Any history book for people like me : Idealistically an anarchist. Realistically I am a socialist

Kek,
/thread

...

Yes. It was the status quo in most European monarchies long before Communism came about.

only people with no understanding of communism think anarcho-communist is an oxymoron

Try the fiction section of your local children's library.

I admire many Communists but Anarchists seriously need to be necked

Care to say why?

I once read a conversation on the internet between anarchists concerning monarchy.
They said that it's an unrealistic way of governing states.
Zero awareness, if you're an anarchist after age 16, you should be shot.

I like how there are like 5 posts like this already with none explaining why Anarchism doesn't work.

You only dignify with objections ideologies that actually present a reasonable way of organizing society.
If someone says the equivalent of "oooooga prrrrrrr lababalbaba" they shouldn't expect people to actually care enough to formulate a refutation of their point.

See Spot Run
Hop on Pop

Why is Anarchism not a reasonable way to manage society?

Again, you're refuting the burden of proof. It's you who has to show why it's reasonable.

>Realistically I am a socialist.

You're just banging your head against the wall.

No, you've proposed a negative, that it is not reasonable.

Why is it unreasonable?

Anarchism doesn't attempt to manage society at all.

Yes it does. Anarchism simply peoposes the removal of a centralised state, and replaced with self managing communities.

There is still authority, it is just not centralized. Read Bakunin ffs.

Conquest of Bread - Peter Kropotkin (Anarchist)
Accumulation of Capital - Rosa Luxemburg (Communist)

Because when applied on large scale, it's always collapsed in a few years(and when applied on small, commune-wide scale, it usually collapses in a few decades).
Also, as a guy living in what's historically been smack in the middle between empires, as shitty as the govs have been in the past millenia, the last times there wasnt any sort of organised gov, we got raped by half of Eurasia's migratory tribes, and today would be subject to powers openly trying to spread their influence on us in every way possible.

Why the fuck would i prefer that?

>Conquest of Bread - Peter Kropotkin (Anarchist)
You mean Anarcho-Communist

>Because when applied on large scale, it's always collapsed in a few years(and when applied on small, commune-wide scale, it usually collapses in a few decades).

It's been employed twice truly in History, once in Ukraine, once in Catalonia.

It collapsed in Catalonia because the Republic never had a chance anyway, since the vast majority of the military was loyal to the coup.

It collapsed in Ukraine because Makhno did not anticipate Lenin's betrayal.

Neither of these are related to the economic system itself.

>Also, as a guy living in what's historically been smack in the middle between empires

I assume Poland?

>as shitty as the govs have been in the past millenia, the last times there wasnt any sort of organised gov, we got raped by half of Eurasia's migratory tribes

That was because of Liberum Veto. The Commonwealth was in no way Anarchist, just an inefficient centralized state.

>Why the fuck would i prefer that?

Because you aren't forced to sell your labour for less than it is worth?

Yep, also i'd recommend Proudhon for non-communist anarchist.

>It's been employed twice truly in History, once in Ukraine, once in Catalonia.
And it collapsed.
A system that can't fend for itself not even for 4 years is a failure.

>I assume Poland?
Romania.
This was happening 1100 years ago right here.
Look at it. You want me to risk that in the near future just because our politicians are semi-retarded sometimes?

>Because you aren't forced to sell your labour for less than it is worth?
Ah yes, every power and militia within 1700km will come to have fun in my backwayd, but atleast i dont have to pay taxes.

only people with an understanding of basic economics and human interaction think anarcho-communism is a dumb idea

>And it collapsed.
>A system that can't fend for itself not even for 4 years is a failure.

It can defend itself, there are armies in Anarchist states. The failures of these states had nothing to do with the ideology itself, but rather the reasons I outlined in my first post.

>Look at it. You want me to risk that in the near future just because our politicians are semi-retarded sometimes?

Anarcho-Communism isn't about the Politicians, it's about making Labour entitled to its own product.

>Ah yes, every power and militia within 1700km will come to have fun in my backwayd, but atleast i dont have to pay taxes.

As I've said before, there are still functioning armies in Anarchist States.

The Austro-Hungarian Army was driven out of Russia by the Anarchists.

Why do Right-Wingers always say 'Basic Economics' when they themselves have a limited view of economics?

Proudhon is great. For all the flak he gets from Marx, his system is probably the only workable one I see on the left.

...

I'm not a right wing, I'm a factory manager who's seen how people work when they're left to their own leaderless pursuits. Hint: it never works

>Because you aren't forced to sell your labour for less than it is worth?
You realize that the value of something is decided by how much the highest bidder is willing to pay for it, right?

It doesn't under capitalism because capitalism advocates laziness and carelessness for the product of your own labor. When you own and care about what you're working for, then you will actually work like you care about it.

There is nothing ideal about anarchy. It is the natural state.

Socialism, now there's some idealism for you. Like all reds, you are completely ass backwards.

Exactly, which is what Communism seeks to change. To assert the value of something through its output to the community as a whole.

You realize your critique of worker management fails when you realize work ethic is totally overhauled under a marketless system?

>Capitalism advocates laziness and carelessness

When factory workers have to work for retirement plans, children, wife/husband, gasoline for a car, the car mortgage too in some cases, house mortgages, and many other smaller expenses, saying they advocate for laziness is idiotic by nature. They still need to be industrious to get to where they can earn their wealth.

Kropotkin is pretty dope too. He puts many valid arguments and his observations are brilliant for his timeframe.

>Like all reds, you are completely ass backwards.

Why do all premature balding neocons try to sound like John Wayne?

>It can defend itself
Which is why we have tons of thriving anarchist territories?
Oh, wait...
>The failures of these states had nothing to do with the ideology itself
>Ideology gets puts into practice in those territories;
>100% failure rate;
Yeah, it is but a coincidence;

>but rather the reasons I outlined in my first post.
Those are just symptoms.
Doesnt matter who defeated them, only that they were.

>The failures of these states had nothing to do with the ideology itself
>Ideology gets puts into practice in those territories;
>100% failure rate;

You're literally just repeating your first point.

As I explained before, the reason why these states lost has nothing to do with their ideology, but other reasons.

>Those are just symptoms.
>Doesnt matter who defeated them, only that they were.

So I guess Republicanism is a bad system since it lost the Civil war in china? I guess Capitalism is a bad system since it lost the war in Russia?

Why do reds constantly attempt to construct straw-men of their perceived opponent's simple image?

>neocon

kys faggot my hairline is magnificent

Why do you use slang like 'Red' as if you're some grizzled German veteran?

So the two times its been employed it was taken over by someone/a group of people ahead of the curb? The problem with Anarchy is that it's pretty much set up to lose the second an organized force comes along. Catalonia from a strategic, and even tactical, standpoint reads out like comedy, they were stomped out and routed after all the in fighting and lack of structure. It's just the Humanity is, there will always be someone who will come along that will want to get ahead.

>As I explained before, the reason why these states lost has nothing to do with their ideology, but other reasons.
And those other reasons are irrelevant, homie.

>So I guess Republicanism is a bad system since it lost the Civil war in china? I guess Capitalism is a bad system since it lost the war in Russia?
Thing is, they were doing just fine in the rest of the world, and republics have continued existing for centuries, through some pretty nasty shit.
Your shit was volatile every time.

>And those other reasons are irrelevant, homie.

Because? Ukraine was betrayed, CNT FAI lost due to foreign intervention.

>Thing is, they were doing just fine in the rest of the world, and republics have continued existing for centuries, through some pretty nasty shit.
>Your shit was volatile every time.

EVERY IDEOLOGY IS AT THE START

Look at liberalism in France. It fought a war of 20 years it ultimately lost.

Look at Communism in Russia, it fought for 6 years.

>So the two times its been employed it was taken over by someone/a group of people ahead of the curb?

With overwhelmingly larger numbers and foreign support.

>The problem with Anarchy is that it's pretty much set up to lose the second an organized force comes along

The anarchist Army of Ukraine was organized and defeated the Austro Hungarian Army. The CNT FAI was also organized, but destroyed by German Intervention.

>With overwhelmingly larger numbers and foreign support.

Its still the same thing, they saw an opportunity to take on someone who they knew they'd be able to get one over on

>The anarchist Army of Ukraine was organized

I didn't know this, however it still doesn't change the fact that it came crumbling down when they got stabbed in the back. Look here's my issue with Anarchy, and its the same issue I have with Fascism, it seems to be that Anarchy was ever meant to be an ideology built for the long run, its a reaction or a movement against something they perceive as being a threat to a group of people and it seems to me that most Communists and Socialists realize that. This is why you see them working with Anarchists and then swiftly cutting them down the first chance they get, Anarchists are agents of change but they don't really offer any solutions for the long run of things, just like Fascism.

>slang

>Exactly, which is what Communism seeks to change
Good thing you're an anarchist, right?

>Its still the same thing, they saw an opportunity to take on someone who they knew they'd be able to get one over on

And it has fuck all to do with a legitimate criticism of the ideology itself.

>its a reaction or a movement against something they perceive as being a threat to a group of people and it seems to me that most Communists and Socialists realize that

Communism is by default Anarchic.

If you read Marx, he's quite clear the state exists to transition the people to this point. Leninist Revisionism has changed this perception.

>Anarchists are agents of change but they don't really offer any solutions for the long run of things,

Anarchism seeks to build a permanent decentralized state. It's a pretty good long term plan, unlike Fascism, which is indeed just "increase the military"

All communism is by default Anarchist.

>Ukraine was betrayed, CNT FAI lost due to foreign intervention.
Which is exactly my point.
They can't compete long-term against organised states and armies with proper logistics anarchfags can't obtain.

They were organized, and they did have proper logistics. Their defeat had nothing to do with the ideology.

>They were organized, and they did have proper logistics.
Not on a scale of a proper army.

>And it has fuck all to do with a legitimate criticism of the ideology itself.

You've got to realize that if it keeps happening enough for it to be a trend then there's something inherently wrong with it, does the idea of a permanent decentralized state sound like a bad idea? Not really, I could see the benefits of it but you've got to defer to history when deciding if an ideology is worth a damn. The trend I see with anarchy, and with fascism as well, is that it just can't sustain itself, how is a decentralized state going to organize a force to defend itself from a massive, militarized state? Will you have to organize too and make your own military? Wouldn't this be against the principles of Anarchy which is to be decentralized? How will you be sure that everyone is going to be on board with it?

>Their defeat had nothing to do with the ideology.
Then what did it have to do with?
And don't start anarchsplaining again about each individual case.
What facet of them made them incapable of going toe-to-toe with russians and/or foreign help?

I'd say that two societies in a hundred years is much to small a sample to make assumptions from. Capitalist democracies make up the majority of countries that existed in the last 100 years and today, a bunch of which thrived and a bunch of which collapsed. If we lived in a world where libertarian socialism and related econmic ideas were more widespread, I'm sure we'd see the same development.

>All communism is by default Anarchist.

Wrong. All communism that has ever been put into practise has had an extremely strong and authoritarian state.

Your reason for believing this?

>You've got to realize that if it keeps happening enough for it to be a trend then there's something inherently wrong with it, does the idea of a permanent decentralized state sound like a bad idea? Not really, I could see the benefits of it but you've got to defer to history when deciding if an ideology is worth a damn. The trend I see with anarchy, and with fascism as well, is that it just can't sustain itself

It's happened twice.

We're already seeing the trend of succesful Anarchist societies in the PKK, in Turkey and Syria, who are gaining more ground and gaining hundreds of foreign volunteers every month.

>how is a decentralized state going to organize a force to defend itself from a massive, militarized state?

Decentralization doesn't imply lack of cooperation and coordination.

>Wouldn't this be against the principles of Anarchy which is to be decentralized?

Cooperation once again, is actually in full support of Anarchist doctrine.

>How will you be sure that everyone is going to be on board with it?

Common interest in the survival of the state.
Your criticisms are legitimate but they're attacking a different ideology, Corporatism.

>I'd say that two societies in a hundred years is much to small a sample to make assumptions from.
Oh, a ton of states have collapsed from within in the past thousands of years.
None of those stateless situations continued existing for long.

Because that's Statist Capitalism, revised as 'Communism' by Lenin.

The USSR did briefly enter a phase of true communism under Yuri Andropov.

>Then what did it have to do with?

Circumstances.

>And don't start anarchsplaining again about each individual case.

Aww, I'm sorry diddums, do you like history in simple sentences and mottos?

>What facet of them made them incapable of going toe-to-toe with russians?

Because the Black Army Generals were invited to a private meeting with the Red Army, before being beaten and shot.

And because the German support gave the nationalists unlimited resources.

An established communist society is defined by the absence of money, social hierarchy, and the state. So the end goal of communism is anarchist in nature.
Lenin, Mao, Il-Sung and other may have had good ideals, but failed spectacularly at implementing them, all the while erecting an authoritarian system of state-capitalism.
They both arose in situations of extreme political turmoil and social upheaval. Both Anarchist Spain and the Free Territory existed during civil wars in which nationalist and authoritarian left forces were the dominant sides in the struggle.

>PKK
Kek, PKK wants the creation of Kurdistan, as a proper ass state.
And none of the other combatants in Syria want to abolish the state.
Just built another one, be it democratically or Salafi flavoured.

>Kek, PKK wants the creation of Kurdistan, as a proper ass state.

Uh, yes. Anarchism still implies a state. You're thinking of Trotskyism.

>And none of the other combatants in Syria want to abolish the state.

They want to abolish its Anarchic Principles.

>Just built another one, be it democratically or Salafi flavoured.

They are still intent on changing its government and openly fighting them.

So your entire point is "they didn't get a fair shot to exist unmolested, without external threats, for decades"
Well, good job, life isn't fair, it is precisely difficulties like these that prove if they are stable enough, and tons of countries and empire were born from the wreckage of a civil war/empire collapse.
A ton of them did just fine, some of them expanding into empires in their own right.

So say you have a minority group that not only refuses to cooperate but actively works against you for trying to militarize? What will be done with them? Are they just misguided and to be ignored or will they have to be dealt with? Wouldn't suppressing their dissent be against Anarchist principles? Or would they cease to be Anarchist the moment they go against the collective? Whose to say this won't keep happening until all thats left is a group of arguing tribes just waiting to be taken out by a large, organized force?

Like I said, the more I keep looking into Anarchy, the more it starts to seem that its more of a means to end than something that can be sustained, would you entertain the idea of perhaps moving towards something more stable for the long run after establishing your Anarchist state?

>Communism is by default Anarchic.

>Uh, yes. Anarchism still implies a state. You're thinking of Trotskyism.
No, you faggot, Kurdistan wants to be a country like any other.

>They are still intent on changing its government
The replacement will still be a centralised country.

Id actually say the problem is that the only to resist one of the three major superpowers of china russia or us is with the help of one of the others. True failure of anarchist state is being unable to suck enough foreign dick to get a mandatory sugar daddy.

>Well, good job, life isn't fair, it is precisely difficulties like these that prove if they are stable enough, and tons of countries and empire were born from the wreckage of a civil war/empire collapse.
>A ton of them did just fine, some of them expanding into empires in their own right.

YES. The point is their defeat had shit all to do with the ideology it was employing.

>So say you have a minority group that not only refuses to cooperate but actively works against you for trying to militarize? What will be done with them?

An example?

>Are they just misguided and to be ignored or will they have to be dealt with?

Negotiations, then armed conflict.

Anarchism doesn't imply no order. We wouldn't just allow people to do as they please. That wouldn't work at all.

>would you entertain the idea of perhaps moving towards something more stable for the long run after establishing your Anarchist state?

Yeah, a functioning, currencyless market system based on the product of labour.
It is. Read Marx.

>No, you faggot, Kurdistan wants to be a country like any other.

Yes it does, a Libertarian socialist, Anarchist state based on Murray bookchin's theory.

>The replacement will still be a centralised country.

Yes, how does this change my point?
Anyway, I am tired and have a dissertation to write. So this is my last reply.

I have read the manifesto, it is trash

>And it has fuck all to do with a legitimate criticism of the ideology itself.

But then they'd be beholden to that Sugar Daddy and not be free, I just cannot see how Anarchy can work on the long run in a world as hostile as ours, perhaps it could work if they went to an uninhabited island that nobody wants but most Anarchist states try to establish themselves in areas that are historically hotly contested. Of course there are going to be heavy hitters coming after you, you're in their way.

>being unable to suck enough foreign dick to get a mandatory sugar daddy.

Meant to greentext this ^

Read Gramsci and your life will change forever.

Gulag Archipelago

Go back to Facebook for the love of God.

I'm not Italian so I can't really give a fuck. Might as well say read Laozi.

robert tombs- the paris commune 1871

Underrated fucking post.

ADF isn't an anarcho-communist or anarchist anything though. He's a self professed Maoist.

What about the people that earn millions in the stock market and dont produce neither goods or services

Tribalism is the only way. Small groups fighting constantly for resources and cultural reasons is the only way we could keep sustainable populations.

Seeing Like a State
The Art of Not Being Governed

More for the anarchist side. Both by James C. Scott