Uncle Pete's Bread Club

Anarchist / Libertarian Socialist general for all those anarchists that don't behave like liberals and aren't anti-communist. Anyone else is welcome to discuss too. Recommend books that aren't by Kropotkin. Friendly reminder that Marx is also our comrade for those leddit babies.

Other urls found in this thread:


Libertarian Marxist here. Strongly recommending Anton Pannekoek, Daniel DeLeon and Rosa Luxemburg.


I'm thinking of asking some of the holocaust survivors I work with in the holocaust museum about their experience after the war in the eastern block. Anyone interested?


I think Malatesta is severely unrated. His works are very clear and emphatic and he wastes no time in getting to his point. At the Cafe is really great, since it basically lists all the common objections to Anarchism from statists of all kinds and capitalists and provides their refutations. The dialogue style makes it very easy to read.

What kind of anarchist is against communism besides the very few Individualists and Marketeers? Unless you mean anti-"communist" as in anti-leninist, then by the definition of anarchism you must be.
Marx was a very important analysis of the economy and his work has not be surpassed; he was most definitely not a comrade to Anarchism.

Not what I was implying.

Unless you're using an autistic definition of "communist", anti-communist anarchist is an oxymoron.
Bakunin is underread and that is a shame. Platformism should be seriously looked at as well. Malatesta should be read because his work is easy to read and gives yoiu a good idea how to write or talk to people, something most leftist sorely lack.
Everyone should at least give Capital a read. That said we should be very wary of certain Marxists, namely Trots.

Then why would you not think of political Marxism in libertarian/authoritarian terms?

Because communism isn't a supermarket where you pick whatevery utopia you want. communism in an actual historical movement. It doesn't matter whether you want it to be "libertarian" or "authoritarian".

Authoritarian/Libertarian is a meme outside of Anarchists calling themselves Libertarian Communists. Anarchists and Marxists are going to take porky's factories regardless of it being authoritarian or not.

In terms of praxis, if you end up in charge of a state, you may choose to be more authoritarian or libertarian.

Revolution isn't authoritarian, and you can't just pretend a dichotomy in the style of organization and praxis doesn't exist just because you call it a meme.

blah blah blah real movement


Read Engels.


The point is that what's authoritarian or libertarian is subjective and not a particularly good description. For instance us commies, from Anarchist to MLM, will be called authoritarian by ancaps because we intend to seize property by force while claiming wage labor is aktually libertarian. Or the Engels piece that claims all revolution is authoritarian, which by now has probably been posted. What happens is that A/L ends up going into semantic arguments, as such it has very little use outside of a meme in quickly grouping yourself as either an Anarchist/Leftcom(non-Bordiga) or some derivative of Lenin.

every time a tank posts this it's so obvious they never read Bakunin on the same, which is linked on the direct bottom of the page

Defending yourself from oppression is the least authoritarian thing you can do, since it is literally fighting against authority. By your standard all violence is authoritarian, which just broadens the definition into nothingness.

Firstly, this is a horrible definition. Authority implies more than "imposition", whatever that means, it implies a relationship where under certain circumstances one person has the moral right to tell and coerce another person to obey certain commands and that person has a moral obligation to obey. No one ever talks about the authority of a robber, even though they are very capable of imposing their will; in fact this is what separates a cop pulling you over to give you a ticket and a highwayman just demanding cash. Secondly, it implies that changing your mind or not fulfilling all of your desires is you being under authority.
This is as ridiculous as saying that people are under the authority of nature because they must fulfill certain needs. Authority by the political definition is a concept that only applies to human relationships; trying to use it beyond that is equivocation.
How can you say questions are settled in an authoritarian way when it's not even said how it is settled? Obviously everyone must work together and comply to certain standards, the entire point is how to create that compliance.
It is not imposing your will on anyone, it is simply you liberating yourself from their own imposition. The revolution is for the liberation of all of mankind, not to create a new class society with the former oppressors on the bottom.
Making people afraid of trying to enslave you, is again, not authoritarian. It's like saying self-defense is aggression: it is literally the negation of the thing.

It's not just a matter of semantics, it's literally self-described: whether you plan on using authority at all or to a large extent or not. Ancaps in reality are extremely authoritarian, since they put the authority proprietors have at a near god-like level, and since they plan on organizing society around property and property relationships, they ultimately mean to plan it around authority. Wage labor cannot be considered libertarian unless you think selling yourself and your autonomy out of fear of starvation is in any way freedom.

There is absolutely a difference in terms of the extent the ends justify the means.
"Libertarian Marxist" is just another way of saying "dictatorship of the proletariat is not a literal dictatorship".

If historically, the result of a proletarian revolution was a literal dictatorship in which the proletariat rules then it is. DoTP is a historical phase.

As in necessarily, smartass.

My point is an ideology can be libertarian, but the historical movement of communism isn't libertarian or authoritarian. You can say "i like liberty" but that doesn't mean anything to the real communist movement.

Says who? Nothing is inevitable except death and taxes; that includes the real movement. Praxis can be as important as theory.

Which raises the question of how can it be of the proletariat if it’s a dictatorship?

Not sure I understand how thats relevant. Can you elaborate?

The term 'Libertarian Marxism' is used to differentiate between different historical brands of socialism not to describe MArx's ideas themselves

You do realize that the "Stalinist" USSR is considered by ML to be democratic? And not just democratic, but more democratic than contemporary Bourgeois "democracies".

By your definition all ML are "Libertarian Marxists", since we do not consider "dictatorship of the proletariat" to be a literal dictatorship of one person.

But they are the only ones who like Anarchists! I finally felt the need to use some sort of shitposting flag at this point.

Because it's not authoritarian/libertarian. It is individualist/collectivist.

There is not different historical brands of socialism.

Marxism-Leninism? Left communism? Syndicalism?
These are different historical brands of socialism.

You're imposing your will to be liberated onto the capitalists, who would rather keep you in subordination. Fighting against authority is still fighting.

How is forcing capitalists to accept something they don't want through force not authoritarian?

It is though. The dictatorship of the proletariat is literally a dictatorship of the proletariat.

In a proletarian dictatorship, the remnants of the old ruling classes are forcibly suppressed, prevented from organizing counter-revolution through violence.

That would be interesting

Because you are liberating your self. It’s an act in defense of your personal liberty against an external imposition. If all violence is authoritarian then the term becomes meaningless, since two societies could have vastly different levels of personal freedom but would still both be labelled “authoritarian”. It’s basically an excuse to crush the freedom and agency of the proles and just say “lol everything is authoritarian so it’s okay if I destroy proletarian democracy and personal freedom”.

they are different ideas. there is one real movement by the proletariat to establish socialism.

And that movement can take on different characteristics dependent on the narratives and tendencies of its constituents. Theres a reason Catalonia looked a lot different than Soviet Russia, which looked different from China. It’s basic dialectics man.

Nobody ITT has yet defined what they even mean by "libertarian" and "authoritarian", so I don't even know what we're talking about.

Well Engels would have us believe that any use of force is authoritarian, which is ironically pretty close to what AnCaps believe. However I would argue that the use of force defensively, that is to prevent somebody from imposing their will on you, is not authoritarian. While the use of force to impose your will on another is authoritarian. To overthrow a capitalist is not authoritarian because you are not expanding your power over them, you are preventing them from exercising power over you. The easiest way to determine whether an action is authoritarian is to examine what it does to enhance the individual’s power over themselves and minimize their power over others. If it does these things then it is not authoritarian. Expropriating a factory for example doesn’t take away the capitalist’s power over themselves, only their power over their workers.

But to prevent them from exercising power over you, you have to expand your power over them - to the point where you are able to prevent them from exercising that power.

But that’s the defensive use of force, not the aggressive use of force, which is the distinction. You are preventing them from acting, not forcing them to act.

Should have used ::DDDD
Which itself is a meme.

Literally it's impossible to prevent them from acting without forcing them to not act in that manner.

I personally feel communism in general has been played out and didn't become what it should have been because of phony libertarians with authoritarian motives at the head. Resulting in state capitalism. Anarchism of certain types have worked successfully with obvious examples. I really think we should all move in that direction to not scare away centrist semi-sympathizers.

Because of Liberals, Anarchists, and Fascists feeling very uncomfortable when being put together - they are too accustomed to larping as the opposites of each other. Fascists even pretend that they are collectivists.

But if used properly, description works great.

It's great that you can feel it. Other people need to look around and think. Even then they often come to conclusion which is undoubtedly wrong - since it is different from yours.

This is a very important question: who exactly were "phony libertarians"? Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin? Because there will be a lot of grave-rolling if that is what you meant.

When? Free Territories were gangster feudalism (it's hard to come up with proper description of the nonsense that was going on), while Catalonia was a corrupt mess.

How are you going to pull this off? Anarchists are infamous for not having any unified opinion on what "that direction" is. It goes from non-violent hippie takeover, to some crazy Nechayev-style barrack "Communism" run by secret government.

Yes but in doing so you aren’t taking away any power they have over themselves, you are only preventing them from exercising power over others. It’s the difference between action and reaction, if somebody attacked you, it wouldn’t be assault to defend yourself. So if somebody is using force to curtail your freedom over yourself, it isn’t authoritarianism to make them stop.

It’s a questions of defensive vs aggressive use of force, and more importantly whether or not you are curtailing a person’s power over themselves as an individual.

Oh come one dude don't get triggered you know exactly what I mean. Chomsky explains much of it in full if you follow him and his work which you might well do. I'm honestly tired of word play to redefine words and concepts to appease their singular motives. If your on this board then you're either a honest left leaning person or shill or "authoritarian leftist" who has issues and that isn't a real leftist at all. The point being is that some people do things for the wrong reasons really a oxymoron in the leftist community but it's true. The bottom line of what we want to do is bring a better and truer life for all people and the space in which we currently control. Whatever direction that most seems fit and capable is the route we should take. In stead of beating a dead horse like Neo-Nazis. Most people should really just be Neo-Communists.

When did I say different?

In that case isn't Marxism-Leninism libertarian?

Theoretically yes. My problem with Leninism has always been the disconnect between theory and practice. Overthrowing porkies is libertarian, imposing direct party rule over the soviets and banning independent worker organizations is not.

It’s anonymous imageboard friend, however it’s been implied throughout the thread that various tendencies have no effect on the character of the revolution, which is absolute garbage as it clearly has throughout history.

When the exploiter classes have been smashed, their remnants will remain for some time. Although they hold no political power, there is always a danger they will organize counter-revolution - necessitating the repression of the decimated classes by the proletarian dictatorship.

And how do you expect to carry that out? How is sufficiently proletarian? Who is too bourgeois? Are you going to gulag a retired factory worker because his pension included stocks and dividends? Are you going to imprison a penniless shop owner who joined the revolution because he was going hungry? What does this repression entail? What ideas are to far right? Are you going to censor and arrest mutualists? What about Christcoms? What about people who are too left wing? How do you ensure that the body in charge of making these decisions doesn’t crack down on anybody who opposes them?

If you want to crack down hard on actual counterrevolutionary terrorism then fine, but when you start discussing repression of the free exchange of ideas you endanger democracy, and thus the basis of socialism.

No, I don't.

The desire to murder the old fuck gives me indigestion.

This statement makes you a crypto-Fascist. But I'll let you enjoy the delusion - Strassеrites (i.e. morons who think that they are actually Left - while being part of Fascist movement) get murdered first.

No, it's not. I definitely don't. There are many people I don't like. I simply have Capitalism intolerance. Also, bullshit intolerance. That's all.

Except you already chose the direction and is only trying to justify it.

Not sure if sarcasm.

Only if you want to simply replace them.

< post a whole 500-page code of laws or your argument is refuted
Anarkiddies. Incapable of reasoning since 19th century.

Distinction between "libertarian" and "authoritarian" violence boils down to "the one I like" and "the one I don't like". I.e. it is subjective. IRL all violence is authoritarian. What you need to define is the position - and then divide violence into the "this violence furthers this position" and "this violence hinders this position".

But it is impossible for you, since you do not have clear position.

Are anarchists materialists or idealists? What about dialectics? Is DiaMat even possible from an anarchist perspective?

Fine, I’ll narrow it down to one question. How do you determine if somebody is sufficiently proletarian or bourgeois to warrant repression? This is literally the most basic thing you have to determine before any policy can be implemented, and if you can’t answer it then your entire position falls apart.

I already explain the distinction pretty clearly. Libertarian violence is the use of force defensively to protect one’s power over themself. Authoritarian force is the aggressive use of force to establish power over others or limit their power over themselves.

Of course we also have to consider that if we say all violence is authoritarian, then we would have to label all societies authoritarian regardless of whether or not they actually protect or inhibit the freedoms of the population. It’s literally a cop out so that red porkies can crush the freedom and power of the proles and say “lol all societies are authoritarian”.

I would actually agree, and that’s what I have done here>>2326206

Stirner was idealist, Bakunin was materialist.
Bakunin read Hegel and that informed his work, since then anarchists haven't name dropped dialetics, but that's more due to them typically wanting literature that can be easily understood by the workingmen of their time.
Historical Materialism is.

It's not communism itself that is distinguished between authoritarian and libertarian, but rather the road and the means taken to reach communism.

That’s third grade tier argument bro
The argument boils down to the post-revolution organization of society. Does the revolution disband and society organize locally and democratically, or does the revolutionary body codify and solidify itself into a state? Merits of that specific argument aside it demonstrates you clearly lack comprehension of these 2 primary branches of leftist thought if that isn’t clear to you

I'm not afraid of the bourgeois as violent people, what matters is the system. So, what you should be afraid of is the return of the system, and I know I'm sounding spooked when I say the following, I'll say it anyway: It will try to rebuild itself and it may use people who played the role of capitalist in the past or people who are new to the role.

So what warrants repression is acting in a certain way, not whether that person used to be king or a pauper in the old society.

Which are determined soley by material conditions.

Material conditions, like your relation to the means of production. If you own it, you do authoritarian socialism, if you are exploited by its owners you do libertarian socialism.

But being Bourgeois doesn't warrant repression. Bourgeois are repressed because they are deemed by DotP a threat (just like anyone else). I.e. it boils down to specific situation and specific people making a decision.

Why? Also, I'm not sure to what specific position do you refer to.

Yes. Let me rephrase: it's either unworkable or redundant.

We live in interdependent society, we need cooperation of other people to exist. Not getting this cooperation is effectively "imposition of will" (I'm talking primarily about jobs, if there is any doubt). But how do we decide when and how this cooperation should happen? When people should be doing what I want - and when I should be doing what they want?

The method has to be either based on some kind of fairness/justice (which are subjective and will make the method unworkable) or on Marxism (which makes result indistinguishable from Marxist). Which is why the pic from previous post - on how to judge the rule.

So? It's Anarchists who consider authoritarianism inherently bad.

See above. If you were trying to make a point - you didn't.

"Red" porkies will get shot for attempting to overthrow DotP.

But I am asking you, who is deserving of being deemed a threat? And how is that determined?

Because if you can’t tell me the most basic criteria for the practical application of your ideas then there is no point in entertaining them.

The idea that the bourgeoisie must be repressed after they have been deposed.

Not all force consists of aggressive imposition of will. Force that is implemented to prevent people from infringing on the individual agency of others isn’t for example. As for the interdependence of society, I’m not an AnCap. I recognize that people’s actions may need to be curtailed, but only in situations where doing so serves to maximize the individual freedoms of the maximum number in a utilitarian sense. This is determined by democratic means, which allow maximum agency in the decision making process, combined with constitutional protections preventing the unnecessary curtailing of freedoms by democratic prejudice. I’m not suggesting that the use of authoritarian force would be completely absent in a libertarian society, but it would only be used when it serves to protect the freedoms of the population, at which point it becomes hard to even call it authoritarian.

It is bad, because it by definition means depriving people of their freedom. What I’m suggesting is that the use of force doesn’t constitute authoritarianism.

And how the fuck do you deem people a threat in order to be repressed?
Not doing something isn't imposing your will. Again, you're broadening the definition of something to make it meaningless.
What does that mean? Anarchism doesn't imply people will cooperate because of some sense of fairness or some code of justice, it says people will cooperate because it is in their self-interest to do so, and if you want someone to do something for you, you have to convince them why it's in their best interest. If you cannot convince them either they're so dumb they don't know what's in their self-interest, or it's actually not, and you're trying to put the interests of some over the interests of others. And ideally you structure this society so that laziness and slacking off is not beneficial to the worker.
How does an analysis of Capitalism tell you how to guarantee cooperation?
Because we define it so that it actually means something. If your goal is a free society and you believe that goal cannot be reached through unfree methods, then those methods must be inherently bad.
What happens when those porkies are the ones who control the DotP because they are top party members and the party used authoritarian means, which is to say violent enforcement of a top-down structure, in order to create the "DotP"? Are they going to shoot themselves?

One thing I've wondered a lot about is whether there's any meaningful difference between the society the different anarchist tendencies want to create. Obviously an ancom doesn't want a market and a Mutualist doesn't want to be in a commune, but if their goal is to create a society based upon free agreement and association and worker control over the MoP, wouldn't that imply that you could legitimately have a Mutualist City, an Ancom Town, an Anprim Tribe, and an Individualist Homestead? Would there be any legitimate reason for an Ancom telling a bunch of Marketeers that they cannot recreate the market if they do not plan on recreating private property and wage labor? Therefor wouldn't all anarchists agree on creating an anarchist society first, and anything after that is just preference?

So if labour vouchers get instituted as in TANS, and there's some guy who advocates that these vouchers get changed so they circulate between people, and the reason for him arguing that is that he wants prostitution, he should be shoot? Isn't that a bit harsh?

No, because private property is seen as inherently authoritarian by anarchists. There is actually precedent for this in liberal thought, since Rousseau recognized the hypocrisy of liberal property rights early on. He reasoned that if the earth was originally the common property of everybody (or nobody, but this amounts to the same thing) in the state of nature, than to lay sole claim to a piece of land is to commit an act of aggression against the species, and to steal from them. This means that common ownership is the only non-coercive property arrangement. In addition the practical result of private property and markets is inequitable distribution of wealth, poverty, want, war, and other things that work to curtail the freedom of the individual. Therefore the implementation of private property is inherently opposed to the goals of anarchism.

I would recommend Discourse on Inequality and the Bread Book.

Its tendencie is the result of the material conditions.

> only in situations where doing so serves to maximize the individual freedoms of the maximum number in a utilitarian sense. This is determined by democratic means, which allow maximum agency in the decision making process, combined with constitutional protections preventing the unnecessary curtailing of freedoms by democratic prejudice.
< I am a Social Democrat, this is my shitposting flag
Why the fuck are you even using Anarkitty?

How does that make me a social democrat?

I (specifically - me, here and now) do not. Or are you asking how revolutionary committees will function?

The very definition of Capitalism is based on the fact that workers cannot survive without MoP that are owned by Capitalists. Why the hell are you even using AnCom flag?

You sure your flag is not yellow-black?

This mean that existing conditions will not be taken into account, but substituted with wishful thinking.

So you basically behave like autistic children and hope that will be enough.

Are you trying to gaslight me? I never claimed it will guarantee cooperation.

It is not. We don't even have a definition for this abstract "freedom".

You sentence doesn't make much sense. DotP by definition is unrestricted political power of the Proletariat.

I'm guessing you are trying to argue for "decentralized spontaneous revolution" to prevent failure due to internal sabotage - which makes as much sense as throwing away the only gun you have, because it may misfire or be taken by the enemy.

You are right. You might also be a Liberal.

Let me clarify: as an Anarchist, you see no problems with having a constitution (that also restricts democracy)?

I’m not an anarchist. There is no flag for state syndicalism unless BO add’s a DeLeon gang flag, also the cat was used by the IWW which had both statist and anarchism-syndicalists. Either way, it’s retarded to think that wanting a constitution makes somebody a liberal or a socdem. The USSR had a constitution.

And as leftwing market anarchists do not want to reinstitute private property, would that imply that in a true anarchist society they would be able to institute the market among those who favor it, and therefor all anarchists of all tendencies ultimately want to create the same society?

Yes, under which principles will they deem someone a threat to the revolution?
And it is precisely the ownership of the MoP that is an imposition of the bourgeoisie's will. They hide this behind the status quo assuming their ownership is the default state and that trying to usurp it is an act of aggression, when in reality their is the implicit threat of aggression against the worker if he refuses to comply with the terms of employment.
What does that mean?
You said "But how do we decide when and how this cooperation should happen? When people should be doing what I want - and when I should be doing what they want? The method has to be either based on some kind of fairness/justice or on Marxism"
So you deny that freedom is relevant or can even be defined. What exactly is the point of the liberation of the working class then? To fulfill some kind of impartial historical determinism?
And how does the proletariat wield that power?
No, I'm arguing for a genuine revolution where individuals and the working class as a whole determines their lives and how to organize society, without intermediaries or "enlightened" rulers.

Good ones are materialist, any other is a child looking for an edgy ideology, Like Stirner.

The problem is though that they kind of do. Mutualism still in practice has private property in the sense of having a group of people owning the MoP to the exclusion of others. The only difference is that it’s based on use, so that you don’t have absentee private property, but there is private property nonetheless. In order for mutualists to exist in an AnCom society they would have to establish their ownership over common property, and also reintroduce money and other things that would essentially defeat the purpose of an ancom system in the first place.

Your just authoritarian leftist with issues like I said, nothing more. People like you ruin movement.


What's wrong with egoism?

Well, your flag suggests a position different from the one you support. I.e. the one on the other side of the "Anarkiddie/Tankie" dividing line.

By specific people, in a specific situation. Do you have any idea how revolution works? What you are asking about is "what code of laws does the Revolution obey?" - and the answer is obviously "it doesn't". What happens is that you get some guns and a task - and then you have to make it happen somehow, without any law overseeing you. Because there is no time to develop one. Revolution is haunted by Zeitnot. Preparations are always insufficient and you have to constantly improvise (because a year ago you thought Revolution is not going to happen any time soon).

But we are not using Proletarian/Bourgeois distinction to apply it to specific people. We are using this distinction to create society, with some roles being reward, and some - repressed. I.e. we don't shoot people for being "29% Capitalist", we make a law that prohibits hiring people to work for wage.

I.e. "authoritarianism" is not objective, but defined only by your position.

There are no absolute qualities. It can only be "bad" within some specific system of ethics - of which there are many.

That's a question of tactics, not general strategy. I.e. depends on specific circumstances. Only retards think there is One True Answer to this question - but Revolution is a war. You can never make assumptions about the way it will unfold.

Except you need to prove this. As a Marxists I simply side with the Proletariat, without inventing any justifications other than historical inevitability of Communism - which is objective. You, on the other hand, seem to want to invent some sort of justice to worship and hide behind.

You follow a set of rules, rather than act with specific intent - and develop principles based on that intent.

This does not mean that cooperation will be guaranteed. It will simply not backfire - if it happens.

Yes. If the term does not have definition, it doesn't represent anything. Consequently, you can neither pursue, nor reject "freedom".

It can be defined. But there are multiple potential ways it can be defined.

First and foremost, there is no "liberation".

Abolition of private property allows us to create an actual civilization that will be able to make actual decisions. As of yet homo sapiens - as a civilization - is not sapient. We are paralyzed by the market economy, that subjugates any decision-making to the pursuit of "profit" and is horrendously counter-productive. Today it got to the point it might lead to the extinction of the whole species (through nigh inevitable World War 3).

By using it. Usually, through some sort of semi-direct democracy.

While I can quote Civil War in France (as canonical Marx's opinion) or present specific examples how it functioned in USSR, I am quite certain neither would be appropriate answer - since you are actually asking about contemporary circumstances, not theory (despite explicitly phrasing the question that way). Today it will be some sort of a direct (cyber)democracy, with Proletariat organized into militia ready to enforce their decrees by force, in the event of the stalling or distorting them.

That's impossible. Information flow is too great to manage it without appointing representatives to manage minor decisions. You can't have the whole planet voting on whether or not some office should acquire 2 packs of paper. I.e. bureaucracy is inevitable and any attempts to pretend that it is not so - are childish at best, counter-revolutionary at worst.

read Sorel plx

Strasserites actually think of themselves as turd positionists, i.e having far-left economic views and far-right sociocultural views.

I noticed this tripfag some days ago and I really don't understand how noone else seems to not have noticed how dodgy this guy is.

LMAO this is retarded

It's the old stalintrip who claimed green was fascist. Just filter by trip.

Holy shit 8 of those caps are responding to me. I love how much I antagonize this person.

Did he post under the ‘stache flag previously? Because I hated that guy.

He is almost certainly the stachetrip that used to post here, or at the very least drops similar nuclear takes.

He was banned before for having an autistic meltdown while denying climate change. I'm not sure why he came back so suddenly.

Honestly I’ve seen some decent ☭TANKIE☭ and stache posters who, while being ML’s, didn’t go around claiming that we should just do USSR 2.0, and actually acknowledged that we needed to do things significantly differently for next time.

This trip is an embarrassment to the other ☭TANKIE☭s on here tbh.

He's right, it's funny how you have no argument except calling him a tripfag