The Rejected RealmsBoard

Jewish Partisan Division wrote:


You should listen to your friend more if he isn't an anarchist because he's into punk rock.

Extreme screen hours version of an anarchist i think anarchie might be like no elections for ruler no ruler whole country will join to the things that matters whole country with votes

Syndicasia wrote:

That's a Maoist position
Simping for him is stupid obviously

He challenged the UN and Switzerland, fought for equal rights in South Africa, was personal friends with Castro and Mandela, and turned Libya from one of the poorest nations into one of the best in Africa.

Anarchy is cringe.

There is no working togheter, hence no money and growth!

Wonsen wrote:

Iraq was a glimmer of hope for the Arab Ba’athist movement.

And the Arab Ba'athist movement was bourgeois and killed any communist or person who wanted a real labor movement with brute force, even before Saddam took power. Let's not forget the national oppression and consequent genocide done justified by its nationalist ideology (rest in peace, Kurds).
Hence I hate it.

Plus, your glimmer of hope was literally an American puppet XD

Colonla wrote:

Anarchy is cringe.

There is no working togheter, hence no money and growth!

Actually anarchy has the spirit of working together but the rule of humans make it almost imposibble everyone wants the power

I wish i had some ice cream. Only ate 5 today

Tungstan wrote:

Put Reggie in the corner of your flag instead. It’s a great idea, I swear.

ill pass on that. maybe ill just put my favorite anime character on my flag

Arestastland wrote:

can y'all stop doing anime and Reggie stuff now? We too grown for this.

I was going to change the flag from Fujiwara eventually, but now that I know you dislike it, I'll keep it just to spite you.

Syndicasia wrote:

Anarchists have historically been bourgeois or falsifiers... like look at Makhno's Ukraine... it basically did most of what Maoists brag about Mao doing (except for education), ie. a bourgeois revolution based on the peasantry. And they even did repression organized in a bourgeois fashion

Makhno started off as a peasant who was another victim of the bourgeoisie. The peasantry at the time were victims of attempts by the russian tsar to assimilate them into russian culture as the tsarist government saw ukraine as another part of russia. There's a reason why Makhnovists offensives were so successful, its because the makhnovists addressed several problems in Ukraine groups like the whites and reds caused and refused to address. (Apart from the whites under Wrangel.) It was literally an army of the people.

Makhnovshchina's biggest problem is that there was no form of authority to counter The Black Army. So if Makhno wanted to be a dictator, he totally could just undermine the government. Though this could be because the soviets did not have enough time to decentralize.

Wonsen wrote:

Also, NATO is the true aggressor for pursuing hawkish measures against Russia in the first place.

NATO is not an aggressor, but still evil for their economic sanctions against Russia. Have they traded with us like "partners", Russia may have even joined the EU at some point. But war is more profitable, i guess.

Colonla wrote:

Are you hearing yourself right now? That's ridiculous.

Everyone does what they want and Factions are creates to fight over the Country. Like Yemen

Are you hearing yourself too ?

Like you told factions want the power

Jewish Partisan Division wrote:

Makhno started off as a peasant who was another victim of the bourgeoisie. The peasantry at the time were victims of attempts by the russian tsar to assimilate them into russian culture as the tsarist government saw ukraine as another part of russia. There's a reason why Makhnovists offensives were so successful, its because the makhnovists addressed several problems in Ukraine groups like the whites and reds caused and refused to address. (Apart from the whites under Wrangel.) It was literally an army of the people.

Makhnovshchina's biggest problem is that there was no form of authority to counter The Black Army. So if Makhno wanted to be a dictator, he totally could just undermine the government. Though this could be because the soviets did not have enough time to decentralize.

Makhno was a hero.