/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2203959
>bob black famous retard and lolcow american nobody takes seriously
<Why r anarchists like this? re- re- re-!
Put more time in to your bait you lazy faggot.

>>2203971
An anarchist recommend me this

>I read thru this whole thing (22 pages) and while it made some interesting points the idea overall is absurd
Sounds like you are taking seriously, just you recognize major refinement is needed, but thought terminate in retaliation to it's own thought termination. The dialouge successfully ran for a bit there, just needs a bit more gas.

>>2203973
are you lost?
This is a leftist imageboard kiddy, go back to reddit.

>It literally shits on Marxist for thinking maybe work can help in some ways?
The irony is that half the time some reactionary is telling me why communism is stupid and would never work, they end up describing Anarchism. I dunno what anarchobros have to deal with, probably having reactionaries thinking/claiming Anarchists just desire a world of complete and utter chaos out of edginess or something.

>>2203982
Bot reply. Buy an ad.
>>2203973
It's not very popular among anarchists, so it comes off as bait to make generalizations based on it.

>>2203986
What books are popular among anarchists? Because I feel like the book in the OP isn't unique as something written as Anarchist thought that then gets discarded by Anarchists as hyperbole and not a serious expression of Anarchist thought.

>>2203990
The post I made this thread about is on the 3rd page for most popular there

>>2203991
What's the metric here? Page hits? An updoot system?

>>2203991
>the third page!
Okay? It's literally below a poem review so idk what that also tells us.
/usa/sia is a big place with a lot of very retarded people.
Just accept your shitty bait thread failed and go back to the drawing board. It's not like you don't make a half dozen of this nonsense dogshit a day anyway.

>>2203995
Seems like a note worthy poem

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Iliad_or_the_Poem_of_Force

>>2203996
Yes, anon. The Iliad is indeed a noteworthy poem.

Maybe after a generation or 10 of communism we can abolish work but for now we still have capitalism to destroy, and that requires a lot of work

>>2203986
>It's not very popular among anarchists, so it comes off as bait to make generalizations based on it.
Maybe anarchists should instead recommend authors that you should read instead of just saying "haha you read something dumb luckily I, person who wont state their position, doesnt think that, you fool, how dare you accuse me of believing that"

Idk what you mean, this his work is ok by marksists, too. You can look his name on marxists.org.

>>2204081
He is not taking about doing nothing. Why you jump, not you alone, to the simplest conclusion?

>>2204081
That's a good point, let's not change every day life at all until 1 billion years in the future when we can finally reach Communism™, never heard someone say that before.

literally any retard can upload their zine-tier shit to theanarchistlibrary man

>>2204246
>this his work is ok by marksists
<first paragraph is already filled with vibes and moralism
lol idiot

>>2204274
OK here means I do not see anything contradictionary or not sharing a goal. Or you mean his text first paragraph? I'm not going to read it now.

>>2204248
That's the problem with ultras and anarchists, you clock out of anything that doesn't promise immediate change when the historical transition from one socioeconomic to the next is always a long process that has recessions as well as progression. Its just a lack of discipline or arrogance to think the only politics worthwhile are the ones that will achieve such massive historical change within a lifetime so you can immediately start enjoying the benefits of it. The issue is that eventually you will get won over by SocDems claiming that while massive overnight change is impossible, the small reforms they champion are realistic to achieve in short order and surely isn't that better than achieving little to nothing in a single lifetime?

>>2204898
In Russia, the decree on the reduction of work day length was issued without any delay even though it was war.

>>2204906
Because it was obvious reducing work was needed to increase productivity.

>>2204906
That didn't necessarily require revolution to achieve, SocDems achieved the same thing via reform. Do you see the problem with this obsession with what can be achieved overnight? Communists and Anarchists desire societies that you cannot reform into, Anarchists at least recognise that it will take some work to convince people to overthrow centralised governance but nevertheless expect that when people are convinced, then that transition will be near-instant. If Anarchists ever lose hope that people can be convinced in their lifetime, if their conviction that transition away from central governance can be instantaneous falters, then they just surrender to being a SocDem as a lower hanging fruit that "Ackshually making a difference now, not later" can be in terms of running a soup kitchen and squatting in abandoned buildings, or it could be just joining a pressure group targeting a SocDem party.

>>2204924
I just think that if work day could be reduced futher, it may allow more activity like that Bob Black is talking about. May be not every worker will be happy, but some will be happy, so why not. The example with Russia, is that the factory workers were minority and it was a war, so irrational, but was done anyway.

>>2204911
I do not think it is productivity. AFAIK workers already set the work day for themselves, using their soviets. The decree sets it not just factory workers.

>>2204898
It’s a result of treat addiction and why anarchism is exclusively a first world phenomenon, anarchists are so used to a standard of living subsidized by imperialism that unless that lifestyle can be maintained without effort from them then they must discard any system as a failure. Most firstoids are irredeemably reactionary in this regard

>>2204952
Tbh they're also usually petit-bourgeosie in the west, which means that they're falling into the same trap as western libertarians and anarcho-capitalists in thinking that removing the state will preserve their shrinking privilege relative to the proletariat, by correctly identifying the current bourgeois state is progressing history by shrinking the middle class, but incorrectly thinking that instantly removing the concept of state from society overnight will freeze or even reverse the shrinking of the middle class.

Granted, Anarcho-capitalists are much more aggressive and embracing of the belief that removing the state will create the conditions for themselves to reign supreme, but the fact that Anarchists hate the "authoritarian" theories of Marxism where only the proletariat class will eventually exist and hate the concept of being compelled to work, while hyping up performative charity work as proof of their support of and allegiance to the oppressed.. by handing down their leisure time to them, suggests they're also not expecting a post-state society to level everyone out and in fact preventing such levelling out of the petit bourgeoisie to equality with the proletariat, preventing being made workers, is the sole motivation to the abolition of the state while they still have a middle class to protect.

>>2203987
All of Ericco Malatesta's works and Carlos Cafiero.

>>2205032
Emma Goldman absolutely would have had a fursona

>>2205032
>>2205029
Based anti-retard in the land of the idiot.

anarchists forget entropy exists and shit needs to be rebuilt over and over

>>2203987
Former anarchist here. Most Anarchists are introduced to the history of anarchism first before they get into the theory- it's often why they mistake The Zapatistas/ The DAANES as "actually existing anarchism"- despite the fact that there are theoretical and political differences (though in the case of the Zapatistas, indigenous anarchism was a massive influence).

If you're talking about beginners texts:
Enrico Malatesta "Anarchy".
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-anarchy

Means and ends by Zoe Baker
https://files.libcom.org/files/2024-07/Zoe%20Baker%20-%20Means%20and%20Ends%20V2.pdf

To understand the basis of more anarcho-communist thinkers- you can go into "Mutual Aid a factor in Evolution" or "The Conquest of Bread" by Peter Kropotkin. Both are free on the Anarchist library, but they, like a lot of other forms of socialist theory- are products of their time, though Kropotkin does a good job of slapping around Bakunin, lol.

And as much as I loathe Bakunin, I can't deny he made theoretical contributions, disagree with them as I may.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/colin-parker-basic-bakunin

Some other books i'd recommend would be "Black Anarchism" as some Marxists make the racist assumption that all Anarchism is entirely made of Europeans

https://www.blackrosefed.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Black-Anarchism-A-Reader-4.pdf

Also: this >>2205032

That being said, OP, why the fuck would you like "Bob Black". Most Anarchists don't. He's on par with how they view Proudhon- which is to say not favourably.
you're also better off reading Bookchin, Ocalan and Kidale, or any social-ecologist/communalist/dem-con

>>2205418
> it's often why they mistake The Zapatistas/ The DAANES as "actually existing anarchism"
Nobody does that, the working with and solidarity is out of shared values and projects, not out of a mistaken belief they are anarchist.

>>2204952
>f Anarchists ever lose hope that people can be convinced in their lifetime, if their conviction that transition away from central governance can be instantaneous falters, then they just surrender to being a SocDem as a lower hanging fruit
I used to be a self proffessed AnCom for years until this process happened to me but instead of returning to SocDem land I read some more of the marxist canon and am now just a plain ole communist nothing else. imho Anarchism(or at least all the big historically succesful anarchist movements and similar projects that get looped in like the Zapatistas and Rojava) is/was the socialism of the countryside and marxism the socialism of the city. Its much easier for semi-self sufficient agrarian communities that are already somewhat decentralized and cut off from the State to become anarchist than urbanized areas and I would contend the rural character of shit like the Free Territory,KPAM or even the Tambov rebellion are manifestations of this. My core issue with anarchism wrt to this point I just made was actually something I came to believe after reading the coming insurrection and not some ML polemic indistinguishable from anti-communist slander. They pointed out how (at least in first world countries like france) the differences between City and Country are basically gone. Applying this too my own life here in Burgerland while there are many small towns I've been in none of them have the same degree of local production, self-suffiency and autonomy and previous rural regions that went anarchist or at least something close to "libsoc". There more like skinny tendrils of highway and gas station coming out from the cities than the agrarian communities of the past.


tldr: I became disillusioned with anarchism partially because the material conditions that most anarchist projects form in are simply nonexistent around me.


>why anarchism is exclusively a first world phenomenon
would you consider Argentina and several other latin american countries first world by any chance

>>2203959
IMO the issue is the confusion between lumpenprole and petite-bourgeoisie politics. Lumpen are hesitant to engage with Marxism out of fear of the masses. The petite-bourgeoisie are hesitant because they have mixed interests. Egoism and Anarchism are completely different trends which shouldn't be confused.

- Anarchism is petite-bourgeois (peasants)
- Marxism is prole
- Egoism is lumpen

IMO in certain periphery parts of the world anarchist trends are progressive.

I still need to think through Egoism. Shit's complicated.