​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​>tfw no anarcho-feminist gf to put a couple of rounds into Lenin with

Attached: FannyKaplan.jpg (241x320, 14.36K)

lenin didn't go hard enough on the anarchists

Attached: cover5.jpg (954x726, 205.72K)


The qts always have it right. No more old Jewish men in office.

The anarchists didn't go hard enough on the state. Never again though, we know that no state can establish or defend socialism after your little failed experiment.

What is a state?

This speaks more to anarchists' patented inability to effectively organize than it does to their intent. Pretty much from the moment of the October Revolution, anarchists declared the Bolsheviks their mortal enemies.

They launched a campaign of targeted sabotage, theft, and assassinations and then cried when the Bolsheviks justifiably proceeded to fuck them up for their counter-revolutionary adventurism.

A geopolitical institution that uses coercion to have people act to its will, which is exactly what the USSR was. Not only did they kill shit-tons of people for no good reason but they ended up failing either way, which was expected from the start.

Anarchists haven't been able to organize well because there was little conscience for such thing at the time for coordination. Not GOVERNMENT, but every person understanding what to do, which the Bullshitveks fucked up by forming their own faction and declaring war against everyone else. Anarchists now are more aware of what goals need to be achieved but "ML"s still stick to the same old theories that failed last time. Anarchists have no "system" like they do, and so cannot get corrupted, like every single socialist state inevitable gets.

How does an abstract mental construct have a will?

A rose by another name…

Attached: makhno_state.png (843x846, 133.4K)

The point being, your notion that anarchists were betrayed or surprise-attacked by the Bolsheviks is complete nonsense.

The Bolshevik repression of anarchists and banning of political parties only happened AFTER the Left SRs and anarchists collectively tried to seize power and destroy the soviet government as a reaction against the Brest-Litovsk deal. This becomes even more absurdly counter-revolutionary in retrospect, when you realize Brest-Litovsk was objectively the correct move and the only way to defend and consolidate the gains of the Russian revolution.

An institution is composed of its ruling class. While the abstract notion of those relations doesn't have any conscious of its own, because it's an idea of course, the things (people) it represents do.

Like I said, we learn from our past mistakes. Anarchists, that is, not you right-socialists. If someone were to try to pull a Makhno the commune would call their ass out in order to prevent another waste of opportunity.

There is no doubt that there were many different sides to the Russian Civil War, because they had their own interests. It's true anarchists and MLs have the same goal but they have different (antithetical) ways of achieving it. As the Left-SRs and Anarchists properly diagnosed, the USSR was a bureaucratic mess that eventually fell under its own weight – all by its own, by its own admission to prevent failure and remedy internal structural issues. Also Germany was overstretched in Russia and was fighting a two-front war that it already couldn't sustain all that more that America would join to deal the finishing blow to (sound familiar?). Even if Germany advanced beyond its then current position it would have only continued making gains that they would not keep, and revolutionaries would have seized for a true united working-class effort (spoiler: even after B-L this happened).

Please apply dialectics to marxist-Leninism and learn that a state won't work to lead a society to communism. Just saying that it is a "dictatorship of the proletariat" doesn't change the fact that in reality a new dominating class manifests itself ruling the proletariat.

Attached: 9003829ebc64db62cac0f1b3d34883fcf9c525653d4a75224775ee8bc9047ff0.jpg (542x469, 106.61K)

As long as there is still a single capitalist state telling us to do without one is counter-revolutionary. The bolsheviks created a state out of necessity to prevail a constant assault on the revolution. Yes, it did lay the foundation for its ultimate undoing, but without "authoritarianism" it would have ended even sooner.

Attached: a_social_revolution_must_be_defended.png (621x708, 398.7K)

Though a "state" (and only then, a democratic one that actually enfranchises the working class) may be necessary in a very provisional term, such as the war, there is no excuse to maintain it in times of emergency. The capitalist states use force against the unknowledgeable, unspirited, and unorganized masses, which the doctrine of anarchism in its proper seeks to overcome by communal education of the literary, moral, and combative sense. If you pay attention to modern armies you'll note that the most successful and powerful ones are in fact ones that devolve many of their powers – by necessity, as a reform despite the capitalist system they operate under. People's communes are the way to go in smashing the states and their equivalent power structures, as these communes will reinforce themselves over time through a development of their productive forces, relations, and consciousness.

name a time anarchy ever was NOT a state?

Not an ML but lmao don't say that with that flag, 99 times out of a hundred you retards end up shilling for private property when you espouse any ideas about economic arrangements. Other Anarchists are comrades but the various flavours of your type are quite literally always a rightist deviation of Libertarianism

So you are saying that if you don't try you can't fail. Oh wait. You actually tried and failed by creating another state.

Who cares if they aren't major powers? The US' global hegemony is what led to its victory over the USSR, not its capitalist status quo.

Tankies love to say "idealism" but refuse to accept the overwhelming historical evidence of failed states.


This hoe wasnt even an anarkiddy she was a retarded "lenin is bad cuz duma is real gov"

Attached: image0.png (750x682, 363.26K)

How would an anarchist society avoid coercion? There will have to be some system of producing and/or distributing crucial resources, how do you set things up so that access to those crucial resources doesn't lead to coercion? How do you set those things up without coercing anyone? How do you determine when someone has been coerced versus when they have come to some decision or action of their own free will?

LARPer detected

Ban the liberals please

What the hell even is Anarcho-Feminism? Can someone please explain this to me?

Attached: 77e8133647df3779a4d71e4ee514a59ca3d201b9755cc0b3b16e1654c1dd233f.png (1284x742, 397.07K)