So it’s the latter, eh? You know… considering that you’re making up for your “mistake” by…
What was true is that the Makhnovists did attack the Red Army in manners that gave the Whites increased leverage,
…peddling more tankie thumbsuck propaganda. The war between the Makhnovists and the Bolsheviks was instigated by the Bolsheviks and only the Bolsheviks - the Cheka was already attempting to “liquidate” anarchists on trumped-up charges in 1918 - before any official alliance between Makhno and the Bolsheviks, before Makhno even became a well-known guerrilla leader.
You are free to test your alt-facts against the historical record if you so wish. I’m not going anywhere… that is, until your friends over there in the mod squad decides otherwise.
As for this space being “de-facto Marxist-Leninist,” again, that isn’t true.
What’s the matter? Aren’t you proud of your fellow technocratic “leftists” infiltrating an anarchist space this easily?
No, you’re whitewashing Makhno as utterly incompetent and the Red Army as moustache-twirlingly evil. Makhno had his own secret police called the Kontrrazvedka, which to his credit worked well at infiltrating the Bolsheviks, and helped Makhno kill some high ranking members of the Red Army. Makhno did have spies among the Bolsheviks, the animosity was mutual. Either we have your version of Makhno that was trusting to his own detriment against the clearly monstrous Red Army, or we have the correct version of Makhno as a pragmatic anarchist facing pragmatic Marxists and a mutual enemy in the White Army.
Either way, your crusade against Marxists is a bit silly. Nobody is watching these comments at this point, we are several days beyond the death of the thread. I have no interest in your extreme lengths of bad-faith, nor am I going to be swayed by you. The only person you are arguing for is yourself, as there’s nobody watching this.
Finally, again, the idea that this community has been “infiltrated by evil Marxists” is also a bit silly. There are Marxists on the mod team, and the admins on this instance are not 100% anti-Marxist. The broad majority of users appear to be anarchists (though I’ve seen no polling) and anarchism isn’t banned here. If anything, this community leans towards the side of anarchism with a healthy side of Marxists.
I think touching grass would be beneficial for you.
I have barely said squat about Makhno - the only thing I’ve done so far is to call out a tankie attempting to smear Makhno and the Makhnovists using easily-debunked thumbsucked tankie propaganda… something you have now attempted to do twice.
or we have the correct version of Makhno
Will you be making it three times, tankie? Bring it on.
Either way, your crusade against Marxists
Tankies are “Marxist” in the same way that Catholics are “Christian” - stop trying to pretend that all Marxists are like you, okay?
I’m not lying at all. Your depiction of Makhno is as someone who was betrayed by the Marxists, yet caught entirely off-guard or had done no such thing to prepare for it. The truth is more complex, Makhno and the Soviets had competing visions for the future of Eastern Europe that ultimately did stand against each other, the Soviets in favor of a socialist system based on Marxist principles, and Makhno in favor of a horizontalist, anarchist system. As a consequence, both groups worked against each other while also working alongside each other strategically.
Again, an easy example of why the Soviets were correct to distrust Makhno was the Kontrrazvedka, which was Makhno’s secret police. They were a counter-intelligence group that infiltrated the Bolsheviks, spying on them and turning these Bolsheviks traitor. This was a pragmatic decision by Makhno, who was correct in identifying a future clash between the two groups. Trying to say that only the Bolsheviks started the fighting is to deny Makhno’s agency in preparing for what he correctly identified as an inevitable conflict.
Note, you say this is “easily debunked thumbsucked tankie propaganda,” but this is actually far more favorable towards Makhno than you’ve portrayed him as. If you deny Makhno’s agency in preparing for a conflict between the two groups, in occasionally working against the Red Army, you’re denying him as a competent leader, instead portraying him as a fool that got blindsided by a group that he had every reason to distrust. My account of Makhno as a pragmatic and competent anarchist leader is more generous than your account of Makhno as a dull and easily betrayed fool.
As for your weird tirade suggesting I said “all Marxists are tankies,” tankie is just a pejorative for those who support historical and currently existing socialist states. Tankie also is levied against liberals and anarchists that support Cuba, the USSR, etc. Moreover, there are Marxists that oppose socialist states. These Marxists are wrong, of course, but they at least identify as such. You’re again lying about my position, a nasty habit of yours, along with your dehumanization of me at the end by suggesting I “slither away.” Quite reactionary behavior for a supposed anarchist, anti-communism aside dehumanization is still a terrible thing to do, especially considering nobody is going to see this.
Really? Is that why they couldn’t catch Makhno while they were murdering the Nabat, eh tankie?
Makhno and the Soviets had competing visions for the future of Eastern Europe
Should I be surprised at a tankie using such imperialist language? I suppose not.
But hey… do go on. Show me the “vision” the Makhnovists had for Moscow, Prague, Bucharest and Warsaw. Show me the imperialist “vision” Makhno had for Moscow.
Should be easy for you, no?
your account of Makhno as a dull and easily betrayed fool.
Right, right… the Makhno that your precious Bolsheviks could never “liquidate” a “dull and easily betrayed fool.”
Dangle that slender thread of hope, tankie.
suggesting I said “all Marxists are tankies,”
This you?
Either way, your crusade against Marxists is a bit silly.
Again… this you?
a pragmatic anarchist facing pragmatic Marxists
Could have sworn that was you, tankie.
tankie is just a pejorative for those who support historical and currently existing socialist states.
Aww… what’s the matter? Don’t like being called a *tankie?"
I suggested we call you apparatists once, a long time ago… everybody felt it accurate, but they also felt it didn’t exactly roll off the tongue.
So tell you what… why don’t you come up with something better than “Marxist-Leninist” that actually sticks, okay?
Come now… I’m willing to bet you’ve never had an invitation like that from anyone that can be called leftist with a straight face.
Quite reactionary behavior for a supposed anarchist,
Again, Makhno was not the helpless idealist you seem to believe him to be. The Soviets were correct in understanding him as a threat, just as Makhno was correct in identifying the soviets as a threat to him.
“Using imperialist language” is a nonsense jab. The Soviets were never imperialist, this is a non-sequitor to try to shift the argument. My point was clear, the Soviets were trying to establish socialism, while Makhno was trying to establish a horizontalist system. The fact that the Soviets succeeded and Makhno failed to establish even a localized version of his horizontalist vision does not mean these were two competing visions, and as we know, the broad majority supported the Bolsheviks.
The bulk of your comment is you pressing a silly notion that I’m offended at being called a tankie by you. In that a tankie is someone that defends existing socialism, I am absolutely a tankie, so this doesn’t really mean much other than that you don’t like me, which is also obvious. Well done! We figured it out, I like existing socialism, and you don’t. We already knew that from the first comment, though, so all it seems to me is that you’re hoping to get under my skin. It won’t work, though.
I don’t know what you mean by saying we come up with something “better than Marxist-Leninist.” It has stuck, that’s what we MLs are. I’m also fine with tankie, it’s a pejorative, but one for a group we are both aware exists, those who defend existing socialism. It’s fine, I don’t care what you decide to call us, as long as we both agree on what this actually describes, those who defend existing socialism.
I can’t believe anyone with a functional brain still pines for such a thoroughly discredited ideology such as Marxism-Leninism… but here we are, aren’t we?
So it’s the latter, eh? You know… considering that you’re making up for your “mistake” by…
…peddling more tankie thumbsuck propaganda. The war between the Makhnovists and the Bolsheviks was instigated by the Bolsheviks and only the Bolsheviks - the Cheka was already attempting to “liquidate” anarchists on trumped-up charges in 1918 - before any official alliance between Makhno and the Bolsheviks, before Makhno even became a well-known guerrilla leader.
You are free to test your alt-facts against the historical record if you so wish. I’m not going anywhere… that is, until your friends over there in the mod squad decides otherwise.
What’s the matter? Aren’t you proud of your fellow technocratic “leftists” infiltrating an anarchist space this easily?
Alienate who? You?
Don’t make me laugh, tankie.
No, you’re whitewashing Makhno as utterly incompetent and the Red Army as moustache-twirlingly evil. Makhno had his own secret police called the Kontrrazvedka, which to his credit worked well at infiltrating the Bolsheviks, and helped Makhno kill some high ranking members of the Red Army. Makhno did have spies among the Bolsheviks, the animosity was mutual. Either we have your version of Makhno that was trusting to his own detriment against the clearly monstrous Red Army, or we have the correct version of Makhno as a pragmatic anarchist facing pragmatic Marxists and a mutual enemy in the White Army.
Either way, your crusade against Marxists is a bit silly. Nobody is watching these comments at this point, we are several days beyond the death of the thread. I have no interest in your extreme lengths of bad-faith, nor am I going to be swayed by you. The only person you are arguing for is yourself, as there’s nobody watching this.
Finally, again, the idea that this community has been “infiltrated by evil Marxists” is also a bit silly. There are Marxists on the mod team, and the admins on this instance are not 100% anti-Marxist. The broad majority of users appear to be anarchists (though I’ve seen no polling) and anarchism isn’t banned here. If anything, this community leans towards the side of anarchism with a healthy side of Marxists.
I think touching grass would be beneficial for you.
I have done nothing of the sort.
You are a liar. And now you’re a desperate liar.
I have barely said squat about Makhno - the only thing I’ve done so far is to call out a tankie attempting to smear Makhno and the Makhnovists using easily-debunked thumbsucked tankie propaganda… something you have now attempted to do twice.
Will you be making it three times, tankie? Bring it on.
Tankies are “Marxist” in the same way that Catholics are “Christian” - stop trying to pretend that all Marxists are like you, okay?
Slither away any time you feel like it, tankie.
I’m not lying at all. Your depiction of Makhno is as someone who was betrayed by the Marxists, yet caught entirely off-guard or had done no such thing to prepare for it. The truth is more complex, Makhno and the Soviets had competing visions for the future of Eastern Europe that ultimately did stand against each other, the Soviets in favor of a socialist system based on Marxist principles, and Makhno in favor of a horizontalist, anarchist system. As a consequence, both groups worked against each other while also working alongside each other strategically.
Again, an easy example of why the Soviets were correct to distrust Makhno was the Kontrrazvedka, which was Makhno’s secret police. They were a counter-intelligence group that infiltrated the Bolsheviks, spying on them and turning these Bolsheviks traitor. This was a pragmatic decision by Makhno, who was correct in identifying a future clash between the two groups. Trying to say that only the Bolsheviks started the fighting is to deny Makhno’s agency in preparing for what he correctly identified as an inevitable conflict.
Note, you say this is “easily debunked thumbsucked tankie propaganda,” but this is actually far more favorable towards Makhno than you’ve portrayed him as. If you deny Makhno’s agency in preparing for a conflict between the two groups, in occasionally working against the Red Army, you’re denying him as a competent leader, instead portraying him as a fool that got blindsided by a group that he had every reason to distrust. My account of Makhno as a pragmatic and competent anarchist leader is more generous than your account of Makhno as a dull and easily betrayed fool.
As for your weird tirade suggesting I said “all Marxists are tankies,” tankie is just a pejorative for those who support historical and currently existing socialist states. Tankie also is levied against liberals and anarchists that support Cuba, the USSR, etc. Moreover, there are Marxists that oppose socialist states. These Marxists are wrong, of course, but they at least identify as such. You’re again lying about my position, a nasty habit of yours, along with your dehumanization of me at the end by suggesting I “slither away.” Quite reactionary behavior for a supposed anarchist, anti-communism aside dehumanization is still a terrible thing to do, especially considering nobody is going to see this.
Really? Is that why they couldn’t catch Makhno while they were murdering the Nabat, eh tankie?
Should I be surprised at a tankie using such imperialist language? I suppose not.
But hey… do go on. Show me the “vision” the Makhnovists had for Moscow, Prague, Bucharest and Warsaw. Show me the imperialist “vision” Makhno had for Moscow.
Should be easy for you, no?
Right, right… the Makhno that your precious Bolsheviks could never “liquidate” a “dull and easily betrayed fool.”
Dangle that slender thread of hope, tankie.
This you?
Again… this you?
Could have sworn that was you, tankie.
Aww… what’s the matter? Don’t like being called a *tankie?"
I suggested we call you apparatists once, a long time ago… everybody felt it accurate, but they also felt it didn’t exactly roll off the tongue.
So tell you what… why don’t you come up with something better than “Marxist-Leninist” that actually sticks, okay?
Come now… I’m willing to bet you’ve never had an invitation like that from anyone that can be called leftist with a straight face.
Oh boo-fucking-hoo, tankie. Cry me a river.
Again, Makhno was not the helpless idealist you seem to believe him to be. The Soviets were correct in understanding him as a threat, just as Makhno was correct in identifying the soviets as a threat to him.
“Using imperialist language” is a nonsense jab. The Soviets were never imperialist, this is a non-sequitor to try to shift the argument. My point was clear, the Soviets were trying to establish socialism, while Makhno was trying to establish a horizontalist system. The fact that the Soviets succeeded and Makhno failed to establish even a localized version of his horizontalist vision does not mean these were two competing visions, and as we know, the broad majority supported the Bolsheviks.
The bulk of your comment is you pressing a silly notion that I’m offended at being called a tankie by you. In that a tankie is someone that defends existing socialism, I am absolutely a tankie, so this doesn’t really mean much other than that you don’t like me, which is also obvious. Well done! We figured it out, I like existing socialism, and you don’t. We already knew that from the first comment, though, so all it seems to me is that you’re hoping to get under my skin. It won’t work, though.
I don’t know what you mean by saying we come up with something “better than Marxist-Leninist.” It has stuck, that’s what we MLs are. I’m also fine with tankie, it’s a pejorative, but one for a group we are both aware exists, those who defend existing socialism. It’s fine, I don’t care what you decide to call us, as long as we both agree on what this actually describes, those who defend existing socialism.
I really should start numbering your lies, tankie… they are getting so numerous they require admin.
This you?
Could have sworn that was you. Did somebody else type that for you, maybe?
Of coooooorse not, tankie - the mountainous and voluminous history of tankie imperialism is purely a figment of everybody’s imagination, right?
How charitable of you, defending something you don’t even believe in. How heroic.
LOOOL!
Absurdism suits you, tankie.
You’re playing up an intentional misrepresentation of what I said as “imperialist language,” and now again continuing to fall apart.
I can’t believe a living person with the powers of introspection could have written something like this.
I can’t believe anyone with a functional brain still pines for such a thoroughly discredited ideology such as Marxism-Leninism… but here we are, aren’t we?
Over a week later and you’re still talking like this. Please attain proper consciousness soon.
What’s the matter, tankie?
Having a hard time digesting reality?