Nice going Lefty pol. You're basically a mirror of normal pol, pure extremes...

get that shit out of here.

madotsuki_puke.jpg

a lot of people here are anarchists user

Redpill me on anarchism

"fuck da police" - anarchists

That's what neolibs say to keep Capitalism going.

At least give them a chance, senpai

They are probably the most idealist lefties which means they will never achieve shit but on the other hand, their butthurt levels are useful indicators of corruption within a given movement

A meme.

This pic is shit tbqh mi familia, political anarchism is not an intentional power vacuum.

It also heavily implies that statism is generally just mediocre liberal democracy when the absolute monarchs in the Middle East are the main driving force behind the jihadis. Before US foreign intervention the Arab world was slowly becoming secular.

...

Fuck off with this stale meme. Holla Forums is hardly even anarchist, and the few people who claim to be anarchist are people who know nothing about anarchist theory and are at best confused libertarian Marxists.

...

How is anarchism not either

A: A power vaccum
B: Democratic socialism except with 'JUST DON'T CALL IT A STATE'
?

All based on forced labour.
Such socialism. Much accomplished.

If all kinds of political organization is a state, then all commodity production is capitalism.

Well you guys are the ones that circlejerk about 'state capitalism'…

Can you present what you think is a form of government that isn't either a state or a power vacuum?

A federation of instantly recallable representatives, representing directly democratic communes.

Why is it not a state?

No top-down hierarchy with a monopoly on violence and worker-exploitation.

They were still turbo-capitalist, don't get me wrong. The revolutions of the 20th century left the world under a globalized capitalism, paving the ground for a global proletariat to bring it ALL down.

...

Once the proletarians class interests have been met (destruction of the class system) it would cease to be a state.

No. The proletarians class interests can't be met as long as there is a state, as history has indicated.

...

How would you supress the bourgeoisie's interests?

Through a federation of instantly recallable representatives, representing directly democratic communes.

You can. A federation, like an alliance of sovereign actors, has no monopoly on violence. Alliances have deafeated unitary enemies in the past.

Well, is it directed by the workers or is it a state? is it owned and controlled by the workers or is it capitalism?

Right. Until that is achieved any revolutionary body of governance is going to function like a state. Whether it's horizontally structured or not doesn't negate the fact that you have to suppress porkies counter rev interests.

See, the fact that you don't differentiate between horizontalism and verticalism shows a profane lack of theory that is really relevant; this is like calling all commodity production capitalism, because commodity production happens under capitalism.
It is absolutely absurd not to differentiate between these two kinds of prganization.

Each of the actors would need to have their own monopoly on violence, making it a union of states rather than stateless.
Stop making up new, arbitrary rules for what constitutes a state. It's an organization that creates and enforces laws through a monopoly on the legitimate means of violence.

how about you go join the ancaps

You keep adding and subtracting things from what it means to be a state. I'd like to have a straightforward definition of what it is without new qualifiers being added in mid-argument.

Okay. I guess the differentiation between capitalism and socialism is also just an arbitary distinction then.

Therefore we must have capitalism for a long period before we can get rid of the state.

:^)

I've not even joined in. I've just been watching. But that's a particularly shitty argument.

an infantile disorder

I'm just using what, as far as I'm aware, is the anarchist definition of a state.

An organization with a monopoly on the legitimate means of violence.

And then you just add in a "uh, uh it also can't be run by the workers too" out of nowhere. Why? Why does a state cease to be a state when its run by the workers?

What exactly would you call an organization with a monopoly on the legitimate means of violence that's run by working people to enforce their class interests?

The same reason that commodity production ceases to be capitalism once it is owned and run by the workers themselves.

It's a pretty important dinstinction to make, and if you aren't aware of it, you'll run into another horrible mess like the USSR.

Depends on what the organization is. Is it a union? A commune? A syndicate? A federation? A coop?
By these names I would call it

No. Part of the definition of the state is that it is a hierarchical organization. In fact that's a key part of it because the hierarchy is what allows for exploitation both by the state directly and by capitalism and other earlier modes of production indirectly.

Consider, how would capitalists or dictators exploit the populace if they did not have direct say over them while being shielded from the reverse?

Why leave out the bit about suppressing the interests of one class in favor of another's?

The bourgeoisie state may be hierarchical but that doesn't mean the workers state will be.

So, basically, you're saying that non-hierarchical states aren't states.

Whatever, I'm not having this stupid semantics debate. Call the workers' state an anarchist federation if you want, but I'd prefer to see things with both eyes open.

It was in the USSR. It being a "worker's state" doesn't make it horizontal.

And then I'll just call Social Democracy socialism because it has commodity production and so does socialism.

I'm sorry I'm just not into being pedantic. I'm a realist about these things :^)

Socialism doesn't have commodity production.

No shit. It was vertically structured. The USSR was mostly shit.

It can.
According to Marx, at least.

“the workers are themselves in possession of their respective means of production and exchange their commodities with one another” [then these commodities] “would not be products of capital.” - Capital 3: 276

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 3: 735, 1015

"The means of production and subsistence, while they remain the property of the immediate producer, are not capital. 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

So unless Marx is talking about some third mode of production he curiously never gave a name, that is not socialism, but is still "diametrically opposed to capitalism", then indeed, socialism can have commodity production.

Which is why the distinction is very fucking important. You can't just call socialism "horizontal capitalism" and expect people not to get it wrong.

It's what people call "market socialism", which is different from socialism proper where the commodity form has been abolished.

However, the "core" of socialism is worker ownership of the means of production, not, necessarily, the abolition of commodity production. Are you trying to say that monopoly of the means of legitimate violence isn't the "core" of what the state is?

Are you saying that commodity production is not the "core" or what capitalism is?

The point is that to say so, is to miss the point entirely; you would be conflating two different kinds of organization that have MAJOR and important differences

Well, yeah, capitalism is private ownership of the means of production for the purpose of capital accumulation.

I'm not.

Oh really? Then I guess Market socialism, in spite of what Papa Marx says, is just horizontal capitalism after all.

History has shown that you are. Look at the USSR and tell me that verticalism is not a problem.

Then what you're against is hierarchy, not the state.

Indeed, and the state is, like capitalism, hierarchical per definition. If it is not, then the definition of the state is too broad.

Jesus comrade even I know that's bullshit.

that's the point