What's the best way to convince anarchists that power and hierarchy aren't inherently bad?
Anarkids act like they understand theory and sociology better than Marxists do. They love getting on their moral high horse by calling everything "oppression". Yet when you actually pick apart their arguments you'll see that they're full of hot air 95% of the time. They talk a good deal about intersectionality and anti-oppression, but when pressed on how to abolish those oppressive structures in society they have no clue.
Marxism, OTOH, is scientific. We understand that political power is necessary to reshape society. We also understand that hierarchies need to exist until we reach the stage of communism, and even then you will still see things like hierarchies of intelligence, talent, beauty, strength, and so on that can't simply be abolished through idealist methods.
But how do you explain this without looking like you're making apologia for oppression? I've tried the Hegelian way of simply saying "the real is rational" but that doesn't get through anarkids' heads very well.
Ask these anarchists if they would be okay with a retarded kid running a nuclear power plant.
>>2493213I'm convinced ᴉuᴉlossnW had it right
>>2493215That's clearances, not heirarchy.
>>2493217Hes gonna start asking about every little thing - "BUT WHO MAKES AND APPROVED THE CLEARANCES?" "WHO LETS THAT PERSON DO IT" "WHO LETS THAT PERSON LET THAT OTHER PERSON DO IT" and such questions, there is no point answering to a dishonest bolshevik larper they are all negroes that must be raped and executed in public and may UNIT 731 come back one day to show them how anarchy can have responsible people in positions of power without the state instrument.
Unironically, Plato’s Republic.
Without hierarchies the stupid people have as much say in a situation as the smart people. You can’t have an egalitarian society unless everyone is of equal intellect and education, and is competent enough to understand how to work together.
Or, look at the influx of brain rot content on the internet. That’s largely a result of content creation being democratized and stupid people inflating the views of stupid videos.
Power and hierarchy are inherently unstabilising forces, all we wanna do is to build networks outside their reach, so we can clean up after the tower collapses yet again.
>>2493219ISIS's current decentralized structure is good enough for a model, let them take over a region with a powerplant and you'll have the answer.
>>2493219>Or, look at the influx of brain rot content on the internetcentralized social media and search engines*, but yeah when you outsource your personal curation out to statistical averages you don't necessarily get something coherent.
Another example being centrists. People represent politics on sliders as a rather unuseful abstraction, someone insists the trick is to set that slider to the middle, and then explaining what that even means or tryning to convert that slider position into actual worldviews results in complete incoherent babbling about extradimensional hypertoruses and the abstract concept of nuanced-ness.
>>2493225Utopian and idealist. Why has anarchism never lasted for more than five years in the modern age? Your "anarchist networks" are also highly dependent on the existing society and exist within it. You can't have an island of anarchism in a sea of capitalism.
>>2493236Correct. Normies assume the so-called middle path is always the moral choice and look at where that gets them.
>>2493225>You can't have an island of anarchism in a sea of capitalism.Its impressive a retarded stalinist flag can say this without realizing this is the exact same critique Bordiga gave to your "AES" "socialism in one state" ilk. You retarded market economst faggot, all your states are capitalist, you are the children of perestroika.
>>2493213I'd be interested in asking an anarchist this question: in a situation of total anarchy, what's to prevent the strong from dominating the weak? I mean physically stronger people dominating weak people, such as disabled people who must rely on wheelchairs to maneuver. There's good reason to believe anarchism would do a bad job of this, and this kind of total freedom can end up turning to its opposite by (ironically, paradoxically) removing structures that
restrain domination, so people are just crushed by the strongest and most ruthless.
There needs to be some kind of authority that can intervene to protect those people from being trampled underfoot, because there are "natural" inequalities between people. The fact is, I have two working legs so I'm faster than someone who doesn't have legs, or can't use them because of a disability. But there have been a lot of strides made by disability activists to pass laws that mandate wheelchair accesibility and things like that.
>>2493239To play devil's advocate, too much of anything can turn into its opposite.
This can be critique of communism as well. OP says that communism allows for a certain amount of inequality, but his goal is to abolish it for a classless society in which there's no economic exploitation, political domination or ideological intimidation at all, but there's a real danger with concentrating basically a theoretically unlimited amount of power in the hands of the state, or a revolutionary vanguard party that controls the state as a path to get there. For example, what is actually stopping this revolutionary state from liquidating people for being enemies of the revolutionary state? That doesn't sound bad, but who defines who is / isn't a communist? It's whoever is at the top, so in practice you have a government that can kill ANYBODY and it doesn't matter if you think you're a communist because Mecha-Stalin of the Future decided that you're not, and you can plead your case, but there's nothing to really stop him. But you believe you need to do this in order to get to a place where there's total equality and freedom.
>>2493241What makes you assume I support AES?
>>2493241Not to deny it, all autonomists are liberals and natlibs in disguise. Anarchism can only be the movement like ISIS that seeks to spread worldwide or be there none at all. All commody producers all you jewish nigger social conservative succdem communist larpers who believe communist states exist now in under the global capitalist mode of production - you retarded negroes of the world should be lynched.
>>2493244On this site your flag is stood for by "marxist-leninists" (stalinists) and their counterparts.
>>2493243>There's good reason to believe anarchism would do a bad job of this, and this kind of total freedom can end up turning to its opposite by (ironically, paradoxically) removing structures that restrain domination, so people are just crushed by the strongest and most ruthless. That, and in a world made up entirely of decentralized communities the richer and more advanced communities could just dominate the weaker ones.
>>2493247>Anarchism can only be the movement like ISIS that seeks to spread worldwide or be there none at all.Why are you using a hierarchical group of jihadis as your model?
>>2493248Not under a planned economy with the abolition of the value form and resource management. I will not take the time to explain decentralized planning but I suggest you imagine try to do haram things under ISIS and sharia law and see how it goes - that's exactly how trade and other elements will be done away with, they will be "haram" and the movement will be "ISIS".
>>2493249Have you been living under a rock? ISIS cells no longer have to be approved to exist, ISIS Has become a brand, it is a clandestine cell system now. As for "hierarchies" nobody cares if there will be a captain of a ship - there will be, every element takes responsibility for their role and if it is the role to manage it comes with its own limits. Hierarchies are only a problem on a ladder form - an appointer of an appointer of an appointer that governs the whole of X, not a decisive direct role. The problem is not with the boss or the factory, its the productive forces that are not shedding enough blood for the right cause.
>>2493238You have a twisted mindset. It's not about lasting in modern age, since modern age won't itself last. We just build networks, wherever capital can disturb them it will, but there's always spaces it cannot reach. Where capital cedes space, we advance, where it advances we dissappear, it's unsymmetrical warfare, guerilla tactics. Point isn't to take it head on, but on all fronts at the same time, since capitalism, as every top down system, have a hard time paying attention to multiple problems at once and can be overwhelmed.
A ruler can only be of a broad assignment, a negro does not rule the field he works, a ruler is the guberment, the ministers, the politicans, the agencies, the party. In the anarchist movement we are mob lynching blackshirts that abtain from voting, if you want to see anarchism look at the fascist movement before ᴉuᴉlossnW decided to engage in elections - imagine it worldwide. Imagine the anti-theism of ᴉuᴉlossnW but worldwide, imagine the futurism, the technophilia and the anti-capitalism outlined in the ICP without ever seizing state power, that is anarchism, it is global terrorism and might makes right, it is futurism, fascism, transhumanism, it is 100% soviet power and 100% bolshevik murdering, it is not the dictatorship of the proletariat it is the abolition of class by the declassed with the forced assignment of destroying all cultures and relics of the past and focusing all of mankind's efforts into one element - the development of the productive forces towards immortality, drugs will aid the minds of the exhausted, creative and aspiring.
>>2493250>>2493254I wouldn't expect anything more from an anarkid, but the romanticization of a brutal jihadi group like ISIS makes me think you have no real principles and are just in it for the spectacle of violence.
>that's exactly how trade and other elements will be done away with, they will be "haram" and the movement will be "ISIS".So, anarchist police. Got it.
>>2493256>It's not about lasting in modern age, since modern age won't itself last. Pessimism much?
>>2493260>So, anarchist police. Got it.Why not? A cop that serves the movement, no contradiction.
Also did you read the rest of the reply? I mean murder every religious person to exist - there is no romanticizing ISIS. ISIS is given as an example since you all wish for an example of anarchism without an example existing, so I give you a clandestine cell system that lives off the name spreading alone.
>anarkidAnd should I call you infantile or baby?
>spectacleISG or Debord reader? Either way a worthless word that can only be a display of liberalism. Red army commander Trotsky said it best - it is a problem that can only be resolved by blood and iron, and Tukhachevsky obeys, we have to do it to you harder, and as long as it takes to exterminate.
>>2493265>Why not? A cop that serves the movement, no contradiction. And just like that, the anarkid proved my point about hierarchy not being inherently evil or oppressive. Good job!
>>2493271A cop is as much as a "hierarchy" as a terrorist, you have no idea what a hierarchy is.
>>2493274>evil or oppressive.Moralism. Its not a matter of "evil" or "oppression", its the teleology of the abolition of class, the end of the capitalist mode of production and developing the productive forces by any means necessary. What point is there to prove besides that you proved you care about "good vs evil" and out yourself as a liberal moralizer rather than a materialist that knows what must be done.
>>2493271And you still haven't picked, would you rather be called baby or infantile?
The best (and only) way to convince Anarchists that authority isn't bad is to drag them into a basement, put a gun to the back of their head and pull the trigger.
This is how you should be dealing with Anarchists in general.
>>2493284Yes pull the trigger on yourself and let them watch big tough guy. Baby bolsheviks haven't had the chance to live out such fantasies since 91.
No honest anarchist cares about buzzwords like authority. If leninists can murder themselves that would be the most convincing way to prove the state can wither on its own.
>>2493213"Would you rather live in modern China, or Anarchist Catalonia?"
>>2493274>>2493281>>2493282So why are so many anarchists for abolishing the police?
>>2493298Punks can call themselves anything they want, liberals think of anarchism as an aesthetic. The matter is that police in the present serve the bourgeois order, not the movement against the present state of things nor the movement of the declassed. Punks release "prison abolition" and "police abolition" leaflets yet present no solutions, they are simply gesturing because they cannot be anarchist in essence, only deluded activists with individualist aspirations. The real movement of anarchism is smaller than the name it carries, but only it can affect the social order - not those who play pretend in its name.
See China and the maoist movement for example - did they not wish death to all landlords? Why come they have landlords now? Because it serves their bourgeoisie state.
TL;DR Sloganism / the police don't serve the movement in the present.
>>2493303They have no solutions because anarchism is a fucking joke.
>>2493297Catalonia deserved to be destroyed for collaborating with the bourgeous republican state, catalan nationalist retardation, markets and commodity production along with other factors. Syndicates without a proper communist movement to use is a dead end, they possess no class consciousness.
>>2493304They have no solutions because they aren't anarchists, anarchists don't mind labor camps and such. Modern leninism is a circus for socialdemocrats larping as bolsheviks, don't get me started on jokes.
The only good prison abolitionist is a labor camp creationist.
>>2493260>Pessimism much?Not in my view. It's like asking why an ideology opposing lasting hierarchies cannot produce lasting hierarchies. Anarchy propagates in the walls, underground. Wherever a visible manifestation pops up, it's an anomaly. When the enviroment is right a budding sporangium appears just to vanish again.
>>2493213>the best waythere isn't one because anarchists believe different things and there is no central authority. some recognize consensual justified hierarchies like how a pirate ship needs to elect a captain for battle and some think parents stopping children from running into traffic is oppression.
>>2493338>there isn't one because anarchists believe different things and there is no central authority.While the first part is true - every person generally believes different things, and where the second part is true - there is the International of Anarchist Federations. It's only a matter of time under a program is made and adopted. Also great example you gave in the end, the latter of which that scream about oppression you can see overlaps with the creation of "punk" "culture" in the West as opposed to the anarchist school of thought that had existed prior and still continues to exist.
>>2493213You don't, you just roll over their skulls with your tank
>>2493213If Marxism-Leninism was implemented tomorrow it would last.
If anarchism was implemented tomorrow it would crumble within a very short amount of time.
Why do you think the CIA cares more about overthrowing Marxist countries than it does going after anarchists?
>>2493937>If Marxism-Leninism was implemented tomorrow it would lastSo true, just go to the USSR and see… oh wait
>>2493952china literally has the most advanced socialist system in the world.
>>2493937Marxism-Stirnerism-Maoism-Dengism with notes from anarchism at the Maoism part has seen infinitely more success than Leninism ever will.
>>2493956China is not Leninist
>>2493956So not ml, also the most advances socialist country would be France where the state taxes and spends much more and where workers have free healthcare
I love how blatant bad faith sectarianism is allowed to stay up as long as it's directed against "anarkiddies" but god forbid you make fun of Dengoids
>>2493968Dengism = ( Maoism = Anarchism + Marxism ) + Stirnerism
Sectarianism comes when you try to demerge the synthesis soup.
>>2493968common anarkiddie L
common dengGODS W
>>2493963FACT #1: dengism is built on the basis of maoism
FACT #2: maoism is built on the basis of ML
FACT #3: you are coping
>>2493966>the most advances (sic) socialist country would be FranceLeast delusional western left social chauvinist.
When has anarchism ever lifted millions out of poverty?
>>2493213Because you see hierarchy in a different way than anarchists understand.
Ultras, for exemple, can argue withouth "making apologia for oppression".
so: undestand what we're saying and why we're saying it, don't just assume the party you defend was right because you were told so.
>>2494168Capitalism also did that.
>>2494430>Capitalism also did that.So anarchism is the only one that doesnt do that? Sounds cringe.
>>2494430Lifting people out of poverty doesn’t matter?
>>2493213back in hs I used identify heavily with ancom thought and one of the things that made me drop the anarcho- label and just be a communist without adjectives was the comparison between the "authoritarian" bolsleviks with there cheka and kangaroo courts and the "anti-authoritarian" CNT-FAI burning churches and just shooting bougies in broad daylight without trial. If its gotten to the point where your group actually controls territory than somesort of authority is doing violent shit no matter how said authority chooses to organize there party and/or syndicate. It literally doesn't matter what random ass label you choose for yourself unless you wanna go live in some pacifistic agrarian commune your getting your hands dirty and your gonna have to break some eggs to make an omelette.
>>2494440what happened in 2005
still an ancom i just think its authoritarian to impose anarchy on dengists in they vote for communism instead. i think ancom could work better in a more individualist and advanced capitalist society that already has productive forces but its not up for one individual to decide. which one wins has to be tested in democratic practice not just in your head
>>2494440>Man it's so funny those people are reduced to use this kind of argument since they accepted the existence of the bourgeoisie, commodity production, private property, wage labor and all of the staples of capitalism even though capitalist countries do productive force building and poverty reduction well enough, actually Marx SAYS THIS in the manifesto.yeah,lifting people out of poverty isn'tbad, the thing is that this is a capitalist way of measuring things, since yeah, capitalism also made more people less poor, most people do not live like a peasant nowadays.
>>2494505it's a good thing, i'm not saying is bad, but if we're discussing ways to achieve socialism, than yeah, it doesn't matter.
>>2494568Anarchism hasn’t lifted anyone out of poverty. Mutual aid is just charity in practice.
OP has never read a word of Marx
>>2493213The argument really does hinge on idealism vs materialism. Convince them of this and their ideology falls apart, but that may take some effort
Anarchoids need to go back to assassinating heads of states and billionaires instead of whining about the other leftoid subspecies for the 1000th time.
>>2495148>Anarchoids need to go back to assassinating heads of states and billionaires instead of whining about the other leftoid subspecies for the 1000th time.Yes. But also they are far from the worst offenders in this. Self-identifying 'MLs', for examples, whole bit is to endlessly whine and cry that the anarchists are ruining everything by doing things that they decide to do rather than joining the ML party and obeying some autistic 75 year olds commands.
>>2495035We have no ideals, we are the real movement against the present state of things (of the declassed). Automation will take away what revolutionary potential the proletariat had as society becomes less and less dependant on their labor, Bukharin will an hero and everyone will cheer.
>>2495148>AdventurismRead Bordiga or Pannekoek
>>2494955Marx believed in authoritarianism.
>>2495757He didn’t even support Simon Bolivar
Most “anarchists” in the US are simply glorified social democrats who will talk a good deal about the state being evil but will demand more state welfare benefits at the end of the day. Why? Because when they admit an era of a benevolent state is necessary before the state’s eventual withering away.
Read Bordiga
>>2496188No, I want me and my clique to run things. If I don't like you, "we" don't like you.
>>2496188This is true, succdems astroturfed anarchism and liberals turned it into a punk aesthetic to be monetized and present bourgeois freedom, anarchism was about order not trashy clothing and shitty houdini leaflets, western "anarchists" and ukrainian "anarchists" are nationalist and reactionary bastards who only use the word anarchism for the military chic.
https://libcom.org/article/war-anarchism One of the first false tendencies to try to shove itself into anarchism was Tolstoy's religious retardation, a complete contradiction and bastardization that still demands to be taken seriously when used to justify bullshit like "anarcha-islam", "pagan anarchism" and other identity politics built on feudal and pre-feudal doctrines, the way they shove this shit and then pretend its all "queer friendly" and "compatible with science" is that they have to modernize it and claim its subjective or metaphorical as to butcher the original archaic meaning that was more than clearly opposed to basic "egalitarian" values such as gay rights, womens rights and has been responsibile for stagnation and persecution of scientists for a millenia. Its all been accepted because of the decadant populist class traitors and those who have no principles but rally under "popular fronts",
I don't have a solution to this yet, but neither do fraudulent marxists who have been subjected to the same issues and opened up to them. One possible solution would be a program that can be implemented across federations alongside a set of principles to be upheld, of course many federations may object to it but we have no reason to be merciful to them just because they think of themselves as "anarchists" if in principles they are not.
>>2493213Power and authority are dangerous but class is far more important. I'm totally okay with risking power and authority to solve the class problem first.
>>2496294If you can manage to lead the abolition of class through the state instrument then so be it, I am waiting and will take the time to not oppose the DOTP to come since to us it is no different from the current bourgeois dictatorship, it is a question if you can carry out the program or fall apart trying.
>>2496305>Also anarchist not believing in hierarchy is bullshit, they believe in the people's hierarchy, alongside the people's police and the people's goverment and the people's HOAs.Gee I wonder what the real movement against hierarchies is then
>>2496285Very good article, thanks for posting it
>>2493213giving them severe brain damage
The hierarchy is not necessary. The factory doesn't have to be organized in a pyramid structure with an owner at the top who keeps all the profits and the workers at the bottom as disenfranchised wage slaves. The factory could be owned collectively by all the workers who share the profits equally and make decisions democratically, no hierarchy required.
>>2496411by democratically you mean half of them don't want to bother and the rest does so they inherently get sidelined,like in a…. hierarchy ?
>>2496448Direct democratic rule works in small enclaves of a few hundred or so people. If society were composed of many small enclaves instead of huge centralized power structures then there would be no need for any hierarchy. This is how human society structured itself for hundreds of thousands of years before the Neolithic Revolution and the subsequent transition to permanent agricultural settlements, which tended to coalesce into large centralized power structures because of the non-uniform distribution of natural resources. The hierarchy is a merely byproduct of inequity. It's not a fundamental component of society, it is merely an emergent property.
Force them to read on authority by engels
>Anarkids act like they understand theory and sociology better than Marxists doWe do more than you can ever comprehend.
As this anon
>>2496458 pointed out humans have lived most of their existence relativity hierarchy free only during the dawn of civilization did that change. And its arrogant to assume that it will remain the same. For communism which is common ownership of the means of production and are consequently done away with hierarchies are done away with. Any thing less is at best revisionism and at worst capitalist apologia.
>We also understand that hierarchies need to exist until we reach the stage of communism, and even then you will still see things like hierarchies of intelligence, talent, beauty, strength, and so on that can't simply be abolished through idealist methods.All
socialist states have either dissolved, returned back to capitalism or at best continued on with state socialism. And the so called state socialism has more in common with capitalism, with overseers, production quotes delivered on high, than any actual socialism that Marx or Kropotkin proposed. The organizational structure of these countries does promote communist ideas instead it promotes subservience to the state and the party. When the worker goes to voice his concerns through voting its he can only vote for party members and if there is a non party member hes only allowed to run because the party says so. This one example how these states like that of capitalist states produce frustration and apathy and because of the lack of the political voice the worker has. In a society run were workers run the means of production and there is only bigger councils for the transportation of goods and other related activities; the worker is at greater liberty to change the running of his factory through general factory meetings than, relying on the party system do it for him even if they do so. Hierarchy's only perpetrate themselves they do no disintegrate naturally, they must be forcefully destroyed.
And not to mention the glorious leaders
dictators these countries all tend to have that even capitalist countries have a better track record with.
>>2496496> pointed out humans have lived most of their existence relativity hierarchy free only during the dawn of civilization did that change.retard psuedo history. you are not an anarchist.
>>2496672Before humans figured out agriculture and the domestication of animals, people were pretty much on equal footing all throughout the world. You didn't have large social groups with complex hierarchical structures, you had nomadic humans traveling together in small groups of one or a few families who all knew one another and could therefore easily govern themselves. You didn't have domesticated animals, so people all moved at the same speed. People could not stockpile resources, they could only take what they could carry with them. People could not stay in one place, they had to always keep moving with the herds and the seasons. Warfare was symmetric and costly and there was little to gain from it. Then came the Neolithic Revolution and these small bands of nomads found themselves being conquered by huge empires with vast permanent agricultural citystates and armies with chariots and horses and copper/bronze weapons, humans were no longer on equal footing and one group of humans could use technology to dominate other groups of humans and the paradigm of human society changed from decentralized small groups to centralized large empires.
>>2496672Marx literally called this mode of production primitive communism, I don't know what to tell you.
>>2496496but like, and this is a well meaning question, do you bridge large scale production with decentralized/localized direct governance? doesn't the need to coordinate production and distribution of goods and resources on a global scale require some form of coercion? a machine operates on a fixed schedule, this alone forces some discipline? i mean, my question is - how do you know that local democratic organizations production extend globally to democratic organizations?
>>2493213We have so many great examples of great leaps forwards instead of actual proletarian movements. Marxism-Leninism is dead and buried and this shameful period deserves nothing less but critical analyzis of what went wrong.
>>2497530NTA
>doesn't the need to coordinate production and distribution of goods and resources on a global scale require some form of coercion? Uncoordinating federations which refuse to engage in planning are attempting to recreate wealth inequality and continue with a market economy, any "coercion" is simply defending against exploitation.
>how do you know that local democratic organizations production extend globally to democratic organizations?I really don't understand why so many anarchists want a democracy when democracies enable populism to simply vote away any principles. Anarchism should be programmatic.
>>2497534You want an analysis of what went wrong with "Marxism-Leninism"? Read Bordiga.
>>2497530Maybe there isn't any need to produce and distribute goods and resources on a global scale. Maybe having a centralized global industrial society is not the preordained ultimate destiny of the human race, it is just a phase.
General systems collapse theory states that human societies tend to grow in complexity until they become unsustainable, at which point they collapse and people revert back to simpler ways of living, in a repeating continuous cycle similar to the concept of boom and bust times in economic theory. Our current complex hierarchical society will eventually collapse and the big central power structures will fragment into lots of decentralized power structures and we will be back to the "bust" part of the cycle.
>>2496672>the dawn of civilizationWhat is civilization? Does a tribe of stone age hunter-gatherers count as civilization? Was there civilization in the Americas before Europeans arrived? If you found some uncontacted indigenous tribe in the Amazon jungle who have lived as stone age hunter-gatherers for thousands of years and you gave them machine guns and whiskey and they got drunk and killed each other, would this be a win or a loss for civilization?
>>2493213Don't care about the topic of this thread
I am trying to name all the people in the picture
From left to right:
1. Stalin 2. Mao
3. ? 4. ? 5. Ho Chi Minh 6. Kim Il Sung 7. Some zoomer? 8. Boleslaw Bierut
9.? 10. ? 11. ? 12. Matyás Rákosi 13. Valko Chervenkov ? 14. Georghe Georghiu-Dej
15.? 16.? 17. Enver Hoxha 18. Todor Zhivkov?
>>2497582Well obviously human civilization does not revert back to the stone age after the collapse of every empire, we can retain some of the knowledge and experience from our past. It's possible that human technology and human knowledge could someday create a high-tech nomadic society where there is no need for large permanent settlements or complex social hierarchies because each human has the means to tend to all of their own needs independently and with minimal effort regardless of their individual circumstances. It's also possible that human technology and human knowledge could someday create an empire so huge and powerful that its collapse will take our entire species/planet with it.
>>2497530Yes and no
<On the basis of federalism, Bakunin proposed a multi-tier system of responsibility for decision making which would be binding on all participants, so long as they supported the system. Those individuals, groups or political institutions which made up the total structure would have the right to secede. Each participating unit would have an absolute right to self-determination, to associate with the larger bodies, or not. Starting at the local level, Bakunin suggested as the basic political unit, the completely autonomous commune. The commune would elect all of its functionaries, law makers, judges, and administrators of communal property.https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anarchist-federation-basic-bakuninWith the advent of the internet goods and services can be coordinated to where they are needed out the intervention of the state where needed with out the intervention of government. Hell this already true under capitalism.
I feeling I'm explaining communism to liberals, you and all like muh human nature. And its like you people are marxists but you don't seem to actually agree with Marx. An anarchist society is no different than highest stage of communism that marx thought of. All the difference is time of the implementation. And that's where I consider Marxists to be idealists as they naively belive the state to be capable of its own dissolution. Rather than in reality through its own structure reproducing it's own existence. Just like with capitalism those living under a state are inclined to view it as natural because it's the only way of organizing they know of, and anything else is considered a fantasy.
>>2493213what a sausage party
>>2497830i would expect here an alternative(non-idealist) explanation for how the state reproduces itself that isn't economic. how is the structure supposed to do that?
>>2493952anarchism lasted for less than a year
USSR lasted for 70 years
>>2497835>non-idealistI don't know what you mean by that, but the workers aren't allowed to organize their farms and factories outside the state. The system is set up so that the idea of self abolishing is a pipe dream, case in point the Soviet Union. The bureaucracts had a higher standard of living
especially the top level ones than your average soviet citizen and because of that just like the capital there is a material interest in keeping the status quo. For an average soviet citizen to get anywhere they had to join the party and not just that but also tow the party line or risk expulsion. From there they had make the right connections to get conformable jobs, and that means not going against the bureaucracy and brown nosing higher level bureaucracts. And it was the same higher level bureaucracts that wanted and benefited off of Perestroika and eventual liberalization of the Soviet Union because they had the connections and the money to buy off the state assets and convert them to captial. That's how the post Soviet nations got there oligarchs.
>>2497852Anarchism had to be crushed the soviet union dissolved because of its own internal contradictions.
>>2497879>I don't know what you mean by thatarent you the one who called marxists idealist? you just gave an economic explanation.
so how does anarchist state abolition differ from this? where are the anarchist not-states? we have yet to see a situation in which this has happened and in fact we seen in most cases the return to capitalism.
what is the non-idealist anarchist theory for how to get rid of the state and keep it gone?
>>2493215It's kind of a given that implementing anarchism means doing away with large industrial nation states and returning to small decentralized tribal societies, thus there wouldn't be any need for something so huge and complex as a nuclear power plant. But that doesn't mean we would have to go all the way back to the stone age; we would still have access to our accumulated knowledge. Maybe a small tribe of people couldn't run a nuclear power plant but they could understand the basics of how electricity works and figure out how to make batteries and generators and light bulbs and radios and telephones and all kinds of other electrical devices.
I'm admittedly not the most astute reader of Marx but from what little I have gleaned of his work, he wasn't saying "this is my model for how to build our future industrial society and we must now go restructure our society to fit this model", but rather, "this is how I think societies will naturally progress in the future in response to the technological developments of the Industrial Revolution." It was meant to be a theory, not a blueprint.
Not necessarily an answer to OP, but having been on the far-left for my entire adult life, and having run in anarchist, ML, and Trotskyist circles, I can confirm that the reasons for why people become anarchists is like night and day when compared to the reasons people become Marxists.
A lot of anarchists tend to become anarchists out of their own personal trauma. I’m serious. In every anarchist circle I’ve been in it always seems like about 80% of AFAB anarchists are CSA survivors (or they were SA’d by an ex-boyfriend when in college or something). So many anarchist comrades of any gender have CPTSD or other neurodivergent or mental health issues. Lots of former addicts too. They literally believe the entire world is their enemy because others have screwed them over so badly. Surprisingly though, the vast majority of anarchists happen to be white or white-passing/functioning. In American anarchist circles you’ll usually have the one or two token Hispanic comrades and in Canadian anarchist circles you’ll have the one or two token indigenous comrades. But overall, anarchist spaces are full of young white people who have very severe issues with trauma and who become anarchists mostly due to said unresolved trauma.
On the other hand, most of the Marxists I know (mostly MLs and Trots) became Marxists out of their desire to understand how capitalist society works. They usually start out as intellectually inquisitive and go from there. It’s not so much a personal thing but rather a desire to collectively work together for tangible solutions. Marxist circles tend to attract more people of colour, immigrants, and genuine working-class people because it presents them with a logical and intellectual explanation for why things are as fucked up as they are, and a scientific way for dealing with said fuckery. Plus, Marxist revolutions have a decent history of success whereas every anarchist revolution inevitably falls apart after a few years. That provides real inspiration to the oppressed rather than sheer fantasy.
Plus, if you ask a Marxist how they envision the future, they will usually cite real-world examples. Ask an anarchist the same thing and they will give you a very vague response and denounce you as an oppressor if you ask for them to elaborate. Anarchism is always argued with emotion, it seems.
>>2507836
My point is that anarchist circles are basically exclusive clubs of social misfits who base their politics on their trauma whereas Marxist circles are usually full of people who are actually marginalized who are looking for an intellectual explanation for why they’re so exploited.
>>2507857
Contemporary "anarchists" have done more damage to the movement and history of anarchism than any stalinist repression has before. Contemporary "anarchism" is liberalism and socialdemocracy's attempt at usurping anarchism to turn it away from class struggle, material analysis and immanent critique towards bourgeoisie wars, intersectionality and cultural analysis among other horrid garbage. T
>A lot of anarchists tend to become anarchists out of their own personal trauma. I’m serious. In every anarchist circle I’ve been in it always seems like about 80% of AFAB anarchists are CSA survivors (or they were SA’d by an ex-boyfriend when in college or something). So many anarchist comrades of any gender have CPTSD or other neurodivergent or mental health issues. Lots of former addicts too. They literally believe the entire world is their enemy because others have screwed them over so badly.
I can't speak for other people, but anarchy was something that already made sense to me from the beginning when I was a young child - the idea that people can make decisions as a group without some leader or higher authority figure. Authority figures don't make sense to me and never did.
To envision an anarchist world all you have to do is envision what the world was like before the Neolithic Revolution, how humans lived for hundreds of thousands of years before they figured out how to grow crops and domesticate animals and build permanent agricultural settlements. Small tribes where everyone knows everyone and can govern themselves through direct arbitration and no central governing body. Obviously such a thing is not very feasible for a modern nation state with a population of hundreds of millions, or even a city with a population of a few thousand. Permanent human settlements eventually grow too large and complex to manage their affairs without some kind of hierarchy beginning to form out of necessity. Anarchy isn't a means, it is an end - anarchy was the original form of human governance that existed in a time when our species was so primitive that all humans across the Earth were more or less on equal footing. Technology fucked all that up because technology doesn't develop uniformly, it develops sporadically and randomly all over the world and it disrupts power dynamics and gives people advantages that they didn't have before and our technological progress has always vastly outpaced our social progress.
But eventually civilization could reach the point where maybe our social progress can finally catch up, or maybe some combination of technological and social progress could once again make it no longer necessary for humans to live in giant cities or have nations or borders or to treat land as property, humans would return to their rightful place as children of the earth rather than suzerains of it, just go find a spot somewhere and throw your Dragon Ball Z capsule house on the ground and you're all set. And when huge complex cities of millions of people are no longer necessary for humans to live and meet their needs, government will also cease to be necessary and tribal living and anarchy will return. And we'll be a lot happier because that's what our brains evolved for, humans were not meant to live like ants in an ant colony, we're a tribal species and we always have been.
>>2507891
>>2507899
I'm not gonna read all this dribble drabble but I'll just say that I'm not a Luddite and I don't think there is anything good or bad about technology, I think technology is what it is and it doesn't take sides. Humans can use technology to create a more egalitarian and dignified world for everyone, or they can use technology to create the most repressive authoritarian nightmare you could ever imagine, it's entirely up to how we choose to use it.
>>2493213anarchist organizations always have power dynamics and hierarchies all they do is act like they don't exist thus often causing even worse abuses
>>2493213The simplest accurate argument against anarchism is just that an anarchist society will be easily conquered by a non-anarchist society, so it doesn't matter how good anarchism is in theory. There's a reason why the majority of history's dominant institutions - militaries, governments, churches, corporations - are based on hierarchy. It's because hierarchy works to make an organization powerful. Not too much hierarchy, of course - you want ideas to be able to flow from the bottom to the top so that the organization does not start to stagnate and behave stupidly - but still a large amount of hierarchy compared to anarchy.
A theoretical society that cannot actually be implemented without being conquered within weeks or months unless it hides in deep mountains or jungles like a prey animal evading predators is pretty much useless except as a thought experiment.
>Marxism, OTOH, is scientificMaybe Marx was, I don't know, haven't read him. Marxism as a movement is not particularly scientific. Marxists tend to have a remarkable talent at not learning from empirical observation. So do people who have all sorts of other ideologies, of course, but in any case it's clear to me that Marxism is not distinguished as a movement by any unusual degree of being scientific.
>>2507908
I can understand the nuclear weapons thing, but mass surveillance and data mining are not really technological problems, they're social problems. How do you bring about the "destruction" of mass surveillance techology? Uninvent video cameras? The technology is here to stay, there's nothing you can do about that. All you can do is come up with social solutions, public policy decisions to regulate how these technologies can and can't be used.
>>2497925But the small tribal society would be soon conquered by big hierarchical societies, since the latter would be much more powerful. The small tribal society can exist in theory, but in practice it cannot exist for any long period of time. The only exceptions are if it becomes a vassal of some strong society, in which case it stops being actually anarchist, or if it ekes out an existence somewhere on the periphery where it is not worth conquering.
>>2507891
>towards space exploration, immortality and greater aspirations
>Tribal aspirations remain individualist deviations
Which of these sounds like a more individualist and petty dream to you?
To create a world where everyone has their basic needs met and be free to fulfill their humble human creative desires?
Or to create a world where quadillionaire tech titans can become immortal demigods and blast off into outer space to colonize the galaxy?
most of the people in this thread don't understand what anarchism actually is, and most people refuse to understand it, it is genuinely infuriating to read this
You don't. The anarchist's position is not a rational one, but an emotional one borne out of cowardice and the most willful and strident ignorance. Anarchists aren't worth convincing.
The thing you should think about is why you want power or why you are imposing authority to rule others. I know your argument because it's a child's belief; that authority is "just-so" and can be dictated without purpose or any actual wellspring of authority beyond the display of violence. Power is only useful if there is a moral argument for it. If the goal is to rule because you insist on it, no one has any reason to ever regard that. It does not require a great intellect to see how pointless such a world is.
If we weren't stupid, the political question would have a limited purview, and private life would not be state business. This doesn't prevent the government from establishing or facilitating sharing of the wealth, for the best interests of those involved and so we're not stuck in an interminable cycle of struggles and opportunism. We all know people like you do not want that; that for you this is about some impetuous and idiotic barking. All you do is managerialism. I really wish stupid people like you weren't allowed to lead. You're the inheritors of the cowardliness of the anarchists.
Is it too much for you to offer a single good reason why anyone should follow you? Are their personal interests in security and having food to eat met? That is the most basic condition of any socialist society. You can't have anything if people are starving or live with a knife at their throat. Managerialism insists on the knife at the throat, and only feeds the people the barest minimum while depleting anything else they would have to live for. Once sufficiently emaciated, managerialism kills off the surplus population without fail. It can't not do this. It doesn't matter if the managerialism is the eugenic creed or some other, equally ill-considered form of managerialism.
What you think of as "politics" is just a managerialist credo to justify some shitty power grab. You aren't ruling men. You're barking conceits at people and insisting anyone else should respect it. Until you can speak again of sharing the damned wealth, you don't stand for anything. The positions of communism in any form anyone should want are lost.
I've seen so much sniveling from internet Marxists about basic shit that is first year political knowledge or even something you would have learned in high school, if not for this complete garbage-tier education that insisted on turning the world into the shitshow we see today.
>>2507948Its pointless running a discussion on this site, there is no metric to preventing retardation.
>>2507950the retardation of many on this website causes many reasonable positions to get reduced to super-strawmen, and then arguing based on that premise rather than actually learning about what the fuck they're arguing to form a real argument against it, if i want to argue against MLism, i can do so by reading what they believed, how it worked in practice, and its problems, but i might as well not, since there's no reason to when anyone will just pull out every singular imaginable insult, due to their minds being rotted
>>2507933>But the small tribal society would be soon conquered by big hierarchical societies, since the latter would be much more powerful. The small tribal society can exist in theory, but in practice it cannot exist for any long period of time. The only exceptions are if it becomes a vassal of some strong society, in which case it stops being actually anarchist, or if it ekes out an existence somewhere on the periphery where it is not worth conquering.This is why I don't think anarchy can happen on a widespread scale until some major technological development causes a major paradigm shift in the way humans live. For instance, imagine we develop pre-fabricated self-sufficient "smarthouses", you just unbox it somewhere with access to sunlight and water and watch it self-assemble and you've got a multi-bedroom house with electricity, plumbing, etc. When you're done with it, you just pack up your belongings and push the button and it disassembles itself and goes back in the box. The whole off-the-grid weirdo Slab City-type subculture I think would go nuts with something like that, there'd probably be like a whole mass exodus of people fed up with city life moving out into anarchist enclaves and communes in the middle of nowhere in their self-sufficient mobile homes, having drones deliver whatever random shit they might need to their doorstep.
>>2507823>In every anarchist circle I’ve been in it always seems like about 80% of AFAB anarchists are CSA survivors (or they were SA’d by an ex-boyfriend when in college or something). So many anarchist comrades of any gender have CPTSD or other neurodivergent or mental health issues. Lots of former addicts too. I mean…. yes? It's almost like anarchism appeals to the most hated and despised in society who have zero lifelines. Do you know how trauma makes it impossible for you to function according to capitalist norms? Or how having trauma alienates you from others? Have you ever spoken to a CSA survivor yourself?
You should try and re-enact a factory atmosphere, complete with the machinic onomathopeia while narrating the possibilities of progress. You're simultaneously doing political work and debunking the anarchist myth that Marxist-Leninist art is conservative. I'm serious.
>>2507955Hierarchy in society exists for purposes. It is not arbitrarily defined nor can it be if it is to be functional. The arrangement of political offices of increasing rank can only persist if it is functional, and all of these offices incur an inherent cost. The primitive society couldn't arbitrarily start barking orders and declare that they have consuls and the whole apparatus that Rome built. Also, freedom from that Roman system was usually the reason why tribal societies fought against the Romans bitterly, while the people of the East usually didn't fight for long and fared little better than the primitive Gauls or Germans. Considering the Germans survived and eventually broke the Empire, despite their society being predominantly tribal and lacking any of the sophisticated hierarchy the Romans have, you probably should reconsider the shit coming out of your mouth.
Today, hierarchy is diffused on purpose, because doing this obscures any center of power that a resistant population would attack to free themselves. If you could assassinate POTUS and the justices on SCOTUS to change the world, everyone and their mother would want a shot at President Retard. If you're up against a faceless and cruel machine whose informants are crawling everywhere, with an unnerving ability to foment discord and turn people against each other, it is much more daunting. All of the ways this can be done were known to the Romans, and the smart Emperors were able to win power because they commanded the Roman mob and knew how to keep the Legions loyal. Every government, no matter how despotic, rules by making sure the subordinates are placated and set against each other, and by systematically shutting out those who are not in the political class.
When you look at the American apparatus today, it is ruled largely by fear and instigation rather than its very large and inefficient command structure. Remarkably few ghoulish people are able to instigate Americans so easily and clamp down on anyone who gets any idea that this country could be different. It is a far more effective despotism than anything European monarchical fags could make.
I don't know any serious anarchists who talk about imposing anarchy as a political system at the national level; it's kind of a given that if you want a return to anarchy, you have to eliminate the inequalities that give rise to the hierarchy to begin with, which is why I say that anarchy is an end and not a means. The state is like training wheels on a bicycle and eventually human progress may reach the point where we don't need the training wheels anymore. That's all.
It's communists who seem to be obsessed with shoving their ideology down everyone's throat as the universal solution to all problems, that all societies must convert to communism and the entire world must be communist, that communism is the future, etc. One of things that always drew me to the idea of anarchy is that it isn't really an ideology, because I hate ideology.
>>2493213>They talk a good deal about intersectionality and anti-oppression, but when pressed on how to abolish those oppressive structures in society they have no clue.Because they literally don't. Anarchists love fantasy because they have very little to nothing they can point to when it comes to proving that their ideas work in practice.
>>2507823Most anarchists are neurodivergent because they don't fit in and see through the propaganda of capitalism and the state.
>>2507963Gaul wasn't really a tribal society, they were a bunch of clans and villages with chieftains and elected councils, sort of like Norse society. They had horses, they had iron weapons, they had ships, they raided and pillaged, etc. Small nomadic tribal societies were long gone in Western Europe by the time of the Iron Age.
>>2507823>>2507840Most American "anarchists" are only interested in running soup kitchens. There's a reason they prioritize what's essentially just charity work over actual organizing.
>>2493213That decentralization leads to mob based violence and dismissal/cancel culture. That dencentralised systems typically end up far more authoritarian and arbitrary in dishing out said authoritarian violence, than central managed control systems.
Look at how CHAZ descended into vigilante and decentralised authoritarianism and then murder almost immediately. Look at the Cultural Revolution, people were given largely complete grassroots democratic freedoms and instantly used them to carry out petty grudges, vendettas, and petty hooliganism.
https://thepointmag.com/politics/dismissal/There is a 99% chance that any form of "anarchism" will turn out to be mob violence directed by the hands of charismatic narcissists and sociopaths. Look at the result of pretty the vast majority of Anarkiddie communes from the 60s-90s, they pretty much all became sex abuse farms controlled by a charismatic/strong willed cluster B who used their charisma and aura to gain yesmen to bully everyone else.
>>2507823>A lot of anarchists tend to become anarchists out of their own personal trauma. I’m serious. In every anarchist circle I’ve been in it always seems like about 80% of AFAB anarchists are CSA survivors (or they were SA’d by an ex-boyfriend when in college or something).I mean, no shock here, Punk and Anarchism has always been the culture and ideology of Borderline Personality Disorder.
Every time I get dragged to a punk gig or squat by BPDs I know, my eyes can't help but roll out of my fucking head by how 99% of people there check off every BPD diagnostic criteria in the most stereotypical way imaginable.
>>2508033"BPD" is just autism + narcissism + trauma
>>2507979Is it really that? Or is it because they're all closeted authoritarians in their own right and flock to "anti-authoritarian" spaces because it enables them to be authoritarian towards others?
>>2507948How about you explain it to us then? Oh enlightened one. From my experience anarchism is just white people called sock or spoon or whatever squating in abandoned buildings and wokescolding you for not considering that to be revolutionary praxis
>>2508043You're conflating Bushwick trust fund kids with legitimate anarchists.
>>2508042Not ChinAnon (>>2508033), but you're literally describing BPD. People with BPD are full blown control freaks.
>>2507840Reminds me of what we were saying in the Catholicism thread: people convert to Catholicism out of intellectual curiosity whereas people become born-again Evangelicals simply out of MUH FEELS.
>>2508046That might be, but it's not like the more serious less trustfundy anarchists I know are that different really. Where are these "real" anarchists and how are they different from Sock and Spoon?
>>2508033Aren't people with BPD typically people pleasers with abandonment issues who never want to say no to anyone? That sounds like the opposite of anarchy/punk to me.
>>2508058Sometimes but most of the time they're control freaks. Like they're so afraid of losing the person they have that they go overboard to keep that person with them.
>>2508059I feel like if you were going to pathologize the spirit of punk rock into a psychiatric illness, a better fit would probably be something like oppositional defiance disorder.
>>2508060I'm not ChinAnon so you'll have to ask them.
>>2508033>That decentralization leads to mob based violence and dismissal/cancel culture. That dencentralised systems typically end up far more authoritarian and arbitrary in dishing out said authoritarian violence, than central managed control systems.Proof?
>What's the best way to convince anarchists that power and hierarchy aren't inherently bad?Find "power and hierarchy" that hasn't slaughtered people and destroyed the landbase and wasn't an excuse for old men to get their rocks off, also true in tribal societies that are just a smaller version of ours.
https://traditionsofconflict.com/blog/2018/1/31/on-secret-cults-and-male-dominance Anarkids run Tumblr accounts.
Marxist-Leninists build hospitals.
Enough said!
>>2508718>Marxist-Leninists build hospitals.Dengists*
And logically liberals built the world's infrastructure.
This board is so bad it made me in a diehard anarchist,
most of you would die in complete isolation after any kind of social revolution
>>2508782welcome to the fold brother
Authority and hierarchy are often misunderstood even by anarchists. Authority must always justify itself. If it can't, it must be dismantled. Thus means of production should be controlled by workers themselves, not an owner. Nor should a bigger authority such as the State interfere. This does not mean complex organization is impossible. We already do it under capitalism, we can do it freely. Not top down, but bottom up through federations. Anarchists do not see a reason for a centralized power to accomplish this.
Regarding hierarchy, it depends what you refer to. Hierarchies in industrial procedures will always exist, as they are just steps. Workers still associate freely and democratically. No contradiction here. As for human hierarchies intrinsic in our nature such as talent, beauty, or strenght, we can only deal with them as much as possible. The kind of hierarchies anarchists reject is the man over man hierachy. In practical terms this refers to no boss forcing you to work 8 hours a day.
The main point anarchists try to convey is that no central authority is necessary for production and social interactions.
Finally I want to add that the reason these concepts have become confusing among anarchists, especially recently, is due to some contemporaneous anarchists adopting a purist attitude. Either all or nothing. This leads to dogmatism and inflexibility.
Anarchy is the end of ideology, when you realize that there can be no universal model that can account for human civilization in all of its infinite permutations and complexities.
Communists believe that if they take control of the state and use the state to remove all inequality in society, the state will then cease to be necessary and will naturally wither away. The anarchist understands that one does not "take control" of the state, that the state is bigger than all of us and it is a living thing and, like any other living thing, it has no interest in destroying itself.
The internet is a good simulation of human power dynamics and you can see the process of anarchy giving rise to hierarchical structures in online communities. We're all familiar with small online communities, like for example a Discord server with a few dozen users who all know each other quite well. Typically in communities that small you don't have moderators or rules because they are not needed, everyone shares full admin privileges because there is mutual trust and no need for any power structure. Then you have bigger communities like forums or subreddits or imageboards with hundreds or thousands of users who don't know each other or are completely anonymous and unless you want the community to devolve into a flood of spam and child pornography and chaos you must have moderators and hierarchy. Then you have huge social media empires like Twitter with millions of users, so many people that no amount of case-by-case individual human moderation could possibly govern such a large group of people, now you have to resort to employing algorithms to try to minimize things like child pornography and doxxing and harassment and hate speech; but who writes the algorithms? And what if that person or group of persons who writes and tweaks the algorithms end up being immoral corrupt psychopaths themselves?
>>2509952> Decriminalize drugs.Where has this failed miserably? Once, let alone every time.
>>2509952Where have these policies been implemented?
That aside, there's no point implementing those policies if the root cause is not attacked.
>>2509982NTA, but the problem is the laissez-faire attitude towards it all. Places like California, Oregon, and certain provinces in Canada like British Columbia have experimented with decriminalizing drugs. The problem is, they don't REGULATE the drugs or do anything to help the addicts the way Portugal does, so the end result is addicts shooting up in public places and causing all sorts of disarray. Same thing with homelessness: sure, the government has an obligation to house the homeless, but toleration of encampments means public parks are now dominated by homeless tents and are no longer able to be enjoyed by the community.
I'd even say that sex work is also a problem in this vain. California has decriminalized sex work, yet does nothing to regulate it, so you're now seeing street walkers everywhere and brothels being set up across the street from schools.
>>2509970 (me)
nothing then? such faggots on this site. consistently just saying things in no way they can back up.
>>2509952>Defund the police. Decriminalize drugs. Stop prosecuting shoplifting and fare evasions. Allow homeless encampments in city parks. Stop prosecuting graffiti. All these policies were massive failures and only lead to public life for the masses going downhill.I mean, look at San Francisco, specifically the Tenderloin District.
>>2510092>I'm as "authoritarian" as one can be as a MarxistWhich is pretty darn authoritarian all things considered wouldn't you say?
You self-identify as a Marxist, that is fine, whatever. But from my standpoint you are just an ideologue. Marxist, neoliberal, fascist, anarcho-capitalist, it's all the same to me. Ideologues.
>>2510203nta, but how are you not an ideologue as well?
Start by not bringing up Stalin a positive example of power and hierarchy.
>>2510198All the arguments against these social reforms and safety nets that people can ever muster are anecdotal stories about how leftist leniency went horribly wrong, a homeless crackhead poured a bucket of diarrhea on a soccer mom's head and therefore California must be a post-apocalyptic warzone hellhole thanks liberals.
>>2510235
lol
>>2510266your meme is barely readable, sir
>>2510271just squint uygha
Rules, hierarchy and laws aren't in themselves "oppression", they're just social technologies for large scale organization.
It's true that technology can be wielded by a class to dominate another class, which has been the case for most of human history.
But technology in itself need not be oppressive, if seized by the proletariat.
Anarchists maintain that all hierarchy is oppression, regardless of what kind of society it is employed under: feudal, capitalist, socialist, classless, doesn't matter.
Now, we must identify what kind of person one has to be in order to view ALL hierarchy as oppression regardless of any other factor? The answer is: the petite bourgeoisie. Big capital is highly organized. So is the working class. It is only the petite bourgeoisie who experience themselves as "pure independent individuals", alienated from ALL social relations. Thus they see all social organization as fetters on their "individual freedoms".
It is not that anarchists identify oppression in hierarchy, it's that they experience hierarchy as oppression as such. This is because of their class position.
>Each individual peasant family is almost self-sufficient, directly produces most of its consumer needs, and thus acquires its means of life more through an exchange with nature than in intercourse with society. A small holding, the peasant and his family; beside it another small holding, another peasant and another family. A few score of these constitute a village, and a few score villages constitute a department. Thus the great mass of the French nation is formed by the simple addition of homologous magnitudes, much as potatoes in a sack form a sack of potatoes.
In the "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte", Karl Marx wrote this about the small peasant's tendency for authoritarianism. But an opposite though equal tendency exists for peasants to adhere to total anarchy: "in my plot of land (read: commune), no masters above me". The anarchist himself is the final authority. Paradoxically, anarchism is deeply aristocratic.
Thus we can conclude that anarchism is a petty bourgeois, reactionary ideology.
>>2510393
12 belgian boys…
>>2510404
why do you keep calling bordigism ‘italian left’ when the only bordigists in the world are 12 belgian boys in the Handt’voordt harbour?
>>2510402
quite rich of the anarchist to call others ‘terrorists’
>>2510410
Marcel Vervloesen, Kevin de Beejk, Charles Mertens etc
You don’t know them? You are just a LARPer.
>>2510408
>as an anarchist I denounce revolution
we know
>>2510416Jungle boys chimping out with Mao’s donated AKs from the 60s and terrorising poor villages will never be revolutionary
You aren't a true ML if you can't name everyone in this pic.
>>2510444
And how do anarchists coordinate their actions internationally?
>>2510458
>IAF
Anarchism is centralised then?
>>2510470
What is the course of action emanating from these principles of the IAF? What is its strategy?
>>2510467
If Stalinists are really all the wrongings of Anarchist projects, then anarchism has nobody else at fault for inability to defend itself against stalinist states, silly anarchistic ideology for critters that can't take on the NKVD or bring about an anarchist revolution, stuck up in their own isolationist drug dens to cry over lack of gibs that is inability to appropriate labour of third world states. Modern anarchists really are the children of the black hundreds, still at disbelief.
>>2510482
>no principles laid out yet
Lmao stop trolling
Muh stalinism this muh authoritarianism that, and you havent even laid out your principles yet? Hahahaha go smoke weed with Kenzie under the bridge and leave the big political talk to adults
>>2510484
Anarcho-trotskyism. Interesting. I give you 7 years max, you will be a neocon.
>>2510488>trotskyism is when you recognize the fact that the revolution must be internationalthe degradation of the mind on this board is severe
>>2510489
What were the grievances of the Kronstadtists? What kind of society did they advocate for?
>>2510495
I am eager to see the Michigan anarchists coordinating a world revolution with the Bangladeshis and the Zambians.
>>2510506
What if they’re not in IAF? What is your plan? Wait?
>>2510512
ok you're just a troll
>>2510379
>Conflating anarchism as being against rules on purpose from the get go
Well I didn't. You should get some reading comprehension, anarchism is only ever mentioned next to "hierarchy".
Also read poverty of philosophy and critique of gotha programme.
Some people will be "more powerful" simply by accident or skill or diligence under classless society, communism is not about equality, it's about humanity rationally allocating its own resources and rationally directing its own development.
In this arrangement it might be perfectly rational to put one individual in a position of authority over another due to demonstrable benefit to society as a whole (from expertise, skill, talent, etc.)
Maybe there's a confusion over what "hierarchy" means. Maybe yo you "hierarchy" means that one is "above another" by simple rank, as an individual. But a rational hierarchy would put a master welder above a novice welder in hierarchy IN RESPECT TO WELDING, while not putting the former over the latter in any other domain. So if you think that hierarchy simply means the reigning of an individual of some rank over all individuals of a lower rank, you're wrong. If you think that a hierarchy of welders arranged by welding skill and nothing more is itself oppressive, well you're also wrong.
>>2510504
it's not and you're just really angry at the concept of international revolution
>>2510607
There will have to be enforcement of competence.
You can't let a freshman run a science lab, someone will have to step in if they try.
>>2510610
That's all communism ever meant.
Sorry that your utopian quasi-christian "heaven on earth" delusions are incompatible with reality.
>>2510594Bruh not even Bakunin or Kropotkin disagreed with the idea that experts at their trade or profession would have seniority over those that aren't, this idea that anarchism means that everyone is forcibly equalized is just repurposed anti-communist propaganda but given a thin Marxist venier
>>2511140Huh, no way a regular lib would have known about this old bullshit.
Must be glowies going through the archives again.
>>2508834This is the only answer that matters
>>2510212It proves that decriminalizing drugs and homeless encampments without taking the necessary steps to regulate them didn’t work out too well. No one is saying Oregon is worse than Louisiana.
neither anarchists or communists can prove the necessity or non-necessity of a state for a successful revolution. there is no way to scientifically demonstrate it in the sense of falsificationist "proof" because any revolution always includes endless unique variables that cant be fully accounted for let alone eliminated in analysis.
thats the reality either way. we only have case studies. its pointless to try and prove a negative and yes its goofy when communists that advocate the necessity of a state try to use historical examples as a definitive proof of failure of anarchist revolution as a fundamentally unworkable premise.
but even the physical "hard" sciences dont constrain themselves to strict falsifiability, whatever the popperians say otherwise, its impossible to analyze and interpret a phenomena if you cant accept any premises or make any predictions outside of experimental falsifiability. you can chafe at talk about the "science" of marxism, i do too because mostly its used as a hollow appeal to authority, vulgar empiricism recycled and repurposed. but either way were talking about analysis and hypothesis that informs strategy, in circumstances that dont allow for experimental falsification. so we need to make judgements about what makes the most sense without definitive proof, about what is more likely and less likely. i think it is much less likely for a revolution to succeed, and a revolutionary society to function, if it refuses to use the majority of the tools and systems that currently exist as the means of managing production and social life. that is my informed bet based on the case studies available to us, knowing that the stakes of failure are enormous in terms of immediate loss of life and suffering as well as the rare opportunity to actually build a better world. and its my challenge to anarchists to respond to it on these terms. i dont think youre bandits and i have worked with anarchists productively and happily before and will do so again, some of the most admirable and devoted organizers ive known have been anarchists and they had more self-discipline and commitment than many of the marxists ive known who make virtue out of necessity and fetishize centralism and authority in the abstract without taking any responsibility. im not making a character attack or a prejudiced accusation, i am criticizing anarchism on the grounds that i think it is far less viable as an actionable framework for successful revolution.
>>2511719posted as a follow up to:
>why cant the group who need bananas just directly contact the group who make themwhats the backlog like in the call center/server room for the local horizontalist banana production? where does the power come from for that? who keeps track of how much power is needed to process communication and who keeps track of banana supply? how is the shipping organized and how to you ensure it gets there?
do you not see that this is a dream of an insanely byzantine barter system? i am not against anarchists on principle but it genuinely seems like im missing something as far as how anarchists think production and distribution are organized. the amount of bureaucracy necessary to accomplish any part of this process of shipping bananas in an exchange on a strictly horizontalist or representative basis, and thats minimal insufficient questions about one tiny and less relevant slice of this hypothetical economy.
>>2511721>>2511719btw im not the other hammer and sickle anon in this thread ill change flag in followup post to plain red to not be confusing
>>2510606God, people who can only think in memes like this are so fucking annoying bro. Nobody is against international revolution dipshit, the concept doesn't make anyone angry. Your retardation does that
>>2510627a lot of (modern internet) anarchists actually are like that. last time i posted about justified hierarchies they called chomsky a tankie
>>2493213>What's the best way to convince anarchists that power and hierarchy aren't inherently bad?lick their assholes
>>2512829Internet ideology shoppers will always be far removed from the actual movements they buy the flags of on amazon. When the first international was still a thing the anarchists participated in the Paris commune, an experience obviously full of hierarchies while having themselves administrative positions, and Marx called that a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Just show them that hierarchies of intellect are inevitable and the smart will always dominate the retarded in some way.
Why is a state not a justified hierarchy
Lenin wanted a burgeoise Revolution in Russia that ejected them from WWI to spark a communist revolution in Germany. The plan failed and we got a century of socdems turning rural farmers into city workers. And the zombie communists now take Lenin's very specific plan as gospel, and the nationalism of the Georgian retard as a useful guide.
>>2512916>And the zombie communists now take Lenin's very specific plan as gospelif only you knew how bad the bolshevik larper situation in modern russian socialism is, including kprf which is entirely irrelevant because they're (majorly) larpers but not bolshevik larpers
>>2493215Without industrial revolution, there are no nuclear power plants.
>>2493259>>2493265As your totalitarian, mass murdering, eamobulgaric judeobolshevik enemy, its the first time in a long time I read something by an self identified anarchist that deeply appeals to me.
If your anarchist bands of rovering terror squads also can plan every aspect of society, controlling it totally, count me in!
>>2493937My ideology would work in my parallel universe, yours wouldn't. Checkmate
>>2515730China only gives a shit about trade and will bring back Adolf Hitler if it meant that it was good for the Chinese market, the only possible way China will be truly communist is when all the people in those gigantic factories take over production and shoot every politician and manager.
>>2497888sorry for the late reply I broke my wrist and can only now just type.
>arent you the one who called marxists idealist? you just gave an economic explanation. yes I did
>so how does anarchist state abolition differ from this? where are the anarchist not-states? we have yet to see a situation in which this has happened and in fact we seen in most cases the return to capitalism.Simply put there is no transitional period or the return to a state.
>what is the non-idealist anarchist theory for how to get rid of the state and keep it gone?Platformism as way to organize the revolutionary workers, revolutionary syndicalism. An military with elective commanders to help defend the revolution. Keeping it gone is simply achieving the final stage of communism where work is not done for exchange value but rather for use value. The Russian Revolution and the first soviets could have gone down this route if they guided by anarchists instead of co-opted and taken over by the Bolsheviks.
>>2493219>>2495035>>2507927>>2509952>>2510198>>2512901>anarchism can't work because muh human nature = >communism can't work because muh human natureWhy do so many ML's use boomer tier logic to argue against anarchism? Are they stupid?
>>2510044Yeah if you legalize these activities but ignore the social and economic conditions that people do these things it probably wont end well. This seems to be failure of liberal policy than that of "anarchism".
>>2515778How does materialism = muh human nature? Dogshit argument
>>2493213I guarantee that you, OP, cannot explain specifically why Marxism is more analytically scientific than Anarchism, and why the Marxian approach is the one which will bear the fruit of communism
I am almost certain the main flaw, of the anarchists, of which you see, is their goal towards communism immediately, when in fact, this is their greatest virtue, their actual flaw being an incomplete analysis of capitalism, a culturally oriented and thus idealist conception of history (more a modern anarchist thing), and a failure of revolutionary imagination when it comes to the scale of the task (but on this point MLs fail just as much, if not far more, catastrophically; with the added cost of weakening the line of Marxism and the sober consciousness of workers aligned with it)
>>2515778The true flaw of anarchism, above all else, is its orientation towards smallhold style production, its parochialism thus underestimating the scale of the task of the revolutionaries, their consistent attempts to create small scale “islands of freedom” amidst the imperialist world capitalist order thus invoking the same general flaw of the stalinists whereby they seek to “create socialism” without the world scale revolutionary upheaval necessary to actually sublate this form of society in favor of a liberated one, and a largely voluntarist understanding of historical change and world history
>>2512916This, the lot that lurk on leftypol are infinitely worse than the stalinists of the 20th Century in particular since their lack of any real state project or even organizational project in most countries leaves them as little more than deeply anti-intellectual, absurdist internet trolls and larpers not too distinguishable from the denizens of reddit and pol
>>2515839Perhaps, but then again I comment here maybe once a month or so
So idk if I’d consider myself a denizen here at this point
Site quality has just degraded too far, most people here are pretty proudly anti-intellectual and absurd orientalist nationalist weirdos, not much like 2019 at this point
>>2493213>marxism is scientifichow?
>>2515841>absurd orientalist nationalist weirdosNice try CIA. No, denying your retarded Uyghur Genocide narrative doesn't make someone an "orientalist nationalist weirdo". Fuck off back to Reddit.
>>2515845china and russia are capitalist
>>2512916So what's your alternative plan for social revolution? Since Lenin's plan was clearly so flawed in your eyes, you must have a pretty solid alternative huh?
I'm gonna go ahead and guess that whatever idiotic plan you won't produce will be nowhere near the applicability of Marxism Leninism, nor will it produce success of any kind other than maybe being some form of anti communism, thus being a very successful tool for the bourgeoisie to stave off social revolution. But not successful towards communism that's for sure
>>2515846China is not capitalist my friend
>Marxism, OTOH, is scientific. We understand that political power is necessary to reshape society.
That's not what Marx meant when he said that Marxism is "scientific", he was making a comparison to utopian socialism and other ideogies which he considered "unscientific" because they focused on the morality capitalism rather than the logistics of it, i.e. other theories were saying "capitalism must end because it is evil" whilst Marxism said "capitalism *will* end because it is unsustainable."
1. 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.[1]
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.
>>2516671Marx meant scientific in the same sense of physics and chemistry. This is a direct consequence of dialectical materialism.
>>2516676In the 1800s, the word "science" did not have the same meaning as it does today. Before the 20th century, "science" had a broader meaning and was essentially a synonym for "knowledge" or "study", people would say things like "the science of grammar" or "the science of human misconduct." The scientific method had not yet been formalized or entered popular usage. The word "scientist" had only recently been coined in the 1830s and was sort of trendy new fad at the time; before that scientists referred to themselves as "natural philosophers".
The German word Wissenschaft, as used by Marx, is the equivalent of the English word "science" as it was used pre-20th century, i.e. a synonym for "knowledge" or "study" or "philosophy". It doesn't translate to "science" in the way that we use the word today.
>>2516761That's a very idealised view of the practice of science
>>2516844Well, the point is, when Marx was talking about "wissenschaft" he wasn't talking about our modern definition of "science", i.e. the rigorous formalized system of observation/testing/theory. Furthermore, Marxism cannot be a science by the modern definition of the word because it does not make falsifiable predictions. You can't empirically prove that Marxism is correct or incorrect, so it's not science. It's ideology at best, pseudoscience at worst.
>>2516876The rate of profit keeps falling for some reason, that's a century lon confirmation
>>2516884When it comes to human affairs there’s no way to accurately predict almost anything. It’s based mainly on reasonable observations, history, anthropology, etc.
>>2516896Yeah that's the point, compared to most social science Marxism is extremely rigorous
>>2516896>When it comes to human affairs there’s no way to accurately predict almost anythingThings like attractiveness and Intelligence Quotient are very testable and you can make solid predictions with the
>>2516674what retard wrote this?
>>2493213Anarchists aren’t against hierarchies of competence you dork, this is just semantics
/thread
>>2515845Nice of you to prove his point
>>2517080Nobody cares about your made up nonsense bro
>>2516896You can make perfectly accurate predictions about chaotic emergent systems with fundamentally indeterminate properties, so long as you don't forget to treat them as emergent systems. For example, radioactive half-life - we can't predict when or even if an individual isotope will decay, but we can predict with perfect accuracy how long it takes for half of a macroscopic quantity of isotopes to decay. Marxism is a reductionist interpretation of emergent human behavior.
>>2517012it looks like a slopbot
I will say I don't think Marxism is completely wrong or ill-conceived, I think it is just an incomplete theory, Marx was a pioneer and his work was a very early and bold attempt at understanding complex emergent human systems through the lens of reductionist, deterministic pre-20th century science, the only tools that were available at the time. But it's been over a hundred years since Marx died and all kinds of major scientific discoveries have been made since the 19th century and it's important to keep that context in mind when reading and studying Marx.
>>2516676>Marx meant scientific in the same sense of physics and chemistry. This is definitely wrong. The most obvious comparison in the sense he used it would be the of the theory of evolution.
>>2516876>Furthermore, Marxism cannot be a science by the modern definition of the word because it does not make falsifiable predictions. falsification is not universally accepted and was in fact invented with motivated reasoning to exclude marxism
>You can't empirically prove that Marxism is correct or incorrect, so it's not science. It's ideology at best, pseudoscience at worst.Marxism includes a critique of empiricism, which is metaphysically idealist. Dialectical methods overcome the incompleteness inherent in empiricism alone. Its not that Wissenschaft is archaic and outdated compared to "modern" science its the other way around, modern science is incredibly ideological and blind to it in the same way status quo capitalist liberals pretend to be non-ideological.
Marxism openly situates its scientific study within a defined philosophy. It is a mistake to think that modern science has superseded philosophy when it is itself based in philosophy and has in fact only ignored it, remaining at the level of ahistorical appearance taking observation as given without accounting for why things appear they do, as mediated through social relations and human practice, putting up an illusion of neutrality and objectivity that it does not live up to.
This is not to say that Marxism is a replacement for science, but rather that you actually do need to ground your empirical study in a greater epistemic and ontological framework to be truly objective, and the vast majority of scientists aren't even capable of explaining their ideology because they dont even know they have one, or worse they hold multiple mutually exclusive ones at the same time. Most are completely unaware that they subscribe to some form of naive realism, either unjustified positivism or some kind of naturalism, and a lot of Marxists critique is aimed at this kind of reductive physicalism or vulgar materialism.
>>2516898>Yeah that's the point, compared to most social science Marxism is extremely rigorousyes
>>2517185>I think it is just an incomplete theorywhy
>it's been over a hundred years since Marx died and all kinds of major scientific discoveries have been made since the 19th century and it's important to keep that context in mind when reading and studying Marx.its not really relevant because dialectical materialism is more akin to the scientific method itself than it is a specific scientific theory. you aren't going to be able to "prove" an entire framework of knowledge generation to be wrong by discovering some particular fact.
>>2515778>yes I didso then we agree?
>Simply put there is no transitional period or the return to a state.right i just dont see how this is more justified than marxism instead of a preference, since BOTH revolutions have returned to capitalism in all the historic cases.
>Platformism as way to organize the revolutionary workers, revolutionary syndicalism. An military with elective commanders to help defend the revolution. Keeping it gone is simply achieving the final stage of communism where work is not done for exchange value but rather for use value.right but like, how? what is the material procedure for ensuring this happens. marx and especially lenin provide an explanation for how state directed economic planning under the dictatorship of the proletariat provides the material basis for actually achieving the final stage of communism where work is not done for exchange value but rather for use value by explaining the relation between population, use, need and productive capacity. does anarchism say we dont need productive capacity to meet needs, does it think we already have it? what about underdeveloped countries? is it supposed to be universal and cover the whole world? are people just supposed to have less and share because it would be nice?
im sympathetic to the idea i just dont understand the mechanism for how its actually achieved, like even if we have this worker cooperative syndicate dont they also have to increase productive forces to have the capacity to meet peoples needs? that sounds like a transition state to me
>>2518026>falsification is not universally accepted and was in fact invented with motivated reasoning to exclude marxism>modern science is incredibly ideological and blind to it in the same way status quo capitalist liberals pretend to be non-ideological.scientific method bad
>dialectical materialism is more akin to the scientific method itself than it is a specific scientific theorynow scientific method good
>>2518103>scientific method baddid i say that?
>>falsification is not universally accepted>>modern scienceis "modern science" the same as the scientific method to you?
popper was an anticommunist and his shortcomings are now widely accepted just like the logical positivists who preceded him. scientists generally come to a dialectical view eventually if they are honest, but they are very slow to and dont even recognize it when they do because of the exact reasons i described. engels wrote quite a bit about this
>>2518125I don't want to discuss theology anymore.
>>2493213You're extremely confused and I'm telling you this as an anti-anarchist person who is a MARXIST. Reductively naturalistic, immutable hierarchies are directly incompatible with the Hegelian framework Marx adopted and reformulated. The only essence of human nature Marx believed to be immutable was sociality, because social form overdetermined the other attributes you're referring to, rather than reifying them as fixed, hypostatic entities. This type of retardation you're espousing is only possible if your (mis)reading of Marx originated on account of you never having parsed Hegel. The type of Hierarchy advocated for in the context of the soviet union, for example, i.e. Lenin's criticism of equality, was meant in reference to emergent differences, and dynamic structural tensions (i.e. organizational hierarchies), not this eugenicist framework you have in mind.
>>2518103Yes, but unironically you fucking negroid retard. Why are you on even on this board if you believe in Popper's positivism? Scientism has no relationship to Marxism at all, you don't even understand the etymological history of the concept of science, let alone any of the philosophical baggage attached to the epistemological debates surrounding it. God, the midwit left is so philosophically clueless that on some tragically sadistic level I almost can't help but delight in their impotent downfall; you fuckwits dug your own graves.
It's not theology you fucking hollow skulled retard.
Hang yourself and embrace oblivion.
>>2518348Its worth asking anyone studying Marx to understand the word science. Hegel after all described his entire philosophy as an attempt to attain science, and called it his system of science. Marx was reading that stuff, not biology papers from Harvard.
>>2518345Nothing OP said was eugenicist. They were simply saying hierarchies of intellect and such will exist in any society.
>>2518352Sure but he also did studied Darwin, Boole and the other scientific greats of his era
His work is far more along those lines than those of Hegel
>>2517014You replied to Posadanon who had said:
>The argument really does hinge on idealism vs materialism. Convince them of this and their ideology falls apart, but that may take some effortWith the quote implying he's saying
>anarchism can't work because muh human nature>= >communism can't work because muh human natureSo he's right that that is actually exactly what you said. Are you retarded?
>>2518365What’s wrong with him?
>>2518348You're just strawmanning and raging like an embarrassing giant baby now. I never even mentioned Popper or positivism. I just said Marxism doesn't make falsifiable claims and is therefore not science in the modern definition of the word, which is true. And what claims Marxism did make that were empirically falsifiable, e.g. "developed industrial societies will be the first to transition to socialism", have been empirically falsified by the historical record, so *fart noise*
>>2518848Oh boy just wait till you find out what's going on in Machine Learning and Physics right now
Actually don't; you'd probably have a stroke with that attitude
>>2518848> I never even mentioned Popper or positivism. I just said Marxism doesn't make falsifiable and who came up with falsifiability as a standard?
>is therefore not science in the modern definitionwrong
>>>2518348>you don't even understand the etymological history of the concept of science, let alone any of the philosophical baggage attached to the epistemological debates surrounding it>the midwit left is so philosophically clueless💯
the number of anarchists in the world numbers in the thousands. why the fuck do you caaaaaare? why waste time on this?????
a tendency for the value rate of profit to decline during long wave periods of expansion [a "novel fact" according to Lakatosian criteria in that the phenomenon was not explained by previous theories; also, this tendency is not predicted by neoclassical economics]
the relative immiseration of the proletariat, i.e., an increase in the rate of surplus-value, as a secular trend [not predicted by neoclassical theory]
an inherent tendency toward technological change, as a secular trend [a "novel fact" according to Lakatosian criteria in that the phenomenon was not explained by previous theories; also not predicted by neoclassical theory]
an increase in the physical ratio of machinery (and raw materials) to current labor, as a secular trend [not predicted by neoclassical theory – indeed, neoclassical theory cannot even provide an ex-post explanation of the causes of the observed increase in this ratio, because it cannot discriminate empirically between supply causes and demand causes]
a secular tendency for technological change to substitute machinery for labor even in capitalist economies which are "labor-abundant" or "capital scarce" [neoclassical theory, by contrast, seems to predict that labor abundant economies should be characterized by the widespread replacement of machinery with labor, both by "substitution" and perhaps by an induced "labor-saving" bias in technological change; however, the history of developing countries supports Marx's prediction and contradicts neoclassical theory]
an inherent conflict between workers and capitalists over the length of the working day [a "novel fact" according to Lakatosian criteria in that the phenomenon was not explained by previous theories; also not predicted by neoclassical theory – indeed, the empirical evidence also contradicts the neoclassical theory of labor supply, according to which the working day is determined by the preferences of workers, because competition among firms forces them to accommodate workers' preferences (according to this theory, there should be no conflict between firms and workers over the length of the working day, but competition has the opposite effect, forcing firms to resist attempts by workers to reduce the working day because such a reduction will reduce profit in the short run)]
class conflict over the pace and intensity of labor effort [a "novel fact" according to Lakatosian criteria in that the phenomenon was not explained by previous theories; also not predicted by neoclassical theory]
periodically recurrent recessions and unemployment [a novel fact]
a secular tendency for capital to concentrate [a novel fact not predicted by the neoclassical theory of the firm]
a secular tendency for capital to centralize
a secular decline in the percentage of self-employed producers and an increase in the percentage of the labor force who are employees [a prediction concerning the evolution of the class structure in capitalist societies is not derivable from any other economic theory]
>>2520845 (me)
>right but like, how?Through delegation and federation linked in the video above. And a military force like that of makhnovia and anarchist spain. In a way anarchism and marxism are very similar just that anarchist disregard party politics and use organizations outside of the party. How is this different then a party? Well unlike with parties these organizations are either small, hold very little actual power or temporary. There will local workplace, town and city organizations and moving up to larger ones that meet only on temporary with delegates who are rotated through and are entirely elected by the people. And these organizations can have larger ones moving from region to country to world wide.
The internet also provides a means to organize and automate the economy without the need of a central authority. The ordering and shipping of goods is already done through websites like ebay, amazon, mcmaster cart, ect.
For a revolution to be successful its needs to protect itself and spread and that depends on the strength of the revolutionaries but on its enemies. The Bolsheviks were able to do it because they seized key factories, railroad lines, telegraphs and electricity and were able to coerce tsarists officers to join them. And the rest of the world was fighting WW1 or just coming out of it exhausted. Even so they almost lost the war on multiple occasions. The CNT-FAI did the same thing during the Spanish revolution, but they failed to completely crush the republicans and prevent the establishment of their control. And there enemies were heavily supplied by the Germans, Italians and Soviets. So for any revolution to be successful a key element is luck.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/rudolf-rocker-anarchosyndicalism#toc5 >>2515760>unironically simping for le barracks communism larping maneither literally insane or glowie af
>>2520847>Through delegation and federationso delegation and federation bring about the material conditions and will create a structure that socially reproduces a society based on need? i hope you can see how this isn't really an answer to what i asked. its just a description of an ideal not a process for material change. or do you deny that the economic base determines the social superstructure? if so, then what determines what and how does delegation and federation change that? if the material base does determine the superstructure then merely abolishing the state without a foundation for post scarcity recreates the conditions the necessitate a state-like structure for the administration and distribution of finite resources. if you cant materially meet peoples needs then you dont have the preconditions for anarchism/communism, unless you think the its consciousness of humanity that determines their existence, and not their social existence that determines their consciousness.
>>2520877nechayev is cute
>>2515760>Lenin stated that Nechaev was a "Titan of the revolution" and that all of the communist revolutionaries must "read Nechayev".this is rather debatable, only mention of lenin saying something like this was second hand from vladimir bonch-bruyevich (lenin's personal secretary that published quite some memoirs of him)
some people (revisionists) believe the quote is entirely fake and modern russian reactionaries (lev gumilyov fans) believe nechayev is basically the entire foundation of lenin's worldview, as they despise both nechayev and lenin
>"They completely forget," Lenin said, "that Nechayev possessed a special talent for organization, an ability to establish conspiratorial skills everywhere, and was able to express his thoughts in such stunning formulations that they remained memorable for a lifetime. It's enough to recall his response in one leaflet, when, to the question, 'Who from the Royal House must be exterminated?', Nechayev gave the precise answer: 'The entire Great Litany.'"<https://ru.wikiquote.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%93%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87_%D0%9D%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%B5%D0%B2<Бонч-Бруевич В.Д. В.И. Ленин о художественной литературе // Тридцать дней. 1934. № 1. С. 18. Стр. 371.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Bonch-Bruyevichbonch-bruyevich works archive
https://archive.org/search?query=creator%3A%22%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%87-%D0%91%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87%2C+%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80+%D0%94%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87+%281873-1955%29%22 >>2493241Based anarkiddie
>>2493254I guess another reason for an anarchist to look up.to ISIS is that they're also funded & supported by the CIA
>>2522118of course you'd rather the CIA fund your larp party
>>2521468some more stuff i've found
>The last ten years of Nechaev’s life were spent in solitary confinement in the Peter and Paul fortress, from which he had falsely claimed to have escaped in 1869. His behaviour in prison, as Max Nomad has said, was “one of the great episodes of revolutionary history”. >When General Potapov of the secret police visited his cell and offered him leniency if he would serve as a spy, Nechaev struck him across the face, drawing blood. For the next two years his hands and feet remained in chains until the flesh began to rot.
>In addition, such contemporary groups as the Black Panthers, the Black September, the Weathermen, the Red Army Fraction! and the Symbionese Liberation Army have employed the methods of Nechaev—including indiscriminate terror and the subordination of means to ends—in the name of the revolutionary cause. The Black Panther leader Eldridge Cleaver tells us in Soul on Ice that he “fell in love” with The Catechism of the Revolutionary and took it as a revolutionary bible, incorporating its principles into his everyday life by employing “tactics of ruthlessness in my dealings with everyone with whom I came into contact”. >(The Catechism was published as a pamphlet in 1969 by the Black Panthers of Berkeley with an introduction by Cleaver.) >Even the murder of Ivanov, strangely enough, has had its modem counterparts in the slaying of an alleged informer by the Black Panther group in New Haven in 1969, and in the massacre of 1972 by the leader of the United Red Army in Japan of no less than fourteen members of his group for violations of “revolutionary discipline”.
>The identical criticism was later levelled against the Bolsheviks by Peter Kropotkin, on whose lips, said Maria Goldsmith, “the word ‘Nechaevism’ [nechayevshina] was always a strong rebuke”. As a member of the Chaikovsky Circle, Kropotkin decried all self-contained associations of “professional revolutionaries”, with their clandestine schemes, ruling committees, iron discipline, and subordination of means to ends. He insisted that “a morally developed individuality must be the foundation of every organization”.
<Paul Avrich, Bakunin and Nechaev (pamphlet), London, Freedom Press, 1974, 32 pp.<https://archive.org/details/BakuninAndNechaevByPaulAvrich >>2520877i think if nechayev ever met me irl he would just fucking cut my head off right away without any prolonged consideration and he would be completely right to do so. uncritical support for this, so to speak
nihilist bump
>>2493213That's not a very helpful or accurate description. Anarchists (for our purposes an-coms) aren't against the use of power, violence and hierarchy. People tend to forget, but anarchist tendencies were historically very vanguardist in nature, you had secret societies, terror, etc. Generally speaking, the goals of Marxists and socialist varieties of anarchism are the same, the difference mostly lies in strategy. (often the definition of a "state" as well)
Anarchists believe that capturing and governing a nation-state presents one with perverse incentives, contradictory to the goal of communism, both before and after achieving state power. Therefore, they advocate legal and illegal social arrangements outside of the state that accomplish the goals of social revolution without the state. In a way, it's not that dissimilar to many Marxist lines of thought and the lines blur at times. I used to be an anarchist, and I consider myself a communist now, I wouldn't say my personal views changed to fit a different box as much as they evolved over time. The Marxist response to Anarchism isn't this or that perspective on libertarianism and liberty itself, it's about whether you need the state to overcome the state
>>2493213>Ask for proofs to anarchists that le hierarchy is good<idealistically worship one of the most catastrophic failures to produce communism in history<<heavily imply you think said catastrophic failures are the profound proof against anarchismAnon the failure of anarchists isn’t that they want to be free, it’s that they are localists and parochialists, refuse to adhere to a coherent line and strategy, are voluntarists and idealists who believe reality is decidable by will and is also democratic in its nature, are usually moralists, at most take a workerist stance wherein the continuity of the proletariat is the most advanced synthesis of their theoretical approach, and more often than not deeply bound up in the framework of the petty commodity producer; the vast majority of these flaws are present in the ML movement and mode of thinking as well, forced as it was by “material circumstance” to embrace increasingly cynical depths of opportunism (much in mirror of the social democrats’ long retreat from Marx) until the cynicism in defining the opposite of socialism as socialism itself became impossible to maintain
I cannot imagine an MLoid ever realistically talking an anarchist out of anarchism
>>2493297I’m sure many people would rather have been free in Catalonia than working in a sweatshop to make dogshit for western consumer markets lmao
Imagine asking shit that inherently assumes you are already a Chinese nationalist (and liberal to boot) to answer in the desired way
>>2493937Marxism-Leninism was implemented over 100 years ago and failed in its world historical struggle against US-led western capitalism when the general postwar economic crisis began and revealed it was already part of that system by being inflicted by said crisis and forced to integrate more fully into the global system as a full partner in the global bourgeois fraternity
Marxism-Leninism has reduced to an entirely limp dick stance, despite Marxist-Leninist governments dominating the lives of 1/3 of humanity, today the only powerful country led by a historical ML party is a ready and willing partner in the global reproduction of capital and in fact actively tries to work as a stabilizing force in the global bourgeois productive relations as compared to its more severely decayed imperial competitors in particularly the destabilizing USA, the remaining two ML governments exist in a permanent militarized defensive posture and are also functionally dependents on the global market as well, and the global ML movement as a whole largely renounces internationalism and increasingly even the class character of the proletarian revolution itself everywhere in all its various forms from the ML-in-name-only Communist Party of China to the various micro-parties around the world to the ML denizens of this very board
>>2546913It did better and got more done than your movement (whatever it might be, we will never know) by a wide wide margin though
>>2547132>Industrialization and getting rid of reactoidsSounds good to me
>>2547120no response other than "WE SUCK? BUT YOU DID NOTHING!!!!", typical MLoid capitulation
>>2547120Defensiveness over failure ain’t a good look, man
Maybe you wouldn’t be defensive if failure wasn’t what you waste your life making apologetics for?
I promise you will never convince liberals on an even less efficient form of capitalism
>>2547169>>2547171Marxism-Leninism has objectively done better than any other leftist tendency at organizing the working class. Doesn't mean it's 100% correct but it's historical success is a clear sign that there were many aspects the helped the most obvious is having a state to actually organize workers.
Anarchism is complete dead end on the other hand. It can't advance it's goals because it has no mechanism to keep disciple and cohesion beyond a small social group that only coheres based on personal charisma of local leaders. Any real conflict from an organized state and anarchism falls apart.
>>2547176Ok but that doesn't tell us anything about its post 20th-century prospects. It already happened
>>2547181I'm not defending ML in particular (democratic centralism is especially flawed principle) but the use of state power to organize workers.
Hierarchical states have been the dominate organizational form of humanity since agricultural revolution. So why do you seem to believe the state form of organization will suddenly stop working past the 20th century? It certainly has stopped for the first quarter.
>>2547203I'm not an anarchist, I just thought you were an ML
>>2547165True dat comrade
>>2547169Big talk about failure and sucking from someone who's line has done less than nothing to advance the cause of the working class.
>>2547171I wholeheartedly reject your notions of failure, considering you have no alternative of success to present.
>>2547176>Marxism-Leninism has objectively done better than any other leftist tendency at organizing the working classIt has literally only ever succeeded in obtaining power in countries with a microscopic proletarian population and majority (vast majority) peasant population; it has been an utter failure in every society where the majority are actual proletarians
Probably because its only historical accomplishments amount to national revolutions and industrial modernization in countries passed over in the first two waves of bourgeois revolutions
>Doesn't mean it's 100% correct but it's historical success is a clear sign that there were many aspects the helped the most obvious is having a state to actually organize workers.All states organize workers to begin with, I think you mean “regiment and direct” workers, like uhhh yea any other state
Maybe that lack of worker power and the non-existence of transition out of the relations of capital are why not a single worker (all of whom were systematically kept out of power as a class in each ML national state; after all their mission was the non-communist objective of producing said proletariat) lifted so much as a finger to save so-called socialism when the stalinist bureaucracies saw more to gain by ending the protectionist fiction that they were not already integrated into global capitalist relations
How much they “succeeded” is irrelevant when MLs learnt nothing, cannot comprehend that they failed, and are sentimentalists hoping to reproduce those exact failures, believing, as they do, that remedial opportunist actions amount to the “revolutionary line” in themselves; at which point the ML usually turns into a typical liberal and effectively claims that socialism is impossible therefore social democracy is the trve socialism
>Anarchism is complete dead end on the other handHave you noticed that all MLs are capable of is pointing to other failures? What makes you different from an anarchist other than that you are cynical and they are not, my man? Maybe your problem is that you are exactly the sort of living farce Marx mocked, needing to look to the past to try justifying (to liberals and also yourself as a liberal) the existence and emergence of a hitherto never-before existing form of society? The justification for communism isn’t in the past, maybe disabuse yourself of your sentimental attachment to a long gone century and your desire to appeal to liberals by presenting to them a near identical society?
>>2547208And I’m sure you’d also define a hole in the ground as a form of plumbing, yes
>>2547208>Less than nothing to advance the cause of the working classExcept socialist and labor politics were effectively destroyed on a global scale following the actions of the Soviet bloc and its allies?
Do MLs actively abuse drugs to inhabit the fantasy world where the pre-1989 20th Century never ended and Fukuyamist schizophrenia didn’t reign supreme for over thirty years?
>>2547213Lotta words, but noticing a distinct lack of a presentation of your own line that we can compare the successes and failures of MLism to.
>How much they succeeded is irrelevantInteresting perspective.
>And I’m sure you’d also define a hole in the ground as a form of plumbing, yesYou've yet to show me any sanitation at all, at least I have a latrine
>>2547215Lmao it is precisely because the soviets were victorious and made socialism into a world power that it needed to be effectively destroyed on a global scale, by the united states and its allies obviously. Who spent decades and untold millions of dollars trying to undermine, demonize and extinguish the soviet experiment, all its offshoots and any other attempts at socialist power the world over.
Do nonliners like you inhabit an alternate reality where the cold war never happened or what?
>>2547222The West has hated Russia ever since the Napoleonic wars because it's a great power. They still hate capitalist Russia and have spent billions trying to undermine it.
>>2547224idealist nonsense. That was your best cope? Cmon man, there's plenty of other post Napoleonic great powers that didn't get the cold war treatment. The soviet union only became a world super power until a while after the bolsheviks took power, before that it was a backwater shithole nobody gave two shits about. The current antagonism of the nato empire towards russia is a direct result of the coldwar
>>2547222>Lotta words, but noticing a distinct lack of a presentation of your own line that we can compare the successes and failures of MLism to.Probably because I’m not a liberal farcically trying to revive dead movements to disguise the aims of my outlook
>Interesting perspective Reproducing all the achievements of the original bourgeois revolutions and never once advancing beyond them, impressive (this is all MLs ever can and do credit to ML states, they cannot see the irony in this because modern MLs are largely liberal humanists themselves and popperian positivists to boot, hence “Ah I may worship failure but what failure do you support? I assume my failure failed for longer 😤”)
>You've yet to show me any sanitation at all, at least I have a latrine Probably because I keep trying to show you the plumbing blueprints and you keep telling me that the shit hole in the ground is sufficient
>Lmao it is precisely because the soviets were victorious and made socialism into a world power that it needed to be effectively destroyed on a global scale, by the united states and its allies obviously.Pretty funny, considering in reality all of the powerful ML governments that weren’t actually vulnerable to military attack (and many that were but were not directly attacked at all) integrated themselves into the Western dominated bloc of global capital (dissolving their own bloc of it) largely because they were already connected to the global market anywhere and were badly effected by the 1970s and 80s world economic crises (the exact reason they all also embraced liberal market reforms, which were only possible because exchange relations dominated production in these countries to begin with, inb4 monopolies somehow prevent exchange)
It’s funny because as far as is known western intelligence agencies did not actually expect the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and its foreign allies to happen when and how that it did
>Who spent decades and untold millions of dollars trying to undermine, demonize and extinguish the soviet experiment, all its offshoots and any other attempts at socialist power the world over. Such a shame that these “socialist experiments” all took place in majority peasant agrarian proto-national states and not actual industrialized national states with a basis in an actual industrial proletariat dominating social production? Global Narodnism with bourgeois developmentalist characteristics falls, the world cries aghast and keeps pushing on. Only now communism is made synonymous with its dialectical opposite and made a radioactive toxin to the class it is traditionally based in on a global scale 😢
>Do nonliners like you inhabit an alternate reality where the cold war never happened or what?Nope, but that certainly seems to be the realm where Stalinists reside, if they would consider the contemporary world a “socialist success”
>>2547231>there's plenty of other post Napoleonic great powers that didn't get the cold war treatment.America crushed the great powers who opposed it like Germany and Japan. The Cold War was different because Russia was too strong and far away and nukes made it complicated.
>The current antagonism of the nato empire towards russia is a direct result of the coldwarWhy? If it's not socialist anymore and just run by a gaggle of oil barons why do they care.
>>2547231>before that it was a backwater shithole nobody gave two shits about<Calling the Russian Empire the “Soviet Union”<Saying “nobody gave a shit” about one of the main belligerents to the First World War<Mfw I have never read about or heard of the Crimean War or the Great Game<Mfw I do not know how America acquired Alaska<Mfw I do not know how Japan established itself in world politics<Mfw I do not know where Napoleon’s army became crippled by attrition and his conquest of Europe ended<Mfw I do not know the state Marx viewed as the ultimate shield of 19th Century reaction and which he wrote extensively on from the effects of Western industrial production on Russian manufactures to his writings on the obscure Russian MirWhew laddie
>>2547213>All states organize workers to begin with, I think you mean “regiment and direct” workers, like uhhh yea any other stateWow thanks for pointing out why anarchism will always fail. They literally can't “regiment and direct” workers to do anything in a sustained manner and will always lose against event the worst states.
Also don't care about your stupid complaining about how MLs didn't press the magic communism button. At least ML states have lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty. Anarchism has never done anything even close and will always be worthless.
>>2547239>Probably because I’m not a liberal farcically trying to revive dead movements to disguise the aims of my outlook No I think it's much more likely you just don't have anything to present in that regard. At all, in any way shape or form.
>Reproducing all the achievements of the original bourgeois revolutions and never once advancing beyond them, impressive (this is all MLs ever can and do credit to ML states, they cannot see the irony in this because modern MLs are largely liberal humanists themselves and popperian positivists to boot, hence “Ah I may worship failure but what failure do you support? I assume my failure failed for longerJust admit you don't have anything pal, your position is actually worse than failure lmao
>Probably because I keep trying to show you the plumbing blueprints and you keep telling me that the shit hole in the ground is sufficientI've literally been asking for blueprints or any form of indication of how you think plumbing should be achieved and all you keep doing is saying that my latrine is not enough. I ask may I see a picture of this toilet you keep talking about and you respond to me with "All your latrine did was catch shit falling out of your ass! That's not plumbing! THAT"S NOT PLUMBING!!" Do you see how dumb you look to me?
>Pretty funny, considering in reality all of the powerful ML governments that weren’t actually vulnerable to military attack (and many that were but were not directly attacked at all) integrated themselves into the Western dominated bloc of global capital (dissolving their own bloc of it) largely because they were already connected to the global market anywhere and were badly effected by the 1970s and 80s world economic crises (the exact reason they all also embraced liberal market reforms, which were only possible because exchange relations dominated production in these countries to begin with, inb4 monopolies somehow prevent exchange) WOW countries that exist in the world are connected to the economic order of that world? Holy shit man that's is crazyyyy, this shocking revelation will surely shatter many perspectives.
>Such a shame that these “socialist experiments” all took place in majority peasant agrarian proto-national states and not actual industrialized national states with a basis in an actual industrial proletariat dominating social production?So? What are you a preacher who must stick to ordained prophecy? These revolutions were made through an alliance of workers and peasantry, that's what the hammer and sickle stand for in case you didn't know.
> Global Narodnism with bourgeois developmentalist characteristics falls, the world cries aghast and keeps pushing on. Only now communism is made synonymous with its dialectical opposite and made a radioactive toxin to the class it is traditionally based in on a global scaleDamn yeah man, it had such a good reputation before this. Maybe if the soviets hadn't been such big meanies everyone would hold hands and walk into the new world together. Get outta here man. As soon as the bolsheviks made socialism a real form of society, you know all the forces of reaction descended down upon it and didn't stop trying to crush it with everything they had.
>Nope, but that certainly seems to be the realm where Stalinists reside, if they would consider the contemporary world a “socialist success”You win some you lose some dumbass, except your nonline didn't win anything at all, ever.
>>2547240Lmao the united states only hesitantly got involved in world war 2, after japan forced them to by directly attacking them lmao. They had no interest or need to get involved and certainly not out of some innate desire to crush opposing world powers.
>Why? If it's not socialist anymore and just run by a gaggle of oil barons why do they care.Because of the geopolitical weight that 70 years of rivalry and antagonism brings.
>>2547244Before the bolsheviks took power the soviet union was the russian empire yeah, sorry I didn't specify enough you pedantic retard.
The Russian Empire only got involved with the first world war because of some bullshit promise about protecting the slavs or the orthodox or whatever the fuck. Not because "the west" was obsessed with defeating them after napoleon. Idk what you mean to say with all this other bullshit, Russia was a eurpean power? It was impressive the japanese defeated them? They were considered the most reactionary country by most socialists of the time? None of this is reason for people to be giving them the cold war treatment
>>2547270>At least ML states have lifted hundreds of millions out of povertyso has regular liberal capitalism and yet we're not clamoring for that, are we? i guess some of us are
>>2547280so you are saying even liberal capitalism is better than anarchism? damn
>>2547283a system is not noble for merely bringing people out of poverty, it has to actually meet the needs of humanity at large, none yet has achieved that
>>2547288Communism isn’t about abstract ideals like “humanity” and you’d know this if you actually read even the most basic theory. What’s wrong, not enough pictures for you?
>>2547280>so has regular liberal capitalismin the last decades at least this was in part because of the political pressure the mere existence of ML states exerted on the imperial core
>>2547292communism is the liberation of humanity, by ridding them of the distinctions of class society, don't be a vulgarist
>>2547270>Wow thanks for pointing out why anarchism will always fail. They literally can't “regiment and direct” workers to do anything in a sustained manner and will always lose against event the worst states.The aim of Marxist communism isn’t to “reproduce the proletariat” or control that social class, I am not an anarchist, and you are functionally a social democrat
>Also don't care about your stupid complaining about how MLs didn't press the magic communism button. At least ML states have lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty. This is liberal humanist garbage and identical to whatever a liberal would say because it is a direct reproduction of the liberal understanding of the world, “revolutionary politics”, and historical change, bounded as it is in an overt moral, and thus anti-materialist, appeal
>It made people less poor!So did capitalism in a certain sense, hence why this “socialist achievement” was accomplished directly through the expansion of capitalist relations and nothing less; this vague moral good is not the goal of communists, communism is, if you are proud to deny this, I am proud to point to you the actual world dominated by capitalist relations and not the fantasy ML world where the Soviet Union ruled the world or something
>Anarchism has never done anything even close and will always be worthless.Attacking other failures doesn’t dismiss the failures you are willing to end. At least the anarchists had the good grace to die quickly rather than delegitimize “socialism” in the eyes of the global proletariat, turn into a term referring to nationalist peasant revolutions, and then died taking the entire socialist movement down with them. At least the anarchists *just* died.
>>2547279>No I think it's much more likely you just don't have anything to present in that regard. At all, in any way shape or form.Of course not, proletarian revolution has thus far been defeated repeatedly, those defeats have been so catastrophic and tragic that most modern communists overtly claim that communism is when a self-elected communist party industrializes a peasant economy, accumulates capital, and produces the proletariat; which is a way of saying most communists explicitly believe that socialism is the exact opposite of socialism and synonymous with the material establishment of capitalist relations (this is usually the place where MLs also overtly reject materialism and basically claim that capitalism is synonymous with individual capitalists)
>I've literally been asking for blueprints or any form of indication of how you think plumbing should be achieved and all you keep doing is saying that my latrine is not enoughYou can start with the Civil War in France, the Gundrisse, Capital, and the Critique of the Gotha Program if you want to get an idea of Marx’s communism that Lenin drew upon; or you can get meaningless popperian positivist nonsense from other moralist internet MLs
>WOW countries that exist in the world are connected to the economic order of that world?That is the exact reason that Marx rejected “socialism in one country” 60 years before Stalin attempted it, knowing himself, as something of a genuine Marxist, that “socialism in one country” is not actually possible. Good job for retreading Marx’s own positions but as a liberal simpleton rather than a critical thinker.
>So? What are you a preacher who must stick to ordained prophecy? These revolutions were made through an alliance of workers and peasantry, that's what the hammer and sickle stand for in case you didn't know. If your conception of “Marxist communism” points to the exact opposite of Marx’s (and the original communist movement’s) understanding of communism as the actual abolition and transcendence of capitalist relations, why would you call it either Marxist or communist? Ruthless material analysis =/= cynical apologetics.
>Damn yeah man, it had such a good reputation before this. Maybe if the soviets hadn't been such big meanies everyone would hold hands and walk into the new world together. Get outta here man. As soon as the bolsheviks made socialism a real form of society, you know all the forces of reaction descended down upon it and didn't stop trying to crush it with everything they had.I didn’t say anything about communism’s popularity with the bourgeoisie, try again
>Before the bolsheviks took power the soviet union was the russian empire yeah, sorry I didn't specify enough you pedantic retardBut that wasn’t a failure to “specify”, it was just a reflection of ignorance. Are you an american btw?
>The Russian Empire only got involved with the first world war because of some bullshit promise about protecting the slavs or the orthodox or whatever the fuckAh yes
Metaphysical idealism, my favorite
>Not because "the west" was obsessed with defeating them after napoleon.You’re arguing with two people, I was dismissing the idea that the Russian Empire was irrelevant to world politics, which is obviously nonsensical and not something anyone from Marx to Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin would ever claim
>None of this is reason for people to be giving them the cold war treatmentIt demonstrates that the idealist concept that the competition between Russia and the “the West” was ideologically defined rather than reflecting the competitive relations that dominate the capitalist world order are purely nonsensical
America didn’t enact the Cold War upon the world to “stop socialism”, but rather to establish global hegemony and bring to heel all sovereign national entities whether socialist or not, hence why America has been a long enemy of the anticommunist Iranian state.
>>2547292Believing countries like the USSR were examples of socialist societies is literally reducing communism to an abstract ideal
>>2547295>communism is the liberation of humanityRETARD ALERT
RETARD ALERT
RETARD ALERT
The absolute state of this website where liberal platitudes about muh humanity and muh freedom is considered communism
>>2547300RETARD ALERT
RETARD ALERT
This poster has never read Marx’s own analysis of the bourgeoisie’s role in the Capital system and the communist project as that of rendering to Man his own productive powers over his own conscious control
I think MLs consistently turn out to be such idealist liberal retards because every statement they produce amounts to apologetics to justify why ML states managed to reproduce Marx’s socialism while uhhhh reproducing every relation he associated with capitalist production because they have simply never ever read Marx and possibly even fear reading Marx, specifically that if they did they would turn out to be wrong about the USSR and similar states, who I think MLs mostly rely upon emotionally but have no serious material analysis of (before yall deny it you literally had 20th Century MLs committing suicide whenever the USSR engaged in deepening opportunism 😂)
>>2547300freedom? it's about liberating humanity from the conditions of wage labor and establishing a society based on common ownership, tell me what you think communism is if i'm a retard for knowing this basic fact
>>2547304Communism isn’t not a state of affairs to be established, nor a checklist of utopian “good things” you would like to have happen in a fairy world that runs on magic. Communism is and always has been THE REAL MOVEMENT, by of and for the proletariat, to sublate the present state of affairs as it was in Marx’s time. Notice that I didn’t say “humanity” or “mankind” or any other abstract liberal bullshit, I said proletariat. PROLETARIAT. Is this too difficult for you? Do you need some help?
>>2547308>Communism isn’t not a state of affairs to be established, nor a checklist of utopian “good things” you would like to have happen in a fairy world that runs on magic.great, except i never argued this remotely, merely stating that it's a mode of society established on the principle of common ownership, which liberates humanity from the shackles of class society and all that comes with it (such as religion, dogma, wage labor, etc), is that a utopian idea? you merely are being vulgar, using the basic words and then getting angry when i refuse to use these words, and instead use words that show what they practically do, which i will continue to do regardless of whether you throw a fit over it
>Marx’s project had nothing to do with human emancipation
My first question is whether MLs ever read Marx, though I suspect I know the answer
My second question is why exactly MLs think Marx was a communist who believed in and desired the revolutionary abolition of capitalism if what they believe were to be the case?
>Marx believed in freeing the productive forces!
Actually if you read his chapters on Machines and Large-Scale industry in Capital Volume 1 it becomes clear that Marx believed the rise of exchange value and its transformation of material production had not only accomplished this in a sense but rendered humans as implements to machines
How much of Capital have you guys read btw?
>>2547317and also here's a good question for you, what purpose is establishing a communist society? is it for the vague idea of the "proletariat sublating present affairs" or is it for a clearer one, for the proletariat to not only emancipate themselves, but the rest of humanity as well?
>>2547328>From abolish the family to obey all authorities including the family-MLs
>>2547317Nice buzzwords, very wholesome chungus. We’re going to make utopia! Except…oops! All of your fantasies Marx explained as being contingent on the abolition of the contradictions between town and country, which anyone with even a cursory understanding of Marxism knows is impossible. I know the works of Marx and Engles have a lot of big words, maybe try understanding what they mean and the context behind them before embarrassing yourself?
>>2547318Marx never desired “the revolutionary abolition of capitalism”. If anything he sought to expand capitalism by abolishing the anarchy of production and centralizing development of the productive forces based on the needs of the dictatorship of the proletariat rather than the whims of the individual. You’d know this if you actually read Marx.
>>2547326What part of “communism is not a state of affairs to be established” is so difficult to understand?
>>2547336>communism is not a state of affairs to be establishedwhat does that even mean? marx said it himself but he didn't so much believe it, is the proletariat, seizing private property, not so much as putting forth a communist society?
>>2547299>Of course notLmao well thanks for admitting you stand for nothing and can provide nothing I guess
>u can start with the Civil War in France, the Gundrisse, Capital, and the Critique of the Gotha Program if you want to get an idea of Marx’s communism that Lenin drew upon; or you can get meaningless popperian positivist nonsense from other moralist internet MLsThat's not what I meant and you know it. Give me a comparative line or admit that your line is actually worse than failure and shut the fuck up
>That is the exact reason that Marx rejected “socialism in one country” 60 years before Stalin attempted it, knowing himself, as something of a genuine Marxist, that “socialism in one country” is not actually possible. Good job for retreading Marx’s own positions but as a liberal simpleton rather than a critical thinker."Socialism in one country" wasn't a thing in marx's time retard, socialism as an actual governmental force wasn't a thing at all. If you're talking about engels saying that the proletarian revolution cannot be done in a single country alone, that is not incongruent with the process of beginning socialist construction in one country, which is what SiOC was. Like what, you on the trotskyist retarded permanent revolution biz? You think it would have been a good idea for Stalin to do a red jihad against germany and forcefully subjugate them to the revolution? Or is this another one of those things where you have a "critique" of something, while offering less than nothing as an alternative? Im gonna go out on a limb and predict that is is one of those things, they seem to be your bread and butter after all.
>If your conception of “Marxist communism” points to the exact opposite of Marx’s (and the original communist movement’s) understanding of communism as the actual abolition and transcendence of capitalist relations, why would you call it either Marxist or communist? Ruthless material analysis =/= cynical apologetics.Same reason you do friend because of the Bolsheviks and the Soviet Union.
>I didn’t say anything about communism’s popularity with the bourgeoisie, try againYou said it's reputation was destroyed by the acts of the bolsheviks and the soviet union. As if socialism wasn't always going to be smeared to the grave the second it achieved any real power whatsoever. So naïve.
>But that wasn’t a failure to “specify”, it was just a reflection of ignorance. It was a failure to specify, "The soviet union only became a world super power until a while after the bolsheviks took power, before that it was a backwater shithole nobody gave two shits about' The soviet union was only established after the Bolsheviks took power. Obviously with that "before that IT was" I just meant that specific geopolitical region that was once the RE and later became the soviet union. There, was that pedantic enough for you?
>Are you an american btw?God you are such a massive coping faggot, it's painful
>Metaphysical idealism, my favoriteIt's just one of the reason the Russian Empire had for joining the war, they were at risk of losing more face and influence if they didn't keep their promises, along with the prospects of imperial conquests and other shit of course. The point being, that's why they dragged themselves into it. It's not other western powers that were out to get them or whatever the anon was trying to say.
>I was dismissing the idea that the Russian Empire was irrelevant to world politicsI didn't say it was completely irrelevant to global politics. It was a great power after all. Just that nobody gave a shit in the sense that they would wanna do a whole ass cold war against them
>America didn’t enact the Cold War upon the world to “stop socialism”, but rather to establish global hegemony and bring to heel all sovereign national entities whether socialist or not, hence why America has been a long enemy of the anticommunist Iranian statePotato potato, it's just a diffeenrt way of saying the same thing friend. It doesn't matter what their subjective reasonings or perspectives were, just what the actual function of their actions are in relation to the class struggle.
The practical answer is don't, focus on working with them on common goals in many places in the USA the anarchist are the most visible and active parts of the left l, while communists (including me,/self critism moment) don't that much, there's a food not bombs in my town ran by anarchists, there is 0 organized communst presence in my town
>>2547344Anarchism and communism have nothing in common
>>2547336>Marx never desired “the revolutionary abolition of capitalism”. If anything he sought to expand capitalism by abolishing the anarchy of production and centralizing development of the productive forces based on the needs of the dictatorship of the proletariat rather than the whims of the individual. You’d know this if you actually read Marx.Michael Hudson isn’t Karl Marx mate
>Hehe if you actually read Marx you’d know he was glad that capitalism abolished prior modes of production and anyway basically praise the bourgeoisie capital must reign eternal was therefore his actual stanceOn a long enough timeline the ML version of Marx just becomes Adolf Hitler but not racist
>>2547342Ah yes
Another ML who has never heard of Ferdinand Lassalle
>>2547346Anti capitalism, social issues, we are really only different on heriarchy
>>2547336>Nice buzzwords, very wholesome chungus. We’re going to make utopia! Except…oops! All of your fantasies Marx explained as being contingent on the abolition of the contradictions between town and country, which anyone with even a cursory understanding of Marxism knows is impossible. I know the works of Marx and Engles have a lot of big words, maybe try understanding what they mean and the context behind them before embarrassing yourself?exactly what is utopian about a communist movement organizing through the proletariat, to overthrow a capitalist society? is a communist society when i slave away for subsistence,
communistly? because that's what it sounds like it is to you, you've said nothing of what it contains, beyond actual buzzwords "sublation of present affairs, the real movement, communism isn't a state of affairs to be established" without even saying what these even are
>>2547352>Muh Lassalle Not an argument
>>2547368He needs to find a magic way where communism means the total subjugation of proletarians and the extraction of surplus value through the political machinery of the state rather than letting go of the sort of sentimentalism that forces him to argue that the red on the flag equals the blood wrenched out of workers
Anarchism is childish
>>2547318>revolutionary abolition of capitalismi wonder what marx would think the material premise for such abolition might be and if that effects the analysis of backwards underdeveloped states in any way
>>2547384>>2547315that is essentially what a dtop under conditions of underdevelopment is. whether you call that communism in the sense of the real movement or not communism in the sense of not having achieved a particular state of affairs is kind of a subjective distinction. we wont know till the owl takes flight since communism isnt a theory divorced from reality but the result of practice
if you're ever at a point where you have to morally justifying something you're on the wrong track. If you want to properly critique then you have to rid your analysis of any arguments which appeal to morality/morals. That's why MLs are just as bad as anarchists at critique, they bothe engage in moral discussion.
Unique IPs: 127