Tfw Marxists don't want to create a society that is actually stateless and classless

our first civilized societies had markets though.

There are Sacred Socialists and then there are Socialists, Marx was so-so one.
Thats why Marx got triggered when Stirner pointed out his ideology.

There is a ways to create what you say under socialism, most Marxists through especially Marxist-Leninism don't agree with it.

we can always gtfo from society and create it on our own in secrecy through where the state doesn't see us.

...

believe it or not some retards think thats a legit anarchism, just like anarcho capitalism and nationalism.

that's what anarcho-capitalism is, literally

pretty much

...

why has this never happened then and also why does every single attempt like this (freetown, greek anarchist territories, etc.) result in the state legally recognizing them because they're harmless and always revert back to a mode of production that economically engages with the market outside of the communes and is in fact useful that way to it?

is this what you tell to yourself unironically? marx was pestered by engels in dozens of letters to write the german ideology (look at the 6th paragraph and on: hiaw.org/defcon6/works/1844/letters/44_11_19.html). he was already long done with german idealism and was already active in the workers' movements as well. he wrote german ideology when german idealism was already off its death bed, as a conspectus of why it went nowhere, and the most important german he critiqued was in the first chapter for a reason: feuerbach, because marx actually developed heavily from his shortcomings. bauer in chp 2 was just reworded worst sides of hegel, and stirner the same but with lifestylism attached.

It has happened there are various anarchist communes that exist today. There have been various attempts too, some got shut down others not.

The reason why it doesn't happens as often as I would like to is because of wealth. The wealthy who can afford setting up all that are busy abusing the system. It's a hard effort to do it in the current system as a regular prole but it can be achieved.

All you need is the resources for auto-sustain, a roof + walls & the people, your homies. Everything else is luxury but your homies will want some commodities there just as you might want them too. Thats it you guys are an union.

Marx was triggered & he was an idealist to some extent. The "humane", "man" was his spook. In his sacred socialism you're "man" not johnny (or whatever your name is). Your unique needs he doesn't cares for, you're HAVE to labor for the good of all the community, for society, for humanity!

But what if Johnny doesn't wants to work, what if he has enough to last for a year without labor, for what to labor? he could enjoy an entire NEET year or more for his own self pleasure depending on what his needs & desires are.

isn't la zad still existant and still under laid siege?

all these communes do nothing at all against or around the state, though. name me a single anarchist commune that is not just self-sufficient (doesn't exist) but is sufficient on a mode of production that avoids the capitalist mode of production and is thus led by commodity production like any other.

wow, it's almost as if you need to organize a meaningful opposition to the present state of things and overthrow the "current system" (capitalism) in order to actually truly stand outside and beyond it, and that dumpster diving in your squatopia doesn't even begin to do that.

first of all, the humanism of marx was not idealist, it was materialist (i.e. there is a universality in human society, not post-universalist positionalism upon which we can meaningfully theorize and philosophize). second of all, marx before his materialist human was a vulgar materialist in the same vein of feuerbach. the most important part of german ideology is therefore the first chapter, in which he explains his break with feuerbach and how and where he went beyond it.

and "his sacred socialism"? marx described communism as the free association of individuals, unmediated by objects (commodities) or class subjects (working or owning).

great, under valorized society your suicide is made as hard as possible because you need to live on the army of wage-labor. under communism you would not just be allowed to fuck off and die, but i and many others would motivate you to do so and be grateful if you did.

jesus fuck black flags are the worst posters. stop fitting the stereotype perfectly for fuck's sake.

that's literally just another squat that does not meaningfully go beyond capitalism, let alone at all. also, ZAD is mostly a movement against environmental damage and a particular plan to build an airport in the region (was to be deforested and cleared for that). it's another one to put on the list of epic communes that will end up dissolving or become a part of legal bourgeois society like freetown, trumbullplex and exarcheia, engaging with it as any other plot of self-managed property. if this is what you want, why are you even on a forum for discussion? go live your dream right here and right now; you were never out to mobilize in universality at all and meaningfully and challenge society world-systemically.

See so thats why Marx was an spooked idealist. Shit is for a higher/holy cause can't be for myself, I'm forced to Marx's fixed idea under his "Communism", fuck that tbh. Thats all I wanted to prove.

If everyone has to labor for the community, it's not a "free association of individuals" it is idealism, because in reality the individual doesn't has to if he doesn't wants to, if he has enough and is satisfied even less so.

Marx stupidity was really that he didn't really understood anarchism at all.

And I'll keep being the black flag poster that triggers you. Thanks retard.

...

[citation needed]

You are projecting your own altruism onto people who probably don't deserve it.

...

please read Das Kapital.

wtf is anarco-monarchismand anarco-naionalism. Don’t monarchism and nationalism require a state.

Memes, like your flag.

markets require scarcity, they are not inherently sustainable.

You're absolutely right. Marxists don't even want to get ride of capitalism as we can see in every attempt, marxist still kept currency and central bank.
Marx is behind times, very little of what he said can be useful nowdays. It's 19th century logic.

Marcel Mauss' "The Gift" and David Graeber's "Debt the First 5000 Years"
It's not altruism, market based economies simply did not work for those kinds of societies. A gift economy was more efficient for those people because they were precapitalist and gift giving it engendered cooperation among the tribe.

How bourgeoisie.

Post proof bourge.

This has been exaggerated into falsehood. A given band/village didn't use markets internally, but exchange between them did (with some exceptions).

where's your book

Extra points for false consensus:
www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/ecc/events/writingrights/workshopprogramme/readingmaterials/parry_-_gift_indian_gift.pdf

This is dogma
Within a tribe maybe but what about across tribes?

what about them?

Not all of them. See the Incas, for instance.
also:

==PRAYSE FREE MARKETS CAPITALISM, AKA HUMAN NATURE==!

...

...

Also
>Building Communism

here's a good argument: Proudhon was a smelly frenchman and Markets are naturally unstable by design and can never be maintained without the use of force.

you're think of private property, not markets

>instead of subjecting one class to rule by another, let's subject everyone to the rule of impersonal market forces but actually to the people who make it their job to figure out how to manipulate markets

markets can only be created through violence dude see

...

Markets are predicated on some form of private property. It is private property that lets individuals isolate themselves as producers and produce a relationship with a consumer or other isolated producer. That relationship is called "market".

marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/a.htm#market

you are correct in that commodity exchange arose due to intercourse between separate early settlements, but until (relatively) recently it (and along with it value) was precisely that - an external relationship performed with separate groups to get your people what they needed and didn't have.
The internal maintenance of the tribe/settlement/whatever was mainly undertaken by community production using tools created by the workmen and used by them. Not wage labour. Only much later do we see advanced and intricate divisions of labour undertaken through and in the purpose of commodity exchange.

Why would a tribe risk life and limb to travel far off and deliver an expensive gift, unless it's full of arrogant wealth-accumulating pricks?

Mutualism isn't communism and it doesn't try to be

You're confusing claim to property with control of an item. Property claims don't need to be fixed for use of said property to be transferred.

Markets historically are inforced not natural.. read debt

so the actions of selling, buying and trading are inertly "evil", nobody can sell shit if he got excess of that shit? …are you kidding me.

If in my commune I grow weed because I like weed, then I have too much for my own consumption so decide to become a dealer I'm fucking someone over? I'm not being an authority over him I can tell you that much, so no.

Are you really trying to discredit mutalism, one of the most "noble" softer anarchies there are? It's called mutualism because nobody is getting fucked over, it's a series fair trades, thats it's organization, it's "economy".

you know whats fucked? whats hierarchical? employees paid a wage. But here you're letting everyone be, I really don't understand your shit.
Seems to me that you're way too spooked with Marx's idealism: hurr durr everyone should labor for the "community" everyday even if you don't want to, nobody lazy here your personal comfort I condemn.

And we're not talking about THE WORLD being mutualism here since that would be very difficult, it would need to have the whole human race grow the fuck up and be mature but they're not. We're talking about a union, commune, group scale.
Mutualism works. Easy.

There is no good argument against Mutualism because there can't be. Period. This isn't the mafia thats "Anarcho"-Capitalism, nobody is forced by an authority.

"Anarcho"-Capitalism doesn't it's a hierarchy, the ones at the bottom get fucked over.

Marx got triggered because Stirner didn't listen to him and instead listened to himself. Thats the problem with Marx, his theory is amazing and correct but his ideology is that of a fucking children trying to focre his friends, that he sees as tools more than friends to play his game.

Fucking retarded Santa Claus looking motherfucker.

found your problem:

You produce directly in and for the commune. It's not that you produce in isolation and decide what to make public.

Except the propertiless, people in shittier firms competing with better equipped firms, etc…

The road to a post-work society is collective, the fruits of automation [e.g. free time] should be equally distributed. How is it fair in your mind that people in a coop of a highly automated car factory work 2 hours a day and get huge wages vs. farmers work 8 hours a day for lesser wages?

libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=6068FB3BDCC0A6A687B4CA4F2812140E

babbies, babbies everywhere

It's a little bit more complicated. If you participate in a capitalistic aystem you always are in the excellent situation that you also support the existence and legitimacy of the system itself. In my opinion it's not possible to consum or be in other ways part of a capitalistic system ethically.

It's not difficult to get excess of weed dude. That shit grows fast as fuck and seeds are not rare at all, any stoner probably has some and is willing to share for free.

Thats the thing tho it's not "for the commune" its for myself, then it became excess so I sold it, I would totally share my weed with my friends through.

Private Property doesn't exist NOR Public Property ONLY Personal Property. If these guys want weed I can give them seeds for free, and they can use any free land without weed they don't have to buy land, it's anarchism just use what is fertile.

If you don't like competing against or weed lmao 420 paradise then join us, we won't exploit you everything you grow in your house is yours, if you got excess it's for whoever claims it or sell it.

So it's a fucking vision of the future, thats why I'm forced to labor for the "community", because of "muh automation", well right now that shit ain't a reality and automation is not really in the position to be Personal Property. When technology advances to that point and everyone has autonomy then yes but right now no. So I'm not working for your sci-fi dream simply because I don't want to, I work for myself & my friends. I'm not your slave or the slave of "community" or anything. Suck my dick.

Nobody has to work if he doesn't needs to.

Again these niggas should come to us, join our coop since it's better. THEY have unfair hierarchy, WE don't. They're retards for letting themselves be exploited. They're honestly not my or my friend's responsibility but if they came and wanted to live in weed paradise 420 they're welcome, the planet won't complain because he is using land nobody is using.

understand anarchism first please you're thinking with the barriers society but you in your mind. Here you don't "have to", it's I can, so I "want to".

Also very important ALL the other individuals in the world are not your responsibility, they're their own is not your sacred mission to keep all of them satisfied because you can't.
Marx's spook is the "Humane", "Man". Max Stirner said it clearly in his book & explained why his society of "humanitarian" ragamuffins is fucked. One is not really his own, not really free there.

I'm going to grab this point again because it's so stupid:

One of the reasons Cocacola sent death squads to Colombia to shut down the coop and kill the union leaders is because they don't want more individuals realizing that they don't get fucked over in that kind of market.

Mutualism is nothing like Capitalism. Nothing. Idk where you got that idea. Probably Marx but he is wrong AF there.

seriously what a retarded argument that was.
saying it's "unfair" to live a better life because others are enduring bullshit.
I didn't made them have to endure that bullshit. I wouldn't even have liked to.
I'm just living my life not oppressing anyone, thats why I'm an anarchist.

If I ever apply oppression is going to be to an oppressor of mine. I have to defend myself when any authoritarian comes around.

I've seen this argument made other times. Are mutualists druglords that want to get rid of the state?

Read it slowly. I'm claiming that "Anarcho"Capitalism. is more like the mafia, or a feudal lord. They're not anarchism because they're a hierarchy they exploit other individuals, their underlings.

Anarcho Mutualism is nothing like it. In mutualism everyone is individual, unique, you're Jose, Carlos, Johnny, Max, etc. You're yourself not a tool for anybody.
We're just in unity because it benefits us all in some way or another. We're satisfied together.

and most importantly when that unity no longer satisfies you, you're allowed to leave.

You're not our private property "worker" or our public property "citizen". You're your own personal property. So long, good luck. You're going to be missed Carlos.

...

Seriously I think that what I put here is really good

If any "an"-cap is reading this thread and you agree with these words consider converting to anarcho-mutualism. Thanks.

Anarchy always leads to hierarchy . Most people would rather not make optimal decisions for themselves as long as someone else makes satisfactory decisions for them.

In Anarchy as a revolution yes. usually it leads to another heriarchy.

But it's not my fault either that the revolutionaries are spooked retards, so in the end all they do is install another state.

Stirner criticized the French Revolution because of exactly that, don't worry. He really covered everything he had to cover in The Ego & It's Own + Stirner's Critics.

So most people are retards that what you're saying. Sadly. But I agree with you.

But thats only true for the current times, maybe someday they'll grow up & finally own themselves.

...

Most people would rather work inside a hierarchy as long as they given a glimpse of autonomy with their consumptions habits so that's a moot point just as stated

who is this seaman daemon

The liberals didn't even try to abolish the state though

Cartoon girl #9828734238723476324235345

it is a historic FACT that market came about from theft and not peaceful human "barter" all anthropological research point that that