This is the first time I've seen people push back on the Spain thing, because our friend there is right that the way db0 characterizes it as some "stabbed in the back" story is truly ridiculous. Like, there are no shortage of stories around the world of much more credible transgressions by communists against anarchists, and the communications building in Spain is not one of them.

[–] Damarcusart@hexbear.net 10 points 15 hours ago

I never really thought about it, but there is an awful lot of "Judeo-Bolshevism lite" going on with these anarcho-libs, they blame "tankies" for every bad thing ever and treat tankies like a perpetual "man behind the curtain" destroying everything good in society.

Probably explains why a lot of the people who never grow out of this phase and into actual anarchists or communists end up going full fash themselves.

[–] SevenSkalls@hexbear.net 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's interesting because I've never seen someone push back on it, so I've always assumed it was just one of past communism's L's that future commies will just have to learn and do better from, like the USSR migrating populations around or not producing small commodities.

I didn't know the story was different.

[–] purpleworm@hexbear.net 17 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

Yeah, I've even seen some apologists identify the conflict as starting with the capture of a communications building but with no context as to why it was being captured, as though it was some sort of Spanish anarchist "shot heard round the world," when it really was just that the anarchists were sabotaging Republican communications in the midst of the war against Franco, so the Republicans took the building over with the help of the communists. You get all sorts of people (revealingly, Trotsky included) waxing poetic about how unforgivable it is for the communists to be working with the Republicans instead of trying to immediately overthrow them while fascists were at the gates, but people still tend to not mention the sabotage by the anarchists. To be fair, the first time that I did see it, it was from an anarchist who defended it, so credit to them for being transparent and at least minimally informed, even if their priorities are terrible.

Edit: I should further clarify that I am sure many anarchists today disagree with the decision to sabotage the Republicans, even though I've never personally seen one say so. I think most of them would either change their mind if they knew more about it or would at least drop it as a talking point because they understand how bad it looks (though for someone like db, it might be more of a "can't use it here because the crowd got wise but still uses it elsewhere" kind of thing) (but most people aren't db).