Lenin vs. Kropotkin; choose one

Also consider their allies. For Lenin, that can mean Joseph Stalin and the Bolsheviks, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, etc. For Kropotkin, that could mean Republican Catalonia/the CNT-FAI, Rojava, Mikhail Bakunin, Murray Bookchin, Noam Chomsky, Rosa Luxemburg, Emma Goldman, etc.

Attached: e93.jpg (850x400, 62.67K)

Other urls found in this thread:


It's pretty obvious that most here support Kropotkin, since we are not Zig Forums, aka tankiepol.

Are we talking Lenin's ideas or what Lenin actually did because they're pretty fucking different.

I choose Marx.

Is this a fighting game or something? Kropotkin made numerous mistakes late in life and Lenin was a no-fun fag who established the state that strangled the revolution in the name of saving it.

Attached: D1KmEqCWoAIidvR.jpeg (720x759, 135.57K)

I don't. then I'm not an AnCoon

I would support Blanqui and Sorel over either.

Pre-WWI Mussolini is that you?

I don't know

They're literally opposites though. Mussolini never supported Blanqui. In fact, he probably had a better opinion of people like Proudhon and Bakunin than him.

Blanqui's centralized republicanism and socialism is precisely why Sorel was so dissatisfied with the French left. If the Third Republic wasn't a thing and the concept of a federal republic still viable in France, Sorel wouldn't have made any overtures to Maurras.

Admittedly, I do still do have sympathies towards the French Revolution though, even if I hate the centralized liberal democracy that came out of it. The Spanish Cantonal Revolution is better anyways. (Also, it was the only truly Proudhonist revolution.)

I can't believe no one really asked ME that. Still, Mussolini was hardly unique in being a syndicalist with nationalist leanings. They were all over the place in Italy and France during the 1910s. Edmondo Rossini is the most based Italian Fascist to be honest. D'Annunzio isn' too bad either.

Attached: cantonalismo.jpg (800x681, 136.94K)

Hugo Chavez wouldn't be in either to be honest.

But really, I pick Kropotkin. Kropotkin doesn't have the blood of Kronstadt on his hands.
CNT is cool, but FAI is retarded and should fuck off. Rojava is pretty good.
Bakunin is pretty based.
Bookchin at least isn't a SJW faggot, though I think he is too harsh on syndicalism.
Chomsky is a hack.
Emma Goldman isn't too bad, despite being a Jewish bitch. Her feminism at least isn't the first-wave prohibitionist cancer that practically ruined America in the 20s. (Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion baby!) I also feel for her having parents who used corporal punishment on her. Been through that shit, and it fucked me up. The genders of who was doing what were reversed though. Ironically, she'd hate my guts for being a 'fascist', so I guess fuck her.

Attached: kronstadt_rebellion_poster__by_redamerican1945-d9agrhe.jpg (774x1032, 165.13K)

I think it was because Sorel was anti-elitism and preferred grassroots worker violence. Blanqui thought were stupid and needed Socialism handed to them through violence, though both served similar, if different purposes. Id prefer a middle ground, with some Georgism thrown in

*Blanqui thought the masses.

I need sleep

Come the fuck on, do you know what Realpolitik is? Kronstadt objectively weakened the revolution in a critical phase, sure it wasn't great but I just can't see any other outcome here. You guys harping on about this 100 year old event is the same as if I would constantly whine about the nuns the CNT-FAI raped or how Rojava allied with US imperialism for a while and NEVER shut up about it.

Get over it. Originally the Soviets planned to somewhat integrate autonomous anarchist communes into the USSR (so-called ASSR oblasts), it's just the way history unfolded made such an idea quickly irrelevant. And let's not pretend that if roles were reversed, anarchists wouldn't have shot every Leninist if they could.

Cnt and Rojava are both garbage and I'm from the us.


Yeah no

Fuck them both

Of course

I hear he is green which is good but anti-syndicalism, Fuck that

Good on the Israel issue, supported Pol Pot, shit on everything else

Fuck feminism in general, AND especially her

Dude, I only complained about Kronstadt because the Bolsheviks rejected worker's self-management and direct democracy on principle. In response to people complaining about the Bolsheviks not actually doing the main demands and even reversing the revolution, the Bolsheviks just stomped on them.

The SRs (not to be confused with Kerensky or reformist politicians. Which by the way is like judging the Bolsheviks by the actions of Mensheviks. The SRs were very loose.) were objectively what the people wanted. They wanted a confederal direct democracy with small yeoman farmers and workers managing their own means of production.

Violence and terror is fine if its democratized. Not if its done by a centralized entity or by vocal minority mobs like antifa. (Anarchists are pretty guilty of the latter often.)

FAI is garbage because they care more about muh anarchism than actually letting workers and farmers control their own lives.

Also, I'm not an anarchist. Just because I hate Leninists doesn't mean anarchists are perfect either. The Kronstadt sailors weren't even anarchists either. They were mostly radical SRs who wanted a confederal direct democracy and free soviets.

The Bolsheviks from the start wanted a vanguard party to seize power and run the country. The idea that elected officers are impractical can be easily debunked by the performance of the Boers in the Boer Wars or even by the military performance of the Cossacks. Considering that the Soviets have a population advantage, especially if they didn't alienate the peasantry, I don't see how it'd change things for the worse. Hell, the 20th century proved, if anything, that decentralized military decision-making is better. The armies that gave the most initiative to their officers and NCOs were often the most successful tactically.

Same cane be said for the apparatchiks. If the goal is worker's control, then why install factory managers who are unaccountable? For 'muh efficiency'? No one can prove that the worker-managed enterprise is less efficient, and arguing that basically robs a worker's revolution of all justification.

Bolshevism, at its best, is dogmatic with the idea of 'historical progress' like their Menshevik counterparts. (This part of Marxism is basically Whig theory but communist.) At worst, its just a flimsy justification to establish a party oligarchy.

The anarchists, however, deserve plenty of critique as well. They bitch and moan about muh progroms. They ignore the socially conservative attitudes about the very workers and peasants that they claim to support. Makhno literally shot a Green army ally of his in the back just for muh Jews. Ukrainian nationalists, who were actually socialists who were sympathetic to the idea of worker's self-management and free soviets, were turned down because of their nationalism. The Makhnovites ignored the fact that their movement was popular because the peasantry saw them as the second coming of the Zaporozhian host.

If anarchists weren't such ideological retards, the Bolsheviks would have been overthrown. I mean, look at how people treat the SR cause. At best, modern people only consider the SRINOs like Kerensky who was more like a Kadet or Menshevik than a SR and proceed to write them as succdems. At worst, they're completely ignored despite being the most popular force in Russia. All because no modern form of ideological autism/label fits them.

Bolshevism was just a bunch of ideologue retards who basically took an angry army of ex-soldiers and unleashed them on the peasantry of Russia when THEY had their own revolution in the countryside, taking the land from the large landowners and redistributing among themselves. All without any anarchist or Marxist ideologues telling them to do so for the most part. (Even Makhno simply rode off that wave.)

Seems Mahkno was sort of an sjw even by modern day standards. That's really sad because they could've had potential

To be honest, I was referring to progroms, not Jews being favored above everyone else.

Makhno shot him since he was a progromist. I don't care that he was, but Makhno wasn't being le antifa.

Oh ok.

Anyways this is interesting Agrarian Federalist Left-Populism?

Kind of reminds me the American revolution except inspired by Rousseau instead of Locke. I can get behind that.

Forgot the link


I prefer Bakunin

History isn't this thing that 'unfolds' and we just experience what happens. People drive history, specifically class struggle. Read Marx.

Hegel was right, Marx was wrong, it's the other way around history drives people


Lenin had the obviously better allies. "Tell me who your friends are and I tell you who you are"

Also Fuck R*java

Zig Forums tier post.

Not really because I hate w*men too.

Zig Forums poster confirmed

Actually they ban you for that. I'm completely IP banned from there. So, k….

coolest kid in school

I was Stifler, sure

Fucking people's moms

The factions you have are completely wrong. Lenin explicitly wrote that Stalin should be removed from leadership roles in his testament and called Trotsky “the most capable man in the CC”

Luxemburg would be in Lenin’s side as well. Of the Bolshevik Revolution she wrote
“What is in order is to distinguish the essential from the non-essential, the kernel from the accidental excrescencies in the politics of the Bolsheviks. In the present period, when we face decisive final struggles in all the world, the most important problem of socialism was and is the burning question of our time. It is not a matter of this or that secondary question of tactics, but of the capacity for action of the proletariat, the strength to act, the will to power of socialism as such. In this, Lenin and Trotsky and their friends were the first, those who went ahead as an example to the proletariat of the world; they are still the only ones up to now who can cry with Hutten: “I have dared!”
This is the essential and enduring in Bolshevik policy. In this sense theirs is the immortal historical service of having marched at the head of the international proletariat with the conquest of political power and the practical placing of the problem of the realization of socialism, and of having advanced mightily the settlement of the score between capital and labor in the entire world. In Russia, the problem could only be posed. It could not be solved in Russia. And in this sense, the future everywhere belongs to “Bolshevism.”


Mao Zedong, Castro, etc NEVER based their movements on the working class and were never Marxists. They cannot be considered to be Lenin’s ally as well.

You do realise Lenin's testament is probably fake, right? Even if it wasn't, the USSR wasn't Lenin's property. He may have preferred Trotsky but the Politburo elected Stalin. Also, if you read the polemics Lenin wrote against Trotsky, the are much harsher than the polemics he wrote against Stalin.

Mao didn't base his revolution on the working class because there was no proper working class in China. That doesn't make him not a Marxist. Castro became a socialist during the struggle for national liberation of Cuba.