I’d love to see those Hexbears have an answer for this!
imagine criticizing krushchev for the one thing he did right
He also supported Cuba.
Unsure where the author of this meme has heard either Lenin or Stalin call for left unity? Both were pretty clearly and consistently hostile towards Anarchism/Libertarian Socialism as well as what we’d call modern Social Democratic tendencies.
Only not including Mao because I havent read enough Mao and Khruschev because I honestly don’t expect him to have written or spoken in particular about left tendency conflicts.
Really funny to just put “intellectuals” under Mao though.
If they wanted a remotely accurate meme they should have put “no unity with counter-revolutionaries” as the dialogue, since that at least gets at the core divide and argument of the conflict, both then and now.
Edit: Actually the more I look at it the funnier it gets, like theres no Kronstadt? You put “factory councils” over like the one specific thing everyone gets to hear about and have to have an opinion on? What is this, a crypto-Trotskyist meme?
Lenin did kind of revere Kropotkin, but you are right that it was explicitly part of their organization that “there is one party line, not two” and that the vanguard must behave in a unified fashion following the results of a vote or other method of decision-making.
and that the vanguard must behave in a unified fashion following the results of a vote or other method of decision-making
This is democratic centralism: Freedom of debate - Unity of action.
Mao was an anarchist for a minute and actually tried to set up a representational system where multiple anti-capitalist parties could hold office, but no liberals (it was during the Civil War and lasted about 5 minutes before getting replaced by a single party system)
This meme: Lenin hates Ukraine
Meanwhile Rosa Luxemburg be like “Lenin is too attached to the idea of an independent Ukraine”
TIL Rosa Luxemburg supports the cultural genocide of Ukraine
deleted by creator
Hit them with this, even if it’s wrong, it makes them very not mad:
Not Pictured: Uncle Sam applauding Rojava for their help in stealing 80% of Syria’s daily oil output.
Why don’t the libertarians and anarchists simply acquire larger guns?
or for once organize a big enough movement that has a chance of success, then they can actually deal with “tankies”. Instead they join every Western supported protest movement with their tiny insignificant numbers, thinking they can actually change the course of these pro-West colour revolutions.
Us, if we fall for their lies again
What “we”? You’re just a bunch of liberals playing dress up, your political involvement is just a performance that stops when you log out of reddit and vooote for Genocide Joe. No connection at all to the political legacy of the anarchists who risked life and limb for humanity.
And who even is they? Do these liberals think there are Marxist parties in the west very nearly poised to take power?
The hexbears and lemmygrads are gonna shoot me for my brave posting
Like koi fish in a barrel
Half of this dork’s posts are “everyone in this thread is angry except for me!” lmao
The evolution from “Stalin didn’t help enough” to “Stalin didn’t help at all” to “Stalin actually killed them” regarding the Spanish Civil War is fucking wild.
Editing to fix my dog ass grammar
Meanwhile in the original thread I’m arguing with ‘an historian’ claiming Stalin sent ‘his army’ there in a sentence that presented it equally to both Hitler and Mussolini
I’m convinced that instance has the most tedious people on the planet
Anarchists cannot fail, they can only be failed. Further proving Western anarchists on the internet are libs who like the edge & aesthetic.
Drawing those eyes on Mao, there is a reason you are afraid of communism enforced with violence
Not gonna engange with OP, seems to be caught up in grandstanding
deleted by creator
There were plenty of anarchist and libertarian socialists in the Soviet Union that weren’t insurrectionist counter-revolutionary opportunists that thought the best time for them to seize power and hit the full Communism button without building anything to actually achieve it was during times of duress, such as the civil war, the build-up to then during the second world War, the post-war rebuilding period in former fascist countries, the post-war rebuilding period in a reunified country freed from imperialist conquest, and so forth.
If I was as historically illiterate and ideologically ignorant as the person that made this and all the clapping circus seals applauding this, I would say something completely out of line like “in the history of left unity, anarchism and libertarian socialism has only attempted to emerge into the world in the form of a cancerous tumor on the Communist movement and never has nor is able to emerge into the world on its own feet.” A completely unfair and intellectually dishonest statement that ignores the existence of anarchist communes in both the Sino and former Soviet states and erases their contributions to the defense of humanity and the revolution they made in fending off the imperialists and fascists and their contributions to the benefit of humanity and the revolution in their work among the people.
Also love the casual racism against Asians by depicting Mao with slit eyes.
I can understand getting fooled and believing all the bad stuff about Mao and Stalin, but I genuinely don’t understand how libs treat Lenin like a great evil. They can’t even give Lenin the “his revolution got out of hand when he died” point. I really don’t see what Lenin did that was extreme. The provisional government was about to be overthrown by reactionaries and they already attempted so before the October Revolution. He took power by popular support and most of his factions enemies were foreign to Russian soil.
Well, to paraphrase Molotov, Lenin was even more harsh than Stalin, particularly to his allies. During the height of the revolution and civil war, if he got a letter from a peasant claiming communist party corruption or malfeasance in an area, he would deputize a university professor and some students to go check it out, and if evidence was found of that corruption or malfeasance to their satisfaction (which had no real legal precedent) they had the discretion to either eject them from the party or, depending on the severity of the offense, just straight up execute them, no trial. Which happened fairly regularly. It was not a case of “We have investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing.”
Even if you think the evidence standards were lax in the USSR during Stalin’s time (which imo they were basically the same as pretty much everyone else’s at the time, they were just far more aggressive at pursuing legal actions against high level party members and generals) at the helm, he still always had trials before executing people, even going as far as trying people in absentia, something that Lenin would have considered a ridiculous liberal facade.
Don’t get me wrong, these were harsh people, but in comparison to the consequences that would face them and the millions peasants they led if they failed, I don’t think they were unnecessarily harsh.
Even if you think the evidence standards were lax in the USSR during Stalin’s time (which imo they were basically the same as pretty much everyone else’s at the time
Yeah people who complain about this don’t compare 1930s Soviet courtrooms to 1930s U.S. courtrooms (because that would be whataboitism, not, you know, having perspective). Think of all the people who had confessions beat out of them or got railroaded on the flimsiest of evidence. Think of all the black people who never made it to the courtroom at all.
You don’t understand, the real tragedy is that powerful people had to face consequences for their actions. USSR bad because everyone was executed, but also USSR bad because the elite (lol) was never punished ever
I really don’t see what Lenin did that was extreme
According to the historical documentary film Anastasia (2020), he personally
Remember that netflix docu series about the tsar family where they intercut a recreation of their execution with a historian calling it(paraphrased) the most hideous and bestial crime of the 20th century?
Anti-communists can’t help but reveal themselves as Nazis example #320,455,980,656
Another one I’ve seen is blaming Lenin for the Russian Civil War and thus hanging all the war deaths on him as well as the deaths from the subsequent famine. He did advocate for turning the imperialist war into a revolutionary war, so it’s not completely absurd, but how many would have died if Russia had stayed in WWI? Insert the Mark Twain quote about the two reigns of terror.
WTF is a Libertarian Socialist? Isn’t that like an oxymoron?
Socialism with kid-diddling characteristics
Really it’s “socialist economy with a significant emphasis on individual rights, e.g., free speech.” It doesn’t sound too bad until you (paraphrasing Parenti here) contemplate the difficulties of actually running a state, confronting capitalist attacks on your state, handling reactionary groups within your state, etc. Basically “do you let the fascists publish their newspaper the day after the revolution?”
deleted by creator
Was that “no bedtimes” struggle session on twitter real?
Think Kropotkin-style anarchism. “Libertarian” used to refer to anarcho-communism–communism without states, hierarchies, and so on–until Rothbard and company started using it to mean laissez-faire capitalism during the 20th century. Some anarchists will still call themselves libertarian socialists or left-libertarians (not to be confused with “bleeding heart libertarians” or “liberaltarians,” which are as awful as you’d expect).
Ahh Captured term from
Thanks.Being an
and only knowing Libertarian as Ayn Rand and 
makes it a bit 
Yeah, that was their deliberate plan. Rothbard wrote:
For the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy. ‘Libertarians’ had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we have taken it over.
He was successful to the point that very few people use it in the old sense anymore, unfortunately. This is especially true in
Probably worth pointing out that Hitler talks about doing the same thing with the word socialism.
Basic summary is its supposed to be Communism without as hard of a grip on the state and structures of society, “without the authoritarianism” as ideological of an explanation as that is.
What if we made a proletarian state without capitalism then implemented absolutely nothing to protect itself from the re-establishment of capital?
Sounds really hot for those with a perpetual losing fetish.
So communism without even the conditions for socialism
Materialism, not even once.
