- cross-posted to:
- memes@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- memes@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
Western Marxism Loves Purity and Martyrdom, But Not Real Revolution (2020) by Jones Manoel
There is a great tendency in the eastern left, according to Perry Anderson, to separate western and eastern Marxism. Western Marxism is basically a kind of Marxism which has, as a key characteristic, never exercised political power. It is a Marxism that has, more and more frequently, concerned itself with philosophical and aesthetic issues. It has pulled back, for example, from criticism of political economy and the problem of the conquest of political power. More and more it has taken a historic distance from the concrete experiences of socialist transition in the Soviet Union, China, Viet Nam, Cuba and so forth. This western Marxism considers itself to be superior to eastern Marxism because it hasn’t tarnished Marxism by transforming it into an ideology of the State like, for example, Soviet Marxism, and it has never been authoritarian, totalitarian or violent. This Marxism preserves the purity of theory to the detriment of the fact that it has never produced a revolution anywhere on the face of the Earth – this is a very important point.
Every movement that appears to stray a bit from these “pure” models that were created a priori is explained through the concept of betrayal, or is explained as “state capitalism.” Therefore, nothing is socialism and everything is state capitalism. Nothing is socialist transition and everything is state capitalism. The revolution is only a revolution during that glorious moment of taking political power. Starting from the moment of building a new social order, its over. Revolution is always a political process which has two moments: a moment of destruction of the old capitalist order and taking power, and a moment of building a new order. The contradictions, the problems, the failures, the mistakes, sometimes even the crimes, mainly happen during this moment of building the new order. So when the time comes to evaluate the building of a new social order – which is where, apparently, the practice always appears to stray from the purity of theory – the specific appears corrupted in the face of the universal. It is at this point that the idea of betrayal is evoked, that the idea of counter revolution is evoked, and that the idea of State Capitalism appears in order to preserve the purity of theory.
Yes, I acknowledge the system is broken, our democratic rights are actively being whittled away as we are pulled deeper and deeper into the maw of a beast that treats us as expendable resources meant only to line the pockets of the ultra-wealthy. We’re given the smallest necessary concessions by a slew of invariably corrupt political hacks to placate the masses and obfuscate atrocity after atrocity in their endless quest for the violent exploitation of every living being below them.
THAT’S WHY I VOTED DARK BRANDON THIS ELECTION, BLUE WAVE ROLLLLLL
I agree, but you’re allowed to romance a black person in Baldurs Gate, I’m gonna have to get on the Trump Train this time
A two party system is way to close to a one party system…
…sounds commie to me.
The Dems make the two party system way more pernicious than a one party system, because of how the Republicans enable them to shoehorn whatever conservative they want.
white western leftists will literally be like “yes I’m a socialist… I just hate everything that socialism has done in the world and I’ll gladly defend anti-communist efforts when they don’t directly effect me”
They’re liberals who are enamoured by socialist aesthetics. It only goes as deep as the Che Guevara t-shirt
telling a white “socialist” about Che’s ideals and tactics made them look at me in disgust, and later I saw that they posted on social media that they threw out all of their “commie merch”.
These people are posers and nothing else, they will back the whites in the revolution.
💯 % true!!
To quote Parenti: They support every revolution except the ones that succeeds
I love my socialist president Joseph Biden!
The only Tankie I recognize
socialism is when the government does things
and that’s good 
That fascinating thing is when they just pick one AES to support. All the rest are ebil authoritarian tankies, except one.
That reminds me how the Albanian communist party once declared itself the only Marxist-Leninist party and all others were revisionist. Decades of theory perfected only by Comrade Hoxha
You forgot the part where anti-revisionism lapsed for over three decades after Hoxha’s death until his reincarnation as Comrade Wisconcom
Western “socialists” who don’t believe in internationalism are just petty labor aristocrats who are mad that they’re not getting their perceived fair share of looted super profits.
Yes, I would like one, uhhh, high speed rail network with a side of, uhhh, universal healthcare, hold the genocide and secret police, please.
Their secret police.
Our civilian police.
Their “authoritarianism”.
Our law and order.
Their concentration camps.
Our massive prison industrial complex enforcing slave labour on minorities.Also there’s no proof of a genocide going on in China. The main proponent of the accusations is the Falun Gong and Adrian Zenz - a man on a divine mission to crush communism, who has made frequent and egregious “errors” in his translation and methodology.
On the other hand countries in the EU are funding refugee “camps” like that on Moria, with conditions so horrible people are fleeing daily, and the EU is funding border patrols in Turkey that make use of excessive force. These actions would by any fair definition be genocide.
Likewise the United States is far from innocent, both at the border with Mexico where there’s many reports of militias hunting refugees, and in the large prison-industrial complex which houses the largest prisoner population in the world - a population that has an outsized number of minorities. These are worked to death. By any fair definition the US is carrying out a genocide.
However it is these countries’ accusations we should somehow take seriously? Why? Why should we take What France claims China is doing at face value, when France itself is embroiled in colonial wars in Africa? What reason have these countries given us? The United States especially has a proven track record of lying in order to foment ill will against a geopolitical enemy.-
No one disagrees that america had committed atrocities and generally sucks with its foreign policy. Most educated people in the US are happy to admit and fight for change within the government on that. It is not denied.
-
Has china allowed for international investigators to investigate the situation in Xinjiang?
-
You’d be surprised how many Yankee “leftists” aren’t aware of basic stuff like the Radio Frees, the current indigenous genocide, school to prison pipeline, or the sanctions against the “authoritarian” AES countries (causing a lot of their real issues), among many others, and are very willing to side with their own meddling against countries that are actually trying something because they might be “not true socialism.” Even if all accusations against Cuba or China (I don’t know that much about Vietnam or DPRK) were correct, they’d still be the lesser evil by a long shot.
There were other visits too, but NATO countries are mostly intentionally boycotting the investigation. I’m pretty sure any person who can do tourism in China can go there so long as they don’t break laws. But I remember a recent article where NATO countries were advising against travelling there, for mysterious reasons.
Oh definitely. Education is important, and it is important to acknowledge the faults of your community. I make a point of being aware of the ugly parts of the past and present.
Regarding Xinjiang - Arab League nations have a huge financial interest in staying on China’s good side. I worry that the billions of dollars of investment creates a conflict of interest. It makes it difficult to see them as trustworthy in this particular matter.
It also conflicts with the findings of the UN human rights office.
I recognize that this isn’t the most solid evidence, but my local kabob shop owner is Uyghur from that area. They say they left before it became bad, but they have friends and family who are experiencing what the UN office is saying firsthand.
Regarding Xinjiang - Arab League nations have a huge financial interest in staying on China’s good side. I worry that the billions of dollars of investment creates a conflict of interest. It makes it difficult to see them as trustworthy in this particular matter.
Its interesting to me that you asked about international investigations, but when they were provided, you found a way to reject it (saying that global south countries are inherently untrustworthy because of financial incentives.)
Like, what you asked for was provided. It was just not from countries that count as “international community” to you.
In regards to your local shop owner, you realize that Xinjiang was genuinely a dangerous place back in the day? And people leaving for their own safety doesn’t automatically mean its the government’s fault. There were terrorist attacks and radical extremists festering in the region until the government finally started taking steps to combat it, and its now safer than it has ever been.
It also conflicts with the findings of the UN human rights office.
So do claims of genocide, but you’ll make those anyway.
-
Most educated people in the US are happy to admit and fight for change within the government on that.
Really? When was the last time “most educated people” fought against the US government?
Has china allowed for international investigators to investigate the situation in Xinjiang?
Literally yes.
-
hold the genocide and secret police,
you support Land Back and abolishing the FBI then I assume?
What genocide?
Do you know the actual truth of the Holodomor or Xinjiang? Are you willing to know?
Comrades who are jumping straight to retorting are unwittingly making it seem like, “well yes, there was a genocide, but it was worth it.” Please do not allow any gap in our response that allows this interpretation. There has never been a genocide committed by a socialist country and we should make it clear we will not cede that atrociously false accusation.
Agreed. Unfortunately, they didn’t respond to me, so they probably won’t respond to you.
I’ll hijack this comment to try to summon Parenti quote bot
The quote
In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the Cold War, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
– Michael Parenti, Blackshirts And Reds
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the admins of this instance if you have any questions or concerns.
Your contention is that Stalin committed no genocide? What do you call it, sparkling ethnic cleansing?
Do you call the Dust Bowl and Great Depression a genocide? Words have meaning.
You love to present overdramatic accusations when a famine occurs in a socialist country, and there’s usually only one big one.
Edit: If you’re talking about something else, please elaborate as to your specific allegation.
I asked you for a source earlier and you didn’t respond.Edit 2: I stand corrected; I conflated you with a different user, but I’d still appreciate your source. Unfortunately, due to the lateness of this edit, the instance admins have already banned you, so I probably won’t find this out.
You didn’t ask me for shit earlier. This is my first comment here.
The Dust Bowl and Great Depression is a thing that happened. What occurred in Stalin’s reign is a pattern, that included famines. Were the famines specifically engineered to kill off specific groups? I don’t know. But when you take a holistic view, and look at executions, gulag assignments, forced resettlement, deportations, and, yes, famines, there was very clearly a genocide under Stalin.
Millions of people died as a direct result of Stalin’s policies and actions. I don’t know if they were all with intent, but many definitely were.
I don’t understand how anyone can defend Stalin. I guess people deny the Holocaust too, so there’s that.
I guess people deny the Holocaust too, so there’s that.
By trying to paint the Soviet Union as genocidal, you are denying the Holocaust. Simple as.
Woof, that’s some leap.
That’s right bark again you fucking lapdog for the establishment.
A ‘leap’ made by literal jewish Holocaust scholars.
Millions of people died as a direct result of Stalin’s policies and actions.
And the dust bowl was the direct result of the US governments policies and actions, so why is only one of them “a thing that happened,” you raging hypocrite?
Are you capable of reading and processing information? Nevermind that the Great Depression was a worldwide catastrophe. Nevermind that it’s thousands vs millions of people. Did you notice where I talked about the larger pattern in the USSR? There wasn’t just one famine, but a shitload of things causing the deaths of millions of people, many of which were fucking executions.
Are you capable of reading and processing information?
Are you?
Nevermind that the Great Depression was a worldwide catastrophe.
Point to where I mentioned the Great Depression.
Nevermind that it’s thousands vs millions of people.
What methodology did you use to determine your numbers? And why would it matter anyway? Is it not a genocide if it’s bellow a certain amount?
There wasn’t just one famine
Yes there was, unless you’re counting the one caused by the Nazis flattening half of it, in which case I’m just going to write you off as a Nazi apologist.
but a shitload of things causing the deaths of millions of people, many of which were fucking executions.
Yes, that is indeed true of the USA, so why is the Dust Bowl “Just a thing that happened”, but the famine that happened in the same time period in the USSR not?
Prisoners in the United States jumped from 120,284 in 1923 to 210,418 in 1933. (Source (p. 210))
Executions increased to 197, the highest number in US history, in 1935. (Source)
The U.S. forcibly deported one million of its own citizens to Mexico in the 1930s. Source
Since you’re probably using an intentionally ridiculous US estimate, I’ll use an intentionally ridiculous Russian estimate and say that seven million people died from the Great Depression. This Russian estimate uses the same intentionally ridiculous methodology of the U.S. one.
Put together, why isn’t this enough to declare that a genocide happened in the U.S.?
Nice whataboutism. But fuck it, I’ll bite. A genocide has absolutely happened in the US, funny that you didn’t hit on it.
Let’s play a game. I’m going to call it, “can we agree on some basic facts?”
Stalin, through his policies and leadership, killed millions of Soviet citizens. True or false?
funny that you didn’t hit on it.
Apologies for the confusing wording above. That’s because I was comparing two similar events to see if you would call it a genocide when the U.S. did it. If you did, I’d question your definition of genocide, but at least accept you’re applying it consistently.
I absolutely agree with you on that basic fact — the US has engaged in countless successful genocides against indigenous peoples.
Stalin, through his policies and leadership, killed millions of Soviet citizens.
False.
First of all, to attribute deaths solely to one individual (even to Hitler) denies anyone else responsible of their free will in doing so.
@ksynwa@lemmygrad.ml, would you mind holding this lib up to scrutiny since the one on Hexbear didn’t respond?
A genocide has absolutely happened in the US, funny that you didn’t hit on it.
So you’re denying genocide now.
It’s crazy - we all actually tend to agree on most things. We all sort of agree that the US government has committed atrocities, that wealth redistribution is what we should be striving for, that billionaires suck, that universal healthcare is good, all that good shit.
But they are stuck on the idea that their favorite governments can do no wrong.
Not really; we have no problem with actual, reasonable, criticism of AES nations, we just have no time for “100 MILLION DEAD! AUTHORITARIANISM! GENOCIDE! REDFASCISM!” nonsense.
“I agree that the U.S. is evil and has been the objective bad guy in every war it’s ever been in (and the US has almost never not been at war) but I believe the U.S. wholeheartedly in matters of foreign policy”
Of course they can do wrong. We acknowledge legitimate criticisms, but we’re going to refute slander against socialist governments.
I trust international investigation and evidence uncovered by reputable journalists.
If a country refuses to allow international investigators to do their job, that is a significant red flag.
I trust international investigation and evidence uncovered by reputable journalists.
If you compartmentalize counties in war to “good guys” and “bad guys”, you’re really going to claim that the US was the bad guy in WW2?
I apologize for the bad terminology, but I’ll stick with it to answer your question. Even in WW2, the Soviets were the “good guys” and the US only intervened when it was obvious the Soviets would win to stop a communist Europe.
Got it. In any war, communists are “good”, everyone else is “meh” or “bad”. It’s real telling that you’ll call the Soviets the “good guys” but not any other European nations.
Our secret police like the FBI? And our genocide like in North Korea?
Yes. The point of view here is anti-authoritarian.
There has been no genocide committed by a socialist country, no need to point out any of the dozens committed by the U.S. alone.
There is no war in Ba Sing Se
There has been no genocide committed by a socialist country
You only had to provide one example to disprove a claim of this sort, and you couldn’t do it?
I’m sure whatever I say you’ll have some precooked answer, so I’d rather make a fun comparison
“I have no argument that you can’t refute, so I’m just going to behave in bad faith”
yes, totally owned us by quoting a children’s cartoon when prompted to give evidence for genocide, good job redditor.
shit I regret affording you a first warning ban and should have gone for the perma ban. You sound super privileged, it would do you some good for someone to tell you no once in your life.
Liberals really do get all their politics from childrens media. You going to quote Harry Potter next?
Killing landlords and fascists is not Genocide, and putting “secret” in front of “police” to make them scarier to you is childish. Of course I imagine you probably aren’t afraid of the regular police wherever you are, I wonder why.
If you’re accusing us of supporting “genocide and secret police,” you should provide sources to back up your claim.
I was saying I support the secret police.
Do you want the end of capitalism yes or no
Careful, I’m expecting the Western leftist “yes but I don’t support any socialist attempt that ever actually worked”
Well that depends. A giant meteor will technically end capitalism. What’s the point if we’re not striving to improve everyone’s quality of life?
Answer the question weasel
Couldn’t even manage a yes or no question.
If you want the end of capitalism you’ll support whatever it realistically takes to dismantle it. And that won’t exactly be an “open” or “transparent” process while it happens. Simply put, the collective force that replaces capitalism will have to coerce certain people into accepting the change, if nothing else but for the safety of that new administration (IE avoiding rightwing takeovers, legit sabotage, hatecrimes etc).
Just remember that about anticapitalism - whatever form it takes, it’s no dinner party. Even after a revolution, certain people try to resist things they have no material reason to oppose. Those people are reactionary - directionless, even dangerous unless they’re re-educated or have privileges restricted.
I appreciate that. It’s not lost on me that a lot of communist regimes got really fucked up by trade embargos, sanctions, counter-intelligence campaigns, etc. Power is rarely ceded willingly, of course. However, my primary concern lies with improving the quality of life for everyone, or at least maximizing the well being of the population. Part of that equation, for my point of view, includes the ability for people to think and speak freely without fear of reprisal by the government. Say what you will, but I’ve hosted eight different exchange students, including one from Russia; none were concerned about answering questions about their home country except for the kid from Hong Kong. I asked them whether they identified as a citizen of Hong Kong or of China first, because I was hoping to get an irl sample for how Hong Kongers actually felt, but let them out of the question when I confirmed with them that that was a sensitive question.
If you’re living with a boot on your throat, does the distinction really matter if it’s a capitalist’s boot or a communist’s boot?
Part of that equation, for my point of view, includes the ability for people to think and speak freely without fear of reprisal by the government
This is like the people who say “We’re freer than the Chinese because I can call Trump a peepee poopoo pants on Twitter without being arrested!” when that doesn’t actually do anything at all
but if you try and protest and change conditions materially and meaningfully, you can absolutely bet your ass you will be disappeared like the horror stories you find on reddit about “totalitarian regimes”. The only reason why Americans don’t think it doesn’t happen in the West is either because it’s so completely internalized that it becomes memeified (“Haha, I hope the FBI agent watching me through my camera is having a nice day!”) or none of the media that they engage with reports on it.
IMO, this entire point is just a liberal ideological bludgeon, a condition that can be applied at-will to any government they want to criticize because no government will be good enough all of the time. it’s one thing if you’re an anarchist and oppose every government equally for not fulfilling that condition, that I can understand and respect, it’s quite another when you’re like “Oh, no, I hate authoritarianism! That’s why we need to constantly criticize a country on the literal other side of the planet 99.7% of the time, and then only criticize our own country when somebody calls us out on it by saying ‘Oh, yeah, America also does bad things too!’” Especially when America’s role in the world for the last century at least, and more accurately really since its conception, has been a source of capitalist reaction across its whole hemisphere and later the whole planet, with hundreds upon hundreds of military bases and tens of millions directly and indirectly killed in wars. Criticizing, say, Cuba or DPRK for these sorts of things is effectively zooming in on a single corpse in righteous indignation while ignoring the seas of blood spilled by America behind you.
I mean, yeah, I am anti-authoritarian before anything else. That’s basically where my problem with China, among many others, begins and ends. The US has a lot of big problems that need fixing immediately on that front, and that’s without getting into the bodies under the front porch. We could go into that, if you like, I just didn’t think it was particularly relevant at the moment.
Pick an AES state of your choosing. What is the minimum you think they would have to do to resist U.S./capitalist efforts to destroy it?
What country isn’t authoritarian?
It’s cute you think you would actually win the argument with the “bodies under the front porch” (in your words), considering how this whole thread has been going for you so far.
If your concern is quality of life, then you should be glad to know that all socialist countries, including of course the USSR and China, have radically improved the living standards for their massive citizenries in every metric that matters.
What use is being supposedly free to criticize the U.S. gov’t when 1) every living standard is worse, 2) our education and media feed us so much lies we blame our woes on everybody BUT the gov’t, or for the wrong reasons, 3) you secretly can’t because if you effectively do so you will be blackbagged and disappeared or assassinated?
Your singular Hong Kong kid is not a representative of an entire country or even Hong Kong. Why was it sensitive? Because he feared CPC would come and turn him into meatloaf…or because he feared his parents would? In MY personal, anecdotal experience, fascist parents/grandparents are the greatest source of anticommunist fear.
These are all pretty good points. I’m trying to do better about regulating my social media time, so I’ll use that opportunity to consider them. Thanks for the discussion.
This lib seems pretty cool
If you’re living with a boot on your throat, does the distinction really matter if it’s a capitalist’s boot or a communist’s boot?
“Does it really matter if I can expect to live to 75 instead of 30, if I can’t call the president a doodoo head on social media?”
Yes, it matters a lot.
Another commenter shared an article by the AP where the reporter got to ask people in Xinjiang how things are. One lady at a shop casually mentioned that business was slowing and got talked to by a party minder. You can’t even have idle chat without getting invited to camp. That’s not quite the same thing as being able to talk shit on social media.
You can’t even have idle chat without getting invited to camp.
Source?
Also I give AP News zero credit when it comes to reporting on China.
If you’re living with a boot on your throat, does the distinction really matter if it’s a capitalist’s boot or a communist’s boot?
Try looking at it from the point of view of the oppressed class who is benefiting from communist rule, and being harmed by capitalist rule, rather than from the point of view of the super rich people.
Unless I happen to be mistaken, poor people get the bullet, too. We just don’t hear about it because they’re not famous. I’m taking a wild guess here, but I suspect that the muslims in Xinjiang aren’t exactly what you would typically think of as the capital owning class. You can’t even (practically, I’m sure there’s some loophole or asterisk here) be critical of the bad ideas of your government, just shut up and kill more sparrows. As far as I can tell, it’s trading oppression for sparkling oppression.
Nobody has been killed in Xinjiang. There is a reason its original liars had to specify it was a “cultural genocide,” which it isn’t, either. Like the full break down?
In this post: what you get when your brain attempts to synthesize the concept of socialism on top of its liberalism instead of trying to discard everything you know first (liberalism) and learning again from zero to grasp Marxism.
That’s exactly what it is! I really like the way you put that comrade. That connected some synapses for me lol
we must all kill the liberal part of our brain, every single day
Remember when Mao cast Firagaga on China and incinerated the entire population?
a fireball throwing Mao would be so rad!
Secret police is what you call an intelligence agency of a country you don’t like
Great idea! Hey USA, one HSR and Universal Healthcare? Instead of all that police and genocide plz thanks.
You are forgetting all the racism, xenophobia, homophobia and transphobia, white supremacy and Christian supremacy
I am.
China and DPRK are not socialist. They are fascist states in a costume of socialism
You know “Fascist” actually means something and isn’t just a synonym of “place I don’t like”
The pure (libertarian) socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.
a massacre happened here lmao
🤯🔫
Hating other socialists is a proud socialist tradition. Look at Marx writing about… literally anyone, or Lenin writing about his contemporaries, or Stalin writing about fellow Bolsheviks, Trotsky writing about anyone including trotskyites, or Bordiga writing about anyone except Hitler and Mussolini,
Marx at least had praise for the Paris commune and Lenin, whatever his issues with Luxembourg, still had immense respect for her and sought to collaborate with the German communists, and Stalin lead the greatest transfer of technology in human history in his work with the PRC
Marx at least had praise for the Paris commune and Lenin
Huh? Wasn’t Lenin like 13 when Marx died?
I think he meant it like this:
Marx at least had praise for the Paris commune. And Lenin, whatever his issues with Luxembourg, still had immense respect for her
And Marx didn’t had just praise for Paris Commune. While criticizing it, he counted it as one of the most important event in history, the first proletarian state ever, and confirmation of his theory.
Also Lenin was going to Rosa house for 🐈
Probably. But it was meant as “Marx at least had praise for the Paris commune” and “Lenin, whatever his issues with”…
deleted by creator
actual anarchists 100% fall under the umbrella of ‘tankie’
When someone says something like you did, I am reminded of this random Reddit commentor who, on the r/anarchism subreddit, answered “Nazi Germany could be considered to be an anarchist revolution in nature” because, according to them, anarchist revolutions happen (regardless of your intent) anytime you revolt against authority or the established system, no matter what you want out of it or how it turns out, you’re an anarchist.
You remind me of that person, bless.
well there were anarchists who went into coalition with mussolini (not many). It was mainly the anarchists who were so anti-soviet that they were willing to join any movement that was anti-soviet
Lol if you think anarchists wouldn’t be labeled “tankies” for not toeing the NATO line
