Do you believe in democracy?

Democracy is garbage. Aristocrats of the spirit could not be made to care about the ruinous machinations of the horde.. into the mud, reptiles!

Can you name any historical examples of communism existing?

That's just what Muke would say!

evola pls go

The reading comprehension is strong in this one.

...

I can't. Could you name any examples of feudalism existing if we were in a slave owning society, examples of capitalism if we were in feudalism?

Who are you quoting?

Ah yes because Lenin's theory of a state turned out to be so effective, right guys?! Read Rousseau if you want to know what a real democracy looks like.

I believe it's from pg. 25 of State and Revolution.

which edition?
do us a favor and quote it.

so you admit your argument was bullshit.

Democracy is shit tbqh

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-debunking-democracy

Dropped.

...

smh I expect higher quality posts than this from leftcoms

Yes! Read enlightenment philosophers then contrast it with how the project of enlightenment actually manifested.

...

It's cheesy and you know it.

tbqh, one of the worst things about Marxists is how anti-fun they are - Situationists excluded, which is one of the best traits of their thought.

Style is important.

...

lifestylism is a shit

[email protected]/* */ (laughing at leftists)

I honestly believed this in my youth. Loved avantgarde art, the pataphysicists, even dadaism.

Used to write short stories and novels, even got published some, etc. Got some encouraging remarks from a famous writer too, but shush.

From an amateur artist's POV all I can say that whenever you aim (or force…) style, content is sacrificed. You just try and try to fit in your intended meaning to the stylistic framework you envisioned.

Then I read Hölderlin and Brecht.

I think you mean Bob "Doer of Literally Nothing Wrong" Black.

also this tbqh:

I'm not sure what the upshot of your post is considering that you contradicted yourself at the end there.

How so?

Even "communists" today are brainwashed by these bourgeois ideas of liberty, democracy, free speech, human rights, etc…
Also, Badiou is right in implying that things like full automation of society isn't real communism. There are a lot of people that have drank too much of the technology Kool-Aid.

FTFY

>>>/marx/

Full text (not long) if you are interested: lacan.com/jambadiou.htm

youtube.com/watch?v=IgR6uaVqWsQ

When will leninhats learn

when will people read theory?

Well it seemed like the point you were making is that style is always going to mean sacrificing content, but then at the end there you said that you read Hölderlin and Brecht. Which seems to indicate that your opinion had changed.

But you also specified "from an amateur artist's POV", so maybe I misread your post.

tbh I know exactly what you're talking about, as I'm also coming from an amateur artist (writer, really) point of view. And I have struggled over the question of why choose a more stylistic, literary form for trying to convey an idea that could be conveyed more clearly and maybe more concisely using something like an essay form.

But then again, just look at Continental philosophy compared to Analytic philosophy. Continental philosophers have infinitely more style than Analytics, and are objectively better than them nonetheless.

I would say that the questions he brought to the anarchist milieu about its relationship with the Left have been pretty far-reaching and significant, but if you're not an anarchist or are a classical anarkiddie you'll probably just dismiss that altogether as being invalid.

Quoting a right-wing disinfo shill in support of a lifestylist

top kek

Direct Democracy? Absolutely.
Representative Democracy? Under no circumstances.
When you think about it, a classless, equal society lead by the people like Marx wrote about is really just Democracy on steroids.

You don't even have to be a marxist to see that. You just have to see the pacification and neutralization of politics behind all those notions. It's pretty evident once you get a more militant perception.

Will read, thanks.

if you take off your protective headgear maybe I will be able to find an argument

...

top kek

not my fault you can't come up with one

abandon the ideas*

I've been posting nothing but arguments but you're just ignoring it. Keep believing in those bourgeois values kiddo.

...

Kek they're bourgeois because they literally are bourgeois values. What do you think the French Revolution was?

No, because communism has never and will never work.

you posted a single Zizek video, unless you're nihilist fag and pretending to be multiple people.

>>>/gulag/

So you want to abolish human rights, freedom of speech?
I swear communists are not that much different than fascists in this regard.
If you advocate for a society in that people have no rights, no protections, just mindless slaves for a communist state, then your ideology must be fought against at all costs.

The different literary forms by themselves aren't stylistically committed.

Style isn't (necessarily) form, either.

Yeah, not necessarily. The very approach is different therefore cont. philosophers tend to create their own terminology, and use creative ways (alien to anal.phil) to explain them. Some are more poetic, or stylistic, sure, but the general rule is that if you read something like
in a political text is that you immediately get suspicious. I'm not saying Bob Black is wrong. I'm saying starting your text with such fireworks smells of charade.

Just look at the audacity of this nigger

The Zizek video was an argument.
I want to abolish the proletariat.

ayy

Bootiful liberal pipe-dream.

Marx didn't mean to literally abolish the proletariat you retard

We have the stalin mustaché flag for that. Lurk more.

fuck off ML

exactly which is part of why he was wrong

If there's one thing Stalin and Chomsky agreed on, it's that all the principles of ML come directly from leninism

...

you haven't been arguing tho

cool it molyneux. we already knew you wanted to kill all poor people.

kek

where did I say I wanted to kill anyone?

No, these ideas are delivered when the liberal system functions well. In such a system we have certain liberties, but to achieve those you need to create a controlled environment where any possible resistance to the practice of those liberties is prevented, hence surveillance state. You can't have liberty without control, which is an argument against liberty, not for control. And when we don't have those liberties it's because the system is breaking apart.
Now you will immediately call me a fascist, but that's because you can't imagine any other mentality than liberalism. What we need to replace liberty with is political action and resistance, which includes sabotaging the liberties that the system safeguards. What is so blasphemous about preventing free speech of a neoliberal think tank? Or preventing people to buy some corporation's products? Or setting up blockades so that enemies don't have a freedom of movement there?

...

Yes let's just throw out the only good shit to come out of Europe pre marx.
Rousseau was very critical of Representative and parliamentary democracy and his analysis of how self interest worked in the framework of a state easily predicted how the ussr would turn out. I also feel his theory dovetails with bookchin's rejection of parliamentary politics and his alternative solutions.

Also reminder that zizek is one of the last defenders of the enlightenment project today.

"Let us then admit that force does not create right, and that we are obliged to obey only legitimate powers"
No thanks. Read OP. I want no "legitimate" coercion in the end.

aka the social contract is a spook

That's a really stupid generalization.

get fucked.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

...

...

ITT: liberal ideology busting, aesthetics, enlightenment bashing

kek

_.:educate me:._

>>>/marx/
>>>/marx/
>>>/marx/
>>>/marx/
>>>/marx/

Still implying I said things that I never said, smdh

ITT: tankies and /lit/fags jerking each other off

...

please get the fuck out >>>/marx/

George Orwell was left, even though alt-right babbies love him, but the left is still shit.

What's your political stance? Expose yourself!

he's a fascist.

lifestylist, as people have called me ITT

no!

he already got outed as that post-left fag that just took the flag off.

I'm a different poster!

suuuuuuuuuuure

...

vanguardists reeee

Orwell criticised anarchism for very stupid reasons though.

wow another troll how original

how about going back to troll land

he was just being tsundere

Have you even read the whole post? Just ask yourself what it means to be free to do X . It means there's nothing preventing you from doing X, you are free to do so. Now how do you achieve that? 1. you have to build an infrastructure that makes it possible to do X (e.g. highways for freedom of movement, internet for freedom of speech, etc…); 2. you have to prevent any kind of action by others that would prevent you from doing X - in other words any kind of resistance to you doing X. So you have to create a controlled environment.
The assumption people make, due to liberal hegemony, is that freedom is something abstract and original, that you start with being free in a power vacuum, then comes some power and takes away your freedom. No, the freedom has to be realized concretely, you have to organize it and maintain it, and you do that by building a liberal system. It is not a coincidence that the ideologies of freedom and liberalism appear at the same time in history.
So what's the alternative? Instead being dependent on a controlled environment to have your freedom, you start thinking about your power to change the immediate world in which you live in, which means fighting for it. It is the notion of struggle that replaces freedom.

use meme arrows to indicate to whom you address your reply

...

nice free speech liberal democratic values you've got there fam

I agreed wholeheartedly until I read this part
Explain, plox

I dunno what you're fighting for fam but for me it is definitely not less freedom.

maybe this will make you reconsider

But I already knew that Bookchinites were hypocrites user

But I thought hypocrites were those people who profess against liberal values until suddenly inconvenienced by their absence.

You don't have to share somebody's beliefs to point out their inconsistency!

wut

Said alt right babbies probably got a hardon from his description of the authoritarian society.

I used to live in the Soviet Union.
Yes.
Meme tier answer, but democracy really is better than the alternatives.

No, I once met this literal neo-nazi kid who had a "thought police" sticker on his phone.

Maybe he thought he was the thought police.

Because democracy is a political system, while communism is an economic system

Ok, so… Could you frame your answer with regards to OP?

How's communism not a political system?

communism is a combination of a political and economic system

How's democracy not a tool for economic coercion (as per OP)?

This is just edgy shit. I think at this point democracy is an unavoidable thing. With populations as dense as ours, old ways like monarchies or specific oligarchies just don't work.

And never has there been a direct democracy either. That too is difficult in a large populace. What you either have is a representative democracy or restricted voting power which is republicanism.

Now how this republicanism is determined is up for debate and honestly I could think of a few good ones that seem socialist leaning. For example leaving voting to workers unions and those who make under 200k a year. This restricts voting down to the middle and lower class and while this wouldn't stop capitalism's contradicting interests and lobbying, it would certainly hurt it. The better question is why would a bourgeois government do such a reform? You have to make it worth their while.

If anything with talks of repealing the 19th amendment to insure a Trump victory, we could see the legal definition of a woman changed. And I'm sure if bourgeois had their way a woman is anyone who makes less than 200k a year. It isn't the first time conservatives have tried taking poor people out of the voting booth.

Revolution is violence, I cannot stress that enough. Reforms are just that, variations of the same capitalist system. You can argue your communist utopia needs some changes once it's actually communist and not just poop-dick capitalism.

because people already mentioned direct democracy, to which your only argument was "lol liberalism"

yet to be answered

who really gives a shit what marx and lenin thought? move on with your lives and stop trying to look at everything thinking "what would marx do". they are mostly irrelevant and seem to limit your thinking as you are so slavishly in awe of them. their ideas have been explored, tried, and failed.

yet to be answered.

Democracy has ~2500 years of history. Communism is yet to be achieved.

now your turn

You do know he defined legitimate powers as those which result in great freedom, right?

Do you deny he defends the enlightenment project?

*greater

Democracy has ~2500 years of history. Direct democracy has yet to be achieved.

And that is exactly the ideological content of the text. "Great freedumb" can't come from "legitimate" powers.

Another reading comprehension award.

pathetic

If you read the book, you'd realize that it can. And as I indicated in my spelling fix, it is actually greater freedom.

Watch it and weep faggot. Should I also link his support of the Jacobins?
youtube.com/watch?v=L2fF6j6d9D4&feature=youtu.be&t

It's really telling when a market socialist attempts defending pre-communist political theory.

If you actually read anything muke, you'd realize that the freedom of communism and the freedom Rousseau fought for was the same. And that is of course not just the freedom within our existing world and social order, but the freedom to change it, the freedom of autonomy.

This is a more fitting flag for you, my dear friend.

You cannot even begin to understand Marx or anyone else if you are incapable of critical thought.

praise tito

ITT: zero attempts at answering OP's pic (or the cited article in it)

I assure you I have many criticisms of Tito's yugoslavia, although I admire his leadership and the idea of market socialism. Although I wish I had the ability to see the world in such black and white terms as you.

praise tito harder

stay buttmad

woops meant for

woops, meant for

You just demonstrated their point.
You are getting butthurt over someone pointing out that marxists tend to regard Marx as sacred.

You respond with some whiny bitch "you are incapable of critical thought" BS.
Your lord and saviour is dead, his ideology will never dominate the world.

Eh? I was the one telling him not to regard Marx as sacred.

getting really annoyed with this shit

Except it is, Marx, except it is…

Makes me feel bad that the lion of the proletariat spent so much energy roaring inaccuracies and falsehoods.

...

you know poverty of philosophy was a piece of garbage right

anarchism.pageabode.com/pjproudhon/appendix-proudhon-and-marx.html

Pure democracy is also shit, see Brexit.

EU is borgy

shigg diggy

“The people of England regards itself as free; but it is grossly mistaken; it is free only during the election of members of parliament. As soon as they are elected, slavery overtakes it, and it is nothing.”

t. Rousseau

It is rather curious what a group of slaves will do when permitted a single moment of freedom. Certainly almost any action they take will be out of spite.

Communism is democracy taken seriously. Any society with any form of ruling class is necessarily undemocratic.

It seems people are just arguing over semantics a lot in this thread. I believe in a communist society we wouldn't need the democracy of the majority vs the minority, since people would just be able to look after themselves and would not impose their will on others.

Kek

You should spend some time with the older anarchists in the Bay Area. Bob Black is a fucking basket case. He can't even come back to the Bay Area because everyone here hates his guts for his shitty behavior.

give me one source where Marx talks about "dialectical truth"

protip: you are full of shit

...

Another genius who hasn't read OP pic

I don't understand the appeal of Alain Badiou. He's an old, incoherent French Maoist. Zizek has created a new theory of ideology, expanded it into media, advertising, your daily experiences.
Zizek is the better philosopher.

Takes a special kind of idiot to not get that one. ;)

second

...

Bob Black is a crypto-ubermensch personality hiding behind the 90s anarchist rhetoric.

Has some decent articles though, and he helped steer anarchism away from the pathological depths of the green milieu.

Hayek.