Again, Makhno was not the helpless idealist you seem to believe him to be. The Soviets were correct in understanding him as a threat, just as Makhno was correct in identifying the soviets as a threat to him.

“Using imperialist language” is a nonsense jab. The Soviets were never imperialist, this is a non-sequitor to try to shift the argument. My point was clear, the Soviets were trying to establish socialism, while Makhno was trying to establish a horizontalist system. The fact that the Soviets succeeded and Makhno failed to establish even a localized version of his horizontalist vision does not mean these were two competing visions, and as we know, the broad majority supported the Bolsheviks.

The bulk of your comment is you pressing a silly notion that I’m offended at being called a tankie by you. In that a tankie is someone that defends existing socialism, I am absolutely a tankie, so this doesn’t really mean much other than that you don’t like me, which is also obvious. Well done! We figured it out, I like existing socialism, and you don’t. We already knew that from the first comment, though, so all it seems to me is that you’re hoping to get under my skin. It won’t work, though.

I don’t know what you mean by saying we come up with something “better than Marxist-Leninist.” It has stuck, that’s what we MLs are. I’m also fine with tankie, it’s a pejorative, but one for a group we are both aware exists, those who defend existing socialism. It’s fine, I don’t care what you decide to call us, as long as we both agree on what this actually describes, those who defend existing socialism.