Most anarchists are against the State but not all forms of government, right?

Op is learning, don't be such a dick to him man

Attached: 860_children_are_our_future.png (660x965, 78.6K)

Anti-State Marxism is more anti-State than anarchism.

HAHAHHAHAHAHA

Read the fucking pdf btw

Attached: (You).mp4 (188x100, 862.17K)

Do they though? In my experience there's always a bunch of confusion around the meaning of "state" whenever anarchists and marxists argue on the internet. "Muh monopoly on violence" etc.

I think I touched a nerve.

Attached: 2fqotan.jpg (720x480, 17.15K)

...

...

Judging from my (admittedly limited) reading of anarchist theory, they essentially envision a stateless society similar to the way Lenin describes it. Basically it would still be a state according to Weber's and Aristotle's definitions (since basically all societies are states according to those), but it would be one in which there is little to no distinction between the general public and the decision making process, and also it would be an instrument for universal common good rather than the repression of the bourgeoise by the proletariat. Ie, much like Lenin said, all would govern and as a result nobody would. If you want to get a better picture then you should definitely read the Bread Book. Even as a Marxist I thought it was brilliant.

Attached: 244.JPG (447x447, 39.05K)

Eh really? I have it somewhere. I read it (a few years ago) but I didn't like it. I was probably biased against it though, I already identified with marxism and leninism pretty heavily at that point. There were some parts that were well written and I remember liking (shit that any socialist should be able to sign off on) but overall it was pretty much what I expected, some good arguments but a lot of naive utopianism (I'm using that word in a more general sense than in the narrow "utopia"n vs. "scientific" socialism sense).

Obviously I don’t think it’s realistic in its praxis, but I really admired the way it BTFO’d porky arguments regarding scarcity and the legitimacy of private property ownership. Also although it may be utopian to try to speculate exactly what communism would look like, I think that there is still value in trying, at least to get some concrete idea of what we’re striving towards. I also found his argument regarding the natural evolution of society towards communism to be quite compelling.

Maybe I'll skim through it again and see if I find more value in it this time around. I just remember how he kinda portrayed communism like there wouldn't ever be any problems or need for any kind of repressive state institutions, and how capitalism would just be abolished in one stroke (as opposed to a protracted process). "We just need to start giving everyone everything for free trust me it will work out".

He did kind of do that, and that's a problem common to Anarchism in general, but that's not why I like the book.

They claim to oppose government, but actually just support localized government, using semantic bullshit to make it seem like they don't.

If i would be a naive idealist i would be a libertarian socialist that supports absolutely minimal state interference except on the status of common property and violent crime etc.

I don't know if I made this up or I read it somewhere but I've always liked the saying 'anarchists make the best bureaucrats'

Maybe Zizek.

Like hierarchies, whatever layers of state we can peel away we should. Capital/money will eliminate classism and corruption, Why would we need centralized governance? Central to what, a language? A landmass? The world? Surely we need organization of things, but decentralized is the way we think. Direct democracy works best with small groups anyway. So syndicalism appeals to me most, though I'm still reading, but the various regions will do what they like at their own pace. I think the best way to do things will spread around.

So we can actually do shit on a large scale. I'm sure people want artisnal disaster relief and an ineffcient duplication of efforts.

To have a military that can deter and defend against more powerful capitalist states trying to fuck your shit up. Some sort of secret service for the same reason. To organize coherent nationwide economic plan. In case there's a natural disaster and there aren't enough resources to fix it on the local level. There are endless reasons tbh.

Than large scale projects can form and perform their function. What I mean by centralized governance is a large and permanent bureaucracy. Hurricane ally regions would naturally have emergency measures arranged. Far more sophisticated than boarding windows up and running, I would think.

Ever watch Star Trek? Organize the fighting force for as long as there needs to be one. That sounds like a justifiable hierarchy to me.
Oh fuck off.
>nationwide economic plan
The plan is to rip economics out and distribute our Earth's bounty in a more sane, efficient and humane fashion. To share. Various syndicates would oversee this just fine.
Still don't see a need for centralized governance.

Attached: Picard Vineyards.jpg (1438x1080, 184.61K)

This is why I stopped being interested in anarchism. You people throw material conditions out the window.

Attached: 8717fc40a2d5dbdbb3e129cb8920afe1e959e1e3cb13027c8abb179697eb2425.jpg (358x350, 35.51K)

a militia system is untenable for a modern military due to how expensive, knowledge and expertise intensive it is. every tiny drone has a dozen software and hardware guys and operators behind it all of whom have trained for years to know the ins and outs of it

Actually there could be something like a national army for like border protection and controling heavy weapons and shit created by people from all the communes
Millitary wise,you just need to copy tribal warfare with some simple and more modern solutions
The real problem is resource managment and inter-communal trade..

Do you think the counter-revolutionaries will just let you distribute Earth's resources?

It's necessary for rational economic calculation in the absence of markets. Your "various syndicates" would either merge to perform this function or regress back into capitalism.

Material conditions? Do you believe people are starving because there isn't enough food? Homeless because there are no homes for them? Dying of preventable diseases because there's a shortage of proper care? The current crop of people identifying as anarchists need to be educated that theirs is an ideal of organization at the grassroots, but there's no material shortages in this world. There is a great waste.

The fuck?
w/e

It certainly wouldn't need to be large, but you would need some level of permanent staff overseeing the systems that allocate goods to various industries. Computers don't run and maintain themselves (not yet anyway…).

Haven't read Rocker, but have seen and read how the Catalan worked it out. Their permanent staff would be compartmentalized. A shipping syndicate would have reason to communicate with their sister syndicates from around the globe and probably have plenty of meetings, but no need to centralize any authority. Modern communications can make this work even better than the Catalans.

that's not what I said at all, strawman harder

Sorry.
I'm really not interested in drone warfare, but I'm sure most people will be able to muster up enough expertise to prevent kill-bot terrorists when international peace breaks out.

Don't go using liberal buzzwords now. Liberals do that. You're not a liberal, are you?

Attached: 7a8a95d78b3575022b3eadb2526aa6cd07e0e4e6f7a3017c3baeb62b067e0e47.jpg (762x516, 143.58K)

How do yall feel about indigenous anarchists?

Attached: 18374771.jpg (810x5559, 1.71M)

Oh please. He's an illustrator.
Am I posting Alexander Berkman quotes?

Brothers and sisters I appreciate. I can only hope the entirety of spiritualism dies after the revolution.

Attached: stirner.gif (457x363 9.51 KB, 143.34K)

Cringe.

and what do you do before international peace breaks out, and capitalists are launching cruise missiles and stealth bombers at your comfy commune? my point is that modern warfare and weaponry are so complex you basically need people with some years of experience and regular learning in a standing military to fight effectively

Tbh indigenous sovereignty reeks of ethnonat to me. Not to say that I don’t recognize them as an oppressed nation, but I’d rather have a renewal of national consciousness in countries with large indigenous populations, one that would be equally inclusive of indigenous and settler populations and be derived in equal part from both cultures. New Zealand has been making good progress in this route. I’m a leaf, so I would support the teaching of local indigenous language and culture to all kids so as to synthesize the two groups. Then of course I’m 100% on board with the material concerns of indigenous people like education, housing, employment, healthcare, etc. What I don’t approve of however, is taking a multiethnic country like Canada and balkanizing it along racial lines.

I'm looking to a social revolution, one that reaches around the globe. I do expect some violence, but the majority of the world would be against these spy masters and even the military would start to turn on them.
Your line of questioning is all about the failure that could happen if we tried. Hey, take every precaution is all I can say. This is the kind of thinking that keeps everyone sitting on their thumbs waiting for capitalist imperialism's failure to kill us all.

People will group together as they like. But I think they wont do it too much. People are just bitchy about the current systems and bigotry.

Monarchist?

I liked it until he started preaching religious tolerance. Burn down the churches I saw!

Idpol nonsense

LET'S FIND OUT

Attached: varg at it again.jpg (320x1136, 114.33K)

Marxism is just something that does not take hold in our communities. Every other native american socialist I have ever met have been of the anarchist variety. Most popular kind of anarchism seems to be post-left, just without the egoism.
We don't really organize with the working class because we have a long history of not even being allowed to be a part of it. All we really have to rally around is..well..our tribes. I think thats a big reason it gives off this ethno-nat vibe. My hope is that as our population becomes more urbanized it will shift more towards a workers movement.

Attached: lumbee_pinecone_art.jpg (720x717, 143.64K)

The state isn't an onion, Shrek. It's a centralized tool of class power.
(Sophistry level: infinite.)
You are literally conforming reality to your ideals: "we need dd™ so reality should conform to its limitations."

anarchists worldwide have my sympathy if this kind of person is what you people have to deal with every day

Attached: sb1L8GX.jpg (1080x720, 55.07K)

Nothing wrong with libertarian-socialism.

The metaphorical onion is hierarchies, and/or classism, which are obviously run by the wealthy, Dunkey.
Direct democracy does work better in smaller groups. You gonna throw the old tyranny of the majority at me next? That would be another reason why it would be more acceptable to people.

Attached: Qu-Alexander Berkman.png (764x410, 122.67K)