Imagine stanning a guy who armed and trained pogromists on an oopsie, and then in exile didn’t have the spine to support a much better anarchist seeking to kill a notorious leader of pogroms. Makhnovists are people who look at Trotsky and say “we need someone even less dignified, someone who accomplished still less and was spiteful and shit-flinging to even more people” and old Nestor comes to their rescue. Go follow his example and publish a newspaper that no one reads except to disparage it while alienating every leftist in your life even despite having the common enemy of the boogeyman tankies, and then die alone.
So correcting a patently false characterization = stanning makhno? K lol. Are you trying to out trivia me or something? Keep spouting whatever little bits and pieces of history you’ve managed to warp to fit your own preconceptions and leave the real conversation for people who don’t need to have their politics spoonfed to them from a bunch of state capitalist dictators that have been dead for decades
I’ve only referenced things that Makhnovists agree to, it’s hardly the Bolshevik history of him. You can be extremely charitable in sourcing and still come to the conclusion that Makhno was mainly pathetic and harmful (though platformism is interesting). I also think that enabling actual genocide is a little more than “trivia”, but it’s not owning the tankies, so I can see why you would be uninterested in it.
Makhno did, in reaction to a rather brutal set of evidence that you can’t just toss out arms and training everywhere and tell people to sort themselves out, fight at least some of the fascists he equipped and made a more pointed effort of helping the surviving Jewish people with community defense, but the underlying problem of him overwhelmingly serving to spread violent chaos in a state that had already been war-torn twice over remained, and that’s part of the “banditry” accusation.
Imagine stanning a guy who armed and trained pogromists on an oopsie, and then in exile didn’t have the spine to support a much better anarchist seeking to kill a notorious leader of pogroms. Makhnovists are people who look at Trotsky and say “we need someone even less dignified, someone who accomplished still less and was spiteful and shit-flinging to even more people” and old Nestor comes to their rescue. Go follow his example and publish a newspaper that no one reads except to disparage it while alienating every leftist in your life even despite having the common enemy of the boogeyman tankies, and then die alone.
So correcting a patently false characterization = stanning makhno? K lol. Are you trying to out trivia me or something? Keep spouting whatever little bits and pieces of history you’ve managed to warp to fit your own preconceptions and leave the real conversation for people who don’t need to have their politics spoonfed to them from a bunch of state capitalist dictators that have been dead for decades
I’ve only referenced things that Makhnovists agree to, it’s hardly the Bolshevik history of him. You can be extremely charitable in sourcing and still come to the conclusion that Makhno was mainly pathetic and harmful (though platformism is interesting). I also think that enabling actual genocide is a little more than “trivia”, but it’s not owning the tankies, so I can see why you would be uninterested in it.
Makhno did, in reaction to a rather brutal set of evidence that you can’t just toss out arms and training everywhere and tell people to sort themselves out, fight at least some of the fascists he equipped and made a more pointed effort of helping the surviving Jewish people with community defense, but the underlying problem of him overwhelmingly serving to spread violent chaos in a state that had already been war-torn twice over remained, and that’s part of the “banditry” accusation.