Has anarchist thinking ever been influential in history? I mean, has it ever managed to accomplish the establishment of successful societies or anything like that? I read somewhere that most revolutions were fought by anarchists. How true is that?
Anarchists can also be people like the Columbine shooters. They also do a lot of bad shit.
>>476420
>anarchism
>stirner
>>476420
are you confusing the Individual Anarchism INSPIRED by Stirner with the more Socialist Anarchism proposed by Proudhon, Kropotkin and Bakunin, if you are then tell me and then maybe we can talk
>>476420
>Has anarchist thinking ever been influential in history? I mean, has it ever managed to accomplish the establishment of successful societies or anything like that?
IWW. Makhnovishchina. CNT. Hungary 1956.
>>476420
Anarchism was and continues to be an extremely influential current among socialist thought. It's toolkit from which other, more specific political stances can be built, not a blueprint for society. CNT-FAI Catalonia and the Ukrainian Free Territory were practical examples of libertarian socialist polities put into action. They weren't perfect utopias by any means, and definitely weren't ultra-libertarian, but they appeared to be completely genuine in their execution. I'm sure if they lasted longer more serious flaws would have started to appear, but the principal lesson to learn from both experiments is "Bolsheviks are motherfuckers."
And yeah, they were just about everywhere and embedded in every movement before the USSR made ideological purges a thing. There were anarchist Bolsheviks, even, a lot of them were involved in the Kronstadt uprising.
So was Stirner a commie or was he an individualist?
>>477361
How would socialism/communism operate without a vanguard to ensure that no private enterprise arises?
If it is functionally indistinguishable from anarcho-capitalism then I think that it's a perfectly reasonable stance but I don't really understand how it's communism at that point.
>>477371
A lot of leninist bolsheviks were involved in Kronstadt too.
3rd revolution now.
>>477389
>How would socialism/communism operate without a vanguard to ensure that no private enterprise arises?
Not him, but it wouldn't. Whatever group holds power would necessarily be the new "private enterprise".
>>477389
Libertarian Socialism is not a lawless situation with no government.
Anarcho-Syndicalism involves direct democracy as its form of government.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RwlaNva_4g
>>477395
So you are saying that socialism is impossible without it being totalist, and hence has already been tried hundreds of times with millions of bodies to show for it?
Fair enough, guess I should be cautious around anyone who peddles socialism to me.
>>477412
Any form of anarchy which involves non-voluntary interaction is by definition not anarchy.
Democracy i.e. mob rule does not make anything more or less legitimate if it is being force on non-consenting people who committed no crime.
>>477416
>Fair enough, guess I should be cautious around anyone who peddles socialism to me.
Depends on what you consider socialism.
I wouldn't be too afraid of the Bernie Sanders kind, but I would be afraid of a guerilla with an AK-47 saying it's time to put the evil capitalist 6 feet under.
>>477431
The former is just the later except lacking balls
>>477439
>The former is just the later except lacking balls
Not really. Bernie Sanders is essentially a typical European Social democrat.
I'm pretty sure you wouldn't call Norway a gulag would you, because Sanders type politics is practically the rule of the land here.
>>477448
Social democrats are socialists without any balls as well.
Obviously it's preferable to be around a murderer who lacks the balls to murder you, to one that doesn't, but both are maligned elements and should be removed from society.
>>477457
No social democrats are people who think they can make capitalism more equitable, and in some sense they are correct. Workers in my country make a lot of money.
But it's pretty clear that you have some Stefan Molyneux tier moralism in your head against people who just have opposing political views.
They were influential as a threat, primarily between the period roughly 1880-1920
>>476420
Didn't they had the actual control over most of Republican Spain once the civil war started?
>>477477
Whatever you say commie, if you feel the need to namecall others then I don't see why I should acknowledge anything you say.
Also your cucklands are going to be flooded with thirdworlders so I hope you enjoy extending socialism to all of them while they rape your women and sit on welfare.
>>477504
Ahh right you're just American.
My bad.
>>477427
I think its called consensus based politics from what I understand pic related
>>477509
Ya, feels good not getting cucked, shame to see my european brothers falling so low.
>>477532
Whatever /pol/ack.
>>477518
Except when you define achieving consensus as whatever you feel that is most favourable to you then it loses its meaning.
I'm sure the bolsheviks could have as easily claimed that since they were representing the people therefore they had achieved consensus, and therefore throwing a few million into the gulags was no big deal.
>>477536
Whatever cuckold.
>>477546
no as a means as implementation of rules rather than representation
>>477552
>>477559
Ya you should do that, you authoritarian cuck
>>477557
I don't know what that means, Stalin could easily say that he achieved consensus within the communist party and therefore could implement whatever he willed, and what argument would there be against that when consensus has no firm definition?
>>477583
in a more anarchistic state it relies on the ideas of free federation and association, the consensus would have to be reached by the entirety of those it affects and that want to be involved in the debate
I'm struggling to define it clearly here, English skills are clearly not up to snuff so read this, explains it a bit better https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_law#Consensus-based_social_contracts
>>477609
Except that consensus doesn't mean that each member of the affected has to give their affirmative consent, leftists like to twist the word consent to mean whatever sort of agreement they prefer.
E.g. we achieve agreements by consensus but if we don't like you then your consent doesn't factor in to the consensus.
>>477646
Actual workers councils historically spend A LOT of time on their constitution. Feel free to actually read about workers councils instead of fantasising.
>>477646
that isn't what it means in Anarchistic lawmaking, it has a clear, defined meaning.
>>477653
Why should I?
I've seen plenty of leftist institutions that claim to make decisions based on "consensus", but try joining one, having a different political outlook, and then claim that you don't consent to something being done and then see how far that gets you.
>>477655
Clear defined meaning like making laws based on what the guys that we agree with say is good?
If it really was about consensus then socialism would be vetoed as soon as someone didn't feel like sharing their property.
>>477694
>Why should I?
>I've seen plenty of leftist institutions that claim to make decisions based on "consensus", but try joining one, having a different political outlook, and then claim that you don't consent to something being done and then see how far that gets you.
Because your "seeing" isn't an adequate source.
http://www.bookdepository.com/Workers-Councils-Czechoslovakia-1968-69-Vladimir-Fisera/9780312889593
https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Hungarian_workers_councils_in_1956.html?id=RLJnAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y
>>477694
yupp, although the more normal approach would be for the free association to break down with your leaving of the social contract and therefore the others continuing on, still consensus based friend
>>477712
So things which have happened are less important than theoretical concepts which have never been implemented/worked the way they were described in practice? Gotcha.
>>477724
I guess gassing the jews was also agreed upon in consensus, as all you have to do is say that the consent of the jews is irrelevant to whether they get gasses or not, and then you are golden.
>>477793
the point is they have been implemented in practice you tool, but clearly you are impervious to any kind of evidence
>>477793
>So things which have happened are less important than theoretical concepts which have never been implemented/worked the way they were described in practice? Gotcha.
Both the Czechoslovak and Hungarian workers council constitutions were implemented.
>things which happened
>>477826
So if I am a hungarian/czech I can veto any action that the worker's council makes?
>>477811
Except they haven't in any way that isn't equivalent to consensus = my echochamber is right.
For example wikipedia claims to operate based on consensus, but in reality is either majority rule or an oligarchy of the most senior editors.
If you can give me an example of consensus agreement, working on the consent of all afflicted parties, as implemented in a major institution, and that working then I'm all ears.
>>477853
>So if I am a hungarian/czech I can veto any action that the worker's council makes?
Does this look like it is 1956 / 1968 respectively?
Fucking idealists.
>>477853
read up the CNT then please
>>477861
Right, consensus is idealism which has no applicability in real life
>>477872
This is /his/. You have sources. Go read the sources. Stop making up stories.
>>477880
No, you have claims which you can't back up, otherwise you would be able to personally argue for them.
It is your job to prove that your claim is true, not for me to read up on it and then find ways in which it is untrue.
>>477890
>I don't understand how citations work.
Get off this fucking board.
>>477961
>saying a word means that you made an argument
Sorry that's not how citations work either, otherwise I could just say freedom and tell you to google that as my argument.
