Military Failure of the Paris Commune

A while ago I studied the Paris Commune (i.e. read the wiki and other webpages on it). What I found especially striking was the lack of centralized military organization, as it appears that played a major role in the defeat. If I recall correctly, the Communards defended their personal communities - allowing the military to crush each pocket of defense one at a time. Could one argue that this was a fundamental flaw in the mode of their organization, more specifically, in their military organization?

To keep things straight to Marxists out there, I'm not arguing that the commune could have been successful if they had greater centralization - that's a conversation for another day concerning much more historical context than I am aware of presently. As to the Anarchists, I guess the burden is on you to show that their military's organization was not flawed in respect to what I mentioned above - or at the least not a major flaw.

I'm personally leaning in favor of the centralization of the military in the development towards communism because of historical examples such as this, among others, though that's not to say I'm not open to what you might offer in objection.

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
archive.is/0POXt#selection-137.0-161.229
archive.is/6vDJi#selection-259.1-279.269
archive.is/KCtkg#selection-1045.2-1069.86
quora.com/Why-were-Russias-casualties-so-disproportionately-high-during-World-War-II
imdb.com/title/tt0091251/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Greek Armies weren't centralized either.

They still defeated both Hittites and Persians, the greatest empires on earth at those times.

The problem was not lack of centralization, but lack of organization and cooperation. Marxist centralized militaries have also been infamously inefficient in military conflicts, ironically only ever being good at decentralized guerilla warfare.

Basically what said, the problem isn't a lack of "discipline" or centralisation but a lack of organisation and experience. Part of the reason Soviet casualities in ww2 were so high was because of the rigid centralisation of the red army being tactically inferior to the the nazis even though in the end the USSR won because they had a non-retarded idea of strategy and logistics.

No shit. Decentralized militaries have not been able to match a centralized military since the New Model Army was formed.

If only we had had the revolution twenty-five hundred years ago.


Except for all those wars that they actually won maybe.

Partially, although rigid centralisation is preferable to disorganisation (which was the alternative really).

Rojava are doing great
The black army did great
The Coalitions did great against Napoleon
Viet-Cong (who were largely decentralized because of poor communication infrastructure) did pretty good.

beyond that, there have been few decentralized armies because they challenge the authority of state power.


By wasting a shitton of man-power. They litterally only won because they were massively numerically superior.
That is the definition of inefficiency.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/

Here you go OP, reading for another day

Rojava is in the middle of a civil war being fought by numerous factions that are taking turns killing one another, and they are entirely doomed unless they get the support of the Yanks in which case they will be doomed for a different reason.

The Black Army got crushed by a real military after a couple short years.

The coalitions that opposed Napoleon got utterly raped until he stupidly invaded Russia. See: the Italian Campaign

The North Vietnamese Army was a conventional military that utilized guerillas who struck and then fled behind established lines. Also, let us not forget that the guerilla force got annihilated during the Tet Offensive. And they were tankies.


That is the definition of winning a war, something decentralized militaries have not done since the musket was invented.

The YPG's centralised, with a command structure, etc.

The Black Army did not 'do great', unless your definition of great is maraud through the countryside for a period of time, then get crushed by better organised opposition forces.

I have no fucking idea why you're bringing up the Napoleonic wars. Do you really think the British Army circa the 1800s was an example of democratic or decentralised military apparatus?

The Viet-Cong were overseen by a coherent military apparatus with influence & advice from the North Korean Army.


There were periods during the Great Patriotic War where the Nazis had the material ascendency, and numerical advantages. However, because the Soviets had a coherent strategy and operational coherence, they were able to defeat them.

Never change Anarchists.

Nope. It really isn't.


By "do great", I mean hold back an army about 20 times as large as your own.
You do know that the Black Army was not destroyed by the whites, right?
it was the reds, son


The coalition that brought down Napoleon was certainly not democratic, but it certainly was decentralized. A fuckton of small German states participated in that, and they still won against the largest empire on earth at that time.


No, Stalin litterally just threw people at the German warmachine.
Now that's a legitimate strategy and it won.

It's not very efficient though.

Just here to say frogs are best nationality

That is not helping your point, you know.


You were talking about those small client states that Prussia was divided into by Napoleon? How decentralized do you imagine an army under the command of a single field marshall to be? Also, the entire world was at war with Napoleon. The coalitions were alliances.


It sure beats a defeat.

Helping my point is the fact that the Black thought the Reds were their allies and thus had no chance to anticipate an attack from them.

You know, what happened with Luxemburg and the SocDems.


It took a loooong time before the ywere effectively Prussian clientstates.
They were independent and good at cooperating. For this they volunteered to have a single field-marshall.
This happened under the Greeks too. That is not necessarily the same as rigid centralization, though.


If it does not grant you efficiency, then it cannot guarentee you victory.

Hell, if anarchists ruled Russia, they could have won too according to your logic.

Unlike the USSR who never ebar relied on help from the US, right?

kek

btfo

further btfo

...

This is why Anarchists cannot trust Marxists. Marxists don't really actually want to have the state melt away. They are fundementally authoritarians, that wish to serve a master, albeit not a bourgeois one.

k

Name one anarchist revolution were Marxists didn't stab them in the back and attack their allies

Little confused with what you're trying to say here. Are you implying the US gave aid to the USSR?

I'm saying it's a historical fact that they did.

In case you don't know what I'm refering to:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

I could care less about what you "say." Please present actual evidence of this, besides some graph with no information on it. A wikipedia page would even do.

Was the Polar Bear Expedition helping the Bolsheviks?

Are you autistic or something? I'm not even asking this rhetorically or as an insult, you sound really weird

Rojava

Lend-Lease programme.
The US straight up gave the USSR $10.000.000.000 worth of materiel.

But I know, centralized armies are the only thing that can take care of foreign invasions independently, except i they can, and when they rely upon support from the US it's different from when the anarchists do it.

:^)


Yes, because Marxism, luckily, has become irrelevant on the international scale, so there are no Marxists to stab them in the back.

yet.

English is not my first language.
I'm not on the spectrum, though.

*except when they can't

Why don't you think the US will crush Rojava when they get the chance? Of course they're behind the Kurds and others right now, but this is only temporary. When ISIS is out of the picture, Rojava will be the next target.

Overall this is different than the circumstances surrounding WWII. I wouldn't blame the USSR for accepting aid. Besides, we all know what happened after the war: the US made the USSR to be perceived as the next threat.

(This is hugely over simplified, but I hope you get my point)

archive.is/0POXt#selection-137.0-161.229


They've been there for years now comr8

Of course, calling for Red Army soldiers to abandon their posts as Makhno had done and join his guerilla resistence was no reason for the Reds to attack him. Even after he halted grain shipments to starving cities in the middle of a famine and a civil war in order to protect peasant property rights they were still allies, right? Surely, they never saw the betrayal coming!


My ass. They had an absolute feudal monarchy that was propped up by the Brits to fight Napoleon.


No, but I can tell you what will guarantee defeat if history is any indication: having an anarchist army.


Are you seriously using the Soviets' ability to garner foreign support during a war for survival as an indictment? This is why idealists should never be in charge of anything. If kekalonia had been able to get support like Franco did, they never would have been annihilated.

Anarchists do not get foreign support for obvious reasons. No foreign power is stupid enough to fund a revolution that will never help them in any way.

These are tiny groups of a few hundred people.
They couldn't stab the PYD in the back even if they wanted to.

No, I don't get your point at all. Rojava is taking aid to survive from the US and so was the USSR.
What is you point?

Yes, surely bad words give you the right to invade and kill others. Even if we're to accept all this propaganda at face-value its still a think excuse to invade others that want self-determination if they don't show any intention of directly attacking you.


They had several.
I'm talking after the fall of the HRE.


All anarchist armies have been outnumbered. If the same was true for Marxists, who cannot guarentee efficiency, they would have lost too, if given the same circumstances.


If its an indictment against Rojava, so is it against the USSR. If anything, it shows that the US did not consider the US a thread to capitalism the same way Catalonia was.
I wonder why.
Besides, the point was that Hierarchy is supposed to be the only way to guard a revolution independently, but it seems that the USSR were not really that good at doing so.

Are you from this world, tho?

What is your issue with the way I speak?

it's very excellent

First off, you were the one to bring up the USSR accepting aid, which is not the problem. The issue is the survival of the movement, which I find unlikely for Rojava if the US decides to begin opposition. This is contrary to the USSR, which was able to construct a state capable of defending itself against other industrial nations (largely dissuading the US from trying to directly overthrow it and leading to the stalemate between the two opposing ideological powers).

No I wasn't. Check this post:

In which foreign aid was used against them.
Then I countered by pointing out that Marxists have taken foreign aid to get by historically too.


Oh. So, Marxists are capable of defending itself when they have huge amounts of manpower and resources behind them, and this is supposed to prove that that system is better, even though they have peoven themselves to be very inefficient.

Would that not just prove that they would be doing even worse if they were in the same situation as Rojava, the Black Army or Catalonia?

Let me ask you a question, were transport ships empty on their way back to murica?

Fucking leftypol, i swear.

Still, the problem is not that anarchists and marxists have accepted aid, but how well they have fared after that aid stopped.


I will not defend Stalin's purges and the inefficiencies in the military and other places thereafter. What I'm trying to outline is the fact that the USSR had the resources (industrial bases and whatnot) to survive in the first place because of their policies of centralization.

The Black Army wanted to maintain the NEP, which would have brought about the death of the whole nation when inevitably invaded. Without developing the proper technologies of war, Russia would have been overrun by the industrial armies of the West (Germany for example).

Are you serious? You can't be. A revolutionary leader calling for mass desertion during a civil war is not just saying bad words; he is undermining the revolution. Some "ally."


And they always will be. That is not an excuse. It is an indictment.


You have to make the circumstances. Lenin did not luck into better circumstances than Mahkno, but he did what he needed to do. Deal with the real world so that you can change the real world. That is the anarchists' primary failing. Idealism accomplishes nothing.


Because the U.S. got something out of the U.S.S.R.'s resistence to the Nazis. There was an actual benefit to be had by supporting them. There was no ideological basis for the Americans taking the side of the Soviets. It was all practical, because that is how international politics actually works.


The plain fact remains that it was significantly better at doing so than anarchists were.

Oh, is that what you are on about? Put away your indignation for a moment, and think about the situation in Syria. The Yanks have a vested interest in outcome of the civil war, but they have no viable proxies in the region. They just have a loose coalition of anti-Assad fighters. That is not a government, and without a government it will be of no use to the Americans after the war is over even if it does manage to be successful. Rojava has a viable government. It also opposes Assad and the Russians who are propping him up. However, Rojava in its current form is not a reliable proxy. If the Americans are going to give Rojava the support they need to win, which will include pissing off the far more valuable ally Turkey, then they are going to need to assure the Americans that Rojava will support capitalist imperialism in the region. Rojava is fucked with U.S. support and even more fucked without it.

When the U.S. included the U.S.S.R. in Lend-Lease, the Soviets did not reallg need to grant any major concessions to acquire it. They were already incidentally serving American interests by fighting the Nazis. The Americans had their eyes on the Pacific, so the bloody war in Europe gave them the opportunity to push the Empire of Japan and the European colonies along the Pacific Rim.

Yes.

Unlike the ships the USSR send to catalonia.

Need gold to help comrades, right :)


Good. Now please give some evidence that Marxist central organization is more efficient and thus that Rojava would fare better with it was Marxist.

If you can't, then who to say an anarchist Russia would not be able to defend itself?


The Black army was purged the same year the NEP was implemented.
What are you even saying?


Yes. Those are just forbidden words. Why are we not allowed to have a difference of opinion? Does that give me the right to invade and murder you when supposedly we want the same thing?
Absurd.


Kek, no. Marxism does not mean magically being the majority and therefore the system is better. Marxism is a joke now. There are no big Marxist socialist armies or projects around anymore. You're associated with totalitarianism and you will always be because every Marxist venture into achieving socialism has always brought something that decidedly was not socialism.


No. They were very inefficient.
They just had more resources at their disposal.
Does that mean Nazism is a great ideology because Nazis were able to kick Russia's ass?
No, that mean they sat themselves upon a great power with a lot of resources. The Nazis system was rinky-dink at best and of you implement it somewhere with almost no resources you get North Korea.

This is a brick wall of idiotic idealism and bad logic. I am not banging my head against it.

Whoops, my b.

Would an anarchist Russia have instituted a plan to build heavy industry capable of contesting invading capitalist armies? Would they have constructed T-34s?

For the record, this whole conversation is getting idealistic as fuck. It's painfully obvious that you are ignoring the main points and focusing on issues without pertinence to what actually happened.

Probably no real difference since Rojava has central organization and is bringing in conscription

archive.is/6vDJi#selection-259.1-279.269

Given the circumstances, this is all quite necessary


Of course it could have, by implementing central organization and conscription don't call it a state, then to survive the coming WWII super invasion they'd have to go on a crash industrialization program directed by bureaucrats making plans

Perhaps in this alternate timeline you'd be a marxist fulminating against the anarchist betrayals

fuck off with your shitty memes

I swear, they must get it from Call of Duty or somewhere. If any Anarchist ever picked up a book on the Eastern Front they'd soon work out that's not how the Red Army operated.

It's something I expect from normies but it pisses me off especially when someone who should know better repeats it
It's like people just buy into the nazi propaganda of slavs being subhuman retards.

Likely not.
But Russia accomplished this through forced labour. Essentially slavery.
If we implement slavery, then we have lost track of the goal, and then what would the whole point be?
What would be the objective of the revolution? What would we seek to accomplish?

You have provided no evidence for any centralized top-down structure, and only conjecture that one assembly within Rojava has implemented conscriptions.

Good job.

They lost about 11 million troops.
If that is not throwing man-power at the Germans, then it is indicatory of inefficiency, especially compared to the German military, whose organizational tradition has always encouraged NCO's to be able to diverge from the plan and think for themselves.

Okay faggot how does high casualties somehow mean that Stalin or the Red Army just threw men at the germans?
are we just going to ignore entire battles and offensives in favor of this retarded muh human wave shit because a lot of people died?
I suppose Bagration and the Battle of Kursk or sevastopol is just the red army pushing unarmed conscripts against panzers now.

If that is not an indicator of throwing lives away, then it is an indicator of an inefficient system or - in the best possible case for you guys - incompetent leaders.
The latter option, which gives you the most benefit of the doubt, could have been solved with democracy in the military and relative autonomy of the officers (which has always proven effective in post-19th century warfare), rather than have a top-down nomenklartura appoint the officers.

why would democracy in the military reward competency? what?

Would you want a guy to lead you that has no fucking idea what he's doing?

Athens had great generals for this very reason.

I'm not saying the red army was perfect and I agree that more autonomy for officers would've been better especially early in the struggle. but don't come at me with this "le stalin literally served red army troops on a platter to the germans :DDD" shit

no, you vote in someone that won't attack, and is extremely cautious with his soldiers lives. Which isn't actually what you want in a general (you want a general to defeat the enemy forces).

Either Stalin did that or the state-appartus and military or the Soviet Union was inefficient as fuck.

The citizens of Greece constantly elected Strategeis that attacked, even leading to a humiliating defeat near Syracuse that made the weary of sophistry for generations.

And besides, to you really want to attack pointlessly? How can you be sure you're not just participating in imperialism.

If it is plain to see that the best course of defence is to attack, then that case should not be that difficult to make to the soldiers.
It is they who are supposed to be willing to risk their lives to do it anyways.

Don't you see how it would breed a military of low morale if you force them into something they don't see the point of?

That assembly is for the largest of the three cantons of Rojava


archive.is/KCtkg#selection-1045.2-1069.86


Several Asayish-held security checkpoints were erected across the city’s streets, where dozens of young men were arrested and taken to the main detention center in Sere Kaniye, awaiting transfer to the fighting fronts, official sources said.

What I find really horrifying here is that when confronted with this fact, instead of understanding its necessity given the circumstances Rojava is in, you'll instead reject Rojava as impure and unclean

quora.com/Why-were-Russias-casualties-so-disproportionately-high-during-World-War-II

It is they who are supposed to be willing to risk their lives to do it anyways.

Ok boys, we are going to charge at the fascists two men to one rifle in order to buy time to move heavy industry behind the Urals, also because this is an all volunteer army we don't have the manpower for this to likely succeed, but we have to try

The other units are still voting on this, but since we voted yes off we go dying gloriously for anarchism

Christ you're a moron. The German invasion of the Soviet Union was an unexpected assault on an unorganized foe. Keep in mind there was a non-aggression pact in place before the invasion.

Stalin had also purged a great number of competent generals, leaving behind those who were in favor of the party line but less adequate for the job.

This is clearly not an intrinsic flaw of the military's organization in the Soviet Union, only in its poor leadership. Lenin had little intent in passing leadership onto Stalin.

You will probably take this whole transition of power thing, then, to be the major flaw I assume - to which I'll leave someone else who knows more about it to tell you about.

Meh, it's a practice that I discourage and it needs to stop, but as long as the self-determination of the communities and the democracy in the military is upheld I might let it slide.

They are Democratic Confederalists though, so they're not entirely anarchists either.

Either way, all of this is really irrelevant to the organization of the military.
Sure conscriptions are bad. So?


If you force people to die for you and essentially take them hostage as slaves, what the fuck is the point of the revolution?

Also, you're basically admitting he threw man-power at the Germans now.


Oh, when it's Stalin that's just what happens, but when it happens to the Black Army, that's proof that horizontalism doesn't work?

Wow, it seems more like you just want the memes to be right than anything else.


So? What mechanism does Marxism have to make sure that another Stalin doesn't happen? How do you make sure that you only have competent leadership?

By the way, if the point was to defeat the Germans, a much better strategy would be to let them roll in and take care of them through partisan activity, sabotage and insurrection.

But then the state couldn't consolidate power and dominate the people, and thus millions more than what was necessary would have to die.

Point is, Germany could have taken Russia, and we should have let them.
But there is no way they could have held it for any real period of time. Terrorism is simply too easy and cheap and occupation is simply too expensive.

If they succeed anarchist will gladly claim them. (Same with the Zapatistas who are more of an autonomist strain.)


Wow, just… Wow.

Watch out, we've got an history expert here! Imperialism doesn't pay off, guys! That's why porky does it, naturally: they like bad investments! user on leftypol said it!

are you retarded?
But there is no way they could have held it for any real period of time.
that would be true if Germany was planning on simply occupying it. but the plan was to kill everyone.

Holy shit.
The Germans literally massacred entire villages when partisan activity did take place. That doesn't sound like a very long-lasting, effective way to combat a war machine.

There's a significant difference you are avoiding here, the USSR won


That only works if the invaders aren't planning on exterminating you

imdb.com/title/tt0091251/
watch it and kill yourself

holy kek

Imperialism pays off when the population does not resist.
Of course you would organize and agitate the partisanry.
Indeed, the USSR already did! Most of the damage the was done by Partisans behind enemy lines.
Another really good example of this is Partisans and monks doing insurrectionary activity during the Japanese-Korean War of the 16th century.

Yes, and whenever they did that accelerationism took hold and the population resisted them even harder.
Even more cheap and easy terrorism.

The USSR also had more manpower resources and indeed funding from the US.

The Germans would have needed a large population of labourer to effectively get resources out of Russia as slave labourers. Even so, exterminating all russians would have been extremely hard and fostered extreme resistance.

And thus you would not have to force anyone into suicidal charges.
They'd happily do it out of their own volition.

this is peak Anarcho-Autism.

We may never see it's like again in the wild lads.

If it is the will of the people to resist, they will.

If they don't it is not their will.

If we have to force them, what is the point? What would we be fighting for in the first place?

Are you retarded?

holy shit no
the Partisans did some damage but overall were not nearly as effective as you're implying
Even more cheap and easy terrorism
the second resistance went farther they pulled a babi yar
the germans had literally no problem just slaughtering everyone in an entire city if it meant stopping irregular combat.

kill yourself you're delusional

At least he's posting structured arguments, rather than just calling everyone autistic.

Careful there. You are coming dangerously close to claiming that allowing yourself to be killed is a voluntary choice.

So much idealism… Are you the one who claimed to be a former orthodox marxist?

So.
It's better to enslave people to fight slavery instead of letting them form their own opinions and wills?

Point is, that if the Russian people thought it was in their interest to resist Germans at all costs, the would have been no reason to force them to.


A huge amount of the wins the soviets got were because the Germans were under-supplied. This was largely because of partisan activity.

It is.
If you allow yourself to be killed and it is your will then it is voluntary.

That is not what I am saying the Russian people would to.

What I am saying is that there is no reason to force anyone, and if you have to force proletarians, then the goal is not socialist in nature or worthy or persuing.

Does it not seem backwards to force someone to risk their life in order to make sure that the enemy doesn't kill them… or you'll kill them?

Does it not seem backwards to defend them from slavery by taking away their freedom and forcing them to work for you?

If you have to do the same thing to them that you think that the enemy would do, how do you know that you're the good guy?


Yup.
I mean Will in the Nietzschean sense here. Their desire, in the aggregate here.

Only you think that compulsory military service in times of invasion is slavery.
They did. Millions joined the army by their own volition. Nazi horrors were widely reported in Russia, and people knew what was coming.

>If you allow yourself to be killed and it is your will then it is voluntary.
Yeah, you seem to be forgetting that people don't just think of themselves as you do, you lumpen prick.

If you have to do something against your will that is not even the democratic will of the society you belong to, btw, if you become property of someone else and if you do not obey your killed, then frankly, yes, you're a slave.


Good! Absolutely splendid!
When why would there be any need to force anyone? Clearly it was the will of these people to fight.
Why do you not think they would elect officers that would lead them effectively and aggresively into battle?

Fucking what? How am I thinking only of myself when I am the one arguing that you should not have to force others to die for a project they wouldn't have persued voluntarily?

Your morality reeks. All this "volition" you speak of is nothing more than material circumstances, which we desire to adjust for a conscious movement.

Wait, if not to accomplish autonomy and freedom of association for the individual, what is the point of socialism?

Simply to accomplish a more stable economy? Is that all this is to do? An excercise in finance?

Stalinist Russia wasn't democratic so there's no way to know what the "democratic will" was, yet you pretend to know. All I said is that millions joined by their own volition.

I'm sorry that we don't share your moral arguments which judges from the position of a non-existing fairy tale anarchist utopia where everyone decides for themselves and people are no way oppressed. The real world is different. Your country is attacked by the most brutal killing machine in the history of mankind. They will exterminate men, children, women, the elderly alike. You think the right move is to give up, you basically prefer invasion over any kind of government. I think that mandatory military service is in order in such cases and shooting deserters like you'd be is morally justifiable.

Yeah, but for you government of any kind is slavery so there's no point arguing with you. This whole WWII topic is just another channel through which you can repeat your same old shit everyone is tired of.

In such critical phases? Because it is the lesser evil. There I said it.

Just let me highlight something that was latent in your tirade so far: you'd actually argue for putting down arms for the enemy, you won't even consider as an option fighting the nazi invasion off AND not moving with on with an offensive. Something that is more justifiable (but IMHO totally naive and strategically suicidal).

i.e. being born?

Did they have a vote on the conscriptions? No.
Then it was not the democratics will of the people.


I prefer not having to decide between one group that might kill me, and another group that might kill me if I don't kill the first group.

I don't think the right move it to give up, but if you cannot have a democratic an voluntary army and defence, then it is pointless.
The others will enslave us? Well, let's enslave ourselves? They're trying to kill us? Well you cannot run away, you must fight them and if you don't we'll kill you.


Not forcing people to take up arms is not putting down arms.
It's just not making people take up arms in the first place.

This whole thing very accurately points our our differences.

You want a revolution that is frankly pointless, using a method that has been demonstrated to pretty ineffective, has never lead to socialism and you would force other people to join you in it.

How are you guys not basically Fascists without companies again?

To enjoy the products of your own labor and to have the ability to influnce the world.


Yes, the revolution is economic, and it is economic precisely because economic subjugation is the real nature of slavery. It has fuck all to do with free speech, individualism, voluntarism, or whatever other bourgeois spooks you have taken to heart.

Quite so. You are concerned with motivations where he is concerned with real outcomes. This is your brain on Nietzsche.

This, for fuck's sake!!
but muh NAP

That is not personal autonomy?
How do I have that if I can be forced into an undemocratic system that wants me to potentially get killed? If I get no say within that organization? If the cause is truly that noble, why do we have to force other to join it?


Indeed, but the whole point is to become free. Freedom is not a convenient side-effect of this, it is the point itself. A more stable economy is a nice side-benefit.


Real outcomes like never achieving socialism in even one Marxist revolution? Real outcomes like millions dying for a dictator that exploited people through the state?
Real outcomes like the failure of the Winter War, or that the Reds would have lost to the Whites if not for the Blacks?

Okay, I'm sorry.

What I am saying is that once you force others and establish a hierarchy above them, then you have already compromised the proletariats ability to


Thus, if you violate any of those, you violate socialism.

And if you give up on socialism, what were we fighting for in the first place?

Even a skillful polemicist can fall for his own rhetorical techniques.

...

What?

...

The whites had an opportunity to take moscow, and the only thing that stopped them was the black army.

What happend to the hundred posts of an anarkiddy getting BTFO?

...

All the cantons have conscription, this was started like 1 or 2 years ago, get with the times in Rojava Holla Forums

post proofs