yo, yo, blacks be the real racists

Hexbear is a Marxist-Leninist-bonapartist, not the napoleon one though, this is another napoleon he's from vietnam, wrote like three pamphlets about digging ditches and then burned down a local post office, which he thought harbored american GI's. He did this in the 90's, the dude was integral to leftist thought in my high school.

I think she's right and the best course of action Trump can do is to abolish Wokeheed Martin

A sword AND a gun???? Now that's what i call real diversity!

tfw privatised energy sector

I have a great idea about what he could do to save Tesla but i don't think i can say it here

Impressive, very nice. Let's see his tattoos.

"Another kraKKKa down" of course

Okay comrade :)

Completely agree with this assessment.

I suggest you give a thorough read to these links (especially the FAQ, though its fucking long), because most questions are answered. If you want something shorter, there's Anarchy Works by Gelderloos.

Ok, I'm genuinely not sure what you're referring to here. Can you give some examples?

I'm referring to the constant throwing shit at anarchists for "not being successful" when MLs refer to the USSR - which quite literally failed at what it set out to do aka achieving a classless, stateless society - or even Sankara's Burkina Faso as successful, when even most squats have longer lives.

The jist of what i mean is that what communists look as "unsuccessful" revolutions in, lets say, Spain, was actually very much successful on anarchist terms. Was it defeated? Yes, much like most Marxist revolution was as well. But anarchists are adamant that a revolution that succeeds to create a bubble where the state's logic is nonexistent is a more successful one than one that makes compromises in order to survive (and then is defeated as well). I've seen this downplayed as anarchists want "good martyrs" or whatever but there is vast anarchist literature about how and why a compromising revolution will not bring about a classless, stateless society (just for example ive read Lenin and other Marxist literature and have never seen one compelling argument about how the state, whose number one function is to perpetuate its existence, is supposed to wither away, but thats a whole other story).

So in short, theres a different standard for a successful revolution for anarchists and marxists. And i can respect that. I seldom criticise China or any AES states now myself. As long as the tendencies are not standing in each others way, its completely possible for them to coexist. Most of the problems arise and imo most of the shitstirring starts (and i am very well aware that anarchists are very guilty in this) where we start to measure marxist projects with anarchist standards and vice versa. Which is why i think the OP is more harmful to the lazy kneejerk comment made here.

Nah, if you knew anything about "the material historical evidence of what anarchists achieved in over a century" than this post wouldn't have born.

The second part i can agree with but the counter to that is actually educating yourself about anarchism, not slander.

The antisemitic pogroms and 'fascistic elements' are probably real and were widely reported on, and it's a lot better of a rebuttal to Hungarian revolution arguments. The number of deaths that resulted is relatively low too, even the suppression of small communist uprisings like the Jeju uprising involved several times as many deaths, without even mentioning the extremes like the Jakarta method. Of course any amount of death is bad, and it should've been stopped pre-emptively and peacefully (e.g. reducing economic austerity, less de-Stalinization), but Kruschev was leading.

The reason of the pogroms not having as many victims is simple: They were heavily marginalized in the movement (as i also point out in the post you linked), which was mostly dominated by communists who wanted less soviet influence on hungarian domestic politics. There were workers patrols going around districts with houses marked for pogroms to protect them. Most of the people rising then hated fascists more then they hated the Rákosi regime and they were adamant that they are not looking to reestablish capitalist property relations. This is never mentioned by people like Aptheker.

There have been thousands of counterpoint to the same notion and you knew that if you ever engaged with anything about anarchism that wasn't written 150 years ago by not anarchists.

It's not thoughtful at all, it's the same uninformed bs regurgitated by sectarian marxists who never ever engaged with anarchist literature at all lest they knew that On Authority is completely misrepresenting anarchist views of revolution, that has been debunked countless of times

It really is a litmus test on whether one is criticising anarchism in good faith whether they take a look at if there was an anarchist response to Engels at all or not (the other is whether one accepts that anarchist revolutions were actually successful on anarchist terms countless of times, just as marxist revolutions were successful on their terms countless of times), because most just assume that the argument ended then and there. I only included three links, but next time y'all are trying to "criticise" anarchists, take at least the minimum effort and write "on authority" in the searchbar of the anarchist library and engage what we are actually saying, not what Engels made up to be mad at.

That doesnt reveal shit. Hungarian Freedom Fighters is/was an NGO in the US formed AFTER 1956.

Your thoughts show that your knowledge on anarchism is fairly lacking.

That you took exception with the comment and not with the post is already a mask off moment

Yeah sure

Good to see my left unity comrades ripping the mask off