Anarchist lit general, or is there anyone familiar with the writings of both Kropotkin and Bookchin, and could you go into their commonalities and differences. And which do you think I should start with of their titles.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Also I'll be answering the anonymous from that other thread in a subsequent post (Seeing as how few like to post in ghost mode on warosu)
warosu.org
is this for talking about the philosophy in general?
Yes, that too. Any authors or history book you like, but if you know of those two especially.
>His book A Child called "It" describes from his viewpoint about the severe abuse he suffered as a child. He writes how his mother was physically and emotionally abusive towards him from ages 4 to 12. In his book he describes how his mom starved him, forced him to drink ammonia, stabbed him in the stomach, burned his arm on a gas stove, and forced him to eat his own vomit. He mentioned that his father was not active in resolving or stopping the conflicts between Pelzer and his alcoholic mother. In 1973 at age 12 he was sent to a foster family. In the book he uses pseudonyms to reference his relatives.
Is it still anarchy when you are following a higherup of some sort?
Yeah. Authority rests in the specialists (and parents)
>Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me.
panarchy.org
The hell does a Child Called It have to do ITT?
Why is anarchism always associated with anarcho-communism?
Statist counter-propaganda. The easiest way to maintain statism is to convince everyone that those supporting more statism are actually the rebels. All these kids that are commies or genocide and forced famine apologists of one sort or the other are working tirelessly to make the state stronger. The best way to win a debate is to get your opponent make and defend your own arguments.
Anarchism just take the disciplinary powers of the state and disperses them among the general populace, which is exactly where you DON'T want them.
Homo sapiens is noted for its social plasticity, but one of the major recurring behavioral patterns--even in apparently 'egalitarian' 'hunter-gatherer' bands that serve as the poster group of left anarchists--is hierarchical ranking of some form or another. To use the Inuit as an example,when a hunting party returns and there has been differential success--say one hunter managed to snag a seal while the others came up empty--there is a process of distribution among the band in which those kin closest to the successful hunter are given the prime cuts of meat, and progressively less choice cuts are given to progressively more distant kin. That is a form of hierarchical ordering of preferences, and not an instance of 'first among equals'. It is also an example of strong reciprocity in action; share a little now to be given a little later. It is self-interested, even if it is technically pro-social behavior.
First of all let me apologize for my cranky behavior. I could say it's because of lack of sleep and overwork, but I think it's as much to do with the general hostility and adversarial discussions I've had on Veeky Forums.
I'm sorry.
>TELL ME THE FUCKING STEPS. At what point would your system kick in? How would you except a large uneducated populace to adopt this system?
The Step you ask: Being still just a novice myself, I don't know what some thinkers first steps should be. I do know many are living as close to the general anarchist lifestyle as they can. The self employed, the organic gardening commune, the motorcycle gangs, tax dodgers and recluses in their cabins. It's difficult living, trying to get away from it all.
In getting the ball rolling, education and conversion will have to be prioritized. If this can win at all it will have to be by superior numbers. I mentioned our interconnectivity earlier, implying computers and smartphones are already exposing the truth to increasing numbers of people that the MSM and a number of supporting bloggers are nothing more than corrupt propagandists for corporatists and state.
There are also a number of small systems in place. Most of which I learned from Gar Alperovitz's America Beyond Capitalism. The idea of co-ops have been around forever, but the media simply ignores it for the most part (I was surprised to see it in Les Mserables) Community watch programs in place of police, charity on the verge of a barter system
A big leap would be for people to take extra-legal steps, such as striking in spite of their contracts. If we could get something like a whole state (or more) to mock secede, recommit to the rule of law of the constitution. Implying that the rulers in DC are breaking with too much of it. A giant slap in the face, but with a hug at the end.
Alright, getting sleepy again. I'll come back to it and answer more and any further questions later.
ok so if there was a town that was anarchist and suddenly some squatters came into my house and I politely asked them to leave should I just shoot them? shouldn't that put me in danger?
Depends on what you mean by anarchist. Typically there are side constraints that prevent talking about death and such in theory.
You should share imo. Property is theft.
What about on Mars?
I read this when I was 9, I don't know why. I can still remember reading the bit where she stuffs a dirty diaper in his face and little bits get up his nose
From our modern observation and experimentation of economics, orthodox Marxism would not work, the fact we did away with the Hegelian dialectic alone which corrupted almost all of his theories is enough reason for orthodox Marxism to no longer be useful. Modern neo-Marxism alone is not enough succesful theories and methods to be considered an opposition to Capitalism.
1/3
>Japan will disappear, and in its stead, an impersonal, empty, neutral, intermediate, opulent, shrewd, economic giant will stand in a corner of the far east
And they laughed at you sempai....
We know that Capitalism and no government don't go hand in hand as you need a government to close the free-market loop to keep it from breaking which means that there is no system left to supplement Anarchism with today.
We also know that Socialism needs a government, thus Anarchism is a theory without an economic system to support its claims.
It requires relativism to function and the destruction of ethnocentrism. Often the people who are against ethnocentrism and the intervention in another society's moralty and the idea that one culture is superior over the other create an objective standard with a moral code with no right or wrong. This is unreasonable because it is self-destructive to remove all senses of right and wrong, it rejects the legitimacy and credibility of relativism because when you hold the moral doctrine of relativism consistently it will erase relativism itself instead of creating a moral philosophy that promotes being free of right and wrong.
They also have no grounds to tell other people what is right or wrong or how to treat other societies as they themselves cannot define what it means to form a culture or society, are cults a society, what about two people forming a strict moral code? To reduce moral issues to personal taste is the destruction of philosophy, if it were a simple matter of personal attitude then two people with conflicting views would not have conflicting views at all. But since moral views cause conflict moral arguments matter and must be discussed, we cannot simply argue that there is no conflict at all.
Beyond that I can imagine that it would not be a very productive society as people would have no guidance or direction and people are not rational beings and will not consume, accumulate or behave rationally all the time. A lot of people sacrifice long term for short term and people are emotional beings, letting themselves be guided by emotions, clear expectations and guidance will then steer a society to better productivity and reduce the amount of irrational behavior. Since total equality is not achievable as humans are not equal, the people at the bottom will be forced to be even more irrational, law will then discourage this irrational vigilantism but not in an anarchist society. I then think other forms of coercion will most likely fill the gap that will not be as rational and will most likely lead to an attempt to form a strong centralized government like the Communists in Catalonia were trying to do.
2/3
The Hegelian dialectic is no longer in use because we use empirical observation which corrupts a lot of Karl Marx's works, thus it would be extremely idealistic and not humane to force orthodox Marxism on people and would not work as you would be left with not just overthrowing Capitalism but forcing people to overthrow an entire expansion of discoveries and new methods gained through observation and experimentation for orthodox Marxism. For example we will never have a great abundance of goods as our entire economy is build on the proper distribution of scarce goods, so the post-scarcity is not going to come. It would be the same as implementing Ayn Rand or Adam Smith to today's world, we know from our gained knowledge that this would not work and that those people would never wish to see us try were they alive today, and as you said neither would Marx. There is a reason why neo-Marxists have rejected and distanced themselves from orthodox Marxism and why the Austrian school is no longer in use after a small revival in the 70s.
3/3
I remember back in the day at Sam's Club, the books and computer games were right next to each other, and this was the only book I ever wanted to read (7-9 years old at the time). The back sounded so interesting. To this day, I still haven't read it, but I've read NYT articles on the guy, who now appeals to me as a fascinating character, even though I'm sure the book itself is Wal-Mart "memoir"-tier garbage.
Wow. Weary travelers ask for a nights lodging and you murder them? Deranged. I hope someone finds you and puts you in a mental ward for observation.
>Property is theft.
Proudhonism. Property is what you can have and hold. My toothbrush, my car. I can't own two estates, but I can visit a relatives home and feel like.
Mars is mine.
Have there been any successful anarchist societies?
Before OP wastes your time with a response
no
I do need to read more humor....
Because they are synonyms, largely. The goal of Communism is to use a Socialist stage to allow the state to 'wither away' into a stateless anarchy populated by the Communist Man. The real difference between an Anarchist and a Communist is about methods and timeframes.
never
...
Yes, Catalonia.
Ah, the eternal chant of Anarchists everywhere
>'Catalonia worked!'
No. It didn't.
Even the supporters of the anarchists of Catalonia pointed out that the vast majority of people were idle/unemployed because f a lack of opportunities to work.
The anarchists and such had forced labor an concentration camps 'to protect the revolution' and once they ran out of things to loot people got cold and hungry. By the time Franco's forces arrived the anarchists were using guns to prevent people from leaving to look for food.
>never
>forgetting about the Paris Commune
>72 days
>run by a council
>strong censorship
>Priests were executed for being priests
>People were in danger of arrest for being religious
>Accusation of opposition was grounds for arrest and imprisonment and use as hostages
>Established a Committee on Public Safety that arrested and imprisoned people for saying bad things about the Commune, used them as hostages and executed many
>So busy putting their own people on trial to organize a coherent defense
Yeah, that was sure a successful anarchist commune, pal.
>Lasted less than 3 months
Sources man.
The facts are thin on the ground beyond industry working and the might of the USSR behind Franco coming in to crush them.
who are those trans-dykes in OP's image. im a nigger
...
bamp
You have to go back
go away and fuck off.
...
Is there any lit on what an anarchist economy might look like? Also, how do anarchist define the state? Some one told me that its about horizontal organization, but i dont know what that means either
>anarchist economy
There are both market and non-market oriented anarchist economic tendencies. Anarchist economic theory is almost exclusively communist.
>how do anarchists define the state?
Well anarchists want to abolish the state, but again, you'll find wildly different definitions of what constitutes the state. Check out for a reading list. The anarchist subreddit has a decent reading list too IIRC (I think it's /r/Anarchy101 or something)
Depending on what criteria one applies, there has been. Ancient and current tribal people practice nominal forms of what can be seen as semi-anarchistic life. Hippies and Hell's Angels and other assorted types of people in wealthy nations can drop off the government radar, but it's tough going living in the dirty cracks of imperialist capitalism. Anywhere there's self rule or communal rule is a successful camp of anarchism. Catalonia would have worked had it not been for the onslaught of fascists and the betrayal of semi-leftists. They were a noble effort that I hope will rise again real soon. The Paris commune was a frantic drama. Some anarchists and socialists, but also a number of other types. They never found their focus, but they never had a chance against the imperialists. The Brown shirt ITT probably isn't giving the straight story. the propaganda surrounding la petroleuse should be enough to make you question the conquering side's story. (I have reason to believe the Statue of Liberty was modeled after those torch bearing women)
Neocolonialist BS books no doubt.
Thank you. Mostly good list. Read many of them?
Nazi here.
I like Christian anarchists because they are very optimistic about human nature, tb h. Heil Hitler!
But Nazis and other rightwingers aren't.
Actually, Christians have never held Man in much regard. That's a huge problem with them and the West.
I got the list from 8/leftypol/. I must admit I've read very few on this list.
>Orwell/Homage to Catalonia
>Graeber/Debt The First 5000 Years
>Makhno/Organizational Platform
>Invisible Comitee/The Coming Insurrection
>Black/The Abolition of Work
Oh look. M. Night Shyamalan posts here.
That's a nifty and sweeping generalization you're huffing there.
> Mars is mine.
Socialism is, in every analysis, the communal control of the individual. Any difference with the state is in name alone. Property is only theft because you think you're entitled to my labor.
It's a death cult. The church had nothing to lose in the early days. Martyrs only brought more converts after a while. Only after they seized more political power did they put a lid on all that and claim suicide was a sin. Man became a tool for the state/kingdom/empire. Come to church on a regular basis for indoctrination, till your soil, produce food and offspring, one for the king to go on campaigns etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam. Christ is your all, oh wont it be swell once you're dead, life is toil, misery, but be good, work hard, and you will be repaid once we plant you in the grave.
Disgusting.
Capitalism is slavery of the masses, perpetual war, wasteful like all hell, and it breeds fearful, hateful and sociopathic behavior. The motivation in this world is always fear. This is what's wrong. This is why you want to die.
Look up Rojava in Syria.
We already live under anarchism. The key is defending something for yourself.
Read some of Goldman's essays, but I'm not really convinced that any form of successful human organization can exist without coercion of some sort.
Has anyone addressed that point really well?
You're probably right. But it comes down to what coercion really means. If you mean through violence, I disagree, if you mean through mutual best interest, then you are probably right.
> Capitalism is...
Incorrect, that's statism, also known as socialism. I don't want to die, I mean its obvious I'm not a socialist.
Goldman was advocating violent coercion... She's most famous for telling her cuckold to kill a man because of her political views...
Seems to me like she was advocating for a society without it. The means she wanted to achieve it with are something else entirely.
Socialism is violent coercion. Anything that doesn't go along with it quietly is killed. Goldman is most famous for ordering someone's death because they disagreed with her politics.
yeah goldman was crazy. she's only really important for being the most prominent female voice in anarchist lit, ironically
Capitalism supports a classist state and all the degree of slavery.
And sorry for the "you". I meant to generalize. You're all anonymous and I have no idea if anyone is even reading.
how do I explain that wage labor is slavery to my friends? genuine question
Dat soft bigotry of low expectations.
Except it doesn't and it doesn't. Private property in not possible with states, all states are socialist because the state owns everything. Its not classist because there are no classes, no one owns the state. Power is with those willing to make violence, the lowest idiot can and does pull the trigger to enforce the social contract. And its permissive, history and ideas have been warped to serve the state, making pathetic worms like you that think themselves the rebels into obedient little statists preaching the religion of socialism. Great job doing your part comrade.
Its not. Lying is a sin.
...
>posting in anarchist lit thread
>adhering to celestial authority
ok
Lasted 3 years
Okay but something not from 30,000 years ago or a group of 30 disgusting people living in a commune who come back into the city once a week to buy food with their parents credit cards (true story)
Doesn't appear anarchist
>wage labor is slavery
I'm sure there are plenty of books on LTV being useful maybe 200 years ago
Its a sin against humanity, not God. Lying to your fellows is the worst crime, I would punish it with death.
Did my joke about possessing Mars make you think I was a socialist?
Or my comments that one can only own property by being able to hold it?
Where's the lie?
"Sin" is a lie
Except this position is entirely created by the state, which controls the economy through regulation, creating the money supply, creating and maintaining title, and violent punishing anyone that doesn't pay tribute for the privilege of taking care of the state's property. Wage "slavery" is only maintained through the barrier's to entry the state creates, because companies with unproductive workers can't compete against companies with only productive workers. Your sort of "find evidence to support our conclusion" sort of creationist, unscientific thinking is what leads to these pervasive lies like the gender wage gap is created by discrimination or that cops shoot black people because muh racism. In the final analysis, good ideas stand on their own, and bad ideas can only be maintained through violence. But don't worry comrade, this time we'll kill all the good people, and no one will have to work ever again, we'll all make wicker baskets all days and sing songs, comrade, hurray comrade.
Lasted 3 years, and was physical proof of literally every anti-socialist argument ever. Commies that bring up examples of "real" communism are doing my work for me.
Joke? Jokes tend to be funny. The only jokes you've said is "property if theft". Property is liberty.
A boss is the person that built the business. A leader is those most skilled at political wrangling and talking people into surrendering their labor for nothing. To what degree a leader using violence to enforce their will is how socialist the system is, more violence equals more socialism.
The lie was that wage slavery is something. Feelz no realz. Its a sin to tell a lie.
Co-ops, or
pluralistcommonwealth.org
The persistence of the barter system
commondreams.org
Lots of it exist, both the new and the old. They're the building blocks for what could come.
And they are all shit. Its hilarious how much socialists like to shoot themselves in the feet. Next thing you'll be saying the broken window fallacy is wrong, and we should be blocking out the sun.
And barter is capitalist. You can't trade something if you don't own it.
I appreciate you, user
>The only jokes you've said is "property [is] theft".
I didn't type that. I called that "Proudhonism" disparagingly, actually.
Are you not the same user?
A "Boss", the originator of the company RARELY is the the one to put in the majority of the effort to "build" the franchise. He should be rewarded for his efforts and know no undue hardships, but his employees need to enjoy the fruits of their labours as well. We all know damn well their share is still a pittance.
Wage-slavery is something. You can't live in a world like this without wads of cash. I shouldn't even have to say this ITT
>And barter is capitalist.
Ah, here we go again.
>Any and all trade is capitalism.
I want to break the world of this game of monopoly. The goods and services are real things, the money, the gold, the chips we play with are what's clogging things up so badly. You think we'll fight over oil and gas rights even if there were no state?
We'd be on renewables by now!
anarchism is bad and u shud feel bad
Don't worry user, you aren't in the wrong for thinking a society that lasted three years with little economic documentation isn't a good example of a successful society
>a society that lasted three years
>Clearly not reading the thread
And you can just breeze right out of this thread, brown shirt
Meh, if you wrote it or not, you believe in it. Original thought and socialists no mix good. Mutualism is Ancap-lite, so Proudhon got some things right.
Lol, I don't give a fuck about your feelings. You're projecting hard here, the happy planner giving us plebs permission to manage our business how you see fit. Oh thank you master, you're so enlightened.
Wage slavery no real, your feeling no real. I live in poverty quite well, when you're a grown up and see the world you'll see how life is only what we make of it and nothing else.
No, you want to reinforce the monopoly. You're the statist. The value of everything is set by socialists planners like you, not by the market. We won't have free till money and property is proportional valued. Renewables are still limited, you fucking dipshit, the Earth has only such an energy budget. But don't worry comrade, we'll force people to go vegan, and alot most of the land so that bunnies and kitties (after we change their DNA so they don't eat meat) and birdies can live free and we'll kill all the white men and castrate all the rest of the men and we'll be happy and warm forever comrade hurray!!
''The goods and services are real things, the money, the gold, the chips we play with are what's clogging things up so badly. You think we'll fight over oil and gas rights even if there were no state?''
Why do you suppose we started using money in the first place? Are you dense?
And yes, we would still fight over them.
The failures of Catalonia were well documented. It helped Orwell see how shit socialism is, though he died before he could be fully cured.
>You're projecting hard here,
No, I'm trying to figure out who and what I'm talking to.
I'm working class and no doubt your elder. I've seen how life is.
Now you like what Proudhon said? Looks like you haven't settled on what you believe. You're babbling incoherently. Go have a meltdown somewhere else.
>Muh human nature.
>Don't try! You mustn't TRY! HEAVENS NO!!! STOP!!!
>Anarkiddy
Read Bordiga faggots
are you the real butterfly or just an impostor? last time i was here you said you'd leave. that was a while ago
''>Muh human nature.
>Don't try! You mustn't TRY! HEAVENS NO!!! STOP!!!''
Nice argument.
Lol, more entitlement. My name is Hugh Mungus. "your elder" what? Serving coffee or stocking at Hot Topic being a boot licker to your professor doesn't make you working class. I'm working class, I want private property, not theft like you and all other socialists. If you're socialist you don't understand life outside of shit books. Again, I'm not a socialist, so I don't take everything as dogma, I accept only truth, not everything everyone says.
(on your picture) Yea, that's why real anarchists advocate for private property, so parasites like you can't steal our labor.
Are you sure comrade you don't want to help the bunnies and kitties and kill all the white men? Because if so we'll kill you first. Class traitor no comrade.
They weren't making a human nature argument, you dipshit.
Regression to baby talk only reflects your own lack of understanding of what you're babbling about.
I was parodying hippy commie speak, dipshit. Have you ever talked to other commies? I have, hundreds and hundreds of commies. I understand this subject better than you, duuuuuuuuuuh.
Why do you try to talk like an old man with dementia?
Let me just stop your right here. I know you haven't read a word of Marx because he literally spells out the fact that dialectic is a method of work, thought, and presentation of empirical gathered materials literally in the post face to the second edition of capital which is printed as a preface in almost every edition available today, and is among his most quoted pieces of writing besides.
But even more so you need to understand that Marx of 1844 is not the Marx of capital. Between those manuscripts and capital he wrote another, the grundrisse, in which the contradictions of the Hegelian dialectic you're bemoaning were banished by empirical observation combined with the autocritical movement of the dialectic mobilized against its own idealism.
These remarks incidentally should also make clear that Marxism is not a political program in itself, but a method of theoretical practice that can inform successful political praxis. Anarchists, socialists, and communists should all be familiar with the image of the mode of production Marxism enables, even if they disagree with what is to be done with it, or even with its specifics. It remains the best we have.
> is wrong
> can't argue
> can't read
> start random name calling
youtube.com
You're no longer a human being, if you ever really were. All you are is hollow shell, repeating whatever mystical lie you've heard before. Good job comrade.
Most employees in the global metropoles are unproductive workers. They produce precisely no value, rather managing it. This we call the middle class. As for your assertion that it is the state that creates wage slavery, you need to understand that there is a difference between production and circulation. Selling labor may appear a fair deal in the sphere of circulation, but in production, capitalist ownership of the means of production is always exploitative, precisely for the reasons that comic illustrates.
What makes you say that? Is it the fact that you have no answer for my argument?
That was a year from last autumn. I "left" the site for extended periods of time broken with the occasional weekend visits when I stopped in a coffee shop. Hi
My argument is around, It's just at time I tire of repeating myself to the same anonymous, you see? With the end of a class based society, national tensions would lessen. With more equity in the workforces of the world, you'd see cooperation and caring for one another. Total wars would stop in such an environment. Some battle with an-caps may persist, and the occasional scuffles would be so minor. Our violent tendencies may play out in these for a while, but I kind of doubt it. I'm not a primitivist envisioning a Mad Max kind of world. I'm not trying to bring everyone down to some impoverished level.
You also appear to be drunk. Just stop.
Funny because I didn't see an argument in any of your posts. Anyway your stereotyping socialists and communists could not be any more ideological. fuck off, fascist.
daily reminder that the OP of this thread is a silly woman who used to post regularly on s4s.
Did you not read what I wrote? Obviously not. We don't live in a capitalist system, private property doesn't exist. We live in a socialist system. Though, you more certainly are not an authority on what is or isn't productive labor. Saying that managing resources is unproductive is idiotic, I have nothing more to say to someone that is as stupid as you. Try visiting readingcomprehension.org before you reply.
What value is created by book-keeping? Where are you getting the idea that there is no private ownership? I think you made it up.
For a couple of months.
Still waiting for some answers form my questions and that user from the other thread.
Argument?
Nice picture of you cross dressing. Though I prefer you as a brunet.
Democracy creates hierarchy, of those that win the vote and those that do not. Petty schemes like "consensus" are even worse, "consensus" being nothing more than breaking people down till they submit and are obedient. All of this breeds resentment and anger. As we're seeing in the world the slow but sure over throw of the state, as will individuals resist socialism. No matter what you do, the urge to resist and make a better life can never be beaten or brainwashed out of man. Socialism, as an economic system, is a failure, so the state won't win these "battle with an-caps", anarchism will always produce more stuff, while socialists will sit around at assemblies and drone on and on about how trans people are oppressed or how Bob's new painting is really nice.
readingcomprehension.org
Do you organize your stuff, or do you just throw in all on a pile on the floor? Do you have a tool box or do you just throw all your tools in a bag and shake it up? Are you seven or twelve and twelve and a half?
When you're renting a house, you don't own it, because you're paying rent. When you own a house, you don't own it, because you're paying taxes. Taxes = public property.
Dat entitlement.
Still no explanation of why private property doesn't exist today. Just baseless assertions.
As for the argument you didn't see, it was the one I made dissociating Marxism from hegelianism—to which you responded with some weird, vaugely spiritual psychobabble about how I am not human.
Dementia damage control.