Anarchism General

ok bro anarchy lives!

Hierarchy :a system in which people or things are arranged according to their importance
It's been always mentioned in anarchist philosophy that importance is something socially constructive and varies from each human and property is the main evil in face of anarchism so actually giving something proprety/human an importance is extremely against the anarchist philosophy , The methods of Anarchism therefore do not comprise an ironclad program to be carried out under all circumstances. Methods must grow out of the economic needs of each place and clime also Anarchism aims to strip labor of its deadening, dulling aspect, of its gloom and compulsion. It aims to make work an instrument of joy, of strength, of color, of real harmony, so that the poorest sort of a man should find in work both recreation and hope , so you will be loving what you are doing , you will be the one choosing your job and you won't have the need to even put things in order of their importance , because in an anarchist utopia importance will be personal not something shared by society (i hope i made sense)
That's the question probably every anarchist is wondering about ,but i believe the main point of a successful anarchist revolution would be numbers , more people are the power of any successful revolution , anarchist or not
Oscar Wilde defines a perfect personality as "one who develops under perfect conditions, who is not wounded, maimed, or in danger." A perfect personality, then, is only possible in a state of society where man is free to choose the mode of work, the conditions of work, and the freedom to work. One to whom the making of a table, the building of a house .. mostly people take anarchism as a political stance but it's mostly a philosophy that works with human nature/psychology and everything related to how a human being will act when they are actually free with no internal nor external pressure , "Property is robbery," said the great French Anarchist Proudhon. Yes, but without risk and danger to the robber. Monopolizing the accumulated efforts of man, property has robbed him of his birthright, and has turned him loose a pauper and an outcast. Property has not even the time-worn excuse that man does not create enough to satisfy all needs. you just won't have the need to invade other places or reforming states , "John Burroughs has stated that experimental study of animals in captivity is absolutely useless. Their character, their habits, their appetites undergo a complete transformation when torn from their soil in field and forest. With human nature caged in a narrow space, whipped daily into submission, how can we speak of its potentialities?"-John Burroughs
the ideal of Anarchism, its economic arrangements must consist of voluntary productive and distributive associations, gradually developing into free communism, as the best means of producing with the least waste of human energy. Anarchism, however, also recognizes the right of the individual, or numbers of individuals, to arrange at all times for other forms of work, in harmony with their tastes and desires.

Immediately after the revolution, there was no state, no government, no one monopoly of force, but there were a multitude of local committees that exercised absolute power, sometimes benevolently, sometimes in a terrifying and brutal fashion.
Within hours after seizing power in Catalonia, the "anarchists" set up, in association with the bourgeois parties, the "worker patrols" in Barcelona: This was a cartel of force, a group of people with the special and exclusive muh privilege to use force in Barcelona.

Terror followed. This terror was in large part made possible by the immunity possessed by the members of the "worker patrols", some of them common non political criminals freshly recruited from prison cells.
It seems likely therefore that had people been free to resist, if every man and every group of men had possessed the equal right to repel injustice, and compel justice, for themselves, and for all who may be wronged, there would have been no terror in Barcelona.that solution to the use of force, that force be used as "the people" direct, so i personally PERSONALLY believe that it wasn't much of an anarchist Catalonia but this is a personal opinion

I never denied that they are anarchists and maybe they are even more educated than me but don't generalize all anarchists also i think i can give minecraft a shot oneday

Because Anarchist Catalonia and Ukraine are far from an ideal anarchist society And i hope i made clear my position on that in

If you don't accept Catalonia as an anarchist society, why be an anarchist at all? Isn't it surprising that anarchists, people who in theory oppose all state action and the formation of an army, formed a state and had an army? A "worker patrol" is an army, it's a group of people who use legitimate force in a definite area, as was the Red Army in the USSR and the current US Army. If anarchism in practice hasn't lived up to the ideology, doesn't that indicate that something's wrong with the theory?
here's some vids that convinced me that anarchism is impossible per the marxist idea that the state emerges as the result of class conflict:
youtube.com/watch?v=3ufTFRGPrCM
youtube.com/watch?v=ZiSM8SkE4mo
youtube.com/watch?v=hbDuogV1Ono

and the USSR isn't out ideal socialist society. Stalin wasn't benevolent - he was brutal. He was pragmatic, he industrialized Russia more than any anarchist could do because he told illiterate peasants what to do and what goes where. It was subverted by Kruschev and Gorbachev but if it had not been for them, the USSR would've turned out great.

i also never said all anarchists are like vid related, i merely said your tactics of edgy aesthetics always attract people who poorly understands anarcho-communism, like this flaming faggot
and no offense but i feel like most ancoms barely even read any ancom works but rather watched a few LSR videos (who got totally rekt by finnishbolshevik btw)

Well i extremely believe that The Catalonia society was deemed to fail from the beginning because they were literally surrounded from every angle , they had to fail as an anarchist society , and as i said before this is more of a personal opinion i feel like they were closer to a communist society than an anarchist one,as i stated so the point of why be an anarchist because some people claim they created an anarchist society which literally is against the base purpose of anarchy is weird in itself , and yes i never said anarchism is a very realistic idea but it still has hope and probably the last ideology that has hope to rise again

Well i must act like a typical anarchist cunt here tbh but i believe what he did is the reason we are all fucked leftist and anarchists

Anarcho-capitalism is just funny it really is , those are the one who i can proudly say don't belong under the "anarchism" category
"I am an Anarchist! Wherefore I will
Not rule, and also ruled I will not be!" john henry Mckay

uhhh pic related is going again you, its mocking anarchists who deny the achievements of stalin.

also anarcho-communism in itself isnt a bad ideology, but the way anarcho communists want to achieve it is beyond naive. its impossible to expect the proletariat to magically figure out that they need to fight for communism, so we definitely need a vanguard party to guide them.

*against

I'm pretty sure i posted the picture because that's something most anarchists believe me included , and i fucking hate sub categories user , anarchism will always stay one ideology you can't choose to be anarchocommie anarchocapitalism , you can call it a good or maybe even great ideology but it is not a sub category from anarchism

Alright, well why do you believe anarchy is a good idea if it isn't realistic? State socialist societies weren't perfect but they were behind some of the biggest economic improvements in world history, plus winning against the Nazis is pretty impressive to me as an anti-racist and racial minority. Why should poor or desperate people choose your ideology over something like Marxism-Leninism?

There's theory out there of how to have autonomous associations under the vanguards unity.

I'm just making this up but:

What do you think of that anarbud?

this "all under one banner" meme wont work within the anarchist circle, considering how different each people are

It's probably the most realistic now ,the primitive man, unable to understand his being, much less the unity of all life, felt himself absolutely dependent on blind, hidden forces ever ready to mock and taunt him. Out of that attitude grew the religious concepts of man as a mere speck of dust dependent on superior powers on high, same as government humans needed someone/ something to keep an eye on them , but now this mindset is starting to fade slowly.Anarchism has declared war on the pernicious influences which have so far prevented the harmonious blending of individual and social instincts, the individual and society.and now that the left is fucked in the west , the right was already fucked , anarchism could be the last hope for freedom
and about poor people and why they would choose anarchism check first paragraph

And i'm supposed to just trust vanguards ? power tends to corrupt no matter how little that power is , even the perfect most honest human being would crack if given power over others

That's something too because anarchism lately turned into modern anarchism but trust me you will still find people who still believe in the core purpose of absolute freedom

I'm convinced I prefer to anarchists to marxists at this point.

This is why we think you guys are naive. There are successful socialist experiments. You guys will proudly proclaim Catalonia as a success despite needing the absolute authority. You can literally vote the vanguard away in that situation if the people in your association really wanted to.

Private enterprise power is A LOT harder to defeat than the state.

Rojava is the struggle of ML's and they're doing a great job. Show me your success anarkiddie? I gave you a plan with checks on the vanguard and all you could reply with is "but it'll corrupt XD"

That's because Marxist are anti-religion. To bad anarchist have never accomplished anything.

> same as government humans needed someone/ something to keep an eye on them,but now this mindset is starting to fade slowly

That's just empirically false. Right-wing populist parties that want to increase State interference in daily life via increasing police, military, and secret police funding are rising all across the Western world. What's the point of having all these feelings of subjective freedom and nice emotions when you just crushed by a Fascist military and locked in an internment camp?

Also seconding this user, Marxist-Leninist vanguards can have democratic checks on their power with the benefit of efficient government.

Exactly. In reality, the right wing is rising all over the world. We can try and have the end goal of anarchism and start with the state or we can loose to fascist. Anarchism is the end, not the means.

One idea of Marx does not a non-marxist make, there are many marxists who are religious.

After they abandoned ML yeah. How many tries did you take, 8? 9?

Btw you realise Lenin intended the vanguard to be democratic, right? That should be your first response.

ML is stalinstache -^

"tankie" is meme

we're not anti-religion, we're anti organized /christian/ tier reactionaries who want to fuse the state and the church.

tankie is anyone who thinks stalin isnt an evil jewish nazi monarch communist

They still have a state and parties that serve as ultimate authority. Just because it isn't Stalinist ML which is really only applicable to Russia at that time( and it worked) does not mean it's full on stateless classless society.

And that's why I proposed a ML system where the vanguards function(s) could be voted away through referendum(s) and only serve as the mediator between several autonomous associations post revolution. Leninist today are focused more on the idea of the vanguard, how to keep it democratic, as you said, how Lenin intended it today.

That's what I meant.

Even were the workers able to have their own representatives, for which our good Socialist anons are clamoring, what chances are there for their honesty and good faith? One has but to bear in mind the process of politics to realize that its path of good intentions is full of pitfalls: wire-pulling, intriguing, flattering, lying, cheating; in fact, chicanery of every description, whereby the political aspirant can achieve success. Added to that is a complete demoralization of character and conviction, until nothing is left that would make one hope for anything from such a human derelict. Time and time again the people were foolish enough to trust, believe, and support with their last farthing aspiring politicians, only to find themselves betrayed and cheated. It may be claimed that men of integrity would not become corrupt in the political grinding mill. Perhaps not; but such men would be absolutely helpless to exert the slightest influence in behalf of labor, as indeed has been shown in numerous instances. The State is the economic master of its servants. Good men, if such there be, would either remain true to their political faith and lose their economic support, or they would cling to their economic master and be utterly unable to do the slightest good. The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue.
The political superstition is still holding sway over the hearts and minds of the masses, but the true lovers of liberty will have no more to do with it. Instead, they believe with Stirner that man has as much liberty as he is willing to take. Anarchism therefore stands for direct action, the open defiance of, and resistance to, all laws and restrictions, economic, social, and moral. But defiance and resistance are illegal. Therein lies the salvation of man. Everything illegal necessitates integrity, self-reliance, and courage. In short, it calls for free, independent spirits, for "men who are men, and who have a bone in their backs which you cannot pass your hand through."
Universal suffrage itself owes its existence to direct action. If not for the spirit of rebellion, of the defiance on the part of the American revolutionary fathers, their posterity would still wear the King's coat. If not for the direct action of a John Brown and his comrades, America would still trade in the flesh of the black man. True, the trade in white flesh is still going on; but that, too, will have to be abolished by direct action. Trade-unionism, the economic arena of the modern gladiator, owes its existence to direct action. It is but recently that law and government have attempted to crush the trade-union movement, and condemned the exponents of man's right to organize to prison as conspirators. Had they sought to assert their cause through begging, pleading, and compromise, trade-unionism would today be a negligible quantity. In France, in Spain, in Italy, in Russia, nay even in England (witness the growing rebellion of English labor unions), direct, revolutionary, economic action has become so strong a force in the battle for industrial liberty as to make the world realize the tremendous importance of labor's power. The General Strike, the supreme expression of the economic consciousness of the workers, was ridiculed in America but a short time ago. Today every great strike, in order to win, must realize the importance of the solidaric general protest.

Direct action, having proven effective along economic lines, is equally potent in the environment of the individual. There a hundred forces encroach upon his being, and only persistent resistance to them will finally set him free. Direct action against the authority in the shop, direct action against the authority of the law, direct action against the invasive, meddlesome authority of our moral code, is the logical, consistent method of Anarchism.

Crime is naught but misdirected energy. So long as every institution of today, economic, political, social, and moral, conspires to misdirect human energy into wrong channels; so long as most people are out of place doing the things they hate to do, living a life they loathe to live, crime will be inevitable, and all the laws on the statutes can only increase, but never do away with, crime. What does society, as it exists today, know of the process of despair, the poverty, the horrors, the fearful struggle the human soul must pass on its way to crime and degradation>>809307

I didn't say it was stateless or classless. But they have moved away from ML towards more councilist forms which have historically been far more successful.

Well that's not an ML system.
And referendums are rubbish ways to do democracy.

Tl:dr
Time and time again the people were foolish enough to trust, believe, and support with their last farthing aspiring politicians
You simply don't want change

But criticising USSR is okay.

So much cringe.

Reality check: Army tends to beat disorganized mobs. And army needs to have officers and central command to function. You should work on negating flaws, rather than on ignoring benefits and trying to zerg rush things.

And I'm convinced that "counter-revolutionary" is a perfectly apt description of god-botherers, idealistic Hegelians and Anarchists.

Well I'm a leninist I don't know if you would call me an "ML", which usually refers to Stalinism. Leninism today is more focused on the function of a vanguard party, nothing more nothing less. A party that serves the interest of the proletariat. I'm not a "stalinist".

I should be more clear, I mean that at a certain interval there would be multiple votes going on about which functions each association wants to cut out and which they feel would be better off with a vanguard to serve as the mediator. As said, we are focused on putting democratic checks on the vanguard and that includes direct action from the population. The vanguards purpose is post-revolution, and will be eliminated. Trotskyism is very concerned with decentralization and democracy, yet it is still ML because it supports the idea of a unifying party.

Come on dude.

I used to be an ancom. I switched when I learned more about how the United States and other capitalist powers subverted each and every single socialist movement. If you can provide me with an efficient way to avoid capitalist powers trying to crush us after a revolution without resorting to a state of some kind, please tell me. If you can convince me of a way to avoid forces that wish to crush us without resorting to authority I will drop the vanguard and revert to an anarchist.

Link the source please. The stuff about John Brown is bullshit, it was because the United States government used the force of the army to crush the CSA that slavery was made illegal, plus Congress actually passing the 13th Amendment and enacting it with force in the slave holding territories. Slavery itself was a major political divide in the U.S. congress and the development of different economic systems in the North and South led to the development of different classes, ie the capitalist class and the slaveowner class, which resolved itself in the outbreak of the war by the secession of the CSA as an attempt to protect the institution of slavery. Literally everything but the direct action of John Brown was the reason for the abolition of slavery. I like John Brown but shilling for direct action when the actual Civil War proved the decisive influence and importance of the efficiency of the modern State. Lincoln banned opposition and jailed journalists critical of him. Literally everything about the Civil War was authoritarian and supports the Marxist case.

I don't know any leninists who think ML is even slightly related to leninism.

Well, I'm still having trouble associating Stalin with events that happened years (and decades) after his death.

Are you sure you know enough to make a judgement here?

Fun fact, the CSA instituted conscription and centralized government to fight the Union. Even the 'decentralized' non-bourgeois CSA had to adopt authoritarian methods to have a chance against the Union.

I support the idea of the vanguard post revolution.

I know Stalin invented the term "Marxist-Leninism" but I've seen it applied to Trotskyism as well and to Lenins original conception of the Vanguard. It's not exclusive to Stalin. But I defended Stalin in this thread so I don't see where your gripe with me is.

There is no "gripe". I'm just saying that "I'm not Stalinist" is not necessarily true, if you actually are a Leninist.

I'm not trying to even defend the Catalonia society and i criticized both and i believe it wasn't even an anarchist society i said it too much now

I'm pretty sure you know the answer , but the masses shall be united , that's probably the most unrealistic aspect of anarchism , but the power of the people is the key

It was probably a mistake mentioning the american revolution from an unreliable source or the american revolution in general, my mistake user

Yeah, that's pretty retarded, it's not really a vanguard at that point.

I don't mean to imply the source is unreliable, I just obviously disagree with it. I don't think direct-action or propaganda of the deed works. I googled some of what you posted but came up with no results so if you could link me or give me the title of the work I would like to see the whole work.

I'm really not trying to convince anyone that my ideology is the best i'm just trying to have a discussion and i'm also open to change m8, but i believe that giving the power to someone after years of failing is just dumb
this just fits perfectly here

I'm in favour of more democratic checks on the vanguard than Stalin put in and more decentralized industry than Stalin had.

I really don't care to explain.

A party that serves as ultimate authority post revolution? Just because it has democratic checks on it doesn't mean it can't suppress subversion as it pleases. Different parts of the state will feel they are ready to become autonomous at different times, which is why I support direct democracy in deciding when they would wish to dissolve the vanguard and being able to organize themselves democratically. When the Union dissolves states were lost, because they had no idea how to run a government. Being a leninist doesn't mean you support autocracy forever and ever, it just means you realize the need of an efficient government that can crush subversion without complications following the revolution.

I changed the concept of the vanguard apparently so drastically, that I'm getting called out in the thread so.

I really don't, care to explain?*

who builds the roads?

…uhhh idk lol anarchy lives xDDDDDDDDD

Anarchists are right on a lot of concerns over the dangers of centralization and Marxists are correct with a lot of their pragmatic preoccupations. We cannot just fight for little sections of land to be controlled by the workers like EZLN, we need to be able to challenge the bourgeois forces and their armies and win the war against capitalism. Otherwise we'd be f

dude lik anarchy right fuck the stateman so opresive just need a little weed bro and some freedom catch my drift both parties are the same you knoww and fluoride is used for mass mind control

I support uniting the left but that doesn't include Agorist and Ancaps who want to preserve capital and should accordingly, be shot.

Still no source, fug.

The workers themselves by using ideas and justice!

The corporations will build them because they can make money? What don't you get?

What the hell is Vanguard in your opinion?

O-kay. What exactly are we talking about? Because it was Lenin who designed how Party functions. Stalin came to power in 1928

Meh. You are not the one who had to do everything to turn medieval Russia into industrial powerhouse within a decade. I don't think there was any other way. And co-ops did exist, after all.

why would the corporations want to spend money to build something they cant generate a profit out of?

I defended Stalin. I said in an earlier post that what he did worked. I said he was effective and had Kruschev followed suit by decentralizing properly, the USSR would still be around today

I'm not shitting on Stalin, I'm just saying I wouldn't apply his party structure and centralized industry to the United States if a commie revolution happen tomorrow.

and sorry if I'm mistaken, but didn't Stalin restructure the party after Lenin died? And regardless, I wouldn't use Lenin's structure then either. I think Stalin(and Lenin to an extent) was one of the most effective leaders of all time, but that doesn't mean we need to apply 1930 political structure to today.

...

how do you enforce people to pay the tolls? whats to stop them from crashing through the barriers? why do you think people will be willing to pay to drive when they could revolt and drive for free?
and what do you say about child labor?

Well the answer will be a full revolution where people will actually fight back as i said he masses shall be united , that's probably the most unrealistic aspect of anarchism , but the power of the people is the key , people will simply fight back , numbers always win

Sorry i was late user , but just realized that i didn't even say that john brown was the one who made slavery illegal , but he played a key role and i can't see you denying that , it's just a fact, Pottawatomie massacre was the reason all you're saying happened and i believe i don't need to source to that but calling him an anarchist is something i believe but it's not reliable you can check his speeches , a plea for captain john brown , many things can prove he was

If we could have a world wide anarchist revolution against the bourgeoisie we wouldn't need the vanguard. Unfortunately, the capitalist super power will fill the vacuum. So I'm curious, if you don't support the vanguard what is your solution to this besides utopia, and if you don't have one why are you an anarchist?

That's what your source says. Not denying that Brown's actions had a big impact, just that ignoring the political and economic struggles that led up to Brown's actions and which place them in context are more important than just focusing on the individual actor as an individual. It's in that context that we can understand why Brown did what he did and can appreciate him fully. The source ignores all the important political struggle that happened between the North and South to limit representation based on slave populations and to stop the spread of slavery.

Why ? the capitalist super power won't be able to face a world wide anarchist revolution , ever

No. Stalin is getting accused of not making Party Congresses happen often enough. They happened every year in 1917-1927 (except 1926), but when Stalin took over it was every 3-5 years. And then there was a pause for over a decade: 18th Congress was in 1939 and 19th was in 1952.

Party leaders started feeling as if they were no longer necessary and Stalin is planning to abolish Party altogether and switch to purely Soviet-run power structure.

Specifically Party or democratic centralism in general?

*Not denying that Brown's actions had a big impact, but the source is ignoring the political and economic struggles that led up to Brown's actions and which place them in context. That struggle and context are more important than just focusing on the individual person as an actor.
Repost for readability, srry user

More the latter. I would set up semi-automomus associations which would start off being run under a central authority, but would have the opportunity to opt out any time, or opt out of specific services anytime. I would only reserve central authority for times of crisis.

Well i can clarify why brown is mostly relevant with anarchists , he was the only one who took matters into his hands the revolution in the north was total faggotry , john brown was one of few men who actually decided to take actions, slave owners wouldn't just free slaves , and what he did was the answer to all pro-slavery that he will fight back he will stick to his morals , if you believe that anything would've changed if he didn't actually kill those pro-slavers then i don't know what to say tbh

That's why I said if you can get your world wide revolution then we don't need the vanguard. This is admitted. The vanguard is there to lead the proletariat through the capitalist propaganda and to avoid subversion. But that's utopia(imo), so I'm asking if you have a revolution against the elite in ONE country what do you propose to do next if say, the United States is still around and they will try to subvert you to maintain their homogeny. And if you don't have a solution, why are you an anarchist ?

I don't get how you can look at the fanaticism of fascist, traditionalist and lolberts and then tell me you think you'll be able to empower a world of these people. People who not only do not have confidence in the ability of the individual, they don't believe it exist and that we are all cogs in the greater role of the State. These people will infiltrate during the revolution and after, and you need to have a way to stomp out their influence. Globally and domestically/

Capitalism has accomplished more than any economic system/idealogy . :^)

And going down that vain of logic, I think capitalism is superior to anarcho-edginess

What are they even going to try to subvert ? there's nothing to actually subvert , you will have to catch each and every person and start dictating them or you will try to use power which will probably be impossible , you will be facing against people who are defending their freedom not fighting for nationalism , glory , pride they will be fighting for the right to live as free people, imagine your country becoming an anarchist society which will probably be a successful and harmonic society wouldn't you use all the means to fight back ? as a collective not as single individuals , and after tasting actual freedom people won't abandon it as easily

If an anarchist revolution succeeds , infiltrators won't matter that much , what will they do ? what will they want? and i would go back to
An anarchist revolution can't be controlled , you can't just put out theories about what will happen

Autism out of ten.

Have you ever heard of organized crime?

...

Already responded to all crime related issues whatsoever .. not gonna keep repeating myself

Do you know a solution to tyranny of the majority? Consensus can't be done large scale and on small scale it only might work if everyone is anonymous. Free association leads to the dilemma of what is to be done when different groups interact with eachother. One group thinks murdering people in other groups is fine and they should go unpunished and they kill someone in another group that thinks murder is bad and they should be punished but if they punish them they violate the other group and they might retaliate and kill them all so can they lock up the whole group? So how are things like this even solutions?

You mean this?

That's no explanation of what you will do when a gang of hundred comes to your neighbourhood. Your whole defence is based on the principle that it cannot happen or that people will protect you out of their love for freedom.

They would try and split up the community internally. Everything we're talking about is post revolutionary. They would subvert you because they need control over the whole world and you serve a threat to the system.

Also
Come on.

...

...

I don't remember if i already said that
Crime is naught but misdirected energy. So long as every institution of today, economic, political, social, and moral, conspires to misdirect human energy into wrong channels; so long as most people are out of place doing the things they hate to do, living a life they loathe to live, crime will be inevitable, and all the laws on the statutes can only increase, but never do away with, crime. What does society, as it exists today, know of the process of despair, the poverty, the horrors, the fearful struggle the human soul must pass on its way to crime and degradation. Who that knows this terrible process can fail to see the truth in these words of Peter Kropotkin:
"Those who will hold the balance between the benefits thus attributed to law and punishment and the degrading effect of the latter on humanity; those who will estimate the torrent of depravity poured abroad in human society by the informer, favored by the Judge even, and paid for in clinking cash by governments, under the pretext of aiding to unmask crime; those who will go within prison walls and there see what human beings become when deprived of liberty, when subjected to the care of brutal keepers, to coarse, cruel words, to a thousand stinging, piercing humiliations, will agree with us that the entire apparatus of prison and punishment is an abomination which ought to be brought to an end." why would you commit crimes or abuse others if you're living a good life and if we're talking mental illness i can get into that too and how it will be treated
That's a well constructed argument you got there

Here's where I digress: there are mental illnesses that just make people crazy. They can be triggered by many things, drug, traumatic life events(which wouldn't disappear just because the state isn't there). So the idea that mental illness's like sociopathy are going to disappear is like I said, utopic in nature. Rather than tell me it will all go away if we abolish the state, I'm asking you what you will do IF it happens. Some people are just crazy. People fight, things escalate. It's not going to disappear, and even if everyones necessities are covered, there will still be those who are willing to use force to take that from other people. Out of desire for greed. To quote Marx: "the hoarder, like the ruler of an empire sees with every annexed territory only a new boundary." I'm no fan of "human nay shuree" but I do believe that there are emotions we feel that are wired into us, and that some have those wired into them more than others. We can even see it in their brains.

The point is: people will commit acts that most would deem repugnant.

What is your plan, what is the structure. And if you don't have one, why are you dismissing mine? We share the same goals, but you have to do Step 1,2 and 3 before you can get to step 4.

Just like old times :^)

...

...

...

This is why we need a vangaurd, retards can think for themselfs.

...

It's pretty revealing that you're an ML and you think everyone who disagrees with you is retarded. "We need a big authoritarian state because omg everyone needs to think like me".
Reminds me of the statement that fascists always think they will be in charge.

Get off your high horse.

That's a lot of straw there….

We proposed ways to keep it in check with Democracy, to the point where you said "that's not even a Vanguard". You aren't arguing against anything, you're just shit flinging.

Marxists should be shot tbh

Nobody said it was perfect. Calm down.

You did, this person isn't you. Don't just jump into conversations pretending to know what other people think.

Wat. Well the Hammer and Sickle guy backed up my idea about having democracy to keep the vanguard in check. The Tankie and Stalin-stache on the other hand did not. But sorry if I offended comrade.

Ah, well my feelings didn't get hurt because I'm not an anarchist. You also say "democracy to keep the vanguard in check" as if by magic, much like an anarchist says "lol solved by no state"

I'm sorry about Kekelonia and Duh Free Territory, we'll make it up to you next time with bullets

man i'm really tired now tbh , can we continue tomorrow or something ? and i will answer everything you have in mind m8 and maybe we'll reach a middle ground but i'm too tired after 3 hours of arguments

Well not quite as idealistic as that. I said that the associations within the state would have the power to vote away the vanguard. Anyway, I like the system in Rojava a lot. That isn't ML, but it is influenced by ML. It's a combination of that and bookchin I believe. I don't want a big autocracy, almost everything would be handled on a local level. But to put this in perspective, most of these leftist states arise out of a civil war or war follows shortly thereafter. It is because of this that I think a central authority to direct the associations in time of crisis is the answer. But I'm more or less completely against Stalins centralized structure because it's no longer necessary and I think you can see how a decentralized party that is simply united under the vanguard to assist in setting up the structure of these associations, would be a lot easier to usurp if they needed to.

Like I said earlier, the countries of the Soviet Bloc were lost after it dissolved. They had no idea how to run their country because the Soviets did everything for them. There's a lot of stuff the Soviet union did wrong and I think most of that started after Stalin died. The good part is we don't have to industrialize and coordinate a bunch of peasants.

It's okay anarchist friendo. I'm willing to come to your side if you can convince me. goodnight!

Atleast you are honest

So you're probably more of a Luxemburgist then by the sounds of it (who needs to read Luxemburg to understand why ML is so shit).
Luxemburgism is pretty cool tho

recommend me book pls.

States emerge out of class conflict and socialism emerges out of capitalism through the birthpangs of revolution, just like capitalism did. Napoleon conquered the rest of Europe, by force, to cleanse the way for capitalism, and the U.S. displaced the Native American population (that doesn't make that good). I don't make a fetish out of violence but I agree 100 percent with Finnish Bolshevik when he says that it's literally physically impossible to abolish the state before reaching full communism. That's why anarchist Catalonia and other anarchist countries, despite hating the state, had the state. That's why the DPRK and Rojava contribute a major amount of resources to the military. How the fuck can you have stateless communism when ISIS is rolling in and blowing you up? You can't and anarchism is in denial of material reality. That doesn't mean we shouldn't hold elections for the Party who runs the government or that we should kill everyone. I admit I don't know enough theory to really tell you in detail how and by what mechanism the state comes out of class conflict but the fact that libertarian and anarchist groups have had the Marxist definition of the state proves the position to me.

Also to clarify, my discourse with modern day leninist has mainly been focused on the concept of the Vanguard and not so much what Lenin did after the Revolution.

But can I ask, what you dislike about Leninism(maybe not ML, but just the concept of a vanguard) ?

I forgot to add that I view anarchism as just having Marxist state but an inept state that can't do anything. I think their position is just arguing for bad tactics.

The Mass Strike
Reform or Revolution

They're essays, but really good.
She has nice sexy dialectics.

I don't necessarily oppose vanguardism, but if one looks at the birth of vanguardism it seems it was mostly Lenin pushing his unpopular ideas on the masses whom mostly were in favour of more localised council-based or unionised forms of organisation. I worry that Leninists would destroy councils much like Lenin did in 1917 for the sake of the vanguard.

When you say after the revolution do you mean after the attainment of socialism, or after the attainment of the state capitalism Lenin wanted as an intermediary between capitalism and socialism?

Luxemburgism I think deals with its problem well with the dialectic of spontaneous organisation etc etc.

I'm not trying to defend anarchism because I'm not an anarchist, I'm criticising Marxism-Leninism because it has a disdain for spontaneous organisation, councils, unions etc and seems to treat workers as children.

The attainment of socialism, at the rate of each associations own pace and in accordance with the threat of outside forces for which we must band together.

To be fair, I don't blame Lenin for setting up the party and government the way he did because what needed to be done needed to be done quickly. It took the United States many decades to do what the USSR did in 30 years. You can say what you want, but the workers of Russia were illiterate peasants. They needed direction because they had been subservient their life. The existence of a few insurrections against that does not mean Lenin was not doing what was best for the whole, and that Stalin while brutal and paranoid put an end of the industrial troubles that had plagued Russia. Germany was not as destitute as Russia before the war and if it hadn't even for Versailles wouldn't of been after, so I don't think the situations are really comparable.

My main issue with the USSR was how poorly decentralization was handled and the alienation of Germany. If Luxemburgism is the solution to that, I'll read her essays tomorrow.