Are all USwestern anarchists SJW?

Nobody here short of a problem has read any of Zizek's fantasy novels. His documentaries are hilariously incoherent. Only his articles and lectures are actually his real body of work.

Besides which, I hardly read them you're right. To a point, it's good to know when to quit when other more valuable bodies of work exist.

He's a cultural critic. Why should I?

28:06

BTW, when I said
I meant it quite literally. Anarchism today is just a lifestyle; a stance you take to ultimately do little more than beat up some thugs on the street and destroy things. There is no long term prospect, no organization, no appeal to the working man, etc. No wonder special snowflake right wing movements can flourish when they have the perfect propaganda source streaming out of the airwaves with this puerile pseudo-action.

It's fucking pathetic if you compare it to movements that always had a very apparent anarchist element to them and actually appealed to some kind of emancipatory politics, like the IWW for civil movements or CNT-FAI for revolutionary movements.

Yes. And it's not limited to anarchism. Do not look to the West for good news or inspiration: there is none to be found.

Do you have much better of a plan besides being a social democrat, essentially?

I'm beginning to think that feminism is not a lefty, but a right-wing conspiracy to make leftism an impotent shit.

(I'm joking)
It's just that they hacked the otherwise good idea into an idpol.

The ability to describe all things as a buzzword as criticism is, by in large, the most hilarious part of internet politics.

Stop pretending to be a communist.

It's the nature of capitalism to subvert any radical idea into something that is either not dangerous or supportive.

First of all, why should we, if we follow this logic, listen to anything you say here? You've admitted to not reading a damn thing longer than a few pages he's written, so you can't even confirm for yourself that he is just that.

And furthermore, great job unconsciously being idpol: [person: Zizek] is [identity: cultural critic], so don't bother challenging yourself to their opinion.

Likewise why should we listen to you, or why should I? The answer is you shouldn't.

You shouldn't take anything you read here very seriously. Congratulations, you figured it out.

Shitpost of the day
Omg I just dismissed your post with a buzzword
Are you gonna cry now bitchboy?

t. "class is an income bracket"

lol

More and more? Yes it is. Class is becoming an income bracket more than it was ever in the past, and it should be treated as such.

You stated the obvious, but that gif is really good. Thx m8.

Demagogue.

As others have pointed out, it's great that we can take advantage of the incessant craving for attention you have with your trip and mindless posting. It only means that we can filter you and laugh at how beyond pathetic you are as a human being.

You crave the attention I don't get by responding to every post I make by pointing it out that I indeed, have a tripcode

I can add Demagogue to the list of things I've been accused of being by politically illiterate tankies.

Anarchism is theoretically indistinguishable from liberalism, so this kind of stuff is inevitable.

As did you. Do you expect every post here to be some world-shattering insight?

You're spot on. The real problem is a lack of any strategic planning. Western anarchists spend all their time focusing on individual vandalism and protests without having any clear idea of how they will get to the end goal of an anarchist society. They don't know how to play the complex game of politics necessary to form a popular movement. It doesn't help that they are completely infested with COINTELPRO, mostly in the form of feminists.

What does this even mean?

It means both argue for small state.

Except Anarchists had some Socialism going on top of it in 19th century, but forgot it now and became indistinguishable from Liberals.

I've seen far less strategy from state proponents, at least on this board. As far as strategy goes, your idea of it is never anything short of throwing your hands and mumbling "accelerationism, accelerationism, accelerationism"

If you actually tackled strategy

Real strategy

You would realize that subverting the United States at this point is impossible and should not be tried, communal organization comes first. And at that point, a state does not become helpful or actually a goal worth striving towards.

So much for that withering away of the state

Are we confusing Liberals, Anarchists and Marxists?

...

The basic theoretical assumptions of anarchists, about the state, the individual and class, are the same as that of liberals.

The idea that not only, can you subvert the United States safely, but you can do so to lead into a stateless society

is fucking laughably fantastical

This is not the present reality we live in.

hello COINTELPRO, try to be a little less obvious next time.

It would be disingenuous for me not to here say that communists are barely any better.

While Marxist communists still have the intellectual tradition alive in literary circles, they themselves also fall into pseudo-politics. LARPing about muh anti-imperialism, anti-revisionism, etc. while garnering next to no support whatsoever is a modern left-wide trend.

The left needs a return to a proper popular discipline and it needs to embrace, as Zizek has said in his recent article, public decency again. It is the right wing today that manages to get away with public vulgarity but only because there is no alternative elsewhere, and because the so-called leftist movements are ten times more vulgar. They stand out as decent people, when they just barely manage to be the least worst in public.

Not an argument, a description

Me telling you that going up the United State is hopeless is not theoretical. It's actually just the facts we live under right now.

Zizek can't do shit but get money from Netflix and get paid more than any other theorist to act like a baboon on stage, stop listening to anything this shill fuck says

PURE IDEOLOGY

It would be cointelpro to even suggest that overthrowing the United States is possible without your subsequent destruction.

Tell me how you plan on subverting the CIA

It's a problem across the whole left. There's a lot to be said for making leftism respectable again, but that would require the respectable left to distance themselves from the existing clusterfuck. The only way I see to do that is to come up with an entirely new set of labels and symbols to use.

This is conservative tier "liberals are communists because they want big gubmint" reasoning.

Exposing and isolating their media outriders, organising for solidarity with countries targeted by them

Why do you support netflix by paying for a subscription but don't expect its content producers to get paid?

Could it be….bourgeois ideology?

I was still spot on:

Daily reminder.

Been there, done that.

You are technologically unequipped to go against the combined might Fort Brag has to offer, and the chain of command it brings to all levels, from military police to militarized police.

You will fail.

There is no argument you can make where you succeed. You will fail to subvert the United States.

That is not how the game is played, the very fact the United States is decentralizing in response to increased growth of its state power is contradicting, and obvious, getting ready for what you're suggesting.

The solution is likewise to decentralize. You do not get a state, even on your terms, immediately and easily.

I don't pay for Netflix.

Poor Žižek. I bet he's really mad he didn't get you to pay for his silly performances.

Greetings comrade! Do not be disheartened- like anything, you only ever see the idiots. There are some groups like this, especially in America and maybe the UK, but most are not this bad at all.

The problem is that some Maoist ideas infiltrated the left- in the 60s and 70s, queer and people of colour and feminist groups adopted some Maoist ideas into "privilege theory" and "intersectionality" which then became standard in many Western groups. But again, you only see this because there are a few people being very noisy about it, most anarchists do put working people first.

This is blatantly false. What you mean to say is that there's no easy way to overthrow the US government in an afternoon of browsing tumbr. I am certain that if all the genuine anarchists actually worked towards the goal in a thoughtful and cunning way, we could have victory in less than 50 years.

It is a good news for me. Can you give me websites of some anarchist groups working with people, not only with minorities?
OP

Careful man, this is where she'll really strike you down with a killed argument. She will use the magic term "deep state" and all will be lost. Just go home and play Tekken; it's the only thing worth doing. *tips trip*

It is blatantly true. You cannot face the United States head on in a military way, no revolution is possible that does not risk the lives of all of us when you even attempt it.

They are looking for an excuse to wipe you off the face of the Earth.

No I mean there is beyond no conventional way to overthrow the United States. I'm suggesting that, even trying is a ludicrous proposition.

They are all upper/middle class children larping as revolutionaries.

Why don't you actually argue how going against military-intelligence is possibly a good idea for your health. For our health.

They are looking to crack down on you. You are not equipped to combat that.

I apologise

Oh, sorry, I must have accidentally typed "stupid" when I meant to type "cunning". I'm glad we can both agree that having your anarchist student group declare war on the US and attempt an invasion by sea is a bad idea.

Not in one!

No, I'm meaning in any way, fighting the United States is impossible. Taking control of the way this is made is impossible, inherently. It's far too chaotic. There's not enough time in the world to solidify enough support.

You offer no real alternatives social democrats seem to offer the working class.

Working without the confines of state power currently is preferable to the collective will of the working class.

I absolutely share with you this concern of abandoning the current clusterfuck, but altering language is, I feel, not going to do much.

Look at the "alt-right". What are they? White nationalist LARPers. What differentiates them from white nationalists we already saw in the US in the '60s and '70s, e.g.; the self-described vanilla white nationalist, KKK members, etc.? Nothing in terms of labels. What differentiates them is a change in attitude. They appeal to decency in public, and use memes and what's hip online. The difference between a guy like John Metzger from back then and a guy like Dick Spencer today is precisely here. Language, the form of which, barely changed. What changed is the delivery.

The left needs to, before thinking about what kind of words are in its lexicon, first beging with actually thinking about what, when are where it is that which words are proper.

It is not impossible. We (i.e. humans) might not be intelligent enough to figure out how to win, but there is definitely a way.
Of course it's probably not going to be a purely traditionally anarchist solution. Like in a game of chess, you need to think long term. You can't just bum-rush the enemy king and hope to win. There would likely be a lot of infiltration, social democracy, propaganda, and other techniques involved in any successful plan.

By far the biggest problem is actually trust. We'd need to design a plan which still works even if some percentage of participants are working for the enemy.

You make a good point about the alt-right. Although, I would say that there's a difference in the words and symbols which the leaders of the movement use in public. They might be white nationalists, but they don't overtly talk in those terms to the media.

It is. You will not gain enough support inside the United States to ever drum up a working alternative to its power.

On top of every strategic issue imaginable

In direct conflict, it would be asymmetric warfare, Capital would otherwise profit from by defense.

You do this by building community and pooling resources, offering up an alternative, showing an alternative can work. Stealing people away.

Seems to be in direct contradiction to:

I mean by not engaging in stateless politics first, you will not grow outside of the state enough to confront it with an alternitive. This is what state lined revolutionaries never seem to get, the revolution will start, if it ever does, statelessly. All that seems to argue in critique of this notion seems to be semantic or naive.

At one point or another, things will become far too chaotic in taking over the United States that its state authority will not be something worth subverting even. It's a monstrous machine of decentralized bureaucracy.

If there ever was a state to be taken, it would be damaged beyond repair for your purposes and you would have to start from scratch.

just become a socdem already, god-fucking-damn

Really? Take the recent Dick Spencer punching spectacle. He got punched as he was advertising his white nationalist propaganda, saying whites and blacks are incompatible, etc.

While he is far from a revolutionary and I am not dreaming of some immediate new communist party (and Zizek makes this point too_ just look at Bernie Sanders: his campaign was all about substance, and to this day his biggest obstacle was the Democrats.

Think about the daily news, the hit pieces, the memes, the general tone of the superstructure. Over-exaggeration, false-scandals, (impotent) violence, is the new norm, at the price of political substance.

You brought up Hillary, I counter with Bernie (his reformism is another, legit commie topic). He clearly stood out from the scandals. Remember his "forget about the damn e-mails" – he gets the claps from Hillary, but damn, that was the real political punch.

Copy and pasting a post from another thread here because it's just damn accurate:

JUST THINK FOR A GODDAMN SECOND AND LEARN FROM THE LESSON OF THE ALT-RIGHT

What did they achieve? New facebook groups, a declining reddit board, Holla Forums and a "God emperor" that is a laughing stock of the world, destroying the alt-right just as we speak.

Learn from their mistakes: what is leading to their decline? They had zero political theory, no new approaches to organization, zero critical thought. We first need to develop these weapons, and this means studying and writing political theory, creation of a counter-ideology and counter-culture, participating in intellectual debates, etc. to be able to face the new political and economic environment.

If you follow blindly the smashie idiots you are the enemy of communist reawakening.

If you think income inequality does not come to define class in the 21st century you're hopeless. Even without that definition, it's incredibly useful for us to treat it as such.

How would a revolution start any other way than statelessly? It should have been obvious by the fact I mentioned anarchists that I was talking about an approach which aimed to destroy rather than suborn the state apparatus. Even if you wanted to replace it with your own state, you would have to tear the existing one down first. It's like a termite-infested wooden ruin.

I just think at that point a military remnant faction of fascists, capital backed, as history has always shown, would be incredibly immoral and ruthless in tactics to gain back on top.

It would be easier to remain stateless for a time.

I guess a doctor is not a proletarian then because a cashier makes less than him.

Really makes me think.

The tactics they would use to get back on top would include creating a state if one didn't already exist. They would likely succeed because disorganized rabbles are ineffective.

There's a clear difference between what a doctor or surgeon does which is necessary, and what is not. We both know this, I'm not arguing against it.

I'm talking income inequality, as in, the giant growing divide, the ever present sinkhole that is part of how class is defined in the 21st century as anything else.

True, but at that point what alternitive would they show? State force?

Against what?

Clearly you would have to crack down on them, but that would be an ever present divide, and the key is to demoralize them.

A stateless society is a society in equilibrium where everyone has equal power.
If we define power as the ability to impose your will upon society, it should be obvious that this equilibrium is unstable. If someone gains slightly more power, they are in a better position to further increase their power. Unless you can turn that positive feedback loop into a negative feedback loop, any stateless society will not remain stateless for long.

Please read a book.
ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published writing/Marxist Class categories -- asr -- 1977.pdf

That's because they don't actually want an anarchist society. They want capitalism and their version of "emancipation" is the standard SJW handbook "overthrow" of the traditional culture of the west as it relates to issues of identity politics (i.e. Christian homophobia of the past, racial segregation, man as the breadwinner woman as the housewife, etc. etc.). That's as deep as their "anarchism" goes.

Wew lad this is some meme tier moderating I'm seeing right now.

I mean anarchism is meant to destroy the structural oppression of racism, sexism, etc and the socialization of them that occcurs. Unless you're an AnCap, but fuck those guys. For this to work anarchists need to unite in solidarity. It isn't a collective of friends My guess is that a lot of the anarchists in this group are kids and they're still writing petitions to make change. That's what happens with anarchism. You need to find a local group and join that rather than use the internet

And obviously destroy class as well, but that should be obvious on this board

I like the way you think.

The term SJW may be hot new parlance (and you should stop using it tbh) but anarchism has always been another term for hyper-liberalism, and anarchist movements have always attracted anti-social individuals with a penchant for histrionics.

You're right it's a poorly defined word, but I think in most cases "SJWs" are authoritarian rather than truly anarchist. The stereotypical "SJW" traits are sexism, racism, censorship, and often a desire to strictly control what people are allowed to do in private. Those ideals aren't really compatible with any decent form of anarchism.

I like the smell of white tears in the morning too… cum

cant help but agree w/ this

u r dum

Great post man I tend to agree with this. "Think" its so simple but so few people are doing this, and the trump hysteria fuels people's emotions to paralyze them from forming any coherent resistance, people are so obsessed with damage control due to the whole "trump = hitler" trope that the media has fed to them

Is Greece western to you? Because their anarchists don't fuck around.

But yes, groups like AntiFa, which associate themselves with anarchist (don't know if they actually are anarachists or pretending to be anarchists) tend to be heavy on the SJW identity politics.

On the other hand, most leftist groups in the real world focus on class struggle. I'd say we are inclusive in that we will welcome in people who care about equality, feminism, whatever (we do care about those things), but I'd say you have no place in a communist/socialist organization if you don't want to overthrow Capitalism.

They're not anarchists. They're IDpol liberal LARPers who like to pretend to be revolutionaries because it makes them feel "cool"; these are the first people who will pussy out when any actual fighting starts.

It's good to see yet another anarchist here, welcome friend.