Anarchism

LibSocs in general are fucking terrible for throwing people under the bus and engaging in purity spirals.

PrimCom gang

just don't call us degenerates and we'll leave you alone

Attached: that aint no dog.jpg (683x508, 116.14K)

it's fine i guess whatever
yes
you can freely shittalk dengism and should

Try
>>>Zig Forums
That tends to be the home for all the ancoms and libsocs. Although I couple MLs do post there, and they have a DPRK thread.

that alone will get you banned

Attached: 1yjepe.jpg (900x900, 79.23K)

Not really, I've said multiple times that neither Cuba nor the DPRK are socialist (much less China or Vietnam). I acknowledge that once they were but that's simply not the case today. I do however still defend both Cuba and the DPRK for still being DotPs and clearly anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist nations that are still on their way to establish socialism (and eventually communism) once again.

Honestly. If anyone unironically supports anarcho-capitalism, then they deserve to be shot. At least there is some rationale behind why people become fashys or liberals. There is next to no reason why anyone should rationally support an-caps. Especially considering that anyone who advocates for it (even jokingly) would be the first to be enslaved, executed or raped under it.

Attached: image2.jpg (306x306, 27.15K)

because an caps are pedos

Anarchy is for fat, limp dick, faggot cucks who like seeing their fat wife get fucked by other fat dudes

I thought Cuba was pretty much socialist. Don't they have collectively owned farms and housing?

Cuba is communist. Communism is the GOAL of socialism so no they're not really socialist.

it is funny how whenever a westerner talk about how socialism never works, no one ever brings up cuba.

Cuba is the exception. They're in a unique situation being on an island with a government that's perfectly content ruling over the island. The Castros have no ambition, no designs on expansion. Or at least they haven't shown it. People do risk their lives to cross the ocean to Florida. It really depends on what your version of "works" is.

is there hope for the current state of humans?

Surely the state withering away means that the state as an instrument of class rule ceases to exist, not that there would be no administrative bodies and structure? And surely this would only be possible in a situation where the material reasons for a state have ceased to exist, i.e. class antagonisms no longer exists as classes have been destroyed.

Pretty simplistic analysis user. China has raised life standards for the vast majority of its population, became the world's 2nd economy in a matter of decades and is doing much better than the DPRK in basically any regard. Read Losurdo's article, it's not long and makes a decent case for not labeling China a "capitalist country".

I'm personally convinced anarchism is utopian, but I don't see any reason why you should be banned or why anarchists and "statists" can't work together in anti-capitalist actions.

Take a look and see WHY China's economy grew so much. Its a mix between communism and capitalism. Its the only reason China hasnt completely fallen apart.

Yeah sure. And I wouldn't call it disgusting, they are doing pretty well.

Yeah the social credit program sounds fuuuuun

Are you high? Cuba is, by definition, not communist. Not stateless, moneyless, or classless.

What the fuck happened to this board and why has it turned so fucking much to the right.

Both China and the DPRK are brutal one party state where the bureocrats are no more exersicing a "dictatorship of the proletariat" and instead wild capitalism where they only act for profit, and whilst I don't want to debate if a DotP works or not, I want to state clear that Cuba is also capitalist.

Lmao, fuck off lib glow in the dark negro.
Dengism is 40 years over a sensible NEP so fuck that billionare party shit, but you can't expect the world to turn without any lives being lost, Mr. utopian
Gimme a source right now

Attached: 51Je-b0RV4L.jpg (332x500, 32.51K)

...

I'm not against bloodshed, on the contrary, I'm only opposed to it if it is commited to maintain unjustified hierarchies and against anyone who is in the way of the working people.

And Cuba is fucking capitalist. Just not look at the constitution, that allows private property of the means of production, and even if there wasn't private property as such the State, as it has done in the past, would occupy the place of the capitalist, not giving control of the means of production to the workers. Also, it has to be set clear that planned economies in any kind do wonders, as happened with Cuba, but that doesn't fit the definition of socialism.

And also, when you smoke a cigar, you have in your hand a Cuban commodity.

no one on this board understands anarchism

You're just a closet radlib deliriously afraid of any discipline and authority and see the state as an eternal evil regardless of its class-character. When anarkiddies get steamrolled by capitalism they'd have wish they had a state and people following a Songun-based revolutionary line. Not adhering to an infantile line for the construction of socialism is not "right-wing".
DPRK is not a one party state, even if it was there is nothing wrong with this. You just outted yourself as a liberal whining about muh totalitarianism

Enjoy the music:
youtube.com/watch?v=ZPcmA9LhlLg

Attached: DPRK.jpg (798x545, 83.36K)

Enjoy lifestylism Anarcho Vegan
m.youtube.com/watch?v=NGu__oqMcKM

lmfao

Attached: americans_sigh1.png (266x282, 84.76K)

Fail

General strike is effective as it immobilizes the state and you need a large amount of strikers to immobilize the industrial centers and that large amount of strikers easily turns into a willing army. Songun isnt suited for the U.S. seeing as you need high amounts of millitary support to be millitary first(tanks not barricades) and generals/colonels who worship "ayyy lmao, es nuke china" McArthur" aren't exactly revolutionary.

It was nice meeting you, bye

Attached: c869262001d24d92795801b0874f795fd6416c92.png (600x696, 492.34K)

ctrl-f "post left" —– 0 hits
ctrl-f "communalism " —– 0 hits
ctrl-f "analytic marxism" —– 0 hits
ctrl-f "accelerationism" —– 0 hits

Wow the "anarchists" in this thread aren't namedropping any of the cool ideologies. Liberals & lifestylists, every last one of you

you fags throw this around to decieve people into believing that Cuba is allowing big businesses and capitalist restoration and it's not true. stop making this generalised, context lacking statement. Cuba is allowing small business like hairdressers and resteraunts, which aren't allowed to monopolise or accumulate capital, nor do they exist on a large scale/have any sort of power over the means of production.
literally every single socialist has done this at one point, it doesn't make them capitalist.

No user. Just no.

post-leftism is more interesting than straight out egoism imo. Can you explain to me how post-leftism is at odds with your vision of anarchism? There are valid critiques of communalism as an anarchism and "analytic marxism" certainly leans in a different direction but left-accelerationism is a legitimate branch of anarchism too because it helps individuals empower themselves and break away from "the system"

Don't they decry leftism as "authoritarian"?

Attached: 8palakjcmkk21.jpg (640x469, 43.44K)

Post leftism offers some valid critiques but no answers as to how to fix problems they bring up.

Songun is a method of socialist politics within a socialist state, not a road to power

I was an anarcho-syndicalist for about 10 years before switching to a more ML approach. I don't really consider myself to be any specific type of Marxist, but ML is the easiest way to describe what I am now.

In the song he sings about eating donuts from the trash. Donuts aren't vegan, making the protagonist of this song a 'freegan'.

I'm sure that you could tell us all about how you organised your workplace and community, how you're part of a worker's newsletter to which you contribute often, how you spend hours in the community helping people in need while also sharing leftist propaganda material, how you try to find a socialist candidate to run on an independent or socialist party ticket, how you organise strikes and walk outs, how you've wrote letters to politicians and marched so that lives of the working class people could be improved.

Tell us more about the person calling others 'lifestyleists'.

no it can't be true

Post-Left Anarchism doesn't mean anything. It's Individualist, etc. anarchism re-branded by burgers like Aragorn and Black in order to feel special and fill the pages of AJODA.

Attached: americanforeignpolitics.png (540x526, 166.44K)

Attached: youaredismissed.png (839x552, 22.95K)

The posters here are exclusively Juchers and Dengists. You will nto find a nuanced, articulated position on anarchist analysis.

A typical Zig Forums revolutionary's main tactic is making crappy images of Lenin in MSPaint.

except in healthcare, housing and education, you know, things that actually benefit the proletariat

All anti-capitalists are welcome here. It's a broad left-wing board.

If the state were abolished it would be from societal collapse and we'd get Anprim or there'd be nothing to stop capitalism

H-h-human nayture prevents this leftism!
-sectarian autist

How are the workers supposed to own the means of production if not through the power of the state?

where did I say anything of the sort?

You don't need a centralized state apparatus, local community policing should be enough. They can form a loose federation to manage economic issues.

"OPPOSITION" TO GLOBAL CAPITALISM

Attached: e442979aa7d0d908adf78d351b35dea88fe7a16d9539733e118d4080c2e73c15.jpg (937x552, 290.81K)

...

I heard a rumor that said Marxists/Maoists were being killed in China by Dengists, and that there are Muslims in camps… are they true? I'm very uneducated about China, but by just looking at how many stories come out of that country it seems like they have poor workers rights, and are pretty damn capitalist. I could be wrong, but that's why I wanna learn.

There definitely are camps for muslim reeducation, yes, i don't know about the claims regarding marxists.

What do they define as reeducation? I know they already have a large intolerance for religion, especially regarding the Buddhists…

I feel conflicted regarding the truth of the claims, on one hand they say some seriously dystopian shit people would attribute to communist countries like "they forced me to learn chants and songs of the Communist Party of China", some are more believable like forcing them to eat pork.

they put violent separatists in camps, yeah. never heard of marxists or maoists being put away for being such, maybe some people disappeared here and there. most everyone is a maoist in the sense that mao is like their jesus and his teachings are basically law. as for open suppression: it may be something for a time because the governments paranoia about previous right wing protests but in the end the government needs the leftist pro workers on the ground. they are a lot like seattle politics, they dont move fast. they like to see things coming and ride out a predictable course of events. if they dont think these activists are secretly reactionary or a front fro some western intervention, itd be a disaster for their country. theyve got 50 years of indoctrination into socialism on their hands and only since the mid to late 80s has there been the tuhao nouveau riche class of free market people. they may like the economic boon but numbers and popularity are on the side of marxist thinking. itd be much, much worse than tienanmen.

Sure.
Fair enough, although we shouldn't go along with the full liberal narrative here.
Fuck off. There's plenty to criticize them on, but they're still doing good considering the position they're in.

streamrift.com/component/video_gallery/video/186090.html#

this shit wont get banned for anything and theres 4k tiddies my boi but the search engine is a bit complicated but you can find what you want AND NO ADS

there's liveleak and xvideos for teens twerking so idk what use this site has

All of us will be dead by then, given your prediction is correct.

good

Fuck me this place is in the shitter.

I guess

Anarchists are my comrades
i share many of their values but disagree on a lot of praxis things
i like talking to bright anarchists, i wish i knew more irl

anarchy is for edgy kids only

Attached: 1537401464222.jpg (1135x718, 184.39K)

let's not bring them up

...

right, anarcho capitalism is just complete dictatorship of the bourgeois.

What's the obsession that so many anarchists have with immediate open borders?

it's a necessity for uniting the workers of the world
the manifesto doesn't say "workers of your nation unite"

You purge anarchists of liberals and get their head on straight and you wind up with ML's again.

Attached: 1484829027578.jpg (445x459, 50.37K)

I wanna know your opinion, what is the difference between libertarian statists and anarchists except that you guys have a retarded definition of 'state'? Anarchists literally want a government too they just want to call it something else.

Not OP, but a state is a monopoly on violence. Anarchists don't want a monopoly on violence. They want everyone to violently assert their interests whenever this suits them, without being stopped by a centrally organized force. As such you get a permanent dynamic renegotiation of social ties, which is the only basis on which a free society can be founded.

So the accusations that 'anarchy' equals Mad Max universe are entirely correct?

Not at all. The fact that everyone can use violence to protect their interests doesn't in any way imply that they will. An anarchist society would be arranged so that violence only very rarely has to be used. Usually the costs of using violence will vastly outweigh the benefits, just as is the case right now.

How in any way is your system where 'well everyone can use violence but hopefully they won't' in any way better than a state? At least in the state there's some kind of legal process and accountability needed to use violence.

In this kind of topic, I always ask how is anarchy any different from mob justice, and I never get an answer that satisfies me, so maybe you will have one, how is anarchy without a state (as opposed to 'just don't call it a state' anarchy) any different from mob rule and lynching, something which we can all identify is bad?

Because the fact that everyone can equally well use violence ensures that everyone's interests are met.
You don't think that when you arbitrarily hit someone people will become hostile to you? You'll still have to account for yourself.
Mob justice implies people are led by mob psychology. Anarchy does not. Lynchings don't occur in an educated anarchist population. Under normal circumstances, anarchist communities will stick to diligent agreed-upon procedures when it comes to justice.

Attached: 46b4580a91d7b1d1e8d84f2502dab3fb1f113a9c0ffb35bf10d235f23f3dd145.png (1350x1296, 1.85M)

That pic makes the USSR look like a fascist shithole.

lmao

Clearly the 20 y/o guy and the 80 y/o granny are equally capable of violence. If nana's pension doesn't come through I expect she'll be out cracking some skulls.

How about I murder someone who was pissing me off then just leave for a different community? Not like there's any organised system capable of chasing me or identifying me, hell I don't even have to use my real name since there's no such thing as a central body issuing ID.

So basically, it's mob justice, because we'll do it right? Let's say farmer Joe is pissed off because someone is rustling his sheep, then he sees that the new guy is roasting up a big lamb feast for his family, and he thinks 'well, he probably did it' and shoots him? I mean it's not like there's any higher authority he can appeal to to get him permission to search the guy's house for a butchery workbench or check his financial records (not that those would exist either), his only choice is to break into his house by force if he wants to get some proof. Do you really not see what a horribly unworkable system this is?

So what you're saying is that if someone uses violence beyond the normal parameters of the society, he'll be punished by the community based on prior agreed upon rules? Yknow, kind of like a state, except shittier and inefficient?

You don't think people would feel solidarity towards the old woman? Our capacity for empathy evens out individual differences in strength.
Why do you assume this? Different communities will definitely want to organize together to enable such systems. But it'll always be on their own terms. That's the important part. If a community feels like it doesn't serve them, then they step out of the arrangement, or demand that it's terms are revised.
There is no higher authority, there is an equal authority. You go have a meeting with other members of the local community and inform them of your suspicions. Then they go to the suspect and inform them that there will be an investigation. If the suspect disagrees, they will have the whole community against them.
If they're smart they'll have streamlined conventions for all of this. It'll be very much like a police department, except built on an entirely different basis.
They aren't "rules," they are at most statements of intention, and can be renegotiated if this suits the members of the community. All I'm saying is that there would be certain conventions that the members of the community understand to be diligent justice, and that they will follow these conventions as long as they prove sufficient to their needs.

not him but i thought i'd respond
which is what the police will do once they get they get a warrant (assuming rules are being followed at least)
which you don't seem to think is mob justice but too me sounds just like mob justice with extra steps.
There is no clear line that separates mob justice from non-mob justice, in the end it's just people using force on other people. We make up systems and rules around it for harm reduction reason but it's still just people doing things to other people.
that's not what a state it, a commune could do this just fine.
btw i'm not even an anarchist and i'm not trying to convince you it's a good ideology but your criticisms of anarchism are extremely weak. you could do with a little more research.

ehh, not really. ML goes against the core anarchist principles, and anarchists aren't anyway liberals(at least not the anarchists worth talking about).

so much wrong here
no it's not, you can have a state without it having a monopoly on violence(see private security)
this only applies to anarchist-egoism, not anarchism as a whole.
no, what you get there is the rule of the strong as many will not have the required force to assert themselves.

i'm sorry, i should have read the bullshit you were up against before calling you out first here>>2847963

both you guys need to do your homework, you are arguing about anarchism and neither of you know anything about it. for shame

Imagine starting a private security company without the permission of the state.
The egoist formulation is the most straightforward and has been adopted by a wide range of anarchist theorists.
Other anarchist theories do not diverge from it too much, except in that they may supplement self-interest with some moral principle. But this makes little functional difference. It is still the same individual that has to decide on these moral matters.
They do have this force when they team up. The idea that there is one group of people called "the strong" and another called "the weak" is a horrible misrepresentation of the facts. People will be stronger or weaker depending on what interest they're trying to defend.
And as I've already pointed out, people tend to have a sense of solidarity towards each other. If you are "weaker" there will always be "stronger" people ready to protect your interests because this pleases them.

that's not what "monopoly" means. you can't start any kind of company without the permission of the state, by your shaggy definition of "monopoly" that would mean the state has a monopoly on literally everything which makes the word "monopoly" useless, or rather your definition of it. your just flat out wrong here.
where do you even get this from?
it's basically just Max Stirner, egoism is despised in most anarchist circles and communes.
no, people are stronger or weaker depending on their resources and weapons.
if i acquire a bunch of guns, i only need a few people on my side to terrorize a town and that would be me violently asserting my interests whenever this suits me
and this is not anarchism.