Is there any reason beyond being an edgelord to write your circumscribed A like the way on the right...

Is there any reason beyond being an edgelord to write your circumscribed A like the way on the right? I motion that we completely strike the edgy A from the anarchist lexicon. "Maecenas consequat ante"

to get kids at hot topic to buy an ebin anarchy t shirt of course

Is there any reason beyond being an edgelord to be an anarchist?

bread book

It's not a very good book, tbh.

You actually want communism and not just a state with red flags

No. It's even bad for edgelords because it looks sloppy, the left A looks a lot more threatening.

No, it wouldn't work anyway. It's literally impossible for a country-size anarchy to function, as humans are psychologically incapable of processing a social group of more than a few hundred. The country will fracture into warring gangs, and after millions have been killed, one of them will seize power and form a new government. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Holla Forumstards love to talk about how communism has "never worked", but anyone can see it's true that anarchy really has never worked. Large groups of people simply cannot self-govern.

Holla Forums pls go

i like left more but right is easier to paint on walls

Country sized anarchy isnt what they want, the whole point of anarchism is every neighborhood is self dependent, everything is local

I like the idea of skipping steps.

That's honestly the reason 2nd flag exists. It's supposed to look like graffiti.

gee i wonder how world sized anarchy is supposed to funtion

as communism is anarchist
you fucking moron

no but seriously how does anarchy solve the problem of irregular resource distribution in nature?, because if every small community is independant, then what about those communities that don't have enough natural resources around them to mantain a decent living quality?, if they are supposed to stop existing then how do you allocate the growing population, in an enviroment that increasingly has less arable land, minerals, and other stuff, without using subpar territories

They trade obviously.

What if a community has nothing of value to trade other than labor?

The situation you describe results from the need to manage limited resources, and the competition that arises because of it. In a (theoretical) scenario of perfect self-sufficiency there is no need for interaction, no need to manage these resources, and no need for conflict over resources. Which is also why material abundance is correlated with peace.
The state disappears when it becomes obsolete. And the state in the first place exists to enforce private property and mediate conflicting interests.

"Human nature" as used here is an idealist view that doesn't actually take into account the material conditions.

This is sort of why people need to move away from those barren wastelands incapable of sustaining life on their own. Especially overpopulated cities and desert countries. It's either that or maintaining commodity production.
A lot of cities - especially coastal - could be restructured to be self-sustaining. But cities as we know it would cease to exist. They'd be more like large villages, instead of places where capital flows to in a parasitic relationship, between the urban and countrysides.

Trade is a step towards commodity production. There is a very thin line between merely trading away surplus, and producing primarily for exchange. And it's easily crossed.

I'm talking trade in the sense of "hey buddy can I get some of that x?" "Sure bro but can I get some Y?"

Idk tho I'm not an anarchist.

That's part of the whole problem though. It's one thing to share in an experience, or merely trying something out. But the moment it becomes necessity you create the preconditions for capitalist relations.

I'm cycling between pro-civ and anti-civ constantly. I think the argument isn't settled yet. I look at things like evolutionary biology and complexity theory, a bit anthropology.
I don't buy the argument of human nature, read Boehm.

Man, what the fuck does "civ" even mean? How can you actually be anti-civ? In what manner is human interaction possible without civilization?

anti-civ anarchists basically think real life should be like Fallout where people just live in factions of a few - a hundred people

civ meaning varies. people conventionally think of civ as the mass centralization of communities after the advent of agriculture. human interaction was going on perfectly fine for hundreds of years before then.

in reality, an prims arent actually really wrong on anything. actual anarchism in something more than name can only exist in an anti or post-civ environment. i just dont think we can go back. accelerationism is the only way.

Today is much better. But with civilization came rising inequality. Modern society is bend on destroying itself anyway. We could have the best of pre-civ and modern civ life, but I don't see it happening.

No state doesn't mean no centralized goverment.

Just because I'm anti-civ, doesn't mean I'm primitivist. The little that I know of Zerzan for example is that they are delusional. He should read biological anthropology, it is embarrassing when he talks of symbology. A lot of those primitivist types have their own spooks and romanticize our past. They want to go back to certain things or are naive about how it actually was. And they still inject modern ideas into the primitivist framework.
You can never go back to something unless you fully erase what´s already there and build that old stuff on top of it. But that doesn´t happen.

My mind is fragmented at times.
I mean that the primitivist thinkers I know of are pretty delusional. Like Zerzan.

I hate the edgy A, but I guess the reason for it is to look more organic.

We /distributivism/ now
What a stupid fucking ideology

It’s good in terms of laying out the principles upon which the upper stage of communism would function, and why it’s a possibility even with the technology of the early 20th century. It’s also good in arguing why communism is compatible with human nature. Kropotkin is probably the only writer who describes with any detail what such a society may actually look like in terms of economic and political structures, and thus what we ought to aspire to. Something other theorists fail to do.

In terms of praxis though it is garbage, since he only describes vague ideas about community councils and volunteers that would go around expropriating things.

holy fuck

It's also really easy and even fun to read unlike most Marxist literature, imo

Read Kropotkin, brainlet.

Aside from the points previously raised, the logo on the left has the same clean aesthetic as a corporate logo, whereas the one on the right looks much more like something produced by unspecialised labour. Given anarchist tendencies to reject large scale society and mass production, it should make sense as to why a more rustic looking symbol might appeal too many of them.

we have to be concerned about our optics if we ever want to win anything

tbh the "edgy" A seems like it has been commodified into a generic and depoliticized symbol of "rebellion" more than the regular ol' A (i like the regular ol' A)

it's hard to dismiss optics but i think the way not to do is like the alt-right. they are obsessed with "optics" on an almost all-consuming level and bicker with each other constantly about it. some of these actual organized groups will even go so far as to mandate uniforms for their members.

i know some historians have commented on this – how fascists are operating on an almost totally aesthetic level. it's like (a) find the right uniform (b) …. (c) seize power. keep in mind that 20th century fascism was one of the least successful modernist ideologies.

optics matters, trivial shit matters. the left has better ideas but the right knows how to communicate. they assume people are stupid, and that's generally a reasonable assumption to make.



top kek

One God no masters, my dude


Then they trade their labor for resources, autist.

Read Hobbes.


God is evil.

You misspelled "is love"

I think it's intentionally vague. He seems to imply the actual methods and organization will and can only be decided at the time when faced with whatever circumstances are around, that it's impossible right now to try to plan a revolution when we have no idea when and where it will take place, we certainly can't plan and enact it better than the actually present working class can when it does happen.

Barter leads to currency, currency leads to bureaucracy, bureaucracy leads to the State.

The only way people can live collectivist is if everyone gives away things freely without an expectation of recompense. It's kinda like how you give presents to family on Christmas, but don't keep a running tally on the exact numerical value of the presents to make sure everyone comes out even. You just give because you care and because value is more than just material/labor cost.

As hinted at, this is not possible on large scales until the end of scarcity.

If there's a god that nigga will have to beg and plead for my forgiveness.

Until we reach communism we will never truly be able to understand God. Learn2Dialectics.

How will communism let us know what happened before the big bang?

The one on the right is much easier to produce, because it is sloppy. The one on the left if you have 3 seconds to do a graffiti you wont always get right.

Now that's what I call edgy