Offtopic

Burstar
Sakashiro
BestSecretaryEverI don't think Joseph Stalin is a worthwhile source on... well, anything?

Why? Because he makes Marxism look like a very bad idea?

Because an expert on control knows nothing about losing it apparently... /s

Good point!

But then we should at least acknowledge that Stalin may be a worthwhile source on how to keep control.

Artie

16 Apr 2021, 12:15pm

BestSecretaryEver: Not this way, please...

Phisto Sobanii

16 Apr 2021, 12:18pm

Just to make this clear, bringing up Mein Kampf is forbidden but Anarchism or Socialism isn't?

What's the reasoning? Body count?

16 Apr 2021, 12:24pm

Do you even get how you're coming over here?

Anarchism and Socialism is a criticism of anarchism and a response to anarchist criticism of Marxism. Whether you agree with it's point or not is irrelevant to the fact that it has anarchism as one of its main subjects.

That it was written by Stalin himself is also irrelevant since he wrote it long before he became leader of the Soviet Union.

Your post got deleted because you're trying to insult people, I suggest you at least attempt to remain civil otherwise this might be a short stay for you.

Artie

16 Apr 2021, 12:26pm

BestSecretaryEverJust to make this clear, bringing up Mein Kampf is forbidden but Anarchism or Socialism isn't?
What's the reasoning? Body count?

The difference is in posting an argument vs insulting other posters. Address the argument, not its poster, directly or indirectly.

16 Apr 2021, 12:31pm

Communists are no friends to anarchists. The aftermath of the Russian revolution in 1917 and the Spanish Civil War are two major historical examples.

16 Apr 2021, 12:47pm

When it comes to learning about anarchy, it's probably a good idea to seek anarchist authors and thinkers and not one of the most murderous and morally bankrupt figures in the last century. Given Stalin's proclivity for suppressing dissent through violence, persecution, imprisonment, and censorship, I'd argue his opinions on anarchism and anarchists probably isn't as nsightful on the subject as say something written by Alexander Berkman or Benjamin Tucker.

16 Apr 2021, 1:04pm

Isaiah EvansonCommunists are no friends to anarchists. The aftermath of the Russian revolution in 1917 and the Spanish Civil War are two major historical examples.

Proper communists are about as friendly towards any other political ideology as fascists.

Isaiah EvansonWhen it comes to learning about anarchy, it's probably a good idea to seek anarchist authors and thinkers and not one of the most murderous and morally bankrupt figures in the last century. Given Stalin's proclivity for suppressing dissent through violence, persecution, imprisonment, and censorship, I'd argue his opinions on anarchism and anarchists probably isn't as nsightful on the subject as say something written by Alexander Berkman or Benjamin Tucker.

That's merely exchanging one bias for another. Reading criticism of a particular idea from other perspectives is as important as proper insight into the matter.

As for Stalin being one of the most murderous and morally bankrupt figures, sure agreed but this book was written fifteen years before he held any kind of official position in the Communist Party. People change over time and he may not have been that kind of person at this stage in his life.

Amata Lirein

16 Apr 2021, 1:41pm

BestSecretaryEverJust to make this clear, bringing up Mein Kampf is forbidden but Anarchism or Socialism isn't?

What's the reasoning? Body count?

Wait, you brought up "Mein Kampf"? Then Godwin's Law applies and you lose the discussion by default.

16 Apr 2021, 2:34pm

Rebecca Hail
Isaiah EvansonCommunists are no friends to anarchists. The aftermath of the Russian revolution in 1917 and the Spanish Civil War are two major historical examples.

Proper communists are about as friendly towards any other political ideology as fascists.

Isaiah EvansonWhen it comes to learning about anarchy, it's probably a good idea to seek anarchist authors and thinkers and not one of the most murderous and morally bankrupt figures in the last century. Given Stalin's proclivity for suppressing dissent through violence, persecution, imprisonment, and censorship, I'd argue his opinions on anarchism and anarchists probably isn't as nsightful on the subject as say something written by Alexander Berkman or Benjamin Tucker.

That's merely exchanging one bias for another. Reading criticism of a particular idea from other perspectives is as important as proper insight into the matter.

As for Stalin being one of the most murderous and morally bankrupt figures, sure agreed but this book was written fifteen years before he held any kind of official position in the Communist Party. People change over time and he may not have been that kind of person at this stage in his life.

On your first point, yes, that is the nature of having beliefs. The difference is that the critic will not entertain alternatives proposed by the defender. If they did, they'd no longer be a critic.

On your second point, Stalin was a member of the Bolshevik party and they were no less violent or oppressive he was when he finally came to power. I'm fairly certain his perspectives on anarchists changed very little between being a tool of the Bolsheviks and becoming the leader of the Soviet Union.

16 Apr 2021, 3:14pm

Amata Lirein
BestSecretaryEverJust to make this clear, bringing up Mein Kampf is forbidden but Anarchism or Socialism isn't?

What's the reasoning? Body count?

Wait, you brought up "Mein Kampf"? Then Godwin's Law applies and you lose the discussion by default.

Invoking Godwin's Law in a discussion that features another of the 20th century's most prolific murderers just seems like an attempt to derail the conversation. This isn't a Facebook comment argument about an unrelated subject in which someone just namedrops Hitler. I'd argue he's exhibit A in an argument for anarchism vs. fascism and other forms of authoritarianism.

16 Apr 2021, 4:16pm

Isaiah Evanson
Rebecca Hail
Isaiah EvansonCommunists are no friends to anarchists. The aftermath of the Russian revolution in 1917 and the Spanish Civil War are two major historical examples.

Proper communists are about as friendly towards any other political ideology as fascists.

Isaiah EvansonWhen it comes to learning about anarchy, it's probably a good idea to seek anarchist authors and thinkers and not one of the most murderous and morally bankrupt figures in the last century. Given Stalin's proclivity for suppressing dissent through violence, persecution, imprisonment, and censorship, I'd argue his opinions on anarchism and anarchists probably isn't as nsightful on the subject as say something written by Alexander Berkman or Benjamin Tucker.

That's merely exchanging one bias for another. Reading criticism of a particular idea from other perspectives is as important as proper insight into the matter.

As for Stalin being one of the most murderous and morally bankrupt figures, sure agreed but this book was written fifteen years before he held any kind of official position in the Communist Party. People change over time and he may not have been that kind of person at this stage in his life.

On your first point, yes, that is the nature of having beliefs. The difference is that the critic will not entertain alternatives proposed by the defender. If they did, they'd no longer be a critic.

You can be a critic without outright rejecting a belief or parts of it.

The alternative to an ideology would be another ideology. When arguing on that level of abstraction it makes little sense to pay mind to different interpretations and details of one or another substream. You analyze central points of the ideology and argue those. Changing those core points would be changing the entire ideology and therefore make the argument moot as you'd prove the critic right in doing so.

The defendant wants to defend his point, not change it.

On your second point, Stalin was a member of the Bolshevik party and they were no less violent or oppressive he was when he finally came to power. I'm fairly certain his perspectives on anarchists changed very little between being a tool of the Bolsheviks and becoming the leader of the Soviet Union.

That's an assumption, it's not possible to know that without actually reading his criticism.

Being a member of something means very little if you're not in a relevant position, especially when it comes to violent and oppressive political parties.

The point I'm trying to make here is the same Artie made above: "Address the argument, not its poster". Claiming that this particular book holds no value as criticism because Stalin wrote it is just ignorant.

16 Apr 2021, 4:37pm

That's a cop-out, but sure, maybe Stalin actually liked anarchists until one stole his favorite pair of socks.

Sorry Becci, but you're wrong. Flat out.

16 Apr 2021, 4:47pm