this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2025
22 points (70.4% liked)
Asklemmy
50732 readers
1275 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
MLs absolutely believe in freedom and democracy; get a better dictionary
Yeah, sure. They frequently repress anarchocommunists.
There is no democracy without anarchy.
Communists have historically been the closest allies to anarchists. The fact that the two umbrellas have fought as well doesn't erase that there has been no other group anarchists or communists can claim as as close as each other.
When communists and anarchists do fight, it's usually in the context of civil war, or in the context of anarchist groups within socialist states working to undermine socialism and push for anarchism. The communists pushing back against this isn't "repressing anarchisn," so much as it is socialism protecting the existing system against those who would undermine it. The USSR supported the Spanish anarchists because at the time they shared common goals, but when anarchists organize for the overthrow of socialist states, that's when conflict arises.
We could flip this on its head just as easily: anarchism represses communism, in that both fundamentally come to opposite conclusions: anarchists seek full horizontalism and decentralization, while communists seek full collectivization, which means that though our goals are often fully aligned, they do diverge in the final analysis and as such no anarchist society would genuinely allow communism to be pushed for if it came to exist, and would have to oppress communists.
Liberals always repressed anarchocommunists too, and even anarchocommunists support repressing some people: anarcho capitalists, for example.
I guess they don't believe in freedom or democracy either
Except that MLs repress all of those.
Anarchocommunism represses none, as it favours freedom of speech, freedom from money and greed, and freedom from hierarchy.
Anarchocapitalism doesn't exist; it's mostly libertarians in disguise, who want a repressive Cyberpunk dystopia.
Anarchists necessarily must repress fascism, liberalism, and even communism in order to continue existing, if it came to be. This is historically true as well. You're confusing the liberatory aspects of such a theoretical system with the idea that nobody would oppose it.
How is that "except"? Why is it ok when liberals do it then?
Really? So fascists are allowed to organize pogroms at will?
As opposed to all those anarchocommunists societies, that definitely do exist.