I'm a Leninist and I love Makhno!!

Did he say anything about the Spanish Anarchists who were pretty well known during the time of his exile?

...

...

But let me turn this question on its head: "What did Kekalonians say about Makhno?!"

The answer is: nothing good.

the Spanish anarchists didn't "suddenly appear" you dumbass. They'd been growing since Bukanin's assistant went to Spain and started converting the region. They only took power in the 30s

But let me move on!

In my opinion (which is informed by crude experience) Makhno was not just an optimal "dictator," strategist, tactician, statesman, propagandist, and so on, but a "comrade-until-the-end!"

There's no turning away for us, platformists, from Makhno's deeds and thoughts. Only idealist faggots, be they Mensheviks, or Malatesta-like cretins, who deny his greatness.

flag

Hello, anarchist comrade. You seem to be ass-blasted. Let's find out why!

You tell me that the anarchists in Spain didn't "suddenly appear" – but where did I even hint at such a reading? The answer is: nowhere.

My critique wasn't aimed at anarchists post-Makhno, as such. My criticism was aimed at so-called-anarchists who got butt-blasted by Makhno's actual experience (like yourself), and who could not swallow the truth pill…

Pushing me to the extreme I would say this: if Kekalonia had a Makhno it would have not failed.

Debate me, faggot!

So far, ITT:
I dont care, neither would Makhno.
You are a complete brainwashed faggot.
Yes, and that is good. It takes into account the actual shit we have and builds upon it, instead of imagining shit that will not and can not happen.
Makhno would have hurt your fee-fees. In fact, Makhno would have banned you from participating in his communes. Harsh, innit?
'no'

It's not just "individualism is crap and also anti-pragmatic", the problem is that any level of individualist anarchism is also anti-society and thus necessarily primitivist. The desire to push against discipline and collective action leads to the fairly worthless spectacle of "post left anarchism" where you end up with increasingly vague, ambiguous, and increasingly impossible calls for "freedom".

I've come to the realization a while ago that anarchism could well be shockingly repressive to its own people and still fall within the realm of anarchist politics. I also realized this isn't necessarily a bad thing either, because why the hell shouldn't a group of people be allowed to take actions upon themselves that they determine to be necessary? It may well be that such things will become inevitable, at least for a time, for any serious gain to be made in the realm of anarchism in the physical world.