So what if the state were abolished and we were in Anarchism or Libertarian Socialism? How would it work...

So what if the state were abolished and we were in Anarchism or Libertarian Socialism? How would it work? How would we prevent rampant senseless murder and child rape and mass murder? How would we feed ourselves? Defend ourselves against foreign nations? Deprogram nuclear plants and nuclear missiles? Achieve scientific progress? The idea of anarchy appeals to me but I don't fully get it.

Attached: black-flag-logo.jpg (700x700, 29.49K)

Use your mind, and you should end up with conclusions.

lol imagine being so spooked out of your mind that murder and rape are bad

Armed people with a basic desire for sensible lives? OP is clearly not an actual leftist with their war on straw.

Only retarded sociopathic warrior-slaves think murder is liberating, and it’s a testament to a bizarrely total lack of self-liberation. People don’t commit murders or rape children until their capacity of control has absolutely collapsed. They lose all insight into their chains and die screaming. In an armed society, they often die literally screaming after suffering serious wounds.

Nuclear power plants are great testaments to the intrinsic capacity of order that humans have. They’re very stable and regular structures. People respect them. I am not a nuclear technician, but as I understand the matter, operating a nuclear power plant requires an advanced intellect only to the extent that “follow a long checklist exactly and repetitiously” seems to be an oddly high-IQ trait. They mostly require integrity and patience.

As the middle east has proven by repeatedly crushing so-called superpowers, deceptive guerilla tactics are still the actual state of the art in human warfare, so militia suffices there as well. Especially if the militia has access to some amount of nuclear armament - giving the nukes to the same people who run the nuclear power plants might be savvy, since again not misusing nukes is predominantly an integrity-linked process.

Scientific progress is the fruit of life honestly reported. There’s no reason to believe it would stop under any system of government that doesn’t induce a brain-drain by oppressing intellectuals and/ir embracing corruption. There’s a universal interest in science as truth is the root of all real power in this world.

People are people. Don’t be such a broken slave that you can’t acknowledge murder and rape as bad things, and you’ll understand.

Okay Stirner, lay off the coke.

Gonna go out on a limb here and say that nuclear weapons made anarchism obsolete. Dismantling a nuclear-armed state just means you get a bunch of randos with nukes and a much lower threshold for using them. If you seize the state first, dismantle the nukes, then dismantle the state, then you're just a Leninist. And in that case, good luck not getting picked off one by one now that you have no way to check their military power. So with only a handful of entities that have nukes, and MAD as a deterrence, the only way out of the dilemma really is to seize all of the states, dismantle all of the nukes, and then dismantle all of the states. Which again is what Communists have been trying to do for the past century or so.

I think there's a reason why there hasn't been a successful anarchist project since the invention of steamships and rifled artillery. 150 years ago you might have been able to break away from some country or colony and hold out until they got sick of fighting you. But with the kind of lopsided military power that nation states can deploy I don't think that possible now, except in fake cases like Rojava which are superficially "anarchist" while allowing themselves to be propped up by + support the agenda of powerful nation states.

Why would you wish to decommission nuclear plants?

So you support climate change.

all white trans exclusionary ethno communes would form and there would be absolutely nothing you could do to stop it :)

Anarchism has historically concerned itself with 2 questions.

The question most people are somewhat familiar with of illegitimate hierarchy.


The question of prefigurative politics.
In other words the question of "do our means actually lead to our ends."

Anarchists and some marxists (I wont speak for all) are concerned with creating communism as defined:
A stateless and classless government without wages rent or private property and probably without markets where the means of production are held in common and from each according to their ability and to each according to their need.

What serious anarchists haven't supported is some dumbass chaotic society with no coherent daily operations.
Read "The method of Freedom: a Maletesta reader" for more information on what anarchism actually IS before you say you do or dont think you support it.

Anarchist society would work in every aspect other than military bit. That's the only reason I'm ML and not an Anarchist. If some society achieves anarchism then, the next day, America will launch a full frontal attack against it, for freedom and order. It'll not even outlive the Commune

Well do I have a book for you

Attached: Wuxje2i2ifmee.jpg (702x1080, 345.18K)

Senseless murder and robbery is good though, statist.

Cool book grandpa

A new state would arise as you didn't abolish the conditions that gave rise to the state.

Attached: idealism.jpg (468x240, 72.24K)

Fuck off FBI

Lol except violently stop you
What are you smoking

Just implement a state but call it something else.

Attached: makhno_state.png (843x846, 133.4K)

If you think Anarchists implement states then why aren't you pro anarchist?
You're some kinda ML right?

Why do people just descend into outright liberalism to critique anarchism, every single time?

Because I want the social relations and with that the ppower sructures of society to be laid out in the open so that they can be corrected. ML states were not illiberal enough, but the DPRK is on the right track.

Yes, I want to oppress the non-proletarian classes.

Yes, but you don't want to perpetuate them. The bourgeois state sides with the bourgeoisie but it doesn't attempt to liquidate the proletariat. The state's oppression comes in the form of carefully regulated violence mixed with concessions, crafted to maintain a classed status quo. The state acts in the interest of maintaining the stability of the class in the long term, which is why the state does sometimes come into conflict with the bourgeoisie's interests and sides with the working class at times to the great disappointment of individual members of the bourgeoisie and their firms, because oftentimes the attempt to serve capital comes at the cost of stability of the general system.

We don't have anything like that. Our attempt to create regulatory institutions does not act like this, the regulation of our violence is just asking in a purely practical manner how the liquidation the non-working classes may proceed in the most efficient manner. The very sloppy approach to understanding the "state" is something with which I've had a lot of issues with the marxists on this board.

No, your supposed to use state power to abolish class.

I can not do that while hostile states still exist.

What hec

Attached: MDJ_big_brain_alien_thumb.jpg (275x275, 35.57K)

Yes you can. The USSR did it.

Trump supporters and latent Trump supporters would be lined up and the worst of them would be shot and the rest would be sent to Alaska to be re-educated through labour.

go away namefag

hillary pls go

Worker syndicates or federations could seize the plants and decommission them, or put them under the control of the commune or syndicate, regulation of these weapons would be barely any different than that of a state, other than the fact that said state doesn't have the Monopoly on violence, but rather the people do themselves. No one would be as suicidal to unleash hell and start nuking shit, same reasons nation's dont do that now, that would be retarted and not beneficial for either party. Why is the state more trustworthy with these weapons rather than the people? In the end were all humans, and and the state's power is no more legitimate than that of the people, as begs the question 'who watches the watchman?'. It is in nobody's interest to create a nuclear hellscape which is why I think nuclear weapons would either be quickly disabled or safeguarded.