Anarchist writings

You need to read Marx in order to properly understand why anarchism is garbage.

Any text on anarcho-syndicalism specifically?

While syndicalism is kinda dead, you could start with this: theanarchistlibrary.org/library/rudolf-rocker-anarchosyndicalism

Only Hoppe and Stephenson are worth reading.

>read the bread book, it explains how an anarchist society would function
It's literally "and people would do this and not the things that would destroy the whole social system because magic" x 20. Every single time he pretends to raise an objection against his own ideas he then answers it with "oh no, that wouldn't happen, I'm sure of it! That only happens under evil capitalism". Want any evidence of that being true? Tough luck, he doesn't have any.

I know nothing about anarachism. Can someone explain to me how anyone with the faintest idea of how ABSOLUTELY SHIT-TIER human beings are as a whole could advocate for a society with no government?

see You know why leftists get so mad at "human nature" comments? Because they don't have any actual substantive answer to it. They just say "under communism people are not going to be shitty".

I don't understand how people throughout history could write so much and so well and with such conviction about such an idiotic idea. A five year old would know anarchism is retarded.

If you work under a blank-slate theory of humans then they make perfect sense: just change the environment and people are going to completely change in every aspect of their being. People who wrote those books, like Marx or Kropotkin, were basically working in that framework.
Leftists who didn't and don't believe in blank slate theories think more on the line of "well, really shitty people are not that many so they can't bring down society".

It is more like if power were distributed more equitably then shittyness would have less influence on the working of society

I wasn't talking about the shitty people above.

Well whether above or below there exists power imbalances between people it is in the nature of competition that there are winners and losers, ideally in an anarchist society the competitive aspects of human nature would be deemphasized and the cooperative aspects would be emphasized; also people would be less able to make use of their greed.

anarchism is just about not taking responsibility and blaming other, prove me wrong

>Well whether above or below there exists power imbalances between people it is in the nature of competition that there are winners and losers
Power imbalances aren't just the result of any overt competition, they're simply what results from having a population that isn't made of identical beings. Covetousness doesn't stop existing just because differences in wealth stop existing.
Also, greed isn't the only issue. Laziness, egotism, arrogance...

One would have to take more responsibility in the absence of a state prove me wrong.

>It is more like if power were distributed more equitably then shittyness would have less influence on the working of society
why would you distribute power equitably? would you like retards running the water supply system? once you don't respect hierarchy, you have no values to judge anything, everybody can be equally only when everything is valued the same, which means destroying any kind of functioning system that is based on anything being desirable/repulsive, which is basically active nihilism

>why would you distribute power equitably?
I wouldn't, I'm talking from the perspective of a leftist.

even without a state, as long as humans are not equal automatons there will be differences among them, and in any world there will be desirable things to accomplish, in which case an spontaneous hierarchy will be formed with the most capable people at the top, which will function as a proto-state

from there actual states can be avoided as long as you keep the group small enough, i'd say in the 100-200 people, anything bigger will need more rigid structures as personal relationships won't be enough to keep a cohesive group

>from there actual states can be avoided as long as you keep the group small enough
Which is unlikely to happen for the same reason agricultural societies crush hunter gatherers.

I agree that people are not identical but there are many differences which currently arise out of circumstances which could be mitigated through a justly ordered society. Other more innate differences would be respected for what they are and not singled out for privilege as they are now which i think is a consequence of the division of labor which is unnecessary if the consumerist/mass produced culture changes to a conservationist/artisanal society. The problem of laziness is difficult for me to suss out i dont know enough about it desu.

Your hierarchies are completely arbitrary. It is possible for a mentally challenged person to contribute to their society; and their contributions should be valued.

yes, which is explained in the cain and abel story

are you retarded? being at the bottom of the hierarchy doesn't mean not being valued, the whole of the hierarchy is necessary

Well i dont understand why the hierarchy is necessary. It does not necessarily uphold a system of values. I would say it distorts any dynamic empirical value since it assumes so much as given.

What you guys often don't understand is that the more you make the environment unequal the more stratified society actually ends up getting because at that point only genetic differences are going to matter to any significant point and those are going to be inherited by the children of those people.
>and not singled out for privilege
This sounds to me like "a doctor and a cashier should earn the same amount of things" which I don't see how it's just.

Gustav Landauer is an interesting author. A blend of german romanticism, jewish mysticism and socialism.

Hierarchy automatically forms, it's not a matter of it being necessary or not. The moment some people are better than other is the moment implicit hierarchies are going to occur. As soon as you try to make the system efficient, the implicit hierarchy is going to become explicit.