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.
>>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?
•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.
>>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." >>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.
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/>>2509051Yes, 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.
Unique IPs: 14