Anarchism

Lol, good luck trying to get past cities upon cities of organized workers armies.

>anarchy
>organized

What kind of faggot shit is that

Attached: prettypenny.png (397x627, 398K)

An army was the only form of organization at all, but it was for defense. There were small bands of independents within the territory though

youtu.be/iFsgpH--y0o

I disagree with insurrectionism, I think too much influence rests with the military and theirs no mechanism in place to prevent them from establishing a rule once they liberate the society and the proleteriat. There's accounts of Mahkno's army, and Zapata's army (another insurrectionist anarchist army in Mexico), abusing their power. It's probably largely not true, but there's certainly no mechanism to prevent it in the way that syndicalism does.

no u

Attached: logic.jpg (1312x1410, 355K)

*there's

God you commies are such faggots

If theres a mechanism to prevent military rule, then that implies government/constitution, doesnt that break it from being anarchy?
Also I don't think the system could ever work in the modern world, atleast nowhere in the west, the conditions of the former Russian Empire back then were ideal for such a system to work in practice.
youtube.com/watch?v=h_T7bD4pAlE

lol wut is the dot? sales tax? income tax would be at least a third

which of the 2 is willingly given? nevermind you're clearly autistic

inb4 Mad Max world is perfect anarchist utopia to some

Anarchism theoretically sounds all noble and free, yeah, but you can't kill the State any more than you can kill the human desire for power and control. Unless EVERY person agrees to the anarchy, it will eventually fail. It's workable on a small scale maybe, but not a big country.

Hence such a system only ever came to be in east Ukraine 1918-1921.

Couldn't work for nations bigger then that.
The kind of society to live under such a system would be interesting though.

Anarchy should be madness and chaos, a bunch of degenerates running around doing degenerate shit and murdering until their luck runs out with our only god being war itself. This is my Jow Forums paradise

Attached: A9CE295C-5CA9-4928-BB62-EEF6E80EFD70.jpg (738x1024, 54K)

Anarcho-homicidalism is the only political philosophy that can produce a stable society without exploitation.

Attached: anarchohomicidalism.jpg (309x206, 5K)

good luck defending yourself from an outside state with an army of trained soldiers. And carpet bombings, and drones, and satellite observation, you know, the things that are built by coherent states with hierarchies and chain of authority.

And that is precisely why the Free Territory fell, Bolshevik Red Army was able to surround and raise it to the ground due to lack of organization.

cute flag

The "mechanism" is the preventative, ingrained culture of cooperation and consensus. In the same way that we could operate a society differently from a barbaric organization to a state society, so to can we operate an anarchist society from advances born of historical materialism, change our culture from the submission to a class society, the culture of exploitation and greed from the domination of markets and currency, and replace it with the superior and more desirable culture of anarchism.

lol

Neither, the bourgeoisie and the government commit the crime of wage theft along with the rest of their exploitation because they dictate the conditions of life based on their ownership of private property.

>Unless EVERY person agrees to the anarchy
Then you will effectively have created a constitution. And you'll need people to promote these ideals to new generations to ensure they adhere to it. You'll need people you can trust not to teach a warped view of your constitution that'll deviate from the original plan, so you'll need people to oversee it. In other words you need a government to protect the anarchy. Anarchy isn't a natural state, it can only be artificially manufactured. Power vacuums attract power seekers.

I don't even think most self desribed "anarchist" ideologies are really even that anarchist. In Ancomistan, who enforces the communism? If you sell something for profit and they punish you, that's government. In Anprimistan, same deal. If the group punishes you for having technology that's rules, and government. I think it only is "anarchy" in theory but in real life I see it reverting back to statism. That leaves anarchy without adjectives but I don't know how everyone will agree on how the society would function, let alone peacefully. That's why I said I think only on a small scale. A small community agreeing is easier than a nation agreeing.

How do you promote this culture? How do you get people to adopt it? How do you ensure people adopt these attitudes?

Yeah, I was kind of trying to hint at that. Anarchists might try to dress it up as something like a voluntary, non governmental agreement but it's really just a set of rules. A shit still smells like a shit if you put sprinkles on it.

That's a great point. In movies the "maverick soldier who defies orders but gets results" trope sounds cool, but armies that have strict discipline and planning are better. It's just damn efficient.

>Anprimistan
Anarcho-primitivism if taken to it's logical conclusion would be the most fascistic, authoritarian rule the world has ever seen. You can't survive as a primitive tribe next to modern civilisation, so you'd have to destroy all civilisation surrounding you to ensure your survival. Then outside nations would be a threat, so eventually you'd have to create a world wide authoritarian force who's sole aim would be destruction of all civilisation.

Yeah, I don't know why it's called "anarcho" primitivism because if the tribe decides you can't use technology they made rules. You know, the thing governments do. Just don't call it a government! Probably the dumbest ideology I've ever heard of.

>organized workers armies.
By organised I assume you mean regimenting your workers to follow orders , listen to people of a higher rank. I mean, if they don't and everyone is doing whatever they think is best and not following a battle plan, you'll be wiped out right?

How can anarchism be a good idea if anarchism can't even defend anarchism?
You need to abandon your principles, follow a leadership and recognise authority based on one's merits, or rather, recognise their higher status based on not being equal to the rest of the commune.

It only ever came to practice in Ukraine during Russian Civil war times because of how desperate matters were, it'd take similar conditions for people to willingly go along with such a cause

BTFO

The unavoidable desire for power and control, a will to power, if you will, (no pun intended), can be directed culturally. It's success doesn't require the agreement of every person involved, people are free to leave if they disagree with the consensus of the rest of the group, and there would still be crime, although significantly lessened , and of course without the crime of oppression or mass coercion. What we're proposing is a superior structure, not a perfect heaven.

If an anarchist society reverts back to a government society, then it can be tried again until one can be preserved. Governments do this all the time, same thing with this form of organization.

Anarchism would be easily possible with the internet.

A praxis would be necessary to initiate and defend itself, like any other war. Technology would be liberated in anarchism due to the increased participation of the population in endevours due to the elimination of manufacturing. Military technology would be significantly more advanced and, obviously, an anarchist military and society would have to find ways of defending itself from oppressors. It;s the politicians and their supporters that should have fear of an anarchist military.

Don't wish me good luck, I don't agree with morality.

*for educational purposes only

It seems like its completely dysfunctional by design. It'd work for a tiny commune but itd take one well disciplined group of people to even last, since human desire for power is natural. How would one even prevent another from taking power without themselves having power.

the internet isnt a country lol

>So what really are your thoughts on Anarchism
Useless ideology that will never come to fruition. The existence of the State is tied inherently to the human conscious, because hierarchy is natural order that can't be thrown away without serious psychological trouble. The only variable is how much State should exist
>both what you see larpers carrying out in the streets at riots
Thugs, round them up and do what you will
>but also more so specifically the actual practice of Anarchism that briefly existed in Ukraine during the Russian civil war
The same happened in the Spanish Civil War, some Anarchists tried to do shit and the commies dabbed on them. Anarchism is a meme ideology doomed to failure

The Zapatistas adopted a hierarchical military structure to their society once they started getting attacked be a state. Once again, they couldn't defend anarchism with anarchism. As much as you attack the bourgeoisie, subcomandante Marcos was a bourgie sociology student. He wasn't even mayan, and he was appointed leader for a time. Once again the descendants of the colonisers bossing around the indigenous indios. Delegate Zero's success had a lot to do with white privilege in Mexican society, especially in it's poorest state, Chiapas

The Zapatistas also get lots of funding from international leftists living in capitalist countries. They didn't eradicate capitalism, they're just outsourcing it.

>Military technology would be significantly more advanced
That is such an asinine statement it's hard to find the will to address it. America spends over half a trillion on it's millitary every year, billions and billions go into research and development, hiring the brightest minds and most talented people of their fields from across the globe. How the fuck can a ragtag group of worker with loosely shared principles in any way compete with that? Or the planned economy and strictly hierarchical society of the Chinese?

If people disagree on how the anarchist system would be run, how do you guarantee they'll just up and leave willingly and peacefully? Many wars have been fought over how a country should be governed, like the Spanish Civil War, Russian Revolution or Vietnam War. People don't have a track record of just leaving peacefully. Also, the consensus of the group sounds like law by another name, like I said in .

Only statist cucks aren't anarchist.

>Starves because no self-respectijg farmer would ever vote to be collectively governed when he can not only be subsidized by a state, but also gain profit from the capitalist.
Oof, another one for agrarian anti-industrial worker societies.

>Don't wish me good luck, I don't agree with morality.
wait...what the fuck was that supposed to mean? What has luck got to do with morality? Luck is the fortune of having pure chance turn in your favour. Luck isn't a moral virtue. What are you talking about?

>which of the 2 is willingly given
>guy raped from both ends only protests to the blowjob

>what is anarcho-federalism

better than communism so its got that going for it

He probably found it on tumblr and thought it sounded deep.
If he only protests one the other is voluntary. You voluntarily agree to a contract with your employer so it's more like consensual sex than rape. If you didn't agree then it's theft.
Don't know but you rolled trips!

I'd rather live under anarchism than communism but they're similar in that their supporers like the idea but they can't be implemented in real life. I don't even think communism even THEORETICALLY sounds like a good idea though.

>You voluntarily agree to a contract with your employer so it's more like consensual sex than rape.
>Have sex with me or starve to death
>consensual
This is why the right deserves to lose.

there must be something appealing about communism, it keeps duping peoples time and time again
wasn't the wild west a form of anarchism?

I think a more accurate term of what i support is voluntarism as opposed to anarchy. I just think that all interactions between human being should be voluntary and people can then go and create their own voluntary societies ranging from communes to fascist states to ancapistan.

Sheriffs and Police existed in the wild west, thats enough to disqualify it from being true anarchy.
Again it can't work in practice at all.

>So what really are your thoughts on Anarchism?
Anarchism is a mainstream trend used by the establishment / elites in order to take away focus from political and economic issues.

Attached: 1543818880589.jpg (500x373, 38K)

It is the last call of a dying civilization that now requires blood to sustain itself. Anarchism is against constructive life and is thus the antithesis to creation. It is rested solely on chaos. "Freedom", limitless freedom that is, is just chaos. Inhibitions, codes, honor, and duty are all aspects of an ordered structure to life. These Anarchists typically resort to mass killings anyways.

Any nation under it would be incredibly vulnerable to the outside unless an army existed to protect the inside, which would imply law.

Why Somalia is considered Anarchist paradise.

The appealing part of communism is that it tells you that you get to rob your neighbor for having a bigger house than you, and that you're entitled to free stuff for no work. It appeals to people's laziness and envy. Also the Wild West had sheriffs. It got tamed pretty quickly by the more civilized East too.

well then no one needs to work hard... just need to steal from people then society becomes russia

Citizens self organising to provide infrastructure.
Yeah that'll happen. Lazy self interest says otherwise.

A desperate society may do so, one pushed off the brink, any other society wouldn't pick this up and go with it.

Starvation isn't the fault of any political or economic system. People always have to work for food. In a state of nature, if you don't farm or hunt you starve. You could hardly be said to be a slave to nature.

A civilization can't thrive as a disorganized mess, so unless you want to do as Uncle Ted wants us to do, then I would suggest having a strong government

Also in capitalism no one is actually stopping you from hunting or farming by yourself for food so you don't have to work for anyone else if you don't consent to it. You could even be a farmer and sell the excess crops for money.

The anarchist society would federate itself within industry and could draft a constitution without a government.

Reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries are an unfortunate part of any revolution, but the "power" of decision making amongst the anarchists themselves is shifted from a ruling class to a voluntary federation, so at least they wouldn't have the problem of a sudden shift of power relations. It wouldn't be like the shift from monarchies and aristocracies to secular republics, where the people still ceded their decision-making ability to ruling bodies or mob rule, and the exploitation that came from that lack of accountability, the people would be in control of the conditions of societal life every step of the revolution, which anarchism requires. There isn't a sudden, uncontrollable shift from one system to another within the anarchist society.

An individual can promote the revolution, teach oneself self-discipline, and an anarchist society would have a way of giving credibility to individuals and other groups. It would require dedicated revolutionaries to enlighten the people and convince them to join the movement.

A syndicalist federation would undoubtedly adopt a command structure for its military.

There's clearly a difference between adopting a command structure in a military, being the only way to certainly achieve military objectives, and adopting a command structure in society, since it's, in fact, a less efficient way of achieving societal objectives, due to the way information travels through hierarchies, etc. The military would be imbued with the spirit and practicality of anarchist liberation, so perhaps command would only be accepted during battle or from a practical, applicable program.

The advancement of technology and AI is a precondition that could rally the people.

The internet could be used to link affinity groups, regardless of geographical location.

And in the system of capitalism workers are slaves to their employer under threat of starvation.

>Also in capitalism no one is actually stopping you from hunting or farming by yourself for food so you don't have to work for anyone else if you don't consent to it. You could even be a farmer and sell the excess crops for money.
That's fucking retarded bullshit, you're a cuck and a shill.

>And in the system of capitalism workers are slaves to their employer under threat of starvation.
you could farm

The point of a constitution is to outline the powers of a government. And a formal military is a part of the State. Also, can you explain the difference between "voluntary federation" and direct democracy?

>thats fucking retarded bullshit, you're a cuck and a shill
Ad hominem. You actually need to explain WHY it's retarded if you want to make an argument.

You don't sound like you read what I said. Read it again and try to refute it if you want to have a debate.

muh retard scapegoat card

The use of a voluntary federation and not a government to form the military structure, and having it beholden to the society is anarchism. A temporary command arising from the practical needs of battle isn't a government in itself. The Zapatistas don't consider themselves anarchists, btw. The Zapatistas should make an effort to make themselves self-sufficient, I don't understand why they don't, and it's why I'm wary of their legitimacy and supporting them. I don't even know if they're CIA of not desu.

I agree racism is still a problem even in anarchist societies. They'd have to arise above the indoctrination of state societies in that aspect as well.

An anarchist military would have to find a way to defend itself, the fear lies in the corruption of the class society, not the problems of the anarchists.

I'm talking about the word "good". I don't agree with Jewish morality.

Anarchism hasn't even existed that long, it's been around only for a couple hundred years. It's a very recent ideology. As far I know, no major civilizations have collapsed since it's discovery, so that's a fantastical statement. It's possible evidence of a pre-European conception of anarchism was destroyed, however. So there's some grounding for that fantasy. There's no grounding for the previous one, however.

Attached: doomer.png (1200x1200, 347K)

>slavery to serfdom
Wow, first class upgrade.

>People always have to work for food.
That's not true you fucking moron, less than half of Americans are employed.

>you don't have to work for anyone else if you don't consent to it
You literally do or you will die.

>hur dur I shill on behalf of corporations for free because I'm so eager for everyone I know to be bombarded with commercials in between the soulless extraction of their utility
>lifetimes and lifetimes of toiling monotony all for the purpose of materialist consumerism
FUCKING KILL YOURSELF

It's a misnomer to call an anarchist military structure as a "command", it'd be more of a directive.

The unemployment rate is 4%. That means 96% of Americans have a job. That's way bigger than half, dumbass. Did you fail math? Also, I didn't mean that people have always had to do labor for a corporation to eat. I meant that people have always had to do something for food, like huntring or farming. If you do literally nothing, in a state of nature, you'll starve. Also there comes the "anything I don't like is a shill" shit, which is just ad hominem. Maybe you should follow your own advice about killing yourself. Goodbye faggot!

>The unemployment rate is 4%. That means 96% of Americans have a job. That's way bigger than half, dumbass. Did you fail math?
Obvious bait from faggot pretending not to know the difference between the unemployment rate and labor force participation rate.

> I meant that people have always had to do something for food, like huntring or farming.
No shit and now everyone is forced to be a slave to some shit-eating job.

>If you do literally nothing, in a state of nature, you'll starve.
Therefore anarchism with decentralized monetary policy through blockchain is superior.

Attached: 1521676835927.jpg (450x450, 26K)

Moscow time 1:05 PM
War mongering has begun on state tv: ontvtime.ru/live/russia1.html

My brand of anarchism.

Attached: 1543848841139.png (500x300, 1K)

who let you in?

>surrender flag

Anarchists can't tell me how anything practical works in their ideal society. It's fucking stupid. How do you even buy and claim a piece of property for a house? Such controlled opp. But if you argue for a simple system like the founding fathers, their anarchists scream "you're a statist you're a statist". I hate anarchist trolls

Gangs will form quite quickly, and have their territories.
It's inevitable that some kind of organisation within will form and make a create a type of goverment.

I'd rather push for a goverment like the early american days. It should only do the minimum and not more.

>What are your overall thoughts and opinions on it?

OBEY THE FUCKING BORDERS!
It's really that simple. Any policy that involve redrawing of existing borders should be treated as land-grabbing aka: an invasion.

>An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering; liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory; forcing the partition of a country; altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government; or a combination thereof.

Attached: sa.jpg (1280x720, 76K)

It is degenerate and people who promote it should be put in insane asylums.

A directive is a form of a suggestion. Obviously, it's one that a soldiers would want to listen to during war.

this. we had similar problem with serbitches. ukraine is facing a superpower

Thinking that there would exist enough individuals motivated to give their life to protect the freedom of others is beyond naive. Why would anyone follow orders in the case of an invasion?

Anarchy much like communism is based on the assumption that all people are inherently benevolent and selfless. But in reality nature has made sure that individual survival trumps all other urges.

Just to add: always reefer the history.