Tankies, Anarkiddies, I have a question for you

Tankies, Anarkiddies, I have a question for you.

Would you, in the case of a revolution, throw away your past disputes and come together as allies?

Depends on if they're going to gulag me or not.



If you are being parasitic or counter-revolutionary maybe. All we want from you guys is to see the bigger picture for once and work within our organisation, and not outside of it, subverting our achievements by making it vulnerable in the name of sheer idealism.

But don't worry, most Gulag prisoners were released after a while in peacetimes, pic related

Without a doubt, i don't care who i'm standing beside as long as they want to shoot porkie. we can solve our disputes afterwards.

No. The urge to call out anyone I don't like personally as a counterrevolutionary saboteur to be purged is the core of my being.


What revolution? A coup to depose current government? That's no revolution.

Count me in, if you are at least nationalizing Capital (MoP, banks, ) and introducing worker control.

I'd trust the tankiest tankie or the kiddiest anarkiddy before a fucking soc dumb.

No, tankies are to retarded and have no clue about self perpetuating organisations.

No fucking way. They cannot be trusted. History tells us that they just follow orders unquestioningly, even if their orders contradict socialist principles.

This tbh

Keep all of your filthy state building hands away from me.

All forms of state will be disposed of and a truly apolitical age will bloom.

My niggaz

Everything you listed is socdem

I don't trust race obsessed socialists, so I oppose tankies and anarkiddies

Why did Trotsky murder thousands of revolutionary sailors in Kronstadt?

I don't know, you'll have to axe him.
I'm normally not picky, but I think that joke is ice cold.

If the workers give up their own program to unite with the Left, it will be at their peril. Just like last time, and the time before that and the time before that, etc.

The revolution was dead by the time of the rebellion. The communists won the Civil War at the expense of winning the revolution. While the Bolshevik Party went from being a shining beacon of proletarian consciousness to the main agent of counter-revolution, the sailors at Kronstadt were in no way "revolutionary" just because they opposed them. The soviets were empty shells, no longer the great bastions of working class power they once were; calls for "more soviet democracy" were just as empty. As depressing as it may be, neither side had any revolutionary potential by that point.>>1391696

you fuckers are the first to go

forgot my shitposting tank

Refusing valid criticism. No wonder we don't want to colaborate with you fanatics.

"state socialism"
not a thing, the phrase you're looking for is "state capitalism"
pic related



This is pure defeatism.

Not to mention: a mechanistic view of history.

the state is necessary for socialism


The "state"'s function is as a tool to destroy the very conditions of its existence, so it isn't really a state "in the traditional sense of the word" (Engels, where he recommended the term "commune" instead). Hence why the term leftcoms use of "proletarian semi-state" is much more accurate. And the final result of the transition period: socialism, is stateless.


as opposed to all those naturally occurring words
pic related, a word mine

So like the Bolshevik's?

I would like them to leave us alone.

0 threats to the free territories and we would do fine.

but I dont trust them.

Lenin used the term semi-state in "State and Revolution" to describe the dictatorship of the proletariat. It's not a new term.

Bat'ko "let's keep the kulaks and cause inflation" Makhno

Engels was living in 19th century. His state "in the traditional sense of word" meant Capitalist state. Your argumentation that you need some special semi-state that is magically different from Soviet is laughable.

For a supposed Communist you don't even know the words. Final result of transition period is Communism.

Certainly. It's all preferable to capitalism.

I would help my anarchist brothers in their time of need

Just don't hoard grain in times of famine

We can solve our fucking disputes after porky is dead.
Fucking cointelpro central here.

depends on the tankie

Twitter tankies get the bullet

Same here. Just don't implement Juché and give the workers the means of production.


socdems too

Oh believe me, the roses will pay for what they did to Rosa

I would gladly aid tankies in constructing gulags for them.

Yes. If we succeed, hopefully the tankies don't gulag us. If they do, it's still better than dying for porky.

Tankies have shown time and time again what happens when they gain power. I'd rather fail at the revolution then the revolution being stolen from me and my cause becoming associated with oppression and murder done by minions that have as much free and critical thinking and as many principles as Fascists.


Even if they're nazbols, baathists and stalinists.

Anarkiddies are just liberals
They'd be the ones the revolution is directed against

nope i'm not in the mood for "anarchist" labour camps



Really made me think

I'd happily shoot them in the face :-)

It should have earlier and you and other "tankies" wouldn't have wasted your time with even considering working with anarchists.

They are ultraleftist in word and reactionary in action.
And besides, they are absolutely irrelevant.

Don't worry, I won't side with the ebil liberuls. And when your Revolution™ will be over, I will gladly be exploited and subjugated in your society, but at least there will be red flags, right?

What have we ever done against you?

They would work together at first, then the Tankies would just "wall" the Anarkiddies if you know what I mean.

Make them pay for it :-)

The closet to a takish revolution I'll support and even join is a Rojava style revolution.
Otherwise I'll just run to the hills and create my own commune with other people.

Again with the private property fetish.

As i said before, the essense of the anarchist is:
ultraleftist phrases, reactionary action.


You don't connect this to any other part of what you're saying, why is that relevant?

Yeah, a state perpetuating a society rife with contradictions: capitalism.
The proletarian semi-state, as explained above, does not do this, it is a tool simply to suppress the bourgeoisie until the workers' self-activity fully transforms society. It is a state merely in that it is a tool of class domination, that''s it, and even that isn't really true because this only goes on as the proletariat destroys class (including itself).

It isn't "magically" different. In fact, it is't different at all. It is composed of the centralized network of soviets (workers councils).

A regular capitalist state developed during the Civil War though (I'm not arguing it wasn't out of necessity, I'm arguing what the results of that was), spelling the end of the Russian front of the world revolution. This process included the destruction of soviet power (the semi-state) both directly (the soviets became bodies simply to rubber stamp Party policy), and through the removal of class conscious personnel (either their literal destruction [died in the war or executed in purges] or removed from power some other way [by everything ranging from dismissals to the aforementioned executions]).

Socialism and communism are the same thing, the transition period is just that the transition period, there is no stable mode of production in between capitalism and communism.

Have you actually read Marx or just some asshole on Reddit's interpretation of Hoxha's interpretation of Stalin's interpretation of Lenin's interpretation of pre-1905 Plekhanov's interpretation of Marx?

You clearly didn't read anything at all.

1) Claiming that a defining feature of "proletarian semi-state" is that is "merely tool of class domination" contradicts Marxism. All states are "merely tool of class domination". You can't define something by a quality that every other thing also has.


2) Claiming that Socialism and Communism are the same thing means that you don't understand the difference between market economy, non-market (planned) economy, and post-scarcity economy. While Marx did not use the word Socialism to define "first-stage Communism" specifically, he clearly differentiated economy with common ownership of MoP from true Communism.

Marx (on first-phase Communism):

3) Claiming that "regular capitalist state developed during the Civil War" means that you either have no understanding of history, or of Marxism - I'm betting it's both, since you are conflating events that are separated by almost two decades (1918/22 and 1937/38).

Capitalist state was suppressed during Civil War, not developed. NEP (state monopoly capitalism) was argued for by Lenin since 1917 and would've naturally been established in 1918, had Civil War - that necessitated War Communism - not begun then.

And at no point was "soviet power" destroyed: forbidding ex-White, SocDem, or any other counter-revolutionary elements participate in government would mean that Counter-Revolution had won only for hardcore Anarchists. Neither does having centralized trade unions somehow establish Capitalism - if anything it hinders it by establising monopoly on workforce. Arguing for splintered trade unions is arguing for destruction of collective bargaining - especially in face of coming NEP.

smh at these imperialist roaders

I will subvert every attempt of ML with black markets and illegalism if that is what you mean


Your organization is capitalist and you are the true counter-revolutionary

According to Zizek, that is simply a part of the system as it helps to circumvent the inherent problems of product allocation.

You'll subvert capitalism with capitalism?

Brilliant plan

I didn't. I am saying the "apparatus of class oppression" part is the part which makes a state, not what makes it different from other states. We add the "semi" part because otherwise we would be being rather loose with the word "state" to even call it a state at all, because it is qualitatively different from true states :
"All the palaver about the state ought to be dropped, especially after the Commune, which had ceased to be a state in the true sense of the term. The people’s state has been flung in our teeth ad nauseam by the anarchists, although Marx’s anti-Proudhon piece and after it the Communist Manifesto declare outright that, with the introduction of the socialist order of society, the state will dissolve of itself and disappear. Now, since the state is merely a transitional institution of which use is made in the struggle, in the revolution, to keep down one’s enemies by force, it is utter nonsense to speak of a free people’s state; so long as the proletariat still makes use of the state, it makes use of it, not for the purpose of freedom, but of keeping down its enemies and, as soon as there can be any question of freedom, the state as such ceases to exist. We would therefore suggest that Gemeinwesen ['commonalty''] be universally substituted for state; it is a good old German word that can very well do service for the French 'Commune.'” (Engels)
What you quoted doesn't contradict anything I've said. And I hope other readers take notice that, unlike you, I'm not using the fact that Marx or Engels said something as proof of my argument, but their explanations, and when I am, I am proving that proof is that it isn't deviating from Marx or Engels, not that the proposition is necessarily correct.

Will respond to the rest of your "argument" shortly

*is the part which makes it a state

Maybe they could have tried to not be undialectical counterrevolutionary traitors to the workers of the world?

Not being socialists?


Capitalism is compatible with a "non-market" "planned" economy of the USSR-type (meaning "with markets" and "only somewhat planned [much like in the west]").
We are already post-scarcity for communist purposes, most perceived scarcity and lack of development overcoming "scarcity" is a result of capitalism (including in the USSR, Bordiga predicted the rate at which the USSR would have to start importing wheat after being a huge exporter, showing its floundering in its market contradictions).

first stage of communism is still communism, not a separate Mode of Production, it is just marked with bourgeois remnants (such as property, even if social), the first stage naturally gives way to the second, without an essential change in relations of production. "Economy", however, as a sphere separated from (and dominating) the rest of life, will not exist, and is an idealist abstraction

More to come

No I'm not

"It is said that a united apparatus is needed. Where did that assurance come from? Did it come from that same Russian apparatus which, as I pointed out in one of the preceding sections of my diary, we took over from Tsarism and slightly anointed with Soviet oil? …
"… the apparatus we now call ours is, in fact still quite alien to us; it is a bourgeois and Tsarist hotch-potch and there has been no possibility of getting rid of it in the past five years without the help of other countries, and because we have been 'busy' most of the time with military engagements and the fight against famine."
O rly?
As usual Lenin, while flawed, and certainly not really a revolutionary by 1921, was still a million times more perceptive than the best "'Lenin'ist".

To be clear:
I am not simply blaming all of this on the theoretical and practical mistakes of the Bolsheviks, this developed out of necessity of the situation, where the world revolution was dead

I'm not either. I don't want to live under State Capitalism / Authoritarian regimes calling themselves Communism or Socialism. I don't think Anarchists can ever manage to achieve a state. Both usually fail to understand historical materialism, it isn't the time of communism yet. The best we can have right now is liberty and reforms.

My own ≠ my private property
It was a way of saying the commune I belong to.

what part of that is subversive to M-L? That's a large chunk of what their economy was based on


Seeing Titoist bootlickers trying to fit in with the anti-Soviet camp is always laughable considering the normalized relations with the post-Stalin USSR. Your pet regime displayed the same anticommunist tendencies as the other welfare-capitalist states. A complete dependency on the global market, distortions of Marxism to justify worker suppression, economic stagnation and ultimate self-destruction. You are a reactionary who worships a failed autocrat, adopting socialist slogans will not change this.


There's nothing socialist about "market socialism" and certainly no reason to venerate Tito. Yugoslavia was a "benevolent dictator" barely holing things together. And just like the USSR, the entire state was constantly on the verge of imploding.

Just drop the marxists spooks an join the market anarchists

these people get it

Tankies would use them then kill them when they were board with them.