Honestly, I can’t see what use anarkids have beyond being buffers/human shields between communists and fascists. Their theory is mostly nonsensical horseshit that begs the question, why don’t we dismantle our ability to defend our movement the second we think we’ve won? They’re even more obsessed with the past than tankies are; while tankies are obsessed with states and movements that were actually successful, anarchists obsess over failures because they’ve never actually succeeded. A part of me thinks they despise tankies because whilst no anarchist movement in history defeated their national bourgeois and/or counterrevolution, tankies can point to the most powerful countries of the last century that did.
Not to mention anarkids are useful idiots for fashies and porkies, they happily and uncritically believe every single lie Nazi drummed up against the USSR, like the Holodomor myth, and “muh Stalin stole the bread from every Ukrainians mouth and personally signed the death warrant for everyone to die in the USSR”, they’ll act as tho the Spanish Anarchists had a right to take Soviet weaponry, refuse to work with them, and then start shooting them; anarchists genuinely believe they can murder communists and if communists defend themselves by shooting back we’re in the wrong. Anarchists are easily manipulated by fascists and liberals, it’s sad, and it’s because anarchism is ultimately liberal, it focuses on individual liberty rather than collective liberation from bourgeois rule.
What use are they, if any? Are they only useful to fascists? If so what does that make them?
Means of production belong to the workers, not the state
So literally none, got it
Anarchists exist to be destroyed when they inevitably betray the revolution and for no other reason, now I know
They/you will always serve fascists
It’s been surreal seeing fucking self-identified liberals being better on imperialism than anarchists. The only thing that puts them to the “left” of these liberals is a bit of utopianism.
Which is just meaningless utopianism, socialist systems are developed in relation to the real conditions they exist in. Many socialist systems basically exist as war economies because of the constant, unrelenting and all-pervasive aggression they face from the capitalist powers.
Sorry. I didn't know socialism was when a dictator controls the means of productions and allocates wages for the workers.
To be so retarded as to think one person held total control over the USSR and made every single decision there personally is peak liberalism…and peak anarchism too
Anarchism is a liberal ideology, which is why the bourgeois are happy to promote grifters like Chomsky
Dictator was shorthand for state monopoly over the means of production, and the state dictating the wages and conditions of the workers instead of the workers.
But thanks for that CEO Stalin
Lmao, tell me which anarchist society didn’t end with every last anarkid dead in the fucking dirt
Tell me which "Communist" society ended up with workers owning the means of production?
The Soviet Union, PRC, DPRK, Cuba
They were all headed by workers lmao
Tell me now, which anarchist society didn’t end with you and your commune buddies being torn to fucking shreds the second the socialist states you spit on had enough of your shit and quit protecting you? Anarchist societies hypothetically work…until one nutcase like Makhno can rise up, take total control, and do everything anarkids claim to hate the USSR for anyway and then fucking die in the end, lmao
It’s honestly funny, because anarchist societies literally always end up being burnt to the fucking ground yet First World, upper middle class white larpers hold to it because it’s liberal garbage and of no value to anyone, that’s why the US state allows Chomsky, because anarchism is counterrevolutionary
L M A O The closest thing there to workers owning the means of production and thier labour is Cuba. And Cuba only recently, AFTER the fall of the Soviet Union, let some worker ownership. Most of their labour is still employed by the state through the capital it owns. The rest are all state ownership.
Also the irony that i'm soundly critiquing shitty implications and outcomes of past revolutions and get called a larper. You can stop projecting, you're not a revolutionary and the outcomes of the revolutionary larping your doing is not what is best for the worker.
Shit like this is why anarchists are considered “retards” in literate circles
And your critiques would be worthwhile…if they weren’t coming from an anarchist. Like, hmmm…either I listen to criticisms of Marxist-Leninists, who have actually managed successful revolutions and survived for decades, forming the second most powerful state in the 20th Century…or I can listen to anarchists, who, for all their ideals, never once managed to actually defeat their national bourgeois and can do basically nothing but whine and moan about “muh democracy” while the fash crushes their throat in after anarchists killed commies for them.
Reminder that soviets only started jailing anarchists after they bombed their party meetings. Also reminder anarchists stood together with liberals and literal neo-nazis to protect neoliberal Yeltsin from communist emergency committee during 1991 coup attempt.
They rather keep living in capitalism than work withing a movement that's bigger than 10 people clique.
the left opposition was only purged when trotsky and zinoviev arranged a street protest in moscow and outraged the whole party. how is this stalin's fault?
They do have a use. As most anarchists are very online trannies, femboys and twinks, they'll serve the purpose of warming the beds of the leaders of every faction who inevitably beats them and sets shop in the area.
To be honest, I wouldn't mind fucking some of those twinks and femboys.
2.2 MB on that shit, when you could have a dedicated animation format preserve lossless detail at a similar file size.
Only as useful as their adaptability. The new communist movements will not be Ancom, ML, Maoist, Syndicalist, or what have you in character. They will carry forwards the lessons learned by these movements, but they will develop as according to their material and societal realities into a movement that is unique to themselves. The use of us (or more generally the pre-existing left) is to give this new movement guidance with what we have learned through literature and praxis throughout history to aid them in developing new methods, but the time will come where we will have to carry the flag of the new ideology if we have any hope of success.
So nobody should protest in a workers state?
I'm pretty sure the outrage here was just a criticize against Stalin.
If NutSacs were actually interested in taking down capitalism I'd agree but all they end up doing is blaming all capitalisms problems on Jews. in most modern NutSac mind's there's an all powerful Jewish conspiracy and if you remove Jew's from the equation all the sudden capitalism and the west is great and prosperous now. when in reality capitalism is the main problem and by getting rid of the Jews you are only taking care of one symptom of the problem.
post revolution direct-democracy socialism is the only true communist government. everyone would vote for their best interest and the best interest for the 99% is communism. the state deals with the necessary pragmatism and routines and it protects, organizes and unites the people
What has anyone from this board accomplished?
Well I think that's why this self-described turd position stuff is fringe even among the actual Nazi movement. It's a meme ideology and is not indicative of the actual groups and the broad numbers of far right people who makes up these groups.
Really there are gobs of rank-and-file Nazi skinheads and that "type" out there and most of them are just stupid thugs. A friend of mine from my hometown turned into one with a shaved head and swastika tattoos and everything. He went all the way. I found all this out later, looked him upon Facebook, etc. The fun thing is that he was a bisexual goth twink when I knew him and who'd go out to goth clubs wearing women's lingerie – now he's making meme posts about bashing trannies and queers and so on while beefed up on steroids and worshipping Hitler. Weird how that happens, yeah? Anyways he's really into the far right but he's also just a low-life criminal type who hates "commies" and thinks businessmen should rule the world, basically.
That's the rank and file of the far right. Like if you want to look into the mind of a standard far righter, Nazi or otherwise, the mentality is the song "Crazy Bitch" by Buckcherry. It's garbage: youtu.be/UJ6pLKlU-8Q
Like that's what it's about. Compulsive, reactive prejudices and one's own self-regard while you slap women around or whatever.
The only good tankie is a dead one
Also, tankies are always eager to collaborate with fascists (nutsoccs, strassershits, nazbols etc.), as this thread shows
The only good sectarian is a dead one
Also, Sectarians regurgitate propaganda about ideas behind the Ribbentrop pact.
You're right. Anarchists actually care about the fact that no Leninist state has ever led to communism and instead they've resulted in dictatorships. Tankies genuinely don't give a fuck about whether or not establishing dictatorships is historically a recipe for actually achieving this goal.
As dictatorships. And honestly I rarely see tankies even tout Cuba — arguably the single most successful one seeing as it's still alive and is still socialist and anti-imperialist. I'm sure they do, but mostly tankies seem to be masochists who like to fawn over Mao, Stalin, and NK. China is auth-cap now, Russia is auth-cap now, and NK is nice and all but I wouldn't wanna live there any more than anywhere else (IE it's a shithole with a hereditary power structure).
Thing is, no matter what you have to say about Holodomor… the best case scenario is it still happened. So it wasn't deliberate? Fine, a bunch of Ukrainians starved to death after Soviets took control of their region. Wow, that way it sounds so much better.
It's just a coincidence like the famines that happened in India under British control. Or, no, it's a standalone coincidence because we like Uncle Joe, there's nothing to compare or contrast it with because the USSR was efficient and never factional and its central control was always benevolent.
And of course this applies to their shenanigans in the Spanish Civil War, too, which definitely didn't happen it was all the anarchists' fault!
Is impossible in a group larger than 10 (probably even less than that)
Some things, of course, can be up for referendum, but it still isn't a direct democracy
Leninist (and social democratic) political movements actually helped the exploited classes, and moved the whole humanity forward.
What is Anarchism then, if not political apatheism (Welp, we can't wish utopia into existence, so I guess we have to sit on our asses and dab on everyone else who does something because it's not perfect enough)
Fuck off tankie shill
Fanny Kaplan did nothing wrong
Holodomor is literally Nazi and Ukrainian nationalist bullshit, ain’t it kinda crazy how this famine happened during a heatwave, at the exact same time as the American Dustbowl, which scientists say could have been caused by climate change, and it occurred in a far less wealthy and advanced country than America, but sure, it’s due to evil Stalin, and fuck the people in the cities, they deserved to die, the grains should have remained with the farmers who were burning the grain and killing their livestock
Communists did not betray the anarchists though. They merely exploited their voluntary desire to play stupid games and win stupid prizes. (Fight the Whites and the Imperialists, fail to organize some sort of a new society, fail to not sperg out against Communists too)
Only anarchy can bring us to full communism. State socialism can make huge strides and oppose imperialism, but in order for the state to exist it has to assert its monopoly on force and violence, and full communism threatens that. At the same time, anarchists are incapable of asserting sovereignty during the transition. Thus the solution has to be a synthesis between state and anarchist socialism. The state socialists can have their Leninist states undermining global capitalism. The anarchists can have their free territories. They need to leave each other the fuck alone while dealing with capitalism (including when there are anarchist territories and socialist states overlapping). They both need to recognize that the other has a role in the revolution, and that once capitalist empire is gone it's up to the anarchists to take over and dissolve the state because the state cannot be relied upon to dissolve itself. Any socialist state that doesn't acknowledge the necessity of its eventual dissolution (or who suppresses anarchists) is betraying the revolution. Any anarchist territory that tries to sabotage a socialist state while imperialism still exists (or leeches off one) is betraying the revolution. We can't get there unless we get both kinds of systems to cooperate instead of fighting over sectarian bullshit.
Mao, while certainly misguided in his late years, was based and redpilled. A hard ass bitch who had an execution fetish. Still, I have some sympathy for him. He did manage to win the fight against fascism after all. Eeehh…. it's alright I guess. "Development of productive forces is the essence of socialism" Gopnik shithole. Tankies will hate me but, I actually agree with this. The story of "Holodomor" being caused by Soviets to starve Ukraine is complete horseshit, but the way Stalin handled things was probably too harsh.
They don't sit on their asses, though. Communes actually require some amount of work to run.
See, this isn't even one thing. I see this a lot on here where people will just cross the defense for famine denial with the defense for the extermination of Kulaks, It's kind of telling. Yeah, everyone who starved was burning grain. 7 million grain burners who all earned it.
Also, the Ukrainian famine happened before the Dustbowl.
True, however, it is not politics, and it probably would not exist without political achievements of other parties - which is my point here.
Well, there is no state in full communism, of course. However, Anarchism claims that full communism can be introduced ad hoc and at any time. Should it not be obvious from historical practice that this is false, and Marx proposal of Historical Materialism is correct?
Do you have any idea why tankies are eager to collaborate with anyone willing to help them? Unlike anarchists, tankies are willing to sacrifice retarded ideological dogmatism to make the revolution succeed
The socialist state is an organ of worker power you fucking child.
And then you kill them all when you get in power, what's the problem?
Red-Brown alliance now.
Tankies don’t collaborate with them
Anarchists on the other hand collaborate with US imperialism and believe Nazi lies
Honestly, I’ll collaborate with any leftist except you fuckers
ANARCHISTS ARE FASCISTS
Yeah, BASED SRs killing actual revolutionaries and trying to start a war between Germany and Russia to throw millions of more people into agony. Retard.
Sources on this?
I would argue it's unironically 100% but that some people like le porkies take short term profits over more important things
Imagine fucking believing this.
You can't establish full communism in a limited territory while imperialist capitalist powers still exist. of the proletariat, yes. I've seen more people touting them as the highest example of socialism while calling the others "state capitalist fascists", despite Cuba having a similar system. Has been alive, socialist, and anti-imperialist longer than Cuba and now even the USSR. They said the same shit about Cuba before Diaz-Canel became president. And unlike the Castros, the Kims actually held different positions. Also the high positions of Premier of the Cabinet and of the President of the SPA Presidium have been held by multiple people from different families. Yeah, doing shit like seizing a telephone exchange from the popular front government, and supporting the capitulationist coup of General Casado is clearly the best idea.
The term "Holodomor" refers specifically to the idea that the Soviet famine of 1932-1933 was a planned and deliberate genocide against Ukrainians. There was a famine but there was no "Holodomor". It wasn't just in the Ukraine either. Bullshit figure constantly repeated just because it is higher than the Jews killed in the Holocaust. Even most estimates from those who believe the "Holodomor" narrative are closer to 3 million.