It has nice stuff in there, but it's a stretch to call it theory. At best it's an entry point into leftism. It offers very little cohesive thesis and it provides no practical method for achieving any goal.
I don't think any well read anarchists (especially the ones that are well up to speed on the more modern anarchist theory that synthesises anarchism and a tonne of marxist content) will argue otherwise either.
You are absolutely right that this is being played for division though. It's not just the CIA either, there are multiple factions actively building consciousness of a new anti-tankie mindset and working to build those tensions into anarchists via the "red fascism" attack.
Also, it's a passionate topic for many. It's easy to stirr up emotions when it comes to seemingly essential topics like "china good/bad, USSR same" That can hardly be expressed completely by any side. To be honest, the only discussions about tendencies I had were online. Sometimes it feels like we are not discussing the real issue. Some say "china bad" and what they mean is often "no state will ever be good". From my very very limited knowledge of philosophy I sometimes call it Hegelian, always concerned with the utopian. Whereas "Tankies" have a more Marxist view of the situation, and claim China/Stalin did the best the material conditions made possible. What I find frustrating is, that many anarchists talk about revolution but have no idea what revolution really means. You will never have a revolution because a socdem didn't get fair treatment. You will have a revolution when the suffering is ununbearable and burgoise and proletariat cannot continue the status quo, just like Lenin said. In this situation it is crucial to consolidate power against outside influences. I'm blabbering, point is, some should be more realistic, some should be more critical but we shouldn't make this the center of our discussions.
Franky it doesn't sound like you know anything about anarchism.
The Conquest of Bread, quoted in the OP, has an very specific theses and tries it's absolute best to provide a practical method for achieving a specific type of revolution. It may not be realistic, but it is a lot more specific than "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy" (which I've also read) or whatever.
I don't understand why you think it's only modern anarchist theory that synthesizes Marxist content. The early influential anarchist thinkers where contemporaries of Marx which engaged with his ideas in their writing. It's the later anarchists that are less interested in Marx, because they feel that a century of Marxism hasn't achieved the results they want.
Most of the young Leftists I know IRL haven't read a lick of Lenin, and never will. They are at least a bit familiar with Bookchin or Kropotkin or Goldman, and feel motivated by what they have read to go organize (which usually means joining DSA or something).
Anarchist for over 25 years. Probably more time spent in squats and defending landlord evictions than you've been alive. Talking to someone this way is fucking absurd and makes everyone look bad.
I don’t understand why you think it’s only modern anarchist theory that synthesizes Marxist content. The early influential anarchist thinkers where contemporaries of Marx which engaged with his ideas in their writing. It’s the later anarchists that are less interested in Marx, because they feel that a century of Marxism hasn’t achieved the results they want.
Completely backwards. Bakunin and contemporaries of the period built theory that is in contention and often opposition to marx. Modern theory, in the last 10-30 years, has sought to properly synthesise the two. This however is an EXTREMELY modern direction of anarchist theory and is very much outside of what the vast majority of anarchists are actually shown or learn. You'll find anarchists out there that are actually doing shit who are up to speed who are extremely buddy with marxists now, I actually see very little capability for any wedge to be driven between MLs and these properly organising and well read anarchists... But the internet ones that are the basis for these search trends? The majority are awful.
Ok fair enough. Could you elaborate on your comment then? I don't understand it at all.
What are some texts that you actually consider to be theory? Who are "modern well-read anarchists" reading? What are the dark factions building a new anti-tankie mindset?
Take for example the fact so many older anarchist theorists (naming them all is ridiculous) were against the dictatorship of the proletariat while, in fact, pretty much everyone now is in complete agreement that you absolutely need one. This fundamental principle by itself utterly separates old and new anarchists.
The old theorists would fight modern anarchists that believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat. This core change in belief is the starting point for the reconciliation of marxists and anarchists. By itself it changes the adversarial nature of the two sides that existed during the USSR's time.
There is a massive difference between old anarchists that consider God and State to be essential to their theory and new anarchists that have moved completely away from opposition to this concept. This change in modern anarchism however is part of what gives rise to the king of the hill meme about the "anarchist state" being a wall of text.
I've rarely interacted with anarchists who don't believe some kind of transitional state is necessary. I guess I've been interacting with more of the 'modern' anarchists without realizing it, which is why I often find sectarianism so bizarre.
Kropotkin also believed in a transitionary state, it's in the conquest of bread.
(naming them all is ridiculous)
gesturing at someone's argument without making it clear who or what you actually disagree with seems like a waste of time.
I mean, we're talking about anarchists 200 years ago. Saying Bakunin and mentioning his opposition to the dictatorship of the proletariat while generalising this as the belief of all anarchists of the period is not particularly untrue. I don't need to name all the others when people understand this generalisation to be correct.
people understand this generalisation to be correct.
I don't. not because I don't believe you though. I just don't have the knowledge. the fact that other people agree doesn't tell me anything.
not particularly untrue
I'm not sure I understand this. i can't imagine feeling like i was capable of explaining something if this is how i would describe it.
OK sorry I was rude earlier but could you at least say who a modern anarchist writer/activist is who says that? Dictatorship of the proletariat is, IMO, only one part of the set of ideas that could be considered to be Marxism, so it seems very imprecise to me to call a change in attitudes towards that one idea "synthesizing Marxism". Also what do you mean by "the USSR's time"? Being an anarchist in 1930 is a lot different than being an anarchist in 1980.
A lot of self-described anarchists I know would be just as confused as I am reading any of this. As a "young person?" (I mean you must have several decades on me here) nobody particularly understands the historical conflicts between ancient Leftist ideologies. God and the State is 150 years old, and spends more time talking about Christianity than it does capitalism. I don't see the need some great ideological reconciliation. We just find the tankie/anarcist discourse very alienating and weird, which is why this thread pissed me off.
The split is very real and irreconcilable because it is a question of fundamental aspects of political organizing a mobilization.
I will bluntly and confidently state that anarchist political projects will never go anywhere because they place abstract principles in priority over the accomplishment of real, tangible, meaningful results. IE, a knee-jerk rejection of "hierarchy", centralization, discipline, and party-building as anathema to socialism because of some paranoid fear of "descent into tyranny". We have actual, historical evidence that all revolutions that have survived and succeeded found it a necessity to centralize power, produce a unified and coherent agenda of readily-attainable goals, recognize clear leaders and respect their authority, and organize a professional and disciplined army instead of relying on loose collections of militias. I find reflections on historical events on the left always tend to focus not on lessons of successes by revolutionary projects but on relitigating petty feuds between long-dead personalities, romanticizing "what ifs" that utterly failed, and debating how to prevent their inevitable revolution from degenerating into "authoritarianism".
I consider it additionally to be symptomatic of a chronic problem of the post-WW2 American "left" in that it tends to conceive of politics not as an arena for organizing to fight for tangible material gains but as a forum for individual self-expression as a reflection of one's virtue and character. It's mind-numbing and boring.
Just to add a funny piece of history to the idea of the idea of the cia intentionally splitting 'leftists'. Back in the day the bolshiviks had an agent of the tsar high in their ranks that actively discouraged unity between the bolsheviks and the mensheviks - the intention being to stop the socialists from forming a larger political bloc. But from lenins point of view the main thing it did was prevent the bolsheviks from taking on the internal contradictions of the mensheviks.
This unity of the left that people fight for nowadays is a false unity based on ignoring internal contradiction instead of struggling on it and navigating it. If anything was a cia project I would say it's the tendency to build false coalitions strife with internal contradiction that are bound to fall apart from the seems at the mere presence of any meaningful hostile external factor ( if these forms don't already disassemble themselves before hand).
Maybe it is, but the question is whether we hash out those contradictions internally, as part of the combined struggle, or as separate tendencies taking potshots at each other.
Left unity doesn't mean we don't argue, it means we argue together, which means we can more easily arrive at the specific tactics needed to succeed in certain material conditions. And honestly, even as an ML I see the Ancoms generally being far more effective at small-scale organising and struggle, even if I'm skeptical about that becoming a larger movement.
I often feel that the different tendencies just have different focuses, and they're actually all important. Imagine believing that any one particular school of thought has a monopoly on the truth haha it's a very... competitive mindset, not really conducive to healthy leftism/social science imo.
It's, frankly, intellectual arrogance to act as if 'only my school of thought has all the right answers'. In any academic field, you'd get laughed out of the room for acting that way. It's just not a realistic relationship with the truth, imo
There's no such thing as "hashing out differences as a combined struggle." There are irreconcilable differences. There's no meeting in the middle. It's ok to have different political programs. There's some weird idealism of wanting everyone to be friends or something involved here
as a forum for individual self-expression
Yeah. 'Individualism' lies at the root of this. Also there are fundamental differences in methods of organizing and material goals.
What do you make of the EZLN, they're a lot more anarchist than ML
Ironically the Mexican State surrounding them on all sides is the only thing preventing them being crushed, else they would be long gone, and they reject being associated with anarchism or communism, publicly denouncing vanguard parties or their support.
It will eventually collapse, they fail to provide even the most basic of infrastructure for themselves.
I think people who downvote things they disagree with are nerds haha just so you know that I didn't downvote you. I know they identify as explicitly Neozapatismo in philosophy, but various Zapatistas have talked about their influences and they borrow from all branches of marxism. They're, basically, explicitly non-sectarian haha but I think it's hard to argue they don't lean pretty firmly towards anarchism
I also think it's hard to argue they will inevitably collapse because they don't provide for themselves. They've been running for decades and decades, and seemingly only gaining ground. But I'm admittedly not that familiar with the movement.
I don't know how to best support you, comrade, so I will neither up nor downvote, but I will comment to tell you I have not done so.
They've been 'running' entirely at a State's mercy that has no interest in reeducating them or killing them. If they were instead surrounded by Anglos or other colonizers they would be long gone.
EZLN is basically a commune within a capitalist state. You can join a commune in the US too, that doesn't make it socialist
The smug eurocentrism here is palpable. This paternalist instinct to dismiss indigenous movements for not adhering to a brand of leftism and thus doomed to failure is really gross tbh.
Its a material fact. Mexico doesnt want to kill or erase indigenous movements and lets them do their thing, an Euro state or Anglos would have put them in a reservation or worse
And it was the indigenous movements under Zapatista in the first place that forced constitutional guarantees into the Mexican government for their benefit. But because indigenous movements in Mexico don't conform to whatever eurocentric vision of self liberation and determination whether it be anarchist or ML, they must be doomed to failure because they're dumb indians. Incredibly tiring.
No lol they are doomed to failure because their ideology lies mostly on the anarchist side and thats how historically it often goes. Maybe they will be the exception, but I doubt it. Also the worsening of global heating will require far more organization than they have and areas under their control have been having clashes with medical personnel and desinfection crews. Let me know when they have infrastructure to make vaccines or hospitals that can do surgeries, things necessary in the modern age.
If an anarchist leaning project fails it's always a matter of ideology if an ML leaning project fails it's always a matter of circumstances.
Maybe the indigenous people in the Zapatista movement know better what they need to do to ensure their survival as a people and culture than your eurocentric ass.
You are both talking what ifs so why don't you both watch and learn. Arguing over if something might happen that you have no control over is useless.
What are the collective farms, coffee plantations, schools, and armies then?
Just using coffee as an example, Mexico produces over a quarter million metric tons of coffee, vs like what 150-200 tonnes. Their model just doesnt compare or scale.
I know very little about the internal workings of their organization, but AFAIK they are comfined to the most backwater and isolated parts of Mexico's rural periphery. But they are a military organization with someone who appears to be a visible and recognized leader, have taken actual, existing action and achieved tangible material gains. It's only of very limited success, but that's not really the point of what I was trying to imply.
I support organizations like EZLN unconditionally just as much as I support the Naxalite movement, the People's Republic of China, FARC, or the Peruvian Communist Party. The vast majority of my ire in this issue is directed at the Western left, which is still utterly obsessed with "movementism" (as J Moufawad-Paul dubbed it in The Communist Necessity) that is wholly reliant on spontaneity and primarily influenced by anarchism. This results in liberal entryism, incoherence or outright lack of a program, lack of leadership, and fragmentary decentralization to the point of non-existence, or at least a total disappearance once the latest wave of spontaneous outrage has subsided. For god's sake, even after the ruthless suppression of the Sanders insurgency by the Democratic Party leadership and countless clear and unmistakable signals that they do not want the left in their party and will never even cede an inch of ground to their demands, it is somehow still treated as a debate that we should continue working with, supporting, and "boring within" that party instead of breaking with them definitively and working towards destroying and consuming their position with a real working-class party.
They were founded by Maoists and use a synthesis of Maoism and Maya. Anti-colonial politics (which are in general radically democratic.)
If anarchists recognize ourselves in the EZLN, It's because of the Mayan influence, the libertarian turn of N. American socialism in the 60s, and the generally pro democracy bent in Latin socialism.
I mean, their economics and governance do look pretty dang anarchist. Like, the EZLN rejects all external labels besides Zapatismo, but if we're going to project, it seems at least as fair to call them anarchist as it is to call them Maoist because of their Guevarist roots.
Explain the libertarian element however you will, but I think it's pretty obvious that it's there
Except anarchists aren't willing to have the transition period. That's the entire problem. If they are willing to have the transition period then they are MLs
But what about… after that?
This is, in my opinion, the biggest reason that it's irreconcilable. The revolution is not the act that ends capitalism, it is merely the act that flips who has dominant power. It is the act of the proletariat taking authority. A state will be absolutely necessary to maintain that power and authority over the bourgeoisie, and the state will be absolutely necessary in eliminating the bourgeoisie in the coming decades, and in eliminating the existing relations of production, and enforcing the new relations of production. It's necessary because it fills a space of power that if left open, will be filled by the first group that can organize and fill it, i.e. reactionaries.
Attempting to build decentralized anything during this time of fragility will certainly fail, because the time it will take to learn new modes is exactly the time when the reactionaries will strike with the already existing, already tried and tested old modes. And the vast majority of humanity is already familiar and comfortable with the old modes. They will flee to them because new modes are scary, uncharted territory.
at that point, you’re just an ml. mls still believe in stateless society as an end goal
To have council communism or democratic confederalism you'd first need to squash any reactionary uprising that may pop up. Not everyone is going to be along for communism from the start and dealing with that is the entire ML struggle
Well that much later beyond the revolution you're right, there's nothing left to reconcile. ML's and anarchists are both communist tendencies. We all want a stateless, moneyless, classless society.
But what about… after that?
After that you need to survive the reaction, they are not going to leave you alone. China is a Nuclear armed state and they trying a color revolution right under its nose. The USSR fell to one because its last Secretary General abandoned ML principles.
After that you will still require MLism just to stay above water, and the Reaction is also nuclear armed so its not like you can just set off to launch global revolution, they will use them.
A classless society is the objective but first you need to outlive the enemy, else it will forever stay an objective.
Holy shit.
Individual expression of virtue and character is bad. Your comrades are “mind-numbing and boring”, you decide to name your hologram LeninsRage. What does this hologram look like?
I get the vibe that you don’t really like art or people and might not be in a good headspace right now. That’s probably because you’re the victim of an online psy-op.
The shallow economism and “Leninism” of the image of the USSR in the imperial core generates the kind of thinking that leads to anarchists and artists getting killed. There’s a gaping hole in your theory. When people call you red fash they’re expressing themselves honestly. They’re detecting fascism.
The differences between “Communists” and “Anarchists” aren’t irreconcilable. This idea would make revolution seem impossible. In reality they’re the same people! They get along fine! They’re from the same class! They can get class consciousness! They want the same things! Some people are also anarchists and communists within the same identity. There is no antagonistic contradiction. You have been lied to by compradors.
If you actually think there’s an irreconcilable difference in a left that doesn’t exist yet you’re the victim of a counter-revolutionary bourgeois psyop. Full stop.
Stop trusting the people who are intent on making sure you stay inside Eurocentric theory. Get past the USSR-centric “legal communist party” thinking.
In my experience it really is just an online phenomenon. And that is not to say that this division did not exist historically (it did), or that it was the result of everyone being wrong (they probably weren't). What I think in terms of the left in america is that this 'offline unity' is largely a result of the underdeveloped popular theory on the situation here. That is, people unconsciously act together despite claiming to have irreconcilable beliefs in largely historical viewpoints because they simply realize what the situation demands. More often than not people will go 'well Marx said / well Kropotkin said / well Lenin said' without first asking themselves the question: 'does this apply?' Sectarianism turns what was the result of a method into a doctrine. We cannot repeat the past, we shall not repeat the past, we cannot just take crystalline ideas and transport them into our time. In this sense theory is much more about writing than reading; 'a ruthless critique of everything existing' and whatnot. I don't know I'm loosing creative steam rn. Thoughts?
I agree 100%. When you're out there today with organizers and activists putting in the work, you see a hell of a lot less infighting and dumb counter productive bullshit. The material conditions in America in 2020 demand something new.
All of the people who are anti-capitalist and believe that the value of a human being is in being human, not how much they can sell their labor for, we are all allies in the class struggle. We don't have time to debate endlessly over minutae because many crisis are converging at once in our time.
Climate change is continuing to accelerate and cause increasingly worse annual weather events. Hurricanes are beginning to form in the Gulf of Mexico (2 at a time which has never been seen before), a pandemic is still ravaging the nation and because of it the prison labor population (used as firefighters) of California cant mobilize so half their state is on fire. Be cause of the pandemic and an uncaring government we also will soon have millions of people removed from their homes and left to fend for themselves during a time already seeing heightened street violence because of a mass uprising against the police state.
We need plans to deal with what is before us, not what has happened in the past. This situation is entirely unprecedented and calls for many types of action. MLs, Ancoms, MLMs, Libsocs, Demcons, whatever you claim to be, you are needed right now. Now, right now is the time to be organizing and to literally be in the street fighting for a better world.
Also TLDR: That right I'm a centrist. It is called dialectics honey ;)
Or to put in another way, at historical revolution the people in the streets aren't insufferable fucking nerds who argue about 19th political texts in the internet.
In my experience, this leftist infighting, at least to the degree that exists in spaces like these, is a purely online phenomenon. Not saying there isn't disagreement and frustration in real life, but nowhere near the extent of "lol anarkiddie" or "fuck tankies" that is so prominent online. I've met comrades in person that have identified all across the left spectrum and at the end of the day if your end goal is the dissolution of capitalism, you're my comrade and we can work together. I think more people would have this viewpoint if they did any kind of actual organizing and realized you can't throw away a possible helping hand because they don't have the perfect ideology. Idk, yall an keep arguing over stupid shit or you can start learning how to shoot.
In america, the differences are largely aesthetic and an op. But historically, ML types have murdered an awful lot of anarchists for not having the 'right' vision of a leftist future. But in america, where the left is dead in the water, the whole 'picking a team' thing definitely feels like an op. But, it's probably just leftists being leftists.
It's easy to be unified when you have no vision, only a vague emotional urge to 'go back to a better time'. When you're on the side of creating better futures, you're going to have disagreements.
I agree with the poster who quoted Freire's The Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Actually, I appreciate a lot of the posters in here arguing anti-sectarianism. Build left power.
If I were CIA, or some troll trying to fuck with the left, my number one strategy would be divisive sectarianism. Just, posts about how 'the other side' is shit and doesn't have anything to offer.
Normalize a culture where it's haram to read 'the other team's' work. And where it's ok to demean people with different perspectives. Where it looks like a bunch of out-of-touch nerds infighting to any lib who glances in. What's the phrase... Separate and Defeat? Some ancient thing like that
The prioritization of anarchist revolution in civil war Spain ahead of fighting the civil was as a United front with the, yes socdems/demsocs and communists, was what started the whole deal
"The prioritization of anarchist revolution" was what provided the whole region with food, but go off.
I mean, obviously we agree here which is why we’re both arguing anti-sectarianism. But anarchists haven’t exactly gone around mass killing MLs, or backstabbing them. Maybe I’m misreading the history, but that seems like a real part of it. MLs joke about it, anarchists worry about it, I casually mention it. Again, I could be misreading history, but I find it important to mention, basically, the main material outcomes of sectarianism that we’ve seen
those examples are the exceptions in front of the millions of anarchists that worked very well with communists historicaly and supported communist projects
And I totally agree. That’s why I believe sectarianism, and frankly even ‘tendency sioling’ is kinda absurd today. I mean, another commenter has even pointed out that modern anarchists have mostly synthesized an acknowledgement of the need for a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Maybe I shouldn’t have brought it up, my apologies. But it’s definitely a part of the conversation, whether we think it shouldn’t be or not. I’ve literally had ML chapos say that they’ll kill me when the revolution comes because they identify me as an anarchist (I’m not)
It's just such a relevant, prescient quote. I love how Freire walks the line between educator, psychologist, and revolutionary. What a based intersection to sit at
Sectarianism, fed by fanaticism, is always castrating. Radicalization, nourished by a critical spirit, is always creative. Sectarianism mythicizes and thereby alienates; radicalization criticizes and thereby liberates. Radicalization involves increased commitment to the position one has chosen, and thus ever greater engagement in the effort to transform concrete, objective reality. Conversely, sectarianism, because it is mythicizing and irrational, turns reality into a false (and therefore unchangeable) “reality.”
- Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed
Scooby gang: "Now we're going to find out who the leader of the CIA REALLY is"
pulls off mask
"Otto von Bismarck!?"
I'm a firm believer that the split in the modern era is contrived and only serves to undermine the movement. Like whatever split there may be seems to come down to historical animosity and tactics. If the anarchists want to start building socialism in the streets from the ground up and the MLs want the vanguard party to seize the government and build socialism from the top down, why not do both at the same time and squeeze capitalism from both sides? Capital's primary defenses are to either run to the state and get it to fight against grassroots movements on its behalf or to fund astroturf movements to undermine state reforms - so if the anarchists have the loyalty of the grassroots and the MLs have control of the state, that cripples capital's defenses against us. Far from opposing ideals, I think our differences are the key to future victory
ground up guerrilla attack on the bourgeois hegemon through protracted people’s war
Zapatista/Shining Path synthesis is coming
It's not a CIA op, it's that America is incredibly indivualistic and defined by enlightenment values. Anarchism is a much easier fit for those with preexisting liberal beliefs than any later developed variant of marxism. Trotskyism was also popular in the west for similar reasons due to the same individualistic desire to be an ultra rather than a part of a winning entity.
Why are Anarchism and Trotskyism so popular in Latin America? Isn't Latin America more kin and ancestor focused than the US of America?
Or am I using a social science definition of Individualism when you mean something different?
Trotskyism in latin america isn't really the same thing as it is in the US and the broader anglo world. It developed from the fact that trotsky himself lived in Mexico City, whereas in the anglo world it was just an anti Stalin position but from the left.
S. Anerica was also colonized and has a coastline and historically anarchism spread through the ports mostly. Those two things together would be my best guess. That and the influence of the Magonists in the Mexican Revolution.
I feel like there's definitely been a notable uptick in sectarianism ever since chapo was banned, and I agree that it might be a seeded psyop.
Sectarianism, fed by fanaticism, is always castrating. Radicalization, nourished by a critical spirit, is always creative. Sectarianism mythicizes and thereby alienates; radicalization criticizes and thereby liberates. Radicalization involves increased commitment to the position one has chosen, and thus ever greater engagement in the effort to transform concrete, objective reality. Conversely, sectarianism, because it is mythicizing and irrational, turns reality into a false (and therefore unchangeable) "reality."
Sectarianism in any quarter is an obstacle to the emancipation of mankind. The rightist version thereof does not always, unfortunately, call forth its natural counterpart: radicalization of the revolutionary. Not infrequently, revolutionaries themselves become reactionary by falling into sectarianism in the process of responding to the sectarianism of the Right. This possibility, however, should not lead the radical to become a docile pawn of the elites. Engaged in the process of liberation, he or she cannot remain passive in the face of the oppressors violence. On the other hand, the radical is never a subjectivist. For this individual the subjective aspect exists only in relation to the objective aspect (the concrete reality, which is the object of analysis). Subjectivity and objectivity thus join in a dialectical unity producing knowledge in solidarity with action, and vice versa. [...] The radical, committed to human liberation, does not become the prisoner of a 'circle of certainty' within which reality is also imprisoned. On the contrary, the more radical the person is, the more fully he or she enters into reality so that, knowing it better, he or she can better transform it. This individual is not afraid to confront, to listen, to see the world unveiled. This person is not afraid to meet the people or to enter into dialogue with them. This person does not consider himself or herself the proprietor of history or of all people, or the liberator of the oppressed; but he or she does commit himself or herself, within history, to fight at their side.- Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed
yeah if you're an anarchist that acknowledges the work ML states have done in the fight for a united proletariat then I fw you but if you're like spewing CIA agitprop about Iran, NK, China, USSR etc and use that as an excuse for your beliefs then that's fucked up and I don't fw that
I really like to acknowledge the work ML states put into the persecution of anarchists.
Homie, anarchists and Communists have been at each other's throats for like 200 years. The CIA isn't responsible for literally everything
We need to ensure that the division between the cadres and the masses is not antagonistic if we’re going to roll out the rest of the red plan, ultimately unity has to be reached through mass line work
i know i would totally exploit this if I wanted to fuck up a movement.
