Tfw the only thing you learned from animal farm is that capitalism, communism, and fascism are all stupid and gay

Currently writing a book about a possessed army of an-syndicalists trying to take over a remote an-cap town in Minnesota being used as sociological experiment by the deep state.

>liv ur lyfe and smoke weed and go clubbing
Wow, you're so deep, user.

That sounds interesting. You should post it here when you finish it.

Sounds interesting. I think I will write a book using this premise too. Thanks, user.

what makes me wonder is why none of pigs cared about muh ideology and rejected the stuff like milk and apples and stood up against the other animals rights

What stops a group of people from accumalating resources, organizing themselves and forcing their will upon others?

Resources are collective property, for one. Of course people can organise themselves in the way they want, but this is also true in bourgeois democracy. Each commune has its own associations. The nature of Anarchism as outlined by Bakunin is such that there is no central government within the federation that has precedence over communes, so if one commune agreed to change ideology, it would simply exist as a separate nation or whatever, until Anarchism reasserted itself. It would be of such a nature that newspapers and other media would act as propaganda, and Anarchism would prevail.

Well, my biggest objection to anarchism is that, it simply cannot stand competition. Other systems are much better at subjugating others. Monarchy or a facist state would completly crush any anarchist society, It's not a matter of what's right, it's a matter of strength

>he didn't learn that jews are filthy manipulative pigs

To expand on this - how does anarchist society aquire nuclear weapons? Aircraft carriers? Submarines? Military satelites? Cause without those things, they are a sheep in a world of wolves

>People still buy this meme when Hobbes explained why order and law is necessary in Leviathan

If the proletariat realise Anarchism as the system under which they will prosper [and they are the largest group of people in the world] then they will support the creation of unions and communes, which will build up the Anarchist Federation. I am aware that other systems are much better at subjugating others, the greatest trickster of all being bourgeois democracy. Monarchy and Fascism are not as great a threat as liberalism, because liberalism is the most popular political philosophy in the world. Also, it is a matter of what is right.

Anarchists acquire military weapons by producing them. This would be most likely where a region that already produces military weapons is converted in to a commune.

Do you relise how insanely complex the production of modern military equipment is? Who would work in the uranium mines, risking their health? Who would want want to waste their lives, living in on the submarine board if there is no patriotic propaganda and state sanctioned violence? Who would PAY for those things, when there is no one to enforce, by the physical threat, collection of taxes? it is a matter of strength by definition. Strong can do with the weak as they please, because who can stop them?

If the proletariat do not support bourgeois democracy, they can not build an army any way. The proletariat provide for everything.

Monarchy. Submit yourself to the Crown, OP.

God

They don't provide for the leadership, and that's what funnels the otherwise unorganised activity of people into concrete goal, like the destucion of the neighbouring anarchist state to claim their resources. There is a reason for the non-existence of anarchist societes on the significant scale, you know.

Absolute democracy

Social democratic socialist national capitalism.

At the end of the day these are all just empty filler words. What matters is practical actions.

If everyone in your population is fed, somewhat healthy, not dying from shitty diseases, productive, and hopefully making enough money whatever you are doing is right and should be believed in.

The proletariat in the Anarchist system define their own goals as part of unions. Why would the proletariat become reactionary after gaining the Anarchist system? It is not in their interests.

>There is a reason for the non-existence of anarchist societes on the significant scale, you know.
Intervention on account of Marxists, Fasicsts, & Liberals alike. It is simply a stage of reactionary development. The Jacobins replaced the Monarchy with the bourgeoisie, the Marxists replaced the bourgeoisie with a cabal of bureaucrats, scientists, engineers, and intellectuals, and the Anarchists will remove this completely so that we can live in a world free of classes and hierarchy.

I'm kind of a social darwinist myself, and that's why i'm not really buying this. People are not equally gifted. Some are born handsome, genious and skilled, and most are not. The gifted will always find a way to rise above others, simply beacuse they can. By the very virtue of being 'more' than the others. If you don't take genetic engineering into account, that's the inescapable consequence of human biology

>The gifted will always find a way to rise above others, simply because they can
Or they could invest their powers in the cause of the workers and not toward reaction.

But why would they?

I agree, some people are better than other people. But I think it's a mistake to provide the infrastructure to rule over other people

> If you don't take genetic engineering into account, that's the inescapable consequence of human biology
tbqh I think we should and I don't think any serious attempt at communism could survive without also the rational planning of future generations.

Because it is the right thing to do.

You do realise that's not a very sound argument?

What if letting certain individuals to rule over ourselves is the lesser evil? What if if this system naturaly emerged, because it's more efficient than free-for-all fight for resources?

So material inheritance entails directly off biological inheritance? That's a little too simplistic.

The wealthy and successful do not always yield equally skilled offspring. All wealthy dynasties originated by someone who was not wealthy or otherwise distinguished, and then perpetuate a pattern they themselves innovated.

But the mechanisms of wealth inheritance, which sets some offspring off to a much greater advantage than others, does not directly entail from the robustness of that germ line. Legal, cultural and institutional structures also exist to maintain and facilitate the transfer.

Why would it be? It would seem to me that the littlest evil would be to allow everyone to, more or less, rule themselves.

>What if if this system naturaly emerged, because it's more efficient than free-for-all fight for resources?
Well because as a society we've progressed to a point where a free for all fight for resources is not necessary. We could also have a rationally planned system where we decide what we all need to be comfortable, ensure that this is economically guaranteed, then spend our lives doing our own thing. That would seem to be the most efficient method there is.

If you know of the proletarian's plight, if you know about wage slavery and the ails of capitalism and still wish to uphold that system simply for the sake of your own hedonism, then you are doing the wrong thing. Unless you have no conscience, you must realise this.

True, regression to the mean is a fact, and the offspring of exceptionaly gifted parents is unlikely to fully inherit their skills

Sorry guys, I've became to intoxicated to continue this discussion. i wish you a good day

Planned economies would literally work, the entire argument against them is based on prior underdevelopment of countries that implemented a planned economy, and they all massively increased living standards. Implementing even a form of the USSR economy in the West, with all the calculating power available now to skip over the hurdles, would yield incredible results. Production in the USSR was based on five-year plans to reach ideal goals - today, you can specify how many units every factory produces in a week with ease.
Also, contemporary capitalism has loads of planning in its own way, it is just wildly inefficient and dangerous compared to socialist models.

Read Hayek and get back to me

there's been so much retarded rightwing bullshit on Veeky Forums lately i forgot how stupid leftwing threads are, thanks for reminding me

i was just talking to someone with a union job today and she was talking about the massive amount of money that is taken out of her check to go into her union pension, that seems "ok" until you think about how the pension money goes into some big mutual fund that the union picks in some opaque process and charges massive frees and basically makes some financiers (and the union bureaucrats who pick the fund and get kickbacks) rich, while the worker is powerless to take the money out and put it something with higher returns like pretty much anything including a simple index fund

unions are needed for dangerous jobs to ensure safe conditions, but for anything in an office, no

Hayek's arguments are outdated garbage and he wasn't even subtle about his ideological biases. There is no socialist calculation problem, it has been decisively answered by various economists - notably there has been empirical work by Cockshott and Cottrell in recent times.

How is it outdated? Genuinely curious, as the logic isn't temporal at all. Even if the a distribution mechanism existed that was capable of supplying goods to all needs, there is no mechanism through which need and thus value can be quantified, therefore running into a similar problem of inefficiency that the USSR experienced.

Anarchism is not a possible model in practice (commie anarchism is not real anarchism).
The eventual social entropy will always end in anarchism, so the movement is more of a "we should destroy all our government systems because they are inherently flawed and will fail sooner or later".
t. anarchy pro

Orwell was remained committed to socialism until his death. Arguably anarcho-socialism.

Check it out
> (commie anarchism is not real anarchism).
BOI
Well thank god that enlightened rational centrists have found a way to feel superior to both.

He assumes the existence of monetary exchange, and then shows how that works better in capitalism. The assumptions are totally wrong. Distribution for limited goods in a socialist system is based on vouchers received for labour hours. There is no need for money as we know it, as there is no production for exchange.

Would his criticism the not be more cogent, as the value of a good is reduced to the value of its labor as opposed to its social utility? Not to say that the value of all goods in capitalist society is predicated on its social utility, but capitalism at least allows a mechanism for this determination.

I will, thanks.

What happens when me and my bros form a state and murder you and take your shit?

What if the union leader has guards? You gonna shoot your way through to him?

>Can you recommend a well written defense of how anarchism can work in practice?
>caring about the real world instead of living in mental anarchist utopias

some anarchist assclown tried that with lenin, and the result was stalin took his place who was ten times worse

>anarchism
>professionalized police or military

The anarchists cry about it until they form a state and don't call it a state. If you read the theory, there is no real difference between the Marxist idea of a worker's state and anarchist idea of worker councils defended by militias. The anarchists simply work on a more particular definition of what a state is. In any case, a revolution requires a disciplined military force to defend itself.