Americans stayed in over a dozen US military bases in Syria until it was obvious it wouldn't work out...

What's the next thing he'll be proven right about? Brexit? Selfies?

Other urls found in this thread:;sequence=1 from:@philgreaves01&src=typd

Bolshies were crooks

enemy of my enemy is my friend

pardon me but that guys name is Lenin iirc


phil thinks china is socialist

Is it true he's rich enough to basically spend his life as a semi pro golfer?


Manning took a picture with some Alt-right guys and got in trouble with both the #resistance and about half her fanbase. My phone won't post the picture but if you go looking for it you'll find it.

Chelsea gave her side of the story to thedailybeast:

No, it's not fucking true.

Guess he'll be right about that too when Xi'z master keikaku comes to fruition.


Phil Greaves probably doesn't look that much different

China being socialist will btfo every single pseudo-leftist for the next quarter century

According to him he only can afford to golf occasionally

He's bald but other than that he looks like a pretty average guy (if the picture people say if of him really is)


Unironically this

Phil Greaves is unironically my favourite Marxist on twitter. I don't know why he's such a contentious figure. He's clearly autistic but imo he's the most theoretically sophisticated and observant/prescient analyst on twitter, maybe even the internet. I've been following him for over five years, when I was still a liberal. The man's an absolute lad.

I’ll eat my hat if that happens. Look I want to believe but sheesh if China were anymore capitalist they’d be a Charles Dickens novel.

His posting is mostly joyless and confrontational and left twitter, probably for the worse, is mostly a place for japes and jokes. He's an unwelcome figure in a lot of people's timelines in that respect.
Phil is good though, I agree.

I have to begrudgingly agree. How much are you able to follow what he says though? Half the time I don’t know what he’s talking about and I’m it sounds like pol tier conspiracy theories to me.

If he wasn't right so frequently I would probably write him off completely, in fact I used to. But now I find myself seriously wondering if Chelsea Manning is a CIA psyop. I will never doubt ☭TANKIE☭s again if that ends up being the case.

superhero movies

Poast it

He just repeats what people like Gramsci and Adorno say and tries to pass it off as his own ideas, idk why he's seen as such a sage and genius ML, especially given his bizarre beliefs that the Iranian revolution was a communist revolution and that Syria is a socialist state. RedKahina also BTFO'd him on China.

how did Red Kahina btfo him? In general I find her insufferable but I'd like to see what she has to say

They had an exchange on twitter with Red Kahina saying that China wasn't socialism and Phil responding with "I stand with the hundreds of millions of socialists in china". I'm too lazy to find a link. Perception seems to be that Phil came off as a bit crazed and never addressed the myriad of ways in which, if China really is socialism or moving in that direction, it at least appears not to be.

definitely bald with that hat, the facial hair isn't bad though, kind of hipster chic
it's a bit jumbled so just search redkahina and china
she also seems to have actually read up on china rather than just posting Xinhua articles

Lol that one is true on its face. Like, the next one (black panther) is about a hereditary (feudalist?) monarch who teams up with a CIA agent.

I can't find it but he's a 40ish bald white guy. I mean, it's not like he has a secret identity.

Explain this.

Phil is right about this tho…


So, the question is this, does the collaboration between Assad and R*java signal a new phase of the Syrian nat lib struggle? Once their done with the West bloc and their puppets, do you think there could be a move to socialism in Syria? or an assertion of national sovereignty against even Russia/China?

Not really, unless one uses dishonest wordplay to conflate the "rightists" of the CPC (itself a problematic term since Mao called everyone a rightist, even those to his left) with actual capitalists who own businesses.

The actual Chinese capitalist class was completely expropriated in the early 50s under Mao and for the rest of his life the closest thing to a capitalist in China was the dude himself (limo, mansions etc).

You have to admit he chose a perfect pic for his avatar, it’s become something of a meme in itself.

If they are acting within their own interest against the wishes of their benefactor then they aren’t puppets.

Assad is probably the single greatest obstacle to socialism in Syria imo.


t. ancom

Not really, even Maurice Meisner, who is totally sympathetic to Mao and the PRC admits that the capitalist class wasn't expropriated but compensated for their property by bonds that paid them for their holdings at interest at around 5-6%. Many of the capitalists themselves got well-paying jobs in management positions at their former enterprises and at other government contracts to boot. It's not at all clear that the national bourgeoisie took a negative view of nationalization either:

Not to mention that the PRC under Mao was completely dependent on remittances from overseas Chinese to earn foreign exchange currency and to offset trade deficits, outgoing aid etc. I think its worth noting that China also fucked up their agriculture Mao's incompetence and wrecking of China's central planning had not a little to do with this… and had to go with hat in hand to the Western countries to get millions of tons of grain to cover the gaps–just like the post-Stalin USSR.

It's not without a certain amount of accuracy that overseas Chinese have been described as "the Jews of Asia" because they are disproportionately prominent in capitalist production and investment across the Pacific Rim in many different countries. The government of China understood its dependence on them and whether through complicity, dependence, or both, it went soft on bourgeois overseas immigrants in the mainland.
who were better fed and clad than the Chinese masses, they remained conspicuous. There were also wealthy returned Overseas Chinese in the cities and town who led a comfortable bourgeoisie existence, and who were an object of considerable resentment. And while there remained even limited privileges, while there were people who had more than the average peasant and who received money or consumer goods from Hong Kong and overseas, there were opportunities for stretching regulations, for bribery, corruption, and various forms of profiteering (Stephen Fitzgerald, China and the Overseas Chinese, 72.);sequence=1

The PRC operated capitalist businesses and banks through Hong Kong and Macao. Crackdowns on leftist activists in Hong Kong explicitly avoided all PRC front operations. It is a very odd thing that a hyper-capitalist city populated by anti-communist émigrés would treat the interests of a communist state and its front organizations with such consideration but it has been documented as fact:

Mao had no interest in taking back Hong Kong and Macao during his lifetime because it was an excellent proxy through which to conduct business.

This is to say nothing about the rumors that Marcos granted China a massive gold loan during the early 70s with the approval of the Nixon administration. Marcos was half-Chinese, had ties to the Chinese triads, and cooperated with Sino-Fillipine oligarchs in the country. He had also come into possession of a large quantity of war gold looted by the Japanese and stored away on the Islands. (see Sterling Seagrave on this subject)

The allegations, repeated in the Albanian press, that the PRC was involved in the international drug trade also likely have merit but I have not found conclusive evidence on its scale and how long it extended. The PRC involvement was likely minor in comparison to the massive dominance of the US and its Asian partners in the heroin trade.

Overall, I think perhaps you can make the case that they limited and controlled much of the excesses of capitalism but not that they destroyed it. If China was a socialist country it was definitely below the USSR in every respect and wasn't "the closest mankind came to communism" as MLMs claim.

Assad is totally gonna implement FALC once Syria is unified under his rule amirite guiz

We can always rely on Hoxhaposters to btfo Chinese "socialism"


saying Assad isn't a socialist doesnt condone other atrocities you retard

No one thinks Assad is an ML or an anarchist or whatever but you're delusional if you think the US jihadists in Syria aren't a bigger obstacle to socialism than he is

I'm sorry, are you sure? Are you absolutely positive on this?
Because the tone seems you're implying Assad is a communist.
And I'm pretty sure if he was, that would be one of the main talking points by liberals on why he should "go".



The Jihadists are already defeated, in large part thanks to the over a dozen US military bases in Syria. The two dominant factions are now a neoliberal dictator of a regime with a history of anti-communism and a democratic republic with de facto DotP and workers control of the MoP.

Which one is more likely to implement socialism?

Mao collaborated with the Japanese to crush the Shinmin autonomous region.



There's a thing called "divide and conquer" you know.

Except Assad is a socialist. This is objectively true. He believes socialism is the superior system. And the Syrian economy is mostly state-owned.

From an interview with Assad by a Serbian newspaper:

No matter how much you want Assad not to be a socialist, it will never make him not socialist.

Forgot to post source for my second quotation

What's the problem with taking out both anakiddies and reactionaries? Not that you provided any evidence that this happened in the first place

Where does he say "this is my opinion I made it"?

That was an informative post, thanks for taking the time to collect those sources. However, capitalists in a Marxist sense really ceased to exist in China, at least to the extent they had ceased to exist in the USSR.

To be clear, I'm a Trot. I think that Mao's regime abolished capitalism in China but did not create socialism. The CPC, under Soviet direction, reorganized China roughly onto the Stalinist model of a deformed worker state with a parasite bureaucracy.

Many vestiges of capitalism were kept, but there's no qualitative difference between that and Soviet Stalinism. China was less developed, sure, but not in every respect "below" USSR - which also dabbled quite a bit in small scale capitalism under Stalin.

I don't know the relative importance of remittances but Stalin also appealed to Russian emigres and was not above making extensive use of them.

Mao-era PRC foreign business ops were tightly controlled by the state, just like the USSR's extensive espionage-linked foreign business network under Stalin.

Mao did cause an agricultural disaster, but if you're comparing him negatively to Stalin for importing food, one could make the counterargument that Mao was willing to "crawl on your belly in the mud" as Lenin put it, to mitigate his mistake, while Stalin was content to let the peasants starve during his own collectivization fuckup.

As for the deals with the devil (Nixon, Marcos), well Stalin wasn't above making a deal with Hitler himself even up to outright military-intelligence collaboration between the Soviet and Nazi armies.

The Stalinist excuse for Molotov-Ribbentrop is that the USSR was threatened (even tho Stalin's army purge to save himself from a coup is what made them weak). But the PRC has this same excuse: there's plenty of evidence (bunker building, propaganda, govt docs) that from late 1960's on their leadership had a genuine fear of getting invaded and/or nuked by the USSR.

Mao did not personally have a hand in anything the local CPC in Manchuria did to the Korean anarchists. He was very far away in Jiangxi, he was just a minor party leader then, and communication between the various Communist enclaves in China was very poor at the time.

Seriously we're still banning people?

Oh of course it's BO who did the ban

No, I am the communist, and apparently my ideology is not pure enough for some.

In what sense do you mean this? If you mean in the sense that private businesses largely ceased to exist then I guess I largely agree. But the old capitalist class stayed on as rentier money capitalists and this was done in exchange for their old property whereas the Soviets simply took shit from the bourgeoisie without compensation.

The similarities conceal a difference here. First off, the collectivization of peasant property ensured that central planning could work more effectively and it prevented future famines from happening in the future. Whereas, with Mao the Great Leap ended up killing many people and they didn't advance the socialist relations of production or ensure food security for the future. Even after the Great Leap crisis ended, the PRC had to buy millions of tons of grain. In fact, those who've analyzed this trend realize that the decentralization in China in the 50s went further than in Khruschev's USSR.

Are you talking about Hammer's covert sale of Russian art? Because, to my knowledge most business was done by international departments like Amtorg. Unless you believe the meme put out by people like Antony Sutton that the USSR secretly had massive trade with the US during the Cold War.

It was far more decentralized and localized as well. Planning hardly existed. China only grew at 6% during the Maoist years, at best the economy was a basket-case which is quite unlike the successful management of the Soviet economy which made the USSR the world's second largest economy and provided a standard of living at least on par with workers in West Germany.

Buddy, the Rhizzone knew about this longer than AutoAdmit knew about Sam Hyde.

Where is the proofs
China had a completely planned economy from 1953 after Mao ended the New Democracy phase (see Economic Stalinization of China, 1948-1953)

Do you have a thread on hand or something?
I always forget that those guys exist and just how many of the demmsucc youth that have blown up on twitter recently have their origins there.

I searched phil greaves on google and all i got was an Article on a guy called Phillip greaves wh is apparently a Pedophile so i nopped the fuck out
Is it the same guy????

Wow, Assad is truly a titan of Marxism-Leninism.

what's this?


I think your criticism of Mao's policies is valid, but I think that sentence is missing the point a bit. China is a freakishly big country, and while they fucked up in some places, as you mentioned, the revolutionary momentum was definitely there throughout the entire Mao era. There were places that abolished commodity production and even money at some point, which is the closest we ever got to communism unless you count Pol Pot. What MLMs build on is the communist movement of Maoist China, especially the Cultural Revolution, which has been quite unique so far. MLM =/= every policy Mao enacted - I'm not one myself but I definitely think that Mao was a better revolutionary than he was a head of government.

Bit unrelated, but I think Hohxaists and Maoists should really reconcile now considering that both Albania and China are capitalist now.

Assad is a cool guy and all, and we should definitely support him, but stop saying he's socialist, that just hurts our credibility.

Genuine question. Do you only support Assad over R*java because they latter works with the Americans? What is your opinion on the domestic policy/ideology of each group (right Ba’athism vs democratic confederalism)?


Only if you’re a brainlet who thinks that social democracy = socialism.

even if assad is just a social democrat, he's more left wing than any other leader in the middle east

You realize that in R*java most of the economy is worker owned right? And that the absence of a powerful bourgeoise means that their democratic system is effectively DotP? In terms of domestic policy R*java is way more left wing than Assad, especially since his economic legacy has been in rolling back the social democracy established by his father.

Who is incidentally the is guy who led a coup against the left-wing of the Ba'ath and rolled back the Soviet-style system that had been around prior to him taking power.

You could claim make the same claim about the USSR during the "war communism" phase too

That's well put. It started out that he was aiming for a bourgeois anti-feudal anti-imperialist revolution, I think that was accomplished, maybe he had a problem following transitioning to the mindset of a proletarian revolutionary. Molotov said that Mao had told him that he'd never read Capital.

I wish there was a way to do this but I see too much idealism in Maoism, the bourgeois democratic ideas definitely bleeds into what exists in it that's a correct proletarian outlook. I guess I shouldn't admit this but on top of being a Holla Forums shitposter I used to help run a reddit sub for anti-revisionists that included both Hoxhaists and Maoists. For the most part we got a long, I was a Maoist when I started and by the end I started leaning towards Hoxhaism.

There are things about Maoism I have a hard time defending like Mao's support for the pro-American government in Pakistan that according to most sources committed genocide in whats now Bangladesh. Or, the support for the Pinochet government in Chile–and here's the irony about that, Chile probably had the most pro-Mao, pro-China communist movement in Latin America!

I didn't think much about the fact that Mao met with Nixon and Kissinger until I read the transcripts of the meetings

I should add that I hope Maoists and Hoxhaists will work out their differences. Maybe the next great socialist revolution could produce a theorist that unites what's correct in both bodies of thought.

rretweet if oyu agree


mmm that some good larp

so he thinks khrushchev was a capitalist but deng and his successors are socialist

Does he? I don't follow Phil Greaves, so I don't know his positions but Stalingrad got the name change after the fall of the USSR IIRC

Stalingrad's name got changed during Khrushchev's de-Stalinization. Phil Greaves is a mentally ill larper who is big with twitter tanks for some reason. Dude's the leftist equivalent of Paul Joseph Watson

nah it was changed under Khrushchev and Greaves 100% believes the PRC is a socialist state

Since we're talking about twitter ☭TANKIE☭s, pls follow me: @sage_field

Damn, thanks for giving me more reasons to hate Khrushchev (as if I needed anymore…)

Also remember that the name got changed into Stalingrad not under Stalins rule but during the Civil War, where Stalin didn't have any power yet. The people in the city decided to honor him because he won a battle against odds and liberated the city from the Whites


How is public ownership of industries not socialism? The fact that so much of Syria's economy is publicly owned instead of privatized is the #1 reason for the imperialist war on Syria.

You have to go back.

That second tweet omg

the LARP is so strong

Ironically between China and Canada if anybody is colonizing anybody it’s the former colonizing the latter. Half of Vancouver is owned by Chinese porkies.

Toronto is due for a crisis soon too, and it's rich Chinese buying up all the condos to rent



Phil just looks like a typical white dad

how we know that's him

dude is a hardcore Marcyist, to him there's an ongoing global class war in which bourgeois imperialist nations seek to dominate both socialist nations and bourgeois nations that question their behavior.

Under this line of thinking, forces like the Iranian revolutionary government can be passively pro-communist despite actively opposing communism, because in resisting US domination they help lead the way to a future communist struggle in earnest

That's good, looks matter and socialists should pay attention to that. Whether its fair or not, your opinions are often discarded or listened to based on how you look when you're not online.

There's actually something to this tbh but we can support the anti-imperialist struggle without succumbing to bourgeois ideology or delusions that Iran is communist

To be honest I'm surprised he complains about the name change. He's otherwise 100% accommodating of bourgeois transformations undertaken by anti imperialists like Putin.

Right, I'm confused.

Golf is fascist.

no he isn't, he has criticized the marcyite parties heavily.

No, his stance is that Putin is attempting to broker a peace deal between the imperialists and the resistance, he does NOT think Russia is the resistance itself.

not sure why he bothers when his views are identical to that of PSL types

They're not though. For one, he (correctly) accuses PSL and WWP of opportunism and abandoning their original staunch support for Milosevik. The PSL and WWP have shifted into "recruit the demsocs" mode and are utterly failing to uphold a consistent party line. As well, they basically are acting like honeypots, doing stupid shit that will get people arrested and hosting servers with NationBuilder.

How has America thrown them under the bus? They are still in Manbij right now. You mean Afrin? well it is pretty hard to stay in a place they never were to begin with.
iirc, he was sexually explicit with a woman he was dating. I honestly don't care either way, and it's funny you think his judgement on some faggot e-celeb being "validated" is cause for celebration
honestly have no idea about the context of what he said and what Manning does.

none of this is to mention the fact that Greaves is obviously mentally ill, which is basically beyond contention.


Imperialism is wrong and horrific and needs to be stopped. Regardless of our misgivings about bourgeois states like Iran or Syria, the subjugation of these peoples by the US and its allies needs to be opposed.

Still, this doesn't make them communists.

When? What did he say?

If he's not a Marcyist why is he so averse to criticisms of Dengism and rightist deviation?

Source please. I'm curious why he thinks the West's relationship with Russia is fundamentally different than the relationship with China or with Iran.

that'd be a smart move actually, they should join forces with the syrian communist party and continue a revolution for all of syria

but over a dozen US military bases in Syria is not socialists so that's not an option

can you point out where they interviewed her?

He thinks that she is a CIA psyop

well they're originally Trotskyist parties so that's not surprise. but their theory of "global class war" is pretty much what Greaves believes

Most likely Assad will let the over a dozen US military bases in Syria bleed for a bit so they're no longer a viable force against him and then step in to prevent further Turkish incursion

Yeah, because their theory is just Trotskyism trying to imitate principled Marxism-Leninism. So it's no surprise principled Marxist-Leninists will share a lot in common with them.

how do orthodox ML conceptions of imperialism differ from Marcyism?

No idea because I haven't prioritized reading obscure Trot sect pamphlets. However, Phil and the rest of the twitter ☭TANKIE☭s are really run-of-the-mill ML anti-imperialists, there's nothing Marcyite about it.

He looks exactly like my father and i'm really concerned.


disgusting chauvinist yanks fantasize that the yellow menace will colonize the vanguard of imperialism, just because china is offering up the last line of defense against total global US domination. KYS.

What is with this autism and the bans?

Sigh, of course it's the BO. As usual



maybe so, but only because their own capitalistic development requires them to usurp the USA's current economical hegemony.

welcome to Holla Forums phil

Hey, there’s nothing wrong with LARPing
t. Kurt Vonnegut

kindly kill yourself my dude

The later years of Assad's rule were literally defined by neo-liberal reforms.

And what America and it’s imperialist proxies want is even more neoliberalism, even more brutal capitalism than what Assad would go for, so I don’t get this line of argument by ultra-lefts

No he was neo-liberal shill before this war made that irrelevant. His father was better, but even then he wasn't socialist.

If you believe Adam Curtis, his father merc'd those 300 marines in the Beirut bombing.

Still doesn't mean the US has the right to try and divide and conquer this nation because their president is a meanie or something.

neoliberalism doesn't exist.

t. neoliberal

neoliberalism is the pet obsession of liberals who can't admit it's just plain capitalism.

your momma's just plain capitalism

Read it you piece of shit

Yes and doesn't mean it is right to support him in an proxy war between imperialist powers.

It is an actually distinguisgable se together policies that was born out of moribund welfare states like Hafez's

*set of policies
Fucking autocorrect, jesus.

I refuse to read your revisionist tripe.


No it's not. If you think neoliberalism is a thing, you are probably a stupid Berniecrat.

It's a trend, and if you actually want to overthrow capitalism, you need to adjust your theory to what's happening in the real world.

What's happening is capitalism.

The real question imo, is what comes after Neo-liberalism?

Keynesianism under siege by climate probably


Made By Greaves Gang

someone post that baathist screencap he posts of himself all the time about how anti imperialist isn't about making binary choices?

It's true Assad implemented some neoliberal reforms. The reason is to placate the imperialists. Clearly it wasn't enough. The imperialists weren't satisfied; they wanted even more "reforms". When Assad refused, the imperialists launched their war on SYria.

absolutely fucking retarded

Posting one more time, with clarity

what a fucking dumbass

there's a fucking difference between calling an alliance with britain against nazi germany a part of the communist movement and calling that fat son of a bitch a communist
why is this loser getting so much attention? a scapegoat for anti-ML propaganda using some dumbass identifying as one talking utter shit? i can see why that'd get him popular

That's an interesting take honestly. However Churchill wasn't fighting fascism/nazis, he was fighting a potential rival to his precious empire. He was always cognizant of the real threat that the USSR posed to the Brits.

Didn't he also cheer for China?

Is he holding a children's toy air BB gun? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

I would kill myself if I was a noguns poser like this scrub.

He's Canadian and it was a prop.

He wasn't talking about Churchill.
>Churchill’s Crimes: From Indian Holocaust To Palestinian Genocide from:@philgreaves01&src=typd

Again, it's almost like Phil's views are inconsistent as fuck

It's effectively nationalism rebranded for reactionaries in countries outside NATO. Anti-imperialism was a mistake.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

what's inconsistent about it? he thinks fighting fascists makes people honorary communists. he doesn't think Churchill fought fascists.

uphold chiangism de gaulleism

Umm wut?

So what does he think the British effort in WW2 was

Reminder that this is the BO. This post EXACTLY was conveniently posted BEFORE I WAS BANNED FOR 4 WEEKS FOR POSTING TWO MESSAGES IN A THREAD I MADE ABOUT WHAT GREAVES SAID. What was I banned for?





Phil Greaves was a mistake

I like Phil but he really does have some bizarre opinions

I did some Phil-related google searches, and I saw a Chapo post calling him 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧anhedonic🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧. Is he really a miserable piece of shit? That would be pretty cool. The world needs more miserable leftists. I hate fucking Chapo liberals whose support of socialism ends where their hollow hedonism begins.

Phil is too stupid to be happy or sad. He exists in a middle zone that breaks between both happy and sad rapidly depending on a situation. A space some medical scientists call, Autism.

Who is phil greaves?

The being that whose repulsion of all Homo Sapiens became genetic during the Neolithic era.

some ugly white golfing shitbird

about time /leftpol/ admitted they're a bunch of proto-ancaps.

I'd rather leftists not be miserable thanks

well for starters it was fucking pathetic
but it also was very reluctant and late on the part of the British ruling class
the only reason the Anglos and Yanks got involved was to prevent the Red Army from taking all of Germany
And Churchill himself just hid in a bunker, so no, he definitely didn't fight fascists.

The most important British communist of all time

So does that mean that Stalin wasn't technically a communist since he wasn't out shooting at nazis with the red army? Seriously this line of reasoning is comically bad.

stalin was a communist though?

No…that does not mean that at all. We have two people. One is Winston Churchill, he is not a communist. He hates communists, wants to throw gas at worker's strikes and riots. One is Joseph Stalin, he is a communist. Not a capitalist.

I cannot believe Phil Greaves has infected your brain this god damn much

World War II does not define whether or not you were a fucking communist

When you're so far up your own ass you begin to start taking moronic far right Americans talking points for them.

For instance.

Moronic Far Right American: "Durrr I heard that Winston up that damn Churchill fought them Good Nazis with them Commulists that there right there is a betrayal he's a god damn commie s.o.b I'll tell you that I'll darn damn right damn tell you alright commie sonnavabitch"

Phil Greaves: "Winston Churchill fought with Stalin, that gives you the communist participation award uwu."



Hello BO

At first I thought BO might have been out of bounds, but after getting a thread anchored, remaking the thread when there is already /leftytrash/ and an active Phil Greaves thread and then b8ing BO instead of posting in the mod feedback thread

At exactly what point did that retard not deserve to be banned?

You're right my man this is an outrage

This is why we'll never have communism. If you're a communist and you aren't miserable, you aren't thinking hard enough. The ability to experience pleasure was a mistake.

Someone else made the second thread. The first thread, someone made two posts. Then was banned and the thread was anchored.

That's actually called mental illness

I really don't see how that changes anything, aside from there now being two banned idiots instead of one.


lollerskates XD

If you make two posts you spam, regards, Winston Churchill was a communist twitter defense force

Plus I didn't even make the damn thread this is just ridiculous

Then fuck off faggot

How is making two posts spam. Spam requires like 9 posts in a row. Just say "redundant thread" and ban that person for a week, you're being pointlessly confrontational because you love Phil Greaves too much

that's Harry Pollitt

I'm the OP of the original thread. I posted about it in the mod feedback, but I'm not the one who made the thread, nor the guy who is continuously carrying on about the thread being anchored over here and in other threads.

What BO did was pretty underhanded and shitty, yes, but this guy is just making himself and me look like idiots. And I've told him as such, and he refuses to listen. Like, actually stop, you're not helping my case in the slightest.

this is exactly what marx said


greaves and kahina are at it again

Fucked up to invoke Sakai when Kahina singlehandedly discredited him to the other ☭TANKIE☭s

what does stupid americans crying about their domestic issues have to do with the US occupation of syria?

So anytime someone acts for the benefit of the proletariat and world communism then they're a communist.

I don't really object to that/Phil's interpretation of that passage, but it is still a bit unusual to go around calling resistance movements and leaders communist when the people in them themselves would probably disagree. Like, I'd say Nasrallah is part of the real movement, his analysis is more correct than most "Marxists," and he's happy to work with communists if they are his allies, but he would still probably think it a bit weird if people called him a communist.

On the one hand, I wish they'd be less hostile to each other, but on the other, they usually both bring a lot of interesting stuff to the table when they're arguing.

How did Phil greaves become such a meme
Also does he know most of his fans are autistic right wingers and frog twitter

wew this shoddy smear again. you berniecrats were freaking out when the MSM tried the same against him.

MSM knows about Phil Greeves???!

I'm really interested in this, did some MSM outlet every mention him? Also, didn't he write a piece for Infowars?

Doubt it, but lots of Blue Ticks on twitter know about him and fucking despise him.

No, some people just reposted his blogs there, globalresearch too.

no, against bernie.

Take it to /leftytrash/

*blocks your path*

wow, thank you for sharing this very important info user

hello phil

oops sorry


hello phil

Will you morons sage, k thx

oh dear

Phil annihilated that liberal piece of shit so fast he shut up for hours after. Hilarious.

is that why the tweets were deleted? lel

Dead eyed ass ptsd looking mother fucker lel

hahahaha holy fuck the maintainer really did delete his tweets responding to phil.

i'd have PTSD if i had to argue with libs as much as phil does.

I've seen things you liberals wouldn't believe. Trotskyists on fire off the shoulder of Moscow. I watched nukes glitter in the dark near the Pyongyang Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.

whos that

phil greaves

whenever I see a whole slew of anons ITT shill for Phil Greaves I think, 'wow, maybe he says things on Twitter that are actually smart which don't filter down through all the popular screencaps', and then I see shit like this, and just realize that it's either a couple of retards samefagging or Phil himself or a combination of both.

It's state capitalism bruv