The_Terrible_Humbaba

Right, instead is it's delving specifically into ML and making it sound like that is specifically what socialism is; it's not. And it sounds like you agree, so... I really don't get what your point is. Sounds like you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

Then it sounds like you're not really an anarchist, much less AnComm 🤷

Care to explain what the difference between a communist and an anarcho-communist is, then? Communists, such as ML, are the ones who believe in slowly eroding the state, anarchists believe in side stepping the state and growing from grassroots movements. That's sort of, ya know, the entire difference?

Anarchist groups exist and have existed through history, and they don't typically believe in "destroy all governance", they believe in, like I said, growing from alternative, independent, grassroots movements.

Sounds like you are just a communist, which is fine, but you're not an anarchist.

AnComms are socialists, though. As are communists, and all anarchists who are not AnCaps, but those aren't even really anarchists.

Socialism is just about workers controlling the means of production; how you get there, the styles and forms of leadership, and all other things, are where all subgroups differ. The same way that in capitalism you can have Soc-Dems, Liberals, Libertarian Capitalists, Fascists, etc.

I already said this in reply to your other comment, but I'll repeat it here.

Lenin appointed Trotsky as Vice-chairman, and it's believed Lenin wanted Trotsky as his successor; you can't just shift all blame from one to another and pretend Lenin lived in a different reality when he was leader of the party.

To be clear, I never used the "genocidal" label, but imperialist dictator does apply. You yourself say he led "the faction" that carried out "repression", admit it was "terrible", but then in the next breath you act like he had no responsibility.

You also say:

If it wasn’t for the Bolsheviks, Makhno would have rotted away in prison

That's like saying, "if it wasn't for the people who wanted to kill him and put him in prison, he would be in prison"; followed by:

and Ukraine would have been crushed even more harshly by the actual imperialists

"More" and "actual" don't really fit here. In the same breath, you admit they were imperialists, but then essentially argue they are not true imperialists because it could have been worse.

Your entire comment is essentially trying to take everything that was bad about the party and their rule and separate it away from Lenin - the leader of the party that was ruling - and act like it was all done by a separate faction existing in a different reality; specifically you try to pin it all on Trotsky, who Lenin wished to appoint as Vice-chairman, and who historians believe Lenin wanted as a successor.

After the civil war Lenin was sick and by Feb 1924 he would be dead

And the anarchist arrests and killings were happening right after the revolution, and everything that happened with the Black Army of Ukraine also happened well before then.

You talk as if there was only the White Army and then the Red Army standing up to the White Army, but there were plenty of other socialists that Lenin put his imperial boot on.

It's not, just read about Anarcho-Syndycalists, or Anarcho-Communists, to get different perspectives.

This is post is about ML specifically, only really the first and last panels are about socialism in general.

Was Stalin the ~~dictator~~ elected leader at the time of the betrayal and destruction of the Black Army of Ukraine? Was Stalin the one in power right after the revolution when they started killing and arresting anarchists?

Fuck Lenin.

This is really just a very specific type of socialism, as indicated by Lenin being here; an authoritarian who killed other socialists. This is about ML.

The first and last panels are right, but, for example, according to this post Anarcho-Communists don't exist. They don't believe in "evolving to a point" as the third panel says, they believe in jumping straight to that point. Also, Libertarian Socialists wouldn't really be fond of "elected committees" controlling things, as the second panel talks about; maybe electing people into leadership positions inside of a company/cooperative, or maybe even having unions make those decisions, but nothing above that.

We currently live in a system where the owner class (capitalists) makes several times what you do and horde it, while you can barely afford to live.

I really don't understand how your main criticism of a system where the workers make the decisions and take the profits, is that the workers might also horde the relatively smaller amounts that they produced. It's still several times better than what we have now.

I've only had this phrase explained to me recently, and since then I can't help but think it would make more sense if it was told the other way around; such as "you can't eat your cake and have it too".

I agree with you, but Kamala will probably still be the most left leaning president the USA ever had by quite a bit (AFAIK), and has a good chance to start shifting the Overton Window; if only by showing the Democratic Party that choosing more left leaning candidates actually gives them better chances of winning.