Well done???
Anarchism always ends in some form of statist misrule. That is the problem with it. Politics and nature both abhor vacuums. And anarchism is ultimately a political vacuum that will be occupied by the first opportunist of some degree of competence to come along.
The anarchist collectives of the Spanish Revolution did not devolve into some form of "statist misrule"...unless you refer to the Francoist government that replaced them. That doesn't seem an especially relevant criticism of anarchist principles, however.
By the way did you know that the only difference between a Marxisat and a socialist is that a socialist isn't stupid enough to believe that any government big enough and intrusive enough to ascertain means of all and attempt from them to supply the needs of all isn't going anywhere any time soon.
The only difference between a Marxist and a socialist is that Marxism is one specific variety of communistic socialism, whereas numerous other varieties, such as libertarian and democratic socialism, mutualism, market socialism, and even social democracy exist.
False... the terms were used properly... There is NOTHING LIBERAL about the ideological LEFT. The ideological left is the very ANTITHESIS OF LIBERTY; Individual liberty is anathema to the ideologicla left; individual liberty can NOT EXIST within a leftist culture...
This indicates an ignorance of the usage of the term "liberal" as it is currently used, often in reference to social liberalism.
I suppose a lesser critic would have provided evidence to support his claims...
Oh now isn't that precious... Let's examine the logic here... The Socialists which had been RIGHT THERE with the Fascists, driving towards power, hand in hand, ALL THE WAY, were killed... Right? So the Fascists that killed them weren't socialist... LOL... Everyone got that?
It could NOT BE that the socialist that were killed merely represented a threat to the power which those the socialist that killed them had aquired... NOoooo they had to be killed because 'they were socialists... and 'everyone knows' that fascists HATE Socialists...'
ROFLMNAO... Sweet mother that's hysterical...
The socialist element was expunged because the Nazi leadership never had any intention of implementing any legitimate form of socialism. It's interesting that you would claim that ideological differences between authoritarian and libertarian socialism are irrelevant because they do the same things while in power, while ignoring the fact that when a group like the Nazis actually assumed power, they destroyed those whom they originally claimed to have ideological sympathies with. It's also not surprising that you would use their self-description as an attempt to criticize them, though it is telling that you do not do the same for the Soviet-controlled German "Democratic" Republic.
The Nazis were largely supported by openly anti-socialist elements, such as the Falangists of Spain, led by General Franco. In economic terms, they would best be described as rightward leaning Keynesians, and were hostile towards legitimately socialistic elements. Under the Nazis, state and corporate power were strongly allied, and the Third Reich often rewarded corporations in the private sector that kept prices low. As a simple Wikipedia search notes,
"Volkswagen was created by the German state and was heavily supported by the Nazis; Opel employed Jewish slave labour to run their industrial plants; Daimler-Benz used prisoners of war as slaves to run their industrial plants; Krupp made gas chambers; Bayer worked with the Nazis as a small part of the enormous IG Farben chemistry monopoly; and Hugo Boss designed the SS uniforms (and admitted to this in 1997)."
I would recommend that you engage in a more thorough study of political economy.
There isn't a dimes distinction between an authoritarian communist and a anarcho-communist-libertarian (pardon the string of oxymorons folks, but these idiots demand it...) EXCEPT the anarcho-communist-libertarian DOESN'T HAVE ANY POWER... They're impotent idiots projecting flaccid little theories. Give them power and they're instantly transformed into good ole'fashion authoritarian commies who are determined to stop anyone from screwing up yet another perfectly good workers utopia...
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely... and one can't have a leftist culture without absolute power because there will always be those within any given culture, such as myself, who will be standing there prepared to separate the worker from his hardly earned paycheck, giving them what they want, because the leftists are only willing to give them what they are told they NEED.
These idiotic comments reveal a profound ignorance of political history and philosophy. If you're unfamiliar with the distinction between libertarian and authoritarian socialism...
Section H - Why do anarchists oppose state socialism?
Firstly, there is no such thing as an "authoritarian communist." The term is an oxymoron. The Soviets that you enjoy referring to repeatedly were not communists in that they did not establish a society based on the egalitarian distribution of labor, goods, and services based on abilities and needs. They were not even socialists in that the accurate definition of socialism involves the collective ownership of the means of production, and the Soviet system was not based on any legitimate system of collective ownership.
Your assertion that there is no distinction between authoritarian "socialists" and libertarian socialists is similarly inaccurate, both politically and historically. You are likely unfamiliar with the Marx/Bakunin conflict that resulted in the Marxist/anarchist divide at the Hague Congress of the International Workingmens' Association. (Note the fact that anarchists are not referred to as "Bakuninists" because it is not an anarchist tendency to venerate a particular figure in such a way, even one so learned as Bakunin or Chomsky.)
Moreover, when the Spanish anarcho-socialists gained a foothold in Catalonia, millions organized according to libertarian principles, not authoritarian ones. The authoritarian members of the Popular Front were the chief saboteurs of the anarchist militias, even deliberately losing battles to the Falangists to prevent weaponry from falling into anarchist hands.
The Soviet Union being a major example, the Kronstadt Rebellion and the conflict between the Red Army and Nester Makhno's Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine are examples of authoritarian socialists' clear disdain for libertarian socialists and anarchists, and anarchists' willingness to commit to libertarian principles even after the establishment of an authoritarian socialist regime. The anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin's letter to Vladimir Lenin speaks particularly strongly to this.
Peter Kropotin said:
Vladimir Ilyich, your concrete actions are completely unworthy of the ideas you pretend to hold.
Is it possible that you do not know what a hostage really is — a man imprisoned not because of a crime he has committed, but only because it suits his enemies to exert blackmail on his companions? ... If you admit such methods, one can foresee that one day you will use torture, as was done in the Middle Ages. I hope you will not answer me that Power is for political men a professional duty, and that any attack against that power must be considered as a threat against which one must guard oneself at any price. This opinion is no longer held even by kings... Are you so blinded, so much a prisoner of your own authoritarian ideas, that you do not realise that being at the head of European Communism, you have no right to soil the ideas which you defend by shameful methods ... What future lies in store for Communism when one of its most important defenders tramples in this way every honest feeling?
The Soviet system is in fact the antithesis of socialism, and the fundamental embodiment of state capitalism. Anarchists and other libertarian socialists recognize this. Idiots who blurt out recycled right-wing talking points like you do not.
