• Nemo's public admirer@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    22 hours ago

    For most folks in the west, stalin is considered to be a brutal authoritarian dictator who made a deal with the nazis to carve up europe into spheres of influence.

    Do they not know of how the western leaders enabled the Nazis to carve up Czechoslovakia and opposed USSR’s call for a united front against Nazis?

    The Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact, USSR happened after the Munich agreement where Britain, France and Italy came together to allow the Nazis and Poland to annex Czechoslovakia.

    And if you think there were no agreements before:
    1934 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Polish_declaration_of_non-aggression
    1935 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-German_Naval_Agreement
    1938 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
    1939 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact

    And the next para from the text you quoted goes into the reasons, right? Searched with the text you shared and got this:

    The point is that Marxism and anarchism are built up on entirely different principles, in spite of the fact that both come into the arena of the struggle under the flag of socialism. The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses, the collective body. According to the tenets of anarchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossible until the individual is emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: “Everything for the individual.” The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: “Everything for the masses.”

    https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm

    How do you see his critique? Do you think that anarchism cares less about wider social emancipation?
    I don’t have much experience with literature on Anarchism(or Marxism, but relatively better there), so would be cool to know your opinions on it

    • Unruffled [they/them]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      How do you see his critique? Do you think that anarchism cares less about wider social emancipation?

      I don’t think it’s accurate. And no, definitely not. It seems like he is describing libertarians more than anarchists imo, as mutual aid and community building are core principles of anarchism.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        15 hours ago

        That isn’t what he’s getting at, really the whole work is needed in-context. There’s a reason it’s not just a few paragraphs. He does mean anarchists, but is more describing the communalist anti-hierarchy position of anarchists and how that differs from large-scale collectivization of production and distribution for Marxists.