Are Anarchists inherently incompetent?

Is it just me or do other people get the perception that anarchists are incompetent idiots that would not be able to get anything done?

Even speaking to them they seem like they're just winging it, without much thought. I certainly would not trust them with anything serious, especially as important as political economy.

I mean look at these jokers for example:

motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/43pngb/how-to-make-your-own-medicine-four-thieves-vinegar-collective

Attached: 48b60c4cdf923b384d37921e55ff626d.jpg (562x316, 33.97K)

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm
gothamist.com/2018/06/25/occupy_ice_protest_immigration_hearings.php
marketplace.org/2017/07/12/world/anarchists-offer-lifeline-refugees-greece
independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/anarchist-squatters-15-million-london-mansion-russian-billionaire-oligarch-andrey-goncharenko-eaton-a7549136.html
frontlineaction.org/aurizon_rail_halted_for_third_time_in_a_week
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Oh boy here we fucking go

Acquiring, producing, and distributing cost prohibitive drugs that these people would never be able to afford - very incompetent.

Asking the hard questions, I see.

Attached: e164d6b7b0f5d5e0403ebc546b8cef55ffae20c8bbfdf6f0f420bc457918887d.png (586x645, 458.78K)

Can we as leftists just show solidarity to one another instead of this shit? Stop trying to sow distrust amongst fellow leftists.

This.

Hey Howie, still butthurt about your Shitocracy getting BTFO in the other thread? Getting your ass kicked by anarchists? lmao peak butthurt.

adhering to a consistent theory is authoritarianism, didn't you know?

It's Howard, he's not really a leftist, he's angery about anarkiddies in the technocracy thread

Idk bro why don't you tell me, Mr. "Communism is really state capitalism?" "Socialism in one country?"

lmao

literally no one has said "communism is actually state capitalism" thats a whole new level of strawman

you're just further proving my point about your aversion for consistent theory by displaying your lack on comprehension on any of it

so keep it up, buddy
i'm sure throwing terminology around that you don't understand and what said you're gonna convince everyone of just how genius you liberals are :-)
you're doing yourself a real favor and totally convince the validity of your "critique" and own ideology
don't let anyone tell you otherwise, sweety

LMAO how the fuck are you going to have revolutions all around the world if at the time there was a shit ton of countries in the same state as russia living in pre-capitalist shitholes even worse than bourg nations in the west? That's utopian my man.

Socialism in one country has nothing to do with Markets or dengism or what the fuck ever
SIOC just meant that the ussr needed to rebuild its agricultural system and build an actual fucking industrial system before it even considered expansionism
This is contrasted by Permanent revolution theory which states that essentially the moment a socialist state is formed that state must immediately begin exporting the revolution

Also
Wow w may never know…

the moment you have a criticism that isn't a low effort strawman, do let us know.

Attached: 1435153778464.jpg (249x255, 23.25K)

for
forgot my shitposting flag

also

too much effort for an illiterate, but since you already started it, here's Lenin on it:

Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world—the capitalist world—attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states. The political form of a society wherein the proletariat is victorious in overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a democratic republic, which will more and more concentrate the forces of the proletariat of a given nation or nations, in the struggle against states that have not yet gone over to socialism. The abolition of classes is impossible without a dictatorship of the oppressed class, of the proletariat. A free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states.
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm

Firstly, we must examine the nature of the transition from capitalism to socialism that gives us the right and the grounds to call our country a Socialist Republic of Soviets.

Secondly, we must expose the error of those who fail to see the petty-bourgeois economic conditions and the petty-bourgeois element as the principal enemy of socialism in our country.

Thirdly, we must fully understand the economic implications of the distinction between the Soviet state and the bourgeois state.

Let us examine these three points.

No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia, has denied its transitional character. Nor, I think, has any Communist denied that the term Soviet Socialist Republic implies the determination of the Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the existing economic system is recognised as a socialist order.

But what does the word “transition” mean? Does it not mean, as applied to an economy, that the present system contains elements, particles, fragments of both capitalism and socialism? Everyone will admit that it does. But not all who admit this take the trouble to consider what elements actually constitute the various socio-economic structures that exist in Russia at the present time. And this is the crux of the question.

Let us enumerate these elements:

(1)patriarchal, i.e., to a considerable extent natural, peasant farming;

(2)small commodity production (this includcs the majority of those peasants who sell their grain);

(3)private capitalism;

(4)state capitalism;

(5)socialism.

Russia is so vast and so varied that all these different types of socio-economic structures are intermingled. This is what constitutes the specific feature of the situation.
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm

Yes.

People get that perception because American media tries its hardest to paint Antifa as such and discredit leftism as a whole. All sectarian memes aside, most people who watch Fox News don't give a shit about your sect.

Bucket, meet crabs.