What is Veeky Forums opinion on Anarcho-Primitivism?

this

>anarcho-capitalism

>Implying an-syn isn't babbys first ideology

meme for bored decadent people

anarchism is basically as viable as abolishing gravity and anarcho-primitivism is the dumbest faggot shit of them all

Autism incarnate

Pic related, only minus showers.

"Anarcho-"capitalism is fascism minus the state, and is categorically not anarchist. That is the green anarchist and veganarchist flag, not the anarcho-troglodyte one. The red and black is the flag of anarcho-communism; syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism are merely praxes, not strictly ideological tendencies or theories.

Anarcho-troglodytism is a neo-Luddite death cult that makes anarcho-greenies look bad. They are an ideological and philosophical dead end that is perhaps the most reactionary position one could possibly take. Why people consider it a part of the radical left and not the apotheosis of right-wing reaction is truly baffling to me.

t. transhumanist veganarcho-communist

How would autists survive without Veeky Forums?

>Capitalism
>Fascism

Capitalism is latent fascism and fascism is capitalism in decay. The tenets and principles which inform fascism are latent and underlying characteristics of capitalism as a system; fascism is merely the full expression and apotheosis of capitalism. Don't believe me? Ask any liberal (read: adherent of liberalism, the ideology of capitalism) whether they believe hierarchy is necessary and good for society, and whether classes should exist and collaborate with each other in a symbiotic way. Most will agree, and what they are agreeing to is class collaboration, a core tenet of fascist thought.

>these memes
Fascism is about mixed economy. Basically authoritarian Keynesianism.

red and black is the flag of the CNT u idiot
other than that pretty good post but luddites didn't just hate technology they broke machines so that they didn't lose their jobs

>Actually being this clueless as to what Fascism is

Read The Doctrine of Fascism by Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile

>anarchism
>ever

>Capitalism is latent fascism
but capitalism is older than fascism

I don't use memes.

Fascism is the stopgap of capitalism, a means by which the bourgeoisie can co-opt radical sentiments for the purposes of upholding private property and bourgeois productive relations. Social democracy has indeed been argued as "social fascism" by some radical leftists (myself included), but fascism is hardly Keynesian economically. The exact organization of a fascist economy is secondary to achieving the function of the fascist regime: upholding the capitalist mode of production and crushing opposition thereof. That is why the economies of Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain, and Hitler's Germany did not operate in identical ways. All three nevertheless served there purpose of protecting capitalism from a potential communist revolution.

The CNT was ancom in theory and ansyn in practice. I know where the flag originates from, but that doesn't affect my statements. That flag now represents ancom and ansyn in general among the radical left.

"Luddite" is a general term in contemporary vernacular for militant technophobes who hold reactionary views toward technology and society as it relates to technology. I was using it in that capacity, not in any strictly historical sense.

I fully understand what fascism is. I have to; fascism is an exigent threat to everything I value and support. Instead of simply stating that I don't understand fascism, how about you tell me how and where I am incorrect?

>death cult
plz explain?

Of course it is, but the principles and tenets of fascism originated from the latent qualities and inherent characteristics already present in capitalism. Despite the ridiculous notion that fascism is a "third way" political position, the entire foundation of fascist thought is utterly bourgeois.

the use of the "neo-" prefix implies that it's used in a historical sense tho

>country wants to protect itself and its citizens against communist disorder and anarchy
>"baaah those evil capitalists, fucking bourgeoisie"

If anything the Fascists did Socialists a favor by installing certain social policies without ruining the economy.

>threat to everything I value and support
and that is?

anarchy is order, property is theft and cups are useful because they're empty

gay rights and refugees

Where you are incorrect is everything you said about Fascism.

How you are incorrect is that none of that is what Fascists want.

Fascism has nothing to do with capitalism. Fascism is about the nation and the state. Everything else is just a means to make the nation strong. When considering any policy, Fascists ask "What works best?"

Fascists were originally former military and socialists who were tired of the retards that infected the socialist movement and wanted real action that mattered.

Read The Doctrine of Fascism, the book that literally defines what Fascism is about, written by the Fascists Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile.

anarchy could only work with small communities, but small communities can't maintain an industrial society. so if we want to achive anarchy, we need to sacrifice technology.

of course, this would only work until
a. some of the small communities would decide to fuck anarchism, expand and found cities, start large-scale farming, resurrect some technologies create armies and conquer the anarchist communities who would be unable to defend themselves.
b. a neighbouring state would roll in with their modern army.

>Implying our capitalist society don't accept gays
>Implying free immigration dosen't only work in a super-capitalist society

While homosexuals were discriminated against in Fascist Italy, that was nothing abnormal given the time period. This was true in both the United States and the Soviet Union as well.

The actual ideology of Fascism doesn't really necessitate the persecution of homosexuals.

As for immigrants, Fascists care more about national identity than ethnicity. If the nation is what you call home, then I don't see how Fascism is a problem for you.

Then why do leftists advocate for refugees and gays? Why would leftists support capitalism?

their to dumb to understand that only the capitalist globalist elites and corporations gain anything from free immigration

One of the logical consequences implicit in anarcho-troglodyte thought, which some of them will admit, is that the vast majority of the human population will have to die. Technological developments like agriculture 10,000 years ago is which provided the foundation upon which civilization could occur. It is those same technologies which allow us to have such a high global population. Anarcho-troglodytes understand this and oppose agriculture and other such technologies precisely because they are the foundation upon which civilization rests. Without those technologies, we wouldn't be able to support the majority of the human population, so upwards of 70%—on the order of magnitude of billions—would probably have to die some way or another. The rest would undergo a process of "rewilding" and proceed to abandon or deconstruct all marks of human civilization (cities, roads, infrastructure, etc.).

Although I doubt many anarcho-troglodytes would admit it, I wouldn't be surprised if a significant portion of them secretly support Posadist-tier apocalyptic scenarios like global thermonuclear war to drastically cut back the global human population. They may not outright advocate for it, but their entire ideology is premised on a massive reduction of the human population.

I suppose so. In any case, I was referring to the neo-Luddite trend, which includes anarcho-troglodytes: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Luddism

>extremely militant imperialism and adventurism
>"we jus wanna protect ourselves, we dindu nuffin"
Do you have a serious response, or just low-quality shitposting.

Generally, my class interests as a member of the global proletariat and my radical leftist beliefs and goals. There are far too many to enumerate in any exhaustive capacity.

Yeah going back to the way of our ancestors.... killing neighbouring tribes because food, women shortages etc.

Not to mention forgetting every enlightened notion and reverting to paganism including frequent human sacrificing like pretty much every pagan early iron age tribe in greater Europe.

A great idea obviously.

Fucking bored richboys.

>the vast majority of the human population will have to die.
why is that bad? The end justifies the means

Jesus fucking Christ.

Why are anarchists so retarded?

If anyone identifies as an anarcho-whateverthefuck, be ready to be appalled at the sight of the deepest, darkest pit of blind idealism and denial of reality.

Gay rights are a matter a identity politics, not class politics, and are thus not particularly relevant to radical leftist theory. Identity politics are generally only relevant in ideologies whose function is to obscure class relations, such as liberalism or fascism. While I do support gay rights, that is merely a consequence and extension of my support for the basic principles of liberty and equality. Whether I personally support or approve of gay rights is ultimately inconsequential to my economic views.

As for refugees, that is a characteristically capitalist phenomenon. My goal is to eliminate the conditions which produce and define refugees. I have no particular stance with respect to refugees which aren't merely manifestations of the basic principles and values I hold. Sorry, I don't usually play identity politics, /pol/. That's your job.

That is not a coherent understanding of fascism predicated on any serious theoretical analysis. Did you simply read some fascist propaganda pamphlets and literature from fascist dictators, and assume that was fascism? If so, then you are seriously unqualified for this discussion.

Fascism is about protecting private property, co-opting and destroying radical leftist sentiments, and producing a heavily militarized and aggressive totalitarian state that attempts to achieve these goals in a greater context. Whether its adherents believe that is irrelevant to fascism's function as a form of capitalism.

>Fascists were originally former military and socialists who were tired of the retards that infected the socialist movement and wanted real action that mattered.
Lol.

>Read The Doctrine of Fascism, the book that literally defines what Fascism is about, written by the Fascists Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile.
I prefer actual theory and critique, not a propaganda book written by one of the original leaders intoxicated by fascist ideology.

The "it can only work in small scales" memes need to die. The same was true for nascent capitalism when it began percolating out of feudalism some 300 or so years ago after a hundred years or so of economic thought. Just because the radical leftists of today have struggled and only partially succeeded in large-scale implementations of radical leftist thought, that doesn't mean large-scale {anarchism / socialism / communism} isn't possible in large or even global scales, anymore than were the initial failings of capitalism in reaching large scales an indictment on its ability to become the global economic system that it is today.

>I have nothing meaningful to contribute to the discussion, so I'm just going to shitpost memes and prop up strawmen.
Feel free to hide the thread anytime.

Because persecution of homosexuals and refugees are often committed by fascists and their sympathizers, so many radical leftists—especially antifas—take the opposing position. Moreover, support for refugees is merely an extension of the internationalist and cosmopolitan values which informs radical leftist thought. While accepting refugees may benefit capitalists in the receiving region (which it does), and that may be a shitty consequence of the refugee crisis (which it is), it is nevertheless the least shitty option since the lives and livelihoods of those refugees are more important than some political grandstanding that only plays into the hands of fascists, nationalists, and racists.

There are no good options with refugees, but accepting them is oftentimes the least bad one. The only exceptions to this is when doing so significantly increases nationalist and right-wing sentiments such that it has a net negative impact on the global communist movement, or when the refugees being accepted are lumpenproletariat with zero revolutionary potential. If we cannot radicalize the refugees and accepting them will only increase sentiments that conflict with the class interests of the proletariat, then the radical left shouldn't support accepting refugees under those circumstances.

As for homosexuals, most radical leftists don't really take a position on them that isn't just a logical extension of their radical leftist views.

Neither case entails support for capitalism.

Giovanni Gentile is the philosopher who came up with the ideas behind Fascism. He literally wrote the book on Fascism and that book is The Doctrine of Fascism.

It's not that there isn't actual theory, you just don't want to look at it because you prefer to just use Fascism as a buzzword to describe anything you don't like.

Politics = retarded
Kys

I've literally explained what fascism specifically is, you fucking imbecile. You just keep shilling an antiquated tome of marginal contemporary relevance because some fuckwit drunk off pure ideology authored a treatise on those spooky beliefs. I care about what fascism is as a political and economic system, and what material role it plays in maintaining capitalism, not about whatever ideological constructs prop up that intellectually bankruptcy of fascists.

Unless you have commentary about how fascism relates to capitalism and what function it serves therein, I'm not particularly interested. If I wanted to read the spooky delusions of an idpol-addled "philosophy", I'd read books on Ariosophy or whatever David Icke has recently blogged about.

>Implying any anarchist utopia could work without mass genocide

i wasen't shitposting. The end justifies the means

>I've literally explained what fascism specifically is
No, you have not. What you have done is illustrated your anarchist fantasy while demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of what fascism is.

The fascists implemented plenty of socialist policies. They had industries governed by what are pretty much unions composed of the workers and management of these industries.

>Fascism is the stopgap of capitalism, a means by which the bourgeoisie can co-opt radical sentiments for the purposes of upholding private property and bourgeois productive relations
>the function of the fascist regime: upholding the capitalist mode of production

PROOF? EVIDENCE?

What's funny is that Gentile's work was based on Hegelian philosophy and these commies actually call themselves "anti-fascists"

There is just so much irony in that.

>The only exceptions to this is when doing so significantly increases nationalist and right-wing sentiments
Which is pretty much what has happened every single time

>implying they can't
>implying deaths during a revolution constitute genocide
>implying anarchism is utopic
I don't believe in utopias and don't think they can exist.

I prefer to ensure that the means and ends are both justified where possible.

>No, you have not. What you have done is illustrated your anarchist fantasy while demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of what fascism is.
Yes, I have. It is not my fault that you are completely illiterate in radical leftist theory and too addled by pure ideology to properly understand my statements.

>The fascists implemented plenty of socialist policies.
There is no such thing as a "socialist policy". Socialism is a socioeconomic system and mode of production, not a vague ideological group from which you can pick and choose to implement in your own snowflake belief system or policies you support. Some policies may further the goals of socialism, or may be socialistic in form, but they are not strictly socialist because socialism is not defined by policies.

>They had industries governed by what are pretty much unions composed of the workers and management of these industries.
There was a division of productive relations, the rules of capital still applied, and the mode of production was still capitalist. There is no socialism in fascism, "national socialist" or otherwise. Learn what socialism is. You clearly don't understand it.

>PROOF? EVIDENCE?
It's a qualitative statement based on my understanding of radical leftist theory. Feel free to read some such theory anytime. If you want, I can try to find some literature pertinent to the topic, but it shouldn't be that difficult to find yourself.

Gentile was a so-called "neo-Hegelian". Marxism originated out of Hegelian thought, as well, but it took a strictly materialist approach. Gentile's ideas were fundamentally idealistic, not materialistic.

Only when the number of refugees accepted are too much too quickly, or when the population is already militantly nationalistic and right-wing (like the United States). Unfortunately, however, when nationalism and fascism are on the rise again, any amount of refugees being accepted will be exploited for political gain.

Last part was in reference to .

>Yes, I have. It is not my fault that you are completely illiterate in radical leftist theory and too addled by pure ideology to properly understand my statements.

It has nothing to do with being unable to understand. The problem is that the things you are saying are simply verifiably incorrect.

Pic related.

Incessantly repeating that assertion doesn't instill it with any more veracity than it previously held. You obviously have no argument. Fuck off.

>Incessantly repeating that assertion doesn't instill it with any more veracity than it previously held. You obviously have no argument. Fuck off.

I am contradicting your own assertions which you have made without supporting evidence.

Claims that are made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

>I am contradicting your own assertions which you have made without supporting evidence.
No, you are not. I made qualitative statements which you then attempted to refute by citing a marginally relevant treatise ridden with ideological posturing. You failed to understand that my statements described the material nature of fascism and its relationship to its capitalism, and proceeded to rebut my statements with appeals to the ideology of fascism as promoted by its foremost historical ideologue. Your "contradictions" are as coherent as would be refuting me on the description of an apple with abstract contrived notions of Appleness.

>Your "contradictions" are as coherent as would be refuting me on the description of an apple with abstract contrived notions of Appleness.

Actually, my contradictions are more like myself telling you an apple is just a fucking apple while you rant about how Appleness is oppressing the proletariat.

> and proceeded to rebut my statements with appeals to the ideology of fascism as promoted by its foremost historical ideologue

Yes, one would expect to learn about an ideology from the people who hold that ideology.

You don't get to make stuff up and claim that's what the other person believes.

Again, you misunderstand what I said. It's like thinking is difficult for you. My point was that you are trying to refute my material descriptions with idealistic claims. It's ironic, too, since I thought us radical leftists are supposed to be the "idealists"—you know, despite how virtually every single strain of contemporary radical leftist thought is materialist or some derivation thereof.

If I wanted to learn about their spooky ridiculous beliefs, sure. If I wanted to understand how their ideology objectively impacts society from a materialist perspective, however, then their ideological ramblings are as useful as those of any madman's. I described what fascism materially is, not what fascism is conceived as being by its adherents (especially when those adherents are dogmatic idealists like Gentile).

>materialist

Fascism is an idea, it doesn't have any material attributes you fucking moron. Ideologies are not objects.

>If I wanted to understand how their ideology objectively impacts society

The world is not a vacuum and there are arguably not even a handful of instances of fascism in action, so this cannot be done.

There is no method capable of actually determining the impact on society empirically.

It must be judged based on the merits of it's tenets, not your own fantasies.

this tbqh, instantly disregarded due to unnecessary weeabooism.

>what is dialectical materialism
A few moments of googling: anti-imperialism.com/2015/10/26/what-does-a-marxist-mean-by-material/

I'm not a Marxist in any but the vaguest of senses, but I use Marxist terminology and ideas frequently because Marx's works are such an important part of radical leftist thought.

Qualitative critiques and theories are not usually premised on, or substantiated by, empirical evidence principally because they are extremely difficult to prove precisely due to their extremely complex nature. Instead, logical and other formal proofs are given instead. Empirical evidence is used, but it has a less prominent role in the social sciences as they do in physical sciences.

Aside from that, you aren't really making a clear point.

ITT using ideology as a front for theory.

Stop parroting modernist thought, it has been discredited.

>Qualitative critiques and theories are not usually premised on, or substantiated by, empirical evidence principally because they are extremely difficult to prove precisely due to their extremely complex nature.

This is true, because of the complexity of everything involved, there is no way to examine the impact on society empirically.

>Instead, logical and other formal proofs are given instead.

But the problem is that logical proofs are meaningless if they are based on nothing. You cannot argue against fascism logically without looking at fascist ideology itself.

The actual tenets of fascism must play a role in your criticism of it. Otherwise, you criticism will be nothing more than fantasy.

Fascism is infamously inconsistent in its policy. Mussolini said one thing, and then did the other thing. And then some guy like Mosley said another different thing. And so on. It's pure ideology. The State needs an exception in order to preserve its identity, and such exceptions are inconsistent, too.

Flexibility was important to fascism.

The fascists said that we should not grip to an ideology.

What is consistent is that the will of the people is manifested in the state and that what is best for the state must be determined depending on the circumstances.

Much of the appeal of fascism was the fact that it was about action. They wanted to go get things done.

"Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and those who claim to be the bearers of objective immortal truth … then there is nothing more relativistic than Fascist attitudes and activity... From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable"

>This is true, because of the complexity of everything involved, there is no way to examine the impact on society empirically.
Perhaps not in any comprehensive way, but certain elements can be supported with empirical evidence as produced with the scientific method, which lends credibility to the theory as a whole. Nevertheless, the essential test of a theory is its predictive power, since it indicates that the theory is generally (or at least partially) accurate at explaining reality. In this capacity, theories can be empirically substantiated by making a prediction or analysis according to that theory and determining whether it is true.

>But the problem is that logical proofs are meaningless if they are based on nothing. You cannot argue against fascism logically without looking at fascist ideology itself.
Of course it's useful to understand what fascism is according to its own adherents and philosophical tradition, but that utility is limited when understanding what function fascism plays in the larger context. What's more important when analyzing ideologies like fascism is examining its place in the material conditions of society and its social relations therein, not it's ideological constructs, for getting trapped in the latter ultimately obscures and obfuscates perception of material reality whereas investigation of the former can yield truths which are independent of any ideological bent.

>The actual tenets of fascism must play a role in your criticism of it. Otherwise, you criticism will be nothing more than fantasy.
Of course I also criticize fascism on ideological grounds. My statements about fascism above were not meant to be critical so much as descriptive, though. If I was interested in criticizing fascism, I will naturally address its ideology and not just its material reality.

That's basically what I've been saying, but apparently I know nothing about fascism.

Fascism is not realpolitik, nor was Hitler particularly "flexible" in his policies. What you're describing as "flexibility" is in fact the inconsistency of fascist praxis precisely because fascism is simply a stopgap for capitalism whose theory is completely divorced from material reality.

>Much of the appeal of fascism was the fact that it was about action. They wanted to go get things done.
As if virtually every other social, political, and economic ideology doesn't? Your oblique praise of fascism's call to action is only signalling your cryptofascistic predilections; it doesn't offer any meaningful commentary about fascism that isn't applicable to nearly all other ideologies.

Dumb
Dumber
Dumbest

>nor was Hitler particularly "flexible" in his policies.

Hitler wasn't a fascist. He had all kinds of other ideologies and he pinned elements of fascism onto it.

>fascism is simply a stopgap for capitalism
Capitalism with state regulation is, as of yet, an effective economic tool. There will be no need of it as soon as that changes.

>As if virtually every other social, political, and economic ideology doesn't?

Socialism is full of long winded ivory tower pseudo-intellectualism.

The fascists don't pretend there are only two classes that necessarily in conflict. The fascists sought after political allies that could bring them up and cracked the heads of those who tried to bring them down.

That is where fascism is different from other ideologies. It was not just ideology. It was in fact an organized movement that practiced realpolitik.

The nigger of ideologys.

>Hitler wasn't a fascist. He had all kinds of other ideologies and he pinned elements of fascism onto it.
Hitler, along with Franco and even Strasser, all upheld core tenets of fascist ideology. Of course they were all over the place; they are so-called "third positionists", who fundamentally misunderstood both capitalism and communism but who nevertheless served the interests of the former.

>Capitalism with state regulation is, as of yet, an effective economic tool. There will be no need of it as soon as that changes.
The sentiment of not fixing that which isn't broken is an implicit appeal to, and promotion of, perpetual status quo. Regulated capitalism is an "effective economic tool" (which it isn't) according to the rules of capital, and even in that capacity it is producing extreme conditions and externalities which is causing social unrest, alienation, and the systematic destruction of this planet such that we are on a course to planetary suicide. Outside of the warped ideology of capitalism (i.e., liberalism), capitalism is a profoundly irrational, inefficient, and unstable system plagued with systemic flaws which are excused by such a level of intellectually bankrupt and absurd illogic that it leaves those on the outside scratching their heads dumbfounded.

>Socialism is full of long winded ivory tower pseudo-intellectualism.
Thanks for the vacuous non sequitur, but do you have a relevant response to the text you quoted?

>The fascists don't pretend there are only two classes that necessarily in conflict. The fascists sought after political allies that could bring them up and cracked the heads of those who tried to bring them down.
Yes, fascists promote class collaboration and reject class struggle. The former is proof of its function as upholding capitalism and the latter is proof that it is fundamentally antithetical to radical leftist thought.

>That is where fascism is different from other ideologies. It was not just ideology. It was in fact an organized movement that practiced realpolitik.
What you're describing is communism, not fascism. That cynical utilization of tacit tenets and mechanics of capitalism to achieve political power and gain is not what sets fascism apart; that is a core component of capitalism itself and the exact means by which the bourgeoisie protect their hegemonic status therein. It's not a mere coincidence that prominent members of the bourgeoisie secretly funded fascist parties, including the NSDAP in Germany, and provided them with the financial and social capital to rise to power.

What do you think of anarchy in general? I think a lot of anarchist are fairly libcuck but overall I don't see how anyone would truly not want actual agency.

are there online anarchists who aren't autistic dudes

No shit. It was the exact same way in medieval kingdoms sure the king existed, and sure he had power, but it was severely limited by the fact that the serfs pledged allegiance to their lords.

The same is inevitable in an anarcho-capitalist society where the market, corporations, and property rights cannot be regulated. People pledge allegiance to corporations --> corporations become a quasi-government.

All anarchism is communistic

>Fascism is the stopgap of capitalism, a means by which the bourgeoisie can co-opt radical sentiments for the purposes of upholding private property and bourgeois productive relations.

>The exact organization of a fascist economy is secondary to achieving the function of the fascist regime: upholding the capitalist mode of production and crushing opposition thereof.

This.
Behind every fascism there is a failed revolution.

Communism requires centralized authority and govenrment?

Anarchism is against authority and government?

Or am I missing something?

Pls educate me shitposter, surely my reading on these subjects is insufficient compared to your vast knowledge

>Anarchism
>Ever Working
>Do not include Catalonia or the American Wild West (1870s-1880s)
>These anarchistic societies only lasted for a brief time. Revolutionary Catalonia lasted to

all of this shit with anarcho-[insert whatever the fuck you want here] make me puke in my mouth a little

>anarchist
Oh dude you forgot Ukraine in the period 1918-1921, they love pointing that one out too

I always just picture this dude behind every single pro-anarchy post on here
youtube.com/watch?v=Ry5URU-Py2Q

I don't think anarchy=anarchist state, even though I'm pretty sure you're talking about the latter. The issue with anarchism is that it requires a radically different culture that what we have today, a culture that Rousseau describes as extremely unselfish and communal on a scale that has never been seen before. I would gladly live in an authoritarian communist state before a supposedly free anarchist one, because for the latter it's almost guaranteed to be at the mercy of exploitative capitalists due to it's inherent weakness as a unit.

Anarchism is literally the end goal of Communism retard. The state is just there to create and maintain the system long enough until it can dissolve and be replaced by anarchy.

>commie class-autist
>calling out literally anyone for being spooked

Communism does not centralization. It never was and never will be. In fact, centralization is antithetical to the principles of communism as a socioeconomic system and mode of production.

Communism and anarchism are merely different tendencies within the radical left which leads to the same end goal of communism.

What does us being "human" have to do with anything? So-called "human nature" is merely a product of material and social conditions. There is no immutable and eternal human condition to which society must conform; the human condition is shaped and produced by the society wherein humans live. "Human nature" is an antiquated myth that is only used to justify the reactionary ideas of humans who purport to understand it.

Revolutionary Catalonia, like Anarchist Aragon, the Free Territory of Ukraine, the Shinmin autonomous region, and countless other large-scale examples of anarchism, socialism, and communism in action all failed due to external factors, not due to the internal features and mechanics of their systems. To treat such instances as indictments on socialism, anarchism, and communism is as foolish and ignorant of history as is treating the initial large-scale failures of capitalism as examples of capitalism being a failure of a system. The same is true for feudalism and even slavery before it.

Anarchism does require a transformation of the cultural paradigm, but so did capitalism, and feudalism before that, and slavery before that. This isn't a new condition of social transformation. Anarchism moreover doesn't require any sort of utterly selfless and communal culture; it merely requires a reorganization of material conditions such that the system which produces selfish and egotistic cultural conditions ceases to exist. If there is such a thing as human nature, it is an extremely selfless one, as has been proven by literally hundreds of thousands of years of hunter-gatherer primitive communism before the advent of agriculture and private property.

The establishment of a communist society, which is necessarily anarchist, would entail the dissolution of the distinction between the ego and the collective, thereby ending the antagonism therein. The conflict between the self and society is a product of alienation, which is a symptom of class-based hierarchical systems and undemocratic modes of production. End the condition of alienation and reorganize the material base of society, and that will virtually or even entirely render the individualism–collectivism false dichotomy meaningless.

> I would gladly live in an authoritarian communist state before a supposedly free anarchist one, because for the latter it's almost guaranteed to be at the mercy of exploitative capitalists due to it's inherent weakness as a unit.
That is a ridiculously ignorant statement. Do you have the slightest understanding of radical leftist theory whatsoever? I assume no, given that statement.

Despite my antipathy toward Max Stirner, it is profoundly ignorant to use him as an argument against my position. Stirner was an anarchist who heavily influenced the radical left and his ideas are fully consistent with communism, including all the views I have expressed thus far. Clearly, you don't understand what "spooks" are.

...

>It's not a mere coincidence that prominent members of the bourgeoisie secretly funded fascist parties, including the NSDAP in Germany, and provided them with the financial and social capital to rise to power.
Which then funded commies.
Your point?

Nobody in the history of the allied post-war governments have ever directly funded communist powers.

I think it's more the fact that the other two are pretty simple ideologies to understand with clear principles (government bad or technology bad respectively) while with the third it's just this muddled mess. You don't have governments but at the same time equality is still somehow guaranteed, by someone, who definitely isn't going to abuse their power. It's like they cranked up all the self-defeating aspects of anarchism to 11.