Correct view on the PKK?

I'm a brainlet so I need someone more intelligent to tell me what to think.

Some Turkish leftists oppose the PKK, claiming it's a tool of Western imperialism. Other Turkish leftists fight with the PKK, claiming it's a progressive national-liberation force against reaction. There are even some groups who defend Erdogan's Afrin operation on the basis of "anti-imperialism" (since the US supports the over a dozen US military bases in Syria).

I don't know nearly enough about Turkey or the Kurdish-Turkish history to even have an idea of what to think about this.

Is it true Ocalan abandoned Marxism? Regardless, actions are more important than words. Has there been any transformation at all of property relations in Northern Syria held by the Y.P.G? If not, can you even call them leftist at all?

Attached: pkk_gerilla_female_by_ariarzen-d6rbts8.jpg (990x500 186.9 KB, 209.05K)

Other urls found in this thread: - The Story of the Makhnovist Intelligence Service - V. Azarov.pdf did Makhno get his scar&source=bl&ots=Ze6Ie0PV89&sig=EashGKa1mkk3q2u3w01rPlPiZdM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1gcvb2vXZAhUEW7wKHSuvD2wQ6AEIXTAE#v=onepage&q=where did Makhno get his scar&f=false

they're being useful idiots that have no idea what they're doing and fucking it up for syria out of selfish interests being fucked over in every way imaginable
that doesn't make turkish actions "anti-imperialist", they are an inherent part of the NATO imperialist periphery getting drunk on power and influence while being scared of the prospect of a rivaling bootlicker state that would interfere with its own territoral integrity, yet they're confident enough in the US being dependent on their support in the region more than what those kurdish ethno nationalist factions could offer

Rojava is the most important libertarian socialist revolution since 1936. Yes Ocalan abandoned marxism. His new philosophy is heavily informed by Bookchin's Communalism

Which means it's still hilariously insignificant if you compare them in scope and effect to every other Marxist revolution of the last century. Libertarian socialism has been the biggest joke theoretically and practically since its conception and everybody who read 2 paragraphs of Marxist and anarchist history, 2 paragraphs from Marx and Bakunin, and compared them, knows.

May surprise you not all anarchists think alike.

I actually did. It might surprise you but I started out as an ancom. In retrospect:
Great orator, but basically a moralist. Betrays the Russian revolution for a non-existent ideal. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Absolutely theoretically poisonous as far as his naturalization of egalitarianism goes. Since him every nitwit anarchist anthropology professor wants to "prove communism" through appeals to people living in jungles. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
A complete moralist faggot who argues against an actual revolutionary with actual revolutionary experience, Makhno. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Ah yes, I'm sorry I didn't think about all those marxist revolutions happening now days

Attached: 16143256_10211209562936271_5936391971984638943_n.jpg (960x960, 83.82K)

No surprise there. If you think that what the Kurds or Zapatistas are doing are comparable to the Naxalites you are an absolute laughing stock.

And also disagreed with Makhno in regards to platformism.
He literally used scientific method and analysed both past and contemporary societies in his contextual environment, including european villages and ones in siberia. How exactly is mutual aid theory disproven, considering anthropologists today consider it a likely possibility as to how societies can function, Graeber for example. These aren't """race realist"""" pseuds. Even Kropotkin wasn't politically motivated, in forming theories on anarchism, surprisingly.

An anarchist disagreeing with another anarchist. Again, It's clear you haven't read them.

I'm calling bullshit on that one. If you read Mutual Aid, Conquest of Bread or "Are we good enough" by Kropotkin, you'd know he didn't like Anarcho-collectivist theories on Labour vouchers. If you read "Revolutionary unity" by Makhno, you'd know that he thought anarchs-individualists were detrimental to the overall anarchist cause because they couldn't get their shit together and organise.

Here's what I don't understand about Emma Goldman..

-She attacked Lenin's NEP for being capitalist and not really improving people's living standards

-She attacked Stalin for getting rid of the NEP and implementing a planned economy

Can a Goldman fan explain how this makes any sense?

To an extent, but the model of which it was done was still capitalist. Should we automatically support countries like Australia or Norway because they have the highest HDIs in the world? No, because their systems are still capitalist.

A criticism anarchists have is against the state being the primary controller of the MOP.
If you want a good analysis of it, I recommend reading (or watching) anarcho-pacs response to the Finnish bolshevik.

On top of that, you have to understand Anarchist theory contrasts to Marxist theory. Goldman criticising the USSR from an anarchist POV might not mean squat to an ML or USSR fanboy, as the theory contrasts, and leninism itself is a different theory to Anarchist theory. That's why you see MLs or tanks scoff at sources from lib com or the anarchist FAQ for example.

The only short-term alternative to state control would be worker co-ops. But if the USSR adopted a Titoist kind of system, wouldn't Emma Goldman criticize it as well for being capitalist?

It seems to me the only way for the USSR to satisfy Emma Goldman would be if it got rid of its security services, its army, and its police - completely disbanded the central government and devolved power to local soviets. Wouldn't you agree this would make the USSR extremely vulnerable to imperialism?

And why would it be a bad thing if she did?
And besides Marxists would still oppose the industries you mentioned. They'd see them as necessary evil, but not as a desired out come.

Kim Chwa Chin and Nestor Makhno would like to have a word with you.


It literally contradicts Darwinism. I'm not talking about Social Darwinism, either. Here's a rundown for your small brain: under Darwinism mutual aid is possible, but completely up to contingency vs. for Kropotkin mutual aid is the primary force (a naturalized good, basically).

For example, if you look at the findings of primatology you can see how the same group of monkeys can change social behavior completely within their lifetime due to some change in the environment. A completely aggressive and hierarchical group can turn into grooming faglords if half of their population is killed by disease. A completely "egalitarian" (>animals) group of monkeys can become aggressive and hierarchical if they overpopulate and have abundance, resorting to killing their very own.

Kropotkin was, drum roll, a shit theoretician and scientist. I know it hurts your feefees, but he was an ideologue with good intentions.

Who said anything about labor vouchers in this discussion, you complete idiot? Are you an anarchist vol who reads different texts in different threads and (hilariously mis)reads them together based on poster ID? LEL

Am I from the leninist conspiracy intending to crush you? LELLLL


The bookchin meme died last year.

>She attacked Stalin for getting rid of the NEP and implementing a planned economy

>>She attacked Lenin for a planned economy

They knowingly or unknowingly became proxy forces for the U.S to carve up Syrian territory and capture their gas and oil fields. Oh, and they somehow managed to trick some anarchist LARPers to die for kurdish nationalism while getting mulched up by the turks.

Attached: soy.jpg (1920x1080, 758.95K)

and nothing of value was lost

That, you unlearned fool, is properly called "state-building nationalism with anarchist characteristics". You are obviously not well versed in anarchist literature to know these things.

Lol. The r0java thing is on track to being remembered as nothing more than a meme revolution.

And we'll make sure that every single fucking anarchist remembers the hysteria and overall delusions they generated around it.

But it's evident that you haven't.

Kropotkin doesn't dispute this you retard. More proof that you haven't read Mutual aid.

Then how come he's still take seriously by anthropologists and biologists to this very day?

You implied all anarchists think alike, while citing Bakunin in

So again, it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about.

Typo on my part, I meant Stalin. But you accusing me of not reading is hilarious given your retardation in this thread.

kemalism (socialism with turkish characteristics) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> k*rd apoism

Attached: 1521361571616.jpg (900x1200, 182.16K)

But all socialist states thought the same thing. The goal was always to transition to Marxian communism at some point.

You're proving my argument. IRL anarchist movements, because of their idealism were never able to effectively defend their revolution.

A great example would be Catalonia. Granted it's by a bourgeoisie historian but in this book

he talks about how fascist espionage was widespread in Catalonia, something that would have been prevented with more harsh methods. Case in point- In the USSR, there was no widespread fascist espionage during WWII

Mostly due to backstabbing by Trotsky/ Mao, having to fight a war on two fronts, and having experienced tacticians and strategists taken out of the equation.

The same could be said about Sankara. A state model isn't inherently good or bad at combatting imperialism, much like how a stateless one is. But the potential for the former is still there, and had great success (prior to the assassinations and betrayal)

Catalonia is a good example, but again this wasn't inherently the fault of the anarchists. Again, fighting wars on two fronts (the liberal bourgeoise republicans who backstabbed them and were being supported by stalin certainly didn't help).

And was combatted quite fiercely.

Ironically enough, the Anarchists were more focused on the homefront than the war against Franco. I'd probably say this was the fault of them snuggling up to the Liberal republicans and focusing on a DOTP as opposed to going an-com outright as they did in Aragon.

But again, given the fact that the USSR did sabotage the revolution you can't blame them if they were hindered.

Sorry forgot to reply to this.

What would you implement instead? Labor vouchers?

Miss me with that an-col shit.

Attached: 229180a6c82c81d2c0f677e168f6de0b0502118a.png (498x674, 497.2K)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from memory USSR backed forces only went full asshole after everything was going tits up

What's evident here is that you read texts (including those of people you pretend to be responding to ITT) without understanding them.

Because there are shit anthropologists and shit biologists abound, just like there are shit Marxists and shit anarchists all around. Make up your mind on people based on their reasoning, their written theory, not their fucking title or assumed identities.

Not answering the question, typical. How would you organize economic relations in your particular brand of anarchism? TBH it really seems to me like you don't have any actual plan or vision for how to build a new society.

Which again, Kropotkin outlines in Mutual aid theory of evolution. He didn't take this out of the equation.
Fucking hell, you can't read for shit.

Attached: 685bb4ded345f9a9aebd0776df8047a823d13cc9dc26a735a9280c412f701c42.jpg (159x225, 9.48K)

Again, the fucking "eternal victim narrative." As the conditions of the civil war worsened both sides committed atrocities against their allies. Makhno's first commune didn't fail, for example, because the Bolsheviks, he personally fucked up as a leader.
Without Mao there would have been no anarchist communes in the first place.
Bull shit. Comparing anarchist failures in the first and second world to fucking Africa under the watchful eyes of the colonialists is pure magical thinking.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA then why did Makhno basically run his second commune as a statesman? Why did his fellow anarchists criticize his centralization, authoritarianism, mandatory enlistment? Did he do it because he was evil or because he learned from his own previous mistakes?
Yes, you see, NOTHING is the fault of the anarchist EVER. EVERYTHING that goes wrong goes wrong because they are the eternal victims.

You're implying I should take a condescending question seriously. Either debate in good faith and read, (something which you've failed to do in this debate) or don't.

Plan, you're correct on that. I'm not some revolutionary living in the 20th century with entirely different material conditions. On top of that, living where I am, my country hasn't had a series of revolutions, and, being western, would probably be hesitant to adopt such beliefs. In regards to any vague plan I have, I'd probably argue that an international movement would certainly help, receiving supplies we don't have, trade of goods based on need and ability, and cutting off trade routes to capitalist countries or conducting acts of sabotage abroad could help. I guess there's also the problem with gaining arms, how rival leftist orgs could co-operate, and the resources we would have access to.

As for the vision, I do believe that given the resources we have, apps for computers, phones and data would be made free as opposed to having to pay some monthly subscription fee, along with distributing information. Given the access to automation, industrial work could certainly be a breeze, and with computers calculating need and production output, it'd certainly be a breeze. Food distribution would also be easier. I guess in terms of governance in maintaining the revolution, federation would certainly be a preference, but I'm willing to accept that there may be compromise in conducting revolution.

Vision on the other hand. Resources are distributed, according to need and ability and would be administered by councils, unions, communes etc. (I'm a bit of a synthesist anarchist, but I'm opposed to labour vouchers as I see them as prolonging the inevitable, and given the access to technology, I see no point in having them, unless perhaps purchasing luxuries, but even then I find this redundant as what may count as luxury may just be basic human needs to others)

Given my interaction with leftists of my country, I doubt anyone wants a repeat of the USSR or China, but the concept of a vanguard is still kicked around.

You realize you are talking to like 3 anons, correct? According to you everybody is an evil asshole against you so you can leave out responding to parts that you don't like. You basically created for yourself a "get out of debate" card in your stupid head.

Amazing how you still didn't answer how you would organize production relations under "synthesist anarchism".

You only mentioned all of the things that you're against. You didn't mention what you're actually for, in practical terms, in terms of organizing production in a typical workplace.

Can you name 3 - 3 things Makhno, CNT-FAI did wrong?

By trusting the Bolsheviks. Yeah, no shit.
Kim Chwa Chin was in Korea, you dolt simultanousely fighting off Japanese imperialist and the Chinese army. They literally started the revolution due to Stalinist Chinese armies and invading imperialist armies from Japan.


"The land question should be decided on a Ukraine-wide scale at an all-Ukrainian congress of peasants on the following basis: in the interests of socialism and the struggle against the bourgeoisie, all land should be transferred to the hands of the toiling peasants. According to the principle that 'the land belongs to nobody' and can be used only by those who care about it, who cultivate it, the land should be transferred to the toiling peasantry of Ukraine for their use without pay according to the norm of equal distribution." [quoted by Palij, Op. Cit., p. 155]
In addition to advocating the abolition of private property in land and the end of wage labour by distributing land to those who worked it, the Makhnovists also supported the forming of "free" or "working" communes. Like their policy of land distribution, it also aimed to benefit the poorer peasants and rural wage labourers. The "free commune" was a voluntary association of rural workers who took over an expropriated estate and managed the land in common. The commune was managed by a general meeting of all its members and based on the liberty, equality and solidarity of its members.

The guerrillas elected the officers of their detachments, and, at mass assemblies and congresses, decided policy and discipline for the army. In the words of historian Michael Palij:

"As the Makhno army gradually grew, it assumed a more regular army organisation. Each tactical unit was composed of three subordinate units: a division consisted of three brigades; a brigade, of three regiments; a regiment, of three battalions. Theoretically commanders were elected; in practice, however, the top commanders were usually carefully selected by Makhno from among his close friends. As a rule, they were all equal and if several units fought together the top commanders commanded jointly. The army was nominally headed by a Revolutionary Military Council of about ten to twenty members . . . Like the commanders, the council members were elected, but some were appointed by Makhno .. . . There also was an elected cultural section in the army. Its aim was to conduct political and ideological propaganda among the partisans and peasants." [Palij, Op. Cit., pp. 108-9]
The Revolutionary Military Council was elected and directly accountable to the regional workers, peasants and insurgent congresses. It was designed to co-ordinate the local soviets and execute the decisions of the regional congresses.

Hence Voline:

"This council embraced the whole free region. It was supposed to carry out all the economic, political, social and military decisions made at the congress. It was thus, in a certain sense, the supreme executive of the whole movement. But it was not at all an authoritarian organ. Only strictly executive functions were assigned to it. It confined itself to carrying out the instructions and decisions of the congress. At any moment, it could be dissolved by the congress and cease to exist." [Op. Cit., p. 577]



As such, when Palij notes that this council "had no decisive voice in the army's actions," he misses the point of the council. [Palij, Ibid.] It did not determine the military affairs of the army, but rather the interaction of the military and civilians and made sure that the decisions of congresses were executed. Thus the whole army was nominally under the control of the regional congresses of workers, peasants and insurgents. At these congresses, delegates of the toiling people decided upon the policy to be pursued by the Makhnovist Army. The Revolutionary Military Soviet existed to oversee that decisions were implemented, not to determine the military activities of the troops.

It should also be noted that women not only supported the Makhnovists, they also "fought alongside the men." [Arshinov, Op. Cit., p. 145] However, "the participation of women in the movement (by all accounts, quite substantial)" needs "further investigation." [Serge Cipko, "Nestor Makhno: A Mini-Historiography of the Anarchist Revolution in Ukraine, 1917-1921," pp. 57-75, The Raven, no. 13, p. 75]

At its height, the army was made up of infantry, cavalry, artillery, machine-gun units, and special branches, including an intelligence service. As the success of partisan warfare depends upon mobility, the army gradually mounted its infantry in light carts (called "tachanka") during 1918-19. As Michael Malet notes, this was a "novel tactic" and Makhno "could be described as the inventor of the motorised division before the car came into general use." [Op. Cit., p. 85] The tachanka was used to transport as many troops as possible, giving the Makhnovists mobile infantry which could keep up with the cavalry. In addition, a machine-gun was sometimes mounted in the rear (in autumn 1919, the 1st machine-gun regiment consisted of 120 guns, all mounted on tachanki).

For the most part the Makhnovist army was a volunteer army, unlike all others operating in the Russian Civil War. However, at times of crisis attempts were made to mobilise troops. For example, the Second regional congress agreed that a "general voluntary and equalitarian mobilisation" should take place. This meant that this appeal, "sanctioned by the moral authority of the congress, emphasised the need for fresh troops in the insurrectionary army, no-one was compelled to enlist." [Voline, Op. Cit., p. 577] The Congress itself passed a resolution after a long and passionate debate that stated it "rejected 'compulsory' mobilisation, opting for an 'obligatory' one; that is, each peasant who is able to carry arms, should recognise his obligation to enlist in the ranks of the partisans and to defend the interests of the entire toiling people of Ukraine." [quoted by Palij, Op. Cit., p. 155] There were far more volunteers than arms, the opposite of what occurred to both the Reds and Whites during the Civil War. [Malet, Op. Cit., p. 106]

The third Congress decided to conduct a voluntary mobilisation all those born between 1889 and 1898. This congress told them to assemble at certain points, organise themselves and elect their officers. Another mobilisation decided at the Aleksandrovsk congress never took place. How far the Makhnovists were forced to conscript troops is still a matter of debate. Paul Avrich, for example, states that "voluntary mobilisation" in reality "meant outright conscription, as all able-bodied men were required to serve." [Op. Cit., p. 114] On the other side, surviving leaflets from 1920 "are in the nature of appeals to join up, not instructions." [Malet,Op. Cit., p. 105] Trotsky, ironically, noted that "Makhno does not have general mobilisations, and indeed these would be impossible, as he lacks the necessary apparatus." [quoted by Malet, Op. Cit., p. 106] It is probably right to say that the Congresses desired that every able-bodied man join the Makhnovist army, but they simply did not have the means to enforce that desire and that the Makhnovists tried their best to avoid conscription by appealing to the peasants' revolutionary conscience, with some success.



As well as the military organisation, there was also an explicitly anarchist federation operating in the Ukraine at the same time. The first conference to organise a "Confederation of Anarchist Organisations of the Ukraine" was held between November 12th to 16th, 1918. The new federation was named "Nabat" (Alarm) and had a six-person Secretariat. Kharkiv was chosen as its headquarters, while it had groups in other major Ukrainian cities (including Kyiv, Odessa and Katerynoslav). The final organisation of the Nabat was accomplished at a conference held in April 2-7, 1919. The federation aimed to form a "united anarchism" and guaranteed a substantial degree of autonomy for every participating group and individual. A number of newspapers appeared in a Ukrainian towns and cities (mostly entitled Nabat), as did leaflets and pamphlets. There was a main weekly paper (called Nabat) which was concerned largely with anarchist theory. This completed the Makhnovist papers Road to Freedom (which was often daily, sometimes weekly and dealt with libertarian ideas, everyday problems and information on partisan activities) and The Makhnovist Voice (which dealt primarily with the interests, problems, and tasks of the Makhnovist movement and its army). The Nabat organisation was also published a pamphlet dealing with the Makhnovist movement's problems, the economic organisation of the region, the free soviets, the social basis of the society that was to be built, and the problem of defence.

nsurprisingly, the Nabat federation and the Makhnovists worked together closely, with Nabat members worked in the army (particularly its cultural section). Some of its members were also elected to the Makhnovist Revolutionary Military Soviet. It should be noted that the Nabat federation gained a number of experienced anarchists from Soviet Russia, who fled to the Ukraine to escape Bolshevik repression. The Nabat shared the fortunes of the Makhno movement. It carried on its work freely as long as the region was controlled by the Makhnovist Army, but when Bolshevik or White forces prevailed, the anarchists were forced underground. The movement was finally crushed in November 1920, when the Bolsheviks betrayed the Makhnovists.

As can be seen, the Makhnovists implemented to a large degree the anarchist idea of self-managed, horizontally federated associations (when possible, of course). Both the two major organisational layers to the Makhnovist structure (the army and the congresses) were federated horizontally and the "top" structure was essentially a mass peasant, worker and guerrilla decision-making coalition. In other words, the masses took decisions at the "top" level that the Revolutionary Military Soviet and the Makhnovist army were bound to follow. The army was answerable to the local Soviets and to the congresses of soviets and, as we discuss in section H.6.7, the Makhnovists called working-people and insurgent congresses whenever they could.

The Makhnovist movement was, fundamentally, a working class movement. It was "one of the very few revolutionary movements to be led and controlled throughout by members of 'the toiling masses.'" [David Footman, Op. Cit., p. 245] It applied its principles of working class autonomy and self-organisation as far as it could. Unlike the Red Army, it was predominantly organised from the bottom up, rejecting the use of Tsarist officers, appointed commanders, and other "top-down" ways of the Red Army (see section H.6.14 for further discussion of the differences between the two forces).

The Makhnovist army was not by any means a perfect model of anarchist military organisation. However, compared to the Red Army, its violations of principle are small and hardly detract from their accomplishment of applying anarchist ideas in often extremely difficult circumstances.

Except i never denied this in the post.

I agreed with your point on Anarchists not always being able to defend the revolution. I hoped that the implication of them snuggling up to the bourgeoise republicans initially to fight fascism might have been an indicator of that.

Are you mentally well? Do you have brain damage?

Yes. And tell you what, I'll do 4.

1. Didn't take enough initiative to make plans of construction in regards to industrial output. The fact that the revolution was majorly peasant in character was a slight hindrance, as they weren't experienced in working in factories and industrial workers were few and far between.

2. Pogroms. Even though the black army had anti-semites shot, it didn't stop them from lashing out against Jewish communities. While it was combatted (in my opinion, quite efficiently), in hindsight it shouldn't have happened in the first place. Makhno himself regretted killing close friends of his who were anti-semites.

3. A little to quick too quick to trust people who were anti-bolshevik. War makes us do stupid shit, and even though the black army was quick to act on it, in hindsight, Makhno was more or less desperate.


First of all: thanks for shitting up the thread with that wall of text. The thread wasn't just shitty enough until that, it really needed that extra shit. Thank you. Second: all the sources you are posting rely on the same few texts and accounts all from the Makhnovist side. In historiography this is called using incestuous sources, and in essence considered to be propaganda rather than history. Let me explain what this means. Imagine a pyramid standing on its head: at the bottom we have Makhno, his few surviving friends (live accounts) and Makhno's written diaries (textual source). Throughout the years anarchists started referencing these, and other anarchists referenced those who referenced them, and so on and so on, until we create a huge pyramid of references, with the same sources bottom.

There are, however, a lot of other sources your authors do not consider: The Whites, the Bolsheviks, non-Makhnovist anarchists, peasants, etc. Historians (real historians, that is) work by contrasting sources, trying to find agreements and contradictions between them in order to paint the most likely picture of the events as they really happened.

Your sources that basically rely on what Makhno&Friends say about Makhno&Friends are laughable.

4. Bitterness at Lenin.
While I could make the argument that the Bolsheviks weren't the kindest of blokes, I feel Makhno should have more effort to communicate with Lenin as opposed to vice versa. The anarchists of Ukraine understandably didn't want to be administered by another foreign government (lands that were under the anarchist soviets used to belong to Menonites and Germans). If Makhno had made the initiative to engage with Lenin first, it might have dispelled any paranoia that was whispered by Trotsky.

1. Collaborating with the bourgeoise republicans
Even anarchists within the revolution were pissed at this decision. Rather than wage a revolutionary war not only against the fascists, they allied with the republicans to purge the latter. Had they overthrown the government as opposed to having a dictatorship of the proletariat, in which the transfer from liberal capitalists to federations, unions etc. it wouldn't have come to bite them in the arse and have to fight them, along with the fascists, as well.

2. Prisons.
I'm prison abolitionist, and while the argument could be made that it was in the dictatorship of the proletariat, the fact of the matter is, is that they served no better than work camps and their own forms of gulags. As opposed for being used as institutions for rehabilitation, and isolation, they were used for forced labour and punishment. True, they housed political enemies, but this nonetheless flies in the face of anarchist principles.


Makhno claims that he has met Lenin (no other sources can testify to this, however). See pdf.

You do realize that he was an alcoholic, correct? :)

I already debunked your shitty source in another thread. And considering that the "Makhno and friends" already disproved the propaganda and claims within the link, your argument is moot.

The fact that you're willing to believe what amounts to Trotskyist bullshit is also laughable, and pretty much results in you poisoning the well.

I provided you counter evidence. Me providing walls of texts have nothing to do with it.

I'll say this again, read you utter brainlet. - The Story of the Makhnovist Intelligence Service - V. Azarov.pdf

First of the sources also contain sources from people who were critical of Makhno. If you're willing to poison the well and use already debunked resources then you're not doing yourself any favours.

Jeez louise, it's not like soviets smashed any records of anarchist organisations and constantly slandered them in the press.
Unless you have any counter sources saying they didn't, your point remains, as usual, MOOT.

Now, back to CNT.

3. Use of market economies
the economy of Catalonia was mixed, no thanks to the DOP, but the fact of the matter is, money was still used in exchange.

4. Abolishment of sex work
I believe that people have the right to sex work, and revolutionary catalonia was quick to get rid of it, abolishing brothels and the like. I'd say this is more of a form of hindsight as opposed based on contextual frame works, but a flaw is still a flaw.

Man, what I'd give to be able to experience the world like you do just for 2 minutes, to be able to look into your head and see that confusion in action.

First, notice how we are talking about Makhno and not some democratic body that decides these things relating to economics. There were several (peasant, worker, local, etc.) democratic bodies, all chaired by Makhno. (For the keks: imagine the outrage among Marxists if Lenin chaired the communist party, the politburo, the army, the city of Moscow at the same time. Apparently our anarchists can tolerate much more.) Second, his idea was basically spontaneous exchange between the peasantry and urban workers, but since they went easy on the kulaks and no real further planning took place on the matter not much was achieved.

What, you confused monkey? The progroms? The whole region was infested with petty nationalism and anti-semitism spread by years of Tsarist propaganda. You can't just wish away the historical conditions. Or did you mean that killing of the anti-semites shouldn't have happened? Well then, go fuck yourself.

LEL. You know that Makhno married an anti-semite who most likely caused his wound on his face by carving it up with a knife, rite?

As : either he did meet with Lenin and no other sources can verify this story (would be very strange since we have a good idea whom'st the leaders of the USSR met with and whem'st) or Makhno&Friends are simply making shit up. We will never know. Maybe the opened Russian state archives will eventually bring up some new texts on it.

Wait. Are you actually calling the republic a DoP?

Pure moralism. History doesn't give a shit about your principles. You have three options: 1) lock up counter-revolutionaries; 2) shoot counter-revolutionaries; 3) betray the revolution by letting them go because "muh principles".

False dichotomy.

>There are, however, a lot of other sources your authors do not consider: The Whites, the Bolsheviks, non-Makhnovist anarchists, peasants, etc. Historians (real historians, that is) work by contrasting sources, trying to find agreements and contradictions between them in order to paint the most likely picture of the events as they really happened.

But let me guess you don't trust it because of """"Makhno and friends""""
That's debatable.

Eye witness accounts from Arshinov and Voline. Both stress that the Makhno movement was a mass revolutionary movement of the peasant and working poor in the Southern Ukraine. Arshinov states that after Denikin's troops had been broken in 1919, the Makhnovists "literally swept through villages, towns and cities like an enormous broom" and the "returned pomeshchiks [landlords], the kulaks , the police, the priests" were destroyed, so refuting the "the myth spread by the Bolsheviks about the so-called kulak character of the Makhnovshchina." Ironically, he states that "wherever the Makhnovist movement developed, the kulaks sought the protection of the Soviet authorities, and found it there." [Op. Cit., p. 145]

Yossif the Emigrant, another anarchist active in the movement, told anarchist Alexander Berkman that while there was a "kulak" element within it, "the great majority are not of that type." [quoted by Berkman, The Bolshevik Myth, p. 187] According to Halyna Makhno (Makhno's wife), when entering a town or village it was "always Makhno's practice to compel the rich peasants, the kulaki , to give up their surplus wealth, which was then divided among the poor, Makhno keeping a share for his army. Then he would call a meeting of the villagers, address them on the purposes of the povstantsi [partisan] movement, and distribute his literature." [Emma Goldman, My Disillusionment in Russia, p. 149]

And it still found a way to get into the black army. True, they did conduct killings of pogroms, but there were anti-semites within Makhno's ranks (they were later killed, but Makhno should have known that before trusting them)
Giving the way you've conducted yourself throughout this argument, I'd say the feeling is mutual.


Holy shit, you ARE calling the republic a DoP, but worse, you want to abolish it not because it was actually a bourgeois parliament, but an evil DoP your lala-anarchism will surpass.

Holy shet.

Not just any part, you faggot, but chairman of them all.

Which again, were either bullshit and disproven as seen within the thread OR as I have also done validated by contrasting views. See did Makhno get his scar&source=bl&ots=Ze6Ie0PV89&sig=EashGKa1mkk3q2u3w01rPlPiZdM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1gcvb2vXZAhUEW7wKHSuvD2wQ6AEIXTAE#v=onepage&q=where did Makhno get his scar&f=false

what in the name of good fuck are you talking about?

Pure moralism. History doesn't give a shit about your principles. You have three options: 1) lock up counter-revolutionaries; 2) shoot counter-revolutionaries; 3) betray the revolution by letting them go because "muh principles".
Well it's a good thing Makhno did 2, albeit he let the Bolsheviks in the Ukraine speak and criticise Makhno, as elaborated in the second source provided in

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-03-18 at 9.55.51 pm.png (1200x408, 309.09K)

what does 'progressive' even mean anymore? what is a materialist worldview progressing towards, if the West is any indication it is towards a dark abyss of consumption and self-debasement, every problem gets reduced to economic calculations, the human is turned to a machine of production and labor and alienated from himself.

Attached: 277BF8B000000578-3035675-Young_men_ignite_homemade_rockets_during_the_Orthodox_Easter_cel-a-42_1428849122014.jpg (962x641, 114.14K)

Observe the eternal cultist. He disregards his own fucking sources when it paints a bad picture about his messiah.

So in essence Voline is a trustable source when he praises Makhno, but untrustable when he calls Makhno a drunkard.


You do realise the government was being dissolved in Catalonia by the anarchists and placed under their control. The criticism I mentioned was that they didn't overthrow it outright.

God you are thick.

The Makhnovist experiments, it should be noted, have strong similarities to the rural revolution during the Spanish Revolution of 1936 (see sections I.8.5 and I.8.6 for more details).

As well as implementing their economic ideas on workers' self-management, land reform and free communes, the Makhnovists also organised regional congresses as well as local soviets. Most of the activity happened in and around Hulyai Pole, the focal point of the movement.This was in accord with their vision of a "free soviet system." Needless to say, the congresses could only be called during periods of relative calm (i.e. the Makhnovist home area was not occupied by hostile forces) and so congresses of insurgents, peasants and workers were called in early 1919 and another in October of that year. The actual dates of the regional congresses were:

23 January 1919 at Velyka Mykhailivka
12 February 1919 at Hulyai Pole

10 April 1919 at Hulyai Pole

20 October 1919 at Aleksandrovsk

A congress for the fifteenth of June 1919 never met because Trotsky unilaterally banned it, under pain of death to anyone even discussing it, never mind calling for it or attending as a delegate. Unlike the third congress, which ignored a similar ban by Dybenko, the fourth congress could not go ahead due to the treacherous attack by the Red Army that preceded it. Four Makhnovist commanders were executed by the Red Army for advertising this congress. Another congress planned for Aleksandrovsk in November 1920 was also prevented by Bolshevik betrayal, namely the attack after Wrangel had been defeated. [Malet, Op. Cit., p. 108] See section H.6.13 for further details.

The reason for these regional congresses was simple, to co-ordinate the revolution. "It was indispensable," Arshinov notes, "to establish institutions which unified first a district composed of various villages, and then the districts and departments which composed the liberated region. It was indispensable to find general solutions for problems common to the entire region. It was indispensable to create organs suitable for these tasks. And the peasants did not fail to create them. These organs were the regional congresses of peasants and workers." [Op. Cit., pp. 87-8] These congresses "were composed of delegates of peasants, workers and of the insurgent army, and were intended to clarify and record the decisions of the toiling masses and to be regarded as the supreme authority for the liberated area." [David Footman, Op. Cit., p. 266]

However, as Makhno himself acknowledged, while the "majority of the toiling population saw in the organisation of rural communes the healthy germ of a new social life" which could provide a "model of a free and communal form of life," the "mass of people did not go over to it." They cited as their reasons "the advance of the German and Austrian armies, their own lack of organisation, and their inability to defend this order against the new 'revolutionary' [Bolshevik] and counter-revolutionary authorities. For this reason the toiling population of the district limited their revolutionary activity to supporting in every way those bold springs." [Makhno, quoted by Avrich, Op. Cit., p. 132] Given that the communes were finally destroyed by White and Red forces in June 1919, their caution was justified. After this, peace did not return long enough for the experiment to be restarted.

As Michael Malet argues:

"Very few peasant movements in history have been able to show in practice the sort of society and type of landholding they would like to see. The Makhnovist movement is proof that peasant revolutionaries can put forward positive, practical ideas." [Op. Cit., p. 121]

You literally asked me to provide contrasting sources, which again you criticised me of not providing. How exactly am I calling Makhno a messiah? An eye witness account of him being grazed by a bullet is bad, and all of a sudden people can't make corrections to past assumptions made by others?

Jesus, you're thick.

At this point I hope that it is obvious to everyone that your copy pasted walls of texts are like Sumerian praying statues for you in a debate.

don't use the Lords' name in vain.

Wew lad.

I literally didn't and you literally aren't. Do you understand how historiography works?
[Source A] says Makhno was a drunkard.
[Source A] says nice things about Makhno's commune.
[Source B] says Makhno wasn't a drunkard.
[Source A] says nice things about Makhno's commune.

A historian has 4 options:
1) prove that Source A is wrong on the first claim, and flag that source as SUSPECT of not being completely reliable, meaning that all of his other statements are SUSPECT.
2) prove that Source B is wrong on the first claim, and flag that source as SUSPECT of not being completely reliable, meaning that all of his other statements are SUSPECT.
3) Suspend judgement altogether if there's no evidence in either direction.
4) Try to synthesize the two claims: Makhno was a drunkard when Source A knew him [Ukraine] but not anymore when Source B knew him [later, in Paris].

But this is NOT what you are doing. You are using incestuous sources and cherry pick the best of each. This is called myth making. This is how a Robin Hood is made, not a historical figure.

Do you understand that throughout this discussion the trustworthiness of your "evidence" has been in question and you totally disregard this and continue to dump it. Do you understand that this is the same tactic a Holla Forumstard would do to "debunk" the Holocaust?

How do you view a peasant revolution taking place in a place like 2018 US, Britain, or Germany?

Attached: 938252e12902994fe112e6021d792aab3c0b046d_00.gif (288x200, 858.71K)

Should have been:
[Source B] says Makhno wasn't a drunkard.
[Source B, citing Source A] says nice things about Makhno's

Hi comrades! Parisian anarchist here. My grandfather actually met Makhno in 1933. Turns out he was a heroin addict. Everything else he said in his diary about his super commune was true tho.

Just wanted to chip in with my two cents.


That's a funny way of spelling "proving you literally wrong on every angle."
What in the name of good fuck are you talking about? The source describing Makhno "Not" being an alcoholic makes no mention of the communes whatsoever. It talks of his life in Paris after the revolution. And even then, the author is somewhat skeptical of her own claims. If Makhno was an alcoholic, he was one hell of a lightweight.

Again I've provided the evidence debunking your claims. The contention as to "wether Makhno was mauled by his wife" which is what started this whole "contrasting sources" is still up for debate. Again, this was a rumour spread, as Makhno and his wife certainly weren't on the best of terms.

You've literally provided no counter evidence which debunks the claims made by eye-witnesses. And even then you've failed to read evidence provided and just called it """Makhno and friends""". And again, mentioning details of the Ukrainian free territory from Bolsheviks were either 1. proven to be bullshit, or 2. were censored by the bolsheviks.

You're an utter waste of braincells if you keep arguing in this manner.

Nope. Different material conditions. On top of that, most anarchists in Britain and Germany are confined in the cities. Same can be applied to the US. Material conditions and culture may impact as to what sort of revolution there may be, and as the third world becomes more of a backyard for industry, I find the likelihood of a peasant uprisings

Oh this is just another level of butthurt. I historians and eye witnesses don't count tho.

*I guess

So what do you have against Maoism?

As opposed to you just rejecting evidence out right and screaming "Makhno and friends" which is the equivalent of a Holla Forumstard calling evidence jewish.

I've actually provided evidence, the best you can do is just call him "lol faggot he was a drunkard LEL".

Oh boy. So we have two explanations for his wound. First, that he was shot escaping near the Romanian border, second, her otherwise psycho wife carved his face with a knife. I ask you: does this look like a gunshot or knife wound to you?

Attached: machno.jpg (1024x1306, 125.32K)

I don't. I think Maoism has some good theory, mass line and self-crit being a few. I would be cautious of a centralised vanguard, and the use of a state. I don't outright hate it. Should I therefore disregard all aspects of ML theory/praxis or Marxist theory/praxis for that matter?

I don't know fam, you tell me. It's almost as if bullets grazing targets are a thing.

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-03-18 at 11.06.05 pm.png (1024x548, 293.04K)

*has some good theory and praxis, self-crit, mass line and contradictions being a few.

Attached: 2.png (655x597 56.08 KB, 221.04K)

Attached: 3.png (662x413, 115.32K)

Attached: 4.png (667x288, 109.87K)

Attached: 2.png (665x532 156.43 KB, 157.35K)


Economically, as is to be expected, the Makhnovists opposed private property, capitalism and wage-slavery. Their economic ideas were summarised in a Makhnovist declaration as follows:

"The lands of the service gentry, of the monasteries, of the princes and other enemies of the toiling masses, with all their livestock and goods, are passed on to the use of those peasants who support themselves solely through their own labour. This transfer will be carried out in an orderly fashion determined in common at peasant assemblies, which must remember in this matter not only each of their own personal interests, but also bear in mind the common interest of all the oppressed, working peasantry.
"Factories, workshops, mines and other tools and means of production become the property of the working class as a whole, which will run all enterprises themselves, through their trade unions, getting production under way and striving to tie together all industry in the country in a single, unitary organisation." [contained in Arshinov, Op. Cit., p. 266]
Seems like he's taking Arshinov out of context there.

First pic from

I already addressed. And again
In 1917, the peasants all across the Russian Empire took back the land stolen by the landlords. This lead to two developments. Firstly, there was a "powerful levelling effect" in rural life. [Shanin, Op. Cit., p. 159] Secondly, the peasants would only support those who supported their aspirations for land reform (which was why the Bolsheviks effectively stole the Socialist-Revolutionary land policy in 1917). The Ukraine was no different. In 1917 the class structure in the countryside changed when the Hulyai Pole peasants were amongst the first to seize the landlords' land. In August 1917 Makhno assembled all the landed gentry ("pomeshchiks") of the region "and made them give him all the documents relating to lands and buildings." After making an exact inventory of all this property and presenting a report to the local and then district congress of soviets, he "proceeded to equalise the rights of the pomeshchiks and kulaks with those of the poor peasant labourers in regard to the use of the land . . . the congress decided to let the pomeshchiks and kulaks have a share of the land, as well as tools and livestock, equal to that of the labourers." Several other peasant congresses nearby followed this example and adopted the same measure. [Peter Arshinov, Op. Cit., pp. 53-4]

Most of this land, tools and livestock was distributed to poor peasants, the rest was used to set up voluntary communes where the peasants themselves (and not the state) self-managed the land. Thus the peasants' "economic conditions in the region of the Makhno movement were greatly improved at the expense of the landlords, the church, monasteries, and the richest peasants." [Palij, Op. Cit., p. 214] This redistribution was based on the principle that every peasant was entitled to as much land as their family could cultivate without the use of hired labour. The abolition of wage labour in the countryside was also the method the anarchists were to use in Spain to divide up the land some 20 years later.

We should also note that the Makhnovist policy of land reform based on the abolition of wage labour was, as we noted in section H.6.7, the position agreed at the second regional congress called in 1919. The Makhnovists specifically argued with regards to the kulaks:

"We are sure that . . . the kulak elements of the village will be pushed to one side by the very course of events. The toiling peasantry will itself turn effortlessly on the kulaks, first by adopting the kulak's surplus land for general use, then naturally drawing the kulak elements into the social organisation." [cited by Michael Malet, Op. Cit., pp. 118-9]

And again, if this is supposed to be resources stating that they are all sympathetic, again, I linked this article.

So unless you have resources disproving Malet, which again your resources do not do other than say "hurr he supported Makhno and shouldn't be trusted".

On top of that, Malet utilises sources that do disagree with Makhno to further his arguments in the link provided. So again, you're committing a burden of proof fallacy.

That's like saying Tauger should be discarded entirely because he ""supported the soviet union"""

What soviets? He is citing Malet and Arshinov. The writer is from South Africa, you absolute buffoon.

Don't you understand the difference between declaration of principles and actually existing historical reality? For instance, Hitler declares that an Aryan country is the best place for a worker to be. Does that make it so?

Aside from Bolshevik slander, again, this was disproven.
And Darch isn't to be trusted by your standards, as he is biased himself.


The USSR you fuckwit

And I provided evidence from Arshinov to back their claim. You can't be this thick.


Obviously false. The soviets had no problems with Makhno declaring his commune the best possible super-duper commune system or doing whatever he did on those territories as long as it did not interfere with his allies internal issues. The soviets had a problem tho when Makhno sent out agitprop addressing the soldiers of the Red Army as well, insinuating that their leadership is not to be trusted. These things are very, very different in a civil war. Pic related (page 291).

NOT just the general population to all RED ARMY TROOPS in the region as well.

Attached: 1.png (646x579, 185.75K)

Voline wasnt actually a makhnovist, he was (from what i understand) shortly in NABAT - if you read what Skirda says about him, particularly in "Anarchy's Cossack," he gives the impression that Voline had only brief encounters with Makhno, and, later in his life, a rivalry seemingly grew between them. Voline became one of the most vocal critics of the Platform (which Makhno helped form)

It's almost as if Volin was initially buddies with Makhno and then after a while lied about Makhno to gain support for his cause.

And guess what, in regards to "Makhno being an alcoholic"
Skirda also says that Makhno avoided drink. Hurm…. It's almost as if the sources used by the ISO and Darch are full of bolshevik lies and slander done in a similar vein during the Russian revolution.

Attached: DiWS30Y.jpg (412x350, 46.72K)

Here's Arshinov saying that Makhno addressed the Red Army, just for you.

Attached: 1.png (280x35, 5.02K)

Oh bullshit, I debunked this in a previous thread with you

They attempted to assassinate him twice.
While still denouncing them and not holding up their end of the bargain.

Did I ever explicitly deny that Makhno did NOT interact with the red army?
You are now literally putting words in my mouth. You can't be this fucking retarded and grasp at so many straws.

Again, seems that you're forgetting that The black army and red army were briefly allies. It's almost as if you don't know what you're talking about.

Reading is hard, you know. I already told you that Darch's is an unbiased history book presenting all sides and not just the Makhnovist myth-making nor just the Trotsky's story. Pic very much related – it's from the splitting of the second alliance.

Attached: 1.png (502x514, 89.76K)


Except he literally quotes Bolshevik bullshit which was disproven.

holy shit

And you're accusing the bolsheviks of NOT interfering with the black army despite

Are you the same retard that didn't read Mutual Aid: a factor in evolution. If that's the case, then this is just pure speculation and you've literally nothing of value to offer than being a cow I can milk for lols.

How pathetic.

*stating- not accusing


You aren't even debating with me you are copy pasting content from an archived thread WITHOUT REMOVING the parts not appropriate to this discussion. Holy shit, I'm going to start reporting you for spam.

Yes because the Naxalites have done very much apart from capturing innocent foreigners

I hope for your sake you're not. But the amount of damage control that you're going on is hilarious.
But to say that the Bolsheviks "didn't interfere" 1. Is bullshit, as the evidence provided indicates they did, on a more violent level no doubt.
2. >B-but he said mean things about them
Yeah, it's not like he had a bit of a grudge, bolsheviks attacking anarchists back in Russia and what not. Are you honestly expecting him to not criticise them? Especially when Bolsheviks imprisoned anarchists. Fuck off you pseudo-spurdo cunt.

And no, to answer your statement I don't neglect Makhno being salty towards bolsheviks from time to time. Especially when they did the things that they asked Makhno not to do.

Who said that? Point to the exact location of anybody saying that ITT.

So again, either you're samefagging, or you're as retarded as your spurdo budy here.


Where does it say that the Bolsheviks didn't interfere? Quote the exact part of the text where it says that.

The break up of the first alliance was a process of escalation of distrust, interference, hostilities on both sides.


Stop reporting each other or you'll both get banned

I was hoping for actual PKK/SDF discussion, but it turned into yet another ancoms vs ☭TANKIE☭s.

Personally I'd prefer if the Turks would fuck off, but it looks like if they go past Manbij, R.ojava is probably fucked.

It's hard to tell what's going to happen, fog of war

How does repeatedly posting walls of contextless texts from previously archived threads loaded with totally unrelated fragments of past discussions not qualify as spam in your opinion?

That does not say that the "Bolsheviks didn't interfere." It says that the Bolshevik's was a response not to anarchists "spreading their own political ideas" (as you claimed, so graciously posting it twice for us) but to agitating against military discipline within the Red Army.

He's not even ancom ( ) and I'm not even a ☭TANKIE☭. And I'm not too happy about the events in over a dozen US military bases in Syria either, but I didn't share the anarchist's expectations about them.

tools of israel

Support Assad

Attached: df22795ffe30f4056633203e457837ca4e4e446059735a32deb8dcb90925cf91.png (1500x1398, 925.6K)

spam would mean derailing a conversation, a thread, or multiple threads with completely unrelated shit. The black flag stated he was using what he had previously posted in an archived thread, kept it to a few posts, kept it to a single thread, and was related to the argument. The only person it effected was you and had no effect on the board as it's contained to one thread. If I wanted to I could use a super specific definition of spam and ban him however in this situation I don't think it warrants a ban.
Don't try and get the mods to take sides in your autism

The PKK and Öcalan have moved away from Marxism, they are not socialists anymore. Their praxis is also to be criticized, individual acts of terrorism amount to nothing.

Exact quote to showcase the format and quality of posts he has:
They attempted to assassinate him twice.
While still denouncing them and not holding up their end of the bargain.
Try reading out that text aloud, will you.
You are telling me this is 1. comprehensible text and 2. related to the discussion (in response to ). He posts the same content repeatedly:

Let's look back at his previous interactions:

Q.E.D.: You are defending a shitposting spammer.
Look up the IDs I just quoted.

The USA has nothing to do with the over a dozen US military bases in Syria in Afrin.


Attached: 0CB8A50D-FB57-4A8A-8842-1A38E37A0255.jpeg (250x203, 12.72K)

Syrian fascism/Russian imperialism > communist who get some weapons from USA

Why do people think that working with the US automatically makes you a puppet? List of leftists that worked with the US

List of leftists who immediately told the US to fuck off when their interests diverged.

People seem to think that real life is hearts of iron where once an alliance is made its permenant. Do you guys literally not understand the complex and constantly changing nature of geopolitics?

That's a nice story. Now compare each of those countries in size, relevance, and geo-political position to over a dozen US military bases in Syria.
You honestly believe that if over a dozen US military bases in Syria did this the US would politely accept?
Changing to such an extent to transform over a dozen US military bases in Syria to the relevance of USSR, Yugoslavia, or China? Will this occur within this millennium? I can't wait.

literally paid by foreign powers, comperable to those "leftists" that are "anti-antisemitic"
ignore them, they are only there to obfuscate

If you don't see how a bunch of agrarian mountain people without a state who are 100% dependent on outside support are fundamentally different than any of the things you mentioned, there's really not a whole lot to talk about.

Right because 2000 air crew and special forces guys on unsupplied bases surrounded by hostile territory would totally be able to take on the entire Kurdish militia. If they wanted the US out there isn’t much they could do about it.

Changing to the extent of there being shifting alliances which turn friends into enemies in the course of a few weeks, which happens all the time especially in the total mess that is the Syrian war.

They certainly aren’t much different than the Viet Minh, the PLA, or the Albanian and Yugoslavian partisans during WW2. These were all small isolated guerilla groups totally dependent on outside forces, and yet they still did not become US puppets because this is real life where priorities and interests intersect and diverge. The fact that the Kurds are even engaged in combat against the Turks and openly collaborate with Assad and Russia, working against US interests is proof that they have their own agenda.

Islamig gommunizum BTFO

their stated goal is an ethnostate


Ba'athist states were also ethnostates (or wannabe ethnostates).

What Israel does to the Palesitnians is what Nasser, papa Assad, Saddam, Gaddafi all did to their religious and ethnic minorities.

i don't care if you are pro-ethnationalism, i am simply correcting you, although that is pretty cringe


Did Nasser and Gaddafi do this? Assad and Saddam are fascists anyway

Gaddafi was pretty harsh on the Amazigh. He also expelled the last of Libya's Jews.

I see. I never really knew what to think of the guy although I got memed into defending him for a while by michael parenti. It seems he did a great job at raising his country's quality of life and building a large scale irrigation project, but I hate the fact that he smuggled in shariah laws and definitely don't think it was as democratic as he made it out to be. Wasn't aware he was also nazbol until now.

Attached: gaddafi parenti.jpg (1250x1312, 257.87K)

Why the fuck the US wouldn't send reinforcement, drones, etc?

at least try to put some effort into it after your next ban evasion, faggot

Attached: 1518288315864.gif (480x336, 1.45M)

Because that would be a full scale invasion that you can’t even justify by saying you are there with the consent of the local population and governing body which is currently the P Y D. It would instantly create a full alliance between Assad and the Kurds and would likely lead to Iran and Russia intervening against the US, ie WW3.

No it isn’t, they aren’t even calling for an independent state, nor have they implemented any ethnocentric policies in the region they govern. On the contrary they have taken deliberate steps to include ethnic minorities in government and make sure they are represented. Actually research the situation before you run your mouth.


Tankies literally swallow Erdogan propaganda about the Y P G and PKK being the same thing.

not a fan of Kurds simply because of their egalitarian views that are western in nature, a result of capitalism that has no place in the third world. most PKK supporters are useful tools for spreading American imperialism and should be stopped.

It's pretty sad to watch someone call a a leftist group, labeled a terrorist organization by NATO, a tool of US imperialism. I mean, if you don't know what you're talking about, just lurk. Might learn a thing or two. But no, pretty soon we'll be supporting Sultan Erdogan and his anti-imperialist jihads

Excuse me?

Attached: 1352786302525.jpg (512x384, 107.65K)