"Lets Just Not Call It A State"

I love how literally none of the points in his video have been addressed and instead everyone's just talking about how much he's read. Maybe it's because they dont have responses, or more likely are just attacking xexizy without having even watched the video..

literally anyone who brings that up just sees to read it instead of actually making an argument. Much btfo.

why are you sageing your own post?

This thread is a waste. Have some Lenin (Tanner is IWW).

> What is this organised minority? If this minority is really class-conscious, if it is able to lead the masses, if it is able to reply to every question that appears on the order of the day, then it is a party in reality. But if comrades like Tanner, to whom we pay special heed as representatives of a mass movement—which cannot, without a certain exaggeration, be said of the representatives of the British Socialist Party—if these comrades are in favour of there being a minority that will fight resolutely for the dictatorship of the proletariat and will educate the masses of the workers along these lines, then this minority is in reality nothing but a party.

Why are you on this board? If you want state capitalism so bad, make your own board or go back to Reddit.

It's literally a pamphlet, do you really need everything spoonfed to you?

Make an argument from it then if it's so short and you're so well versed in it. Otherwise you're just posting a link to something no one is going to read.

OH SHIT!!! STALIN POSTER JUST CALLED XEXIZY A PERSON WHO CAN NEITHER READ OR WRITE!!!!

I'm not OP fam

Yes, you are.

...

...

kill yourself bunkerfag

You were just BTFO'd!

...

...

To be fair, The Ego and His Own is awfully short compared to Kapital.

to be fair, Capital is fucking huge, if you managed to read all the volumes of Capital and comprehend it you should get a medal.

the only parts that matter are the ones that were written by marx

...

Stalinist basically calls xexizy illiterate

Stirner is not actually compatible with most of socialism, except individualists and post-leftists.

It's kind of the same thing with Zizek. Several months ago he was just a meme, now people are pretending like they actually understand him and want others to take him seriously.

I think you are projecting your own views on others.

Basically anarchist theory is flawed due to being removed from materialism in practice, and completely lacking the dialectic method. They outright battled dialectic materialism for years and tried to slander it as reactionary, due to their opposition to Marxism, so they consciously suppressed progressive elements within their movement to preserve ideological purity. Don't tell me how you use dialectic materialism but are an anarchist, everyone on l.pol. is a special snowflake, you only have to look at modern anarchist movements and historical anarchist movements to see this is true. They even called dialectical materialism metaphysics, due to Hegel's dialectical method. This is plain stupidity however, as they are conflating Hegel's dialectical method with his metaphysical system of absolutes, while Marx has been criticizing Hegel's idealism since the birth of his ideology. Another problem is the inherent individualism in anarchism that tends to cripple the movement, as internal disagreements functionally halt things from progressing. Like individual organs of an anarchist movement refusing to work with other organs of the same movement, as was historically the case in Ukraine. With a centralized command this is rarely the case unless said organ completely separates itself from the revolutionary movement. With centralized command this cannot come to be unless said organ doesn't completely separate from the movement, and there are organs of power that enforce the will of the majority on individual organs of the movement, so this doesn't come to be.

Anarchism, also tends to devolve into individual modes of production instead of social modes of production which is unproductive in a modern context, to the point that they cannot combat capitalist production and influence on their society, as they refuse to create organs to defend this society from such influences.

This individualism in the very mode of production fails to breed a socialist consciousness, as people are subjected to individualist modes of production, so inevitably anarchism will regress form socialism, even if it was a socialist movement at it's inception.

As a historical example, you had collectively owned factories in Catalonia that competed against other such institutions on the market, there was also no quota so often there was a shortage of supplies as workers weren't given a incentive to produce enough. and this was very inefficient as opposed to an economy planned around the needs of society, taking into account the collective requirements of the workers, army, state, and so on and so forth.

I could write more as there are more critiques but I am hungry so I am going off to eat, if you really found this lacking read the book nigger, it's like 80 pages.

I'm not pretending to understand Zizek, nor do i want more people to take him seriously

I think more people here have read the Ego and it's Own than anything by Marx.

It has everything to do with your ideology, because it critiques it very very heavily.

Dialectical Materialism is idealism though.

I think Xexizy is mostly cool even though I don't agree with him on much. He's relying on a lot of Bolshevik propaganda in his analysis of the Free Territory, "muh conscription", along with calling the Black Army a faction of the red army, when the Reds essentially had the Blacks do all their fighting for them in the Ukraine and swiftly destroyed them after they were no longer useful to Trotsky and co.

Also, his idea that a people's militia is a state is flawed, a militia doesn't necessarily have a monopoly on the use of violence, but rather, in anarchist ideas, is a tool utilized by the collective to protect against violence from outside and within a community, with no jurisdiction over the conduct of community members. Same with his notion that a state is required to tax worker's wages in order to provide services and what not, I see no reason why an intentional community of socialists would need a state to mandate using funds created by the community to provide services for all.Authoritarian socialists don't seem to have much strength in their conviction of the cause of socialism, since they seem to believe that worker's can not properly govern themselves! Not to mention that vouchers, which most anarchists are in favor of, and wages work very differently and I'm not sure how taxing vouchers would work.

Someone actually bought this up in the comments. Basically, all the members of your community are not necessarily in favour of your anarchist society. There will be bourgeoisie counter revolutionaries, fascists, reactionaries and sectarian leftists. In order to defend the society, these people must be dealt with too by the militia, and so the militia must have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, because again if anyone can use violence then you're left open to have violence used on you from within from anyone who disagrees with you.

Because like I said, if there isnt, what's to stop them just keeping all the proceeds of labour to themselves to buy more luxuries? Nothing. You cant just trust everyone in a country to not do so.

Just do this anyways. I'd never let someone post one of these low-effort shitposts

No.

Oh sorry, I forgot that Holla Forums has paramount strategic importance in the class war :^)

No, no. This is LEFTYPOL!

see

Says the spacker who low level shitposts.
Kys n1x.

"Anarchism or Socialism" is one of the dumbest things Stalin wrote tbh. Like the argument presented is that bad. the tl;dr of it is anarchism is bad because it is not
Marxism, and Marxism is good so anarchism must be bad.

What did he mean by this?

Please, tell that you are not OP again ( )

And LEARN TO READ.

Stalinist is talking about all youtubers. We already had this conversation.

Moreover, if we are talking about OP-youtuber (who is not you, right?) I already told my opinion about his inability and unwillingness to simply use phonetic alphabet, instead of demanding from people to pronounce two dozen names he couldn't even be arsed to copypaste.

You didn't even read it, did you?

I'm not OP.

I've read it at least three times in my life and I always came away unimpressed. It might be a translation issue, but the argument just comes off as really bad.

I can read it again later this evening and identify the specific issues I have with it, since I'm just going off of memory and being vague atm

Ok. I'll put this thread on watch then.

And - yes. I've come to conclusion that Stalin's works generally suffer from poor translation.

I'm not getting my discussion, am I?

So, everyone is free to do what he want but only as long as it fit with socialist policies? What if I want to keep my money for myself?

why do marxists believe that idealism and materialism has anything to do with politics?

Filthy rightist

What a baby. Anarkids and tankies aren't that different.

Yup. Does I have to go in the gulag or are you still standing for liberty?

socialism doesn't actually mean state ownership

Yes.
>>>/gulag/

So, I keep all my "hard earned" money, but we call ourselves socialists, so it's fine?

And here come the liberty when socialism is enforced.

youtube.com/watch?v=B7G4WIa-HAk

going after money destroys individualism and liberty, communism is the only true individualistic system because it's the only one based around the specific qualities of the individual and not spooks

The guy who made this video forgot a thing: we live in free countries and we are not forced to be part of capitalism. There is many communes, many off-the-grid places to be. You can choose to live in poverty, you can choose to live a simple life working the land or you can choose to have consumerism at the price of your labor.

Feel free, for you are.

On the national scale, yes, but if I just want to stay out of the communism thing? Am I forced to go in?

Feel free, for you are.

That's extremely naive.

communism will take all the property from the proprietors and give it to the commons, that's called expropriation

if you own property, other people are forced to recognise it and to rely on proprietors for what is produced by their property, expropriation of the property will give everybody the ability to produce for themselves instead of relying on the proprietors and the tight control they have over human activity

Whatever. The communes are here and you are free to join, but, hey, it's your choice and I respect that.

I am free to produce for myself? Ho, it is fine. Will the material wealth I create be expropriated too?

the point of communism is to work together freely so that you can produce what you want
so in communism we will be able to take and use anything we like
an example of this in practice would be how the CNT in Spain ran public transport during the first years of the civil war when anarchists took over a lot of industry and agriculture in Catalonia and Aragon, making it completely free to ride and how in some places communism existed and it was possible to take as much food or wine as you wanted without it running out, and barbers gave out free haircuts to everybody twice a week

youtube.com/watch?v=hJikG-p_nho

Evil capitalists try to maximise the wealth created by a day of work? This is evil!

What is the point of producing a thing if I can just take it?

Public transport cost the same to run if it is full or empty, so can can make it free to use with no difficulty, but what about bread? Tilling the soil is hard. Taking the bread is easy.

I do not WANT to produce, I want the wealth generated by production. If I have to produce to get a share of what is commonly made, then I will. If I don't have to, then I NEET.

Yep, you're shallow.

I'm NEET now, in communism I don't think anybody would want to be NEET because the only work we will need to do to get our share is the work necessary to produce enough, and this work will be done in the fraternity that exists when everybody you meet is your equal. Work will not only just be seen as the household chores of society (economics literally means household), but technology will progress greatly now that more people will be able to become educated and we'll be able to choose to do less and less work as time goes on. But the main advantage that communism will bring in my opinion is a solution to the loneliness that is everywhere in our current society, with suicide being the most common cause of death under the age of 30. A society where nobody obeys or commands is the only political solution to loneliness.

I would be NEET if I could. Communism or capitalism, it make no difference on that matter.

This is so naive it hurt. First, some people put more into the balance than others. It mean some people will always end with more than others and some with less. Second, even if everyone is equal, it does not mean they will be willing to take risks for the benefit of somebody else.

How was the technology in the soviet union? Powerful computer? Great medical advancement? Physical discoveries? They were good at engineering, but that is not innovation.

I'm not an anarchist as such, but muke seems to be basing his arguments on a revolution right now basis. As someone who thinks that revolution is destined to fail in the present, it becomes kind of a moot point.
Revolution will only happy when the majority of workers, around the world, gain class consciousness. This will only happen when capitalism is forced to revert to 19th century levels of exploitation (i.e no welfare state, no "workers rights", etc). I agree in the idea of a vanguard, but a lot of his arguments imply that anarchism could not work today - well no fucking shit, its a long term project.

But like I said, at worst work will just be seen as chores and there would be no employment as such. We all wash our clothes and dishes for free already because we accept that it's something we have to do. Equality doesn't mean everybody gets the same, equality means that everybody gets what they need as an individual. We'll be much willing to work together when we aren't put into categories for types of work, or jobs that are seen as more important than the others when the goal is to meet the needs of everybody by making contributions as ourselves. There will be no employers or hierarchy of jobs, because the work a cleaner does and the work a doctor does now are both incredibly important and you certainly wouldn't want to choose between these services despite artificial differences in income and social standing. As for the Soviet Union, when I talk about communism I mean Kropotkin instead of Marx.

Even in Spain, there were years and years of preparation and education to give people class consciousness. It's not supposed to be spontaneous.

...

I completely encourage you to continue to read marxist work, but I also encourage you to occasionally read introductory work for alternative and even direct critiques of marx. This is the way to a well rounded understanding of a topic.

No shit, but it seems pointless to me a bearded Marxist when you don't have a crystal ball - you HAVE to be open minded to how society should function in a post-capitalist society - Marx himself knew this.

Nope. Don't even to conflate it with his metaphysical system to establish that it's idealism.

I think you should either open a dictionary or use another word.

It does not change that if I can take more than I give, I will. Name me the way you want but I am not the only one, and since you are a NEET you have no lecture to give me.

political equality has always been separate from equality as sameness, and that goes all the way back to the enlightenment
"from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" is really the opposite of everybody being the same
and you can't take more than you give in capitalism because the pursuit of profit is not the same as the search for genuine fulfillment

And that is not a definition of equality.

It is the acceptance that people are unequal in their capabilities and in their needs combined with the statement that everyone should do as much as he can and get as much as he need.

How do a NEET stand for "from each according to his abilities" anyway?

it's the guiding principle of an equal society
because I can't realise myself in a capitalist society where you have to work for wages

you idealists never have an argument to back up your claims, and the few times you have gotten into an argument you have ended up contradicting yourself again and again.

Reddit obesity, is that you?

You know you can be your own boss, right? You could fix kitchens or become a locksmith or whatever, have your own mean of production and get the full fruits of your labour, or you can even join an small company in autogestion.

You can realise yourself, the fact is that you don't want to.

you're not understanding what the problem with the whole system is, the working for a profit and the constant subjugation of your work and self
even billionaires waste most of their time worrying about profits, it's all to buy something and there's no meaning and you're made to be something less than you are

Materialism by itself is not necessarily idealistic, though with the advent of quantum mechanics even that can be disputed. The application of Dialectics to Materialism results in idealism, in the sense that you're trying to reconcile a purely mental construction with the physical universe, resulting in an idealistic interpretation of the physical universe.

I guess we need capitalism then. Even despite plenty og historical examples, like Mazdaki, Ikko Ikki, medieval communes, and the iriquois confederacy indicates that we don't and the issues is inherent within hierarchy itself, and so therefore to distinguish between something that is top-down and something that is bottom up is not arbitrary like a lot of Marxists would suggest.

I think you're replying to the wrong thing

Why would anyone work if they got nothing to profit from? More than half the money my boss give me goes to your pocket and I still got a job.

You think once it's "from each to its capabilities to each to it's needs" you won't see a share of your labour being used for someone else?

Are you an /anarcho/ mod?

Are you one of these"it's not censorship because I'm right" types?

do you actually believe that?

Money is the representation of material wealth.

Dying from starvation naked in mud is the natural state of man. If you don't want that, you need things made by working people.

I do not wish to starve naked in mud. I don't know about you, but not everyone can take more than they give to the equation, so I have no choice left but to work.

Because I don't want do starve naked in mud and neither you neither the capitalists help.

I don't wish to live in a primitive tribalism. I just like the idea that I will grow old and not die at 30 from a tooth infection.

exactly, it's all made by workers which is why it should be a free association of workers instead of private enterprise

You know you can start a company as a free association of workers, right? It is not uncommon for small companies to have all the worker owning an equal part of the shares.

My vet work with 2 women she met at her vet school and they all founded their vet cabinet together and take all the decision in common.

that's coops, they're really good but can have a hard time competing with regular businesses
it's how most anarchist books are published and sold

Then go work in one and realize yourself. Is being a NEET easier?

If yes, what right do you have to tell others to work for you? Your idea of communism is just a different form of exploitation of the working class where bums get all the surplus value instead of capitalists.

None of those I mentioned were hunter-gatherers and had technology comparable to their hierarchical nieghbours.

I don't get welfare at all though
where I live there aren't really any coops
there's a bookstore 200 kilometers away run by volunteers and I don't have a driver's license
also porky gets taxed for welfare as well

What are you eating then? Wild fruits?
You live off your parents money?

And none of them could cure tooth infection. I just don't want to die, man.

yes, that's very bad. You're interested in fleshing out your ideology instead of taking a look at other ideas to see whether it itself is right first.

You're getting emotionally involved with your ideology. It has value to you. You won't give it up because of your biases. That's why you have to read everything from all avenues first.

yeah

They must be so proud of you.

Any plan for when they lost their job, die, need healthcare or want you to get out?

I will train to be a garbage man when I get my license

You need a license for that? Here you don't even need identity papers.

driver's license

Neither could their hierarchal parents. What do you think your point is?

Tribalism could not create dentistry because it discourage innovation and initiative. Want to compare with the technological level of the European they met?

You were the one going on about tribalism. Besides, there's nothing to indicate that a libertarian society cannot innovate and invest through something like mutualist banks.
Again, all these societies had the same technological level as their hierarchal neighbours, so why would that magically just go away if we implement direct democracy instead?

regurgitate 19th century stuff is easier than think, you damn revisionist

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_the_Soviet_Union
It was the same or slightly worse than other state capitalist countries like USA, which is in itself impressive considering that 30 years before that it was mostly a rural country devastated by Civil War and WWII.

Are you telling that Soviets were on the level of USA in 20s?

I'M SORRY I'VE BEEN BUSY (working on it now)

Not even I could help this board in any other way than accelerating its demise :^)

If you're a muh free speech liberal faggot then don't even bother posting there, because unlike the Holla Forums mods I don't let Holla Forums shitpost all over the place.

kys my man

You've internalized Holla Forums's pathetic board culture too hard my dude

Great. Take your time then. I might not answer soon.

Well, I didn't get banned for rolling in and tankying around /anarcho/.

That said I didn't get satisfactory answers either. I'm under impression that modern Anarchists (those that are anti-Soviet) are mostly AnCap in denial.

...

Are they just wont bother with you.

*or

I am willing to tolerate M-L's who don't act too obnoxious.

I missed your posts tbh but modern anarchists are far better than classical anarchists even if they aren't as upfront about being communists. Classical anarchists are basically liberals IMO ;^)

Good intentions are irrelevant if their policies are no different from AnCap.

Pretending that things will somehow work out on their own - is nothing short of intellectual cowardice. I don't really get how can this be considered "real Anarchism".

Modern - as in Catalonian, or as is "New" (Bookchin)?

As in, post-Catalonia. Bookchin is basically just classical anarchism with some shit about ecology though, tbh.

First, I want to start by cutting Stalin some slack. I recognize that he wasn’t writing this for posterity, but rather it was a polemic written for a very specific audience. Not only that but I doubt he had the resources available to him in order to make a thorough critique. Which is why (I assume) he focuses so much on these nobody anarchist newspaper writers + throwing in Kropotkin every once in a while. If it wasn’t for the fact that it was fucking Stalin that wrote it, I doubt we’d even be talking about this article.
But we are going to talk about it, because here thinks this is all we need to BTFO anarchists. And…I don’t think it’s a good critique. At all.

Right off the bat in the introduction Stalin claims that anarchism is fundamentally individualist (which is bad) and Marxism is collectivist. How he comes to this conclusion, he doesn’t say. But browsing through anyone such as Bakunin, Kropotkin, Berkman, etc., you will find that their writings don’t contradict his positon that individual emancipation is impossible with emancipation of the masses

Some comments on the first section: Stalin claims that dialectics isn’t metaphysics because from the standpoint of metaphysics “the world is something eternal and immutable, it has been once and for all determined by someone or something — that is why the metaphysicians always have "eternal justice" or "immutable truth" on their lips.” Which is an idiosyncratic definition of metaphysics, but again, I’m not going to fault him too much on it because I doubt he had much of a background in philosophy. Then he says something about anarchists being followers of Herbert Spencer, which is…bizarre.

But the gist of this section is that the dialectical method is good, and since the anarchists he cites critique or reject it, anarchism is bad. Which if he can show that dialectics is the right method, then it would follow that anarchism is flawed, but again this is a polemic so he doesn’t spend a lot of space defending dialectics aside writing a short summary of what it’s all about. And it’s a decent summary, it’s just the critique that follows it is underwhelming.

Second section: explains (Marxist) materialism and then compares it to the opinions of some newspaper writers no one remembers. Which, again, this is a polemic is which he goes after local anarchist writers so I’m not going to fault him for that.

The third section is on proletarian revolution and it follows the same pattern as the first two: overview of the topic, and then a critique of the anarchist viewpoint. He divides the anarchist viewpoint into three parts:

(1) Social-Democrats are not genuine socialists

(2) Social-Democracy is not revolutionary

(3) Social-Democracy wants a dictatorship over the proletariat

(1) What I find interesting about this section is, that when defending social-democrats, Stalin refers back to works of Marx and Engels. But the anarchists he cites are referring to social-democracy as it existed at the present time. And as we know, the social-democracy of the Second International developed viewpoints that were different than those of Marx, and yet Stalin doesn’t reference any contemporary social-democrat.

What I find to be weird is that he pulls out a huge quote from “The Conquest of Bread” that was critiquing the position of collectivist anarchists (i.e. Bakunin and his followers), but he misinterpreted as a critique of social-democracy.

(2) The anarchist critique of social-democracy is on point, as the social-democrats of the Second International were more focused on winning elections than building a revolutionary movement. And to counter this Stalin…he pulls out quotes from Marx to say “See! This isn’t what we’re about at all!”

(3) Again, see above.

So to conclude, as a summary of Marxist viewpoints it’s not bad. Cause plenty of quotes from Marx everywhere. But as a critique of anarchism it falls on its face. Partly because they were right about the Second International being shit, and also partly because he didn’t go into depth about any anarchist theory: it was more of a defense of Marxism than anything else. To be fair, he planned on writing a continuation of the article, but it was never published because it dissapeared when he got arrested. So we’ll never know what all was there.

But in its incomplete form, it didn’t BTFO anarchism, and I don’t think it has any contemporary relevance aside from the fact it was something Stalin wrote in his early years.

Yeah. Utter mess. I didn't realize it would be that be that bad for anons. It should be rewritten. And I was recommending it to people. *sigh*

1) You are being a bit too condescending.
You are correct about leaders of Georgian Anarchist movement being historical nobodies, but there were Anarchist' brochures printed aplenty by this point - so no problem with literature; and the article was fully supported by Lenin. So no pulling punches.

Moreover, when it come to philosophy, this attitude played a bit of joke on you: it seems it is not Stalin who is lacking.

This being over a century ago, and a different culture/language one should not hastily apply modern definitions of words (them not being "eternal and immutable"). In my opinion "Metaphysics" is used in it's older meaning - as shorthand for Aristotelian logic (aka natural philosophy). It a century ago, it was more dogmatic (and religious), greatly contrasting with DiaMat (which is still not accepted by people at large).

Example from 1927 (American opinion about Soviet "no-fault divorces"):
> Russia has forsaken the family, and is now facing the gravest crisis in its career, says a writer who has studied court records and uncovered some astounding facts in connection with Russia's experiment in changing by fiat a moral order that many claim to be of divine origin, and most admit to be the only safe one for civilization.

This might seem very right-wing, but it's kinda tame for that time. Go back 21 years before that and into much more religious Russia - and you'll get a really dogmatic mode of thinking. But - yeah. It's useless for modern day.

2) Stalin talks about individual, not individualism.
I.e. it's about personal qualities. Ethics and so on.

Well, in case of the Marx it is obvious enough. As for Anarchism, I cannot be fully certain, but weren't moral qualities very important?

In my opinion he means that Marxism is about changing circumstances to change people, while Anarchism is about changing people to change circumstances. Does this make more sense?

Well, first and foremost, Berkman (as a writer) wasn't around at the time and his works were undeniably influenced by Marxism (due to failure of Russia's Anarchists and Berkman being around to witness the less gory details - IIRC Black Guards wreaking havoc in Moscow were before his arrival), so he cannot be used as an argument.

Secondly, "not contradicting" is hardly enough to say that Stalin is wrong here. Unlike Marx they didn't support it as a main tool, did they?

What would you consider the main difference between Anarchism and Socialism?

3) You seem to forget that Third International did not happen yet.
Even Russian Social Democratic Labour Party is still whole - and it is those Social-Democrats Stalin is referring to. But this Party will split into two factions and one of those should be known to you - Bolsheviks.

SocDem Stalin is talking about are future Communists. He does mention that they are Marxists, no?

What we call SocDem are called Reformists (or Social Revolutionaries) by him, even if only in passing. And does mention contemporary social-democrat - Bernstein.

Yeah. See above.

...

not an argument

Not sure if it's a joke, with all the autism going around.