>Know this, I will not let anyone force me to feel respect for this pig (Marx) or his totalitarian disciples, nor for the toilet paper known as his texts…
Actual response from an anarchoid I had when bringing up that Capital is a fundamental - crucial text worth studying and that has been studied even by anarchists such as Carlo Cafiero, mind you I am an also an anarchist, but the hostility of the majority of the declassed towards any notion of learning from the communist movement or tending towards the proletariat is so vile it feels like trying to perform exorcism.
>>2289244Most anarchists are just ideology shopping redditors which is why when you press them even a little bit they start defending "intellectual" property and so on. They're extremely dogmatic and ironically authoritarian when it comes to people trying to study shit. Read any anarchy book discussion and the top posts are people telling each other to *not* read this and that.
You can explain that Capital is a book on political economy but their tiny, drug fried brain can only comprehend the moderators of their community ordering them to blacklist it.
>>2289289This is true, mostly due to their internet communities and even the majority of western "organizations" - having become indistinguishable from NGOs being astroturfed by succdems. And believe me, there is a difference between the movement of the declassed and the direct descendants of bourgeoisie democracy's apologetics - defenders, Malatesta had criticized all of it in the text of Anarchists Have Forgotten their Principles
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-anarchists-have-forgotten-their-principles which has solidified itself and become more apparent now than ever with authors such as Wayne Pierce and the lot of NATOpolitian "anarchists" outright flocking to Ukrainian nationalism as criticized by Bill Beech as seen in:
https://libcom.org/article/war-anarchismhttps://libcom.org/article/i-would-prefer-revolutionary-internationalism The contemporary lot of "anarchists" are only anarchist in name, violent liberals in practice. The anomalies of anarchists in the past working in servitude to the proletariat's emancipation in cases such as Apollon Karelin and all actions prior to the split of the First International have also been swept away and ignored by modern currents. Emma Goldman's stance against bourgeois nationalism is also ignored by modern anarchists who only look up to her for some vague sentiment on feminism. Many such cases. The only thing I disagree with your reply is the unnecessary slander on drug use.
>>2289302>Yet most marxists either don't seem to care that much about anarchists or they see them as comrade in arms, or is that just my impression?This is an impossibility unless there is compromises from either side's principles, there cannot be both special bodies of armed men seeking to use the instrument of the state as the repression of one class over another simultaneously with those who seek to immediately do away with it and wage asymmetrical warfare.
But we are not in any such situation and why should anarchists jump to oppose this attempt at using the state as an instrument for the proletariat if they have not jumped prior to abolish it while it has been used as an instrument of the bourgeoisie dictatorship (liberal democracy)? This "totalitarian tyranny" they're fearmongering against is in essence anti-communism meant to mobilize anarchists as freikorps in defense of the bourgeoisie dictatorship at any notion of using the state instrument for the communist movement, it makes no sense. It would make more sense if they actively fighting for the abolition of the state instrument right now in this moment in their liberal bourgeoisie states.
>>2289345fed derail 1 responds to me
>>2289349fed derail 2 pretends to be me and defends drugs to make the conversation about that
>>2289304I mean the slander on drug abuse stems from my frustration with them constantly sedating themselves, restricting their own critical ability (to recognize the dumb shit they're saying as your articles put) and destroying their bodies rather than experimenting with shrooms or what-not as a form of self-therapy. It's not some religious, puritan belief that I have, it's just observation. As a kid, I liked a lot of anarchist music and most of them are dead from alcohol or alcohol-encouraged suicide. I don't even get mad at cigarettes that much because I understand that nicotine is a nootropic, it's just that ciggies have all this other crap in it that harms you.
I'm not advocating for them to go to jail for it. It's a concern, like if you had a friend suddenly start using fentanyl, you wouldn't encourage them to keep killing themselves. This is why I used drug "fried", which is loaded language but I sincerely have a frustration with how common it is to overdo it to the point where you're a zombie. I think absolutely contributes to the follower mentality that happens to them as they get coopted by succdems and nationalism, or some even go crazy and develop a metaphysical, religious spiritualism that supersedes materialism and never leads to anything useful, as we saw with the hippy movement.
I generally don't care but if I enter a room and they're defending meth use (actually has happened to me, where they considered me mentioning RFK's meth addiction as going "too far") it's time to interject.
>>2289326The claim stems from COINTELPRO where one of the strategies the FBI discussed was using anarchism as a way to undermine Communism. It's not in my image but it was also used against the Black Panthers to subvert their maoist ideology. People misconstrue it as meaning that anarchism itself is a spook, which obviously it isn't. It's more like Noam Chomsky, where you criticize Marxism (really just Leninism) but then retreat to being a good little soldier when confronted with liberalism. It got ridiculous when he was dying on the hill defending Pol Pot, just because he was fighting against the communist Vietnamese. We know this is his reasoning because Cambodia also had a totalitarian, authoritarian, one-party rule which Chomsky pretends he's against.
Anyway, one of their strategies was an astroturfed "anarchist" magazine called "The Workshop" and the last paragraph on my image kind of reminds me of the propensity towards pop culture "analysis" that poisons leftist movements. It redirects the reader's interests into what Althusser called "ideological state apparatuses." There's also Operation Northwoods which everyone knows about. It's very easy to disguise yourself as an anarchist, which is probably why anarchists should be spending more time reading shit so they can recognize the bullshit when it comes.
>>2289439>you're in a phase where you oppose authority>an ideology that nominally opposes authority is watched by authority, rarely does anything, though>there is no barrier for entry, few repercussionsIf your goal is a group that actually does something and isn't purely performative, this is a disaster.
Also, the idea that nazis are watched more than anarchists is laughable, unless you're counting recruiting nazis as watching them.
I dont get it. "anarchism" has basically been proven wrong by history. you need "anarcho-communism" at least. its perfectly reasonable to accept marx's critique of capital and philosophical method while disagree with his solutions and even marxist to say they might not apply to different material conditions. you have to at the very least respond to marx not just ignore him
>>2289315>This is an impossibility unless there is compromises from either side's principlesi really dont see it that way. its not for either side to declare. who is right is proven through practice. both sides are democratic and should yield to what (nonreactionary)program actually appeals to workers in a given situation
>>2289361Irresponsible drug use is a result of a lack of education which in turn is a result of stigmatization where they are so fed up with being told what not to do that they end up taking the worst routes. It's why every drug consumed must be studied prior by the user to know what will happen to them, projects like psychonautwiki despite having some backing by UNODC are still significant for what has been dubbed as harm reduction. One can only look at a profound chemist like Alexander Shulgin to realize how cautious a person should be when handling such substances.
These fried brains can only be fixed by an order that does not persecute drug use instead educating all about the potential dangers and results that may come, in the present state of affairs it is only encouraged to demonize rather than study, so the result of that is mixing up lethal and beneficial substances as one and the same while simultaneously peeking the curiosity of onlookers. As the saying goes - curiosity killed the cat.
On the subject of individuals constantly sedating themselves, it is an illness of the current social order that persists with alienation and all types of societal issues which cannot be resolved by individuals so they seek to destroy themselves to escape from as a slow from of suicide. A proper use of psychoactive substances can either motivate a person and restore their livelihood - turning them back to functionality or giving them new points of view on the world by altering their psyche or as you wrote - sedate them (which varies as an effect on duration and potency). This varies on the category of drugs, be it stimulants, depressants, antipsychotics, etc. It is a massive issue that all of them are being lumped into one label rather than being studied individually by all members of society - not just the experts, it is precisely this propaganda of trusting conservative "experts" that is damaging. With all the stigma, a person who obtains a substance is not even inclined to look for advisors at fear of being ratted out.
On the instance of defending meth use, this also can have two perspectives - one of junkies justifying their state of being (which is most likely what you encountered) and another of the chemists - scientists demanding for the properties of it to be looked at for what beneficiary qualities could be extracted or what damaging properties could be done away with, which is pharmacology for the sake of the development of medicine.
Although you're probably aware of this since you manage to distinguish between abuse and use, the demonization of abusers leads to a conflation between users and abusers. This is why some see it as necessary to rally for all rights in order to have a broader appeal to be able to oppose the media lies and the legal system under a broader umbrella of "human rights" violations. I.e. this goes with the logic of "my body my choice" extended to the conclusion of self-harm being allowed. This however, is an entirely different subject from inaction or action, this is a suicidal response to penalization. It is basically the equivalent of a person self-immolating to spite a person trying to set them on fire, odd right?
This is unrelated to the thread or the topic of anarchism if you ask me though. If you want to continue I suggest moving the discussion to the War On Drugs general
>>2144941 >>2289496You basically have to go back to the 19th century and read Proudhon yourself. Most contemporary anarchists are intellectually incapable.
In a way, its why I don't get all that upset it with them; They aren't really a threat.
In fact, if you read Proudhon you realize anarchism has much more in common with liberalism, and can be viewed as a radical branch of it (specifically because of the individualist basis).
Ergo, the real intellectual task is the break with and combatting of liberalism in its cultural, political, philosophical, & economic foundations.
>>2289500Assuming you're not just engaging in this in bad faith and are actually curious, I'm admittedly no expert in the subject so I will defer over to the knowledgeable folks who have compiled the anarchist FAQ. 90% of whatever questions you'd have on "how does anarchism plan to do [blank]" are answered or at least addressed in this section
https://www.anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionI.htmlAnd if you find points that you think are stupid, could be clarified better, or just want to counter with arguments of your own, you can always shoot them an email. The site is frequently edited and fine-tuned to address additional concerns or counterarguments by the guys running it, and they're pretty well read on not just anarchism but also Marxism and Leninism too. Actually I think if more anarchists took the time to read this they'd be significantly less vulnerable to liberal infiltration
>>2289500>How do you incentivize people to work?I've seen some anarchoids take "he who does not work neither shall he eat", while I've seen some justify using threat of violence to make all functional people be productive no joke.
>How do you solve the problem of comparing economic costs?From what I gather on
>>2289574 the costs are evaluated by the workers and delegates coordinate resource allocation by communicating in committees.
>How do you solve the problems of market and money?The more libtarded anarchoids will suck dick for money and be enslaved and raped by market actors, the smarter ones will call for killing all business owners, shooting anyone who dares trade or barter (the producers must NOT exchange their products) and eradicating cash in favor of parecon's notion of "decentralized planning", its something that has not been seen in anarchoid history as of yet.
>>2289578I had a look at the FAQ.
There's no math, no diagrams, no schemas, however there are massive paragraphs of diluted text, that usually just say "it depends! there's lots of kinds of anarchy!"
I should have asked (You) to give me the text extracts instead of looking for them myself, that was a massive waste of time.
>>2289244>No muh moral revulsionMy God MLs might as well all be the exact same easily offended, thin skinned, spineless faggot
No wonder so many people go over to anarchists when 99% of “Marxists” in the West are faggots hopped up on worthless podcasts that are so openly trying to shill for an at best equally crappy version of capitalism they literally require like 90% of the population to become poor as fuck and for society to collapse for people to ever be amendable to their ideas by their own assessment lmfao
>>2289565You are asking the wrong person. I am openly totalitarian, and believe all of society must be under centralized control.
My opposition to capitalism is that it is insufficiently centralized due to its own self limiting & self-destructive logics.
My own interest at present is studying gosplan before it was broken in the khruschov era. Its difficult to the sparsity of sources with good english translation as well as my own health issues.
>>2289844Strange that my org is full of old men with families who don't even have time to attend meetings anymore.
This whole "anarkiddies" meme of the internet is such a hoax, it may only be relevant in the US.
>>2289851"Totalitarian" is a fake concept conjured up by liberals to equate nazis with communists.
However, if you are interested in socialist central planning, you should check out Paul Cockshott on youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR4uS9h3yVchttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jpuHM_k9CU >>2289852Yes it certainly depends on the context of its use.
I mean when I describe my political views as totalitarian I certainly don't reduce it to simple exercises of any of repression (like simply executing people for example). I intend it as something related to society as a whole, as I described you replied.
That said, I do recognize that various ideologues, including liberals, do instrumentalize the term as a buzzword for attacking their opponents. Its similar when used in this sense to any term of abuse/accusation (eg. fascist, communist, atheist, jihadist, etc.)
>>2289855Oh I know him well. Spoken to him a few times over the decade. Clarified some issues with how to deal with natural resource based differential rent under socialism.
While his work is interesting concerning how to modernize central planning, my current interest is on historical operation of gosplan; I downloaded the book in Russian by Strumilin and will even see about using a machine translator.
>>2289853Even in America it's mostly projection. The most rabid MLs and Maoists tend to either be teenagers or college students, meanwhile half of the anarchists I know are in their 30's and 40's and have families.
>>2289857Ah, so you're using it as a term for "total participation of society in the new system", am I accurate? Ironically if that's the case I sort of agree with you, anarchy and communism doesn't happen automatically and indeed requires active effort on the part of participants to maintain it. And in return for that maintenance you get all the protections and freedoms and other benefits associated with the community
>>2289855As far as I know the earliest use of the word totalitarian was as an accusation by left-coms towards the italian fascists (which the later then adopted), but that's not really what I mean by it.
Instead, ots more about the early western cold warrior caricature that was made the USSR. Which was false to be sure; If they USSR really did have such level of control internally, our victory would have been near-guaranteed (especially with such a large resource & population base)
>>2289844You’re right
People go over to anarchism because they want to be free while MLs genuinely have nothing to offer the average worker in most industrialized countries, MLs more or less explicitly believe their own goal of communism is a naive pipe dream so to the “educated” MLs are clowns asking you to risk your life for a union and better welfare (most countries already have both) and the less educated MLs offer you the shitty life you already have but now you can’t listen to rock music, can’t say they’re wrong.
Maybe the reason MLs obsess over the “Third World” so much is because they basically have nothing to offer most people beyond citizens of countries with no labor rights, actual peasants, and actual petit bourgeois with nationalist aspirations
I guess they got a lot for downwardly mobile middle class former college kids too
>>2289871As a third world, and the open totalitarian in this thread, I agree with you.
The imperial core is disproportionately made up of bourgeois, petty bourgeois & labour aristocracy, whose wages & living standards are so much higher (basically an order of magnitude at least) than those for the majority of humanity. Imperialism,colonialism, unequal exchange, oligopoly on technology, knowledge & skill rents, etc. all contribute, and there is no way any socialist state could ever provide the same, at least to the upper half of the imperial core populations.
Indeed, it makes sense that various products of consumerist excess (from single family homes & cars to gaming to drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc.; The libidinal, marginal, frivolous, etc. as Clouscard calls them) are mainly targeted towards those with those with disproportionately higher incomes on the world scale. There is more money to extract from them. And social being determined consciousness, so these things are more widely accepted (with a generous helping of advertising/propaganda)
>>2289897Sure: A labour aristocrat s a labourer/worker whose labour time equivalent of their wages is close to or above the labour time they put into production of commodities.
*Close to doesn't have a hard cutoff point in this definition, so one can think of it as more of a spectrum.
—
An interesting question is what material conditions create/maintain the labour aristocracy, and to what extent are these are overlapping or distinct from those that create/maintain the knowledge & skills based petty bourgeoisie.
>>2289244Ngl, one of the reasons I somewhat distanced myself from Anarchism wasn't necessarily the theory, but the fact that a lot of Anarchists didn't read it or made such narrow-minded arguments such as this. Sadly, this is a problem across all tendencies, including Marxists.
Anarchist critiques of Marxism much like Marxist critiques of Anarchism are either founded in strawman arguments, historical revisionism, or a genuine lack of nuance in understanding eachothers positions.
It's also irritating when terms such as "totalitarian" are misused, particularly to describe the USSR or China as a whole.
>>2289912I think he makes a fair point. All ideologues from all ideologies would do better to read more & reflect more on things.
Until that point, one should admit their own limitations; Usually the deeper disagreements cannot be reduced just to ignorance anyways, but rather on completely different base ethics & worldview.
>>2289912>you became a libAnd yet you call me illiterate. Don't use words you don't understand, lad.
Also it's *she
:^)
>>2289851>>2289857"Totalitarian" is a word that means a million different things to a million different people, and as such means nothing at all. Anyone who identifies as a totalitarian is likely a deeply unserious larper who chooses politics based on aesthetics.
>Inb4 ah yes, believe that I am just an unserious larper! This way, you won't know my true intentions! Fool!I called you an unserious larper because you are one. Doing your best supervillian impression only further demonstrates why.
>>2289890Upper-class people go for "degenerate" things because most people want them, they just can't have them and have decided to/been taught to cope. Even the most seemingly ascetic power structures, in reality, have seldom been about preventing "vice", and instead allowing those in power to monopolize pleasure for themselves. For more information, I refer you to the history of the Catholic Church.
Unique IPs: 23