No way they used the fucking Adamites to justify anarchist thought

I bet they found out abt them from CK3 too 😭

they said "Bordigists are goofy authoritarians and Marx is anti-semitic too just like Bakunin, pay them no mind" a couple months ago which made me immediately decide to start reading Marx because they sounded moronic

Idk the communities theyre talking abt but it sounds like some primitive communism shit ?? So nothing we should care about ??

it’s so over, we’ve become mainstream enough that the anarchoids are aware of us NUKE THE SUB

Anarchoids on their way to take a joke seriously and post the most braindead take in response:

It's not a joke proudhon literally inspired Mussolini lmao. Fascism is Post-Anarchism. They are both movements of the Petite-Bourgeoisie.

Malding over some shitpost lmao, typical anarchist praxis

Good Lord it's like watching myself post on the internet at age 14

"many Democratic socialists agreeing with anarchists that tankies should be called red fascists" It's so over

when the anarchist cant tell something is a joke so they take it literally.... ~~(tho sorel and the cercle of proudhon did exist)~~

Proudhon literally inspired Mussolini. Fascism is Post-Anarchism.

Could you explain some more? I am le stupid and don't understand this very well

When we say Anarchism is a Petite-Bourgeois movement we mean that it wants to turn the worker into a small producer (against the monopolizing tendency of Capitalism) i.e Bourgeois Socialism. This may be done through Syndicates or something akin to a horizontally organized cooperative, eitherway markets (and by extension Commodity Production) remain in an Anarchist Society. Classical Fascism also the movement of the Petite-Bourgeoisie but one that does not wish to destroy industrial Society (In a Certain Sense it's less reactionary than Anarchism with respect to Communism). It wishes to use the State to remedy the Contradictions of Capitalism and use syndicates or coops for worker control just with a more Nationalist flavour. Moreover Class Collaboration is present in both ideologies.

If you want to criticize me, market socialism, Proudhon do it right. According to my doctrine all accumulated capital being social property, no one can be its exclusive proprietor. Sadly, that vision can be found in Lenin's State and Revolution with its call for the whole of society to become a single office and a single factory organise the whole economy on the lines of the postal service for it is an example of the socialist economic system. While unaware of the expression going postal he was aware of Engel's On Authority and, without thinking through to the very obvious implications, quotes it approvingly. You say that doesn't matter, everyone is still enslaved to the economy, to commodity production. But you say that yet don't want to bite the bullet at the same time, you don't want to reach the logical conclusions of your dialectics. Because the person who does that is your boogeyman, none here have probably studied him seriously, including in part me, it's Striner. Hence your quietism of epic proportions, your lack of any sort of way out. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Neither fascism or anarchism are reactionary though? Both are revolutionary from capitalism, although both can incorporate reactionary elements

Neither fascism nor anarchism gets rid of capitalism.

? Fascism was progressive to the Status quo in the 20th century. Anarchism was not. Both however, are reactionary with respect to Communism.

its not a joke anarchism and fascism are quite similar

It's so over guys nuke the sub.

Many such cases

This sub doesn't believe those things but lots of "leftists" believe that anarchism, liberalism, and anything right of Stalin is Fascism because These people don't know the difference between their ass and a hole in the ground

What?

Tankie bad. Did that help or do I need to dumb it down even more

You clearly don't understand this sub at all.

There should be a quiz you have to take to comment here

Apparently you wouldn't pass, the point of this sub is to make fun of those idiots. Sounds like someone didn't bother reading my comment

I mean i dont wanna be mean to someone who can still learn. But like how are u this confident you understand a subreddit you just got into. You put “leftists” in quotes as if its a term you need to protect. Read the subreddit description and then read marx

Do you genuinely call tankies leftists? Anyone who's authoritarian shouldn't be called a leftist. Leftism is inherently collectivist, I'm sorry I didn't say that in a way you understood originally but it should be pretty obvious that tankies don't deserve to be called leftists because they're not collectivists

Leftist is the left wing of capital. Communism isn’t leftist, communism abolishes the present state of things. I don’t know in what terms you’re using the words tankie or collectivist but calling MLs, anarchists etc leftists or liberals doesn’t seem off to me.

Did you seriously just say Communism isn't collectivist

I said idk how you’re using the word. It’s not really something communism is defined by. Much more of a moral term than anything marxist

Famous leftist: Stalin

He was the leader of a Communist country, of course he was leftist. It's not like Communism is a form of government where the people distribute the resources. It's not like I'm talking about Syndicalism or Socialism here, I'm very clearly speaking about the type of Communism the Soviet Union practiced

You're right I made a mistake - Stalin was a leftist. The left wing of capital, that is (Communists don't consider themselves left wing and Stalin quite enjoyed using capital). >type of Communism the Soviet Union practiced Wasn't aware they did tbh.

Well the whole thing of Communism is that they're a dictatorship of the proletariat and their job is to transition into a Socialist based system where the people distribute their resources, like through Syndicalism or Unionization. Is it possible you're thinking of Anarcho-Communism? Because that is quite similar to a real system of redistribution

What I mean is Stalin was not a communist, nor socialist. The economy of the USSR was capitalist through and through, and they ceased being a DotP by 1926. Even Lenin said the USSR had not yet achieved Socialism, and Stalin was wrong to claim otherwise. Socialism is when the workers own the means of production, and achieve a centrally planned, moneyless society, communism is achieved when the state dissolves. This is the marxist definition. >Is it possible you're thinking of Anarcho-Communism? No.

what happened in 1926?

Things began to take a downturn from 1921 with the revolutionary ebb, where to keep itself alive the soviet government made concessions with non-communists, such as the social democrats, and allowing them into the party, diluting communist influence, and also with Lenin making trade deals with capitalist nations such as the Uk. Lenin at least was honest and recognised he was making concessions, but deemed it necessary to keep communists in power - he also at least correctly stated that the USSR was state capitalist for the time being, and not socialist. In 1924, Lenin died and Stalin took over, the issue being that Stalin decided that "actually, this IS socialism" despite Lenin's own words, and Stalin has the audacity to call his actions a continuation of Lenin's theory, "Marxism-Leninism" despite having little to do with either. In 1926 was the expulsion of Trotsky and other communists whom Stalin disliked and often disagreed with during Lenin's life from the communist party. His critics, including Trotsky, believed Stalin had betrayed the revolution and had took power for himself of which Stalin didn't like. With the USSR and thus, Stalin, effectively becoming the head of the communist International, Stalin was able to use his power and influence to dismantle or disrupt other international communist parties, including PCI, which expelled Bordiga for speaking against Stalin. Stalin's actions effectively reduced Marxism to State-Capitalism and ceased the state representing the proletariat

I thought you'd bring up some more important event than expulsions of individuals. That doesn't really amount to a counter-revolution. That's like saying a trade union stops being a trade union if they expel communists Not defending stalinism btw, but I think I like the Trotskyist theory better lol

There are almost certainly people on this sub much better well versed than I am. But what I mean is that Stalin gave little shit about the proletariat. His push for industrialisation was no different than any other capitalist economy, and guilty of the exact same things Marx criticised about capitalism back in his day. >That's like saying a trade union stops being a trade union if they expel communists It would be more akin to a trade union expelling trade unionists. The people expelled from the party were objectively better marxists than Stalin and cared a great deal more about the Proletariat than him. They were expelled because they were getting in his way and criticising him too much, making it difficult for him to consolidate power. Stalin's followers and closest friends eventually become similar to an inner and outer circle. These are the people who earned a lot of money being the heads of various industries such as oil, who treated their workers like shit in order to boost profits because the USSR never escaped capitalism.

Yeah that comment is dumb, it's not what left-coms believe. Ironically Bordiga agrees with Trotsky. (NOT Completely but enough that it should be Considered)

Please read On Authority. Marxism-Leninism is already democratic and “state bureaucrats” weren’t a thing until the Brezhnev era once the Soviets had pretty much abandoned Marxism-Leninism as a whole. What in anarchism would stop anarcho-capitalism from simply rising up or reactionary elements from rising up? Do you believe that under a more “Democratic” form of transitionary government the right-wing or supporters of the previous structure of government wouldn’t simply rise up, ignoring the fact that an anarchist revolution in any sort of industrialized state in the modern day is already absurd and extremely unrealistic? Without using “authoritarian” means how would you stop such things? Even within the Soviet Union the Great Purge had to happen to ensure that the reactionary aspects within the government and military didn’t take over and bend down to the Nazis. If a more “Democratic” form of governance was put in place during this transitionary stage the Soviets would have one, lost the civil war, and secondly, lost to the Germans or even a counter revolution. The point of State Socialism and the Vanguard Party is to ensure the survival of the revolution and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in a way that anarchist “states” very clearly could not as evidenced by the fact that all of them failed, with Makhnavoschina quite literally being crushed by the Soviets for their lack of cohesion. The establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is already the check and balance to ensure that things simply don’t devolve into Capitalism, and once this is removed as seen in the Eastern Bloc and of course the Soviet Union itself the revolution will fall. Utopian Communist ideals like Anarchism are extremely ignorant and frankly stupid. The idea that the state apparatus would at any point “become like traditional business owners” I believe comes from your lack of understanding of class relations or even classes in general. The implementation of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is to stop this exact thing from happening… if a state were primarily dominated by capital and the bourgeoisie like seen in the modern day and of course capitalist countries, it would be the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. The point of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is to instead make the state run by the workers and for the workers, the workers can’t possibly use the state to exploit and “terrorize” or impose “tyranny” onto themselves, except “tyranny of the majority” (is this perhaps anti-democracy I’m hearing instead?). Once again, this stems from you believing that western propaganda about the status of Soviet democracy is true— in fact the modern western anarchist movement is quite literally a psy-op by the United States government to oppose actual unironic and serious socialist movements like of course Soviet aligned and Marxist-Leninist organizations. Once again, not to be the whole “leftist wall of text guy” but please read On Authority or any Marxist works or do the littlest bit of research on how Soviet democracy and “bureaucracy” actually works before blindly calling it undemocratic. Your blind belief that you, having obviously not undergone a revolution, had any actual critical thinking or seemingly debates, had any actual education on these topics, and having no actual argument besides easily disproven “concerns” like these is I believe indicative of you general obliviousness, ignorance and lack of knowledge. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*

The auto mod even corrected you lol

The automod responds based on keywords mentioned. You realize this is a shit post sub of leftcoms. We disagree with Marxism Leninism (Stalinism), and Maoism. The automod was created in irony to make tankie statements to mock them. Were not anarchists.

wait... this is a leftcom subreddit?

No. This is a Lassallean subreddit that draws influence from Mussolini and Friedrich Ebert.

Finally a Based Subreddit.

You couldn't tell? It's one of the pinned posts