/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

anarchy is present when two or more people engage in a free and fair social arrangement; it is not an "ideology" to be enforced. everyone is an anarchist in day-to-day life, but still think anarchy is chaos rather than order.

>>2680034
>everyone is an anarchist in day-to-day life
so it literally means nothing, ok, thanks for proving my point about 2000 year old phrases

>theses
Pipe it down

>>2680034
>posting 3 non anarchists

1. Bookchin made the break from anarchism around the late 80’s/90’s due to Anarchism focusing more on individualism as opposed to organisational structures

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/janet-biehl-bookchin-breaks-with-anarchism

Abdullah Ocalan was never an anarchist. If anti state organisation was exclusive to anarchism, we may as well call CLR James, a Marxist, an anarchist because he viewed the state as an obstacle to revolution

Here are Ocalans takes on anarchism

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/abdullah-ocalan-re-evaluating-anarchism

As Ocalan writes

“They know well what capitalism does, but they do not know well what they should do. If we summarize shortly their view;

They criticize the capitalist system from the most left position. They comprehend better that this system destroys the moral and political society. They do not attribute progressive role to capitalism, as Marxists do. Their approach to the societies destroyed by capitalism is more positive. They do not see those societies as backwards and obliged to decline, but find the survival of those more moral and political.

They have a more comprehensive and realistic approach towards the power and the state compared to Marxists. Bakunin is the one who said power is the absolute evil. However, demanding removal of power and state immediately at any rate is utopian and an approach which does not have so much chance to be realized in practice. They were able to foresee that socialism cannot be built based on the state and power, and that might end up in more dangerous and bureaucratic capitalism.

Their foresight, that centralist nation-state would be a disaster for all working class and popular movements and would crush their hopes, is realistic. They also turned out to be right in their critiques towards Marxists regarding the unification of Germany and Italy. Their statement about history developing in favor of nation-states would mean big loss for the utopia of freedom and equality, their criticizing Marxists for taking position at the side of the nation-state and blaming them with betrayal are important aspects to emphasize. They defended confederalism.

Their ideas and criticisms on bureaucratism, industrialism and urbanization are verified up to a certain level. In their developing anti-fascist and ecologist stance at an early stage, those ideas and critiques played an important role.

Their criticisms towards the real socialism is also verified by the dissolution of the system. They are the fraction who diagnosed best that what was built was not socialism but state capitalism.”

To say Ocalan is anarchist and traded it for anarchism speaks either of OPs ignorance or opportunism.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-ocalan-as-thinker

As for Chomsky, most anarchists don’t fuck with him- Chomsky himself has never truly identified as one, and is considered more of a “fellow traveler”

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-chomsky-nod#toc8

Theses:

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.

>>2680366
>– Fragmentation of the working-class movement.
i love when MLs have the audacity and lack of self awareness to say these things.

>>2680029
None of the images you posted contain any anarchists and you just word for word quoted something Lenin wrote a long time ago very little of it is correct.
Learn to think for yourself, retard.

>>2680373
Wrong. Lenin wrote that. Lenin unify all worker

Anarchism is when I liberate my desire for a few years homeless before going to working at my dads hedge fund