At what age did you grow up out of statism?

At what age did you grow up out of statism?

24.

...

Shouldn't it be the other way round?

Edgy teenagers eventually learn that they need to deal with people and that organizations are actually efficient.

maybe 23

Right but its the nature of an efficient organisation that is up for debate you asshole. Which kinds of organisations exactly? Why can't these things be done without a state?

I grew out of my "fuck da police lol" phase at 18 when I read Marx.

...

And I grew out of my stadism vs freedumb phase when i was 20 and removed the false boogeyman abstraction that is "the state" and saw that a society enforcing its collective will on itself, what anarchists want, is the same exact function a state has, and there is no inherent evil in those elements of the state that I see, so I dont oppose one or the other, as long as there is order, democracy, laws and efficiency.

...

and segued straight into 'give the police the power to attack with impunity lol' thereafter

Is not what anarchists want. They want to carry out their collective will it does not need to be enforced

Except for taking the land from the bourgeoisie by force, of course, and punishing murderers, and striking down anyone who tries to privatise means of production. Or forcing people to adhere to agreements by using counter measures that dont necessarily involve force.

Nice meme

State - as it was understood in 19th century - implied a structure separate from actual society, from average people.

Statelessness does not imply lack of organization, with people gunning each other down Mad Max-style (didn't watch the new one, in case somebody went creative).

It implies that there is no separation between decision-makers and general public.

There even was an argument that Paris Commune wasn't a real "state" because of it's democratic nature, for example.

Around 23 or so when I got involved in party politics and activism. Realized that most of the upper echelons of the party hierarchy, while espousing pro-working class rhetoric, harbor an absolute disdain for those not already initiated in their organization. Got the impression from some of the disgruntled regulars that this was the case with most other parties they dealt with.

It's not just been a thing with party politics either. Almost every communist I've met who is adamant about the presence of traditional state power to oversee the post-revolutionary construction shows an absolute fetishism for it that betrays any pretense that they care about the later abolition of said state.

For me it's not a matter of being "for or against" the state, it's the rejection of the idea that the state is an ABSOLUTE necessity.

we think that it should be voluntary. i agree with you about the likely end result *in practice* but there's nothing voluntary with the system in place as is

You cannot have a voluntary structure that enforces a collective will. If someone decides to go rogue, anarchists will stop him, because he is a treat to them. This will either happen through force or by denying them access to resources (which means you have to use force) and smoke em out.

A "voluntary" society wide organisation is a fucking pipedream, especially in highly urbanised areas.

Probably around 19 years old, though it's been more an ambivalence to the concept of state rather than dogmatic rejection or adherence. More than anything I'm a proponent of direct action methodology and the creation of a new body of governance rather than reliance on parliamentary politics and the eventual capturing of the existing state apparatus.


Also I can't believe I'm saying this, but the tankie actually has a point for once.

I think we're talking about two different things. By voluntary, I meant participation/inclusion in the society itself. Not decision-making/going against the collective will once someone is already IN the collective.

That's the first hurdle.

That is not the definition of voluntary at all.

Seriously?

No, it's not.

You didn't define "statism". Since Soviet Union is often referred to as Statist by Anarchists, I assume that direct democracy is a Statist oppression by majority (Agorism, was it?) from your point of view.

Therefore, the debate is about organizations enforcing it's will on unwilling.

Because people are assholes, asshole. Most people - over 95% - are forced (by poverty) to be greedy. Therefore, state is mandatory until we get FALC.

But even if we get FALC, some people will remain assholes, and other people will have to somehow enforce their will upon them - or get assholes' will forced upon them.

Is this simple enough for your oh-so-grown-up Anarchism?

...

...

I've pretty much always been an anarchist because for my entire life I've seen people with power abuse it without fail. I naturally became a commie over time by observation too. By the time I read Marx it was 80% "yeah, this nigga gets me" and 20% "shit that makes sense, never thought about it before."

Are you just going to keep saying beyond idiotic strawmen?

me irl

Up until 3 or 4 months ago I was pretty undecided, I thought Holla Forums and the reactionary right had a lot of good points against modern Liberal identity politics, but at the same time a lot of their positions are just as, if not more retarded. I recognised a lot of economic and social issues would not be resolved by either, but I had never really thought about or examined old left theories like Socialism or Communism. Then I saw a few people who I presume were from here posting on Holla Forums, came here and have been lurking ever since. I'm not really sure where I stand as far as what special snowflake brand of communism/socialism/anarchism I endorse but I've started reading theory and I'm fairly convinced that only old left thought and policies can solve many of the issues faced by the world today.

...

history irl

top kekaroo

...

...

...

...

Holy shit I forgot about Xavier: Renegade Angel, that show was fucking incredible.

I never really have been. I'm not sure I'd call myself an anarchist but I certainly have no faith in or inclination towards the state.

I don't get people who suddenly have a realisation that government sucks. I've known it all my life.


this

Forcing people to get along is best organisation.
Replace the divisity of interest with only one interest.

That's ridiculously limiting. If I don't get to choose to be a part of it in the first place, it's not voluntary at all. Voting on who gets to be the fucking dog catcher in a society I want nothing to do with is not a consolation prize.

...

21

Stopped being an anarchist at age 20.

casually dump my anarchism_irl folder
Maybe take OP's advice and grow up, mein babbies?

...

...

Yesss slav-I mean comrades…fight amongst yourselves…

Retarded AND butthurt I see.

Never.
T. market socialist

what about mutualism though

Was never against statism myself. I always believed that if there were good people in the world, it was possible to get these people together into a good state of sorts.

The issue would be weeding out the snakes, the bad people, wolves in sheep's clothing. But I don't think it is impossible.

Yeah, but look at all these failed states anarkiddie, they lasted for decades before collapsing into reactionary capitalism. Maybe when you're older you'll want your socialism to fail and give way to China or Putin.

le a few good men may may

The only thing collecting the morally righteous together accomplishes is creating a rich target for the morally abhorrent.

I'm curious then, what stops the morally abhorrent from organizing, banding together and imposing their will on the community? To those most vulnerable?

These people have collected in our current government. Overthrow of them without proper replacement will only leave a vacuum they will then retake and occupy.

15

don't you have some striking workers to shoot

Immediate new elections to the Soviets; the present Soviets no longer express the wishes of the workers and peasants. The new elections should be held by secret ballot, and should be preceded by free electoral propaganda for all workers and peasants before the elections.
Freedom of speech and of the press for workers and peasants, for the Anarchists, and for the Left Socialist parties.
The right of assembly, and freedom for trade union and peasant associations.
The organisation, at the latest on 10 March 1921, of a Conference of non-Party workers, soldiers and sailors of Petrograd, Kronstadt and the Petrograd District.
The liberation of all political prisoners of the Socialist parties, and of all imprisoned workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors belonging to working class and peasant organisations.
The election of a commission to look into the dossiers of all those detained in prisons and concentration camps.
The abolition of all political sections in the armed forces; no political party should have muh privileges for the propagation of its ideas, or receive State subsidies to this end. In place of the political section, various cultural groups should be set up, deriving resources from the State.
The immediate abolition of the militia detachments set up between towns and countryside.
The equalisation of rations for all workers, except those engaged in dangerous or unhealthy jobs.
The abolition of Party combat detachments in all military groups; the abolition of Party guards in factories and enterprises. If guards are required, they should be nominated, taking into account the views of the workers.
The granting to the peasants of freedom of action on their own soil, and of the right to own cattle, provided they look after them themselves and do not employ hired labour.
We request that all military units and officer trainee groups associate themselves with this resolution.
We demand that the Press give proper publicity to this resolution.
We demand the institution of mobile workers' control groups.
We demand that handicraft production be authorised, provided it does not utilise wage labour.[7]

these where the "reactionary demands"

17

well you know… Krondstadt was funded by the Rothschilds and the Freemasons and the Loominutty you fucking naive anarkid

Never.

Unless there has been worldwide socialist revolution. Then there would have to be another revolution to dismantle the state.

Shiggy

honestly? About 8 or 9.

...

Because you need communism for that. Christ. You guys are notorious for putting something so spooky like the principle of being stateless (whatever that means) above the economic questions and the property questions.

You want to put the icing on the cake when the cake isn't even fully baked.

Our society, for the people, by the uppity nerds.

Teenagers identify with Antigone, adults identify with Kreon. Fact.

Anarkiddies get out, you need the opression of a state to dismantle systemic violence and jumpstart cultural reprogramming to get people ready for communism. Read Zizek.

nah

Read Capital, Violence and Anouilh's Antigone

I know this is only a typo but the concept of him being a "treat" is hilarious to me

Same. I always saw the state as a barbaric institution since I was very young. The only thing that really changed is that I saw the "left" as the enemy because before I ever opened a book I was sold the old line of "leftism means a big giant centralized state that controls everything".

wew lad, no thanks
do you not see how contradictory this is?

Yes. Explicitly reactionary and explicitly counter-revolutionary: which is why every single counter-revolutionary side (except royalists, IIRC) supported Kronstadt.

Similarly, neither workers of Petrograd (on whose behalf Kronstadt uprising supposedly happened), nor many of the sailors in Kronstadt itself (some ships refused to let rebels in; hundreds of loyalists were arrested, some - got sentenced to execution by rebels) supported the uprising.

Why do you conveniently forget about the "Soviets without Bolsheviks"?

It's not as if Soviets got elected in 1917 and didn't change since. There was a lot of irregularities (due to Civil War), but elections were happening quite often - sometimes up to twice a year. The difference was that all Communists were expected to be banned from participation in new elections and all the non-workers that were prohibited from participation in elections before would get a vote - and that was quite large chunk of population with explicitly pro-White (and Counter-Revolutionary) attitude.

Additionally, counter-revolutionary propaganda would be permitted:
In case you didn't know, "Left Socialist" were politicians of Provisional Government (Mensheviks and Kerensky's Social-Revolutionaries) that got ousted in October.

Finally, that's spring of 1921 - Civil War is still going on and Communists are the only backbone Revolution has. Immediate delegitimization of the current Soviets and the current government would've meant collapse of the Red Army and victory for the White junta - it's not like the war would've been put on hold.


So - yes. Clearly and obviously counter-revolutionary.