Argue with anarkiddies on Holla Forums

All anarchists are useful idiots for capitalist porkies.

Its time for islamization of europe and more mass murders of gay nightclubs, yay! More Omar Mateens!

i do post on /marx/ regularly. i don't think any of them were spooked, but they did have this ridiculous idea that people would shed ideology and get despooked because of the "good nature" in people. i don't think they have read zizek

im not talking about first generation immigrants dropping their "culture" and language. but there should be an effort for assimilation, so that they can at least become secular enough not to push their spooks on their children.

liberalism aims to do the exact opposite. the main message behind the "tolerance" politics is " let everyone do as they please". This of course will always create alienation, resulting in communities closed into themselves to preserve their ideological bubble. It's a lot easier to exploit the proletariat in that state, by offering them sub minimum wage job that they will accept when they compare it to what they made at home. What this results in is proles losing jobs, wages dropping, capitalists profiting, and the icing of the cake is that this will all be blamed on immigrants and turned into "they tuk ar jubs" populism.

as a constitution it has, as an ideology it doesn't

hoxha did it pretty well

dont use big words you dont understand before googling them

Yeah that's good research OP.

well it was 12am, they were just chilling there

id like to go to an assembly but since like i said many of them are also into illegalist shit, it would look real fishy if i showed up one day and just started probing since they might think im a cop. it would prolly take months to make people drop their guard around me in some collective, and im neither willing nor able to invest that much time into that.

The OP did not say that.

when did handwringing over immigrants assimilating not get liberal though?

tolerance politics is active fetishization of anything foreign, i.e. Orientalist fantasy. that's not the same as disagreeing with your weird idea that immigrants need to be re-educated (or something, whatever the fuck 'an effort for assimilation' actually means in concrete terms).

you realize this has nothing to do with immigrants' religion and everything to do with class struggle, right?

when did this trend of idpol conservatives/liberals coming in here and declaring anyone they don't agree with to be liberals begin? I can't tell if this is Holla Forums infiltration or not anymore.

...

crypto-nazbol detected, the workers of the world have no country.

was this in america? don't compare european anarchists with americans, americans are mostly closet liberals in denial.

it's a weird idea that you have to root out reactionary idealist ideology? so you accept reactionary idealism? you accept christian conservatives too?

religion is part of their ideology, and ideological incompatibility creates alienation between workers. the fact that you accept class as the only material grouping that matters, doesn't change the fact that other workers (this goes both for immigrants and for the native nationals) will feel alienated because of the ideological gap between themselves and the immigrants. On the immigrant side, this makes them create communities among themselves that serve as a bubble of perpetuation for their reactionary ideology, while on the other hand native proles will turn on these people the second an unemployment crisis hits, as they do not recognize them as fellow proles but as their enemies and fail to see the capitalist exploiter is behind this. and this is exactly what liberal politics achieve, but their "multi-culturalist" platform which is nothing more than alienation perpetuation.

I'm baffled that you're too stupid to understand what im writing :/ do you know what alienation means? have you read marx?

i wish this board had more quality posters

im not against open borders lel

are you people seriously not understanding what im saying? these responses look like you didn't even read what i wrote

Educate yourself.

What do you think an 'official stance against religion' means in practical terms?

which is a thing in the real world, not the psychosexual delusions of Holla Forums

you're fucking retarded OP
completely out of touch with reality

Tell those people to accept communism, say that women are oppressed, tell to not wear weil, they will murder you screaming allah akbar.

I like anarchism but 90% of anarchists are idiots.

he literally didn't
look at albania's religious statistics
same with russia. you can't get rid of religion in a century

You wont convince anyone of anything by just dropping opinionbombs

that all radical leftist groups should denounce religion in their official manifestos, and not condone religion just to be contrarian

it's not a thing no. i clearly explained what ideological incompatibility does and how it creates alienation, but nice strawman anyway

coming from an armchair american millenial larper that hasn't been outside the state he was born his whole life

no they wont

he did, religion got restored after albania became capitalist. in the first catholic mass held in albania after capitalist restoration, half the people there were islamists. they were there because they were so ignorant of their own religion, that they didn't know the difference between catholicism and islam

there's a source in the hoxha thead on /marx/, read it there

What does that mean in concrete terms?

lmao that's not how religion works
religion gets handed down through families. under any communist government it is simply forced underground, but you still have fathers telling their sons that the ebil state is trying to suppress the truth about god.

my point being that any of these "assimilation programs" or whatever you propose won't work and will likely radicalise people even more

i'm a greek anarchist
you can't expect squats to indoctrinate people forcibly
as long as you participate on the assemblies and you follow the jointly made rules you're ok
books exist and anyone can read them or go to lectures if he choses

I don't know how you can say vague shit like 'religion is part of their ideology, and ideological incompatibility creates alienation between workers' and ask other people if they've read Marx. being separated from the products of one's labour is what causes alienation.

you failed to answer when I asked if you were aware that this has more to do with the level of class struggle, rather than immigrants not being good little WASPs.

I just don't see Muslim immigrants as a homogeneous bloc of turboreactionaries the way you seem to be implying they are.

you haven't even explained what you meant by 'rooting out' ideology or 'assimilating' people, even after being asked.

I'm not mentally retarded, I realize that immigration can be used as a tool for porky. it doesn't mean being in favour of borders is socialist.

least retarded tankiepost I've seen so far tbh.

Ismail your autism is palpable.

it means what im writing. all collectives, parties, have some sort of official stance on issues. anarchists never exercise critique of islam, only of isis or saudis but never against islam (from what i've read at least, feel free to share any charters or published manifestos that do)

religion gets handed down through families. under any communist government it is simply forced underground, but you still have fathers telling their sons that the ebil state is trying to suppress the truth about god.

not at all. religion was heavily propagated by capitalists after restoration, you have no idea how much ideological propaganda was waged in ex-socialist countries after the fall of socialism. A good example is yugoslavia, where the younger generations were all atheists. the second restoration hit, and the propaganda started portraying religion as the cool hip thing that was banned and now we can do it etc, people went and got baptized for shits and giggles. my own mother did this, even though she's an agnostic and so did all her friends basically.

solid logic, i guess ideology changes on it's own out of thin air. anarchist posting as tankie, the epitome of shitposting

you can at least talk to them, they are a lot more susceptive to ideology when it comes from the only person that remotely gave a shit about them. it's the true opportunity for leftist radicalization, when they've been kicked from their own country by islamist extremism and treated like livestock in the hands of the capitalist state. it is at this point that they're most susceptive to radical leftist ideology. you can at least officially condemn islam, and not just isis.

athinaios?

read zizek, not even kidding

what you fail to realize is that while this is true for people whose ideology already aligns with class consciousness, most workers aren't class conscious. do you understand this? not everyone has your ideology buried inside them, no one is born an anarchist. ideology has to be absorbed, people won't just shed their previous ideology because of "good human nature". there is no such thing as "human nature", that's what you and the other guy i talked to in the squat don't seem to realize.

practicing muslims are by definition reactionaries. i'm not saying all immigrants are muslims, but practicing ones are reactionaries.

for starters, by denouncing all religion in your official ideological manifestos. you can also try discussing with people inside squats shit like "why do you think this happened?" etc. but admittingly, there's not much more a squat that hosts refugees for a short period of time can do. what they can do is familiarize them with leftist ideology, and an effort can be made from organizations in their permanent place of residence to further try to re-educate them in leftist ideology. by providing them help and making them realize the only people that care fellow proles, you make it much easier for them to be despooked later on, or at least to a point that they wont put a burka on their kid at 13

All OPs are fauly generalization-making fallacy faggots.

lol look at how mad this fag is getting. Go read Bakunin.

i've yet to meet an anarchist that doesn't support the right of chemical castration for kids with gender dysphoria, not irl and obviously not here

only none of this actually happened

I'm from one of the former YU republics and this is bullshit.

Shit b8

at least you've shed some more light on the retarded brand of utopian socialism you ascribe to.

I was thinking the same, nice to know I'm not the only one.

time for me to hop out of this thread.

it did. i know real life leftism is a strange thing for internet larpers though. you come here, argue with a fringe internet nazi larping group and you both feel like you did something useful. while im glad Holla Forums is too autistic to actually go out and spread their filthy ideology, most "leftists" here are a joke

how do these 2 statements negate each other? so if i said "a nazi is by definition a reactionary", would you take it as i'm saying that he was born a reactionary?

i think you're legitimately too stupid to understand my argument

What will the manifesto say, actually?What doess it mean to "have a stance against islam"?

Will you prevent the religionus from joining parties? what would you like for leftist organizations to do?

Wtf, be clear and concrete

You know even marx believed in it

which? im talking about serbia, particularly belgrade.

Stopped reading right here.

have you read a manifesto? do you know what critique is? why are you asking such dumb questions, do you want me to write an example manifesto to show you what they should write?

Parties? as in m-l parties? im talking about anarchist collectives here, not m-l parties

what i know is that you haven't read marx

...

No, you althusser fags haven't read him. You celebrate and dance around a fake one. Marx was still a humanist, he just wasn't a liberal bourgeois one

they do that
refugees in squats actively particiapate in running them through the council
they are provided with books and invited in lectures and protests
but you can't take advantage of a persons weakness and demand conformity in their private lives (as long as someones behavior doesn't affect others)

ναι

Croatia.

also, you mentioned parties here:

well when i write an argument and he doesn't even respond to my argument, but to what he believes my argument was it shows that he didnt understand my argument

ok m8. seriously read marx

there is no such thing as "private life". ideology influences the collective, you cannot sweep religion under the guise of "private life" when a pillar of his ideology is to spread it. you cannot say it's "private life" when he will brainwash his daughter into covering herself with cloth to hide her shame from god, when he secretly thinks that all homosexuals are sinners etc. I'm not saying he will bomb a night club, but he will always be alienated from a homosexual for example, and if he's the "women should wear burqa" type he will always deep down judge women that don't do it.

I don't realize how you believe that ideology is part of your "personal life", when we all live in a society and interact with each other.

pantws enw den eimai anarxikos ideologika, thavmazw oli tin douleia pou ginetai gia tous prosfiges. min eisai san tous vlakes edw pou den katalavainoun ti thelw na pw, kai egw kai i kopela mou exoume stiriksei tis katalipseis kai as eimaste ektos tou ideologikou xorou

ne znam kako je situacija tamo, ovde su uvek srali kako je tito pustao hrvate da budu katolici a ovde nije bla bla, uvek sam mislio da je to propaganda. nisam nikad cito puno o tome posto smatram tita kao revizionistu, jedino sto sam cito je za sitoaciju u kosovu

starci su mi i kršteni i pričešćeni i krizmani u bivšoj državi, kao i hrpa druge rodbine koja je tad bila u tim godinama

Yes, marx did not reject morality. He didn't just think of it as bourgeois. He also though human nature as something always changing based on the material conditions.

to paraphrase, what makes a man is their ability to change their environment through their work. through this work, their nature changes.

Marx saw capitalism as stealing from man their very basic ability, their fruits of labor. Instead of realizing themselves through their work, people felt unhappy and deprived. This is related to the concept of alienation.

you read marx, jackass.
otherwise, give me evidence of marx rejecting morality or human nature blankly through his own words

yes but m-l parties do denounce religion and all id-pol anarchists eat up, for example kke. of course in a marxist party no reactionary muslim would join the party and get anywhere higher than a peon, simply because being religious means you aren't a marxist. you cannot be both a materialist and an idealist, but since most m-l parties agree with most of the points i make here i don't see why it's relevant to talk about them.

as for collectives, i know it's in their nature to categorize some ideology as an enemy you must fight, and some ideology as "private life" like this user does

the irony here is that greek conservatives are on par with a "moderate" practicing muslim, yet anarchists rip on them all the time (and they should, greek orthodox christians do some pretty fucked up shit, worship corpses etc)

but that same filter apparently doesn't apply on islam, simply to be contrarian to right wing populism. as if somehow critiquing both islam and right-wingers cannot be done

jebiga, vazi tito je bio revizionista kao tako. srbe je dosta vise jurio, moja baba je bila u partiji i dosta ljudi su izgubili poslove etc kad su nasli da su se vencali u crkvu ili nesto tako slicno. a moja mama i njega generacija su bili agnosticari, ovaj religiozan nacionalizm je pre rata poceo i ostao od tad. situacija u srbiji je grozna, a oni drkaju kako su orthodox brothers sa rusima

sta god im porky proda

what marx refers to as "human nature" is human will to produce, and alienation derives from the fact that the capitalist mode of production alienates him from the result of his work, hence from his "nature". He did not by any means ascribe altruistic qualities in his definition of human nature, not did he state anywhere that he believes in some inherit "goodness" every person has in them.

from "economic and philosophical manuscripts of 1844"

Marxist's view on ideology is clearly a materialistic one, that is affected by material conditions and not by some idealist notion of "human nature". If you had even read the communist manifesto alone you'd know this

You literally proved that Marx accepted human nature you fucking moron. Just because Marx rejected human nature as something that exists outside of society does not mean he rejected human nature as a whole. Also, you could at least pretend to have read the manuscripts. That and the Grundrisse are his explicitly humanist works, though really, all of Marx was humanist.

Pdf is on Marx and morality.

marx's definition of nature:

your definition of marx's definition of human nature:

pdf looks interesting, so ill read it despite of your retarded post

ur strawmanning him pretty fucking hard

What the fuck are you talking about you fucking faggot? Literally where did I say that? Quit being a sophist and actually read a fucking book.

The user above you argues for moralism in marx's deifinition of human nature. Since moralism assumes a inherent distinction between "good" and "bad", a moralist definition of class struggle would be that its inherently "good". The user above goes even further to agree with the claim that people can shape their ideology not by proper reeducation and assimilating new ideology, but by simply reverting to some "natural goodness" when they manage to shed capitalist imposed ideology, in this case islam (which will also appearantely happen on its own too).

Do you support this statement? Is your argument not moralist in nature? If so then i misunderstood, please provide me with your understanding of marx's definition of human nature. I didn't mean to strawman, i was genuinely under the impression that you were arguing the for the above user's point

Wow what a surprise, turns out the "hurr why has no one read a book except me" poster is actually kind of an illiterate retard.

Your fascination with right wing talking points and subjects betray you. (Hint: if you were really interested in anarchists taking a strict, consistent stance you'd ask that they commit to a broad anti-religious position instead of focusing in on Islam, which would be terrible messaging even if it was the "correct" stance)

no, I didn't…
The only thing i said was that marx did not reject morality or humanism as a whole…
which, he didn't

*human nature

where are you getting this from exactly?

criticizing christianity in greece is a given in any leftist organizations, since we're one of the most backwards christian countries in the world (fun fact, the only non secular one too apart from the vatican). since we are not secular, the church has heavy influence and schools and even unis have a heavily religious character (jebus picture on the wall, mandatory prayer and proselytization from 1st the 12th grade) so anarchists and all leftists in general have many opportunities and to make an official stance on christianity, which they all condemn categorically of course. For example a few months ago in some uni (patra i think?) there was a seminar for the "health benefits of prayer" or some other shit, and most anarchist collectives made some sort of statement. They also criticize christianity heavily due to the religious zealotism in our military system, since they also argue a lot against mandatory drafting.

My point being, their position on christianity (and mine too) were implied and commonly understood, no one accused me of being a right winger or whatever. they simply couldn't provide a coherent argument, eventually reverting to a "human nature" mode of argumentation reminiscent of liberal rhetoric

ok, we agree here at least. marx's definition of human nature is simply the need to connect with the product of his labor

but he was, the communist manifesto says that ideology is always shaped by the material reality and not by some inherent moralist human nature. moralism itself is idealism, it's the notion that something can be inherently "bad" or "good", but there is no such thing as something that's objectively "bad" or "good" in and of itself, only in the context of if benefits the majority or the minotiry. Marx argued simply that it was in the proletariat's own self-interest to control the means of production, not because it was "good" or any other moralist notion, but because it was beneficial for them, good for them. The whole point of historical materialism is to analyze history based on material realities of production and not on some "good vs evil" notion of the bad capitalist vs the good prole or the bad lords vs the good capitalist

I wouldn't say Marx supported moralism, but he did use morality in his philosophy. Even if we are to remove young Marx from the equation entirely, Marx both condemns capitalism for it's exploitation and inhuman conditions that it puts humans through, while constantly referring back to the notion of humanity in, for example, his definition of productive forces and relations of production. Althusser in his reply to John Lewis stated that these things are not found in any of Marx's humanist writings, but the very definitions of these terms use the notion of humanity.

That said, removing Young Marx from this discussion will inevitably give us flawed results. While Marx certainly evolved on certain positions, the evidence of a split is nowhere to be found. In many of the texts Althusser claim are a part of the split, Marx will continue to use Hegelianism and Humanism. In his response to John Lewis, he specifically refers to The German Ideology, Theses on Feuerbach, and The Poverty of Philosophy. While Marx did eventually break with Feuerbach and Proudhon, the reason for these splits destroys Althusser's argument, as these breaks are because Marx was a Hegelian and a Humanist.

What Young Marx did was lay out the philosophic foundations for his critique of the political economy later on. By establishing the framework necessary to analyze Capitalism, hence why his analyses uses things like humanity to explain these things. Furthermore, Marx's early works also raise an important question for Socialist political economy, being what labor should be done? This question is very important. In the Soviet Union, Socialism was viewed as the peaceful co-existence of peasants and proletarians, with large industry construction. It was ultimately technologically deterministic, as they thought large industry would bring Socialism. The centralized nature of Socialist construction in the Soviet Union lead to the return of elements of the traditional division of labor, causing alienation, and inevitably, bureaucracy. The incorrect handling of contradictions among the people and the centralized and bureaucratic nature of the Soviet Union lead to the Revisionist take over in the 50s, and the restoration of Capitalism. This is why the question of what work needs to be done is so important. If humanity is not free, then what of socialism is there? Marxism is supposed to be the doctrine of the liberation of the proletariat. If we are to achieve the complete and total liberation of the proletariat, this question must be addressed, and Young Marx laid the foundations for the answer to this question.

...

care to provide some quoting where marx uses the concept of morality in his definition of productive forces and relations of production?

also, humanity and humanism don't equal to moralism.

(checked)
If only picture wasn't a fucking png with jpg tier artifacts.

Why can your anti-Christian stance be understood implicitly but an anti-Muslim stance needs to be explicit? In practical terms you're not making any sense and it seems that, in practice, if the anarchists community you'd describe are already implicitly secular and anti-religion than any further action is superfluous and unactionable at best, and bad messaging at worst.

Anyway I'm not super familiar with Greek Christianity (I thought orthodoxy was more prevalent but you seem to imply not?) but I can buy that it's a reactionary institution. My argument has nothing to do with how reactionary or not any religious dogma or institutions and am speaking on messaging and doctrinal stances on practical terms.

I said he used the notion of humanity, you illiterate retard. I also said he used morality to condemn Capitalism for the inhuman conditions it puts humans in, through it's theft, exploitation, alienation, etc.

Did you even read the first fucking sentence?

Some of us here actually come from a muslim background y'know.

because that's the case when it comes to anarchists. their critique of christianity is evident, present in many texts and manifestos analyzing it as part of the repression mechanism of the capitalist state etc etc, while their criticism of muslim ideology is non-existent. When christianity is the subject, they passionately attack it and all believers as people duped by the most obvious capitalistic suppression mechanism. There's a popular term that many anarchists use for practicing orthodox christians (which are a minority, despite what you read on wikipedia most greeks dont give a shit and attend church once a year to please their gramma. the only reason christianity polls so much is that it's the default in your papers, you have to actively change it i believe and it serves as justification for priests being paid government salaries), they call them "christian-talibans". And i'm not talking about mocking some religious zealot, they mock like this practicing people that attend church on sunday, hold lent, want christianity to be integrated with the state etc, things that all "moderate" muslims believe, the difference of course being that most muslims are like this. Yet when it comes to islam, no anarchist collective i know of has condemned it. Their propaganda posters feature women with burqas on their head, and when you ask them why they condone islamic reactionary ideology they take the "personal life" line the user above took.

What I'm saying is that MY anti-christian/anti-islam/anti-hindy/anti-buddhist stance is implicitly understood, it's their stance that isn't. This is the case for the communist party too, but trots and anarchists don't critique any religion outside of the state sanctioned one in our country.

but that's what I'm saying, they're not anti-religion they're just anti-christianity. They SHOULD BE anti-religion, an even funnier subject would have been if i asked them what their opinion on buddhism was. I guarantee you that most of them would think "it's ok" and take the same line that they do with islam. The only religion they might also condemn so openly is judaism, but that's only because it's relevant in the anti-zionist context. if israel didn't exist, their laissez-faire attitude would extend to judaism i imagine

it is, where did i imply it's not?

you have no idea mate, like i said religious proselytization in schools is the norm here, and don't get me started on mt.athos autonomy and all that bullshit, cause that discussion is another thread on it's own

You do realize Afghanistan was a secular, socialist republic until the US backed the Mujahideen, right? What about the PFLP? Nasser? There have been Socialist, progressive, secular countries that are majority Muslim.

South Yemen too, but idk anything about them. Mossadegh was a succdem, but he was a cool, progressive secular guy.

love how salty you are, even though i talk to you nicely you dumb cunt.

the reason capitalism is condemned is not because it's "bad", but because it's bad FOR THE MAJORITY. Do you comprehend this? this is not morality, this is not some notion of good and bad outside the sphere or reality, but an objective understanding of the material reality that the capitalist mode of production is bad FOR THE PROLE.

it's rare to find people who have read marx and still shitpost. guess there's a first for everything

Holy fuck, you're actually retarded. Arguing that something is bad, and issuing condemnations of theft, exploitation, etc. By definition, this deals with morality. It doesn't matter if something is bad because it is bad for one person, or everybody. If you are dealing with the subject of good and bad, right and wrong, or good and evil, you have entered the realm of morality.

Where did I say morality was something outside of reality?

No, that's not morality. Morality is the notion of a inherit goodness or badness, wrong or right, existing. Hence something can be characterized as "right", no matter the contest. For example, "murdering children is wrong" is moralism. "Murdering children is wrong for everyone except for child murderers" isn't moralism, as it equates to "murdering children is not beneficial to anyone bad child murderers". This of course is a general example, but this is the kind of moralism that the bourgeoisie use as propaganda in the form of "private property is right". This is a moralist point of view, while the non-moralist definition would be "private property is good for the bourgeoisie". This also extends to the opposite notion, "private property is wrong" vs "private property is bad for the proletariat". In the second case, "good" or "bad" translates into "against their self-interest", while in the first it becomes an idealist notion of fairness that exists outside of reality.

I cannot believe a retard that can't process what I've been patiently trying to explain for 3 posts now goes on to namecall. Like seriously buddy, fucking off yourself. You are lumpen-prole material

I used live in a squat. The other people there were also 'anarchists' like me. They had never read any theory so I gave them some copies of the communist manifesto as an intro to marxism in general. Only one of them read it, he said it was cool. Last time I talked to him he said he was a revolutionary communist. You may have noticed I'm using past tense. This is because I got kicked out of said squat for being anti-religion (Islamophobic), anti-mass immigration ( racist), anti-idpol (sexist, transphobic etc) and against antifa mob justice. Not all anarchists are bad people, but a lot of people just are uneducated about what anarchism really is.
Not all squats are bad either, most of the time people are chill

basically this

marx did not oppose private property because of "self-interest" he dropped stirnerite influence when he re-read hegel

im not even mass anti-immigration, i think if handled correctly at best it will make for good accelerationism and at worst it won't affect me personally

didn't even touch on idpol and trannies tbh, since they all probably drink the idpol cool-aid. This stuff is touchy even with some marxists, and anarchists especially tend to get aggressive when they are cornered with facts and generally very emotional during debates

they didn't even agree among themselves on everything, one girl supported what i said about being anti-religion and not anti-religion where i live in. If i tried to argue that gender dysphoria should be treated and indulged as a political tool they would probably just start namecalling, especially irl where i can't pull studies and medical texts to show them. People do that even here where i've posted countless studies on the subject

top kek

[citation needed]

ur a dumb nigger who doesn't understand marx. There is no hegel without him.

Go re-read marx's work before you shit on anarkiddies.

i gotta go for now

marx use's hegel's dialectic, not his idealism

seriously mate why shitpost about marx when you haven't read marx? at least i can tell this guy has read marx, even though he apparently doesn't know the definition of morality and has really bad manners

Classic.

You see what I mean about you being illiterate? You just completely ignored the picture I posted on Marx's view of morality. Right and wrong for Marx dealt with the impact on human freedom, and how we are able to act. Capitalism, through it's inhuman nature, limits our freedom. This is not a morality based on things outside of reality, it deals with the human condition.

At this point, I finally realized you have literally no idea what you are talking about. Marc did not deal with self interest in his opposition to private property, this is what you're adding to your reading of Marx. You referenced Marx's early manuscripts here, , so I'm going to use them too! Specifically the chapter Private Property and Communism.

In this chapter, Marx explains both the problems of private property and a society without private property. He discusses the inhuman conditions man is subjected to due to private property. Because of the alienation, exploitation, etc. from private property, Marx opposed it. It had nothing to do with it being in the self interest of the proletariat to abolish private property, this is just an egoist extrapolation from these points. Marx was a Humanist, so he dealt with these issues from the perspective of liberating humanity.

while it's true that ideology influences and dictates private life and vice versa, we don't have the luxury to reject people and avoid working with them until they reach a certain level of ideological maturity and that includes conservative christians or muslims

i disagree with the idea that even if somehow organised religion were to disappear the biases that appear to be connected to that religion would also be dispelled

Never had I met a serious anarchist.
It's because most socialists I know absolutely refuse to read theory outside Marx Engels and Lenin.

I am a fucking one man club.
t. serious Anarchist

I'd say the ammount of liberals that larp as anarchists is equal to the ammount of liberals that larp as red fascists. Your confirmation bias is what lead you to your conclusion OP. Despook yourself.

not an argument.

Don't you guys check gets around here?

a stance against religion itself or reactionary elements in religion. because i wouldn't be surprised if he thought you were a shitbag for implying that all religion should be outright banned

theory doesn't start with a