Is anarchism so popular because it's basically babby's first ideology...

Ideological Theory is just a cover for real world failure. Yes, read all of the smart people who say that anarchism is totally real and will work while real world anarchism remains a joke.

...

Is Marxism so unpopular and irrelevant because it's basically an ideology for pretentious middle class college students to wank off to uselessly long texts while doing literally nothing?

How is Marxism any different? Because of a few failed states and sweatshop outposts in the third world?

I think the fact that it always turned out to be basically fascism in practice has more to do with its unpopularity.

No wonder OP's is about the """"rich"""" marxist tradition of ideological circlejerking, perhaps covering failure after failure :^}

…but nothing happened.

Lel marxists

well I think what attracts some people to anarchism, is that a lot of anarchists actually do something, they protest, help workers, help people who are going to be evicted (that's actually a pretty big problem, because people buy buildings and try to get rid of people living there, who are usually poor and old, organize cultural events, there's a cafe with a bookshop, there's a publishing house and some other things, while marxists are usually old and rich professors who do nothing other than focusing on theory.

Another thing is that people here actually know what does marxism look like in practise.

Shooting for the moon bud!

Interesting

that's not what he's saying

The only substantial difference between Anarchism and Communism is that it was immediately obvious to everyone that implementing Anarchism would lead to rule by an oppressive warlord.

[s]:^)[/s]

I don't think so.

There are 3 main classes. Consequently, there are three types of class consciousness - each is expressed in one of three main ideologies (SocDem is inter-class cooperation):
1) Capitalists have Liberalism (explains why everyone should be free to abuse everyone, as long as it's done with private property)
2) Petit-Bourgeoisie have Anarchism (same as Liberalism, but rejects absentee ownership, since Petit-Bourgeois don't own that much property)
3) Proletariat has Communism (rejects private property, prioritising labour - that's all Proletariat has)

As long as class exists, it'll (tend to) support its ideology, since it makes the most sense for them. Which is why we have Anarchism surviving to this day - Petit-Bourgeoisie is still around.

Additionally, Capitalists do not consider Anarchism a viable threat, allowing it to grow unhindered - which is why you don't get automatic "what about 100 gorillion killed by Durruti?" whenever someone mentions Anarchism. Thus anyone rejecting Liberalism often defaults to Anarchism as the least offensive ideology.

P.s. popularity of Anarchism might also be influenced by the fact that Petit-Bourgeois mindset is the easiest to get into for young people: they aren't Proletariat. That however doesn't mean that Anarchists do not get complicated ideas (it's just those ideas are wrong).

Read a fucking book faggot

...

You don't have to post then.

It's the one you pick when you realize all good alternatives you thought of in the past are forfeit and completely impossible, driving themselves into several dead ends.

It's vice versa, it's what you realize is preferable after all other options you've been through have been exhausted.

Shouldnt have made a post pretending you do, then

Anarchism is as basic as liberalism

And ML is for those still naive enough to think policy from 1917 can be applied a century later under completely different, yet similar, circumstances.

Stop posting your uneducated opinions already

...

It doesn't matter if it was 1917 or one or two or three decades later, it is not compatible with the current time is my point, and my point still stands.

Also, try to apply yourself, point out other anons who have more or less uneducated opinions. This entire thread is swamped with people confusing kinds of social anarchism with "liberalism", not knowing really the definitions of either.

It's clear most people who comment on anarchy for the most part here, yourself included probably, don't fit in to comment on it.

Reddit obesity

No, it's popular because liberal democracy (which is just fascism in its gestation stage) has brainwashed us with banal platitudes such as "absolute power corrupts absolutely".

See another example of someone who hasn't read shit and is embarrassingly simple on the subject of politics outside of their own bubble.

This really is embarrassing.

Ashkully I think you'll find the term is "rabble obscurity"

It's not a threat to capitalism though

Explain why all major bankers wanted to jail Proudhon for starting a mutual bank then?

I think it's more to do with the collapse in moral authority of traditional bastions of authority, and a what seems like an increasingly confusing world.

no thanks

I like you stacheposter but this was a bad take.

So far this thread has only proved the utter illiteracy of marxists, it was a bad idea to make it OP

Why?

Your elitism and arrogance are exactly why you aren't a proper communist.

chill out comrade, I'm not saying anarchism is bad, just that a lot of opportunist idiots embrace it without even exploring leninism because they hold onto a liberal conception of freedom

That's all great stuff but that's not what I meant. Co-ops and mutual banks aren't existential threats to capital.

...

...

...

Daily reminder nothing is going to happen until Anarkiddies, M-Ls, Trots and Leftcoms join forces

yes, yes, I fucking love the leninist conception of freedom which is to give all produce of your labor over in taxes, be denied the right to organize, denied the right to free press, and denied the right to anything.

Fuck lenin, and fuck your dog shit ML states.

ML is a living ideology and utterly scientific. Mao showed how flexible it is

Then we'll get Barcelona.

More like nothing is going to happen until all those weenies destroy their prison of ideology and dogmatism.

I will work with Trots until after the revolution

Fuck off with your messiah

...

...

Anarchists are doing fine on their own without Marxists, thank you very much.

k
i still want to be friends

Under the banner of a Communist Party unified in praxis, right?

They don't even need to COINTELPRO us when we're this stupid ourselves.

...

...

MY BOIIIIIIIII

I honestly don't know much about that specific situation. It may have been considered a dangerous idea in the 19th century but as we can see they can operate within the capitalist system with no threat to it's operation.

...

Its funny hecause every marxist state also operated within the realm of capitalism

Now before you label them as not real marxism, why not do an honest analisis instead of regurgitating leftcom propaganda?

How are mutual banks and worker coops within capitalism, in theory, there would be no private property, capitqlism cant exists without private property

Lmao

I would expect nothing less than a totally disconnected statement like this from some e-leftist cretin on Holla Forums. But nevertheless, compared to Marxists, we're fucking thriving. We don't need their ideological bloat and their outdated tactics.

never said that, but it seems like you don't digest anything you read. If I had a choice between living in the USSR and USA right now, I'd pick the US a thousand times over. MLism is a mental illness.

Lel marxists

And in theory the USSR would have brought about communism and dissolved itself. The fact is that private property and capitalism do exist, and that coops and mutual banks are in no way harmful or even particularly subversive to it. In the event of a revolution abolishing capitalism, would these be good ways to organize workplaces? Sure, why not. Will they help to bring about this end of capitalism? No. We won't go anywhere with tactics as harmless and easily recuperated as these.

Assuming they were functionally Marxist states they definitely imposed an existential threat to capitalism. The Cold War is a testament to that.

If all industry was run cooperatively I'd agree that we'd moved past capitalism on some level but the issues of operating on a market still remain. We need to eliminate wage labor, the commodification of everything, profit motive, wealth accumulation, and economic competition along with capitalism to emancipate the working class.

What idealism is there in liberalism? It's reached it's dead end, all liberals today are doom and gloom.

You kids are hilarious!
All this 'we' stuff, there is no us, no group. Implied hivemind~
You aren't doing anything but shitposting on an image board, unless you have a grand plan that doesn't involve tagging or waving signs you will never achieve anything.

No, because M-L is flawed in the most elementary aspect

They are against capitalism and private property

Abolishing private property and the state abolishes capitalism, how will capitalism fucntion without them? It cant

Lel, the soviets took part in international capitalism, not only did they have an internal marketz but they also traded with other jations

The soviets sold most of the titanium needed to manufacture the SR-71, used later to spy on them

There is no wage labour on a proper coop

Imagine if we spend less time on pointless sectarian infighting over which dead Russian we like the most and more time actually coming up with a new praxis for the modern world to respond to the rise of the right.

he's gonna do more for us than bernie in a failing system ever could.

...

...

I'm not arguing against this. I am merely pointing out that just starting a bunch of coops and mutual banks will not end capitalism or private property, as the system has proven quite adept at tolerating them or recuperating them. Look at a business like Mondragon. It's hardly a bastion of radical leftism or anti-capitalist agitation. It functions much like any other business, just with the excesses at the top moderated somewhat. Meanwhile, many other coops are competed out of business as the workers don't want to exploit themselves as hard as the capitalists exploit their counterparts. Imagine starting a coop in China and trying to compete with the gulag next door which pays it employees in bottle caps and lint. Coops tend to end up in this awkward position where they either become much like an ordinary capitalist business except for some details like Mondragon, or get outcompeted because they put the interests of workers ahead of profit. This is not a viable road to revolution. This is not to say that coops are a bad thing by any means, especially not in principle. I merely argue that they receive undue respect as a revolutionary agent. We still live in a capitalist world, and that won't change if all Holla Forums posters just start a coop. We need to take more radical action than that.

wow the books are easy to read its almost like they were meant to be easily understood by working class at the time

Daily reminder Anarchist societies are the only ones that work and history has shown us they're the only leftist societies that have given their people the MoP, none of that "wait until all the piece are in place, we're not ready to give you the factories yet :^) " bullshit.

"Building socialism" is bullshit, giving the workers the MoP ASAP WILL become the praxis to which they will establish a free anarchist territory. Stop being retarded already.

Is M-L so popular because it's basically babby's first ideology, with no particularly difficult texts or advanced concepts backing it up?

Hoochie Minh (more like q t minx), gimme something to read and I will.

Let's stop this childishness. Both Marxism and anarchism have fine works of theory. The problem arises when both aren't willing to be critical of it and challenge the assumptions made in light of new evidence.

I don't know about difficulty but the M-L canon is large and knowing enough about how the Soviet Union and the eastern block operated is not simple given the amount of western propaganda and retardation surrounding it.

Soviet larping? Simple.
Defending it in any depth? Not quite.

Here you go. Bit more pop-left but a good read and easier for normies to digest than most older work.

But that's not so much advanced concepts as it is memorization of data. Like muh gorgillions being discredited by the population growth of the Soviet Union being impossible with that many purges doesn't take much more than an understanding of basic math. At any rate it's dumb to rate ideologies based on how difficult it is for people to read it, and the popularity of anarchism relative to marxism is more due to anarchists having more non-autistic public activities while marxists seem confined to college professors or larping parties.

Oh come on every radical ideology has fucking wierdos and anarchists have plenty of fucking autistic shit on a daily basis. The "popularity" of modern anarchism is I believe mostly due to liberal ideology copting it since the punk movement. You have tons of fucking edgy liberals that larp on a daily basis while actual talk of violent revolution will turn them off. It's a sorry ordeal for the entirety of left who are trying to embody the past and feel militant.

We've got to seize the means of purrrrrduction.

Yes, but there's a difference between antifa's rioting and food not bombs or anarchist bookstores. I don't think marxists have anything comparable to those and as such are mostly represented by larping parties or professors. Maybe Jacobin, but from what I've read they're reformist socdems rather than staunch marxists.

Not that I disagree with the punk thing, Anti-Flag comes to mind there.

Is anyone else here over this shit? Seriously, these arguments are pointless. You can be anarchists and understand marx's economic arguments. You can be a communist in praxis but aspire for full personal autonomy. There is no mutual exclusivity. As far as the "leninism is scientific and changes", well sure. I think we can all accept libertarian municipalism as the moder world's leftist movement. Bookchin can advanced communism to suit the modern world and learn from the previous failures. It has actual working examples. Why not just do whatever makes you happy (be a bootlicker or a free person) in your personal lives, but why not just accept functioning praxis and stop the ideological squabbling?

Weirdly enough, I've already read this very recently- some kid I know who went full tankie recommended it strongly. Was okay.

Which are?

Rojava and Chiapas

Ok then, this a dense but good read.

Rebellion is the opium to teenagers.