[ overboard / cytube] [ leftypol / b / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime ] [ meta ] [ GET / ref]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Password (For file deletion.)

File: 1611226321406.png (7.38 KB, 768x485, anarchism.png)

 No.53004[View All]

440 posts and 84 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>Eugenist polities
What the fuck are you on about?


For the same reasons you would like to be in charge of your own home and territory, exercise of executive authority and thinking. Maybe you can accept communal living, but every man needs his own space, or else he will be trampled on. We are individuals first, and society only forms out of individuals. You can only speak of a collective society once individuals can establish themselves as individuals.

You're thinking too much of motive, though. Maybe you have 99% of humanity moving on from private property or excessive individualism, that accepts a kind of collectivity, but you have that 1% who may be individualist, who see the collective society as a wholly hostile entity and will fight against it. The anarcho-collectivist society would have some mechanism to purge those who dissent, and if they have that, is the collective not itself exercising executive power? Those individuals, if you do not ruthlessly suppress them, will find some way to survive, and see your collective society as an enemy to be overcome or endured. You can't take sociality for granted. We develop cooperative societies more because the alternative, individual greed, is much worse. Maybe on some level you can speak of a basic sociality, but that basic sociality does not produce for us built-in desirable social forms. The definition of a band, a tribe, an executive leader/chief, and a state, are necessarily fluid, because human sociality is about adaptation rather than a fixed behavior.


Why are people replying to eugenics-kun? He's literally the worst poster on this board.


I figured, his posts seem like absolute nonsense.


>We develop cooperative societies more because the alternative, individual greed, is much worse.
We develop cooperative societies because with out them we would starve.


Pretty sure solitary people could survive off the land and say fuckit to "society". Again, you're fixing sociality into predefined forms. Humans are under no inherent obligation to respect their society or whatever social forms are legally imposed. Humans in their natural state were obviously able to do just fine without much of a society or a state. Nor do the professionalized institutions that dominate the state necessarily help us for the productive acts of farming. The primary concern of the state and its rulers is not collective well-being, but power over people and power over land. The health and welfare of the common people is not in any way the concern of states. Historically, states have viewed their working class as disposable, easy to sacrifice, and problematic if that working class demands too much freedom or space of their own. I would think, if you live in America, the aristocracy's utter disdain for the American people makes this nature of the state abundantly clear. America is nominally democratic and does in many ways uphold its conceptions of freedom, even in this degraded state it is in now, but the American ruling class and large swaths of the intelligentsia would happily slaughter the majority of Americans for nothing more than ecological efficiency. This is not a new concept, and the world of antiquity, and the world of hunter-gatherer society, was a world with a whole lot of death and destruction. The thing stopping societies from slaughtering their working class isn't the benevolence of the state, but that people will resist being slaughtered. They won't line up in boxcars and be shipped to the extermination camps, especially after knowing what the first explicitly eugenist polity, Nazi Germany, did to their political enemies. People will fight, they will run, and they will resist the eugenist impulse to order society in this sick way, however they can. If we were dependent on the state to bring us to the good, we would truly be hopeless, and the ruling class would have exterminated us all a long time ago.


Give him a break, he is trying his best.


And the whole point of anarchism, or communism, is that we definitely don't need this ruling class and its state, that it is fetter on productivity among many other things that the current state does. The whole "we will starve if we don't subordinate ourselves to this particular state" is an old meme, and has always been used to justify slavery and every horrible rule. It rarely results in anything actually good or productive. The state and the collective overlords didn't make food. People, farmers, make food, make the goods of society, and soon. We never had to subordinate ourselves to landlords to do this. You're giving money and the machinations of power more relevance than they actually have, like we had to pass through capitalism as some stage of development. The whole thing was never necessary. It happened, and it happened for reasons that are fairly predictable, but we never "needed" sociality to exist in this particular form. The social systems that rule us have historically been an impediment to actually doing something, which is why human beings are constantly thinking of better ways to organize society and relate to each other. It's just the state of affairs in the 21st century that we have this regressive, evil eugenist order that insists that the common human condition is to be endlessly degraded, to a point where the social order is incompatible with life itself - since right now, the ruling class wants to dispose of the excess working class they no longer need to abide and never wanted.

Go on, continue with the snark, you weak-kneed pissant. People like you did nothing to stop Hitler when Hitler was a thing.


You don't want to discuss politics with me, i haven't even read the communist manifesto.


I don't think we have an actual discussion here. What is your point exactly? That humans are naturally social creatures and that's why "anarchism" will totes work? Humans' natural sociality is limited to some fairly basic relationships, from which complex webs we call society even forms.

It's been a long time since I read the manifesto, and none of what I'm writing is coming form unique insights of Marx. With all the Marx I've read, he seems to accept the Hegelian notions of the state, which I simply reject out of hand for a laundry list of reasons. I don't hold the pretenses states make for themselves in any regard, and I only care about the actual people and machinery that comprise those states. This is a fairly common sense take. To invent "society" you need to ask yourself what manifests society into something real, what organizations and institutions are, and we have a whole lot of thinking regarding actually existing institutions. The failure of Marxism to produce the kind of society that was necessary was its undoing, and the toxic collectivist mindset that underpins many of our institutions was fertile ground for Maggie Thatcher to say "there is no such thing as society". People loved her when she said that, because she was speaking of a reality that was readily apparent to people. The assumptions of societies as things that exist outside of their constituent parts are a large reason why Marxist theory faltered and couldn't explain the world that was emerging at that time, and it's the reason why there is so much autism on the left, why the left keeps seeking a return to some idealized past and ignores that even then they weren't that powerful. I'm trying to tell the left why they keep fucking this shit up, but you seem to want to persist in literal autistic thinking about society and our relations to each other.


Oh, no, i'm the anon you were originally talking to this >>95272 is me


>the state is when authority and the more authority there is the statier it is


The state is something different from simple executive authority. It's the monopoly on authority, dominance over an area, that defines the state as something different from a simple executive; and the state as an institution is necessarily collective and claiming its subject, but the individual executive, or chief, is a single man, or some actual entity of executive functioning. The state is in practice held by the chief, or a number of chiefs ruling in an oligopoly, and only after that are the subjects of the state subject to any ideology or cause that is used to justify the state's existence. The chief, the executive himself, is something different from the whole set of institutions and officers that comprise the state; in practice though, all states are nothing more than the committee of competing chiefs and executives that hold the offices of the state. Chiefs can exercise authority without "the state" as such; a CEO or the patriarch of a family exercise executive control over their company or family, and within their private domains they constitute a kind of state. These entities though are subject to "the state", the entity that holds the monopoly on legal violence. And then, you can have situations like a federal system composed of multiple states, but there is no state in the United States that questions wholly federal government, or claims that they are coequal with the federal government. The United States' federal government has separation of powers between ostensibly co-equal branches, but these branches are intended to function as a whole, and the separation of powers was designed explicitly to prevent too much power converging on one many or one body unaccountable to others. (Of course, separation of powers is a pretty terrible way to run a state, which is why people don't do it, and in practice the legal entity "United States of America" is just the scaffolding, behind which corporate power and institutions actually decide what will happen and the formal government just rubber-stamps.)


A former aid who had a falling out with Makhno, who claimed that he was a drunk after he died, because Makhno most surely would have responded to him as was he known to do and a historian who didn't provide any evidence for that claim. Great Sources. And thinking about it Makhno was constantly on the front line any form of drunkenness would surely gotten him killed.

For those who want to learn about Makhno and the black army read this


where is this pic from


I reverse your statement as I claim the dictatorship of the proletariat to be the idealist belief while anarchy to be based in the material reality. As anarchy assumes that humans are neither good or bad, but products of the material reality. Because anarchists recognize the state and capitalism to be the cause of the majority of human suffering in the world right now. Hierarchies like the state and capitalism self perpetuate and only can be destroyed through out side means. While Marxists ideally claim that state will destroy itself, which goes against the very nature of hierarchies.


File: 1614335639384.png (137.06 KB, 239x239, LfLF2RN1_400x400.png)

What would you say are the biggest achievements of anarchism?


Enabling the existence of Eris porn.


and ive even heard some anarchists claim that it was a despotic state capitalist regime


Our lives, lived as free as we can make them.
Most of us are not interested in autistically shilling old and forgotten historic victories. We try to live a different paradigm to Marxist Book Club autists.
>Greated achievement
<betrying the revoution
Okay. We both know that the CNT were opportunists, let us not lie to the person asking questions.


Doesn't work


Good anti-IDPOL anarchist text by Flowerbomb:

> In my experience as a ‘marginalized voice’ I’ve seen identity politics used by activists as a tool of social control aimed at anyone who fits the identity criteria of ‘oppressor’. The traditional power-struggle for equality has turned into an olympic sport for social leverage, inverting the same social hierarchy that should have been destroyed in the first place. Many identity politicians I’ve come across are more interested in exploiting “white guilt” for personal (and even capital) gain than physically confronting any organizational model of white supremacy. I’ve witnessed victimhood used to conceal blatant lies and bullying, motivated by personal revenge. All too often I have seen how identity politics creates a culture where personal experiences are trivialized to the point of passive silence. But this is all old news. Any experienced, self-identifying anarchist has seen or probably experienced some form of being ‘called-out’ or ‘cancelled’. So why do I bring it up? Because I still see this shit happening and I still see so many people lacking the courage to openly confront it.


What books do you recommend on CNT, or the Spanish civil war in general? I only have very superficial knowledge on topic
>Our lives, lived as free as we can make them.
My guy this just puts me off of anarchism more than anything lol. Politics aren't a quirky lifestyle choice
Ok that is pretty good


James C. Scott, Two Cheers for Anarchism: Six Easy Pieces on Autonomy, Dignity, and Meaningful Work and Play (2012)

>implying every single thing should be political


File: 1614367968186.png (418.58 KB, 628x367, wut.png)

>>implying every single thing should be political
??? are you saying anarchism isn't political? Then what the fuck is it?


I read that book. After Chomsky's book left a foul taste in my mouth, that was a pallette cleanser.


Oh, anarchism is absolutely political, but it's a meta-politics. What can or should be within the ambit of politics, where the micro ends and the macro begins, are political decisions. Many Marxist tendencies, being rooted in party politics, chose the easy, blind answer. Anarchism offers a process for any given society at any given scale or level of structure to collectively self-determine a set of answers adaptive to that society at that scale under those conditions at that time, and importantly the tools to adapt those answers as conditions change.


Ok cool so how build sewerage system?


File: 1614373756570.jpg (55.5 KB, 898x790, extremely smart.jpg)

>everyone should decide things for themselves


Well alright. So what past/present anarchist projects do you think I should look into?


What's wrong with the one you have?

>I have internalized the competitive ethos of neoliberalism and I cannot imagine humans not reverting to Homo œconomicus if the market isn't there to discipline them

Neo-Zapatismo is my current fave. Arguably, they are the source of what renaissance there is in anarchism.


Not this shit again. Don’t remind us of sewer autist.


>I reverse your statement as I claim the dictatorship of the proletariat to be the idealist belief while anarchy to be based in the material reality.
Don't tell me that you think materialism can be reduced to 'understanding things correctly'. Most of the points you are bringing have nothing to do with materialism.

>As anarchy assumes that humans are neither good or bad, but products of the material reality. Because anarchists recognize the state and capitalism to be the cause of the majority of human suffering in the world right now. Hierarchies like the state and capitalism self perpetuate and only can be destroyed through out side means.

Your view of materialism is very reductive. If social systems are self-perpetuating because they impose their own consciousness on the people living in it, then there is no way out. While I don't think you can step outside of an entire social system, but if you actually can, then the way you are talking about social systems means they don't encompass the whole of social existence, which in turn would that there are a lot systems here and there and all of them are self-perpetuating. To take an example, I'm sure you aren't opposed to having armed forces as such. The violince they use and they themselves must be self-perpetuating.

The actual Marxist view here is that there are no "good people" or "bad people" (if you think this is what Marx thought, then you don't know shit about Marxism), but there aren't any people who are fully products of their "material reality", if by material reality you only mean either false consciousness imposed by the ruling class, a person's real class interest or direct self interest. All of these things influence people at the same time, along with physical repression and a lot of other things. These always fluctuate and change and if the system drives people to hate it through imposing misery upon them and start organizing and later revolting, then that's the system (capitalism) destroying itself.

Likewise, if in the DoP the leaders aren't interested in perpetuating certain parts of the system, for example the secret police through ideological manipulation and more secret police because the DoP has a very well functioning democracy or simply because there is no bourgeoisie they could serve and the modest material priviliges they might have aren't enough for them to develop counter-revolutionary consciousness, then what we see here is also the system (let's say the state) destroying itself


>>I have internalized the competitive ethos of neoliberalism and I cannot imagine humans not reverting to Homo œconomicus if the market isn't there to discipline them
I would love if people could just decide what society they want to live in. The problem is that this will never come to be. Changing (overthrowing) a system requires collective action and collective action requires centralisation, ie. the party. Saying people should come together and decide things on the local level is not just unrealistic, but also totally meaningless. The Marxist praxis is simple but precise and clear: the working class should organize and form a party of its own.


>>96475 (me)
Technically, neo-Zapatismo is more of a syncrete of libsoc, anarchism, Marxism, and their indigenous decision-making practices. And it has worked for a generation, mostly because it's not very valuable. Note that Zapatistas were responsible in part for stirring up the somewhat successful Seattle WTO round protests.

>Your view of materialism is very reductive
Good. That's a sign that someone's sacred cows are getting rekt.

>Changing (overthrowing) a system requires collective action
>and collective action requires centralisation
False. Any collective big enough to act decisively is big enough to detect via intelligence. You're larping.
>ie. the party
Objectively false. Gtfo me you creepy rapey jealous son of a bitch.


>Neo-Zapatismo is my current fave.
it's zapatismo, not neo-anything. And they aren't anarchists.
I think you mean "marxism leninism as it applies to the indigenous people of the lacandon jungle".


Sounds hegemonic.


>And they aren't anarchists.
Then where is their Party?


Calling them mls is borderline gaslighting


>Uh dudes, what even is anarchism?


File: 1614583774546.jpg (164.12 KB, 624x801, a68875115047915a3720ed4b9d….jpg)

Why did /dead/ die?


Mods are fags as usual.


securing the eight hour work day

Actually helping combat Chorlea epidemic

Within today, setting up squat networks for the homeless, as well as refugees


Contributed to the Soviet Space Program

There are many things they have done, but let's be honest, these achievements aren't inherent or special to any ideology in particular.


Yea, keep the 0PPW board invented by anarchies biggest online faggot. So useful!!




At least it is true to its name


Before the split there was life there, even if it was slow. But now it is completely deserted. I miss my friends.


Yeah, we had some really good discussions before the dumb mods had to fuck everything up.


I'm sorry. /dead/ was an unintended casualty. Might I suggest reaching out to the other posters there to hang out on some kind of chat program, that might let you stay in touch better.


File: 1614715416232-0.jpg (264.42 KB, 2048x1364, Eve47zpXIAQ4Jmi.jpg)

File: 1614715416232-1.jpg (412.62 KB, 2048x1364, Eve49DIXEAcUH95.jpg)

who's laughing now ?

Unique IPs: 27

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / cytube] [ leftypol / b / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime ] [ meta ] [ GET / ref]