Anarchism or Marxism and why? Non leftists and meme ideologies like mark socialism are not welcome

This.

...

No, its just everyone who isn't new has up and accepted there is no agreement.

And no it isnt.

Me too, a large scale Paris Commune like government is my ideal system

Believing that McComrades or Wal-Marx will be doing anything but perputating capitalism is as utopian as Star Trek.

Marxism to me

First because on a theoretical level his view of history and state-formation seems correct to me. Second, because we've seen capitalism either preserved or restored after the collapse of public authority and organization several times, which means that a previous effort of organizing proletariant institutions or organizations that work within the boundaries of the state and capitalism is the best way to guarantee our hability to implement our designs in any scenario

Third, because on a practical level, to postpone most significant, large-scale transformations of society to a period following the fall of the state, which is my understanding of what most classical anarchist strategies want to do, can lead to inaction and abstentionism, and we'll put our energies on the wrong places, as evidenced by some of the dumbest anarchists (which I by no means consider to reflect the majority of anarchists) thinking that throwing themselves at police cars is a revolutionary act

Enjoy not surviving a war

Overhauling everything and expecting people to accept it is utopian.

explain catalonia

Ok socdem.

Not real anarchism because all organization is a state.

Both are infested with total fucking idiots at this point unfortunately, who will purity test you for not being enough of a fucking idiot.

Go the fuck home kiddo

Says the liberal

Just come out as a capitalist already.

depends on where you intend to implement the theory. There are certain areas with abundant resources and greater education making anarchism more achievable where as underdeveloped countries and countries so ingrained in anti communist ideology would need marxism to counter pro-capitalist insurgents. I think geography plays more of a role in this argument than many think not too mention it is possible for the ideologies to coexist even if it means temporary borders until the classless stateless society that both aim for can be achieved. For instance norway could probably sustain an anarchist collective where as somewhere like somalia or chile would require a vanguard to maintain the revolution for long enough to achieve communism.

Catalonia was crushed by fascists so if anything this proves the point

I'm a fairly Marxist anarchist tbh. 20th century style Marxism is an undeniable failure and has a lot to learn from anarchism.

HHHHNNNGGG

"In point of fact, capitalist production is commodity production as the
general form of production, but it is only so, and becomes ever more so
in its development, because labour itself here appears as a commodity,
because the worker sells labour, i.e. the function of his labour-power,
and moreover, as we have assumed, at a value determined by the costs
of its reproduction. The producer becomes an industrial capitalist to the
same extent that labour becomes wage-labour; hence capitalist production
(and thus also commodity production) appears in its full extent
only when the direct agricultural producer is also a wage-labourer. In
the relation between capitalist and wage-labourer, the money relation,
the relation of buyer and seller, becomes a relation inherent in production
itself. But this relation rests fundamentally on the social character
of production, not on the mode of commerce; the latter rather derives
from the former. It is typical of the bourgeois horizon, moreover, where
business deals fill the whole of people’s minds, to see the foundation of
the mode of production in the mode of commerce corresponding to it,
rather than the other way round."

-Marx. Capital Volume 2. Seeing as the yugos considered themselves Marxists I think that should be taken into consideration.

I don't understand why labor theory is incompatible with a decentralized direct democracy. Seems retarded.

Marxism, big time.

Anarchism is idealist spooky shit.

thats the acid that erodes visionary thinking and precisely the wrong answer pard'ner

Only that's what capitalism did to feudalism and it worked.

2 tru
Take the aliens part from posadism cuz ayy lmaos are comrades

...

Fuck you user, Mark Socialism is one of the nicest guys I've ever met and he should be welcome everywhere!

To be honest anarchists as a whole have merged so much with ancom-at-any-cost that we might as well consider anarcho communism and libertarian Marxist to be the same.

I mean all succesful ancoms have had some form of rudemantary dictatorship of the proletariat and they are hard on labour vouchers and communalism. They are basically Marxists that hate stalin.

By this logic socialism doesn't work because it gets undermined every time. Tanks are larpers.

Anarchism and Marxism are not contradictory. Anarchism is a strategy, and Marxism is a tool of analyzing history and our current state of things. Marx himself rarely discussed blueprints for new societies

Wrong! Read a book. Anarchism isn't "black bloc smashy smashy" or a hand-me-down for when big brother Marxism says something you don't like or gets "gorillions" thrown at it (this cancer started with New Leftists like Abbie Hoffman and Noam Chomsky - it must be stopped). It has its own theory, although it's not and doesn't try to be a unitary corpus like its Marxist child/sister.

There will never be a bridging between Leninists and anarchists, but non-Leninist/post-Leninist Marxists and anarchists are approaching one another in terms of praxis (see: communization). That being said, I'm starting to question how related The Invisible Committee's work really is to classical anarchism - there is great potential in integrating Weiner's cybernetics into Kropotkin's working on sociobiology as a study of society and its relation to individual action (in much the same way as psychoanalysis has contributed to post-Marxism), and they forgo this, misunderstanding and attacking cybernetics as a recently-dreamed-up mode of governance rather than a pervasive law of nature (both in animals and in machines) with application to all dynamic orders. Moreover, all the postmodern philosophers drew heavily on Marx in some way and said nothing about anarchism. The only real continuity between any of them and anarchism could possibly be that Deleuze switched Marx-inspired philosophy from a focus on economics and historiography to a focus on systems biology and geology in much the same way as Kropotkin developed the work of Proudhon and Bakunin out of economics and historiography into evolutionary biology and geography. This is relevant because lines between contemporary currents of communization are typically drawn between the likes of Marxian communization being represented by Endnotes and others and anarchist communization being represented by Tiqqun and The Invisible Committee.
Moreover, they reference Foucault and his student Agamben extensively, who both rejected the class politics of Marxism for a post-materialist analysis of power. Class politics originated with anarchism and is central to it. Without it, anarchism is almost empty and is reduced to a caricature-like punk rebelliousness rather than a radically skeptical approach to changing society to meet the needs of man and scientifically transcending material limitations on the freedom and growth of the individual.

I'm falling hard for bait here, I know, but seriously? 7/10, got me to reply and will probably be taken seriously by illiterates if they don't notice the flag.

You too, read this book

Mostly developed from Proudhon (note: I am not saying that he plagiarized Proudhon, as he is different in some important respects, but the vast similarities between them are all too often overlooked).
This doesn't contradict anarchist theory in any way. In fact, in this book linked Kropotkin addresses how and why the same set of circumstances can be restored if we make the mistake of retaining any sort of collectivist restrictions on the taking of goods.
I'll take "prefigurative politics" for $400, Jim.
Nope
Those aren't anarchists. Those are LARPers who think either think anarchism is a poor man's Marxism or "lol smash shit chaos is cool amirite guys anarchy is rad man".

mmmmmno
The theory is still very different, classical or postmodern

There's a manifesto dedicated to this. It's called "Organizational Platform Of The Libertarian Communists", written by Delo Truda, based on Makhno's experience with the Black Army. It's outdated now, but it sparked a discussion which continues to this day.

Anarchism, because I don't want people telling what I can and can't fucking do. If I wanna OWN LAND and live on it peacefully till the day I die then I should be able to do that. I'm not super religious either, but Marxism's "Kill anyone that isn't an atheist" bull kinda pisses me off. I will admit that I'm a bit LESS anarchy than the typical anarchist.

I'm fine with a minimalist government whose main job is to build roads and national defenses, but other than that they should stay the hell out of my life. Maybe that doesn't classify me as an "anarchist" but compared to almost every other political ideology out there it's pretty much anarchy.

This post right here

You're not an anarchist, you're a neoliberal bourgeois apologist.

What you're describing is neo-liberalism.

Or possibly minarchism.

I've probably read more books than you my ancom friend. Graeber has a better summary of what I was talking about:

I've read that exact passage in an article by Graeber, and it's a perfect example of what I'm talking about when I say that it has become a "hand me down" Marxism! Everyone (except for those in communization theory) has become a sort of dollar store Kautskyite - it's about teaching the proletariat how to revolt and why they need to adhere to a promise of a better society because a writer said so 50, 100 years ago. It's all very New Left, very puritanical.
The biggest distinction between anarchism and Marxism has always been the chicken and egg of whether praxis or theory comes first. Where anarchism tends to start directly from popular movements and take their modes of action as praxis from which theory is derived, Marxism takes the opposite approach and starts from a theory of the whole of society to work down to the level of popular discontent and uncover the material relations at the roots of it as a means to assist in developing it into a confrontation between classes. This all changed with Kautsky, who, via Lenin and Luxemburg, ended up redefinining socialism as something elaborated by an intellectual priest class which had to teach the "dumb workers" and act in their stead. This eventually seeped into the rest of mainstream Marxism with the success of the October Revolution, although anarchism remained safe because of its antagonism until it was resurrected in the '60s in name only. It became official dogma to which there existed no other possibility by the time of the New Left's advent. It's no coincidence that it focused on students in hand with the notion of socialism as something to be "taught".
Graeber does good work as an anthropologist and correctly refuses to periodize communism in "Debt", but he also has some serious theoretical problems which are generally reflective of the state of the left for the past century now. Who are we, the "neutral observer", to decide whether it's "ethical" for a peasant to challenge a landlord or for an alienated youth to chuck a brick through a Starbucks window? Who are we, the "neutral observer", to decide whether a labor struggle in a first world country is socialist in nature or not based on whether it jives with our theory of imperialism?
These didactic politics are either disastrously reactionary (MLism) or entirely irrelevant (Graeber's OWS). It's time to move on.
costanza.jpg

No, it's just that only newfags who haven't already decided to bandwagon either ideology based on their own previously existing biases make these threads.

But non-mutualist anarchism has no independent existence to begin with and already relies 100% on looting Marx for any sort of actual economic insights. So this is just AnCom phrased in a pretentious way.

Quite so, which is why I'll go and deliver my promised shipment of grain to my feudal lord in a minute.

You are a the type of colossal faggot that reminds me every day that "though shalt not kill" is a dumb rule.

I like that better

You're literally a classical liberal.

But that's where you misundurstand Graeber. According to him, anarchists don't take the role of "neutral observers", but "participating observers", the same role anthropologists take in field studies. Anarchists think the people conducting the praxis should be the ones deciding if it's right or not, not an outside force.
This is exactly what marxists do, and not anarchists, just as Graeber explained in the passage I quoted. You are in a weird position where you agree with him, just that you attribute to him ideas about revolution that he himself ruthlessly criticizes

I'll post the full text so you can get a context
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/andrej-grubacic-david-graeber-anarchism-or-the-revolutionary-movement-of-the-twenty-first-centu

I see beyond such boundries and look to something more "out of this world"

Marxism, Bakunin was nothing but an antisemite and theoretical brainlet compared with marx

No. I think that if a bunch of people in any given community said "no X people allowed" then that's fine. I'm all for small scale government, it's when it gets big that I start wanting to shoot things.

Marx never said or wanted this. He recognized that religion existed where people need to be distracted from an awful and alienating society, so for as long as people turn to religion it will be for good reason:
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm
>The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

And read this: home.mira.net/~andy/works/atheism.htm (the title is provocative, but Marx was indeed not an atheist and refused the label).

after giving it a little more thought I think a "anarcho-tribalistic-republic" would be the best way to describe what I would like to see.

Primitivist Anarcho-Posadism-Hoxhaism when?

Tell me, have you actually read Bakunin? No, of course you haven't.

That's classical liberalism.

Like I said, I've read that article. The problem is that modern anarchism has devolved into democracy-fetishism and fetishization of unrefined rebellion instead of turning and developing it to more radical ends. The very notion of a group having a "correct line" to plan out a path to mass change is disastrous, whether it's decided by a politburo or popular vote or consensus.
Have you read The Invisible Committee's "To Our Friends"? It provides a very good critique of this whole mode of thinking.
Graeber puts out a lot of basic ideas which I agree with, but the gap between theory and practice for him is enormous. Moreover, he rejects many aspects of theory now associated with Marxism (even though many aspects originated with anarchism!) where he could gain quite a bit. For one, Parecon's self-management isn't a step forward at all. It really is necessary to abolish the law of value entirely and move straight to communism. Accepting idpol's very existence in the left has entirely hamstringed it - the failure of Graeber's own project is a great argument for the necessity of developing theory from praxis and rechanneling it in actual actions instead of preaching it. This doesn't mean that he has to accept Proudhonian/Marxian/Bakuninite historiographic pseudoscience. In fact, the labor theory of value which Marx is so famous for is probably one of the few scientifically valid ideas in economics because it can be further reduced to a biophysical, thermodynamic basis (Adam Smith developed it in part influenced by the massive development of physics taking place in Scotland at the time).
He identifies the didactic nature of modern leftism but fails to trace it to its root and resolve the misunderstandings and perversions which gave rise to it.
Finally,
Actual Marxists don't. Leninists do (this includes Bordigite leftcoms and all other Kautskyites). Marx deserves a fair amount of respect even if you don't agree with him. Lenin is trash tier.

Read Jefferson's "Notes On The State Of Virginia", specifically the part where he talks about ward republics. Your current beliefs aren't anarchist, although you're more than welcome to look into anarchism!

Calling people you don't agree with brainlets. Now this is peak discourse.

Congratulations, you understood nothing. Marxism is a philosophy of praxis. Anarchists are the ones that think up utopian future societies and then try to bend reality to fit that utopia.

Yeah dude it's like all relative my man, like, if they want to be oppressed like, who am I to judge, like, just relax duuuuuude *hits bong*

Why do you want someone else to choose for you? Engage in theory, read various authors, etc. and make it your own quest into analyzing reality. Whatever you do your aim should never be to look what you already fancy and amalgamate a bunch of ultimately contradictory things; to become another ideology shopper. And of course there are things in Marx and anarchism you can gel together, but only after serious consideration and thinking. None of this is or should be a quest for identity formation.

No, It's really not user.

Fair enough, but they are definitely way more "anarchy" leaning than "Marxist" leaning.

We should archive this thread, skim reading but it looks like there's some really useful discussion going on.

The transfer from Feudalism to Capitalism was a gradual process that spanned centuries.

The point is that virtually none of it was pre-planned; it was pretty much all developed on the spot of a given moment.

...

ACCELERATIONISM IS THE ONLY WAY

Well, no, it's more like "we should put all kittens in blenders, but only voluntarily"

Why do you treat me so?

The exact opposite is true.

Anarchist, because States are inherently oppressive and expansive.

no it's not. what do you think "the premises that exist in the world now" means?

communism isn't statist

both

all hierarchy is. organization is not. if in a group of friends (you don't have friends but assume for a moment you do) organizes & does things in some pattern does that means they're dominating/authorities over each other? no, they can cease to do what they're doing at any point in time as soon as it's no longer satisfactory/beneficial for em.

That's the point: we need to oppress the bourgeoisie and expand the revolution.

Have you read The Invisible Committee's "To Our Friends"? It provides a very good critique of this whole mode of thinking.
Yeah I've read it but don't remember what they said about this specific issue. It's a good book though
But developing theory from praxis and rechanneling it into actual actions is exactly what Graeber's been doing since the counter-globalisation protests. A lot of his theory comes from participating in movements(link related), and his praxis when it came to Occupy was basically applying things he learned along the way. There's probably a lot of things you can critique Graeber for, but that his theory is not developed from praxis is not one of them.

libcom.org/files/puppets.pdf

and after the bourgeois are gone then who cares. problem fixed. no need to oppress anyone.

or if one leaves civilization to start life in the woods with his friends there are no borugi there.

Which is why the State then withers away.

Marxist, though anarchist decentralization is a good idea.
Personally I'm a Communalist, but I don't see it as incompatible with Marxism. It tends to match up with the decentralization tendencies Marx was leaning towards after the Paris Commune.
The problem with the state is that even so-called Marxists get it wrong. The state is not something to be established post-revolution, the state is simply the proletariat in revolution. It's not the nation-states established post-revolution by the "socialist" countries of the past.
While Bookchin's critiques of the Marxist "state" may be misguided and misinformed, his ideas of anti-hierarchal, directly democratic institutions and confederation seem to be the dictatorship of the proletariat Marx and Engels promoted after the Paris Commune of 1871.