The fuck did i just read?
this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2025
101 points (98.1% liked)
Slop.
747 readers
414 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That implication isn't certain. An alternate (charitable?) reading of it is that they're saying that a revolutionary state dominated by anarchists (or by a broad united front) would have been strong enough to never allow the monarchies to invade, and pre-empt the fascists from taking power at least in Germany.
This begs the question, though. Historically, we don't see united fronts being all that stable and we don't see anarchists becoming regional geopolitical heavy hitters. If the recipe for these clearly existed in 1917, why has it not been employed since then?
Anyway, this is why I so firmly take the stance of "history doesn't prove very much definitively; there simply isn't the sample size required to be scientific". There are lots of possible outcomes from any scenario, and no one has the special knowledge to make history proceed only in their preferred way.