Teenvogue giving an actually *woke* discussion of actual anarchism

Attached: take out the trash.gif (580x433, 1.57M)

Liberals love to LARP. Jacobins were the real anarcho-libs.

Anarkiddes strike again.

Attached: Laughing_Marx.jpg (480x563, 141.2K)

Refrain from blaming anarchists for red libs. Thank you.

Attached: bart simpson after his surgery.gif (320x287, 982.3K)

Attached: death.jpg (532x783, 180.27K)

You NEED to vote for Hillary Clinton. We NEED to get RID of Jeremy Corbyn.
The most important election of all time is happening right now! (But please don't do anything to organise for it).
Whilst they have done absolutely nothing up to now, the Gods of Anarchism demand that you endorse the candidate closest to the centre.
This is not even slightly suspect, believe me comerade. I was told so by Noam Chomsky, General Secretary of the Left.
Again, you should do absolutely nothing for the
next election. As it it's also the most important election of All Time!
Mail in your selection for the Centrist candidate early, just in case.

Attached: porky.png (576x566, 324.54K)

please stop your hurting me
I didn't leave anarchism because of chomsky but in contributed

Of course a teenagers' lifestyle magazine would praise anarchism

marxists.org/history/erol/ca.firstwave/li-movement.htm

I unironically hate Anarkiddies so much.

W E W

Attached: mystery.png (576x566, 19.35K)

Anarchy unironically has some of the best activity (like, shit going on - communes, etc. - not activism) with the drawback being the prevalence of this kind of shit.

When the fuck has anyone even remotely anarchist claimed any of these things.

All of these so called communists being up in arms about an article raising class consciousness because it doesn't pander to their preferred flavour of authoritarianism really makes you think, doesn't it?

the author of that article lol

She retweeded the last tweet of the linked thread.
If you interpret this as uncharitably as you could then you could claim she is arguing for voting tactically for the dems. All of the other points in the post I responded to are still completely unfounded FUD harmful to the socialist movement.

I legitimately agree with that person. Fight me, Zig Forums. A lesser evil IS a *lesser* evil, it's like supporting Assad even if you think he's bad because he's less bad than the literal religious fascists trying to overthrow him.

Attached: cat smile.gif (220x277, 253K)

But voting for Hillary would mean that we dont get clown boy to single handedly destroy the reputation of the United States even more than it already was, isolate them from long term trade partners, and stoke left wing opposition to the point where the overton window is shifting towards the left for the first time in decades.

Hillary would have just been a respectable face to mask the imperialist wars of aggreasion and economic destruction of the working classes thats been going on since Bush and even before.

Hillary isn't a lesser evil compared to Trump. She's an equal but different evil, or even a greater one.

Hillary was the actual accelerationist candidate. The hostile reaction of centrist liberalism to the far left and socdems is weaker than the reaction of the further right-wing, granting more fertile ground for a revolutionary movement. While still being hypocrites in many ways on social idpol issues like race and gender, they often do a lot to combat reactionary sentiments on those topics which leads to a less prejudiced working class, unlike the right-wingers. Sometimes social liberals even LARP as if they were revolutionary which definitely leads some of their followers into researching legitimately revolutionary movements.

An even more ideal accelerationist situation would be the so-called "libertarian" capitalist right-wing though since they unironically want to arm shitloads of workers and destroy the government while accelerating capitalist influence immensely, which as you can imagine would probably not go the way they think. However these types have no serious way of gaining power without being co-opted by the conservative establishment (as has happened many times with similar movements in the US, see the Tea Party movement for instance), so the social liberals are the more practical accelerationist route.

Attached: nyt.png (569x457, 351.21K)

This is either completely incoherent or the dumvest thing ive ever read.

Dumb

Kek you'll have to pardon me since I haven't slept. I'm basically just saying that the brand of capitalist ideology which generates Hillary supporters is more fertile ground for socialist movements than the brand which generates Trump supporters. If I'm wrong then why am I wrong?

The "center-left" liberal establishment is the greatest foe of leftism today, period. Now imagine if you will, four years of them in charge peddling their bullshit unopposed. Conservatives would become even more radicalized without a steam vent in the form of a Trump presidency and anti-leftist propaganda about "communist Hillary" from Fox News and the like would intensify tenfold. SJW hipsters would give up even the pretense of revolutionism and become hardcore reactionary, because having a progressive female president is obviously the end of history. Hillary was going to be more hawkish and imperialist than Trump, and any anti-war protest would be instantly shut down for being "misogynistic" against the president. Additionally the Dems wouldn't have destroyed the US trade and diplomatic prestige as quickly as Trump did for populist cookies.

Under Hillary the US would be more imperialistic, more anti-communistic, more stable and above all approach both foreign and domestic. Trump was a godsend.

Attached: 21409434978.jpg (438x439, 148.41K)

...

If this is true, why did Occupy Wall Street and the anti-pipeline movements flourish under Obama? He was of course complicit in their destruction, but that only opened people's eyes to his corruption and further radicalized factions of the left.
Trump has increased drone strikes massively compared to the Obama administration and carried out airstrikes on the Assad government, so in what sense is he less imperialistic than the centrist factions of the Democrats? The only sense I can think of is that support for FSA factions was rolled back under him. He's escalated hostilities toward Iran, a move unsurprising given the fact John fucking Bolton is in his cabinet.
Fox News propaganda about the centrist Democrats being communist or communist-sympathizing is something they are always going to do whether they're on top or not.

Attached: gjhk.png (750x743, 827.08K)

you have blood on your hands, and you are complicit

Attached: bernie.jpg (202x257, 15.15K)

I can somewhat understand the sentiment since not voting doesn't really change much. You can bitch and moan and still vote though

OWS and pipeline protests were co-opted and sabotaged by proto-versions of the same people who Are With Her now. Hillary was also slated to be more of a hardliner on Syria and Ukraine. Currently America's every fart is being scrutinized if only because le evil racist orange drumpft is in office and US is rapidly losing allies, Hillary would be above all criticism. People like Merkel and Trudeau would be lining up to suck her feminine dick. In return we would get…trannies still serving in American military? That's about it? Trump has so far been far better at destroying America's international credibility and radicalizing the left-leaning populace than Hillary could have ever been.

Hillary is less of an imperialist than Trump. Trump only ever pretended to be anti-imperialist to run contrary to whatever Obama did. I can think of few areas where Trump is less imperialist than Hillary. Pulling out of programs supporting FSA religious fascists is one area, but he still backs the Y P G, attacks the Syrian government, and adamantly supports local imperialist-collaborating powers such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, so he obviously has not changed much in terms of Syria, and if anything has made the situation even worse in many respects.
Trump literally floated the idea of invading Venezuela as well.

American media, both liberal and conservative, drowned the administration in fawning praise when he first struck the Syrian government, with few exceptions among their various pundits. American liberals are now accepting open neocons into their ranks as part of the """resistance""" against blumpf, it's fucking cancerous and is moving the mainstream spectrum to the right.

That's not actually the sentiment though, "lesser evilism" can be somewhat constructed into a real argument but if you look at the subtext of what these people advocate for it's not strategy for socialism, or even social democracy, it's strategy for liberalism

Hillary Clinton supports are largely gigantic supporters of the Status Quo.
When Capitalism is in Crisis (like this post-2008 recession world) the Centre will naturally start to recede. Centrism is identified as the problem, and thus more people will turn to other solutions.
The electoral evidence of which areas move left and which areas move further to the right is largely arbitrary, and is reliant on whichever side has the strongest grassroots system in that particular area.
The fact that there are people who still support Hillary Clinton, people who have seen the sheer devastation of what Capitalism in Crisis looks like, means that they will never stop supporting the Status Quo. Most of them have Zero Revolutionary Potential.
So what if they like gay people more than they used to? Neoliberalism demands further and further commodification in order to perpetuate itself, making money from gay people is very profitable these days.
This is the ideological basis of their support for gay marriage. It is not the path to Socialism.

Trump supporters support the status quo even harder, they just pretend not to.

I'm not sure you're willing to understand the point.

Because consensus decision making and muh voluntary association is #woke. /s The only reason this shit finds itself in a publication so mainstream as Teen Vogue is that it is not seen as a threat by the ruling class

Attached: 16265162_10211209566256354_4962716122278653056_n.jpg (960x960, 80.36K)

Honestly the ruling class often just don't seem to know what the fuck they're doing.

Attached: lolwtf.png (1583x6039, 2.91M)

Holy fuck are Anarkiddies critiques of Marxism all just based on misunderstandings and a lack of reading books? This guy is literally a leading Anarchist intellectual and he thinks Marxists want to capture the bourgeois state because we believe it is a "neutral" institiution." Yeah Lenin in State and Revolution with his famous "capture the state" slogan and as Marx put it in The Civil War in France "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready made state machinery, instead they have to capture it"

That quote is from Mark Bray btw. That uni professor who is literally one of the most prominent anarchist intellectuals.

I'm pretty sure that a prominent critique of Hegel by Marx was a better explored version of this very argument lol

imagine that, they're just as retarded as the whole bunch of us
just better organized and with power

No, it's a strategy for having a slightly less-shit life.

What's your beef with the over a dozen US military bases in Syria?
To me over a dozen US military bases in Syria looks quite progressive vis a vis the regional competition.

You got anymore of those while you're at it? Or does your political engagement end at being mobilized for a bourgeois party when presented with the option of a slightly less shit life? You should know as well as I do that the biggest obstacle to Communists getting involved in Electoralism in the US is the fact that changing any of the structures & laws at the state level to enable the formation of any kind of labour party more or less doesn't exist so it's all well and good to vote for the lesser evil but the only place is ever gets you is stuck between the double blackmail, so tell me, what exactly do you see as any other viable strategy for electoralism, since you apparently endorse it because the point is that your life will be varying degrees of shit irrespective of whichever of the lesser evils you choose, because the structures, laws and relations of society exist beyond them, yet we never actually see any consideration of this from these people (and these are not regular proles, these are politically active people); their implicit support is not for an actual coherent electoral left politics; the person in that thread talks of not wanting to die before revolution, yet they're never going to get there if their support for electoralism ends at the end of every 4 years and then haranguing everyone like they could have made more of a measurable difference mobilizing themselves for sports team number one than actually attempting any kind of other strategy whatsoever because they're naive enough to think that they can hold a bourgeois party accountable.

The clue is in the name, "comrade"

...

sounds just like an antigerman israel apologists
same scum

Attached: 35089.PNG (614x640, 211.18K)

read this i guess
exiledonline.com/big-brothers-george-orwell-and-christopher-hitchens-exposed/

What did he say?

lemme just sit there as stuff that's actually important to me gets pushed further right

also, Overton window

Taking the 20 minutes out of my life to go to a polling station is not "being mobilized for a bourgeois party". I have no illusions about being able to institute communism through the electoral system, especially not in the US, but that was never the point.
Let's be honest, the revolution isn't coming tomorrow, and until then I'd rather live under social democracy or liberal democracy than fascism or nightmare capitalism.
I don't vote to institute communism, I vote to have a slightly less-shitty life while I organize elsewhere for communism. Voting is 1 day out of 1460, and as long as it's viewed that way, and as long as you do something else those other 1459 days I don't see the harming in voting for the lesser evil.

see
also that they are the "most progressive force"

And this is how making "exceptions" for pro-imperialist candidates in order to "move the Overton Window to the Left".
It is important to establish that Hillary Clinton supporters are not left-wing.

Attached: adam smith.jpg (850x400, 56.97K)

You seem to be taking this awfully personally when the original criticism wasn't levied at those who vote, or those who vote with the "lesser evil" justification, I already stated that I think there is a valid justification for such a thing. Electoralism doesn't refer to voting in Communism, that this would not be possible is trivially true; I'm not suggesting that you thought that was possible, but that you had at least considered Electoralism valid if you acknowledge the lesser evilism strategy. Electoralism rather, in this context, is about utilizing Elections and Bourgeois Democracy as an avenue & platform with which to agitate for the the interests of the Working Class and Communism, as a tool, not as a means to an end. Within the US there is a serious debate on the Left with regards to this insofar as whether a form of Entryism into the Democratic Party to drag it in the direction we wish is possible, and if not, what other means of organizing within the electoral space can be carved out. Voting is indeed 1 day out of 1460, the point is that Radical Liberals do not just choose the slightly less awful option on that day, they actively mobilize support for 1 bourgeois party over another, and all too often it is uncritical, and then become so invested in that spectacle that they actively attack others on "The Left" when the outcome of such a thing is not to their liking, slinging accusations of "purity spiralling" and various other nonsense.

"is actually a tool of liberalism to sustain itself", I forgot to finish this sentence.

your vote is useless, it will NEVER, I can't stress this enough, decide an election. Thousands of other retards already did what their favorite news entertainment source told them to do. Whomever spent more on marketing will win. Perhaps you should stop watching the news….
Voting is a vote of compliance to the system.. you vote because you believe in the magic of representative democracy. If whomever you vote wins, well at least it's not the other guy, amirite. If your favorite character loses to a mean racist, well shucks, what can you do? the people have decided they want the meanie. What else can you do but wait until the next election to vote for the least worse. I mean, it's a system where you get 50-50 odds of getting a terrible option or the least worse option every couple of years. It's your civic duty (for no apparent reason) and it is patriotic (for no apparent reason) to reinforce the validity of such system! Besides it's your chance, might I add your only chance, to make your "voice" heard! It's not as if majority voting is the worst possible way to choose a candidate, it almost is, but lottery elections are worse!
Voting is the "I'm opting to not use a plastic straw to save the Earth" of politics. It is the laziest, least effective, most masturbatory of acts that absolves you of any activity that might actually make a difference. Voting is an active gesture, something you go out of your way to do, to reject change and assert the status quo. Might as well have you carrying tiki torches praising Herr Hilary.
I hope you feel ashamed of yourself.

(me)
sorry, I sperged out. I despise election season in my country. Worse when people try to shame me into voting.

I think we agree more than it seemed. No one is suggesting we should organize around liberal parties, including I think the person who this thread was originally about. I just think it's silly and frankly unmaterialistic to immediately discard anyone voting for a slightly less-shit life today, provided of course they do actual activism outside of this. (Such as writing an article about anarchism in a popular newspaper, thus educating people about socialism and increasing class consciousness and furthering the socialist cause)

I don't quite get what you're raving about. I read him as correctly stating that the goal of Marxists is to capture the state (which can also be achieved by supplanting the organs of the existing order) and retain usage of it as a concept as long as it is a useful tool. I can't see him advocating that Marxists act to merely take the reigns of the bourgeois state.
I think you're just seeing in his writing what you want to see.

OWS with its ideology of degrowth and its backing from the likes of Adbusters was poisoned and corrupted from the very beginning.