Some of the problems with modern "anarchists" are the following:
•They support national liberation movements and/or nations.
•They choose the "lesser evil" from capitalist reactionary positions.
•They are not interested in material analysis or class analysis, only in identity politics (meaningless "cultural analysis" of races, orientations, genders, and similar issues).
•They concern themselves with cultural preservation (disguised conservativism) as opposed to societal development.
•They accept and present, or sympathize with, the most reactionary ideologies (like primitivism) as legitimate forms of "anarchism".
•They don’t see a problem with participating in the market economy (hiring for wage labor, making profit, running businesses, etc.) and deny the need for a planned economy.
•They don’t see the contradictions between religion and science or deliberately ignore them and avoid criticizing certain religions (such as Islam) while creating contradictory modernizations (i.e. queer feminist anarcha-islam),
•They do not apply or know immanent critique.
•They see no problem in participating in popular fronts built on class collaboration in a battle against a "greater evil," such as fascism/"anti-fascism," in defense of the liberal bourgeois democracy that gave birth to it.
•They ignore contradictions between different positions and/or fall for the false and self-destructive contradictory notion of "left unity" (alliances with Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, Trotskyists, the left wing of capital).
•They are autonomists, not internationalists, and fail to recognize the need for a world revolution, instead focusing on regionalism, awaiting to be crushed or subverted.
•They are suicidally inclined and believe in adventurism, or they support it by encouraging fruitless sacrifices.
•They fail to see the problems with activism, especially the contradiction of rejecting the state while protesting to demand reforms for "better conditions" (softer bourgeois power, to appease the workers - State Socialism was a set of social programs implemented in the German Empire that were initiated by Otto von Bismarck in 1883 as remedial measures to appease the working class and detract support for socialism [sic] )
•They deny, oppose or bastardize anarchist-communism.
•They reject materialism and praise utopianism, as their idea of "anarchism" is purely aesthetic.
•They lack fundamental knowledge and analysis of the capitalist mode of production (often due to rejecting Capital out of unprecedented anger towards Marx, yet no anarchist has written an equilivent of such a book besides Carlos Cafiero who took the time to simplify volume I and received a thanks letter from Marx himself).
•They reject uniformity, a program and/or are simply punks with a false-impression of contrarian thought.
•They glorify failed historical projects (Makhnovschina. Catalonia, Kronstadt) and seek fault in those who destroyed them, rather than analyze and acknowledge the failiures in the fact they were unable to defend themselves and were thus unstable as to learn from the mistakes of the past rather than repeating / replicating it.
Overall these problems seem resolveable to me, a lot of them have their own equilivents within the opponents of anarchism as well, who in essence are even more unprincipled and spineless, with the exception of the ultras who remain marginal and are supposedly awaiting for the favorable historical conditions to arise. It is in my view that as long as the contemporary "anarchist" movement fails to remove these errors it will be dysfunctional and continue being astroturfed by socialdemocratic and reacftionary positions. Whatever genuine anarchists are left will acknowledge the bullet points rather than argue and coddle them - it is not my problem if you're retarded or if your movement fails.
You just cherry picked random people and claim they are all like that.
>>2499191The ratio of anons who will see this thread will likely be 10 Leninists to 3 local resident fradulent anarchists (Houdini, the new "anprim" flag poster, the "christian anarchist" flag poster). This thread is addressed to none of you and especially the latter three who are doing more damage to anarchism than any Leninist preaching "On authority" ever could.
>>2499195No I didn't write all. If you want to get on the defense consider acknowledging the bullet points for your own good.
>>2499191Such a lazy gish-gallop, but left wing people are well aware that Islam is bad overall, it just shouldn't be singled out compared to other religions and Muslims should have the freedom to practice without oppression from the state
>>2499207As long as the practice doesnt involve harming people who turn away from Islam. Which Muslims consider everyone born Muslim so that means every non Muslim.
>>2499211well obviously religious practice shouldn't impede on the rights of everyone else, you get what I'm saying.
I'm not aware that Muslims consider all non-Muslims to be apostates though?
>>2499204
The live ones come to anti militarism, I will see you in Greece next year. May the trouble with NATOpolitian
"anarchists" be resolved.
•I have made no material contribution to any such movement and don't even think shilling counts
•I do not
•I fail to see the difference, synthesize these ideas
•I don't know what this means
•Maybe technology is god's plan to create a robo-son through the temporary human instrument and anarchy is for those who earn it in the meantime
•At least it's illegal
•Synthesize these ideas
•Just say dialectics the whole thing is implied by the word dialectics
•You have controlled opposition retards too
•Agreed
•Even more atomized than that I believe I can just do a bunch of anarchy individually and swerve around the state
•My actions are an inevitable result of my ideas no way to avoid them. Suicide would be preferable.
•You too
•So?
•Liar
•Yes, so?
•Good
•Oh you're shitposting
oh
Anarchism is shit and exists as a sort of preschool of anarchy, so of course all those people are idiots, they're in preschool, eventually you read stirner, start and stop calling yourself an egoist, stop calling yourself anything because
>ideology
&
>doxxing yourself
and get good at crime and incidentally building illegal/adjacent structures like tent cities and black markets (or something else more impressive to you) as a side effect of you liberating yourself through your real actions without ideological motivation but as an inevitable consequence of the realization that you, and everyone else for the foreseeable future, can only guarantee freedom for yourself and only by working to earn it outside of and in the cracks of the state and capitalism, that every moment spent in wage slavery wishing for a revolution that can only come about in the form of an identity to purchase from the enemy, is itself a fate worse than death. Drop out now.
>>2499221>The live ones come to anti militarism, I will see you in Greece next year.Of which conference are you referring too?
> May the trouble with NATOpolitian "anarchists" be resolved.It will only be resolved one way, by ejecting the pro-war filth from our spaces for good.
For too long the anarchist space has in the dark times huddled together for warmth, it has gotten to a point though that the contradictions are to much, the relationships too cozy, a hard break needs to be had for our survival. Militarism has no place in our movement and those who propagate it, like some of these lifestylist punk freaks in ukraine and the middle class professionals in AFED, must be physically ejected from all spaces, their works removed from our libraries and shops, their tabled smashed at the bookfairs and if they persist in this craven support for NATO under the guise of anarchism ultimately they must pay with their lifes.
>>2499234>•LiarLets pretend solarpunk never happened
>>2499236I don't have to pretend I forgot entirely
>>2499191My problems with strawmans I created in my head, the blogpost.
The problem with critiquing anarchism is there’s no consensus
>>2499195>You just cherry picked random people and claim they are all like that.<anarchism is about individualismwait no, individualism isn't REAL anarchy!
>>2499236>solarpunk literally aestheticized politics (aka fascism?) from faux-revolutionaries whose artistic movement is aligned with CIA neoliberals, and probably funded by them too.
<"Solarpunk is a movement in speculative fiction, art, fashion and activism that seeks to answer and embody the question “what does a sustainable civilization look like, and how can we get there?” The aesthetics of solarpunk merge the practical with the beautiful, the well-designed with the green and wild, the bright and colorful with the earthy and solid. Solarpunk can be utopian, just optimistic, or concerned with the struggles en route to a better world — but never dystopian. As our world roils with calamity, we need solutions, not warnings. Solutions to live comfortably without fossil fuels, to equitably manage scarcity and share abundance, to be kinder to each other and to the planet we share. At once a vision of the future, a thoughtful provocation, and an achievable lifestyle." Wow we haven't had this thread before
>>2499234
>Anarchism is shit and exists as a sort of preschool of anarchy, so of course all those people are idiots, they're in preschool, eventually you read stirner, start and stop calling yourself an egoist, stop calling yourself anything becauseThis is all just so wrong. For one Stirner didn't call himself an anarchist, he just had an influence on the classical anarchists. Secondly, egoism as a framework isn't something that spits out anarchy necessarily: anarchism is the opposition to all oppression, as such it has a teleology, which whatever Stirner was advocating did not have. Thirdly the idea that you can "liberate yourself" under capitalism is a weird postie idea that only has cachet in that milleu, it's not even something predicated on Stirnerite egoism, so I have no idea why you're bringing it up.
>>2499191>•They are not interested in material analysis or class analysis, only in identity politics (meaningless "cultural analysis" of races, orientations, genders, and similar issues).I don't really know how you can call yourself an anarchist and *not* put the struggles against racism, sexism, etc. on equal footing with worker's liberation. I get that there are people who abuse social justice language (which is watered down anarchism imo) but this is ridiculous. The idea that the issues listed are somehow insulated from material or class analysis is also bizarre to me.
OP>>2499191
I agree with a lot you have to say, but for national liberation, anarchism has had an interesting relationship to it which deserves to be talked about in its fullest extent to grab the nuances.
It was a lot more supportive of it than most Marxists until the advent of Leninism as the dominant tendency after 1917. However, the contention has always been on the question of the State obviously.
I would highly recommend checking out this resource OP, it has great information on the matter with various citations as well as Alfredo Bonanno's classic essay "Anarchism and the National Liberation Struggle".
https://historyiswhat.noblogs.org/anarchists-on-national-liberation/>>2509051
Yes, I am aware of the attempted fascist co-optation of anarchism but I am mainly referring to the period before WW2 in which anarchists did participate in national struggles and were more engaged within them than many Marxists of the day. Some of these figures even turned from anarchists to bourgeois nationalists during its course or they have been co-opted by the state after death in nationalist narratives despite their own repudiations of nationalism during life.
BTW these "anarchist organizations" are completely rejected by the anarchist movement in their respective countries and are treated as any other fascist with complete contempt.
This is just a bunch of strawman arguments and there's no point in addressing them all.
Your problem with anarchist thought is that it's all about bottom-up community efforts to solve problems, whereas you believe that the only way to solve social problems with a top-down approach, by designing the perfect universal model that solves all the problems of class and equality and production.
I would argue that the historical record clearly demonstrates that the bottom-up communal organizing approach has been the successful one when it comes to implementing egalitarian reform at the societal level. The labor movement, the anti-war movement, the civil rights movement, the women's suffrage movement, all these grassroots communal organizing efforts that successfully implemented egalitarian reform without trying to impose some ideological paradigm. Meanwhile every communist revolution in the world has ended in authoritarianism and failure.
You have totalitarian thinking, you think that all of society must be unified under one ideology that solves every problem. Anarchists have pluralistic thinking, non-ideological thinking, we don't need one unified society nor any central guiding ideology.
well op, the jerk store called and they're all out of you
Anarchism is a deeply white supremacists ideology. Those who read theory, know.
>>2510552
where is this image from, garçon?
Anarchy isn't an ideology, it is just another word for statelessness. The anarchist by definition does not believe in ideology - ideology is antithetical to anarchy. The anarchist simply believes in achieving anarchy, bringing the state to its final and permanent end, by whatever means necessary. Marxists think that they can turn the state into an instrument of its own destruction, but it doesn't work that way. The state does not destroy the state. Those who attempt to use the state as an instrument of liberation only become consumed by its power; they only become the state. The only way to destroy the state is to destroy the social inequalities that give rise to it through organized choreographed dance.
Unique IPs: 16