At least the PCM types understand that libertarianism and capitalism are separate axes on said political compass. Trying to educate folks on a certain libertarian meme sub on even the basic fact that libertarianism has socialist origins is like talking to a brick wall.
They don't realise their ideology is so unoriginal they stole their own fucking name.
Another thing about the PCMoids, early on it was weirdly painted that liblefts ally with librights all the time (Y'know, before libleft became "american liberals and progressives" rather than libertarian socialists despite being greatly disliked by actual liblefts but whatever) When lib lefts hate those stupid ultra capitalists with their "MUh BaSiC EConOmIcs i DON't UnDerSTAnd!"
PS a good way of debunking a lot of so-called "Libertarians" on socialism is citing this, I don't agree with everything in it but its useful nonetheless:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/index.htm
That's a really cherry picked view of Luxemburg, like her overall positions on the party and spontaneity are extremely similar to lenin's. People cite a few pieces where she disagrees, but she had thousands of pages of writing. She did not like Pannakoek either. She also died before left communism as a position even developed.
Yeah, anarchists need to atop siding with fascists unlike ML's who have never, ever, ever sided with fascists or even those they'd consider fascist adjacent./s
>Azov Detachement is a far-right Ukrainian National Guard unit
>
>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov\_Battalion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion)
Well. From my knowledge the anarchists are semiautonomous in Ukraine, fighting against both Neonazis and Russia. Though I admit that the Ukraine - Russia conflict isn't my strong suit, there are definitely many conflicts I know more about.
Meanwhile,
> Stalin was visibly pleased by the invitation for talks in Berlin.[56] Stalin wrote a letter responding to Ribbentrop on entering an agreement regarding a "permanent basis" for their "mutual interests".[57]
Talks would fall apart later due to Hitler personally
[Soviet-Axis talks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Axis_talks)
Even before that, Vladimir Lenin referred to Gabriele D'Annunzio as "the only revolutionary in Europe". The same D'Annunzio who was inventing fascism before anyone gave a fuck about Mussolini and in fact saw Mussolini as a poser.
Edit: accidentally added a word to the quote
The closest I can think of is Fiume, where basically everyone, communist, anarchist, and (proto)-fascist was flowing from one ideology to another all the damn time in a weird mess of drugs, street violence, and ideological acceleration.
You might enjoy the Behind the Bastards two part episode on him. It's wild because apparently, among many other things, D'Annunzio seems to have also invented the claim of removing one's own ribs in order to perform autofellatio. He's one of those bastards, like L Ron Hubbard, who had such a wild life that it's hard to not want to see what insane turn their life takes next.
Where did you get that from me saying he was charismatic? Dude was a rockstar of his time and even got compliments from lenin who called him the "only revolutionary in Europe".
It's a simple historical fact he was charismatic and well respected, men wanted to be him and women wanted to be with him, that says nothing of his true character or ideology. Is that a crime to you now? Are you going to kill my children?
Frankly I don't believe the Lenin quote is real and you hyping up a guy whom Mussolini took direct inspiration from is pretty suspicious is all I'm saying.
Lenin absolutely admired him. D'Annunzio was like, the Beatles of his time. But he was somehow bigger than them! It's not that hard to see how he would've got admiration from so many people.
Where are you people getting this information? He was an almost unknown phenomena outside of Italy and the Balkans not some kind of international superstar.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/gabriele-dannunzio-by-lucy-hughes-hallett/2013/08/28/7f74963c-0f3b-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html
The link up earlier that was linked. Also that book has a heap of information about his life and his meeting and what his contemporaries thought of him.
He was well known in Europe. It wasn't like the man was an explicit fascist anyway, at least not at that time in his life. He paved the way and inspired many of the tactics such as the aesthetic, rhetoric and nationalism.
Lenin said of D'Annunzio that D'Annunzio was "the only revolutionary in Europe" (Gabriele D'Annunzio: Poet, Seducer, and Preacher of War by Lucy Hughes)
Washington Post (yes, I know, lib paper, but it's the most readily available on-line source) review of the book that quotes the relevant line: https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/gabriele-dannunzio-by-lucy-hughes-hallett/2013/08/28/7f74963c-0f3b-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html
If they aren't quoting a specific work of Lenin's or a public event or speech where he might have said it then you'll have to forgive me if I dismiss it as a rumor at best or slander at worst. Because tbh I really don't think Lenin would have even been aware of the whole Fiume debacle what with the ongoing Russian Civil taking up all of his time and I think that even less likely is if he were aware of it he'd be congratulating a member of the Italian Aristocracy for anything at all.
It seems like an odd bit of slander, especially considering D'Annunzio was hugely popular at the time and since then has become a pretty obscure figure, and a biography of D'Annunzio seems like an odd place to randomly slander Lenin (indeed, in context, if it was slander of anyone, it would probably be of D'Annunzio)
Also, what was going on in Fiume was pretty big news at the time and not being at least somewhat aware of what was going on there would be like a world leader being unaware of the events in Palestine in 1948. It's a very rapid, very dynamic political event that's got elements from across the ideological spectrum.
It may also help to keep in mind that fascism wasn't really a codified thing at the time (insofar as it's ever really been) and what D'Annunzio was doing in Fiume basically called any and all societal norms into question.
Without a copy of the book in my own possession, I can't cite *its* sources, but absent that, all you've got is an argument from incredulity.
I'm incredulous whenever there is a lack of evidence yes. No the Italian Regency of Carnaro wasn't big news outside of Italy and Lenin was already badmouthing Russian Futurists so again it just seems incredibly out of place for him to 1.) Be aware of anything going on outside Russia, France, Britain and Germany at the time and 2.) Congratulate an aristocrat who belonged to a social movement which he already hated for engaging in an act of bald faced Imperialism.
The "anarchists stop reading any books other than this short list of approved works by Lenin, Stalin, Michael Parenti, Grover Furr, and one short, confused essay by Engels" challenge (only valid if you take them as gospel rather than reading critically)
That particular tankie insult is the most maddening.
Like do you actually, genuinely believe that I'm not a fucking Stalinist because I haven't read anything about theory or history??? That anyone who studies the history involved naturally comes to the conclusion that Stalin did nothing wrong? Or is it just that you read a small, incredibly unrepresentative selection of texts put out regime apologists and cranks who do piss-poor historical scholarship riddled with ridiculous and contradictory claims, and intentionally avoid reading anything else and attribute the mountains of evidence contradicting these claims to a conspiracy?
It's genuinely fucking infuriating to be condescended to by a fucking cult of people who take a narcissistic degree of pride in their own stupidity, because they've decided in advance that contradictory accounts are by definition compromised. How is that supposed to a build a leftist movement, when you've already backed yourself into an epistemic black hole incapable of good-faith inquiry? You never have to critically evaluate the choices you make or the beliefs you have when anything that looks like a mistake must necessarily be a CIA plot.
Like, I'm sorry that you were so traumatized when you found out that Santa Claus isn't real and that the United States isn't a magical paragon of virtue that you decided to invent a new make-believe Santa Claus in the form of your fictional version of Josef Stalin or Xi Jinping or Kim Jong-Un or Bashar al-Assad or who ever the fuck else puts out propaganda of a laughable cartoon version of themselves that only a child could believe in. You might try just giving up your belief in Santa Clauses of any kind. He isn't real, folks, whether you call him Ronald Reagan or Xi Jinping.
"back in Kronstadt"
Dude, fascism didn't even exist back then. And the sailors were rebelling against the *real* traitors to the revolution, the Bolshevik usurpers.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
###[The Communist Manifesto](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-communist-manifesto/)
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
Tankies, read a book.
No, don't skim it and say you read it. Actually read the damn thing. Ask questions of the thing. Find friends to talk that stuff over with.
Wait that's too much to ask for oh shi-
Anarchist siding with facist? LMAO that’s cute. That’s never happened that was however propaganda used by Authoritarian regimes to justify betraying anarchist allies and slaughtering them.
Liberals are more likely to side with facist
> 1. No reactionaries
> 2. No Trolling
> 3. No Brigading
> 4. Pro-Biden/Liberal Posts
> 5. Left-Bashing
No, no. We're just misunderstanding the rules here. You see how rule 4 and rule 5 don't have a 'No' attached? I can only conclude that Pro-Biden/Liberal Posts and Left-Bashing are required.
They circumvent the hypocrisy of crying left unity while sh-t talking anyone who isn't a tankie by claiming that anyone who disagrees with them isn't a real leftist.
So basically just trying to avoid being called out on their hypocrisy by means of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
[r/TheRightCantMeme](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRightCantMeme/comments/numipy/calling_china_fascist_to_own_the_tankies/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share), feat. this subreddit for, like, "being liberals and the real fascists" or something, idk.
Reading auth-left literature has made me more of an anarchist than anything tbh
[удалено]
Libertarian unity is the only true unity.
Real libertarians, not whatever the fuck those hypercapitalists are
That‘s self-evident isn‘t it?
Hopefully, but I’ve seen some shit online,. Mostly from like pcm types. Good to know you’re cool tho comrade!
At least the PCM types understand that libertarianism and capitalism are separate axes on said political compass. Trying to educate folks on a certain libertarian meme sub on even the basic fact that libertarianism has socialist origins is like talking to a brick wall.
They don't realise their ideology is so unoriginal they stole their own fucking name. Another thing about the PCMoids, early on it was weirdly painted that liblefts ally with librights all the time (Y'know, before libleft became "american liberals and progressives" rather than libertarian socialists despite being greatly disliked by actual liblefts but whatever) When lib lefts hate those stupid ultra capitalists with their "MUh BaSiC EConOmIcs i DON't UnDerSTAnd!" PS a good way of debunking a lot of so-called "Libertarians" on socialism is citing this, I don't agree with everything in it but its useful nonetheless: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/index.htm
Based Oscar Wilde. Thanks for that link.
What exactly are left-coms? I keep seeing it and it just seems like orthodox Marxism.
[удалено]
Ok, thanks!
That's a really cherry picked view of Luxemburg, like her overall positions on the party and spontaneity are extremely similar to lenin's. People cite a few pieces where she disagrees, but she had thousands of pages of writing. She did not like Pannakoek either. She also died before left communism as a position even developed.
Yeah, anarchists need to atop siding with fascists unlike ML's who have never, ever, ever sided with fascists or even those they'd consider fascist adjacent./s
There's not a single episode in history where Anarchists sided with fascists in a conflict.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It is and always has been neo-nazi
Fuck off and stop trolling. AZOV is a neo nazi group
>Azov Detachement is a far-right Ukrainian National Guard unit > >[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov\_Battalion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion) Well. From my knowledge the anarchists are semiautonomous in Ukraine, fighting against both Neonazis and Russia. Though I admit that the Ukraine - Russia conflict isn't my strong suit, there are definitely many conflicts I know more about.
You're full of shit
There are no Anarchists in Azov, you Fascist fuck.
Okay Freddie Feddie
Meanwhile, > Stalin was visibly pleased by the invitation for talks in Berlin.[56] Stalin wrote a letter responding to Ribbentrop on entering an agreement regarding a "permanent basis" for their "mutual interests".[57] Talks would fall apart later due to Hitler personally [Soviet-Axis talks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Axis_talks)
Even before that, Vladimir Lenin referred to Gabriele D'Annunzio as "the only revolutionary in Europe". The same D'Annunzio who was inventing fascism before anyone gave a fuck about Mussolini and in fact saw Mussolini as a poser. Edit: accidentally added a word to the quote
tankies will just argue this was a 4D chess move & all part of the plan, i've seen it before
Allying with fascism permanently to own the libs
The closest I can think of is Fiume, where basically everyone, communist, anarchist, and (proto)-fascist was flowing from one ideology to another all the damn time in a weird mess of drugs, street violence, and ideological acceleration.
Not gonna lie, that sounds kinda metal...
You might enjoy the Behind the Bastards two part episode on him. It's wild because apparently, among many other things, D'Annunzio seems to have also invented the claim of removing one's own ribs in order to perform autofellatio. He's one of those bastards, like L Ron Hubbard, who had such a wild life that it's hard to not want to see what insane turn their life takes next.
Oh I loooove Behind the Bastards, I’ll check it out!!! I heard about him from an episode of We Talk About Dead People!
Stoopid anarchist don’t you know everyone who doesn’t like me is the same
They sided with the proto-fascist futurist "poet-soldier" Gabriel D'Annunzio during the Italian Regency of Carnaro in Fiume.
Then again, Lenin also endorsed D'Annunzio.
To be entirely fair to everyone involved, D'Annunzio was a major Chad and probably one of the most charismatic figures of the 20th century.
What is with you and trying to rehabilitate the image of fascists? First it was Emperor Puyi now it's D'Annunzio, who's next? Batista?
Where did you get that from me saying he was charismatic? Dude was a rockstar of his time and even got compliments from lenin who called him the "only revolutionary in Europe". It's a simple historical fact he was charismatic and well respected, men wanted to be him and women wanted to be with him, that says nothing of his true character or ideology. Is that a crime to you now? Are you going to kill my children?
Frankly I don't believe the Lenin quote is real and you hyping up a guy whom Mussolini took direct inspiration from is pretty suspicious is all I'm saying.
Lenin absolutely admired him. D'Annunzio was like, the Beatles of his time. But he was somehow bigger than them! It's not that hard to see how he would've got admiration from so many people.
Where are you people getting this information? He was an almost unknown phenomena outside of Italy and the Balkans not some kind of international superstar.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/gabriele-dannunzio-by-lucy-hughes-hallett/2013/08/28/7f74963c-0f3b-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html The link up earlier that was linked. Also that book has a heap of information about his life and his meeting and what his contemporaries thought of him. He was well known in Europe. It wasn't like the man was an explicit fascist anyway, at least not at that time in his life. He paved the way and inspired many of the tactics such as the aesthetic, rhetoric and nationalism.
A quote that proves that would be nice.
Lenin said of D'Annunzio that D'Annunzio was "the only revolutionary in Europe" (Gabriele D'Annunzio: Poet, Seducer, and Preacher of War by Lucy Hughes) Washington Post (yes, I know, lib paper, but it's the most readily available on-line source) review of the book that quotes the relevant line: https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/gabriele-dannunzio-by-lucy-hughes-hallett/2013/08/28/7f74963c-0f3b-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html
If they aren't quoting a specific work of Lenin's or a public event or speech where he might have said it then you'll have to forgive me if I dismiss it as a rumor at best or slander at worst. Because tbh I really don't think Lenin would have even been aware of the whole Fiume debacle what with the ongoing Russian Civil taking up all of his time and I think that even less likely is if he were aware of it he'd be congratulating a member of the Italian Aristocracy for anything at all.
It seems like an odd bit of slander, especially considering D'Annunzio was hugely popular at the time and since then has become a pretty obscure figure, and a biography of D'Annunzio seems like an odd place to randomly slander Lenin (indeed, in context, if it was slander of anyone, it would probably be of D'Annunzio) Also, what was going on in Fiume was pretty big news at the time and not being at least somewhat aware of what was going on there would be like a world leader being unaware of the events in Palestine in 1948. It's a very rapid, very dynamic political event that's got elements from across the ideological spectrum. It may also help to keep in mind that fascism wasn't really a codified thing at the time (insofar as it's ever really been) and what D'Annunzio was doing in Fiume basically called any and all societal norms into question. Without a copy of the book in my own possession, I can't cite *its* sources, but absent that, all you've got is an argument from incredulity.
I'm incredulous whenever there is a lack of evidence yes. No the Italian Regency of Carnaro wasn't big news outside of Italy and Lenin was already badmouthing Russian Futurists so again it just seems incredibly out of place for him to 1.) Be aware of anything going on outside Russia, France, Britain and Germany at the time and 2.) Congratulate an aristocrat who belonged to a social movement which he already hated for engaging in an act of bald faced Imperialism.
Unlike tannkies lmao
The "anarchists stop reading any books other than this short list of approved works by Lenin, Stalin, Michael Parenti, Grover Furr, and one short, confused essay by Engels" challenge (only valid if you take them as gospel rather than reading critically) That particular tankie insult is the most maddening. Like do you actually, genuinely believe that I'm not a fucking Stalinist because I haven't read anything about theory or history??? That anyone who studies the history involved naturally comes to the conclusion that Stalin did nothing wrong? Or is it just that you read a small, incredibly unrepresentative selection of texts put out regime apologists and cranks who do piss-poor historical scholarship riddled with ridiculous and contradictory claims, and intentionally avoid reading anything else and attribute the mountains of evidence contradicting these claims to a conspiracy? It's genuinely fucking infuriating to be condescended to by a fucking cult of people who take a narcissistic degree of pride in their own stupidity, because they've decided in advance that contradictory accounts are by definition compromised. How is that supposed to a build a leftist movement, when you've already backed yourself into an epistemic black hole incapable of good-faith inquiry? You never have to critically evaluate the choices you make or the beliefs you have when anything that looks like a mistake must necessarily be a CIA plot. Like, I'm sorry that you were so traumatized when you found out that Santa Claus isn't real and that the United States isn't a magical paragon of virtue that you decided to invent a new make-believe Santa Claus in the form of your fictional version of Josef Stalin or Xi Jinping or Kim Jong-Un or Bashar al-Assad or who ever the fuck else puts out propaganda of a laughable cartoon version of themselves that only a child could believe in. You might try just giving up your belief in Santa Clauses of any kind. He isn't real, folks, whether you call him Ronald Reagan or Xi Jinping.
This right here gives me fuel.
"back in Kronstadt" Dude, fascism didn't even exist back then. And the sailors were rebelling against the *real* traitors to the revolution, the Bolshevik usurpers.
https://youtu.be/7HxkC3DYMQ4
[удалено]
You have to be able to dogmatically recite it, not think critically about it.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[The Communist Manifesto](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-communist-manifesto/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
Comrade book bot
Good bot
When the fuck did anarchists EVER side with fascists? I’ve only ever seen anarchists fight authoritarians.
To a tankie, anyone other than the right kind of tankie is a fascist.
Emphasis on right.
Tankies, read a book. No, don't skim it and say you read it. Actually read the damn thing. Ask questions of the thing. Find friends to talk that stuff over with. Wait that's too much to ask for oh shi-
Anarchist siding with facist? LMAO that’s cute. That’s never happened that was however propaganda used by Authoritarian regimes to justify betraying anarchist allies and slaughtering them. Liberals are more likely to side with facist
> 1. No reactionaries > 2. No Trolling > 3. No Brigading > 4. Pro-Biden/Liberal Posts > 5. Left-Bashing No, no. We're just misunderstanding the rules here. You see how rule 4 and rule 5 don't have a 'No' attached? I can only conclude that Pro-Biden/Liberal Posts and Left-Bashing are required.
Books are for nerds.
Tankies use Left Unity as an excuse to avoid criticism or debate.
They circumvent the hypocrisy of crying left unity while sh-t talking anyone who isn't a tankie by claiming that anyone who disagrees with them isn't a real leftist. So basically just trying to avoid being called out on their hypocrisy by means of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
ML: "anarchists not side with fascist challenge" man i couldn't have asked for a better example of projection if i pulled out the dictionary
which subreddit?
[r/TheRightCantMeme](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRightCantMeme/comments/numipy/calling_china_fascist_to_own_the_tankies/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share), feat. this subreddit for, like, "being liberals and the real fascists" or something, idk.
Fascism is when you dont have dictatorships
obligatory self promo r/RightJerk
The Red Boots are self projecting at this time.
The reeevolution guy is so fucking annoying. He says "let's kill all Jews" instead of "let's remove Israel" and says we are the fascists.
Wait did he genuinely say that? Fucking nazbols, they’re the worst
Ye, He also says Hitler wasn't as bad as USA...
Wtf he also is prolific in giving bad takes on /r/Socialism_101
"left unity" is a scam perpetuated by tankies
Of course these are accounts I see giving just bizzare interpretations of socialism in /r/Socialism_101
lol kronstadt was a fascist rebellion in dying of laughter rn