When did you start to hate Anarkids?

I did pretty much what you did, down to a T i agree, particularly the part about not actually giving a shit about doing the hard work, basically they just want a social club (and most of them need one because normal people won't hang out with them) which is inevitably a social club for horny/actually autistic queer kids, i've nothing against them that is just invariably what it is.

however, because of this, I became a ☭TANKIE☭.. and I found… basically the same things, where the anarchists are a big gay party, ☭TANKIE☭s are the kids who got bullied in school and now want to be the bully, that or the kind of person who still gets bullied. Most ☭TANKIE☭s have not read Marx, but will call you a revisionist or whatever for any deviation from that particular groups takes. They are painfully and woefully arrogant, shitting on stupid anarchists, who are, to be fair, fucking stupid, but in its place is this other form of "holier than thou" so when you suggest any action which isn't basically "build trade unions and try to get elected" with the absolute certainty that they will fail abysmally at both and come up with mental gymnastics as to why it didn't work this time but we should continue doing the exact same shit, you are ridiculed and ostracised.

Both groups suffer hugely from a clique mentality, takes are almost uniform throughout the groups if the issues are flavour of the week.

Anarchists love doing stuff but refuse to organise doing that stuff into effective groups, ☭TANKIE☭s will do basically nothing but turn up to marches/ food drives etc other people organised, but will insist that their doing nothing is extremely organised.

When you suggest the anarchists actually do something organised you get called a ☭TANKIE☭, or some brand of privilege gets brought up, or that makes it not accessible to X social group. They will refuse to have things like basic group commitments, as that means people who have anxiety have to show up and contribute, or follow through on the shit they say they will do, for example.

when you dare critique the 4 member communist party and suggest that maybe they might not be doing things correctly given their low membership and zero sway with the working class, you will get some BS about how the conditions are not revolutionary or just autist screeching about how you are a eurocommunist or some such buzzword. They live in a world where they are the bearers of the correct theory and the working class will inevitably flock to them. They never, ever do. At least, not in the first world.

Both sides will bitch on facebook about it each other and this will literally comprise more of their time than actually organising, they all hate each other and refuse to work together because of facebook beef.

I don't know if this is common to you guys, but these are my experiences with both, I fucking hate both of them.

I'm a Maoist through and through, but god damn I hate both of them.

If they were spouting retarded arguments like hooman nature or peddling smears against historical anarchist experiments I'd defend them on these grounds, but I'm not gonna die on retarded hills like "justifiable hieraches" and whatnot.

Also, the anarchists in my city are literally waving Israel flags and harass Palestinian girls.

I meant to say this but my post was already long as fuck.

the left needs new, broad church, non leninist communist parties. Note, not anarchist collectives, but communist parties, organised, disciplined, but not fixated on le immortal science of margzism lebbidism.

I'm not saying Leninist theory isn't generally pretty good, just that the world has moved on, at the very least it needs a major update.

In purely optical terms THE WORKING CLASS DO NOT LIKE HAMMERS AND SICKLES, OR LENIN, IT IS ABJECT IDEALISM TO SUGGEST BLEETING PROPOGANDA ON YOUR SATURDAY STALL WILL CHANGE THAT

idk why that was in reply to you but it wasn't supposed to be

Oh also, Leninist generally shit on trots a lot, but then do all the same shit trots do, just with more autism and less effectively than the trots do.

Attached: 61402330_381639359113472_1587684001550696448_o.jpg (960x674 31.48 KB, 168.56K)

Anarchy has many systemic flaws.

It lacks any kind of direction beyond wanting to have a revolution. They have no plans whatsoever for the post-revolutionary period beyond some vague idea that a society without rules will be some kind of paradise rather than a 'Mad Max' style society dominated by warlords whos authority only stretches as far as the range of an AR-15 or AK-47, which is how it will probably end up due to the absence of a plan.

Secondly, anarchy is inherently an unstable transitional state, it is a power vacuum which will inevitably be filled by some kind of a system, and the nature of this system depends on who manages to survive this period of anarchy, which will mostly be up to chance.

Successful communist revolutions relied strongly upon keeping the period of anarchy to a minimum by ensuring they were extremely strong before the revolution whilst simultaneously weakening any possible rivals.

A Communist revolution is different from an Anarchist revolution. The first is a short sharp blow that delivers the intended outcome, while the latter is is a slow and torturous thing that delivers an unpredictable outcome in the end.

And now the warlords have authority the range of ICBMs and bootlickers still don't become at least Posadists.
What the fuck became of all your phallic and oedipal imagery of the space age and tsar bomba (Kuzma's mother lest we forget), I swear all that tranny shit is just glow in the dark programming to ritually circumcise the toxic slavic latino macho berniebro masculinity that gave Fidel and Cornman the balls to risk all that shit, and of course JFK was Irish so if you just say Ave Maria when you press the button everything's ok.
Really, Uncle Ted was right on oversocialization