ANARCHIST ONLY POST FUCK THESE BACK STABBING COMMUNIST

ANARCHIST ONLY POST FUCK THESE BACK STABBING COMMUNIST.

Try and stop me.

Stop being a divisive cuck, not all commies are bad, it's mostly just the Kautskyites who fuck everything up.

It's very obvious you are false flagging
please stop, It is not constructive and simply annoying.

I know you're just being a faggot but I will say I've heard plently of anarchists say they're allied and willing to help the communist cause, but I've never heard a communist say they were willing to help the anarchist cause. Just an interesting observation.

There is no backstabbing. It is obvious that anarchists and communists have incompatible doctrines, while the anarchists have the tiny fraction of power, due to their completely unrealistic and politically useless ideas.

No one talks like this, Holla Forums. And no Holla Forums narcho is going to unironically post meme ideologies like Anarcho-Pacifism or Anarcho-Faggotry.

Then apparently Anarchists are dumber on average and more likely to spout platitudes. Marxism and Anarchism are mutually exclusive and will inevitably come to blows. You can't have a Marxist state if the anarchists try to destroy it, and you can't have anarchy if the Marxists set up a state.

sage goes in all fields

Why sage a thread that's already been bumplocked?

Lmao, no, that's wrong. You're fucking retarded. There's so many different flavors of both Marxism and Anarchism that making this kind of blanket statement is both dumb and counterproductive. There's a difference between the state and the government. Fucking kill yourself.

I fully agree. Any time I see an ansynd flag I can't help but wonder how one lives with such an oxymoronic ideology.

Anarchists and communists make a great team, no sectarianism please.

My brother in law is a graduate student reads a lot of communist theory, writing a book about the alt right, we have long discussions about politics and he always expresses sympathy towards anarchist ideas. One of his stated ideal end goals, along with most communist theory I've heard of, is the abolishment of the state.

Communism =/= state power

That's the same bs as conflating Stalin and totalitarianism with communism.

because I opened the thread before it was bumplocked and didn't see that

disregard :^)

Marxists want a stateless society too, retard.

No matter how retarded communism is, at least they have some stable fuck up of a solution on their hands.

what's the difference, physical coercion?

Wow, I guess this conflict that's been going on for 200 years was all for nothing. Marx must have been shitposting when he wrote about the necessity of seizing the state and using it for the sake of class oppression. Truly you have enlightened me with your petty namecalling and total lack of argumentation as to why an ideology that wishes to immediately destroy the state as its distinguishing feature is actually totally compatible with one that explicitly calls for the use of the state in service of the destruction of its class enemies. Truly this very real contradiction is resolved by the Marxist claim of wishing to dissolve the state after all this has proceeded.

...

Yeah, basically. Well, really coercion in general, there's non-physical coercion inherent to the state apparatus too.

Not an argument.
Wow, you really made me think here. Apparently anarchists societies aren't allowed to use force to establish and defend themselves. Who knew!? You're so smart, user.

in a reductionist sense, anything that can rightly be called "coercive" is physical

wew.

He endorsed taking over the state as a means of destroying his political enimies. once youve taken over the state, you are the state. I never said anything about the USSR, but I get it, nothing is actually communism unless it's 100 million people all unanimously agreeing on labor theory and freely cleaning each others toilets for funsies in their free time which somehow creates a surplus state.

Yeah, but using schools and pop culture to indoctrinate people is only physical in an extremely abstract sense. Getting people to act against their own self interest by misinforming them is a pretty insidious way that states can use to maintain their power.

Actually read Marx before you try to argue against his ideas. You'll likely find out that Marx's ideas are surprisingly similar to ideas of many anarchist thinkers. Wew.

I'm already way ahead of you wewanon. I'm deriving my critique of Marx's ideas from his debates with Engles and Bakunins disagreements about the nature of revolution. Marx' ideas were similar to the ideas of anarchist thinkers, but they're not similar enough for them to be worth a shit in anarchist theory.

And this right here is the one thing about states that really gets me. I think tbh the Marxist strategy of seizing the state sounds easier on paper, for sure, and I understand why its attractive over the anarchist praxis
But straight up, power corrupts. I think the Marxist concept of the DotP and the "withering away" of the state overlooks this dramatically. I understand the argument that eventually its role becomes redundant and purposeless, but I can't see the societal organ with the sole "legitimate" use of force neither relinquishing that power willingly, nor ever wanting to. Instead what would stop them from simply stating "we're not there yet, you still need us" and continuing to rule ad nauseum?
Personally the only reason I'd ever back a Marxist revolution is with the frame of mind that establishing socialism is more important than secretarianism. However I can't see communism as ever being achievable under a state unless a secondary revolution occurs after significant establishment of a socialist economy, one which removes the state itself to achieve the "stateless" condition of communism.

I write all this though with full acknowledgement of the fact I haven't read Engel's work on the subject (forget the book name). If anybody who is more familiar with it would like to clarify I'd appreciate it.

See, I would call them coercive only in an extremely abstract sense, but perhaps we're saying the same thing

I wonder how many anarchist ideologies exists today

How many various authoritarian ideologies exist?

I just assumed you hadn't because
is an extremely gross simplification, almost to the point of being absurd. You're leaving out an awful lot of nuance here.

I will readily admit I am using a hamfisted description of Marx to make a point, but the nuances don't change the irreconcilable differences in how a stateless society would be achieved. Marx was not an anarchist and his revolutionary framework is not ideal nor likely feasible for achieving an anarchist society, though it is pretty decent for setting up half-baked communist hell holes.

Nigga what? Ain't you never heard of anarcho-communism?

Why not? What makes anarchist frameworks more feasible in your opinion?

insult to injury

Who national anarchism here?

sectarianism intensifies