It’s not so much being “run” by tankies, as it is being developed. So that should be respected. And it’s being built in a way that seems in line with anarchist principles, which allows for federation. If there’s a problem another instance could easily be created. If you don’t like it, take direct action and spin up a server.

Right now I think this instance is fine. It’s much better than a place like Reddit which is full of libs, or other sites full of nazis - and all run for profit with targeted advertising and tracking.

I also think it’s good to at least engage with each other. Even if you consider yourself an anarchist, it’s still good to read theory from other schools of thought, and at least take on board some of the tankie criticisms. You might also change some minds along the way.

Anyway, there’s a lot to be done in unionizing our workplaces, building mutual aid networks, spreading propaganda, building software, etc. etc. So this topic is probably a bit of a dead end.

It’s not so much being “run” by tankies, as it is being developed. So that should be respected. And it’s being built in a way that seems in line with anarchist principles, which allows for federation. If there’s a problem another instance could easily be created. If you don’t like it, take direct action and spin up a server.

I like that spirit :)


/c/userunion anyone?


Isn’t that what a bugtracker is for? ;) Joke aside, if you feel like lemmy.ml instance is gonna be a problem, better setup our own right away.


well, yeah, there’s github and /c/lemmy for suggestions and complaints, but calling a community for suggestions etc userunion would be clever i thought

I was about to join it but then i realized you hadn’t created it ;) ;) ;)


I like it. In fact, it is one of the reasons why I support this social network. I love the community and I love that it’s so different from Reddit (in terms of content and user comments). Plus, it’s great to have anarchist communities as well. This way we can learn from each other, even if we are not 100% supporters of the opposing ideas (as in my case, I’m not an anarchist but I find it an interesting movement and worth studying).


Well, it’s fine, but I think we need a should have a dedicated anarchist lemmy instance.


since all anarchists are gathering under this post, what is some good beginner level anarchist theory?

i’ve been introduced to veganarchism a few days ago and found the ideas very close…

Anarchism is definitely a huge field with a lot of contradictions between branches. However we have some common understanding of domination and privilege, and a common desire to set fire to all systems that prevent us from living a free and happy life.

Some people use the “anarchist” label as a synonym for chaos and violence, where the individual is free to oppress others if they’re strong enough. But that is a misconception constructed by the elite to discredit anarchists. This “rule of the strongest” is what social scientists call anomy (absence of structure), whereas anarchy designates the absence of authority/domination. We often refer to “anarchy” as the absence of power, however depending on anarchist branches, some would claim there is a distinction between personal/collective power (capacity to action) and authority (someone else’s capacity of action over others).

“Anarchy is order without power” or “Anarchy is order, government is civil war” are famous anarchist quotes from the 19th century.

Anarchism is also without a doubt a collectivist (left-wing) ideology founded on property of usage (what i use belongs to me), not private property (what a piece of paper says belong to me) which is understood as a theft of the commons (“property is theft”). For example, here in France there are according to official statistics (INSEE) 3 million empty apartments (not counting secondary housing, only abandoned apartments) so for every person sleeping on the streets there’s several apartments waiting to be occupied. Private property is the State-mandated religion (taught in schools and media) that says people should continue to sleep on the streets, and apartments should stay empty.

So anarchism is a form of communism. How exactly libertarian communism (anarchism) is implemented is up to debate between the collectivists, the mutualists, the syndicalists… However there is a common understanding that power must come from below (not from a higher authority), and at the end of the day a neighborhood/community (we usually refer to as a commune) has every right to organize itself according to their own principles, and to federate or not with other communes.

This basic principle of self-organization (autogestion) was the basis of both the Russian revolution (1917) and the Spanish revolution (1936) (among others). But the power-hungry bolsheviks hijacked the revolution and all its principles, and built a “communist State” which had nothing to do with communism.

According to marxists and anarchists alike, socialism/communism is the state of absolute freedom and equality between the people. We anarchists also consider “anarchy” to be a synonym to that. But marxist-leninists will tell you in order to reach communism (freedom & equality) we need to build a State to repress people (“police of the people”, “prisons of the people”), while we anarchists believe (and practice) that we can only build more freedom & equality by building more freedom & equality in the here and now, without intermediary steps.

Also, where “communism” is often understood as merely class struggle, most anarchists of the past decades have an intersectional understanding of domination/oppression. Anarchism has a rich history from all struggles: anti-colonialism, feminism, anti-speciesm. But contrary to authoritarian movements, we do not have “party speakers” to advertise: anarchism has had many interpretations/approaches over the years, and is by far the most diverse field of thinking in my view.

You may enjoy:

  • (post) a recent post of mine about why anarchism is left-wing, with some intro to anarchism
  • (series) Trouble, a series of mini-documentaries about social struggles produced by an anarchist WebTV
  • (post) What is anarchy? on raddle wiki
  • (video) To Change everything: a short introduction to anarchist principles
  • (film) Libertarias or Land and freedom about the spanish revolution (in which millions of anarchists took part)
  • (docu) End:Civ about how capitalism and modern civilization is fundamentally incompatible with protecting the environment, and what to do about it
  • (docu) Fascism Inc about how fascists came to power in Europe with the support from the bosses/industry
  • (news) lurking on raddle.me to see what kind of topics pop up

Unfortuantely i’m less knowledgeable about good reads about gender/race in english (i read those in french) but Angela Davis, Bell Hooks and Audre Lorde are always good reads and in my view very anarchist though i’m not sure they identify as anarchists themselves.


thanks a lot, very detailed :)

You’re welcome, don’t hesitate if you have more questions/ideas. I’m always interested to have a constructive debate!

Kropotkins Mutual Aid is my preferred recommendation. Helps combat the whole human nature argument.


Some suggestions are “Anarchy” by Malatesta, “An Anarchist FAQ” on the Anarchist Library, “Anarchy Works” by Peter Gelderloos, “The Conquest of Bread” by Kropotkin, or “The Dispossessed by Ursula K. Le Guin.


While these are good suggestions (I especially like the fictional SciFi novel “The Dispossessed” for its healthy dose of self-criticism), I would say overall Anarchist thought has been much less influenced by some rather theoretical books from long dead authors. It’s more of a living tradition, often shared by people not even fully aware of it.


Definitely. Even reading about pre-colonial Australian Aboriginal society, or reading the Tao Te Ching could be good introductions to Anarchist thought and practice. Or looking at mutual aid networks that are built during pandemics and natural disasters.

I’m pretty new here so i have no clue. I heard bad reputation about lemmy from many places and that it was really hostile towards anarchism in the first days. Now that the community has grown the situation looks better?

Personally i don’t have a problems with marxist-leninists (or anyone) as individuals. I mean authoritarian communism is pretty dissonant (“let’s free the people by building more prisons”, “let’s share with our neighbors by giving everything away to the central planning committee who’s pointing guns at us”) but individuals are mostly harmless. That is, unless they’re obviously rewriting history by pretending Lenin/Trotsky protected the revolution against counter-revolutionaries (when they in fact were the counter-revolutionaries who attacked the soviets) or that Staline never committed genocide against the muslim communities of the USSR (eg. the tchetchens). I’m pretty ok with a person being disconnected from reality when it comes to future perspectives (we’ve got that to address that), but advocating for genocidal figures who appropriated then destroyed (in blood) genuine popular revolutions is not ok to me.

I have met some anti-authoritarian marxists (who are not leninists) and while these people are usually using very complex vocabulary to discuss simple things, they are fine. I’ve also met quite a bunch of disillusioned Communist Party members and other trotskyists who started questioning authority after noticing so much injustice and manipulation within their own ranks. A one-time ML doesn’t have to stay ML all their life ;)

Anyway i’m also a member on raddle.me and tilde.news which are really friendly communities with a lot of tech-friendly anarchists around. But i strongly prefer the federated approach. Who knows, maybe some day lemmy will be able to federate with postmill and lobsters.

Federation with raddle would be great!


deleted by creator


Spooks everywhere !! woooooo


What does “tankie” even mean these days? To me it seems to be a 70 year old label from some long irrelevant cold-war leftist in-fighting dragged back out as some sort of run-away meme.

Don’t get me wrong, I am fully against pulling a banket over the historical atrocities of the Soviet Union (or the PRC), but this stupid labeling of people makes no sense to me.

I would say let actions speak for themselves, and there I can’t see much at fault with Lemmy…

What annoys me most about the people around and behind Lemmy is probably the PRC fan-boyism that very much looks like soccer fans cheering for a team just because they appear to be winning the championship and who doesn’t want to be part of the “winning team”? /s

P.S.: I personally suspect that this “tankie” meme was started by some former anarchists turned right-wing liberitarians. So chose your friends wisely…

What does “tankie” even mean these days?

I don’t know the historical reference. For me tankie is just US slang for marxist-leninists. But i agree i strongly dislike this label because it’s not easy to understand (internal reference) and does not point out actual problems. I have no problem calling out some marxist-leninists for being would-be tyrants and genocide deniers. However, not all marxists are the same and not all folks waiving a sickle and a hammer are dangerous psychopaths.

I would say let actions speak for themselves

Agreed. That’s a very anarchist principle, not dividing people along party lines but along practices. This is also a useful approach for restorative justice and community accountability, to recognize that one’s intentions and one’s result of an action are not the same. No matter what the intentions are, actions can be good or bad.

PRC fan-boyism

That’s very worrying. There was a lot of that with Russia and Turkey a few years back at the height of the Syria wars. Authoritarians of all stripes sure love them some tyranny ;) It’s like i’m not happy with my master so i’ll advertise another one instead… what could possibly go wrong? :P


As for the historical reference: It is a slur about parts of the 1950-1980ish political left in the UK that defended the brutal crackdowns (with troops and tanks) of the Soviet Union on popular uprisings in eastern Europe and Afghanistan as a necessary evil in the fight against global imperialism/capitalism. I think it has to be seen in the context of these people having a living memory of the Soviet’s costly defeat of Nazi Germany being turned into a “victory” by the US/UK in western propaganda, while actual real-life fascists continued to play a big role in much of the west. But this doesn’t make the later actions by the Soviet Union any less bad.

As for PRC fan-boyism: I think it is mostly harmless and based on a very limited understanding of the actual modern-day China combined with some lacking introspective. I can somewhat relate at times, but then again I am too much of a cynic who has always cheered for the losing side ;)

defended the brutal crackdowns (with troops and tanks) of the Soviet Union on popular uprisings in eastern Europe

Aaaaaah that makes entire sense! Thanks for the explanation!

I think it is mostly harmless

I don’t think cheering on any kind of blood-hungry empire (whether China, USA, France, India or Brasil or any other) is harmless. These people are literally preparing the next world war, or are you not noticing the huge increase in border control and military propaganda in the past years?


Yes, I agree. But playing the devils advocate here: it is the west that will likely start a world war with the PRC (to suppress a rival power) and not the other way around (long story… the the PRC might end up looking like starting a war, but that is another story). As it stands it is not in the best interest of the PRC to start anything but minor localized wars. On the other hand there are a lot of things where the PRC looks very good to an outside observer (especially in relation to the failings of the west in similar fields), such as poverty elevation or technological progress.

it is the west that will likely start a world war

I agree it’s more likely but you never know for sure. We are just speculating :)

poverty elevation or technological progress

This is partially true. But social progress in China is driven not by the party but by huge popular movements, strikes and protests. The party stands by its repression until a certain movement grows too large/popular and then they revoke local officials and claim they were responsible for going against the party member’s desire for progress in sketchy trials.

It’s important to note also that ecological concern is growing in China. China has become a giant factory/dumpster for the entire planet and this has dire ecological consequences. Pollution and ecological damage is one of the many factors that encouraged western corporations to outsource production over there. The ecological movements in China are facing repression and the corruption of the State with big industry players ; the same can be said about the land/housing preservation movement against gentrification.

All this is my very limited (french-based) understanding of chinese politics but it doesn’t seem much better than over here in terms of popular autonomy and aspirations for social justice.


I think you might not be getting the full picture. Agree that PRC is now the world’s biggest polluter, but it’s also the world’s biggest investor in clean energy research. Also always worth keeping in mind that the West still houses the majority of its manufacturing in China. China didn’t withdraw from the Paris Agreement, the USA did.

the world’s biggest investor in clean energy research

<sarcasm>Yes, please tell me more about how green capitalism is going to save the world.</sarcasm>

You may find it interesting to read or watch something on the topic. I would strongly recommend End:Civ, and to a lesser degree Planet of the Humans which is way less interesting from a political perspective, but has great explanation of why “green” capitalism isn’t green and “renewable” energies aren’t renewable.

TLDR: “clean energy” and technological innovation won’t save us (source: tech person myself, please don’t trust us to make serious decisions for the future of humanity). only less consumption a serious deconstruction of the car/concrete society, high ecological standards (think no paints, no plastics, no concrete in daily life) and a serious fight against planned obsolescence (and intellectual property of any kind that makes it possible in the first place) might have a chance to save humanity, not exactly as we know it (over-abundance and misery) but as a society of reasonable-abundance and justice.

China didn’t withdraw from the Paris Agreement, the USA did.

Sure. I’m not here to vilify China and defend western empires. I’m an anarchist, i strongly oppose any State though i don’t take a neutral stance when it comes to military interventions. My heart stands with the Kurds and the Palestinians and all the oppressed peoples on this planet. Fire to all colonial empires, even France (my birthplace) and China!


Firstly, you conflated my statement on investing in clean energy with green capitalism. Investing != Capitalism. If you don’t get that please let me know and I can explain further.

Secondly, as a fellow technologist, and someone whose undergrad program director was a not so closeted anarchist, I understand the argument you’re making and have also read several books that advocate for depopulation, an end to consumerism, a return to small scale societies, and the like. I understand your argument and my response is that based on the current trajectory of global society the policy objectives you are arguing for are untenable without a revolution in the United States and Europe concurrently (at least within a 20 year time span). The reality is capital flight is a real practice with the advent of transnational corporations. My logic for arguing for technology is that we’re not likely to see a revolution in any major western power anytime soon because of the economic weight of the global financial system and imperial hegemon of the USA. Until we reach a crisis point there will not be the change you’re advocating for. However, much like how Britain overbuilt railways in the 18th century, or the internet stock mania led to the current tech firms dominance today, the creation of for example, lead free perovskite solar panels, open source grid distribution technology, and other sustainable technologies, will allow us to love more sustainably after the crisis. My interpretation of your argument is that you think we’ll somehow transition to a low resource use economy (realistically how besides revolution?) and then live for decades with low technological progress and forget about the rapid expansion of technology that’s possible under the exploitation of people via capitalism? I don’t see it. I do hope I’m wrong of course, I particularly hate planned obselesence lately (among all the other terrible things).


you conflated my statement on investing in clean energy with green capitalism

Not exactly. You specifically mentioned China, which is an industrial capitalist nation.

advocate for depopulation, an end to consumerism, a return to small scale societies

I don’t promote depopulation or small-scale societies. I understand the Neo-malthusian anarcha-feminist analyses from the 19th century (Émilie Lamotte for example) but since then the material conditions have changed greatly: humanity is now producing more commodities that the entire planet needs, and industry started planned obsolescence in the 1920s (years after Lamotte’s death) to make sure people would keep buying.

So yes i’m advocating for the end of consumerism (the cult of consumption), but not necessarily against consumption itself, as long as it’s done following ethical/environmental/cooperative standards.

the policy objectives you are arguing for are untenable without a revolution

I like to hope otherwise, but i agree with you. According to Lucy Parsons (a founder of the IWW), the coming change can only come through a revolution, because the possessing class will not allow a peaceful change to take place; still we are willing to work for peace at any price, except at the price of liberty.

the creation of (…) sustainable technologies

That would be nice, except it’s clearly not what’s happening. First, because as a tech person you sure know commercial interests are always higher priority than technical/ethical interests. Second, because even if we do come up with better batteries or lead-free solar panels, that’s only the tip of the iceberg.

There is no such thing as clean energy on a big scale. I’m not saying it’s entirely impossible (just like aliens) but there’s nothing even close to that anyone is currently researching. Energy is easy to produce/consume in small quantities, but big cities are by all criteria a human failure: more concrete (very polluting, requires a lot of fossil fuels and sand), bigger/centralized energy/food consumption (far away from production sites).

live for decades with low technological progress and forget about the rapid expansion of technology that’s possible under the exploitation of people via capitalism?

Well i’m not against “progress” when it is measurable, and actually serving the people. But, as Kirkpatrick Sale points out (not advocating for the man’s other analysis): Progress is the myth that assures us that full-speed-ahead is never wrong. Ecology is the discipline that teaches us that it is disaster.

So if slower progress is the way to ensure that life can go on on this planet, i’m all for it. If we can achieve progress without murdering millions of species and actively poisoning most water streams, i’m all for it.

But currently the situation is such that actual destruction of the environment keeps on growing on a global scale: more concrete, more deforestation, more electricity for smart toasters and cryptocoins for your Alexa-powered fridge, more highly-polluting electronics materials in all aspects of human life, more lithium-powered wireless devices everywhere…

So the situation is exponentially getting worse (as you may notice from taking a look at “natural” disasters of the past decades). The only way technological progress could save us is:

  • all governments and industries worldwide stop producing new products, and pool all their resources into research for renewable/durable materials
  • which as a consequence, requires eliminating both intellectual property and planned obsolescence, which are key pillars of modern capitalism

I would love this scenario, but honestly i don’t find it more realistic than a global revolution. In case you are not noticing, more and more people are struggling for food and water and other basic services, while there is an abundance of those on a global scale. Most rivers we know of on the planet are currently undrinkable due to human pollution, so we are actually fighting for survival as a planet.

Whether we’ll have a global revolution to dismantle industrial capitalism? Not sure. I sure hope so, but i’m not confident at all. What i do know with 100% certainty is that the alternative of relying on the good will of industrialized nations will not take us anywhere. Why am i so confident this is not happening? Let me explain. All colonial empires around the globe in the past decades are:

  • very concerned with material sovereignty and securing supply chains for all critical resources (including international disputes about water!)
  • more strictly enforcing their borders, and setting up massive recruitment campaigns for the military, including the return of (previously-dismantled) military service and mandatory nationalist indoctrination (like here in France)
  • working to secure international support in case of conflict (like France joining NATO under Sarkozy)
  • working to privatize/secure huuuuuuuuuuge areas in case of a global collapse of civilization (heard about Putin’s castle on the black sea? privatization of public lands across America/Europe?)

All of the big colonial empires, France, USA, China, Russia, Israel, Turkey, Brazil, India, Japan… They’re all preparing for increased adversarial access to resources and for the next world war. Why should i trust them, who’ve never done anything good for the people, to worry about us or the environment?

Additionally, if you believe the answer may come from the private industry, you may realize there’s only two ways industry is trying to tackle the environmental problem:

  • bring more technology to “fix” problems introduced by technology, for example claiming IoT-powered vertical farms full of electronics or producing more eco-destructive, sterile GMO seeds will be be more ecological than traditional permaculture (which is completely delusional)
  • forget about earth and go colonize mars, no learning anything from the past but rather hoping for more resources to extract and more places to pollute/destroy (hey maybe entire Earth can be a space dumpster where noone can breath, once all the privileged folks have moved to Mars, if that ever happens)

So i have no faith in private industry either. We are left on our own to fix our problems, as was always the case. Whether a global revolution against capitalism and all forms of domination will take place is ensure. What’s more certain is that those people in power will never question the status quo in meaningful way.


I don’t disagree with a lot of your statements, except I don’t understand why you think the market socialist country that executes it’s billionaires when they step out of line is a industrial capitalist country. I would also suggest you haven’t provided any solution to the issues you have raised. How do we go up against the world powers you have listed that are working to secure their supply chains to embed the status quo? My argument is you can’t without revolution.

the market socialist country that executes it’s billionaires when they step out of line is a industrial capitalist country.

China has nothing “market socialist”. It’s an industrial nation with a strong State apparatus, a quite comfortable middle class and a bunch of billionaires, and hundreds of millions of people working for misery wages (or not working at all in some parts of the countryside, whose ethnic minorities are undesired when not cleansed). Whether they execute a single billionaire or not, what would i care? By all definitions China is a capitalist country, though maybe private property is slightly less sacred over there and being a billionaire can’t get you out of every single situation like in the west. Just because the State is more powerful than a couple individuals does not mean it’s not capitalism.

Even when China was not “by all definitions” a modern capitalist economy (before the 80’s), it was already a “State capitalist” country. Why? Because there were poor and rich people, people working for survival while others reaped the benefits, people producing and people counting the resources, people listening and people making decisions, etc… OK the State was the boss taking all for itself, and the State did not enjoy private competition. Still, in regards to daily life for the commoners, this makes no fucking difference: a prison is a prison, a factory is a factory, a boss is a boss, and exploitation is exploitation, even when labeled with a sickle and a hammer and a red flag.

Market socialism is when autonomous communes trade their respective goods and ensure everyone is well-off (some kind of anarchy). The kind of impoverishing tyranny that took place in USSR/China has nothing (by all definitions) to do with socialism. Unless you consider people having more power and more resources than others is “socialism” in which case you’re not even a marxist, who recognize the dictatorship of the proletariat to be a step backwards to secure advances towards socialism/communism. But of course history has taught us again and again that opposing freedom in order to secure freedom is never going to work (war on drugs? war on terror? etc…), and expropriating self-organized communes/producers/cooperatives in order to feed the power hunger of wealthy leninist/maoist sociopaths (the Central State) will never lead to communism because that’s the exact opposite of it in almost every aspect.

Interested in how the bolsheviks hijacked then destroyed a genuine popular revolution they were barely a part of in 1917? You may enjoy some Emma Goldman, Piotr Kropotkin, etc… There’s even a whole opus called Bloodstained: One hundred years of Leninist Counterrevolution if you want to go into details. If you enjoy movies more, i definitely recommend watching Libertarias, a movie about the Free Women movement during the Spanish revolution (1936) which provides a rather accurate depiction of how the communist party (supported by Stalin) destroyed the revolution from within in order to seize power (leading to the victory of Franco’s troops).

you can’t without revolution.

Sure. I don’t see any other way either. I mean i’d like to think the elite will fix everything for us, but as we all know it’s definitely not happening.


Thanks for the recommendations I will give some of these a read. It’s always enjoyable debating with knowledgeable theorists.

Well thank you too. To be fair ii’m really unfamiliar with political philosophy or social sciences. I have some high-level understanding of some concepts (autonomy, kyriarchy/privilege, cultural hegemony, engineering of consent, private property, state terrorism, etc…) but i would certainly not consider myself a theorist. My step into anarchism was not books (at least at first), but comrades criticizing my ideas/practices and lending me a hand to open new doors through life (sometimes quite literally).

Reflecting upon it, i think that’s one of the main reason i never fell into marxism. Too much jargon and complicated language for me to understand some seemingly-simple things. I very rarely had the same feeling of inferiority (someone talking with all their knowledge) when reading anarchist content, which is usually either first-person accounts (blogs/zines) or uses very simple language (newspapers, popular education conferences).

And about the recommendations, they’re just few of the so many interesting reads you can find online or in your local cooperative library. I’m not advocating for these resources as the holy bible of anarchism, because we have no such thing as a holy bible. Countless persons have contributed to the great body of anarchist literature over the years and despite the fact i strongly disagree with some anarchist analysis (eg. the nihilists), i would be incapable to give you a single author/book that could be a complete introduction to my understanding of anarchism as a constant struggle against all forms of domination/exploitation. Anarchism i understand as a mental/social/practical toolkit to understand and dismantle power structures, not as a fixed set of goals (that’s a common difference between anarchists and marxists).

Say it loud! I’m a tankie and proud


that was a quick respond, even so one that I didn’t expect. :-p At least lemmy seems to be used pretty active.


(I didn’t expect such a respond for the reason posting this question to /c/Anarchism)

Yeah it is pretty active, not like spend all day browsing active (probably for the best because there should be at least a little bit of organising being done irl). Speed was probably just good timing between posting and me popping on before bed


if you would need to introduce someone new to ML, someone that read to much lib shit and to much CIA prop, what would you suggest them to read or watch?

Always recommend reading over watching, there is a lot of bias in just absorbing others’ takes via youtube or lectures if you want to get a true idea of someone’s philosophy. As for recommendations, wage labour and capital and engels’ synopsis of capital are great starting points before dipping into some left wing communism an infantile disorder

Definitely Marx and Lenin. They will give you a good overview of what marxism-leninism is about and why it’s doomed to failure. I don’t advise reading Trotsky on the other hand because that one claims to be a victim of tyranny fighting for freedom, when he is (was) the tyrant himself so the message a newcomer without historical facts would receive is “Trotsky is a hero”, whereas a person reading “Lenin” will sonner or later read through his socialist claims and find out he’s a complete power-hungry psychopath.


Yes, but why do you have to say it so loudly?


deleted by creator


  1. Be respectful
  2. Don’t be a nazi
  3. Argue about the point and not the person
  • 0 users online
  • 14 users / day
  • 28 users / week
  • 39 users / month
  • 61 users / 6 months
  • 640 subscribers
  • 158 Posts
  • Discussion
  • Modlog