How build and maintain sewerage system
good thread, not at all an anarchist myself but would love to see more serious discussion on the topic.
malatesta is great and i would recommend everyone read him regardless of your personal orientation, he has a very cool series of platonic style dialogues demonstrating his politics:https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-at-the-cafe
and though i think "Stirnerism" and "egoism" are bad memes not least of all because i remember this "ideology" growing almost entirely out of 2013 /lit/ memes
Stirner is often unfairly dismissed as useless, this is a good argument regarding Stirner's influence on Marx despite Marx's particular condemnations of Stirner's ideas. section 3 is where it gets into Marx in particularhttps://libcom.org/history/stirner-feurbach-marx-young-hegelians-david-mclellan
from a more critical angle, here's an article "debunking" some of the illusions about Makhno and the Black Army being an entirely viable and principled alternative to the Bolsheviks. it uses dogmatic Leninist (i think Trotskyist) language and phrasing, i havent checked the particular sources and some of the conclusions seem to only loosely relate to what's cited, but regardless it at least makes specific claims that are a good point of departure for real discussionhttps://marxistleftreview.org/articles/nestor-makhno-the-failure-of-anarchism/#_ednref49
>The anarchists’ utopianism also led them to release all prisoners and burn down the jails whenever they seized a town. This was sheer idiocy. In one famous case in Ekaterinoslav, the ex-prisoners immediately proceeded to loot the town. The local inhabitants were outraged and Makhno had to personally execute a number of the criminals he had just released.
"sheer idiocy", maybe, but it's pretty based
Why does the ruling class fund you guys and leftcoms against us ML's? it's almost like anarchism does nothing but sabotage real organizing
I knew it. Anarchists hate white babies.tankieTankie
very funny imagining the state department funding a five person bordiga NEET virgin reading group to try in the most roundabout way possible to undermine a two dozen person PSL local that is already 2% feds, 5% ancient trot sex pests, 10% future cultists, and 40% twitter radlibs who will be liberals voting for democratic nominee Pete Buttigieg in 8 years
why no bakunin or proudhon?
why yes, I am a tankie, I am sexually aroused by the persecution of ethnic minorities, I enjoy murdering my own comrades and strangling any genuine socialism among them, the highest form of communism is when you have a cryptofascist and deeply conservative state of careerist bureaucrats that oppose any new ideas on principle.
great, now we've both got our strawmanning out in the open do you feel like we have had a constructive discussion today?
They're all under "More". I chose those three as a 101 intro, it isn't meant to be an exhaustive list of anarchist theory.
>>7457>I enjoy murdering my own comrades and strangling any genuine socialism among them
thats what anarchists do since they have a history of torpedoing revolutions or trying to actually
I'm an ML but im interested in the work of "the invisible committee" for its influence on late 2000s/early 2010s hacktivist culture
can anyone redpill me on their work and how is it different from basic ancom?
only thing I read from them is “fuck off google”. to be honest I didn’t even know they were anarchist.
all ideologies are equally shit, there, fucking happy now?
ok enlightened centrist
They're insurrectionists. The book is about forming neighbourhood communities without capitalism and defending those communities. Basically full communism now, everyone else be damned! It differs from ancom theory because ancom theory is about changing society and not just settling for pockets "without capitalism". Ancoms understand that if you're embedded in capitalism, you still play by capitalism's rules, hence the needed transformation of society to achieve ancom aims. That said, I actually enjoyed the book and do recommend it to others, because it is inspiring and I'd rather someone be an insurrectionist who takes over an abandoned building or burns down a McDonald's than just another wagie who dreams of revolution.
You know this thread is gonna get raided by tankfags, right? AKA, a bunch of useless internet schizos who think sectarianism is practices.syndicalismSyndicalism
>thats what anarchists do since they have a history of torpedoing revolutions or trying to actually
This reeks of projection and cope. Also it’s “that’s”.syndicalismSyndicalism
10/10 made me chuckle, tankie faggot.syndicalismSyndicalism
Majority of "tankies" in this thread were well behaved and you coming in barging how tankies are schizos who just want to wreck is indeed pure projection.
it's a good polemic about new relations of capital and civil infrastructure, definitely one of the most wortwhile contemporary "anarchist" texts to read, and i think they call themselves insurrectionists or communizers or whatever but i doubt theyd chafe at being called anarchist. i disagree with its conclusions about the way forward but the analysis and presentation is helpful and engaging, its good, read it
its kind of like an earlier, very french Hinterland, which is from a similar political milieu but about the situation in the US. its more readable and imo more sober and agreeable in its suggestions for a way forward, but both are good relevant texts and you shouldnt deprive yourself of them for ideological nitpicks
faggot literally the first post in this thread was a comment made in bad faith
It was a fucking joke making fun of the sewer autist on bunkerchan.
That was an excellent thread faggot.
Found the sewer faggotsyndicalismSyndicalism
You know what? I’m pleasantly surprised to see that the MLs were pretty good faith here. Disregard what I say and I suck cocks.syndicalismSyndicalism
the sewerage question
nigga there are ppl literally claiming all anarkiddies are being funded by cia fuck off
Omg some guy said something stupid all tankies are schizo sectarians. I am very smart.tankieTankie
if you all dont want to have bad faith sectarian arguments maybe you can try to contribute to a discussion instead of bickering about who was bad faith and sectarian first
>>7457>correctly identifying the anarchist base is a strawman
Seethe and/or cope anarcracker
Also, build sewage
if you don't want to be called out when you make bad faith arguments first try to contribute something to the discussion you absolute braindead troglodyte
there is not one post made by tanks in this thread that isn't completly retarded tho
We can, it's called mutual aid.
Isn't that supposed to be a Kronstadt sailor? They were bolsheviks not anarchists
Isn't this the dumbass who ruined the Homestead Strike? Why do people think he has anything useful to say?
buddy these are my posts>>7447>>7470
i was just trying to get it back on track
I have not seen any credible sources that they were rapists and "bandits" wasn;t that just some shit trotsky made up to justify attacking other communists, lol.
Okay I will take this answer entirely seriously so how does anarchism suit you as a selfish person?
basically every faction in the civil war engaged in some degree of massacres, rape, banditry etc. the people fighting under these banners were overwhelmingly not ideologues, plenty were not even politically concerned in a sense beyond what was expediant. this is part of why the accusations of both the red army and the black army for antisemitic pogroms is ridiculous. they were made up of russian peasants and workers who had been born and raised in 19th century tsarist russia, they were not made up of avatars of their respective ideologies. the difference is that the leadership and ideological throughline of the red army and the black army discouraged and brutally punished antisemitism, whereas it was incorporated into the ideological matrix of the white armies.
as for banditry, rape, etc., its inexcusable but while not inevitable it is a very common and pervasive part of war, especially civil wars with countless fronts and shifting allegiances in which discipline and accountability are extremely hard to enforce. if you want to see how messy these kinds of conflicts are without political rose tints, look at 20th century civil wars in africa.
>>7496>this is part of why the accusations of both the red army and the black army for antisemitic pogroms is ridiculous.
There is only evidence of the bolsheviks putting down racial pogroms started by the whites. I don't know about how the black army fared with racial violence.
as for antisemitism in particular, this Trotskyist article that is otherwise very unsympathetic towards Makhno claims that there is no evidence of him allowing or encouraging antisemitism, and that he in fact would personally root out and execute antisemites even when it wasnt strategically expedienthttps://marxistleftreview.org/articles/nestor-makhno-the-failure-of-anarchism/#_ednref49
>A key feature of the anti-Bolshevik rebellion in Ukraine was anti-Jewish pogroms. A common slogan was “Death to the Jews and down with the Communists”.32 Just about all the peasant partisan leaders, notably Hryhoriyiv, were involved in outrages in which tens of thousands of Jews were killed. One of the common charges against Makhno is that his forces also carried out anti-Semitic pogroms. This is an allegation made not just by Bolshevik sources, but also by some leading anarchists, such as Alexander Shapiro.33 Sections of the anarchist émigré press in the 1920s continued to carry articles charging Makhno with responsibility for anti-Jewish pogroms and he publicly debated the issue when in exile in Paris.
>However a detailed examination of the available evidence leads me to reject this charge. While there were some examples of anti-Semitic actions by individual Makhnovists, the official position of the movement was unambiguously clear – anybody involved in anti-Semitic activities would be shot.35 They ruthlessly enforced this policy, with Makhno personally often carrying out the executions.
>In the middle of 1919, after he had broken with the Red Army, Makhno was to briefly negotiate an alliance with Hryhoriyiv, only to break with him and execute him for anti-Semitism. Makhno’s and Hryhoriyiv’s forces held a joint assembly in July 1919. According to the account of an eyewitness, the anarchist theoretician Arshinov, Makhno began to condemn Hryhoriyiv:
>“Such blackguards as Hryhoriyiv degrade all the rebels of the Ukraine, and for them there can be no place in the ranks of the honourable workers of the revolution.” Thus Makhno concluded his accusation of Hryhoriyiv. The latter saw that the affair was taking a terrible turn for him. He reached for his gun. But he was too late. Simon Karetnik – the closest assistant of Makhno – drove him to the ground with several bullets of his Colt, and Makhno, triumphantly proclaiming, “Death to the Ataman” shot him dead. The friends and members of Hryhoriyiv’s staff would have rushed to help him, but were shot on the spot by a group of Makhno’s men previously designated for the task."
>>53475>Just posts a whole fucking article unabridgedhttps://marxistleftreview.org/articles/nestor-makhno-the-failure-of-anarchism/
Volin acknowledges that one of the reasons for the increasing authoritarianism of the Makhnovist army was “the lack of a vigorous and organised workers’ movement to support the insurrection”. The reality was that – as even Makhno’s closest supporter, the anarchist Arshinov, admits – considerable sections of the working class remained loyal to the Bolsheviks: “the difference between the Communists and Wrangel was that the Communists had the support of the masses with faith in the revolution”.
There are numerous horror stories about the behaviour of partisan commanders. The most gross concern their treatment of women, who as Volin admits were compelled to have sex with Makhnovist commanders during drunken debaucheries. This is an issue that Makhno’s anarchist backers skate around or totally ignore. Indeed not only do Van der Walt and Schmidt refuse to face up to these serious allegations, they spuriously attempt to make out that the Makhnovist movement was some sort of champion of women’s liberation.
Volin and numerous others also point out that Makhno was prone to extreme outbursts of violence during his frequent drunken bouts. One resolution adopted at a meeting of the partisans gives the flavour of the movement: “To obey the orders of the commanders if the commanders are sober enough to give them.”
The Makhnovists established their own internal security forces, the Kontrrazvedka and the Punitive Commission. They were a law unto themselves, accountable only to Makhno personally. In one case in Ekaterinoslav, “a trade union delegation that went to complain about the arrest of a woman cultural activist was told that the workers’ place was in the factory, and that they would interfere with the work of the Kontrrazvedka at their peril”.
The Kontrrazvedka was responsible for numerous killings and the torture of opponents, whether they be White agents, Communists, Left Social Revolutionaries or Ukrainian nationalists. Even one of the Makhnovist leaders, Volin, subsequently admitted that at the Olexandrivske Makhnovist Congress delegates complained of “arbitrary and uncontrolled actions, of which some are very serious, rather like the Bolshevik. Searches, arrests, even torture and executions are reported.” Indeed the Makhnovists systematically utilised terror against their left wing rivals. As early as 1918 they assassinated Social Revolutionaries in the Gulyai-Pole soviet. Makhno proclaimed “terror against all those who dare now or are preparing in the future…to persecute the anarchist idea.” After assassinating the Social Revolutionary leader in Gulyai-Pole, the secretary of the local anarchist group, the aptly named Kalashnikov, stated: “it [the anarchist group] killed him and [is] ready to kill in the future such an unworthy”.
The most famous case was in November 1919, just after the partisans seized the city of Ekaterinoslav, where a strong Bolshevik presence among workers posed a serious threat to Makhno. He risked losing control of his army. The Bolsheviks, via underground fraction work, had won the leadership of two of his five regiments, and a third Makhno considered unreliable. How did the supposed libertarian anarchists respond to this challenge – with political debate? Hardly. They unleashed their counter-intelligence. The local worker Bolsheviks and their supporters in the partisan army were rounded up, taken down to the river and shot.
sorry it was an accident, i thought i deleted the post? does the delete function only remove the post for the user?
Yes but the same article also admits that he allied with Hryhoriyiv against the bolsheviks, as they were conducting the pogrom, only to execute him later for antisemitism
Just gotta refreshtankieTankie
It's okay, sorry for being rude.
It's still there though, did you delete it?
the bolsheviks made similar alliances, compromises, and factional shifts throughout the war. im not saying its a good thing either way but war is a bad thing and fluctuating factional allegiance + massacres of civilians + fighting former allies is unfortunately all very common shit in massive manysided civil wars like the russian civil war. my own sympathies are ultimately with the bolsheviks but the red armys hands were dirty too
clicked the box on the post and pressed delete at the bottom and it deleted it for me, if that didnt work could a mod please remove the full copypaste article post?
So the Makhnovista weren’t pussies. And listening tk Volin smearing Makhno after they split because of an issue relating to platformism is like taking Trotsky seriously about the rest of the Bolsheviks>>7501
Really? As in right in the middle of an actual pogrom? X to doubt.
>>7504>the bolsheviks made similar alliances, compromises, and factional shifts throughout the war
Post one then please.bolshevikBolshevik
It's been gone for a while. Press f5 my nibba.
>>7507>So the Makhnovista weren’t pussies>And listening tk Volin smearing Makhno after they split because of an issue relating to platformism
Well which one was it? Did they torture political opponents, including communists to inspire terror, did Mahkno and his handpicked officers rape women and steal from the peasants but it means they aren't pussies? Or was Volin lying? Or perhaps it did happen given the numerous other accounts of it happening?
Really? As in right in the middle of an actual pogrom? X to doubt.
No he allied with them after they rebelled against the bolsheviks and allowed them to carry out the pogrom within their territory if I'm reading it right.bolshevikBolshevik
Simply because enough don’t find Leninism appealing. Some don’t like it for stupid reasons (muh red fascism), others don’t like it for more reasonable ones (the constant ratfucking the Bolsheviks did of one another, preserving the worst aspects of the Tsarist regime through the Katorga and Okhrana, falling apart in slow motion after thirty years because revisionists took control of the aforementiomed, etc.) Then there are the radlibs who’re really into idpol and appropriating the name for itself because it seems edgy.
That’s not to mention how many people love to LARP about the pageantry of such dead regimes, including all the alleged atrocities being considered based. FWIW I think Cuba’s pretty cool.
Rapes: very unbased and from questionable testimony in general.
Politically necessary repressions: Based if true. You don’t tolerate people who will treat you as the enemy of their revolution or folks who think you need to make an extra special cadre of the enlightened to shepherd them into the bright and shining future. It’s not “libertarian” to tolerate those who irreconcilably seek the oppression of others.
Where do you find people who celebrate alleged atrocities? At best you get a joke about Kulaks and the Lolodomor because the latter is a fucking meme.
If you dislike the Bolsheviks and their actions, it doesn't entirely cover the scale of Leninism however. It would be like finding anarchism unappealing because you dislike what Makhno did. Remember that Leninist movement emerged, succeeded and failed on every continent except Antarctica. Also, to say that the USSR fell apart because "revisionists took over" is a baby tier explanation of that.ddrDDR
I’m just saying it how it is. Most people’ll think of China when they hear the word Maoist, not the Black Panther Party.
There are more groups because anarchism is very active, it demands action, therefore it is more appealing to those who want to act. Not to mention that the possibilities that communist groups offer, usually limited to either passive support or competitive ass-kissing, can also be found in the usual bourgeois parties which means there's bigger competition to attract those who lack the brains and gut for anarchism.
They see in anarchism those things that communism promises without the baggage of some eastern European police states (of course we are somewhat influenced by cold era propaganda even myself but i don't think
it's something you can get rid off completely).
People get in touch with anarchism through various channels nowadays like music scenes ,squats ,social centers ,radicalizing against police in supposedly tame protests .seeing antifa actually doing something in the streets etc.anarcho-communismAnarcho-Communism
>>7511>Simply because enough don’t find Leninism appealing
So anarchism presents an alternative ?
> (the constant ratfucking the Bolsheviks did of one another,
Okay and this didn't happen with the back army and anarchists in Spain?>preserving the worst aspects of the Tsarist regime through the Katorga and Okhrana,
You mean with the Cheka? Didn't the black army have a comparable intelligence agency? To my knowledge the cheka did not torture political dissidents to inspire terror though. >Falling apart in slow motion after thirty years because revisionists took control of the aforementiomed
As opposed to every anarchist not-state that has managed to achieve a modicum of independence and power?
>Then there are the radlibs who’re really into idpol and appropriating the name for itself because it seems edgy
Similar to the "socialist" label then
>FWIW I think Cuba’s pretty cool.
Why is that?
And most people think of burning trash cans and graffiti when they hear the word "anarchism". If we were going by that we wouldn't even be able to call us socialists or communists.ddrDDR
>>7512>Politically necessary repressions: Based if true>torturing random bolshevik political officers is politically necessary
Well maybe it wouldn't be if they had the will of the people?> It’s not “libertarian” to tolerate those who irreconcilably seek the oppression of others
Agreed. It was not very "libertarian" of Mahkno to force conscript peasants into his army, and picking all of their officers by himself was it? At least he remembered to liberate the women of their bodily autonomy and the peasants of their possessions
And here we get into the shitflinging. Do you at least have a source to back this up? Hard mode: Not based on trotskyist fairy tales.
>>7514>Most people’ll think of China when they hear the word Maoist, not the Black Panther Party.
Yes specifically the state department's presentation of them. If the Chinese revolutionaries were anarchists they would never have defeated the Kuomintang, let alone overcome their house chink status for western imperialism.
>>7521>If the Chinese revolutionaries were anarchists they would never have defeated the Kuomintang
Real materialism hours
>>7520>Do you at least have a source to back this up?
Yes of course. One moment
Also for ease of argument I would suggest greentexting relevant points>>7522
This is something I want to touch on as well, I don't see anarchism as capable of resisting invasion and counter-revolution. I would like to hear an explanation from anarchists themselvesbolshevikBolshevik
Okay but how would you defend a society after revolution? How would you march on the offensive? Is it expected that soldiers in the anarchist territory would be conscripted and coerced to meet military objectives set by higher command?
>Agreed. It was not very "libertarian" of Mahkno to force conscript peasants into his army,
No one was conscripted. They tried to nag people to join the army, of course, but they literal had no means to enforce any attempts for conscription.
>and picking all of their officers by himself was it?
Links or it didn’t happen.
>At least he remembered to liberate the women of their bodily autonomy and the peasants of their possessions
Lol. A peasant army with a primarily rural base totally robbed from them and raped them on the reg. More Trot propaganda, plz.
You can be a Marxist and anarchist. A lot of anarchists agree with Marx's analysis, but they disagree with the prescribed action. I mean, if you read the preface to the 1871 (iirc) print of the Manifesto, they write that it is somewhat outdated and mentions the 10 points specifically. Engels talks about a need to rethink the State's role in the DotP after the Paris Commune. Zapatistas are Marxists who use anarchist tactics of direct action, free association, community councils. It feels like there's a lot of strawmanning of anarchist positions.
That said, there are a lot of anarchists who reject Marx, but I think that most anarchists would agree with the class analysis of society, that there are proletarians and bourgeois, and that capitalism has to be abolished. Before the split, the first international included anarchists and communists. So this whole communist anarchist fight is a silly disagreement in the past. At this point it is like religious wars that have been going on for hundreds of years, and that go on because of tradition and not any actual problems. If anything both communists and anarchists have much more to gain by working together, rather than fighting.
What you’re describing is more on the line of Libertarian Marxism than Anarchism IMHO, but those currents have a lot of common ground.
"Some groups have understood voluntary mibilization as moblilization only for those who wish to enter the insurrectionary army, and that anyone who for any reason wishes to stay home is not liable… this is not correct"
"The voluntary mobilization has been called because the peasants, workers and insurgents themselves have decided to mobilize"
Anyways, why do you want to be an african warlord looting villages without compensating people.
And you be getting this from where? At any rate, fucking Trotsky said it was impossible for them to actually enforce any conscription.
First of all ,of course a society built on the idea to end coercion will crumple if it's members are not willing to fight for it. I'm copy pasting the following:
>The method of decentralized large-scale organisation in industry previously discussed, can be applied to defence forces. I will call these decentralized forces, Mutual Aid Militia (MAM). Engel’s (1974/) asserted that anarchism was impossible because complex organisation requires coordination, which in turn requires authority (p102-104). This logic applies to fighting forces because to fight as a whole, fighters need to strictly coordinate action, which implies the need for a command structure. However, Engels’ assertions are based on misrepresenting anarchism. Anarchism rejects political authority, but not authority of expertise. Bakunin (1999/) differentiates political authority which is imposed by an external agent, and the authority of “specialists”, whose expertise is followed by choice and reason. Commanders can coordinate forces, but this role isn’t un-anarchist unless they are imposed coercively.
>If commanders are given decision making capabilities through appointment by the collective, the fighters themselves recognise the need for the expertise and coordination commanders provide. Therefore, the role is justifiable under Anarchism. Therefore, much like in Cataluña, militia-fighters would appoint their own commanders (Marshall; 1993; p461).
>Directly appointing commanders will be implemented whenever feasible, with smaller units combining to appoint higher ranking officers. However, the fact that large-scale decentralised organisation under anarchism seemingly requires appointing committees at a certain level, highlights that direct-democracy isn’t practicable once coordination becomes large enough. Therefore militia structures need to create their own committee structures for larger scale coordination.
>Therefore, once these direct-democratic units require larger scale coordination, each unit can elect a delegate(s) to represent them, delegates would then form a strategic committee, this committee will then advise on larger scale strategy. Delegates could also appoint their own commander amongst themselves within committees when quick decisions need to be made. When even larger coordination is needed, committees can coordinate with other committees to form higher order committees. Much like workers committees, higher order committees can expand to as large a scale as needed, allowing for coordination on as large a scale as needed.
>Committees, even their commanders, being appointed to advise on coordination, don’t have the same powers as the unit commanders as they aren’t as directly accountable given the limits of direct-democracy. Therefore, unit commanders retain autonomy on whether to heed the advice of the committee, therefore maximising the power of the troops on the ground by delegating autonomy to the most accountable agents.
>It follows however, from their role as larger scale coordinators, that committees occupy a position where they can comprehend events on a larger scale. Therefore, they are in a better position to determine whether to scale up coordination. Therefore, the committees have the freedom to form larger committees, given that they are in the best position to make a sound judgement regarding this. However, this ability doesn’t translate to a centralisation of power; committees don’t have ultimate power of command, as discussed, the directly appointed unit commanders retain this role and maintain the power to ignore these committee, therefore allowing for effective large-scale coordination without creating centralisations of power.
>Because I have outlined structures where large-scale coordination is enabled whilst retaining bottom-up power, I have outlined combat structures which both adhere to anarchist principles whilst enabling the scale of coordination needed for effective defence while avoiding the problem of forcing fighters under central control as was found in Cataluña.
>However, these militia must also be accountable to the community to prevent them from repeating the chieftain behaviour as in Ukraine. Luckily, because under anarcho-communism all is owned collectively, the means militia have of fighting is in the hands of the population at large. Fighters need guns and bullets and vehicles etc to fight. It follows that the society who owns these things must permit use of these resources in order for forces to fight. Therefore, it follows that to fight, these militias must gain the consent of their local communities. If the militia then misbehave, their power to fight can be revoked, mitigating the issues found in Ukraine.
I would also suggest checking the defense part(starting at 21:35) of this video for a general idea of the militia as part of the community instead of a separate coercive bodyhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9K6ISx8QEQ
1. Gulyai-Polye in 1918
by N. Sukhogorskaya
He himself only drank in his free time when he was not concerned with military tasks. But when he did drink he drank himself almost into a stupor and became an absolute fiend. In this state he would go out and kill a personal enemy or torture and execute prisoners. One time when he was under the weather he hacked to death 13 prisoners-of-war, red Siberian fusiliers, purely for his own enjoyment.
2. Agafya Andreyevna
by N. Sukhogorskaya
>Generally speaking, Makhno left the teachers alone. The Makhnovists only ever killed one teacher, an old ethnic German whose son was an officer. As I said earlier, the bodies of people who had been killed were always left lying in the streets for some time afterwards. Relatives had to go to Makhno to ask permission to bury the body. The dead German lay in the main street all day, and a detachment of mounted Makhnovists took pleasure in desecrating the body. One bandit kept trying to get his horse to crush the dead man's skull with its hooves. But the horse pranced around, jumping back and forth over the corpse, and however much the Makhnovists goaded it, it wouldn't do what they wanted. Then the enraged Makhnovist took his whip, beat his horse bloody, and galloped off.
The Makhnovists hated the intelligentsia. Members of the intelligentsia, especially men, were afraid to go outside when the Makhnovists were in control of the town. The Makhnovists once wanted to kill an acquaintance of mine simply because he wore a broad-rimmed hat. "Fancy hat - you must be a damn intellectual. I'd better bump you off", one Makhnovist said to his face. This scared the living daylights out of him and he ran away as fast as his legs would carry him. But this was an exception, and the treatment of intellectuals was largely civil. This was due to the fact that Makhno's third wife, Agafya Andreyevna Kuzmenko - who later used Galina as a first name because it sounded more refined - had also once been a teacher in Gulyai-Polye. She therefore considered herself a benefactor and the patron of the schools and the intelligentsia in general. She worked at a school until her relationship with Makhno. Agafya Andreyevna taught Ukrainian. She was a proud Ukrainian and was in favour of national independence for the Ukraine. I don't know when Makhno too became a proponent of Ukrainian national independence, but he was one, just as he had once been an anarchist. Makhno often changed colour, he was a real political chameleon. In fact he only wanted Ukrainian independence so he could become the country's leader. That's why Makhno killed Grigoryev, who he considered a dangerous opponent. Makhno loved power and the fear it instilled in people. He enjoyed people's esteem and all the trappings of power. I once saw Makhno and his wife arrive in town riding on a wonderful carriage clad all round in blue cloth and drawn by three mouse-grey horses. The people stood and bowed, taking off their fur caps, and Makhno and his wife answered their subjects with a condescending nod. A real Gulyai-Polye monarch.
>One day I had the misfortune of witnessing the torture of someone suspected of informing on the Makhnovists. A man of colossal build burst into our courtyard, pushing along a young peasant in front of him and acting as if it were some game. The peasant was of average height, but alongside his giant tormentor he looked like a child. Now the hulk of a fellow led the peasant up to the wall and pressed his head against it. He ordered his victim to bash his head against the wall and do it proper and hard. Several other Makhnovists stood by watching, they began to sing and forced the peasant to dance. By now the young man's head was badly hurt, blood was flowing down his face and tears streaming from his eyes, but the thugs just slapped him in the face and ordered him to keep dancing. The poor fellow fell to the ground, you could see he was dizzy. Then they unsheathed their sabres and began jabbing him in the ribs. He didn't even groan or scream. This poor tormented fellow was an ordinary farmer lad who they suspected, without foundation, of having informed on the Makhnovists to the Reds.
>I met Agafya Andreyevna several times. Once she arrived in the village and suggested organising a fund-raising evening for poor school teachers. The Makhnovists had just returned from a campaign and had a lot of money. "They'd just spend it all on booze and card games anyway," she said. "For all they care the school could be closed down, there'd be no money, and the teachers would go hungry".
>There was no refusing our "patron" - she would be deeply offended, and Makhno's revenge would follow - so the teachers had no choice but to organise the fund-raiser. All of us who were there that evening were afraid. It was known that the Reds were planning a raid on Gulyai-Polye and was on their guard. The Makhnovists set up machineguns around the theatre. It seemed the shooting would begin at any moment and we would be forced to run for shelter.
It's taking me a long time to quote but this source:>https://marxistleftreview.org/articles/nestor-makhno-the-failure-of-anarchism/
covers all of the points I've made as wellbolshevikBolshevik
Kronstadt, for one.
>inb4 haha muhh kronstadt
im just saying it is a well known example of unfortunate but predictable messy factional violence due to the chaos, high stakes, and rapid shifts in priorities that happen during a civil war of this scale
there was the Worker's Group, who were for the most part loyal bolshevik revolutionaries with disagreements about political implementation who were at first tolerated and then suppressed, sometimes brutally, and their positions are a good account of internal dissent and discipline within the bolsheviks during the civil war https://libcom.org/library/bolshevik-opposition-lenin-paul-avrich
the "Green Armies", many decentralized peasant forces with different aims and different leadership, were throughout the war pragmatically allied with, tolerated, fought, and destroyed, sometimes the same being done to the same groups at different periods throughout the war as the situation developed and allegiances frayed.
>inb4 someone says im saying muh bolsheviks bad because of this
you asked for examples of the Bolsheviks being as involved in the chaotic, shifting violence of wartime as other factions were, and these are examples of that. if you think that the claims of the red army engaging in looting and rape when taking villages from the whites and the greens is completely unsubstantiated, i dont know what to tell you, i think thats a naive understanding of war. if you think that all the good peasants were consistently aligned with the bolsheviks throughout the war and all the green army peasants were bad and lying about not being able to feed themselves because the red army requisitioned grain for the war effort, i think thats a naive understanding of war.
my historical sympathies are entirely with the red army and the bolsheviks. that doesnt mean i think that against all reason and evidence somehow they waged a good clean war where soldiers were always properly disciplined, civilians properly treated, and alliances ideologically consistent
Just say he had an imp tail already
It's from an organizational conference they held.>they were too incompetent to enforce conscription
>>7536> Apparatuses for coercion is competence
Real tankie hours, here.
not arguments, comrades
>>7533>Citing Trot rags
>>7532> Anarchism rejects political authority, but not authority of expertise.>Bakunin (1999/) differentiates political authority which is imposed by an external agent, and the authority of “specialists”, whose expertise is followed by choice and reason>Commanders can coordinate forces, but this role isn’t un-anarchist unless they are imposed coercively.
Okay so how do you compel soldiers to fight if they do not want to or they disagree with the objective? You don't at all? So then how do you even get people to die in a war? If one segment in a line decides to hold off on an advance, then then a gap is formed and the whole offensive is compromised.
>>Directly appointing commanders will be implemented whenever feasible, with smaller units combining to appoint higher ranking officers. However, the fact that large-scale decentralised organisation under anarchism seemingly requires appointing committees at a certain level, highlights that direct-democracy isn’t practicable once coordination becomes large enough. Therefore militia structures need to create their own committee structures for larger scale coordination.
This seems less effective to me than rigid pre-appointed chains of command. There needs to be a clear indication as to who is following who's orders, and this can't be something that is constantly being voted on and re-worked on the fly. There is also the matter of planning and intelligence, you need continuity in strategic plans over a whole campaign, and you need to keep them to a need-to-know basis, lest they get leaked. The truth of the matter is that the morality of war has no effect on it's outcome, aside from the effect that moral "righteousness" has on the morale of the conflicting parties and so on. In truth I would expect a rigidly hierarchical fighting force with a less centralized decision making structure to be necessarily less disciplined and weaker in morale than a fighting force with predetermined chains of command and compulsory orders, in addition to being unrealistic all together.
And remember that we are (presumably) trying to win here. If you lose this war, then you will have no say in the fate of your society.bolshevikBolshevik
One of the sources was Makhno's former aid, 2 of them are some liberal historian or something and there is about 10 other ones in this https://marxistleftreview.org/articles/nestor-makhno-the-failure-of-anarchism/>>7534
I can't say whether the bolsheviks were justified with kronstadt in particular. Perhaps I was being a bit cheeky, but I can't remember any examples of the bolsheviks allying with warlords and allowing their crimes like Mahkno did with Hryhoriyiv.
Sorry I am getting tired and progressively more retarded so pls point out if I say anything wrong and gaybolshevikBolshevik
>>7534>the "Green Armies", many decentralized peasant forces with different aims and different leadership, were throughout the war pragmatically allied with, tolerated, fought, and destroyed, sometimes the same being done to the same groups at different periods throughout the war as the situation developed and allegiances frayed.
Okay I rescind my point, fair enough
>you asked for examples of the Bolsheviks being as involved in the chaotic, shifting violence of wartime as other factions were, and these are examples of that. if you think that the claims of the red army engaging in looting and rape when taking villages from the whites and the greens is completely unsubstantiated, i dont know what to tell you, i think thats a naive understanding of war. if you think that all the good peasants were consistently aligned with the bolsheviks throughout the war and all the green army peasants were bad and lying about not being able to feed themselves because the red army requisitioned grain for the war effort, i think thats a naive understanding of war.
>my historical sympathies are entirely with the red army and the bolsheviks. that doesnt mean i think that against all reason and evidence somehow they waged a good clean war where soldiers were always properly disciplined, civilians properly treated, and alliances ideologically consistent
Fair points I was being dogmaticbolshevikBolshevik
Yeah, the one who split with him because of a difference concerning Platformism vs Anarchist Synthesis years after the end of the war.
Yeah I am not sure how reliable his testimony is individually, but there does appear to be a lot of different parties accusing him and the black army of bandit like behavior.
>>7544>A wide variety
You mean Trotsky?
There are more groups because anarchism is very active, it demands action, therefore it is more appealing to those who want to act
Okay but compare them to say the Black Panther Party, whom were marxists and engaged in a lot of the same mutual aid and street demonstrations and so on, why didn't the anarchists get cointelpro'd? >usually limited to either passive support
Not before the feds got to them >or competitive ass-kissing
you don't think this happens in anarchist circles as well?>They see in anarchism those things that communism promises
Okay sure but how can Anarchism achieve them? Is there any precedent in the historical record for this?>without the baggage of some eastern European police states
Would you say that the warsaw pact countries were any more "police states" than any other societies of the time?> People get in touch with anarchism through various channels nowadays like music scenes ,squats ,social centers ,radicalizing against police in supposedly tame protests .seeing antifa actually doing something in the streets etc.
This makes sense to me, in the west there is a lot more exposure to anarchist subcultures than communist ones, at least since 90's with the counterrevolution in the AES states.
I didn't cite thotsky once
Then who? Who are these other parties you speak of?
I think it was a fair question lolbolshevikBolshevik
The thing that I hate the most about anarchists are how idpozzed a lot of them are. The ones who are actually commited anti-authoritarians are cool but most of them I just don't trust.
most real anarchists are practicing paranoid opsec afaik so they're not blathering off on twitter/youtube. those are radlibs larping as anarchists aka anarcho-liberals
idk about "most" but yeah generally serious anarchists who dont get bogged down in culture war bullshit are not people you will meet or hear about online. theres overlap at shit like punk shows, mutual aid drives, etc but its pretty easy to tell apart the smug radlib fair weather anarchists from the people who are serious about taking insurgent action. as a general rule of thumb if someone is very looselipped about their anarchist politics and you cant imagine them willingly taking a punch, they probably have a twitter they use every day and think that trump is literally hitler and will take off their fashion accessories and become cookie cutter liberals in 1-3 years
you might think its cringe lifestylism or useless or w/e but breadtube picrel furry dorks who show up to a pride march in a witch costume chanting "smash the state" and "this is what democracy looks like" are a world apart from the people who show up with zipties to build barricades and will jump into a swinging baton to try and dearrest their friend who got grabbed
no problem lad i appreciate the discussion, i was probably being overly hostile because i interpreted the shortness of the request as it being an insincere rhetorical question
>>7540> If you lose this war, then you will have no say in the fate of your society.
And if you win the war with a red army (with barrier troops) you have lost the social relations that you want to base your society one
it's a Mexican standoff!
They’re brain-damaged, don’t worry about it.
Take it up with the fuckers behind the fabric of reality
If only they weren't so infatuated with their New Man meme.
this pdf gave me a itch to play some mgs
I wonder how come anarchism became so popular with furries and those sorts of crowds. The socialist paws thing was such a fucking meme. I actually want them to go back to being liberals, which a lot of them already are but it seems like a few of the rad libs might actually stick around and stop having a stick up their asses. I think there is certainly a grey area between the based and the cringe anarchists.
honestly radlibs probably adopt anarchism as their title of choice because they themselves believe its impossible. on some level they agree that it failed and wont succeed, so feel safe in calling for unconditional freedom and equality and other good things knowing theyll never lift a finger to try and make it happen.
that said, soviet/mao LARPers who call themselves communists are almost as common, and its a similar situation. they like to get to claim solidarity and equality while thinking theyre just temporarily embarrased apparatchiks in the meantime, and the samr way that left-liberal "anarchists" unconsciously believe that its impossible so its safe to believe in, left-liberal "communists" unconsciously take solace in the delusion that their ideal socialism will be what western propaganda says it is: just a more militant, paternalistic social-democracy where you get to wear neat matching uniforms with your friends while punishing your enemies and singing the praises of your noble ancestors, Marx-Engels-Lenin-Trotsky-Stalin-Mao etc w/e
it's all liberalism
>>7554>implying trump wouldn't do hitler like shit if he was able to
Cringe, you must be a nazbol who calls anyone that supports marginalized communities "radlibs". Fuck idpol and fuck nationalism.
genuinely cannot tell if youre baiting or not
>>7565>so feel safe in calling for unconditional freedom and equality and other good things knowing theyll never lift a finger to try and make it happen.
Why not, that's their electoral program too.
And in today's episode of Anarchists Demand To Be Taken Seriously…
>>7449>why does the ruling class fund you guys
By your logic, all MLs are reactionary because China maintains a wealthy ruling class within their communist party, and the KKE collaborated with fascists in Greece.zapatistaZapatista
>>7507>So the Makhnovista weren’t pussies. And listening tk Volin smearing Makhno after they split because of an issue relating to platformism is like taking Trotsky seriously about the rest of the Bolsheviks
Pretty much. Volin's relationship with Makhno deteriorated with ideological differences, with Volin advocating for more of a synthesist anarchism and Makhno advocating for Platformism, not to mention the allegations were published after Makhno's death.
Voline's allegations against Makhno in regards to sexual violations of women has been disputed by some on the grounds that the allegations are unsubstantiated, do not stand up to eyewitness accounts of the punishment meted out to rapists by the Makhnovists, and were originally made by Voline in his book The Unknown Revolution which was first published in 1947. Seems to me Volin was likely an opportunist. HOWEVER
this does not dispute the fact that the forces of the black army did not have their fair share of Jackasses. In "Nestor Makhno: Anarchy's Cossack", the text actually goes into detail on how the "civillian intelligence" basically acted like a pair of jackasses, looting and stealing from others and going as far to brutally assault a fisherman under the the presumption he was a white army spy. Luckily, the communes of the free territory quickly put forward a policy that disbanded the organization entirely. >>7534
This guy gets it. I think the most important thing that leftists have to understand is that the revolution will be messy and you will without a doubt run into fuckups and fuckwits within your own ranks. Neither the Black Army nor the red army were exempt from this.zapatistaZapatista
Name a single Marxist organization in the West that is in any way comparable with the Panthers. There's none, therefore the people who sympathise with the direct action carried out by them will end up in the anarchist groups that are actually doing these, even if they were initially more sympathetic to Marxism. I know that tankies believe that politics is about rehabilitating the past, but politically active people usually want to act, not having week long debates about history.
Also, there are anarchists who hide their sympathies and join communist parties to Influence them towards more direct actions. While you can at least sometimes catch the paranoid ones, these are practically invisible.
Name a single anarchist organisation in the West that's comparable to the panthers
I don't know of any vanguardist anarchist organization thankfully.
>>7545>And if you win the war with a red army (with barrier troops) you have lost the social relations that you want to base your society on
What social relations?
Also would you agree that a society like the USSR is preferable to the victory of capitalism and the forces of counter revolution?>>7571
The CIA has actually funded anarchists during colour revolutions, additionally I've noticed the feds keep referring to marxist communist groups like the panthers as "anarchists", and I honestly think it's a psyop.
>By your logic, all MLs are reactionary because China maintains a wealthy ruling class within their communist party
That comparison is illogical but I would say that much of China's market liberalization was arguably reactionary, and if Mao and co's autism was not so out of control, then there would be no reason for it. >the KKE collaborated with fascists in Greece
Who? The military junta? yes they collaborated if by collaborated you mean were tortured by.>>7573>Name a single Marxist organization in the West that is in any way comparable with the Panthers
Is this a psyop?? The panthers. Fucking retard.
>I know that tankies believe that politics is about rehabilitating the past, but politically active people usually want to act, not having week long debates about history.
Any political group that intends to challenge the status quo must do both.
The panthers did both, the panthers continue to do both in their prison chapters that still exist. Most of the Marxist/Leninist and Maoist groups that did a lot of direct action stuff got targeted by the FBI and v& during the cold war. Some of them have survived and revived and new ones were formed as well that are doing direct action stuff today. Mutual aid, sit ins and street brawls or w/e are in no way an exclusively anarchist thing.bolshevikBolshevik
>>7577>Also would you agree that a society like the USSR is preferable to the victory of capitalism and the forces of counter revolution?
I don't care they are both states ,i want communism
>>7578>I want communism
never going to happen for thousands of years AT LEAST!
So Marxist orgs pale in comparison to the BPP because the latter is actually anarchist, but when you have to admit that the anarchists are also weak and impotent, it doesn't matter because the BPP isn't anarchist.>>7577>Who? The military junta? yes they collaborated if by collaborated you mean were tortured by.
He is referring to that one time when there was a strike and the KKE sent their people there to speak for the workers and rally them to their cause even though the Golden Dawn was also there, because real praxis is when you abandon those reactionary piece of shit proles for having the audicity receive some lipservice from fascists.>>7578
History doesn't work like that. Miracles do happen, but that doesn't mean you and your 5 other buddies at squat can will an entire socio-economic system into existence.
I don't care ,i'm not dying for the nationalization of trolleys and cheap uni
The ruling class doesn't care that you don't care. It's going to happen weather you like it or not. There is no power strong enough yet to stop them for a good long while.
>>7582>There is no power strong enough yet to stop them for a good long while.
Yeah i agree.
I was actually referring to the time when the KKE supported cops and beat up the anarchists who were fighting them. You know, the cops whose membership consisted of a shit ton of people from golden dawn?zapatistaZapatista
Anarchists, especially american anarchists, are not anarchists because they are anti-capitalist, that is a tertiary. The primary reason is because they are anti-communists.
Anarchists are not comrades.
>>7578>I don't care they are both states
At least you are honest lol
A classless, stateless, moneyless society could probably be achieved within a hundred years of international socialism I think>>7584>I was actually referring to the time when the KKE supported cops and beat up the anarchists who were fighting them
What event is this?bolshevikBolshevik
anarchists outside of greece were celebrating syriza while the greek ones were crawling out of their polytechnic school squat to brawl
the more I fucking learn and think about anarchism the more it doesn’t make sense. like, what does decentralization even do? it’s supposedly more “democratic” but in reality you’re just creating a gigantic beauraucracy that does nothing but obfuscate democracy. How is having all these fucking councils, and union councils, and syndicates and shit more democratic? It sounds like a massive bloated overcomplicated waste.
or how about the time Hungarian MLs sided with fascists?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chEL1J560xM
Or how about the time China recognised the Pinochet government as legitimatehttps://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-5/pl-china-9.htm
Fact is, you're in no positition to accuse Anarchists of "aiding the CIA" when MLs have historically assisted reactionary forces in the face of building solidarity. In other words, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. >>7588
see this post.zapatistaZapatista
>>7589>How is having all these fucking councils, and union councils, and syndicates and shit more democratic?>how is involving more people into decision-making more democratic than a small number of people deciding everything for everyone?
I dunno anon, you tell me.
Wow, it's almost as if anarchists actually do believe in a form of organization that isn't concentrated in the form of a centralised governing body.
But then again I don't expect glowies to understand anarchism.zapatistaZapatista
you are just taking the piss now
but it’s all still the same people, like, you still need some sort of federal government. You can’t just recreate some idealized tribal society or whatever the fuck. direct democracy and councils are fully compatiblr with marxism-leninism, decentralizing is ineffiecnt as shit
Burgers prefer anarchism
Of course burgers also like breathing so not all things burgers like are stupid but most things burgers like are stupid which is a massive prior against anarchism
>>7581>I don't care ,i'm not dying for the nationalization of trolleys and cheap uni
No you will die and you will have neither of these things, living conditions will only continue to deteriorate in the imperial core until the establishment of a workers state.>>7590>Or how about the time China recognised the Pinochet government as legitimate
Of course I won't defend this, most Marxists cringe at pretty much all of China's foreign policy at that time.>Fact is, you're in no positition to accuse Anarchists of "aiding the CIA" when MLs have historically assisted reactionary forces in the face of building solidarity
Trots are the only Marxists that have a consistent history of supporting reactionaries. Contrast this with Anarchists, whom usually condemn all already existing socialist states, and express support for CIA colour revolutions like in Hong Kong or euromaidan.>>7594
This. Look up sortition and read cockshotbolshevikBolshevik
>>I was actually referring to the time when the KKE supported cops and beat up the anarchists who were fighting them>>7590>first link
Communist party blocks members of parliament from voting to extend austerity and take out IMF loans
Anarkiddies sperge out and try and break through, attacking them. Lol.
Some fucking speeches in Hungarian that I can't understand because I don't fucking speak Hungarian
>>7597>all anarchists are the same because, uh… it suits my simplified view of the world
I said usually, not all. What AES states do you support? Do you support the Hong Kong rioters? The kurds?bolshevikBolshevik
>>7599>What AES states do you support?
Fulham F.C. what's this retarded question
cockshott is a utopian that constructs models
>>7590>>7598>Some fucking speeches in Hungarian that I can't understand because I don't fucking speak Hungarian
It's a fucking anti-eviction protest. Yes, fascists are frequently involved in things like this (getting a mortgage is a lot more common in Hungary then renting a house and also a lot easier to blame on the jewish bankers) and I don't care because eviction is bad. Whether or not there was a way to do that without the fascists is another question, but again an irrelevant one because most MLs are not like Munkáspárt. By that I mean being nationalist socdems with communist symbolism. It's basically the Hungarian version of the KPRF, just without any electoral support because membership-wise it's a small nostalgia club for boomers.>inb4 all MLs are like that
Uhh, okay. Go to the Russian thread and ask them about the KPRF or go to the Hungarian thread and ask us about Munkáspárt. I'll give you a hint about the latter: it's treated as a joke.
Not the previous poster, but this has happened numerous times.
I was once actually there, I believe it was in 2011 or maybe in 2012? At Syntagma square. There's also other similar stuff that has happened further in the past like the Chimeio (old chemistry department building in central athens). The KKE youth KNE was nicknamed the 'KNAT' for a while, after the 'MAT' which is the greek riot police.
>>7602>Yes, fascists are frequently involved in things like this
In anti eviction wtf ????
So in Greece the communist party fought with anarchists on several occasions? Why did this happen? They did not however collaborate with the police though did they?
That was the joke, since several anti-cockshott threads had been made making that same argument.
I have seen absolutely nothing to suggest that he is an utopian
t.flag emojis in twitter usernameanarcho-communismAnarcho-Communism
He didn't say they were good threads.
>>7589>anarchy is when there is no organization, only chaos
In True AnarchyTM decisions are made by the people who are affected by them. You can do different things different ways. You would still have centralization, but it would be used for big things that benefit from centralization. Nobody needs to be involved in planning your meals today (although you can get some prepackaged meal plan if you want). Production of commodity-like things (not actual commodities because it's not capitalism, but things that are practically speaking fungible as a common good) like steel would benefit from a degree of centralization, with many plants coordinating to produce according to the world's needs (which already is happening to a degree, just for profit rather than the common good). For something like a transcontinental railway it needs to be run by just about everybody, with different proposals put before the public to see what people approve of. Which of course comes after planning commissions have drafted the proposals and vetted them for viability.
The state as Marx ascribe it and The state as anarchist ascribe to it are two very different things. This is kind of a form of double speak used to gas light people.
So stop using your dumb ahistorical definition, gawd.tankieTankie
That isn't how definitions work, anon.
You can use one word to describe several different things.
Do you have an example that isn't just fundamentally a disagreement on definition?
An example of what?
An example of a word describing several different things.
Yeah The "State." Are you retarded?
Right, so we disagree on definitions of the state, making it *COMPLETELY* impossible to have any kind of discussion about it.
Drop your shitty definition and use the one with historical materialist backing.tankieTankie
I never mentioned what my position, actually, was. I am just pointing out that you aren't actually being honest when you try and argue a different definition of "the state" with anarchists who are working with a different definition.
>Drop your shitty definition and use the one with historical materialist backing.
What the fuck does this even mean? Arguably the anarchist definition has more "historical materialist backing" as anarchists and various philosophers have been using the way anarchists define the state for thousands and thousands of years that far predates Marx. But, that is besides the point, because just because something has been used a long time doesn't make it right.
>>7624> the one with historical materialist backing.
Stop throwing the m word around like candy
>>7625>I am just pointing out that you aren't actually being honest when you try and argue a different definition of "the state" with lanarchists who are working with a different definition.
Historical materialist doesn't mean it's old, it means it's based on a historical materialist philosophy. That anarchists use the same definition of the state as they did thousands of years ago only proves my point further.
And what I'm ultimately getting at is that using the same definitions is a pre requisite for debate and discussion, and if this nigga thinks the things he are proposing are within the realm of "not a state" then we are clearly not so different. >>7626
burning trash cans and doing graffiti is fun and easy so it's a lot of so called anarchist would only ever do that because they don't actually care about revolution or whatever
I haven't read theory, but in practice -archy terminology seems to more describe the exclusive relation of ownership and who or what can participate in it, than the command relation.
You can bet that the anarchism accusations are a consent manufacturing exercise. They know who's really dangerous to their elite system, and it ain't the MLs.>>7589>but in reality you’re just creating a gigantic beauraucracy
Administrators are empowered to take particular actions with little independent judgment according to specific rules. Bureaucrats are empowered to take broad-ranging actions and exercise independent judgment in service of vague, possibly conflicting goals.
In practice, the difference is huge. See all the holes for corruption in bureaucracy that don't exist in administration?>How does having all these
They are made of administrators, not bureaucrats. Their constitutencies command
them, not ennoble
them. Their constituencies can fire
them, rather than having to suffer
>>7533>"Fancy hat - you must be a damn intellectual. I'd better bump you off", one Makhnovist said to his face. This scared the living daylights out of him and he ran away as fast as his legs would carry him.
>>7596>muh eschaton>>7596>express support for CIA colour revolutions like in Hong Kong or euromaidan.>self-identification is objective reality
You've found the CIA wreckers. If only you could lose your attachment to utopian universalism, which I'm starting to believe is a psyop on behalf of the forces of private property to demobilize challengers to the status quo property relations.>>7628
prolly because it's more socially acceptable than being a communist
Oh this cope is so pathetic. I really feel sad reading it.
Being sectarian and being an outright liar are two different things and Volin was not alone in his opposition to Makhno.
>The third anarchist conference of the Nabat (Alarm) group declared in September 1920:<As regards the “Revolutionary Partisan Army of Ukraine (Makhnovites)”…it is a mistake to call it anarchist… Mostly they are Red soldiers who fell into captivity, and middle peasant partisan volunteers. (Palij 1976, p58)>In the course of the Civil War many Russian anarchists broke with Makhno. Indeed most of the anarchist intellectuals, such as Aaron and Fania Baron, who served with Makhno, “in a few months, found it impossible to reconcile anarchist theory with partisan practice and left”. (Footman 1961, p283) Arshinov alone remained with Makhno till the spring of 1921. (Malet 1982, p163) Some made entirely correct criticisms of the authoritarianism of the partisan army. For example Marc Mratchny, a member of the Nabat anarchist group, criticised the “military anarchism” of the Makhnovists, which made them more like the Left SRs than a pro-working class force. (Skirda 2004, p326) Another Nabat anarchist, Lewandovsky, stated that “among the Makhnovists, as among the Bolsheviks, a Cheka existed; there were shootings, mobilization, there was Makhno’s dictatorship and his staff’s, and freedom existed only if one did not engage in propaganda against them”. (Skirda 2004, p331)
>They [Makhno and Arshinov] were contemptuous of the mainstream Russian anarchist movement; Arshinov wrote that “when the mass movement, in the form of the Makhnochina, rose from the depths of the people, the anarchists showed themselves completely unprepared, spineless and weak”. (Arshinov 1974, p245) He and Makhno argued that the key reason for the defeat of the Russian anarchists was their lack of leadership and centralised organisation. In 1926 they published the “Platform” which argued that: “The uncoordinated groups had been easily picked off by the Bolsheviks: a general union of anarchists, with a central executant committee for action, would ensure that this mistake would not be repeated.” (Malet 1982, p189) Volin and other Russian anarchists launched a scathing attack on the Platform, and they were supported by foreign anarchists like Goldman, Berkman and Maletesta. At the Tenth Congress of the Union of Revolutionary Anarchist-Communists in 1930 the Platform was soundly beaten.
Other anons have already posted enough excerpts from this ( https://marxistleftreview.org/articles/nestor-makhno-the-failure-of-anarchism
) article, it's a pretty good one and the usual trot retardation only seeps into the last two paragraphs and you should definitely read it, so I'm just going to say that even in this post >>7499
most sources aren't from Volin.
The people being referred to in the footnotes are:>54 Volin,>55 Arishnov (a close associate of Makhno and more or less the theoretician behind him)>56, this is the one the one about the rapes is Volin but also Victor Peters (1970, p58) quoting Fedor Meleshko (Nestor Makhno ta yogo anarkhia, 1935) who was a friend of Makhno's wife>57 Van der Walt and Schmidt, cited for polemical reasons>58 Volin>59 Chamberlin; The Russian Revolution; 1935; an American who lived in the Soviet Union between 1930 and 1940 citing "Makhno's Diary">60 Michael Malet; Nestor Makhno in the Russian Civil War; 1982>61 Volin>62 Michael Palij; The Anarchism of Nestor Makhno, 1918–1921; 1976; p86>63 Michael Palij; The Anarchism of Nestor Makhno, 1918–1921; 1976; p86>64 Michael Malet; Nestor Makhno in the Russian Civil War; 1982; citing "Miloshevski", it's probably legit, the problem is that not everything can be found on libgen or archive.org
So yeah, it's well cited, no, it isn't based on the ramblings of some rando (not that I think Volin should be dismissed because he had political disagreements with Makhno), and it isn't a "trot rag" either, go and read it.
>Voline's allegations against Makhno in regards to sexual violations of women has been disputed by some on the grounds that the allegations are unsubstantiated
By whom and on what grounds exactly?
>this does not dispute the fact that the forces of the black army did not have their fair share of Jackasses>Luckily, the communes of the free territory quickly put forward a policy that disbanded the organization entirely.
What communes? They were an abysmal failure. Pretty much everyone quit them and this fact is admitted by Makhno himself. This shows very well that the peasants didn't want to transform society, they just wanted keep their plots of land and be left alone. It is no wonder that when people like this join an army, it doesn't happen for more or less selfless reasons, but for direct material gain (ie. banditry) and it is no wonder that anti-semitism was widespread among people who didn't have a clear and progressive vision of social transformation, even if Makhno personally fought against it.
But he wasn't innocent either. To reiterate:>The most famous case was in November 1919, just after the partisans seized the city of Ekaterinoslav, where a strong Bolshevik presence among workers posed a serious threat to Makhno. He risked losing control of his army. The Bolsheviks, via underground fraction work, had won the leadership of two of his five regiments, and a third Makhno considered unreliable. How did the supposed libertarian anarchists respond to this challenge – with political debate? Hardly. They unleashed their counter-intelligence. The local worker Bolsheviks and their supporters in the partisan army were rounded up, taken down to the river and shot.
Libertarian Death Squads: Many such cases!
lmao anarkiddy is kind of a dumb insult but man that pic
I read a pretty spicy take recently, can't remember where, asserting that the effect of ML revolutions was to raise feudal societies into capitalism quickly and defensibly. Presumably, the reasons included preventing those societies from being absorbed into or conquered by neighbors or distant empires further along the historical dialectic (pace Tainter). That seems to explain a lot of the contradictions of revolutionary Marxism, and also offers insight into the recent failures of revolutionary Marxism: a matter of simple exhaustion.>Stalin predicted this
You all literally have one article and the sources it so copiously relies on are cherry-picked to hell and back.
NOOOOO NOD JERRY BIGGS!!! HE CAND GEEP GEDDING AWAY WID IDS :DDDDDDspurdoSpurdo
(not the anon) but the book is about how the law is so fucked and convoluted that everyone commits three felonies a day without knowing it>can't be bothered to do a web search>thinks the contents of his brain are enough to form opinions on things he knows nothing about
At this point, is there any difference in the argumentation style of /pol/yps and MLs?
Calm your tits, glow-enby. All successful propaganda forms around a kernel of truth. Discretionary power is very real and it is an essential instrument in elite rule.>>7643
>>7643>the law is so fucked and convoluted that everyone commits three felonies a day without knowing
Protip: You are already an illegalist but don't know it yet.
Is there a pdf of this book? I’m interested
It's most likely on libgen.
>>7640>You all literally have one article
So you can't make arguments against a single article. Sad!>sources it so copiously relies on are cherry-picked to hell and back>but i'm not going to say which ones or how checkmate tankoids :DDDDDDDDDDDDD
I did not say that the BPP was anarchist. I said they did direct action. Anarchists do direct action too. Marxists usually don't do it. Therefore, people who want to act, are more likely to end up with the anarchists. The question was why are there more anarchist groups in the West than Marxists, not about who is more successful or which ML sect was based and which was cringe.
what are you gonna do with the other two ?
I’m a lazy phoneposter, and at any rate we’d be here all day if I had to go through everything that was a half-truth distortions or lying by admission.
For example, in one case the article mentions the execution of a Socialist Revolutionary by the Makhnovtsy as a sign of some lawlessness and gamgsterism within the movement. Yet it fails to mention the fact that the individual in question supported the Brest Litovsk Treaty that essentially asked for troops from Austria-Hungary to come in and cleanse ukraine of revolutionary elements.
Nor is the pearl-clutching related to inflation from making all currency legal tender contrasted with the fact that the makhnovtsy regularly disbursed aid in both money and just plain provisions.
There’s the Trotskyist Propaganda elements, such as accusing all the peasants in the Army of being Kulaks, but that comes with the territory, no pun intended.
The most glaring thing is simply the idea of using the Makhnovshchina as the end-all be-all of Anarchist Movements, when, fuck, there already is significant disagreement across anarchists concerning the Free Territory. At least talk about Revolutionary Catalonia as well, FFS.
The inability of the anarchists, Social Revolutionaries and Mensheviks to be unable to accept Brest-Litovsk was one of their main blunders that led to their downfall. The Bolsheviks had a single principled line: Peace, land and bread. For that they were willing to accept a flawed peace treaty to end this meatgrinder of a war, and they did so, not only for Russia.ddrDDR
im very comfortable with being critical of the bolsheviks and i cannot possibly understand the objections to the treaty. why the fuck would they not sign it, an enormous part of their popular support came from opposition to the war. how would it be LESS "authoritarian" to force a continuation of war on a people who revolted on the terms of ending that war
Excellent analysis>>7657>how would it be LESS "authoritarian" to force a continuation of war on a people who revolted on the terms of ending that war
Real Kropotkin hoursbolshevikBolshevik
>>7577> a society like the USSR is preferable to the victory of capitalism and the forces of counter revolution?
Medieval mullahs or american invasion
Democrats or Republicans
LePen or Macron
Jihadists or total surveillance
Cops or The People's Cops
Yeah fuck off mateanarcho-communismAnarcho-Communism
>>7659>comparing the the USSR to mullahs, jihadists, the Republican Party or LePen
Room temperature IQ. Also, implicit imperialist take here, as if the dichotomy goes "liberal democracy vs mullah regime" (nice adoption of Israeli rhetoric by the way), the question is "should the US invade and bomb Iran" and if you do not have a principled stance here then you are not a comrade.ddrDDR
>>7661>the question is "should the US invade and bomb Iran"
Marxist answer: yes, because destroying a reactionary regime would be progress
ML answer: no, we must oppose every action of the US on principles of anti-imperialism
anarchist answer: who gives a shit?
Sending places back to the stone age is extremely reactionary retardtankieTankie
>>7661 >"should the US invade and bomb Iran"
No. But i don't want to be called comrade by a state capitalist so please don't do it.anarcho-communismAnarcho-Communism
what if they're already in the stone age?
You sound extremely chauvinist, ever been to Iran? The current Iranian regime is less reactionary than the Shah monarchy, at least they have some democratic rights, a half the economy is nationalized and doesn't serve global oil corporations, it's not as bad for women as in Saudi-Arabia (they can become scientists, politicians, etc.) and they allow sex change, both biologically and legally, for trannies. Maybe try sound less like Sam Harris or David Frum.>>7662
Marx never employed such reductionist logic where "progress" is a fucking scale. In many occasions, it were the colonizers who reintroduced some reactionary traditions to use it against the population, for example the British Empire strengthened the caste system that was already on its way under the Mughal Empire. Most Wahabi groups were also funded directly or indirectly by the United States, while most genuine Arab movements were nationalist/secular.ddrDDR
>>7666>You sound extremely chauvinist, ever been to Iran?
But at the first victorious uprising of the French proletariat … the Austrian Germans and the Magyars will gain their freedom and take a bloody revenge on the Slav barbarians. The general war which will then break out will scatter the Slav Sonderbund [alliance], and annihilate all these small pigheaded nations even to their very names. The next world war will not only cause reactionary classes and dynasties to disappear from the face of the earth, but also entire reactionary peoples. And that too is an advance.' (F. Engels, The Magyar Struggle, January 1849)
i remember reading a back and forth of marx engels and bakounin about random national liberations ,hilarious shit straight outta paradox forums
He called the South Slavs reactionary because they allied with Tsarist Russia. He had the opposite opinion about the Poles who he supported fully.>Thus I hold the view that there are two nations in Europe which do not only have the right but the duty to be nationalistic before they become internationalists: the Irish and the Poles. They are internationalists of the best kind if they are very nationalistic. The Poles have understood this in all crises and have proved it on the battlefields of all revolutions. Take away their expectation to re-establish Poland; or persuade them that the new Poland will soon fall into their laps by itself, and they are finished with their interest in the European Revolution.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1882/letters/82_02_07.htm
To be fair, revolutionary Marxist doctrines upgraded two gigantic nations from agrarian feudalism to industrial capitalism in the space of a generation. Historically, that's what revolutionary communism actually delivers before it comes to a stop at the face of its own contradictions. Recent failures of the orthodox program might be due in some measure to the successful development and deployment of other modes of upgrading manorialisms into capitalisms and the commodification of the MoP.
In the ultimate accounting, capitalism, which creates value that transcends people, and which value could eventually be owned or traded in absentia, isn't all that much of an upgrade.>>7670>He had the opposite opinion about the Poles who he supported fully.
Kek, how that worked out.
But not hangin on the every word of dead men is "reactionary" to hear some people say it.
So it’s totally okay to throw comrades to reactionary forces and basically let Ukraine become a nationalist entity and potential austro-hungarian protectorate?
source please, this sounds incredible
Aside from the invisible committee, what are some sources on insurrectionary anarchism and also illegalism
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv4MMbpPksQ>Published on 23 Jan 2021>On the show this week, Chris Hedges talks to Professor Noam Chomsky, the pioneering linguist, prolific author of numerous seminal political works, about the state of the American Empire.
>Professor Chomsky is the author of over 100 books including The Fateful Triangle, Manufacturing Consent, Failed States and Requiem for the American Dream, and America's most important intellectual. In his new book, with Marv Waterstone, professor emeritus at the University of Arizona, is Consequences of Capitalism: Manufacturing Discontent and Resistance.
>“Government,” writes Machiavelli, “consists in nothing else than in so controlling your subjects that it shall neither be in their power nor in their interest to harm you.” Since they are accustomed to conspiring to maintain their own power, it is hard for governments to believe, when an insurrection breaks out, that it is not likewise the work of a handful of conspirators, networks of organized “radicals”, “dissidents”, and “rioters” — in short, the work of “professionals of disorder” who demand to be put down by force. But insurrections do not function the way political offices do: there is no summons sent from a minority of high-ranking officials that is then carried out by hordes of subordinates. Insurrections ripen under ice, like a mass desire to trample on all that has trodden us down, a sudden burst of dignity after decades of humiliation, a will to put an abrupt end to all that we have suffered for no reason. They mobilize infinite reserves of courage, unforeseen stocks of tactical intelligence, and a lucid generosity many believed to have disappeared into the icy water of egotistical calculation. Rulers find themselves confronted by a compact, basalt-like irreducibility of which they understand nothing, and which seems to grow stronger with every maneuver they hurl against it. Contrary to what leftists and rulers like to think, it is not revolutionaries who make revolutions, it is revolutions that make revolutionaries. You’d have to be Toni Negri or Alfredo Bonanno — who still have not shelved their incurable Leninism — to believe that insurrections wait for insurrectionists. In France last winter, there was no need for ZADists to set up micro-ZADs on roundabouts, for leftist blockaders to go out and block everything, for the thinkers of the “whatever singularity” to invent the yellow vest. These days, it is the least “politicized” who are the most radical. No revolt is more terrible than that of citizens who have been taken for fools. If something like an insurrection suddenly appears, it is precisely because people did not intend to make an insurrection, but because they desire, beyond this, however confusedly, a revolution. A revolution whose contours are blurred, dressed in the hastily recut garb of 1789, mixing constituent and destituent affects, the need for preservation with the desire to turn the world upside down. A revolution fueled by the complicities that it teases out, and which must confront the fact that it is the entire material organization of the world that must be dismantled, its sole certainty being that it is not with those who have wrecked the world that we will repair it.https://illwilleditions.com/as-beautiful-as-an-impure-insurrection/
>>7653>For example, in one case the article mentions the execution of a Socialist Revolutionary by the Makhnovtsy as a sign of some lawlessness and gamgsterism within the movement.
No, mentioning that was not about lawlessness or anything like that. It was about showing that the libertarians of East Ukraine were in fact no less authoritarian than the Bolsheviks or any other faction in the civil war. Which is all the more embarrassing considering how (at least on the surface) "authoritarianism" was their only point of contention with the Bolsheviks.>Yet it fails to mention the fact that the individual in question supported the Brest Litovsk Treaty that essentially asked for troops from Austria-Hungary to come in and cleanse ukraine of revolutionary elements.
I see. Authoritarianism, in certain cases, is perfectly okay. Of course, this reference to necessity is still different compared to something like the supression of the Kronstadt Rebellion, because no matter how much blood stains the anarchists' hands, their hearts are kept pure by their "rejection" (disavowal) of all authority. On the other hand, the Marxists prefer real socialism to the pure socialism only found in the imagination of anarcho-infantiles and fully accept the necessity of authority, since only where the realm of necessity ends can the realm of freedom begin.
>Nor is the pearl-clutching related to inflation from making all currency legal tender contrasted with the fact that the makhnovtsy regularly disbursed aid in both money and just plain provisions.
The problem isn't simply effiiciency. The problem is Makhno's disregard for anything that is industrial or urban, which led him to refuse to organise industrial production and railroad transport and let inflation run rampant which is a lot less harmful for the more or less self-sufficient peasantry. In many ways this brings Makhno closer to Pol Pot than someone like Durruti (I know that very few anarchists possess an inexplicable hatred for urbanites and people who wear glasses, this a lot more about the very inconsistency of anarchist praxis rather than any specifc trend within it).
>There’s the Trotskyist Propaganda elements<The third anarchist conference of the Nabat (Alarm) group declared in September 1920:<As regards the “Revolutionary Partisan Army of Ukraine (Makhnovites)”…it is a mistake to call it anarchist… Mostly they are Red soldiers who fell into captivity, and middle peasant partisan volunteers.
>such as accusing all the peasants in the Army of being Kulaks
That is an exaggaration only made by you. While leaving everything to the decisions of the free anarcho-communes (ie. not bothering much with creating a more equal distribution of land in the countryside) definitely won the support of the wealthy peasants, the distinguishing Makhnovist policy was the end to the grain requisitions which, while clearly a necessity, hurt everyone in the countryside who owned land and not just those who employed labour. Even before the revolution, the peasantry was considered a somewhat unreliable ally of the working class by Lenin (while also being a very important one).
>The most glaring thing is simply the idea of using the Makhnovshchina as the end-all be-all of Anarchist Movements
If you don't want to talk about Makhno, then
1. Don't make a thread about anarchism
2. Don't post edgy Makhnovist pictures in that thread with written text like "Based thread. Fuck tankie bootlickers" (which was the starting point of this discussion)
>>7488>>7659>Yeah fuck off mate
To be clear I'm not actually sure if you're trolling with that flag but what you are saying is remarkably retarded and juvenile. If it really makes no difference to you whether you live in a society like the USSR or a society like post war Russia, or to improve your ridiculous opinion here only a smidgen, any capitalist country on earth; than you clearly are not taking a serious approach to understanding politics or the world around you. If you don't ever take into consideration the material realities of life, than they will still bite you in the ass.bolshevikBolshevik
>>7666>they allow sex change
more like force sex changes lmao
You are just using false dilemmas to pitch 20th century state capitalism ,kinda weak rhetoric I can't see you making it in the nomenklatura :(anarcho-communismAnarcho-Communism
>>7681>If it really makes no difference to you whether you live in a society like the USSR or a society like post war Russia, or to improve your ridiculous opinion here only a smidgen, any capitalist country on earth
That's the argument Americans use for why America is great. "You think America sucks? Look at other countries! Would you be rather live in Zimbabwe or the US? Thought so." I think the point here is that anyone could have improved the material conditions in the USSR, not only the Bolsheviks. Their great move was to use capitalism, wow, no one has done that before.
All you need to know about the Soviet Union is that as soon as it dissolved, people were at each other throats.>70 years of socialism>0 class consciousness>0 MoP in the hands of the proletariat<they call this a success
The whole Soviet Union got sold off in a couple of years, by the very same Communist Party members who were the "Vanguard, the Will of the People" a couple of years before. What a fucking joke.
>>7684>Their great move was to use capitalism, wow, no one has done that before.
In what way have they "used capitalism"? The Soviet industrialization happened during the Great Depression, and didn't follow the MCM' cycle of capital accumulation, and neither did a bourgeoisie exist. Strange capitalism you have there without a bourgeoisie, without wage labor, without generalized commodity production and without capital accumulation. Secondly, considering how unprecedented the economic growth was (only Japan industrialized faster) you can easily make the argument that under any other system the Nazis would have won. >All you need to know about the Soviet Union is that as soon as it dissolved, people were at each other throats.
Are you trying to lay the victims of capitalism at the door of socialism? Yes, the USSR's dissolution was a catastrophe. But you have no explanation for it, do you?ddrDDR
Good text on house/squatting organizing in Gran Canaria, touches on dangers of assistentialism ,"exporting" anarchism to lumpens etc.
that would just create global neoliberalism on steroids, not leftist at all
Good article. Thanks for posting.
Is running off to some eco village cowardice ? Nothing is fucking changing people get more obedient and spooked ,cops get more toys…..
Not that poster but all three of Graeber's points are aimed at destroying the most prominent class properties of the international bourgeoisie.
The guy you’re responding to probably is having a kneejerk reaction to the immigration restrictions thing.
Disinvestment in the present way of things helps to devalue them. Network effects are very real.
i mean i'm a bit tipsy man but can you rephrase this ?
The superstructure and the base are deeply interrelated, and as the "bread and circuses" of the superstructure fail to engage people it results in the class antagonisms of the base to become more easily apparent.
I remember when someone posted this at the bunker and all the MLs lost it because "anarkiddies don't read theory" lol
There was a time in the mid aughts when the newly created DHS specified that left wing environmental and animal rights groups were the most significant domestic terrorist threat. Tell me, though, what significant actions by the PSL, CPUSA, or any of the dozens of the one true American trot parties that even made them a worthy target of infiltration by the feds?
True story: during that era I was at an anarchist infoshop with a couple dozen people and the cops showed up because "we heard there was going to be a protest". It was a free ska concert
This smells like a cope
How can anarchists be this based?
The anarchists are pretty based sometimes
It's not really anarchist, but the uk university rent strikes have much the same flavour. Too decentralised to break down.
so its anarcho-communism "in one neighborhood"?
Based. There's a school with online courses all about social ecology that want $40-$80 for the 8 week seminar, but there's no reason you can't grab the free syllabus and do the reading on your own:https://social-ecology.org/wp/learn/online-courses/
Anyone has read those three tomes he wrote about the revolutions in france russia and spain ?anarcho-communismAnarcho-Communism
more like anarcho-communism in a single apartment
The Soviet Union was established in an apartment in Sweden.
Better to grow and distribute the necessary skills to detect, investigate, and neutralize potential authoritarian wreckers and usurpers now, than when there's more in fewer pieces to lose.
Thx m8, will check out
is doxxing tankies revolutionary praxis?
My b& for that just expired, no comment
Of course the Anarchists can be based and often are, for that matter. In general they’re not wrong, and oftentimes are right. The universal human liberation they imagine is not only desirable, but it can work. The problem isn’t that they’re all liberals in denial or spoiled westoid kiddies or ineffectual or any other ad hominem cope.
The problem is that their philosophy isn’t grounded in a particularly scientific understanding of human political and economic development. They understand that humans are inherently cooperative beings and that they collectively engage in economic activity to survive, with this economic activity influencing social and political relationships. Their understanding of capitalism and its dysfunction is correct enough. They look to past societies, pre-state ones and/or indigenous ones in particular, not because they want to return to monke, but because they think it served as a proof of concept for their desired social and economic relations. They see all the separate components and stages in socioeconomic development and think “hey, let’s return to solidaristic, cooperative social and economic relationships with this current high stage of development.” This is similar to a chemist thinking that boiling water will make hydrogen and oxygen gas . (The ones that generally avert this are the Anarcho-Syndicalists, but they’re the most proletarian, the revolutionary class in capitalism, anyway).
What they don’t understand is the dynamics and mechanisms of socioeconomic development or change, for that matter. This is the dialectic, the process by which societies evolve through their internal contradictions, with material conditions affecting the final result. Communism, that Universal Human Liberation we all dream about, involves a fundamental change in the usage of productive forces concurrent to the change in social relations and political organization. The state, whose economic basis is the control and management of these forces, will thus become as powerless as the queen of England.
Marxism isn’t the one true ideology because, contrary to what certain tankoid worshippers of dead regimes may tell you, it isn’t an ideology at all, but a methodology for systematically analyzing political and economic trends to both understand the course of the past and the trajectory of the future in order to take steps to .
Still, the Anarkids are Alright. They participated a fuckton in the Paris Commune, Marx’s original model for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. They’re doing some ok praxis, at least in the US. I think that our goals align enough to warrant common ground.
>>7723>myanmanar anarchists>with that punk rock getup
could they make an effort to look like anything thats not the most stereotypical "anarkiddies" ever?
Western culture being exported around the world was a mistake.
Communists should be integrated with the masses and not be a bunch of life-stylists.
Hate to be critiquing MUH optics but it doesn't help to look like a bunch of clowns that hang out around dive bars all day.
You know there is certainly a lot of anarchists in the crowd who dress to belong and/or for anonymity or are with other, bigger groups. Also with capitalism globalized everyone can eat a burger, listen to US rap and watch hollywood movies nowadays so your masses won't be belonging to a "culturally pure" background.
Also give them some slack, they are just kids who dress up and act to be cool, and maybe they actually do some useful anarcho stuff besides drinking at a dive bar.
OHNONONOO it's over for policecels
Y u no like shamate>>7726>communists should submit to bourgeois respectability>anarchists in pic
What is your tendency so I can start making blacklists for any position of power after the revolution
Is that Apo on the cover??
its not bourgeois respectability its that they are larping as 1980s/1990s western punks and think that makes them more authentic or something. its cringe just wear normal clothes
The boomer menace is real
Eh, larping’s part of the fun. But it’s be better for them to wear normal attire or at least bloc up when doing real shit.
Very based, I wish them all the best.
except they are larping as boomers cuz the 20 years olds who were punks then are like 50+ now
punk's not dead tho, it's a lingering counterculture, not your average consumer fashion trend
See? That's the problem
Here are several types of "things" that still fall under the category of "praxis", even if I don't necessarily see them as viable:>party building with unions and heavy electoral participation>party building with unions and cautious electoral participation>party building with unions and no electoral participation>party building without any unions or electoral participation>no party, unions for political action>terrorism>entryism>socialist-themed charities and social centers>protracted people's war>hoping the military junta in your country aligns with the USSR
This is what's NOT praxis:>smoke weed and dress weird till general insurrection somehow
Does wearing weird clothes excludes you from "praxis" ????
People on street won't listen to you if you are a shabby punk or dress up in costumes while talking about how you want to "crush capitalism".
anon you sound like those poltards who cite amazon papers about multienthic workplaces and unions
This might come as shocking to you but "literal communists" in the imperialist center have zero credibility - meaning, we lack the privilege of being able to look shitty. A guy who campaigns for some mainstream liberal or conservative party can dress as shitty as he wants (well, not that shitty but you get my point) because his ideas and power politics are hegemonic. They are perceived normal and self-evident. Meanwhile, communists or even self-identified socialists are seen as seditious, insincere, prescriptive and utopian. This means we have to do more to "equal the playing field" by dressing tidily and appear sincere and professional.
It's the same way black and brown people have to overdress in suits to be taken seriously due to internalized racist preconceptions, while white dudes can pull of a swagging, casual-business look.
A punk claiming to be anti-capitalist is seen as a joke, belittled at best. I don't understand what's the problem there. You can still live that lifestyle in your private life, at least put yourself together for an info stand or a rally.
>>7747>dressing well means like dressing like Jehovah's witnesses Can we stop the the autism.
You know exactly what I mean.
i don't care if you're dressed in a spandex fursuit, if you interrupt me when i'm trying to walk somewhere i'm going to be upset.
(mostly because i will politely say i'm busy without stopping or making eye contact, then resent you for making me be rude.)democratic_socialismDemocratic Socialism
If you really think there is no space between a) dressing like a punk and b) dressing up like a cultist or LARPer there is no reason to debate with you because you probably have never been outside.
But anon, there actually isn't any space between dressing up like a LARPer or a punk, the venn diagram of the two is a circle.>>7745
Breddy good but I don't know if I'd qualify it as relatively concise. I prefer smaller A4 stuff that hits one specific idea and then points the reader to more in depth resources, something like picrel
Someone needs to drag you into the street and fuck you in the ass, you stupid armchair cunt. The optics debate always seems like the strategy of a stupid ex-polyp.
>>7744>h-how dare you not dress like some retarded conservative from a country club
Well, not necessarily, but when someone's hairstyle, clothing, and all accessories have to look "radical", it's safe to assume that the person in question is not radical at all.
>>7756>looking normal and approachable = looking like a conservative from a country club
Jesus Christ, this is all wanting you to look like shit whenever you want to talk to people
Sneaky to wait for a black protagonist before going full captain Amerikkka. Will it please both the libs and the rightoids?
In other threads I've made this exact argument but ITT you've been sperging over literal children playing dress up for a mass demonstration. The worst crime is that western anti-culture has been so neatly packaged and distributed across the world in imitation of a real movement
I'M NAKED AND NO ONE CAN STOP ME!!!
damn how do you go from this >>7766
to this (picrel)spurdoSpurdo
It seems their actual flag was just some text.>ripping things out of wikipedia without looking at sources
This is the reason why so many are under the delusion that Mao (who was in the middle of the Long March) had anything to do with suppressing the Korean anarchists in Manchuria.
capeshit comics always were inconsistent because authors come and go, sometimes captain America is a libertarian, sometimes he is a nazi (not like there's too much of a difference).
Here's a fun readhttps://old.reddit.com/r/HobbyDrama/comments/kpkkzg/american_comics_collateral_damage_to_a_failed/
why would that guy have an opinion on Israel at all?
TIL that there are 2 south korean films about insurrectionists under the japanese occupation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDOwqppO12whttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIWmzrfVeW4
YOU CANNOT BE A POST LEFTIST. IT IS NOT A THING. IT NEVER WILL BE A THING
Zoomers on twitter who call themselves anarchists are the most painful thing to see, anons..>>7775
This will be real useful to me, thanks. Heres University of Vancouver's anarchist archive: https://www.uvic.ca/library/featured/collections/anarchist/index.php
it's all edgy shit. they're aesthetic libs.
You put it in the freezer first
Absoloutely. they will not be political or be shitlibs by the time they are in there late teens/early 20's. i'd bet everyhing I own on this. So why must everyone entertain these peoples 'radicalism'? Why can't they just get a slap and told to do there homework and listen to there parents or something?
>>7780>fancying yourself my mother
ML the post
so what type of anarchism is inhabit.global? post-left or something
pacifist anarcho distributism
i was one of you guys until i started reading marx tbh.
my problem with "anarcho-communism" is that its based mostly on superstructural morality, and not on material reality. this video puts it well imo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s957JiP_YhQleft_communismLeft Communism
>>7759>implying the ukrainian black army wasn't working for makhno
ahh here we go
>implying it's based on liberal morality
it isnt? tell me why its not based on liberal morality, please because it seems that all you guys want is FREEDOM! and NO MORE OPRESSION and more of that dumbass bourgeosie romanticism that is the spine of all liberal ideology>yes we love freedom and base our whole ideology on the idea that a system is morally bad<what do you mean you think of me as a romantic revolutionary?? I AM THE MARXIST EPIC BOY! I AM THE COMMUNISM AND THE SYNDICALISM AND THE WORKING CLASS LIBERATOR!!!
>thinking Chomsky speaks on behalf of all Anarchists
WHO CARES ! that is not the critique ye sod!
you posters are so hard to argue with mein gottleft_communismLeft Communism
basically this >>7769
That inconsistency is part of the reason why I bawk at criticism that superheroes are inherently fascist.
The first Superman comic has him torturing a lobbyist working on behalf of the military industrial complex and stopping men from beating their wives.
>>7792>The anarchist concept of freedom is radically different from the liberal concept of "freedom"
oh you all knowing anarchist high mind, can you tell me why? maybe fucking post the fucking book you are talking about (if it even exists!)
anyways, the problem with anarchism is not if its based on "liberal freedom" or not, it is that, the analysis of the state (and all of the capitalist mode of production) is based on morals! i, as a communist, believe the state is bad for socialism. not because of it "opresses the people", but because, it serves to keep the rulling class in power, ergo, in a society with no classes, there should be no state*. a critique can not be based in superstructural morallity (as anarchist critiwue of the state is), but should be based in material reality. i will be gladly disproven and turned an anarchist if you show me that the anarchist position has a better analysis than the marxist one.
*obviously the critique goes much deeper, but i recommend you to read the fucking communist manifesto for more (as it seems you anarchos have not!)left_communismLeft Communism
>>7794>it is that, the analysis of the state (and all of the capitalist mode of production) is based on morals!
Where did you read this?
Look, quit being a little bitch. While I firmly agree that the Anarchist Analysis of Libertarianism/Authoritarianism and Liberty is grounded in the superstructure and thus shallow, calling them liberals is pretty spiteful and plain wrong.
Criticize people for what they honestly are.
1. I believe that, but I also think it’s shallow, grounded in abstractions over material realities of the places they criticize.
2. Anime posting is just cringe. I’m sorry but it is.
>>7794>anyways, the problem with anarchism is not if its based on "liberal freedom" or not, it is that, the analysis of the state (and all of the capitalist mode of production) is based on morals!
No, not really.
I don't really side with anarchist because they never seem to have an agreed upon concrete definition of the state, but it's false that they all base their opposition to the state on morals.
They often view the state as incompatible with the society they would like to build.
great question! i found out that i didnt have a source for my claim, as it came from annecdotal evidence, so i started searching what is the most agreed upon work about thr explanation of the reasoning
for anarchism between anarchists,the anarchist FAQ (yes i know it isnt the "best anarchist theory out there", but i believe most anarchist agree with it), and found myself with this quote:
>“Every institution, social or civil,” argued Voltairine de Cleyre, “that stands between man [or woman] and his [or her] right; every tie that renders one a master, another a serf; every law, every statue, every be-it-enacted that represents tyranny”
(an anarquist FAQ section B.1 https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-03-17#toc2
that quote seems to me that the reject of authority comes from morality. i will gladly be proven wrong
ovbiously not ALL of anarchism is based on morals, but the base analysis of authority (which to me seems the most important part of anarchist theory) is based on morals, at least from my point of view>>7796
i call them liberals because they share the aspect of liberalism of basing their ideology on superstructuralism, but i do agree its kind of petty and bitchy. from now on i will reffer to what i called liberal as romantic (as it is a better word for it.)left_communismLeft Communism
this post reads as very cringe i am sorryleft_communismLeft Communism
Call anarchist morality “idealist” in the marxist sense. I’m an orthodox marxist and former anarchocommunist and my take just is that they don’t understand historical processes enough. There are plenty of materialists, or at least individuals who’re more materialist than rightoids, but their understanding of how and why we got to our current state of affairs (no pun intended) and how we get out is a little lacking.
yeah youre rightleft_communismLeft Communism
>>7798>the society they would like to build
a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself?left_communismLeft Communism
that is idealism.
not in "everything i dislike is idealism" but as a FUCKING DIRECT QUOTE FROM MARX SAYING WHAT COMMUNISM IS NOT. ITS NOT EVEN A WEIRD LITTLE KNOWN QUOTE. ITS FROM THE FUCKING FIRST CHAPTER OF THE GERMAN IDEOLOGY FOR GODS SAKE YOU UNCULTURED FAGGOTSleft_communismLeft Communism
>>7799>every tie that renders one a master, another a serf
like wage relations >every law, every statue, every be-it-enacted that represents tyranny
laws and statutes are physical things, and we can judge their effects. Marx studied law, didn't he? I don't see how the charge of moralism applies, it is not a matter of morality to oppose a law for its effects. Morality would be if anarchists said that "rich people are evil", and that's a liberal position, because liberals believe that the answer to the problem of capitalism is to get the "right" and "good" people in power. Anarchists, on the other hand, understand the issue with capitalism is systemic and it cannot be fixed by "good people", but it must be destroyed and replaced by something else. The most popular and numerous anarchist tendency is anarcho-communism, that wishes to replace capitalism and the State with a need-based distributive economy, where those who work the means of production own them and the resulting surplus, and a system of councils as organs of organisation.
>>7806>Morality would be if anarchists said that "rich people are evil", and that's a liberal position, because liberals believe that the answer to the problem of capitalism is to get the "right" and "good" people in power. Anarchists, on the other hand, understand the issue with capitalism is systemic and it cannot be fixed by "good people", but it must be destroyed and replaced by something else.<Morality would be if anarchists said that "tyranny is evil", and that's a liberal position, because liberals believe that the answer to the problem of capitalism is to get the "right" and "good" system in power. Anarchists understand the issue with capitalism is systemic, it must be destroyed and replaced by something else (a non-tyranical, ergo, a non-evil system). left_communismLeft Communism
I knew you were going there, that's exactly why I said make your fucking point.
Anarchism sees itself as the "real movement" precisely because they see the state as preventing the "all at once" revolution from capitalism.
They're wrong, but you have to tell them why.
Anarchism isn't the same beast it was in Marx's time.
Learn to steel man your opposition to better counter them.
>>7810>trying to moe characters who were a commentary on how stupid and annoying anime moe is.
Anime can not be saved..
It can only be destroyed.
That's not idealism, that's utopian. Btw The Communist Manifesto and The Critique of the Gotha programme are both very utopian in this sense.
>>7810>This is an anime website
fuck off chan culture retardanime is fine, but chan culture is cringe
eh, depends who you are reading or talking to.
There's anarchist who I've met that accept Marx's critique of political economy and that makes them easier to deal with.
The ones all hopped on idpol are indistinguishable from liberals though.
>>7813>That's not idealism, that's utopian.
how is it not idealism lmaoan ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself
utopian socialism is idealistic doe>Btw The Communist Manifesto and The Critique of the Gotha programme are both very utopian in this sense.H O W
the manifesto does not talk about how society will function under socialism, and gotha is even less utopian! what both of these texts talk about is what to do DURING
capitalism, not after it!left_communismLeft Communism
Strong people don't need strong leaders. Only chinless virgins do.>>7801
Historical processes are your focus because you're a political movement. Your strategy is different, your use for the existing order of things is different, your preferences for centralism are different, therefore your historical analysis will differ likewise.>a little lacking
This critique simply cannot be credibly lodged by totalizing ideologies which presume themselves exempt from objective explanation or prediction.>>7816
Getting your picture of reality from a political party is pants-on-head stupid. Look at the USA.
I never stated a preference for centralism.
You said you were an orthodox Marxist.
I call myself Orthodox because I believe in the methodologies established by Marx and Engels for the purpose of historiography and charting human socioeconomic development at least to some degree, never mind pioneering social science. The methods states above are what allowed Marx and Engels to develop their theories, critiques and hypotheses about political economy.
From György Lukacs’s “What is Orthodox Marxism”:
>[Orthodox Marxism], simple as it is, has been the focus of much discussion in both proletarian and bourgeois circles. But among intellectuals it has gradually become fashionable to greet any profession of faith in Marxism with ironical disdain. Great disunity has prevailed even in the ‘socialist’ camp as to what constitutes the essence of Marxism, and which theses it is ‘permissible’ to criticise and even reject without forfeiting the right to the title of ‘Marxist’. In consequence it came to be thought increasingly ‘unscientific’ to make scholastic exegeses of old texts with a quasi-Biblical status, instead of fostering an ‘impartial’ study of the ‘facts’. These texts, it was argued, had long been ‘superseded’ by modern criticism and they should no longer be regarded as the sole fount of truth.
>If the question were really to be formulated in terms of such a crude antithesis it would deserve at best a pitying smile. But in fact it is not (and never has been) quite so straightforward. Let us assume for the sake of argument that recent research had disproved once and for all every one of Marx’s individual theses. Even if this were to be proved, every serious ‘orthodox’ Marxist would still be able to accept all such modern findings without reservation and hence dismiss all of Marx’s theses in toto – without having to renounce his orthodoxy for a single moment. Orthodox Marxism, therefore, does not imply the uncritical acceptance of the results of Marx’s investigations. It is not the ‘belief’ in this or that thesis, nor the exegesis of a ‘sacred’ book. On the contrary, orthodoxy refers exclusively to method. It is the scientific conviction that dialectical materialism is the road to truth and that its methods can be developed, expanded and deepened only along the lines laid down by its founders. It is the conviction, moreover, that all attempts to surpass or ‘improve’ it have led and must lead to over-simplification, triviality and eclecticism.
You mention A totalizing ideology that presumes itself exempt from objective explanation or prediction and I have to ask what are you on about? As a heuristic for analyzing trends in the past and present to predict the result of future events, I’d say there’s great utility to it. Hell, look at the work of Steven Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin for punctuated equilibrium in evolution and the reductive but not holy inaccurate atomism of Epicurus and Dharmatiki. They needed to gather knowledge to refine and develop their theory to understand all the intricacies and complexities necessary for explaining natural phenomenon.
But only pseuds say dialectical and historical materialism means you can shut yourself off from the world or stop gathering further knowledge.
But in proposed political praxis, wasn't one of the main disagreements among Bakunin and Marx during the International that the latter chose centralism over decentralism?
At the risk of sounding pedantic, that’s classical Marxism. Considering Marx and Bakunin’s shared support for the Paris Commune (Marx himself referred to it as a model for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat), I’d argue that Marx’s authoritarianism or libertarianism is somewhat more nuanced. (Engels, OTOH, has his own undeniable, often unreasonable partisanship). Marx supported the radically democratic organization of the Paris Commune, but thought that they shot themselves in the foot by not capturing and consolidating the instruments of force, i.e. The state. Your mileage may vary about whether or not such institutions can ultimately be controlled democratically.
Personally, I’m agnostic on the whole libertarian/authoritarian issue. Is their maybe an archetypical general concept of either side? Sure. Do I prefer the libertarian conception? Absolutely. But debates on Libertarianism and Authoritarianism IMO tend to focus on the present abstractions without recognizing the concrete realities that either give rise to or perpetuate these social orders.
>>7823>debates on Libertarianism and Authoritarianism IMO tend to focus on the present abstractions without recognizing the concrete realities that either give rise to or perpetuate these social orders.
Could you expand on the "realitise that give rise/perpetuate these social orders" pls? I would like to listen to you point of view.
I hope you choose to eat a bullet or take the rope one day, anon.anarchismAnarchism
Autistically screech at you for practising dishonest and revisionist history, fag.>>7786>>implying the ukrainian black army wasn't working for makhno
What the fuck are you talking about, you stupid fucking yanke brainlet mongoloid? It is a Free Cossacks flag, how do i make this any more clear?anarchismAnarchism
Okay, so when people say a regime is libertarian or authoritarian, they don’t really discuss the ontology of these circumstances. Namely the general history preceding the regime, like literally that of all of Russia before the Soviet Union was established, or the contemporary historical circumstances, i.e. The failure of the revolutions outside of Europe and factions within Russia (the SR’s were hardcore as fuck) made the Bolsheviks panic and so they consolidated their authority by any means necessary. This history also informs the decision to establish Socialism in one state by Stalin.
Makhno developed his theory of platformism (which I think was kinda based) from his experiences in the civil war, and many other anarchists balked at it, but it was in a civil war. His anarchism had a distinctively agrarian character (arguably peasants own their means of sustenance and so can produce their own food AND exchange it for other goods if possible) which allowed him to do things that would affect the urban population of the free territory worse (e.g. the whole “all money is legal” which I think is retarded but based retarded.) This probably isn’t quite as true for the Anarcho-Syndicalists, perhaps, but they had their hiccups, too.
I'm marxist but sympathetic towards anarchism, I would like to join an Anarcho-syndicalist union but I also want to join a marxist politcal party. Can I do both regarding the two orgs? I want to be honest with them and not hiding any membership. Will it be "ok" for the union? Same question for the marxist party.
>>7828>an I do both regarding the two orgs? I want to be honest with them and not hiding any membership. Will it be "ok" for the union? Same question for the marxist party.
For most anarchist unions, yes. It is common practice. IDK about the Marxist ones though, I guess it depends.anarchismAnarchism
>>7792>The anarchist concept of freedom is radically different from the liberal concept of "freedom">provides no link>makes up own definition
Don't you have a FREE MUH HONG KONG protest to attend?
if I were a member of the Marxist party of which you speak, I would probably ask you to treat your membership in that union as an outreach opportunity for the party. I can't speak for ansynds, though. what do you mean exactly by "sympathetic to anarchism"?
Neck yourself, autist.anarchismAnarchism
Admitting that labour vouchers are capitalism, finally a honest Marxist.
The main disagreement was whether Marx should be the benevolent dictator for life for the labour movement or should they concern themselves with the emancipation of the proletariat instead of Marx's political career.
Idealism has a very specific philosophical meaning and it's not "having plans for the future".
What a fucking Bakunist slander, are you gonna call Marx a Jew next? The decision to expel Bakunin from the First Internationale was made democratically with an overwhelming majority of deputies voting with Marx.
The accusation that Marx craved any sort of direct political office is nonsense, he did not demand such things of the First Internationale nor of the SPD. He was upheld and respected because of his intellectual merit not because of his political ambitions.
>>7836>Still arguing about the first international
I feel like I am 13 again, it is sad.
The countless debates and arguments were as worthless then as they are now. What is anyone supposed to do with it, the both of you? I cannot even wipe shit from my ass with this.
What do you mean? At some point you need to face your political irreconcilabilities, postponing them to day X is cowardly. I severely doubt that the difference between Marxists and anarchists is just "they both want the same thing just have different ways to get there" I would also assert that the anarchist conception of communism is also fundamentally different from a Marxist conception.
Literally nobody cares except the weird straw-anarcho in your head, little child. now go to bed.>>7839
I don't particularly disagree with anything you said, but do you think the best way to confront our political differences is to have the same old arguments about the first international that we have been having for over 100 years? Why?anarchismAnarchism
I didn't bring it up. The other poster needlessly claimed Marx wanted to become the dictator of the labor movement (I mean, that's literally some Thomas Sowell tier bullshit) to which I responded.
Uh dudes, what even is anarchism? All i know is "be gay do crime kill capitalists" but that sounds completely compatible with any revolutionary socialist belief system.punkPunk
I've heard anarchism is "individualist theory + praxis". reading some anarchists I like, I do get that, but I'm an ML so take that with a grain of salt.
Yeah, the 3rd point in that post >>7687
is already true for capitalists. They can travel to or live in pretty much anywhere on Earth. It's only the working class that are subject to those restrictions that currently exist.
Honestly if you can have anarcho-capitalism or anarcho-fascism (yes, I know they're contradictions, but really, capitalism is compatible with anarchy because it is merely the anarchy of production), why even be an anarchist?
>>7849>capitalism is compatible with anarchy because it is merely the anarchy of production
That's not what anarchists mean when they say "anarchy". They mean a society with no social hierarchy, not one with no organization.
And yet anarchism does not have any viable solution to reducing social hierarchy. It just points it out.
capitalism is compatible with anarchy because it is merely the anarchy of production
They believe in collectivizing production and distribution, and speedrun to full-communism, afropessimist.
Explain to me what is wrong with with critique?>>7847>I've heard anarchism is "individualist theory + praxis".
Lots is. Individualist/Insurecto strains of anarchism certainly tend towards this but even collectiivst anarchists celebrate and practice individual praxis, vid related, anarchists burning down police training center.anarcho-nihilismAnarcho-Nihilism
And capitalism is not compatible with socialism? What's China doing if not capitalism with socialist/Chinese characteristics.
Hm, it's almost as if Marx said you have to undergo a phase of capitalism before you can get to socialism
>>7858>it's almost as if Marx said you have to undergo a phase of capitalism before you can get to socialism
do you have a quote where he says it HAS TO rather than IT DID?
That pick is fucking badpan-africanismPan-Africanism
yeah i know but i didnt have anything betterleft_communismLeft Communism
If you have no good pictures to post. Don't post pictures at all.
I can't speak for all anarchists, but Graeber sees analytic value in a perspective of people as a commodity that a society produces in the project of its own reproduction, and therefore subject to Marxian economic analysis. In that light, private property and vested rank (what people usually mean when they say social hierarchy) are similar logics, and both are undesirable traits to be minimized.
As to viable solutions, direct democracy, which is the very antithesis of private property, has always worked well in smaller numbers. Even the Gilets jaunes protests, whose aims are a bit more modest than anarchist society per se, have been running on the logic of the "leader" serving at the pleasure of those who would follow him, and whose command authority can be yanked according to the collective will.>>7854
Only totalitarians would care.>>7860>implying Marxism is not exactly that, with only its own word to the contrary>>7863
The soyjak script was a mistake.
>>7863>thinks that there is only one history everywhere
Totalitarianism not even once
cause the pay is goodanarchismAnarchism
Marxist Leninists would like a word,
Anarchism is a self-evident stupidity because it's taking the Hegelian idealizing of the state at face value. At the end of the day, the state is ultimately the people and machinery that comprise it, rather than some ideal that exists outside of people. The theory of the state necessitates that it presents itself as something more, something above, but in actuality states can be fragile, are as mortal as anyone else. The impersonal, totalizing state has to especially present itself as absorbing the entire collective, and disallowing anything outside of the state, as in the fascist credo.
The flip side of this is that you can't really stop people from forming a state, and you can't really prevent the reality of a legal monopoly on force being established. If no such legal monopoly exists, it would be necessary to create one, or create what amounts to a legal monopoly on force (even if there are no "laws" as such, all this means is that there is no written, open law). The result of this is that "anarchists" create some of the most controlling, wretched societies you can imagine, and often invokes this notion that Nature is the great dictator. It appeals to natural law, much as liberalism does. The result is that, barring a long-term state of true anarchy with competing powers, "anarchism" can never be any sort of stable society, and would be very undesirable in practice. True anarchy means war and conflict between competing people, or a forced ignorance where human beings do not express power in any meaningful way.
Marx also formulated than the Russian peasants could skip capitalism and right into socialism through the peasant commune.https://understandingsociety.blogspot.com/2010/04/marx-on-russia.html
We spent most of our existence as a species in stateless societies. The state is not some transhistorical entity that comes out of the ether, pseud.
>>7871>At the end of the day, the state is ultimately the people and machinery that comprise it, rather than some ideal that exists outside of people.
What a steaming pile of bullshit.
The "state" in primitive society would be whatever personal authority a chief may have invested in him, by the loyalty of those following him. This primitive society might form something like a recognizable polity, that would have to be dealt with as a collective. What the anarchists are getting at is really an abandonment of executive authority, like a "Dictatorship of Nature". That's why green politics is such a virulent strain among "anarchists".
You're stuck with the mystification the modern state presents, rather than what it actually is as a physically existing entity. There is no "the state" that exists as an idea, a force outside of the people and machinery that constitute it. If everyone stopped believing in the United States of America, and stopped performing the functions that constitute the United States of America, then that state is nothing more than a legal fiction, or a historical entity. Needless to say, a lot of Americans are invested in this thing, the United States of America, and want it to continue, but no state is immortal, and it is entirely possible for the legal entity, United States of America, to not resemble any intention of its founders or the people who comprised the nation back then, and the United States of America may be an idea that is only desirable as a state for a minority of the nation, and much of the nation can despise this entity, United States of America, as an unwelcome imposition that they would be happy to see the end of.
The "state" as a concept is simply the manifestation of a legal monopoly on force, held by certain people. If you want to dicker around about the definition of a proper "state", you're just moving the definition, and things that are very much a legal monopoly on force made manifest are obscured. The concept of a monopoly on force can be manifested from some basic physical constraints of the universe, and a definition of what human beings are (or any conscious entity that feels in a similar way). Obviously the idea of a state or polity arose out of primitive society. It is you who is asserting that the state "comes out of the ether" as this spooky force, whereas I am seeing what we recognize as a state as something emerging from necessary physical components.
A state is defined by its legal monopoly on violent force, something that is mutually exclusive with the acceptance of rival states in its borders making the same claim. If no entity can claim that monopoly, then you have anarchy, but you also have conditions of war, or you would have a consensus form that the state resolves this existing rivalry - and such a state would eventually be consolidated as a singular thing to be controlled, even if it was based on separation of powers in some way.
And I'll close by saying that what, in a geopolitical sense, constitutes a valid state, has varied throughout the years. We didn't immediately form this idea of the Westphalian nation-state. To primitive societies that didn't yet reach to the state of a chiefdom, politics would have occurred between bands of people, and within the group. That would have been the geopolitical unit, so far as such a thing could be conceived. There is certainly some thought process behind humans forming social units like a hunter-gatherer band. Anarchists, like many people, take sociality for granted, and then presume that sociality exists in fixed and eternal forms, that "humans are social animals" and thus form only a limited set of polities. Every actual polity though formed in the first place because it served, at some point, some sort of intentional purpose, and the people in that polity on some level have to comport themselves with the dominant polities and legal codes, or that polity has to create institutions like slavery to compel people by force to abide the dictates. Free societies are premised on the assumption that free people are, on some level, voluntarily agreeing to be a part of the process, that the state can't simply command people to perform acts as if the free man was actually a slave. In practice, the "free" society is rigged so that people "voluntarily" make certain decisions, but historically the state's command was "thou shall not" rather than "thou shall" or the eugenist "thou art". It's just that we live now where eugenism is the dominant ideas imposed by the institutions, and especially among certain intelligentsia, and the nudging of "free" people borders on a slavery that is difficult to comprehend unless you see enough of it and are hostile towards it. People instinctively get it, but the cravens who lust for petty managerial power don't want to ruin the scheme which gives them social and emotional validation.
You still haven't justified why the state needs to exist all you done is just obfuscated the definition of the state with out justifying it.
It's not about whether the state "needs" to exist. It's just the manifestation of executive power that achieves dominance over some space. If you're arguing that such a thing is the problem, you're creating this impossible problem to solve, short of changing the definition of human thought and feeling to something which precludes the idea of executive power and functioning. You're not going to stop people from forming the state just because you feel the state is bad. What you can do is form an egalitarian society on the basis of mutual cooperation, where we recognize that overbearing states and class society are ruinous to all of us, and serve only a privileged minority. At a basic level, people have to want to be free, and must abhor the kind of class society we live in, must recognize why class society is evil. The problem with vulgar anarchists is that they just say "hierarchy makes me feel bad", or invent this preposterous notion of a "justified hierarchy" based on some Dictatorship of Nature concept. The state at a basic level is not about justice. Justice is only a post-hoc rationale for accepting the state, and usually a polity doesn't operate on blatant unfairness. The only polities which create laws which are deliberately deceptive, where there is no rule of law at all and reality control is practiced, are eugenist polities - i.e., the kind of polities that are forming in the 21st century because all other ruling ideas have been dismissed.
Why would they see the need to form a state?
Even something as monstrous and regressive as the Roman Empire at least pretended that laws were laws, and that truth was truth. Eugenist polities revel in reality control, creating false truths and arbitrary standards of evidence. Eugenist polities revel in gaslighting people and telling them that what is real, in front of their eyes, is a delusion. That's the horror of the eugenist polity, the eugenist state. And that is the horror we presently live under, though the eugenist state has not yet achieved the kind of total control it desires.
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.
>>7885>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.>>7890
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 >>7890
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 https://libcom.org/files/NestorMakhnoAnarchysCossack.pdfanarchismAnarchism
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.
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.>>7902>CNT>Greated achievement<betrying the revoution
Okay. We both know that the CNT were opportunists, let us not lie to the person asking questions.
Good anti-IDPOL anarchist text by Flowerbomb:https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/flower-bomb-an-obituary-for-identity-politics
> 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>>7903>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>>7901
Ok that is pretty good
James C. Scott, Two Cheers for Anarchism: Six Easy Pieces on Autonomy, Dignity, and Meaningful Work and Play (2012)>>7906>implying every single thing should be political
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?stalinStalin
Well alright. So what past/present anarchist projects do you think I should look into?
What's wrong with the one you have?>>7912>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>>7913
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.
>>7899>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
>>7914>>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.
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.>>7916>Your view of materialism is very reductive
Good. That's a sign that someone's sacred cows are getting rekt.>>7917>Changing (overthrowing) a system requires collective action
True.>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.
>>7914>Neo-Zapatismo is my current fave.
it's zapatismo, not neo-anything. And they aren't anarchists.>>7918
I think you mean "marxism leninism as it applies to the indigenous people of the lacandon jungle".zapatistaZapatista
>>7919>And they aren't anarchists.
Then where is their Party?
Calling them mls is borderline gaslighting
Mods are fags as usual.
Yea, keep the 0PPW board invented by anarchies biggest online faggot. So useful!!anarcho-nihilismAnarcho-Nihilism
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.
>>7933>6 anarchists in the first line
Sorry to burst your bubble but by this standard Chile is literally Makhnovia considering they have like hundreds of them in the first lines at protests.
Not to mention Greece where they are probably more than a thousand in Athens alone at protests.sandinistaSandinista
Nothing, just stating facts.sandinistaSandinista
Public service post:
f people vote in your anarchy, it's not anarchy.
If your anarchy involves any type of policing mechanism, be that ebin people's militia or neighborhood watches or whatever, it's not anarchy.
If your anarchy involves dying of exhaution while taking part in an orgy on amphetamine, it is anarchy.anarcho-nihilismAnarcho-Nihilism
>>7937>they are probably more than a thousand in Athens alone at protests.>probably more than a thousand
This is such an understatement I suspect you are being dishonest..
I live in a shithole country and can even get more than 1000 anarchists on street for soething important. >>7940
Another kid that just discovered anarchies critique of leftism and democracy deciding to tell everyone what anarchy -really- is. YAWWWWWN.
What do you guys think of Paul Simmons writing? I am sad he is dead, last 2 or 3 years have really been a massive blow to the anglo anarchist space.anarcho-nihilismAnarcho-Nihilism
The core of anarchist strategy is the unity of means and ends: the goal of a free society can only be achieved through forms of activity which develop people into the kinds of individuals who are both driven to and capable of producing and reproducing a free society. Anarchists have used this theory to argue for various positions on how to structure organisations, such as forming federations and affinity groups or making decisions within general assemblies in which everyone has a vote. But this by itself isn't good enough. This is because a free society is constituted not only by large scale decision making structures, such as federations, but also a never ending series of interpersonal interactions between individuals in both public and private. The consequence of this is that a social movement could establish horizontal forms of organisation without actually achieving the freedom of every participant. Eg decisions could be made by general assemblies but sexist men do all the talking and sideline women's concerns. It is therefore essential for anarchist organisations to deliberately and consciously develop forms of activity which over time dismantle interpersonal forms of domination, such as compulsory feminist education or well thought out procedures for responding to sexual harassment. If anarchists do not do this then, irrespective of their intentions, oppressive social relations will reproduce themselves. A patriarchal social movement, for example, could successfully abolish capitalism and the state but it can't achieve anarchy - a society without domination.anarcho-communismAnarcho-Communism
>>7943>the goal of a free society can only be achieved through forms of activity which develop people into the kinds of individuals who are both driven to and capable of producing and reproducing a free society.
This. As good as Marx was he (and later Marxists even moreso) fell into idealist traps thinking that you can remake society by a handful of people figuring out what to do, taking power, and doing it. The difference with anarchists is we want to extend the "vanguard" to be as wide as possible. Directly empower the people materially and ideologically and nothing will withstand them.
Marxists also tend to miss that a state necessarily imposes its power on the people at large, and in seeking state power they necessarily throttle the working class (and often other communists!) in order to impose their interpretation (idealism). If the proletariat is to truly be the revolutionary subject, you must be willing to let them have the power of arms and ideas rather than confine it to an elite few. While Marxist projects may bring improvements to the lives of the proles, they will forever be an incomplete emancipation while they fail to properly synthesize with anarchy. Ultimately their hubris is to think that they lucky few know better than the entire emancipated masses.
Like liberals and monarchists before them, state socialists secretly fear the "mob" and justify state repression based on the idea that the common folk are somehow less able to understand politics or wield power than the revolutionary Great Men.
> If anarchists do not do this then, irrespective of their intentions, oppressive social relations will reproduce themselves.
This is also idealism though. Just because oppressive social relations exist doesn't mean they will reproduce themselves. Many/most of these have a direct material basis in capitalism (which is often inherited from prior modes of production). If your task is to abolish oppressive social relations (a good task), your method shouldn't assume anything about how these relations are reproduced but instead analyze them to find their basis or root cause and change that.
The production (while tending to centralization) is made at any moment by a plurality of agents making a guess on the market's demand and producing without a perfect information on what all the others do. This means the market is chaotic and indeed we can see this in the recurring overproduction (which is also caused by the wages dynamic under capitalism but that's another discourse), thus the classic Marxist expression "Anarchy of production" is born.sandinistaSandinista
Basically he was a trot that became an anarchist because the labor movement fizzled out in the 30s and then in the 60s he started critiquing what he called "lifestyle anarchism" while also practicing the same shit then he left the anarchist movement and became basically a utopian socialist (he even said himself that his positions were becoming more similar to Saint-Simon) and started a shitty think tank to protest against nuclear energy. He wrote a few books about how "workerism is bad" and that "social issues are more important than class issues and marxists are bad because they haven't been able to adapt to this", took a few interviews where he talked about how "class politics aren't a good way to view history through because the labor movement in the 30s ended" and then died.
Again, this is mostly based off of what I've read from himgorroGorro
Good to see that the Marxist understanding of anarchism is still stuck at "anarchy is chaos" slander.
why do myanmar fellas do the svoboda uke hand thing?
How do anarchist solve the problem of power vacuums and prevent the inevitable counter-reaction from surrounding entities?thinkThink
what you replied to was retarded, but promoting hannah arendts ideas is even more
For the same reason as Thailand. They adopted it from the "Hunger Games" series.
Just admit that "retarded" is when someone calls you out on your aesthetic lifestylism.
>>7955>anarchism isn't lifestyleism
How the fuck do you call those CHAZ things, "emancipated spaces", squatting, "scene" cafes, "housing projects" and all this bullshit that is real-existing anarchist praxis?
>>7949>he started critiquing what he called "lifestyle anarchism"
My understanding from some of our burgerland anarchist Elders is that Bookchins Lifestylism split was more of a spat between him and others in the anarchist milieu at the time. It was entirely. I honestly have never seen anyone argue 'lifestylism' in good faith.>How do anarchist solve the problem of power vacuums and prevent the inevitable counter-reaction from surrounding entities?
It is utopian to pretend to have solved this. We cannot solve such things until we live them and spending time theoryizing about such is akin to 'fantasy football' except at least then you have some rules..>103372>when someone calls you out on your aesthetic lifestylism.
Meaningless statement. Can you back it up with anything substantial?>>7956>How the fuck do you call those CHAZ things, "emancipated spaces", squatting, "scene" cafes, "housing projects" and all this bullshit that is real-existing anarchist praxis?
Not Lifestylism. Because Lifestylism does not mean anything…. We call them communes, liberated spaces, ZADs, site, etc, etc.. Do you have a qualitative argument against the concepts or are you only capable of saying 'lol, it's the bad word' like a complete sperg, but not the good kind of sperg.anarchismAnarchism
>>7957>Not Lifestylism. Because Lifestylism does not mean anything…. We call them communes, liberated spaces, ZADs, site, etc, etc.. Do you have a qualitative argument against the concepts or are you only capable of saying 'lol, it's the bad word' like a complete sperg, but not the good kind of sperg.
That's 100% what lifestyleism is and what it originally meant. It's not about organizing the working class, but to practice some sort of separate hippie lifestyle. The original idea was to focus around marginalized fringe groups to create direct non-exploitative relations of community for it do organically grow as a dual power. Maoists sometimes are guilty of this as well.
The reason this all sucks and gets rightfully mocked is because it's not only outside of the daily life of working people, it's also all localism. This is reminiscent of the "propaganda of the deed" and the Narodniks, with a little updated ultra-left nonsense about communization. A lot of people think anarchism had its hayday between 1917-1935 with stuff like the Free Territory and the CNT-FAI, but it's actually the 19th century where anarchism could at least make sense in theory - a large population was still illiterate, there were still monarchs to depose, etc. - but capita has already centralized so much that anarchism can only reassert itself as impotent localisms in opposition to it. Lenin already explained all this - if we want to actually come to power, we need a powerful vanguard party, a state apparatus that allows us to nationalize what is essentially already socialized and centralized under state monopoly capitalism.
This isn't even talking about this participation fetish anarchists have. You only need 5-10% of the population to carry out a revolution to seize the state. Do anarchists expect hundreds of thousands of people to join their stupid mutual aid networks to supersede capitalist society? Most people just want to grill, so to speak. I don't want to live in your anarchism when I have to vote on who has to clean the pipes tomorrow.
>>7957>We cannot solve such things until we live them
I'd go further and say such things may not be solvable except from within. It doesn't hurt to go in with a theory of action, but compared to ML there's a lot less pressure to get the theory exactly right. Even if theory succeeds, its shelf life is limited by the adversary's ability to learn (and they do).>Meaningless statement
That was kinda my point. Moralist abstention is a bourgeois value and a bourgeois luxury.>>7958>organizing the working class>originally meant
In what context? Bourgeois party political context, as if we owe bourgeois politics anything. Understand that Marx's attempt to capture political power is exactly what anarchists and most newer leftist movements are breaking with.>all localism
Your answer is utopian centralism via bourgeois politics, as if bourgeois politics will ever allow you to organize such a thing against its interest?>5-10%
That's a pretty big footprint in the age of total mass surveillance. You sure you're not steampunk larping?
We don’t need vanguard parties in the age of mass literacy.
Also, why would the anarkiddies vote for this shit? Someone has to do it and someone’s good at it, and the society around them will be sure to take care of this individual. The idea is to have a say in the issues that affect you.
Vanguard parties need vanguard parties. They really, really, really
>>7959>Understand that Marx's attempt to capture political power is exactly what anarchists and most newer leftist movements are breaking with.
Anarchism and other forms of utopian socialism predate Marx, Marx was critiquing them. What movements? Name one.>Your answer is utopian centralism via bourgeois politics, as if bourgeois politics will ever allow you to organize such a thing against its interest?
Do you actually know what the words that you are using mean?>That's a pretty big footprint in the age of total mass surveillance. You sure you're not steampunk larping?
What the fuck do you even mean? Do you think your autonomous lifestyleism is better equipped to fight against repression than a vanguard party?>>7960
What a dumb statement, and completely random too. <we don't need anarchism in the age in which microwaves are common household items - look I'm smart, please engage with me!!!>>7961
Vague phraseology. Explain to me why I'm less alienated from my labor in a co-op than in a private enterprise.
Vanguard parties only allow the most advanced section of the proletariat and other educated sections of society. Letting anyone who is illiterate into the party would have been detrimental to the movement.
>>7964> Explain to me why I'm less alienated from my labor in a co-op than in a private enterprise.
This is hard to put a finger on and id also like to hear someone try. I have worked in co-ops but cannot properly articulate the answer to this. Though i'd ultimately say it's irrelivent if you are -more- or -less- alienated from your labour if you are alienated from your labour.
But why does that make vanguard parties irrelivent?
I always like to think back to the RAF who enjoyed much popular support whilst claiming to be a vanguard in a first world country. And the support that Dimitris Koufodinasv is getting in greece right now.
>>7964>less alienated from my labor
What does that word mean? Can you use it in a sentence without reference to your feels?
From the Great Soviet Encyclopedia:<Alienation [is] an objective social process, inherent in antagonistic class society and characterized by the transformation of human work and its results into an independent force that dominates and is hostile to the individual. The sources of alienation lie in the antagonistic division of labor and in private property.
<Alienation is expressed in the domination of reified labor over living labor, in the transformation of the individual into an object of exploitation and manipulation by dominant social groups and classes, and in lack of control over the conditions, means, and products of labor. Historically a transitory form of man’s objec-tification of human abilities, alienation is related to the reification and fetishization of social relations. To some degree, it also finds psychological expression in the consciousness of the individual —for example, the disparity between human hopes and expectations and the norms prescribed by the antagonistic social order, the perception of these norms as alien and hostile to the individual, the feeling of isolation or loneliness, and the erosion of behavioral norms. Where there is alienation, the contradiction between individuals and social institutions, which is common to all antagonistic class societies, is accompanied specifically by a perception of society and culture as alien and hostile to the individual. This perception is intensified particularly by the rise of bourgeois relations, which leads to the decline of the traditional patriarchal social bonds that submerged the individual in the social totality. In addition, the rise of bourgeois relations engenders the phenomenon of individualism, with its characteristic juxtaposition of the individual and social institutions.https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Alienation
The RAF never enjoyed any significant popular support at all.
>>7967>RAF who enjoyed much popular support whilst claiming to be a vanguard in a first world country
Sounds like focoismo, regardless of what they intended to do.>>7965>only allow the most advanced section of the proletariat and other educated sections of society>t./pol/
And nu-MLs, being the arrogant aristocratic (but don't call them bourgeois, at least to their faces) arrivistes they are, have no intention to deliver anything for the mass, and simply and only seek power. They can never prove otherwise as long as they are working in the medium of bourgeois politics, because the only reason to enter bourgeois politics, the only thing that can be found there, is elitism and domination of the mass. In that respect, as an act of mercy they can go to the wall first, so they don't have to watch the other bourgeois political parties get theirs.
Not him, but I can explain that. A worker is alienated from his labor when it is transformed into a commodity and used to generate surplus value. Both syndicalists and MLs fail to appreciate that simply getting rid of bosses does absolutely nothing to change the relationship between a worker and his labor-power.
Tell me CONCRETELY what you mean by "giving something to the masses". Do you mean CHARITY? Because that is the most aristocratic thing I can think of. Marxist-Leninists are active in unions, enterprise councils, strikes, tariff negotiations, etc. and are also anti-imperialist whilst anarchists don't give a fuck about that at all. Never seen an Anarchy A or a black flag at an anti-war demonstration. However, I have seen anarchists calling aforementioned anti-war demos fascist. >medium of bourgeois politics
What the fuck do you mean by this? Explain yourself. Do you mean parliamentarianism and democracism? MLs are not Kautskyites dumbass.
Which ML has ever thought "getting rid of bosses" would be enough to change social relations?
Ok, good luck in letting the peasants lead the revolution, narodnik.
>>7972>change the relationship between a worker and his labor-power
What the fuck does that mean? Your labor power is literally just your body and brain.
Because educated have different needs and wants, unlike a society that is majority peasant.
I said deliver, not give, but you did a GREAT!!<3 job of projecting your PMC sense of entitlement onto others. When you can speak and understand English with an average native level of comprehension (a low bar indeed), we can continue this conversation.
Good job dodging the question, faggot. I'll reformulate: If your movement can not answer the question of how we actually get into POWER it is fucking useless in terms of liberation, especially for the imperialized superexploited black, brown and yellow masses of the global south. >calling me a PMC >talking about projection>you better speak proper English to me, foreigner!!
Can't even make a parody of this
>>7979>If your movement can not answer the question of how we actually get into POWER>we
WE aren't. YOU are. Your claims of "doing it for the people" are about as credible as Lady Gaga's.>deliver
Yes, you mouthy little v&guard shits had better get used to being subordinate to the will of the people and serving them as their inferiors, because you don't get final say on when the rubble stops bouncing.>especially for the imperialized superexploited black, brown and yellow masses of the global south.
Your movement isn't even a response to that. China is doing its own imperializing, in the Leninist sense. Why cry? XD
Also, fuck off back to your containment thread Haz.
>>7980>completely dodging the question again
Okay so I must conclude anarchists have no desires to take power and experiment with their impotent localisms and "autonomous zones" until the collapse of capitalism kills us all. >Yes, you mouthy little v&guard shits had better get used to being subordinate to the will of the people and serving them as their inferiors, because you don't get final say on when the rubble stops bouncing.
The vanguard already serves the people through the mass line without lowering itself to the niveau
of the people. Plus, you haven't proposed any alternative form of organization, your are just talking the talk my friend.>Your movement isn't even a response to that. China is doing its own imperializing, in the Leninist sense
You haven't read Lenin so I couldn't give two shits about what you think is or isn't imperialism in the Leninist sense.>Haz
Rent-free. But I can totally feel how Haz's synthesis between Marxism-Leninism and Jimmy Dore-type "people's populism" must have torn you a second asshole. As if anarchists serve the people, what a fucking joke. All you guys ever do is shame them.
funny how anarchism has been reduced to shilling for liberal democracies and unipolarity
Libs gonna lib. You're supposed to picture Edgar (the Giant Roach) from Men in Black here.tankieTankie
Stop eating up the propaganda.
>>7981>localism is impotent
I'm not dodging the question at all. I'm asking you why you are any different than any other bourgeois politician with a public narrative and a desire for private power, and doubting that you can make that case.>reading a dead guy is equivalent to agreeing
Good God, I'm not even that level of intellectual cuck with live authors. >>7982
>>7964>Explain to me why I'm less alienated from my labor in a co-op than in a private enterprise.
NTA, but in a co-op, you along with other workers, own and control the surplus you produce. If you and other people are making cars, you own each car you make, therefore no person or people are stealing your surplus value (other than what goes into operational overhead, perhaps rent, taxes to the state, and so on) so they could accumulate more wealth. The rub comes in when you have to make decisions that hurt you and your fellow workers to ensure the company's survival, but even then, it's you making the decision, and not some board of directors.
If you look at the production chain, a co-op is just a single link in a chain of exploitation. The co-op doesn't transform the chain, just finds a place within it. This isn't to say it doesn't provide many benefits to people working for it, but it won't lead to larger structural changes. That said, I'm a big supporter of co-ops and would love to work in one. We can recognise something as "non-revolutionary" but still consider it a worthwhile endeavour.
>>7973>Never seen an Anarchy A or a black flag at an anti-war demonstration. However, I have seen anarchists calling aforementioned anti-war demos fascist.
Lies don't help your case.
what did 17N had to do with vanguardism?anarcho-communismAnarcho-Communism
>>7973> I have seen anarchists calling aforementioned anti-war demos fascist.
t. liar and samefag>>7983>funny how anarchism has been reduced to shilling for liberal democracies and unipolarity
Just fuck off back to /pol/ will you? we do not want you.>>7987>If you look at the production chain, a co-op is just a single link in a chain of exploitation. The co-op doesn't transform the chain, just finds a place within it. This isn't to say it doesn't provide many benefits to people working for it, but it won't lead to larger structural changes. That said, I'm a big supporter of co-ops and would love to work in one. We can recognise something as "non-revolutionary" but still consider it a worthwhile endeavour.
This is all true, and i am a supporter of co-ops and have worked in some, I just do not believe it makes them particularly less alienating. because as you say in your last lines.
>>7992>I just do not believe it makes them particularly less alienating
I wrote here how I think it does:>in a co-op, you along with other workers, own and control the surplus you produce. If you and other people are making cars, you own each car you make, therefore no person or people are stealing your surplus value (other than what goes into operational overhead, perhaps rent, taxes to the state, and so on) so they could accumulate more wealth.
Alienation is alienation from your labour, your productive life, by someone demanding your labour time and giving you a wage for it. In a co-op, you're selling your labour time to a company you control.
One co-op isn't going to change the system, but it is another vector for class struggle – have workers demand greater ownership and say in the places they work. You and I know the bourgeoisie will crack down and that you cannot reform your way into a new system, but those doing it may not and it will provide another point of friction, another way for people to become class conscious and radicalised.
Does anyone have any data on the popularity of anarchism in the world/US over time? Any sources that point to an increase in popularity of radical demands like police/prison abolition? Id love to see some polls.
Kinda hard to keep track of things that get destroyed. Of course every detail of the Bolsheviks in the civil war is recorded, because they would form a state that would continue to operate for the next 69 years.
Obviously I don't have a source for personal anecdotes, but if you want an example of this tendency, check out Alexander Reid Ross, author or Against the Fascist Creep
. He does this shit all the time where he calls anti-war demonstrations and anti-imperialists fascists. He has no problem working with cops and had to recently retract all his articles at the Southern Poverty Law Center because they were so full of lies. You'd be naive at best and disingenuous as worst to deny that this tendency does not trickle down into the anarchist milieu and poses a huge problem. This is caused by two factors, one, anarchists being almost entirely located in the imperialized centers, especially Anglo-Saxon countries, and two, having no theory of imperialism or are disinterested in one. >hurr samefag
Who I am supposed to be samefagging? I'll gladly share proof if you point me to it. Moron.>hurr durr /pol/
Back to reddit for you then.>>7986
It's a fucking weird accusation when I don't hold any power nor will I in the coming years. I could say the same for anarchists - there are a lot of cases where anarchist structures relies on charisma of a particular leader or whatever. https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
Anarchists are idealists in the sense that they will be bound to reproduce relations of power not even when they're in charge, but in their grassroots organization as well, in an informal way. Because those relations of power that form themselves are bound up with the material conditions of the era in which they come to pass.>hurr durr Lenin is dead
Yes, people die. So what? In the latter case anarchists had a hand in it too, it wasn't a tsarist rightoid that shot Lenin, but Fanny Kaplan.>>7987
The problem with co-ops inside of capitalism is that they're will be subjected to the law of value in the form of the MCM' circuit. This means that while formally the workers control the surplus value, they are still self-exploiting in the sense that due to the impersonal domination of capital they have to accumulate it. What they produced is still fetishized in the sense that the underlying human relations are abstracted into seemingly inherent qualities of commodities as inanimate objects. Those are all primary sources of alienation. In many modern corporations there is no "porky" in the sense of the individual capitalists, there is an executive board, a supervisory board and a workers council but the shares are in free float in the case of a public company (in the sense of publicly traded), so the cause of alienation isn't the personalized relation between the boss and the worker. This is especially true for bigger co-ops like Huawei or Mondragon where their congresses look a hell of a lot like shareholder meetings. Sure, smaller co-ops might be comfy but that brings us back to the whole issue of localism again.
>>7997>Alexander Reid Ross
who?>You'd be naive at best and disingenuous as worst to deny that this tendency does not trickle down into the anarchist milieu and poses a huge problem.
holy shit, the dishonesty<I couldn't find anything to support my rambling except this obscure nobody, but it "trickles down" [nice bourgeois terminology, """""""""comrade"""""""] and spreads through anarchist circles which means every anarchist is like this one guy!!
"Trickling down" of ideas implies that there is an authority or hierarchy, and that dude, Alexander something is on top of it. In the beginning of the thread anarchists were dunked on for not having a hierarchy, but now you just assume as part of your argument that they do?>This is caused by two factors, one, anarchists being almost entirely located in the imperialized centers
like Chiapas, Mexico?>Anarchists are idealists in the sense that they will be bound to reproduce relations of power not even when they're in charge, but in their grassroots organization as well, in an informal way.>they're in charge
Circular reasoning. Anarchists don't want anyone "in charge". Yes, if there was someone "in charge" they would reproduce the system that keeps them in charge, but we're not talking about the Soviet Union here, we're talking about anarchism. >those relations of power that form themselves are bound up with the material conditions of the era in which they come to pass.
That sounds clever, but it isn't saying anything. You just threw in the word "power" in a marxist truism, thus making it not a truism but actually wrong, interestingly enough. If "power relations" truly are unavoidable as you claim, then the whole Marxist/communist project is a wash, because the point of Marxism is to abolish the power relations that arise from private property and the capitalist mode of production.
You're so eager to dunk on anarchists that you're just saying anything that might sound like an argument against anarchism. I suggest you read and understand that which you attempt to critique.
>>7998>"Trickling down" of ideas implies that there is an authority or hierarchy, and that dude, Alexander something is on top of it. In the beginning of the thread anarchists were dunked on for not having a hierarchy, but now you just assume as part of your argument that they do?
I wasn't here for the beginning of the thread so I can't comment on that. And yes, of course anarchists have informal hierachies! It's also a fair assumption that anarchists, in regards to how much they are platformed in media, politics or academia, have thought leaders that will influence a lot of young anarchists, like that aforementioned guy, or Noam Chomsky, or David Graeber. This isn't necessarily their own fault, but simply due to the fact that institutions in capitalism reproduce those hierachies. >like Chiapas, Mexico?
The EZLN isn't exactly anarchist, but sure, isolated movements can exist, but I was speaking about the general tendency. The Zapatistas also are allowed to florish in the constraints of Chiapas because they represent a resistance struggle of indigenous people against their looming enclosure into global capitalism. Working off indigenous communities can allow you to be an autonomist, but those material conditions barely exist on the fringes today. A lot of Western anarchists would probably also take issue with their policies of social permissiveness when it comes to drugs, alcohol and prostitution or lack thereof.>Circular reasoning. Anarchists don't want anyone "in charge". Yes, if there was someone "in charge" they would reproduce the system that keeps them in charge, but we're not talking about the Soviet Union here, we're talking about anarchism.
When I talk about "in charge" I mean the general dominance of a tendency over the stratas of society represented by personas and institutions formed in the wake of that. This is true for the Soviet Union, the Revolutionary United States or the CNT-FAI in Catalonia. >That sounds clever, but it isn't saying anything. You just threw in the word "power" in a marxist truism, thus making it not a truism but actually wrong, interestingly enough. If "power relations" truly are unavoidable as you claim, then the whole Marxist/communist project is a wash, because the point of Marxism is to abolish the power relations that arise from private property and the capitalist mode of production.
I can elaborate on that though. Marxists are materialists and "power" is an abstraction, right? This means, the way power reasserts itself in different class societies (and yes, a dictatorship of the proletariat even in a supposed "libertarian" formation is still a class society) may look similar in appearance but is very different in substance, e.g. dependent on relations of production and level of development of productive forces which forms the base of any socio-economic formation (anarchists tend to see the state as a separate, distinctive quality parallel to those things but let's table that for now). So "power" in feudalism is fundamentally different in quality than power in capitalism, even if it looks similar in appearance (for example: both formations use a monopoly on violence, in one case of only noblemen being allowed to swing the sword, in the other one the institution of the police). This means that if you want to sublate those structures, you have to somewhat operate in formal similarities even though it's already containing the kernel of a new society. Of course
I don't want a vanguard party to be organized the exact same way like a bourgeois party, and to a degree, they aren't - for example, in democratic centralism every member can directly submit motions to the party leadership bypassing their local chapter. So there is a subversive, criss-crossing relationship between formal representative authorities and horizontal organization - it was actually that element that got Stalin into power!
Think about this in a Napoleonic, dialectical way - why was Hegel thinking he was observing the Weltgeist
when Napoleon crossed the alpes? Because the dialectic was that he had to put a crown on his head to end feudalism - or as Lenin put it: "The capitalists will sell us the ropes with which we will hang them."
So the alternative is to opt out of capitalism and form direct communes according to anarchists because they already reject everything I just said. But what's the negation of the negation here? By superficially rejecting all notions of "bourgeois right" and "bourgeois morals" they end reproducing bourgeois morals in an even more ideologicallly pure sense - those values of community work, purity, austerity, asceticism and autonomy are not just compatible with capitalism, they are in fact the true kernel of bourgeois morality as it emerged through Calvinism in the Law Countries in the 16th century. This is why so many anarchist projects are so quickly fully recuperated by capital, see for example Christiana which is now a tourist destination. This does in now way mean I'm some kind of Jordan Peterson or Christopher Hitchens type of essentialist that says "power will always prevail, it's hooman nature dude!!" - ironically that's also what anarchists think they are just in opposition to it.
The MSM has started talking about how anarchists are public enemy number two, right after the deplorables. Admittedly it's an indirect sign.>>8000>And yes, of course anarchists have informal hierachies
I like to say anarchist create hierarchies for use value, not for exchange value, and are willing to discard them when they are no longer useful. Compare to the cultural disposition of Anglo cultures, very absorbed with establishing and protecting a position in some total rank order, like chickens.>take issue with their policies of social permissiveness … or lack thereof
They have their reasons and sensitivities, and there's no reason to reproduce those aspects in a separate project if those reasons do not make sense in the new project.>But what's the negation of the negation here
A tendentious rationalization of a lack of interest in your political project and goals, that's all. >community work, purity, austerity, asceticism and autonomy are not just compatible with capitalism, they are in fact the true kernel of bourgeois morality
Which of these are not Communist values, aside from autonomy? And how is autonomy (auto=self, nomos=law) not diametrically opposed to the idea of a divine autocratic law-giver?
A gift for you anarkids:
This is the account of the Frontline fighters of Chile (the one that took the brunt of the fighting against the government during the protests):https://twitter.com/primeralineare1
They're still active so you might give it a look.sandinistaSandinista
w-what did you do to my passive aggressive walking stereotype of a tankie sardinista coposter ?
>>8005> (an actual one with a doctorate in philosophy).
Why are Marxists so elitist?
Because you touch yourself at night.
Is there anything not illegal
we can do about this?
1) There are two FSLNanon both Italian both MLs (i'm not kidding)
2) I just felt like there was no reason to be sectarian, especially when talking Chilean protestors which albeit politcally kinda inept are the OGs when it's down on the streets.sandinistaSandinista
I really hope you anarchists take control of these protests cause the alternative is 100 years of neoliberals, so go for it and make them spicy.sandinistaSandinista
>>8001> I like to say anarchist create hierarchies for use value, not for exchange value, and are willing to discard them when they are no longer useful.
Boy, do not be using words you don’t understand the meaning of. How the motherloving fuck does a hierarchy have exchange value? It’s not a commodity.
And job variation isn’t a hierarchy. Organization isn’t a hierarchy. Having someone in an advisory or coordinative role isn’t a hierarchy.
SMDH. I’m a fucking marxist, I shouldn’t be having to tell you this.
The anarkids are alright. I think their analysis doesn’t really account for processes and that it often looks at things from the superstructural level rather than the base one, but the anarchos go hard in the paint and are often very based. Qualified support for them.
>>8015>It’s not a commodity.<Entrepreneurs: exist
It is the particular and special value of the supermanagers, the PMC, a commodity only they can produce in the ornate and detailed divisions required, and they trade in that among themselves and with porky in finance. Bruh have you even looked at late capitalism in practice?
Anyway, cybernetics recognizes that systems do not produce themselves. The logic of production might apply to systems just as well as it does to commodities. It seems to work well in these idealistic times where material limits are no longer the most limiting factor as to what sort of structures can be built.>Organization isn't a hierarchy
Correct. Not all organization is hierarchical but there are almost always additional levels of structure that should be interrogated. Under extreme threat, command relations and a wider perspective are a well-proven process for coordinating larger battles, at whatever level of coupling is appropriate, and maintaining control of materiel. On the other side of the threat, aside from reactivation, there isn't any inherent reason that such command relations need to persist past the end of the battle, much less become titles into peacetime.>Having a coordinator isn't hierarchy
Sure it is, for the moment in which other organs subordinate themselves to the coordinator, even if only as far as maintaining their titular roles to ensure communications are targeted correctly. Once the coordinator leaves, a change in the order that the coordinator ordinated may be possible. Whether it is advisable is a separate question.>I’m a fucking marxist, I shouldn’t be having to tell you this.
You should expand your horizons outside of the political project and use your brain creatively.
>>8017>Entrepreneurs: exist>It is the particular and special value of the supermanagers, the PMC, a commodity only they can produce in the ornate and detailed divisions required, and they trade in that among themselves and with porky in finance. Bruh have you even looked at late capitalism in practice?
What are you even trying to say? You are mixing in all kinds of stuff. Do you think a guy opening up a bar of which he is the private owner constitutes the same social reality like a multi-million dollar CEO of an investment bank? >On the other side of the threat, aside from reactivation, there isn't any inherent reason that such command relations need to persist past the end of the battle, much less become titles into peacetime.
Extremely naive. A dictatorship of the proletariat, which anarchists also want allegedly, even in peacetime consists of the proletariat suppressing the bourgeoisie with institutional power just like the bourgeois elites did vice versa. As Marx said, communism is a movement - the real movement until the present state of things is abolished. Please explain to me how this "anti-hierachy" fetishization is practically useful besides being entirely self-referential.
Based. idk about but their politics but I would def party and/or riot with these kids!left_communismLeft Communism
Does anarchism require any action from an anarchist?
No, that would be opportunistic
>>8018>Do you think a guy opening up a bar of which he is the private owner constitutes the same social reality like a multi-million dollar CEO of an investment bank?
Of course not. Small porky is just seeking gainz and retirement. The PMC, on the other hand, have a system-generating function in the superstructure, via their dotted-line relationships and their common language. They cause the particular relations among capitalists to respond to non-market cues and allow capitalists to increase their organic component of production. Under neoliberalism, where the market IS the system, finance is one example of a system-generating function. When a system deals with people, systems, and time as commodities, it is appropriate for the purposes of predictive analysis to look at it with the same logic as any commodity production system, and if you are serious about treating porky as an adversary to be vanquished rather than as an unfashionable pair of trousers that can simply be ignored in favor of the Rapture, you should probably try to get good at this.>A dictatorship of the proletariat, which anarchists also want allegedly
I think we're opposed to absentee rule as a whole, but the more communistic tendencies might accept demcent at a fine enough grain, with guarantees of adequate devolution, and with a less proprietary take on the "right" to rule.>>8012>songs over two minutes long>in Western ballad form>"""punk"""
What did they mean by this?
who /anarchotranshumanist/ here
Can't have anarchism discussion without ML bashing. There's nothing else to anarchism after all.
>>8026>Can't have anarchism discussion without ML bashing.
Anarchists almost never spend there time talking about communists… It is you people that /constantly/ come to this thread to tell us why anarchy is terrible because they are brainlets..
grow the fuck up broski.
Not everything has to be grindcore.
Look, I respect the need to keep the PMC/Middle-Manager Stratum on a short leash, but for the love of fuck don’t let the petit booj off the hook. The fuck’s wrong with you?
He doesn't even know about the trash can bashing.
There's more to class relations than production. Relations to consumption and relations to the state are of equal importance in determining the character of a class. Workerism is a dead meme promoted only by the PMC who would be managing them.>don't let the petit booj off the hook
For what, adapting to the post-proletarian economy? For giving up on the dead dystopian meme of total management?
The pb are the revolutionary subject now. Adapt or larp.
>>8032>The pb are the revolutionary subject now. Adapt or larp
Are you brain-damaged? The PB are more likely to support fascist cucks to protect them frkm downward mobility. At least maybe there’s an argument to make for the lumpen, or rather the stratum of lumpen most amenable to class consciousness.
Where do dependent contractors fit into your theology?
Dependent contractors? Such as?
In some countries, the pb relationship is normalized in law as "independent contractor" status, for the purposes of tax, labor, and other law. Some of those countries also recognize a "dependent contractor" relationship, where the bulk of one's contract flow comes from a single client.
Put another way, where do you draw the line between gig work and a relationship of control to the means of production?
Or, put still another way, what if naive workerism is just political sing-song designed to arouse feelings, not express reality or inform analysis?
The person in the black-purple mask is giving off Alunya vibes.
Yes, anarchism is not ideology you hold like your 2020 football team. Anarchy is Action.
What action does anarchism require then?
I just told you, praxis.
>>8041>Anarchy is Action
That's pretty vague, you didn't just tell me.
making total destroy
just because someone isn't legally recognized as a worker doesn't mean they aren't one
seriously explain to why are people who have no labour protections and sell their labour power on a daily hourly and not a monthly basis petty-bourgeois?
You mean "making total destruction", why say destroy?
What are some writers/themes that are not anarchist but feel anarchist, i go with biopolitics/state of exemption (agamben ,foucault ,mbembe)>>8045
it's a meme you dweep
Anarchist theory consists of whining about the people who actually did something instead of holding up real world achievements which can be analized, improved upon, serve as a catalyst for new theoretical developments and as a proof for the validity of the theory. Don't you see any problem with this?
>>8046>What are some writers/themes that are not anarchist but feel anarchist
Marx and Engels, Marxism.
>>8045>You mean "making total destruction", why say destroy?>>8046
It is a meme.
So. There is a story behind this:
There was an anti-IMF action in burgertown, groups over the world was chatting about what actions they will do all the groups come up with there regular shit, sit down protests, die-ins, lock-ons, marces, etc.. convo gets to a greek anarchos, the greek representative gets up when it is there turn and says: “We will make total destroy.”
they all look at him confused and shit before he turned back to his people, thinking he used the wrong words in english, they confer in greek for a while before turning around again and saying: "yes, we will make total destroy”.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYqWq8Lnz-g>>8048
Stirner, Nietzsche, Unabomber.anarcho-nihilismAnarcho-Nihilism
stop plugging shitty videos from universitoids
also Engels is incredibly based
>>8049>The free people’s state is transformed into the free state. Grammatically speaking, a free state is one in which the state is free vis-à-vis its citizens, a state, that is, with a despotic government. All the palaver about the state ought to be dropped, especially after the Commune, which had ceased to be a state in the true sense of the term. The people’s state has been flung in our teeth ad nauseam by the anarchists, although Marx’s anti-Proudhon piece and after it the Communist Manifesto declare outright that, with the introduction of the socialist order of society, the state will dissolve of itself and disappear. Now, since the state is merely a transitional institution of which use is made in the struggle, in the revolution, to keep down one’s enemies by force, it is utter nonsense to speak of a free people’s state; so long as the proletariat still makes use of the state, it makes use of it, not for the purpose of freedom, but of keeping down its enemies and, as soon as there can be any question of freedom, the state as such ceases to exist. We would therefore suggest that Gemeinwesen ["commonalty"] be universally substituted for state; it is a good old German word that can very well do service for the French “Commune.”https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/letters/75_03_18.htm
AES fell apart due to its internal contradictions. Quit being a little bitch and whining about those “sore loser anarchos.”
>>8044>just because someone isn't legally recognized as a worker doesn't mean they aren't one
I was proposing that expectations are material, that someone pulling together scraps of gigs for their livelihood has a different material outlook than someone in the UAW under Walter Reuther. It is a matter of the cost-benefit for solidarity in their particular situation.>>8051
Pretty good. Engels' theory of the state is called into question by a cybernetic analysis.>>8052>marketing defines reality
I hear this shit from the neoliberals all the time tho
I'm not blaming you guys. It couldn't have been your fault because you haven't done shit
You haven't explained why gig workers are petty-bourgeois in terms of their relation to production. If they are proletarian both in that sense and in terms of their consciousness since you are saying that they are more revolutionary, then why shouldn't we call them proletarians?
I would have been very pleased to see Monty Python do some historical comedy around revolutionary Russia.>>8060>only proletarians can wage revolution
Only within the confines of your very particular "research project". There are others.
What do the Anarchists around here think about the Channel Then&Now? He claims to be a Anarcho Syndicalist and is quite knowledgable about Philosophy. He is a bit too anti-Marxist and Liberal for my Tastes personally thoughhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws_-J4UuwP0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ_qg23orFM
>>8062>think of the channel
We don't watch TV. Why don't people read essays anymore?
>>8061>Only within the confines of your very particular "research project". There are others.
I didn't say that and it doesn't matter anyway because you still haven't proved why gig workers aren't proles in terms of their relation to production
they use too much amrican prepbro lingo for my taste by they gather up some nice info from time to time
Never heard of him, I will check him out.
Tbh Anark and Anarchopac are the best anarchist channels.anarchismAnarchism
Wtf are you talking about? That is literally the most untrue thing.anarchismAnarchism
I’m a marxist, dickbreath. Not a marxist-leninist, a marxist.
And who gives a shit about leninism? It collapsed due to its internal contradictions and the world has changed in the last 100 years or so. This impotent reveling about whose glory days were more glorious is for useless pseuds. Try seeing how we can push the dialectic forward in the here and now.
Quit being a little bitch. These people are dependent on wages, they’re proletariat. Same way the Indian farmers who marched to Delhi were functionally proletarian because they couldn’t even afford to eat the crops they grew at a subsistence level.
>>8069> I'm not retarded, but an imbecile.
OK? Who cares?
Look, cunt, are insults the only thing you have to offer? Do you think I don’t consider its collapse a tragedy? Do you think I don’t believe that they were a source of good in the world?
Didn't she got destroyed by FinBol?
why the fuck is this the first thing I see after coming to this threat for the first time. The fucking sewage question is painanarcho-primitivismAnarcho-Primitivism
Can you actually answer it tho
I want to start reading history/anthropology again to unwind a bit i had too much doomerpills lately ,do you guys have any recommendations in the vein of Graeber or Scott ?
It's become an inside joke. If you want to be an anarchist you'll have to dodge b8 better than that.
I would be interested in this too.
I'm not well versed in anarchism, but I have read Les Miserables, so I think it's safe to say that I know all about sewage systems
I thought it was the other way around.anarchismAnarchism
Good thing about bolso compared to the other trumplets is that there is a chance we will see him lynched inshallah
No sweetie, she got raped by this huge Finnish Cock. I know it's tough to accept, but try at least
You need corrective sodomy, you fucking creep.
And you’re barely a step removed from a /pol/yp. I go to leftypol because it’s /lefty/pol. Not because it’s lefty/pol/. This is one of the few places on the internet where you can discuss theory without drowning in lib soy.
Don't post selfies, it's not good OPSEC.
Why do you say that
Eh, I don’t think he contributes much to theory except by reframing watered down libertarian marxism through an environmentalist and urbanist lens. But still, he’s alright.
Bookchin is always worth a read. His essay Listen up Marxist, is pretty funny even if I disagree with a lot of his points.anarchismAnarchism
What movie is this?
I know he was an influential guy back then but I don't think I've ever seen any of his works mentioned anywhere.
Ok give me your best books/articles whatever about how an anarchist militia will be able to use modern military technology to defend itself and what differences it will have from a modern army
Any anarchist responses to this thorough debunking of the Kronstadt myth?https://youtu.be/TnUNrTX8YCo
Give me your best book on how the Soviet Red Army defended the Soviet Union and prevented its collapse. Oh wait.
no i'm not trolling this is the last qualm i have with anarchism (well ancom/social anarchism to be more precise) ,i understand that inexperienced cnt militias could at least hold their ground but i have not seen anything written on the new technologies
It's almost like some ignorant people identify to whatever ideology they come across on the internet and then they become some sectarian assholes taking pleasure shitting on what they perceive as concurrent proponents of different ideologies. Like it matters. Crazy shit.
Anyway here's a good song from a pretty cool dude I met in a protest.
Since the beginning of history, it's all been about food.
Once people lose their bread, they stop watching the circuses.
Yea, it's sad. I hear the 3rd constantly from people since i was a young teenager. Most people in my experience are very left leaning but will always default to defeatism.
As i got older honestly i do not even disagree with them, I just don't think certain defeat is reason not to fight.. PDF related.>>8106
nah m8. FAQ is shite.anarcho-nihilismAnarcho-Nihilism
>>8107>corn in ancient Europe
Wait a sec…
I think it was meant to be grain.anarchismAnarchism
Is this the sewer cuck from the bunker way back when?
Anarchists were certainly squatting rent free and that fucker’s head.
So I am curious how do anarchists plan to build a public sanitation system?
The best your compatriots came up with last time I asked was self contained systems per block of flats which I do think has some potentialstalinStalin
Why would it be an issue? Does the police in your country usually have to beat people up because they resist sewage systems or what?
Is this dusty poncho?
Boy, people already talked about it at length, like setting up a committee and adhering to best practices and shit like that. Not to mention that it’s not like existing sanitation infrastructure will disappear if anarchists take control.
It's dishonest to say what X will be like in an anarchist society because A we do not know and B we are not about to send dictates into this future society we have no idea the social or material conditions of..anarcho-nihilismAnarcho-Nihilism
While I don’t know any books or sources and am personally no longer an anarchist, from my cursory understanding, military difficulties faced by anarchist societies often occurred due to a lack of materiel on their part or in some of the most pacifistic ones, not even considering it in the first place.
I think the idea of it is using a combination of decentralized militias or small guerrilla units reliant on communications technology to coordinate with other groups and collectively formulate strategy, while tactics can be performed somewhat more autonomously, leadership follows the pirate ship principle (more direct authority during combat, but more democratic authority outside of it), shit like that.
I mean it doesn't concern you what the massive navies and airforces scattered around the world will do in a case of substantial uprising that begins to tear away capital and self organize effectively( i'm not talking about a russian civil war situation with pitched battles and shit more like a more aggressive and radical may 68 )
Yeah i also think like that most of the time but things like tank and airplanes you can't just spread them in the community like handguns, a group of professionals with a strong leverage will emerge right ?
Well an such movement would be organic and spontanious so again, it really is impossible to say without living in LARP land so to speak.
From a tactical position though talking about this I could recomend Tom Nomad and his work, PDF related. Also vid to get a sense of Tom and his work: https://sub.media/video/countering-insurgency/
>>8118>Not to mention that it’s not like existing sanitation infrastructure will disappear if anarchists take control.
Eh, it has "disappeared" from time to time even in competition between bourgeois governments. It's a vulnerability of concern and a contingency to plan for, right down to having enough buckets.>>8123
Not that anon but based, that promises some interesting reading.
Np guy. I'm glad i remembered it, starting a re-read. I like how he understands the police in general as a counter-insurgency force at it's core, I think it is important for leftists and all radicals to really understand this.>>8125
Np, here is also a very recent interview with Nomad by Submedia talking about the ongoing uprisings in the US and the elections there: https://youtu.be/RaT6U0k41LQ?t=782
>>8108>FAQ is shite.
why ?not that i have read it from start to end i just skim some interesting titles from time to time ,do they misrepresent nihilism or individualism or smth ?
the absolute chad jaw of this lad
Is it hard to dig a latrine and/or make a burnpit? They’re far from ideal, but after a short-term collapse, you gotta do something.
Septic tanks are big in more rural areas IIRC. >>8122
Tanks need fuel and ammunition and crews. Airplanes as well. You might have professional fighters, but what leverage will they get if no one is willing to feed them, arm them or fuel them?
A lot depends on local groundwater. Dense cities are going to be a problem. On the other hand, farmers or intermediaries might be glad to collect it from the curbside, process it, and close the nutrient loop by feeding their plants with it. Besides, if trade links break down, human waste is an NPK source they can't afford to just piss away.
so, it's not shite but more like "AnCom FAQ"
>>8116>So I am curious how do anarchists plan to build a public sanitation system?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisian_freedom
> Water management in that lowland northern country in the 12th and 13th centuries provides another example of bottom-up solutions to environmental problems. Since much of the Netherlands is below sea level and nearly all of it is in danger of flooding, farmers had to work constantly to maintain and improve the water management system. The protections against flooding were a common infrastructure that benefited everybody, yet they also required everyone to invest in the good of the collective to maintain them: an individual farmer stood to gain by shirking water management duties, but the entire society would lose if there were a flood. This example is especially significant because Dutch society lacked the anarchistic values common in indigenous societies. The area had long been converted to Christianity and indoctrinated in its ecocidal, hierarchical values; for hundreds of years it had been under the control of a state, though the empire had fallen apart and in the 12th and 13th centuries the Netherlands were effectively stateless. Central authority in the form of church officials, feudal lords, and guilds remained strong in Holland and Zeeland, where capitalism would eventually originate, but in northern regions such as Friesland society was largely decentralized and horizontal.
> At that time, contact between towns dozens of miles apart — several days’ travel — could be more challenging than global communication in the present day. Despite this difficulty, farming communities, towns, and villages managed to build and maintain extensive infrastructure to reclaim land from the sea and protect against flooding amid fluctuating sea levels. Neighborhood councils, by organizing cooperative work bands or dividing duties between communities, built and maintained the dykes, canals, sluices, and drainage systems necessary to protect the entire society; it was “a joint approach from the bottom-up, from the local communities, that found their protection through organizing themselves in such a way.”
>>8130>but what leverage will they get if no one is willing to feed them, arm them or fuel them?
Yeah that's a good argument ,they are still somewhat in bigger danger of being targeted be enemies or try to bribe them but you can't avoid that completely i guess.
On a similar note how can we argue against the military spending of our nation state in the the present ? Massive resources that could be used for the greater good but the centrists (and communists) will argue back that"without the army we could be conquered so all the welfare programs would be useless"
Its a safe alternative from communism and socialism. All of the things these sciences promise without the 70+ years of total red scare. Before WW2 the communists and socialists were a commanding force of the USA in particular. They were so strong they forced Roosevelt (2nd one) to create a comprehensive system of social benefits under threat of revolution backed by the USSR
The US is I think the most prominent example -aside from greece but greece aint first world- but even in west Yurop the old socialists and commies still retain the bulk of the labour movement. Its just, quite plainly, easy to get into because no one can point out a scary existential threat that existed, like the USSR or Cuba or whatever. Because of this ease though most fw anarchos say shit like "mutual aid" "abolition of unjust heirarchies" coupled with typical red scare nonsense and a liberal reaction to "totalitarian police states" like AES countries without any real objection. I sadly think theyre the new hippies and in 30 years its members will be some flavour of liberal. A safe alternative without any real necessity of material-historical analysis makes most of them into stereotypical pseuds and garbage can killes
It's not trying or claiming to be definitive and they are very clear about their biases. It's called An
Anarchist FAQ for a good reason. There is a The Anarchist FAQ and it is some ancrap shit.
>>7492>Okay question to anarchists, why do you consider yourselves anarchists rather than marxist communists?>Do you have any particular values or knowledge that draws you to anarchism?
I was born in the USSR and saw how seriously the top-down authoritarian hierarchy fucked up the people's minds and the whole culture. Russians were like little babies when the 90s arrived – incapable of thinking for themselves, incapable of organize, distrusting each other. It's still like that, ex-Soviet societies that spent all the 70s years in USSR are completely fucked up, and mostly end up being reactionary and authoritarian.
Anarchists give a clear answer why Soviet socialism was so cursed (and it was, don't (You) me) and why it became so disastrous for whole cultures: being a cog in a huge Soviet machine that controls your life and exploits your labor is not *that* different from the same condition under capitalism.
Also, Marxists tend to think in economic terms while folks like Kropotkin put compassion to a fellow human above everything. So anarchism tends to filter out more of the Dark Triad types that seek to become The Next Lenin.
>>8134>without the army we could be conquered
They're right. Without the army, THEY would be conquered by the people. Show that the people are forced child brides of the state and that the marriage is not only an unnecessary sham, but escapable.>>8135>sciences>promise
All political programs are horseshit conceits.>They were so strong they forced Roosevelt (2nd one) to create a comprehensive system of social benefits
Comprehensive, my ass.>under threat of a revolution
I understand that as a politician you are a liar trying to create a false narrative to empower yourself and yoru corporate brand, but can you at least look up Business Plot before you make shit up?
You're totally right about anarkiddies being the new hippies. They want all the benefits of modernity without the complex political infrastructure that makes us so interdependent.
The lack of independence that this guy is complaining about>>8138
is just a consequence of the necessary specialization of modern political economy. Anarkiddies think Jeffersonian agrarianism is a viable model for the world economy top kek.
>>8141>They want all the benefits of modernity
Only the transhumanists are interested in that. You're projecting your corporate movement's fetishism of industrial society onto entire movements to personally advantage yourself.>without the complex political infrastructure that makes us so interdependent.
Most anarchist tendencies seek to get away from exactly this and are willing to accept losing some pieces of this whole of shit you modernists have built.>necessary specialization of modern political economy
Modernity is not necessary, no matter how much you fatherless children want it to be. Were you also sexually abused as a child?>Jeffersonian agrarianism is a viable model for the world economy
"The world economy" is a hubristic spook that doesn't hold any interest for us.
And here I thought anprim was a meme
Well AFAIK the FAQ we know of is written in response to some ancaps.
Personally I have no time for this nonsense, like ANCAPS do not even actially exist, If the social anarchists want to write whole documents to feel superior to a literal geist then they are free to do that but it should be known it is nothing but a mastabatory project.>>8143>And here I thought anprim was a meme
That sir is because you are a brainlet that doesn't read.
Not at all. In fact, it's probably what's going to happen as the imperial core loses its capacity to find new energy sources that aren't too odious. Every erroneous expenditure of energy or failed play means there is that much less capacity to lever the next play to success and that many fewer options open.>>8144>If the social anarchists want to write whole documents to feel superior to a literal geist
Sometimes is the only way to kill an even more onanistic project like ancap, which exists to the extent Milton Friedman has fanboys among the oligarchy, which is a persistent low-level threat that could blossom.>>8145
I think you'll find USSRbro was quite supportive of anarchism, seeing how the guilelessness of Soviet proletarian thought made a people helpless against predators when the fences came down and the wolves attacked.
So youre just doing a reaction to the whole calcification of the Soviet bureaucracy, nice to know. The neocolonies that constitute the majority of the modern day nations of the world would greatly want what the USSR had, hell, most of the people did, only the baltic states ever wanted to dissasociate from the USSR, dont kid yourself.
>Anarchists give a clear answer why Soviet socialism was so cursed (and it was, don't (You) me) and why it became so disastrous for whole cultures
Anarchists reduce shit to meme-tier analysis like "authoritarian" and "totalitarian". FYI without the USSR the cultures that the Nazi's conqueres would have vanished or forced to assimiliate to german colonizers. Funny how that works that the ex-Soviet nations directly owe their existance to communists.
>The compassion meme
What is compassion if not doing everything the soviets and their ilk did during their existance? What is this supposed to be some hippy-feel good bullshit? Your compassion didnt win the Bay of Pigs Invasion, your compassion didnt shield Vietnam from the French, Japanese and the USA, your compassion has not rescued or attempted to ally and strengthen the colonies of the world, your compassion didnt wint Cuito Cuanavale. What a doomer>>8140>All political programs are horseshit conceits.
Nice to know what you think of anarchism
>>They were so strong they forced Roosevelt (2nd one) to create a comprehensive system of social benefits>Comprehensive, my ass.
Social security, the first of its kind in the liberal world, cheap and reliable housing, complete job security, extremely well paid jobs, good working hours, strong labour rights, quality and affordable medicine, the best school system outside of socialist countries, guaranteed vacations, etc, etc, etc.
>>under threat of a revolution>I understand that as a politician you are a liar trying to create a false narrative to empower yourself and yoru corporate brand, but can you at least look up Business Plot before you make shit up?
Look burger I know that knowing things about your own country is difficult and all, but the truth is that the gommies and socialists and labour movements of the USA *were* about to go into open revolt thanks to twenty continued years of starvation and historic levels of low employment and the *were* going to be aided by the USSR. It was the peak of the labour movement that had started after the USA's Civil War, how did you think that Roosevelt managed to impose 70%-100% profit taxes on half of the US's business community in order to pay for the extreme levels of quality of life that the white gringo proletarian enjoyed till the 70s?
Anon you missclicked on your flagdemocratic_socialismDemocratic Socialism
>>8146>Sometimes is the only way to kill an even more onanistic project like ancap, which exists to the extent Milton Friedman has fanboys among the oligarchy, which is a persistent low-level threat that could blossom.
I thouroughly disagree. These people are absoloutely not taken seriously in politics or economics. they purely exist on the internet to shitpost on reddit, and start failed crpto buisnesses. I find it hard to chariceterize them as having any coherent project.>>8147>Nice to know what you think of anarchism
TFW anon just realises that anarchists disagree with each other and are often harshly critical of politics/ideology..
>>8149>TFW anon just realises that anarchists disagree with each other and are often harshly critical of politics/ideology..
Yeah all they ever do is talk shit>>8148>Anon you missclicked on your flag
Ill pick whatever flag i choosegay_naziGay Nazi
NOOO. NOT CRITIQUE!
Fuck off, lib.
>>8138>top-down authoritarian hierarchy
this is what idealism does to a mf
Right, the suffering of people is> just a consequence
for many Marxists because "muh world economy!" How is it different from capitalism, again?>>8147> So youre just doing a reaction to the whole calcification of the Soviet bureaucracy, nice to know.
No, the revolutionary terror and Stalin's purges are also unacceptable and inhumane. And don't forget Lenin's betrayal of the revolution and destruction of the workers' soviets.
> FYI without the USSR the cultures that the Nazi's conqueres would have vanished or forced to assimiliate to german colonizers.
These are hypothetical ends that justify your means. Alt-history does not exist and you can't say anything for sure.
> What is compassion if not doing everything the soviets and their ilk did during their existance?
Again, you use some Higher Ends to justify the extreme violence and oppression USSR implemented. These Ends did not even happen because USSR collapsed miserably and the 90s killed tens of millions.
> your compassion has not rescued or attempted to ally and strengthen the colonies of the world
One more absolutely failed project, by the way. Nowadays they all belong to the international capital.
My bad, I should have said "All party political programs". You're still right, though. To me it's a project of reducing as much of what is reducible.>Social security, the first of its kind in the liberal world
The concession of state old-age pensions just hadn't had a material basis to support it yet.>strong labour rights
The Wagner Act wasn't that great.>complete job security
My actual sides.>the truth is
You gave me some utopian ideal that, maybe, applied to a small percentage of industrial laborers, and you presume to dictate truth?>*were* about to go into open revolt thanks to twenty continued years of starvation and historic levels of low employment
And they had 500k fascists ready to create yet another regrettable massacre of uppity workers and to hurt them badly enough they won't ask for anything ever again.>70-100% profit taxes
Promises that they would get to keep all their property after the war.
FDR was no Lord Bountiful. Book related.
Anglos can break free of the need to become an instrument of their betters. You can do it. I did.>>8149>These people are absoloutely not taken seriously in politics or economics
They don't have to be taken seriously or have a coherent own project to contribute to cultural sentiment and subjective ideals, and so influence mainstream ideology. Remember, neoliberalism is a thought collective, not a science. Utopians have their functions.>>8153
This is what child abuse does to a mf>>8154>Again, you use some Higher Ends to justify
Elitists necessarily do this.>>8155>in materialist heaven there are no lashes
>>8156> This is what child abuse does to a mf
Exactly. Studying in post-Soviet schools with authoritarian Soviet-trained teachers was pure child abuse. Pediatrics was horrible too. And it all didn't suddenly change in the 90s, my older friends who were teens in the 80s told the same stories.
Not to mention rampant alcoholism – luckily my family was spared but having an alcoholic father was basically a norm in the late USSR (they even tried dry laws for a while). So yes, I'd rather not live in authoritarianism, thank you.
>>8155>In materialism, authoritarianism does not exist
In materialist analysis it shouldn't. What the fuck is "top-down authoritarian hierarchy"? A bunch of buzzwords you throw together that have no concerte meaning other than "we are oppressed :(". If you want to let's go step by step.>top-down
If we have any representative structures, they must be top-down in a way, since they need to give orders. Otherwise they would have no reason to be. It doesn't matter if this was reached through a some sort of collective agreement, be it a direct election or something else. Yes, top-down is not in contradiction with bottom-up. Talking about where power flows from is so fucking meaningless, because most of the time it flows both ways.>authoritarian
Meaningless. Authority always exists where states exist (something anarchists were never able to avoid). What you are doing is internalizing liberal rethoric. USSR bad because they didn't have muh free elections!!! As if the USSR wasn't infinitely more democratic than the bullshit you have now.>hierarchy
A necessary component of any organization. How do you plan to avoid this? Or are you against organizing the working class?
>And if it exists, its structure does not affect people's mental states.
Not even the point I'm making but this is so fucking infuriating. Do you think people would've accepted the "authoritarianism" you are talking about if it wasn't accompanied by some pretty good lving standards compared to the conditions it faced? Bureaucratic overgrowth did exist and it did kill the USSR in the end, but while it lasted it had great achievements and it only could exist because of previous class struggles. Should the USSR have fallen earlier and should the peoples of the Soviet Union suffered more so they can have class consciousness? And you are the one to talk about compassion.
why did you feel the need to give your opinion in a subject on which you clearly have no clue ? now i'm torn between writing a serious response and making fun of you
just try to write response i will destroy you with THEORY and DIALECTICS
>>8157>Not to mention rampant alcoholism
I suggest raising your children in an anarchist squat to avoid thistankieTankie
Not that anon.>If we have any representative structures
First, who is "we" and did you ask them whether they wanted you to represent them?
Second, who is "having" these structures and who is allowed to have a controlling relation to them? Who is allowed to annul that controlling relation to those structures?
Third, what exactly does "representation" entail that isn't the same fraudulent bourgeois republican form we have today?>Otherwise they would have no reason to be
Exactly.>It doesn't matter if this was reached through a some sort of collective agreement, be it a direct election or something else
It absolutely does matter. That's private property you're claiming.>Yes, top-down is not in contradiction with bottom-up
If you actually believe in the redefinition of democracy as bourgeois party liberalism, kill yourself now, because you are so steeped in liberal propaganda that you no longer have any tools with which to escape it.>Authority always exists where states exist
He's starting to get it…>What you are doing is internalizing liberal rethoric>muh free elections is democracy
So have you, child. Obviously you lack adequate moral development to see yourself as anything but the instrument of anonymous authority. Read Fromm.>A necessary component of any organization
I think other anon's complaint is about vestiture and entitlement, that ranks become personal property, and he's got a very good point. The problem with you DotP types is that you imagine that you have a right to rule based on some narrative, which is exactly as much bullshit as any other monarch ever came up with.>Do you think people would've accepted the "authoritarianism" you are talking about
Were they given a vote? Of course not. They have to overthrow you after you've taken all the guns and police them almost as extensively as burgerland polices its subjects. Very much a free association of the people you have there.>Should the USSR have fallen earlier
No. It should have started later. After the 1929 crash would have been an excellent time. Are you done with your tiring pompous doctrine of "everything my Great Man ever did was indispensable"?
>>8154>>FYI without the USSR the cultures that the Nazi's conqueres would have vanished or forced to assimiliate to german colonizers.>These are hypothetical ends that justify your means. Alt-history does not exist and you can't say anything for sure.
Its not hypothetical if its what the Nazi colonizers actually did in the territories they conquered.Your grandparents would have to choose between becoming subhuman citizens or being massacred, and what remained of your population would have been raped in order to try and civilize the slavs with good german genes while they toiled their lives as basic fleshpuppets, all the while making you thank them for their prodigious achievements in civilization. Its not alt-history, its what the euros and yanks have done to the rest of the world.
>Again, you use some Higher Ends to justify the extreme violence and oppression USSR implemented. These Ends did not even happen because USSR collapsed miserably and the 90s killed tens of millions.>One more absolutely failed project, by the way. Nowadays they all belong to the international capital.
Well in that case absolute anarchist impotence has permitted the murder of hundreds of millions of people every couple of years. In the face of actual resistance and progress your compassion is fanciful masturbatory wordplay over the crushed bones of the colonized and the commodified. Even in the most cynical, bad faith, chauvinistic, moralizing, masturbatory and pessimistic bullshit like you have given I would sooner throw you into a landfill for the faintest promies of liberation from colonial masters and an honest shot towards socialist development. Failed project my ass, is this the famed anarchist analysis? You assholes cant ever get out of a fucking city street in the most based of cases.Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Vietnam, Angola etc, etc, etc. This nihilist chauvinism really makes me not feel sorry for you>>8156>The concession of state old-age pensions just hadn't had a material basis to support it yet.>The Wagner Act wasn't that great.>>complete job security>My actual sides.>And they had 500k fascists ready to create yet another regrettable massacre of uppity workers and to hurt them badly enough they won't ask for anything ever again.>Fascists>Promises that they would get to keep all their property after the war.
Im guessing youre talking about the armed forces of the time. Either ways, the fact that they forced the construction of the system that elevated the white prole into the highest standards of living in the word tells you enough about the strength of the labour movement at the time. If they didnt do what they have done the rise of living standards in your shit country would not have risen as they did and for the reasons they did
>>the truth is>You gave me some utopian ideal that, maybe, applied to a small percentage of industrial laborers, and you presume to dictate truth?
Im guessing that this is about the fact that the left wing was strong enough and pissed enough to attempt a revolution in your country if their demands for immediate wealth redistribution werent met? Its not an ideal past or an ideal set of actions they would have attempted.
>FDR was no Lord Bountiful. Book related.
Shove it up your ass retard, I never once insinuated that FDR was this benevolent cornucopia. The 50s, 60s, and 70s were the greatest years of material abundance for the white proletarian gringo, and possibly even for any proletarian group simply because of the scale and volume of the era. It. Was. A. Pact. Of. Concessions. To. The. Proles.
>Anglos can break free of the need to become an instrument of their betters. You can do it. I did.
To an anglo from a non-anglo you dont prove anything other than how retarded anglos behave. Shut up lmao
>>8158>In materialist analysis it shouldn't. What the fuck is "top-down authoritarian hierarchy"? A bunch of buzzwords you throw together that have no concerte meaning other than "we are oppressed :(". If you want to let's go step by step.
bruh what the fuck are you smoking
>>8163>Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Vietnam, Angola etc, etc, etc.
Are concrete examples of succesful struggle, and struggles that have brough liberation and justice to the peoples and classes that have undertaken them**
>>8162>The problem with you DotP types is that you imagine that you have a right to rule based on some narrative, which is exactly as much bullshit as any other monarch ever came up with.
Anarkiddies confirmed brainded moralists. They really think they're making a decisive break with all of previous human history. This is like Americans who think America invented freedom.
>>8162>did you ask them whether they wanted you to represent them?
Well, you can't really have a real worker's party without popular support. I mean that's the point of propaganda and all that shit. Of course it's also important to keep in touch with more base-level structures like trade unions. You also can't get into power without having popular support if you are up against the bourgeois state.>Second, who is "having" these structures
I have mentioned parties but I'm talking about pretty much anything that has representation. Unions, councils, etc.>who is allowed to have a controlling relation to them? Who is allowed to annul that controlling relation to those structures?
I'm just talking about representation in the abstract. These would all depend on the type of structure and its role in the DoP/movement.>Third, what exactly does "representation" entail that isn't the same fraudulent bourgeois republican form we have today?
The main reason why liberal democracy isn't democratic isn't that you vote for people. The real problems are the deep state (army, secret services, etc.) and the informal power corporations hold both in elections and over elected officials. Representation is a necessity. The only alternatives I know of are unelected structures and referenda. The latter is obviously superior to all other options but it's also really hard to organize. >Exactly.
Don't tell me you are opposed to all representative structures. Imagine if the union leaders decide to call a strike. Rejection of authority is not when you cross the picket line out of spite>It absolutely does matter.
No it doesn't. It's irrelevant how authority is legitimized if you oppose authority as as such. Take a party for example. It doesn't matter if delegates can be sent to the party congress in a more or less free manner or they are basically chosen by the leadership in advance, if I do something completely retarded I will be kicked out. That's the top-down aspect.>That's private property you're claiming.
Private property? What are you talking about?>If you actually believe in the redefinition of democracy as bourgeois party liberalism, kill yourself now, because you are so steeped in liberal propaganda that you no longer have any tools with which to escape it.
I'm not talking about liberalism. Lenin correctly identified that democracy is still a form rule, even if it is rule by the majority. A communist society where the state has been aboslished can't be democratic, since there would no rule whatsoever over any class. It would be the absence of rule. And if you want a "bottom-up" system, that means there must be an "up". If there is an "up", it must work by giving orders and speaking on the behalf of the working class to other states/organizations. And therefore it is top-down.>He's starting to get it…
My point is that the state has never been abolished, not even by anarchists. Therefore it is meaningless to label something "authoritarian" from your point of view, especially when with most people it's a very loaded term used for anything that is not liberalism.>Obviously you lack adequate moral development to see yourself as anything but the instrument of anonymous authority.
Do you actually think that the so-called free elections brought democracy? Cuz in my opinion elections don't matter shit. The main point is that in socialist countries workers had a lot more bargaining power in the work place because of full employment and the party always prioritised the well-being of working people because there wasn't any class they could have prioritized instead. Party officials themselves or factory managers were employed by the state and they lacked any direct incentive to do things like increasing workload or anything that is colloquially called exploitation. This is a lot more democratic than choosing who will fuck over workers every 4 years.>I think other anon's complaint is about vestiture and entitlement, and he's got a very good point. The problem with you DotP types is that you imagine that you have a right to rule based on some narrative, which is exactly as much bullshit as any other monarch ever came up with.
I asked you a very clear question about organization and hierarchy and you give me this moralist bullshit. At least you are being honest. For you hierarchy is not a concrete social relation, no no (that would probably force you to admit that it's unavoidable). Hierarchy is when you are mean entitled.>that ranks become personal property
?????>Were they given a vote? Of course not.
And it was still more democratic than liberal democracies. Anyways in the '90s free elections in effect meant the loosening of top level restriction on elected officials. Basically all power to the bureaucrats.>They have to overthrow you after you've taken all the guns and police them almost as extensively as burgerland polices its subjects.
America under. a lot worse than post-Stalin USSR. It's also very different who they throw into prisons. The USSR did this with retarded dissidents who mostly went on to become shitlibs (or at least this is the part you have the biggest problem with), America does this to poor people to restrict their freedom and get cheap slave labour. It's true that the gulags were pretty bad under Stalin, but keep in mind that primitive accumulation was never pretty and there just doesn't seem to be way in which communists could have skipped it. Not mention that collectivization allowed the USSR to quickly modernize. Also the aforementioned thing with the bureaucracy.>No. It should have started later. After the 1929 crash would have been an excellent time.
I don't care about your hypothetical cenarios where everything is perfect. If there was no socialism which could fall things would be almost certainly shittier because socialism is good. It's simple as that.>Are you done with your tiring pompous doctrine of "everything my Great Man ever did was indispensable"?
I didn't even mention a single person. And yeah, when you look that history, things that happened carry a lot more weight than things that could have happened. The USSR always faced very hard conditions and their options were always limited. The anarchist on the other hand were never able to provide an alternative.
>>8169>The only alternatives I know of are unelected structures and referenda.
There's also sortitionstalinStalin
And new democracy like the mass line and big letter democracystalinStalin
>>8167>Anarkiddies confirmed brainded moralists.
Then why be a communist then? Don't tell me you have concern for the well being of your fellow man. Most people become a communist out of a sense of wanting the world to be a better place.
"Become" isn't "stay". Capitalism has no future other than total destruction. Communism is necessary
just to survive. Red or dead. It's the hand you've been dealt.tankieTankie
Ok, I'm the original poster you were replying to and I'd rather not argue for hours because you indeed have no clue like >>8159
said and >>8162
also pointed out your spooogs :–DD Stop reading Marx all day and read some history of the human societies.
> Do you think people would've accepted the "authoritarianism" you are talking about if it wasn't accompanied by some pretty good lving standards compared to the conditions it faced?
By this logic, people were super happy to have living standards they had in concentration camps because they "accepted them".
Ну, это типа получается, если сделать партию сильнее дающих Стране свое имя рабочих советов. Власти часто покидают идеологию, а редко самих государственных органов.
Что касается анархистов, я не против их. Давным давно сам одним был. Однако, я не знаю, чем помогают движению к социализму, всего в России.
u dont understand the online 'marxist' anon. when your oponent gets bored and stop replying to your nonsense it is a win.
COOPS ARE PRIVATE PROPERTY
COOPS ARE PRIVATE PROPERTY
COOPS ARE PRIVATE PROPERTY
COOPS ARE PRIVATE PROPERTY
COOPS ARE PRIVATE PROPERTY
COOPS ARE PRIVATE PROPERTY
COOPS ARE PRIVATE PROPERTY
>>8174>Communism is necessary just to survive.
Why does that matter if morals don't matter?
It's a matter of self interest, duh.
>>8158>What the fuck is "top-down authoritarian hierarchy"?
It should be self explanatory, even if the statement is little redundant. As those at the top of the hierarchy are in charge of the those lower than them, and those lower have say in the matter.>top-down>authoritarian>hierarchy
I don't the anon did a good job in explaining the basics of anarchist theory, Anarchists reject coercive hierarchies. But you may ask aren't all hierarchies coercive? No. Hierarchies can be a voluntary association. Bakunin gives an example of this.>Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.
And for a basic understand of how anarchists view authority I shall link a post I made earlier today. >>127955anarchismAnarchism
>>8183>funded by USAF
No, you gon get horseshoe'd, son. Anteefa are the real Hydra.tankieTankie
Where is this from?anarchismAnarchism
flag smasher seems pretty based until you find out he's a liberal humanistleft_communismLeft Communism
have you read the comics?
Nope just read some fansite summary awhile ago when I heard about this character. Feel free to correct me but it said he was some sort of radical UN supporter.
Seeing as how it's a DC character weird that Marvel used the name too for something else are they merged now or is it a rip off?left_communismLeft Communism
Watching bristol protests against policing bill, live
what happened earlier they broke some cops ribs ? >>8191
oh no i have no idea in fact i don't think i have actually read any western comic ever
Not even Garfield? Calvin and Hobbles?
What do Anarchists think of Libertarians? Seems to me that you have the same theory of power. What's the difference between non-coercive authority and the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP)?
>>8195>War that threatens all life on middle earth>Do fuck all and literally just go to heaven
Yep. Elves are indeed anarchists.
The libertarian socialist elves living in the equivalent of the Lacandon Jungle, aka wood elves are based af, as in real life.
Anarchists are libertarians. What's known as libertarianism now is just liberalism.
Yes, but Brits also like trying to outdo each other when they can find an excuse so it could be part of a trend
>La 5ta Jornada Primavera Libertaria de La Habana, como las anteriores desde 2013, no pretenden ser parte de la supuesta “ola libertaria” anticastrista, que se agita desde las piscinas de la Florida, pues sabemos que el anticastrismo conduce a los mismos horrores y dislocaciones que ya nos trajeron el antimachadismo y antibatistianismo, al concebir a la sociedad y a las personas como masa táctica a disposición de conspiraciones palaciegas (masculinas). Tampoco esta Jornada pretende ser un mero espacio amplificador para el pedido de caros derechos para los poderes en bancarrota en Cuba o para la tertulia crítica y ociosa a lo existente.>Más provechosas y discretas, las Jornadas Primavera Libertaria, buscan ser un catalizador y prefigurador de posibilidades de autonomía, interdependencia y libertad de las personas libremente asociadas ahora mismo, aquí y en el mundo, para crear alternativas a la crisis civilizatoria en curso, desde lo local, pero pensando en lo global. Un observatorio de prácticas sociales creativas, de la mano de quienes las llevan a cabo y de quienes también sueñan con hacerlas.
What's next nork affinity cell ?anarcho-communismAnarcho-Communism
Historically Bristol has been a hotbed of radicalism. Not sure why, it used to be a triangle trade port and just kinda continued to exist and has suddenly become a home for london emigre.
"Libertarian socialism is properly to be regarded as the inheritor of the liberal ideals of the Enlightenment." - Gnome Chomsky, Notes on Anarchsim
>>8200>Is bristol more "lefty" than the average town in the inbreeding island ? i remember seeing an anarchist organization with frequent updates from there
Yes. In recent history we had a big squat movement and very radical anarchist movement, and still do to a large extnt, It was bristol people really holding the torch for FAI/FRI and other insurrecto stuff in the UK for the longest time, they even burned down that police firearms training center, and the guys that trashed the Raytheon factory were all part of the bristol milieu too.
>>8204>liberal ideals of the Enlightenment
are different from liberalism.
Not really, they're both the same sort of poison
You obviously don't know the difference between the Enlightenment and liberalism, yet you're so confident in your ignorance. lolhttps://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/articles/interim.htm
Well, his most famous book is literally just him REEEE-ing that other anarchists were not doing exactly like he wanted.
Honestly dont kn ow why online yankee anarchists venerate him.
yes exactly he had no chill and was highly entertaining
Was he though? Reading this berny critique and it sounds exactly like the boilerplate criitique any of us could come up with if we had to fill some page space with relating to some local lib.
Bookchin is a zionist. He can go rot in hell
Julian Huxley and Friedrich Nietzsche
Because it's a meme ideology. We're nowhere near transhumanism so it's a moot point. Focus on reality.
Julian Huxley (Aldous Huxley's brother) coined the term "transhumanism".
or you could read this very compelling book about the cybernetic singularity
>>8221>We're nowhere near transhumanism
We are also nowhere near communism. Yet, there are plenty of communists out there who even claim, that it might take 1000 years to reach communism.
>>8108>So long as Hitler reigned, no Jewish commune would be tolerated, no anarchist child-care collective could ever hope to thrive. To be immersed in a social order as violent and controlling as Nazi Germany warranted a reaction of absolute hostility, attacks aimed at every level of society — pure negation. So too does anarcho-nihilism understand the existing order of today as without potential for a positive agenda. Whatever we build within its bounds will be co-opted, destroyed, or turned against us: “We understand that only when all that remains of the dominant techno-industrial-capitalist system is smouldering ruins, is it feasible to ask what next?”>Nihilism urges us to consider the fact that such forward planning is simply unnecessary and that it obfuscates our more urgent goal of negation: “There’s no need to know what’s happening tomorrow to destroy a today that makes you bleed.”32>From the foundation of this critique, nihilism identifies a common trap experienced by anarchists: the magnetic compulsion to identify ourselves positively within society even though we strive for its destruction. In my local context, this often looks like anarchists responding to critics of property destruction with reminders of all that we contribute to society (when we are not rioting, we are community organizers, Food Not Bombs chefs, musicians, etc.)
I mean those are all valid criticism against ancoms but i don't know about nihilsim ,it feels like it curls it self in a position where it becomes uncriticable ,winning or losing doesn't matter etc. idk i'm probably too spooked but i have respect for those who choose to go down that path.anarcho-communismAnarcho-Communism
Are you young, if you don't mind me asking?
Most Nihilists i met that was not internet LARP are usually older anarchists who most often started as social anarchists and were very commited radicals, protestors, etc, etc.
Sooo, maybe it will come to you in time. I'm glad you engaged with the text though, it's a good one.
Here's a short pamthlet A! wrote about nihilism that's intended to other NA anarchists.anarcho-nihilismAnarcho-Nihilism
yeah i get it, i always was the cynic half empty glass kind of fuck but i have some vague belief of some cotidian "communism" in the graeber sense that keeps me going that was not how i was supposed to spend the whole day holy fuckanarcho-communismAnarcho-Communism
In what sense is Bookchin a Zionist?
In what sense is Bookchin a Zionist?
You know THAT one article where he refused to give full support to every goatfucker from Morocco to Turkmenistan
“Goatfuckers” didn’t have anything to do with that one. He just said that the Arab states have their own internal contradictions and problems that exist outside of Israel and that the Bourgeois themselves are all the actual enemy.
funny joke kibbutznik
Nah that article of Goldman where she goes on and on about how uncle sam takes the lads in the san Francisco barracks and turns them into faggots is clearly superior
Attacks on Suid-Afrika Ignore the Long History of African ConflictspurdoSpurdo
It's pretty good, but it's far more than that. It's pretty much a general theory of Rocker's anarchism.
I’d love to breed all of them, except for the short one for obvious reasons.
what obvious reasons?
They look like a small child
is this shit not cyclic we have to make a new one ?
Unique IPs: 1