Recommend reading materials for a former militant neonazi who grew tired of it and has an increasingly interest for...

Why anarchism rather than Marxism? It's much stronger theoretically and has at least been put into practice on a serious scale. Either way welcome to the left I guess

I'm not an anarchist, but I have respect for you, that you managed to get out of this nazi crap.

May I ask what made you break with fascism?What about anarchism is appealing to you?

What do you recommend reading from him if you’re already caught up in marxism and its relevance today?

Hell if I know. Maybe this where he smacks postmodernism: youtube.com/watch?v=BDyZd-QbZeI

His columns at Splice are good and he's a funny writer. He's anti-Marxist FYI. (I like Marx). I disagree with Sartwell's music tastes in the most extreme and insane terms possible (he was a rock critic in the 80s and writes a lot on music) but I was a right-winger at one point and read him a lot so that's why I'd recommend him to the OP. I don't think burying people in Das Kapital is very useful. I might sound like I'm trying to lure the OP into the left but that's not my intention; I don't really care if he's on the left or not – I just think he might find Sartwell interesting.

There's like three wings of anarchism, and there's this Thoreau-like American school from the 19th century which is less well known than the Bakuninites and the fake-anarchist ancaps. Emma Goldman associated with a lot of them thought they had their disagreements

Bunch of videos he did on anarchism: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLC56C06EEAC21D2BF

If you were ever stupid enough to be a Nazi you should probably just neck yourself

Years ago we would have applauded a former Zig Forumscuck for admitting he was wrong after getting memed into an ideology that preys on disenfranchised workers
I used to think hating r*ddit was a /v/ meme but good god it really is true

Old, non-sectarian leftypol is def.

Complete cancer.

You are doing a good job at alienating the working class from the left.

The Soul of Man Under Socialism by Oscar Wilde is an easy read. It doesn't explain political theory it just provides an argument using individualism and will help motivate you to read harder and longer stuff.

i think you made a wrong turn, bud. the LARPer convention is just down the street. feel free to swing back by when you want to actually discuss tenable political theory. maybe read some Marx and then a conversation about libsoc will be on the table

fuck you

Attached: van.jpg (600x600, 36.45K)

i love you too.

(nice trips)
Don't let the Marxfags get you down, Anarchist theory is great (Marx copied a lot of his work from his teacher, Pierre Joseph Proudhon, an anarchist, MLfags get incredibly butthurt when you remind them of this, so be sure to bring it up whenever you can.)
"Not only does Proudhon write in the interest of the proletarians, he is himself a proletarian, an ouvrier. His work is a scientific manifesto of the French proletariat". t. Marx

Anyway, ya gotta read the spookbuster book, this book will save your life by showing you that all the abstractions you thought existed (nation, race, etc.) don't actually exist and that you are the source of all value in the world. This book has sucessfully deconverted and despooked many a-fascist, and I'm certain it'll do you, too. Welcome, friend!

Attached: egoist anarchism.png (1720x2988, 668.56K)

Is this an accusation of plagarism?

Attached: Areyoufuckingserious.jpg (408x408, 105.65K)

OK, so for beginning:
Kropotkin
Bakunin
Goldman
Nechayev
Malatesta

No its not. Its only good at critiquing capitalism, everything else is shit.

Attached: IMG_20181114_113840_341.jpg (500x621, 133.09K)

Attached: i lige anarchism and prisons.png (480x335, 18.15K)

How do you argue that there is anything wrong with the state (multiple individuals working togeather) out-violencing the single individual with out resorting to some kind of ideological feels?

Because it's not in my rational self-interest, I simply have no desire to be dominated by others. Feelings have nothing to do with it. Why don't you read the actual book? Egoist anarchism is a lack of ideology. "wrong" is a spook because there is no moral system, and even if absolute morality did exist, I would still fight against it to assert my dominance of my own free will. External constraints mean nothing to me, and abstractions lose all legitimacy the moment I stop beliving in them, only for me to realize, that they never had legitimacy all along.

You have your self-interest, and I have mine, and they have theirs. This isn't a contest of who is wrong or right, it's a struggle for survival. Morality, especially bourgeois morality, is an excuse they use to control me, but if I don't believe in their spooks I'm free to pursue my own life, granted I also have the force to make my will reality. Make no mistake, like Stirner himself says, that life itself is a war of all against all. Sometimes there are temporary truces, these are things I call friendship, love, comradeship, and are liable to end at any time for any reason or no reason at all.

Attached: CNT-OwO.png (1500x1500, 233.43K)

Sounds like an actual cool story, bro. How did that transformation happen? What was your experience of neonazism like?

There are still anarchists who have read a book right? Not just the ones pretending to have a view from nowhere while reciting stale memes and apologizing for baby fuck, necrophilia, and philistinism right?

...

I'm pretty sure anarchists used to read a lot

and class.

Pure ideology. Egoism is obviously a system of belief. An idealist one at that, because instead of material conditions, it grounds everything in an abstraction, the self, even if at first look it seems to be opposed to abstractions.

leftypol doing a great job at welcoming newcomers

scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds, scratch a reformed fascist and a fascist bleeds. how much you want to bet OP's political awakening happened only when he realized that outside of his faggot friends and Zig Forums, nobody hates blacks/jews/gays/etc nearly as much as he does. or hates any of those at all, generally

if you were a fascist then bakunin is perfect, will rekindle you with your anti-semitic essence in no time

that's a really stupid attitude
it's reasonable to question his motivation and all but it's just a guy asking for reading material online, no need to be a dick

You could say this shit about reformed liberals as well. Nobody is born a fully fledged Marxist and many don't start that way ideologically, with your logic we'd have to ban/drive out a large portion of this board who used to be "left"-liberals/right-liberals/actually right-wing.

Attached: CjcQBE6_d.jpg (362x346, 12.66K)

A fascist is closer to a socialist than a liberal is. I consider fascists to agree with the underlying problem, but just have an ideological approach to fixing it. A liberal however loves capitalism. Both present a 'false solution', but at least fascists are on board with collectivism.
Time is much better spent trying to convert fascists, liberals are all write-offs.

i wonder what you think 'fascist' 'socialist' and 'capitalism' mean

Congrats on the shift, but consider at least reading up on the "true believer" concept - basically that it's easy for people to jump between ideological extremes because they're seeking identity, and seek self-worth through their ideologies rather than their own actions. It's a dangerous path to go down. I'm essentially a social anarchist, but I'd urge you to work on building up your own self-worth before, or at least while you explore anarchism. This means pursuing a career, relationships, maybe some form of spirituality, etc.
On the relationships point, I think as someone leaving the white power movement, it's really critical that you seek out the people you thought you hated, to get to know them on a personal level. This does mean "minority" groups - blacks, latinos, Arabs, Indians, Muslims, Jews, gays, trans folks. It's about understanding their basic humanity.

Anyway, for anarchism I strongly recommend (thinker - ideology):
Murray Bookchin - Green Anarchism, Communalism, Green Anarchism
Peter Kropotkin - Anarcho-Communism
Rudolf Rocker - Anarcho-Syndicalism
Henry David Thoreau - Green Anarchism (inspiration)

Also, honestly Noam Chomsky could be the easiest intro to anarchism. He's very straightforward, he's a pretty easy read, and he just lays everything out. If you just check out the pic related, you can get through the important parts in an afternoon.

Guérin's anthology (middle pic) is another easy intro, just going through some of the key texts of the major writers.

I'm starting to explore the work of Élisée Reclus, who's a really interesting person

Attached: chomsky-on-anarchism.jpg (264x376 38.24 KB, 25.51K)

lol with Bookchin I meant to write "Green Anarchism, Communalism, Social Ecology"

Having been a socialist, granted an abhorrent form of socialist. I think you'd find socialism is greater than anarchy.

I understand, you're going to try to break away from anything associated with anything related to Not Socialism, but once you've grown out of the anarchy phase, read Marx.

Historically, anarchism has always been a form of socialism. Marx is also important for understanding many forms of anarchism, most notably (obviously) anarcho-communism.

I used to be a nazi too, everyone learns at their own pace, glad you got out tho. You might like individualists like Stirner and Novatore, the Invisible Committee (specifically To Our Friends), and the anonymous essays Desert and At Daggers Drawn. Most of then are on anarchistlibrary

Class does exist, class is defined as your relationship to the means of production so it does exist in material reality.

materialism is technically idealism, you can't verify material reality exists unless you believe in empiricism which is based on suppositions that can't be proven at a reductuctionist value (see Descartes' Demon, brain in a vat scenario)
The self is the source of all value, whether you believe in that value is irrelevent therefore its not ideology. Even if it was I dont care about your external constraints.
make up your fucking mind

first of all, material RELATIONS are an abstraction. Stirner never argued that material CONDITIONS weren't.
secondly, "the self" isn't an abstraction of anything. it represents something which can never be defined: an individual's reality. it is that which has no material existence despite existing in your material reality.

A condition is a kind of relation you dolt
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional

this is a page about formal logic, not material conditions in abstract like Marxism.

What do you think a material condition is?

Who let Anal Water back in?

crimethinc's books and pamphlets, they are all free on their site

libcom.org/library/chomsky-anarchism

Stirner

Kropotkin's Conquest of Bread and Mutual Aid

Proudhon's What Is Property

all good starting points

Ignore the assholes in the thread. Congrats on getting yourself out!

revoltlib.com/anarchism/the-conquest-of-bread/view.php some kropotkin

...