anarcho-thread for anarchist commentary on recent happenings in world, and general anarchist thread.

Attached: 1snqqhqck2ey.png (1920x1280, 67.19K)

Other urls found in this thread:

On what basis is anarchism just going to "happen?" Also how is anarchism any different from what we have now? Your understanding of "freedom" makes no sense.


Attached: 1543198360853.png (625x773, 142.53K)

Attached: 8796ef05f493017492393730ac19880a2e1a3d5641c1191ce7b9dbff966d3b7d.jpg (600x337, 38.46K)

OP don't listen to the triggered tánkies, sectarianism is cancer. How did you become an anarchist?

I'm not OP but I'm guessing the questions are aimed at all anarchists.

It's not going to "just happen". No sensible anarchist expects anarchism to happen overnight, it will take a while. But there are anarchist things you can do now, like organise communes, co-ops, really really free markets. People need to be aware that we practice anarchism all the time. Ever been on a round about? That's proof how out of chaos, with some simple rules, order arises. Less accidents happen at roundabouts than at traffic lights. The idea is that once capitalism is abolished we don't rush to make a State, but rather organise from the ground up.


What? The OP said nothing about "freedom". And you can hardly clump all anarchists into one group and say no anarchist's understanding of freedom makes sense.

I was born. Then I was told that there is a State with police and I better follow the rules or there will be dire consequences for me.

When I was a kid, around 10-14, and perhaps a bit later, I thought that a rigid system, perhaps with a benevolent dictator if possible, would be the best. Because there was one right way of living (everyone working towards betterment of society, owning means of production together, communism) and people had to be told/forced to follow it. But then I lived, grew, and realised that that view is misguided. You can't force people because they will resist.

Now I'm an ancom/communalist/insurrectionist, and believe people should organise themselves according to their material conditions. An anarchist commune in New York will be wildly different than an anarchist commune in a village in the Andes.

Rather than approach anarchism positively, trying to invent a perfect system, now I work from the standpoint of negation of our current order. We have to cut reliance on the State, eventually abolish capitalism (through organised action, insurrection) and then, and only then, work out the details based on circumstances (like Marx envisioned). Gilets Jeunes is an example that a decentralised movement can work, their problem is that there's no unifying force (such as anti-capitalism).

As an anarchist, the only thing that worries me is that an anarchist society cannot exist surrounded by States, be they capitalist or socialist States. So the main issue for anarchists is defense of whatever they establish.


At this point I don't think anarchism has any value separate from broader communism. To uphold anarchist praxis that isn't communist is useless. The way I see it, the more relevant aspects of anarcho-communism is communism with more emphasis on syndicalism and proletarian democracy.

Attached: smoking chiaki.png (554x483, 111.44K)

I think you might need state powers to enforce this.

Attached: 0dc23a0137b5c799935697bc28ac25441f7da100fd8666bfd18d7b0a6dbac0f5.jpg (429x409, 116.37K)

Leave behind this Liberalism


Typical liberal individualism

Many strands of Leftism are more suited for various places.
Russians still miss the USSR, Ukrainians might want insurrection, and some random country needs Trots

There's more individualism in Socialism, due to commodities defining you.
Think Liberals only having Harry Potter movies as personality traits, or hype beasts existing

*not defining you

The absolute state of anarchist theory. Still in this idealist simplification from the 19th century. I know a lot of anarchists are smart and aware of how goofy this post is but so many really think that power and heirarchy are this straightforward, Rosseauian appeals to man in his natural state and shit

Now this is a based and redpilled anarchobro

We have this thread every week. Every other it's sectarian one way, every other the other.
And it's stupid.

The only anarchist I like is Kropotkin. Mutual Aid and the Conquest of Bread are some of my favorite books

Hard rec for early Bookchin

Daily reminder to GENOCIDE ALL

Attached: 844874._SY540_.jpg (389x540, 41.88K)

They already did tho.

And it was based


Attached: Untitled-1.png (625x835, 701.15K)

Riddle me this, how many of you became syndicalists because of Kaiserreich. We're all anons here, and I'm not shaming.

That pics fucking dumb, it benefits everybody's egos. There's also different types of individualist anarchism as well

It brought attention to the the only org that appeals to burgers, it's getting them into the union halls, and crushing their liberalism.

*"individualist" (all socialism is individualist)

Anything that brings actual leftism (and not the liberalism that the right loves to screech about) into more people's cognition I suppose.

Wrong since only one person put in the labor necessary to purchase the item. Stirner is objectively correct in this instance.

anarchism is based on ethics
ethics are bourgeois, anti-materialist, and undialectical

anarchism is interesting to me only insofar as it critiques the accuracy of predictions generated by marxian economic determinism and historical materialism

Nigga what?
The based
was a thing

Who are you responding to? All anarchists believe some type of praxis is necessary in order to abolish the state.
The existence of the state and capitalism. What kind of question is that?
Again, who are you responding to? Anarchism isn't about some nebulous pursuit of freedom, it has very clear goals and ideals.

I can't argue against your points because you have no premises, just hot opinions. Anarchist theory and praxis is highly relevant, regardless of what specific sect you're advocating for. Syndicalism is a useful but flawed tactic, and democracy (in the sense of majority rule) isn't anarchistic.

No, just voluntary association and self-defense.

Not always, but the most ubiquitous power and hierarchy is that straight forward.

Humans are inherently prosocial creatures and it is in individuals' self-interest to cooperate and engage in mutual aid with each other. Not sharing is a very good way to build resentment and encourage others to to not share with you.

For most anarchists, not it's not.
Adjectives aren't a substitute for arguments.

Holy shit where to even begin.

Attached: 후-1-lyk-1-spoot-1123375.png (500x347, 34.74K)

Killing isn't necessarily unethical.

anarchism comes down to "muh freedom, muh hierarchies", which entail ethical prescriptions
whereas the immortal science of historical materialism can be entirely descriptive and not normative

die retard

So someone explain to me, after posadists, are anarchists the less seriously considered group in the left?

only believe that, it's mostly about small affinity groups, syndicalism, and vanguards working in nations suited towards them.

If it's to prevent harm, killing for the sake of blood is immoral

*only autists

nah, anarchists are somewhat respected
they are serious about praxis

Why are so many anarchists trans? It's almost uncanny how disproportionately represented they are in anarchist circles

Mentally ill people tend to not stop at just one illness.

I often wonder about something, i've always thought the reason so many minorities become far left(not only by race but by LGBT stuff) it's because they are more likely, in their discrimination, to see what the real reason for discrimination is(class), but then you have all those disenfranchised young men that go far right thanks to their feelings of isolation, why?

lol, comorbidity

They hated themselves , largely due to gender roles

as long as you're not Bat'ko incarnate(Muh Stalin), you're cool here right

They' haven't been convinced capitalism's the problem due to white supremecy being harder to despook, with liberals pushing the exact same idpol, and shit

there isn't really sectarian banter here like there used to be.

also there are 'muh stalin' Leninists, it's not just an anarchist position.

we've reached the truth then, that's what's supposed to happen.

Attached: Hegels-Dialectic.png (850x597, 32.8K)

nah lol, the antithesis got banned, there has been no synthesis

Nope, they just split the fucking board.
The synthesis is IWW Anarcho-Tankist Rainbow Coalition folk music

Attached: vx8AtXcl.jpg (640x625, 86.31K)

Name one fucking spook. Egoism-Communism is literally a thing.

Nice hot opinions.

They split the board because they got banned and their position censored.

… because they kept getting banned

do they not know what a vpn is?

. .no. .fuck off.

Attached: 50019040_1826155370845075_511167250720358400_o.jpg (1440x1678, 204.36K)

On top of that it wasn't an antithesis, those have to have merit

you are suggesting 1/3 of the board should have waged an eternal ban evasion jihad instead of just switching to a new board?
also recall that initially, the idea was to have everyone migrate, not to split.

Nah, I was just thinking it shows how fucking dumb they are
these are the same people who think Chezkian SoccDems should've been able to leave, nobody with a brain wants that

Well educated with heavy amounts of discrimination and an aversion to American conservative social order and gender roles. It makes sense to me that a belief system which gives empowerment to your individual truth regardless of whatever society tries to enforce on you appeals to trans people.

I bet you also think Capital makes empirical claims about bourgeois economics.

Attached: 1444143518252.jpg (480x563, 109.87K)

Haha where?

He's clearly talking about Anarcho Monarchist Somalia wtf is this shit btw

that fucking article lmao

Lmao, this guy doesn't get his political beliefs from from Narnia, what an idiot

Anarchocommunists and syndicalists are cool. Stirnerites are fucking cancer. Everything else is irrelevant liberal lifestylism.


Attached: op8.png (436x502, 74.74K)

Why do some Leftists have an autistic obsession with arguing about dead individually flawed Russians, or Spaniards

Whats so bad about them? Unlike most anarchists they are actually committed socialists and have a viable model for which the beginnings of already exist in unions. I dont think think there is much potential for the abolishment of heirarchies to the extent most anarchosyndicalists want, but I can imagine syndicalism being paired well with councilism or democratic centralism to create a system that can act decisively and defend a revolution without sacrificing proletarian democracy.

abolishing hierarchies is literally communism, it;s just some nations must do it quicker

Leftism became intellectualized and now you have people forming a hierarchy to prove they know more about destroying hierarchies compared to their peers.

Death to totalitarian communists and the enemy of people.

good take, will steal

checks out

join Cercicle Proudhon, crypto fash

can we not ban this fucking orange ancap already

you mean like how the mutualist-communards got massacred by the French army?

Why are so many Anarchists nowadays making anti-materialist arguments? I mean the power dynamics type stuff. Is it because lots of New Anarchists are IDpoled?

Anarchists are often crypto-liberals who just don't like the establishment left wing party. The current crop of left wing political parties are completely inept so you have more crypto-liberals running in their ranks.

Some anarchists have argued that cisheteronormativity is a form of economic organisation arranged by the bourgeoisie for workers to reproduce cheap labour with children. The family is a unit of society which demands a protection from 'change' or revolution, it becomes the priority and identity of the proletariat and so we lose collective class identity in favour of a personal family identity, which some catholics like distributists favour as they see the family unit as the prime social unit. Of course, all of the right-wing propaganda sending out fear for the wellbeing of children and the destruction of family values has been very useful to construct fascism and to create counter-narratives to marxism. Reproduction is promoted as the correct mode of survival in an ever-increasing autonomous world, obviously there are people nowadays who choose not to have kids, so why is having children (creating future workers) seen as an obligation we owe ourselves, our partner(s) and our family? Well, we have already answered that question. I'm not necessarily criticising any particular mode of family organisation, but proletarian children in a materialist context will all eventually grow up to exercise their class oppression, and typically, it has never been very philosophical to have children of your own, just look at all of the intellectuals throughout history.

But the family is not the only behaviour promoted by cisheteronormativity, queerphobia has obviously been engineered to promote homogeneity within the mindless working class - in relation to critique of the culture industry by the frankfurt school. Conformity through the distribution of commodities and the illusion of choice has shaped our identities to a particular spectrum of behaviour, stepping out of these boundaries has not just institutional consequences but also social ones, since the public have become an extension of the establishment and vice versa. To have transphobic or homophobic attitudes relates to an internalisation of this bourgeois mind-control. Obviously the feminists have explained the anti-revolutionary strategies of sexism, but the whole 'power dynamic' thing is crucial in a wider analysis of how society has made us into the people we think we have chosen to be. Foucault would call this the alienating effect of the institution of the "individual". We are all the same but we share the delusion of personal autonomy in a capitalist society. Obviously, many anarchists are also influenced by thinkers like Foucalt.

The whole "oppression olympics" can be seen as anti-materialist in some ways, I get it, but isn't it the job of marxists to deconstruct things in a materialist context, like Marx did with Hegel in Historical Materialism, anyway? What causes conformity and stigma in a capitalist society?

Attached: quote-it-s-my-hypothesis-that-the-individual-is-not-a-pre-given-entity-which-is-seized-on-michel-foucault-35-74-23.jpg (850x400, 81.96K)

They are just more represented in that section of the left since so many marxists are class reductionists - sometimes they might throw women and gays a bone because Lenin decriminalized sodomy and whatnot, but many MLs see transgender people as a "new" thing so probably a construction of late-capitalist individualism, but their thinking is quite literally old-fashioned so obviously they scare off class conscious trans people and the anarchists accept them and that's why they're on that side. It's quite obvious, but an appeal to "they're mentally ill!" is easier than self-criticism on behalf of the more conservative thinkers, then again, the left is so tired of losing these days, many have embraced the racist/sexist reactionary attitudes of today's populism. I think I saw someone on this page a while ago say that we should support some niche white supremacist group because they had some socialist ideas. Trans people would rather feel involved in a community than care so much about "winning" that they lose sight of what any of this is about.

Attached: image.jpg (720x864, 29.77K)

holy fuck just kys NO ONE LIKES YOU

I was responding to someone who asked about transgender people…

Yeah you ate the bait. You're not supposed to eat the fucking bait. It was a loaded question aimed at derailing the thread into idpol, which you did. Congratz you massive faggot.

The thread is hardly derailed. It just seems like you've been waiting for a platform to call people faggots and tell them to kill themselves, stop taking your anger out on strangers on the internet.

"heirarchies" is a largely nonsensical term lacking in any nuanced analysis, whether material or superstructural. most anarchist theory is just extended polemics without a good working definition of what power is, how it's exercized, in wgat way power and heirarchies are different, etc.

Anarkiddies are pasty crackers with idealist views, an unwillingness to let go of bourgeois liberalism and a knack for US state department foreign policy


It's a nu-left thing and you'll find lots of self-identifed socialists adhering to it too. They reject class struggle and historical materialism but in doing so you're left with almost nothing so they make up other types of power structure analysis which isn't necessarily bad but really doesn't hold up compared to orthodox views of class struggle.
And rightists in their intellectual superiority consider these people to be marxists simply because they critique power structures even though it's not from a marxist lens.

This tbh. I don't have any problems with anarchist theory as there never was a consistent/universal anarchist praxis. I just don't think it's necessary to form seperate organizations over such petty differences. ALL sects, whatever they call themselves, have to acknowledge that by organizing apart they are effectively cutting communism in half. The severity of this error, despite actual centuries of historical evidence, has totally failed to dawn of all communists including this board. It is LAUGHABLE that so many on this board style themselves as antisectarians while promoting the existence of sects.

I also just have problems with the separation of "state" and "government" into differing categories. I think it, ironically, relies on a blind faith on the effectiveness of government and just how easily their behavior can become "state-like." ie: violent

Attached: 1469659825220.png (500x375, 208.88K)

He isnt wrong about being unable to leave behind bourgeois liberalism. Anarchism is one of the logical conclusions of bourgeois liberalism, and that's not necessarily a bad thing because it reveals some of the primary contradictions within liberalism, as Marxism also does. But instead of trying to systematically resolve those contradictions most anarchists seem content to just insist on how unjust they are within the scope of liberalism itself, i.e. anger at nonfreedom becomes calls for more freedom instead of questioning the coordinates of what we call freedom (Lenin's "freedom, yes, but for who and to do what?" being a really basic example) and how this terminology is itself a form of ideological obscurity (obscuring in this case that freedom has a class character, and the repression of private property and bourgeois organs of society will likely be necessary in any case to ensure the freedom of the proletariat). And I don't mean to apologize for the often anti-proletarian excesses (or insufficiencies) of Marxism-Leninism and Maoism, but the answer to them certainly isn't to abandon systematic materialist methodology in favor of vaguer calls for freedom and equality. This is why I usually like anarchocommunists and syndicalist – when theyre not just radlibs who chose the ideology off the shelf, they often incorporate many genuimely Marxist concepts in a way that even if I dont agree with, there are constructive conversations to be had. And even outside of the scope of Marxism, unions and syndicates provide a good, pragmatic working model of proletarian democracy. I am not even dogmatically attached to Marxism despite in practice being an Orthodox Marxist (methodologically, at least), and my demand isnt necessarily that anarchists become Marxist, but that to take them seriously I will need to see them develop a method of analysis to rival Marx.

Class struggle and dialectical materialism arent necessarily contrary to Foucaldianesque understanding of power as operating through networks of relations in which the participating agents have various levels of awareness of their own interests as opposed to direct top down application of interests. Foucault and other postmodernists may have personally had bourgoeis liberal politics but their nuanced understanding of the way power operates is very salvageable imo. This is me too btw, sorry for the doublepost

ITT: people confusing American "anarchists" with anarchists. The world is bigger than the US, you fucking "M-L" high schoolers. Anything in the US turns into a farce: fascism (kekistanis), libertarianism ("go live alone in the woods bro"), communism (Maoist red guards lol), anarchism (idpol, intersectionality, "class reductionism"), food (fast food). US is a garbage country, with garbage people, from the Tea Party retards through the Democrat Cops of America retards, wifi-fearing Greens to the whatever LARP "communist" party.

Very nuanced material analysis, thanks!

You're welcome.

My fellow anarkiddies.
Seemingly weird question;
Do you support the United Nations?

Why do burgers keep misunderstanding Foucault? is it intentional or do they just not read or? I'm confused. Like you literally have philosophy graduates in america that will not have read Foucault or well…. anyone else relivent to this day and age, instead disparaging it as 'continental'. Do they only teach analytic philosophy in the US?

t. idiot that has never left burgerland.

What? No. Why would any anarchist?

100% This. Americans are a fucking embarrassment. The idiots like the ones in this thread only like to critique North American anarchists because it's an easy target, they just aim and fire at some fucking clueless middle class uni kids so they can virtue-signal to there ML friends about 'anarchists btfo'd!!!!'

Legitimate retards. I wish someone would just bomb disneyland off of the planet. Or at least another 9/11 we can all cheer at.

Attached: Dead-Bald-Eagle1-300x187.jpeg (300x187, 16.84K)

guess Zig Forumstards were right. BO is a filthy sodomite tranny.


at least he's honest