He's a socdem at best

...

Other urls found in this thread:

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/wayne-price-is-it-a-state
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Working_People's_Association
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Yeah, glad I'm not a ML.

What is this suppose to even mean?

OP is expressing his frustrations that some Holla Forums users are still social democrats instead of revolutionary socialists.

Ah yes, socdems need to read more and stop being brainlets.

I think the ideas of rent, profit, and taxes are all fundamentally theft. With that said, I think it's necessary to have at least taxes for a healthy society, and I'm not sure you can allocate resources responsibly without some sort of hierarchy or a banking mechanism which would include rent. I'm also a pretty massive civic nationalist/small-r republican. So I guess that makes me a socdem, but I still identify much more strongly with leftist politics than liberal politics since the idea of private property as a right seems asinine to me.

Try Marxism-Leninism then. It's basically what you described.

I typically post under a tankie flag but I also am firmly pro-free speech and democracy, even for liberals and reactionaries, and I also think the Soviet Union had no business meddling in Czechkoslovakia so I'm not sure it's right for me.

market "socialism" maybe?
or alternatively, and this might sound crazy, go read theory that will help you realize a society without hierarchy, classes and money is not just possible, but also desirable?

The same applies to anarchists.

I thought OP was talking about how sectarians write off first world politicians

It's a one line greentext, OP could've meant anything.


Go pretend fucking around in a burger shop is revolutionary in your armchair faggot.

Yeah, 'sectarians', not the ones who read theory and history. Anti-sectarianism is a code for non-criticism and compromise.

...

I've read
Besides Capital, am I really missing any essential marxist texts?

Yeah this one:

Do you find Marx's materialist arguments convincing? If so i don't know why you still consider yourself an anarchist.

The International was started by mutualist anarchists. This is plainly false and I have said this time and time again, yet you keep posting the same damn thing. It doesn't matter how many times you post it - it has not been and never will be true.
Completely dumb
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/wayne-price-is-it-a-state

Bakunin was also a materialist and called himself as such. Have you ever read Bakunin or Kropotkin?
Just what exactly do you think anarchists propose? Why do you think they propose it? No fancy words, just pure statements of what concrete actions are taken in the anarchist conception of revolution.

...

Are you sure you're not thinking of the black international that was formed in 1881?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Working_People's_Association

Because the first international that Marx was a part of seems to me to have started as a fairly diverse group of progressive nationalists, utopian socialists and anarchists:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Working_People's_Association

Reform doesn't work and revolution isn't happening. At least I can content myself with 70s pop culture rather than writing fan fiction about Catalonia. (Well, except that one story where Franco gives me my medal in a big ceremony but don't include that part in the post because people will get angry oh fuck is this FULL STOP.

More seriously I'm actually (hopefully i.e. not really) surfacing from that severe depression, so I can't say the real reason for sticking around. Part of me suspects it's simply relevance: You can go infinitely deep with social democracy even with a filthy Blairite, or even a Conservative. Communism trails people off, it requires too much background explanation and they've been propagandised against it. They don't even tune out, they argue stupidly. Meanwhile the actual left


Communists need to stop writing tomes, or at least make them as engaging as tomes on British politics.
Also there's the whole sectarian thing. I mean, there's so many fucking things. With social democracy it's much easier to just comfortably wade in the waters knowing everyone is wrong with their hearts in the right place, because it's such a broad term and everyone hates you anyway. With actual communist reading, once you've waded outside marx (and if GMIL is to be believed, even if you actually read Marx instead of the original source, Lenin[Stalin].) someone's waiting to point out that you're Tankie/Trot/CIA Plant/Weirdo pinky flag/stubbed the toe of my granddad in Catalonia/absolutely bunkers/actually guilty of genocide/on video attending a libertarian party conference/STILL A FUCKING ROSE

I jest, but there is a serious thing here. When you're dealing with more mainstream political tomes there's a much greater element of general knowledge - if you actually read some factional theory, I mean, what if it's wrong? It seems much easier to regret reading maoist theory before deciding actually maybe this is silly and going over to read Mr. Armchair.

Otherwise it's much easier to just pick things up through osmosis. (Although it puts you in an even more awkward position of being entirely communist sympathetic, but regarding it as a minor tangent to the much more important task of posting the opinion polls from 1994.)

yea, because socdems are impotents, they will never expropriate bourgs

so even if we take your strawman, guns are a pretty significant difference already

I post with a stalin flag an agree with this

Which black metal band is that?

Same.

Yes
Marxists who believe in communization are literally no different from anarchists who apply Marx's materialist analysis.

Then why haven't you left anarchism yet?

Im back and I became a jucheist.

Same for none Market Socialists

Why would I? Anarchism isn't incompatible with materialism.


hi rebel


How about you read Critique of the Gotha Programme, mr. "receive full product of your labor lmao"