. Really stinks of old fashioned “First they came for the…” behaviors.
I’ve been noticing people on dot-world in the last year, particularly the mods, have really ramped up calling people tankies and making a big fuss about it.
Fascism has endless purity tests that eventually means no one can pass them.
I’ve been called a Tankie for wanting the DNC to support popular polices to win over people tricked by fascism.
I’ve been called a Russian bot for not liking racist polices set up by Republicans and kept around by Democrats.
They don’t want you to question their motives. They love their billionaires, anyone who disagrees must be paid for the other guy’s billionaires.
Might need some more context for what they said linked on this one - seems like they’re just advocating for not violently overthrowing a newly elected system of government in favor of a more right aligned one, but then my understanding of the german revolution starts to break down around when the eighth distinct faction got involved so who knows
Might need some more context for what they said linked on this one - seems like they’re just advocating for not violently overthrowing a newly elected system of government in favor of a more right aligned one
That’s exactly what I’m saying - but db0 apparently thinks that the SPD not allowing an ML-aligned government to perform a coup ahead of democratic elections justifies (checks notes) letting the Nazis win over a decade later.
Peak anarchism, it would seem.
i hear you can get a nice nazi arm band
Where’d you hear that, pug? Ive never heard that. I assumed but I’ve never heard.
Y’all need to learn how to block people
In fairness like half the random meme posts are PugJesus because how terminal online they are.
Just learning this now? They’ve long ago established they celebrate the murder of Luxembourg and Liebknecht. Big fan of the Freikorps.
Also genocidal chinese warlords and possibly the Bodo League IIRC. Pretty much any historical figure or event with a hefty leftist body count has gotten praise. I am surprised this is new to anyone who has been around.
Lol of course it’s Pug.
He doesn’t even mention Rosa Luxemburg?
You need to know history to understand what’s happening when someone defends the actions of the SPD at the turn of the last century.
I did read up a bit, and the spartacists tried to overthrow the provisional government, to install a council republik, instead of a social democracy, and subsequently got their asses handed to them. Luxemburg and Liebknecht were captured and subsequently murdered by the freikorps.
Sounds to me like they just fought and lost. While killing Luxemburg and Liebknecht went too far, capturing them was justified. These two should obviously have been given a fair trial.
Did I miss anything?
Four empires with vassal states in eastern europe collapsed entirely in WW1. The Freikorps were monarchist and anti-republic paramilitaries that sought to restore the German Empire. Essentially if ‘just fought and lost’ is valid, the monarchists and imperialists fought and lost the war, and the dismantling of their Empire was part of the peace treaties that ended the war. But since those treaties were also with empires that collapsed…
The ending and aftermath of World War 1 is the uncompromising context for the entire interwar period.
Rosa Luxemburg, in fact, voted against the Spartacist Uprising and to participate in elections instead.
But that’s inconvenient, so db0 doesn’t care.
This is a massive turbolib take don’t get me wrong, but I don’t see Pug defending the murder of those two. They defended the recruitment of the Freikorps for the violent suppression of the uprising, which is also a shity turbolib take but not really the same thing.
I’m not quite sure what point Pug was trying to make (I think it’s against violent coups as a form of socialist revolution), but they weren’t criticizing Rosa here. They’re appealing to her authority as a socialist figure to make their point.
I’m not quite sure what point Pug was trying to make (I think it’s against violent coups as a form of socialist revolution),
Not universally - but pointing out that Rosa Luxemburg herself was opposed to the coup attempt when there were reasonably democratic elections coming up that the KPD could’ve very easily made significant gains in.
If the reaction to “There are democratic elections coming up, and they look to be relatively fair and probably reflect the will of the majority” is “We need to take power by force before that can happen!”, you’ve edged into some pretty fucking questionable territory. Combine that with the fact that the Spartacist Uprising explicitly modeled itself after the Bolsheviks in Russia, who had, the year before, dissolved a democratically elected and leftist legislature to seize power for themselves, and it becomes difficult to not see it as a form of early red fascism.
Disclaimer: I have nothing but disdain for the Bolsheviks/Communists, and believe there’s a serious argument that they’re just a branch of fascism with leftwing dressing. This argument is not coming from a place of ML sympathy.
You’re misrepresenting/misunderstanding the cause of the Spartacist uprising. The uprising wasn’t planned to prevent the democratic elections; it kind of just happened as some saw an opportunity where none existed and everyone jumped the gun. Also note that the KPD wanted to establish a council republic similar to what the Bolsheviks had set up, which was flawed but not inherently authoritarian; Bolshevik authoritarianism came through corruption of a democratic system with winning the war as their excuse. It’s no coincidence that anti-Bolshevik uprisings would feature chants of “soviets without communists” in the tail end of the civil war. Point being: The uprising was a bad idea in hindsight, but you’re seeing malice on the part of the KPD where there’s none. The KPD, after being swept up by an uprising they did not plan but that had effectively started anyway, saw an opportunity to replace a form of democracy (parliamentary democracy) with what they considered a better form of democracy (council democracy); whether you agree with them on that or not, nothing about the uprising was fascist of the red or any other variety.
You’re misrepresenting/misunderstanding the cause of the Spartacist uprising. The uprising wasn’t planned to prevent the democratic elections (the split in the party leadership was about electoralism vs direct action); it kind of just happened as some saw an opportunity where none existed and everyone jumped the gun.
That the uprising wasn’t planned, and that the KPD turning it into an uprising was intended to prevent the upcoming elections are not mutually exclusive positions; that it was unplanned is apparent by the reaction of the vast majority of the protesters who initially sparked the KPD’s insane idea that they could take over - the vast majority of protesters were, themselves, trade unionists who did not desire a coup, and did not join the attempted uprising.
Also note that the KPD wanted to establish a council republic similar to what the Bolsheviks had set up, which was flawed but not inherently authoritarian; Bolshevik authoritarianism came through corruption of a democratic system with winning the war as their excuse.
As I mentioned, the Bolsheviks had already shown their true colors in dissolving the democratically elected legislature the year before for not returning a sufficiently Bolshevik legislature. They did not prevent it from meeting because it was the ‘wrong kind’ of democracy - only once it was apparent that they had not won the elections and the resulting representatives were unwilling to bend to their wishes did they opt to dissolve it. Furthermore, at this point, purges of leftist groups on the Bolshevik side had already begun - and, on top of that, the entire point of the Bolsheviks was that they were believers in an anti-democratic Vanguardist state. That was the point of the split with the Mensheviks.
Point being: The uprising was a bad idea in hindsight, but you’re seeing malice on the part of the KPD where there’s none.
I think that seeing malice in an attempt to stop elections from occurring is not unwarranted, especially considering what party they sought to imitate. Even at that early point, the Bolsheviks were not exactly friends of democracy.
I’m not sure if you’re misremembering or making things up, but many of your claims aren’t historically supported at all. Also when I say KPD that’s a shorthand for the uprising leadership in general, because those guys weren’t all KPD.
That the uprising wasn’t planned, and that the KPD turning it into an uprising was intended to prevent the upcoming elections are not mutually exclusive positions; that it was unplanned is apparent by the reaction of the vast majority of the protesters who initially sparked the KPD’s insane idea that they could take over - the vast majority of protesters were, themselves, trade unionists who did not desire a coup, and did not join the attempted uprising.
The following day, the Revolutionary Committee called on the workers of Berlin to stage a general strike on 7 January and overthrow Ebert’s government. The call was answered by up to 500,000 people who poured into the city center.
KPD leader Liebknecht, initially against the advice of Luxemburg, supported the plan to unleash a civil war. The Council of People’s Deputies was to be overthrown by force of arms and the elections to the National Assembly scheduled for 19 January prevented.[24] Liebknecht feared that the KPD might otherwise isolate itself too much from the workers who sought the overthrow of the government.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacist_uprising#Mass_demonstrations_and_general_strike
Enough demonstrators supported the uprising to force the KPD’s hand in starting/continuing it. The uprising petered out due to a divided leadership unable to seize the momentum, not because the demonstrators were uninterested in a second revolution to overthrow the bourgeoisie. Also you keep saying “coup” but, like, when you have half a million workers marching around to overthrow the government that’s not a coup anymore; that’s a revolution.
As I mentioned, the Bolsheviks had already shown their true colors in dissolving the democratically elected legislature the year before for not returning a sufficiently Bolshevik legislature.
True, but irrelevant. Using Bolshevik actions to morally implicate the KPD is fallacious logic. The uprising was meant to create a socialist and democratic society in the form of a council republic, not replicate everything the Bolsheviks did. If you have criticism of the KPD, criticize the KPD; everyone worth having this conversation with already knows the Bolsheviks were terrible people.
I think that seeing malice in an attempt to stop elections from occurring is not unwarranted,
Again, that is literally not what happened. The uprising was a spontaneous affair emerging from SPD repression that the KPD attempted to control after the fact. If the goal was to prevent elections, they would’ve never negotiated with the SPD*. Even if we accept your claim, though, your position only makes sense if you view bourgeois parliamentary democracy as exceptionally democratic and worthy of preservation compared to socialist forms of democracy. Would you condemn an uprising to overthrow a constitutional monarchy and establish a republic in a similar manner?
*See:
On 6 January the Revolutionary Committee began negotiating with Ebert through the mediation of USPD leadership. The negotiations failed on 7 January due to the unwillingness of either side to compromise. The Council of People’s Deputies demanded the evacuation of the occupied newspaper buildings, while the insurgents insisted on Eichhorn’s reinstatement. The chance for a nonviolent settlement of the conflict was thus lost.
Point being: The January uprising was entirely in line with democratic principles and not at all a repeat of the Bolshevik coup a year earlier. Treating those two as in any way the same is nothing short of liberal “socialism is fascism” rhetoric. You should read the Wikipedia article before responding.
I’m not sure if you’re misremembering or making things up, but many of your claims aren’t historically supported at all. Also when I say KPD that’s a shorthand for the uprising leadership in general, because those guys weren’t all KPD.
I’m well aware; that doesn’t change their goals or idolization.
Enough demonstrators supported the uprising to force the KPD’s hand in starting/continuing it. The uprising petered out due to a divided leadership unable to seize the momentum, not because the demonstrators were uninterested in a second revolution to overthrow the bourgeoisie.
Further on you chide me to read the wikipedia article, yet demonstrate that you have no interest in the parts of the Wikipedia article that contradict your narrative.
KPD leader Liebknecht, initially against the advice of Luxemburg, supported the plan to unleash a civil war. The Council of People’s Deputies was to be overthrown by force of arms and the elections to the National Assembly scheduled for 19 January prevented.
The mass of the working class followed the call for a general strike to prevent a counterrevolution, but it did not want to have anything to do with military struggles. On the contrary, they continued to demand the unity of the socialist forces and, at a large meeting in the Humboldthain Park on 9 January, demanded the resignation of all the leaders responsible for the “fratricide”. Both the Ebert government and Ledebour and Liebknecht were seen as responsible for the situation. Numerous resolutions from the factories called for an end to the street fighting and the creation of a government in which all socialist parties would be represented.[15] In the view of historian Sebastian Haffner, the executive committee of the Berlin USPD and KPD had failed the uprising, which was “entirely the spontaneous work of the masses of Berlin workers who had made the November Revolution; the masses were overwhelmingly Social Democrats, not Spartacists or Communists, and their January uprising was no different than their November revolution had been.”[4]
The interest in bringing down the government was not the revolutionary abolition of the newborn Weimar government, but the resignation of Ebert’s government in a parliamentary sense.
True, but irrelevant. Using Bolshevik actions to morally implicate the KPD is fallacious logic. The uprising was meant to create a socialist and democratic society in the form of a council republic, not replicate everything the Bolsheviks did. If you have criticism of the KPD, criticize the KPD; everyone worth having this conversation with already knows the Bolsheviks were terrible people.
Oh, okay, I should just ignore the coup’s leadership openly idolizing the Bolshevik process because they weren’t literally the Bolsheviks themselves. I’m sure that their attempt to prevent democratic elections was completely holsum and that they would’ve been utterly unlike the Bolsheviks in victory.
Again, that is literally not what happened. The uprising was a spontaneous affair emerging from SPD repression that the KPD attempted to control after the fact.
“SPD repression” is a very curious way to say “The SPD responding to a police chief kidnapping a politician to hold as hostage”
If the goal was to prevent elections, they would’ve never negotiated with the SPD*.
“Put us in a better position to seize power and we’ll think about allowing electoins”
Wow much negotation
Even if we accept your claim, though, your position only makes sense if you view bourgeois parliamentary democracy as exceptionally democratic and worthy of preservation compared to socialist forms of democracy. Would you condemn an uprising to overthrow a constitutional monarchy and establish a republic in a similar manner?
Yes, abso-fucking-lutely? If the UK is having elections in two weeks, those elections look free and fair, and Labour says “Instead of participating in elections, we want to have a coup”, that’s a pretty damning admission that they don’t think they can fucking win free and fair elections.
“But a Republic would be better!” Yes, a republic would be better - but if your opinion is that a republic would be better even against the wishes of the majority of the population, maybe you aren’t such a believer in the basic idea of a democratic republic to fucking begin with.
You should read the Wikipedia article before responding.
I have. As quoted parts contradict your arguments, I must question if you have as well.
They defended the recruitment of the Freikorps for the violent suppression of the uprising, which is also a shity turbolib take but not really the same thing.
It was a questionable decision by the SPD, but also raises the question of what should they have done in their position.
With few independent paramilitaries, and with the army gutted by the armistice, what immediate forces did they have to call upon to prevent the coup attempt? Even with the call for the Freikorps, the Weimar government’s forces numbered only ~3,000 troops during the uprising’s suppression - and this after the navy servicemen had proven unwilling to engage the putschists.
but also raises the question of what should they have done in their position.
Compromise left rather than rightward. If they could work with literal fascists, they could’ve seen what the KPD had to say. Also, not using the army to attack their supposed allies, or even agreeing to reinstate Eichhorn after the fact, would’ve averted this whole thing. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacist_uprising#Background_and_causes.
and this after the navy servicemen had proven unwilling to engage the putschists.
Fuckin wonder why.
Compromise left rather than rightward. If they could work with literal fascists, they could’ve seen what the KPD had to say.
As you yourself admit, negotiations were had. They saw what the KPD had to say - and one of their core demands was to restore to power someone who had taken leftist politicians hostage for being insufficiently leftist.
Also, not using the army to attack their supposed allies
Their supposed allies who were attempting a coup? This leads back around to the idea that the SPD should’ve rolled over and fucking died.
Fuckin wonder why.
Because the navy was extremely left-wing at the time?
Not to be rude but like, was your major in alt history? You clearly need a heavy refresher on the German revolution before you’re qualified to talk about this, so I’d suggest you start with that before responding. To be clear, I’ll downvote and move on if your next response isn’t at least mostly rooted in fact.
someone who had taken leftist politicians hostage for being insufficiently leftist.
Nope. See:
On 23 December, a dispute arose over back pay owed to the People’s Marine Division (Volksmarinedivision), which had been assigned to protect the provisional government in Berlin. In an attempt to force payment, the sailors took Otto Wels (MSPD), the military commander of Berlin, hostage. The following day, when the three MSPD members of the Council of the People’s Deputies ordered Berlin’s police chief, Emil Eichhorn (USPD), to use the security forces under his command to free Wels, he refused.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacist_uprising#Background_and_causes
Eichhorn’s “fault” in all this was not using the police to crack down on leftist allies with legitimate grievances. He was not at all involved in the hostage taking, which the navy men didn’t do because the politician “wasn’t sufficiently leftist;” as clearly stated in the article, it was a dispute over back pay.
Their supposed allies who were attempting a coup?
No “coup” (“revolution” makes a lot more sense as a label) yet. The army thing is referring to this:
Ebert then had the Army called in and ordered it to use deadly force against the People’s Navy Division in what came to be known as the 1918 Christmas crisis. Wels was freed, but eleven men from the People’s Marine Division and 56 from the Army were killed.
Eichhorn would be subsequently dismissed, not for anything you stated but because he wouldn’t “reliably” immediately resort to deadly force against fellow leftists. This would be the immediately spark of the uprising.
On 29 December, the three USPD representatives on the Council resigned in protest. The MSPD representatives then appointed two MSPD members to replace them. After that the USPD no longer saw the Council as a legitimate interim government. MSPD majorities in the workers’ councils agreed to Ebert’s wish to dismiss Police Chief Eichhorn, whom he now considered unreliable,[12] but the USPD and KPD interpreted Eichhorn’s dismissal as an attack on the revolution. This became the immediate trigger of the uprising.
Because the navy was extremely left-wing at the time?
Because the people Ebert called the army on were the navy servicemen. They knew firsthand how ghoulish that asshole really was.
Not to be rude but like, was your major in alt history? You clearly need a heavy refresher on the German revolution before you’re qualified to talk about this, so I’d suggest you start with that before responding. To be clear, I’ll downvote and move on if your next response isn’t at least mostly rooted in fact.
Sorry that you don’t like your own source being quoted to contradict you?
Nope
Yep
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Wels
On 9 November 1918, the date of the proclamation of the republic in Germany, Wels spoke to the Naumburg rifle brigade at their request to explain the political situation following the collapse of the German Empire at the end of World War I. The brigade was one of the units considered especially loyal to Emperor Wilhelm II that had been brought into the city as reinforcements against revolutionary activity. Wels convinced the soldiers that to avoid a civil war they should not use their weapons. At the end of his speech, the brigade went over in a body to the side of the supporters of the German Revolution. Buoyed by his success, Wels spoke at other barracks so persuasively that he was credited with keeping the death toll that day to just fifteen.[4]
Also on 9 November, Wels became a member of the revolutionary Workers’ and Soldiers’ Council of Berlin. He advocated successfully for the Independent Social Democratic Party (USPD) – a more leftist and anti-war group that had broken away from the SPD in 1917 – to be represented equally with the SPD on the Council. The next day, he was made military commander of Berlin.[5]
The Volksmarinedivision was the revolution’s main military unit in Berlin and as such under Wels’ control. In December 1918, the Council of People’s Deputies, Germany’s temporary government, ordered the division to move outside Berlin and reduce the number of its soldiers. When they refused, Wels withheld their pay to force them to comply. During the week before Christmas, he attempted to negotiate with them, but when no progress was made, they detained and maltreated him.[6] Assaults on the division’s locations at the Berlin Palace and Neuer Marstall by regular troops loyal to the government – the 1918 Christmas crisis – failed to dislodge the mutineers. Negotiations led to a compromise under which the Volksmarinedivision, in exchange for receiving its back pay and remaining a unit, vacated the Palace and Marstall and freed Wels, who was forced to step down from his position as city commander.[7]
No “coup” (“revolution” makes a lot more sense as a label) yet.
“It’s a revolution because I like this attempt to prevent democratic elections”
The army thing is referring to this:
As mentioned and quoted above, it’s not “a dispute over backpay”
Eichhorn would be subsequently dismissed, not for anything you stated but because he wouldn’t “reliably” immediately resort to deadly force against fellow leftists.
“It’s okay if a police chief approves of military forces taking politicians hostages if I really agree with them”
Because the people Ebert called the army on were the navy servicemen. They knew firsthand how ghoulish that asshole really was.
“Ghoulish is when the civilian government doesn’t allow the military to make its own orders and take hostages whenever it likes”
If you think my position is unnecessarily prejudiced against the uprising and not worth responding to, that’s fine. But I think you’re really downplaying the connection between the Bolsheviks and the thinking of the leadership of the Spartacist Uprising.
