AntiTot

No, you're right. Detournement is common.

However, rightwingers have always appropriated left-wing symbolism and used it at face-value.

This is a liberal buzzword to denote any "political" society, while ignoring the fact that we live under equally enforced liberal politics.

Anarchism or libertarianism would be equally totalitarian as any society.

...

Kek, I'm a leftcom, but you keep drinking that kool-aid.

I have been thinking the exact same thing for months. Thought of calling it ANTISTA - anti Stalinist action.

I like the name - how about anti statist action instead though?

Good idea, we shouldn't single out Stalinists. Almost all Trot sects I could think of deserve the label "totalitarian". Remember what Trotsky himself did to our comrades when he was alive. These statist reactionaries would gulag us as readily as any Stalinist or fascist. They are our enemies and we should treat them like we treat any Nazi bonehead.

But what about muh sectarianism comrade? :^)

pretty much this

We really don't need this shit. The left is weak as hell right now. Non libertarians make good points and critiques and I enjoy having dialogues with them. You'll just divide us more in the face of the enemy. We can kill each other after the we get popular. For now, we should stick together.

Nah, you can fuck right off. You're barely an even an anarchist in my eyes to begin with, and strolling in here to post your vapid nonsense about sectarianism with statists who have time and time again put anarchists against the wall at the first opportunity is just evidence that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about and have fallen hard for the Holla Forums memes. There is no such thing as a united Left.

Authoritarian socialism/communism is antithetical to anarchism because anarchists do not view the State as a means for demolishing hierarchy. It can only reproduce the logic of hierarchy, and if you knew a fucking thing about anarchist theory I wouldn't need to tell you this.

This is pretty much limited to leftcoms
tankies and trots have very little valuable thins to say

Wew lad

Oh please. I've read about the events in Revolutionary Spain and Russia and the betrayals etc. If the left came to power and we formed organizations we would be attacked by the new enemy which would consist of the statists. There are bigger priorities right now than proponents of a socialist state. The Right is dominating the world right now, and its going to get worse.

That's quite literally what happened though. The CNT held power in many places in Catalonia and Aragon and membership reached one and a half million in 1937. It was the largest anarchist organization and society ever, only to be undermined by their allies. If you can't trust your allies, that's a big fucking problem.

That's beside the point. Working with statists when you as an anarchist are supposed to disagree with their means and their programme is asinine and makes no sense. I don't work with statists because aside from their two-faced nature, I don't believe that they have any good way of fighting the Right. In fact, they aren't even that different from the Right when they take power.

Go ahead and take part in yet another Party or union, see how far that gets you.

This is a great idea, but why don't we organise to remove kebab and watermelon instead of those friendly neighborhood fascists?

I know, for fuck's sake. They also prevented from industries from getting into the hands of the workers and the Republic kept some of those industries nationalized under pressure of the state socialists. I would expect this history to repeat itself.

I'm not going to join any party. What do you mean by union? You're reading shit that I never said. You're anti-syndicalism? I won't "work" with them. I'll rather leave them for now as they attack the Right and do the same. I really don't know what fucking epoch it is right now. We can go after them later. Nationalism and neoliberalism are on the rise. We have other priorities. How far does your implied anarchist unity go? Are you a synthesist? Would you work with other schools of anarchist thought?

Fuck off.

...

That isn't very neighborly comrade.

If you're not going to join a party, then in what manner are you suggesting to work with statists? You don't seriously think that an M-L is going to put their ass on the line and fight fascists IRL, do you? They all have a power fantasy where they're part of the Vanguard, otherwise why the fuck would they be an M-L in the first place?

I'm critical of classical anarchism and syndicalism, but they're still anarchists and at worst would just lead to a society that fetishizes work and makes people attend constant meetings. So I support anarchist synthesis, yes.

It's more about a ceasefire than it is about a unity There are smart non-anarchist socialists who make good attacks against capitalism. I won't fuck with them.
What about market anarchists?

Well, that seems like a pretty moot point to make. Most of the time, anarchists and Marxists in places other than Holla Forums don't have the misfortune of having to deal with each other.

Like who, the mutualists and the "individualists"? I think that markets are kinda shit, but as long as they're willing to provide people with things like food, healthcare, shelter, and Internet, I wouldn't outright attack market anarchists. There's always the possibility that a market system would be necessary if there was high demand and low supply of certain things.

"anarcho"-capitalists on the other hand deserve to be put up against the wall. They're not anarchists. They're nothing more than yet another reactionary attempt at appropriating revolutionary movements.

Well ok. You shouldn't have even brought up anti-state capitalists since they're not anarchists. You can't be an anarchist without being a socialist.

I'm aware of that but you can never be too sure how stupid someone is on Holla Forums, so I wasn't sure if you were including aynclaps.

...

...

Call them anti-state capitalists or anscaps for short. I call right-wing "libertarians" propertarians.

marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/bio/robertson-ann.htm

fuck you brennan

Serious question: why are Anarchists at least 75% more asshurt about the past than Marxists?

The last few days have seen major anal pain, for example

Perhaps I'm just not paying attention at the right times, but I'm not seeing threads with Trots arguing all anarchists need to be shot because they're basically fascists. It's just ridiculous, get over yourself.

A few anarkiddies suffering from extreme persecution complex recently started spamming about how marxists are anti-socialists and literally fascists while disregarding reality because it gets in the way of their idealism.

Oh fuck no!
The last thing direct action and antifa groups need is more infighting…

Not like we have this (in some places) with Antiimperialists and Israel-sloidarity…
certainly dont need more of it

Sometimes it's really hard to distinguish anarchists from cointel…

this tbh

I don't think there's a *single* left wing word that hasn't been taken by the right. Not even communism.

No, we need this shit. The quicker we show the public that we have nothing to do with authoritarians we the more people will like us.
Marxism died after Pol Pot. The quicker we amputate that sick appandage, the better.

Tankies are either 14 year old schoolboys or 70+ grandpas, they won't be missed.

Sometimes it's really hard to tell Marxists from fascists.

Who never even called himself commie and actively rejected Marx, so it's a pretty fucking weird point to claim communism died.

This kind of, all pictures I've seen of the Swedish ML parties are either pensioners or high school kids.

...

don't you mean all the time?

Okay, let's take this from the start.

Can anarchists in this thread please:
A) Define a state for me?
B) Then speculate (I'm presuming you haven't read him but if you want a intro here: ) on how you think Marx envisioned the dictatorship of the proletariat?
C) How Anarchism differs from this and how you plan to safeguard the revolution against the bourgeois?

Anarchism has nothing to do with states, it's all about abolishing organized hierarchy.
I think Marx thought that leadership positions wouldn't have caused totalitarian states to form, but it did.
Anarchists want workers to control the means of production, they do not want production to be controlled by state capitalists.

I guess capitalism is just whatever produces commodities and class antagonisms don't matter.

Okay. After Mao then.
After Mao, Marxism will never have potential for becoming a mass-movement ever again.

So you're saying a movement dedicated to removing the state have no actual definition of what they're supposed to remove?

Marx advocated delegates (with instant recall) by direct vote based on worker's councils, what did Bakunin advocate for exactly?

Yes, now explain how.
Neither did Marx, see above.

I think you're closer to describing Bakunin there, considering he believe class antagonisms would disappear after the revolution because of:

I suggest both of you read the link.

You are aware MLs expanded enormously in the third world after Mao right? Beyond this we should note that Maoism is quite far away from the theoretical positions of Marx himself and more of a left-wing nationalist movement, in that sense yes - MLs are not Marxists, which I'd agree with.

But beyond this, where are the large scale anarchists movement that should have taken the place of Marxism after Mao? I'm not seeing them, maybe it's because Marx actually offers a more in-depth and coherent critique of capitalism than found in the body of Anarchist works?

You're fixated on the structure of the current state (which is important) but seem to completely ignore that the state's main function is class suppression. Why is that?

You can structure it horizontally but the fact of the matter is that bourgeois interests will remain for an indeterminate amount of time after the working class take power. Forcing the working class to supress their counter rev desires. Which will perpetuate the class antagonism you think will be avoided through some kind of anarcho-magic. Marxists are at least honest about what the situation will look like during the DotP.

...

holy fuck this exactly the same as arguing with fascists. You have no understanding of anything leftist.

...

That's your counter-argument?

Not really giving me much to work with there fam.

obviously not, don't ask loaded questions if you don't want a hostile response like

there are a lot of anarchist thinkers, proudhon, bookchin, goldman, just to name a few. Some of my favorite ones advocated for anarcho-syndicalism, which can be thought of as direct democracy limited to the local level of individual industries, with there being a more widespread level of influence created by the federation under which the industries fall under.

Hi prickly_cactus
Fuck off now you fucking memeboy.

Kill yourself

can anyone think of a good reason not to ban this annoying fucker?

Okay right, so how does this differ from a state i.e. the organized proletariat class in command over the means of production?

Then just answer what the hell a state is? Is that so hard? Don't you want to abolish "it", so what is "it"? Because to me you just described a state.

to elaborate on this, I think he should be banned because everywhere he goes he stirs up drama and derails the thread. Anarchists can not even speak their mind without being accused of being that one anarchist he has a bone to pick with.

I honestly can't.

...

Prickly, you have now posted two replies on how angry you are that he actually correctly guessed it was you.

when I said anarchists are not concerned with the state, I meant it. It's all about no hierarchy. There is not hierarchy here. Only "an"caps give a fuck about "muh statists". Yes, there is government under anarchism, but it's not hierarchal. Though since there is no hierarchy and no private property, there is not much reason to call a free territory a state, is there?

Hypocrisy is a sin, friend

pastebin.com/B3ndfLMx

...

that would honestly be wonderful, since anarchists are absolute cancer and never were to be considered allies in antifascism anyway, since they've always been absolutely irrelevant to begin with

the original colors of the antifascist action were 2 red flying banners, socialists and communists, not some fringe groups that had nothing to contribute to the movement anyway

While you actively suppress the interests of one class over another? Yes. There is a reason.

Once porky has been defeated call it whatever you want.

Please just stop shitting up the thread, bunkerfags. Please. Please.

...

Comrade VAC is prickly cactus
I repeat, Veganboi is a memeboi

Okay, great there is a non-hierarchic government. What exactly does this entail? Does it mean that it's laws and decisions does not actually need to be followed unless you want to? Can you form capitalist business?

And if no (we have communal votes, extracting surplus-labour is forbidden etc): then how is it not coercive, and in the case of the latter - not aimed at a specific class (the bourgeois)?

Leftcoms are almost all libertarian as fuck.

stop spreading lies, asshole

Well, while I doubt you actually care about the information, and are instead just trying to harass me, I'll tell you anyways, for those that actually want to know. In anarcho-syndicalism, decisions are made via direct democracy on the local industrial level. What that means is that the individuals choose what industry to be a part of, and then have democratic say within that industry. They will determine how to handle situations democratically, and will democratically vote on how to interact with their federation as a whole, which will also determine some rules, but mostly just economic decisions. The federation is a non-heirarchal entity that is made up of all the worker owned industries that are working together, it is like a trade network and a cloud of political representation. The primary function of the federation is to allocate resources so that new industry is constructed based on demand. Here is a simple flowchart I made to aid what i am saying.

Okay, so are the federation run by the means of delegates between the different workplaces? How are laws enforced? And if you don't want to be a part of this structure (by say, hiring people) what happens then?

No delegates. I said direct democracy, not representative democracy, did I not? No spokespeople are necessary. The democratic consensus for decisions regarding the federation will be relayed via telecomms, other decisions will be local and will have to be enforced locally. They way things are enforced will also have to be decided. The whole point of all this is liberty and choice m8, beyond a skeleton of the system, everything should be up to choice and consensus so people can live the lives they want to live.

You, are aware a direct delegate and and a representative are two different things right? The latter have the authority to make individual adjustments and decisions.

So it's actually a structure that enforces what you latter refer to as consensus then? (You never actually addressed the central point of my question so I'm trying to create a whole picture here).

I mean, what you've described is so vague and leaves so many questions unanswered (how does 6 billion + people manage a global economy by direct democratic vote), but essentially - what you have is a coercive structure dominated by one class… a state.

does local mean nothing to you?
basically what syndicalism creates is pockets of people that want to live similar ways of life, and the local level is the industrial level. This gives peopel the option to go to a different industry if they want to live a different way of life. There will also probably be some unity within the entire federation, but there is no reason why there can't be many federations and even federations of federations. A federation itself would likely be very local, probably county-level in size.

I think we no, yes you do!
I am sorry not speak well English but I am from big kingdom China.

I have many opinion and would like to say hello everyone to my friends and comrades.

I think this OP is faggot. =D

Uhuh, and these won't need to associate with other federations? And if there is a federation next door that think Capitalism or Fascism is super rad what then?

The common term is expel.

Also, you know, you never explained how this would come into being, does this all spontaneously come into being after the end of capitalism? Hell, how do you plan to end capitalism to begin with?

whops

First off, stop being so arrogant, I can't stand your asshole tankie attitude.
Actually, it can come into being realistically, unlike your "revolution" delusions. All it takes is a few co-ops creating a federation. The federation would provide investment capital for new worker owned industries, taking dues from members of the federation to pay for this. Gradually worker owned industry will corner the market, and then the market can be abolished.

Notice how people always bring up the mass killings under Mao when you bring up Marx?
This is exactly why Stalin and Mao has killed Marxism forever.

Class-supression is not the core of a state. Top-down hierarchy is.
It is exactly the fact that you do not differentiate between these two concepts of organization, the state and the federation, that every single Marxist revolution has turned into ane authoritarian shithole. It's your lack of theory on the subject that made sure that you were wrong every time and that Marxism is not going to become a mass-movement ever again.

Okay, so it's actually you Prickly_Cactus.

I won't get into another argument on how out-of-date and debunked your market socialist theory is. I already explained to you clearly that it has been tried before several times ("But this time it will be totally different!"), how reformism does not stand on it's own to legs ("Capitalists are bad but they'd never actually attack us right?") or how capitalism is actually dead (which you responded by calling me a fascist / totalitarian / tankie like your doing now).

And if you don't want people to treat you like a kid with a tantrum, don't throw a fucking tantrum and start calling everyone fascist / totalitarian / tankie as soon as someone points out how bullshit and debunked your entire utopian socialism is.

Fuck off. It's obvious you're not trying to understand at all what I am saying and that you are just trying to harass me. It was my mistake for providing information. You know I'm not a market socialist, but I shouldn't have to say this because it's clear you are just harassing me.

...

I've clearly pointed out errors in your extremely dishonest and flawed utopianism.

You started a thread where you literally wanted to beat up lefties who disagree with you (basically everyone) on the streets.

If you can't handle people pointing out the fucking train-sized holes in your theory how the fuck are you not going to piss and shit yourself when you encounter a bonehead with a baseball bat.

Pickly_Cactus, I will say this as a final word of advise, look yourself in the mirror and reconsider your life.

What debunking took place? Explain that to me.

This.
Those theory mensturbating nazi apologists should be permd.

...

...

this guy:

...