The State

Is anyone else not interested in abolishing the state, but you're still anti-capitalist? I don't see why we shouldn't want to utilize a centrally organized government to help us establish socialism and provide people with what they need.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Afghan_War
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I can only infer you wish for facism.

in a sense, all leftists (or at least most) are anarchists. we all want to create a stateless, moneyless and classless society, the only difference is that anarchists want to do that in a day, while other leftists support a transitional state or at least some form of authority.

Socialists believe that class struggle requires a state whereas anarchists think that class struggle can be waged without it, and that it's actively detrimental to the struggle. Muh hierarchy and all that.

Dat false digodomy tho

Yes.
Nebar ebar has ignoring hierarchy and Power as a whole fucked us over.
THIS time Marxism will work.

i am just overwhelmed by the success of those voluntary militias fam

The ones that got stabbed in the back by Marxists every time and still managed to hold Ukraine against an Army that had sent the Red Army into a full rout because it was based upon the more modern and efficiebt decentralised Prussian Army model rather than a weak top-down nightmare?

Not our fault you called us red fascists and then got shrekt.

Stfu anarkiddie

You guys even argue like fascist sheep.

...

Pretty sure your golden boy Makhno was guilty of all of those and then some :^)

He still lost tho :DDD

every single time
look at rojava, without commies to latch on to anarchists have to ally with imperialists to survive.

Is China helping the Naxalites?

...

It was a serious question. No need to get all defensive.

just pat my head fampai

also pretty sure theyre "helping" as in the german gubmint helping the bolshevik, as a mean of destabilizing than actual support

Even if true, that Makno stole Ammunition, does that truly warrant total destruction without any diplomatic negotiations at all?
Again, if you have 10x the manpower and an industrialike machine backing you up , it's easy to win because efficiency and and structural weakness is not an issue. This is why they were later BTFO by Germans and Finns is a pathetic display of military inefficiency and waste.

You mean how the USSR couldn't survive without US help?

You honestly think that Rojava wouldn't need support if they were ML even in spite of the proven record of military inefficiency?

Yes, I'm a state socialist. Anarchists are vocal but not that numerous.

citation?
without US aids, the USSR might have taken a few more years to defeat the nazis, the US was necessary to sustain the USSR.

gonna need some citations

Yes right. Soviet victory was enviable and could have achieved victory without essential industrial equipment and infrastructure but Rojava must lose without foreign aid becuz Stalin big and stronk and gud guy and anarchists are ebil and mean.


Winter War
World War II
Afghan War
Sino-Vietnamese war

Just to name a few. And in all these they has superior equipment and a professionally trained and drilled army, yet the system of organization was ancient and weak so they ran into humiliating defeats.

Leave it to the anarchists to eat up Western Cold War propaganda when it suits their anti-Soviet agenda. It should be well-known by now to any serious student of the war that the USSR had everything it needed to totally defeat Germany after they revived their industry and checked the nazis at Kursk in 43'. What could the Hitlerites possibly have done after that point? They had already completely lost the strategic initiative in the East and the Soviets were now out-producing them heavily. Lend-lease, the Western front, and the bombing campaign didn't really become relevant until 44'. As David Glantz said, the USSR would've likely won 12-18 months later without Allied aid, but it still would've won.

uhh, the USSR won the winter war
the USSR could have easily won WW2, there was no way germany could have won that war, it was simply too underpopulated and 80% of its forces was on the eastern front, and despite not receiving american aid until much later, the USSR managed to resist and could have won by themselves.

what?
both sides claimed victory, and that war did nothing but "proved" that the USSR couldnt protect a country 9000 km away from it

Yes I know. America are irrational actors that just wants to throw money at people who don't need them. They just gave away their money for free because it was so obvious that soviet victory was just around the corner because Stalin Stronk and other memes and I don't have any DPRK approved sources proving otherwise.


After a pathetic amount of losses against an enemy they by all rights ought have rolled right over.


Which goes to prove that it was the pathetic and weak structure of the Soviet centralised structure that caused them to fail so insanely hard in the beginning. If anything this is an argument against you.

Read books please.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Afghan_War


No it showed that the PRC despite having a well-drilled and equipped army only just barely could eek out a stalemate against Vietnam, which ought have been an easy fucking win, had their command structure not been so rigid and pathetic.

...

...

badump

The state will wither away once it's no longer needed.

After several generations under worldwide socialism.

BE A LENINIST!