Anarkiddies

Fascism killed the old movement of the anarcho-syndicalists. Later on, some youths started taking back the anarchist ideals and corrupting them into whatever felt most edgy to them. Since they didn't have the old guys to tell them not to do that, they carried on.

I really don't know what you mean. You have to explain this to me.

For the individualists you just refered, yes. For anarcho-syndicalists like me, no.

I don't know. Maybe. But I think the failures were from lack of strict adherence to the ideology, rather than from the adherence to the ideology

Because of what I pointed out in the first answer. Lack of direction from the old movement.

Truuuu.

Well, then anarcho-syndicalism is the ideology for you! Join your local IWA section today!

I know that feel.

My advice is to abandon anarchism. Bookchin was right when he wrote about anarchism being a philosophy that inevitably led to atomized individuals. The fact that their are so man anhil shitposters on this board should be a warning to any libertarian socialist.

Embrace communalism brother.

Literally bully the individualists and lifestylists until they drop the anarchist label altogether. It works better than you might think.

Bookchin tried that and flipped to Communialism because Bob Black was such a faggot. But the cunts deserve as much bullying as possible.

m8

As said. Just abandon the label and take up the label of libertarian socialism with a communalist praxis.

Flipping to communalism is a cowarly move tbh. Better to stand your ground and abuse that historical and ideological legitimacy.

Please. Simply abandoning an already unpopular term for something new and untainted isn't a bad thing. Anarchism in the 21st century can't even be considered to 19th and early 20th century anarchism anyways, and even then there are concrete ideological differences between anarchism and communalism to consider

comparable to*

Because I'm an antisocial selfish piece of shit that is too lazy to organize with any one and because I dont care about the others.

How do you hope to accomplish anything?

I don't want to accomplish anything I would prefer to be dead.

I still think that is cowardly imo. It is giving up simply because things don't seem favourable right now, instead of remaining true to your principles and ideological legitimacy. I personaly couldn't do that.

Nice edge br4h.

Communalism a new and better tradition.

Anyone who calls themselves an anarchist in the 21st century is misguided at best deluded at worst.

In this respect it is similar to Leninism, and outdated tradition that failed to deliver it's goals.

I'm not an anarchist and hate anarkiddies who try to claim Bookchin and Ocalan as /theirguys/

Anarchists has been lost to idpol and so has Leninism

Cowards! Cowards! Cowards! None of you are free of cowardice!
The other anons were ASTONISHED at his doctrine.

sometimes I feel like rojava is a worthy cause but when I read shit like this I remember that you all are US proxies.

idiot, ill read """marxists""" dont act out on their vulgar ideological understandings in such embarrassing ways because it involves use of state and/or ideological conversions of the masses towards their sects before action can be called for

…so you end up with ineffectual idiots handing out newspapers en masse and writing blogs and haughtily telling twitter that they read adorno

whereas """anarchists""" that are idiotic and ill read just squat and punch trash cans because anarchism is historically more individualistic, less centralized (which is interpreted by said idiots as "less organized"), and make a show of themselves, garnering more attention than the vanguardist equivalent of those idiots

The larget sect of anarchism is anarcho-communism; how is that possible if anarchism inevitably leads to "individualism" and lifestylism? Anarchism being full of idpol and lifestylism isn't something inherent about it, just that people who are into those things find that anarchism is really the only radical leftist ideology that is anywhere near compatible with those things.

I have my doubts how much of a true anarchist Bookchin was if he suddenly decides that statism (but it's not really statism because I'm calling it something else), which depends on the myth of authority, is suddenly okay because anarchism is full of too much faggots. Differentiating between "statecraft" and "politics" is pretty irrelevant if you believe that it's okay for some organization or other people to coerce you into doing something. Athens being a direct democracy didn't make it legitimate when they murdered Socrates.

how can you judge this without some sort of mass census
how can you conduct such a census and place any validity in each individuals ideology without knowing exactly how each individual understands the ideology the claim to ascribe to

"ancoms" are overrun with idpol idiots that will call themselves ancom without knowing that it stands against their nonsense - same as, well, all COINTELLPRO manipulated modern leftists

you literally cannot adequately measure the size of any modern day leftist school

How is adopting communalism giving up on my ideological priniciples? The reason to adopt communalism was because it fit more with my principles then the current state of anarchism, as well as the past failures of catalonia .Anarchism frankly has no ideological legitimacy outside of anarchist groups/

That's true of practically any leftist tendency.

the idea of affinity groups can spread, so that why they are still individual cells there's a lot of them for one alphabet soup to handle

these people make me a fervent Bolshevik
we are the one's who will be deciding the fate of the species user. If you try to stop us we will trample you underfoot and burn your gulags to the ground. All prisons, all gulags, all devices of domination will be incinerated, annihilated, crushed and reduced to dust. Your evil ways of organizing mankind will be wiped out and your attempts to subdue the indomitable human spirit will be met with the absolute extreme manifestation of violent will.

Dude, ideological legitimacy comes from the fucking books, so we'll always have that. But sure, if you no longer identify with the anarchist orthodoxy, then you might as well convert yourself.

its a fact, the vast majority of anarchists are lib-soc, an-com, an-soc. there are very few market socialist anarchists, individualist anarchists, anprims etc. Ancaps are probably more numerous than those other groups. We are a very rare species of leftist that is actively being eradicated by the more virulent schools of thought

Not necessarily, but for now I won't argue against that. Let's merely consider the implications. I can I agree with kropotkin on some things and marx on others. This does not mean I have to be either a marxist or anarchist. I'm a communalist because I agree with Bookchin's theories and criticisms of both marxism and anarchism. My entire point is that communalism is not only a better name but a better ideology, an ideology that takes from both marxism and anarchism .

Different person, but to state that ancoms are the majority is merely to spout a truism. They might identify as ancoms, they might read ancom literature, but looking at the actions of anarchist groups internationally their praxis is clearly nothing more then a lifestylist one. There's nothing inherently wrong with living according to your principles (indeed, in many cases it should be commended) but to not expand outside of that is to doom your movement to complete impotency (if it can even be called a movement).

Even Makhno had a hard time with individualist anarchists, in fact, with every stripe that came from the cities. After he was exiled he clashed with the Western anarchists who viewed him authoritarian. See Colin Darch's work. Anarchism us simply a pipe-dream.

You're correct, but I think that's just a commonsense statement. What other group of anarchism is as prominent, currently or historically as ancom? And of course since it is the most prominent it will attract the idpol lifestylist type who don't actually understand anarchism or the reasoning behind its different schools.

...

Read "The Third Revolution". Mahkno was arguably more of a communalist then an anarchist, but whatever you might call him he's still a more respectable revolutionary then say Lenin. Pic related

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha you guys are so fucking funny today, i'm having a great time on here today. Just constant lunatic assertions, assumptions, presuppositions and statements that reveal the depths of depravity that informs most leftist thought. Jesus fucking christ, I couldn't get this much entertainment from pol if i made 50 bait threads trying to disprove holocaust denial. This is too much
I don't care about your movement, or the Left or an-coms. I sincerely hope you understand that most anarchists are LARP'ing faggots, not because anarchism is wrong. But, because communism, markets, communalism are all directly in conflict with anarchist values. Have a good day user, have fun LARP'ing your make-believe version of anarchism that requires hierarchy and domination. I'll be here mocking all of you until you've all disappeared from this Earth.

Pic related
Really ebin user. You sure did show us with your non-arguments. Communalism isn't anarchism and doesn't pretend to be. Institutions of power do not necessitate hierarchy or domination. The fact that anarchism is afraid of power that they would sooner enter into government instead of seizing power (catalonia) dooms them to impotency and defeat. Read bookchin tbh fam

That's nonsense. Anarchists had plenty of shit to deal with trying to start another front with the Republican government. They didn't keep them around because they wanted to, but because they needed all the allies they could get against actual Fascists.

The Republic would have dissolved if they had simply seized the revolutionary moment and stuck to their principles. It was already severely weakened and the CNT had the necessary institutions to give itself the legitimacy and organization to go all the way. Instead they abandoned their principles, and the rest is history. They simply opened themselves, their institutions and legitimacy to corrosion to the point that the revolution in catalonia was completely reversed ever before the final collapse of the republic.

let me rephrase this.
*If they had stuck to their anti-state principles and abandoned their fear of power

Even if true, that's 50/50 hindsight. There's no reason to believe that had any love for the Republic or were afraid of taking its place; a fear of power is unlikely considering there were plenty of cases of forced collectivizations and similar authoritarian practices.

I'm not your tool or project. Life under compulsion isn't worth living. People are too dumb and corrupt to manage anything as large as a nation, let alone the world, and that's why we're in the mess we are today. The system doesn't matter. Power matters and whether it is concentrated (dumb) or distributed, because it will change hands and be abused.

Preserving freedom and power for the individual, whether they want it or not, is all that matters to me. It's also conveniently the best policy for everyone when they're forced to have power i.e. dignity. It makes us people instead of instruments.

Yeah nah. Also guess what: the internet is anarchist.

Culture is downstream from technology. All we need is technologies that enable anarchy. The personal general purpose computer and 3D printer are anarchic.

Then kill yourself?

99% percent of anarchists have no actual clue about Rojava and still think they can just call it an anarchist revolution just so they can have another revolution to point at to feel better in their stupid discussions with leninists.

Still Anarchists > Leninists, most anarchists that are useless arent activly destructive atleast and just try to live their life.

oh it's another episode of "I googled Bookchin and am now deeply knowledgeable about the anarchist movement"

The reason that many anarchists claim that Bookchin was one is because anarchism in the 21st century has made many concessions in general thanks to authors like Bookchin – such as moved away from a total rejection of governmental authority and so on.

Atleast he doesnt reject power and organisation. I can deal with his vague destinctions of what is justificated administration and what is evil statism better than with anarchists thinking they will achieve anything ever without gaining power and accepting the liberatory ability of social institutions.

It's highly disingenuous to suggest that anarchists do not abhor power as it limits "autonomy". The fact that they would go on to adopt characteristics of the state does nothing to address the reason that they embraced it in the first place

I was an anarchist then a traditional Marxist then a communalist.

The praxis is what appeals to me

For all anarchist like to ramble about "state capitalism" they fail to acknowledge their own obsolescence something Bookchin correctly identified. This, among other reasons led him to reject anarchism. If you actually read him, you'd know this is impossible to deny.

The only difference between anarkiddies and a tankie is the former prefers to larp as CNT militiamen.

TLDR: actually read Bookchin's later work you dumbass pleb.

I have have read more anarchist writers than you have skimmed wiki articles.

This isn't just true of anarchists, unfortunately western society as a whole believes absolute individualism is a virtue to the point that beneficial groups are starting to be cannibalized like unions and the state. Individualism is touted too much but I don't think this is solely a problem of anarchists or anarchism.

The first half of this is just a veiled accusation posed as a question. It's like if I said are all people who like parliamentary democracies just cock suckers to prime ministers? Are people who advocate for feudalism armchair kings without an empire? We can throw around insults all day, the point is what society would be best at attaining a good life, even if 95% of an ideologies adherent's were arm chairing larpers there still might be enough good in it to inspire a group to do something worth while.

Every social change is a hard process democracies and republics took many tries to succeed and for most of written history people thought they were an impossibility. Now it seems hard to imagine a world where people don't at least pretend to care about democratic principles. A stateless society with the added mix of socialism is also made all the harder by the fact that the people in power don't want you to succeed because your example of success would put them out of rule and relevance. This is why most of the external governments backed fascism in Spain over the Anarchists or the Marxists.

On this board alone we get told to read five or six different people a day. Use a search engine that supports your freedoms to look up Bookchin, Bordiga and Dr. Seuss BTW. Not everyone can know or appreciate the significance of every thinker/activist out there. I suggest you start advocating them more here, possibly drop some PDF bombs.

I am an anarchist because I believe in a highly decentralized society and direct democracy. Nothing more, nothing less.

best answer.
in the whole thread.

This unfortunately was voted the worst answer of the thread in an instant runoff poll done by a well respected newspaper of note.

oh come, least productive to the general conservation? could see that. But worst? What is you polling sample? Is it representative of the general public?

anarkiddies literally talking about muh human nature

If I was to disagree with that popular opinion, people may not like me for it, making me unpopular. I have to agree.

It's not muh human nature to say that the literal default state of humans and humanity is not being ruled by something or someone.

sure anarkid

i guess you are mostly right and reading Malatesta made be a better /anarcho/ more accepting of different positions

Kropotkin was pretty much a "muh human nature" shitposter

I remember when we told these retards to fuck off to /marx/, better times.

Good post, people just have higher expectations of anarchists as they define themselves through their willingness to do direct imidiate action.

I like anarchism as an ideology, especially anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism but it's probably the most polluted part of the left. Too many idiots who basically fit the stereotype that tankies make of us.

Atleast anarchists dont consist solely of the parodies in comparison to tankies.

Anarchists abandoned their principles far longer ago than just yesterday or even in the last few years: dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/malatesta/ForgottenPrinciples.html.

Can you give examples of "real social change" OP? Look into platformism, you might like it. Also remember that lifestyle vs social anarchism is a false dichotomy. You can work in a coop on Monday and join a protest on Tuesday.

So much for the tolerant libertarian left.

Lel. Let me refer you to pages 28-43 and chapter IV. of

TL;DR Makhno had no idea what he was doing. His youth was spent with terrorism, then in prison, then after he was freed he had vague moralist notions about anarchism (all of which he had to violate because of the war). Makhno was quite open about his "no reading, all doing" approach, he wrote letters to Kropotkin asking if he's doing the right things or not (he received no replies). We have very little accounts of his communes that naturally draw up an utopia of free association, while there's nothing on how work was organized, the division of labor, trade – anything that is of economic interest.

Good luck with that, waiting for the tech to get you to communism. Makhno would spit on you, tho.

Tankie twitter is far worse than any anarchist faggotry.

TACTICAL LEFTYPOL CYBER OPER8ORS ARE ON THE LINE READY TO TAKE YOUR CALL

How is this tankie? This is pure liberal faggotry.

things which lead to a new social order, an anticapitalist one. Something that is counter-hegemonic

nice meme friend-o

WE COINTELPRO NAO

we duh realzz cointelpoo, idpol rebolutionary ;^D

what is this grand wizard level marxism

Media and Propaganda.

They make us look like shitty little groups.

I'm old enough to have been part of 2 co-opted anarchist asociations, so I honestly say fuck concessions.

The best way to end imperialism abroad is to stop capitalism at home. This is why turdworldism is delusional as it assumes smaller states haven't developed because of a lack of class consciousness rather than the real reason, because they're being monitored and controlled by large first world capitalist organizations.

It is also somewhat racist in that it assumes the failure is on these undeveloped states when in reality they would be flourishing with a lot less intervention and concern from us. In this way I'm more in agreement with the ancap view of imperialism than third worlders.

This book is pretty meme tier in comparison tbh. Bookchin is literally quoting from Lenin in the pic I posted, so to simply say that the issue of dictatorship in russia is merely one of "historiography" is purely intellectually dishonest

in this instance at least

In regards to chapter 4, as I already said Makhno was more of a communalist then an anarchist, and to say that he shunned technology is patently false. He merely did not know how to organize factory or mine workers, being raised in a town which produced only light industry at most and mostly concerned itself with agriculture, trade and craftsmanship. You really should read The Third Revolution.

hahahahahahahahahaha ok molymeme whatever you say my defooed friend hahahahahahahaha
I know that
Yes they do you idiot
hahahahahahaha this actually made me laugh
Omg I'm cracking up hard

Nope. Literally impossible for power not to exist. It can either lie with liberatory institutions or institutions of domination, institutions that empower the people or institutions that disempower them. The rest of your post might as well be autistic screeching

No that's just a lie
No that's an authoritarian false dichotomy
The rest of your post might as well be a boot slamming down on the throat of the species for all eternity because that's what it amounts to. Bookchin is unimpressive and mentally weak

Elaborate on these points

Because ironically almost every anarchist want to be the "Dear Leader", even in a concealed way.

Bookchin poster is a noted idiot. Don't feed it.

Wrong

Speak of the devil

They both must die and their corpses left on public display

I dont want to be, I want to believe humanity has enough intelligent creatures within it that I don't need to run everything

And if I snap and feel the need to run everything because human beings are useless, mindless, worthless sheep, I can at least promise you I would run everything to the fucking ground