Thinks economies derive from ethics, rather than the reverse. Untenable. Backward. Useless. An apocalyse cult and nothing less.
>anarcho capitalism
feudalism
>anarcho primitivism
stone age
>anarcho syndicalism
hell on earth
Moronic luddite garbage
Can I take bets on how long the society will last before an organised neighbouring country rolls over them?
Shit, it'd be like the colonial days all over again if a big country like america went full retard
>>1322194
Lack of a centralized administrative state does not denote the lack of a state all-together.
>>1322076
I love the clear bias against an-syn while propping up two other equally ridiculous ideologies
Wow an anime themed infopic very convincing argument
This is not pol. We dont really care about that bs since we already know that these things never have been applied and theyll never be
>>1322378
>organised neighbouring country
there isn't any
>>1322986
this
>>1322076
>anarcho-capitalism
>>1322481
>Implying an-syn isn't babbys first ideology
meme for bored decadent people
anarchism is basically as viable as abolishing gravity and anarcho-primitivism is the dumbest faggot shit of them all
Autism incarnate
>>1322076
Pic related, only minus showers.
"Anarcho-"capitalism is fascism minus the state, and is categorically not anarchist. That is the green anarchist and veganarchist flag, not the anarcho-troglodyte one. The red and black is the flag of anarcho-communism; syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism are merely praxes, not strictly ideological tendencies or theories.
Anarcho-troglodytism is a neo-Luddite death cult that makes anarcho-greenies look bad. They are an ideological and philosophical dead end that is perhaps the most reactionary position one could possibly take. Why people consider it a part of the radical left and not the apotheosis of right-wing reaction is truly baffling to me.
t. transhumanist veganarcho-communist
>>1324406
How would autists survive without 4chan?
>>1324470
>Capitalism
>Fascism
>>1324475
Capitalism is latent fascism and fascism is capitalism in decay. The tenets and principles which inform fascism are latent and underlying characteristics of capitalism as a system; fascism is merely the full expression and apotheosis of capitalism. Don't believe me? Ask any liberal (read: adherent of liberalism, the ideology of capitalism) whether they believe hierarchy is necessary and good for society, and whether classes should exist and collaborate with each other in a symbiotic way. Most will agree, and what they are agreeing to is class collaboration, a core tenet of fascist thought.
>>1324484
>these memes
Fascism is about mixed economy. Basically authoritarian Keynesianism.
>>1324470
red and black is the flag of the CNT u idiot
other than that pretty good post but luddites didn't just hate technology they broke machines so that they didn't lose their jobs
>>1322076
>anarchism
>ever
>>1324484
>Capitalism is latent fascism
but capitalism is older than fascism
>>1324492
I don't use memes.
Fascism is the stopgap of capitalism, a means by which the bourgeoisie can co-opt radical sentiments for the purposes of upholding private property and bourgeois productive relations. Social democracy has indeed been argued as "social fascism" by some radical leftists (myself included), but fascism is hardly Keynesian economically. The exact organization of a fascist economy is secondary to achieving the function of the fascist regime: upholding the capitalist mode of production and crushing opposition thereof. That is why the economies of Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain, and Hitler's Germany did not operate in identical ways. All three nevertheless served there purpose of protecting capitalism from a potential communist revolution.
>>1324495
The CNT was ancom in theory and ansyn in practice. I know where the flag originates from, but that doesn't affect my statements. That flag now represents ancom and ansyn in general among the radical left.
"Luddite" is a general term in contemporary vernacular for militant technophobes who hold reactionary views toward technology and society as it relates to technology. I was using it in that capacity, not in any strictly historical sense.
>>1324500
I fully understand what fascism is. I have to; fascism is an exigent threat to everything I value and support. Instead of simply stating that I don't understand fascism, how about you tell me how and where I am incorrect?
>>1324470
>death cult
plz explain?
>>1324518
Of course it is, but the principles and tenets of fascism originated from the latent qualities and inherent characteristics already present in capitalism. Despite the ridiculous notion that fascism is a "third way" political position, the entire foundation of fascist thought is utterly bourgeois.
>>1324520
the use of the "neo-" prefix implies that it's used in a historical sense tho
>>1324520
>country wants to protect itself and its citizens against communist disorder and anarchy
>"baaah those evil capitalists, fucking bourgeoisie"
If anything the Fascists did Socialists a favor by installing certain social policies without ruining the economy.
>>1324520
>threat to everything I value and support
and that is?
>>1324531
anarchy is order, property is theft and cups are useful because they're empty
>>1324532
gay rights and refugees
>>1324520
Where you are incorrect is everything you said about Fascism.
How you are incorrect is that none of that is what Fascists want.
Fascism has nothing to do with capitalism. Fascism is about the nation and the state. Everything else is just a means to make the nation strong. When considering any policy, Fascists ask "What works best?"
Fascists were originally former military and socialists who were tired of the retards that infected the socialist movement and wanted real action that mattered.
Read The Doctrine of Fascism, the book that literally defines what Fascism is about, written by the Fascists Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile.
>>1322076
anarchy could only work with small communities, but small communities can't maintain an industrial society. so if we want to achive anarchy, we need to sacrifice technology.
of course, this would only work until
a. some of the small communities would decide to fuck anarchism, expand and found cities, start large-scale farming, resurrect some technologies create armies and conquer the anarchist communities who would be unable to defend themselves.
b. a neighbouring state would roll in with their modern army.
>>1324535
>Implying our capitalist society don't accept gays
>Implying free immigration dosen't only work in a super-capitalist society
>>1324535
While homosexuals were discriminated against in Fascist Italy, that was nothing abnormal given the time period. This was true in both the United States and the Soviet Union as well.
The actual ideology of Fascism doesn't really necessitate the persecution of homosexuals.
As for immigrants, Fascists care more about national identity than ethnicity. If the nation is what you call home, then I don't see how Fascism is a problem for you.
>>1324544
Then why do leftists advocate for refugees and gays? Why would leftists support capitalism?
>>1324551
their to dumb to understand that only the capitalist globalist elites and corporations gain anything from free immigration
>>1324526
One of the logical consequences implicit in anarcho-troglodyte thought, which some of them will admit, is that the vast majority of the human population will have to die. Technological developments like agriculture 10,000 years ago is which provided the foundation upon which civilization could occur. It is those same technologies which allow us to have such a high global population. Anarcho-troglodytes understand this and oppose agriculture and other such technologies precisely because they are the foundation upon which civilization rests. Without those technologies, we wouldn't be able to support the majority of the human population, so upwards of 70%—on the order of magnitude of billions—would probably have to die some way or another. The rest would undergo a process of "rewilding" and proceed to abandon or deconstruct all marks of human civilization (cities, roads, infrastructure, etc.).
Although I doubt many anarcho-troglodytes would admit it, I wouldn't be surprised if a significant portion of them secretly support Posadist-tier apocalyptic scenarios like global thermonuclear war to drastically cut back the global human population. They may not outright advocate for it, but their entire ideology is premised on a massive reduction of the human population.
>>1324530
I suppose so. In any case, I was referring to the neo-Luddite trend, which includes anarcho-troglodytes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Luddism
>>1324531
>extremely militant imperialism and adventurism
>"we jus wanna protect ourselves, we dindu nuffin"
Do you have a serious response, or just low-quality shitposting.
>>1324532
Generally, my class interests as a member of the global proletariat and my radical leftist beliefs and goals. There are far too many to enumerate in any exhaustive capacity.
>>1322076
Yeah going back to the way of our ancestors.... killing neighbouring tribes because food, women shortages etc.
Not to mention forgetting every enlightened notion and reverting to paganism including frequent human sacrificing like pretty much every pagan early iron age tribe in greater Europe.
A great idea obviously.
Fucking bored richboys.
>>1324569
>the vast majority of the human population will have to die.
why is that bad? The end justifies the means
>>1324569
Jesus fucking Christ.
Why are anarchists so retarded?
If anyone identifies as an anarcho-whateverthefuck, be ready to be appalled at the sight of the deepest, darkest pit of blind idealism and denial of reality.
>>1324535
Gay rights are a matter a identity politics, not class politics, and are thus not particularly relevant to radical leftist theory. Identity politics are generally only relevant in ideologies whose function is to obscure class relations, such as liberalism or fascism. While I do support gay rights, that is merely a consequence and extension of my support for the basic principles of liberty and equality. Whether I personally support or approve of gay rights is ultimately inconsequential to my economic views.
As for refugees, that is a characteristically capitalist phenomenon. My goal is to eliminate the conditions which produce and define refugees. I have no particular stance with respect to refugees which aren't merely manifestations of the basic principles and values I hold. Sorry, I don't usually play identity politics, /pol/. That's your job.
>>1324536
That is not a coherent understanding of fascism predicated on any serious theoretical analysis. Did you simply read some fascist propaganda pamphlets and literature from fascist dictators, and assume that was fascism? If so, then you are seriously unqualified for this discussion.
Fascism is about protecting private property, co-opting and destroying radical leftist sentiments, and producing a heavily militarized and aggressive totalitarian state that attempts to achieve these goals in a greater context. Whether its adherents believe that is irrelevant to fascism's function as a form of capitalism.
>Fascists were originally former military and socialists who were tired of the retards that infected the socialist movement and wanted real action that mattered.
Lol.
>Read The Doctrine of Fascism, the book that literally defines what Fascism is about, written by the Fascists Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile.
I prefer actual theory and critique, not a propaganda book written by one of the original leaders intoxicated by fascist ideology.
>>1324537
The "it can only work in small scales" memes need to die. The same was true for nascent capitalism when it began percolating out of feudalism some 300 or so years ago after a hundred years or so of economic thought. Just because the radical leftists of today have struggled and only partially succeeded in large-scale implementations of radical leftist thought, that doesn't mean large-scale {anarchism / socialism / communism} isn't possible in large or even global scales, anymore than were the initial failings of capitalism in reaching large scales an indictment on its ability to become the global economic system that it is today.
>>1324581
>>1324597
>I have nothing meaningful to contribute to the discussion, so I'm just going to shitpost memes and prop up strawmen.
Feel free to hide the thread anytime.
>>1324551
Because persecution of homosexuals and refugees are often committed by fascists and their sympathizers, so many radical leftists—especially antifas—take the opposing position. Moreover, support for refugees is merely an extension of the internationalist and cosmopolitan values which informs radical leftist thought. While accepting refugees may benefit capitalists in the receiving region (which it does), and that may be a shitty consequence of the refugee crisis (which it is), it is nevertheless the least shitty option since the lives and livelihoods of those refugees are more important than some political grandstanding that only plays into the hands of fascists, nationalists, and racists.
There are no good options with refugees, but accepting them is oftentimes the least bad one. The only exceptions to this is when doing so significantly increases nationalist and right-wing sentiments such that it has a net negative impact on the global communist movement, or when the refugees being accepted are lumpenproletariat with zero revolutionary potential. If we cannot radicalize the refugees and accepting them will only increase sentiments that conflict with the class interests of the proletariat, then the radical left shouldn't support accepting refugees under those circumstances.
As for homosexuals, most radical leftists don't really take a position on them that isn't just a logical extension of their radical leftist views.
Neither case entails support for capitalism.
>>1324601
Giovanni Gentile is the philosopher who came up with the ideas behind Fascism. He literally wrote the book on Fascism and that book is The Doctrine of Fascism.
It's not that there isn't actual theory, you just don't want to look at it because you prefer to just use Fascism as a buzzword to describe anything you don't like.
>>1322076
Politics = retarded
Kys
>>1324618
I've literally explained what fascism specifically is, you fucking imbecile. You just keep shilling an antiquated tome of marginal contemporary relevance because some fuckwit drunk off pure ideology authored a treatise on those spooky beliefs. I care about what fascism is as a political and economic system, and what material role it plays in maintaining capitalism, not about whatever ideological constructs prop up that intellectually bankruptcy of fascists.
Unless you have commentary about how fascism relates to capitalism and what function it serves therein, I'm not particularly interested. If I wanted to read the spooky delusions of an idpol-addled "philosophy", I'd read books on Ariosophy or whatever David Icke has recently blogged about.
>>1324569
>Implying any anarchist utopia could work without mass genocide
>>1324609
i wasen't shitposting. The end justifies the means
>>1324636
>I've literally explained what fascism specifically is
No, you have not. What you have done is illustrated your anarchist fantasy while demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of what fascism is.
The fascists implemented plenty of socialist policies. They had industries governed by what are pretty much unions composed of the workers and management of these industries.
>>1324520
>Fascism is the stopgap of capitalism, a means by which the bourgeoisie can co-opt radical sentiments for the purposes of upholding private property and bourgeois productive relations
>the function of the fascist regime: upholding the capitalist mode of production
PROOF? EVIDENCE?
>>1324618
What's funny is that Gentile's work was based on Hegelian philosophy and these commies actually call themselves "anti-fascists"
There is just so much irony in that.
>>1324613
>The only exceptions to this is when doing so significantly increases nationalist and right-wing sentiments
Which is pretty much what has happened every single time
>>1324650
>implying they can't
>implying deaths during a revolution constitute genocide
>implying anarchism is utopic
I don't believe in utopias and don't think they can exist.
>>1324652
I prefer to ensure that the means and ends are both justified where possible.
>>1324655
>No, you have not. What you have done is illustrated your anarchist fantasy while demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of what fascism is.
Yes, I have. It is not my fault that you are completely illiterate in radical leftist theory and too addled by pure ideology to properly understand my statements.
>The fascists implemented plenty of socialist policies.
There is no such thing as a "socialist policy". Socialism is a socioeconomic system and mode of production, not a vague ideological group from which you can pick and choose to implement in your own snowflake belief system or policies you support. Some policies may further the goals of socialism, or may be socialistic in form, but they are not strictly socialist because socialism is not defined by policies.
>They had industries governed by what are pretty much unions composed of the workers and management of these industries.
There was a division of productive relations, the rules of capital still applied, and the mode of production was still capitalist. There is no socialism in fascism, "national socialist" or otherwise. Learn what socialism is. You clearly don't understand it.
>PROOF? EVIDENCE?
It's a qualitative statement based on my understanding of radical leftist theory. Feel free to read some such theory anytime. If you want, I can try to find some literature pertinent to the topic, but it shouldn't be that difficult to find yourself.
>>1324663
Gentile was a so-called "neo-Hegelian". Marxism originated out of Hegelian thought, as well, but it took a strictly materialist approach. Gentile's ideas were fundamentally idealistic, not materialistic.
>>1324668
Only when the number of refugees accepted are too much too quickly, or when the population is already militantly nationalistic and right-wing (like the United States). Unfortunately, however, when nationalism and fascism are on the rise again, any amount of refugees being accepted will be exploited for political gain.
>>1324671
>Yes, I have. It is not my fault that you are completely illiterate in radical leftist theory and too addled by pure ideology to properly understand my statements.
It has nothing to do with being unable to understand. The problem is that the things you are saying are simply verifiably incorrect.
>>1324631
Pic related.
>>1324676
Incessantly repeating that assertion doesn't instill it with any more veracity than it previously held. You obviously have no argument. Fuck off.
>>1324687
>Incessantly repeating that assertion doesn't instill it with any more veracity than it previously held. You obviously have no argument. Fuck off.
I am contradicting your own assertions which you have made without supporting evidence.
Claims that are made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
>>1324690
>I am contradicting your own assertions which you have made without supporting evidence.
No, you are not. I made qualitative statements which you then attempted to refute by citing a marginally relevant treatise ridden with ideological posturing. You failed to understand that my statements described the material nature of fascism and its relationship to its capitalism, and proceeded to rebut my statements with appeals to the ideology of fascism as promoted by its foremost historical ideologue. Your "contradictions" are as coherent as would be refuting me on the description of an apple with abstract contrived notions of Appleness.
>>1324702
>Your "contradictions" are as coherent as would be refuting me on the description of an apple with abstract contrived notions of Appleness.
Actually, my contradictions are more like myself telling you an apple is just a fucking apple while you rant about how Appleness is oppressing the proletariat.
>>1324702
> and proceeded to rebut my statements with appeals to the ideology of fascism as promoted by its foremost historical ideologue
Yes, one would expect to learn about an ideology from the people who hold that ideology.
You don't get to make stuff up and claim that's what the other person believes.
>>1324712
Again, you misunderstand what I said. It's like thinking is difficult for you. My point was that you are trying to refute my material descriptions with idealistic claims. It's ironic, too, since I thought us radical leftists are supposed to be the "idealists"—you know, despite how virtually every single strain of contemporary radical leftist thought is materialist or some derivation thereof.
>>1324716
If I wanted to learn about their spooky ridiculous beliefs, sure. If I wanted to understand how their ideology objectively impacts society from a materialist perspective, however, then their ideological ramblings are as useful as those of any madman's. I described what fascism materially is, not what fascism is conceived as being by its adherents (especially when those adherents are dogmatic idealists like Gentile).
>>1324743
>materialist
Fascism is an idea, it doesn't have any material attributes you fucking moron. Ideologies are not objects.
>>1324743
>If I wanted to understand how their ideology objectively impacts society
The world is not a vacuum and there are arguably not even a handful of instances of fascism in action, so this cannot be done.
There is no method capable of actually determining the impact on society empirically.
It must be judged based on the merits of it's tenets, not your own fantasies.
>>1322986
this tbqh, instantly disregarded due to unnecessary weeabooism.
>>1324751
>what is dialectical materialism
A few moments of googling: https://anti-imperialism.com/2015/10/26/what-does-a-marxist-mean-by-material/
I'm not a Marxist in any but the vaguest of senses, but I use Marxist terminology and ideas frequently because Marx's works are such an important part of radical leftist thought.
>>1324773
Qualitative critiques and theories are not usually premised on, or substantiated by, empirical evidence principally because they are extremely difficult to prove precisely due to their extremely complex nature. Instead, logical and other formal proofs are given instead. Empirical evidence is used, but it has a less prominent role in the social sciences as they do in physical sciences.
Aside from that, you aren't really making a clear point.
ITT using ideology as a front for theory.
Stop parroting modernist thought, it has been discredited.
>>1324803
>Qualitative critiques and theories are not usually premised on, or substantiated by, empirical evidence principally because they are extremely difficult to prove precisely due to their extremely complex nature.
This is true, because of the complexity of everything involved, there is no way to examine the impact on society empirically.
>Instead, logical and other formal proofs are given instead.
But the problem is that logical proofs are meaningless if they are based on nothing. You cannot argue against fascism logically without looking at fascist ideology itself.
The actual tenets of fascism must play a role in your criticism of it. Otherwise, you criticism will be nothing more than fantasy.
>>1324548
Fascism is infamously inconsistent in its policy. Mussolini said one thing, and then did the other thing. And then some guy like Mosley said another different thing. And so on. It's pure ideology. The State needs an exception in order to preserve its identity, and such exceptions are inconsistent, too.
>>1324886
Flexibility was important to fascism.
The fascists said that we should not grip to an ideology.
What is consistent is that the will of the people is manifested in the state and that what is best for the state must be determined depending on the circumstances.
Much of the appeal of fascism was the fact that it was about action. They wanted to go get things done.
"Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and those who claim to be the bearers of objective immortal truth … then there is nothing more relativistic than Fascist attitudes and activity... From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable"
>>1324867
>This is true, because of the complexity of everything involved, there is no way to examine the impact on society empirically.
Perhaps not in any comprehensive way, but certain elements can be supported with empirical evidence as produced with the scientific method, which lends credibility to the theory as a whole. Nevertheless, the essential test of a theory is its predictive power, since it indicates that the theory is generally (or at least partially) accurate at explaining reality. In this capacity, theories can be empirically substantiated by making a prediction or analysis according to that theory and determining whether it is true.
>But the problem is that logical proofs are meaningless if they are based on nothing. You cannot argue against fascism logically without looking at fascist ideology itself.
Of course it's useful to understand what fascism is according to its own adherents and philosophical tradition, but that utility is limited when understanding what function fascism plays in the larger context. What's more important when analyzing ideologies like fascism is examining its place in the material conditions of society and its social relations therein, not it's ideological constructs, for getting trapped in the latter ultimately obscures and obfuscates perception of material reality whereas investigation of the former can yield truths which are independent of any ideological bent.
>The actual tenets of fascism must play a role in your criticism of it. Otherwise, you criticism will be nothing more than fantasy.
Of course I also criticize fascism on ideological grounds. My statements about fascism above were not meant to be critical so much as descriptive, though. If I was interested in criticizing fascism, I will naturally address its ideology and not just its material reality.
>>1324886
That's basically what I've been saying, but apparently I know nothing about fascism.
>>1324902
Fascism is not realpolitik, nor was Hitler particularly "flexible" in his policies. What you're describing as "flexibility" is in fact the inconsistency of fascist praxis precisely because fascism is simply a stopgap for capitalism whose theory is completely divorced from material reality.
>Much of the appeal of fascism was the fact that it was about action. They wanted to go get things done.
As if virtually every other social, political, and economic ideology doesn't? Your oblique praise of fascism's call to action is only signalling your cryptofascistic predilections; it doesn't offer any meaningful commentary about fascism that isn't applicable to nearly all other ideologies.
>>1322076
Dumb
Dumber
Dumbest
>>1324976
>nor was Hitler particularly "flexible" in his policies.
Hitler wasn't a fascist. He had all kinds of other ideologies and he pinned elements of fascism onto it.
>fascism is simply a stopgap for capitalism
Capitalism with state regulation is, as of yet, an effective economic tool. There will be no need of it as soon as that changes.
>As if virtually every other social, political, and economic ideology doesn't?
Socialism is full of long winded ivory tower pseudo-intellectualism.
The fascists don't pretend there are only two classes that necessarily in conflict. The fascists sought after political allies that could bring them up and cracked the heads of those who tried to bring them down.
That is where fascism is different from other ideologies. It was not just ideology. It was in fact an organized movement that practiced realpolitik.
The nigger of ideologys.
>>1325020
>Hitler wasn't a fascist. He had all kinds of other ideologies and he pinned elements of fascism onto it.
Hitler, along with Franco and even Strasser, all upheld core tenets of fascist ideology. Of course they were all over the place; they are so-called "third positionists", who fundamentally misunderstood both capitalism and communism but who nevertheless served the interests of the former.
>Capitalism with state regulation is, as of yet, an effective economic tool. There will be no need of it as soon as that changes.
The sentiment of not fixing that which isn't broken is an implicit appeal to, and promotion of, perpetual status quo. Regulated capitalism is an "effective economic tool" (which it isn't) according to the rules of capital, and even in that capacity it is producing extreme conditions and externalities which is causing social unrest, alienation, and the systematic destruction of this planet such that we are on a course to planetary suicide. Outside of the warped ideology of capitalism (i.e., liberalism), capitalism is a profoundly irrational, inefficient, and unstable system plagued with systemic flaws which are excused by such a level of intellectually bankrupt and absurd illogic that it leaves those on the outside scratching their heads dumbfounded.
>Socialism is full of long winded ivory tower pseudo-intellectualism.
Thanks for the vacuous non sequitur, but do you have a relevant response to the text you quoted?
>The fascists don't pretend there are only two classes that necessarily in conflict. The fascists sought after political allies that could bring them up and cracked the heads of those who tried to bring them down.
Yes, fascists promote class collaboration and reject class struggle. The former is proof of its function as upholding capitalism and the latter is proof that it is fundamentally antithetical to radical leftist thought.
>>1325051
>>1325020
>That is where fascism is different from other ideologies. It was not just ideology. It was in fact an organized movement that practiced realpolitik.
What you're describing is communism, not fascism. That cynical utilization of tacit tenets and mechanics of capitalism to achieve political power and gain is not what sets fascism apart; that is a core component of capitalism itself and the exact means by which the bourgeoisie protect their hegemonic status therein. It's not a mere coincidence that prominent members of the bourgeoisie secretly funded fascist parties, including the NSDAP in Germany, and provided them with the financial and social capital to rise to power.
What do you think of anarchy in general? I think a lot of anarchist are fairly libcuck but overall I don't see how anyone would truly not want actual agency.
are there online anarchists who aren't autistic dudes
>>1322413
No shit. It was the exact same way in medieval kingdoms sure the king existed, and sure he had power, but it was severely limited by the fact that the serfs pledged allegiance to their lords.
The same is inevitable in an anarcho-capitalist society where the market, corporations, and property rights cannot be regulated. People pledge allegiance to corporations --> corporations become a quasi-government.
>>1322076
All anarchism is communistic
>>1324520
>Fascism is the stopgap of capitalism, a means by which the bourgeoisie can co-opt radical sentiments for the purposes of upholding private property and bourgeois productive relations.
>The exact organization of a fascist economy is secondary to achieving the function of the fascist regime: upholding the capitalist mode of production and crushing opposition thereof.
This.
Behind every fascism there is a failed revolution.
>>1325669
Communism requires centralized authority and govenrment?
Anarchism is against authority and government?
Or am I missing something?
Pls educate me shitposter, surely my reading on these subjects is insufficient compared to your vast knowledge
>>1322076
>Anarchism
>Ever Working
>Do not include Catalonia or the American Wild West (1870s-1880s)
>These anarchistic societies only lasted for a brief time. Revolutionary Catalonia lasted to <3 years
ANARCHISM LIKE COMMUNISM or FREE MARKET CAPITALISM DOESNT FUCKING WORK BECAUSE WE ARE HUMAN
>>1322076
all of this shit with anarcho-[insert whatever the fuck you want here] make me puke in my mouth a little
>>1325759
>anarchist
Oh dude you forgot Ukraine in the period 1918-1921, they love pointing that one out too
>>1325834
I always just picture this dude behind every single pro-anarchy post on here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry5URU-Py2Q
>>1325089
I don't think anarchy=anarchist state, even though I'm pretty sure you're talking about the latter. The issue with anarchism is that it requires a radically different culture that what we have today, a culture that Rousseau describes as extremely unselfish and communal on a scale that has never been seen before. I would gladly live in an authoritarian communist state before a supposedly free anarchist one, because for the latter it's almost guaranteed to be at the mercy of exploitative capitalists due to it's inherent weakness as a unit.
>>1325750
Anarchism is literally the end goal of Communism retard. The state is just there to create and maintain the system long enough until it can dissolve and be replaced by anarchy.
>>1324636
>commie class-autist
>calling out literally anyone for being spooked
>>1325750
Communism does not centralization. It never was and never will be. In fact, centralization is antithetical to the principles of communism as a socioeconomic system and mode of production.
Communism and anarchism are merely different tendencies within the radical left which leads to the same end goal of communism.
>>1325759
What does us being "human" have to do with anything? So-called "human nature" is merely a product of material and social conditions. There is no immutable and eternal human condition to which society must conform; the human condition is shaped and produced by the society wherein humans live. "Human nature" is an antiquated myth that is only used to justify the reactionary ideas of humans who purport to understand it.
Revolutionary Catalonia, like Anarchist Aragon, the Free Territory of Ukraine, the Shinmin autonomous region, and countless other large-scale examples of anarchism, socialism, and communism in action all failed due to external factors, not due to the internal features and mechanics of their systems. To treat such instances as indictments on socialism, anarchism, and communism is as foolish and ignorant of history as is treating the initial large-scale failures of capitalism as examples of capitalism being a failure of a system. The same is true for feudalism and even slavery before it.
>>1327880
Anarchism does require a transformation of the cultural paradigm, but so did capitalism, and feudalism before that, and slavery before that. This isn't a new condition of social transformation. Anarchism moreover doesn't require any sort of utterly selfless and communal culture; it merely requires a reorganization of material conditions such that the system which produces selfish and egotistic cultural conditions ceases to exist. If there is such a thing as human nature, it is an extremely selfless one, as has been proven by literally hundreds of thousands of years of hunter-gatherer primitive communism before the advent of agriculture and private property.
The establishment of a communist society, which is necessarily anarchist, would entail the dissolution of the distinction between the ego and the collective, thereby ending the antagonism therein. The conflict between the self and society is a product of alienation, which is a symptom of class-based hierarchical systems and undemocratic modes of production. End the condition of alienation and reorganize the material base of society, and that will virtually or even entirely render the individualism–collectivism false dichotomy meaningless.
> I would gladly live in an authoritarian communist state before a supposedly free anarchist one, because for the latter it's almost guaranteed to be at the mercy of exploitative capitalists due to it's inherent weakness as a unit.
That is a ridiculously ignorant statement. Do you have the slightest understanding of radical leftist theory whatsoever? I assume no, given that statement.
>>1329265
Despite my antipathy toward Max Stirner, it is profoundly ignorant to use him as an argument against my position. Stirner was an anarchist who heavily influenced the radical left and his ideas are fully consistent with communism, including all the views I have expressed thus far. Clearly, you don't understand what "spooks" are.
>>1322076
>>1325061
>It's not a mere coincidence that prominent members of the bourgeoisie secretly funded fascist parties, including the NSDAP in Germany, and provided them with the financial and social capital to rise to power.
Which then funded commies.
Your point?
>>1329531
Nobody in the history of the allied post-war governments have ever directly funded communist powers.
>>1322481
I think it's more the fact that the other two are pretty simple ideologies to understand with clear principles (government bad or technology bad respectively) while with the third it's just this muddled mess. You don't have governments but at the same time equality is still somehow guaranteed, by someone, who definitely isn't going to abuse their power. It's like they cranked up all the self-defeating aspects of anarchism to 11.
>>1329533
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/244752/great-october-revolution-financed-enemy-government-oleg-atbashian
>>1329543
All the way in the October Revolution when the cold war hadn't even started yet, you sure proved me wrong in the face of every single nationalist insurrection ever in the 20th century being funded by allied governments.
>>1324551
>antifa
My god those people are actually even edgier tryhards then /pol/.
>>1329515
>his ideas are fully consistent with communism
you are literally retarded and should probably read a fucking book about the man
especially his criticisms of communism
also you are wrong about fascism
mostly because going full materialist is dumb as shit
but I guess you are like nineteen so its okay
>>1329546
well, i was using similar time-scales, not saying they funded commies 30 years after the USSR happened.
That would be beyong retarded.
>>1324613
>lumpenproletariat
Is this the commie version of untermenchen? Are you guys gonna exterminate them too? It sounds so dehumanizing.
>>1322481
>implying that's not "anarcho-"capitalism
>>1329531
Care to provide proof? Let me guess, you're going to trot out that debunked claim about Jews in the West and the Russian Revolution?
>>1329537
Equality is guaranteed by the people collectively because it is in all their best interests to have an equal society. From a more bourgeois perspective, consider entering into a veil of ignorance per Rawls: would you prefer that society to be hierarchical, class-based, and ruled by an elite minority that oppresses and exploits the vast majority? Or would you prefer a society in which you are, no matter who you are, equal to everyone else and get to live your life without any gods or masters dictating and limiting your agency?
There's no single person or group guaranteeing equality because there are no leaders in a communist society. It's the people themselves who guarantee, shape, and maintain the conditions of the society they produce.
Yes, anarcho-communism is difficult to understand from a bourgeois perspective, which is why it is so readily denigrated and dismissed by those who are ignorant of such ideas. Even you are still affected by such thinking, since you seem to struggle conceiving of a world in which there are no leaders or masters or people in positions of power.
>It's like they cranked up all the self-defeating aspects of anarchism to 11.
You clearly don't understand the history of anarchism. Anarcho-communism (and its praxis, anarcho-syndicalism) is basically just contemporary anarchism. There aren't any other forms of anarchism beside anarcho-communism that isn't either not anarchist by definition ("anarcho-"communism) or extremely reactionary (anarcho-troglodytism).
>>1329543
>no credible sources verifying the claim
>a far-right reactionary "magazine" that nobody outside of the far right takes seriously
Great source, senpai, come back when you have something believable.
>>1329549
>fighting fascism
>"edgy"
Butthurt /pol/ack detected, gb2 >>>/pol/
>>1322076
BARBARIANS
>>1325611
Being an anarchist should be added to the list of symptoms. I mean alright you don't like the government controlling your life too much, be a classical liberal or a libertarian or whatever but don't go full retard, there's gotta be some state at least to protect you from the other states, y'know like paying protection money to the mob. It's not a perfect system but that's just how things work.
>>1329568
>Care to provide proof? Let me guess, you're going to trot out that debunked claim about Jews in the West and the Russian Revolution?
When was that debunked?
>>1329502
> So-called "human nature" is merely a product of material and social conditions.
So you guys don't believe in genetics? No human traits are in-born, it's all environmental? I think there's quite a lot of scientists who'd take issue with that position.
>>1329597
No, but we don't fully know the human ramifications. We aren't robots, we are far more complicated than we could ever create. Skepticism on what "human nature" is, should always be encouraged. We are probably wrong a majority of the time.
>>1329568
Sure they say they're "fighting fascism" (because we're absolutely swimming in fascists these days aren't we) but in practice they just act like a bunch of edgy tryhard college kids trying to shock everyone because their parents didn't give them enough attention, I seriously doubt there's a single antifa out there over the age of 25. Literally the most pathetic group I've ever seen.
>>1329555
Literally seconds of googling: http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionG6
Stirner's criticisms were predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding of socialism and communism, and he was basing his understanding of both on the various statist forms which were being promoted at the time. Not only are those forms now largely dead and rejected as inherently contradictory among the radical left, but Stirner's opinions on socialism and communism are no longer applicable to contemporary radical leftist thought.
You have no serious argument, just childish insults and low-quality shitposting. Fuck off.
>>1329557
Lumpenproletariat are simply members of the proletariat who lack revolutionary potential, according to its original definition. There is disagreement about whether lumpen have revolutionary potential among the radical left, though. But no, it is not analogous with Untermenschen; it has nothing to do with their physical or genetic traits or their identity, only with their ability to understand radical leftist thought and their potential to be radical leftists.
I seriously doubt many radical leftists would promote the "extermination" of lumpenproletariat in any violent sense. The only ones who might would be Marxist–Leninists and their deviants, which many among of the radical left generally rejects as a counterrevolutionary to borderline reactionary approach. Most lumpen would probably die in the revolution because most would be zealously committed to protecting capitalism to the very last breath. The rest would probably not participate in the revolution and simply adapt to the new society that is created. Just because lumpen have no revolutionary potential, that doesn't mean they won't accept and live in a communist society if it were ever established. They may even grow to prefer and defend that society as well. The defining characteristic in lumpen is their disinterest in—and, sometimes, opposition to—revolutionary struggle.
>>1329591
Like the notion of "Cultural Marxism", it's just another deviation of the "Jewish Bolshevism" conspiracy theory that came out of Nazi ideology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism
The fact that there is no credible evidence whatsoever supporting the claims, whereas there is clear evidence that the idea descended from Nazi antisemitic conspiracy theories, alone debunks it. It's as ridiculous an idea as Jewish Bolshevism and the notion that Jewish bankers funded the Holocaust.
>>1329597
Genes expressions are products of environmental conditions. Of course radical leftists "believe in" and fully accept the science of genetics and epigenetics. Nevertheless, there is no conclusive genetic evidence whatsoever that humans are selfish or that a communist (or "anarchist", which is the same thing) society cannot work.
>>1329607
The fascist movement and presence in contemporary society is so weak BECAUSE of antifas and their activities for the past half century. It's no mere coincidence that the massive decrease in antifa activity is occurring at the same time that fascist sentiments are rising again.
>but in practice they just act like a bunch of edgy tryhard college kids trying to shock everyone because their parents didn't give them enough attention, I seriously doubt there's a single antifa out there over the age of 25. Literally the most pathetic group I've ever seen.
In other words, you know literally nothing about antifa, you have zero experience whatsoever with them outside of the wannabes you described, and your conception of them is wholly a product of over a century of stereotyping and caricaturing anarchists.
Learn what the fuck antifas are before talking about them. A recent example would be the Revolutionary Front in Sweden, though even they didn't literally hunt down and kill fascists. They simply harassed them off the streets and tore up their houses.
>>1329609
>Literally seconds of googling: http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionG6
'
literally a source comparable to ">a far-right reactionary "magazine" that nobody outside of the far right takes seriously"
Marx the german ideology and the type of criticism presented in the article was predicted in "Stirners critics"
try reading
>>1329639
>literally a source comparable to ">a far-right reactionary "magazine" that nobody outside of the far right takes seriously"
Except it isn't. Nice try with the false equivalence, but nobody believes it.
>try reading
Take your own advice, illiterate.
>>1329638
>Learn what the fuck antifas are before talking about them. A recent example would be the Revolutionary Front in Sweden, though even they didn't literally hunt down and kill fascists. They simply harassed them off the streets and tore up their houses.
'
This further proves your ignorance
and means only means you saw that cool vice video
As a swede involved in this situation I can tell you both sides are much more comparable to criminal gangs and not ideological organizations
>>1329650
I simply mentioned the RF because it's among the most mainstream antifa groups that most people know due to that Vice video. If you seriously think that is the totality of my experience with antifa, then you are clearly incapable of upholding basic principles of good faith and rhetoric to continue this discussion.
Of course RF is considered a criminal gang, since they actively engage in criminal activities. That isn't a meaningful point when understanding what RF in particular, or antifas in general, are.
>>1324470
everything I don't like is fascism
that ideology that refuses the existence of a state, and that other one that places the state as key to success? Exactly the same thing.
>>1322194
>anarcho capitalism
>feudalism
Feudalism is enforced by a state. With no state, one would be within his/her rights in resisting any feudal takeover. But statists are too lazy to do anything themselves.
>>1324470
>"Anarcho-"capitalism is fascism minus the state
Fascism - the marriage of corporation and state
>>1322076
It would solve the greatest problem of modern society: a total lack of purpose.
Struggling to eat and occasionally experiencing unpleasant tribal warfare is a lot less miserable than a modern life of daily, meaningless drudgery where one cannot trust anyone. Even your family and colleagues are likely to betray you these days: something that was uncommon in the days of our ancestors.
>>1322076
The sad thing is I think the Ansynd is closest to the truth in that picture, because the others, while they have a lot more to say, most of it is falsifiable bullshit. While there's problem with the ansynd shit, it's not as rigid and defined as the others, so it's easier to flesh out in a non-contradictory way.
>>1329766
I wouldn't consider "anarcho-"capitalism to be fedualistic, but there are parallels. More accurately, I think, would be to describe "an"cap as a path to either fascism or neotribal warlordism. A bit of a joke that is occasionally said about "an"cap among radical leftist gamers is that it will either turn out like Bioshock or like Fallout: New Vegas, with the former's canonical history basically being an attempt at creating an "an"cap utopia. (Or maybe Deus Ex; gaming has a rich repertoire of "an"cap examples, actually.)
>With no state, one would be within his/her rights in resisting any feudal takeover.
Not when you manufacture consent, which the bourgeoisie has grown incredibly adept at doing through public relations and the government.
>>1329770
Fascism is the likelier result out of the available paths that an "an"cap society can take because corporations would merge and consolidate per the rules of capital into megacorporations which would essentially function as states (or feudal kingdoms, referring to the other anon's comparison). It's for that very reason that "an"cap is an exercise in futility, for the abolition of the bourgeois state is pointless when the conditions that produce that institution remain in place (private property, capitalism, etc.).
The new state which develops in the "an"cap dystopian nightmare would probably be fascist, especially if there is an anarchist movement to establish communism that threatens the hegemony and private property rights of the bourgeoisie.
>>1329812
I take it you're unfamiliar with anarcho-communist thought?
>>1329922
>I take it you're unfamiliar with anarcho-communist thought?
I'm talking about the picture. I'm sure if you put retarded words next to the girl I would think that they're all anarcho retarded
>>1329804
I really hope this is bait. For real, how old are you? Something tells me you're not very social.
Yeah, I'm sure getting murdered by men of a larger tribe and one of them raping your woman over your corpse is less miserable.
>>1330005
Perhaps I misunderstood you, and if so, then I apologize. What do you mean by " the Ansynd is closest to the truth in that picture"? I understood that as saying that the representation of ansyn in the OP's image is the most accurate out of the three, which I would disagree with because it is an extremely facile stereotype that is used against basically any radical leftist positions.
>>1330062
>your woman
>>1329804
>Even your family and colleagues are likely to betray you these days: something that was uncommon in the days of our ancestors.
scum always existed and always will exist, it's not a generational or era problem
but the rest is alright, we traded our lives for worthless technology and false necessities.
we take pills to sleep, then struggle to sleep, the proceed to wake up with some loud beep coming from some noisy machine and there we go, another day in modern life - where everything is set to future: your happiness, your fullfilment, your plans and your life's control - we're teached that if we work hard enough we eventually get all those things; sacrifice yourself now and reap the rewards in the future... but from what i've seen, pretty much in all cases that's the brochure looks nothing like the real thing and in the end, you'll get nothing more than emptyness, sadness and regret. and that's what's reserved for the huge majority of people in this pathetic world
>>1322076
Isn't the furthest right just Harrison Burgeron? Who would want to live in that world?
>>1330076
According to that ridiculously facile effigy of a representation, sure. Actual anarcho-communism promotes equality of opportunity and outcome (which many consider a false dichotomy), not the caricature of equality that is often used by purported advocates of "liberty" of forced equality and social leveling, which is an absurd notion that I seriously question whether anyone promotes, even Marxist–Leninists. Kurt Vonnegut's short story is a criticism of forced equality and social leveling, especially those that some totalitarian regimes of the past have been perceived as promoting (though that was more a caricature than an accurate depiction). Despite being an interesting story, it is a thinly-veiled censuring of a position that is already effectively a strawman unworthy of a serious mind. As far as satires go, it's not that intellectually stimulating.
>>1329766
>Feudalism is enforced by a state
It's an apt metaphor for a totally privatized government dominated by an aristocracy of property owners who work with one another to keep each other in power and suppress newcomers from threatening their domination of the economy. It would be an economy dominated by mafia dons who still provide the same basic civil services and stability that any society needs, just in a horrendously less accountable version.
>With no state, one would be within his/her rights in resisting any feudal takeover.
As long as you're the one with the biggest gang
>But statists are too lazy to do anything themselves.
Besides build civilization.
>>1324636
That autism
wew lad
>>1330331
>can't think of any rebuttal of substance
>I know! use memes!
Completely fine, if you're a moron who can't think in the long term.
If we go back to primitive lifestyles, Earth with be both the birthplace and tomb of our species. Imagine living your entire life in the hospital room where you were born, and laying down to die in the very bed your mother labored on to birth you.
The notion is despicable and selfish.
>>1330335
Sorry, but you tell memes for paragraphs you get memes for answers. Keep believing your semantic noise is so grand, coward
>>1330345
I'm not even the guy you were responding too, I was just commenting on how you literally have nothing of substance to contribute to the discussion except vitriol and at this point all you're doing is embarrassing yourself in the eyes of everyone still following the discussion
>>1330349
Surely a guy that gets his definition of fascism from biased Marxists academics (or the 'workers' as they prefer calling them) is adding any substance to the discussion.
>>1330340
>Earth with be both the birthplace and tomb of our species.
Even if we achieve technological singularity or some rough analogue thereof, Earth will still probably be the tomb of our species because it's the environment we're uniquely adapted to exploit and dwell in.
Robots, on the other hand, have no problems with the deathly radiation nor the unimaginable vastness of space, nor do they have physiological problems with being in freefall. They don't need to tote around a can o' Earth's atmosphere and they don't need hazard pay, pensions, or hell, even a return ticket home. Just hook 'em up to a power source and they're totally content hibernating for the incredibly long journey
The point is, it's far more likely that we'll adapt life to suit space before we find some loophole in the laws of physics that will allow up cheap, convenient travel across the galaxy. You can improve a horse by upgrading it with a four-cylinder engine, but keep upgrading it and eventually you can just do without the horse part. Same thing will probably apply to life as it reaches into space: robots colonizing resource rich areas of the galaxy and ignoring planets with organic life on them, regarding them as not worth the effort.
>>1330363
so fucking salty
>>1330376
>can't think of any rebuttal of substance
>I know! use memes!
>>1330363
Just because you don't agree with his points don't mean that they lack substance, and that certainly doesn't make them "autistic". I don't agree with every point he made, but at no point has he given me any reason to doubt that his beliefs aren't well thought out or developed.
So if you think that the discussion needs to pivot then make it happen, but don't try to force it by shitposting
>>1330383
Just because I disagree with him I'm shitposting?
>>1330389
no. Disagreement is the sign of a healthy discussion
this, however,
>>1330331
is shitposting.
If you disagree with him, be a gent and list the reasons you feel that way using compelling, logical points backed up by citations (if needed). Not everybody's mind is made up on the matter and we like reading the back and forth, but not when somebody forgoes reason and makes it personal.
>>1329766
Guess what dickhead. When one guy get his hands on a lot of money and resources and has lots of people working for him and he makes policy and decides things for the people who are under him and there's no state above him telling him what to do, that guy BECOMES THE STATE.
Anarcho capitalism logically and inevitably leads to the establishment of a bunch of petty monarchies and aristocratic city states.
>>1329537
> You don't have governments but at the same time equality is still somehow guaranteed
No it isn't. In the anarcho-syndicalist framework, workers control their tools, and share the product of their labor, which is traded with other workers syndicates for their products. Basically.
There is no "guarantee of equality". There simply isn't any construct which divides people into classes. Everybody is a worker, and they're organized by their common profession.
>>1330403
>Guess what dickhead. When one guy get his hands on a lot of money and resources and has lots of people working for him and he makes policy and decides things for the people who are under him and there's no state above him telling him what to do, that guy BECOMES THE STATE.
Which essentially describes what happened to the Roman Empire: "emperor" is a modern shorthand and really had no permanent authority within the central state aside from High Priest of the State Religion (which sounds more impressive than it actually was: his day job was managing the calendar so in the grand scheme of Roman governance it's the basic equivalent of being the food and beverage guy at a shady casino).
He was really just the guy who had accumulated such a huge percentage of the overall wealth and power in that society that the affairs of his private court gradually became more important than the affairs of the public government. Even in Augustus's reign the senate was a rubber-stamp parliament whose primary purpose was to maintain the facade of public government while the emperor and his money managers handled all the important work.
>>1322076
I've known it as green anarchism. Anyway, if you take two shit ideologies and mesh them together...the result is an even shittier ideology.
What's with right wing "libertarians" and retarded infopics?
>>1330409
>ut I find that completely refusing to read fascist theory because "Marxist surely have a better definition of fascism than fascists themselves" is shitposting.
Nonsense, he makes a valid point that when you take a very broad look at fascism it becomes a hodgepodge of ideologies without any cohesive or centralized philosophical structure, and different ethno-nationalist "flavors" of fascism can be quite different from one another.
so then who's to say which brand of fascism is the 'right' one? And if we take a universalist approach, then we have to consider at least the possibility that these thinkers profoundly misunderstood human nature and therefore in fact, there are better definitions to be had than the ones they fancied for themselves. We also have to consider the possibility that sometimes people say things for the sake of getting elected and/or staying in power, and not because those are a reflection of their true intentions.
To be completely fair, I feel like Marxism also shares many of the same flaws, with the notable difference being its relative cohesive of its theories which makes it a very attractive philosophy on paper.
>>1329515
Stirner's ideas are only compatible with leftist anarchism in the sense that there's nothing really wrong with it if you find it fulfilling or whatever.
Your ideology is spooked though, you'd have to be 100% delusional to think otherwise. All leftist ideologies are founded on humanist drivel.
>>1329761
My definition of fascism, that of Mussolini, can not in any way correspond to anything starting with "anarcho"
>>1324520
>it's a "social-fascists" episode
Thälmann you retard, you're supposed to be dead.
>>1330660
Communism as an idea of the "working class" (composed entirely of autonomous individuals that just recognize that their interests are somewhat linked due their social status) banding together for their mutual interests (and thus their own interests) is fairly compatible with Stirner's ideology. It only starts going against it when you get into ideas such as Vanguardism.
>>1322076
>let's abolish government
>hopefully x kind of society emerges
This is the only difference between the types of anarchism.
>>1324470
>anarcho-communism
-_-
>Implying "anarcho communism" isn't an oxymoron.
>Implying Marx didn't speak out against Anarchism repeatedly cause it NECESSARILY leads to competition which destroys every Communism.
>Implying Rudolf Rocker didn't speak against communism over and over again.
>>1330449
You are refuting your own argument.
What is better: reading fascist theorists, each having a slightly different ideological view or reading Marxists' view of fascism as a big group, making no differences with each one?
And ethno-"nationalism" is a meme.
>>1332725
>You are refuting your own argument.
>What is better: reading fascist theorists, each having a slightly different ideological view or reading Marxists' view of fascism as a big group, making no differences with each one?
I don't need to have to have a detailed understanding of Leprechaunology to know that Leprechauns are bullshit, so to me it's less important to know each ideology individually than it is to examine them as a whole, to study their similarities and differences, especially when we consider the forces of realpolitik that can drive the rhetoric into being used as an instrument of propaganda while the actual practice was something quite different.
>And ethno-"nationalism" is a meme.
I agree: a meme that drives Britons to vote in favor of leaving the EU, and it drove Germans to scapegoat Jews as the source of all their problems. Far from being trivial, memes can play an important role in shaping society for better or worse.
>>1322076
>Monopolies will be a thing of the past as their competion, now free of regulations and taxation keeping them on the ground rises to compete on a leveled playing field
what in the actual fuck? Are "an"-caps really this fucking delusional?
>>1322076
I think what you really want is barbarism.
>>1329766
>With no state, one would be within his/her rights in resisting any feudal takeover.
But that's irrelevant to the question at hand. The problem with feudalism is not that the peasant does not have the right to revolt, but that he lacks the material means to do so.
Force has a logical all of its own, not a pleasant one, which is why it's better to leave a monopoly of force in place. Ideally with a democratic institution wielding it.
>>1330072
twas ever thus
Belief solves this conundrum, but you cannot truly choose to believe.
>>1330155
>Actual anarcho-communism promotes equality of opportunity and outcome
Genuinely curious, what is the metaphysical or other basis for wanting to reach this goal? Why is it a desirable end?
>>1322076
> What is /his/ opinion on Anarcho-Primitivism?
It's beyond retarded.
Even crazy liberal bullshit didn't reach this level of retardation (even if tries very hard).
Anarcho-primitivism is essentially Luddism.
Wanting to live more in tune with nature is your own choice, but don't imagine that reverting society back into agricultural hell is somehow going to enlighten us.
>>1329766
> Feudalism is enforced by a state.
Nope. It's enforced by hired goons.
> With no state, one would be within his/her rights in resisting any feudal takeover.
Except one will have no means to do so.
> But statists are too lazy to do anything themselves.
Are we talking "burn and pillage"? Because everything else is statists.
>>1330378
Not him, but your only idea was "its Marxism, therefore wrong"
>>1322076
So you're a Luddite? It's all well and good until the sun burns out and consigns humanity to the dustbin of history.
Anarcho - primitivists will fail because the entire world knows they have no future under anarcho primitivism
>>1330434
> What's with right wing "libertarians" and retarded infopics?
I though all libertarians were right wing.
i.e. some can pretend to be left, but that's just propaganda to get some votes.
>>1334687
Legacy is a spook, and by far one of the most meaningless.
>>1334700
Continuation of the species isn't. Anarcho primitivism, at its core, is ultimately a threat to the continuation of the human species. Anarcho primitivists talk about getting back to our roots, our roots have only ever been to survive. Legacy is a socia construct yes, but the survival of the species is not
>>1334705
>continuation of the human species
It's a spook. You'll be dead, and so will the species die, eventually, no matter what we do (or maybe precisely because of what we do).
>>1334705
They are the same.
Explain the objective, or even personal, value of the continuation of one's species. There is none.
>>1330201
I can't tell if that image is meant to be facetious or not.
>>1334700
A spook! A spook!
It still satisfies the people.
Drop the primitives on some island were they are happy and leave us in peace.
>>1334700
>THEY have no future, i.e the anarcho-primitivists themselves
>reading comprehension
>>1334709
It's not a spook if it's a driving force behind everything we do
>>1334710
The value of continuing the species is it allows the species to continue. If anything you're operating from the flawed view that humanity is destined to end. Whereas I am operating from the view that humanity will, in one way or another, continue infinitely and anything that prevents humanity from maximizing its ability to survive is objectively wrong for the species. Thus any anarchy is both wrong and horrifically short sighted
>>1322076
>What is /his/ opinion on Anarcho-Primitivism?
It's flushing down the toilet (oh, wait, they won't be any toilets any more) thousand of years of technologial progress.
>>1324554
*They're
*too
>>1334724
>It's not a spook if it's a driving force behind everything we do
no, that's the whole thing with spooks is that they influence our behavior
>>1324672
>when the population is already militantly nationalistic and right-wing (like the United States)
>militantly nationalistic and right-wing
>the United States
Yeah, right. If only. I'd take a universally accepting (racially) yet highly unified and culturally insular ideology over whatever the hell we have now.
>>1336583
>Yeah, right. If only.
Maybe you missed the 20th century. We focused our entire money into our military becoming the strongest militaristic force on the planet, we developed more nukes than to wipe the planet clean several times over, we funded every single nationalist, or even fascist, movement on Earth for decades to combat communism, we rely entirely on focusing on geopolitics to please our military industrial complex.
How exactly are we not? Don't give me "well that doesn't count", it does count, you have to acknowledge this.
>>1336592
I would agree with you, but that is historical, and in most cases governmental realpolitik.
I am referring specifically to the ideological tendencies of the modern public. As I said, what he have now.
>>1324518
>I don't know what latent means
Here's mine.
What do you fellows think?
>>1336787
needs another anime accompanying the flag and paragraph
>>1330363
I get my definition of fascism from my reading on the topic, and from my personal experience of having previously sympathized with fascism myself back near when I began my political journey. Whether so-called "Marxist academics" (which is a very small fringe minority largely delegated to the sociology department) agree with my definition is interesting but ultimately inconsequential to my position. I have many disagreements with Marxists, especially Marxist–Leninists and Marxist–Leninist–Maoists, so being in disagreement with Marxists is not new to me.
>>1330335
>>1330349
>>1330370
>>1330383
>>1330400
Thanks for trying to keep the discussion civil and substantive. I was not expecting anyone to do so, especially in indirect defense of my replies, so that is definitely a pleasant surprise. I thought such traits died out in 4chan years ago.
>>1330409
That's not why I "refuse" to read fascist theory, nor have I even stated whether I have read fascist theory. For all you know, I have read that Gentile ghostwritten treatise. I haven't stated my familiarity with fascist literature whatsoever.
Like I said in >>1337011, my understanding and definition of fascism is a culmination of my knowledge thus far. I'm not parroting any opinions of any particular theorist or academician, Marxist or otherwise. Some have similar opinions as mine—professor Richard D. Wolff comes to mind—but the views I have expressed thus far are nonetheless my own.
Moreover, my point about literature like Gentile's work is that my interest in fascism is with what it is as an economic system, how it operates as one, and how it relates to (and serves the interests of) capitalism. In other words, my interests in fascism are principally about its material nature. The work of Gentile and others are exercises in philosophical posturing, idealistic abstraction, and other spooky nonsense. While that may be relevant in understanding the philosophy of fascism according to its adherents, that is not my interest nor how I am presenting fascism right now. In my descriptions of fascism above, I'm not talking about the philosophy of fascism, but the economy and material reality of fascism. That, and not the ideological constructs which prop it up, is the focus of my explanation of fascism.
>>1330434
Propertarianism, or "right-libertarians" as the degenerates call themselves (even though they aren't libertarians), is an impoverished ideology and intellectually bankrupt ideology. It's not surprising that their "infographics" basically constitute extremely autistic shitposts.
>>1337011
You're welcome. I value the sort of interchange of ideas that happens on /his/, people accuse it of being lefty/pol/ but I see all kinds of belief systems being promoted and debated and I enjoy the fact that /his/ is a place where I can put my own ideas to a stress test by like minded individuals, which is why I feel like I have an obligation to encourage civility.
>Marxists
it's a label promoted by neoliberals as a catch-all phrase for anyone who favors increasing the strength/expanding the role of government. Because we are not dogmatists of unbridled capitalism we must surely be hard left, because when your politically further right than Mussolini, the other 99% of the population must seem like the hard left.
>>1330449
Just a comment on the last bit:
>To be completely fair, I feel like Marxism also shares many of the same flaws, with the notable difference being its relative cohesive of its theories which makes it a very attractive philosophy on paper.
I think the reason why that happened is because Marxism became so popular so quickly, and spread so fast, that it ironically became what Marx's theories promoted for society: a decentralized global network of largely autonomous entities predicated on a common foundation and united by a common goal. Keep in mind that Marxism as the theoretical body of Marx's works spread at an unprecedented level, arguably faster than any religion or ideology on Earth (despite it being neither), to basically every region on Earth. No matter which country to look at, there is almost certainly a Marxist party or group, or some radical leftist parties and groups which still use Marxist ideas. Even in the social sciences, Marx's works continue to be a major influence, if only implicitly.
When a set of ideas spread that quickly and to that many places in such a short period of time, it's bound to produce extremely different interpretations based on the cultures and philosophical traditions of those regions.
>>1330660
Anarchism is exclusively leftist. There is no such thing as right-wing anarchism, which is an absurd distortion of anarchism based on a fundamental misunderstanding thereof.
In what way is my ideology "spooked"? Leftist ideas were founded on humanism maybe three centuries ago, which is what produced the spooky-as-fuck ideology of liberalism and its accompanying system capitalism. Contemporary radical leftists are not necessarily humanists, though. Many are transhumanists and even posthumanists, and most either reject humanist values or are critical of them.
>>1330663
>what is anarcho-fascism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National-Anarchism
>>1331726
>Thälmann
Thälmann fucked up big time, as did the Comintern with the anti–social democrat policies that came out of the development of "social fascism" as a concept. While social fascism is a useful idea (and I agree with it, despite being extremely opposed to Stalin), it should have never been used as an excuse to attack social democrats when there are Nazis and traditional fascists rising to power. Social democrats are much preferable to the latter and provide a much easier path to radicalization than traditional fascism. The only excuse for the actions of Comintern, Thälmann, and KPD (and it isn't a very good one) is that there was no historical precedent for fascism, so they didn't really understand just how much of a threat that Hitler's Nazism and Mussolini's fascism would pose. By the time they found out, it was too late.
>>1332133
No, anarcho-communism isn't an oxymoron. If anything, the "anarcho-" prefix is superfluous, since communism is already anarchist by definition. It's only used as a prefix to imply an anarchist praxis, namely of abolishing the state rather than letting it "wither away" once the socialist mode of production is achieved; and it is used to distinguish from variants of communism whose praxis includes seizing the state and using it as a tool for the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Marx isn't the only philosopher who theorized and promoted communism. Most notably, Pyotr Kropotkin—the intellectual basis of anarcho-communism—was very critical of Marx and attempted to reconcile the red and black split.
Marx was critical of the anarchism that existed during his time, which were utopian socialist in nature. His criticisms of anarchism aren't relevant to contemporary anarchism. Rudolf Rocker was himself an anarcho-syndicalist who respected Kropotkin (an anarcho-communist); he was an opponent of Marxism and the communist praxis of seizing the state and installing a dictatorship of the proletariat, not communism per se,
>>1334663
I can't really answer that question in any general capacity, since the preponderance of radical leftist thought is materialist and, taking after Marx, isn't really interested in morals or conceptions of "equality" since they are contrivances of bourgeois ideology. I can give you my personal opinions, since I used to been basically an ethical socialist and still hold onto some of those moralisms, but that's about it. I usually don't rely on such appeals anymore, since they have limited efficacy and are not as profound as more fundamental ones, such as those pertaining to efficiency and self-interest.
>>1334672
I think anarcho-troglodytes are against agriculture as well, or at least some are. Many promote the abandonment of agriculture as the original sin and instead endorse a process of "rewilding".
>>1334690
All libertarians are leftist. Read the history of libertarianism, which was basically just another term for "anarchist" (which is also exclusively leftist). It's only associated with right-wing propertarianism, especially in the United States, because its "theorists" deliberately stole the term. Pic related.
>>1334724
Even if we assume that humanity's fate is indeterminate (which it is), it's still a spook. It may be a useful spook, but it's a spook nonetheless. Same is true with morality, property, and the ego.
>>1336583
Are you seriously suggesting that the United States ISN'T militantly nationalistic and right-wing? Do you have any idea what the United States of America or its history is? I'm not referring to a hypothetical United States of Europe.
>>1336616
The general public of the U.S. is still significantly nationalistic and right-wing. There is a large portion of apolitical and disaffected lumpen, with some idpol-obsessed social liberals and a minority of social democrats, but most of the populace is nationalistic and right-wing. I'd consider social liberalism to be centrist to center-right, mind you, so my definition of "right-wing" might be different from yours.
>>1336787
The purple and black flag is the flag of anarcho-feminism. You'll need to use another for your exercise in autism.
>>1337137
Basically. I wouldn't really consider /his/ to be lefty/pol/, though, since it appears pretty hostile to radical leftist thought. Then again, maybe I have my expectations too high. I'm used to 8ch's /leftypol/.
I think communism can best be achieved by capitalism.
as capitalism through urbanization, and industrialization effectively change society in very fundamental ways. Consumerism, Economics, and (real)Science replace the religious traditions and beliefs of old.
Capitalism also creates quite a bit of wealth, wealth that is at first unevenly distributed sure, but that's phase 1,
the best thing we can do is encourage self-sufficiency among smaller and developing nations, nations who do not need foreign aid to be sent to fund their governments or take care of their people (such countries are mostly worthless or artificial to begin with.)
What must be avoided is "Central Planning", which is arrogance at it's finest. Things must be Organic, a tree does not plan out its root system, it's roots grow out naturally, seeking water and nutrients in the soil.
Capitalism is a force of human nature, like a hurricane, earthquake, or Volcano it can change the landscape of society.
>>1337310
I almost forgot
>take each of these statements individually, I'm curious to know what /his/ thinks
>>1334715
Its meant to be taken seriously
>>1337310
>>1337317
So basically, you subscribe to a self-constructed version Marxist historical materialism? I recommend reading Marxist thought, since what you described is basically how many Marxists view capitalism and its relationship to communism.
>>1337338
personally i'm a lot more moderate than many "marxists" when it comes to things
though I need to read more I'm just a bit more "patient". I think the Russian Revolution and the bolsheviks were something impatient, and didn't go through capitalism sufficiently creating many of the issues with soviet/post-soviet infrastructure.
>>1337386
>I should clarify I really do need to read more to be sure where exactly I stand.
>>1334747
>muh progress
>good
>>1337412
>having opinions.
>>1322194
Feudalism is a good thing
>>1337386
I'm not sure what is more "moderate" about your position; if anything, it's just more vague and less theoretically rigorous, with all due respect.
As for the Russian Revolution, a development in historical materialism is the notion of peripheral societies being far more prone to radicalization than societies at the core of the economic system. It's related to dependency theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_theory
At the time, the Russian Empire was at the periphery of the globalizing capitalism of the time, which was still based in the United States, Western Europe, and Japan. Due to that, the proletariat there was subjected to an extremely oppressive form of capitalism, where exploitative conditions were much higher—high enough to cause radicalization and the development of class consciousness.
Despite how the Russian Empire was still largely feudal, it was nonetheless becoming increasingly capitalist due to the pressures of the dominant economic system that overcame feudalism in the West. In many respects, it was already capitalist with only vestigial feudal characteristics. In a sense, the Russian Revolution was a bourgeois revolution, since it finally abolished the decaying feudal system of the Russian Empire and established an extreme form of capitalism per Lenin's New Economic Policy (NEP), namely state capitalism. The reason why it was nevertheless considered a communist revolution, even among a significant number of radical leftists today, is because the objective of the revolution was (ostensibly) the establishment of communism, not capitalism. Establishing state capitalism was merely a means to that end, according to Leninist and Marxist–Leninist ideology.
>>1337386
>>1337786
Beside being more prone to radicalization due to being subjected to much harsher conditions, another consequence of being at the periphery is the inability to effect global system change when the communist revolution is isolated or limited therein. This is because peripheral societies lack the economic power to influence the core of the world-system, and that core will subsequently destroy any serious communist, socialist, or anarchist attempt or society at the periphery because they threaten the interests of the core.
Assuming, Lenin and Trotsky were even sincere about their communist intentions, which some question, the Russian Revolution failed because it was isolated at the periphery of the world-system. When Lenin incited the Russian Revolution, he was relying on his comrades in Germany, France, and elsewhere to incite communist revolutions as well, thereby forming a powerful communist bloc that could pressure the proletariat in the rest of the core—the United States, Western Europe, and Japan—into revolution, thereby collapsing global capitalism. After the Russian Revolution succeeded (and summarily crushed the anarchists and other libertarian communists in the Kronstadt rebellion and Free Territory of Ukraine), the other revolutions never came. It was at that point that the revolution failed, which caused Lenin to shift his goals into making what he could of the revolution by implementing state capitalism, thus rendering the Russian Revolution essentially a bourgeois revolution.
>>1337386
>>1337786
>>1337787
Despite being politically isolated, and having just finished a civil war and a revolution, the Bolsheviks nevertheless managed to build the nascent Soviet Union into a global superpower that competed with—and sometimes outperformed—the most advanced country in the world at the time (the United States) and had been one of the most important contributors in World War II. Its GDP growth was unprecedented in the history of human civilization and it was able to industrialize quicker than any country had ever done before. The only time this phenomenon has since recurred was after the Chinese Revolution.
So as for the Bolsheviks being impatient, I would say that they simply responded to the historical and material conditions of their time. Although I disagree with many of their decisions and I would have personally probably made different decisions than they did, their actions were, at least in my opinion, completely reasonable considering their situation. The moment was ripe for a revolution and they took the opportunity. The revolution unfortunately failed, however, precisely due to those same historical and material conditions. Perhaps if the revolutions succeeded in Germany and elsewhere, the Soviet Union could have put up a much stronger fight than it already did. Then again, given what had become of the Soviet Union—and the PRC—in its degeneration and deformation into a bureaucratic collectivist regime disinterested in communism and only nominally such, perhaps it is better that the Russian Revolution failed. If it didn't, we might just be living in a different form of capitalism that so happens to call itself communist.
>>1322076
It says a lot that anarcho-syndicalism is the most thought-out ideology of the three, and it's still pretty retarded.
>>1337805
>it's retarded
>according to my spooky bourgeois ideology
>>1337789
>push people out of farms into factories
>muh economic miracle
>ignore that the economic growth of the Soviet Union was significantly less than Keynesian economies managed under similar circumstances
pffffft
>>1337834
1. Welcome to industrialization. That is a natural consequence of urbanizing and industrializing society so that it is better for all. Subsistence farming is inefficient and contributes nothing to maintaining a highly industrialized society.
2. I don't believe in miracles, but the economic growth of the Soviet Union was astounding.
3. Proof?
>another political discussion on /his/ devolves into communists whinging about their beliefs
>people on a board dedicated to history unironically accepting the idea that history inevitably progresses to a certain point
Communists and socialists are embarrassments to the field
>>1339418
What did you expect radical leftists to do when the thread strawmans and misrepresents radical leftist thought from the outset? Just ignore it and let it become normalized on this board?
Nobody is promoting historicism here.
>Communists and socialists are embarrassments to the field
I genuinely don't think it's possible to be against socialism or communism unless you don't understand either.
After years of constant use of techology and medicine
You really think that the mayority of the population will survive on a full wild envioroment?
>>1340330
That's king of the whole point of it, innit? Less people means less stress on the ecosystems and more easily aquired resources for the survivors.
But if you think anarcho-primitivism is a bit too wild for your tastes, look up green anarchy.
It's kind of the same principle, without the whole "destroy all science and go back to the stone age" angle.
If we were all living in tribes we'd all be happier, healthier and living more fulfilling lives.
And no, a tribe of bandits is not going to attack you at harvest time or when you bring in a netful of fish. That is the retarded pussified scared little boy thinking of a millennial who has never gone into the wild.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society
>>1340389
>And no, a tribe of bandits is not going to attack you at harvest time or when you bring in a netful of fish.
Why wouldn't they?
>>1340401
Because there's a lot of food out there and it's easier to catch/grow your own seeing as you have the entire world to grow and forage and hunt and fish in.
What, every time you're hungry you have to raid your neighbours village, losing men in the process just so a few of you can get away with their half eaten produce.
People resort to theft of food when they have no other choice. Thieves exist in times when there is money to be robbed. The only real exceptions is when people who have lived in cities their whole lives are forced to move to rural areas and lack the knowledge to live off the land.
But in a world where everyone lives off the land, everyone would have the knowledge to do so.
>>1340446
There's so much that is wrong with this post.
Mainly that you think there's food in nature everywhere and it's plenty to go around.
And how did the warrior caste arise in the first place if they were unneccessary?
>>1340485
>Mainly that you think there's food in nature everywhere and it's plenty to go around.
There really is.
>And how did the warrior caste arise
Someone started taking sex slaves because he was a sick person, then he realized he could take slaves from other tribes and have them farm his land and fetch his water. The fear of death/pain was enough to convince his slaves to do what he told them. And that's when the Neolithic revolution started.
>>1340509
The answer you were looking for is agriculture. As soon as labour was divided, society was divided in classes.
One of these, needed for controling your peons and protecting your new and growing stores, was a class whose main, specialized occupation was warfare.
Hence, warrior class / caste.
>>1340554
My theory is better. Why would small scale tribal farmers need a special autistic class of warrior's protecting them. The farmers themselves would be warriors.
>>1340554
>>1340561
You don't really start to see a dedicated warrior class until the Bronze Age, which were really the first societies in history large enough to experience social stratification in ways that you didn't see in previous regimes like the Old Kingdom or the Indus Valley civilization (It's worth noting that the Great Pyramid of Giza was built entirely by free labor, and we even have archive records of these laborers staging strikes in order to improve their working conditions). A full panoply of Bronze equipment would have been horrendously expensive but would have made their armies much hardier and more effective, encouraging the rise of a dedicated warrior class whose main duty was to protect the monopoly that their despots had over the Bronze trade, once there were despots wealthy enough to afford them.
But even in these societies you don't see large scale use of slave labor, it was the later iron age cultures like the Romans who really perfected the practice of buying and selling human life. Metallurgical techniques had advanced to the point where iron could be made with a comparable effectiveness of bronze but using a far more abundant mineral, allowing for the sort of huge, well equipped armies that you need in order to spread repression on a large scale.
Prior to these cultures people existed in decentralized farming communities teetering on the edge of survival, and people were too busy trying to feed themselves to think about waging war in a scale larger than occasionally raiding your neighbors in years of crop failure
>>1322076
Stupid human players who think they can stop the snowball of machines.
They are very useful in that they get the key insight of logistics -- It's about the supply chain, stupid. Centralized power kinda abused the shit out of "the regular folks" for countless thousands of years because they had the supply of survival for society (Grain surpluses).
So lesson #1, if you don't want a pimp running your life, don't be dependent on cock juice running from cock weasels. So to speak.
>>1340820
Lesson #2 - If you aren't the pimp, you are the pimped.
That's the lesson of runaway intelligences with access to surpluses of resources. Most neurological bodies will just fucking die or sputter out way before their expiration date. The ones with access to surpluses have an exponential bonus in the only game that matters in this universe, the sex and status one.
If you think about it, the whole game seems blessed by a divine trickster but that's more of a reflection and rant...
>>1322194
I don't know what you think feudalism was but monopolization of employment by birthright landowners from Roman to Napoleonic times, but I bet you're wrong.
>>1322226
Bingo, but as usual any flag with yellow is best flag.
>>1324672
((()))
>>1340820
>They are very useful in that they get the key insight of logistics
And logistics is what wins wars.
When one side has a clear logistical advantage, like say, Julius Caesar over the Gallic Celts, divide and conquer works every time: isolate the weak, get them on your side, build a coalition, take down the strong one by one. By the time that the remaining strong realize what's happening and unite it's already too late, as Vercingetorix learned the hard way.
Any hypothetical anarchist society would be sitting ducks to which ever neighbor had citizens who don't mind being taxed in order to fund a large army.
>>1340287
As someone who's lived in a former communist country, I think you privileged Western faggots who fawn over socialism or communism deserve a one-way trip to the gulags to discover the glories of socialism yourselves.
inb4 no true socialism meme
>>1322076
I'm no expert, can anyone tell me what exactly stops monopolies from arising in an Anarcho-Capitalistic system? If it's every man for himself, what prevents a person from simply eliminating all competition using underhanded means? Where does the concept of copyrights fit into this?
>>1324743
FACT:
A degree in the 'superstructure' fields will leave you unemployed, while the 'base' fields are based.
Checkmate humanist shits.
>>1340802
Good post. I never thought about the relations between materials and men in that sort of way.
>>1340863
Kill yourself, degenerate.
>>1341988
>As someone who's lived in a former communist country
No, you did not.
>I think you privileged Western faggots who fawn over socialism or communism deserve a one-way trip to the gulags to discover the glories of socialism yourselves.
Great argument, keyboard warrior. Feel better now? Feel free to reply when you have something worthwhile to say.
>inb4 no true socialism meme
>"I don't understand what socialism is, so I will ridicule those who point out that what I ignorantly believe is socialism is, in fact, not socialism."
What do you mean, of course monarchism is a form of capitalism!
>>1343544
Nothing does. In fact, it facilitates the rise of monopolies because there is no longer a state which impedes their development.
>>1343623
Superstructure fields are what produced the entire concept of the base and superstructure. Without the superstructure, the base would have no meaning.
>>1345260
How is it a conspiracy theory? Do you not understand what conspiracy theories are?
>>1345445
I actually lived in a former closed city of the Soviet Union, and everywhere there knows what communism was and what it did to their lives. People still live in crowded communal blocks, like animals in the zoo. They were caged like rats and couldn't escape, and couldn't count on outside help either. They were truly alone in the world. I remember seeing the holes drilled into overpasses meant for bombs should an invasion, or more likely, rebellion, have made the nomenklatura jittery.
>Feel free to reply when you have something worthwhile to say
I could say the same to you. All you have is condescending smugness, an ignorant Westerner's view of a system that robbed my friends and their families of everything you take for granted in your cushy existence. Please, if you wish, Venezuela is likely to accept you now so you can go help to bring about the socialist paradise on Earth you were promised by your messiah Marx.
>le strawman greentexting
>actually repeating the no true socialist meme
Smug, ignorant, and in denial of the historical record of socialisms' abject failure. The theory has failed to deliver; only an idiot subscribes to a theory that is proven to cause nothing but horrible suffering every time it is attempted.
>>1345525
I don't care where you live, nor is it relevant. You didn't live in communism, full stop. The Soviet Union wasn't communist and I can guarantee that you don't have the slightest understanding of communism, as is the case for virtually everyone living in the former Soviet Union.
If you want to blog about being a victim of a regime that was categorically not communist, but nevertheless being too ignorant and indoctrinated to refrain from parroting that regime's propaganda that it was purportedly communist, then open up an account on Blogger or Webs. No matter how tragic your alleged experiences were, they are not relevant to anything I've said, nor do they refute anything I've said.
>I could say the same to you. All you have is condescending smugness, an ignorant Westerner's view of a system that robbed my friends and their families of everything you take for granted in your cushy existence.
I'm not being condescending or smug. I simply don't waste my time with useful idiots who ignorantly lament about their alleged and unverified experiences about the horrors of a system they do not understand and never experienced, and using those grievances as a fallacious argument against the system I promote. That sort of drivel might work with liberals and fascists, but it doesn't work with me.
Moreover, you keep assuming that I'm living some pampered and luxurious experience. That is completely untrue and, if anything, demonstrates your own bitterness-induced bias against me simply because I am apparently a Westerner (which I never said).
>>1345525
>>1345559
>Please, if you wish, Venezuela is likely to accept you now so you can go help to bring about the socialist paradise on Earth you were promised by your messiah Marx.
Venezuela was never even socialist, just like the USSR, and your tired attempt at treating Marxism as a religion is cliché and overdone. It's ironic, too, since capitalism and its liberal theology more aptly behaves like a religion than any other political ideology.
>Smug, ignorant, and in denial of the historical record of socialisms' abject failure. The theory has failed to deliver; only an idiot subscribes to a theory that is proven to cause nothing but horrible suffering every time it is attempted.
Go on, continuing projecting your own behaviors and repeating thought-terminating clichés instilled into you by liberal theology. It only further discredits you while failing to seriously address any of my points.
>>1345559
>>1345561
>moving the goalposts to the realm of impossibility, thus placing True Socialism beyond criticism
As ever, the socialist proves how one is willing to ignore reason, then any argument can be won with ease.
>posting Banksy "art"
SO DEEP
And really, I said that the theory has proven to be impossible to implement - it has failed to produce socialism every time it's tried. Therefore, the theory must be wrong; it has not failed for lack of human effort, it is just plain unrealistic. If the intermediate steps as prescribed by dozens of different socialist "intellectuals" to socialism are impossible to achieve, then socialism must also be impossible.
This isn't rocket science.
>>1345610
>>moving the goalposts to the realm of impossibility, thus placing True Socialism beyond criticism
It's not fallacious to point out that nominally communist societies where, in fact, not communist according to the most basic accepted theoretical definition thereof. Tell me, am I appealing to purity when I point out that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is, in fact, not democratic? They, after all, are nominally democratic, correct?
>And really, I said that the theory has proven to be impossible to implement - it has failed to produce socialism every time it's tried.
A feudal serf would say the same when the initial large-scale attempts at implementing capitalism failed. Would that feudal serf be correct, or might his analysis have been too facile and premature?
>Therefore, the theory must be wrong; it has not failed for lack of human effort, it is just plain unrealistic.
Even if we were to assume that the previous large-scale attempts at establishing socialism and communism were actually that, all that proves is that the praxis (not theory) may be flawed. Even that is too immature a critique, however, since one must analyze the historical and material conditions of those experiments to see whether they failed due to their own internal problems or due to external problems that caused them to fail.
You are being intellectually lazy in your "analysis" of the failure of socialism and communism, and it's obviously motivated by a personal hatred for the ideology—a hatred wholly substantiated by a total ignorance thereof.
>This isn't rocket science.
No, this is economic theory and analysis, something you apparently cannot understand or do.
>>1345643
I never said those states were communist, did I? You're not even arguing your opponent's points.
A feudal serf would not say the same things about implementing market systems. You have no way of demonstrating that.
>y-you're ignorant
Says the socialist.
>>1345561
>bansky
You got some ketchup on your Che Guevara T-shirt buddy. Wipe it off with your humanities text book.
>>1345721
You stated that you lived in the Soviet Union, which you described as a "former communist country" (quite the oxymoron) in >>1341988. If you are not that person, then you should have specified as much.
>A feudal serf would not say the same things about implementing market systems. You have no way of demonstrating that.
My point is that you are making a reactionary argument that defends the status quo and which is based on an extremely facile and lazy analysis of historical developments.
>Says the socialist.
>"I don't have an argument, so I'm just going to insult you."
Pic related.
>>1345732
Cliché stereotypes and tired caricatures are the refuge of the intellectually lazy and the bastion for Dunning–Kruger bigots. Let me know when you check out. Perhaps then, I'll take you seriously.
>>1345819
The Soviets described their goal as being communism; my point was that the steps towards it are impossible. What's wrong with using their own words? I feel that's just arguing semantics.
>reactionary
Buzzword.
>defends the status quo
Bullshit; all I did was point to the impossibility of socialism/communism.
>"I don't have an argument, so I'm just going to insult you."
>as if that hasn't been half of your "argument" so far
Quoting you:
>Go on, continuing projecting your own behaviors and repeating thought-terminating clichés instilled into you by liberal theology.
>I simply don't waste my time with useful idiots
>Great argument, keyboard warrior. Feel better now? Feel free to reply when you have something worthwhile to say.
For one who's so "enlightened," you sure are dumb.
>>1346881
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea describes itself as a democratic republic for the Korean people. Is that also true because they say so?
> I feel that's just arguing semantics.
Arguing semantics is crucial for any discussion or debate because we must resolve any semantic disagreements before we can continue. If we don't agree on a shared understanding of basic terminology, we might as well be speaking different languages.
>Buzzword.
Reactionary is an accurate and apt descriptor. Whether you like it is your problem.
>Bullshit; all I did was point to the impossibility of socialism/communism.
Your position is a tacit promotion of the status quo, if not the status quo ante, for you are outright rejecting theories and systems which go beyond the status quo (status quo post) on no credible basis and you are using fallacious arguments that anyone in the same pre-transition historical position as you are could make to defend the status quo.
>>as if that hasn't been half of your "argument" so far
Arguments don't include insults, unless they are used as a substitution for an argument, in which case it's a personal attack (argumentum ad hominem). I posited an argument, then I insulted you as well. Learn basic logic.
>>1347097
As I said before, the Soviets described their goal as being communism; my point was that the steps towards it are impossible. You getting caught up that I used the short-hand "communist" that's common in everyday speech when referring to the former USSR rather than the Actual True and Very Real definition of communist is your problem. But when you first began to comment on my shitposting, I wasn't arguing in Socialistese, which a priori rules out all others points of view; I apologize for my mistake in not always using Actual True and Very Real definitions of goodwords for betterthink.
And reactionary is entirely a buzzword. It has no meaning outside of leftist cliques.
Also, a position against something is not necessarily a position for something. A rejection of your anti-status-quo "theory" is not a rejection of ALL theories/systems against the status quo. This is simple stuff.
So much for you telling me to learn basic logic.
All of its assumptions are correct, but an "anarchist revolution" based on everyone accepting the same ideology is impossible, and even if it did happen, humanity would revert to a statist, technological society within a few years. With that in mind, I have chosen technology over freedom.
>>1322986
Shut up, anarcho-syndicalist-chan is moe.
>Be in ancap society
>Wake up in a mansion that I could buy due constant devaluation.
>Have thousands of suppliers of food that deliver my breakfast ,in less than 10 minutes
>Go to work in my jetpack,as roads arent needed anymore
>Work 2 hours due automatization
>Earn enough gold and bitcoins to not work in the next 2 weeks,due constant devaluation
>Open a bussiness with 1% of what I earn
>Become rich as fuck with my bussiness of selling heroin to kindergarden prostitutes
>Go back to my mansion and call a super model to bang,and she comes in 10 minutes with her jetpack
>Physically remove commies in the afternnon to protect the ancap utopia
>Go back to bed in my mansion,protected by privatly owned security forces,that I can afford thanks to my heroin bussiness
>>1324218
>Be cool charismatic guy
>Have a good plan
>Find other guys
>Make a little village
>Other duds join, we all elect cool Guy as leader
>Get the strong guys to attack neighbors
Ooga booga
Why is it so hard for anarchists to understand that the human brain inherently hierarchizes things, and that it's reflected in our social structures? You can't avoid social structures in a human society because it naturally drifts toward that. Even within our "officialized" moder structures you can perceive the unofficial naturally occuring substructures.
>be kindergartener in anarcho capitalist utopia
>want to buy heroin, decide to prostitute myself to earn the money
>get raped if I don't have a pimp
>get kidnapped and enslaved if I try to find one
>mfw no heroin either way
>>1347470
Life is suffering m8
>>1347353
>As I said before, the Soviets described their goal as being communism; my point was that the steps towards it are impossible.
Why does it matter that the Soviets described their goal as being communism if their actions appear to have demonstrated otherwise? You are assuming the leaders of the Sovet Union were all sincerely committed to communism and, moreover, that communism was even feasible at that historical period of time.
>You getting caught up that I used the short-hand "communist" that's common in everyday speech when referring to the former USSR rather than the Actual True and Very Real definition of communist is your problem.
Just because misusing a word is common, that doesn't mean you should therefore use it.
>But when you first began to comment on my shitposting, I wasn't arguing in Socialistese, which a priori rules out all others points of view; I apologize for my mistake in not always using Actual True and Very Real definitions of goodwords for betterthink.
George Orwell was an anarchist socialist who would probably agree with many of my statements, or at least sympathize with them, imbecile. Keep strawmanning; it's a guaranteed method of discrediting you among any and all intellectually honest individuals and prematurely ending this exchange.
>And reactionary is entirely a buzzword. It has no meaning outside of leftist cliques.
Categorically false: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary
>Also, a position against something is not necessarily a position for something. A rejection of your anti-status-quo "theory" is not a rejection of ALL theories/systems against the status quo. This is simple stuff.
It basically is because there is no serious proposal for a postcapitalist society that isn't some form of anarchism, socialism, or communism.
>>1347464
Just because the human brain categorizes in hierarchies, that does not mean it necessarily will or should reflect in our social structure. The entire prehistory of humanity as hunter-gatherers constituted primitive communism. It was nonhierarchical, so obviously the social structure is not foreign to us. If anything, it's natural.
>>1347683
You expect the world to cater to your 19th century ideology, studying it so well that all terminology is used "properly?" Really? Have fun with that, Sisyphus.
And using George Orwell, a socialist, as a way to point out that even non-socialists speak your Actual True and Very Real socialist gobbledygook is just nonsensical.
>prematurely ending this exchange
As if you could stand to let someone else get the last word instead of yourself, the high-brow "intellectual."
And once again, no one in common usage refers to "reactionary" anything. It has fallen out of usage everywhere except outside of leftist circles. You would know that if you cared to check up on what us peons are up to, but that's beneath you.
>Rejecting one thing is basically accepting something else because there's only one logical outcome because I say so
Implying that there are only two outcomes to as highly complicated a thing as human societal organization is the height of stupidity. But you somehow found a way to climb higher, and for that I commend you.
