What do you think about anarchists?

[Servica]

Some are spoiled teenagers, but I'd like to think that most others are intelligent. They just happen to be idealists that don't realize the survival of the human race depends on an organised society capable of transforming itself into an interstellar space faring society.

Unless they destroy themselves because of the paradoxical divisions of organization that try desperately to eliminate the inherent nature of the individual as a being, by way of attempting to eliminate each other through physical force. Unless it is realized that the individual is the ultimate boiling point of things that are relative to mankind, collectivistic thought will continue to drive the world closer to extinction, and there's no assurance as to where it will ultimately lead.

[Unified Imperial States]

Some are spoiled teenagers, but I'd like to think that most others are intelligent. They just happen to be idealists that don't realize the survival of the human race depends on an organised society capable of transforming itself into an interstellar space faring society.

Yay! Stereotypes!

My "I'd like to think that most others are intelligent" quote pretty much makes your statement moot. Shoo, go be belligerent elsewhere.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

I tend to find Brazilian Facebook ones the definition of militonto bitolado ("narrow-minded activisilly") that only want their own "Ivory Tower reality disconnect zones" with their own ever-nodding retinue of echo chamber buddies while they aggressively impose their point-of-view through absurd assertions that you're part of the worst flavors of oppressors and such without actually bothering to provide arguments for their case or even explaining their offense.

But later, lies and rumors are suddenly allowed, trolling as well, and people go into huge fights with internet arguments as if screams from the top of their lungs, stuff as normal. Violating a safe space is seemingly only a paddlin' if you do it in the wrong discussion, with the wrong people.

Most people who act like that in spaces for discussions about some oppressed group or some progressive cause are for some radical anti-capitalist ideology without knowing a drop of actual theory, and without relevant experience in socialist spaces of the ole day and how they worked. (And no, not all anti-oppression strategies are equally valid from one's "lived experience" being the sole legitimate control to the point you don't need to listen to others, certain stuff is revolutionary and certain stuff does not accomplish anything, disagreeing with you is neither disrespect nor silencing and much less oppression, kindly drop that New Age-like self-help bullshit.)

Frankly, I agree with my mom that post-modernity in the left-wing ideological camp is allowing for too much, when the most agreeable people otherwise defined as feminists in a given space tend to actually be men.

NSG ones are awesome though. I think the Facebook kinds wouldn't ever take hold here or in similar spaces because they're actually supposed to be intellectually honest with people of mixed opinions, not just ultra-left hugboxes.

Honestly, my opinion on anarchists is if you hurt a cause by making it seem like a toxic camp of hypocrites, bitter people and those who want psychological comfort from everybody agreeing with you and affirming your own worldview, you are no better than right-wingers. Being part of this or that group is no excuse, everybody has issues to sort out, albeit it is obvious that we all should not uphold stuff only made to cage us and you can't depend on the empathy of other people for that be done for you. (Exactly for that, you shouldn't beg for their total understanding and compassion, and behaving as if they were born knowing about everything - that's very different from knowingly upholding aggressive, prejudiced views that can obviously be interpreted as a threat to your continual existence or well-being.)

I could even translate this to Portuguese and send with fake profiles to all people who say I'm racist, misogynistic, pedo-enabler and so on, so that they might frame it and nail to some wall.

[Socialist Tera]

I disagree with anarchists because they want to get rid of the state with a stroke of a pen rather then gradually reduce the state.
Lenin: Anarchism or socialism:

Theses:

1. Anarchism, in the course of the 35 to 40 years (Bakunin and the International, 1866–) of its existence (and with Stirner included, in the course of many more years) has produced nothing but general platitudes against exploitation.

These phrases have been current for more than 2,000 years. What is missing is (alpha) an understanding of the causes of exploitation; (beta) an understanding of the development of society, which leads to socialism; (gamma) an understanding of the class struggle as the creative force for the realisation of socialism.

2. An understanding of the causes of exploitation. Private property as the basis of commodity economy. Social property in the means of production. In anarchism–nil.

Anarchism is bourgeois individualism in reverse. Individualism as the basis of the entire anarchist world outlook.

{
Defence of petty property and petty economy on the land. Keine Majorität.[1]

Negation of the unifying and organising power of the authority.
}

3. Failure to understand the development of society–the role of large-scale production–the development of capitalism into socialism.

(Anarchism is a product of despair. The psychology of the unsettled intellectual or the vagabond and not of the proletarian.)

4. Failure to understand the class struggle of the proletariat.

Absurd negation of politics in bourgeois society.

Failure to understand the role of the organisation and the education of the workers.

Panaceas consisting of one-sided, disconnected means.

5. What has anarchism, at one time dominant in the Romance countries, contributed in recent European history?

– No doctrine, revolutionary teaching, or theory.

– Fragmentation of the working-class movement.

– Complete fiasco in the experiments of the revolutionary movement (Proudhonism, 1871; Bakuninism, 1873).

– Subordination of the working class to bourgeois politics in the guise of negation of politics.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/ ... nov/24.htm
https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... 12/x01.htm

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Some are spoiled teenagers, but I'd like to think that most others are intelligent. They just happen to be idealists that don't realize the survival of the human race depends on an organised society capable of transforming itself into an interstellar space faring society.

Neither anarchism nor communism are a stone in the sole of scientific progress.

[Zottistan]

In which case the majority are the rulers of the minority who disagree.

Exactly. That is what democracy is and that is why all anarchists should oppose it.

They have to, in order to actually be anarchists.

Not that I agree that anybody should be an anarchist in the first place.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

I disagree with anarchists because they want to get rid of the state with a stroke of a pen rather then gradually reduce the state.

This is fully irrelevant now that the entire world is capitalist and the left lost a considerable portion of its power.

In such a situation, we unite or perish.

[Unified Imperial States]

Some are spoiled teenagers, but I'd like to think that most others are intelligent. They just happen to be idealists that don't realize the survival of the human race depends on an organised society capable of transforming itself into an interstellar space faring society.

Unless they destroy themselves because of the paradoxical divisions of organization that try desperately to eliminate the inherent nature of the individual as a being. Unless it is realized that the individual is the ultimate boiling point of things that are relative to mankind, collectivistic thought will continue to drive the world closer to extinction, and there's no assurance as to where it will ultimately lead.

Until it's collectivism towards a united human race.

And if you think being a disorganized tribal species is going to get us any closer to becoming a space-faring race that can help us spread our roots throughout the stars, then all I have to say is the following.

WAAAAGH DA ORKZ IZ DA BIGGEZT UND DA STRONGEZT

But seriously, no.

[Greater Mackonia]

Herd-Rule in its purest form, Anarchy itself is a necessary part of the cycle of civilisation. An impermanent part.

[Servica]

I disagree with anarchists because they want to get rid of the state with a stroke of a pen rather then gradually reduce the state.
Lenin: Anarchism or socialism:

Theses:

1. Anarchism, in the course of the 35 to 40 years (Bakunin and the International, 1866–) of its existence (and with Stirner included, in the course of many more years) has produced nothing but general platitudes against exploitation.

These phrases have been current for more than 2,000 years. What is missing is (alpha) an understanding of the causes of exploitation; (beta) an understanding of the development of society, which leads to socialism; (gamma) an understanding of the class struggle as the creative force for the realisation of socialism.

2. An understanding of the causes of exploitation. Private property as the basis of commodity economy. Social property in the means of production. In anarchism–nil.

Anarchism is bourgeois individualism in reverse. Individualism as the basis of the entire anarchist world outlook.

{
Defence of petty property and petty economy on the land. Keine Majorität.[1]

Negation of the unifying and organising power of the authority.
}

3. Failure to understand the development of society–the role of large-scale production–the development of capitalism into socialism.

(Anarchism is a product of despair. The psychology of the unsettled intellectual or the vagabond and not of the proletarian.)

4. Failure to understand the class struggle of the proletariat.

Absurd negation of politics in bourgeois society.

Failure to understand the role of the organisation and the education of the workers.

Panaceas consisting of one-sided, disconnected means.

5. What has anarchism, at one time dominant in the Romance countries, contributed in recent European history?

– No doctrine, revolutionary teaching, or theory.

– Fragmentation of the working-class movement.

– Complete fiasco in the experiments of the revolutionary movement (Proudhonism, 1871; Bakuninism, 1873).

– Subordination of the working class to bourgeois politics in the guise of negation of politics.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/ ... nov/24.htm
https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... 12/x01.htm

Bourgeois my ass. You see, class and labor are autonomous remnants of the capitalist camp of society.
If your little "ideology" establishes itself upon those, then it is not inconceivable that it would slip into reaction and eventually become uniform with what it has been derived from. An unorthodoxy just as orthodox as the other is not very progressive. It also isn't reasonable.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Already 4 pages in, there is a lot of misunderstanding as to what anarchism is.

This being NSG, where people think informed opinions are a mere detail.

[Unified Imperial States]

I disagree with anarchists because they want to get rid of the state with a stroke of a pen rather then gradually reduce the state.
Lenin: Anarchism or socialism:

Theses:

1. Anarchism, in the course of the 35 to 40 years (Bakunin and the International, 1866–) of its existence (and with Stirner included, in the course of many more years) has produced nothing but general platitudes against exploitation.

These phrases have been current for more than 2,000 years. What is missing is (alpha) an understanding of the causes of exploitation; (beta) an understanding of the development of society, which leads to socialism; (gamma) an understanding of the class struggle as the creative force for the realisation of socialism.

2. An understanding of the causes of exploitation. Private property as the basis of commodity economy. Social property in the means of production. In anarchism–nil.

Anarchism is bourgeois individualism in reverse. Individualism as the basis of the entire anarchist world outlook.

{
Defence of petty property and petty economy on the land. Keine Majorität.[1]

Negation of the unifying and organising power of the authority.
}

3. Failure to understand the development of society–the role of large-scale production–the development of capitalism into socialism.

(Anarchism is a product of despair. The psychology of the unsettled intellectual or the vagabond and not of the proletarian.)

4. Failure to understand the class struggle of the proletariat.

Absurd negation of politics in bourgeois society.

Failure to understand the role of the organisation and the education of the workers.

Panaceas consisting of one-sided, disconnected means.

5. What has anarchism, at one time dominant in the Romance countries, contributed in recent European history?

– No doctrine, revolutionary teaching, or theory.

– Fragmentation of the working-class movement.

– Complete fiasco in the experiments of the revolutionary movement (Proudhonism, 1871; Bakuninism, 1873).

– Subordination of the working class to bourgeois politics in the guise of negation of politics.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/ ... nov/24.htm
https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... 12/x01.htm

You know, it's funny, this is probably one of the few threads that a capitalist conservative (and on every odd day and then an admitted fascist) like me and a more socialist person like you would EVER agree on something.

[Servica]

Unless they destroy themselves because of the paradoxical divisions of organization that try desperately to eliminate the inherent nature of the individual as a being. Unless it is realized that the individual is the ultimate boiling point of things that are relative to mankind, collectivistic thought will continue to drive the world closer to extinction, and there's no assurance as to where it will ultimately lead.

Until it's collectivism towards a united human race.

And if you think being a disorganized tribal species is going to get us any closer to becoming a space-faring race that can help us spread our roots throughout the stars, then all I have to say is the following.

WAAAAGH DA ORKZ IZ DA BIGGEZT UND DA STRONGEZT

But seriously, no.

No, don't be like that. My tribalism is the tribalism of the self, and the eliminate of the concepts such as "war" and "pride".
Moderate anarchism, which posits that all individuals are about as human as each other, is at the core of civil rights. Everything else, such as civil development, dedicated to improving conditions for all individuals, follows. Without "moderate anarchy", we'll have had several Roman Empires fighting each other until the sun explodes, because weapons are the only things that are necessary to ensure glory and order.

[Sibirsky]

No, I did not.

What the fuck does statelessness have to do with businesses?

First you said anarchy means no rulers.
Then you said capitalism has rulers.

Gotta love ancap doublethink.

Since anarchy means no rulers but capitalism has rulers and you oppose states as an ancap, I'd say you're merely an anti-statist instead of anarchist.

Business owners and managers do not rule over all of society. This isn't double think, this is common fucking sense.

How would you get rid of private property?

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

You know, it's funny, this is probably one of the few threads that a capitalist conservative (and on every odd day and then an admitted fascist) like me and a more socialist person like you would EVER agree on something.

His opinion based on some early 20th century guy whose ideas gave origin to a state capitalist regime that ultimately failed even getting to Marxism's actual socialist stage past his death...

[Socialist Tera]

I disagree with anarchists because they want to get rid of the state with a stroke of a pen rather then gradually reduce the state.

This is fully irrelevant now that the entire world is capitalist and the left lost a considerable portion of its power.

In such a situation, we unite or perish.

I understand why, we should but many leftists, myself included, don't really want to compromise our views. The biggest divide at the moment is the role of the state in a revolution. I don't think it is possible for the left to properly unite unless a lot of leftist shrug off their idea of having a socialist state or a stateless revolution.

I disagree with anarchists because they want to get rid of the state with a stroke of a pen rather then gradually reduce the state.
Lenin: Anarchism or socialism:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/ ... nov/24.htm
https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... 12/x01.htm

Bourgeois my ass. You see, class and labor are autonomous remnants of the capitalist camp of society.
If your little "ideology" establishes itself upon those, then it is not inconceivable that it would slip into reaction and eventually become uniform with what it has been derived from. An unorthodoxy just as orthodox as the other is not very progressive. It also isn't reasonable.

You have to know what the problems are to fix it. Also define reasonable.

[Jumalariik]

As an anarchist, I like anarchists. The ones before 1940 though, then they got floppy and flabby.

[Syndicapolis]

I think they're utter jerks for promoting crime!
Get rekt skrubz

Anarchists do not promote crime.

Maybe s/he is referring to civil disobedience? That isn't crime in the ordinary sense of course, but permanent statists don't realise that sort of thing.

As for what I think of anarchists, I have no problem with fighting with them for causes we both support and they are very well-intentioned, but they're also misguided. A state is not inherently evil, it's entirely reflective of the socioeconomic system it is part of. I don't think it's wise to lump a monarchistic feudal state, a bourgeois state and a transient proletarian state into the same category when there are profound differences in terms of level of democracy, justice, method and purpose between these types of state. Besides, a revolution needs a state, needs some degree of coercion, to defend it - classes won't disappear overnight. That was the problem with anarchist Spain.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Business owners and managers do not rule over all of society. This isn't double think, this is common fucking sense.

This is true. Nevertheless, economic power is the main accepted power structure in modern society, even though there are other power structures that might privilege some and oppress others. Nobody seemed to argue that it is a zero-sum game, albeit globally money and the wider sense of capital alike have an amazingly bad distribution.

[Syndicapolis]

First you said anarchy means no rulers.
Then you said capitalism has rulers.

Gotta love ancap doublethink.

Since anarchy means no rulers but capitalism has rulers and you oppose states as an ancap, I'd say you're merely an anti-statist instead of anarchist.

Business owners and managers do not rule over all of society. This isn't double think, this is common fucking sense.

How would you get rid of private property?

How would you protect private property without a state?

[Unified Imperial States]

Until it's collectivism towards a united human race.

And if you think being a disorganized tribal species is going to get us any closer to becoming a space-faring race that can help us spread our roots throughout the stars, then all I have to say is the following.

WAAAAGH DA ORKZ IZ DA BIGGEZT UND DA STRONGEZT

But seriously, no.

No, don't be like that. My tribalism is the tribalism of the self, and the eliminate of the concepts such as "war" and "pride".
Moderate anarchism, which posits that all individuals are about as human as each other, is at the core of civil rights. Everything else, such as civil development, dedicated to improving conditions for all individuals, follows. Without "moderate anarchy", we'll have had several Roman Empires fighting each other until the sun explodes, because weapons are the only things that are necessary to ensure glory and order.

It doesn't even matter what your presumptions on an organised society are. Anarchism in any form is not going to take humanity beyond Earth. Ever.

And before the "but but but but but we can still have nations/some kind of group working towards a common goal" that's not anarchy.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Anarchists do not promote crime.

Maybe s/he is referring to civil disobedience? That isn't crime in the ordinary sense of course, but permanent statists don't realise that sort of thing.

As for what I think of anarchists, I have no problem with fighting with them for causes we both support and they are very well-intentioned, but they're also misguided. A state is not inherently evil, it's entirely reflective of the socioeconomic system it is part of. I don't think it's wise to lump a monarchistic feudal state, a bourgeois state and a transient proletarian state into the same category when there are profound differences in terms of level of democracy, justice, method and purpose between these types of state. Besides, a revolution needs a state, needs some degree of coercion, to defend it - classes won't disappear overnight. That was the problem with anarchist Spain.

Let's also look at it from the side that your argument was basically that capitalist oppression is a spider, not that the existence of a State is an appropriate, fully excusable and non-oppressive construct.

[Servica]

This is fully irrelevant now that the entire world is capitalist and the left lost a considerable portion of its power.

In such a situation, we unite or perish.

I understand why, we should but many leftists, myself included, don't really want to compromise our views. The biggest divide at the moment is the role of the state in a revolution. I don't think it is possible for the left to properly unite unless a lot of leftist shrug off their idea of having a socialist state or a stateless revolution.

Revolution, please.
Your revolutions have ultimately led China at best and Cuba at worst, and unfortunately I don't see any clear distinction from the two other than that China is larger and Cuba is lapsing back into the room of the same choices that China had been required to make before. Also, it seems to be having a lot of bad luck for being too chill, and being too close to the United States.

[Skinia]

First you said anarchy means no rulers.
Then you said capitalism has rulers.

Gotta love ancap doublethink.

Since anarchy means no rulers but capitalism has rulers and you oppose states as an ancap, I'd say you're merely an anti-statist instead of anarchist.

Business owners and managers do not rule over all of society. This isn't double think, this is common fucking sense.

How would you get rid of private property?

The fact that they rule at all makes capitalism anti-anarchist.

Cooperatives and self-employment.

[Socialist Tera]

I understand why, we should but many leftists, myself included, don't really want to compromise our views. The biggest divide at the moment is the role of the state in a revolution. I don't think it is possible for the left to properly unite unless a lot of leftist shrug off their idea of having a socialist state or a stateless revolution.

Revolution, please.
Your revolutions have ultimately led China at best and Cuba at worst, and unfortunately I don't see any clear distinction from the two other than that China is larger and Cuba is lapsing back into the room of the same choices that China had been required to make before. Also, it seems to be having a lot of bad luck for being too chill.

Oh god, please tell me about a successful anarchists revolution. Cuba's problem is not in the government itself but the Cuban embargo.

You know, it's funny, this is probably one of the few threads that a capitalist conservative (and on every odd day and then an admitted fascist) like me and a more socialist person like you would EVER agree on something.

His opinion based on some early 20th century guy whose ideas gave origin to a state capitalist regime that ultimately failed even getting to Marxism's actual socialist stage past his death...

I suggest reading Lenin: State and Revolution. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/ ... /staterev/