Statelessness is nonsense

No one cares about your fascist, centralist economic planning with red banners either, gb2 >>>/marx/

Too weak to defend your nonsense. Just like Holla Forums, I see.

You mean your nonsense

How fucking retarded are you? What books have you read?

Inpolite sage for being a fucking idiot

My ideas are based on real existing concepts that are tried and tested. You basically want to turn the state into strawpoll and then call it not a state for no reason.

The state exists. It's a material reality. Combine with economy and then the already existing representative democracy. Blam. Done.

Normal people don't think that the state magically goes away just because there is no class interest behind it. It doesn't stop existing. You're just being silly and saying it's not a state for no reason.

The bureaucratic function of the state will be outmoded by AI. The disciplinary arm of the state will be purposeless without class. What state will be left in socialism? You say it's "fine". So what if it's fine, it's useless.

normal people don't know anything about theology or physics either. why put so much weight behind their thoughts on the state?

The state cannot exist without private property, it's literally the only reason it exists.

A bureaucratic class is a CLASS, that is, it dominates everything else. Bakunin was not against justified authority, that is, he would "defer to the authority of the shoemaker in the matter of shoes" but refused to let any authority be holy, beyond criticism, for if it is doubtful that men can manage themselves, then why should anyone expect one man to be able to manage another, let alone many? There's never a reason to institutionalize bureaucracy unless you're a fascist and want that in the first place.
Well, seeing as Stalin retained wage labor and continued to seize the surplus value of the proletariat's labor in order to reinvest it in the improvement of capital, I see no problem with calling the USSR state capitalist. So long as there is authority and domination of any sort (inherent to the anarchist definition of the state, normies be damned), there will be classes and therefore there will be class conflict.
See pic. That isn't an argument.
So you're a Leninist? Ok, thanks for proving beyond all doubt that you're an illiterate authoritarian LARPer!

I didn't call for centralization or anything of the sort. Stop it with these stupid straw men.

That's still bureaucracy. It's just bureaucracy by algorithms.

What? People can still commit crimes.

Because you are redefining the term "state" to mean something totally different than its normal usage. It's not a matter of correct or incorrect, just that you don't REALLY mean what you say in conventional language. You still think there would be a law enforcement apparatus and special officials under socialism (assuming you aren't insane), you've just decided that it's not a state because there are no classes.

Define "state", and tell me why your definition is proper/useful. You wrote this: "The state is in existence for literally any society that isn't a small tribe where everyone knows each other. You have a state every time you have to create laws so that people who don't know each other can coordinate their behavior. It's a bureaucratic necessity and a feature of any society larger in size than dunbar's number. "

But that's not so much a definition, as an explanation or something.

Yeah, you see, this theory is wrong. The state exists to enforce law and order. Under capitalism it ALSO exists to uphold property, but that's not its only purpose, so it wouldn't stop existing just because you abolished property.

It doesn't have to totally dominate if there are checks and balances, just have a special role and powers that are accountable to the public.

Because some men are more competent than others. Some men are drooling invalids and some men are highly capable leaders.

So? If it benefits society generally, why care about surplus labor? The surplus is just everything above that needed to keep the worker alive, so providing that is produced, it's more beneficial for it to be pooled than for individual workers to hoard it. Also, in assembly lines that wouldn't work because possessing their entire product means possessing unfinished parts.

Maybe, but dialectical philosophy establishes nothing for all time.

I don't see how you can get rid of authority. Instantly recallable delegates doesn't work as a scheme.

And I didnt call for anarcho-capitalism either you fucking retard

Explain what you mean by "bureaucracy". Is a vanguard party bad? Or do you mean like the British Civil Service, a la Yes, Prime/ Minister?

...

A state is any system that enforces formal laws.

Tribes, for example, are stateless because they don't need written bureaucratic laws since everyone knows each other and can just act on custom instead. In large societies you need to police the behavior of strangers so you need a bureaucracy and recorded regulations. This creates a state system.

The state exists to enforce bourgeois law. Private property needs protection by a third party, or else it will be seized by the people. Historically this has arisen as the modern nation state that was formed by the 18th century. There is no difference between the state and the bourgeois. They are literally the exact same group of people, simply moving in and out roles.

kek so you've gone from defending the state to straight-up defending capitalism

No, a non-state society can do that. The state is needed to handle the conflict between the interests of capital and labor. From this emerges prisons and police. Lenin wrote in The State and Revolution:

Please read this, I found it very informative. :v)

nature.com/articles/srep18634

As well as regular laws that are good like against murder, rape etc.

True, but there are other laws.

Wrong. The bourgeoisie are just owners of capital. They can have a strong influence on the state, and since we are in capitalism their influence is stronger than the proletariat, but that doesn't mean they own the state 100% and that the state is synonymous with one class or the other.

We can trivially prove this is the case by pointing to laws that have zilch to do with class struggle over property.

Wrong. I already told you I'm for abolishing production for profit. Just not for the muh surplus reason all the 19th century socialists give.

Yes, capitalism takes surplus so that it reduces workers to the level of simply just barely reproducing their own existence, but that doesn't mean that taking any surplus at all in of itself is bad. It's the impoverishment not the abstract idea of surplus theft that's bad. That's just as stupid as when ancraps go muh NAP.

Well, Lenin is just wrong since he's excluding every part of the state that isn't to do with that.

no the state is an officially recognized body or collective, institute that has a monopoly on the use of violence for legitimate means. it has little to do with laws. rule by law is nonsensical in the context of antiquity, its rule by decree, rule by the King's
divine right. Rule by law is a Roman concept.

So to clarify, I want socialism so workers have more control over how much surplus is taken and so it can be redistributed for the benefit of all.

Capitalism isn't bad because it takes surplus full stop, but because it sets no limits on this, and gives none of it back in any form that would be beneficial to the worker.

And yet it'll devolve into the same hierarchy as is seen right now in the USA and every other state because institutions have their own consciousnesses. You have to understand, with regard to the anarchist conception of the state, that we see it not just as a neutral tool of implementing an agenda like liberals and Marxists, but as a living, breathing organism. The first job of the bureaucracy is to protect the bureaucracy - the first job of the state is to protect itself by establishing a ruling class. No amount of checks and balances can ever change that. Yeah, reforms can contain things for a time, but if the genesis of neoliberalism is any sort of proof, IT ALWAYS REVERTS!
Not even going into dialectics here. Dialectics implies a very specific concept tailored to work for the development of systems of ideas - it doesn't work very well for material systems imo, hence why I'm not a Marxist.

See the econ thread. Everyone, from tankies to leftcoms to anarchists, called you out for advocating a system which is A) unworkable without state-guarded private property, as the tendency of humans in the absence of a state is to establish communism and B) preserves the law of value and its mechanics, disciplining labor to a humanly unbearable standard via the reduction of SNLT as firms compete with one another. It doesn't matter that you call it something else - it's fundamentally the same stuff as ancaps to advocate for markets. On the other hand, there are no similarities between planning by syndicates of worker-owned firms and local assemblies and centralized planning by the state other than that they're both meant as alternatives to the market.

Any instance in which a bureau (office, or that is, unelected officials) rule (from Greek "kratein"). If a vanguard seizes power and rules because they believe that they have the best interests of the people in mind, then that's a bureaucracy. If a regulatory agency rules over everyone de facto, then that's bureaucracy. If a prime minister is elected on a particular mandate from the people and carries it out but then continues his function as a prime minister and governs otherwise, then he is a bureaucrat all the same.

The only sort of elected officials which aren't bad are those which serve to carry out the laws and policies decided by the people themselves, a la deputy council of a soviet. The purpose of the recall function is to ensure that these temporary muh privileges are not abused, that they do not become holy authorities unable to be criticized for fear of backlash. The state, alternatively defined, is a government which the people fear.

Royal decrees were still formalized so that they could be applied to strangers in a vast society. Only tribal society can have everyone just decide by consensus that they are going to do something.

I have never in my life seen this kind of misinterpretation of Lenin's rationale for state capitalism.
State capitalism as it was applied throughout the 20th century socialist experiments was never meant as an obligatory step between liberal capitalism and socialism: it was a strategy (at least theoretically) employed to bring about the material conditions for socialism to exist among parts of the world that had not yet developed the modern capitalist mode of production. This is not a problem that affects most of the world today, thus the intermediate state capitalist step is rendered entirely obsolete even by the logic of those who historically made use of it.
Democratization of state capitalism does not make for socialism. If the ownership and control of the means of production is not held by the workers themselves, then even at the barest-bone level that is not socialism; saying that vague "democratization" changes the fundamental relationship between workers and capital is like saying workers who's bosses let them participate in limited voting on company policy equates to the removal of exploitation from their interactions. Nor does democratization of state-owned capitalist enterprise necessitate production for use rather than exchange; ironically your examples of "historical precedence" largely failed to accomplish either of these points that define a socialist society.
The state itself, if it seizes control of the capitalist apparatus for itself and upholds the cycle of capital accumulation, becomes itself invested in perpetuating the continuation of that economic system; ideology only goes so far to temper that. If socialism is to be brought about, it must be established at or shortly after the point of revolution which forcibly overturns the existing economic and social structure, not left to the good will of other parties an indefinite amount of time down the road.

That is quite possibly one of the most flaccid and useless definitions of a state that I have ever born witness to. That's not the definition used in academics, and certainly not the definition used by Marxists or anarchists. It describes nothing of the underlying power structures that give rise to the power of the overall apparatus nor limits the reach of said apparatus. Just about any organization of people beyond just a small clique is going to involve rules and limitations that define the purpose and function of the organization in question; these points may be fluid, but they are extant. By your definition, the entirety of collective human interactions can be summarized as interactions between microstates, which makes any actual discussion of the impact of state meaningless.

If you want to be a socdem who essentially just wants to take the existing capitalist state, centralize it, and decorate it with red trimmings, I can stop you. Let's not throw around "socialist" though if you barely comprehend what that even means in terms of actually transforming the conditions of the working class.
Read a fucking book.

no they don't the chief and elders defer to each other and usually the martial and spiritual leaders have the final say. its very hierarchical and not at all democratic

this is make-believe nonsense. the state is any monopoly on violence by a select group or institute. end of discussion, stop trying to prevert definitions for the sake of attacking anarchism

People can commit crimes now. The pigs will never save you from Ottis Toole once he's in your house. They don't solve 1/3 of murder, and they do a good bit of it themselves. The only thing we can do is prevent violence at the source by building a healthy, non-alienated society.

no. I really want do not want any state at all.

Not all institutions are the state. To equate politics and statecraft is to equate Athens and Rome.

Actually you should see the econ thread, because I quoted Marx on the german Ideology and proved how your economic planning bullshit does not eliminate alienation

Maybe because everyone is fucking stupid?

Citation needed

B) preserves the law of value and its mechanics, disciplining labor to a humanly unbearable standard via the reduction of SNLT as firms compete with one another.
1.-Economic planning preserves the law of value
2.-Economic planning disciplines human labour according to its planned production quotas
3.-SNLT ismdetermined by the law of value, on a market anarchism economy with no currency, there is no law of value, besides, SNLT is a stupid concept to begin with, as there is no objective measurement of exploitation, if we label X amount of labour profucing a commodity as not exploitative, and X-1 minute as exploitative, then I could always claim that no matter the SNLT in the production of commodities is, it will always be exploitative. Society could keep adding 1 minute to every labour process claiming the previous SNLT was exploitative

Moreover, economic planning actually forces everyone to follow a SNLT determined by the production quotas, and this one is even more strict than the one found in market anarchism

It is not fundamentally what ancaps advocate because ancaps advocate for private property as a natural right, which is the antithesis of mutualism

Exactly as they both mean the individual has to be disciplined by the production quotas and the SNLT determined by either the Stick® or the people's stick, and I proved why on the econ thread

Let me give you a piece of advice my friend, next time you get triggered dont make me lose my time with posts like "hurr durr ancap", its undialectical and they always end in you proving yourself as a red fascist

New lefty here. Can anyone elaborate?

I'm honestly unclear what you're promoting. It's basically just co-ops, correct?

How does this justify surplus theft?

Yes, the state also deals with murder, rape, etc. However, it's not exclusive in doing that.

What's unique about the state, is the class warfare.

Well there never was a modern stateless society that lasted for long, did it? Whether this is because stateless societies are inherentlya failure or because they just haven't had their shot yet is debatable.

The state is an apparatus of class warfare of one class against another (in capitalism, this is bourgeoisie vs proleteriate - or to be simpler, top 10% vs bottom 90%).

The state arises, due to the conflict between the two classes. It defends the private property of the bourgeoisie, to prevent workers from taking it over. Through this, it protects the exploitation of the lower class.

However, this doesn't mean we condone lawlessness and chaos. This is what he means when he says government instead of state. The structures would be less authoritative. The new "police" would no longer be above society and would no longer defend private property, for example.

A lot of this is covered in Lenin's The State and Revolution: marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/

Read up, comrade!

When can we definitively say that the state has been abolished?

When there are no more roads.

...

Poor shithole
Poor shithole in Civil war
Poor shithole in civil war
War wrecked shithole
Famine infested shithole
Poor shithole
Literally the period with the most emigration out of Italy because it was such a poor shithole
See above
Wrecked by the west
Wrecked by Japan
Wrecked by Franco
Raped by the USSR
Wrecked by CIA
Wrecked by Islamists
Wrecked by genocidal Serbians

Ok so what I got from this is that stateless socialism can only be achieved by making your country a poor shithole in Civil war that everyone is fleeing from and wait for it to be crushed by reactionaries.

Statists BTFO!

To anarchists, government is what Marxists usually call the state - it is the system which reproduces the social relations of a particular society by maintain order. The state is a particular institution which carries out governance in a centralized, heirarchical, undemocratic fashion. Anarchists regard it as particularly excellent because it will always try to defend itself as an institution, seeing as its the natural tendency of the self-interested individuals who constitute it to try and defend their muh privilege over other men. As such, it requires a ruling class of some sort to maintain its own existence. Marxists, to the contrary, argue that the abolition of current social relations of production in the economic sphere will remove the class basis for the continual domination of the state and that, therefore, being purely a phenomenon rather than an institution with a degree of its own determination, it will wither away. Between the combination of seeing the development of the USSR's nomenklatura bureaucracy and how Western states have occasionally acted against the will of capitalists in order to preserve the capitalist order, I personally feel that anarchism is vindicated in the aggregate, even if Marxism does admittedly have a far superior conception of how capitalism functions.
- Bakunin, 50 years before the name "Lenin" was on everyone's lips and even further before Stalin
-also Bakunin
-Bakunin as well

See pic. It clearly works. We've had multiple examples of functional anarchist societies beyond the most primitive tribes - in historical order, the Iroquois, Cossacks, pirates, anarchist Ukraine, anarchist Catalonia, and Rojava (technically not anarchist, but it is so in practice).
In the case of the explicitly anarchist societies, they functioned fine until Leninists screwed them over. The 3 pre-modern examples survived for decades in the latter case and hundreds in the cases of the first 2. Rojava has functioned fine now since… 2011?

The point is that workers self-organize these systems spontaneously. Also, Yugoslavia functioned just fine for most of its lifetime. It wasn't perfect, but radnicko samoupravljanje (sovietskoye samoupravleniye in Russian, or council self-administration in English) is a good proof of concept. Of course, the only thing that matters to you is proving that you need an unrelenting and unaccountable authority because you don't want to admit to yourself that you just want to suck some dictator's dick.

meant to post this pic

Quality OP, I agree. Except for the whole "take state capitalism and democratize it" thing. How about we take worker cooperatives and integrate their production with some planning? The key failure of Stalinist bullshit for the last century has been to start organizing from the top down instead of the bottom up.

I bet you're from Holla Forums. Really wouldn't be surprised.

I tend to agree. I'm a socialist, but I tend to consider communism impossible (barring Star Trek -tier technology)

Read "Mutual Aid: A Factor Of Evolution" and "The Conquest Of Bread"
Not enough because reading's hard for you? Have this:
workplacedemocracy.com/2009/09/09/the-invisible-hook-what-managers-can-learn-from-pirates/
I'm telling you, people naturally self-organize into anarcho-communist systems in the absence of a state!
No, the law of value holds, at its core, that capitalism runs on exchange values and not use values, and that these two types of value are in fundamental contradiction with one another. The aim of
I don't think you know what I mean when I say that the market "disciplines" labor. When you have a basketball making firm, for example, the owner must always reinvest in machinery to improve it to keep up with competitors. With the increased productivity of the machine, the worker must keep pace and work ever harder while seeing no improvements in his living standards; the machine is used to extract more productivity out of the laborer rather than to make his work easier. This is in direct contrast to rational planning of any sort (outside of the explicitly Taylorist state capitalism of the USSR), as it aims to satisfy human needs with as little work as possible.
Let me explain SNLT to you, because it's clear that you don't understand what it is. Socially necessary labor time is, as the name suggests, the amount of time required for a laborer to produce a certain amount of value when circumstances such as capital present are factored in. You can't arbitrarily change it. If there is no currency, then two things will happen: A) it will fail massively because there is no good way to make barter work without a common unit of exchange and B) the Law Of Value, SNLT and all, will continue to press down on firms just as much as before because it is, more than anything else, contingent not on a medium of exchange, but rather the market's reality of competition between firms forcing certain phenomena to appear and intensify the more the market has its way.

Seriously? It's obvious that he's never read a single piece of theory or history - I was a socdem because I took the assumptions of modern society upon which the current state of things is usually justified until I bothered to read about history and found that they were all bullshit. This is a through and through shitpost. He should read the bread book, and so should you.
See my thread on Soviet cybernetics (now a general thread for computerized planning). Anarchists and Marxists have agreed on this for a while now.

Can I get an explanation for how technology would advance and infrastructure would improve without this process?

we need a healthy mix of Statism and Anarchy

People would do it on their own through self-organized advocacy organizations.
vice.com/en_us/article/portland-anarchists-are-rebelling-against-the-lazy-government-by-fixing-roads
The more I read about these subjects, the more it appears to me that the most important thing is simply having an organizational form of some sort and a mechanism for responding to needs.
Already, scientists have to do most of their fundraising on their own, appealing to private individuals and corporations. If anything, things would probably become a lot easier.
David Kotz has a pretty good article on innovation and socialism in general, but it's applicable to anarchism and communism as well.

So basically crowdfunding.

this tbh

I don't see any reason why they can't take part in the collective decentralized planning process like everyone else. They're needed, so they're needed. If anything, it would probably give them more funding that they need (if it's even proper to speak of "funding" in a post-money society) because it would make people more aware of just how much they need them.
8ch.net/leftypol/res/1477348.html

Crowdfunding has the connotation of a temporary, completely ad hoc system. This more along the lines of a recurring in-kind donation from communities as a whole, with a built-in mechanism of self-regulation and correspondence with what people need. In other words, it's a superior alternative to what we have right now.

In what sense? Representative democracy is a popularity contest. Popularity does not mean a person is a good politician, organiser or leader. Due to its format of competition, representative democracy is short-termist and unsuitable for a truly rational governance.

damn, I got meme'd on

none of those books talk about the necessity of economic planning, if you unironically belive you can quote pirates as proof of anarcho-communism you are extremely delusional, pirates were market anarchists in their purest form, and I told you already that I have read more than enough on piracy

while pirates had democracy, they didn't had sacred democracy, at any moment pirates could mutiny, If you belive pirates would follow a plan in the sense of economic planning you are severly mistaken

In order to have economic planning, you need an authority, one cannot simply decide to follow or not the plan, otherwise, why plan at all?

there is no such thing as pure exchange value or use value, a commodity becomes an exchange value or an use value depending on it's use, markets do not inherently produce solely for exchange, central planning does not only produce only for use

the law of value is well defined in the sense that the agreggrate prices are proprotionate to the labour-time in SNLT, planned economies do not eliminate production for exchange, as the one who labours creating commodities or services solely for his labour vouchers cares nothing about it, and it does not eliminate the law of value, since it replaces money with labour vouchers, and labour vouchers are literally in 1:1 proportion to labour-time

only insofar as it is a bourgeois firm, again, it is the bourgeoisie society who dictates how many basket balls I have to make per day, but what if it's me who decides so? again the SNLT is determined by the market in the sense that its society who determines it, as it is the society of bourgys that determine how fast I have to work, a they have to outcompete their competition

the problem with deciding what the SNLT would be in a democratic economic plan, is that, simply determining how many basketballs we should produce does not eliminate it, if the demos decides that we need X amount of basketballs, and I only work 4 hours a day, I am still exploited even if the rate of exploitation is less

I must be the one who decides how many basketballs I make, and if there is an economic plan, I have to devote myself to the plan, not to my desires
the problem is again, still there, if I have to make more basketballs than the ones I want, I have become a basketball maker, I have been alienated
this is stritcly quoting Marx in the German Ideology

lol no, again, If I have to follow the plan which I don't agree with, then it is exploitative, and If I don't have to follow, then it holds no authority, so why plan in the first place, planning is inherently exploitative, even If I decide in it, as I cannot decide to produce every commodity I need by myself, we need the specialization of labour

If you belive you can quote Marx to disprove markets while at the same time ignore his words in the german ideology and how it denounces planning as alienated, you are arguing in bad faith

yet you belive that planning to change it can change it

which again, also happens under planning, you cannot have your cake and eat it too

forgot my shitpost flag

Why am I not surprised?

>his labour vouchers
Wew lad.

Good luck with that. Let me know how the firing squad sounds after you suggest democratization.

Communism is a pipedream. The left should exist to improve everyone's lives and the efficiency of production, not to circle-jerk over intellectual but impractical ideologies.

Your theory counts for nothing if it CANNOT be implemented. Hell you can't even properly describe what it looks like let alone how to get there.

Which is why anybody on the left should flatly reject OP's nightmare scenario of state capitalism.

So, state capitalism fails because of external factors and megalomania, anarchism fails because more organised groups crush it.

Well shit.

So 'just don't call it a state' then?
Pretty sure this is what OP is getting at. Most here seem more interested in proving their deep knowledge of theory by picking holes in the semantics of a post.

If we put aside the rhetoric for a second you'll see OP is arguing for a democratically controlled and managed means of production that stymies exploitation for accumulation.

Now you can argue that every time this has been attempted it has failed, but unless you have your own original theory that avoids the pitfalls of all that has gone before, you should drop the smug in telling him so.

Finally, someone who knows we exist.

Russia had developed the modern capitalist mode of production, what it had not developed was the forces of production to the extent that was known in Imperial Germany, and consequently the relations of production were of a petty bourgeois nature, existing uncomfortably alongside Tsarism.

Athenian statecraft is legendary. Read Thucydides.

I know, but that's kinda the point – we had them. The ones that didn't end because of a disastrous scarcity couldn't field an army capable of staving off external threats. Sure, maybe they could have continued on without issue if they weren't attacked, but ability to protect itself is a factor of the system's viability after all, wheher they're outnumbered or not.

Well that's kinda the magic bullet that would unite the left, isn't it? In the Soviet cybernetics thread, we nourish some hope that a nationwide computer network that would optimize the economy via iterative simulations would be that bullet. Even if we're dreaming too high, there's no doubt that computer networks will be a basic feature of any future planned economy.

You're basically defining the state as "any public body", which is fucking retarded.
The definition of state that marx used was pretty standard for his time, he didn't come up with it himself. In fact I'm pretty certain adam smith defined the state in the same way (maintaining class rule through the enforcement of private property). The definition most commonly used today is max weber's definition - the monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a given territory.
It's pretty apparent to me that communism is incompatible with either of these, the first for obvious reasons and the second because handing the use of force over to a separate body of men such as the police or military simply recreates the conditions for class rule to arise. Classlessness depends upon the workers being in control of all facets of society, including any enforcement required.

None of this means that you can't have a public body coordinating production, nor does it mean that society cannot (directly) define and enforce rules of social conduct, though the "rule of law" as it exists today is incompatible with communism, or even the dictatorship of the proletariat and it would prevent direct control by the workers.

I agree with you except for a few points

it is a meaningful idea
it is the only safety mechanism against usurpation that I can think of
it has its drawbacks, yes, but society needs to somehow keep a check on the bureaucracy

well, yes, it can be wasteful, but ultimately this process would reach an end point, because there are only so many options to vote for
to limit this there could be a law that new delegates couldn't vote the same as previous delegates that they replaced

for the executive branch, yes
but not for a legislative

no
just stop, please
the whole new democracy process should be built around voting on the issues first and representatives second
when society can't utilize direct democracy, only then representatives should come into action

but yes, I have no problems with the so-called state capitalism as long as economic plans need to be ratified by the population and not some separate party

I gotta agree with OP tbh. It's as silly as Vegans being Omnivores trying to live as herbivores. Humans are social herd animals. Now if Great White Sharks had opposable thumbs and better brains they could totally have a stateless society, but not us Primates.

It's also bullshit that nobody but AmComs associates with the word anarchy. Anarchy means no government, not just no State. You ask any motherfucker on the street what Anarchy means and theyll tell you. Hell, when I actually called myself an Anarchist I believed in no government and so does every confused Punk Rocker ever.

this my issue with non central planning

I've always seen communism as a direction, not a goal. Market socialism, or a flavor of it at best. We've already opened the pandora's box that is capitalism, the primary goal should be to contain it and exploit it at its own game. Anything else is, as you said, a pipe dream (For now).

I never want to fully dismiss the idea of full communism as a possibility because crazier things have happened throughout history. But in the foreseeable future, i don't see it happening the way many on the left envision it happening.

...

...

Yo, man, I understand that you are new and all, but seriously lurk moar.

I agree with you that communism right now is not feasible. The infrastructure of the world is still optimized to support capitalism, and so long as capitalism is the dominant mode of production on the planet a stateless society cannot take root. A dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary first to degrade class divisions before communism can be achieved. Don't lose hope. We may not live to see it, but it will happen.

Not if we all die first.

We don't have that much time. Continuing to use capitalism will see this climate collapse in short order.

Most productive Omegle chat in history.

this thread reminded me of how fucking awful and twisted state socialism is and why i would rather live in a Monarchy than under State Socialist rule

Ugh, did you really need to use all those lines to say you're a socdem?

He didn't type all that just to day he was a sodem. He typed it to make the argument that ideology is more correct than yours but you're still on the same side so to speak. It's what we do here has leftists. Discuss, theorize and meme. You're being obtuse.

Then do the entire theoretical works of Bakunin and Proudhon and Kropotkin mean nothing? Is there no distinction between plain syndicalists and anarcho-syndicalists?

If there is a perfect example of language controlling the way people think, it's the word "anarchy" and its distortion to the point of meaninglessness. If you conflate it with the word "chaos", then you lose a word describing a huge, history-changing movement which has left subtle yet extremely significant impacts on history. The 8 hour working day was fought for by anarchists in the sense that I use the word. Makhno was an anarchist in the sense that I used the word, and he was the only reason why the Bolsheviks weren't defeated by Denikin when he marched on Moscow. I could go on. Because of your arbitrary assigning of definitions to words due to the tendencies of the illiterate, you erase history. You limit the scope of thought and understanding of history which people can reach. You are an insidious totalitarian cancer.

Just like punks, you were never an anarchist.

If Makhno had protected free soviets in a more industrial area, the Free Territory would have survived. The Iron Column and Durruti Column defended Catalonia with effectiveness until the Stalinists backstabbed them and forced their reorganization along the inefficient lines of conventional hierarchy. Anarchist Korea (Shinmin) survived many attacks from the Japanese, but was then backstabbed by the Chinse Soviet Republic (who had previously been allied with it) and only then fell apart. Rojava is more than capable of defending itself, it's fighting both ISIS and Turkey, winning against both.

So long as they're not backstabbed by Leninists of one type or another, anarchist societies have proven to be extremely capable when it comes to defending themselves