Anarchists can't defend the revolution

Why is the left so shitty?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emiliano_Zapata
twitter.com/AnonBabble

because everything sucks and we're stupid enough to want to fix it instead of embracing it

Because

1. market socialists have generally poor economics
2. marxists, including leftcoms, have shitty theory and can't into ethics
3. Socdems and demsocs appeal to sellouts
4. Anarchism shares the same problems as marxism, and suck at understanding the nature of power

The only solution is to become an ubermensch tbh

Wut?

If you're going to into ethics, you might as well do it properly. Otherwise, become ubermensch. Either/Or as reddit would say.

Looks like we need to start and defend a revolution then.

Our lesson from last time, don't trust the authoritarians at all.

Federal democratic state syndicalism is the only solution comrade.

Inadequate post-revolution planning and organization, and an inability to counter the immense reactionary power of existing capitalist nation-states.

why is the state necessary in this equation?

What else you going to call it?

You know what the biggest problem is? It's the leftist vocabulary. It's a bunch of 19th Century definitions that have remained fossilized, and a bunch of definitions that only apply within left wing circles, because Kropotkin, Bakunin, Marx, Lenin or whoever decided to write it that way back in the 20s at the most recent.

We need someone to come along and rewrite Marxism in entirely modern language, so workers don't need to read Hegel to understand Marx, and we don't alienate people with constant misunderstandings of our idiosyncratic use of private property (EVEN PROUDHON HAD A DIFFERENT DEFINITION TO MARX WTF AAAA).

Basically stop being stubborn hipsters who care more about authenticity (retch) than winning.

You can always read Zizek or listen to Lectures by Wolff

There has been approximately one anarchist revolution in history and it happened as a response to a military coup.

It's simple. In its modern incarnation, the left lacks organization, it lacks structure. Every time it goes to organize, it creates a new splinter sect, idolizing a leader (see Marxist-Leninism and Maoism for a few examples.)

Oh, and this is a big issue as well.

Is there any revolutionary ideology that is an intermedium between ML and anarchism?

I think that would bring socialism.

aBANDOND IT

Tbh I need to read more classical leftist theory but I find post-left anarchy super interesting.

At least three.

Paris Commune would be the first Anarchist attempt at revolution. During Civil War in Russia we'll see Makhno - whom I'd hesitate to call pure Anarchist, but his is Anarcho-Capitalism. And only then do we get Catalonia (who were AnCom, i.e. partially Marxists).

And it is telling that there weren't more uprisings that developed into a full revolution.

Archimedes Law is over two millennia old. Why are we still using it? Can't we make a new law for 21st century? It applies only within Hellenic circles anyway.

We need someone to come along and rewrite it in entirely modern language, so that students don't need to understand Newtonian physics when they read it, and we don't alienate people with constant misunderstandings of our idiosyncratic use of Force (EVEN NEWTON HAD A DIFFERENT DEFINITION TO DIRAC WTF AAAA)

Basically stop being stubborn hipsters who care more about authenticity (retch) than swimming.

Anarchy with money =/= ancapism

It was closer to mutualism or anarcho-syndicalism with markets because the workers owned the MoP at the time

The world is going to end up as ethnically isolated communes given enough time if things go right
People that think they are fighting racism are actually just reactionaries to the effects of constant immigration and community busting.
It isn't the lumpenproles that will buold your fair society, because their spooks aren't aimed at progress.

The lesson that you should take from all the two-years-and-die anarchist revolutions is that you need a coherant strategy. And you need a real military and not just guys with guns. And you need a reliable supply chain. And you need to be able to work international politics to your advantage instead of fucking up your relationship with every potential ally in the world.

Sure, it's fascinating if you enjoy navel-gazing and do not mind that you will never actually get anything done apart from complaining about what other people do.

Let's see. You have leftcoms, trotskyists, syndicalists (anarchy-lite), and probably a couple more obscure brands of marxism. You are right, though. If we could mend the schism between marxists and anarchists, then we could get some shit done.

Don't forget the anarchist revolution in Russia in 1905.

>implying market 'socialism' is ever anything more than capitalism with a human/democratic/ethical face
I'm actually not against the idea of employee ownership of enterprise at all and would consider it one of the best immediate first steps fowards, but it's not socialism.

Anarchy without Socialism == AnCapism

What are you talking about? It was Civil War at the time. Some owned, some didn't. Makhno was in the south, where White influence was stronger - and workers didn't own anything.

Moreover, Makhno was dealing primarily with peasants, not workers. And "markets" in his case meant predatory lending, grain speculation, and starvation in cities: there was nothing cities could offer to the peasants at the time.

You are telling him he needs Vanguard (people who'll do it all after the Revolution, because existing people that do it are Bourgeois).

But anti-Soviet Anarchists don't believe in Vanguard. Too authoritarian. Which is why their "non-state" devolves into criminal haven and they invariably get "stabbed in the back" by evil Statists who had enough of gangsters militant Anarchists.

Wasn't really recognized as Anarchist. I wouldn't call it Anarchist myself.

Besides, it never happened - it was an uprising that failed to take over anything significant.

sounds just like leftism then :^)

Why is critiquing the lefts traditional structures of organization "nasal gazing"?

this meme has to end en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emiliano_Zapata

It's not that the left is shitty, but that the workers are dumb and basically pissed away their chance at power a century ago

Feudalism = ancapism. Anarchy + capitalism = fatal contradiction.

A state anyway.

There are plenty of reasons to bitch about the stalinists and the maoists, but "they never got anything done" is not one of them.

Ctitique without any constructive proposal for action is nothing more than worthless nagging. The function of the post-leftists is to bitch about leftists while expecting leftists to come up with all the fixes. All they create is noise.

Anyone else feel world weary and misanthropic? Perhaps we should focus on destroying the world to spare future generations from its misery.

zapata was not an anarchist m8

those two things are arguably the biggest split in leftism: do we bring socialism about by seizing the state or by abolishing it?

I guess the in-between would be bringing about socialism by reforming the state, or maybe by seizing it and getting rid of half of it?

Zapata's introduction to anarchism came via Montaño Sánchez – later a general in Zapata's army, executed on May 17, 1917 (by order of Zapata) – who exposed Zapata to the works of Peter Kropotkin and Flores Magón at the same time as Zapata was observing and beginning to participate in the struggles of the peasants for the land.[citation needed]

Look I have same political compass as you and i'm a tankie

Yeah, that compass sucks. The problem is that marxists also want stateless, moneyless communism. Even the tankies are anarchists when it comes right down to it, so they always end up in the bottom-left.

being familiar with anarchism does not make one an anarchist.
Zapata didn't have much of a political education, he only really cared about land reform and peasants rights, not the abolition of the state.

because you forgot one thing: Jesus

The compass test is largely based on burgerland political standards.

being familiar with anarchism does not make one an anarchist. Any short overview of Zapata's role in the Mexican 'revolution' will confirm he is absolutely no anarchist.