Edit for clarity: I’m not asking why the Tankie/Anarchist grudge exist. I’m curious about what information sources - mentors, friends, books, TV, cultural osmosis, conveys that information to people. Where do individuals encounter this information and how does it become important to them. It’s an anthropology question about a contemporary culture rather than a question about the history of leftism.

I’ve been thinking about this a bit lately. Newly minted Anarchists have to learn to hate Lenin and Stalin and whoever else they have a grudge against. They have to encounter some materials or teacher who teaches them “Yeah these guys, you have to hate these guys and it has to be super-personal like they kicked your dog. You have to be extremely angry about it and treat anyone who doesn’t disavow them as though they’re literally going to kill you.”

Like there’s some process of enculturation there, of being brought in to the culture of anarchism, and there’s a process where anarchists learn this thing that all (most?) anarchists know and agree on.

Idk, just anthropology brain anthropologying. Cause like if someone or something didn’t teach you this why would you care so much?

  • vovchik_ilich [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Please excuse me, which socialist country has a better record of being on the right side of history than the Soviet Union?!

    if you can’t see their fuckups

    I’ll try and make you a list of the bigger ones IMO later or tomorrow. Again, I don’t expect many people to know more about such issues than Marxist-Leninists, who are famously obsessed with the USSR.

    • urmums401k [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I don’t actually care, its just an exercise to see if youre delusional by checking roughly how many. Do it, but for yourself. Remember the people you love might be great, but they also suck. Remembering one without the other is not respecting their memory.

      Cuba in particular, as far as nation States, tends to be on the right side of things earlier than most. I’m not interested in discussing it at present.

      • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Cuba

        would not exist as a socialist state without the USSR and (though this may only be historical contingency) Krushchev, doing the only other correct thing he did besides rolling tanks on Hungary

          • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 minutes ago

            I don’t know what makes you think I didn’t. I saw a bunch of vague moral pronouncements and then you refusing to clearly answer questions. For that reason along with the fact that I really want to waste less of my time in internet arguments, I have no interest in the broader discussion here.

            I just felt it would be helpful perspective that every existing socialist state (well, idk about Laos) and some of the historical ones owe(d) their existence to the victory of the Bolsheviks. I think that the subsequent progress made by states like Cuba should be understood as part of a historical progression that the USSR was a positive forbear in.

      • Tomorrow_Farewell [any, they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 hours ago

        I’m going to note that you are very reluctant to actually elaborate on many of your points, including which socialist projects have a better record of being on the right side of history. Seriously, how many can you name other than Cuba and East Germany?