AnarchoCommunism

No more of you are poor, pathetic and impotent.

Thus being too weak and incompetent to steal by yourself, you must co-opt government force to steal for you.

marxists.org/reference/archive/henry/1894/conciergerie.htm

k just checking lol

this

well it's still hilarious.

The only way to transition to communism without needlessly leaving a pile of bodies in your wake. If Lenin had turned Russia over to the hands of the Soviet workers we could've been living in global communism right now
Oh, fuck off.

so to be clear, stealing by force is ok if you can do it?

They are the reason the "its not real communism" meme exist…

The reason that exists is because communism was never achieved. The tankiest of tankies will not say USSR was communist, rather claiming it to be building communism after achieveing socialism. Read Marx.

Google Bookchin

Communalism/Social Ecology is:
"to try and create a political culture that is not only consistent with anarchist communist goals but a real way of actualizing them" -Bookchin

GOOGLE BOOKCHIN

Please explain how the fuck, with half of the world fighting against them, with workers control will we have world communism right now. The workers control should have been given after post WW2 reconstruction, or else the USSR had been crushed since moment one.

Really makes me think.

They could have gone the Makhno route - institute full immediate communism and let soviets self-manage, army is internally democratic (to allow it to self-disassemble when the time comes) but extracts surplus value to fuel itself in an essentially feudal manner (they take what they need from communes in return for protection, basically). That would have been based and was the vibe I got from "State And Revolution". Unfortunately, Chomsky was right - it was the highly authoritarian "What Is To Be Done" (which I haven't read yet), which was critiqued in (Menshevik at time) Trotsky's "Our Political Tasks" of 1904, which defined the character and outcome of the Russian Revolution. Notably, what happened with Stalin was exactly what Trotsky had (supposedly) predicted in his book (once again, knowledge from second hand sources).

Before people go on about Makhno and his failures, it's very hard to discern what is Bolshevik propaganda and what is anarchist propaganda. It cannot be denied, however, that he left the soviets which did form to self-manage and that, furthermore, the Russian proletariat was much more active in self-organizing (soviets were largely a peasants's system; in Russia, industrial workers organized into the factory committees which were planning to confederate to plan production just before Lenin shut them down, thus providing the basis for industrial coordination).

Immediate abolition of all exchange and immediate communism (stateless, classless, "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs") as soon as the revolution hits because it will degenerate and die otherwise. Communization theory before its time. If you read the Conquest Of Bread (posted above, fairly short at 118 pages IIRC but I seem to be the only one who has read it around here), that's the main argument of it in a nutshell.

ive been around left-wing groups for the last couple years, and i don't think this is the case, at least in the US. Its not so much a political ideology that makes me instantly dislike someone, ive met assholes and fuckheads of all shades of red, but anarchists not so much. They tend to be less judgmental, more open to political incorrectness (who would have thought) at best, and at worst they're really cant be called anarchist an any serious capacity as ive seen them go full blown idpol liberalism.

can you get more than one anti-smashi gif? Its just boring at this point.

that because weve never had communism you fucking dumbshit.

You seem to think that the capitalist state works as a separate entity to the interests of the bourgeoisie. Sure they have a certain level of autonomy, but for certain I feel like the embodied reality of capitalism makes their actions indistinguishable.

I also believe that capitalist ideology is the largest enemy in maintaining revolutionary purpose in a proletarian state. The problem with the USSR (post-Lenin) was that it undermined or ignored proletarian movements that didn't adhere to its dogmatic ideas. This might be counter-intuitive, but I believe that solidarity and close-knit alliances between different socialist movements of any kind is integral to remaining rooted to the class struggle.

The state, no matter what kind of ideology it follows, is solely concerned with it's own good and interests. In Capitalism, like all other groups, it's interests are usually best served by obeying Capital, but that does not mean it serves the interests of the bourgeoisie, only that their interests usually coincide, but can sometimes coincide with the interests of the people. Politics is a game of gaining money from the bourgeoisie and votes from the proles, and to win the game you have to balance the two; of course usually money comes out ahead. Politicians and bureaucrats don't have any loyalty to the bourgeoisie or the corporations, and would fuck them over if it benefited them. This is ultimately the core error in statist Leftists, especially ML, thinking: the belief that the state serves some entity or class and not just itself.

Pretty much this. A bureaucracy's emergent consciousness arising out of each bureaucrat's desire to maintain his position is summed up in the adage "the first job of the bureaucracy is to protect the bureaucracy". Theory of the deep state is simply an extension of this line of analysis. Does this mean that the Marxist conception of class is irrelevant? No - rather, it must be expanded upon. This does, however, require a development beyond dialectics, the creation of a framework to analyze society as a set of moving, interconnected relations of individuals to each other and the material world, and institutions as abstractions of these relations (for example, the state stripped down to its very core is systematic, directed violence of one individual against another to preserve the capacity of a collective of the former type of individual who lack this relation to another - by analyzing the sum of these relations, we can begin to understand as a cybernetic system the spontaneous, organic order underlying this pattern of relations). This can be applied to class, state, culture, etc. It can be used to rank them as superior or inferior to one another in influence, and I would reckon that the material relations underlying class are, of course, superior to the rest. This does not mean, however, that these inferior systems do not affect the real world or prop up this base one - in fact, it is analyzing the relation between these more stable self-regulating systems whose only purpose themselves is control and the self-regulating but fundamentally unstable super-system of class which we should use as the basis of our larger analysis and formulation of praxis. This is all very positivistic and un-Marxist of me (even a return to Proudhon in some ways), I know, but I don't see an alternative in our ultra-complicated modern world of constant management and control.

You are why the meme still exists…

Pure idealism.

Well, communism has existed in a primitive form for most of human history, but strictly speaking, the communism predicted by Marx and Kropotkin has not occurred yet. You're buying into a porky meme if you think otherwise.
What we need are better debaters to present the argument and show that it's not a "No True Scotsman" fallacy as assumed by liberal retards (liberal here referring to all 3 kinds, today known in the US as liberals, conservatives, and libertarians).

the way the argument is phrased is usually wrong, but they attempt to make a legitimate point.

considering Kropotkin was not nearly as meticulous as someone like Marx in his political writing, it is pretty impressive that he often arrived at pretty decent takes. that said, nothing beats just plain old communism.