Anarcho-syndicalism has been criticised as anachronistic by some contemporary anarchists...

Hes worse.

His essay "The Libertarian as Conservative" was good, but he's mostly garbage tbh

Organized societies will always outcompete disorganized societies.

Deal with it and stop spamming this anarchy meme.

...

Oh I see you're going for the "people will organize voluntarily" bullshit.

There is nothing in anthropology or psychology that suggests this is even remotely possible without LOBOTOMIZING everyone, fuck off.

Anthropology actually helps prove that anarchism does in fact work.
The least you can do is put effort into shitposting.

Checkem.

"Hurrr if I make a claim it must be true!"

People organize voluntarily all the time, what are you even talking about?

They also have trouble organizing voluntarily all the time, you fucking idiot.

The only way your society could function is if people were capable of organizing voluntarily 100% of the time.

Not 10%, not 50%, not 99%, but a full fucking 100%.

Anything below that and you need force in some measure, and organization + force eventually makes a state.

"Organization + force = state"

Anarchism is not a synonym for everyone doing whatever the hell they want with no laws or coercion whatsoever. It's impossible to have any society without some imposition of force, non-horizontal ones are no exception.

Yeah it is, pick up a dictionary, this is the actual definition. Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual.

So it's impossible to have a system which has zero governing? Thank you for proving my point, anarchy can't exist.

Learn to read books you god damn philistine

Not an argument.

A fact is not an argument.
An argument is like:
f(fact[1], fact[2], ..fact[n]) -> conclusion

youtube.com/watch?v=rwp3CQVzzak

Try to watch the entire thing without raging.

The fuck

...

Dumbest shit I've read on this board.

He doesn't have a fact or an argument, it's just an insult.

see

The term anarchism is a compound word composed from the word anarchy and the suffix -ism,[27] themselves derived respectively from the Greek ἀναρχία, i.e. anarchy[28][29][30] (from ἄναρχος, anarchos, meaning "one without rulers";

Some people are this stupid.cl

I don't see a problem here.

the same goes for you, you stupid nigger. And I'm not even anarchist. people behave how their environment conditions them to behave, there is no provable, unchanging
human nature.

Here are Bookchin's economics, copied from /r/Communalists on Reddit:

"… [N]ew "transclass" issues have emerged that concern environment, growth, transportation, cultural degradation, and the quality of urban life generally – issues that have been produced by urbanization… Cutting across conflicting class interests are transclass issues as the massive dangers of thermonuclear war, growing state authoritarianism, and ultimately global ecological breakdown. To an extent unparalleled in American history, an enormous variety of citizens' groups have brought people of all class backgrounds into common projects around problems, often very local in character, that concern the destiny and welfare of their community as a whole.

Issues such as the siting of nuclear reactors or nuclear waste dumps, the dangers of acid rain, and the presence of toxic dumps, to cite only a few of the many problems that beleaguer innumerable American and British municipalities, have united an astonishing variety of people into movements with shared concerns that render a ritualistic class analysis of their motives a matter of secondary importance. Carrier still further, the absorption of small communities by larger ones, of cities by urban belts, and urban belts by "standard metropolitan areas" or conurbations have given rise to militant demands for communal integrity and self-government, an issue that surmounts strictly class and economic interests…

I have given an overview of an emerging "general social interest" over old particularistic interests to demonstrate that a new politics could easily come into being – indeed one that would be concerned not only with restructuring the political landscape on a municipal level but the economic landscape as well. The old debates between "private property" and "nationalized property," are becoming threadbare. Not that these different kinds of ownership and forms of exploitation they imply have disappeared; rather, they are being increasingly overshadowed by new realities and concerns. Private property, in the traditional sense, with its case for perpetuating the citizen as an economically self-sufficient and politically self-empowered individual, is fading away. It is disappearing not because of "creeping socialism" is devouring "free enterprise" but because "creeping corporatism" is devouring everyone – ironically, in the name of "free enterprise." The Greek ideal of the politically sovereign citizen who can make a rational judgement in public affairs because he is free from material need or clientage has been reduced to a mockery. The oligarchic character of economic life threatens democracy, such as it is, not only on a national level but also on a municipal level, where it still preserves a certain degree of intimacy and leeway.

We have come here to a breakthrough approach to a municipalist economics that innovately dissolves the mystical aura surrounding corporatized property and nationalized property, indeed workplace elitism and "workplace democracy." I refer to the "municipalization of property", as opposed to its corporatization or its nationalization…. Libertarian municipalism proposes that land and enterprises be placed increasingly in the custody of the community – more precisely, the custody of citizens in free assemvlies and their deputies in confederal councils…. In such a municipal economy – confederal, interdependent, and rational by ecological, not simply technological, standards – we would expect that the special interests that divide people today into workers, professionals, managers, and the like would be melded into a general interest in which people see themselves as citizens guided strictly by the needs of their community and region rather than by personal proclivities and vocational concerns. Here, citizenship would come into its own, and rational as well as ecological interpretations of the public good would supplant class and hierarchical interests."

nod bad

I know that Holla Forums is full of idiots who don't read theory and are completely out of touch with literally anything having to do with leftism or anarchism that happens in the real world, but I would at least think you people would like Bookchin. He's basically a holdover of classical anarchism.

But nah, let's just completely ignore everything he has to say because he's criticizing muh classical old Left position and call him a collaborationist.

Bob Black is garbage tho fam

I'm sure you've read Bob Black and aren't just lashing out at him for wrongthink.

I bet is stuck in leftism and hasn't transcended to post-leftism.

...