So, how do I get into anarchism, what the essential reading for a newbie on anarchism? What the main flaws of anarchism? I don't know much about it, but I do sympathize with the idea of no state or some form or "higher" power over people.
>>2109243>So, how do I get into anarchism, what the essential reading for a newbie on anarchism? Proudhon -> Bakunin -> Kropotkin
Marx for anarcho-communism synthesis and Stirner for individualist anarchist doomerism.
>>2109243The main difference between anarchism and communism is the means, rather than the ends. Both want to achieve a stateless, classless society. Anarchists think that such a thing can be achieved immediately, whereas communists believe that a DotP is a necessary intermediary step.
>>2109260>human natureIdealists get the rope
>>2109327>I don't think so, without government to impose the idea of common property, people will privatize everything and will impose that with forceLiterally ahistorical.
Nobody cares what you 'think' when it's disconnected from reality.
>>2109457Wouldn't need to enfrorce it. People would see advantage in sharing certain things to the point where it wouldn't make much sense to assert it as anyone in particular's personal property. Those things would therein be recognized as common property.
Like one of the tenants of anarchism is recognising people's ability to organize with eachother without an authority.
>>2109466Your argument boils down to believing everyone would just magically subscribe to your views, which is not a realistic point of view. Saying, "The people would see advantage in…" might as well be no different than saying "muh human nature."
On top of this, it just brings up more questions than answers.
If (for example), there's not enough tools for the amount of workers, how do you settle conflicts that arise over who gets to use the tools first?
How do you prevent overuse or misuse of resources?
How do you ensure accountability?
What if someone decides he doesn't want to share?
There's no real structure to enforce the system you're describing beyond thoughts and prayers.
>>2109499>Saying, "The people would see advantage in…" might as well be no different than saying "muh human nature." Former implies an intuition, later is superstition. At best I'm assuming what would be generally intuitive, and conceed that to be potentially flawed due to limited information.
>If (for example), there's not enough tools for the amount of workers, how do you settle conflicts that arise over who gets to use the tools first? My first suggestion would be dice, but yeah some might not be happy with that coming down to random chance.
>How do you prevent overuse or misuse of resources? I'd assume there'd be people assigned to keep inventory and raise concerns if something's amiss, but I'm not experienced with that field of logistics. (if that's logistics)
I am new to this so I'll be sure to keep these questions in mind while reading into it.
>>2109525Fair enough.
One question (well, more "thought experiment" really) that I must ask though is whether or not assigning people to keep inventory might cause problems; there's a non-zero chance that they could become a sort of "authority" (as they'd technically have more power over resource distribution than the majority of people).
This would be a problem in an anarchist society, as it could open the door to inequitable distribution of essential needs. All it takes is someone sleeping with an Inventory Specialist's wife for said specialist to decide that someone doesn't get to eat this week.
I guess it ties back to my question of how can accountability be ensured in this type of society? I personally think it'd be difficult to hold people responsible for their actions under this model. Something or someone has to keep the inventory specialists (and people filling similar roles) in check.
>>2109265>The main difference between anarchism and communism is the means, rather than the ends.No.
>Both want to achieve a stateless, classless society.Maybe.
>Anarchists think that such a thing can be achieved immediately.No.
>>2111720Anarchism and Marxism are completely different movements with completely different goals, I'd say only anarcho-communists have similarities with Marxists but even then, Marxists believe in the inevitability of centralized production and distribution whilst anarchists see that as hierarchical and oppressive.
As for anarchists wanting to achieve a communist society immediately, I don't believe I've seen any anarchists who believe this, they generally believe in some kind of transition but don't believe this transition should involve a state.
That's also implying all anarchists want to build "a society" too, for a growing number of anarchists, that is not even their goal.
>>2111864
>Communism does not “abolish class”, this is a ludicrous notion that shows up nowhere in anything Marx or Lenin wrote
The absolute state of this place.
<The division of society into different, mutually hostile classes will then become unnecessary. Indeed, it will be not only unnecessary but intolerable in the new social order. The existence of classes originated in the division of labor, and the division of labor, as it has been known up to the present, will completely disappear.
t. Engels, Principles of Communism
<Marxism has always taught that with the abolition of classes the state will also be
abolished.
t. Lenin, The State and Revolution
>To get rid of class would mean the end of the proletariat
Yes, that's literally the point of communism.
<The proletariat seizes from state power and turns the means of production into state property to begin with. But thereby it abolishes itself as the proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, and abolishes also the state as state.
t. Engels, Anti-Duhring
>and therefore no production
Self-abolition of the proletariat means abolishing the class relations that make them proletarians, i.e. the conditions of wage slavery. They would still be factory workers, miners, shipyard workers, etc., but they would control the means of production and their own labour power, and thus be in control of their own lives. What you said is like saying abolishing slavery would lead to the end of sugar production because nobody would be working on plantations anymore. People still grew sugar, they just aren't human property anymore.
>>2109457>How do you enforce the concept of common property without a state or authority?Why did the enclosure of the commons need to be enforced with power, you massive fucking retard?
This HAS TO BE bait.
>>2111860>States exist because societies have internal contradictions and opposed interests which cannot be resolved peacefully, and so some arrangement or another has to be enforced violently.<implying the only way to enforce something violently is through the stateMoral authority instead of state authority as to derive the legitimacy of anti-reactionary violence is the fundamental basis of Anarchism. To go even further, moral authority is the fundamental basis of revolution itself, it is to act not upon a dictate of any legislative body, but instead the moral conscious of yourself and your class.
>You have to abolish the conditions for the existence of the state before you can abolish the state.The conditions for the existence of the state is the existence of the state, and, simply enough, how you get rid of that is by directly destroying the state (revolution). Humans crave organization and so in the absence of such a commanding government they do so, but now according to their morality instead of the interests of bureaucrats (see: Rev. Catalonia, Makhnovia, GPCR, etc.) and it is beautiful every time.
>>2111987>Moral authority instead of state authority as to derive the legitimacy of anti-reactionary violence is the fundamental basis of Anarchism"Moral authority" isn't a method of organizing force. Wtf are you even talking about?
>The conditions for the existence of the state is the existence of the stateSo you don't believe that class struggle gives rise to the state as a means for one class to cement its rule over a other?
>but now according to their morality instead of the interests of bureaucrats (see: Rev. Catalonia, Makhnovia, GPCR, etc.)All of those were giant clusterfucks which failed miserably because their enemies were better organized. Stateless social formations have never triumphed over states.
>>21092431. Anarchism, in the course of the 35 to 40 years (Bakunin and the International, 1866–) of its existence (and with Stirner included, in the course of many more years) has produced nothing but general platitudes against exploitation. These phrases have been current for more than 2,000 years. What is missing is
(alpha) an understanding of the causes of exploitation;
(beta) an understanding of the development of society, which leads to socialism;
(gamma) an understanding of the class struggle as the creative force for the realisation of socialism.
2. An understanding of the causes of exploitation. Private property as the basis of commodity economy. Social property in the means of production. In anarchism–nil. Anarchism is bourgeois individualism in reverse. Individualism as the basis of the entire anarchist world outlook. Defence of petty property and petty economy on the land.
Keine Majorität. Negation of the unifying and organising power of the authority.
3. Failure to understand the development of society–the role of large-scale production–the development of capitalism into socialism. Anarchism is a product of despair. The psychology of the unsettled intellectual or the vagabond and not of the proletarian.
4. Failure to understand the class struggle of the proletariat. Absurd negation of politics in bourgeois society. Failure to understand the role of the organisation and the education of the workers. Panaceas consisting of one-sided, disconnected means.
5. What has anarchism, at one time dominant in the Romance countries, contributed in recent European history?
– No doctrine, revolutionary teaching, or theory.
– Fragmentation of the working-class movement.
– Complete fiasco in the experiments of the revolutionary movement (Proudhonism, 1871; Bakuninism, 1873).
– Subordination of the working class to bourgeois politics in the guise of negation of politics.
>>2111991>"Moral authority" isn't a method of organizing force. Wtf are you even talking about?Neither is the state, the state is simply a political body with authority over the military, which organizes itself totally independently. You implied however that the existence of the state is fundamental to such an organization, and so I assumed you meant by the virtue of authority (which is the only way the military and state interact)
>So you don't believe that class struggle gives rise to the state as a means for one class to cement its rule over a other?No, but the perpetuation of the state and what gave rise to it are different things. The state perpetuates the existence of class, not the other way around, you can see that clearly in the development of the nomenklatura, even when the former class system was destroyed, due to the continued existence of the state a class system in some form endured.
>All of those were giant clusterfucks which failed miserably because their enemies were better organized. Stateless social formations have never triumphed over states.I don't see what this has to do with the moral worth or beauty of any of those movements, which is what you should be concerned with as a Socialist. It is also blatantly untrue and illogical to say that stateless social formations never triumphed over states, again, military organization has nothing to do with the state.
>>2112026>Neither is the stateYes it is, it's a centralized body with a monopoly on legitimate violence (or rather the power to declare violence "legitimate") over a definite territory, exercised in service of one class against another.
>The state perpetuates the existence of class, not the other way aroundIt's both ways actually, it's a dialectical relationship. However it is class conflict which necessitates and gives rise to the state in the first place, because without it class society disintegrates. That means that the state can't be abolished as long as classes exist.
>you can see that clearly in the development of the nomenklaturaThe nomenklatura weren't a class, and the intensity of the contradictions which existed between them and the general workers in countries like the USSR were much, much lower than actual class antagonists. They didn't rise or fall on the basis of their ability to squeeze as much wealth out of as many people as possible. Their interests are not necessarily and intractable opposed to those of ordinary workers. They enjoyed a few special privileges which compared to the bourgeoisie in capitalist countries seem quaint.
>I don't see what this has to do with the moral worth or beauty of any of those movements, which is what you should be concerned with as a Socialist.What should concern you as a socialist is the ability to successfully construct socialism.
>again, military organization has nothing to do with the stateYes it does. In fact military organization is the heart of what a state is. A military force with secure control over an area is effectively a state, even without any civilian branch.
>>2112045>Yes it is, it's a centralized body with a monopoly on legitimate violence (or rather the power to declare violence "legitimate") over a definite territory, exercised in service of one class against another. So you DID mean by the virtue of authority. I don't get your point then, legitimate violence (force) derived from the political authority of the state and exercised in service of the dominant class is a method of organizing force (power) but illegitimate violence (actual violence) derived from the moral authority of class sentiments and exercised in service of the non-dominant class isn't? What do you define "a method of organizing force" as?
>It's both ways actually, it's a dialectical relationship.>That means that the state can't be abolished as long as classes exist.This is true actually, but I would say it is also true that class cannot be abolished as long as a state is established not with the workers in full control of the means of production, or else this new supposedly class-blind state would far more resemble the USSR than the very real manifestation of state-socialism existing in a limited degree in Catalonia.
>The nomenklatura weren't a classThey owned the means of production while others didn't, therefore it was a class, no matter if their lives were only marginally better than the average Soviet citizen's.
>What should concern you as a socialist is the ability to successfully construct socialism.Thats the moral worth part, the worth of a movement is decided by if it established (notice how i used the word establish and not the vague term "construct") socialism rather than how successful a non-socialist movement with a red banner was at defeating capitalists.
>In fact military organization is the heart of what a state is.No? The heart of what a state is is its legislative and legal functions.
>A military force with secure control over an area is effectively a state, even without any civilian branch.A military force that does not act on the legitimacy of a legal dictate (thus making it a state) is not a state, it is in effect an Anarchist army (e.g. Brigade of Death, Makhnovist Army, Confederal Militias, etc.)
>>2111946I was referring to the centralization of production, which Marx did indeed believe was inevitable and so do most Marxists.
But even then:
>The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.Holy shit, Marx used the word inevitable!
Whether or not Marx said the word inevitable also has fucking nothing to do with what I was saying about the differences between anarchism and Marxism.
tl;dr you're a faggot and so am I
Unique IPs: 27