Ideology and class consciousness

Okay. We are overrun by redditors and Holla Forumsyps who don't know any better, as well as certain Anarcho-Nihilist (n1x?), but let's get this trainwreck of a discussion on the road.

tl;dr: In other thread I suggested that classes are predisposed to support specific ideologies (class consciouness). And then claimed Anarchism to be ideology of Petit-Bourgeoisie. If I'm wrong in this, I'd like to know it.

As we (should) already know, there are three basic classes (economic roles) in Marxism:
1) Capitalist (big proprietors)
2) Petit-Bourgeois (small proprietors)
3) Proletariat (wage labourers)

Mindset of each class is influenced by its own situation (reminder: influenced and determined are different words; it is possible, even easy - with the help of propaganda - to adopt ideology of other class). I.e. class consciousness.

For example:
1) On one hand, Capitalists need state to enforce private property relations since most of their power is absentee ownership and they can't enforce anything personally. On the other, Capitalists have a lot of economic power and don't want state to regulate it.
2) Petit-Bourgeois also have some economic power and also don't want state to regulate it. However, their property is mostly personal and they don't need much of a state to enforce it. Thus, they are the most self-reliant and need state the least - if any.
3) Similarly to Capitalists, Proletariat needs state, but for different reasons (to have a job). Unlike Capitalists and Petit-Bourgeois, Proletariat doesn't have any economic power and is therefore unperturbed by economic regulations. If state is democratic, it grants decision-making power to Proletariat, making it support state regulations.

Therefore, it is not unthinkable to suggest that class consciousness of each class supports a set of ideas (ideology, yes) that promote its interests. I claim
1) Liberalism be the ideology of Capitalists
2) Anarchism of Petit-Bourgeois
3) Communism of Proletariat

As another example: Managers
1) Liberals support managers (Capitalists can't manage everything themselves) and want them to operate freely - as long as there is profit.
2) Anarchists do not support managerial hierarchy at all (Petit-Bourgeois can manage things themselves).
3) Communists support managers (Proletariat also can't manage everything), but want managers to be bound by strict regulations, since they don't care about profit alone.

Now, this might be poorly phrased, but are there any actual objections?

Other urls found in this thread:

I can't say it doesn't seem like that sometimes, browsing around here. But actually read classical libertarian communist or anarcho-syndicalist theory and you'll find it consistently argues for total seizure of the MoP by the proletariat, not a market of petit-bourgeois coops.

State capitalists support managers.
Communists support workers' self management and the abolition of classes and hierarchies.


Anarchists wanted to abolish unjustified hierarchy not simply hierarchy. You can have a manager in anarchism.

Only one that's been appointed by the rank and file out of agreed necessity, if it comes to that. And always recallable.

Yeah exactly. It is an important distinction though.

It would be better to use a different term to remove the authoritarian connotations of such a task, like 'coordinating delegate' for example.

This is like a mantra at this point.

What does worker self-management actually mean IRL? Does practical implementation mean that every worker gets a vote how his factory operates and nobody else gets a say? Even other factories that depend on this factory?

The reality is that industry is interconnected. It's one huge factory, simply dispersed throughout the world. Can one worker actually make decisions how hundreds factories are run? No.

Self-management can exist only within the boundaries of informed choice. Therefore, IRL workers rely on representative self-management. On managers.

This is what Communist self-management for workers means: strict control over managers. It doesn't mean "abolition of hierarchy" in the sense of "I don't have to do anything manager says to me". It means manager will be held responsible later (up to an including execution - yes, totalitarian Stalinism), if his decision will be deemed unsatisfactory by the collective.

Yeah exactly. People just want to be edgy and have no rules or accountability and think no one can tell me what to do.

I do not think - nor did I say - that each specific instance of what people call Anarchism is a pure expression of Petit-Bourgeois ideology. Quite a bit is muddled, distorted.

However, if we take actual movements of Anarchists, practical application of ideology, the general expression of Anarchism, we will see underlying Petit-Bourgeois currents: Paris Commune, Makhno's Free State, Kronstadt. Catalonia was a bit of an outlier, since it was heavily influenced by Communism - both ideologically, and practically (Anarchists were allied with Communists and had to bend to some of their demands).

Same goes for modern movements: take a look at Venezuela. Many Anarchists do not support interests of Proletariat. They fight for general freedom - the one that can be used to the fullest extent only by the Petit-Bourgeoisie.

Coordination between industries can be done by recallable delegates of each factory's workers' committee in a general assembly. Descisions of worldwide impact can also decided in general assembly. Of course, strong communist organic militancy is of the utmost importance in not allowing general assemblies to take on social-democratic or bourgeois tendencies.

I've never read any libertarian communist saying that you can just renege on a voluntary collective agreement.

That's true, historically libertarian communists have not always been consistent in keeping their theory in step with their praxis. Uncomfortable and erroneous compromises have been made. But clearly, Marxists also have had their own share of errors and mistakes, to put it lightly. All communists need to work on our theory and build a coherent international proletarian movement capable of developing a unified program to rally behind to achieve stateless world communism.
Socialism in one country is doomed to failure every time. Stopping there again means the proletariat conceding yet another defeat.

Yes, this has obviously been proven false. Perhaps the biggest misconception that has lead to this interpretation is that the bourgeois were progressive, when in reality most of the bourgeois in France supported the monarchy.


I don't follow. Are you trying to prove that Anarchism supports state? Because that looks like having a Parliament (or Supreme Soviet).


Is the result consistent with the class consciousness I outlined in OP? Proletarian movements build stronger states, while Petit-Bourgeois try to do away with the state.

What are you trying to do by chanting StalinStalinStalin?

How and where?

Absolutely irrelevant to the discussion. Did you just want to post Bookchin?

Not irrelevant at all. Your essential assertion is that classes are predisposed to support certain ideologies, suggesting that the bourgeois should indeed have supported the Jacobins but instead the vast majority opposed them and supported the monarchy. This is a clear example that brings into question the validity of your assertion.

Are you talking about Petit-Bourgeois? Or Capitalists?

Because if it's Petit-Bourgeois, then you are implying that Jacobins supported abolition of state or reduction of state powers. This was not the case.

Capitalists m8y, or rather the "nascent bourgeois".

I'm going to bed so don't expect another response for several hours

No hurry. I might end up bumping this thread for a week.

Congratulations on being fucking stupid, you add yet another retarded post to the one of many you have made

I suggest to stop displaying your ignorance and instead read a book

Venezuela is a fucking shithole because of the state tho

Seriously, do you enjoy being stupid?

The audacity of this nigger

So in an Anarchist society would there be any attempt to police thought? Like let's say a group of guys are talking about becoming ancaps and creating a toll bridge that is crucial to said society. Do the anarchists kill them? When do they kill them? What if the ancaps had just enough people to pull it off.

Anarchism seems like it would need constant bloodshed to stay functioning. Not a bad thing since subversion is a threat in any society but is that a recognized fact?

So in an anarchists society what stops me from fucking ur mum?

They'd be brigands.

Well that's the thing. Obviously I'd shoot you if you were attempting to, in the act, or afterwards. But if you stood there and said you'd fuck my mom could or should I shoot you then in an anarchic society?

You can shoot anyone in any society.
In anarchist land, presumably what happens afterwards depends on the community.

We should shoot your mum for shitting out retards like you of course

Does this mean if I can convince enough people we can go kill all the jews in an anarchic society? Like that would be sound to the theory?

National anarchism exists, but it is meme tier.
I know nothing about anarchist theory :^)


Was anything I said incorrect?

In anarcho-syndicalist theory the Union would effectively function to coordinate the totality of the economy but it would share none of the characteristics of a state in that the coordination would be horizontal with no fixed central committee and delegates only making the decisions that were agreed upon by their constituent base.

I feel that on the contrary it is the tendency of the proletariat towards spontaneous negation of the state, which has failed in the past for the lack of self organization. The biggest errors the anarchists have made have simply not going far enough and undermining themselves by forming coalitions and conceding to half-measures instead of aggressively asserting themselves as the authentic communist movement and proceeding to build communism.

Don't have a fit lad, it's not really Stalin. Its just pretend.

Hell yeah I'd liquidate those ancaps. But there wouldn't be a point for them to make a tollbridge or any of that antisocial bullshit because we don't use money and we get everything for free just for working a few hours a week doing necessary tasks we all benefit from anyway.

And Marxist ideas in practice have lead to crypto fascist totalitarian nightmares. I'd take some petty bourg tendencies over that any day.

And here he comes…

Do you still have nothing coherent to say? And - yes. I'm aware of Anarchists supporting Fascists against current government in Venezuela.

It seems to me to be this way too (though I'm not sure about it being "not a bad thing"), but only some of the Anarchists (mostly of openly AnCap variety) recognize it publicly.

For example, New Libertarian Manifesto:

Any society fits some forms of Anarchism. See above: everything has to be voluntary, but it's okay to simply kill people for not agreeing with you voluntarily.

Do take note that most of Anarchists present on Holla Forums are Left Anarchists (AnCom of some sort) and do not recognize such Anarchism as Anarchism at all. I think they are Marxists in denial (unless they are ready to go Amish): AnCap is the true form of Anarchism.

Agorism is much cooler than AynCRAP.

Almost all anarchism today is anarcho-communism with stron marxist base. It's because mordern theoretical and practical anarchocommunism is actually synthesis between thoughts of Marx and Bakunin from 1st Internationale.

Therefore, it's useless to criticze anarchism in a reference to historical errors, in particular anarchoindividualism and propaganda of the deed, because mordern anarchism is completely different ideology. For example, when in end od XIX century Kropotkin's., Goldman's and Berkmans ideas were controversial and rejected by many anarchists, today their theores are mainstream.

In other words, anarchist movement today is what socialist / communist movement used to be in the past - the most prolific in theory, mainstream labor movement. And communism, marxism-leninism is dead will not win support among the workers, especially in the former Eastern Bloc countries.

AnCap is purelly liberal ideological phenomenon, having no relationship with the theory of anarchism other than the name.

Also, Bakunin's economical thought was basically the same as Marx's. xD

I think most people would argue that "coordinating the totality of the economy" looks like a characteristic of a state, regardless of the method coordination happens. You have a body that passes down orders mandatory for execution.

Are you saying that it will be workers who will make decisions? I already presented my opinion that it would not be possible to achieve - they'll have to delegate. And you did not address this at all.

How was this expressed in practice? I'm not sure we have the same definition of the state.

I'm not even going to comment this.

Yep. There we have it.

Have what? The fact that Marxist ideas never really came any closer to achieving communism than anarchist ideas did? Sure anarchism in practice may have involved a lot of co-ops and shit, but experiments like the USSR only managed to do what they did by abandoning any semblance of actual worker control or proletarian democracy. Instead they turned into bloated bureaucracies run by a party bourgeoisie who ran the country in their own interests, and put down actual worker uprisings like Hungary in '56.

Yeah, but they made really sick music whilst the anarchists didn't. Checkmate, narchos.

Which is a consequence of Proletarian Anarchists attempting to make Anarchism serve their needs. The same happens with Petit-Bourgeois Marxists - they invent Market "Socialism" of some sort (see Wolff).

It's not about historical errors. We don't have Anarchist International with universally agreed ideas of Anarchism to refer to. Therefore, I have to resort to actual events (including historical) to get as unbiased representation of Anarchism as possible.

Which is why Ukrainian and Venezuelan Anarchists support Liberals against Socialists?

Communist movement was organized. Even Second (Socialist) International had millions of members world-wide (as did Third).

Which is why the popular movements (civil war in Ukraine) immediately adopted Soviet symbolism, only later to relinquish it under the pressure from Russia (Luhansk still has Soviet-style emblem)?

Are you about to tell us that DPR are socialists?

My opinion is exactly opposite. The closest we came to achieving Communism (even if there was still a long way to go) was USSR.

I disagree.

We had a thread about Hungary recently. I maintained that it was Fascist uprising. Khrushchev intrigues might've caused it (anti-Stalinist purges) by weakening Communists and putting (effectively) SocDem government of Nagy in charge, but the character of the uprising was not Socialist in any way.

Typical Petit-Bourgeois reaction to Communism. Adoration of self-reliance. Fear and rejection of State as a tool.

Maybe people could argue that but I don't care what it's called as long as it works as it's supposed to. It's a mechanism of economic management, no repressive mechanism included.

No it's a body that facilitates the coordination of decisions that have been agreed upon by consensus.

Yes delegates would be needed but they would have to report back to get consensus from the assemblies they represent instead of making decisions over their heads.

Probably not.

I'm talking about support of Maidan - and subsequent regime - by Anarchists.

Then we need to make some sort of a definition. In the context of discussion, state = organization for me. I.e. the more organized and regulated economic activity is, the more 'state" there is.

However, your definition is a bit of a mystery, since you did not explain this:

What happens if someone refuses to be managed? What if someone appropriates funds or doesn't produce something that was agreed upon before? Does he get scot off free? If he does, how does this management work? If he doesn't, then there is repressive mechanism included.

Full stop. We have an effective hierarchy (even if strictly regulated), unless you explain how does this economic management work without repressive mechanism.

And I already pointed out several times, that this is just words without any meaning. Workers delegated their decision-making authority. It might be recalled at any moment, it is subject to oversight and punishment, but it is for "making decisions over workers heads".

I'll get back to you later on this. (+captcha hell for this torfriend)

How the hell is Venezuela socialist? It's a SocDem state which defends private property, wage labor and the whole shebang.

It's not. But quite a few Anarchists are clearly aligning themselves with Right wing, rather than Socialists, however SocDem-ish they are.

link please?

Gulag yourself

Ignoring obvious AnCap nonsense, take a look at El Libertario:

While right-wingers are trying to overthrow SocDem government, Anarchists - who have neither ability, nor idea what to do - must "stimulate social discontent". Tell me, who is the real beneficiary of this propaganda?

Compare to article from the same time (May, 2016):

Note, that Anarchist article didn't utter a single word about Capitalists deliberately messing with market - and this from a supposed economist! Only government is guilty of everything.

Any realistic and sufficiently Socialist solution of Anarchists to real problem is indistinguishable from Marxist. Except Marxist solution follows from Marxist ideology, while Anarchists have to engage in mental gymnastics to rationalize solution that would produce desired outcome. It does not follow from Anarchism - strict adherence to Anarchist ideas tend to give birth to AnCapistans.

AnCaps are just dank classical liberals, god you're so fucking embarrassing.

This is someones brain on Stalinism, one should never take the Stalinist pill it makes people quite special in the head.

Now tell me how Anarchist society is supposed to function. Both historical examples - Paris Commune and Makhno's Free State - were quite AnCap-ish.

that means all communism is ancap

therefore, you, ancaps, should be marxists

it's some faggot college professor kek'd hard at anarchist economist
those types are always whining

wake me up when there's some serious organization that actually can do some damage

hell no
If we're talking about Catalonia, those dipshits went an ancap route
turned factories into coops and expected that things will somehow sort themselves out
but invisible hand magic didn't work

CNT couldn't even establish a consistent production of ammunition for fuck's sake

and if you're talking about the plans to create the economic coordinating body, it were only just that - plans

kek, anarchists on full damage control
only real consistent anarchism is an anarcho-capitalism
practice proved it
deal with it

I'm actually a Marxist, I'm just not ignorant enough to think that everything that isn't tankie shit is capitalism. Not even Stalin himself was this fucking retarded, so I'm having a hard time seeing why some tankies on this board are going full fucking retard.

The retard is still showing he is absolutely clueless about the topic at hand

Feel free to point out where does Proudhon advocates for "Personal Property"

When are you going to open a book?

Friendly reminder the Venezuelan government spnds 30-40 million euros sponsoing one of the most bourgeois sports ever, Formula 1

so third-way guy
some Marxist you are indeed
it may sound dogmatic to you, but if you're not with us, you are against us if you're not moving in our direction, you are moving in opposite direction

Stalin can think whatever he wants
and I will think what I want

What has marxism done in the last 20 years again?

I was talking about a hypothetical situation when some ML org is in charge of the state

That's objectively false, all hope for the Russian Revolution died with Lenin.

And you can "disagree" about whether or not the USSR was democratic or not, but the fact is it wasn't. It was a single part state with a ban on factions within the party itself. The people did not elect their leaders, nor did their input amount to anything more than suggestions to local officials.

A "fascist" uprising led by worker's councils apparently. It should tell you something when workers rise up against the so called worker's state.

Well, CRA is the largest Anarchist organization in Venezuela (or so they claim), and El Libertario is their newspaper. I would've went for it, but they don't have anything in English since after 2013, so I had to resort to the professor - he is among editors.

Theory. I don't think AnCom can't find any solution practically different from Marxist (words are often different, of course; wishful thinking is also off the charts - as is the case with LeftCom and SocDem; it's as if 20th century never happened).

What is retarded is to claim that AnCaps are just "classical liberals". Classical Liberals never intended to abolish state.

I'd prefer to point out that Proudhonists of Paris Commune did not abolish it. And we are not talking about personal opinions. It's about tendencies.

Which is why rabidly Liberal government is preferred to SocDem? Don't cut yourself with that edge.

Nice to know that you understand that you're more of a revisionist than Stalin himself.
Yes, every socialist but you tankies would be going towards socialism while you idiots have fun with a terrible welfare state. Your only closest allies would be just a few socdems(your close relatives).

Too bad you are not arguing about praxis in the OP, you are strictly talking about theory, according to you, anarchist theory revolves around "personal property"

Feel free to point out where Proudhon advocates for "personal property", or change the original statement that anarchist theory revolves around the defense of personal property

Liberals support private property, feel free to poimt out where Proudhon defends it

Neither do ancaps, they want to privatize the state, again proving you are clueless

That is why they are just bad classical liberals, because you can't have capitalism without a state, it would just become a state again if they tried. Everyone understands this but retarded AnCaps, oh and I guess some tankies as well.

You may present your arguments now.

This didn't meant that there was no discussions, or no factions. Party was simply prevented from being split: there were different programs being presented.

Again - you may present your arguments.

No. Former Horthyist officers and gendarmes, with students being the cannon fodder. Actual worker councils were suppressed and were mainly anti-Nagy.

Except they didn't.

And it should tell you something when every Socialist state (including Yugoslavia and China) agrees that uprising is a counter-revolution and need to be put down by force, while both Fascist ex-leader of Hungary (Horthy) and almost-Emperor of Austro-Hungary support the uprising - together with the rest of the Capitalist West.

how suddenly united you are
why don't you tell me more about this socialism of yours?

Ask anybody who actually lived there, the party bureaucracy had a had a stranglehold on political power. A ban on factions means a ban on dissent from the party line by definition, meaning that discussion was meaningless if you couldn't actually campaign or resist state power in any meaningful capacity, even by vote. and while I admire Lenin even he clearly did away with democracy when it suited him, since he abolished any Soviet that elected non-Bolshevik representatives.

Also Stalin essentially dismantled any semblance of democracy that was left over afterwards…

I find rabid opposition to the State incompatible with ML praxis

anarchists will be faced with a choice of less state or more state
it's pretty clear what will they choose

wow, way to misrepresent my remark about consistency

I meant consistent as in
if you go an anarchist route you'll end up with capitalism

This is why they are not classical liberals and you are just full of hot air.

Except they don't care about proper Capitalism. Because they are not Liberals.

And anyone could join "Party bureaucracy".

After decision was made. Not before the party line was agreed on.

You've gone full retard now.

Sources, please.

Fuck off. Do you have real sources?

Nice, he is starting to get angry because multiple people are calling him out on his severe retardation

Author can't even differentiate between Socialist state and Communism.

> By April 1918, however, Lenin’s views had changed markedly. Responding to economic collapse, localist challenges to central authority, the breakdown of labour discipline in factories, and, from later in the year, civil war, he questioned all four principles of Soviet democracy, announcing that the regime had to ‘retreat from the principles of the Paris Commune’. 17
> He now declared that the Russian worker was a ‘bad worker’, and the authority of managers and experts had to be restored in factories, under a system of ‘one-man management’; now Taylorist methods of labour management, based on a system of strict monetary and disciplinary incentives were acceptable to Lenin, even though he had previously denounced them as the products of a cruel capitalist system. 18


Actually, Gustave de Molinari, for example, was a classical liberal and among the earliest proponents of the notion that traditionally state-handled matters, such as justice and defense, be instead carried out by the market, thereby replacing the role of state.

He, of course, wouldn't have called himself an anarchist, as he would have deemed the term's meaning as being in utter contradiction with his own ideology, given his historical context.

Perhaps you mean something else by "classical liberal".

jesus christ. the state of this board is great.


Let me get this straight. You say there is one guy, who is supposedly "classical liberal", but doesn't actually fit common description of "classical liberals". Therefore the whole concept of "classical liberals" cannot be used, unless it is redefined to fit him in.

Is this correct? You are not saying that this was standard among the classical liberals?

This is kinda wrong. Any given class' relationship with the superstructure will not remain static because the material basis itself does not remain static.

And even if we today's productive basis as a fixed frame of reference, wouldn't the petit-bourgeoisie need the state more than the bourgeoisie itself, because it needs certain regulations to give it security from competition, crisis and so on?


yay for intellectual masturbation

Marxist -> Capture the state
Anarchists -> smash the state
What is so hard to understand about this?
And Anarchist ideology stems from anarchist theory. You're only spouting bullshit because you have yet to read any anarchist theory. I read Marx for your stupid ass, now it's time to return the favor
That's funny, I don't remember Catalonia & UFT turning into neofeudalism. Read a fucking book.
And don't come back until you do.

What does this mean?

Economic roles of Capitalists/Petit-Bourgeoisie/Proletariat are an abstraction. Not an actual existing thing. Those roles did not cease to exist. Nor were they significantly redefined. Their relation to the means of production remained the same.

Proletariat still has to sell labour, Capitalists still exploits necessity of Proletariat to sell labour, and Petit-Bourgeois still relies on its own Capital to make a living.

My statement should hold true in 20th century and in 19th century as well (provided we are talking about industrial economies; i.e. Capitalist states).

Also, I'm not sure if "fixed frame of reference" is a fitting description. "Productive basis" is certainly not.

No. Read Marx, please.

The most important thing for proprietors is ownership over the means of production. I.e. keeping their place in the relations of production.

You can personally enforce your right to own a workshop, or a truck, or a plot of land, or your own skills. However, when you own factory in Brazil, mines in South Africa, and 45% of cargo ship en route to New Zeeland - and you've never even seen either yourself, and any can function perfectly without you - you need a state (i.e. police) to remind people that it is you who is in charge and it is you who should be paid for their work.

Should the State cease to exist, workers/miners/sailors will simply appropriate their MoP and Capitalist will be unable to stop them.

Thou shall not besmirch the name of Anarchism on this board. Or Greene politix. Or sage Wolff. Or have a politically incorrect opinion that triggers people without arguments.

Officially, for mentioning Anarcho-Capitalism in my own thread:

you're the best poster on this board my friend. Never go away.
plz become moar maoist tho

Was that message on commodity fetishism a joke ?

Alright I'm back. You never did respond to

I suppose, but it seems like an necessary distinction in the big picture view, even stalin poster mentioned that [state] "communism" could be democratic. In which case, I imagine a managerial position would require a vote too of some kind.

IIRC, no. Since anons here often misuse proper terminology (things get really bad when we get to post-Marxism; "state capitalism", for example - or "productive basis" above), actual meaning has to be deciphered from their newspeak.

I assumed it was another case of vulgarized Marxism, since using commodity fetishism as is in the context of Pokemon mania didn't make much sense.

But there is nothing to respond to. It implies that Jacobins were somehow Liberals and made it clear that they have no intentions of regulating economy. This was not the case as well.


Does any of this look like a Liberal speech that espouse support for free trade and protection of private property? He is practically arguing for prodrazverstka there.

French Holodomor when?

He can certainly and very reasonably be called a classical liberal, especially taking into account his historical and political background, not to mention his own pronounced views, and out of curiosity, you may wish to read a couple of his writings.

His vision of the market's conquest over the public sector was rare - and remains rare for a liberal. It is with respect to this concept that he can be called an outlier. No redefinition is necessary; though, you should know that ideological groups are never so uniform.You might not wish to render the question of a role for the state or the lack thereof an ultimatum.

The purpose of his name's mention was to elucidate the fact that what can now arguably be referred to as "anti-state liberalism" had already been conceived by the liberal tradition before they co-opted the names of libertarianism and anarchism from the Left.

That is merely it.

Anarchism is vague

Existing Anarchist movements are not as vague as potential interpretations of Anarchist literature.


It sounds fine on paper but breaking it down doesn't actually do anything. Was the point of this thread just to show off your tripcode?

Capitalism and communism have the same issue of never punishing those at the top. Ideally a bad company would lose customers and clients and a bad manager would be removed, but in reality the bad managers are protected and the large companies are made "indispensable"

Probably because he is a fucking idiot

What should it do? This is an anonymous board, if you haven't noticed. I'm not sure if I'm correct and I want additional input. Maybe there is a good article on topic that someone will recommend. Maybe I missed something obvious. It's a thread for discussion. And I think we have a discussion (for what it's worth).

Initial question was why Anarchism still exists despite limited success. My opinion was that it represented interests of a certain group. Therefore, it didn't matter if it wasn't effective - that's not the reason why Anarchism exists. It was a question, not an answer. As long as Petit-Bourgeoisie will be around, there will be a demand for "absolute self-sufficiency".

Also, if this assumption is correct, it might explain to me better how and why Socialist regimes degenerated into Capitalism. Actions taken by Khrushchev's faction, by Brezhnev faction, by Gorbachev, by Dengists, by many other regimes, they are all similar. And there never was significant resistance within bureaucracy (except for 30s in USSR). The idea "they unknowingly became Anarchist and started destroying the state" sounds ludicrous. But I want to throw things at it and see what sticks.

Soviet Union was pretty famous for shooting people at the top. Until Khrushchev took over, of course.

What has Marxism-Leninism accomplished in the last 25 years?

But you don't. Demonstrably, people had jobs before there were states. People had jobs as soon as they had needs to fulfil and they carried out actions to fulfil them

So before you start going on your whole 'class' is truth bullshit discours , you might wanna read up on the story behind how saint Marx came up with the idea of class and economic variables as the true objective measures of humanity. You will learn that one of his contemporaries is Stirner (the spook meme guy , you idiot) , then you will learn that one of little marx first books is the 'critique of german ideology' , in this book marx gets buthurt and confused. The reason for this is that Stirner showed in quite a convincing way that the humanism and proto-socialism our dear little wannabe dictator marx hold so dear was actualy just a 'spook' or social construct , just as god , the good people. just as these other social constructs , spooks or idee fixes , humanism is inherently oppressive , because it puts the ideal before reality (see feuerbach on god).

For little Marx this meant lots and lots of buthurt, because first of all he used to be a moral , humanist. Secondly he could not ignore that Stirner made his previous views ridiculous 'cause they were based on the premisses that we should do good , because you know well , 'we all humans , all happy blablabla'.

So thats why Marx spend A LOT OF TIME writing a buthurt critique on Stirner that was so revealing of his buthurt and so low of quality it was only printed like 80 years or so after saint marx his death.

Anyway , point of the story is that class consciousness is in its essence both
1) an answer to the problems Stirner confronted Marx with , so economic variables seemed to offer a way out so he (marx) could base his theory on 'objective reality'…
2) the best example of the concept of a Stirnerian spook itself …

1 + 2 are prooved by the fact that 'proletarian class consciousness' just like all other bullshit 'objective reality' shit in historical materialism turned out to be only ideas from one mind.

This is also illustrated by the very volcabulary used by Marx himself.
Take for example the opening lines of the manifesto.
In it he says basicaly communism/class consciousness is a spook (= ghost in Dutch-German) that need to get real by acting in reality.

So sorry if you call anarchism or nihilism bourgious politics , go fuck yourself and read up on the fucking history of your stupid marxists concepts that actualy not only caused the goelags but even fucked up leftist theory and organisation until now.

I hope you die stupid class-theory fucker

Wage-paying jobs? Before state?

Seriously, read Marx. Your head will not explode. Probably.

Where did I say anything about wages, you stated that proles need the state to have a job, which they don't.

What makes you think I have not? How is this in any way related to the statement I made?


Well said, my property

Because you are talking nonsense. How did you even consider inventing "self-employed jobs" in Stone Age that should be sufficient for existence of Proletariat?

Proletariat exists within industrial economy - and it does so for a reason. If economy is not complex enough, "hired labour" can get "paid" in whatever it produces. That's Feudal property relations. Proletariat has to be paid in money, because neither it, nor employer have a use for whatever Proletariat produces. It's a production for exchange.


No I am not talking nonsense. The state existing is not a prerequisite for the proletariat being employed. The proletariat are those who work for somebody else's profit. This can happen with or without a state.

If your tribal leader is collecting the spoils of your labour without your consent, you are a prole.

m8 the term proletariat comes from Rome.

Which is why Marx couldn't use it to define contemporary phenomena.
> Proletarians, then, have not always existed?

The point is not only that they were anti-jacobin, but pro-monarchy. The logic of "class consciousness" dictates that they should have been against the monarchy. Furthermore, Marxism likes to describe the French Revolution as a "bourgeois revolution" when it was clearly not.

Please, elaborate. I had written more than enough trying to guess what was the argument implied here (if there was one).

It wasn't? Was it Feudal Revolution then?

Let's bump this.

What you're missing is that anarchism was not historically a petit-bourgeois movement, but a part of the genuine proletarian communist movement which was betrayed countless times by counterrevolutionaries who preferred developing and administrating state capitalism to extending revolutionary communism.
I hate to let you down like this comrade, but really the turning point was Brest Litovsk.

Here's a detailed and pretty solid program for anarchist-communism from a revolutionary who experienced the victories and failures of the October first hand. Read this and tell me why it describes either petit-bourgeois autonomism or a state, and not authentic communism.

Why not the opposite? You read it and tell me about extensive methods of organization that are suggested there.

I have problems finding any:
> All this will be possible only with the substitution of a Syndicalist organization for the present industrial structure, i.e. the syndicalization of production, involving its transfer into the hands of the workers in the Trade Unions, united on straight industrial lines and conceding full autonomy to each link of the organizational chain while transforming them gradually into producer-consumer communes."
> associations rooted in the Revolution and ready to leave production to the direct administration of the workers themselves, e.g. factory-management committees charged with organizing the workers' control of, plants in each locality.

> each group, workshop or branch of industry, is an autonomous section of the general economic organisation
> REVOLUTIONARY Syndicalism is opposed to every centralist tendency and organisation
> It is for this reason that Revolutionary Syndicalism advocates federalist organisation; that is to say, an organisation, from below upwards, of a free union of all forces on the basis of common ideas and interests.

And this bit here:
> REVOLUTIONARY Syndicalism rejects all parliamentary activity and all cooperation with legislative bodies. Universal suffrage, on however wide a basis, cannot bring about the disappearance of the flagrant contradictions existing in the very bosom of modern society; the parliamentary system has but one object, viz., to lend the appearance of legal right to the reign of lies and social injustice, to persuade slaves to fix the seal of the law onto their own enslavement.
This is borderline Agorism: it is not talking about rejecting Capitalist democracy - it seems to be talking about rejecting democracy in principle so as to avoid having centralized government that represents actual people. Instead some vague "Confederation of Labour" is suggested - i.e. guild system.

This seems very very far from Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

You really need to explain how this "solid program" supposed to work IRL and what makes you think it is not Petit-Bourgeois.

> In the beginning, because of the practical impossibility of introducing labor money (whose value is based on the working day) the communistic economy will have to recognize gold coins, and will have to be guided in their exchange by the values inherited from capitalism. This will apply particularly to foreign trade. In internal exchange, owing to the socialization of a large part of industry, which will provide the opportunity of determining the scale of production, it will be possible to set prices and to assure their stability in a scientific manner.
I.e. not even monopoly on foreign trade exists.

Just remember that, the dumb stalinist calling anarchism a petty bourg movement, is forgetting the fact that Marx was not a part of the industrial proletariat and that Engels was bourgeois as fuck

Lets hopenhe doesnt have any problems digesting this fact kek

He's saying that it's petite bourgeois in class character and intent, not that its theorists are necessarily petite bourgeoisie. Don't be disingenuous.

Nope, read the OP, he is strictly implying the petty bourg is promoting anarchism

I mean he is stupid and could have done the same type of sophistry you just engaged in, be is is too dumb to even do that

What LeftCom said:

Would you mind explaining what exactly confuses you?

You can try to backpedal if you want, not going to helpmyou

In the OP you strictly implied its the petty bourgs the ones who are directly promoting anarchism, because the theorists were pretty bourgs themselves

Tsk tsk, this is what happens when you make threads out of pure butthurt, tankidie

Yeah, it doesn't matter which class you were born into imo
It is which class you fight for

Okay. I'm paralysed with terror.

Yes. Class in general, of course.

Not necessarily. Anyone could be a theorist.

Kek, backpedaling confirmed

What's so difficult to understand? Bourgeois were for the monarchy. They were for continuing the status quo, not overthrowing it.
How can it be considered a bourgeois revolution when the bourgeois were actively hampering it?

Were they? But would you mind clarifying: when and for what monarchy specifically? For absolute monarchy in 1787, or for castrated version in 1792?

They were hampering Socialist Revolution (sans culottes), not Bourgeois.

Do communists care about eugenics?

That's some bad politics.


Stop bumping your shitty thread

What LeftCom said is correct and you're an idiot who's calling him out based on your own inability to read.

Nice try

honestly, you've been arguing with anarchists for a long time now, you'd think by now you'd actually would have taken the time to actually understand their positions instead of this autistic screeching and blatant misrepresentations of their positions.

Not sure why i expected that from SUCH AN AUTISTIC FUCKING TRIP FAG.

Wow rude

Hello again, n1x (I'm assuming you are there somewhere). No, your rejection of HiMat does not change anything.

It isn't. Just because some people wrote something that was progressive (Socialist) at the time - but later got distilled into modern explicitly anti-Socialist Anarchism - doesn't make the whole Anarchism inherently Socialist.

Sure, there are some Socialist who tried changing Anarchism for the better. But take a look at what happens whenever masses decide what to do. What is the majority that gets drawn to Anarchism? What do they see there? What exactly is being suggested?

Take a look at the program:

There is nothing about actual rights of people - because there is no enforcement of the proposed ideals. Nobody is responsible for anything.

Nice word soup

Let's bump this.

Lets sage it

I like moustacheposter. He writes well and has detailed knowledge of the history of the USSR and socialism.

the only class that have class consciousness is the capitalist class
and that's why it rules, because organized minority > disorganized majority

but almost every commie makes a mistake of ignoring that lines of division in the wageslave class are not imaginary, but on the contrary quite real
division of labour divides no less than ownership
so why do you expect that this divided disorganized mess of a class must lean to some ideology at all?

But class consciousness does not imply organization. Moreover, Capitalists aren't organized.

yea, union building or party building have no influence on class consciousness whatsoever…
nevermind that it was the actual practice of struggle which radicalized many proles in the past

so what about the state that defends the institute of private property?

Yeah I like him too, he's probably the only tripfag people don't widely dislike.

FYI and ancom is the best anarchism

also, every petit-bourg anarchisms, the ones who are ok with markets and junk, suck so much, however, the SU had markets as well, albeit heavily-regulated ones, and that kinda sucked as well, no?

Me too. I don't agree with him on much, but he's one of the few people who has actually read some books on his tendency and puts effort into his posts.

His definition of states is neither Marxist nor Anarchist tho

That's specifically Proletarian class consciousness. Petit-Bourgeois Anarchism is all about individualism, for example.

It's not like there was some grand conspiracy across the continents to create meta-tribal entities that would become states. State is an emergent quality. If you don't have state - you don't progress past tribal stage. If you don't progress - nearby tribes will crush you.

Yes. It is influenced by Proletariat. Nevertheless, core of Anarchism contradicts Communist tendencies of AnCom. You need to both centralize and decentralize - a paradox, no?

It didn't have market for industrial goods (barring NEP and Perestroika, of course). Also - how is this relevant?

Would you mind elaborating?