#1
mt.real
Post rating: ~
seems ok
#2
mt.real
Post rating: ~
aside from that one kid who yelled about violating the NAP while he got beat up in greece or whatever.

there seems to be intelligent anarchist thought/thinkers/people/stuff out there in the world. there's also this undercurrent of "oh no, marxisms vs anarchists, fight"

as far as i can tell the anarchist view of marxism is "that is all great but you're using the state until it melts away by itself magically in the future, how is that actually going to improve anything, the structures of power still exist and will be abused/mishandled and/or will never be completely correct and/or require some sort of top-down application of structure or theory."

and the marxist view of anarchism is "lol"?
#3
Post rating: +
well, i mean, marxist-leninist critique is more along the lines.."left-wing communism: an infantile disorder" but yeah, i've always thought that the paris commune shows that we can and should work together.
i've actually thought out a whole symbiotic relationship and agreement that could (to use a terrible fucking word) synergise their strengths. Suffice it to say it bears some resemblance to both tsarist russia's relationship with cossacks and mongol's relationship towards already subjugated people.
but aside from that weed thought, anarchy is definitely something that has some value. i can understand the criticisms of marxists completely, and even those of anarchists towards leninists, but i've gradually came around to the idea that the state is the most powerful force, and to believe you can overcome an opposing state without some overall military force, relying on local militias that usually have difficulty being motivated to move and, possibly stay, too far away, is...optimistic at best. and once you have the military force, then you need the weapons, and the replacements, and the vehicles, and the cash to pay for it. so basically, a state.
the anarchist thought is that once enough people believe in it, it'll reduce all states to dissolve themselves peacefully, or be crushed in a very short campaign by autonomous cells combining and disbanding and being self-providing....like I said, optimistic.
but i admire optimism. besides, anyone who's played civilisation knows that you have to go through a period of anarchy before you make drastic changes towards your governing system.
#4
Post rating: +
When the root of your ideology is a rejection of authority and hierarchy then there tend to be a lot of things that go awry when you are actually implementing ideas and organizing
#5
Post rating: +
marxists and anarchists want the same thing in the long term, but anarchists tend toward idealism instead of materialism and therefore a) fail to understand the class basis of the state, and view it as a source of exploitation and domination entirely independent of the material base, and b) let the perfect become the enemy of the good, submitting to abstract principle and dismantling the state before the bourgeoisie is liquidated, leaving the latter in an advantageous position. that's why, historically, anarchists suck at revolution.

they don't generally understand what was meant by it "withering away," also, because again the anarchist theory of state is basically a hot, full diaper

bonus: whenever they do actually attempt revolution (or something revolution-adjacent) they invariably wind up cobbling together a state apparatus anyway just to get the damn thing off the ground -- e.g., the Makhnovists had secret police

further reading:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch04.htm#s2 (lenin describes marx & engels' arguments with anarchists in the 1870s)
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm (what the actual deal is with the "withering away" of the state, see also chapter 1)
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm (engels' most famous polemic against anti-authoritarians)
#6
Post rating: +

Constantignoble posted:

marxists and anarchists want the same thing in the long term


this is only true in a long term of like 100 years and even then only in the most abstract sense possible so i don't think this family resemblance holds much practical utility

#7
"Jpg." - Hank Hill
Post rating: +++++

drcat posted:

so what's the deal with anarchism



jerry

drcat posted:

seems ok



kramer

drcat posted:

aside from that one kid who yelled about violating the NAP while he got beat up in greece or whatever.



george

there seems to be intelligent anarchist thought/thinkers/people/stuff out there in the world



elaine

there's also this undercurrent of "oh no, marxisms vs anarchists, fight"



newman

#8
Post rating: +
havent you heard every emancipatory movement in the last century was anarchist at heart and they would've stayed that if it weren't for those blasted bolsheviks *continues reading murray bookchin*
#9
Post rating: +
anarchists are libertarians
#10
Post rating: ~

blinkandwheeze posted:

Constantignoble posted:

marxists and anarchists want the same thing in the long term

this is only true in a long term of like 100 years and even then only in the most abstract sense possible so i don't think this family resemblance holds much practical utility


anarchists say they want exactly the things Marx describes, just without the dictatorship of the proletariat as the first step. once the state has withered away, I'm not sure you'd be able to distinguish one from the other (aside from the aforementioned philosophical wedge). where do you see the longer-term divergence?

#11
Post rating: ~

Constantignoble posted:

blinkandwheeze posted:

Constantignoble posted:

marxists and anarchists want the same thing in the long term

this is only true in a long term of like 100 years and even then only in the most abstract sense possible so i don't think this family resemblance holds much practical utility

anarchists say they want exactly the things Marx describes, just without the dictatorship of the proletariat as the first step. once the state has withered away, I'm not sure you'd be able to distinguish one from the other (aside from the aforementioned philosophical wedge). where do you see the longer-term divergence?



i mean that's pretty vague and most marxists believe the stage of dictatorship of the proletariat would take at least ~100 years, so what blinkandwheeze said.

#12
Post rating: +
what bugs me the most about anarchists, and other ultras, is that their implicit anti-communism becomes so strong that they end up uncritically accepting cold war propaganda to attack actually existing socialism and the accomplishments of oppressed peoples. they often parrot literal CIA talking points in their eagerness to attack socialist states. which is one of the reasons you'll sometimes see anarchist or trotskyist publications funded by liberal institutions or the state department but i don't think a cent has ever gone to an actually anti-imperialist or marxist-leninist paper.

and then of course by the very nature of their ideology creating a lack of party structure or discipline they are incredibly prone to police infiltration, adventurism, and a lot of simply bad or infantile ideas.
#13
Post rating: ~
cart before horse. you have to dismantle power from the core, not just call for a vacuum wherever you are without a bigger picture in mind.

the more interesting question is how far that "melting away" can really go. Like how can you not centralize if you want socialism? yeah it's Jacobin but I liked this critique of "pare-con": https://www.jacobinmag.com/2012/12/the-red-and-the-black/ Looks like there's a paywall or something now though.
#14
Post rating: ~
yeah i mean even though i speculate that the end state of communism most of life will involve syndicalism and community-level organization, at this point humanity now faces issues and problems than can only be solved with organization on a global-scale as well so there will always at least be some kind of institution than facilitates democracy and communication between those communities for those sort of decisions
#15
Post rating: ~
whats the deal with airplane food?
#16
Post rating: ~

aerdil posted:

i mean that's pretty vague and most marxists believe the stage of dictatorship of the proletariat would take at least ~100 years, so what blinkandwheeze said.


i was asking because, vague or not, it seems to me that the two camps have a greater chance of converging rather than diverging beyond the given timeframe

#17
Poronto
Post rating: ~
sometimes ppl who call themselves anarchists have useful things to say abt certain topics but mostly it's just liberalism poisoning making them overly squeamish about the conclusions thereof
#18
Post rating: +++++
they cry stupid liberal baby tears the second you take even the tiniest sip of blood from this insane goblet i made out of a rich persons skull
#19
"Jpg." - Hank Hill
Post rating: +
non aggression principle isn't a real anarchist thing. it's a libertarian thing. you know how when people get into conflicts in things ranging from playgrounds to marriages to international relations there's always some dispute about who started it, and more than that, about what would constitute "starting it" and what "starting it" even means? well you know wrong because no, there isn't. we just use the infallible science of hermanism-randism to determine who started it and now we don't need government.
#20
Post rating: ~
#21
Online
Post rating: +
I have.

#22
Post rating: +++++
Anarchists lack historical materialism which makes them delusional about their own history. Anarchism once had a material basis among petty-bourgeois and peasantry in semi-feudal but under-exploited conditions. So while communism developed among the working class in the imperial heartland and developed later in the exploited colonies, the underdeveloped parts of Europe like Spain and Italy had anarchist movements which were a rival for Marxism for a time. Of course of you go back earlier anarchism was a rival to Marxism even in Britain and France because of the underdeveloped and uneven nature of capitalism in Marx's time. Basically, that form of anarchism is the individualism of pre-capitalist production and the desire for the horizontal communalism of the peasant commune (though the latter becomes socialistic over time in the age of imperialism) and had real mass influence, though always subordinate to Marxism for the same reasons utopian socialism fell away as capitalism spread across the world.

The conditions for that anarchism no longer exist in the first world and the anarchists of today have no real interest in the third world. Despite anarchists being obsessed with Spain and Ukraine, there is no commonality between western imperialistic petty-bourgeois anarchism and those movements in concrete reality. The success of anarchists in liberal movements like occupy is for the opposite reasons: it does not seriously challenge imperialism or the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and at its worst is liberal anti-communism masquerading as leftism. It has no mass influence and had no scientific method to understand why.
#23
Post rating: +
Everything I've seen about anarchism so far, from the anarchists themselves to their publications, has been reactionary trash. The ones I've talked to believe the al-qaeda revolution in Syria is great, and the Bolshevik revolution was reactionary. They've had no understanding of class. They're through and through idealists. And they're all petit-bourgeois or labor-aristocrats. People that just want to express their anger that there are people richer than them, without any proletarian class consciousness. They know innately that they are in the global scheme, and even within their own imperialist countries, incredibly privileged. They have that non-proletarian class consciousness and the discontent that comes with it, knowing that they aren't the big bourgeoisie and their privileged position is at risk as monopoly capitalism moves further and further forward but they like the socialist aesthetic so they pretend that what they're really fighting is "authoritarianism", something much worse than material capitalist subjugation because they imagine that it affects them, while there's no way for them to seriously argue that imperialism and exploitation don't benefit them. They advance their imperialist class interest under a leftist guise. Anarchism is very chauvinistic in my experience.
#24
[account deactivated]
#25
Post rating: ~
How big was the anarchist presence at Standing Rock? I was under the impression from social media sources that anarchist contingents generally stayed further away from the explicitly liberal camp actions and were a bit more radical in what they were willing to do, even getting chastised by the "official" Standing Rock people.
#26
[account deactivated]
#27
Post rating: ~
I haven't seen anything like that unfortunately, it just kind of dropped off the radar after the eviction for me. I kinda noticed a certain trend toward anarchism among Indian youth during this time though, but it was probably just a couple of visible instances like Red Warrior Society. They all dropped off the radar too.
Anarchism proves itself useless again and again.
#28
[account deactivated]
#29
Post rating: +

Constantignoble posted:

i was asking because, vague or not, it seems to me that the two camps have a greater chance of converging rather than diverging beyond the given timeframe


this convergence is only true in an abstract sense because there's no reason to believe that the withering away of the state would give way to the particular social forms prescribed by 20th century syndicalists or whatever. anarchists don't just hold to the abolition of the state and class as a generic principle, they forward particular forms of community level organisation - often spontaneously and ad-hoc - and it's impossible to say whether these will be practically useful prior to the establishment of the dotp

#30
Post rating: ~
ah, i gotcha now. thanks for clarifying
#31
"Jpg." - Hank Hill
Post rating: ~

ilmdge posted:

I have.



george: i am already eating from the trash can all of the time.

#32
"Jpg." - Hank Hill
Post rating: ~
anarchists are fine; yes they will all eventually be murdered in a camp somewhere north of the arctic circle but we've got bigger fish to fry atm imo
#33
Post rating: ~

le_nelson_mandela_face posted:

drcat posted:

so what's the deal with anarchism

jerry

drcat posted:

seems ok



kramer

drcat posted:

aside from that one kid who yelled about violating the NAP while he got beat up in greece or whatever.



george

there seems to be intelligent anarchist thought/thinkers/people/stuff out there in the world



elaine

there's also this undercurrent of "oh no, marxisms vs anarchists, fight"



newman


Edited by orchestra_hit ()

#34
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: ~

tears posted:

whats the deal with airplane food?



did we ever get an answer on this

#35
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: +
as a former anarcho i think we can all agree that while we may differ on our views of anarchism as political thought, we can find common ground on how at least 1/3 of anarchists who walk into any joint planning meeting are literal undercover cops.
#36
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: +

le_nelson_mandela_face posted:

non aggression principle isn't a real anarchist thing. it's a libertarian thing. you know how when people get into conflicts in things ranging from playgrounds to marriages to international relations there's always some dispute about who started it, and more than that, about what would constitute "starting it" and what "starting it" even means? well you know wrong because no, there isn't. we just use the infallible science of hermanism-randism to determine who started it and now we don't need government.



drwhat was talking about this probably completely fake thing that's popular with libcoms on the Internet, a supposed testimony of an "anarchocapitalist" who went to Greece and hung out with anarchists there and assumed they would be down with him defending NAP and capitalism and so on, which caused the anarchists to throw a cream pie into his face with enough force to make his half-buttoned overalls fall into a pile around his ankles and emit the sound of someone flicking the blade of a hand saw.

it's probably fake because it's written as though NAP dude was genuinely confused at the situation when IRL it's the full time job of "anarchocapitalists" to write blogs about how anarchists are bad.

#37
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: +
tbh the NAP in Greece thing likely makes me feel embarrassed based on pure nostalgia for my youth because it's a lefty version of the marine owns the professor chain email.
#38
Dont Mess With Sucess
Post rating: +
the libertarian-in-greece thing is very good, but if its not good enough for you, check out this classric antics
#39
[account deactivated]
#40
Post rating: +
that's when you grab it, and say "this weapon is too dangerous, we should return it to the police right away" and then go do that. Which order you return them is up to you, though i hear guns have a way of delivering bullets at high speed, so maybe keep that till last.