introduction to anarchism

although there are already two threads dedicated to anarchism on /lit/ (>>1943 and >>2587), i was wondering if any kind lains would be willing to give me their personal recommendations for someone looking to investigate anarchism a little more. i have done my best to be as politically ignorant as i could for the better part of my adult life, but i am starting to regret that choice. i am interested in anarchism because the only political things i have really see myself getting behind were anti-authoritarian. thank you for the assistance.

>>2708 https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-anarchy-101 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0Rj4mMMSYI

>>2712 > Anonymous : Desert Not more than three days go by that I don't hear or read mention of this. I've been meaning to read it for a while now. Have you?

>let's make another anarchist insider trade thread until we propagandize our religion to everyone seems about right

>>2722 I'm reasonably sure you don't know what "insider trading" is, based on what you just posted.

>>2708 Anarchism comes in many flavours, if you are more interested in a lefty type of ancom or syndicalism I'd recomend starting with marx, and reading kropotkin and bakunin. For individualism I'd recomend the unique and its property. for nihilist anarchism I'd recomend blessed is the flame and desert. for primitivism read industrial society and its future the coming insurrection is great and finally, they don't call themselves anarchists but I think the situationist international is very important for anarchists to read. Maybe start with society of the spectacle. >>2720 not who you were replying to, I have read it and it is very good. Strong recomendation.

>>2722 This is a cyberpunk imageboard, in case you have forgotten.

This essay does a pretty good job. Best written introduction I have ever encountered . http://indianlibertarians.org/blogpost98-Introduction-to-Market-Anarchism

>>2727 Marx has nothing to do with Bakunin

This is my favorite general history and introduction: http://www.ditext.com/woodcock/anarch.html

>>2734 I didn't mean to imply he does, I would just say it's good to read if you wanna really know your soykaf. It can't do any harm to know more right?

William Gillis wrote some good essays as an introduction to anarchism. http://humaniterations.net/

What is Anarchism? - Emma Goldman

>>2737 Thanks a lot ay

>>2720 >Have you? I have, and to be frank on first impression it seems that the author underestimate the possibility of collapse. I will give it another read tho.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq Just read this for an overview

>>2733 He said anarchist, which is inherently opposed to private property. OP, it is heavier but I recommend The Conquest of Bread to understand a lot of the historical background to anarchism and fundamental ideas.

>>2848 Anarchism is not oppossed to private property. I would certainly argue that anarchism encourages everyone to become the owner of all things, including one self. Thus, all things are everyone's private property.

>>2848 > inherently opposed to private property According to some books that are a century and a half old. There aren't that many anarchists now that believe in giving up private property on a smaller level just because the bigger things are held in common. Certain things are in fact "mine" period.

>>2849 >>2850 only if you have a babby-teir understanding of what private property means. Nobody wants your toothbrush, but also if somebody doesn't personally use a thing they don't get to call it theirs.

>>2850 That is why (I think) most of anarchist thought makes the distinction between personal property (things you own and use directly every day such as your toothbrush, your home, your crops, etc) and private property (things that you own but don't use directly, as you rely on the labour of others to produce wealth, like in a factory or a corporation). This is what we call "means of production". Anarchists think things that are of no personal use but useful to produce material goods (or even services) should be owned and operated collectively, without any hierarchy, so that no individual is able to keep all of the created wealth for themselves.

>>2849 Hate to be rude, but why even contribute to a thread when you're not informed on the topic at hand? At least ask instead just being blatantly wrong. In left wing contexts, the word 'private property' more or less means 'the means of production'. I was replying to >>2733 because they were pretending their strain of capitalism is anarchist. I guess they think the word is cool or something?(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST, Please keep on topic and provide literary resources that give an introduction to Anarchism, instead of arguing about the various interpretations of private property with respect to anarchism.)

>>2851 You managed to agree with someone's main point while simultaneously trying to insult their intelligence there. Good job, kid. You'll go far. >>2852 Well at least we're getting somewhere here. I don't think most people are going to assume that distinction though. The culture we grew up in is not so nuanced in it's definitions.

>>2851 I've always thought that the distinction between "personal" property and "private" property is not as clear as most leftists would like it to be. Can you provide some elaboration on this? Obviously toothbrushes are personal property and factories are private property, but how do we decide the things in between? My laptop would be personal property, right? Even if I were to do work on it, because I'm not having other people "labor" on my laptop? Likewise for my car, even if I bartered rides in exchange for food, because I am personally giving those rides. I suppose this idea extends to intangible assets like debt and investments (assuming things like that still exist in some form). Am I on the right track here?

>>2857 if you are the only person who uses a thing, and you're the person responsible for it, it's yours. This would apply to groups of people too. Obviously there's still fuzzy lines but there's fuzzy lines with anything. I also think people should start thinking of personal property as "mine and my friends'". Its simply more efficient and easier on the environment if people share things like cars, food, housing, cookware, etc.

>>2728 I hate the resigned! I hate the resigned, like I hate the filthy, like I hate layabouts! I hate resignation! I hate filthiness, I hate inaction. I feel for the sick man bent under some malignant fever; I hate the imaginary sick man that a little bit of will would set on his feet. I feel for the man in chains, surrounded by guardians crushed under the weight of irons on the many. I hate soldiers who are bent by the weight of braids and three stars; the workers who are bent under the weight of capital. I love the man who says what he feels wherever he is; I hate the voter seeking the perpetual conquest by the majority. I love the savant crushed under the weight of scientific research; I hate the individual who bends his body under the weight of an unknown power, of some “X,” of a God, I hate, I say, all those who, surrendering to others through fear or resignation a part of their power as men, not only keep their heads down, but make me, and those I love, keep our heads down, too through the weight of their frightful collaboration or their idiotic inertia. I hate them; yes I hate them, because me, I feel it. I don’t bow before the officer’s braid, the mayor’s sash, the gold of the capitalist; morality or religion. For a long time I have known that all of these things are just baubles that we can break like glass...I bend beneath the weight of the resignation of others. O how I hate resignation! I love life. - Albert Libertad (1905)

>>2851 I see no reason not to claim everything as mine. If i have the might to take and use a thing at some given time now, or in the future, I consider it my property regardless of who is currently borrowing it. Others have taken things in my possession through trickery, threats of violence or other more cunning expressions of might. Such is part of the game we play. Things will come, and things will go, property comes, property goes. At the end of the day it is all still my property to do with as I wish. Even my life is a flow, it is flowing near enough for you to see it now, in the future it may be flowing somewhere else out of view, spread out across infinite multitudes of frequencies smeared across spacetime. You could take it from me, and I would not miss it, could not miss it. You and my life are my property, as you have borrowed yourself from me, just as you would be borrowing my life You can never be more or less that mine. In 10^100, or 10^10000 or 10^10^10^10^10^10^1000000000000 years time I will be back again to claim what is mine.

>>2861 I imagine the concept of communal ownership of things kind of requires that the community looks after the things together, and when some stranger like you comes along and tries to take one of the things for himself they either stop you or catch you later and pound the piss out of you. At least, that's what I imagine.

>>2861 I would certainly borrow your skills in humor to entertain me, you dear clown.

>>2862 This is pretty accurate. An example I always point to in terms of communal ownership is the Zapatistas in Mexico. They have formed councils which do keep the peace within their autonomous region and prevent things such as theft and other crime.

>>2864 So what's the difference between such a council and a state.

>>2939 a state has non-consensual ownership of its land, regardless of the people on it. These councils, on the other hand, are merely a method of the people on the land for making decisions about the land and how they all affect it. The state declares itself an entity that controls the people, while these councils actually *are* just the people.

>>2940 And what if someone disagrees on a council's decision? For example, a newcomer decides to take some land to build himself a shack the council disagrees to because the shack is ugly or smth, or they had other ideas to that land plot. The newcomer proceeds anyway. What then? If a council is entirely consensual, what will prevent people from leeching off its resources or making private property claims on lands while not consenting to councils' decisions? If the council can utilize violence to make people adhere to its decisions, then what's the difference between rough ppl called gvmt and rough ppl called council?

>>2708 This pretty much sums up what you need to know about Anarchism in no more than 12 to 15 minutes https://invidio.us/watch?v=TsyIXqdMZTc

>>2942 >take some land to build himself a shack the council disagrees to because the shack is ugly or smth, or they had other ideas to that land plot For one, this person would have the autonomy to build this shack, paint it whatever colour, and whatever else without even notifying anybody. Councils may intervene to make sure you aren't taking too much land or negotiate later if say they were going to build a waterpump there. Seeing that this is a shack, it wouldn't be a big problem. Proudhon detailed in 'Property is Theft' that any living space is your own personal property as long as you actively live there (ex. Squatter's rights.) Councils mostly exist to organise people for social projects and the means of production. Unless you're sociopathic, they won't be a threat. At least not anymore than the crushing crap you have to deal with in current society. >leeching off resources In sum, you're arguing the tragedy of the commons. In which case, read: Elinor Ostrom's Governing the Commons David Harvey's The Future of the Commons Carl Rose's Comedy of the Commons And this article: https://climateandcapitalism.com/2008/08/25/debunking-the-tragedy-of-the-commons/ >making private property claims Making property claims requires its own physical threat of violence and coercion via enclosure of owned lands. Which can only be propped legally. This was paralleled in history by the enclosure of communal lands in England during the 13th century. It meant more consolidation of land which violated the consent of others using it. >threats of violence Again, in order to back-up a claim to uninhabited property, the threat of violence would soon to claim into play itself. Social anarchists are softies. They would seek to rehabilitate you (or even a murderer) for a crime first before even confinement. Plus, if there police or military to befriend you, they would be integrated members of the community that would act on their accord. Councils are not homogeneous nor unchanging. Positions of representation would be revolved frequently (weekly.)

>if there police or military to befriend you *if there were police/military to apprehend you

If there is no government then there is no taxes making social programs a voluntary thing ancoms argue that redistribution of wealth should be made but unless its by force people will never give it away willy nilly as evident by history. There is no lawcourt or anything to protect your "property", ancaps argue for the NAP but that does not stop me showing up with my mates and busting caps and while they can bust back it becomes harder and harder to protect large areas of private land and the amount of people will always outnumber the amount of private security or similar. There is no cops or set of laws, "laws" would be enforced by the group of individuals that choose to live together however giving human nature it is assumed that stuff like murder, rape, torture etc. Would be considered universally bad as evident by history in which different civilizations with no contact always disproved of that(this is kinda of a gamble it could theoretically be mad max but most likely not given the 21st century mindset) You own what you can protect and make/buy and its usage its entirely up To you(not human beings of course since the amount of people who would be against child slavery greatly outnumbers the ones that would like it and most people wouldn't really shed a tear if your slave killed you or something) Reminder that there is no perfect system and stuff like rape, murder, slavery, racism etc. Will never be abolished, however not having the state breathing down your neck would solve a fair share of problems(and create others so you gotta weight the pros and cons before you make a decision) You would mostly just have people just being people

>>2708 Read Stirner Read Bob Black Read a lot of >>2737

What kind of anarchism? Nihilist/egoist anarchism is a good foundation, but there's lots of other good stuff. It all depends on your interests after that.

>>3525 >redistribution of wealth lel in what world do you live in? Anarchism, like socialism, is economically concerned with production, not what happens to profits. Bottom line, there wouldn't be a boss nor wageslavery. Sure, there would be labour, however won't be 'alienated from the fruits of your labour and do forth. >it becomes harder and harder to protect large areas of private land I mean, a lot of us are used to not even owning the homes we live in, let alone vast swaths of land. I would say that only small landowners- who wouldn't even know what an 'an-E-may is- would be in the position to begrudge this without coming off as some rich douchebag. It's safe to say this doesn't matter much to vast majority of people who are interested in anarchism. The rest is rather speculative, but can be addressed just by visiting some hippy commune that scattered across some countries. Even then, perhaps the risk of the world turning into Mad Max might be worth everything else. At least economic crime would be gone.

>>3529 The more complicated the production gets the more money If you wanna have a french fries stand you gotta buy the potatoes, cut them, buy a deep fryer then sell it. you didn't made the fryer or planted the potatoes you just processed and sold it If you wanna make airplanes there is no way you can do it by yourself,you need almost a hundred different industries to dig the raw materials, process them, and make them into another thing etc. If you make airplanes you have to spend a good amount of money to buy from all those industries and then make them, thats why airplanes are insanely expensive since the amount of money(and risk) its on a higher level already therefore the airplane maker would be richer than the potato stand owner The difference is that you would worth what you produce however its just no viable to make airplanes by yourself, you'll always need employers, diffence being that without state or private property employees can just not work until they get a fair deal(fruits of labour if you will) since there would be no taxes or landlords on their asses This isn't TNG where humans would just change and give up having power and influence just because there is no state and yes mad max sounds pretty gnar

>>3531 TNG isn't anarchism though, it's post-scarcity communism. And Mad Max is more like feudalism than anything else, the neo-tribes all seem to have a boss. Max is kinda on his own a lot but that's just being a solo. It isn't anarchism either because one person isn't a society.

>>3531 The problem here is that you assume de facto money will still persist without a state and after relations to the means of production will change. If you assume money is derived from commodity exchange, then after changing commodity money to suit needs rather than exchange, money will change/disappear; if you assume that money is derived from legal tender/authority, then dismantling that authority will also dismantle its money; if you assume money is derived from trust or the need for credit, then you have a peoples' owned bank a là agorism or something like bitcoin. Most theories of money are covered, if they even matter. Including discussions of labour vouchers and other incentive schemes. Primarily, it will be social relations that will be changed. >If you wanna have a french fries stand you gotta buy the potatoes, cut them... And, what? You act as though there aren't cooperative operations of distribution and extraction, excusing the fact extraction was initially done by the commons. The rest is fixed capital that can be owned by a labour syndicate. And those syndicates can cooperate more smoothly since competition would be negligible nor would there be a racket of cooperations deciding the terms. >there is no way you can do it by yourself How is this a point? We are are talking about society, aren't we? Going from making french fries to building airplanes is just arguing using slight of hand. There's an obvious major difference in scale and labour intensity. To which you imply forgoes earning the fruits of one labour, but only by matter of capital, investment risk, and specialty. While the latter means there will be some hierarchy of technical skill, you assume that its organisation must rely on the reign of private shareholders uninvolved in the labour process instead of democratic ownership of the workers. Economic risk relies on the macroeconomic structures in place that anarchists seek to fundamentally alter. Instead of arguing their worth, you matter-of-factly state their existence without question. You may need engineers for making the planes, but not his boss. And, okay. Let's say that people cannot be given the fruits of their labour, then simply give every plane worker equal payment. Not because of fairness, but because to evaluate their participation. They'll realise either they enjoy making aircrafts or do it out of necessity. In principle, anarchists would want the latter, for they seek address that necessity. Perhaps the need for new airplanes or airplanes in general can be evaluated. https://www.usaaircraft.com/page/cooperative-share-program Shared ownership is also a step in the right direction in this case. Shared risk and investment. >>3535 Not to be accusatory, but Mad Max is a bad case example and can be used im bad faith. It's fiction as opposes to examples of communes, cooperatives, ESOP's, commons, and other examples of common ownership. The first Mad Max movie wasn't even anarchist. It was just a seemingly post-apocalyptic Australian struggle between a rowdy police force and an even rowdier band of criminals. Although there's aesthetics of anarchy and punk, the story is more akin to a fantasy of 'law & order like Judge Dredd or Robocop. Might be missing the point though because I haven't seen Mad Max 2.

>>3535 Don't wanna come of all "Well Achktually" here, but star trek still has private property so it's not actually communism. The whole episode of TNG "measure of a man" is about deciding if data is property or not. In that episode they clearly refer to the ship's computer as "property of starfleet".

>>3536 Mad Max isn't a bad example, it is a non-example entirely. I don't think you read very closely. >>3537 People still had private property in communist countries. We know it's not anarchist anyway as they have a hierarchical military/exploratory arm. I was mostly just having fun anyway. I was not expecting serious replies to that... golly jeez.

>>3538 sorry i'm just a star trek nerd and also a politics nerd. yeah it's certainly not anarchist not even close.

>>3536 I meant tng as in "PICARD: That's what this is all about. A lot has changed in the past three hundred years. People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things. We've eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions. We have grown out of our infancy. " Money its the universal way of fruits of labour, some people might not want trade their ice cream for the french fries you produce, but they would certainly want to trade money and vice versa Shared ownership it i was advocating for if you read the post more closely what i was saying is that different industries would have different pay grades, the airplane thing is just an example the dude that dig the ore up will inevitably have their labor be more valued dude to the other industries that rely on them to survive therefore making them richer You dig iron ore and sell to a hammer maker and the hammer maker sells hammer to the public Whoever the dudes selling ore will have way more avenues to trade their labor and if some dudes that make steel pipes want some of it i rather get the reward for my labour in money than a bucnh of pipes >Perhaps the need for new airplanes or airplanes in general can be evaluated. This is never gonna happen, Humans are soykaf, the dudes that made fidget spinners are zillionares now, there was never a need for fidget spinners or sport cars or leather jackets or literally whatever not needed for survival. Also whatever a human values or not depends on him and himself only he might like fidget spinners who cares? And mad max is what happens when anarchy fails which its always a risk who should be made know for people who want so be a par of the cause Without transparency you might as well be the cia

>>2708 https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own

Mark Passio has some good things to say on this topic, find his seminars on youtube whatonearthishappening.com

Does anyone have any information or documentation for National Anarchism, it's such a strange seemingly contradictory idea, any clarfication about how it’s meant to work would be cool lains

>>3764 it's a meme ideology, like nazbol.

>>3765 Ah i dont know i feel like Nazbol is basically just Strasserism with extra steps. So yes a meme but one that historically did, and could in future (please no) gain traction. There has to be something to the whole idea

>>3766 I suppose so, however I don't see something like National Anarchism gaining traction. While something like communism is based on economic and Nationalism based on the cultural can be fixed and pieced together. Nationalism and Anarchy doesn't seem to be able to, as they are completely at the other ends of the spectrum on authority. Correct me if I'm wrong.

>>3767 I think is just anarchism but with cultural(and sometimes ethnic, though many seem to stray from it) boundaries

Re: so called "national anarchism", the following is a conversation with one of its mouthpieces. I don't support this position and neither does the host of the outlet as you can read in the introduction: http://thebrilliant.org/podcast/episode-83-nationalism-and-bolobolo-part-iii/

>>3767 It's ethno-communalism

>>3766 It's left communism + agrarian conservatism/nationalism. Sincerely, someone who read the book by Karl O. Paetel

>>3764 Since some people are ready to defend "anarco-capitalism", which makes about as much sense, I won't even begin to enter this level of absurdity

>>3814 To contribute more than by whining against incoherences, here's my rec that hasn't been mentionned yet : Revolutionary self-theory https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/larry-law-revolutionary-self-theory It's a short and simple post-situationnist piece whose main force is to clearly define what ideology is, and why it is the ennemy of anyone trying to be relevant. Some passages may come off a bit strange, since it has been written a few decades ago, and you may want to actualize some stuff. But that would be a good thing - to apply the method it describes to the book itself. "The ideological supermarket — like any supermarket — is fit only for looting" I'd also recommend Tiqqun to those who want to pursue this large intellectual filiation - although it also has to be taken with care because their edgy rhetoric of "everything besides us is crap" can get pretty annoying at times. Theory of bloom is a must read if you feel alone/isolated

>>3814 Anarco-capitalism sounds like an oligarchy on steroids.

if you want scientific based anarchist ideas, check Kroptokin and Chomsky.(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST, Rule 4 Please elaborate in your future posts as to what you know about regarding scientific anarchist ideas by Kroptokin and Chomsky and elaborate on examples of such.)

>>4222 Chomsky is about as credible in anarchism as Stalin is for libertarian ideas.(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST, Rule 4 Please elaborate in your future posts as to why believe Chomsky is not credible in anarchism and elaborate on examples of such.)

I didn't see it mentioned yet but the writer, editor, publisher, webmaster and podcaster Aragorn! died about a week and a half ago. That was his birth name by the way, his parents were hippies. He was hated by a lot of anarchists and for some pretty good reasons. It's been a long time since I read one of his articles but he was editor of Anarchy: Journal of Desire Armed for a while and I was following his podcasts up until a couple of weeks ago when the websites went offline. I'm going to miss his voice, even though I didn't always agree with him.

I don't know much (or anything really) about anarchism but it seems to me that it'd be nice if people were generally discouraged from stabbing me. Sure a "social contract" or "non-aggression pact" could potentially dissuade them from stabbing me but it'd be nice to know that there's a body of people whose job it is to prevent people from stabbing me.

>>3815 Interested in why anarchists are convinced supermarkets are bad. >>3536 What if the french fries made by the "labor syndicate" suck? What's to stop someone from starting a competing labor syndicate? Well see there competition hasn't been eliminated at all. I read "the ego and his own" and Stirner rightly dismantles all his spooks but he doesn't provide any positive system of society. I, as an egoist, want to have stuff and not be killed, therefore I see it as in my interest to not be an anarchist. >>3525 So let's say there's a body of independent liberated anarchists that don't like rape. "don't hang with us if you rape!" they say. Now let's say Sally says that a man that just came in from out of town raped her. The people will need to 1) Send someone to apprehend the fellow. 2) Investigate the accusation. 3) Undergo procedures of judgement. 4) If judged as guilty, a punishment must be enforced. Now, if we imagine a small town of 100 people, this seems manageable without police/justices/etc, but for cities of 100k+ people wouldn't it be better if anarchist bodies simply assigned dedicated "social rule enforcers", dedicated "judgement managers", etc? While these dedicated people wouldn't produce anything, everyone would benefit from their labor so people would consent to pay "living funds" for them. The society of anarchists could agree that if you didn't want to pay into the "living fund" then you were benefiting from their system parasitically (like rent-seekers or tax collectors ew!) so they'd escort non-payees outside the town border. But at that point, would it be any different than just having a police force/laws/taxes/etc?

>>4258 > Interested in why anarchists are convinced supermarkets are bad. Read the quote in question again in a different light. It's not so important in this context that supermarkets are bad but rather that looting them is good.

So how do modern anarchists plan on beating an entity like the PRC or USA? They are heavily armed with weapons beyond any civilian understanding, have backdoors into pretty much every piece of technology that let them monitor and store every piece of communication on the net, spend millions on infiltrating all dissident movements regardless of size and have mass surveillance hooked into every aspect of life. Has anyone actually written on how a modern revolution would work?

>>4260 Your tinfoil hat is a bit tight. Governments are notoriously vulnerable to gorilla warfare and terrorism.

>>4261 Not comparable. Past revolutions didn't have to deal with automated drones and things like the NSA.

>>4262 >drones are gonna get me >the nsa is tapping my calls your tinfoil is VERY tight my friend. they wouldn't have a leg to stand on if people organized discreetly.

>>4263 Not him but cmon lain, this stuff isn't hard to find out. >>the nsa is[n't] tapping [lain's] calls the nsa taps EVERYONE's calls that is what they are there to do the new name of the game is bulk data collection, automated processing and threat detection, then human intervention if necessary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern-of-life_analysis#MARINA as for >>>drones are[n't] gonna get me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide-area_motion_imagery Fun highlights: "Since the deployment of Constant Hawk, WAMI systems have gotten smaller, lighter, and more capable. The current generation Kestrel Block II, for instance, employs eight electro-optical/infrared cameras that, together, form a 440-megapixel mosaic and cover 113 square kilometers. Yet this WAMI system weighs less than 85 pounds—light enough to be mounted on a tethered blimp, or aerostat, which can be kept aloft for weeks at a time." Also: >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_States#Surveillance_cameras As if that wasn't enough, your fuarrking DOORBELL is spying on you now (and even if you aren't dumb enough to botnet yourself, you can bet your OPSEC your neighbor is!): https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/28/doorbell-camera-firm-ring-has-partnered-with-police-forces-extending-surveillance-reach/?arc404=true https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/11/19/police-can-keep-ring-camera-video-forever-share-with-whomever-theyd-like-company-tells-senator/ More on topic, I'm not saying modern revolution is not possible, it is just much more difficult to gain momentum. Once you have sufficient momentum, none of this new fancy tech matters until the blood starts flying (see: Hong Kong mass protests, tech can't help you when half the country is against you). Pre-big momentum this tech is excellent for smothering out would-be revolutionary movements. Post-bloodshed this tech will make it a slaughter, but a slaughter won't necessarily stabilize the current regime.

>>4223 This. How can people claim that Chomsky is credible when acts like a state socialist. He is a good anarchist ... when you agree with him that is, otherwise he just thinks that you are ANCAP if you disagree with him, not to mention of him denying of major genocides. I wish he would wake up one time or two. >>4222 I'd say try Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, Malatesta, Guerin, Louise Michel Chomsky is fine but not unbeatable

>>4264 >all illegal things in the USA >many cancelled programs >private companies being private companies Tin. Foil. Hat.

>>4266 I'm not >>4264 but if you're gonna be this ignorant and obviously baiting atleast put some effort into your posts otherwise rule 4

>>4267 The points are accurate. 1 - the programs are illegal in the USA 2 - many of the cited programs have been cancelled 3 - private companies are free to do what they want Take your "rule 4" and shove it up your ass.

>>4268 >3 - private companies are free to do what they want fuarrrk that, private companies are there to provide a product or service, they ought to be beholden to their workers and consumers.

>>4269 They are. If a worker doesn't like what is being done, they can quit. If a customer doesn't like what is being done, they can get rid of / throw out / return the product.

>>4270 >If a worker doesn't like what is being done, they can quit. 1) sometimes they can't 2) in the case of someone who needs their job to pay the bills, quitting is not a real choice. >If a customer doesn't like what is being done, they can get rid of / throw out / return the product. And if the customer is simply unaware of what's being done? additionally in the case of monopoly or duopoly, there is no substantial choice for workers or customers to make.

>>4271 >sometimes they can't bullshit. I've quit while below the poverty line on principle and guess what? I survived. People who say "oh I can't" are idiots who have no self respect. >quitting is not a real choice bullshit. >unaware in our hyperconnected world, that's never going to fly.

>>4272 >bullshit. I've quit while below the poverty line on principle and guess what? I survived. I was talking about people under contract. >bullshit. People who have to feed kids don't have the luxury of missing a paycheck. >in our hyperconnected world, that's never going to fly. yyyyeaaahhhh except companies keep trade secrets all the time. you do not know what's on the silicon in your computer, full stop.

>>4273 >contract break it. I've done it, it's no biggie >children three children under my roof and a loving doting wife. Thanks for your concern. >trade secrets you don't keep up with infosec do you? people are always uncovering things like chrome sending secret headers to google to track people.

Could we please stay on the topic of discussing whether anarchists have written about their theoretical revolution against a modern surveillance state and their logistics for how it could possibly work? I'm at a loss. I think it could work for a time, but if they got far enough then the state would take its gloves off and let automated drones mow people down until they gave up. Which leads me to think anarchism and communism are no longer possible and the best they can hope for is a Nordic style government.

Agorism= Libertarianism + Counter-economics

>>4275 I hear you. A lot of anarchist theory was written in a time when traffic lights weren't even invented, or needed. Just think about that for a moment. As for drone strikes... the US has already shown an unrepentant tendency to firebomb its own citizens when they stepped out of line, whether it was Waco, TX or the MOVE house in Philadelphia. It'd only be easier for them now.

>>4275 I agree that a lot of these old ideologies are oversimplified and outdated, but you vastly overestimate the power of the state. We took our gloves off and mowed down poor third-world farmers with aircraft (and later drones) for the past fifty years in tiny, poor countries in the global south. And we've lost every single fuсking time. Pathetic. The tools of the ruling class are mostly illusory. They get people like you to believe that resistance is pointless, that there's no way ordinary masses could fight their technocratic godhood. It's just not true. They're incredibly weak against populist movements and asymmetric warfare with informal fighting forces in their native lands. If there was a guerilla uprising in the states against our own government, they would be so screwed. And they know it. Which is good, because it's the only reason why the people ever get any concessions at all—at any point in human history. Because they are rightfully scared of the only truly powerful force in history: the people. And I'm not talking about communism. This held true in the American revolution against the far more sophisticated and supposedly powerful British empire. Which was world-spanning at the time, a navy like no other on earth. When the people hunker down and resist, the mighty fall every single damn time. Drones haven't yet changed that fundamental fact at all. They're just more glitz and glamor on top of their illusion of invincible might. It's just a question of opportunity and motivation.

>>4278 Maybe if there was a civil war, a campaign of sustained sabotage on the power grid, oil pipelines, trains, airports, highways and such could bring the government and military to a standstill. If people were prepared, rural people that is, they could survive longterm blackouts and disruptions in freight transport a lot longer than the military could. That would still mean massive starvation and other public health problems in cities cut off from food shipments and medical supplies. There's only so much nonperishable food stored in warehouses at a given time and only so many potatoes you can grow in rooftop gardens.

>>4279 Oh yeah. Obviously it would be miserable strife. Civil war always is. Which is why it never really happens until something comparably horrible is already commonplace. Like there's a statistic somewhere about how violent revolution rarely happens until like 40% of the population is experiencing dangerous food shortage. Or something to that approximate effect; unfortunately fudging the statistic here, I admit I can't remember it perfectly. Popular uprising is never something either side escapes from unscathed, but the old authorities almost always perish utterly. In the process the people become downtrodden and crazy with famine and loss, which usually means the new order that arises is also crazy and violent and repressive. It's a cruel cycle. I think there might be a way to strategize it just right, a better way that hasn't been executed yet; I think there's still reason to hope. After all, we're trapped in this cycle of history anyway. May as well try and invent a way to win it. But it's just not true that the current order is all-powerful and inviolate. That's always the mythology before a collapse. That's the end of history mindset and it's never been real. They're more hollowed-out and vulnerable than they've been since the late Roman empire. They're crippled, decadent, and disorganized. Betraying and feeding on each other. Clever scavengers see it already, and the entire populace will too once they're starving, once they finally raise their heads from their empty plates and see the fat, bleeding bodies of the aristocracy for what they are.

>>2737 I have never seen TAZ on a list before, mad props!

I think people are mistaken to believe that a modern revolution would just be the state vs the revolutionaries living in it while everyone else just sits on their hands. For example, Putin is on record saying he would give his full support to any American separatists who gain traction. That said, if revolutionary anarchists overthrew the USA or China tomorrow I doubt they would be stateless for long. Outside powers like the aforementioned Putin would definitely try to come out on top of the chaos the way that American monetarians like Friedman swooped upon the post-Soviet chaos. Anyway, I doubt the USA will have a civil war anytime soon. Only a handful of Americans take issue with the American government as a whole, they think it's all peaches and cream as long as their political party of choice has enough power. Very few people have any criticism of liberty's death by 1000 cuts because they want to own the libs (patriot act) or own the cons (gun confiscation). What little people they have with a revolutionary mindset are individual libertarians who will probably all be killed one by one in ERPO raids, woke tankies and unironic white nationalist fascists. Anarchism, as a whole, seems to be a pretty dead ideology mostly upheld by useless lifestylists who don't know what a Kropotkin is.

>>2712 Walden isn't anarchist and neither is unabomber

>>4291 Honestly, coming as someone who hasn't read too much on theory, current anarchism ideology is most useful at a micro level. Organizing communities in flat hierarchies, opposition to policing, maybe coops, mutual aid. These things are catching up (slowly, and also with the danger of being whitewashed.) I don't think there will be an overt revolution in which people will overthrow the state, but I think communities will start being self-reliant and start opposing state decisions/projects/mandates more overtly if something actively harms their environment.

>>4997 This anon has the right idea.I haven't heard an anarchist irl talking about anarchist territories and carving up borders ala 1936 catalonia.For such a thing even to be discussed as a joke would require a considerable cultural swift from a big chunk of the population.If there is a big anarchistic revolution it's already on the way(and has been for a hundreds of years) in countless places worldwide and it doesn't look so impressive as it sounds.This doesn't mean that there is a chance that the ruling class will peacefully surrender it's authority if push comes to shove of course.

You are all pathetic LARPERs. You could go be an anarchist in some south african country right now but you like the soft comforts of your socialist, nationalist countries. Even if you're broke and homeless the system takes care of you. In africa you'd starve to death or be turned into a slave. Go put your money where your mouth is poser idiots.

>>2708 What about some good anti-religion anarchism resources? It seems like many people focus on governments and corporations, but I think that a major source of oppression comes from religion.

>>5591 Depends on what you call religion. If with religion you mean the hierarchical structure where the pal at the top has material power over you, then yeah, I would guess it's about as oppressive as the state. Now, if you mean religion as a set of supernatural beliefs held by a group of people, that influences their sense of morality and their worldview, then it's no big deal. Of course, religion has the potential to become turbo-oppression when you give it the resources of the state (and by that I mean the legitimate use of violence), but, to me, simply believing in the divine is akin to believing that white chocolate tastes better than dark chocolate.

>>5585 Why do you think war and anarchy are the same thing? Have you drank the Hobbesian kool-aid?

>>5591 Read Bakunin's God and the State. Makes pretty powerful arguments against religions, especially monotheisms. And, unlike >>5596 said, considers that the existence of God is, in itself, on a metaphysical level, a negation of the possibility of freedom. I think he ends up saying, reversing Descartes, something along the lines of « If God existed, we should kill him ». Makes good points about science and scientism too. Book is relatively short too, so no reason to miss it. I think polytheism and especially animist religions are less dangerous and, for the latter, hold politically interesting aspects, but we haven't really lived under their influence in recent times... Can't be bothered to search rn, but book shouldn't be hard to find in pdf.

>>5585 Alright, the REALNESS is here!

>>5632 I'm not so concerned with whether or not some religions are "less dangerous" so much as whether or not they are true. I didn't reject religion because it didn't synchronize with my political views but because I just didn't believe in god anymore.

>>5585

>>5638 In that case, I don't think anarchist theory is gonna be of much help to you, since it's mainly focused on the political dangers of religions and its implications. Although there is also a deal of points made in the sense of the ridiculousness and obviously absurd character of preexisting religions. But if you already stopped believing in god and aren't interested in the political logic of refuting it, I'm not sure I understand why you would want to read anti-religion texts

>>2708 anarchism is a good start for someone without knowledge in politics and philosophy as a whole, but dont get stuck with it. Through your intelectual developement, you will find yourself with many ontological and political theories of great caliber that flat out reduce anarchism to childs play, so be ready to disengage with it when time's due

>>5647 And what would those many ontological and political theories of great caliber be ?

>>5645 I'm not the one who asked. I'm trying to point out that no one should choose a spiritual path based on politics. There either is or is not a god (or gods, or the ghosts of our ancestors, or the force, etc).The fabric of the universe doesn't change because it doesn't mesh with the ideals of some tiny creatures on a tiny rock orbiting a tiny burning ball in one corner of it.

>>4997 Capitalism is more effective on an economic level than co-ops, there is a reason why China, the USSR, Cuba, and Vietnam abandoned them. Communities might get a little more self-reliant with power as we as a society try to move to greener sources of energy, but that's about it.

>>5652 coops work within capitalism, so it's weird to compare the two, but i agree in essence that they are not a holistic alternative. The main counter argument to the supposed radical nature of coops is exactly that: Coops have to work from within the system, so they are bound to dance the same dance as any other company. For example, the huge Mondragon Corporation coop in Spain was revealed to rely on cheap labor from other countries e.i. Poland, who's workers then went on strike.

>>5650 The political point here, to me, is not to "chose" a spiritual path or not, but what we (as an anarchists we) decide to do regarding its existence based on its political implications. The question of whether it is "true" (if we can even know that for sure) is almost secondary compared to more pressing ones as : is it preventing us or others (or wanting to) to live as they want ? Is it a force of exploitation and alienation ? Are the forms-of-life it inspires some that we can ethically live with/cooperate with ?

>>5649 for ontological i'd say Stirner's thought. It often gets lumped with anarchism, because both reject the state, but Stirner often gets dumbed down to get onto anarchist level. for political, I'd say. Go full Marx dude Present Day, Present Time! AHAHAHAHAHA!. It's one of nicer political tools (as long as you disregard that sociallism HAS TO happen) to analyse ideologies (without resorting to spooky political compass). Just say the fuarrrk away from Marxist-Leninism or Marxist-Leninism-Maoism, cause they are way too orthodox and frankly, obsolete.

>>5649 Marx, and Engels, Nietzsche's political thought, platonism, Deleuze... a long etcetera, basically anything that goes away from liberalism, something that anarchism does not.

>>5657 I'll only agree on that last part. I wouldn't lump Stirner with anarchism because I wouldn't want to associate it with his load of individualist crap. >>5658 How can you group Platon and Nietzsche together when they were so opposite to one another ? Platon plagued western philosophy for centuries. I also don't even begin to understand how you can say that anarchism goes with liberalism. That's litteraly the opposite of all serious anarchist works. But, depending on where you live, that's probably how your "local anarchists' are... Marx's works are still top notch, especially those who have been continued with the critique of value, but the man himself was, from a revolutionary pov, all theory and no practice. Practice that anarchist made and enriched theory with. The writings of Bakunin, Kropotkin, Reclus and many others are much more relevant than almost all Marx's interpreters of the last century.

>>5675 >I wouldn't want to associate it with his load of individualist crap. Oh boy, you must sure do like post-leftist thought then. For me Stirner jives nicely with nihilism, which allows to reforge anarchist thought into pure rebellion against opressive modes of capitalism. I'd want to argue though. First, from what school do you come from? If it's one of leftist ones, then feel free to read. >I also don't even begin to understand how you can say that anarchism goes with liberalism. This I agree fully with. >Practice that anarchist made and enriched theory with. The thing is, old farts like Marx, Bakunin, Kropotkin and Reclus are outdated as fuarrrk. Their praxis worked when we were in infancy of both imperialism and capitalism. But capitalism got refined. Masses won't rally for your cause, because a) your politics boring as fuarrrk. b) masses want stability and promise that tomorrow will be more bearable than yesterday. Pure strain of anarchists can failed to provide either of that. Even your positive programs like Foods Not Bombs get either co-opted by the state, destroyed by it or ignored all together. Your idea of dual system didn't work in practice, masses are not seeing you as liberators. The system is too stable for you to thrive right now. Embrace negation, feel the jouisannce, liberate yourself from myth of progressivism and reproductory futurity. There is nothing for your children left, if you don't first derail the train of history.

Mark Passio is the one who breaks down what true anarchist philosophy in this modern time. Most people claiming to be Anarchists dont even know what it means. Check out his 8 hour presentation on Natural Law.

Scanning through this thread Im seeing a lot of of people who seem to think that Marxism and the authoritative philosophy of Communism have anything to do with Anarchism. They simply dont know what Anarchism means in its true sense. Anarchy literally means, Without Rulers. (Archons) In the same way that Monachy means One Ruler. Its disturbing to see people that think that Anarcho Communism is not an oxymoron. This is double think and I cant help that such people have been misled to "Smash the State" just to serve as useful idiots for regime change. Anarchy is not left wing, or right wing.

>>5722 >Anarchy is not left right nor right wing If you define it like that, then neither is communism. Communism simply stands for the working class, which is in opposition to politics of the porky. Also, if we really take auth/lib spectrum seriously (and we shouldnt) then anarchy will stand on lib side of the spectrum, because as you said it advocates for "no rulers", this of course includes hierarchies. From this assertion you surely underatand that anarchy can not be "right wing" under aby circumstances, because capitalism is exactly that. An unjust hierarchy of people according to amount of the capital they own. Ancom is one of tendencies of anarchist in creating their free teritories. Since it tries to abolish rulers and masters, it is okay on my book. So is syndycallism, communalism, mutualism and do on and do on

>>5721 >Church of Satan >Occult Can we, please, dont bother with idealists? Even Bakunin said that they are cancer.

>>5647 >>5658 That's not really fair. I agree that most classical anarchist texts have aged rather poorly, but all of the thinkers you mentioned have had an influence on contemporary anarchist thought in one way or another. Especially Nietzsche and Deleuze are absolutely essential for a modern understanding of anarchy and so is Foucault, whom you haven't mentioned. Check out .pdf related. It attempts to trace an anarchist genealogy that includes Proudhon, Nietzsche and Deleuze. It's also a great primer for anyone new to more recent strains of anarchist thought.

>>5679 Tbqh, my read of Stirner goes way back, but it really didn't left a good impression, and what I've seen of him since hasn't improved that. >liberate yourself from myth of progressivism and reproductory futurity. There is nothing for your children left, if you don't first derail the train of history Totally onboard with you there >are outdated as fuarrrk I beg to disagree. Certain elements are indeed outdated, and yes a mass appeal to the masses (that was much much more present in Marx's brain than in anarchist's) and the way class struggle works today lost a lot of relevance. However, there is still a huge load to take from them, in terms of metaphysical principles and analysis of capitalism (for the abolition of labor, notably). Heard a lot of good from Malatesta, but haven't read him myself yet. >The system is too stable for you to thrive right now. I'd say the absolute opposite... The multiplication of various crisis, fascist renewal and numerous insurrections that we currently see is everything but the sign of a lasting stability. Nihilism can be a passage, but only if we find its exit. See >>3815 for instance

>>5722 Gotta get back to the basics here, but I'm sorry to say you do not understand what communism and anarchism are. And 1) it's not limited to what etymology says 2) USSR or CCCP have nothing to do with communism. 3) Since we're all materialists and not liberal idealists, we observe that it has been historically tied to left wings and fought by the right wings. Communism means the abolition of social classes. It has been explained at first with two classes in mind, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat (yes, communism means make the proletariat disappear). Today many also argue that gender and race are also classes that need to be abolished as well, we can sum it all up by saying abolishing systematic exploitation. And back then, during the 1st International (and since then) there was a mostly strategic divide. On the one side, Marxists that thought workers had to seize the state and make the transition to the classless society, and on the other side Anarchists that thought this transition idea wouldn't work because power wants to preserve itself and it would just change those in power, and that we should just directly abolish state and capital. History showed them right. But the goal, communism as a classless society, is more or less the same for all. Anarcho-communism isn't an oxymoron, it's a pleonasm.

>>5652 Yeah, I agree. I'm not saying that coops will bring about the revolution. The essence of my post is that they are the just a way for communities to be exposed to anarchist ideas. >>5653 I am also not saying that all coops are radical. >>5722 What's up with this clown? >>5743 Thanks.

Maybe this is offtopic, but how does Lain read political theory? Every time I've tried I've gotten super confused by the time I'm 1/3rd in, and couldn't understand a thing. I tried reading Proudhon's "What is Property", but couldn't discern meaning from anything after he talks of prescriptions.