/dead/ - Post-Left

I know that anarchy is just a state, it is not an ideology; it just means people solving their matters by themselves in an egalitarian manner(as seen by the community). The question is more about what the beginning would be like. I think it would go somewhat along these lines:

> A city of 100.000 people
> Affiliation groups of anarchists dethrone the local state power of their regions of operation
> Anarchists by some means(Public discourse, pamphlets) spread the news that the area was liberated
> In the means which they've chosen, they explain that people can organize their life as it fits them
> Lots of harsh debates will happen between people deciding on what to do
> People start contacting people around the city to organize what to do
> The situation with time will stabilize(not completely, because it cannot always exist because of individual needs) with time, because solutions to general problems of society will be met according to the people
> Many types of community could form from these, bourgeois without the state power to secure their private property, would in places where people wish to abolish it would be completely gone, while in other places if the community wishes to maintain it by their own will, it will remain.
> Some more communist communities, other extremely individualist because of some anarchist influences. It would be probably be a big mass of many different points of view, and probably conflict would hardly stabilize.
> Anarchy successful

Just what the fuck anarchism is? What does it mean to you?

When you browse /leftypol/, you often see threads titled something like "Your former ideologies" or "Your history as a leftist", in which anons don't get tired describing their past with spooky shit like 'Leninist', 'ML', 'ANcom', completly abstract words without any meaning, any material force, behind them. Because what really is the material difference between being a leninist and a syndicalist when both have the same amount of revolutionary force behind them: none.
Tankie parties as well as syindicalist unions have failed to organise the working class fo the last half century. Neither have any impact on national politics or the economy. Calling yourself one or the other is mere play-pretend. Anyone with eyes in their heads sees that the modern working class has no interest fighting capitalism through strike and organisation - and that's probably for the best. If any of these modern cults calling themselves leftist parties actually got popular, it would sooner result in another century of authoritarian rule than working class emancipation simply because these revolutionary possessed don't even fight for latter. Their goal is the realisation of a spook, an ideal, like communism or anarchism. It's all meaningless. Neither anarchism nor communism has ever existed - even anarchists and communists will attest this. What they don't understand is that the root of the circumstance is the idea-form of concepts like communism themselves.
Matter and ideas mutually exclusive. They can never be the same. Our view of reality is always subjective, the reality as we experience it isn't the same that materially exists. Our concept of reality doesn't and can't have the same content as reality because if they had, matter and idea were equal. The quality of matter IS it not being ideal, therefore this is impossible.
Leftists think themselves communism or anarchism like this or that, imagine themselves solutions to fictional problems of how to run economies that will never exist. Not because conditions that can be described as communism or anarchism will never exist, but because if they exist, they will exist materially and therefore have no connection to how their believers imagine them. Marx's analysis of many aspects of capitalism are quite good, but they don't describe the material existence of capitalism, not in the 19th century and even less now. It works with ideas, abstractions of the material conditions, and it has to because you literally can't grasp tPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

The Marxist analysis of Capitalism and post-Capitalism is fairly straightforward in its understanding of why Capitalism will not last.

The productive forces of Capitalism will be developed, until a certain point where Capitalism will come to inhibit their further growth. At this point, the proletariat must rise up and destroy the Capitalist mode of production to free the forces of production imprisoned within them.

What Marx does, is essentially agree with the "mission" of Capital, the growth of productive forces, but does not think Capitalism will be able to complete this mission due to its internal contradictions.

This is where the problem of Marxism comes in. Marx does not understand, as later thinkers who developed upon his ideas, Jaques Camatte and Nick Land, that the mission of Capital, the growth of productive forces, schizophrenic revolutionizing of society, etc, this is the problem humanity has with Capital, because these goals are on a fundamental level, anti-human. They are the goals of the market God, in its "progressive" quest to mechanize human life down to the second, not the goals of humanity. Post-Capitalism, or rather Capitalism that has broken through the wall of its own contradiction in order to further presue its mission, will not be for humans. It will be a continuation of the mission of Capital, and that missions end is the complete domestication and annihilation of the human race. Nick Land and Camatte made this very clear.

Marx attempts to divorce Capitalism and its technology, not realizing that Capitalism itself, the blind idiot god, is the most important part of this technology. No consciously organized system of humans can match the speed, versatility and growth of the dispersed dead brain of Capital itself.

The growth in productive forces do not exist for the benefit of humanity. They exist for the benefit of Capital. Capital itself is the motor of technological change and modernity. Nothing can replace it.

We do not want "Post-Capitalism". A post-Capitalism that contains the drive for progress of Capitalism will not be liberation. It will be the death of the human species and the planet earth. Industrial society, and Capital's mission of its expansion into all aspects of the human life and subjectivity, itself requires repression. We cannot progress "past" Capitalism, because progress is merely a measure of how completely Capital has subordinated the human community to itPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

anyone got a link to the "post-left theory generator"? it was a script hosted on github i think that generates the kind of purple prose typical of post-left/insurrectionary anarchist pamphlets

It's never happening, is it? I lost all hope today.

I am a marxist that became nazbol after reading most of marxes works

Do I fit in here? I am not just a nationalist tankie, I consider myself post left.

Me and the rest of the black community are protesting because the police are a colonialist occupying force. I don't give a FUCK about white people who get killed by their own police. They can take that up with white colonialist power, after all, they are citizens, servants and benefices of the colonialist system. You cannot ask black people to care about white people shot by the police anymore than you can ask us to care about white rape "victims". They already have white power backing them up. They are the oppressor class and I don't give a fuck about the the internal conflict in the white oppressor class. Its strictly secondary to the anti-colonialist class war between the two real classes, white people and black people.

Do anarchists still exist? It seems like every time I talk to someone who claims to be anarchist online they turn out to be a Marxist who is just too ashamed of tankies to call themselves a Marxist. Do actual anarchists still exist?

An anarchist account of what lead to the current protests in Belarus: https://enoughisenough14.org/2020/08/11/how-did-the-belarusians-come-to-rebellion-against-the-dictatorship/