Tfw don't want to be ML because I'm too scared of the vanguard growing to authoritarian

Marxist Syndicalism/DeLeonism seems up your alley.

...

I honestly disagree.

I think anarchism is the only solution and that grappling with the logic of a post cold war state in the world we live in is too complex and easily subvertable, too bureaucratic to become ever possible.

At least in our current, and future, circumstances. As well as past ones during the cold war.

When you rely on something, you give it control, when you give it control, you make it a means to subvert.

...

And ideology that had a chance at succeeding (And preferrably had more than 15 followers) would be a nice thing to suggest.

smh fam

The track record of anarchism sure speaks for itself, doesn't it?

kek

The circumstances were different than, then they are now. A state, was more of an option then.

Working and dismantling a state now, especially a Western NATO state?

That is physically impossible and is not realistic a scenario.

The context has flipped. Anarchism and self sustainability/reliance is now the reasonable goal

...

The framework is solid

c4ss.org/

You should give mutualists more credit

Reeee, read Engels!

The way the Dutch version of that site keeps randomly switching between the formal and familiar form of address triggers me.

… most legitimate schools of ideological thought are developments or extensions of previous ideology, so, no. In my view, the biggest ideological read-flags are contradictions/hypocrisy of expectation or ethic.

We must also remember that most left wing schools of thought on economic organization are theory: that is, if we give ownership and democratic control of the workplace to the workers, then we will work to reduce alienation, poverty, etc etc. From this scientific standpoint we /must/ adopt new ideas which work and discard those that do not

why should I trust the market meme? markets are cancer

All I got from that was non sequiturs and socdem quasi-defeatism followed by more non sequiturs.

An ideology so spooked by golden mean fallacy that its color is a combination of the two ideologies it mixes.

How? It's me saying that dismantling the deep state before it dismantles you immediately and with vicious precision, you're not being realistic.

You cannot just destroy the intelligence community part of the state geared towards the absolute destruction of communism for soon over a century.

At this point that's fucking silly as hell.

You distance yourself as far away from the state as you can.

What? And what if it is defeatist? How is that a criticism?

Be specific >followed by more non sequiturs.

It's not permanent, it's just a transition stage.

A lot of the armchair stereotype for leftcoms comes from their (correct) refusal to accept compromise with the bourgeoisie. This includes opposition to elections, united fronts, anti fascism, national liberation, and all other forms of class collaboration.

Fuck class collaboration.

Fuck the uniting with the 'progressive' or 'patriotic' bourgeoisie.

Death to all nations.

Not OP, but I really think De Leonist need to look more closely at history. During the spanish revolution despite the anarchist having fought valiantly with the communist, in the end the communist state actively tried to subdue the syndicalist by denying resources to CNT, at points fighting against collectivization, and even making the POUM illegal among many other things. Makhnovia went through similar pains after having many of their leaders back stabbed by the red army whom they were fighting with. I've seen no historical or conceptual evidence to suggest that anything other than this would happen if it was attempted again.

That not being able to take over the state now does not follow from
Your quasi-socdem defeatism comes from the "we can't do shit", because that's essentially the reformist socialist or socdem/demsoc argument for reformism, but then you somehow come up that it's anarchism that will save us: another non sequitur from your "we can't do shit":
You're pulling shit out of your ass which I doubt you've done anything else on this board tbqh

You all should just get into proletarian student movement and break some churches.

But the churches here are mostly unused historical artifacts. Seems rather pointless.

You can't defeat the US state, or the EU, with action alone, because to put it bluntly

They wouldn't let you. And it's that simple.

Call it a coup, call it a subversion, call it another Gorbachev, call it a planned terrorist attack to push the public against you, call it computers for predicting and simulating your behavior

You will not succeed at dismantling the United States at this point as it is far more decentralized and less of an actuality, and they've done it for the purpose of making revolution within itself less and less possible and more and more bogged down in an assymetric warfare they themselves would profit from anyways.

Or turn it into a debate, again, they themselves would profit from.

From engineering better persuasions to engineering better computers

You cannot beat the United States by traditional means anymore.

You do it, by giving the people an alternative they have first.

Even, let's say, you want a state. You still must organize without one, of course, and by that point, creation of a state seems rather dull and pointless as

you would do the very thing they want you to do.

Depending where you live churches May be brand new. Around where i lived the Church has a extreme monopoly over people, and are building gigantic temples out of their falowers money.

Yea, sure, burn those down. I just don't think "burn down the churches" is good general advice everywhere.

Leftcoms want to do things (overthrow capitalism) and have done things (built up and oversaw movements as large as in the 12 millions). They just realize that there's a time and place for everything, and that pointless meandering in activism to no avail is if anything counter-productive and that time is much better spent interpreting the world than forcibly doing things for the sake of it. Even sniffman agrees: that we must reverse Marx's 11th thesis on Feuerbach and go back to reinterpreting, for we do not even have a theoretical basis upon which to solidly attempt anything; only vague "patched up" reiterations of what already proved to fail in the 20th century.

It also coincides with Adorno, who rightfully reminds us that the supposing "nothingness" of just theorizing is what will give birth to proper movements; movements with actual potential.

Auto-derision exempts me of feeling like the communist left self-criticism, if ever.

It's funny because you attack things which affect anarchists equally and which I haven't made a single claim about. You're pointing out obvious things in vain here and while you're saying traditional means cannot be used, curiously, Rojava has appeared in the same way Kronstadt commune, Makhnovia and anarchist Catalonia and Aragon appeared back in their times: out of instability created by a larger conflict of which they themselves weren't even a part of.

>Auto-derision exempts me of feeling like the communist left lacks* self-criticism, if ever.

They really don't. You want a revolution, no? You have to organize without a state.

Creating a state opens you up to centralization and centralization is exactly what the state has destroyed in itself. Especially the deep state.

You have to know strategy and war in the context of a second revolution, or a revolution anywhere, before you speak on behalf of this as if you know.

You really don't it seems.

Decentralizing is our priority because the state is decentralizing more and more to match up with the discontent being felt so it can match up whatever we have to offer in terms of fighting force in a bogged down ground war it could win simply by persuading people to stop this mindless violence.

If there's going to be some revolution, then there will need to be a lot more theory to help update leftist ideology for this day and age. I believe that there must be a fairly detailed plan of how society will run before we will get enough widespread support to destroy capitalism. However, in doing so, the leftist divisions of the 20th century will increasingly become irrelevant.

Which non-anarchist communists have done and do. Again, affects equally.

This is the thing, though: marxists haven't created states. They've usurped preexisting states. Anarchists, ironically, we're the ones creating the states through secession and they turned out just like the marxist states with similar structures and traits.

I know my history, at least, whereas you don't seem to. It's essential to know what we've done to learn from it.

Not an argument, as isn't most of your incoherent and borderline psychotic babble on this thread.

How's that worked out for you or anarchists, for that matter?

Become a market socialist or communalist. We gotcha fam.

There will be no Marxist state in this century that is large enough to satisfy the terms of communism, or transition, which will not become corrupted or destroyed by the intelligence community and deep state.

The solution is allready on the rise. Bookchin is the unperfect basis upon we have to build.

Dual structure to oppose tribalism while promoting self organisation. Politicize the population by bringing politics back into the local, direct sphere. Learning from the failure of Unionism to grab the wider community and create a middle path between coops and state ownership. Opposing nationalism while offering a new real identity.

Is Bookchin a meme like Bordiga or legitimately worth reading?

Fondle my crystal balls more, why don't you?

It won't work because it hasn't worked because of the intelligence community.

If you don't factor it seriously, as seriously as you factor economic conditions

You will fail.

I recommend his Interviews and maybe some Essays first. He wasnt as good as he thought so his bigger works are meh, still worthwhile imo.

File attached is a good start, read whatever Bookchin stuff that sounds interesting to you while reading it.

Even the Bordigafags, autistic as they may be, aren't this obtuse, and in threads where people finally started to question their memery they actually expleined themselves and replied seriously and constructively (there's still a 200+ replies thread here: ) instead of just throwing around links. You're not going to convince anyone by just throwing around platitudes while you shill.

could you elaborate a bit more about reversing marx's 11th?

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm
>XI: The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.
Zizek argues that the first task today is precisely not to succumb to the temptation to act, to intervene directly in a doomed attempt to change things, but to question the hegemonic ideological coordinates. The left lacks, to the largest extent, any sort of concept of this that is congruent enough to build praxis on. This is why every time things are attempted, they only function to make capital correct the excess and assimilate the non-negative of activist exploits.

Wow, I love this hot take TBH. I mean, this was basically the whole rationale behind Marx writing Capital in the first place. It seems that as the Leftist tradition moves further and further away from Hegel, it loses focus on process and instead only expresses interest in the end point of the dialectic.

But what is the beginning of that end?

this is pretty interesting, will look into it

this

also this; what matters today is actually building a workers' movement that has some chance in the midst of this capitalist insanity

Probably because of the ideological dispersion and liberalization of the former "left", due to the fall of the USSR and the dawn of identity politics.

Shamelessly bumping an ok thread.

Google Murray Bookchin