/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

bump

This seems like Marxist-Leninist vanguard theory but with extra steps and overly de-centralized, along with the opportunity to just lead to most "vectors" flatly failing

>>2476737
How is it ML if the state is not seized and no central authority?

Vectors won’t fail if ideologically motivated

I hate it when anarchists do this thing where they promote something ML and pretend otherwise.

As the people I have actual access to (to speak to, to throw rocks at) become more screwed over, they become more subversive & more cooperative in that subversion. Without ideological motivation the proletariat will organize itself (large scale), as a side effect of the proletariat organizing itself (small scale). This will happen on its own, is already happening on its own, and isn't retarded.

>>2477646
Retarded plans are retarded because "why aren't you already doing that?"

>>2477207
Anarchists always come back around to building a State but claiming it isn't due to decentralisation. Unless you want to go back to subsistence farming (and starve 90% of the population) then an advanced economic organising framework is required. Armed men are then required to defend that framework from its class enemies.

That is what a State is.

>>2477667
>a state is any form of organization beyond subsistence farming

Yeah it's pretty easy to claim anarchists "build a state" when you define "state" so loosely that it can mean anything

>>2477667
by even having police or military, you have created an antagonistic class structure (i.e. a state)

>>2477667
>if i define 'state' like a retard and argue like a retard i get to, by my own estimation, win.
Okay? But what is the point in that, exactly?

>here's my long list of what anarchists must believe and practice
isnt anarchy simply the absence of rules?

>>2477667
I'm not convinced by ML gotcha arguments on the necessity of the state. The problem with anarchists is they look at the state in terms of leadership (is it a monarchy, dictatorship, parliamentary democracy) instead of looking at the kinds of power the state wields. They always want to show that a federation can be an alternative to any of the above, but their federation winds up having the same powers as a state (monopoly on violence, rational bureaucracy, powers of social engineering, control of information). Lots of anarchists wet their pants over Rojava, but the system in Rojava is basically crypto-Marxist-Leninist and these democratic bodies have all the repressive powers of a state.

>>2477679
>but the system in Rojava is basically crypto-Marxist-Leninist and these democratic bodies have all the repressive powers of a state.
That's retarded, you are retarded. What on earth literature have you been engaging in to get here?

>>2477684
There have been a few studies on this and there's Andrea Giloti's reporting. Despite the supposedly democratic bodies, the PKK network maintains control and rates of participation are low. This is more or less how ML parties maintain power. They set up democratic institutions but use a vanguard party to keep those bodies under their effective control. Giloti claims that locals more or less avoided these democratic bodies or didn't care about them. They've also built a Stalinist cult of personality. The Social Charter enshrines a sectarian system similar to Lebanon and Iraq where positions are reserved for ethnic groups. This inevitably creates conflict and let's the state police ethnic distinctions by defining them and determining their roles, divide and rule. The claim that this is somehow challenging the nation-state model is absurd. The introduction of civil marriage effectively allows the state to police sexual and marital norms, entering into citizens bedrooms and governing kinship structures. It also more or less allows the state to encroach on religious norms, despite claiming to be secular. Like it or not, this type of power is the disciplinary power of a state. Strip away all that libertarian municipalist gloss and you find a state.

None of this should be a surprise. Ocelan was a hardcore Marxist-Leninist and a good chunk of his Ocelanist writings are ripped straight from Marxist-Leinist and ethnonationalist sources. He's even ripped off jihadis like al-Suri. Rojava is a revolutionary disneyland.

>>2477771

This is interesting discussion so I am interested. I am a total newbie on anarchism. So I have a question.


I will try to phrase how I understood you. You said that problem of many anarchists is that they only examine power and systems by its organisational form (monarchy, parliamentary democracy vs decentralized federation) but they should examine power by its substance. (What it can cause and force) (For example having Monopoly of the violence among other examples you gave)

You also criticize anarchists projects and proposals as crypto-marxist-leninist.

So I have two questions. Are you an anarchist criticizing majority of other anarchists for their supposed hypocrisy and ignorance? You seem to criticize etatismu so you seem like an anarchist.

Or are you something else completely? (You don't seem to be Marxist Leninist for sure.)

No matter if you are anarchist or something else, you oppose monopoly of violence as any other anarchist should.

I am drawn to the idea of opposing monopoly on violence. But I don't know how would a society without such monopoly look like and so I am not sure what to oppose and what to accept, since I am not sure I can recognize the monopoly. Furthermore I would like to live in a society without any violence or such where only violence is defensive. So my question is, how do you imagine such society? You seem to think that federalization and decentralisation is not going eradicate the monopoly of violence and would not dismantle state as the monopoly. I suppose you accept that people should have right to defend themselves and organise that defense even if trying to prevent conflicts and solving them in other means. So how would you go about that without infringing human freedom and being sure not to establish any monopoly of violence

>>2477676
It's pretty much the contrary as you ironically need a lot of structure and rules to avoid hierarchy and concentration of power

>>2497323

Also adding to it. Although you did not use terms "form" and "substance" but rather terms "leadership" and "kinds of powers", I interpreted it that way. So my further question is, do you really believe there is some separation of form and substance, kinds of leadership and kinds of powers?

one more anarcho-retard's strategy which will never leave this board and actually be practised

"Intellectuals should dedicate their lives to revolutionary action as professional revolutionaries and lead the working-class to class consciousness"

This is just Leninism

>>2497323
>You said that problem of many anarchists is that they only examine power and systems by its organisational form (monarchy, parliamentary democracy vs decentralized federation) but they should examine power by its substance. (What it can cause and force)
Yeah. Anarchists fixate too much on how something looks and on its constitutional layout (no king, no president, direct democracy) but overlook how political systems exercise power and the political rationality and mindset that goes with it.

Many anarchists look up to Rojava because of the system of libertarian muncipalism there. But this system uses the same techniques of governing and shares the same political rationality as any other state. This includes the use of codified law and policy to intervene in the social lives of citizens, shape their sexual habits, change their customs, remodel family structures, use schooling to teach them new values. And to make these measures work, you need surveillance and enforcement to ensure compliance. I saw a report on how a Western anarchist was working in Rojava, and part of her job was to do work with women. She'd go to homes and schools to teach girls about women's rights. This seems innocuous on the surface, but what she was doing was teaching local girls a new idea of femininity, the right way to be a modern woman, and how to separate it from bad behavior. She was also reporting back to her superiors on how well women were taking on these new ideas. This power to teach citizens who they are, to get them to accept new moral concepts of right and wrong, and to get them to think a certain way through institutions and government agencies meant to surveil and punish them is exactly the kind of disciplinary power of a state.

>how do you imagine such society?
That's sort of a trap. People have imagined ideal political systems since Plato, but Europeans only begun theorizing about this thing called 'society' in the 18th and 19th centuries. The growth of economics, sociology, psychiatry etc. went hand in hand with the growing power of the bourgeois state and capitalism. Its only then that you see people theorizing about 'society' and coming up with templates for how states and employers should manage and engineer it. So I'd say this kind of "what's the ideal model then?" thinking is a trap where we fall into the same mindset of states which are concerned with how best to manage a population.

>So I have two questions. Are you an anarchist criticizing majority of other anarchists for their supposed hypocrisy and ignorance? Or are you something else completely?
I guess I agree with anarchism as an attitude but not with anyone trying to build a one size fits all anarchist system. I'm probably closer to Sahlins and J. C. Scott than Bakunin or Prodhoun.