Democracy is inherently violent

Help me leftypol, I feel there is a tank enthusiast growing inside of me.

I wanna say embrace it, but don't do that. Don't fall into the tankie trap of glorifying violence, authoritarianism, isolationism, lack of democracy etc. Those things might've been necessary at certain places at certain times but they are not to be celebrated.

But you can still read a bunch of Lenin and realize that anarchism is garbage.

Lenin is garbage.

Read Bordiga.

I haven't read Bordiga, but I thought the italian left communists, him included, liked Lenin?

you're growing a case of BT-7, i suggest you to take a bread regime.

BT-7? I have already read the bread book if thats what you mean

Of course they did. is probably a troll.

I think that most of the more violent elements of any tendency are really in it more for the tantalizing prospect of violence than because they actually believe in communism.

Any political act is an act of violence. Even choosing to do nothing, as the Bordigists advocate, is allowing the state as it currently exists to continue violence against those who it already victimizes.
The trick is to make sure that the violence is of the coercive kind, not the skull bashing kind, and to make sure that the bourg are on the receiving end of it. That, and back it up with the credible threat of physical escalation.

Not that guy but Bordiga had a conception of the party different from that of Lenin without realising it.
Lenin believed in Kautsky's idea of petty-bourgeois intellectuals introducing socialist ideas into the proletariat, while Bordiga sees the party as organically arising from the working class.

Brodiga was a Leninist

lel

Bordiga advocated for the vanguard, but his conception of the party was different than that of Lenin's, which made up for a big contrast.

-sigh-
Would you suggest random people that the people don't really know or should trust deciding what's best for them? Because that's been every state ever. Isn't the end goal of any communist movement having achieved direct democracy anyways?

What the fuck kind of anarchist are you? Democracy, i.e. rule of the people, is still rule.

did you just watch like two libsoc-rants videos and became an anarchist 15 minutes ago?

I keep this opinion largely to myself but I still mantain it and explain it whenever I can.

*grabs your dick*
BACK THE FUCK OFF?!?

No, it's the end of politics.

*stabs you in the balls*

lol no


Anarchism is the views traditional rules as enforced by a hiearchy that lacks rapt rules within itself. That's why it's bad, we aren't against all rules, we believe rules created by the people as a collective, delegates as well are elected at microscopic levels. So there's still a "hiearchy"

I've already read state and revolution. Also another thing to add onto this, most Anarchist experiments have had some degree of centralism, particularly military centralism

This means 2 things,

1) Historical necessity is true
2) anarchists and marxists should stop bitching because they are really both extremely similar at the end of the day.

secret option 3) All of these revolutions have failed and centralism is exactly what we should not have.

...

What book is this from?

The Third Revolution Volume 3

Sdade Gaitalism by Le bookshit

Never stops amusing me how much butthurt bookchin can generate

Never stop amusing me with how cancerous Bookchinites are.

...

...

Are you really going to claim that the """anarchist""" who called the cops on people he didn't like is less cancerous than Bookchin?

Not surprising since M-Ls only ever read Lenin or Stalin :^)

That fact doesn't make Bookshit any less BTFO and it says a lot that Bobby B is more influential on North American anarchists then a hack like Bookchin whether for good or ill.


Samefagging as usual bookchin fag? It would honestly be a nice change of pace if you weren't.

Explain to me how he BTFO bookchin AIDF

...

I have read it. His best criticism of Ecology of Freedom is that it wasn't widely read by academia, which isn't surprising since american academia is doesn't allow for anything radically leftist. Your inane butthurt is delicious as always of course

If that's the best criticism that you think Black came up with regarding Bookchin then you truly haven't read it. He essentially calls him out as a veiled statist, argues that his urbanism is misplaced, and documents his opposition both individualist anarchism and anti-work anarchism. He also shows that Bookchin's anthropological ideas about primitive society are completely wrong-headed and ill-founded.

He also uses Bookchin to argue against Bookchin showing his internal inconsistencies in his body of work. He criticizes Bookchin as a hypocrite for attacking other anarchists in academia for pursuing "lucrative academic jobs" while himself taking a seat as a Dean at a wealthy liberal arts college.

Even if you reject Black's as a person or disagree with his point of view as I do its hard not acknowledge the fact that Black documented many factual inaccuracies and inconsistencies in Bookchin's worldview.

It's his "best" criticism of his core theoretical work, which is pretty damning considering how much value you're putting on this critique which I seriously doubt you've actually read Otherwise he claims that patriarchy came first, something which he does not actually expand upon much but merely states his own agreement with a "colleague" who believes similarly. It's easy to point out however that gerontocracy can just as easily exist in a female dominated society as it can a male dominated society.

Embrace it. Started out as an anarchist and am now a Lenin fanboy
Just don't go full tank. Never go full tank

Shitty falseflag or education, my friend.

Don't speak for Anarchism. Anarchy must be inherently individualistic and anti-authoritarian. Democracy, rule by the people, is still rule, an Archy and inherently authoritarian. There will likely still be rules, implicit or explicit, in Anarchy, but they won't be decided by some "Communal Assembly" whether direct or indirect, and then enforced by the "People's Militia". There might be formal, permanent organizations where things are decided, but there is no authority, no one has any moral obligation to obey and no one has any moral right to force one to obey. Anarchism is not against hierarchy, but authority, which hierarchy inevitably stems from.

This