Communalism

Ecological Unions

The Kurds would be in the same situation today if there were no American plains. The only time these plains had an effect (it was a tiny one) on the war was the battle of Kobanê. The air force is a meme.

Only an ignoramus thinks that air supremacy is a meme. The Americans contesting Russian control of the skies is, strategically speaking, a huge deal. Without that, Rojava would have conformed to the usual two-years-and-die pattern that anarchist revolutions tend to take.

To be honest, if Rojava had embraced the immortal science of Marxism-Leninism then they would have been able to magically manifest a squadron of Su-24 to help them at the siege of Kobani.

Yeah, they never had a chance. Having a proper army instead of a collection of militias could not have hurt, though.

Form councils / assemblies in communities that then form a confederation. The confederation of these councils then form dual power against the state and eventually over throw it. Thats the idea at least.
And it has sort of worked. This method is what the KCK is doing in Bakur and did in Rojava. When the Syrian government abandoned the north at the start of the war, the councils where already there to take its place.

Attached: reeeevisionists out.png (1350x900, 252.48K)

Sounds just like a state but with extra steps.

So essentially ancom with voting and environmentalism?

Outside of China just kidding about being revisionist and capitalist, where do you expect any revolutionary movement to pull a proper army from?

Unions are not really revolutionary anymore.

How do seize power of these councils/assemblies? I see how for Rojava because there's a civil war, but how do you do against a regular state? Municipal electoralism?

Kind of. Bookchin advocated for taking part in municipal and other local elections but not to take part in parliamentary or presidential elections. I guess the councils would take over in a crisis or something.

Designate officers within a chain of command, and have them form regiments using volunteers and conscripts. Attach said regiments to brigades, thus creating a cohesive command structure. Also, take advantage of existing military institutions whenever possible. It's how armies have been created for centuries.

Attached: 4a150c67b8fd3757e536120549fbfda7.jpg (400x371, 70.39K)

Read Camatte.

No

Attached: bookchins enlightenment.jpg (960x606, 58.86K)

The SDF has quite a well structured command, better than most historical communist revolutionary forces even.

But what if there's no communalist party in my country?

You start one.

Bookchin was a big fan of study groups. That could perhaps be a start to proper Communalist organising. Get some people together and read radical lit to get folks interested in forming communes and councils as a long term goal.

That doesn't explain how a revolutionary force would gain a squadron of Su-24 or comparative force if the military institutions they manged to seize did not have them or didn't exist. A hypothetical army following the glorious science of Marxism-Leninism would be in the same situation as the SDF, which has a structured command, because hierarchical organization isn't a mystical force that produces aircraft or other resources out of thin air.

The advantages of having a proper conventional military are not limited to its ability to produce sophisticated equipment. Interconnectivity and the ability to act as a single entity is the primary advantage of a modern army.

As someone pointed out earlier, the YPG's difficulties do not stem from a lack of air supremacy, as the Americans have been providing certain areas with cover from air strikes while Russian aircraft have been shielding Assad. The problem is that, even with all the time that they have had to organize, they have not developed anything close to independence. If the Americans want to kill and replace Assad they need the YPG to advance without air support, because providing that now would mean running afoul of the Russians. Any gains that the YPG has made have been slow as frozen molassas, which is to be expected of an army that is structured the way that it is.

Also, the longer this drags on, the more problems that it creates for the Americans. They do not want a war with Russia over this. All they want is a ridiculously lucrative pipeline that runs through Syria and into t*rkey. They also need for t*rkey to be on-board with the project, which they are skeptical of owing to their hostile relations with the Kurds. Unless the Syrian rebels can advance and soon, the situation will spoil Washington's relations with Ankara, which is absolutely critical to American imperialism in the Middle East. I suspect that they would abandon the Kurds before allowing that to happen.

Who said there needed to be any? Yes air superiority would be ideal but this is not to say it is futile.

You have to succeed using the resources available to you, determine the most likely strategy to achieve victory and act accordingly. This entails risk, nothing is guaranteed, war is horrible and there will be consequences.

Off the top of my head, as an amateur armchair general, you would have to fight the struggle in such a way that you would diminish the enemie's air superiority or remove it from the equation altogether. This could entail sabotage, supply line disruption and guerrilla warfare.

Which by all accounts the SDF has.
Because Rojava is a relatively small territory. Given what they had to work with, which was an underdeveloped region ravaged by conflict, you can not expect the Kurds to have pulled out a modern army and achieved self-sufficiency without aid from a developed entity, and even with such aid it is unlikely. This is going to be the situation any revolution outside of a major power will find itself in, regardless of organization or ideology.

The user heavily implied that.
What do you think they've been doing for years in the struggle against t*rkey?

They have aid. The Americans have been more than willing ship them arms (their very favorite thing to do in the whole world), give them training, and allow foreign fighters to stream in. Furthermore, they were given air cover by the USAF. You have to find all seven dragonballs to get that kind of aid.

Maybe that's because they don't want to have independence, just maybe. Regardless, having your own successful elections, a functioning government and a structured army sounds fairly independent to me.
What are you talking about? Going from being ass fucked in the siege of Kobani to controlling half of Syria in under two years is quite a military accomplishment. Most of their military sieges lasted 4 months at most which is fairly quick in comparison to other sieges in the war. That's not because they are a ragtag group of militias but because they have a well structured and democratic military command.

They have armaments, not aid. The US does not provide much needed construction material needed to rebuild cities (with the exception of Raqqa) or to build industry which is vital to create a modern army. Throwing weapons at a group of people doesn't make a modern army, the FSA and the Afghan mujahidin are a testament to this.

How is it different from Platformism? Except the electoralist part of course.

I mean, Communalism is pretty much just an-com but more disciplined tbh.

Military independence. They need to be able to move without the Americans raining down bombs in front of them, because those days are over with the Russians getting directly involved. Although, Trump does seem to be planning to substitute cruise missiles for air strikes now. We'll see how that plays out. Those things are crazy expensive.

It would have been impressive fifty years ago, and let's not forget that those advances came mostly at the expense of ISIL, whom everybody is bombing.

So anything that comes short of a fully functioning air force doesn't count as militarily independent? What has this got to do with the SDF military structure?

As I said; the SDF's accomplishments are impressive in comparison to other forces in Syria. FSA areas in Idlib have been bombed to complete shit yet they still hang on, air supremacy makes the job easier but not a walk in the park. If you expect a military force to conquer half of Syria in two years with no problem then the Syrian Gov would have won this war easily back in 2014.

Not relying on external support to accomplish military objectives is independence. Using American guns, vehicles, ammunition, and air cover is understandable, but once you have those things you need to be able to get shit done.

Like the Iraqi Kurds observed at Kobani, the SDF is unpredictable and inconsistent. Providing them with support is difficult, because it is never clear what they need where. American airstrikes had been ineffective for just that reason until they started putting TAC-Ps on the ground to direct the bombs to where the SDF wanted them. Unpredictability is fine for guerillas, but it's a critical flaw in an army that is supposed to operate like a machine.

Furthermore, their loose organization makes the Americans and other supporters less likely to supply them with heavy equipment like manpads and the tanks that Trump had been talking about a while back. They do not want to hand those things to a militia that may not be responsible to a central command. They sure as hell don't want those things to be used against the t*rks by some rogue officer after the war. If you are going to win a war by being a proxy to a superpower, then you need to be someone that they can count on not to make trouble for them.

Yeah and the military accomplishments of the ancoms in kekalonia were impressive compared to the other forces in Spain. They still died after two years for lack of any coherent unified strategy.

How would an underdeveloped region in the middle east produce such resources without taking them from an external source?
They died because Franco had more resources and support than the MLs, Trots, Anarchists, and Liberals had together. No coherent unified strategy would have given the republican forces the ability to predict the future and organize an effective force or pull resources from thin air, not even the supreme science of dialectical materialism. If this were true, Assad would have managed to have quickly vanquished opposing forces and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

And here we go again. The reason the republic collapsed was because every time the MLs tried to organize the anarachists would say "fuck you, we're gonna be our own state with blackjack and hookers and fight in our way" And then having half the folk betray the movement whilst the others were busy building forced labor camps and executing people whilst accusing the MLs of bringing tyranny. The fact is MLs and their direct allies helped more and did more than the anarchists, no matter what Orwell says, and would have won had the anarchists swallowed their ideology based pride and been unified.

Attached: libertarian socialist heroes.jpg (605x869, 48.02K)

Attached: primespecimen.jpg (1024x683, 142.73K)

LOL so no argument then?

Attached: Just a little reminder..mp4 (621x708 134.37 KB, 398.7K)

Perhaps Franco would not have been the only guy getting a shitload of military toys from a superpower if kekalonia had not tried to cozy up to the Brits and the French who were never going to do anything instead of trying to win the full support of the Soviets.

Preach comrade!

Attached: alunya thumbs up.png (600x600, 104K)

Any idiot could have predicted that Chamberlain was not going to throw the weight of the British military behind a bunch of squabbling militias in a bid to defeat nazi proxies. That's just a spectacularly stupid lack of strategic planning that could only happen in a decentralized military. Of course, anarchists have always had difficulty detaching themselves from liberals, so it is no surprise that they went that way.

They didn't, the only state they actually engaged with was the Soviet Union and even there they talked with the actual workers and not the bureaucrats.

You'd have a coherent argument to begin with. Seeing as you thought Marx was an ancom when in your liberalist phase, I'm doubting that will happen.

Soviets did send equipment to Republican forces, but they had to do it on the down low and if they would have sent more or sent openly it would have been a violation of the non-intervention pact they signed, and France and UK would have responded by funding Franco.

The initial coup was launched about a year before Chamberlain was elected PM and there is no evidence the CNT strategy was wait for the brits, but I guess the CNT should have known better than the government of the Spanish Republic who had warning of a potential coup from Franco himself. What does this have to do with Communialism? Why do you keep avoiding acknowledging that Assad, who has a formal military, has not been able to achieve military independence or lived up to your expectation of claiming half of Syria in two years, which are things you consider a fault of the SDF's supposedly disorganized military structure? Or answering the pressing question of how does a revolutionary movement summon a proper and equipped army, without outside aid, where one doesn't already exist or is working against you?
Actually it was the MLs who supported liberals in Spain, going so far as to stop and reverse the collectivization carried out by the Anarchists and POUM to appease landowners and petit-bourgoise.

That pic is retarded. Yes Bakunin was a racist fuck, thats true, but Bookchin was not a zionist and Orwells time in the colonial army helped him become a anti-imperialist and he ratted comrades out after he became demented. And you could easily do the same stupid smears for Tankie icons.
Twitter tanks are fucking braindead.

There is no evidence that they had a strategy at all. Who did they think would send them ammunition and equipment?

Provide material support to the Germans while they were rearming? No, I think they liked their colonies a bit too much to do that.

Decentralized military organization does not allow for a coherent military strategy to be developed and executed.

Assad is playing the part of a proxy, and, as we have seen, his army can advance on its own. It just can't advance into the sights of American bombers. As for why they did not mop up a guerrilla army (an action which takes quite a bit longer than a conventional war), they were a bit busy dealing with the third participant in this drama, IS. IS/Daesh had been the more immediate threat until both the Americans and the Russians threw enough heavy ordinance at them to drive them back. The YPG had been fighting IS, so they were not really the top priority.

You don't summon one, magic man, you build it. Believe it or not, that sort of thing can be done, especially when you have the Americans sending you ammunition and other material aid. They chose not to and instead did this decentralized democratic military nonsense that never works.

The anarchists had already thrown in with the Franch-backed Republic at that point. You know, maybe it's not such a good idea to alienate your allies in the middle of a civil war over ideological issues. I mean, that would be like halting grain shipments to them in the middle of a famine or trying to convince their soldiers to defect.

Except you can't smear them like that because unlike the anarchists they

A) achieved legit goals

B) are not substantiated.

Castro sent gay people to labor camps? evidence? Oh right, as usual, the bourgeoisie Cubans in Miami.

someone is a fucking retard, and it isn't me.

Anti-semite you say?: stalinsmoustache.org/2015/04/04/stalins-anti-semitism/

The Nazi Pact is an even more retarded myth.

msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/research/mlg09/m-rpact.html

russia-insider.com/en/history/truth-about-soviet-german-non-aggression-pact-23rd-august-1939-and-its-secret-protocol

Mao a paedo… any evidence?

The evidence to my picture claims isn't hearsay, Bookchin openly supported Israel and hated Arabs blaming them for the majority of the Middle-Easts problems, rather than actual factors like the Sykes-Picot treaty and the Ottoman empires systemic oppressions:
greenantifascism.blogspot.com/2016/09/attacks-on-israel-ignore-long-history.html

Orwells List was a massive scandal with dozens of communists, socialists and anarchists being done in. So much for "resisting big brother". He ratted them amount after he became demented is bullshit, and even so, Lenin had a fucking crippling stroke and never suddenly decided to go liberal.

That's an absurd claim but at this point unsurprising. How could they have formulated a strategy to deal with Franco's army without prior knowledge of the coup taking place? Should the CNT have, along with all other Republican forces, stopped all resistance and let Franco take power unopposed instead of organizing ad hoc?
To oppose the USSR yes, it would have been likely the British and French would see a USSR friendly Spain as a threat and throw in with Franco to oppose this development.
Which you have continually failed to prove while failing to acknowledge the effect resources have on a military. The most centralized and streamlined military with the added benefit of effective leaders will get their shit pushed in if they do not have the resources to produce a fighting force capable of self-defense.
So when an established state with a coherent military strategy fails to do what you chide the SDF for being unable to do, suddenly there exists reasons beyond military organization why this may be. Really makes you think.
How do you build one without resources? Burgerland hasn't outfitted the SDF with enough to build and upkeep an army, regardless of organizational distribution of resources. Organization isn't magic that allows resources to be pulled from thin air, and the infrastructure to build an army did not exist in Rojava and can not be constructed with what resources they have and have been given. This shortcoming is going to apply to any revolutionary movement that occurs without access to such infrastructure and resources, and as such any movement will be doomed to either be destroyed or be perverted to supporting capitalist interests, as is the likely fate of Rojava.
Yes, attempting to stop the workers councils created by the proletariat to appease liberals is a terrible idea. Why in the world PSUC do that?

It's a tweet, not a dick, stop taking it so hard

Attached: he he he anime.png (1360x1360, 1.06M)

The history of anarchist revolutions does that well enough. Seriously, how many times does this need to fail for the same predictable reasons for you to question the system?

They would be fools to send militias enough equipment and supplies to build a modern army when they seem to be disinterested in doing that. How does one supply the SDF? What do they need? Where do they need it? How are they going to keep it once they have it? This goes back to the point about how they cannot coordinate with the international forces that would like to see them win.

IS is one hell of a reason. What's your excuse?

What resources do they need exactly? Bullets? Guns? Equipment? The Americans ship them all of that. Do they need armor, aircraft, helicopters, and anti-aircraft batteries? The Americans are not going to send those to militias, because that would be stupid. They would gladly send them to an army, as they often do.

Because they do not understand that you have to win the war before you change the world.

I dunno, how many times do ML states need to fall to revisionism, as they uniformly did with the possible exception of DPRK, for you to question the system?
Yes, funding a socialist organization would be foolish to any capitalist state. The SDF is incapable of anything but its current, and fairly organized, military structure due to the material reality of their situation, not because of ideology. They would need several years and many resources to develop industry enough to independently build and upkeep a fighting force capable of defending themselves, and that's not coming from any foreign source without concessions that would end up assisting capitalism.
SDF have been fighting IS themselves and that is the reason they got aid in the first place, have you been asleep the last few years?
Industry. The burgers, or anyone else, aren't going to help socialist revolutionaries build that unless they pull a PSUC and work towards a liberal republic. Regardless of organization. The conclusion of this is that revolutions must occur where self-suffiencey in terms of food and industry is already possible or able to be quickly built without interference from capitalist powers, not that a particular method of organization would result in victory.
Well the PSUC and liberal coalition lost the war after purging the CNT and POUM, so they managed to do neither.

So you (I'm presuming you are the same person as ) said that the problem with the SDF is that they did not gain military independence with the time that they had and I want to know how the SDF are supposed to gain their own airforce without another nation's help in under 5 years. Again, this lack of airforce is still nothing to do with the SDF military command structure.

Besides the SDF not existing at the time of the Kobani siege; I would like a source of the Iraqi Kurds' observation and airstike communication inconsistencies etc. to make a more detailed response to such.

How about you make an actual argument against the SDF's military success rather than make a random comparison. The fall of Catalonia is common attributed to the air power of the nationalists and the fateful battle of Teruel which was a disastrous failed offensive issued by the Spanish Gov and did not include anarchist militias. Even by the battle of Teruel; the Spanish Gov had greatly diminished the influence and power of the CNT's syndicated industry and their militias were seized by the central government.

There are a number historiographical views on how and why the nationalists with the most commonly accepted reason is foreign support for the nationalists, not the lack of industrial capacity of Catalonia. As I stated above; by the time the pivotal battle of Teruel had commenced; the Spanish government had already organised what the anarchists controlled. But please tell me how it was the anarchist's fault that the Spanish government lost Malaga, Badajoz, Asturias and Alfambra? Or tell me how the anarchist militias somehow didn't help at the victories of Madrid and Guadarrama?
I can't say that sending military units to reallocate collectivised equipment and property to the old landowners from the CNT and suppressing anarchist infrastructure is the best use of military power when you are currently loosing on most fronts to the nationalists can necessarily be considered military unity.

Enlighten me on how Rojava has the industrial capacity and and human capital to construct super-sonic jet bombers and how the SDF military structure prevents from doing so. I have said this in this thread before but saying that the SDF has well structured and democratic military command and sperging about how decentralised it is doesn't prove anything.

Just a reminder before we go in deth, many of these anarchist revolutionaries found refuge in the USSR after the war and were regarded as heroes. The problem wasn't the anarchist members but their actions as the CNT.

Now to take on this wonderfully cherry-picked
rubbish heap.

The CNT did those actions on its own initiative, not the Republic.
libcom.org/forums/theory/prison-labor-camps-during-spanish-revolution-your-opinions-05102011

libcom.org/history/revolution-back-agenda-mark-kosman

In addition to that the Trots kept bickering with the MLs and further undermining the unity until they told them to fuck off.
marxists.org/history/etol/document/spain/spain07c.htm

The USSR and ML communists worked with the petty bourgeoisie for the same reason they tried to work with the anarchists and Trots, Together we stand, Divided we fall, antagonizing more people than necessary is counter-productive, and considering the experience of the Post-revolutionary period in Russia, they knew well that immediate communism is unrealistic because the people are not ready, that's why the NEP occurred, the people were too uneducated to give up irrational possessiveness and work in stateless communes. The same went for the CNT, except in the USSR they accepted this in return for remaining uncollapsed and strong enough to resist invasion and then initiated it after they had gotten themselves breathing room.

The USSR could not afford to throw around resources and it was 5x further away from Spain than Germany.

"In his conduct of foreign policy, Stalin showed great caution, restraint, and realism. He needed time to build up Russia’s industries and military strength. He was constantly provoked in the east and west, and in ways that must have infuriated him, but he never lost sight of the overriding need to delay the outbreak of war as long as possible. It was for this reason that he placed the greatest emphasis on peace and disarmament in world affairs." (Grey, Ian. Stalin, Man of History. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1979, pg 296)

Attached: when someone says read animal farm.png (708x449, 46.57K)

Cont.

The CNT was an over-all hodge-podge of aimlessness. They collectivized it, but without organization and it never got to run its course, which in the experience of The Ukrainian Free State ended badly. The (slight) productive rise is a pointless argument since that's the same argument used by liberals to justify the Kerensky Government.

Some Catalan Anarchists openly expressed their Fascist sympathies. After the war, Abad de Santillan had praise for Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, founder of the Fascist Falange Espanola:

“Despite the difference which separated us, we can understand this “spiritual kinship” with Jose Antonio, who after all was a fighter and a patriot in search of solutions for his country�Spaniards of his stature, patriots such as he are not dangerous. They are not the enemy. As for changing the destiny of Spain, there had been, before July, 1936, diverse attempts to align with us. If an accord had been tactically feasible, it would have been according to the desires of his father, Primo de Rivera (dictator of Spain under the monarchy).” (Abad de Santillan, Porque Perdimos la Guerra, as quoted in Landis, pg 312.)

After the war, FAIist Abad de Santillan confessed:

“If all the leaders of the Libertarian (anarchist) organizations had ever seriously resolved to send all their armament, their war material and their best men to the front–the war would easily have been over in a few months… We can no longer conceal the fact that while, at the front itself, we had by 30,000 rifles (and perhaps as many as 24 batteries, 200 heavy guns), in the rear, in the power of the organizations, we had an additional 60,000 rifles with more ammunition than was ever in the proximity of the enemy.” (Abad de Santillan, Porque Perdimos la Guerra, Buenos Aires, 1940, pp. 67-8; quoted in Landis, pg 321.)

And guess where most of that shit came from… the USSR!

The CNT had expected aid from France and Britain, it received none.

"As week succeeded week, it became obvious that the governments of Britain and France were prepared to give nothing to the Spanish people except advice. Once Stalin was convinced of this, he declared the intention of the Soviet state to give all the help it could to the Spanish loyalists." (Cole, David M. Josef Stalin; Man of Steel. London, New York: Rich & Cowan, 1942, pg 96)

Attached: skip straight to stateless communism timeline.jpg (594x960, 76.17K)

Ok, for one I said those thins about Mao, Castro and Stalin to show that you could just as easily provide dumbass smears a about some tankie icons.
And yes, Castro sent gays into camps. He him self admitted later that they treated LGBT+ people like shit in the early years of post revolutionary Cuba. However, the Cuban government has tried as best as possible to make up for it and Castro later changed his position on gays, thankfully.
Maos pedo shit and Stalins anti-semitism is debatable. I would say that Stalin was not actually a anti-semite, at least not in the way Fascists are. His daughters both married jews.
also
Its not a fucking football match where one team has to "win" more than the other you reddit spacing fuck. And Im not sure China and the USSR where great successes either.

"Its not a fucking football match where one team has to "win" more than the other"

Anarchism: results are small to none

Soviet socialism: inspired revolutions world-wide, and economically rivaled the USA as the only other world super-power.

The USSR wasn't a great success you say…

Ok

timeline of soviet space

1957: First intercontinental ballistic missile and orbital launch vehicle, the R-7 Semyorka
1957: First satellite, Sputnik 1
1957: First animal in Earth orbit, the dog Laika on Sputnik 2
1959: First rocket ignition in Earth orbit, first man-made object to escape Earth's gravity, Luna 1
1959: First data communications, or telemetry, to and from outer space, Luna 1.
1959: First man-made object to pass near the Moon, first man-made object in Heliocentric orbit, Luna 1
1959: First probe to impact the Moon, Luna 2
1959: First images of the moon's far side, Luna 3
1960: First animals to safely return from Earth orbit, the dogs Belka and Strelka on Sputnik 5
1961: First probe launched to Venus, Venera 1
1961: First person in space (International definition) and in Earth orbit, Yuri Gagarin on Vostok 1, Vostok programme
1961: First person to spend over 24 hours in space Gherman Titov, Vostok 2 (also first person to sleep in space)
1962: First dual manned spaceflight, Vostok 3 and Vostok 4
1962: First probe launched to Mars, Mars 1
1963: First woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova, Vostok 6
1964: First multi-person crew (3), Voskhod 1
1965: First extra-vehicular activity (EVA), by Aleksei Leonov,[19] Voskhod 2
1965: First probe to hit another planet of the Solar system (Venus), Venera 3
1966: First probe to make a soft landing on and transmit from the surface of the moon, Luna 9
1966: First probe in lunar orbit, Luna 10
1967: First unmanned rendezvous and docking, Cosmos 186/Cosmos 188.
1968: First living beings to reach the Moon (circumlunar flights) and return unharmed to Earth, Russian tortoises on Zond 5
1969: First docking between two manned craft in Earth orbit and exchange of crews, Soyuz 4 and Soyuz 5
1970: First soil samples automatically extracted and returned to Earth from another celestial body, Luna 16
1970: First robotic space rover, Lunokhod 1 on the Moon.
1970: First data received from the surface of another planet of the Solar system (Venus), Venera 7
1971: First space station, Salyut 1
1971: First probe to impact the surface of Mars, Mars 2
1971: First probe to land on Mars, Mars 3
1975: First probe to orbit Venus, to make soft landing on Venus, first photos from surface of Venus, Venera 9
1980: First Hispanic and Black person in space, Arnaldo Tamayo Méndez on Soyuz 38
1984: First woman to walk in space, Svetlana Savitskaya (Salyut 7 space station)
1986: First crew to visit two separate space stations (Mir and Salyut 7)
1986: First probes to deploy robotic balloons into Venus atmosphere and to return pictures of a comet during close flyby Vega 1, Vega 2
1986: First permanently manned space station, Mir, 1986–2001, with permanent presence on board (1989–1999)
1987: First crew to spend over one year in space, Vladimir Titov and Musa Manarov on board of Soyuz TM-4 - Mir

To be able to achieve just the first few would require a massive infrastructure that only a very well developed country could have.

Attached: but muh unworkable socialism.jpg (810x1214, 538.88K)

Lets take a look at Cuba which is Marxist-Leninist and the 2nd oldest socialist state still operating as socialist.

nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=923279

Attached: everyone I don't like is a tankie.png (500x659, 128.99K)

Also your football analogy doesn't even work on a basic bitch level. A closer analogy would be a Role Playing Game

Also on Castro's supposed anti-gay stance, Imma need some examples

Attached: squinted eyes.jpg (253x296, 7.85K)

>libcom.org/forums/theory/prison-labor-camps-during-spanish-revolution-your-opinions-05102011
So the Anarchists had prisons within the framework of dual power within the Republican state used to jail enemies, how is this a bad thing? Should they have executed them on the spot to appease some teenage MLs 80 years later?
Seeing as the MLs sided with the bourgeois against the POUM and the CNT, it would appear that unity had already been undermined by MLs.
How is undoing the collectivization efforts to appease kulaks Espana edition not antagonistic to the CNT, POUM, and Barcelona Proletariat?

Not so much praise as regret they weren't able to form an alliance before Jose got killed. While I think such an alliance would have been disastrous it's odd seeing this used as an attack from someone who just stressed the importance of cooperation with ideological enemies under a divided we fall logic. somnisllibertaris.com/libro/porqueperdimoslaguerra/capitulo2.htm
somnisllibertaris.com/libro/porqueperdimoslaguerra/capitulo5.htm According to a translation, he was referring to a few battles being lost by poor distribution of rifles, not the war itself. Given that in later chapters he seems to primarily blame the influx of Italian and German resources for the loss, this confession

If it's a ARPG then the Anarchists built a glass cannon that got taken down while the MLs tank lasted a while longer but ultimately collapsed against capitalism, which is still going happily along as a boss. The correct response to such defeats would be to rethink strategy and analyze how to overcome weaknesses, not revel in nostalgia for something that ceased to exist before you were born. To continue with the analogy, grinding and gearing before the boss would appear to be crucial, and that seems to be a major point Anarchist responses to defeat such as Platformism, Communalism, and to some extent Insurrectionist Anarchism have in their praxis. The ML version of this grinding, participation in elections and newspapers, seems to have resulted in various parties who despise each other and can't even cooperate among similar ideologies.
jornada.unam.mx/2010/08/31/index.php?section=mundo&article=026e1mun
bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-11147157
Castro himself admits he was at fault for the treatment of fags.

*this confession is hardly the damning indictment you frame it as.

hahahaha NO. You're cherry-picking again. Read carefully. The CNT did nothing different than the M-Ls did but denies it and tries to smear them with the same old "muh gulags" bullshit. Your little comment is the same shit.
Hypocrites, the lot of you.

No, they collaborated with the Republic and attempted to with the POUM and CNT only for the two of them behave like arrogant morons.

So you're admitting the M-Ls were more effective?

The only reason its still going is because its basically using cheats to survive, sucking the living daylights out of its colonies.

So not only they were they sympathizing but wanted an alliance.

"importance of cooperation with ideological enemies under a divided we fall logic"

False Equivalency, as usual. Next you'll say Hitler = Stalin, MFW

Attached: WROOOOONG.gif (300x169, 311.52K)

Oh and you skipped the Cuban one..

Кишка тонка, а?

The confession is very damning considering the other evidence and multitudes of information sources that point the same way.

Attached: Lib succ.png (500x372, 82.76K)

Not even an anarchist but thats bull
Also when did they "enslave" people?

Its been Mark-Suc since the 90s

Oh and on the subject of allying with fascists and how your example is false. When the USSR faced war with Nazi Germany after the West let it grow into the attack dog they wanted, Stalin had the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact arranged. It was not an alliance, it was a non-aggression pact that gave the USSR time and resources to prepare.

Attached: workers unite.png (500x668, 181.85K)

Uhhh no it wasn't, and that still doesn't cover a good 99% of what I posted

Attached: retarded on purpose.jpg (500x613, 83.65K)

It allows "small business" to exist and issues "licenses" to corner stores and those said small business's which allow them to operate under capitalist ownership

Shitty libshit V*x video but it explains it a little ways in

youtube.com/watch?v=n-mUZRP-fpo

Yeah, they were. The Cossaks started out as bandits and frankly that's who they originally were. They became a force similar to the privateers of Malta and Algiers, given the freedom to do whatever they liked as long as it served the Czar.

As for enslavement… You really don't know diddly about Russia do you?

The Free State was originally White Russian and used the old serf system, Mahno had helped to free it with the Red Army, but as the system flew out of control he started doing the same shit.

Basic over-view: isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml

Attached: mahno.png (928x344, 18.67K)

That's not market socialism m8, not by any standards of typical market socialism

Well it certainly isnt M-L thats all im saying

But do you deny the collectivization of farmland and rural states among the peasants?
Like obviously as you have stated his model was insanly flawed but he still was attempting to implement an Anarchist model

"muh gulags", "that's authoritarian", or any variation of such has not appeared itt. The critiques of ML itt have been in applying praxis to current conditions, not about muh dictators. Try paying attention to what is actually said or go back to reddit.
They collaborated specifically the liberal faction of the republic and it is undeniable that what they did, reversal of collectivization in Barcelona and advocation of property rights, was to appease bourgeois interests.
No, I'm saying that MLs died out because they were unable to damage capitalism as quickly as capitalism was able to damage and eventually kill ML states. Attempting to outlast capitalism has proved to be a losing strategy that results in the death of socialism.
It's a boss, expecting to operate by the logic of a player character is antithetical to a RPG. Expecting capitalist states to stop acting in their own interests to play fair is retarded, revolutionary movements must adapt their tactics based upon how the capitalist acts, including cheats such as imperialism or cointelpro.
One guy, and he was wrong.
How? Both the liberal republicans and Jose represented bourgeois interests and are class enemies of socialist movements. Attacking Abad de Santillan for wishing for an alliance with Jose in order to have defeated Franco and in the same breath attacking the CNT for not cooperating with ideological enemies to stop Franco is dishonest.
Stalin is no way comparable to Hitler, the Holodomor was a naturally occurring famine, and the USSR wasn't "red fascism". I don't see how this is relevant to Republican Spain or Communalism.

I posted the original article and the BBC translation.
He takes fault and wishes he would have done more. If not actively anti-gay, it was negligent behavior that resulted in suffering for fags by his own admission.

No it isn't, given that all information points towards the loss being due to Franco's superior resources and support from Italy and Germany. The Republic was going to fall given the the reality of the situation regardless if everyone on the Republican side had played nice or even managed to bring Jose Antonio de Rivera into the fold.

I never said that Abad wishing to ally with Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera was equivalent to the non-aggression pact signed by Hitler and Stalin, or made any mention of Hitler or Stalin for that matter. Stop getting butthurt over getting called names on reddit and pay attention to what has been written itt.

How do you go from posting articles claiming Trotsky and Trotskyists to be a fascist criminals to posting Trotskyist newspapers as evidence?

Attached: blackstar.jpg (868x521, 37.54K)

I'd say its pretty M-L. I suggest you read Lenin (again if you already have).

Collectivism? Yes. Effective or long-lasting? No.

Lets quote: "Should they have executed them on the spot to appease some teenage MLs 80 years later?"

This is a literal "wink wink, nudge nudge, M-Ls executed everyone because they's be oppressive authoritarians". As for reddit, you mention it so much I think you're from there yourself.

yes and ignored the entire link, thus leaving 99% of the content on Cuba.

Trotsky is the author? No. Trotsky is the main source? No. What's your point? If I had posted a M-L source you'd bitch about M-L bias.

My Stalin=Hitler analogy was referring to typical lib-com statements, not that YOU said it.

"One guy, and he was wrong."
He wasn't the only one m8 I can find a lot more on such friendliness with fascists, including with Francoists.

Jose was a fascist who was simply a rival for Franco for that position. The Republic was liberal but was basically giving itself over to the people over time. It's not dishonest, its a matter of measure.

The USSR did adapt with the capitalist system, the reason it collapsed was that there were so many factors that contributed to the last years of instability, chiefly Gorbachev's betrayal

Attached: brooding ikari.jpg (800x570, 102.1K)

Yeah these licences force them to abide by state regulations, these are usually family businesses and are petty bourgeoisie at worst. In other words its like a rented apartment from the state.

I was using an example and differentiating the approaches to fascist-socialist interaction by MLs and the FAL. Where did I say that you said that?

Attached: Gwen Deadpan.png (640x480, 360.7K)

Most businesses need to abide to at least some form of regulation even in capitalist societies
Emotional argument
A workers exploitation does not vanish simply because of biological relation to the capitalist they work for
So a capitalist class does exist within Cuba?
Well fuck Rent and Landlorship dosent sound that M-L/Socialist to me…

Socialist regulation =/= capitalist regulation

HOW? Family businesses don't involve exploitation of the workers because in the end the family's money is collectively one.

The ones holding the position of landlord is the dictatorship of the proletariat, so no.

*It is colelctivley one, the redistribution of this being uneven is not against socialism since socialism is not complete egalitarianism in the aspect of monetary gain, but in terms of human neeeds

I have a better idea!

Attached: eco-stalinism.png (1244x524, 316.45K)

For fucks sake can you make one post.

No, that's a "what is the alternative to dealing with captured enemies in a civil war?" with the implication MLs only take issue with the prisons to score points against muh anargists.
I'm not the one struggling with quoting and spacing bucko.
No, Castro said he fucked up and should have done more. That explains any charges of anti-fag bias that might be leveled at him. If that's not enough for you take it up with the user who initially brought up Castro's alleged homophobia.
Trotsky is the main source in that all primary information relies on Trotsky's testimony regarding the Ukraine, and the author is a Trotskyist sympathetic to Trotsky's views. As such it's going to be biased in that regard, and seeing how Trotsky wanted to gut the Free Territory while Lenin was apparently more cautious and compromising, such information is relevant to understanding the arguments found within.
That it's silly to post a source claiming Trotskyists as fascist international bandits and then use a Trotskyist source a few posts later, and that Trotskyists have a specific agenda when discussing the Ukraine.
Would you not do the same to any sources written by an anarchist? Bias is important to consider when reading anything because it is going to influence what content exists and what conclusions were drawn.

Libcoms here are far more likely to say Stalin was a socdem than a fascist, which is a rare statement here. It has been this way since everybody started listening to leftcoms and GMIL in 2016.
Then you should post them and I will say they are wrong as well.
A fascist is a liberal in crisis. Aiding in the construction of a liberal republic would have been trading one anti-socialist enemy for another, and as proved during the cold war liberal republics were perfectly capable of reactionary efforts against socialist movements at home and abroad.

Here
As written this gives an impression that I claimed Abad wanting an alliance with de Rivera was equivalent to the M-R pact. They aren't comparable as one was wishful thinking combined with hindsight while the other was a political move by Stalin to avoid war with Germany at the time. Also one happened and one didn't, and the reality is both the USSR and CNT's interactions with fascists involved shooting them.

No it is exactly what I mean, because the criticisms about labor camps first came from the anarchists who themselves did the same thing, which is the whole critisism

I space it like this intentionally because the clusterfuck that results from not doing it looks positively shite.

No, he said he fucked up in terms of gay rights, nowhere did he say that he fucked up in everything, and my link disproves that claim, you have not disproved the link.

Trots and anarchists are often enough allies (like in Spain). Trotsky is not the only or even main source m8.

research the Lenin-Mahno split (although the results usually lead to pro-anarchist stuff the point is that Lenin was only hesitant when Mahno was still on good terms with him.

My point is that you would find something to be dissatisfied with regardless of the actual content.

Uhhh no, if anything every libcom I've met says the same old "muh red czar/fascist" about Stalin. Also According to Stalin social Democracy was an aide to fascist ideals.

A gross over-simplificiation. And the MLs weren't constructing a liberal republic they were working with a sickly republic that had basically given itself into the hands of the workers. In the Cold War the liberal republics you speak of were also controlled by the USA.

Noooo, it was in response to your claim that the ML alliance with the Republic was the same as allying with Jose. And the CNT was very divided on which side to join, some (mostly those who did collaborate and weren't pretentious pricks) were against this. Others were for it and this made the CNT fragile and weak.

Attached: castro failure of socialism.jpg (850x400, 65.56K)

Hey, hey, maybe (and bear with me here), there is more than one responder?!

Attached: rad gator.jpg (1000x1018, 164.15K)

MFW

Hey, at least we get some good memes out of it.

And itt there has been no negative mentions of labor camps, authoritarianism, or whatever. By continually bringing it up you're having an argument with a ghost
I never claimed he fucked up everything, I said he fucked up with gays and supported the issues with a statement of Casto saying as much.
Not at all, trots are hostile to everyone including other trots. The POUM was an exception rather than a rule.
All accounts of the Free Territory as a bandit haven ultimately use Trotsky's testimony on the subject.
I have. From what I'm able to tell Mahkno cooperated well enough with the Red Army until attacked, most likely under Trotsky's orders.
Then you must be new around here, because it's been that way on /leftypol and later Zig Forums since at least early 2016.
It's fundamentally correct. Today's liberals are tomorrow's fascists and vice versa, and given the conditions of global capitalism it's far more likely the forces against a socialist movement will be liberal in nature.
They were supporting the remnants of an overthrown republic and allowing liberal institutions like property to exist. That's not given to the hands of the workers and is a split hair from constructing a liberal republic.
The USA is a liberal republic and this has not stopped it from being the most reactionary actor in global politics. If anything this supports my point about liberal republics spreading counter-revolution as readily as fascist states.
There is no evidence the CNT had a sizeable number of members who wanted to side with the nationalists, even the quote you provided to support anarchists wanting to ally with fascists was in context of winning the civil war against Franco, not in establishing a nationalist state. As such it is similar with the ML alliance with liberals, in that it would have been an alliance between ideological enemies in order to build a united front against a common enemy.

You namefag and use the same e-mail address with the same sentence construction and tone. The chances of that being more than one person is something only a fool would bet on.

Wut? That's a pretty typical label.

I literally brought it up as a reference in passing, you were the one blowing it out of proportion.

You should be more precise then.

Not in my experience. Trots are opportunists anyway, and every Trot I've met has been a pro-anarchist shill as well.

Who attacked who m8. when you have regions that you cannot control (by system) you will have marauders who often harassed soviets.

Today's liberals are nothing like olden liberals, your global capitalist statement literally conveys this.

I've lurked for years.

For the same reason the NAP was created, the economy was weak in the face of Franco, outside aid is not enough.

Compare the USA to the Spanish Republic, very different

The quotes on anarchist pro-fascism are mere examples.

When did I claim this?

Anywho, good night I'm done. Hope you reconsider some things.

This. Many write have written off the SDF since it's founding but it's transformed into the most pluralistic and stable group in the war. It's the only one that equally represents all it's members, fights together without a million different "legions" all infighting for their own goals, and has the most stable home front despite the constant ISIS cells and MIT assassination/destabilization attempts. Burger help aside, it's quite impressive and I can't say I know of another group like it.

Attached: IMG_20171014_122030.jpg (2000x1333 136.9 KB, 138.11K)

wtf is this?

That is a really childish misinterpretation of what I was arguing. I never blamed the MLs for starting anything, just that they made military mistakes, like most people do in wars.
Additionally, despite your post format and pictures being embarrassingly reddit-tier; I'm thankful you posted some sources to back up what you said.

Ironically, the link you posted is a totally unbiased Stalinist newspaper calling the POUM fascists and agents of the Gestapo. The article does not give examples of any bickering or traitorous actions on the part of the POUM other than the POUM minding their own business, talking about Trotsky, setting up patrols and other harmless stuff. From this article, it actually makes it seem that the MLs (of this newspaper) were the ones who were doing the bickering. Unless you can prove that the whole of the POUM was a nazi plant as the article implies then I don't see the validity of such.

I know that your use of the word "necessary" is subjective here and doesn't give your argument much integrity to debate with but I'll argue that antagonising the anarchists, POUM and the Trotskyists in the war can be counted as counter-productive.

From what I have read about the Spanish revolution; the CNT had clear aims of what it wanted to achieve and archived such in a short amount of time including a stable production rate, a stable front line and full cooperation of resources and military coordination. If you have any academic sources proving the contrary, let me know. The production increase is not a pointless argument just because others have used a similar argument for different purposes. The production increase shows that the CNT's economy worked and was stable, regardless of what some irrelevant liberal's arguments are. Furthermore, if you could give examples of the CNT's antagonisms of landowners and such were detrimental to the war effort, let me know. Because if it was, it's doesn't matter because their capital was collectivised and syndicated so who cares if some insignificant posh folks have no farms?

As another user pointed out. This first part of this passage is specifically referring to logistic problems of bringing armaments to the front. Now I'm not an expert in the Spanish language but the passage you provided omits very important information in regards to your argument.
In regards to the quote;
"the shipment to the front required strong contingents of maneuver and operations, since what we had in Aragon, for example, was not more than a thinly held line. Thirty thousand rifles, twenty or twenty-five batteries, very few machine guns, was not material for such an extensive line. We can not silence the fact that while in the Aragon front we only had 30,000 rifles, in the rear, held by parties and organizations, there were around 60,000, more ammunition than in the front"
The last part is in reference to the fear of an reactionary uprising in the interior of Catalonia or Barcelona itself as the early days of the war many rebels would defect to the nationalists from loyalist controlled areas. Such is referenced many times in this chapter of the book.
"The danger of the counterrevolution to which was alluded, for us was represented mainly by those 60,000 rifles in the rear"
I agree with de Santillan and Durruti's opinion that if the organisations in Barcelona took the gamble that there would not be a threat to the rear (which, in hindsight, there wasn't) then they could have made more advances on the Aragon front in the early stages of the war. The problem with your argument is you are blaming such on the disorganisation of the anarchist militias despite the fact that it was the anarchist militias who made a planned (erroneous) military decision to maintain weapons in the rear. In fact in the same chapter you quoted; de Santillan states that the "best organized and most disciplined forces were always the libertarians (anarchists) and, in the period that we were at the head of the militias, the only ones regularly constituted, supplied and directed" Most of the book talks about honest military mistakes on the part of the anarchists, as most militaries do.

I do not have full access to that book but from the passage you gave it does not indicate that the CNT had expected aid from the allies but rather the Spanish government did. If you could quote the full page I would be obliged.

The other points you've made are irrelevant to my original argument and have already been discussed by others.

bump

Attached: 15665522_647774898727469_5414594207392918875_n.png (480x480, 147.97K)

Default is "Anonymous" and to get "user" you have to type it the name in the field.
Why bring it up at all when it has no relevance to the thread then?
I never discussed Castro outside of his own words on gays in Cuba. I don't see how you can be more precise than that.
Then I have to question that because every Trot paper and organization I've come into contact with has been decidedly hostile to everyone outside their party, including other Trots.
Most likely Trotsky ordered the initial attacks.
Todays liberals come from olden liberals, and it wasn't like there was a mass exodus of olden liberals to make way for a different set right after WW2.
Who was milo?
Then breaking up what had resulted in increased productivity was a questionable move, especially when it was clear outside aid from liberal states would not come anyways.
Then you should provide them, because so far you have one guy who wanted to expand the popular front against the nationalist side.
By your claim of fascist sympathies, you misrepresented his statement about wanting to ally with Falangists against the nationalist side in the civil war as admiration for Fascism, which in context is an implication for a preference for the nationalists over the republicans.

why is any of the past 20 comments posted? Because this is 8ch where the threads are always derailed by something. To be more specific it was part of my argument not the main point.

As much as I dislike Trotsky I doubt that. And believe me I have no reason to defend him.

If I remember correctly he was that shitposter who was (among many things) in support of having children be trans if they "wanted to" and in fact was pressing for it. Oh and he (perhaps ironically?) likes trannies and traps Maybe I'm thinking of the wrong guy tho.

The USA's economy has massively increased productivity, yet its economy is shite. productivity is only one factor.

I would but Zig Forums keeps blocking my post saying its spam, mostly cause there is a lot.

Now that's manipulating my words, knave.

Attached: ok.png (1244x768, 1.25M)