So in Rebel's new video he calls Strassturd a socialist

Everything you just said is true. You're probably one of the more based anarchists I've seen on this site even if I have fundamental ideological differences with you.

By the way, Rebel, if you read this, good fucking video.

Enjoy your religious dogma and impotent soviet nostalgia.
The future belongs to the libertarians. To those who to not merely seek to replace one set of masters with another set of masters, but abolish hierarchy.

Meanwhile you idiots can wank yourselves dreaming of the counter-revolution that will never come.

...

How do you feel about the concept of national syndicalism?

Syndicalism with authoritarian spooks on top. Just as susceptible to authoritarian degeneration as Useful Idiotites or National-Anarchists, as they still support one sort of heirarchy and alienation while rejecting others.

Perhaps not quite as bad as Marxist-Leninsts, but still a lot of potential for corruption. Perhaps potential fellow travellers, but not much more.

That's a shame. As far as I see it, the state, so long as it is democratic is essentially an organic entity consistent of the people. Either way, I respect your opinion, even if I don't necessarily agree.

See that is entirely self-contradictory. If it is entirely democratic, and thus not top-down and hierarchical, it is not a state.

If it has a set of borders, a national flag, a set of laws and a common culture, it's essentially a state in my opinion. It only becomes stateless anarchism when you get to the point there are no borders and the ability to travel is completely unrestricted by foreigners. What I'm talking about is essentially a minarchist democratic state. Not to mention, Switzerland has a system of direct democracy, however, I don't think anyone would argue that the nation of Switzerland is somehow a stateless society.

Nah, that's an arbitrary defintion. What if it has no flag? Is it then not a state? What if it does not have a common culture? Is Belgium not a state? That seems absurd.

The border-thing is a pretty important part of what a state is though. Non-states would be liquid as association of communes would be free thus there'd be no strict "borders" in the traditional sense.

Anarchism is about communes and individuals right to self-determination. If communes have to accept all strangers without limitations, then they do not have self-determination and thus it is not anarchism.

They do not have fully direct democracy, even though they have elements of it. However, they and Rojava are probably the closest things we have to stateless societies today.

National-syndicalists are not syndicalists. They support class collaboration and a single State-controlled "trade union" that is, in effet, corporatism.

National-syndicalism is a snowflake version of Fascism.

I really don't see how anything he said was particularly wrong.

I dislike nationalism, but it seems that Useful Idiot did want workers control.

what an idiotic argument. Some marxists turn out to be anti-communists but the marxist program (which Lenin fully supported and even extended with some additions like anti-imperialism) is fundamentally socialist. Unlike the program of Strassturdists, who actually instead of advocating a state and classless society seek to establish state enforced class collaboration which *surprise surprise* is essentially fascism. Just because they use our symbolism and some of our rhetoric in the most shallow and dishonest was possible doesn't mean that they aren't fascists. Fascists have been ripping off our aesthetics for years.

...

no he didn't, but I guess you could provide sources where he states that he wants the workers to control the means of production. And even if, his role in the Freikorps and the Nazi party say more about his supposedly socialist positions than every word he's ever written.

See, the thing is that we should distinguish between Pre-October Lenin and post-October Lenin. Pre-October Lenin was a genuine socialist revolutionary, while post-October Lenin tried to reconcile with the fact that the revolution failed to spread and thus implemented the measures which basically solidified the position of capital in the USSR. I'm not defending the post-revolutionary Soviet Union in any way but nevertheless you can't dismiss Lenin's body of work because the revolution failed.

Pre-October, just like Marx, still wanted a state to appropriate surplus value and prevent self-determination of communes.
Therefore he was never a socialist.

but this is bullshit. One of the goals of communism was and has always been the abolition of value production and thus the abolition of appropriation of surplus value. Marx has never advocated for the state to appropriate the surplus value, at least not as a permanent solution.

No, but he wanted to keep the state, which consolidates power and extracts surplus value, if not in exchange then in use.
Thus, the solution he advocated was not socialism and could not lead to socialism, unless another revolution was carried out.

That's not to reject Marx in totality, but marxists are anti-socialists and must be recognized as such.

Socialism was never about abolishing the state. It is absurd to claim that marxists are not socialists.

And us marxists DO agree that the state should be abolished but you can't just remove the state straight after the revolution and expect that everything will go smoothly.

no?
surplus value is measurable, it's the difference in amount of hours spent labouring and the amount of hours actually paid for, its expression is always in the form of exchange value and is thus tied to exchange value. How can there be surplus value expressed through use value?
Which solution? Marx advocated for the abolition of state and classes through the sublation of private property carried out by the working class. The state as such is a product of class society and doesn't exist in isolation. This is the reason why we say that the state "withers" away once the classes cease to exist. So I don't see how Marx didn't advocate socialism. But I guess you could shed some light on the claim you're making.
wew

this is what tankies actually believe

Tankie?

Socialism is about worker ownership over the means of production, it has nothing to do with the state.

Yea guys fuck that rebel kid lets all go watch xexizy instead

You seem to be applying anarchist philosophy across the entire socialist spectrum.

An-com flag poster obviously knows nothing about marxism and is trying to bait and stir up sectarianism.
Can this just end already?

It's funny that almost every successful anarchist revolution/project installed a "totally not a state" state apparatus following their intial success.

Nah m8, that was the spooky scary marxists coopting their 'real' revolution and stabbing it in the back with their statism!

It's funny that almost every successful marxist revolution/project installed a "totally not capitalism" capitalist system following their intial success.

It's funny that almost every successful Marxist revolution/project installed a "totally not capitalist" system of private property and exploitation following their intial success.

See I can meme too! :)
Now please explain to me how a system that is not top-down and hierarchical like a state is a state.
Would that mean that coops are capitalism too? :^)

By the way, systematically alternating between bashing anarchists for failing to set up a state and bashing anarchists for succeeding in setting up a state, just makes you look like a sectarian dickwad who only really cares about bashing otherly branded leftists at any cost and by any means (or argument). Which, quite logically even if too much people manage to miss it, is a direct reflection of your politics.

Congrats, now you look more stupid and sectarian than they guy who attacked you (seemingly) unprovoked.

You are pretty bad at this, is what I am trying to say.

Good one.
Name one Marxist revoultion that implemented socialism.
None?
Great. Can we then stop pretending that these are socialist revolutionaries, when they don't bring about socialist revolution?

But its not bashing anarchists for both setting up a state and failing to do so.
Its bashing anarchists for either setting up a state and thus not actually following through the anarchist project, or when they try to do so without setting up a state, being crushed .

Historically anarchist revolutions don't succeed either only being anarchist in name or being smashed. No one is blaming anarchists for setting up transitional states to defend themselves, that's what marxists want.

Sure is idealistic in here…

I'm just saying you look retarded when you say retarded shit. It's honest advice, take it or leave it.

I've otherwise had this argument a million times. There are a million ways in which it will go nowhere. If the theory of the state between both arguers is different (it most definitely is) and they both have an exceedingly shaky idea of what their theories are founded upon (which they usually do), the argument will go nowhere.

Though, food for thought: if marxists don't bash anarchists for "setting up transitional states to defend themselves", if, as you say, marxists want this, then you have historically had a pretty poor way of showing it by making the anarchists' organizational structures (economic and military) your primary enemy in pretty much all revolutionary situations. As I'm sure ancom flag will be quick to argue.

Fucking beautiful. Keep it up.

fair enough, but it's important to recognize that "use value" in feudalism is a different form of "use value" than the one dominant in capitalism, as use value in capitalism exists only exists in relation to exchange value. In fact I would call it surplus product instead of feudalist surplus value, as value is a category specific to capitalism.
And it's still not possible to express surplus value through use value in capitalism, after all this isn't feudalism.

Holy hell man try to contain your autism. Is Marxism and the USSR all you ever think about? You've already derailed the thread so nice job at lowering the already pathetic standards of dialogue here.

Revolutionary anarchists are far more revolutionary than every single stalinist. So it shouldn't be all too surprising that revolutionary anarchists have the same goals as communists.

...

I don't deny that.

Totally not states guys.

I'm not the guy he was arguing with.

I'm all for serious debate with anarchists but if the best you guys have are people like this ancom kid then we're always going to consider you a joke. Next time you feel like you want to 'fight back' please consider trying something more than insults and endlessly rehashed strawmen.

Co-op's exist within capatalism. Their existence has no influence on property relations. They are neither socialist nor capalist institutions.

Well, if you aren't aware of context, you were begging for that response.

"Political leader"? He was a popular figure among Ukrainian revolutionaries, granted, but he had no authority to actually command anyone.
The Black Army was a voluntary army. Though it's funny you identify Makhno with proletarian rule.

Okay… some syndicate bureaucrats made shitty calls. Lesson learned. What can I say? If anarchist theory had been followed to the letter, they would have known to watch out for self-important political would-be leaders compromising with liberalism.

Now you look even worse.

Hey guys, just to make sure you bitches know this. It's perfectly necessary that we discuss our points of view which would naturally lead to infights, but remember that we have a bigger enemy to deal with: The Right. I still subscribe to plenty of leftists I don't agree with (Finnish Bolshevik) and discuss there. Don't be assholes to Rebel

Source? Literally everything written about the Makhnovists and the Black Army would contradict that statement.

Ok. So is the US military.

That's weapons grade idealism.

No, you are not. Throwing memes around because you are not allowed to dictate the terms of the discussion, citing
is not a serious discussion.

And to be quite honest, I've reached sort of a terminal point with this board's sectarianism.
At one point I'd preach the left unity meme and bash my comrades for acting in a sectarian manner. Now I've come to realize that unless marxist figureheads (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin) are publicly criticized from time to time, marxists (with maybe three exceptions) are going to get the impression that they are the "majority" (a permanent obsession of theirs) and that they get to call the shots. Then daily, unprovoked, gratuitous anarchist bashing (based on memes no less) get posted that basically destroy any remote possibility of serious discussion.
Now, even if I really don't agree with ancomflag, at least he will keep the worst tankiddie offenders busy. Then I might be able to make a point about class dynamics or leftist academy without getting it drowned in a sea of shit that nobody will bother to swim through.

Point being, there is never going to be serious discussion on this board, let alone one that involved multiple ideological perspectives.
Enjoy the ride, kid.

Some nerve to equate "everything I've read" to "literally everything written". And I don't even get the impression you've read that much.
Now, all economic production in Black Army zones was based on self-managed communes. Any political decision was argued and made in soviet congresses that freely admitted all ideological inclinations (bolshies included). Makhno held no military title and had no authoritative command on the Black Army.
What is this great power of Makhno that you speak of?

Unlike the Red Army… but you must be thick like a brick if you fail to notice the difference between the three. Hint: it has something to do with the kind of war they engage in.

If you really think that theory is idealism, well… you seem to be wasting your time here.

People hate Rebel because he is an obese piece of shit, not because he ideologically pretends to be a christian commie

I'm well aware my post was devoid of any substance, it was just a brief message typed from a phone. If anything you've added some to it though with more baseless insults directed at Marxists. You're right to point out what a pathetic tragedy this board is though. Unity within the mythical 'left' was never feasible or desirable.

He had full veto power over decisions in the Black Army. He ordered executions and issued currency. I'd say he had plenty of authority.

It wasn't voluntary on an individual basis. It was voluntary for the community representatives to vote on a resolution to commit men to the war effort.

ItWasMerelyAnAct.jpg
You don't get to be cancerous and then complain that the board is dying.

Now you are just proving my point. I never directed baseless insults at marxists in any of my points ITT. The most I did was say you were being cancerous just now. Then again:

Okay then. Just don't pretend you ever actually believed or wanted it.

Nice petty insult to start off with.

See

I wasn't saying theory is inherently idealistic. Your belief that organic social movements will dogmatically adhere to it is.

IntoTheTrash.jpg

-Palij

Wait, you have that wrong. That is not an insult. That is just me pointing out to you going out on a limb and getting pissy because, again, I am not letting you dictate the terms of the discussion.
Here is an actual insult, though: you are a fucking pussy, and an would-be intellectual pussy at that.

I wasn't expecting them to dogmatically adhere to it. That is the entire point: they won't, so enabling structures that would let bureaucrats take a conciliatory direction was a complete omission when the CNT syndicates began to be organized. Again, point taken, something to learn from.

And wage-labour with consumer good existed within feudalism. I guess it wasn't capitalism for the arbitrary reason

I care a lot about socialism.
These people want to shit on Strasscucks for being non-socialists; well, I'll shit on them for being non-socialist.

Historically, there has been no greater enemy to the socialist cause than Marxist. These guys have tarnished and set back the socialist project decades in ways that fascists, liberals or conservatives never could!
The authoritarian "left" is a plauge upon our movement that will stab us in the back and consolidate power as it has every other time we have tried to cooperate with them. There is no reason, especially in theorectical terms to think that they will not do so again. I have as much reason to trust an AnCap as I have to trust a Marxist.

Either these people are not leftists, or I'm not, because they are certainly not my comrades and they must be fought the same way fascists are to be fought, hell, even with more intensity.

We are the way of the future.
It is much better to have an enemy in the open, than an ally that cannot and should not be trusted.

Get over yourselves, in regards to both the obsession with name fags and nit-picking over VERY arguable details.

You can't just go around calling people you don't like non-socialists because you have major disagreements with them.

This goes for anarchists calling leninists anti-communists, and stupid sectarian leftcoms too.

He DID want to put the MoP under worker control. Read something about this topic. He called for worker-based uprising. He was legitimately a socialist.

You can't just say "lol no he's not" because "Hurr nationalism". Nationalism is shit but it's no reason for sectarianism.

also

Pic related, all of this thread.

This.
Because socialism is a scientiffic experiment and thus our theory and praxis ought reflect lessons from the past.

Having the name field enabled was a mistake tbh.

You can call them socialists when they actively push for something that isn't socialism, hasn't ever lead to socialism, and has actively fought socialism whenever it encountered it.

Did Marx believe that a statist mode of production could lead to socialism?
Yes. He was wrong. Primarily because he failed that the state has its own mode of production going on, and so therefore it's not simply going to fade away without a revolution causing it to do so.

Frankly, I would prefer to skip state tyranny, as I would prefered to have skipped capitalism entirely.

And yet you wouldn't call Marx a non-socialist. Just because you think he is wrong doesn't mean he doesn't have the same goal as you.

1905: Lenin says intellectuals need make the (social democratic) revolution because people are too dumb. Anarchists (and left-populists maybe) organize workers' councils (soviets).
1917: Soviets are widespread, workers say they want to have control over their lives and carry out a revolution to that end, and won't support anyone who isn't for it. Everyone but Lenin and Trotsky say no, even here. Lenin publishes a half-sectarian, half-perfidious paper on the matter.
1918: Soviets are gerrymandered and crushed by Bolsheviks.

You think I don't know this?
I literally mention this in this very video we're talking about.

Lenin had his excuses.
Were they good ones?
I don't think so. I *agree* with you on this.

But unlike Lenin, Useful Idiot actually did try and produce a *worker* based uprising, not an intellectual one, and instead of crushing councils and unions, he promoted them

Seems more like a voluntold style of enlistment. My mistake.

I'm saying Marxists for a reason.
I'm not calling them reactionary, they just don't want the same revolution as us and will actively fight socialism once their leaders ocnsolidate power.
Thus anti-socialists.

How do you figure?

After a particularly hard offensive by the enemy, the soviets basically issued a call along the lines of "we are not going to conscript, but if you don't come help in the trenches we'll probably lose" (if this matters that much to you, it was a one-time thing at some point halfway through the war). If that's what you mean by "voluntold", it doesn't seem that bad.

By "soviets", of course, I mean the revolutionary workers' and peasants' councils of the Ukraine, under the protection of the Black Army.

It is in their material interest to do so; just like the bourgeoisie will fight socialism because it renders them incapable of exploiting workers through exchange-value, state must fight socialism because it renders the state apparatus incapable of exploiting the worker through labour- and use value.

But establishing socialism straightaway undermines the revolution in its task of carrying out its terror and removing the bourgeois class.

Two people both wanting to cross a river but while you would have us swim across it, I would have us build a bridge, unfortunately you swimming gets in the way of building a bridge thus we marxists would really like you to stop denouncing us as anti-socialist because we want you to stop swimming.

If it's a true workers state how are would the proletariat exploit themselves?

Because we can actually make a revolution that creates something bigger than a third world small area no one cares about (Zapatistas).

Anarchists and leftcoms are idealists who don't care about what constitute the real conditions for the possibility of socialism.

It's not about material interest, it's about structures that can withstand.

Unlike most you here I'm not under delusions that revolution is actually possible at any point. There are points at which nothing can guarantee victory.

And as usual, thread devolves into sectarianism

It is in the interest of the worker's state to eliminate the bourgeois class. Once the bourgeoisie is gone the state ceases to function as its role as the mediator of conflict between classes is obsolete due to the lack of classes.

The state has no material interest other than that of the class it represents, in the DotP that is the proletariat.

I can guarantee ancomflag has already heard this old, tired dogma point that nobody outside of communist youth circles actually believes.

Try something a little more original.

Nice dodge, user.

Unironical No True Scotsman.
Wow.

and nobody who actually carries on attempts of actual revolution believes in anarchism or left communism. Leninism and Maoism are THE dominant ideology of actual revolutionary attempts ongoing to this day.

A first world moralist idealist sure knows more than people actually fighting for his dream. How quaint.

Really? You'd side with the anscaps (anti-state capitalis) First of all, all they do is moan. They've never done shit. They just suck their bosses dick like the tools they are. They're mortal enemies.

but this is actually a very good explanation based on the nature of the state in capitalism

As in not a degenerated workers state. You're an insufferable asshole.

Strasser was a haplocuck but I don't think you can deny he was a socialist just because of his nationalism.

This thread has made me dislike anarkids and leftcoms even more, tbh. Their sectarianism can be compared to that of tankies and maoists.

Yeah, but if we don't establish socialism, the whole revolution is pointless.

So even if I am to conceed your point that anarchist revolutions aren't as efficient somehow, your choices are still between a revolution that is inefficient and one that is pointless.

Show me a true worker's state. Name. One. Instance.

It can only truely respresent the proletariat if it is non-hierarchial with direct democray and/or instantly recallable representatives and free association. And if it has that, it is not a state.

True, because the state is a class itself with it's own independent mode of production. It want's to abolish the bourgeoisie, because they're the competition.

Once they're gone, the state exploits in place of the bourgeois.
Thus why they have never faded away. Thus why they haave enriched themselves.
Thus why they have never established socialism and always fought it.

Can I suggest that we shouldn't trust liberals? Would that be sectarianism? What about AnCaps?
I know! Let's trust Fascists! Everything else would be sectarianism.

You could say the same about modern Marxists and sucking statist leader cock and supporting an exploitative mode of production. We have as much reason to support AnCaps.

Now the discussion is: Do we allow Marxists and AnCaps to be fellow travellers?

It's not a matter of trust.
Alliance is not a matter of trust.

Read Sun Tzu.

Can you please explain to me how you're a socialist when you support implementing something that isn't socialism, that has never lead to socialism and arguably would never lead to socialism unless rebelled against by socialists?

If you think socialism can be established in any one region of a modern nation state, you are beyond stupid.

You said arguably. There's your reason.

Is it a matter of common interest?
What common interest to I share with Marxists? How are they any more my allies than AnCaps?

Isn't Rebel basically a left-com too? They are literally eating their own so lol rip.

There are dozens of tomes refuting your tired dogma (and hundreds that demonstrate your dogma false).

I'm not dodging. You haven't made a point, and I won't bother pretending you have.

I support worker ownership over the means of production. That makes me a socialist.

When has anarchism led to socialism?Every anarchist revolution has been a failure or irrelevant in the fight against capitalism.

Ideologically similar, yes. But there's so much leftcom cancer (evident in this thread) that I simply can't stand them.

What's the word filter for Useful Idiot?
You do that homework, buddy.

Okay, so we have like 100+ examples of it not leading to socialism at all, so I think I'm being very generous by not just outright saying that it will not and cannot ever lead to socialism.

You still want a state to exploit those workers and control them. That's not socialism.

Every one of them. Sure in *both* cases, they got stabbed in the back by Marxists, but in both cases, workers controlled the means of production with no state to exploit them.

Can't we just kill each other after we kill our common enemy? You know guys… the RIGHT!!!!!!

All "workers states" have been degenerate from inception. That's because the concept of a workers state is degenerate in itself.
I N S U L T S
N
S
U
L
T
S

Great, I agree. So what's the issue? They're still useful idiots.

I dont want a state but its a necessary tool SO THAT WE DONT GET FRANCO'D OR KRONSTADTED

The level of discourse keeps sinking like the Titanic.

The bourgeoisie and their interests do not disappear after the revolution. If you're horizontally structured government is actively working against those interests wouldn't it be reasonable to call it a state apparatus?

Anarchists were never Frano'd damn it. They were crushed by the Republic that was backed by the state communists! Fuck! Go read! You guys don't help at all

Anarchists and leftcoms don't matter, literally do not matter, in revolutions. They have always been and still are the vast minority of revolutionaries.

Do MLs and Maoists cry about backstabbing anarchists and leftcoms ruining their day? Nah, they wipe them out and ignore them the minute they get uppety.

Structures and organization > feels and ideals every single time. If they want to be taken seriously they have to come to grips with how they are historical failures precisely because they refuse to meet reality on its terms and then make it move towards their ideal, not the other way around.

You realize that "socialist states" CAUSED both of those?
Look up the Spanish May Days, Kronstadt is self-explanatory

How did the workers control the MoP in Catalonia? The Anti Fascist Committee was not exclusively proletariat or socialist.

It dont matter who it is, anarchism cannot defend itself

But muh militias and disorganized but organic groups will surely stand up to modern armies this time

Do you really demand instant gratification? Can you not conceive the revolution to be step towards establishing socialism by removing the dominance of the bourgeois class and placing the proletariat in power?

That is ridiculous, the state is not a class it is an abstract entity assigned to the position a class finds itself in when it holds a monopoly on the use of force.

Have you ever considered that the reason the state didn't dissolve in state capitalist nations formed by marxists revolutions was that they still had class enemies? I don't recall the USSR ever removing the bourgeois class.
Start thinking of capitalism as the global system it is. Revolution takes place worldwide always, not in small pockets where the entire process of it can take place beginning to end.

Maoists are a joke and not taken seriously by anyone else.
MLs are universally despised by all other leftists and canonically considered "right-marxists" worldwide.
You must be braindead if you think that costly capitalism (end result of all ML/M societies so far) is anything to be proud about, or indeed any viable path towards some sort of "ideal".

Yeah, then the state socialist structure corrupts, turns into capitalism and then WE the non-state socialists have to deal with all the historical baggage they leave behind. They backseated socialism. That's all they've done. They were a small minority in Spain anyways

XDDD we literally have the same thread every day! Its pointless!

Let's be friends and focus on the Right?

Fuck yeah! Fuck all this shit.

They're idiots who'll kill us the first chance the get. They same can be said about AnCaps.

Are AnCaps my comrades?

Maybe you mean LUXEMBURG'D or BELÁ KUN'D?

Only is "state" and "organization" are synonymous now. Does that make a union a state?
That'd be absurd.

True, the CNT/FAI did not control everything; but the parts they did, certainly had worker's democracy, even their military battalions.

That's the thing; The proletariat aren't in power. The state is. Sure the state does not want to compete with capitalists in order to exploit the workers.

Really? So the state will just instanly and magically relinquish power and the nomenklatura will stop living in muh privilege and accumulate capital for themselves the second there are no more competing classes around to seek to exploit the workers?

How convenient! That means that we can have communism tomorrow if we destroy the remnants of feudalism! Capitalism would just magically fade away once it no longer has any competition!

The right? Like anti-socialists? The ones that fight socialism at every turn?

You mean Marxists?

Just listen to what I'm saying.
Sun Tzu. Useful idiots. Strike first.

The CNT/FAI didn't control everything because certain industries were kept nationalized by the state socialists and wouldn't give them to the workers.

What's your definition of a state?

I'd say the governing body that enforces class interests in favor of one class over another could be considered a state.

You guys are idiots!!! You act if we were big enough to be able to handle this level of infighting. We're a tiny fucking minority. Our biggest enemies are the capitalists!!!!!! We'll kill each other when we, the socialists, become the dominant force.

Yeah let's gulag porky before we start killing each other

You're saying fuck all and telling me to read everything written by a certain author in the hope that I might find something about useful idiots.

A state is a top-down hierarchial structure, mostly concerned with amassing power and keeping the order - their interest is not the same as the bourgeoisie, at least they're not identical: However since they have two differnent methods of exploitation and value they exploit, they enter a mutually benficial relationship with the Bourgeois Class, as they both must exploit the workers.
There is nothing truly revolutionary about support one or the other, though.

HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO BE STABBED IN THE BACK AND HAVE LENINISM FAIL MISERABLY BEFORE WE REALIZE THAT MARXISTS HAVE DONE MORE HARM TO THE SOCIALISTS CAUSE THAN PORKY COULD EVER HOPE TO?!

This thread.

It's the art of war. You don't even need to read it. Just realise why I'm telling you to read it.

That's why the Philipines Maoists are making the government shit itself, why the Colombian maoists did the same, why the Nepal maoists actually toppled their government, and why the Indian government has a big problem with the maoists in its south east. Yeah, they only joke here is you.

Actuality > ideality. An ideal with no way to become real is a false ideal.

Later comrade!!! Right now the Right is too strong.

Buddy, Marxists have been more trouble than they're worth.
We're a big scary totalitarian boogeyman today because of them.
That's not worth it.

Tell me why Marxists are my comrades more so than, say, AnCaps?

What I am trying to say is that the right is so strong exactly because Marxists are associated with the Left.

Because they make good points in their critiques towards capitalism. Right now is not the time to do this. We'll be all split and weak. We need to work together to sway the public towards the left and THEN we can kill the Marxists. I'm ok with libertarian marxists though.

All of them achieved nothing other than prompting increased state repression. The FARC even made peace treaties because they know they cannot possibly win. I'm waiting for the rest of the handful of barely heard of maoist "guerrillas" to follow suit.
Reals > Feels indeed.

No, the Right right now is strong more because socdems and liberals are associated with the Left.

I hope you realize how retarded you are.

No, he's an idealist. Although he's probably changed 10 times since then while rambling about jesus.

The state is not a separate entity. It's a class tool that acts in the interest of the class in power.

The current state is always acting in the interest of capital. They are not opposed. Even seemingly anti-capitalist measures like regulation, market interference and labor concessions are for the benefit of capatalism. It eases class tension allowing capitalism to continue unopposed.

...

>Guys, we went through shit, we made the working class go through shit, and we landed on a compromise that fundamentally set back the possibility of any sort of revolutionary change in the near or possibly far future, but hey, WE GOT SOMETHING OUT OF IT!
Stalinism is literally social-democracy with guns.

So? They don't apply the same logic to the state, much like AnCaps don't apply their logic to capitalism?

Fascists make valid Criticisms of capitalism. Are they my comrades now?

Really? You think more people think about liberals than people who think about totalitarianism when they hear the word "socialism"?

Buddy, certain bourgeoisie and state-interests clash all the time. Thus why you have "libertarian" bourgeois people like the Koch Brothers.
Sure, the bourgeoisie have a lot of power, but so does the state, and neither like to ceede that power. They just have a mutualist relationship right now.

Why else has the state never faded away and always accumulated power and enriched its own nomenklatura?

Boy, what a fundamental setback. I'm so defeated because the enemies and dumb people believe it, oh no!

You're really bad at theory.

Fascists are capitalists.

Forced user when?

So? They still point out the phenomenon of the Spectacle and the appropriation that capitalism makes of culture. That's a valid criticism that means a lot to the individual.
Now are they my comrades, just because they critique capitalism without trying to implement socialism?

Ancom flag poster thinks the state is a class. There's no point.

They made peace with the bourgeoisie. Now porkies have more power, get to call the shots, get control of guns, and you turned your backs on anyone who might have had hope for a revolutionary alternative.
Now the state has a precedent for considering leftist groups potentially terroristic, tighten supply of arms among the workers, and strengthened liberal hegemony. And that's just off the top of my head.

But of course, you are a retard who thinks anyone who disagrees with you has your mental handicaps, so what does it matter.
Keep pretending you'd have the balls to risk your life to fight any of those guerrillas you jerk off to.

No, you do.

...

...

...

Take a moment to realize that the only difference, from your point of view, is that leninists capitulated while anarchists refused to capitulate.
You bash the anarchists for being uncompromising.

Soc-cuck confirmed.

Look pal, the current states ultimate goal is to maintain capitalism. Concessions may piss off some porkies from time to time but it's better than revolution.

The Koch's are acting out in their own self interest. They short slightedly push back against regulations to increase profit margins. But they're rebelling within the capitalist framework so it's meaningless on a sytemic level.

Also, you wank to sissy porn.

The state's own goal is to preserve it's own power and right to exploit. Right now it has a mutualist relationship with the bourgeoisie.

Please answer the second part of my post as to why the state enriched itself and didn't melt away in all these cases, if it isn't a class in of itself.

It didn't melt away because it's a manifestation of class interest.

Party membership came with benefits but it isn't like all the profits were flowing straight into their pockets. It's a curious kind of ruling class that is incapable of passing on the wealth they supposedly own to their offspring.

Anyway you should probably calm down with the shitposting because you're making anarchists look like colossal retards.

stunning display of theoretical prowess

BROTHERS! (and sisters)

WE SHOULD BE STRUGLING TOGHETHER!

The offspring of the party cadre get raised to replace them. If you think of the socialist state as what it is, a huge national corporation, then ensuring that offspring take influential places within the party and can climb their way up makes way more sense than ordinary inheritance based on concrete private property.

So who was the ruling class in the USSR and how did the nomenklatura manage to accumulate vast sums of money if your answer is "the Proletariat"? :^)

I guess bishops and other theocracies are not hierarchies or classes because they cannot pass their wealth on, then.

What an absurd thing to say. Power, in of itself, is a good, and one may certainly appoint and welcome family members into such a framework.

Why? When did Marxists ever not sabotage the left? Why are we to trust them more than AnCaps?

...

I don't think the USSR was a successful attempt at socialism.

And I would agree with that. However, could you name one statist revolution where socialism existed that the state did not crack down upon or did not exploit in some way?

fuck you rebel

You guys are fucking idiots.

why is it that you're abstracting the political from the economical? The state represents the ideal capitalist and is thus based in the class nature of capitalism. No classes means no state

nah, we're communists.

No. I can't. Anarchist revolutions have largely been failures as well. I don't think win/loss ratio really comes into play.

Yes, no classes means no state the same way no state means no classes.
It's not reflected in reality, and thus theory should be adjusted to reflect the fact.

Indeed, just as no state means no classes, a state means classes, because the state is in of itself an exploitative and hierarchical mechanism that seeks to exploit and maintain itself perpetually.

Thus why socialism has never been born from statism and why even "socialist" states have fought socialism every chance it got.

Anarchists never failed at socialist. Both failed revolutions we had, at least had socialism.
That's two more instances than you have.

All you have is a long line of 100+ examples of your theory not reflecting reality.

Scientific studies are supposed to discern quantitative proportions as qualitative relations. Ratios are everything.

No, the only difference is that the Bolsheviks got something done called the USSR, it ended up failing, but it was something actually done. You, on the other hand, never got anything done. You tripped on your face right at the outset of the race, you didn't even come in last place.

I'm willing not to resort to full shitposting but coops won't be the way production is organized in socialism because of the simple fact that ownership won't exist anymore. The whole society will run production. Coops on the other hand imply that the workers own the business. This is totally opposed to the idea of socialism. Capital as such only ceases to exist if we sublate private ownership over the means of production and thus the division of labor. But because coops are owned privately (by their workers) they still exist as capital and follow the mantra of self valorization and accumulation. Capital seeks to suck out living labor which only works if it gets subordinated to the respective capital. This essentially means that the workers in a coop aren't just still exploited by capital but that they are the agents of their own exploitation.
Instead, production and distribution in communism/socialism will be organized globally.

Capitalism still exists unopposed. All socialist experiments have failed. You're too caught up in a historical LARP to see past the failure of the entire 20th century left.

This is literally the argument SocDems make against revolutionaries.

That something being "not socialism".

Let's ask Papa Marx:

When "the direct producer" is "the possessor of his own means of production" then he is "a non-capitalist producer." This is "a form of production that does not correspond to the capitalist mode of production" even if "he produces his product as a commodity."- Capital III: 735, 1015
"The means of production and subsistence, while they remain the property of the immediate producer, are not capital (OOPS NICE SPOOKS NERD!). They only become capital under circumstances in which they serve at the same time as means of exploitation of, and domination over, the worker." When the producer owns his "conditions of labour" and "employs that labour to enrich himself instead of the capitalist" then it is an economic system "diametrically opposed" to capitalism. Capital 1: 938, 931

There are many good criticisms of Markets, but if you conflate socialism with a planned economy you're missing the whole point of the endeavour.

I am taking the lessons of the 20th century into account.
We trusted you. We thought Marxists were socialists. We bought into the same marxian dogma.
No more.

USSR crushed any vestige of socialism in a week.
Anarchists sustained socialism for years.
Talk about coming last.

That just shows how pathetic anarchism is: even social democracy gets more done.

Anarchism isn't socialism. You never accomplished anything like it, the Bolsheviks did more to make socialism possible.

where did I say this?
But the state is not exploitative and hierarchical because of its inherent ahistorical nature. There is no nature to the state which lies outside of history, so the modern form of the state, which is the bourgeois state, is ultimately tied to capitalism. And because of this the state will loose its importance and function in society once the class paradigm disappears. There is no further sense in maintaining a state, unless you believe that >muh power is something which can be abstracted from capital.
I think we agree on this matter, possibly in a slightly different way but still. It's true that every attempt to build socialism through state bureaucracy fails. But not because of >muh power but because the state in its function as an ideal capitalist never actually tried to build socialism but only implemented populist measures to ensure social peace (eg. the "socialist states" in south america). But the early soviet union wasn't such a state. The october revolution was the genuine attempt of the russian working class to destroy the rule of capital and the state once and for all. It failed because it couldn't spread, not because of some petty ideological issues.

That's a bold statement to make. IMO Catalonia and the Makhnovchina weren't any nearer to achieving socialism than the bolsheviks were in Russia. That's because of the nature of socialism which is inherently global.

You mean by pretending to have it while absolutely fucking it up and giving more ammunition to capitalists than even the insurrectionary anarchists ever did?

A) It's amusing you have to resort to assuming I'm an anarchist to make your snarky little point
B) You've still not realised your own stupidity.

Hahahaha oh boy you are a joke.
Now I can see where your insecurities regarding theory come from: you have none of it.

If you're gong to break your chains, you may as well break them all off at once.

I guess the nomenklatura didn't happen then and all those states faded away.
That's why we live in global communism right now.
Power is what makes a class.
If you have power and may excert it over others and extract from them in one way or another labour-time, then you are a ruling-class thus why the state exploited and maintained itself.
Your theory does not reflect the hundreds of cases that contradicts it. Fix your theory.

It failed because it was a state, what you like to call the "ideal capitalist" even though the kind of exploitation a state does in not the same kind as the kind a capitalist does. The label "state capitalist" is actually inacurate.

They had worker's control of the means of production. That's socialism. Don't make me quote Marx from COTGP at you.

You misinterpreted Marx. Marx says that capital isn't merely a thing but a social relation, with the goal of accumulating as much capital as possible. Now in the passage you quoted Marx used a farmer to exemplify this, iirc. A subsistence farmer isn't supposed to accumulate capital. He performs his labor for his own subsistence. This means that his means of production can't be treated as capital as its stock isn't growing. The same thing applies to many self employed laborers who aren't really earning much besides the money they need for surviving. Their farms/companies are in what german theorists call "the embryonal stage of capital" which isn't capital yet but has the potential to become capital once it's able to suck in enough labor for growing.
And this is exactly what happens in coops. You just can't compare a subsistence farmer working on is own to an industrial cooperation run by 100, 200 workers. The aggregate labor power invested in the production in such a industrial cooperation is enough to let the cooperation become capital and to start the self-movement of value. And once its capital my previous answer to you applies.

Under this argument then even communism, which invariably will include constant expansion of capital (literally a requirement of FALC) is also capitalism

As I've said, the revolution failed to spread and thus wasn't able to solidify its position against capital.

yawn, this is getting boring. Of course the exploitation run by the USSR was different than the exploitation of labor in the west. This doesn't mean that it wasn't state capitalism. State capitalism means that the state and its nomenclature run/control the extraction of surplus value so they can reinvest it in selected sectors of the economy. Either way both state capitalism and liberal capitalism serve capital and not "the state" as you seem to believe.

Which is admirable but not enough. The soviets controlled the factories in the beginning as well. Socialism is about abolishing the current state of affairs worldwide, not only in a region of Spain or rural Ukraine. For all your hate for stalinists you seem to follow the mantra of socialism in one country very strongly.

In communism the means of production won't appear as capital anymore. They are capital because they have developed a momentum of their own, sucking in labor for its own sake. This is happening because labor power is treated as a commodity whose use value is to produce more value than is needed for its reproduction. In communism however, labor isn't a commodity anymore, it's performed freely without compensation and thus the basis of exploitation and capital accumulation cease to exist.
So no, the objective of FALC isn't to accumulate capital. It's to achieve such a high productivity so every human is able to enjoy whatever whenever.
(I'm not really satisfied with this post tbh, there's much more to capital than I could explain in one simple post on a mongolian throatsinging board. I'm tired so bear with me)

Oh, so the problem was that the revolution did not occur everywhere at once in all countries ever, and socialism can only be achieved this way!
If that is socialism, count me out, for we'll never have it. Where do I sign up for the thing where I have complete control over my own life any my own production, that is diametriacally opposed to capitalism, because I want that!

What would make feudalism capitalism too.
What absolute bunkum.
The difference is found in the way surplus labour is extracted; this is different in the Statist mode of production, that is not necessarily dependent upon exchange and thus it is inaccurate to describe it as capitalism.

You had in some instances factories that were being subjugated by the state but were elsewise democratic. And the state crushed that instantly because that went against the class interest of the state.

You can easily have socialism in one place, much like you can have capitalism or feudalism or chattel slavery in one place. Much like we have communism in the jungles of the Amazonas.
Sure, the goal ought be to help each other internationally, but to say that socialism is not socialism because it is not everywhere is to ignore reality because it doesn't fit one's dogma.

By the way, Marx had no problem with inequality under socialism.
The abolition of the division of labour you speak of must only come in high-phase communism.

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural muh privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

I have dealt more at length with the "undiminished" proceeds of labor, on the one hand, and with "equal right" and "fair distribution", on the other, in order to show what a crime it is to attempt, on the one hand, to force on our Party again, as dogmas, ideas which in a certain period had some meaning but have now become obsolete verbal rubbish, while again perverting, on the other, the realistic outlook, which it cost so much effort to instill into the Party but which has now taken root in it, by means of ideological nonsense about right and other trash so common among the democrats and French socialists.

Quite apart from the analysis so far given, it was in general a mistake to make a fuss about so-called distribution and put the principal stress on it.

Any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of production itself. The capitalist mode of production, for example, rests on the fact that the material conditions of production are in the hands of nonworkers in the form of property in capital and land, while the masses are only owners of the personal condition of production, of labor power. If the elements of production are so distributed, then the present-day distribution of the means of consumption results automatically. If the material conditions of production are the co-operative property of the workers themselves, then there likewise results a distribution of the means of consumption different from the present one. Vulgar socialism (and from it in turn a section of the democrats) has taken over from the bourgeois economists the consideration and treatment of distribution as independent of the mode of production and hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution. After the real relation has long been made clear, why retrogress again?

Not really. The problem was that it didn't spread. This doesn't have to happen simultaneously everywhere.

what a pity.

No it wouldn't. The main difference between capitalism and feudalism is that the means of production appear in capitalism as capital, its products as commodities and its content is value (abstract labor). None of the listed characteristics applied to feudalism, which was the appropriation of surplus product by a feudal class consumed by it for its own subsistence (economically and politically speaking) and not for driving the production machinery further.

of course its dependent upon exchange. Otherwise the state owned companies wouldn't be able to realize the value of their commodities.

And the class interest of the state is the interest of emerging capitalism in the soviet union. You see?

Sure, the goal ought be to help each other internationally, but to say that socialism is not socialism because it is not everywhere is to ignore reality because it doesn't fit one's dogma.
But this is just wrong. The main reason society was divided into classes was because from the onset of surplus production (somewhere during the agrarian revolution) a group of people managed to seize the surplus product and control its use because there was enough for some to live better but not enough for everyone to live better. For socialism/communism to work society has to reach a point in productivity where EVERYONE'S needs could be satisfied at ANY TIME. This is precisely the reason why socialism in one country / on one mountain range / in one jungle isn't possible. Capitalism was the mode of production which achieved such a high productivity but due to its peculiarities with capital and capital accumulation we first have to get rid of capitalism to enjoy this high rate of productivity. But capitalism's productivity depends on the global nature of its production and distribution. So in order for socialism to work it'll have to inherit this globalist nature from capitalism.

I've read the Gotha Programme quite a few times. What should I do with it if you don't provide commentary? I don't even know what you're trying to argue.

No, and this is exactly where Statism is different from just plain old normal capitalism; like in feudalism, oftentimes the state appropriates the good itself for the use-value itself rather than realizing it through exchange value.
This is a very important distinction and exactly why the two classes of the state and the bourgeoisie are in a mutualist relationship.

No. Of statism. It's own interest. Not a bourgeois one. It's own.

So, hunter-gatherers are not real? They don't exist.
One thing is to argue that socialism will be under too much pressure from the outside if not international, which is absolutely a fair point, but to tell me that it is not communism because it is not global is an absurdity. You're telling me to ignore the existance of societies that exist right now within capitalism in which neither states or private property exists. You want me to say that these are not real because states and private property exists elsewhere.

Will democracy not be democracy, if the world is mostly filled with dictatorship?

You're arguing that socialism must mean an increase in the means of consumption for all, but Marx clearly states that lower-stage communism, or socialism, will have inequalities in means of consumption which is only a symptom of said mode of production.
Thus this thing with socialism being about The main reason society was divided into classes was because from the onset of surplus production (somewhere during the agrarian revolution) a group of people managed to seize the surplus product and control its use because there was enough for some to live better but not enough for everyone to live better.
The point is that through private property some live better because they exploit others. They live better, because they take that value from others.

Indeed, he denies that redistribution or equal means of consumption has anything to do with this in anything other than high-stage communism.

IntoTheTrash.jpg

It was. Forced anonymity when?

...

Agrarian revolution meant that since we can now store food, we have to have someone organize how to distribute it.
And then private property came.
And then the one who had to organize it said, well … since I get to say how we distribute it, I get most.
And then the people around him complained and they became nobles.
And then they needed an army, so that they could keep things as they are.
And then they started getting slaves, so that they wouldn't have to work to eat…

5000 years later… Capitalism.

We still need organizers. But we need to be able to keep them in check.
We also still need slaves. So, make them robots!

And if nobility and king are abolished, what need is there for armies?

BUT! You cannot have islands of Socialism-Communism, since they'll have to trade in capitalistic terms with other nations.

Socialism has to be universal, or it cannot be.

These were remrants. And could co-exist, simply because Capitalism is an evolution of them.
Socialism is about changing the mode of production and so on.

Just fuck my shit up inside

Scared he's taking the job of grimfags?

whoa sick burn brah

False. There are plenty of good reasons that socialism needs to be open towards internationalism, but this isn't one. There is no such thing as "trading on capitalist terms" as capitalism is not a mode of exchange but a mode of production. Trade is much older than capitalism and exists largely beyond the modes of production.
Island socialism, while perhaps not practical, is very much possible.

Like Coops cannot work long term, while corporations exist near them, capitalism can produce cheaper by exploiting.

You can simply not win against them, if you play on the same terms, cause the game is rigged against you.

Calm your autism m8

Unless the socialist territory can produce all goods it needs to survive it will have to trade with capitalists. Unless the socialists have claim to some invaluable resource the capitalists rely upon they will set the terms of trade.

Indeed, through outsourcing and such. That claim is quite distinct from saying that a socialist system cannot per definition exist within a larger capitalist system.

Yeah. That is an argument concerning its practicality, not its theoretical possibility. There's a pretty big difference.

So you're saying nothing. Neat.

AND unless the Socialists can PROTECT the resource, the Capitalists will take it by force.

youtube.com/watch?v=WEN5SEb5ASA

THEORITICALY I could be the president of the US!

THEORETICALLY

Indeed.
You are not, per definition, excluded from being the president of the US, thus meaning that should you sit in the oval office one day and be supreme commander, you will not be denied the title President because you by definition cannot be president.

Now apply this to the existence of one mode of production within another mode of production.

If theory doesn't stand up to reality is it really worth all that much?

How do we know it doesn't? We have worker's cooperatives competing with capitalist enterprises right now.
Even so, regardless of how competent a ruler a certain monarch is, he is still a ruler, and a democracy is still a democracy even if it enters gridlock. Practicality is another issue.

This is why am not an Anarchist.
Too much theory and optimism.

Throwing in the towel huh?

looks like you "won". keep fighting the good fight ancom poster.

Put the kool aid down fam

Like the optimistic theory that states don't exploit in their own right and will go away automatically in spite of the 100+ examples over muliple decades showing that they do not? :^)

Revolution/establishment of retarded mini community -> all problems magically disappear.

Marxists, everyone. Revolutionaries of the future :^)

...

Which comment? Yours or his?

I thought this thread was about hating Rebel, not each other?

come on, get back to it.

kek internet activism doesn't count

Internet activism is the only field in which Marxists haven't stabbed us in the back.

And fair point. It doesn't count.

Marxists, fundementally and inherently, will never be our comrades.

What? Their sustained and repeated pseudo-coups against anarchists on this board whenever they get the slightest impression that they might get away with it was, for me, the final straw in realizing how fundamentally rotten to the core some marxists are (not to mention petty and stupid).

you might speak for yourself but I guess I don't have to point out how your isolated opinion isn't important at all

His opinion is not isolated. If you truly believe it, you are just proving his point about marxists deluding themselves about their popularity.

That's actually true.
Man, it's sad to think about.
It's all about solidarity until they have their "proletarian" state and then they'll wipe us out like the useful idiots we are.

his opinion is by definition isolated. He doesn't speak for the majority of anarchists.

I guess Marxists opinions can be dismissed out-of hand too because they don't speak for the majority of the proletariat.

No, your opinion is by definition isolated. You don't speak for the majority of anarchists.

And the reactionary rears his ugly head.

Anarchism needs to deal with pro-fascists elements more than tankies imo.

This thread is awful. Tankies and retards like the ancom poster need to leave. Marxists and Anarchists with even a vague understanding of history have no issue working together and finding common ground, but this retard seems to thing Marxists are some bogeyman out to get him. It's stupid to reduce the failures of anarchist revolutions to being betrayed by some authoritarian(almost always Stalinist) faggots as if there weren't numerous other shortcomings preventing the implementation of socialism. This is almost Holla Forums-tier only instead of Jews it's Marxists.

...