It is ok when Soviet Union had cops

The policing would be done by the military then.

This was true for most of history. David Graeber talks about societies that have no policing, in a lot of them a system of self policing develops.

...

marxists =/= anarchists
?

enjoy getting outcompeted and the capitalist economy of your country stagnating
That shit only worked when the countries doing it had the most advanced tech and educated workforce
social democracy can't exist against strong competition

I would say it's not necessarily bad in principle. the problem is that the interests of those within the gov't were opposed to those of the general population because of where each's money came from and what they had to use that money for (the workers needed wages to live, the gov't needed to defend the means of production from the workers to keep 'em working so they could keep exchanging goods on the global market and building up a strong military and strong industrial economy to support the military). The longer the russian revolution failed to spread, the more this contradiction came to be felt.

hahahahaha

I was talking about unions in a socialist state

Or workers' councils for that matter

the fuck

that's not how that works

not an argument

substantiate your original claim then

its you who has something to argue for

I feel you fam. Fuck the lifestylists!

congrats on not knowing what dictatorship of the proletariat means

definitely should be something like unions in a socialist state, I agree
There needs to be a balance between workplace deomocracy and overall planned production by the state ( a democratic state ofc)

Fill it in.

...

There will still be a need for a KGB to prevent the restoration of capitalism by subversives.

you can do that sort of thing without a police force fam

...

That's the unironical belief of 90% of people.

isn't anarchism about JUSTIFIED authority and Hierarchy

Not anymore, it's about rebelling against all power.

Anarchism at its proudhonian core is a broken ideology fit only for atomized individuals (Anils) and utopian primitives (anprims).

Ancoms and Ansyns can still be saved. They just need to read some Bookchin and Marx and abandon their incoherent philosophy.

This

my issue with anarchisim is the whole don't call our state a state thing that they sperg out about

As Zizek says: cite a single example of this or any other pure anarchistic idea like anarcho-syndicalism actually working, in daily life or otherwise.

youtube.com/watch?v=uwUDEOAxLlc

Technically a state is based on hierarchy and anarchy is a lack of hierarchy. Makes sense to me.

Wut?

I'm not even anarchist, but this argument is stupid as hell (see the comments section for some decent responses).

If you want an example of life without police, look at literally the majority of human history until the emergence of capitalism.

literally the same as libs yelling "wheres the soviet union now checkmate socailiures"

Gomrade, let's not confuse the institutions of power that exist within communalism with the institutions of power that exist under the current system. Even if you still want to call it "police", law enforcement would be inherently different under a communalist framework.

Dictatorship? Yes. Proletarian Dictatorship? lol no

what are your ideas about how law-enforcement would operate (like, what sort of powers of search/seizure/arrest/surveillance, say) under such a framework (I'm not trying to troll / provoke a response i'm legitimately interested in your ideas)?

how does bookchin address the ecological crisis problem?

The comments are all garbage and do precisely as you proceed to do when you (and ) say(s):
That is, you ignore the fact that technological advances birthed in new social relations and material conditions we no longer can organize "primitively" under. We are forced to endure elements that require stricter, much more controlled social approaches. As Zizek says himself, things like massive ecological catastrophies (even the most basic ones on the regional level) require amazing unilateral organization. Where is the apt response of your voluntarist-horizontalist to this problem? No, seriously: where is it?

The thing is communists see that the material human community as they imagine it exists even today under capitalism in what we could call "abstract" forms (see: Marx's commentaries on the communist organization, Engels' remarks on civil maintenance and most precisely Bordiga noticing a communistic core in civil services like firefighters and traffic controllers). They (communists) also want to abolish the (bourgeois) state and reorganize things, but what replaces this will no doubt still involve very much alienated structures that are very much intertwined and following efficient chains of command and communal organ-specific hierarchies.

On the subject of firefighting: libcom.org/library/lessons-counterrevolutions-amadeo-bordiga.

Could you actually explain how these new conditions prevent the gradual dissolution of the policing institution as currently conceived?

Like I said, in the event of any post-capitalism, things will obviously be different from what they are like now, but the material need to have large structures of organization will inevitably mean chains of command, communal alienation from the process of order and action, et cetera. The only way to meet the demands of horizontalist purism most anarchists still have delusions about is to be wilfully primitivistic; to go beyond the amount of garbage we'll already no longer be producing by the thousands just for the market, but to also cut off many developments in technology that categorically demand the type of organizational structures I outlined.

You're talking about things in general, while I'm speaking about police specifically. I'm not really anarchist, just opposed to the extreme authoritarian violent power put in the hands of a few psychopathic pigs.

Could you please give a specific example, instead of just vague assertions? If a lib or right winger pressed me to elaborate on how the law of falling rate of profit causes crisis, I could easily point to all the various crises in this country's history.

You're imagining a post-capitalist setting in which the function of a police force or similar upholder of public decencies is indeed no longer primarily the safekeeping of bourgeois society (capitalism) by suppressing crowds, but what of it? You are once again going to have a society in which new social relations will be created and where things like violence, theft (of personals) and other things undesirable to the social fabric will appear. Of course here, on the communal level, a community-type form of policing can work, but what of the larger problems?

If you're not an anarchist, explain how you can imagine the material impulses that would generate the social need for "psychopatic pigs"? As articles like this: worxintheory.wordpress.com/2014/12/07/origins-of-the-police/ point out, the modern police as we know it did not come out of thin air or because the bourgeoisie wanted to be really mean. On the contrary: it happened by necessitity, and bleeding heart porkies are quite often serious when they rue the use of violence to keep the proles in line, because it is structural mechanisms that necessitate the pigs.

What will you do in the event of another Fukushima in a society organized along purely horizontalist principles of direct democratic politics, a voluntarist approach of constant consensus decision-making, and so forth? Where is the large-scale organ (which necessitates chains of command and strict authority to perform its tasks) and the large-scale action it needs to undertake for all of us not to die?

Again: ecological catastrophies; how will your collection of atomized-enough-to-be-horizontal communities deal with a drought, forest fires, hurricanes, tsunamis, and so forth?

Even today, our strict and well-equiped bourgeois society fails to properly deal with these things on the basic level of preventing them and immediately saving lives with non-profitable expenses that come from the state (deficit spending). It was in the bourgeois state's every socioeconomic interest to minimize the consequences of Fukushima, but all the porkies in the world and their state could do nothing with their best efforts.

Just read this article: inthesetimes.com/article/19787/spaceship-earth-lessons-of-airpocalypse-slavoj-zizek-climate-ecology-smog.

Restorative Justice as opposed to punitive justice. Law enforcement carried out by militias members and chosen through a process of rotating sortition

Through transformation of the social realm to better so as to produce for need instead of profit, the use of liberatory and "green" technology, and the modification of existing species as to not only let them thrive and reduce suffering but to create a symbiotic relationship with all life.

stop shilling this fruitcake he's not anprim he's not an anarchist, he's not green. He's a worthless book peddling fraud

I know you're just being ebin gorm but let's not shit up a decent thread, OK?

...

They kind of are. Ultimately, marxists are all about achieving an anarchist system.

stop posting that idiots work on this board. post Ted or Linkola or gtfo you wimp

Why are anarkiddies allowed on this board?

They continuously show their face as counter revolutionaries and individualist lifestylists.

because without us you would all be a bunch of LARP'ing autists and we balance out the autism with our spirit of rebellion and will-to-power approach to politics. you people are nothing without us

It's not proletarian dictatorship unless it's democracy of every single person. Read Luxemberg.

Without us you collapse with the slightest breeze from capitalist intervention. Your childlike fantasies of overthrowing capitalism without a socialist state to build communism is only permissible because actual leftists understand the reality of our struggle. You are the court jesters of the left, here to amuse with your naïveté.

Have you actually read accounts of how people respond to disasters? The initial reaction is always involves individuals coming together in mutual aid as first responders. People coalesce, decide on what to do, and develop plans of action. The state institutions allegedly essential to respond to these large disasters are always slower to respond, less effective at providing aid, and usually breed corruption and mismanagement.

Our current bourgeois state institutions are slow to respond to these crises because they are large, hierarchical institutions which are not spurred on by capitalism to be particularly effective. There is no essential need to have hierarchical leaders backed up with standing armies of guys with guns, in order to solve large humanitarian crises or natural disasters. Because that's the anarchists' point; unjustified and nonconsentual hierarchy backed up by the use of force is unjust and to be eliminated. If there is a problem, people will recognize it, come together by free association, and direct their labor towards solving it. That can involve hierarchy and an organizational structure; it just has to be agreed upon by all participants beforehand, and must be dissolved once the problem is resolved and the need for organization is eliminated.

Global issues like carbon pollution etc. can absolutely be solved by voluntary institutions. Nonvoluntary, hierarchical institutions (large corporations, nation-states) are the reasons why these problems aren't solved in the first place.

Fuck off, Stalin was more of an anarchist than Kaczynski. I'm not a communalist, but he's both green and not terribly far off from anarchism.
You, on the other hand, are a lifestylist piece of shit. What are you, a hippie trying to "get back to nature"? Your ideas never have been and never will be widely accepted because they suck.

Was Luxemburg anti-Lenin or just anti-Stalin?

Feel free to actually give me any successful examples of this any time.

Idem.

How can you say this and then say:
You reveal precisely the idealist purity of your concept of hierarchy: you transpose onto every single large organ the elements of large bourgeois organs, and on every large bourgeois organ the elements of any large organ. You've effectively mistaken capitalism for hierarchy, when mounds of examples like gigantic cooperative firms like Mondragon outperform tradition Ltds on the market without any issue. If this didn't already speak to your terrible conception of what capitalism is and isn't (let's ignore that), it speaks to your inability to separate what makes one type of organization (regardless of size or form) different from the other (also regardless of particularity). It's the hallmark of a non-materialist view of the present state of things, its origins and its formation.

So again: where was the effective "mutual aid" response to an event like Fukushima? Is there more to your argument than paying lip service to Kropotkin by using his ideas like buzzwords?

And I'd like to remind everyone, especially the anarchists, of Kropotkin's shameful break away from anarchist principles, as written by one of the biggest names of the anarchist movement: dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/malatesta/ForgottenPrinciples.html, and this is important because his conceptions are what motivated his disastrous theories and political advocacy.

Luxemburg never corresponded with Stalin because she was killed by social democrats before he became notorious. She was also only anti-Lenin insofar as she critiqued him in only certain parts, while considering the October revolution to be authentic proletarian and the Bolshevik rise to power to be admirable.

Thanks. Could you link to some of her writings on him?

Lenin was a power hunger class enforcer ahahahahaahahahahahahahahaha holy shit

Paul Mattick recaps with much elaboration the Lenin versus Luxemburg question here: marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1935/luxemburg-lenin.htm and it includes passages and paraphrases (sources at the bottom) of their correspondences.

Whoever that retard is they've been the one spamming it constantly (always the same file size and file name) on the board and it's a near-cringeworthy account of Lenin.

memetastic tbh fam

perhaps that's because lenin was genuinely cringeworthy

Piping hot meme off the presses

That quote is only roughly one sixth of the screenshot's content. It's the rest: the contextualization and insertion of what the quote supposedly communicates that makes it cringeworthy.

Imagine society without cops the military.

I do daily.

What's inaccurate about it exactly? Point out the falsities in it and back it up with evidence.

so lynching?

I've replied to the pic and similar questions like three times already in several different threads, because may I remind you: this faggot spams the pic in every thread in which Lenin is mentioned even in vague passing, and every time it was the same story of no replies coming in after I did so.

There was also that one time he posted the pic while upholding Makhno as more proletarian and revolutionary, to which I brought up a citation displaying Makhno's brutality and ineptitude and again, no reply but "w-well, with his conditions…". People are not here to indulge your demagoguery, thank you.

For any other Kekhnovites out there, have this very ironic post-Kekhnovia release by him: nestormakhno.info/english/revdisc.htm.

I've seen this screenshot a lot, and as someone who's read barely anything I don't know if it's accurate. Could you address it again, please?

This entire thread is a shitpost

Kys bookchinite

You are a closeted leninist

hot take

you know it's a sad day when the nazbol is right

Talk about intellectual dishonesty. I've responded to you ever single time, and last time I pointed out that to simply white wash this as "american histiography" is extremely disingenuous when the source itself is Pravda, with the exact date of the issue included in the pic. The work you used only proves that he was more along the lines of a communalist then an outright anarchist, and his ineptitude regarding organizing factory workers is due to his own upbringing. To say that mahkno is somehow not a better revolutionary because he let the factory workers organize themselves is some serious cognitive dissonance.

What's the point of being an anarcho-nihilist? You don't seek to organize towards revolution or do anything genuinely revolutionary for that matter, so why even have the label?

to be a super special edgy snowflake

...

I could go digging for smaller examples of voluntary associations' and chairites' responses to natural and manmade disasters, but that wouldn't satisfy you. The reality is that there has never been a large scale response to such a disaster that has not been mediated by some state power.

But even if I did have on hand a suitable example, would that be good enough? You deride suggestions of large-scale voluntary organization as "idealist," yet never suggest any alternatives, or identify why state power and hierarchy are so essential. What would a Communist response to global disaster be like? "We'll know it when we see it"?

I am talking here about state power: political authority that is imposed by fiat and backed up by a monopoly of violence. I see no reason why such a hierarchy is necessary for the purposes of something like disaster relief. I am not opposed to all hierarchy, simply the ones that are not mutually agreed upon, or backed up by violent fiat. The great thing about the idea of crisis and disaster response is that it's an area where temporary hierarchy can be justified, by mutual agreement, until the disaster has been sufficiently mitigated.

What is the response to a disaster like Fukishima? You identify the problem, evacuate the people, try to stabilize/fix the reactor, and monitor the consequences. Where do standing armies and authoritarian governments come in to play? Must we defend the reactor from foreign invasion? Do we need to gun down anyone who gets too upset or unruly during the evacuation?

As an addendum, perhaps in a more egalitarian society, we also wouldn't have private entities building nuclear reactors in Tsunami zones without building them to be wave and flood-resistant. Perhaps a lot of ecological problems and manmade disasters could be avoided if imposing order from above wasn't such an imperative, either in the name of profit or defense.

>Paul Mattick recaps with much elaboration the Lenin versus Luxemburg question here: marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1935/luxemburg-lenin.htm and it includes passages and paraphrases (sources at the bottom) of their correspondences.

Thank you.

...

I think it's great whats going on in the Philippines at the moment with based Duterte empowering the citizens to go out and kill drug addicts and drug dealers. It seems to be one of the few examples of community policing done right.

Hello officer

...

this loose mutualism sounds a helluva lot like anarcho-capitalism. "I will make a voluntary transaction with you." How is a mutual agreement any different? It seems to me that a "stateless" society with such vague terms as a "mutual agreement" to describe human interactions would just result in some petty-bourgeois shit.

...

Anarcho craps is not voluntarily because private property exist, there are no prop rights in mutualism

The voluntaryly agreement implies this, as long as I actually get benefit from you being the leader, then i will respect your position

Fuck off Holla Forums.

No. There's no justification for hierarchy.

Anarchism is about cooperation of equals. It may include individuals getting guidance and coordination from other individual(s), and you might call that "hierarchy" or "authority", but it's simply not what people think of when they use those words (in exactly the same way that "private property" does not in fact include your toothbrush).

drug prohibition is utterly awful and people who advocate for killing drug users/sellers/manufacturers deserve to get drowned in a var of piss

not everyone is a DUDEWEEDLMAO autist

there's no place for you in communism

indeed, i'm not a fan of weed. I do fancy opioids and amphetamines, though, and i'm against all forms of drug prohibition.

...

whatcha doing Holla Forums

Soviet Union wasn't real Communism.

Communism is a spook.

It wont last.

MODS

Funny thing about hierarchy is that humans share the same seratonin based mechanism to establish a dominance hierarchy with lobsters. That's 300 billion years of dominance hierarchy but humans are of course a blank state and have no nature…

Source? This sounds genuinely interesting.

...

...

user, the universe is 13 billion years old, and the Eart is 4.5 billion years old itself.

300 million, typo =^]

scholar.google.is/scholar?q=serotonin humans lobsters and dominance hierarchies&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwingujYvMzSAhXJChoKHSjfCDQQgQMIFTAA

Totalitarian post modernist lunatic detected.

Kontrrazvedka involves the same sources, and I'm repeating myself again because I'm talking to a living meme.

Exactly, because micro examples are worthless to defend your efficacy when faced with mega problems.

Can you guess why?

Anarchists should be the first to respond to this question, not the communists. Every Marxism-inspired movement until now has managed to, through near all its theoretical principles, obtain power in a manner coherent with its principles. Anarchists time and time again approach the problem of organization not through analyzing what is necessary, but what is ideal. This is why Kekalonia under the FAI ended up needing to infiltrate the state, even expand it, and why it retroactively trampled all of its principles of horizontalism as it spawned secret police services, labor camps, a standing army, and so forth. This is what is meant with philosophical idealism: you chase after an ideal instead of arriving at an ideal through theoretical analysis, and it will consistently bite you back every. Single. Time.

Again, you have a paradoxical definition of what the state is depending on whether it suits the needs of capital (machinic) or some immanent need to dominate (essentialist). You can't have it both ways.

If you can understand the theoretical underpinnings of your failure above, you will probably understand how the rest of your post proceeds in the same way: problems are always at once immanent to the human condition and to capitalism (profit motive, law of value, etc.) at the same time in your worldview. Without even going into how your self-sustained horizontalism would solve immanent anti-sociality and self-destruction, where is your actual reply to things in a way not constantly chasing after itself?

Imagine society without the need for cops.

Note here that I'm talking strictly about obtaining power. As we all know, and as I'm the first to admit as a Marxist, being successful in this first step has yet to mean a proper and lasting transition towards post-capitalism, and this has ever since been the most important question for communism.

...

You're repeating yourself by continuing to say nothing of any real substance. Actually articulate a real response instead of just ignoring the argument.

...

you need Michael Parenti
youtube.com/watch?v=6gtUaGV6mNI

where's the 2nd from?

police are the sole mechanism to curb behavior that is harmful to society?
Private property is not harmful to society?
The most harmful behavior to society as a whole is today overuse of finite resources, and the cops do what about it?