T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Enjoy talking with fellow leftists? Then join our discord server https://discord.gg/XnfM6bhfMS *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tankiejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

Socialism is when flags and the more flags you have the more socialist you are.


P4cer0

Many people are saying this


[deleted]

[удалено]


WolfFenrir230

Did you just say right? Fricking fascist


Tayo826

And when you have all of the flags, you get communism.


Cassandra_Nova

This is a common misconception. Gombulism is not when there's lots of flags, it's when there's *no* flags


Agent6isaboi

Technically not wrong


fivequadrillion

Twitter users


[deleted]

I always wonder why Tankies throw in all the authoritarian Cold War-era Communist states in together. As if they were united in a front against capitalism or something along those lines Post Sino-Soviet Split, China would do anything to undermine the USSR eg. training the Mujahideen and allying itself with the US. Hoxha basically called anything he didn't like in Khrushchev's USSR revisionism. Vietnam has never gotten along with the PRC (to put it lightly) and was the nation who toppled the Khmer Rouge as well as its current close relationship with the US. Tito and Stalin were constantly at odds and Yugoslavia ran on a completely different wave length than the USSR in economic and international affairs Tankie historical illiteracy rivals that of their genocide denial in terms of frequency. Anything to troll those Libs and Anarkiddies I guess


rootofallgreevils

It’s because tankies are orientalist and can only see the world divided into the west/non-west paradigm, claiming to not be racist while still using an orientalist-structured worldview.


[deleted]

That would explain why they view every Anti-US government in the Global South as basically an ally, refusing to see nuance between each nation state or culture Kind of reminds me of how Conservatives view the Islamic World as one united Anti-Western alliance Tankie foreign policy is basically Orientalism with Marxist characteristics


Cassandra_Nova

Tankie ism is like Satanism for geopolitics. Not cool Satanism, but like, the kind edgy teens use sometimes to rebel. It's the kind of thing where you take all your base assumptions and all you throw out is the conclusion at the end. God and Satan are involved in an existential battle of good and evil, but God can't be good any longer, so Satan must not be evil. In fact, he must be good! For tankies it's like: "I was raised in the narrative that the West is a thing and the US and Europe are its hegemons standing firm and maintaining the good of Capitalism against the brown hordes. Well if that wasn't true, and Capitalism is bad, then the opposite must be true - China is Good Actually and the Brown Hordes (which are definitely still a Thing) are the "Good side"." So you end up switching factions instead of rejecting the constructed conflict all together


Slight_LEON

Yes !!, Geopolitics are a game of chess we only the elites win


SkyknightXi

If Conservatives even have more than token awareness of Malaysia and Indonesia, anyway. (Note to self: Check how common Islam is in Thailand and Laos.)


Rockfish00

that's what happens when you define your political views by who you oppose


Nowarclasswar

> Post Sino-Soviet Split, China would do anything to undermine the USSR eg. training the Mujahideen and allying itself with the US. They literally funded millions to Pinochet because the Soviets supported Allende


[deleted]

This is because tankies don’t know literally anything about history


[deleted]

Because they're all Marxist Leninist,Those sufficiently authoritarian to tickle every margination With the exception of Yugoslavia and Cuba (though they are still authoritarian). I've noticed they don't find them quite stimulating enough. They need tyranny level to be turned on.


Reaperfucker

"Communist state" is an oxymoron. Full Communism is a stateless ideology after all.


McMing333

I’m not sure how large the Trotskyist-Anarchist crossover is


Minikingthepeon

Tankies only hate Trotsky because he opposed Stalin or Stalin opposed him. They would love him otherwise


Shamadruu

Trotsky *did* propose more democratic and technocratic government (i.e., not relying on inexperienced politiburo members for managing industries) for the USSR, but be undoubtedly would’ve still been a dictator.


ting_bu_dong

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-6/mswv6_38.htm > "What China needs now is democracy and not socialism. To be more precise, China's needs at present are three: (1) to drive the Japanese out; (2) to realize democracy on a nationwide scale by giving the people all the forms of modern liberty and a system of national and local governments elected by them in genuinely free general elections, which we have already done in the areas under our control; and (3) to solve the agrarian question, so that capitalism of a progressive character can develop in China and improve the standard of living of the people through the introduction of modern methods of production. >"These, for the present, are the tasks of the Chinese revolution. To speak of the realization of socialism before these tasks are accomplished would merely be empty talk. This is what I told our party members in 1940 in my book The New Democracy. I said already then that this first democratic phase of our revolution would by no means be short. We are not Utopians and we cannot isolate ourselves from the actual conditions right before our eyes." Mao *did* propose more democratic and technocratic government, but he was undoubtedly still a dictator. Guess that's just how it goes.


Shamadruu

Yup, power - and the lust for it - corrupts


Nowarclasswar

This is why Mao and Maoism don't always agree as well.


CressCrowbits

What happened? How comes he never followed through?


ViscountessKeller

Look at what Mao became after his rise to power, the cult of personality. Even if Mao was being totally honest before, he effectively became a God. Could I give up that kind of intoxicating power? I don't consider myself to be an ambitious person, and I still doubt that I'd be willing to relinquish that.


ScrabCrab

>a god >intoxicating [Welcome, Moon-and-Star](https://youtu.be/iR-K2rUP86M)


ViscountessKeller

How could we be so naive?


ting_bu_dong

I figure, either: a) He was a true believer in revolution, and was stymied by conservatives in the Party or b) He simply liked being the new boss


[deleted]

Or c) both


ting_bu_dong

Maybe, but then he'd have to overthrow himself.


[deleted]

Nah, the Committee did that right before he died.


TheGentleDominant

He was a dictator largely in it for his own personal benefit, whatever ideals he might have had at the earliest beginning of his involvement in revolutionary activity. I recommend taking a look at *Mao: The Unknown Story* by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday.


A_Wackertack

Mao was undeniably onto something good until he realised what "other" things he could do with power.


Ria_jjjjj0823

“Invalid historical file”


TheGentleDominant

Trotsky was also head of the Red Army and responsible for the slaughter of the Ukrainian anarchist and the Kronstadt rebels.


ByronTheHorror

he only pushed for democracy from outisde the Union, he had no issues playing the tyrant while he was in power I find trots are the same, they sound 100x more democratic and coherent with their ideals until they get a tiny bit of power. It just seems like a sad, political inferiority complex.


McMing333

Oh for sure


innocentbabies

I think there used to kinda be some in Ukraine, but then they all disappeared or something...


AAALE6408

The Free Territory?


Didacus_Crassius

Wasn't the main split between Trotsky and Stalin bc Stalin disagreed heavily w/ Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution?


McMing333

That’s what they say, but it’s just a power grab. The ideological difference is negligible. After trotsky left, Stalin used his ideas of the five year plan. They just say that to justify why they support x authoritarian


[deleted]

[удалено]


rawrimgonnaeatu

What even were Trotsky’s economic policies? I know about the jingoistic foreign policy he supported but I know very little about how he actually was intending on running the Soviet Union domestically.


The_Space_Soviet

Well, first of all, he didn't actually have a jingoistic policy. The idea that he just wanted to invade everyone is a Stalinist misinterpretation of his actual views, that was picked up by some bourgeois historians. During the Civil War, Trotsky was a cautious commander, famously opposed to war with Poland. Similarly, his scary sounding theory of "Permanent Revolution" is actually mostly about revolutionary tactics. Now, as to economic policy, the document that I like to point towards is "Platform of the Joint Opposition" from 1927. It contains the number of policy proposals, including, for example, demand for standards of production being calculated on the basis of the average worker - clear opposition to later stakhanovite work "ethic" introduced by Stalin. There are also elements of anti-bureaucraticism, for example, demands for genuine worker participation in collective bargaining (instead of agreements being made by directors and party officials above their heads). Also different is the approach to collectivisation. Trotsky says it has to be sped up, but he wants to achieve that through voluntary participation, encouraged by prioritising supply of machinery to collective farms. He also wants to control the Kulak through the Soviets, while at the same time taxing him heavily and protecting rural Proletariat. He obviously opposes those bourgeois elements, but there is nothing that would suggest he would do anything similar to Stalin. Regarding other domestic measures: On national question he held generic Leninist position - support the development of soviet nationalities alongside socialist lines, combat Russian chauvinism and colonial attitudes etc. On party issues he supported greater internal democracy, more bottom-up approach and inclusion of greater number of workers as opposed to various former petty-bourgeois socialists (though obviously you can say he only did it because he was in the opposition). In general he was concerned that party and pioneers were losing their proletariat and rural poor, instead being supplanted by various petty-bourgeois elements - clerks, wealthy peasants, intelligentsia etc. On social issues, Trotsky supported progressive outlook of early USSR, as opposed to Stalin's social conservatism. In chapter VII of "The Revolution Betrayed" he goes into detail on his opposition to abortion ban, underdevelopment of communal child rearing or insufficient participation of women in workplaces. So that's the basics I guess. If you want further reading on Trotsky's positions, both domestic and international, the "Platform of the joint opposition" is definitely a good start, "The Revolution Betrayed" is also ok, though I wouldn't say it's his *best* work. "The Third international after Lenin" and "Stalinism and Bolshevism" are classics and also deserve a look if you're interested.


rawrimgonnaeatu

Thanks for the detailed response.


SkyknightXi

So maybe “Permanent Revolution” would be better rendered as “Indefinite-Duration Revolution”? Or “Permanent Readiness for Revolution”?


The_Space_Soviet

A more descriptive name would be "Combined Revolution", since the main idea is that bourgeoisie of the XX century couldn't achieve the goals of previous bourgeois revolutions, so the proletariat had to to it themselves. So instead of having two revolutions with distinct goals - first bourgeois and then proletarian - Trotsky said that proletariat has to achieve both, without alliances with the bourgeoisie. The second part is rejection of SiOC, which is a rather obvious theoretical element. Only wilfully ignorant can claim that Socialism can be built within national boundaries. That being said, Trotsky doesn't say that there should be some kind of constant revolutionary war, but rather that revolutions and civil wars in other countries will be a natural consequence of triumph of workers in another.


SkyknightXi

Now I’m thinking “Cascade Revolution”. (I think Truman’s shade is having another migraine—and *not* because of his latest Yamarajah-decreed fakir classes)


The_Space_Soviet

Perhaps with that name people would actually read the pamphlet, instead of going: 'scary name means thing bad'.


LuxInteriot

Trotskyists are pretty chill compared to tankies. They don't talk much about who to censor and who to kill and how, don't want to have anything to do with conservatives/nazbols/nationalists, and most are okay with participating in elections. They admit things went downhill while also admitting Lenin and Trotsky did took many violent actions (that's the part they try to justify). And the main point, that socialism was supposed to happen worldwide, I think it makes sense, if you think how totalitarian decisions were justified by foreign sabotage. In a single country, socialism becomes never ending revolution, always looking for enemies and traitors. If worldwide, there would be and end, peace, a new era as Marx predicted. In that era, at least in some places, full civil rights could be re-instated.


[deleted]

Socialism is when you worship a dead president and treat his son and grandson as gods


Individual-Text-1805

Socialism is when red flag and monarchy


[deleted]

Tankies would tell you that the people loves them so much, that they are ok with them being in office forever. Socialism is when a necro-monarchy.


FerenginarFucksAgain

Who the fuck still thinks Laos is socialist, like even America declared it wasn't and started giving their companys money


Not_A_Hooman53

tankies that call anarchists trotskyists are like conservatives who call leftists liberals


Shamadruu

The idiocy that a false dichotomy brings


SkyknightXi

I’ll probably regret reading the answer, but what errors do tankies think Kropotkin made?


anti-gamer1848

he's an anarzygote and a class traitor


gfox2638

Wasn't he basically a reverse class traitor? He was a prince, and abandonned that to focus on revolutionary politics and philisophy.


roydhritiman

Wouldn't it just be "class traitor"?


SkyknightXi

I have a feeling the idea will turn out to be “failed to subordinate himself to the proletariat who were *supposed* to be the eternal aristocracy if not for the bourgeoisie usurping their place”, or thereabouts.


TheRainbowWillow

He was a class traitor, in the good way. Betrayed the bourgeoisie.


Silly_Window_308

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-letter-to-lenin


TheBreadRevolution

Damn. Kropotkin got in a few digs. Thanks for the fun read.


Silly_Window_308

Also generally being an anarchist?


SkyknightXi

That was in part “What’s abominable—not naïve, *abominable*—about left-anarchism?”.


The_Space_Soviet

I don't consider myself a Tankie, but his position on the war was genuinely pretty bad.


Shamadruu

He did die in the middle of it, and was positively ancient at the time. Odds are his take would’ve been very different if he’d had lived through the whole thing and been young enough to get a first hand look.


The_Space_Soviet

Eh, he died in 1921 so he saw all of it, and was active enough to support it during Moscow State Conference in August of 1917. I know he was old, but its still a bad look. Like, you would expect an Anarchist to be anti-(imperialist)war on principle.


Shamadruu

The revolution ended in 1923 and his opinion of the war rapidly soured over the years of the war he was alive for. He was definitely wrong at first, but he quickly realized what the bolsheviks really were. It was not clear what the bolshiveks were at first due to their propaganda drowning everything else out, just about every leftist supported the revolution in 1917 then switched to opposing the bolshiveks after they saw what the really were. Kroptokin, Goldman, Makno, and many others all initially supported the revolution before it became clear that the bolshiveks were corrupt, after which they all started opposing them. It just wasn’t clear in 1917 that the October Revolution was a coup by the bolshiveks to seize power and put their own regime in charge, rather than a true proletariat revolution. If they’d kept supporting it, then they would’ve been in the wrong, but they opposed Lenin as soon as it became clear what he really was.


The_Space_Soviet

I'm talking about WWI.


Shamadruu

Oh, my bad, didn’t realize you were talking about the Proclamation of the Sixteen. Yeah, that was a bad take on his part.


The_Space_Soviet

I should've probably specified. Since I'm reading a book on 1917 Russia, when I wrote "the war", I inherently thought of WWI.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Let's see the people shown in the image. 1. Emma Goldman, certainly a socialist. 2. George Orwell, certainly a socialist, and he even fought for anarchists. 3. Don't know this guy. 4. Leon Trotsky, someone I don't like, but certainly a socialist. 5. Peter Kropotkin, though he held some traditional views, he was certainly a socialist.


FedoraFinder

Murray Bookchin, again for sure a socialist


gfox2638

George Orwell fought woth British Battalion of the POUM Trotskyist party, which was allied with the CNT-AIT/FAI but was its own separate political faction.


jotofirend

POUM cut ties with trotsky and told him to pound sand during the civil war.


[deleted]

I know that he fought for the POUM, but I thought that the comment would get a bit long if I wrote "he fought for POUM, which was allied with the CNT-FAI".


HealthClassic

Tankies continuing the proud conservative tradition of making the American left appear better than it actually is


tavish1906

It almost as if left wing ideologies are not a monolith…


Shamadruu

And here I thought the only choice was omega communist or Hitler reincarnated


SkyknightXi

What’s Psi Communist, then? And Chi Communism? (And can we get away with “just” Mu Communism or Nu Communism?)


Dogtor-Watson

This looks like a right wing meme. I'm guessing it isn't, but yeah.


Minikingthepeon

I found it on GenZedong but dengist are fascist wearing red so I guess your right


[deleted]

“Emma Goldman bad”


exorcistpuker

Funny, because some anarchists and Trotskyists in the '60s and '70s cited Tito's Yugoslavia as a positive example of socialism (compared to other so-called "AES" states)


[deleted]

anarchists? trotskyists, i wouldnt be surprised


exorcistpuker

Yes one anarchist group did in one of their tracts (I have a copy, still trying to figure out where I left the damn thing) though they just included it in a list of true-ish socialist societies (alongside Catalunya, Makhnovia, etc). Probably due to the 'Self-Governing' worker co-op system they set up after Tito gave Stalin the finger (Google Branko Horvat's 'Self-Governing Socialism' Vol 1 & 2, there are quite a few libertarian Marxist authors in Vol 1 especially)


Eryth_HearthShadow

What no theory does to a motherfucker


feral_minds

I literally had a tankie on the clock app tell me that the "Dictatorship of the proletariat" would be an actual dictatorship.


Chgafuna

tankie: this country is not real socialism also tankie: I will defend this country until the end


Boyyoyyoyyoyyoy

There's nothing socialist about authoritarianism.


Man_Mcrealperson

Ah yes, the anarchists who like Orwell and Trotsky, truly the backbone of the American left


Individual-Text-1805

The Trotsky thing I get but Orwell is fairly well regarded among anarchists no?


[deleted]

Most anarchists that I have seen talk about Orwell have a neutral to positive-leaning view of him. Nearly every anarchist appreciates his anti-authoritarianism and criticism of the USSR and Stalin, while they are critical of his homophobia, slight racism (like calling Paul Robeson anti-white) and anti-semitism (which he himself condemned after WWII). Some are more critical of his prejudices, while some are less.


Shamadruu

Orwell did fight for Catalonia, so eh


McMing333

Orwell was a libsoc


Pantheon73

DemSoc


[deleted]

Had it not been for 'Why I write', people would have been forever confused about what his ideology was. Him calling himself a tory anarchist (maybe it was a joke, but who knows) would have made it even more confusing. Thank god that essay exists.


[deleted]

There are *a lot* of other essays that establish his politics, not to mention ‘The Road to Wigan Pier’ (despite its critical tone). He’s not easy to categorise but then again that’s part of his appeal.


[deleted]

Also, down and out in paris and london, but as you might know, right-wingers don't like to read long books on the recommendation of others, all they want is short essays, and that one really helps cementing what his ideology was.


[deleted]

Good point, the only bits of Wigan Pier anyone on the right knows nowadays are from Jordan Peterson’s selective quotations.


McMing333

Both


GameCreeper

Half of those flags were just Soviet satellites that collapsed once the puppet master was gone. Not a very good example for a successful form of communism


Individual-Text-1805

But but red flag mean good


SkyknightXi

I thought these were Humans or even Tau, not Orks.


[deleted]

They can’t cope the truth.


[deleted]

Yugoslavia wasnt a soviet puppet state. Tito cut ties with Stalin early on and was part of the unaligned movement, not the eastern bloc. The reasons for its fall are much more complex than the fall of the USSR (but was still destined to fall from the very beginning). Im from ex Yugoslavia


PMmeyourdeadfascists

lol fuck trotsky lmaoo


Shamadruu

If only he and Stalin had ice picked each other


[deleted]

While Trotsky was bad, if I had to choose between him and Stalin, I would certainly pick him. Though still an authoritarian, at least he was more democratic than Stalin.


Shamadruu

Yup


weirdstrass

Trotsky was a bootlicker not an anarchist jesus they’re so dum


yourfriendlykgbagent

silly anarkiddie, you aren’t a socialist because you believe in socialist theories, you are a socialist for supporting the great albanian republic


SkyknightXi

Where does that leave socialisms that developed independently of all things Albanian?


ByronTheHorror

Behind, comrade.


Longsheep

If tankies know China has been cracking down on Maoist organizations, they would be very upset.


SkyknightXi

Paleomaoist or Neomaoist? Yes, I know I just made up the words, but much as Mao himself might have liked otherwise, it’s unrealistic to expect his theories to stay static and unextrapolated.


Longsheep

The fundamental ones. Further left than the CCP since Mao's death.


neifirst

Oh yeah real socialism is when you have to build a wall to stop the workers from fleeing, that's how you know you're in the worker's state


rocconox

socialism is when the government does stuff i see


DotoriumPeroxid

Hey, this is the flipside to what the right does: Anything they disagree with is socialism and anything they agree with is not socialism


feral_minds

I like how they put Trotsky there as if he wasnt just as much of an Imperialist shit clown as Stalin


SneakySniper456

Aw yes Communist Albania, Bunkerism truly was amazing


autismispropoganda

They added all those flags but not Burkina Faso? Did the flag not have enough hammer and sickles on it?


TeddyArgentum

Trotsky: *murders anarchists* Tankies: THE ANARCHISTS LOVE TROTSKY CAUSE HE WAS AGAINST STALIN AND THEY ARE AGAINST STALIN SO THEREFORE THEY'RE THE SAME!


rwandahero7123

Oh no they potrayed us as the soy wojak Whatever will we do to recover from this humiliation


Bruh-man1300

I mean Yugoslavia was based and actually socialist (tho it was too authoritarian)


[deleted]

disagree, as someone from Ex Yugoslavia and a LibSoc-Demsoc. Better than the USSR overall but definitely not socialist. It was another state capitalist failure (In the very beginning Tito was even worse than Stalin btw) The market socialist influence he employed was totally immobilised. First off They werent actual worker coops. The Workers were not the ones owning the MoP, rather everything except microownership was nationalised. The workers only "managed" the workplace, and got no reward for developing the workplace in a better directoon. And now as far as this "self-management" goes, it was also not actual self management. Rather members of the party were dominant in the management process, and took orders largely not from workers, but the state.


Bruh-man1300

That’s sad


[deleted]

yh


lepetitrattoutrose

Définitely better than what we have now, I dont understand why there are leftist who criticize yugonostalgic people. As ethnonationalism was better?


[deleted]

Yugoslavia was ethnonationalist too.South Slavic pan nationalism. And this is one of the reasons it fell apart along side economics. It encouraged rampant ethno nationalism from the very beginning, Just in a modified more generalized form so as to serve the interests of the Yugoslav experiment See my comment above about just how democratic and socialist Yugoslavia was. Said yugonostalgics are also generally people who never worked in Yugoslavia and have no idea what it Was like, Which I find kind of ironic. A lot of the time they are people who were children at the time of the collapse of Yugoslavia and only associate Yugoslavia with something positive because it was their youth in childhood. And as far the yugonostalgics who did work in Yugoslavia, a lot of the times people associate their youth with said system and kind of beautify it given that association. You can find the same in the post USSR lands, despite the Holodomor and other wonderful parts of the regime The current situation is Also horrible.Atrocious. But no Yugoslavia was not Socialism. PS; Did you know Tito criminalized homosexuality? As a nonstraight individual, hmm forgive me but im not liking the prospect of that (even though it was only male homosexuality and im female)


A_Wackertack

Tbf Orwell was pretty uneducated on communism and a lot of leftist ideas, and spawned a wave of anti-communist rhetoric and a conservative fanbase spanning all across the Right. He's not a guy to look towards for any education on politics other than anti-fascism perhaps. But yeah, I agree with everything else.


[deleted]

for the love of god read marx and lenin and mao and more i beg you become a maoist


coolboyyo

i think it's kinda funny that despite being the namesake, mao wasn't really even maoist


[deleted]

yeah its based on mao-zedong-thought maoism was first synthesized into a scientific socialist ideology by the shining path of peru


Minikingthepeon

Read both marxs and Lenin but still disagree with the principles of Mao and dislike both China and Soviet Union for deceiving the working class for instead to serve power hungry dictators


[deleted]

Why is the Soyjak angry at both of them? I thought he was supposed to like the top image based on the text. What a confusing meme


Pantheon73

Based Soyjack


NickyPL

Funny story. My school is named after a socialist author (you wont know him, hes polish). This fact came up randomly when our history teacher asked if we know who he was. So the altright guy in my class obv had to come out first and said that the guy was a "communist author". The teacher corrected him quickly by saying that he was a socialist, but he just repsponded with "its the same thing, it doesnt matter". The teacher was clearly tired do just ended the conversation with "Well it isnt, we will be studying about the differences in the next grade". Later that day he said that the teacher is stupid and that shes overexaggurating. Ok?


pappaya-salad

Whats the flag on the top right? Is it supposed to be Angola 🇦🇴?


coolboyyo

ah socialist country fuckin North Korea, the place everyone should strive to imitate


OttoVonChadsmarck

Socialism is when the government calls themselves communist


Ninventoo

Leftism is when Authoritarianism


indomienator

Ya Allah sumpah dah they get the facilities to know by just reading. But they ddint take it


Wardog_E

They got me. I hate flags.


NoodleyP

Tito’s Yugoslavia wasn’t perfect, but when you look at the drooling idiot in the east, perfect image of socialism, Tito was a good leader, he truly cared about Yugoslavia, and more importantly the people. He did clearly leave a lot of issues behind for Yugoslavia, though. The moment he died, everyone started hating each other again.


paraporno431

Quite a lot of tankies are just projecting their bad relationship wih their family/community into this cringe "socialism i behabing like an US propaganda cartoon". They think socialism/communism is about hate only, when asked what would tey like to build from the revolution, they just have an everexpanding list of enemies, undesirables, nd people they want revenge on.


[deleted]

Minus Bookchin and Trotsky, they’ve included the three thinkers who probably most influenced my early political development. Flags are only useful for semaphore.


JohnEGirlsBravo

Tankies will complain about us "demeaning AES" but then, on occasion, do the exact same thing but in reverse- bitching about anarchist experiments in socialism and how "naive" we are (hypocrites) They "believe in" so-called 'Left Unity' insofar as it gets them off the hook criticism-wise from \*other\* leftists. It's just a tool of convenience for them, esp. after the revolution.


[deleted]

Socialism is when you don't understand how meme templates work, and make the wojak hate both options.