LEFTYPOL WAS RIGHT

Im not n1x, feel free to adress the argument tho

Congrats mate, you figured it out.

Have a complementary sad porky.

what were your revolutions worth if all ML states collapsed?

socialism is the next stage of history, after capitalism, remember?

fucking MLs only read marx through lenin instead of directly

Catalonia/Paris Commune came closer to socialism than anything Marxism-Leninism ever did

The Bolsheviks were scum who hijacked the Russian Revolution and ruined the left with their state capitalism forever

Hey OP, become an Anarcho-Communist, it's the ultimate way to freedom. No fun, no forceful cuckoldry by the states, free speech, no wars, no terrorism.

This

...

Ftfy

So reactionaries are people who just wants to consume a comodity that has been descontinuated?

I simply want you to go away. You are most annoying.

The "argument" (statement) I agree with. Of course, there is a caveat: while Central Planning is not the full solution, it is an inseparable part of it.

What your perfect theory is worth, if you can't put it in action?

Paris Commune was borderline AnCap and couldn't function. As for Catalonia, it wasn't as different from Soviets, as you imagine.

I don't want OP to become a retard like you tho tbqh every thread you pop in you say some dumb shit smh

Seriously, you find people annoying because you are an ideologue

It was different enough that your master wanted them gone and supported the Bourgeois republic because Russian strategic interests Anti-Fascism came first.

You can't abolish market without centralized planning.

That might be true, but you are annoying in a general sense that is unrelated to Marxism.

I can't say I agree with this.

As an example of Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

You can have Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Capitalism. USSR was State Capitalist in 20s, for example.

Yup Holla Forums was caught in an idpol spiral. It doesn't matter if 40% of the world's billionaires are Jews, or 30% are Anglo, and 30% are various other ethnicities from Western Europe. These groups merely were best adapted to dominate the free market.

Despook yourself and face to bloodshed.

Oh shit what if the Holla Forumsyps see this?

The problem here is the USSR was not a dictatorship of the proletariat

Feel free to explain how the paris commune was ancapism tho

What if 🍀🍀🍀they🍀🍀🍀 see this

STOP BEING MEAN TO EACH OTHER DAMMIT!

Banter!

no

Yes!

Welcome to reality…

That's your personal opinion.

Borderline.

Did not take over banks, did not seize MoP, did not even properly regulate labour. Attempted to abolish state directly by treating Paris independent from France. There wasn't even any discipline enforced in the army.

Yes, they yearn for a reality that has never existed, they fantasize over Western Culture and its values, yet they reject everything about what turned Western Culture into what it is today. They want their own substitute, so they create their own narrative of what it once was and consume commodities which pedal to it.

A bit like Soviet nostalgia then.

No, its a fact

Nope, not going to arguee linguistics with you, you pomo cunt

Anarchism succeeded in Ukraine until Leninists crushed it. Anarchism succeeded in Catalonia until Leninists sabotaged it. Anarchism is succeeding right now in Rojava, if under a different name.

In every one of these revolutionary anarchist societies, power has remained with the decentralized organs of popular will and workers have successfully managed their own affairs without a one-party state commanding them about - just as both Marx and Bakunin wanted.

Calling it now, your only response will be to post a meme and call me an anarkiddie while threatening to gulag me after your "socialist revolution". Go on, do it. You're so full of yourself that you can't see that your ideology is social democracy at gunpoint.

This "anarcho"-nihilist marginalist faggot gives anarchism a bad name. Ignore him.

The free market does very little regarding all of this. Commerce, trade, markets have existed since the dawn of time, to state the west when they way it did because people consume is a nonsensical statement, people have always consumed, it's a rhetorical trick to apply the negative sounding term consumerism as a catch-all for everything, because nearly everything we do can be characterized as consumption.

Except for the fact that many immigrants aren't profitable at all.

Holla Forumsack here
all that shit should go without saying dummy
you think removign the jews from a jewish system will fix it?

production must be localized and etc etc

Why is it better to be exploited by someone who lives in the same country as you?

what the fuck am I reading

Well, if you call this "success" I don't doubt someone will crush again, should you "succeed" in future.

I mean, even Anarchists (some Nabat guy, IIRC) were saying that it's better to rot in Soviet prison, than to be free in Makhno's Anarchy.

Are we talking about Barcelona? That uprising in the middle of Civil War? You successes are most impressive.

And the party this "Anarchism" grew out was Marxist-Leninist.

How much did you read on Paris Commune?

Capitalism originated in Britain from a variety of factors coming together, none of them distinctively Jewish in any way - namely the development of the East India Company as a manner to bring over vast amounts of resources to be processed, the development of technologies accessible to those small business owners descended from medieval artisans (the bourgeoisie) such as the steam engine and weaving machines, and finally the enclosure of land (which stripped peasants of their land ownership and forced them to migrate to cities and sell their labor power, aka be employees).

This paradigm was so successful in terms of productive capacity that it simply stuck and spread. Aristocrats such as the Rothschilds have nothing to do with the origin of capitalism. Banks aren't even required for the fundamental basis of capitalism, strictly speaking. That's not to say that modern capitalism can function without them, of course. But the point still stands.

Capitalism has no race, no gender, no religion, no identity as a whole. It is simply defined by who owns value-producing goods (the means of production) and who is used to operate them and actually produce value (of any sort, it must be stressed). The former are the bourgeoisie, and the latter is the proletariat.

If you made everyone a Germanic Aryan or whatever you call your "supermen", you would find the exact same problems that classical socialists have found. Localizing production to small businesses won't fix things - it will just make capitalism inefficient and therefore capitalism will inevitably revert to its internationalist variety. You can try to slow it down with state interference, but you can't stop it.

The only solution is international socialism - the control of each firm by its workers, in a decentralized-planned economy based around production for use, with a confederal government of voluntary democratic associations.

...

socialism basically means that whites are in control of their own lives and society, how is that not good enough?

...

Read Marx.

Source?
Huge areas were collectivized and ran with astounding efficiency - industrial output doubled in some sectors. Read Gaston Leval's "Collectives In The Spanish Revolution".
The PKK explicitly gave up ML for social ecology and communalism. The current situation has absolutely nothing to do with ML ideology.
roarmag.org/essays/bookchin-kurdish-struggle-ocalan-rojava/
Ironically, despite rejecting anarchism, a cursory inspection of Bookchin's ideology reveals that it's closer to classical anarchism (think Bakunin, Proudhon, Kropotkin) than many self-described American "anarchists" are. It's class struggle switched out for environmental struggle and the tactics are different, but both reject hierarchy where it cannot be justified and as such oppose capitalism and the state. It meets the criteria for anarchism, and is a far cry from Ocalan's original MLism.

...

Economics is what drives society, it is material and real while culture and identity are not.

This is the true red pill, welcome comrade.

Two things you must do:

1. read, read and read more. I would recommend The State and Revolution, The Soul of Man Under Socialism and Marxist Introrduction to Economics (very short pamphlet), or if you're feeling like you wanna take on more economics wise, Wage Labour & Capital.

What exactly you decide to read depends on what you yourself think you are most interested in politically. If you're not sure, tell me what interests you and I will suggest something.

If reading seems too intimindating for you right now, and it's fine if it does you don't wanna get bogged down in text and give up, try easing yourself into it with some youtube channels.

2. After having learnt about our ideology, go and spread your knowledge to other Holla Forumsacks to try and save them.

The revolution starts with us comrade.

...

Clearly much more than you if he can point out how stupid you are for labeling ancapism

Tell me more about how culture and identity is what feeds and clothes you

delet this

Innovative idea: books without words.

That was not an argument it was just a statement. You gave no reason to why it does not work.

bookchin pls go

All the muh heritage garbage OP is talking about was not centrally planned, but is the result of exchange between society, economic planning will have to do away with this, first as a method to achieve efficiency, as manufacturing the same commodity is easier than manufacturing diffferent ones, second because it is of certain traditions to freely de ide what to produce on the basis of ecology or community decisions

If people denied that the concept of race exists, it would stop racism.
If people denied that definite gender roles exist, it would stop most sexism.
If people denied that class interests exist, capital would continue to exploit the workers.

The term "capitalism" doesn't equate to markets alone. It doesn't describe cultural conflict between "boojee" liberals eating kale and "redneck" conservatives eating jerky. It describes how working people are converted into machines by the profit motor of capitalism, itself created by private property (which is upheld by the state, it must be added). It describes why wages go as low as possible while maximizing productivity. It describes the endless processing of more resources, the cancerous mentality of "growth for growth's sake", of imperialism and, by corollary, the growth of imaginary and arbitrary identities to divide the workers and maintain the system.

I'm an anarcho-syndicalist, albeit one heavily informed by Kropotkin's anarcho-communism. Bookchin disapproved of us for advocating class struggle. My words could just as well describe what Marx advocated. They describe socialism's end goal.

Attributed to Aron Baron.

Example:
marxist.com/who-was-makhno-and-what-did-he-stand-for.htm

AFAIK, the original quote is from 1924 book by Gordeev "Makhno" (page 99). I am unable to locate it in digital form and it seems to be in Russian.

How is this different from Soviet collectivization?

Was it commercial output on the factories that were not under Central Planning? Because I distinctly remember it being middle of the fucking Civil War. Did factories produce what the army needed or what the factories decided to produce?

Your point being? I did not claim they were building Communism. Originally it was ML party.

These and other tales from the illiterates of Holla Forums

That entire following paragraph is just a repetition of your understanding of what Capitalism is without any relevance to the point. You've just thrown words at me because you've seen the idea that Capitalism divides society into a reflection of the production process without any idea of history. Using 'profit' as some eternal distinction for that world view is as equally inane and only a scratch above calling the Paris Communes Anarcho-Capitalism.

It is only seen as exploitation because you believe in class interests.

The problem is that those things do exist and you can't force people to deny reality en masse

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own
READ NIGGA READ=

If you're gonna be a marxist, you should start with marx, OP. That way you'll be conscious of the slow degeneration of theory as it passes from marx to engels to lenin to MLs to MLMs. If you start out lookin to be ML, you'll get in the habit of dismissing the obvious flaws in your theory as "bourg propaganda" and it all just goes downhill from there. :^)

top kek

And no, you can't force people to stop being mad, but you can tell them they're fucking insane.

...

State capitalist pls leave

have fun with those wheels in your head!

...

...

Identify yourself.

...

these are not the droids you're looking for

Sacred love is. That is, love divorced from any particular individuals, spoken of in a universal fashion. That is, love presumed, love imposed, love expected.

kek Bakunin really was an autist

It doesn't.
They're just gradients and the term "race" has been watered down as the years go by to be synonymous, when it's really not.

OP, disregard the infighting for now, that will be more fun later on. You'll have more than enough time to pick you flag.

But for now, I belive the most useful thing a "traitor" like you could give us woild be an explanation of how you changed your mind, what helped convince you, what difficulties you had understanding our ideas, what false prejudices you had. When we know these things, we will be more effective when arguing with Holla Forumsaks.

Maybe, as a general idea, it wouldn't be bad to have a sort of "Holla Forums-recovery general" (like the /rojava/ one) thread going on here, helping us and Holla Forums to understand their problems and cure them.

They "exist" insofar as they have all of the meaning we ascribe to them.

Love presumed, imposed, and expected isn't love. Real love is sacred love, sacred love not real.

Real love is egoistic love. Sacred love does not exist. For nothing that is sacred can ever exist.

From your article on Makhno,
Hahaha, what? There is no such thing as "petty bourgeois peasantry" according to Marx, and I'm not even a Marxist!
Makhno was well-documented as murdering the actually-kulak Mennonites. This is a statement which reflects a laughable amount of historical illiteracy, not that I would expect better from Trots.

The article's ending on what anarchism is is laughably wrong in every single respect. Every. Single. One. You can read The Conquest Of Bread for yourself, or even a single article from Anarchist Writers or another similar source. Anarchists were against capitalism before Marxism even existed. Proudhon invented the word "capitalism".
Rather than the state appointing a manager to run an enterprise, as was done in the USSR, the workers formed their own factory committees. These, in turn, confederated via organs of the CNT to plan production from the bottom up.
Does it matter? No, it doesn't. The point still remains, the USSR was industrially inefficient and anarchist Catalonia wasn't.
All of their achievements happened after they gave up that ideology. It means absolutely nothing that they once were.

There's no scientific basis for racism. There is no "white race", there is no "black race". It was developed to justify slavery. Maybe ethnicity exists, but even then, whether it ever has a meaningful correlation to intelligence or anything else is debatable. Humans, compared to other animals, are genetically very similar to one another.
Gender roles arose because of historical necessity. Maybe there are biological bases for some, but most are simply the already-dying remnants of medieval society. Focusing on eliminating them, in any case, will change nothing.

If you made $20 a day from your own work and someone came and forced you to give $15, you would call that theft, right? Well, what if you make those $20 a day, but they all go to that guy because of some contract you needed to sign to not starve and you only get $5 back because it's the bare minimum to survive? That's theft with extra steps, isn't it? That's what we mean by exploitation. If you're submissive to being stolen from, then I don't know what else to tell you but that you don't have the right to call others "cucks".

This sentence doesn't even make any sense. If you mean that I somehow adhere to a "vulgar" materialism because I don't believe that history operates on a basis of dialectical class conflict, well congratulations, you found the main reason for my rejection of Marxism after being one: I don't see any fundamental trigger for the entire working class to unite as a whole out of sheer exploitation and revolt against the bourgeoisie as one. It can be done, but only when localized institutions of class consciousness such as a syndicalist One Big Union have gained a large foothold.
It's not an "eternal distinction" in my worldview. I simply use it to describe to how capitalism is something which exists regardless of what various people decide to believe in. If I went straight into talking about more advanced topics, it would be easily dismissed as meaningless technobabble, no different from "radfems" or "race realists". You need to show confused liberals how they already see the various symptoms of capitalism in their daily lives.

OP here. I never fully bought into the Holla Forumsack worldview. What bothered me the most is that I couldn't imagine that there was a cartoonish group of people running a massive conspiracy out of pure ethnic hatred. I agreed with them on that immigration was bad, along with a lot of modern culture and media and that national traditions should be preserved.

So then I started to look for alternative explanations, and I found that the push for internationalization could be traced back to big business instead. NAFTA and TPP for example had a huge amount of corporate lobbyists.

Never even called your materialism vulgar, and I'm not surprised that you can't understand that simple criticism. I never believed your world view operated on the principle of class antagonisms - which makes no sense to prefix with the word dialectical - and I never said your view was for the union of the working class.

Literally everything you're writing is incoherent or at best responding to things that aren't even implicit in my responses.

Kill yourself you illiterate cretin.

Sufficiently dialectical though.

...

Not OP but I was a Holla Forumsack for years until around mid-2016s. I started out as a libertarian and then progressed to be a "race realist". Tbh I still have some despooking to do but I'm far better now.

The problem is that Holla Forums got waaaay too retarded. I'm not sure if Trump had to do with it or if it was just general hubris but the discussions were just too simple-minded. And they only apply to a small subset of young white americans. You can see this specially in a retarded site called "The Daily Stormer".

How do we fix Africa? Nuke it all and recolonize it with whites.

How do we deal with muslims? Kill them all subhuman rats.

Climate change? Jewish plot to get tax money, never mind that Florida is sinking and California is burning.

How do we engage with liberals and millenials? No need, they will all hang on the day of the rope.

Our ideology doesn't offer anything to other people, how do we deal with them? Genocide of course! This world is a white man's world and if they don't recognize it they are uppity subhuman shitskins that need to be culled.

Geopolitics? Who cares about that! Look at this children's show promoting irrelevant shiting! Fucking jews!

The economy? Who cares if our economy is trashed and I can only get a less than minimum wage job, Brexit and Trump BTFO all the shitskins and liberals.

As I said, Holla Forums offers no real solutions to anything.

Waaaaaaay too retarded

???

🍀🍀🍀???🍀🍀🍀

Glad you made a step towards the right direction fam.
A few reminders for your wellbeing on this board:
-all flags are shitpost flags
-don't trust people with trips
-check the reading list

I'm Paul Nuttall from UKIP, and I say we need to ensure the brightest and best Anglo-Saxons stay in 5th century Northern Continental Europe instead of coming over here to the UK and laying down the basis for our entire future of language and culture.

I never said your view was for the union of the working class.
It does and it is. That's literally the entire point of syndicalism. I don't even know what you're going on about. Do you assume that I adhere to the beliefs of Hakim Bey or another lifestylist just because I'm an anarchist as well?

If you're not calling my materialist worldview a vulgar one because it doesn't conform to Marxist orthodoxy, then what in the world are you trying to say? No offense, but you need to practice your English.
What simple criticism then? Your sentence that I quoted made no sense, and I'm willing to believe that you made a writing mistake. Carefully review what you've written before posting.

Carefully review what you've written before posting.

stirnerites are mall goth analytical plebs

the final solution, ofcourse, never happened

If you actually intend to discuss Makhno seriously, we can have a separate thread.

No, you aren't. And Petit-Bourgeoisie is defined by relations of production, not specific occupation.

Kolkhozs were non-state enterprises.

Collectivization is agriculture. Small farms become big co-ops.

Bottom-up planning existed in USSR.

I'd say it does matter if army is not getting weapons and ammo because someone considers it commercially inefficient to supply troops.

Except Bolsheviks won their Civil War. That might be considered important by some people. Those that aren't primarily interested in profit.

lying anarchist piece of shit

econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.htm

angry cat starts rekting everyone

aww yeah, angry cat posters are always the best

...

...

I think I now see what you were getting at, that aspects of culture and identity have bases in institutions of power which maintain them (for example: entrenched police brutality maintaining racism against blacks). You could have said that instead of responding with a gif which invited multiple interpretations.

Besides, that is related to the original point of mine - yes, the dominant mode of production does determine culture and identity, which in turn influence the mode of production (if to a far lesser degree).

How is that in any way "illiterate"?

Fair enough
That is true, as well as it is of peasants. Farmers in the USA are petit bourgeois, not peasants. Peasantry are a product of a feudalistic mode of production, wherein these farmers are tied to the land and surplus value is directly extracted by an aristocratic class. They are as much an independent class distinction as the petit-bourgeoisie are, according to Marx. I'm inclined to think that I'm more of a Marxist than you - after all, I was a DeLeonist for a while and read many of the big works of Marx before later leaving it. You, on the other hand, advocate social democracy at gunpoint, cloaked in the terminology of Marxism to dogmatically justify it. There's no other way to describe Leninism and all its descendants.
Kolkhozs were feudalism reestablished. I have family who lived on them. People weren't allowed to leave. They were basically state-run for all intents and purposes.
See above. It is well-documented that Stalin got rid of any residual self-management.
Only in the quasi-anarcho-syndicalist Kuzbass Autonomous Industrial Colony. Also:

Anarchists have a better record on completely abolishing the concept of money than Bolsheviks do. After all, the USSR used money throughout its history and even introduced profit incentives with the Kosygin reforms. Plus, the Stalinist USSR actively put down the anarchist collectivization process and tried to spread their shitty purges to Spain. Lenin didn't have to deal with a backstabbing of comparable scale. In fact, he probably would have lost if it hadn't been for Makhno attacking the Whites in the rear.

Hey, I'm just quoting what I've heard. I'm looking for the source again, but have this in the meantime:
My original quote was from here:
english.illinois.edu/maps/scw/anarchist.htm
Admittedly, I didn't remember that quote correctly. However, our sources contradict one another.

same

You do realize he's just admitting that the free market is horrible, right? He never said he went fullblown commie.

Caplan's sources are
Burnett Bolloten's The Spanish Civil War
Hugh Thomas' The Spanish Civil War (a work which Bolloten takes issue with on a number of points)

but economic statistics are pretty much the same

I'd like to know about what areas are this dude is talking about
his pamphlet is not properly sourced

die

dieewee111

MORE

please stay forever.
we need a /furry/ cyclical.