Explain this to me Holla Forums

explain this to me Holla Forums

Other urls found in this thread:


anarchists had gulags during the spanish civil war

they also raped nuns, killed clergy and shoot christ statues

black terror maan


dont know many ancoms that support gulags. But a vast majority of ancaps seem to have a massive hard on for Pinochet and his helicoptering.

A good start

Why are ancaps always fallacy-spouting retards who think politics is a formal debate?

Ancaps are autists who need to kill dissinters and need a state for their society to function. Ancoms had prisons during a civil war.

Christfags were reactionaries, anarchists did nothing wrong there.



This is factually wrong. Noone stops you from buying a piece of land and building a commune there in Ancapistan.

Meanwhile it pretends like the AnCom response would be "dude whats the point lmao" when in reality it would be BASH DU FASSH screeching.

I dont like being thrown out of helicopters.

Name one time anarchists had gulags.

There's nothing to be explained since this entire picture is a straw man. Anarchists do (for obvious reasons) not want gulags, they where the first to be sent there ffs.

Ayncraps make it really hard not to ask for gulags.

This strawman comic is remarkable, as it actually works both ways.

Actually, Pinochet's use of violence was just common sense. He did what he needed to in order to achieve his ends.

The point is that lolberts and aynclaps live in a fantasy would where violence isn't the basis of any meaningful political power. We freely admit it. There will be no excuses made when the NAP is violated all over the wall.

The le helicopters maymay comes from an instance where there was no "forcing" of any way of life onto another; Allende was democratically elected by the Chilean people and the military junta and the CIA were so afraid of generic social democracy that they overthrew his presidency and instated a dictatorship. It might be good for liberals to not use this as an example to defend their point.

Anyways, yes, self-titled anarchists on both the left and right are generally idealist idiots who cannot be honest and consistent in their beliefs.

Chet killed mostly innocent socdems who wanted the right to unionized and maybe have higher min wage
Not even commies
Lolberts are too retarded to realize this
So next time some moderate right-wingers get gulaged it was because they were actually Nazis who wanted to take over the world lmao

I'm fine with the clergy killing but raping nuns is too much

I'm fine with the clergy killing but raping nuns is too much

nazbols confirmed moralist scum

brocialist sinner

…And? That doesn't disagree with the image

It's a communist society, the Fash would have already been bashed. Anyone attempting to start a business would be logically wasting his time.

I'm fine with everything but rape and violence towards children is too much



Nothing wrong with it famr8.


historical necessity

violence against fascists is self-defense against the constant violence of the bourgeois state

I read that it was because he was planning on nationalizing Chile's telecommunications industry which the US owned a fair share of. Nixon then apparently gave the CIA the green light to fuck their economy up.


Nun rape might not be included but murder was happening.

One was ordained by the general populace of the land in question, to men who had earned their trust and respect during a popular revolution, the other was ordained by the CIA, a foreign entity, interested only in its own capital holdings in the region, against the popular will of the people currently residing on the land in question.

Its fucking easy, actually.

Also this article covers the entire left side of the civil war, not just anarchists

A retarded MSPaint cartoon drawn by a retarded lolburg LARPer. Ancoms/Ansyns do not support gulags.

Gee thanks for the objective history lesson there, Leon "I PICKED the wrong side" Trotsky.
No they didn't.
This never happened.
They were working with the fascists and actively participating in the war, they deserved it.
Fuck outta here.

The right one would be "throwing people out of helicopters because they don''t want to have my way of life forced on them is perfectly fine"

There's very little wrong with punitive labour when it's used against the ruling class as well as petty criminals, which was the main distinction between the Gulag in the USSR and and Anarchist Catalonia and the penal labour in Tsarist Russia, British Empire, Republic of China, Japan and the USA…
It's only after bankers and aristocrats were sent there along with the rapists and thieves that they became repudiated in the western mind.

The CNT did establish a justice and prison system in Revolutionary Catalonia. However, despite that being a major mistake, the labor camps were probably the best prisons in the world, as the convicted prisoners were fascists, torture was forbidden, labor was voluntary to reduce sentences, and prisoners were issued weekend passes for good behavior. I heard the labor camps also held people who didn't work hard enough, but I'm not so sure about that.

Raped nuns and shoot clergy? Where the fuck do i sign up

the fact these are watermarked makes me want to go out in the fields and just kill a bunch of snakes. it's too autistic.

Violence is a fact of life. Politics is about gaining power over the institutions that govern the material conditions of our lives. Frequently, this means using violence.

Non-violence is is preached by people who have already gained that powner to the people over whom it is exercised. If you unironically believe in the non-violence bullshit, you've fallen for ruling class memes.

What if the people revolt violently against the leaders of your ideal society?

Depends on what the revolt is about.

A reactionary revolt obviously should be put down. A revolt against a remaining class character that might be present in said future society should be supported.

But what about Ghandi or the Civil Rights Movement? Those preached nonviolence, and I hardly see any inkling of Porky's involvement in either of those events.

Explain plox

Both only succeeded because of mass violent elements occurring parallel to their own.

Both times, the establishment only agreed to work with the pacifists when they feared the violent element was on the verge of starting a revolution, both times spurred on by the assasination of the pacifist leaders. The pacifist movement was convenient because it gave the establishment a group they could work with without seeming to be negotiating with terrorists, combined with the fact that the pacifists tended to be more moderate.

political rape is not politically correct nowdays
but i would love to rape a nun of my neigtbourhood, she is hot and still young
plz dont ban me

wait, what was his name again? Mohandas "niggers aren't people" Ghandi?

I believe it was Mohandas "I won't be at peace until I sleep with my grandniece" Ghandi

I don't see the problem

How do you go from "we want small government" to supporting a dictator put in power from a coup by the CIA?

in their language "small government" means "get rid of the welfare state." they don't actually want "small government" as you and i would understand it

Marxism Leninism (the ideology with gulags) =/= Anarchist Communism (ideology that wants to abolish prisons)

People are idiots. Anarchists and ancaps tend to be people.

Any other questions?

Redpill me more on Ghandi plz? I don't think I've heard about any of this before…

Sounds nice

Gandhi hated nigs, slept with his young girls, including grandniece, also he was arguing that rape victims are asking for it

Can i get some sources for that?

He lived a big chunk of his life in south africa, under apartheid. He had, reasonably, complaints about his treatment as an indian, but resented blacks. I'm almost tempted to say that he was madder that people thought of indians as similar to blacks than anything else.


One might say that it's just some guy 100 years ago being a spooked bigot, I say this twat lived under racial segregation and was mad that he was being conflated with niggers. He saw what racism is all about and he was fine with it as long as it didn't fuck with its own super special identity.

The sleeping with girls thing is pretty much common knowledge. He justified this by saying that he did it to test his temperament, to prove himself that he could be under temptation and not cave in.

All in all I really want this guy to just fuck off into some dark corner of history, his non violent bullshit is cancer for any sort of meaningful popular movement.

You don't think non-violent protest can work?

depends on what you want to do, what i'm saying is since gandhi the ruling ideology has successfully shoved into people's mind that if you ever want to do anything except rallies and marches you're some deranged psycho.

and with the same breath they will glorify pretty much all emancipatory movements (including india's) that were made possible because… yep, you guessed it, people fought in the streets.

Even peaceful political action requires the backing of a threat of violence.

unironically this
Social Democracy for example only works if you have the threat of revolution or tankie invasion and a fifth column with which to play bad cop.
Porky, here's a solution that works for everyone: let Labour negotiate with the unions, we can handle this…

The problem is, of course, that Porky could always turn out to be willing to take suicidal risks after all.
Which is ultimately why you need a serious threat of revolution, in which case just have the revolution I suppose lel. (Strictly this isn't always desirable since you might just end up with a degenerated workers state, it's relatively easy to maintain a group of people who'll bayonet Porky, it's slightly harder to rebuild society in revolutionary circumstances. Still.)



The greentext is citing sources. You know, books. Those paper things with words?

You mean coupons?

no no… like a magazine but without ads and pictures.


oh, like printer paper?

no you-
well, actually yes. books come out of printers.

Mostly irrelevant by the time India became independent. The threat of violent uprising and ethnic conflict is what led to fast tracked independence.

Largely ineffective at first. They were placated once militancy became likely. The Black Panthers were later destroyed when they continued the effort and demanded greater systematic changes, rather than the shackles of the "programs".
Likewise most of its leaders were imprisoned, harassed or assassinated.