Any Other Ex-AnCaps on Here?

God damn those propertarians and anti-state capitalists…

What?

Some more obscure book suggestions would be pretty cool

libertarian socialism was my first foray into the left too after coming out of the an-cap/libertarian hysteria.

are you the same person that was defending saddam as well?

here's some stuff to consider:
marxists.org/subject/anarchism/nechayev/catechism.htm

Thanks mate, what took you out of the hysteria? I got despooked on private land ownership and the rest fell apart.

God and the State - Mikhail Bakunin
The Conquest of Bread - Peter Kropotkin

Also obligatory;
The Ego and its Own - Max Stirner

i guess i was never a true-blue believer, but i was pretty into a few authors like kokesh, rothbard, etc.

i was always more individualistic than i was capitalistic, if that makes sense. i made appeals to capitalism purely because i thought that it was the most individual economic system, and i realized that i was pretty wrong with the assistance of Holla Forums.

if you haven't read these, i suggest you do:

Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality
Wilde's Soul of Man under Socialism
Stirner's The Ego and its Own

"At the root of all forms of communism, compulsory or voluntary, lies a profound hatred of individual excellence, a denial of the natural or intellectual superiority of some men over others, and a desire to tear down every individual to the level of a communal ant-heap. In the name of a phony "humanism", an irrational and profoundly anti-human egalitarianism is to rob every individual of his specific and precious humanity."
The earliest formulation of explicitly anarchist ideas, on the other hand, would be Proudhon's mutualism.

Anarchist without adjectives is as dumb and retarded as each sub category deriving from anarchism
I didn't defend saddam i said that iraq was better with him ruling simple as that and him dying led the country into destruction and poverty and still you don't have to attach nihilism to anarchy because it was already related to it

I've been meaning to actually sit down and read Stirner, I finished Conquest the other day which was really good (I'd love to see a 21st century application of it tho).

What is prohibiting of individual excellence in a ancom/ansyn style order though?

The idea is to secure certain things that the majority agree are necessary in a comfortable existence through planned organization of the economy, with as many individuals as possible choosing to voluntarily contribute one way or the other too the communal engine.

With personal coordination of labor, the work day would be significantly reduced allowing an individual to persue their pleasures and luxuries with free time that previously did not exist - because so many people are able to aquire important jobs and not dismal jobs as developed under capitalism.

I was never ancap but I was libertarian / classical liberal. I believed in leftist goals - civil liberties, an elimination of poverty and prejudice, maximizing people's control over their own lives, but mistakenly believed that the free market, "civil society" and education could change things.

I then grew up and experienced the real world. Capitalism creates existential and destructive struggles against people and communities, "civil society" doesn't have a chance. Capitalism guarantees the accumulation of power to the rich and that is exactly what has occurred. The laughingstock of American politics shows the rot of its socioeconomic system, politics isn't changing anything. Anyone who isn't upper-middle-class or higher is being squeezed and robbed. The failures of capitalism are always blamed on the poor, racial minorities, "terrorists," "layabouts," or whatever convenient scapegoat is drummed up.

so you identify as an anarchist, but are willing to defend an imperialist dictator for the sake of peace and prosperity? could you elaborate, then, on what you mean by "pure" anarchism?

stirner is good introductory material, i think. it hardly requires a background in leftist politics and can be easily understood by any newcomer to leftist philosophy.

Good. Now we just have to convince you that the state needs to do certain things post revolution and you can become leninist master race.

I wasn't an ancap. I was a liberal for most of my life. Then I was a libertarian for a brief time when I became an atheist. Then back to a liberal. At some point someone linked to The Baffler in a thread on Holla Forums about how technological progress was being destroyed by capitalism that was absolutely eloquent and beautiful. It made me want to learn more about actual leftism.

Propertarianism =/ classical liberalism

vanguard parties CONFIRMED for HIERARCHICAL, BOURGEOISIE MASTER-CLASS.

leninism EXPOSED.

The guy wasn't even a communist or an anarchist. If you defend Iraqi society based on it being "better", why not just defend every capitalist country?

Do we even have any good ideas and analysis against today's capitalist and neo-imperialist forces?

Anarchism seems inefficient to battle the bourgeois state and Leninists, in their pursuit of pragmatism, may end up riddled by extreme corruption and subjugation as the class structure fails to be abolished and workers don't end up owning their own lives more through their ownership of the mop.

Libertarian oriented Marxist strains become more and more attractive, hatposter. I realize the unrealistic application of traditional anarchist theory and prefer more middle of the road stuff like the political experiment in Rojava (not perfect of course). I think that if the various strains of leftism found a dece middle ground and shunned all the tankie strains and established a libertarian socialist state that WOULDN'T revert to capitalism we would get places, I just can't pretend like I know what that'd look like.

Anyway you could find that article?

Of course I've read many times.
thebaffler.com/salvos/of-flying-cars-and-the-declining-rate-of-profit

My post was a joke. I'm not interested in "combating" Leninists, I have no issue with them beyond our political disagreements.

I believe that the interest of the workers will be pursued by the workers. That's not to say that the idea of the workers needing to be educated on Anarchism and Communism isn't true, but rather to reject the hierarchical party system that a Leninist would advocate in exchange for a horizontalist education system.

I'm not the best person to explain the ins-and-outs of an Anarchist society, but I will say that I believe that Anarchism and Vanguardism have an equal opportunity to become corrupted. However, I believe that Anarchism's horizontal structure will allow for the swift elimination of corrupt governance by the armed, working populace.

I'm not sure what you mean by the workers failing to abolish class structure through the ownership of the means of production. If the workers own their means of production, how is class not already abolished in their workplace? Through the establishment of the managerial or bureaucratic class? I would say that a lack of state-mandated leadership would be counter-intuitive to the establishment of a new societal class. Perhaps in their minds it may still be a prevalent figment, but I don't think that Vanguardism is necessary for political education.

As for ideas and analysis, you'll have more luck in the Anarchist's Library than from me. However, I would not say that Anarchism is inherently more inefficient for battle than Marxism. As always, I find it important to keep in mind that armed Anarchist movements were destroyed by sectarianism and fascism (Spain) and sectarianism within the left (Ukraine).

I would recommend reading George Orwell. Though I'm sometimes at odds with his philosophy, he wrote on sectarianism in Spain between Anarchists and Marxists pretty expansively.

Thanks fam

Yeah that was me like 8 years ago

No problem it's a very good read. I hope you enjoy it.

Technological advancement and its connection to a post-capitalist society has been an important subject for me for a while and I've had a hard time finding some stuff associated with it, thank you.

Yes difficult subject to find information on even though in my opinion it should be one of the most important topics of discussion. Socialism has no way of working without an advance technological framework.

I don't mean in these exact societies i mean anything related to communism in general , if you're talking anarcho-communists i'm simply against their economy plans , i believe it won't work on a larger scale and has many flaws

Well when was anarchism based on destruction without re-building ? if you plan on simply destroy someone's house without even thinking what to do after you bring the house down nor having a reasonable reason to destroy it , so why ?
Maybe calling it pure was a mistake but anarchism already had the dispute of mutualism collectivism and communism "collectivism in the 19th century. basically it was originally a term to distinguish bakunin's brand of anarchism from proudhonist anarchism (mutualism), and then later the term anarchist communism was applied to ideas probably best expressed by kropotkin. the main difference is that collectivism believes that the means of life that individuals receive under anarchism must be tied to the amount of labour they contribute, whereas kropotkin, and so the communist strand of anarchism, insists that each commune would be capable of distributing according to need after the revolution."
And i believe that it's not needed to call yourself anything but anarchist because what people are doing is revisionism
There are three major schools of thought within anarchism: Communism, mutualism and collectivism. Each proposes an alternative method of arranging the economy but all three adhere to the fundamental aspects of anarchism (voluntary, horizontal, mutual organisation). This could be considered "normal anarchism" in-so-much that it is the common denominator that links all the various strains of anarchism together, where the rest differ is purely down to economics. like most ideas they have different schools so why are you trying to make it as if it has core differences i may tell you why as we've lost the cute idealistic streak of thinking revolution is just round the corner and have more important arguments to fight, like that
So anarchism is just anarchism and other people who try to create sub categories are just looking for argument points which is annoying and childish and leads that people who have no actual knowledge of anarchism to believe that other schools are not part of the same ideology and i believe you will probably think i'm an anarchist with no adjectives but no, because they are doing the exact same thing but in the name of getting anarchists together

If you're going to bring change then destruction is fine , but if you're not even gonna at least try, then you're just a criminal nothing more , if you believe that removing saddam was for the good of the people then you're lying to yourself , let's say there's a half broken cup , should i break the available half with no intent to get a new cup ? , so yes if someone just bomb the US today without the intent to actually build anything over the rubble is extremely retarded

Ex Ancom over here.

Both systems will involve dangers, but corruption is more meaningful (more of a tumor) under Leninism because of the power placed to leaders to preside over individuals and the workings of society.

I was talking about the socialist leaders deciding to not give the workers control over the mop. Not the workers themselves.

also
As for ideas and analysis, you'll have more luck in the Anarchist's Library than from me. However, I would not say that Anarchism is inherently more inefficient for battle than Marxism. As always, I find it important to keep in mind that armed Anarchist movements were destroyed by sectarianism and fascism (Spain) and sectarianism within the left (Ukraine).

That's what I mean. I have serious suspicions towards those who wish to use the state, but they are right in saying that the struggle doesn't matter if we don't win comrade.

Class antagonisms will not disappear if Anarchism or Marxism is defeated during the revolution. We were defeated in Spain, we were defeated in Germany, and we were defeated in Finland. Does this mean that the battles that took place there do not matter?

No, of course not. The ideas of Durruti, CNT, Catalonia, Aragon, Luxembourg and the Spartacists survived well after their defeats.

If we are defeated in battle, it becomes important that we aren't defeated in spirit. Immediately after a failed revolution, direct action will become important. Just because the government suppresses us once doesn't mean that Anarchism is over forever.

What makes you think that Anarchism is more susceptible to failure in the first place? Perhaps because it rejects the centralized hierarchy of the state? It's not as if planning and strategy will not exist in a theoretical Anarchist revolution.

What made you snap out of it OP? I'm also talking with an ancap right now. What about "duh government subsidies drive up duh prices", how accurate is that?

You need a strong ordered military and system of command to win in a war.

I am not against anarchism. I am more very in tune with its philosophical premises, but doubtful in its practical applications.

This. I used to be an ancom, but there are some times where democratic decision making needs to be surrendered to the authority of the state.

Yeah, but I'm equally as suspicious towards Leninism. I think anarchists see something others take for granted and are correct in their analysis of power structure.

In the end, I'll go for whatever leftist group is leading the revolution

Strong centralization and top-down authority makes a military much less efficient though.
This is the whole point of stuff like the Prussian Army model. Indeed, the Soviet military is a pretty good example of how awful performance is in authoritarian structures.

I'm not a ML, but I support the vanguard. I would want the vanguard to be voted away in a 2/3 vote by the associations under it. I haven't read Luxemburg yet, but apparently it's close to what she suggested.

They still had to communicate under a central structure. I'd say the military's of Catalonia and the Free Territory are examples of why it doesn't work. After Stalingrad the Soviets did much better as they were fully mobilized.

To communicate under a central structure does not imply hierarchy. The Greeks did the same and they were a coalition of equal and sovereign city-states.

To use the black Army as an example of how non-hierarchical organization doesn't work is pretty dumb considering they were able to hold back an army that sent the red army into a total rout with only about 1/10th the manpower.
Sure, any inefficient system can win if it can throw enough resources and man-power at the enemy, which is what the soviets did. It's still a fundementally weak, inefficient and wasteful way of organising, which is why the US keeps losing wars even though having the upperhand when it comes to all resources.

I'm , but you have to admit that the anarchist forces in Spain were largely peasants and inexperienced whereas the military had sided with the fascist for the coup d'etat so it was the force with all the militarily prolific and experienced members. They were also largely outnumbered. They had the wrong conditions really.

Remember that the Soviets at first did a shit job against Germany because Stalin was an idiot. He murdered a number of his best generals out of paranoia. This can be a symptom of too strong a centralization.

also, it shows how the military needs to side with the revolutionaries in order to win

I think that you have a very narrow view of military command based off of a generalized view of history.

Historically speaking, strong, centralized military systems became outdated by World War 1. German, British, and French generals experienced a lag in their orders that often resulted in the failure to seize break-through opportunities.

The best example of the failures of a centralized command is in the use of gas during WW1. Military commanders failed to seize control over large breakthroughs made by Chlorine gas in the early stages of battles like Ypres. A lack of authority in the lower command resulted in a seizure of only 6km at Ypres.

Furthermore, while the British developed tanks in an attempt to break through German lines with superior armor, the Germans developed Stormtrooper units from the Pioniers, as well as a concept known as Führen mit Auftrag, or leading by mission.

In a way, this was one of the first uses of a decentralized command in war, and it proved to be much, much more effective than the previous, general-based tactics advocated by the Normaltaktiker.

Ironically enough, a strong, centralized command in the form of the Stavka was the bane of the Soviet military for the first few years of the war.

Hitler's basic tactic for ensuring victory over numerically superior Russian forces was to encircle them, which he did to great success in the earlier years in the war. Why? Because the Stavka were far too slow in their allowance of military retreats. In the earlier stages of the war, the Stavka disallowed many military commanders from withdrawing from their positions, which sometimes lead to massive encirclement by the German Army.

Well, then how did the Soviet Army defeat the Germans? Well, it's simple. The utilization of defense-in-depth, which inherently relied on command lower in the hierarchy to react to encirclement moves by the German Army, but the Deep Battle Plan, which relied on decentralized operations behind enemy lines to disrupt enemy logistics to great effect.

Also, this.

UFT fell because they didn't have enough guns, most of their soldiers were unarmed, and had to resort to scavenging weapons off of dead enemy soldiers.

The biggest reason of the failure of Catalonia as an anarchist society was outside forces all getting together to destroy them, and low numbers just that

I'm not advocating for full on authoritarian governance. But to communicate under a central power.

A book I read about the Spanish Civil war said the CNT had trouble communicating and organizing effectively. But as you said, they weren't military experts.

That's interesting. Have a book on that?

Great. Anarchists do that all the time.
Not because they are forced to but because it's mutually beneficial for all parties involved.

...

Most of my information on the Red Army comes from Soviet Storm: WW2 in the East, an expansive documentary about the Eastern Front made in Russia.

youtube.com/watch?v=0A6UWkK2U4s&list=PLnNmfyY_ccRHl0yAJZy3r5Nfq2-Xr22di

My information on German decentralized tactics comes from a course that I took while I was in school, but here's one of the documents that I studied:

sti.clemson.edu/publications-mainmenu-38/commentaries-mainmenu-211/doc_details/189-the-soviet-german-war-1941-1945-myths-and-realities-a-survey-essay

drive.google.com/file/d/0Bxmp88FWZnQpZ1JRWk42d0Z5S1k/view

youtube.com/watch?v=YThv9pmtuXo

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi69MCBt5DOAhXLxYMKHfphAhwQFggjMAA&url=http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA517367&usg=AFQjCNFRZgFijfvd_bkIQ3RvkjG0Tw3YLQ&sig2=g2_v7SAJ8WhG8poM1vODbg (Long link, it links to a US Military study on the evolution of decentralized tactics).

*here's some

Interesting. Do nihilist allow capitalism or?

Not him, but I've never heard of a nihilist not opposing capitalism

No.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/aragorn-nihilism-anarchy-and-the-21st-century

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/aragorn-anarchy-and-nihilism-consequences

marxists.org/subject/anarchism/nechayev/catechism.htm (Warning: Edgy)

I will take a look. Thank you comrade

Wish we could talk like this more often.

Anarchist/horizontal military strategy/tactics/organization is criminally underrepresented and underrated in modern military history, especially since it was only practiced by obscure armies.

I considered writing articles or making videos.

Yes please ? but there's not as much info out there so i don't know how you'll do that, but yeah go for it buddy

Honestly I don't know, but I'm just suspicious of everything. You should really put out informative media on it for a better discussion to go around socialist circles.

Yo, can someone cite me a source that proves that Murray Rothbard actually said this? 'Cause even though I'm against "anarcho"-capitalism, I'm also against quote mining.

archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html

It's real.

I dunno man. Even though Rothbard did write this, he never published it, and people are always inclined to change their mind about shit. I just don't think this quote has much merit to it because we don't even know if he agreed with himself here. I think if we really want to belittle anarcho-capitalism, we should be dissecting anarcho-capitalist ideas piece by piece and explain why they're so illogical and not rely on sensationalized quotes to make ancaps look bad.

well duh, but the same thing can be said of an author's quotes. anti-state capitalism is already incredibly stupid but it was Rothbard who co-opted originally leftist terms to make his lame shit popular. Those quotes are good because they show how Rothbard knew wtf he was doing and how dishonest and revisionist he knew the use of those terms in his way was.

I was never AnCap, though I was sympathetic when I was a teen Holla Forumslack. I was just a rather "minarchistic" right-libertarian, allow the state to exist only insofar as it needs to. I slowly drifted towards standard liberal when I saw how reliant right-libs were on shit history, Austrian econ magic, pretentious speculations about how ancap societies would be arranged, and biting every stupid bullet thrown at them. With reading more philosophy, I became more sympathetic with Hegelian Marxists.

Do it
If you're too timid you can write a script and have others record it.

I went from being an ancap to a Maoist in the course of about 6 months, lmao

...

Having property is not theft.
The meme "property is theft" refers to renting out land you yourself do not live on, owning land in the same way, or usury on monies you lend to others because it is unsustainable

Which is why socialist make the distinction between personal and private property.

Yeah, david graeber has done more to pull me so much to the left than any other traditional leftist thinker

...

He's talking about Holla Forums, right?

He's an ex-ancap you dolt.

I stopped believing in the concept of private land ownership as I finally came to the logical conclusion that most strains of leftist thought don't want to take away someone's personal possessions or labor, for example, a house they built, a garden they take of. Ancaps use strange Lockean shit to justify the current private property lines and don't even consider the holes in their own theory. I became more and more uncomfortable with the idea of private banks, an essential function in capitalism, and the sense of my labor being represented in credits that could be worthless should the powers that be fuck up. It just kinda fell apart around me.

The government subsidies thing, I haven't read much counter theory to that claim as I'm fresh out of ancap hell, plus a lot of government functions called out as socialist are more pseudo-socialist with their connection to the private market its harder to answer.

Alright so I am not a very well read person but I woukd like to understand anarchism a little better.

Isn't anarchism the original state of people? Aren't people going to use offorce to hoarde more property? Aren't people going to organize into some form of government, and possibly use of that organization to expand their own dominium of land?

What's stopping private land from coming to existance as it did in ancient times?

seems about right

I'm not so much an ex-ancap but I did listen to a shit ton of Stefan Molyneux videos for a while. I thought it was an intriguing worldview, and the more I watched the less sense it made. I never bothered looking at his social commentary though. It's the most obvious cult ever and his rampant mommy issues make him possibly the most pathetic cult leader ever.

I crack up when I hear retarded lolbert/ancap arguments because I've heard the whole apologetic behind it. My favorite is when they respond to "muh roads" with "roads are shit get rid of them". Molyneux I believe thinks we should just have airlines replace other transportation.

Can you elaborate a bit on what exactly the flaws within libertarianism that you found were?

What stuff did you read to become a convert?

please respond

Can you please not?

Probably.

That's actually a pretty a difficult question. It depends on the circumstances. If we reach post-scarcity communism (ie. a stateless, propertyless society where everyone has what they need, think Star Trek or The Culture) then it isn't really an issue, because why would you hoard property if you already have everything you need?

The reason things happened the way they did in the ancient times was because there was scarcity. Tribes came into conflict over good territory and resources (as we do today), and eventually one of them came out on top.

As for how we prevent that from happening while we still have scarcity, that will depend on the people. We'll have to assume that people will try and prevent others from amassing power and defend themselves from subjugation (as they probably did in the ancient times, though we'll probably have a way better shot at it), but really its all uncertain. Many have tried, many have failed, and a few still hold on. So far, at least none of them have collapsed on their own.

I mean there was a lot of tortured logic and special pleading (especially with ancap collectives being totally not governments you guys). The biggest difference I noticed was that Molyneux's virtue ethics that were underlying his whole thought process were keeping him from reaching obvious conclusions. For instance, he pointed out that if someone accidentally winds up on his Private Property™ that je would have the right to shoot the accidental trespasser. The example he gave was that the guy who lived in the apartment above him (ignoring the obvious lack of understanding here of who actually owns the property in a landlord-tenant relationship) falling out the window and grabbing onto the flagpole on Molyneux's window. He said compassion would make him want to help the guy (and rationalize doing so within his ancap framework) but his virtue ethics and "self-interest" dictate he should shoot the "trespasser" to deter other people from trespassing (I'm a bit fuzzy on his reasons for why he should shoot trespassers but I think that was it). The point is that he boils things down too much to interpersonal relationships and what the "right" thing to do is in certain contexts.

IIRC this was in a discussion he had with some professor. It's on his channel.

So the economy must be developed into a ost scarcity somehow. Anarchism is not possible until then, am I following?

The reason I am commited to continued socialism is because (in my understanding) it would be too risky to trust people. Even if people don't really need anything else, is that enough to guarantee they will be peaceful?

I was a Randroid in high school. I read Atlas Shrugged and everything. Later I just became a vague liberal, and after browsing Holla Forums I became probably a market socialist or democratic confederalist.

So you are still liberal.

Not impossible, just difficult. This issue is pretty much what divides the left, between those who want to achieve a stateless society (communism) as soon as possible (anarchists), and those who want a transition society until we achieve post-scarcity. Both have their own risks and pitfalls, and both risk regressing back into Capitalism, for different reasons.

Not him but market socialism isn't china or modern social democracy.

Market socialism and democratic socialism are not part of liberalism although they're the least left of the Left

Every notice that right-literature/art is pretty shitty? Like that's not a reason to direct a political idealogy but just saying.

Propertarians are only inspired by $

These were situations that started to make me drift more and more away from being an AnCap, the idea of someone owning acre upon acre of unused land and having the right to shoot someone if they were taking a walk in the woods and happened to step on some was just crazy to me, obvioiusly I think people are reasonable enough to not to do that but the possibility fucked me up and embarassed me to defend.

Reed macintyre :DDD

Even as an ancap I always really liked a lot of lefty art and music and what not and simply justified my liking to "if someone is passionate about something and makes good sounds with it I don't care about the ideology," which I still follow to an extent but there was always kinda a vibe I enjoyed from it.

I found that for either side of the left, the Anarchist FAQ is really good at explaining a leftist position on property and how its actually liberatory. Also, the development of an ancap society would land in horrific effects for everyone as one of the big talking points is opposition to a central bank, meaning an ancap society, to be fair in addressing the product of someone's labor, would have to figure out a currency system to compensate for everyones (now worthless) federal bank notes (so that the crazy guy that buried gold in his backyard isn't the new bourgeoisie). Also, ancaps don't even follow their flawed Lockean theory of value properly. If someone has "changed the land" to make it theirs, could I not just cut the grass of a meadow and its legally mine? Swim and piss in a pond? How would a stateless society enforce that? It's a lot of questions that one has to ask themselves about the property relationship to realize that most property relations are completely null.

The concept of theft is a spook.

Where is that quote from?

Dude Molyneux calls it virtue ethics. That's all I'm saying.

ultimately I want FALC, but market socialism is fine too.

Okay, first of all, read Marx.

Second, anarchism is not the 'no rules xD' bullshit that the word otherwise means. There's a lot of varying definitions for political anarchism but the one I personally like the best, and which I think hits the most notes is "A skepticism towards hierarchy". Simply meaning that an anarchistic political system is one without unjustified hierarchy.

Lastly, post-scarcity isn't needed. While I think it's correct that scarcity is what created the hierarchical systems in the first place, a complete post-scarcity world isn't needed to employ an anarchist political system.
Specifically, there needs to be low or no scarcity of living resources (Food and housing), and widespread education (Literacy most importantly), once this has been reached (Which it has for quite a while, in the majority of the world), anarchism is *possible*. Plausible, or likely to happen anytime soon? No.

it has not happenned in the majority of the world.

Read the anarchists FAQ, it's like the first thing to do if you're interested in anarchism , but just make sure that it doesn't dive too deep with many subjects , it's trying to just give you an idea on anarchism in general

Oh i meant