Slop.

What I mentioned is not an exhaustive list, but in terms of specific political movements, those are the two stories that I see most often, the "betrayal" of the Spanish anarchists (and Trots) who thought that a civil war with fascists was a good time for a revolution and therefore sabotaged their liberal allies (the Spanish Republicans, who the Communists were working with), and the betrayal of the Makhnovists who had genuinely been engaging in banditry on Bolshevik-controlled cities because, despite being very militarily effective, they (the Makhnovists) were not economically self-sufficient or really productive at all, and that's before you factor in having maybe their whimsical monetary policy, because the root issue had more to do with relations of production.

I'm not going to pretend to you that anarchists have never been wronged by communists, whether in Spain, Russia, or elsewhere, but the specific examples that I usually see are instances where it would be more accurate to call the anarchists the "traitors," but the communist retaliation is framed as the first shot. I am quite confident that you can go through the history of the Red Terror, of the post-Cultural Revolution crackdowns (and I mean under both Mao and Deng) and find much more genuine misdeeds, I'm just less familiar with these because they aren't thrown in front of my face all the time like the stories I mentioned.

It should also be mentioned that even though I think Mao ended his career with some of the gravest betrayals of a political project that I have ever heard of, he and the CPC had facilitated various anarchist and anarchist-like projects from the interwar period until the unofficial end of the Cultural Revolution, and there wasn't zero communist interference, but generally they had neutral or supportive relationships (with some communist factions being much more hostile, one going as far as assassinating a KPAM leader) until various factors (Japanese aggression, poor construction, etc.) caused them to fail. That and Mao's crackdown ending the CR was mainly to stop country-wide gang violence, meanwhile the more substantial anarchist-like projects like the Shanghai People's Commune were dissolved in a more orderly fashion as they didn't perform as well as hoped and were deemed effectively to be left-deviationist.

Anyway, I wouldn't ascribe a "level of historical knowledge" to myself, I just know some stories, and the accusations led me to read a bunch of different anarchist (and Trot) accounts until eventually I found bitter anarchists who nonetheless admitted to things like the Spanish anarchists sabotaging the Republicans. I encourage you to look up things on your own and treat what I have to say like a Wikipedia article, as mainly being a basis for further research at most. If someone would like to offer corrections, I am happy to hear them.

My real thesis is that these myths of aggrievement are just the Red Scare as processed by, well, another group of people who don't seem to have more nuance in their accounts than the neoliberals and are therefore happy to have the same boogeymen following roughly the same logic. Besides the blatant revisionism, I'd respect it a lot more if the people in question were just more upfront about the fact that the substantial divide (where there is one, and that really depends on the anarchist) is about democracy vs autonomy, where the communists demand the continuous advancement of the former and anarchists the latter, and these two things are inevitably at odds.

someone consistently saying something bad doesnt make it good lol

as for the war crimes claim, i wont comment on supposed war crimes being committed by individual members of hamas because we don’t know what’s true or not about that day. what we do know is the act its self was not a war crime, it was an act of resistance. to reduce it down to the actions of the individuals is not something i want to get into because as someone who was born in america in lived here most their life i cant say i can really put myself in their shoes.

ive got little issue with democratic socialists but i do have a big issue with succdems (liberals) so let’s just hope he’s the former. i did see that quote where he advocates for worker ownership over the means of production which is promising

to be clear i didnt say it was reactionary to say that oct 7th was a war crime, it was the “right to exist” part i had an issue with. i dont believe oct 7th to have been a war crime but i understand why someone running for mayor would say that and i understand how they could even interpret international law to come to that conclusion, if their analysis was lacking a lot of material and historical context (ie, if you occupy a people for 80yrs and ethnically cleanse them then lock them all in a concentration camp, and hold a music festival right next to that concentration camp, i dont really see how in that context you can call what happened a war crime)

but again the actual issue i had was, he could have said that and not said israel has a right to exist, even if he claims “as a secular state”, which even that is a liberal delusion. the entire point of israel is contradictory to any claim that it could ever be secular

i haven't heard Mamdani's opinion on the destituent assembly and that's kinda sus tbh

Sounds about white lol. I was listening to a RevLeft episode where Breht & Zoe Baker, who is an anarchist scholar doing her PhD on anarchism, started bickering about the Bolshevik/Anarchist thing and it's like...Shouldn't y'all be intelligent enough to know that we are not in Russia during the Revolutionary period and that conditions are very different? What is even the point?