You engage when i call you a but not when asked questions, like why Sankara is the one good "authoritarian?" or people asking what you about your thoughts on anarchism beside "authoritarian bad." You just link to wikipedia and use that -ass word tankie
You asked for more communists i support and I listed some and now Im anti-communist because I don't support the ones who created police states.
Were you just waiting for me to engage so you could call that?
Lol you make me want to call more people like you tankies because it is so applicable.
MLs who think the only path to revolution is thru police states, are authoritarian by nature.
I wouldn't consider any AES a police state. They are states, they utilize state power to defend themselves from threats from the capitalist class both internally and extermely, because those threats are reality.
Thats why Sankara was assasinated, Rosa Luxembourg was assassinated, why the Black Panthers were assassinated or imprisioned. The capitalist class kills its enemies utilizing the power of the state. And the Black Panthers, Sankara, and Luxembourg were well aware of that.
Believing in using the power of the state is part of ML doctrine, not creating police states, but utilizing that power for the proletariat. I don't think you actually differentiate between state and police state, or a capitalist state from a socislist one (since you conflate the Russian Federation with the USSR which are not the same thing).
Except, you do seem to able to differentiate, but only in cases were our revolutions failed, like in Burkina Faso, the Black Panthers, and Luxembourg. I'm not sure why all the communists you support are one's who failed.
What's bullshit about it? You just say its bullshit but not why.
That's why you get called a
Do you even read the Wikipedia articles you link people to? The Afghans were asking for Soviet aid against insurgents backed by the US. The invasion happened when the USSR feared their allies in Afghanistan were not capable of handling the US supported insurgency that they thought would institute a theocracy there as had happened in Iran. Which is exactly what ended up happening there.
That's not what happened during the US invasion of Afghanistan. That invasion was a cover for war profiteeering, mineral extraction, and opiate production. Rhe US extracted value and resources from that region to enrich capitalists in the imperial core. That's what makes it imperialist.
Soviet period (1979–1989)
Edit
After a Soviet-backed left-wing government in Afghanistan failed to gain popular support, the Soviets decided to invade. A number of resistance leaders concentrated on increasing opium production in their regions to finance their operations, regardless of its haram Islamic status, in particular Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Mullah Nasim Akhundzada, and Ismat Muslim. The production was doubled to 575 metric tons between 1982 and 1983.[15][16] (At this time the United States was pursuing an "arms-length" supporting strategy of the Mujahideen, the main purpose of which was to cripple the Soviet Union slowly into withdrawal through attrition rather than effect a quick and decisive overthrow.) Hekmatyar, the leading recipient of aid from the CIA and Pakistan, developed at least six heroin refineries in Koh-i-Sultan in southwestern Pakistan, while other warlords were content to sell raw opium. Nasim Akhundzada, who controlled the traditional poppy growing region of northern Helmand, issued quotas for opium production, which he was even rumoured to enforce with torture and extreme violence. To maximise control of trafficking, Nasim maintained an office in Zahidan, Iran.[17]
Its bullshit to paint an invasion as aid. This is what imperialist do.
The soviets invaded aremovedanistan for the same reasons as the us did later and Briton did before.
To protect their borders from afar,
To create and protect trade deal favorable to their country,
To spread their ideology.
And by the way I read a book about the history of aremovedanistan called: Games Without Rules: The Often Interrupted History of Afghanistan.
It outlined how the three main invasion of Afghanistan all followed the same basic lines, motivations and results. They devastated Afghanistan and created a situation where they would be invaded again.
How could the USSR have invaded Afghanistan for the same reason as the US?
The USSR was there to oppose the US by fighting their proxies and defend the socialists in Afghanistan who supported them during the invasion.
The US invaded under the War on Terror pretext as a war profiteering entrerprise. They brought Unaco, Haliburton, KBR, PMCs, and other contractors in to extract value from the region to bring profits to the imperial core.
The issue is that it isn't imperialist. You are unable to demarcate between what you consider unsavory actions and imperialism.
I'm not saying that i agree with all of the USSR's actions. I never said i was in support of this particular action for that matter. I am saying that the USSR was not imperialist because it did not engage in capitalist extraction or monopolization.
Im actually an anarchist. I critizes everone. Including the liberalszzzzz communistss, facists, and the corrupt american imperialsts.
What a surprize this person pull his images from hexbear.
Do you have any arguments besides calling me a lib? You've done this like 15 times.
If you have such a problem with being called a tankie, its kinda hypocritical to call me a lib. Imo.
Im not a liberal. Im an anarchist. anarchist also use this term to describe the way the USSR acted toward the Anarchists of the spainish civil war.
I don't care if you call me tankie
You engage when i call you a
but not when asked questions, like why Sankara is the one good "authoritarian?" or people asking what you about your thoughts on anarchism beside "authoritarian bad." You just link to wikipedia and use that 
-ass word tankie
You seem pretty movtivated in the conversation about me using the term tankie so I think this is bs.
Stop calling me a lib and we can have a conversation.
Are you interested in that?
Rosa Luxemburg was a marxist who criticized Lenin.
She also accused both Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks of having police state aspirations.
You support everyone that failed, and no one who succeeded. You're a left anti-communist, which is no better than being a
MLs like you are the reason I am an anarchist.
You asked for more communists i support and I listed some and now Im anti-communist because I don't support the ones who created police states. Were you just waiting for me to engage so you could call that?
Lol you make me want to call more people like you tankies because it is so applicable.
MLs who think the only path to revolution is thru police states, are authoritarian by nature.
I wouldn't consider any AES a police state. They are states, they utilize state power to defend themselves from threats from the capitalist class both internally and extermely, because those threats are reality.
Thats why Sankara was assasinated, Rosa Luxembourg was assassinated, why the Black Panthers were assassinated or imprisioned. The capitalist class kills its enemies utilizing the power of the state. And the Black Panthers, Sankara, and Luxembourg were well aware of that.
Believing in using the power of the state is part of ML doctrine, not creating police states, but utilizing that power for the proletariat. I don't think you actually differentiate between state and police state, or a capitalist state from a socislist one (since you conflate the Russian Federation with the USSR which are not the same thing).
Except, you do seem to able to differentiate, but only in cases were our revolutions failed, like in Burkina Faso, the Black Panthers, and Luxembourg. I'm not sure why all the communists you support are one's who failed.
Remind me, what happened to Rosa again?
Ok cool
Also I realize now that The Black panthers were ML and anti imperialst so I support them as well.
All MLs are anti-imperialist. There are no imperialist communists
Tankie nonsense.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War
The USSR invaded aganistan. Dont worry the USA did too but it tootally isnt imerpialism when the USSR does it right?
They were supporting the socialists in Afghanistan against the CIA backed Mujahideen. How is that imperialist?
Edit clarity: an invasion is not imperialist on its own., It's not about who does it, it's about the objectives of the invasion.
Lol do you hear yourself?
Tankie bullshit friend.
Afghanistan did not want to be invaded. The Afghans fought with the soviets through guerilla warfare for a decade.
You sound just like Americans justifying the US invasion that would happen later.
What's bullshit about it? You just say its bullshit but not why.
That's why you get called a
Do you even read the Wikipedia articles you link people to? The Afghans were asking for Soviet aid against insurgents backed by the US. The invasion happened when the USSR feared their allies in Afghanistan were not capable of handling the US supported insurgency that they thought would institute a theocracy there as had happened in Iran. Which is exactly what ended up happening there.
That's not what happened during the US invasion of Afghanistan. That invasion was a cover for war profiteeering, mineral extraction, and opiate production. Rhe US extracted value and resources from that region to enrich capitalists in the imperial core. That's what makes it imperialist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_
Soviet period (1979–1989) Edit After a Soviet-backed left-wing government in Afghanistan failed to gain popular support, the Soviets decided to invade. A number of resistance leaders concentrated on increasing opium production in their regions to finance their operations, regardless of its haram Islamic status, in particular Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Mullah Nasim Akhundzada, and Ismat Muslim. The production was doubled to 575 metric tons between 1982 and 1983.[15][16] (At this time the United States was pursuing an "arms-length" supporting strategy of the Mujahideen, the main purpose of which was to cripple the Soviet Union slowly into withdrawal through attrition rather than effect a quick and decisive overthrow.) Hekmatyar, the leading recipient of aid from the CIA and Pakistan, developed at least six heroin refineries in Koh-i-Sultan in southwestern Pakistan, while other warlords were content to sell raw opium. Nasim Akhundzada, who controlled the traditional poppy growing region of northern Helmand, issued quotas for opium production, which he was even rumoured to enforce with torture and extreme violence. To maximise control of trafficking, Nasim maintained an office in Zahidan, Iran.[17]
CIA backed insugents grew opium. What dies that have to do with anything i said?
Its bullshit to paint an invasion as aid. This is what imperialist do.
The soviets invaded aremovedanistan for the same reasons as the us did later and Briton did before.
To protect their borders from afar,
To create and protect trade deal favorable to their country,
To spread their ideology.
And by the way I read a book about the history of aremovedanistan called: Games Without Rules: The Often Interrupted History of Afghanistan.
It outlined how the three main invasion of Afghanistan all followed the same basic lines, motivations and results. They devastated Afghanistan and created a situation where they would be invaded again.
How could the USSR have invaded Afghanistan for the same reason as the US?
The USSR was there to oppose the US by fighting their proxies and defend the socialists in Afghanistan who supported them during the invasion.
The US invaded under the War on Terror pretext as a war profiteering entrerprise. They brought Unaco, Haliburton, KBR, PMCs, and other contractors in to extract value from the region to bring profits to the imperial core.
How are these two things the same?
Yes.
And also they wanted to protect thier trade and their borders from other imperialsts.
Why cant it be both?
Why are you unable to recognize that USSR could invade Afghanistan to protect socialst and to protect trade and secure thier borders?
Why cant you just admit that the USSR did some unsavory things? Do you think they are a perfect embodiment of communism?
They assassinated the communist president of Afghanistan before they invaded!
All othet arguments aside i dont support governments who use assassination that way.
The issue is that it isn't imperialist. You are unable to demarcate between what you consider unsavory actions and imperialism.
I'm not saying that i agree with all of the USSR's actions. I never said i was in support of this particular action for that matter. I am saying that the USSR was not imperialist because it did not engage in capitalist extraction or monopolization.
Ah, what sort of anarchist political theory have you read?
wikipedia, evidently
What is the position anarchists take regarding the state, as opposed to say, socialists?