Try and be an edgy anarkiddy and say the state is somehow inherently evil

Um what? Hobbes was a proto-materialist. Rousseau was a hardcore liberal. Liberalism is not communism. If you are an anarkiddy who thinks that "liberalism is just the starting point of communism" then you aren't a real communist full fucking stop. The french revolution failed miserably. Stop LARPing. Liberalism is an archiaic dead end and was mostly supported by just a bunch of slave owning debtors anyways because muh aristocracy.

Attached: tower of babel123.jpg (604x480, 73.27K)

``Of the Natural Condition of Mankind as Concerning Their Felicity and Misery`` is the best chapter

Attached: Expanding-Brain.jpg (420x301, 43.42K)

lmfao read Stirner, spooklord. My will is supreme.

Attached: mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution-12.jpg (353x561, 62.44K)

Imagine citing fucking hobbes and calling yourself a communist. What the fuck has leftypol come to?

All Mutual Aid says is that humans are naturally collectivist rather than individualist and that modern sciences prove it. While its a great document for BTFOing lolberts and neoliberals it hardly "proves" anarchism is the best approach to leftist thought and the state

i mean it's not as if you're automatically not a communist if you agree with pre-enlightenment philosophers.
I don't think Hobbes is right most of the time but I may, for example, derive a lot of ideas from Epicurus. Does that make me anti-communist?

That wasn't my point literally at all. I said that Kropotkin's point in the book is correct and a useful tool against "muh human nashure" arguments just that it doesn't show anarchism's innate correctness when it comes specifically to the question of a State.

Show me where I said you're an anti-communist for liking some faggot Greek

Your first mistake is assuming there's an objective condition by which to base any ideology or praxis upon. Don't you know what an axiom is?

No, being influenced and taking ideas of a pre marxist philosopher into account does not necessarily make one anti communist. However, taking the words of such philosophers as solid fact and appealing to their authority as the OP does, is concretely anti communist.

Imagine never actually reading Hobbes and yet claiming to have done so. Thus is life as an anarkiddie and/or a chapotard liberal. He was more materialist and communist than just about any liberal that came after him (ESPECIALLY Rousseau.)

Attached: 1529621037932.jpg (720x699, 313.47K)

Attached: U6xWtZJ.jpg (594x439, 52.91K)

Buddy you were the one who threw out Mutual Aid as a counter argument when someone claimed that the State is a natural part of any epoch don't start moving the goalposts

Can't refute the point huh?

Shit I'd forgotten how stereotypically liberal his argument was.
Fucking liberal horse shit.

Attached: 1529952987101.png (510x510, 199.1K)

I don't know what your point is, but I know you are an ignoramus for so haphazardly discarding the Greeks.
Marx was a bookfag who was familiar with the entire Western cannon, including the Greeks. We should all aspire towards at least a fraction of that.

Attached: tito.jpeg (225x225, 8.86K)

we all appeal to some kind of authority or interpretation when it comes to arguing about philosophy.
OP is taking Hobbes' theory seriously because it helps explain why power invested in a state is important for defending it, something that can also be used to service socialism. They never said they took Hobbes' word as fact, just that it was a convincing argument.

what?

Well they sure did a poor job of it.

Right, because anarchists were sooooo good at it too. Just as long as you don’t call it a state, it’s not a state guys :)

Idiot

How is Hobbes materialist if he was reactionary?
Defending monarchs and demonizing the diggers and liberalism of the English civil war doesn't seem very dialectical to me. >dude lmao forget changing material relations from feudal lords to the bourgeoisie
He may have a point in how the state justifies himself but that's just about it.

I'd like to say I havn't read much of his work so if anyone has any counter examples I'm open to hear it.

lol butthurt, also tu quoque fallacy.

He wasn't reactionary. He was actually despised by many of the reactionaries of his day because he rejected theocratic monarchy.

Hobbes was another brainlet Anglo. Has a single thinker worth a shit come out of that shithole island ever?

Attached: 1530218721219.png (396x395, 93.87K)

Hobbes was and is lowkey /ourguy/, he just gets thrown around a lot by modern reactionaries to justify their monarchist/fascist retardation.

Being for

Attached: Bartolomeu_Velho_1568.jpg (714x635 6.21 MB, 458.63K)

Yes, nothing quite says materialist communist like wanting to strengthen the monarchy.

Try actually reading Hobbes. It's a much more complex issue. Republics in Hobbes' time were dominated by aristocrats anyways. It's basically monarchy but even worse because (as Hobbes points out) every representative has their own personal (bourg) interest which they try desperately to insert into the legislative process. Stop being a liberal. Liberalism is cancer, death, and decay.

Okay, I'll try reading him.
I have one more question since liberalism brought about Capitalism why would it be cancer? Yes, cancer now but it follows the line of historical materialism in progressing society to the next socio-economic stage which was its purpose.

you're talking to a dogmatist, don't afford his moralist gesticulating any mind. You should one hundred percent read Hobbes, but Jacobi/Spinoza/Leibniz/Hegel and the German idealist period is where aleatory materialism (the basis of Marxism) emerged, not with Hobbes - a staunch retainer of closed essentialism

You have it backwards. Capital created liberalism. That's how history works doesn't it? The material begets ideas which reinforce those material conditions and so on. In many respects monarchism was far more responsible for capitalism than liberalism. The only good thing about liberalism is that it produces socialism. Also don't forget that slavery was a huge issue for liberals and that Locke (the person Jefferson shamelessly ripped off constantly) was a total faggot about it because he made a shit ton of money off of them. Liberalism has always been bad. Liberals have likewise always been terrible people. We are creating a better world by abandoning it.

Never said that Hobbes created materialism, just that he was the closest anglos (and Rousseau, the stereotypical western "leftist"'s favorite liberal "philosopher" lol) ever got to realizing it.

Attached: 1530240264726.png (820x420, 175.37K)

You misunderstand Locke's take on slavery. He was invested in the slave trade personally, but he didn't try to justify it in the second treatise. (Most important passage in green.)

Whatre you gonna do when i lay your ass out

Althusser is dank but his philosophy doesn't have too much to do with Marxism.

Attached: 6774b8cc79a8f90c832d1d7ded53a7bd2d3fd85732be12c17ceb1cd1c31183d1.jpg (435x436, 25.84K)

Actions are more important than words. Like every other self serving liberal faggot Locke couldn't even be consistent.

He also admitted that God gave the earth to everyone and thus shot himself in the foot before he even made his arguments about property.

And if on the other hand you ignore that and take his labor theory of value to its logical extent you pretty much end up as a marxist.

He also has another rant about how using words metaphorically is bad. Muh objective definitions

If monarchism (Superstructure) set the framework for the material relations of feudalism (Base) to turn into Capitalism (base) then wouldn't Liberalism set the framework for the material relations to change from Capitalism (base) to Socialism (base)? So to not to support Liberalism (Superstructure) in its conflict with Monarchism (Superstructure) is to not in turn support Socialism?
I'm fairly certain Monarchism (Superstructure) reinforces feudalism (base) and that Liberalism (Superstructure) reinforces Capitalism (base). I believe that was the reason why the had conflict with each other.
In turn, I assume, that liberalism (superstructure) gives rise to changing material relations from Capitalism (base) to Socialism (base) and from that Socialism (Superstructure) is made to combat liberalism (Superstructure). Considering that Socialism did not exist as a base in that time period it wouldn't be illogical that demonizing liberalism (mind you, this is not the same as criticizing while at the same time critically supporting) as a cancer in which nothing good results from it means to be reactionary?
I know I reiterated some of the points and made it redundant but that is to make my argument clear.
I believe my argument assumes Marx's classical conception of historical progress, the process being linear with no regressions which I don't particularly agree with. I personally agree with Markov Models which kind of makes the concept of reactionary fuzzy and my argument moot.

Hobbes is based. early Authoritarianism. he's an anarchist's worst enemy.

Althusser is way better than any rationalist or humanist.

im a reader, and can confirm.
not useful rhetoric, but im sure some sleezball
elitist will come out and say
"you cant be successful until you read this"
didnt get but 1/4 in. burned it.
t. read >1000 books

rousseau was anti-liberal, he was for a widening of the democratic process, which went against the liberalism of his time

true

dawg did you even read the Second Treatise?
iirc this was his stance on property

you are correct that his concept of labor was proto-socialist

But then he went full retard and claimed that paying wages gave him the right to own whatever his wageslave produced.

Hobbes is the second chapter of Stirner.

I think this is an interesting passage that is class-related, from an earlier work called De Cive or The Citizen. I'm copy pasting an older version.

tfw ya boi Hobbes was a Randtard spooked Boomer who believed in an "incubus". Honestly otherwise I have sympathy with him as an Anglo. He was suspicious of both the lower class and the upper class, and also provides this nice bit of cautionary advice to imageboard types like us, but I do sincerely think he can fuck himself on this one, since the current state of the world is so shit.

Sounds more like he was attacking the proto-petit bourg. Also
You really do need to start using a dictionary. This shit was written in the 1600s after all. It predates Leviathan even.

Attached: incubus.png (839x382, 25.34K)

And Hobbes wrote during the English Civil Wat as essentially a conservative, claiming that a strong state is needed to safeguard against revolutionary violence. It's no wonder a tank would like it.

Attached: FB_IMG_1502927257081.jpg (480x478, 29.29K)

tell me exactly how ☭TANKIE☭s are social democrats

Sounded to me more like he was attacking the 'idle poor'. I did look up the term when I first read it and it clearly does not correspond to what's in modern dictionaries and I assume it's because the usage is too damn archaic.

>walks right past you and gives you the dick
Back the fuck up?

Attached: download.jpg (203x248, 5.02K)

No, get fucked up silly with the dick

Anarchism has hardly been proven wrong, quite the opposite if you think about things like Bakunin's big red bureaucracy prediction.

It was defeated due to the conditions that came about after ww1 and the authoritarian turn in Eastern Europe but energy contracting and stagnating conditions might put it in a better structural condition going into the greater 21st century.

What I'd like to see is a structural anarchist dominant left. It would still be leftist(thus non anarchist which can only be post-left) but it would be thoroughly libertarian and mostly influenced by foundational anarchist thinkers(Proudhon and Tucker at the minimum along well as Bak and Krop through Mala)

Basically minarchist libertarian socialism at the bare minimum with a majority rejection of Marx. Some Camatte here and Dauve there is fine along with marginal use of some left marx analysis but structural marxism must be rejected.

Attached: 1529540937947s.jpg (125x124, 1.76K)

Why would you pointedly denounce the one philosophical tendency of Marxism that is non-didactic, if you're so keen on promoting anarchism

I'm going after the baseline discourse which involve things like a reliance on class analysis or base/surface materialist assumptions on reality.

A structural anarchist based discourse/left would be based more on things like psychic states and power analysis and the need to reject power taking and power over.

A politic based on transient elements would be predicated upon the precipitation of those elements, lest it become a purely negative theory/dialectic. The analysis of general social expression in single instance is preferable to its absence, but it is the relatively stochastic materialist critique that Marxism has advanced (in its non-ideological forms) that have managed this canon in leftist thought

Attached: 7.png (258x544, 129.96K)

Not even an Anarchist or a egoist but unironically read the Ego book

Hobbes' social contract was largely spook free. Rousseau was the one who gave it a sort of spiritual essence.

In the context Hobbes explains the idea of the Social Contract hes basically more just describing how he sees the state functioning more then anything else
But the way that people like Rousseau and others who talk about it is with some sort of religious awe with this idea the Social Contract should not and will not ever be Broken

Which is obviously false since Rebellion Against states has occurred through all of history

A negative theory/dialectic is what I prefer and what a libertarian/anarchist politic amount to. I say start with a Proudhonian baseline and go towards individualistic extremities.

My personal interest is post-leftist thought but I would also prefer to see an alternative left that is structurally anarchist in nature(minus Bakuninian collectivity and Kropotkinian communism).