The main divide on this board is marxist/anarchist.
Most people pick a side on what would be their preference.
The distinction should be theoretical.
Congratulations, you are a Godlike ideology that has a firm base of theory - Marxism.
I'm sorry you are an Anarchism. You do not have a solid base for your theory, but if you read more books, you can get better.
Am I right, wrong, retarded, all three?
Newfag here. Honestly I see no major difference between them and your post seems like a strawman
...
You're correct. Someone's going to come in and shout at you about the People's Stick pretty shortly though.
Clearly strawmanning and shitposting to provoke a response.
Really, the main difference is that marxists think that economic power is paramount, and that with the elimination of oppressive forms of economics, social and national power will be eventually obliterated.
Anarchists see the hierarchy itself as the main problem, and thus advocate the overthrow of either or both state and economic power. They do not believe that an intermediary phase of statehood is needed, but that statehood itself is the major force of oppression.
kek
you're retarded.
you said it ought to be theoretical, then went straight into reducing the problem into two simple arguments and using a superficial caricature of both marxism and anarchism.
obviously you're the one who needs to read more, as you don't seem to grasp their complexities.
The problem isn't the state, it's central government. We want comunes…or city-states with direct democracy if you will.
The more descentralized power is, the better can serve the population.
Why are you posting these pictures? Are you ridiculing them?
see
all pictures unrelated to discussion, serving only as a record and promulgation of themselves
OK. I will buy that distinction, but I don't think a majority of anarchists would agree with that
Retarded and boring.
...
...
No, dumbass, read Kropotkin
The fact that you would unironically describe Marxism as an "ideology" reveals that you understand neither Marxism nor anarchy.
you mean that marx meant systems based on Idealist, as opposed to materialist, conceptions?
Or do you think I was using the popular meaning of the term as it is used now, rather than Marx's use of it?
Also, how soon do you plan to kill yourself?
Tankies want to repeat history and larp shitty societies we already tried.
Dumb anarchists exist, but the goal and the intentions of the goal are more important in the long run. No one gets hype for a tankie society unless they imagine themselves as "the Stalin" or "the Mao" It's power fantasy in it's purest form. Imagining a society where the main goal is freedom for all and leadership for none is a cause to get behind even if we don't all agree with the exact road necessary to get there.
Left anarchism has so many theorists and a few real life examples although they are short-lived because of the might of other nations.
Most collectivist anarchists want a democratic or rotating representative non-hierarchal community. When you get towards the center and to the right or leave the grid all together and towards the egoist, you end up with individualists who very much do not like the idea of anyone but themselves making a decision.
In the sense of collectivist, I mean far left and past mutualism, not as in actually collectivist anarchism
This. Pic related.
I'm not an anarchist, but he's actually right. The confederation of free groups (syndicates, collectives, communes, workers councils, etc) is the key aspect of anarchism.