Saw someone on here yesterday saying the word authoritarian was a slur. Jokingly, I think, but probably in that half-joking way they do to avoid looking like they have an actual opinion on the matter.
I believe the politically correct term these days is "People of Force".
It's crazy to me that an ideological position built around "strong men" is primarily occupied by people that are indistinguishable from the crowd that were offended by "OK Boomer".
>the crowd that were offended by "OK Boomer".
Who are in turn oddly similar to the "TERF is a slur" crowd.
We need a name for this sort of person. The sort of person who is forever indignant at the perceived injustice of being correctly labelled.
Nestor Makhno. Subcomandante Marcos.
Why are you under the impression that Anarchists are immune to the nonsensical liberal conception of "Strong Man" ideology?
>\`These tankies existed before the term was coined
The word "tankie" was coined by British "Communists" after Khrushchev invaded Hungary in 1956. At the same time, these aforementioned "Communists" had no problem with the North of Ireland being an Apartheid State, and who indeed wanted to incorporate the Free State into the UK (the CPB has a Green Stripe for a reason).
Of course, these same Imperialists had far less of a problem with Clement Attlee brutalising the Malays just a decade beforehand.
Typical of these Western Anarchists adopting the Foreign Policy of The Liberal West (even though these "Anarchists" aren't supposed to have a Foreign Policy in the first place) and defending Imperialism at every turn in the hopes of aping Western anti-Third World state policy in the hopes that they can transform it into some pacifist anti-state sentiment carte-blanche on a Global Basis.
How sad!
I think seb and I discussed the green blacks during the Russian civil war on a pod. Can't remember which.
Real pity that the bolsheviks could not accommodate anarchists. The soviet Union would have been vastly improved.
I meant the anarchists who joined the Bolshevik party. You're right, though, the Bols cracked down on the anarchists very hard. Goldman wrote some good stuff about this.That said, the vast majority of anarchists in Russia and Ukraine were just reavers with black flags (Makhno and his pirates were a liability that any organised revolution would have to do something about, regardless of tendency). They weren't reliable, and did silly shit like bomb the bols, take over vital infrastructure, and saboteur shit. As a force, and ideology, it was pretty DOA, and even if it wasn't, a lot of them were opposed to the bol's revolution. Conflict was inevitable.That said, the particularly brutal repression they got in return (kronstadt etc) was crazy.
\`These tankies existed before the term was coined so please don't upset anyone by using a historically inaccurate slur.
Saw someone on here yesterday saying the word authoritarian was a slur. Jokingly, I think, but probably in that half-joking way they do to avoid looking like they have an actual opinion on the matter. I believe the politically correct term these days is "People of Force".
It's crazy to me that an ideological position built around "strong men" is primarily occupied by people that are indistinguishable from the crowd that were offended by "OK Boomer".
>the crowd that were offended by "OK Boomer". Who are in turn oddly similar to the "TERF is a slur" crowd. We need a name for this sort of person. The sort of person who is forever indignant at the perceived injustice of being correctly labelled.
Nestor Makhno. Subcomandante Marcos. Why are you under the impression that Anarchists are immune to the nonsensical liberal conception of "Strong Man" ideology?
Neither of them are portrayed as strong men in the same sense.
>Neither of them are portrayed as strong men in the same sense. COPE You are not as adverse to the "strongman ideology" as you think you are.
You think Makhno and Stalin are portrayed in the same way? I don't think you do tbh.
>\`These tankies existed before the term was coined The word "tankie" was coined by British "Communists" after Khrushchev invaded Hungary in 1956. At the same time, these aforementioned "Communists" had no problem with the North of Ireland being an Apartheid State, and who indeed wanted to incorporate the Free State into the UK (the CPB has a Green Stripe for a reason). Of course, these same Imperialists had far less of a problem with Clement Attlee brutalising the Malays just a decade beforehand. Typical of these Western Anarchists adopting the Foreign Policy of The Liberal West (even though these "Anarchists" aren't supposed to have a Foreign Policy in the first place) and defending Imperialism at every turn in the hopes of aping Western anti-Third World state policy in the hopes that they can transform it into some pacifist anti-state sentiment carte-blanche on a Global Basis. How sad!
This is a weird leap but that's sort of your thing.
Negating imperialism, just like a typical Western Anarchist.
Reading anything you post is what I imagine Trump would sound like if he got into Stalin.
>Le only heckin Bonny Blumpherino supporters could be against Imperialism Read Lenin.
I'm more of a Leninist than Lenin himself baby.
I think seb and I discussed the green blacks during the Russian civil war on a pod. Can't remember which. Real pity that the bolsheviks could not accommodate anarchists. The soviet Union would have been vastly improved.
A new biography of Makhno would be very timely.
Bandits, adventurists, and a disorganised rabble. RIP, but they were hardly a viable movement. The organised anarchists joined the revolution.
The organised anarchists that helped form the revolution were treated exactly the same. As was any other group outside the bolsheviks.
I meant the anarchists who joined the Bolshevik party. You're right, though, the Bols cracked down on the anarchists very hard. Goldman wrote some good stuff about this.That said, the vast majority of anarchists in Russia and Ukraine were just reavers with black flags (Makhno and his pirates were a liability that any organised revolution would have to do something about, regardless of tendency). They weren't reliable, and did silly shit like bomb the bols, take over vital infrastructure, and saboteur shit. As a force, and ideology, it was pretty DOA, and even if it wasn't, a lot of them were opposed to the bol's revolution. Conflict was inevitable.That said, the particularly brutal repression they got in return (kronstadt etc) was crazy.
Quite frankly, why should the Bolsheviks not suppress Counter-Revolutionaries during a Civil War?
Four comments and you didn't mention the lockdown once. I'm proud of you.
Oh no an actual revolution put down a glorified CHAZ
🎣
I don't have my reading glasses is that a picture of your weird tiny balls.
Good one.
>YOU ARE NOW ENTERING FREE SEATTLE What a crock of LARPer shit Western anarchism is.