what do I think what do I read what do I do please help me become le based anarchist I am clinging onto any identity that makes me feel less like a fat loser
>>2248040>I am clinging onto any identity that makes me feel less like a fat loserBecoming a Marxist ain't going to help with that either. Look at
>>2248053 for instance.
With that being said, Zoe Baker is one of the few Anarchists who knows what she's talking about and gives good intros into Anarchism and what it stands for.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8qamRewWg4&t=54shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPzAn5fo60khttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syR0P-2uwp4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnxpfpXF_es~Andrewism also gives a good breakdown.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrTzjaXskUU&t=614sOnce you understand those- it's up to you to where you want to go from there and wether you want to delve deeper into these ideas.
My recommendation would be for Malatesta's Anarchy, and Peter Kropotkin's "are we good enough?"
start slow, and if you're still intrigued, it's up to you to continue reading.
>>2248128Also should note, as someone who once was an anarchist- you're better off learning from a variety of practices, Communalism, Juche, Pan-Africanism, Leninism, Dem-Con etc. so that you can understand not only their arguments but also if they are applicable in the material conditions you find them in.
Surrendering to dogma either makes you resentful of people who should be your allies, and making allies with people who should be your enemies.
For the love of god, don't go the way of Haz or V.aush.
>>2248040Anarchism is a concept that takes time to digest and develop your own vision of it. It cover social organization (direct democracy, socialism, free association, etc.) and even personal relationships (family, romance, etc.). Just beware, some anarchists, specially individualists or post left anarchists pretend to be the Master Anarchists who determine the True Principles of what anarchism is. Avoid these, and become a social anarchist. From there, build your own path.
Read Kropotkin, Rudolf Rocker, Chomsky, Bakunin, Bookchin, and ignore the modern anarchist pseudointellectuals
>>2248040>what do I think what do I read what do I do please help me become le based anarchist Get involved with stuff locally to you, participate in action.
Politics are what you do, not what you read and think.
>>/QTDDTOT/ >>2248040I like Sartwell.
>In Against the State, Crispin Sartwell unleashes a quick and brutal rejection of the traditional arguments for state legitimacy. Sartwell considers the classics of Western political philosophy-Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, Hume, Bentham, Rawls, and Habermas, among others-and argues that their positions are not only wrong but also embarrassingly bad. He separates the traditional pro-state arguments into three classes: social contract theories, utilitarian justifications, and justicial views, all while attacking both general strategies and particular formulations. Sartwell argues that the state rests on nothing but deadly force and its accompanying coercion, and that no one is under any obligation to obey the law merely because it is the law. He concludes by articulating a positive vision of an anarchist future, based on the "individualism" of such figures as Emerson and Thoreau. Against the State provides a rigorous and provocative foil to the classic texts, and also serves as a concise statement of the anarchist challenge. Food Not Bombs - Operator's Manual (2002)— indepth guide on starting a food not bombs chapter
https://archive.org/details/worldfoodnotbomb00food_0/page/2/mode/2upPeter Kropotkin - The Conquest of Bread — the roots of mutual aid
https://files.libcom.org/files/Peter%20Kropotkin%20-%20The%20Conquest%20of%20Bread_0.pdfLuxemburg Collective - Direct Action Handbook — clean, well-written how-to rebel guide
https://www.organizingforpower.org//wp-content/uploads/2009/03/da_handbook.pdfAnonymous - Blockade, Occupy, Strike Back — taking escalation to the next rung, essential reading
https://www.sproutdistro.com/catalog/zines/direct-action/blockade-occupy-strike-back/>>2248040Ignore all the people telling you to read dudes from 200 years ago.
If you want to *be* an anarchist, the best thing you can do is understand that the State is a historical form and not a natural institution that exists forever.
Find a mutual aid group near you.
>>2248053Meds
>>2248128Cannabis smokers are like " I wanna take the edge off" like whut the heell they don't want to have to think about getting cucked / cheated, the monotonous work cycle, cybersecurity paranoia and they want to have fun in their free time? That sounds awful, they probably want to rape and kill people and simply hide it under a disguising addiction habit regardless if they don't even get to smoke one joint because they don't want to break the law, its the thought of challenging the divine law of the people by the people that is chinese (eurasia, third world and the progressive eastern races) that shows they are actually western liberal addicts already addicted and can only be fixed by police action. Retarded degenerate druggies are holding back communism from destroying Israel and America! Mossad destabilizes China with THC and China is like this gigachad sober and alcoholic conservative and yet progressive society that will NOT murder fags while liberal westerners are ungrateful that disguising candidates for addiction are being punished by the people's police? What else are we gonna do if the people's police don't punish cannabis users, China will literally become degenerate! I had this one friend who smoked weed and he became a degenerate trans faggot, under internet communism I get to be as chauvinist as possible without getting booed and right now trans and fags are too popular to call them degenerate so its better to write that China tolerates them so they should be grateful, drugs are still taboo so its fine to call all drugs degenerate lumpen and no, I don't care what different drugs are, anything that you can have fun with is degenerate and you should go to jail for it except alcohol and tobacco because its the material conditions and the culture. Conservativism in society is like collectivism that's like communism while liberalism is like individualism like degenerate weed smoking prostitutes which should be arrested and killed on a whim like Catholic Communist Comrade Duterte did. The people's war on drugs is good and the war on drugs is good and based and communism / socialism, its good to kill people for having fun the wrong way because the wrong way is harmful because I say so and my sources which are absolute truth say they will destroy communism if they aren't killed because communism's fate depends on killing cannabis users and other drug users because they're like degenerate and bourgeois decadent and lumpen while the conservative and patriotic socialist nationalists are like the proletariat, the workers, a cannabis user is literally incapable of work and is probably a liberal CIA nazi fascist? This is all true by the way, unironically based and I'm 18 I say based a lot and play videogames and I'm in this group we live in the US (Lord Mao forgive us for being born in the imperial core) its called Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist-Dengpilled Party of the Global South, we're like 3 people (AS OF NOW) and are a catholic communist Palestinian nationalist PFLP DFLP China anti-trot, anti-ultras, anti-ancom, anti-leftcom, anti-heresy discord server that's straight edge and based and the west is jew so if you want to join us too bad because like better to be a son of God than a dog of Odin. Nazbol gang gang anprim gang gang Ohio L Rizz L bozo cannabis users delulu cappin addicts
>>2248053>>2248062>>2248071>>2271935>>2309008At what point did this site become an ML circle jerk? There used to be a lot more ideological diversity here, and a much bigger willingness for people with differing ideologies to discuss them. Even just a few years ago, the MLs ITT would've said
why anarchism is wrong, not just "Anarchist stupid lol"
>inb4I've dipped into and out of this community over the years, but I remember when the OP on 8ch made positive reference to Orwell.
>inb4 alsoI'm not an anarchist either so save your breath.
>>2248067The end goal of Marxism is anti-authoritarian. The only way it significantly differs from anarchism is the presence of a transitory DoTP. If you want authoritarianism you're a bad Marxist.
>>2270629This.
>>2309047People grew up Anon, realized liberalism is death and accepted the eternal truth of Marxism Leninism
>Muh authoritarianism It's not real anon, there's no such thing, once you understand this there is no going back
>>2309205>People grew up Anon, realized liberalism is death and accepted the eternal truth of Marxism LeninismThen it should be extremely easy to explain why that is the case. Just saying "I'm right you're wrong" gets us nowhere.
>It's not real anon, there's no such thingMaybe not in the liberal sense, but in other ways it absolutely does exist.
A nation ruled entirely by one guy and his full-time army with no checks on their power is authoritarian. On the other hand, a federation of participatory democracies with a people's militia is libertarian. The difference between the two is not the presence or absence of any liberal "freedoms" or "human rights", but rather the structure of society itself.
Libertarian socialism aims to abolish power hierarchies, which is not the same as the abolition of political power itself. In all likelihood, a libertarian socialist society, being the true political manifestation of populism, is going to be far less tolerant of liberal "human rights" than any hitherto existing authoritarian system.
>>2309262>Then it should be extremely easy to explain why that is the case. Just saying "I'm right you're wrong" gets us nowhere.No anon, I cannot convince you through a couple posts on a message board, you're going to have to come to this realization yourself. Hopefully it will come through time
>Maybe not in the liberal sense, but in other ways it absolutely does existLiberals are the ones who invented the term authoritarian and the only ones who use it
>A nation ruled entirely by one guy and his full-time army with no checks on their power is authoritarianThis has never existed
>On the other hand, a federation of participatory democracies with a people's militia is libertarianIn what way? Don't people still have to exert "authority" over each other to get anything done? Aren't militias inherently authoritarian?
The point is that this is a useless dichotomy that does not address the actual reasons for the way things are. A purely moral arbitration
People generally live freer and have more protected lives, aka they are not subjected to authoritarianism, when their economic conditions are prosperous, it's that simple
>Libertarian socialism aims to abolish power hierarchies, which is not the same as the abolition of political power itself. In all likelihood, a libertarian socialist society, being the true political manifestation of populism, is going to be far less tolerant of liberal "human rights" than any hitherto existing authoritarian system.It's just posturing my man, for all intends and purposes authoritarianism is not an important measure, it simply does not matter in terms of the historical progression of society, geopolitics or the class struggle
>>2309306>Liberals are the ones who invented the term authoritarianSo? Liberals invented a lot of things.
>and the only ones who use itI'm not a liberal and I use it.
>This has never existedI'm aware. It was an extreme for the sake of example. In reality all hitherto existing states (at least as far as I'm aware) exist somewhere between authoritarianism and libertarianism.
>In what way? Don't people still have to exert "authority" over each other to get anything done? Aren't militias inherently authoritarian?In the sense that it eliminates, or at least greatly reduces political hierarchies. A group of people is no longer ruled over by some guy and his friends, it is instead ruled over by members of itself.
>The point is that this is a useless dichotomy that does not address the actual reasons for the way things are. A purely moral arbitrationDo not delude yourself into thinking that Marxism is above morality. If it were fully descriptivist, Marx would not have written something like Manifesto.
>People generally live freer"Freedom" means so many things to so many people that it might as well mean nothing at all.
>aka they are not subjected to authoritarianism, when their economic conditions are prosperous, it's that simpleBut is it? Logically, a political system is going to work in favor of wherever political power is most centralized. A fully planned economy isn't worth much if that planning is primarily to the benefit of the higher political "classes". As such, we must strive to eliminate political class, for much the same reason we strive to eliminate economic class.
>It's just posturing my man, for all intends and purposes authoritarianism is not an important measure, it simply does not matter in terms of the historical progression of society, geopolitics or the class struggleExcept for the part where we achieve a classless,
stateless society. Unless you're uninterested in the latter part, in which case you are a revisionist.
>>2309475>So? Liberals invented a lot of things.>I'm not a liberal and I use it.Anon, I…
>I'm aware. It was an extreme for the sake of exampleIt's just something you made up to justify your conception of authoritarianism.
>In reality all hitherto existing states (at least as far as I'm aware) exist somewhere between authoritarianism and libertarianism.Anything can exist on a made up scale, every society is skewed somewhere between blue and red, every society is skewed somewhere between 0 and 1
>in the sense that it eliminates, or at least greatly reduces political hierarchies. A group of people is no longer ruled over by some guy and his friends, it is instead ruled over by members of itself.So you're just against centralization for some reason? Seems a bit reductive to describe complex political systems as some guy and his friends.
>Do not delude yourself into thinking that Marxism is above morality. If it were fully descriptivist, Marx would not have written something like ManifestoMorality is purely a construction of our material circumstances. Marx viewed moral arguments as basically irrelevant and would laugh at you for bringing such things up. This does not mean he was not a moral person or that we should concern ourselves with morality in a basic sense
>"Freedom" means so many things to so many people that it might as well mean nothing at all.Just like authoritarianism
>But is it? Logically, a political system is going to work in favor of wherever political power is most centralizedA fully planned economy isn't worth much if that planning is primarily to the benefit of the higher political "classes". As such, we must strive to eliminate political class, for much the same reason we strive to eliminate economic class.Says who? Again it just comes back to you being against centralization, seemingly the only concrete thing you can point to as being some form of authoritarianism. I just reject outright that a more decentralized system automatically produces some kind of better system for people's lives. In fact that pretty much goes against all communist thought since marx.
>Except for the part where we achieve a classless, stateless society. Unless you're uninterested in the latter part, in which case you are a revisionistThe state will wither away when the conditions that give rise to its existence are no longer present, authoritarianism has nothing to do with it
Look I get it anon, I have a libertarian streak too, but you should probably let go of it eventually, it's just liberal moralism
>>2309703I'm not against centralization generally, I'm
for participatory democracy. You can have a fully centralized state, you can even have a vangard to check the public's power and keep things on track. But the public must have direct involvement in what laws get passed, otherwise exploitation by capital gets replaced with exploitation by state.
>The state will wither away when the conditions that give rise to its existence are no longer presentAnd how do we get there? By strengthening the state? Seems counterintuitive to me.
>it's just liberal moralismAs opposed to Marxism, where we fight to end the exploration of the proletariat for no reason. After all, the point is to understand the world, not to change it!
Unique IPs: 46