Tfw I like both anarchist thought and Marxist theory

Is there a viable synthesis?

Attached: 2D43439B-18BE-4CE6-A23A-5263BFF703C4.png (741x568, 29.42K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/2A-9EFuKdlc?t=43
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Neozapatismo my man

Attached: maxresdefault-csub-702x468.jpg (604x403, 29.67K)

Is Posadism redpilled?

Attached: chadposadist.png (3238x1156, 381.53K)

Marxism-leninism-anarchism is pretty lit famsquad

Do they have any writings or do you have any recommended readings?

I don't like anarchist theory, but in my experience they run good philosophy bookstores so I'd spare them, cheap books are my life. And I like some of their modern aesthetics I guess.

are you even a communist?

Not that user but I can’t read long lengths of text off a screen, I lose focus. Plus, reading a book is comfy

If being a communist means I can't read anything on paper then sadly I have to advocate revisionist plant-exploitation capitalism.

just get something with e-ink


buying anything in physical form that is available digitally (and therefore also free) is dumb.
but yeah, you can do whatever you want.

hell yeah

Bookchin's Communalism is actually a synthesis of anarchism and Marxism. From anarchism Communalism takes confederalism as a political strategy, and from Marxism Communalism incorporates a dialectical conception of history.

Attached: 15665522_647774898727469_5414594207392918875_n.png (480x480, 147.97K)

The best thing about Communalism/Social Ecology is its scientific adaptability and non-dogmatism in applying theory to different ecological(both "natural" and man-made) situations.

You should look into Gaddafi's Green Book, it has an interesting view of a society in which power is in the hands of local committees or just drop the irrelevant meme shit and become a Marxist-Leninist

ah yes, because Stalin and Gaddafi really were all about that decentralized power.

unironically yes

no:

Why are Stalinists pretending to be communists again?

But ACTUALLY if you want to see good communist synthesis of Anarchism and actual Marxism, read Bookchin, study neoZapatismo, Ocalan, Kropotkin of course directly interacted with Marxism and was influenced and responded to it. Check out all forms of Libertarian Communism, the IWW, all that good shit. SOO SOOO much has been written about this by so many people.

OH- READ URSULA LEGUIN.

...

yes

Attached: MurryBookchin.png (995x570, 522.6K)

Gee I wonder

Attached: USSR_achievments.jpg (716x2144 110.47 KB, 302.87K)

How is this related to communism

...

Attached: beef clapping.gif (1068x600, 2.09M)

...

Yes, it's called gulag

aka

Attached: ralph-wiggum.jpg (210x240, 6.77K)

Of course there is! Leftism is all about mashing as much together as possible!

Attached: imagination.jpg (1920x1200, 434.89K)

Remember when Marx and Engels said "fuedal society can just into FALC automatically bro" and never wrote anything criticizing the utopians approach to socialism and never advocated critically supporting liberal revolutions in "less developed countries"

The concept of a non-authoritarian revolution is inherently dumb and meaningless. A social revolution is a violent overthrow of one class by another, followed by utilizing the state apparatus to enact the will of the revolutionary class, repress the one being overthrown and remove their economic power, and finally safeguard the revolution from domestic and international reaction. Marxists were always clear about this, but anarchists persistently muddy the theory with idealist garbage while doing the same fucking shit in the very few cases where they achieved anything.

Bookchin was a market abolitionist you retarded faggot

...

They are certifiably insane UFO nuts in tinfoil hats. And a CIA sponsored honeypot to draw people away from mainstream socialism.

Yes it's called anarchism

What especially do you like from the different traditions?

Read DeLeon

For me the synthesis is that we need to install institutions through the state that will enable the people to build communism without the state. The sole function of the state is to expand the ability of workers to rule over their workplace, oversee the economy, and plan collective activity for themselves. Without this, communism is impossible. Any critiques?

I think that's a very orthodox view even, the state should be transformed and used to set up the institutions that operate after it withers away. This perspective was dropped after kruschevite revisionism because we were all living in developed socialism with no struggle left and waiting for muh productive forces to bring about communism.

Is he really an anarchist though?

I don't see how the USSR worked towards the establishment of worker self-organization. Everything occurred through the state, if I understand correctly.

Libertarian marxism?

no we're not, those are retarded capitalist lies.
we're just ML but not stalinists, we're trotskyist, we want democracy and permanent revolution.
fuck off.

Leftcom gang

...

That'd never happen. The right idea is to build institutions outside the state so that the state withers away which is what the old Jew in all the pics in this thread said

Syndicalism is more of a synthesis. Bookchin is post-leftish and rejects the main parts of Marxist theory because its nonsense that was proven wrong last century.

This, OP.
This, Leftypol.

Attached: 1426990869038.png (602x718, 128.84K)

Read Kropotkin

Attached: 000.jpg (408x230, 15.49K)

Funny thing, I've read Bookchin as you recommend and apparently there is no difference between them. Care to explain?

Attached: d1b7e84c5981e1fe0aa6c00067a31e615d60815b.png (780x1200, 760.06K)

Razors edge, user. He said nothing Rothbard like there.

Attached: Mine.jpg (235x193, 5.03K)

no, but he was one of the founding members of the IWW.

"I don't care about the poor little children who got fed under communism"-Murray Bookchin, 1970

Attached: smug.jpg (633x758, 56.27K)

The ideology behind Democratic Confederalism and Communalism are sound and reasonable, however in practice they could be enacted differently compared to our Kurdish friends who have struck a deal with the Americans.

so bold, you now attribute a date to the fake quote. Parenti said he talked to him in 1971, and he never attributed the phrase "I don't care about"

...

Marxism is anarchism with extra steps and this makes both anarchists and marxists mad.

Eh, I always preferred to live under Anarchism to ML but I've read enough theory to realize that Anarchism is utopian. The fact of the matter is we don't have time for this petty bullshit. The climate clock is ticking and historically ML has been far more successful than Anarchism. There is no reason ML cannot be extremely socially libertarian just because people back in the fucking 1920s weren't.

Why would that make marxists mad?

Everybody is socially libertarian until 40k klansmen march through their capital, at which point they want to grab a machinegun, hop into an APC and recreate the intro stage from Contra: Hard Corps.

youtu.be/2A-9EFuKdlc?t=43

I mean Marx essentially says the same thing in The Civil War in France (below) not to mention countless similar statements I’ve read over the years from Marxists. Are they angering themselves?

I didn’t mean to include the last sentence fragment

They are literally the same thing– the only thing you need to reconcile is that Anarchists don't believe we need a period of Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Anyone telling you otherwise is spooked.

looking at all the sad fags in this thread.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (613x408, 496.21K)

That's why the very first split that occurred in the labor movement was between anarchists and scientific socialists right?

Therefore they are not "literally the same thing", because anarchism rejects the scientific analysis of the state and its role found in Marxism and instead posits that it is possible to abolish class society overnight.

Evolutionary Carterism

Attached: Capture _2018-10-19-11-48-26.png (1017x713, 650.91K)

Any Marxist worth his salt will tell you that the DOTP is not a literal dictatorship, something that M-L mongs generally fail to grasp. It is a "dictatorship" of one class over another; in literal terms, achieving democratic society by overthrowing the ruling class.

Lenin literally says this in The State and Revolution you stupid fucking faggot

Read the green book. Read Stalin Haven't read much about Stalin to recommend what book or pamphlets he advocated for decentralization in

How does that make him "a stupid fucking faggot"?

Because he implies that M-Ls think that socialism is when you go full Pol-Pot

Ah yes. The highly influential Prof. Clipboardimage


I'm not a statist. I'm against the law.


That would be quite unnecessary as the upper classes would be toppled to our own. And we'd eventually all live like upper middle

The bourgeoisie will be glad to hear that. They'll have no need for their White armies, for their death squads, then? No counter-revolution? No resistance on their part whatsoever? Wow, this whole "revolution" thing is starting to sound like a dinner party!

There’s a difference between saying it and autistic MLs saying what THEY believe it is

The counterrevolution is now, the death squads are still paid. I see what needs to be done, but you're still stuck on Lenin or something.

and…?

Attached: pomeranchuk.jpg (279x400, 26.1K)

Attached: Harpo Marx 7.jpg (1153x1600, 559.37K)

Does being against the law make you not able to read or something?

Attached: G_Askaryan.jpg (200x260, 7.92K)

it's called anarcho-communism. duh.

wew

Read the rest of the fucking sentence.

I have plenty on my backlog to read. What has Prof. Clipboardimage written about, user?


This is why the shorthand "tankie" is so necessary
Done and done.

Not all M-Ls are ☭TANKIE☭s.

Gaddafi said
You would know this if you bother to read the green book.
Some other user could fill you in on Stalin though. Hey, I'm a ancom but I don't blame my mental deficiencies on certain aspects of my political philosophy.

But all M-Ls are Stalinists

Not Khruschevites surely

Stalinist is a word invented by Cold Warriors to describe Leninists who supported Stalin it's not a theory or a term literally any Marxist uses to refer to themself unless they're fucking stupid

test

Leninism is a consistent and necessary update to Marxist theory which accounts for the holes left in classical Marxism.
We may argue what the "next stage" of Marxism needs to be, but if the left can't even realise that Leninism is the obvious starting point then I think we have no chance at all.

you know what the next stage is

Attached: cock.jpg (329x289, 21.76K)

I agree actually, but it would be a great thing if people actually bothered with things like Economic Problems of Socialism because Stalin wasn't an idiot.

Trotsky, akshually.

True.

Not really. We are just going with the name Marxist-Leninists because it's the one we historically use.

It's not impossible for the next ComIntern to use the term "Stalinism" so as to differentiate ourselves from the "not real communism" group.

I mean, Marx got practically normalized by Liberals through the Frankfurt schools, while Lenin is commercialized not unlike Che; only Stalin remains genuine boogeyman, making it clear to everyone in no uncertain terms that there will be no compromises with Bourgeoisie.

For Cockshott it's gulag.

I feel like insofar as for pragmatism it makes way more sense to just reclaim the label and normalize Stalin by using objetively true historical facts to refute nonsense and propaganda but whatever, further make it even more difficult to get proles into communism by using Stalin to be an attention whore

Seriously?

What label?

You do realize that facts don't matter if you don't control mass-media?

Your post suggests a certain level of immaturity.

i have more mixed feelings about that
nothing wrong with holding up Stalin but it's not like he's currently holding office or something
only makes things more about history and revisionism rather than his policies, unless you really just focus on his quotes and actions and name them concretely
just throwing his name around does nothing
i'd much rather see a new man like him, maybe not of the same caliber but worthy enough, to rally behind

...

Why should it be relevant? In fact, if he was, it would preclude the use of "Stalinism".

Are you high? How the fuck Stalin's name is not associated with his policies?

1) Very few revisionist Marxist movements tolerate his name and most already identify non-revisionists as Stalinists.
2) Outside of DPRK/Cuba, Stalin is practically synonymous with Central Planning - which is the crucial point of our policies.
3) Intensification of class struggle is another concept we should be working on, and it is unique to Stalin.

How are you going to see anyone like hime before the revolution?
Also, why would we need "new man"? It was the party that made things happen, not Stalin alone.

Are you sure you are Communist? Because I didn't see a single sentence that confirms it, while you keep spouting things very uncharacteristic to Marxists.

We are talking about using his name, not rallying behind anyone (which stinks of voluntarism).

...

how about you don't go on telling me i'm high and instead give this some real thought
ask yourself that question seriously and if you can't answer yourself, then you're missing something so obvious that even straight up telling you isn't gonna fix this
this is what we associate with the name
they don't
talk about those things and defend them, and you defend Stalin
just crying his name does not equate arguing for the policies
and yet a charismatic spokesperson would still deliver the message better, makes it more relatable
we had outstanding comrades even before the revolution, voices people listened to
of course there was a lot of party work, that's undeniable, but it doesn't relativize the importance of this
yeah ok, whatever
eat shit you faggot.

just imagine for one moment to be actually this retarded

Attached: 14096243.500000011_895381453f7ce20807f2b5301781f4ff2d58b99a5e33e6851f0ed305511326ac.gif (472x470, 1.34M)