Bakunin was a hypocritical dipshit

Anarchism is for fucking kids.

Attached: baku00.png (500x649, 334.38K)

Other urls found in this thread:

Everyone with a brain knows Bakunin was a crypto-fascist who didn’t understand Marxism and got BTFO time and time again
Bakunin was talking about an invisible network of revolutionaries spreading class consciousness with no special power or privlidges and a system of class rule by the workers, not a secret cabal controlling society. I guess research is counter-revolutionary and revisionist.

Attached: 8cef6580a8a0843c737dc01642edbde2f9c43ee857bd289633774dc0e4c7d109.png (730x227, 15.12K)

Anarchism is utopian either way, thus shit

How're you gonna achieve an anarchist society without having any sort of organization that will be able to fend off the military power of the capitalists? Catalonia got fucked because they were idealists.

Anarchism is a clear break from the utopian socialists since Bakunin, if you're using that as an argument you've got a liberal tier understanding of utopianism.

No social anarchists have said that they're going to immediately lay down arms and completely abandon organization after seizing territory. Stop getting all your knowledge from memes.
Anarchism isn't idealist unless you're using a boomer tier definition, Catalonia got fucked because they were significantly outgunned by Franco's forces who received aid from Italy and Germany while retaining the bulk of Spain's military. Why supposed materialists are unable to understand that ideology doesn't determine military success is baffling.

Attached: bbcf6ea43e9f3b32b10fdb2505e0050b2c48e162509ad9634f36433400a0b942.png (1428x1510, 580.44K)

Maybe I misused the word “utopian”, who knows. Of course we share the same fundamental goal as you in abolishing the state and issuing in a classless, stateless society, but I just don’t think anarchists have the best way to go about. If the bourgeoisie is overthrown and their organ of class rule / state is destroyed, what do we do then – just lay down arms and begin living in a stateless society? I think that is unfeasible. A state is needed to needed to stop counterrevolution and fight against the bourgeoisie, whose resistance will likely grow more determined with their overthrow. The best way to fight this is to organize the proletariat as the ruling class and not let them destroy the revolution

Listen brainlet, I'm not even an anarchist but I know enough about it to at least make a coherent criticism of it. You really think anarchists just overthrow the state, and that's it? Unless you're some memetier post-leftist, anarchist do believe in having organizations of a political, economic, and military nature. These organizations are just formed differently from a traditional beucratic top-down organization like a state. Read a book m8

Statists in all but name

Brainlet opinion

Thanks, liberal

Any reading suggestions? I’m not trying to seem like a brainlet but it appears I might have some fundamental misconceptions about anarchism. I’ve only read Kropotkin’s Conquest of Bread

read Murray Bookchin

Should I start with the Reader first or is there a defining book of his which you’d recommend?

The Next Revolution and Social Ecology and Communalism are the best intros to his ideas

Attached: 14264105_143302916123882_728993539593802303_n.jpg (960x960, 101.27K)

Thank you, user. I’ll try to debrainlet myself on anarchism

If debrainleting yourself is the goal, Bookchin is the last place you should be looking. Read everything of Marx you haven't so far, take notes, come to a coherent understanding, then read the bread book equally thoroughly. Bookchin is utopian bullshit, even by anarchist standards.

Read the discussion between Mahkno and Malatesta on the Platform to have a better idea of what organization anarchists intend. The go through the various thinkers such as Bakunin, Kroptokin, or Malatesta(underrated tbh). Bookchin is meh imo, it's largely just ancom with a fetish for ecology and municipal politics but for whatever reason he inspires devotion or butthurt among most posters. Most importantly read the works themselves instead of relying on memes or the interpretations of others.

I’ve admittedly only been reading theory since early this year, so I definitely can expand my knowledge in all areas. I liked the bread book and thought he had a lot of good points, though I kinda disagree with his view that states are inherently unjust and oppressive. He also seemed to have some sort of view that the state was an upholder of capitalism, which I found a bit dubious. Either way, I should definitely try to read it again and check out his book on mutual aid.

Is this it? I’ll be sure to give it a read
Admittedly most of my understanding of anarchism so far comes from passages in State and Revolution, Engel’s On Authority and Marx’s Conspectus of Bakunin’s Statism and Anarchy and not from anarchists themselves. I need to fix that, I guess.

The only reason I have any interest in Bookchin is mainly due to Rojava and Öcalan. Thanks for all the suggestions though, comrades

The bread book is more historical than Mutual Aid and was mainly written so revolutionaries of that period had the knowledge of how to feed themselves. The view on the state is similar to Marx and some Marxists, in that the state as an organ of class repression is necessary for capitalism and other hierarchical systems to function. I would say this is undeniably true, as the state is the method in which capitalists protect property.
yeah but there's another section from Malatesta where he accepts the Platform, from 1930 I believe. The works are very short and show what social Anarchists think about organization and some of what Makhno learned from the free territory.
That's a poor understanding tbh. By all means read critiques of anarchism or polemics against anarchists, but it's a shit idea to base your knowledge on such without reading primary sources from anarchists and their replies to critics. Something to keep in mind is that terminology isn't universal between tendencies, and that anarchists don't necessarily mean the same thing as marxists by "state" or "authority/authoritarian" hence the semantic squabbling such as in On Authority.

Attached: offeelsandfrogs.jpg (566x720, 68.67K)

Yeah I won’t deny that. The main reason I’ve read only those was due to the Marx / Engels reader I’ve been using and not necessarily any unwillingness on my part to learn about anarchism. Anyway, like I said I’ll definitely check out what you suggested over the next few days.
I actually agree with you here. I should’ve added in my original post that of course a state is repressive by nature, whether it is of one class character or another. But for a dictatorship of the proletariat I’d argue such repression is obviously justified against the capitalists, as you’d likely agree to some degree (if you briefly accept the state for the purpose of the argument). The real problems I see with the DOTP is how this withering away actually occurs and how to keep it from turning into a bureaucratic nightmare like I’ve often heard the USSR turned into it. This could just be a result of my lack of knowledge of theory, being a bit of a theory newfag

good post.
the bread book is on my to-read list.

Correct if I'm wrong, but I'm sure Catalonia fended off fascists in a civil war and then finally lost because of Hitler's forces.

They've lost because of the Republican government disarmed anarchist militias and introduced legalization against the anarchist organizations. Even as the last lines of Republican forces fell the Soviet press was celebrating the government's anti-anarchist stance instead of mourning their own defeat from the fascists.

Makes me laugh every time this happens to anarchist "revolutions" (which is a lot unfortunately.) It's not really ironic. Maybe "poetic" would be the right word to use.

Attached: 1530504648310.png (329x306, 80.34K)

t. Never read a bookchin

The German Ideology:
Critique of the Goatse Programme:

2 posts in (Not counting OP) and the thread already devolved into garbage.

Truly one of the worst threads on the board, instead of reading we should be talking about playing autistic vidya or our favorite reactionaries.

Attached: Centrism.jpg (500x394, 42.97K)

Reposting relevant post from another thread:

Why would you assume said user is a tankie, leftcoms and trots are hardly fans of Bakunin

Attached: 5ce7e741246e4080fe708b0c714d4379ebe8e1a0b97f5e159b2be3c6e2c793fb.jpg (500x679, 37.14K)

Trots barely exist on this board, and the same thread was posted on Zig Forums which has purged most leftcoms.

Have you even read gotha programme? He hardly goes into any details about "how communism will be"

Yeah it's so vague that he can clearly split it into two stages.

It’s still vague because Marx doesn’t know 100% what communism will look like beyond the basics and neither does anyone on this planet. Creating two stages of development (the lower and higher) is not filling in every detail. The lower phase is what immediately emerges from our current capitalist society and thus bears the birthmarks of it. Capitalism didn’t develop into what it is today overnight, it slowly emerged from feudalism. Today there are basically no remnants of feudalism remaining but in the past there were, mixed in with more or less developed capitalist states. Is it wrong to presuppose this for the development of communism? The only thing Marx posits is that the state will wither away due to the disappearance of classes and that bourgeois right will be transcended in time in favor of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. He doesn’t lay out much more, Marx wasn’t a utopian

Feudalism wasn't "lower stage capitalism". It was a very different mode of production and had a distinct class structure. Likening that to Marx's half-assed lower/higher stage communism distinction is just laughable. Let's be honest, he just made that shit up to appeal to the Blanquists, because despite all his great theoretical contributions at the end of the day he was still an aspiring specialist of power.

Nice reading comprehension

I'll repeat it so you can understand it: there was no lower stage capitalism you stupid fuck.


Attached: EA563985-EB36-4404-80A9-DE3D93D69CEF.jpeg (480x563, 145.86K)

Are you a retard? Sure looks like it. Do you think communes are lower stage communism? Squats? Coops? Looting a supermarket and having a picnic? Smiling at a stranger on the bus? But where are the labour vouchers?!

Attached: mpv-shot0005.jpg (1280x720, 136.41K)

Read a book

Wow ran out of """"arguments"""" already?

Attached: 8e962d029c7763e5dc7c0cfde77e38655d454080ee14cd559798362f2eddf5c4.png (1214x1109, 901.31K)


How would an anarchist launch a revolution?

Organize proles and lumpens to start conducting asymmetric warfare while seizing territory.

Ok and who would do the organizing. How would the organization make sure that the best people possible were in charge. Conducting "asymmetric warfare" is quite serious thing to do and failure means lost lives

The people.
By not falling into a situation where poor leaders are unaccountable on unremoveable.

you have a group of people who want to set this shit up decide what needs to be done just by planning things out and set up a network of positions and roles and then find people who can fill these roles

anarchism doesn't mean you just do lolwhatever

So a vanguard party?

Not exactly, though Lenin was accused of Anarchism for a reason. Essentially the anarchist affinity group is an organic organization from the proletariat as material conditions start radicalizing people. To tie this into the OP, it is essentially the "Invisible Dictatorship/Network" where after educating and agitating the working class you see workers start to organize. These can be anything from labor unions to something more militant, it's vague because the conditions people find themselves in vary and what works in one situation will not work in another and attempting to transplant tactics might not work out. The differences between this and the vanguard party is that the vanguard party typically takes the shape of political participation which anarchists reject and that, the vanguard party(or most interpretations of it) are prefigurated while the anarchist affinity group is not, and that the anarchist affinity groups don't necessarily see themselves as the leaders of the revolution.

Holy shit how many times are you going to keep posting this .png as a substitute for an argument.

Until you retards wise up enough to make it unnecessary.

Attached: 8cef6580a8a0843c737dc01642edbde2f9c43ee857bd289633774dc0e4c7d109.png (730x227, 15.12K)

If you simply made a post saying 'Marxists don't read, anarchists do' with no other sources or logical arguments nobody would take you seriously. Having an image say the same thing for you isn't any less embarrassing. You are an embarrassment to anarchism.

In the post you replied to I gave two primary sources from Bakunin and an explanation that he meant something different by "invisible dictatorship" than OP or the article from OP suggested. You're the one who sperged out about an image instead of addressing any argument made itt. If bothering to read literature and correct those whose knowledge of anarchism stems from r/fullcommunism memes or trot articles is embarrassing to you, then I have to question your standards and sanity.

Attached: 2f7e232e0775dff575341e3713bb54563d48d1cee1e5724c5c1e48394f9bc29a.jpg (1007x605, 185.91K)

Unrelated to my posts.
Yeah because it lowers the quality of discussion. People like you are the reason 'Xists don't read' is frequently used in-place of detailed arguments. I refuse to be ridiculed just because I take socialism seriously and refuse to tear it's discussion down to the level of petty insults and lazy, unsourced statements.
If I was interesting in attacking your source or the arguments made in your post, I would have.

So rather than contribute to the discussion you decided to bump this thread to wag your finger because a meme on an imageboard upset you? You've got no room to talk on embarrassment or lowering the quality of discussion.

Attached: fd226537d244cf0f5f82c19fe0a5a81d6219976bb2778d0c8ca912effe5361c1.jpg (330x258, 16.5K)

Tankies, everyone.

Well, in their defence, tankies are not really Marxists.


Legendary debate skills, truly.

Just pointing out OP's non-sequitur.

Calling the image a meme isn't going to help you save face. Anyone who posts false or misleading information deserves to be ridiculed. Thanks for (practically) admitting your defeat.

he was funny because he pissed off a lot of pro-semitic leftists