Anarchists

HITLER WAS ANARCHIST GANG

Was he referring to West Asia, or did he think Jews were Chinese?

Marx didn't "shit on" Jews, he wrote a very good book about them, which is not an anti-semitic work:
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/

look at him, Marx had a point
plus it was bants

Attached: Ferdinand_Lassalle.jpg (300x441, 26.22K)

This I gathered. I do blame Lenin and his gang more than Marx for it, but he was an asshole for splitting up the First International.

We don't follow them. They're for reading and adopting what works, discarding what does not.

Looks like Bakunin is just anti-state (ethno-state, theocracy) here.

Yes it is, but even if it wasn't, it wouldn't matter unless the anti-semitism was a inseparable part of their political work, it is not.
Also, they where right.

Isn't it pretty fucking obvious he was talking about the middle East?

Marx nigger, why do you feel the need to bait people.

PROUDHON AND BAKUNIN WERE ANAZ GANG

Damn I didn't know the Anarchist movement was so Anti-Semitic

Attached: 220px-Georges_Sorel.jpg (220x289, 11.47K)

In the sense that is attributed to the word by Anarchists? He totally was.

You might wanna try reading Proudhon's Pornocracy. Angry incels have nothing on him.

Because the thought that ideologies and written works have identities implanted into them is merely a spook. Besides, Marx ripped off most of his material from others anyway (including Proudhon, an anarchist.)

The anti-semitism is a detachable part of their work. Unlike Marxies and """"""anti-revisionists"""""", the freethought of anarchists allows us to evaluate works by accepting the good and disposing of the bad, unlike the other ideologues who accept unquestioning faith in their ideas and fail because they cannot adapt. I'm fine with jews as an anarchist.

Anarchism is socialism. As is admitted at the top of the essay.
Contradicted shortly with

Said earlier
And
In that the real divisions are; democratic-socialism (reformism), libertarian-socialism, and authoritarian-socialism. The later being such an abhorrent name, they hide behind a whole host of other names. It is in fact a stillborn kind of socialism. Meant to be living, but is actually dead on arrival.

To imply that socialism in full is a stone building and the individual is any of the stones, corner or otherwise, is an apt enough metaphor. Everyone of them is important, everyone of them must fit right, everyone of them build the whole.
And the plan is to never emancipate anyone until the ruling class has absolute control of everyone. This is whats impossible.

It is a disagreements on strategy because Marxist-Leninism negates socialism.

Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili was a bimbo. I don't want to read any more.

Anarchists desire socialism. They are unable to attain it, however.

It's not contradiction. Ignoring and challenging directly are different things.

You are delusional. Why should Communists use the name that someone else tried to pin on them, the name that was made to be deliberately misleading, the name that serves the interests of anti-Communists?

You are a fucking retard. It's an idiom - Anarchism "is fundamentally based on" … .

Where did you learn The Plan of Grand Marxist Conspiracy? We've dispatched kill-squad to your location anyway. No amount of tinfoil will not save you.

Attached: lenin.png (1512x2403, 3.19M)

You seem to think one can decide to emancipate a worker, or not, depending on one's fancy. What exactly do you think workers need emancipation from?

They have obtained it several times, but authoritarians keep shooting them in the face.

Except it isn't misleading at all. You're like the anarcho-capitalists or the Libertarian party, hiding behind masks.
Wrong. The name that serves actual socialists and their goal of communism.

thanks to ML gibs

Anarchists back then didn't give a shit about marxism save the economics, marx thought they were all stirnerite edgelords

But from what?
For example, according to us Marxists, this is what workers need to emancipate themselves from:

ok but like…. what in marx's work are you actually referring to here.

Anarchists consider all pro-state ideologies to be authoritarian, so this doesn't mean much. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is essentially democracy for the proletariat at the expense of the bourgeois.

Anarchists have consistently been the only political faction to attain socialism, unlike MLs.

Whether or not the USSR funded them has nothing to do with factory ownership.

If you want to take it back far enough, you yourself are the only one holding YOU back. You could pick up a gun and do your best to live anti-capitalist-ly, robbing corporations for food and luxuries and fighting the police. Marxies look at this self-emancipation and call them "lifestyleism/"lumpenprole" but that's a butthurt excuse to not take their destiny into their own hands. As Saint Max assures us,
"The laborers have the most enormous power in their hands, and, if they once became thoroughly conscious of it and used it, nothing would withstand them; they would only have to stop labor, regard the product of labor as theirs, and enjoy it. This is the sense of the labor disturbances which show themselves here and there. The State rests on the — slavery of labor. If labor becomes free. the State is lost."
Marxies-Lennies will bitch & moan about this being some important-sounding marxist buzzword for "I don't like thing" but anarchists stress self-liberation and immediatism because there is a point; if EVERYONE did was Stirner did we would have communism already. MLs are busy asking themselves "what's the safest, cushiest way to go about revolution?" in short, they want a revolution without a revolution. "I'm not afraid of violence, but I'm afraid of getting hurt." Their response is to sit back and wait for a worker's party or some crap to rise up and organize for them, anarchists are busy organizing themselves. The point to be made here is clear,

Even if you can't save everyone, at least save yourself.

Attached: MADE BY ML GANG.jpg (358x659, 72.7K)

Seriously? Well how I imagine it, they all need to walk out some fine May day and make the one big demand. That they're the bosses of their workplace now. Reading Stirner, I see freedom as letting go of all spiritualist notions of law. State and capitalism collapse, local decentralized organizations form.
The "mutual exchangeability of products" will get taken care of there, wouldn't it?

Splitting the First International. No more united left. Forevermore the libertarian-socialists would be divided and slaughtered at both ends. If the ☭TANKIE☭s are the "O" to our "A", I wish they'd google Bookchin :D

...

Well no, it wouldn't.

Did someone sell bad weed to anarkiddies?

Attached: what in the nine fucks.png (241x209, 83.12K)

historical revisionism made up by Trotfags in an attempt to frame Makhno as some sort orf terrorist. Unless you mean the Kontrrazvedka? It was an intelligence agency, hardly the same thing as a secret police.
The fuck am I reading?

...

Would you mind explaining the difference? I mean, nobody ever has official secret police.

How do you define it then, if not mixed?

Apparently history, for the first time.