POLLIO TIME

is there literally any important difference between libertarian marxism and anarchism?

Yes.

...

Lol don't try to act like ML and Leninism are any different besides ML playing apologist for authoritarianism and Leninism ignoring it

Mainly just that anarkiddies reject Marxism and especially anything to do with dialectics and materialism that would explain why anarchy wouldn't work tomorrow. Other than that I'm practically an ancom, and that's what I tell people I am.

Existence is never separate from coercion, either directly via the implicit threat of other individuals or the conditions they create. The goal is to obtain a society based on liberty; the movement towards it is invariably going to involve divine acts of violence under the brutal veil of authority.

...

You focus too much on the fucking word in a term. It's just a tendency that aims at decentralizing political structure.

kill yourself

That's all fine and dandy, but we are still faced with the same problem: do we admit to ourselves that will have to use our forces as a class to reign terror on the class antagonistic to ours, or nicely cuddle with them?

>authority : a person or organization having political or administrative power and control
So we're going to let porky, the classcucks and co. do their own thing while we do ours? How exactly does this work, and how does this purile rejection of platformist action (speaking to anarchist now, specifically) sustain itself if we look at the history of bourgeois influence on otherwise 'free' individuals, territories and organizations?

Well okay that's a criticism of libertarianism, but you can't just say that libertarianism doesn't exist because of the word.

Also, anarchism isn't pacifist. You misunderstand it.

The entire point of libertarianism, historically, was to create a new term for anarchist socialism to circumvent the legal banning of the term 'anarchism' in public discourse.

No matter the naive implications of the term 'libertarian' in the context of revolutionary politics, this is separate of that. We must admit to ourselves that libertarianism does not functionally exist; our goals are clearly to be obtained through the use of violence in the event of revolution. This necessitates and implies the use authority. All we can say is 'how far do we go?', ergo 'how authoritarian do you go?'.

You seem to greatly misunderstand anarchism. It's not pacifistic nor is it automatically libertarian either, it is quite conceivable to have a highly authoritarian group of anarchists. The primary anarchist criticism is that of how things are done, not what is being done.

and i mean libertarian meaning "promoting individual human liberty", not just "anarchist"

Then we agree: authority is instrumental and inevitable in our aim to end bourgeois society and ultimately establish a classless, stateless and moneyless society. I do not deny the existence of anarchist socialism. I deny the fantasy that is 'libertarianism', both left wing but without mention right wing 'libertarianism' as well.

Anarchism is a discussion on how to organize society in terms of people who are not at war. You cannot try to strawman the fact that anarchists come into conflict with other groups of people to mean that there is no such thing as libertarianism.

Nah fam, this is the real political compass

You still attempt to thread around the object of discussion: authority.

No matter if your collective of revolutionaries operates on a horizontal basis in its mission to eradicate the world of bourgeois society and its ideology, you are exerting force and authority. This is not a strawman; it is a reminder that the term 'libertarian' only serves to differentiate oneself from revolutionary ideologues who do not shy away from going all the way (or further). Violence, authority and power remain inherent to any truly revolutionary tendency.

haHAA

Can we stop with this pls?
No leftcom accepts the "libertarian"/"authoritarian" dichotomy.

No, its just another branch of social democracy,

As SolNet themselves admit, as all the second international parties and unions came to support the war. so did all the anarchist unions

I don't dislike the label as it insinuates closer ties with anarchism and more distant ties with the bastard children of Leninism.

But Leftcoms aren't anarchists. Anarchists are just the other side of the Social Democratic coin. They still think nationalization is socialization, even if they don't want to call their state a state or they want to call it "collectivization".
They support a worker-managed planned capitalism at best, many even supporting co-ops, if not outright market socialism with some sort of state
.
This is not preferable to "Lenin"ism. In fact it is in many ways more of a threat.

*aren't close to anarchists…

If anything the majority of leftcoms are closer to lenin than anarchism. Certain sections of the italian left even regard themselves as "leninists" of sorts (bordigists lol).

Some leftcoms are relatively close to anarchists. The term leftcom is fairly broad/nebulous which makes it stupid to use as a descriptor. I wouldn't compare consider Bordiga and his followers close to the anarchists for example. I also think you're description of anarchism is disingenuous albeit not entirely inaccurate when you look at the generally shitty politics of most anarchists.

I specifically stated "the bastard children of Leninism", not Leninism itself. Leftcoms in general have more common ground with anarchists than they do with the Stalinists and Maoists. In some cases the anarchists have adopted so much Marxist theory the distinction isn't that significant. Of course, that doesn't really describe the majority.

Well no shit. You thought anarchists were against this? You don't seem to enlightened on anarchism. It is about not taking the transitory phase. That's pretty much it.

Wtf. Go take a history lesson in leftism.

I'm not saying that they ever called themselves social democrats, I'm saying there praxis is contained within the social democratic paradigm (private/public property, nationalized/privatized, socialism is workers' ownership / socialism is the liberation of workers not from being workers but just from the bourgeoisie, organization tied to the state [unions, bourgeois parties, etc.], socialism is fair economy not the abolition of economy, etc.)

...

But from what I hear from anarchists is that they don't even consider nationalization "actual" socialism. They would call that "state capitalism". They only accept collectivization through federations.

A lot of the criticisms you're talking about are typical anarchist criticisms. I don't know what you imagine anarchism is.

It's true… this board is majority petite bourgeois.

Holy shit, who knew there were so many libertarians in this board.

Which might be useful if they knew a state from a hole in the ground.
Which can be states

The hyperfocus on form leaves them completely indifferent to the content.

Just about every anarchist on this board thinks socialism = workers ownership, and their criticism of tankies is reducible to "the workers' didn't really own the means of production", which, while true, does not mean that it would be socialist if they did.

We all know the famous quote:
"freedom without Socialism is muh privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality"
Think about what this implies for your definition of socialism.

It implies there can be such a thing as socialism without "freedom". The science of Marxism would never make such a mistake, socialism can only be the association of free and equal producers.
You go against "state socialism", yet your theory is simply the inverse, it leaves all the categories intact, it just wishes to use "libertarian" language. The core of modern anarchism is a self-proclaimed opposition to both capitalism and the state, implying that one is not a consequence of the other and they are two independent things. Tankies, bathing themselves in Marxist rhetoric, must perform mental gymnastics to get to the position where they can be "pro-government, anti-capitalism", but they have the same theoretical framework in the sense of that disconnect between capitalism in the state, even if they won't admit so outright because they would have to blatantly renounce Marxism.

Kind of proving my point,

they are indistinguishable

*capitalism and the state

Kropotkin didn't think so.

I picked leftcom since it's closer than the other two.

It would be nice if we could see the makeup of the board without trolling.

meant, "pro-state, anti-capitalism"

Will there be any supporting evidence?

At least present cases of "this is workers owning production" and "this is Soviets not giving workers control over production".

Wait, what?

I don't remember any "producers". Are you absolutely sure it was Marxism you've been reading?

I think platformist anarchists, at least the ones that all too seriously consider themselves 'libertarian' anarchists, do so to explicitly try to project an image of themselves that would shun away from the use of violence or authority with the hope that people will be more open to their cause. Unlike back when the term 'libertarianism' was coined, the actual term ('anarchist') is no longer banned in public discourse from basic mention. Hence, it's safe to say that all one does when calling themselves 'libertarian' is signaling what I mentioned.

I am. I'm a platformist anarchist myself.

Avoiding the overtaking and establishment of a state-like structure with total control? This 'phase'? Of course. Avoiding the transistory period of divine violence towards our establishment of an anarchist society? Nonsense.

No, it doesn't. It's just that by calling yourself an anarchist you're lumping yourself in with those morons.

The term has changed slightly. I think at this point it refers to someone like myself who favors abolition of government, but more "eventually".

ok
also who's that guy in the imddle

mayonnaise is sociailsm is its means of production are owned by the people

which was actually a part of B████'s platform if you were paying attention, was support for cooperatives

These results make me cringe.