/lit/ - Literature

>>11976338
I think it's pretty self-explanatory. Maybe you disagree and want us to convince you otherwise.

>>11976338
>I would rather live in fantasy than deal with reality

leftism is subversive and revolutionary, it cannot establish anything positive without some measure of compromise with the right. e.g. soviet union was a far right government that emerged from leftist revolutionaries who compromised their ideals

>>11976338
:thinking:

>>11976338
he trojan horsing right wing ideas into the left, leaving us with pic related

>>11977037
wtf I love Deleuze now

>>11977037
>trojan horsing right wing ideas into the left
It's the other way around. Anarchists and libertarians sprouted from the left.

>Nick Land: I think the terminology of left and right, for anyone like you who is fascinated by the question of ideology, it’s completely indispensable. I totally see why people get dissatisfied with that language and say “We have to move beyond this” or “This terminology ceases to be useful” but I have a sense of its kind of extreme resilience. I don’t see us ever stopping talking about the left and the right. It’s always going to come back in, I call it the prime political dimension, there is a basic dimension with left and right polarities that everyone returns to, after their wanderings and complications. And all kinds of ideological currents themselves have a strategic interest in either muddying the water or trying to get people to rethink what they mean.
>But in the end, people come back to this basic dimension of ideological possibility and I think it is the one that captures the accelerationist tendency most clearly. On the right end of that is the extreme laissez faire, Manchester liberal, anarcho-capitalism kind of commitment to the maximum deregulation of the technological and economic process. And on the opposite extreme is a set of constituencies that seek in various ways to — polemically, I would say words like “impede” and “obstruct” and “constrain” and whatever, but I realize that’s just my rightism on display. And there are other ways of saying that, to regulate it or control it or to humanize it, I wouldn’t try and do a sufficiently sophisticated ideological Turing test on myself to try and get that right you know?
>But I don’t think there’s any real … It’s not really questionable, which of those impulses is in play and I think that it’s on that dimension that so-called left-accelerationism is left, I mean, it’s left because it is basically in a position of deep skepticism about the capitalist process. It’s accelerationist only insofar as it thinks there is some other — I would say magical — source of acceleration that is going to be located somewhere outside that basic motor of modernity. They gesture towards the fact that things will somehow still be accelerating when you just chuck the actual motor of acceleration in the scrap. And I think that is the left.
>Left-accelerationism is left in a way that is robust, that everyone will recognize, they definitely are in fact genuine leftists, they’re not playing games like that, and they catalyze, obviously, a right opposition as soon as they do that because they’re already [inaudible] the prime political dimension. They’re on the left pole of it, they’re in antagonism to, then, what is defining the right pole of that same spectrum.

>>11977126
>Justin Murphy: So it sounds like you would basically say that Deleuze and Guattari are not really leftists. They might be writing from a kind of leftist milieu, and they might have some, sort of, leftist connotations, but the core of their project is not leftist because … you think leftism is basically the position of trying to slow down the accelerator?
>Nick Land: Yes, I think that project is anti-leftist but smuggled-in — this insidious thing of subverting the Marxist tradition from inside. I think the Marxist tradition is easy to subvert from inside because the Marxist tradition is based upon an analysis of capitalism that has many very valuable aspects. And as soon as you’re doing that, then you are describing the motor of acceleration, and once you then make the further move that Deleuze and Guattari do — and Marx obviously at times does, too — of actually embracing the kind of propulsion that that motor is is generating, then you’re there. I mean, you’ve already crossed the line.

>>11976338
Which of the six gorillion available definitions of "the left" was he using here?

>No money
>No Government
>No Classes
>No nuffin

What do leftists want exactly?

>>11977167
bonobo masturbation society

>>11976342
I think what OP is getting at is why does he say this? Is he insinuating that leftist states are necessarily not left? Anarchism is the only legitimate leftism?

>>11977171
BASED

>>11977126
This is some of the stupidest shit I've read.

>>11977192
anarchism is a tendency, nothing actually existing can be anarchist

>>11977192
No leftism can't govern. It's qiite simple.

The world view Foucault and Deleuze have (for the latter read the famous postcript) is one in which you cannot say X time/place is better or more just than Y time/place but in which there is always the pole of power and resistance. There are competing poles of power/knowledge amd being leftist (a stupid word left over from the French Revolution) is always related to resisting sovereignty. Which is why Foucault can say Marxism and socialism are inherently racist and racism began as resistance to sovereignty without, at that point, making any value judgement. He seems to even like racism insofar as it is resistance, but when it becomes scientific and absorbed into the state he hates it. This is the anti-government world view.

>>11977226
>Which is why Foucault can say Marxism and socialism are inherently racist and racism began as resistance to sovereignty without, at that point, making any value judgement.
This answered my question. Thanks.

>>11977167
Individuals form association, and make decisions together regarding the production and distribution of goods and services.
These associations need extend only so far as they are necessary.

A classic example: Water.
On the surface of the earth, water is naturally divided into river basins, or drainage basins. The inhabitants of a give water basin need to come together to find the best way to use and preserve this resource. The people who work in the water infrastructure should be local people, this direct connection to one's own well being is crucial, people don't want to be alienated from their labor or from the maintenance of their survival.

This isn't to say national border ought to be re-drawn around water basins. These associations can overlap and co-exist as necessary. Indeed, they must. For air, the natural dimension of the association is the entire globe. We all share the same atmosphere, we must all work together to maintain it.

So no, money, classes and governments are not necessary. People are essentially capable of performing these tasks, as they already do under capitalism, and they are able to exercise this kind of responsibility over their own lives. Of course, Responsibility can only be learned in practice. mankind will never display it's true potential for self-government while papa state and mommy corporation infantilize and spoil the population.

>>11977171
this but unironically

>>11976338
in an ideal society there is no government therefore i can own and fuck as many lolitas as i want

how do i become a right-anarchist? no capitalism allowed

>>11976338
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withering_away_of_the_state

>>11977256
that says nothing about conflict resolution, but yeah, localism, loyalism and skin in the game are good things

>>11977262

>>11977377
>the idea that with realization of the ideals of socialism the social institution of a state will eventually become obsolete and disappear as the society will be able to govern itself without the state and its coercive enforcement of the law

Do communists really believe this?

>>11977412
They used to, at least. What lead Bakunin and Kropotkin to distance themselves from the Socialists was precisely this point. What should the revolution try and abolish? Capital or state? For anarchists the state is what makes capital oppressive, and for Marx et al. capital is the real enemy, and the state will wither away.

This is only of historical interest nobody makes this point any more (although 'not real socialism' can be repeated because the Soviet Union did neither).

>>11977412
Yes. Keep in my mind Marx & Engels created this concept before Soviet Leninism was a thing. They saw communism as a state of affairs which will naturally arise from the "internal contradictions of capitalism"
>One man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement.
>[Equal rights] is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right.
>Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored.
>Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

>But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

>In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
>t. Marx

>>11977380
Conflict resolution is done through dialog. What else?
Money reduces conflicts to arithmetic, it has no conscience.
Governments resolve conflicts through coercion and violence, which are inadmissible as a standard practice.

Dialog is tough, I'm not naive. We must learn to subdue our egos for the common good. And we can do, and I believe we will.

>>11977412
Yes. Keep in my mind Marx & Engels created this concept before Soviet Leninism was a thing, but both them and Lenin saw communism as a state of affairs which would naturally arise from the "internal contradictions of capitalism".
>One man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement.
>[Equal rights] is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right.
>Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored.
>Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

>But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

>In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

>>11977473
Also this.

>>11977504
Associations not just government type (including labor movements) have always used violence. Why is it diffrent now? Who gets a hold of all the very violent machinery out there when le global homo is achieved? You dont actually think all that shit would get smelted or something do you?

>>11977519
like I said, violence is not admissible AS A STANDARD PRACTICE. However, extraordinary circumstances call for extraordinary measures.
movements, communes, labor unions, etc. are not the sovereign power in the land, by definition. They are fighting against the establishment, otherwise there would be no need to mobilize, unionize or anything else.
You are comparing the habitual and standardized use of violence by the establishment to the circumstantial use of violence by revolutionaries.

Is there a very important question of how to re-channel these revolutionary "passions" the day after the revolution is won? absolutely. History gives us a hint: Revolutions carried out by or with the support of the military tend to turn out quite militaristic.
And beating the establishment by force is not ideal to begin with: afterwards you have to contend with external pressure from the capitalist hegemony anyways. You'll need a standing army, and armies are never apolitical.

>>11977504
>We must learn to subdue our egos
That's is such an unrealistic goal to have for every single person. A government can resolve issues through violence, but so can two overweight boomers arguing about where another man puts his trash. What do we do to those guys? The ones who dont want to subdue their egos and do resort to violence? Resolve the killing of an already dead man through dialogue? How do we prevent others from recognizing that by allowing themselves to take advantage of people through force, that they can have anything they want?
You're relying on people to not look out for number 1 for no reason other than the betterment of mankind? Unless you plan on brainwashing people since birth that there is no self only the collective hivemind that lives to further develop the hive, I cant imagine a world where people dont act out of greed. You have set standards way too high for this idea to be achievable. Obviously it's a much better way to live if it were to happen, my problem is that the standard to reach it is so high that it's just irresponsible utopianism.
How about , instead of resolving conflicts through dialogue, why dont we just not have conflicts in the first place? My utopian ideal is better than yours and just as unattainable.

You're providing an end goal, the state that you want human beings to achieve and live in. Unless you can provide a "how to" you're just day dreaming and should be ignored.
So my question is thus: if you were given the reigns of control over all governments for the next 10,000 years, how would you bring about the state of humanity that you've proposed?

>>11977598
>violence is not admissible AS A STANDARD PRACTICE
How do you enforce that?

>>11977377
>we're gonna wither away the state
>and in the process we will give the state power over even the smallest things
I dont like Bakunin, but he was right to piss on Marx for this.

>>11977171
Esoteric Roganism

>>11977610
>That's is such an unrealistic goal to have for every single person.
I need to highlight the following fact, this is your ~impression~ of human kind. This is your judgement based on your experiences, your particular knowledge of history, etc.

My impression is the opposite. The humans I know are dying to do good by one-another. They have a deep urge for a place where they can stop 'looking out for number 1' for a while and just belong to something, anything.

You critique is essentially the "human nature" critique. Someday I'm going to write a very complete rebuttal to this line of reasoning, simply because of how common it is. The gist is that greed is not innate. There is no reason to believe that it is. You are inducing that it is, because it is generalized in the population. But this isn't sufficient to draw your conclusion because there are other variables which are also generalized which could account for greed. The big one being capitalism itself. People look out for themselves because that's what they're expected to do in this system. No one else will do it for them.
If you change the rules of the game, at the same moment you observe a corresponding change in player behavior.

> if you were given the reigns of control over all governments for the next 10,000 years...
I'm an anarchist, dude. It would be infinitely hypocritical of me to accept control over anyone. I would take the opportunity at the king-of-the-world coronation ceremony to give a big (hopefully televised) speech about anarchism and then abdicate.

>>11977619
I don't. No one 'enforces' anything. Suggesting that everything must be enforced reveals you are helplessly trapped in the logic of authoritarianism.
The idea is that doing away with authority, we do away with the opportunity, and therefore the temptation, to enact large-scale organized violence.

>>11976338
>dude communism never failed because REAL communism never existed! those hundreds of millions of grotesque deaths and murders? nah man you can't lay those at the feet of communism at all

>>11977698
>be one of the most celebrated French intellectuals who ever lived
>have the ideological equivalent of an edgy 14 year old contrarian trying to substitute disaffected affectations for personality
Leftists are pathetic.

>>11977504
>Conflict resolution is done through dialog.
Only when both sides have leverage. If one person wants to compete and the other doesn't, what can you possibly leverage?

>>11977626
Marx & Engels never said in the second chapter of the Communist Manifesto that victorious revolutionaries should spy on every activity of their citizens, purge everyone around them and so on, but I agree with the sentiment, and I'm more sympathetic to anarcho-communists than Leninists for that reason.
I think Debord and his situationist friends strike a good balance there, as they were critical of both socialist tendencies but never forgot that the ultimate goal to reach was fundamentally libertarian. The fourth chapter of the Society of the Spectacle is still the best critique of socialist history ever written.
Personally, I'm increasingly convinced that capital has won and it's over, but my heart will still be on the left.

>>11977626
Marx & Engels never said in the second chapter of the Communist Manifesto that victorious revolutionaries should spy on every activity of their citizens, purge everyone around them and so on, but I agree with the sentiment, and I'm more sympathetic to anarcho-communists than Leninists for that reason.
I think Debord and his situationist friends strike a good balance there, as they were critical of both socialist tendencies but never forgot that the ultimate goal to reach was fundamentally libertarian. The fourth chapter of the Society of the Spectacle is still the best critique of socialist history ever written.
Personally, I'm increasingly convinced that capital has won and it's over, but my heart will forever be on the left.

>>11977696
>You critique is essentially the "human nature" critique.
Actually my critique is more along the lines of a "natural selection" critique. It's not just humans who compete. Almost all living things compete, whether knowing or unknowingly. How do you plan to eliminate this impulse from people? And I want you to realize that I'm not saying that every single person is going to be a greed driven monster who will try to take advantage of a system where violent retaliation is not a standard practice. I'm saying that all it takes is a couple of people, or even a small group of people, to want to accumulate power for themselves and throw off the balance of your utopia. You still havent addressed how you would get everybody to follow along with this scheme while accounting for the 1 in a million monsters who will act in their own self interest

>If you change the rules of the game, at the same moment you observe a corresponding change in player behavior.
Ok sure I agree with that completely. But what would you change the rules to then? And if capitalism is a form of economic competition, what about all other forms of competition? Do we abolish competition in order for people not to look out I'm not sure how getting rid of capitalism gets rid of natural competition and stops monsters from realizing that there is no real obstruction to their use of violence to achieve their own means.

>I'm an anarchist, dude. It would be infinitely hypocritical of me to accept control over anyone. I would take the opportunity at the king-of-the-world coronation ceremony to give a big (hopefully televised) speech about anarchism and then abdicate.
Lol, how fucking noble. But you missed the point of my question whilst grandstanding: what is your "how to" plan to achieve your endgame? This is my main problem with utopians, you always have a perfect world designed, but never have any plans on getting there. But that doesnt matter, you can still grandstand, like you just did, about being a humanitarian while not giving a any practible approaches to reaching your utopia.
As a side note: wouldn't being a philospher-king be the best way of achieving the goals you want? Spend a millenia or two getting people accustomed to your brand of anarchism instead of making one speech about it for a brief moment in history? Why is it more important that you sate your own ego and become "the purest anarchist" by giving up the chance to make a meaningful difference and make the "change to the rules of the game" that you spoke of earlier?

>>11977715
Kaczynski is just a jaded leftist. He said he basically reached the same conclusions as Ellul before he read him, and that guy was a big reader of Marx, hence the distinction between old-school/pre-WWII leftists and contemporary leftists in his manifesto.
And he isn't the only intelligent jaded leftist on Earth. Jacques Camatte is a former Marxist who has pretty similar views to Kaczynski: https://www.marxists.org/archive/camatte/agdom.htm

>>11977696
>I don't. No one 'enforces' anything. Suggesting that everything must be enforced reveals you are helplessly trapped in the logic of authoritarianism.
Ok, then how do you stop somebody trapped in the logic of authoritarianism from forcing other people to do his will? You're dodging the question.

>The idea is that doing away with authority, we do away with the opportunity, and therefore the temptation, to enact large-scale organized violence.
How can you do away with the opportunity for someone to use power to achieve their means? Wouldn't the opportunity always be there? How the fuck do you get rid of opportunity so concretely that no one will ever see a chance to take advantage of someone else? Rely on kindness? But what about the one guy who doesnt want to be kind because of any number of reasons?
You're also not acknowledging small scale violence, say me and my five friends, going around with bats and beating farmers for 10 percent of their goods.

>>11977598
> beating the establishment by force is not ideal to begin with
Are there any examples of bloodless revolutions?

>>11977126
nobody has a problem with a political compass other than Americans. Americans do not understand what political ideologies are or how to understand a political compass.

This is the dumbest fucking mental gymnastics justification I have ever read in defense of the retarded American single axis political spectrum.

Instead of writing all this bullshit how about you just stop being american and learn what a political spectrum is?

>>11978430
>This is the dumbest fucking mental gymnastics justification I have ever read in defense of the retarded American single axis political spectrum.

it wasnt u dumb fucking crumpet

>>11977878
Are jaded leftists just guys who dont think contemporary leftism goes far enough?

>>11977719
you're thinking of a negotiation, not dialog.

>>11977849
>how you would get everybody to follow along with this scheme while accounting for the 1 in a million monsters who will act in their own self interest
If I use your generous number, 1 / 1.000.000 are greedy, egoistic, antisocial, etc, then surely that's not so much to deal with. What can one do against a million? In our society one person can accumulate wealth, or attain political office and in that way gain disproportionate power over others. Not so in an anarchic system. Then what?

But let's be much more pessimistic. let's think more 1 / 4 will occasionally game the system for personal gain. Then this society is clearly not ready for anarchy! And so they probably live under some other system.
The confusion here probably arises from a presumption regarding the transitional method I have in mind. I don't believe in unilaterally promulgating anarchism.
If I destroy some government, no matter how low it's approval rating, that is a violent act because I must assume that the people are content with it, overall, since they have continued to support it.

In other words, a true anarchist revolution must be absolutely bottom-up. If you force it upon people you've betrayed your revolution before it even began.

>what would you change the rules to then?
To each according to his need.
From each according to his ability.
>what about all other forms of competition?
if they don't interfere with anyone's livelihood, they can keep doing it! Wanna play basketball? Sure. Wanna build rockets and see who gets to mars first? go for it. Wanna see who can create the largest supermarket chain and completely dominate the market? No. Go find a better hobby.

Also, on the topic of these 'monsters' as you call them, we must ask the question, where do monsters come from? Is it genetic? Is it being brought up in a neurotic society where your parents are constantly stressed out of their minds and never have a moment to give you affection?
I'm sure science has lots to say on that topic...

> Why is it more important that you sate your own ego and become "the purest anarchist" by giving up the chance to make a meaningful difference and make the "change to the rules of the game" that you spoke of earlier?
As I already touched upon here, Anarchy cannot be given. It must be taken. People say the same about freedom, that's because in that sense, they are synonymous.
But fair enough, what is my plan? There are many small-scale projects that I believe can help people begin to acclimate to the idea of self-government and bypassing the establishment.
- time-sharing groups for stuff like home appliances, gardening, tools.
- some kind of socialist uber to drive massive car-pooling where no money changes hands (aside from gas money, that sort of thing)
- community laundry rooms. (already a common thing, make it commoner) community kitchens, community workshops, offices, etc.

>>11977849
>>11978571
- e-government platforms where people can vote and compare their decisions to those of their "representatives".
I read a story about some townsfolk in Brazil somewhere who built a bridge over a creek by themselves. The mayor just had to watch and shut the fuck up because it had been years and he hadn't done anything about it. Make more stuff like that happen.

>>11977897
> You're dodging the question.
I've basically already answered the question in responses to other anons here. the gist of it is that the rooting out of antisocial behavior must precede Anarchy.
>How the fuck do you get rid of opportunity so concretely
If there's no Army there's no My Lai Massacre. If there's no National Guard, there's no Kent State Massacre. If there's no institutions there's no institutional racism, and so on.
>small scale violence, say me and my five friends, going around with bats
small scale violence can be broken up into two categories: public health issues, so actual psychosis, and economically-driven crimes. If you are given equal opportunities, and you're part of a society that really accounts for you, that has a role in mind for you, then you don't resort to crime.
The story is almost cliché, the artist who found a genuine opportunity in their music, or acting, or whatever, and managed to stay away from the streets while all their childhood friends died in gunfights.

>>11978394
you in 1788:
> Are there any historical examples of revolutions? Checkmate plebeians.

>>11978624
>you in 1788:
> Are there any historical examples of revolutions? Checkmate plebeians.
I was actually curious faggot, I wasnt trying to dismiss your point. I actually wanted to know if there were any. But I guess you're inflamed response is answer enough

>>11977004

>soviet union was a far right government

>>11978743
>the soviet union was a government

>>11976338
my mans a autonomous marxist
when he died he was writing "the greatness of marx"

>>11978730
you can't blame me for presuming that was a rhetorical question. It's fucking 4chan.
100% bloodless? No. Don't think so.
When positive change of the sort that I'm describing actually happens, it doesn't get describes as a revolution. The establishment co-opts the success and points to it as proof that "the system works".

>>11978624
>rooting out of antisocial behavior
How do you propose we do this in a lasting way so that we can move into anarchism without having to worry about anti-social behavior for the rest of time? Short of a eugenics program where we dont allow people with anti-social behavior to breed I dont see how we could ever move onto anarchism. And this is assuming that anti-social behavior is entirely biological. I'm just not sure that you can just "root out" unwanted behavior before moving on to your system. What happens if the anti-social gene pops up and a Dahmer starts killing people in your society? How should he be dealt with?

>if there's no Army there's no My Lai Massacre
You're assuming that only the state is capable of violence. Or maybe that's the only violence you care about curbing, but it doesnt seem that way considering your previous statements. You're also not taking into account crimes of passion. You're assuming that in every single disagreement, it can be resolved by dialogue. But what happens when the exchange gets ugly? What happens if there is a stalemate in the argument and no decision can be made? Who mediates to make sure that an outcome is agreed upon and that one party just doesnt do what it wants afterwards anyway? More dialogue repeated ad infinitum?

>small scale violence can be broken up into two categories: public health issues, so actual psychosis
You didnt answer how to deal with this one in an anarchist society. How would someone identify mental illness in a Dahmer or Bundy? Even if they could, what solution is there in dealing with them? What if they have already killed, what then?

> economically-driven crimes. If you are given equal opportunities, and you're part of a society that really accounts for you, that has a role in mind for you, then you don't resort to crime.
Sure, but how can anarchism give someone opportunity? Or how can a stateless society give someone a role? My best guess would be to have his neighbors help him out in a time of need out solidarity maybe. But what if he realizes that he can take advantage of their good will, and when they dont comply, use force to get what he wants? It's probably easier to wave a bat around than spend all year tending to crops.

>>11978571
>What can one do against a million? In our society one person can accumulate wealth, or attain political office and in that way gain disproportionate power over others. Not so in an anarchic system.
Yeah sure I agree, but thats not the issue. Youre claiming that things can be solved through dialogue in you anarchic society, but this 1 in a million person obviously cannot be reasoned with. But how do his neighbors deal with him? They are obviously not in a situation of 1 in a million, maybe 1 in a thousand. They WILL have to use violence and they WILL have to make an exception to their way of living or pay the consequences.

>let's think more 1 / 4 will occasionally game the system for personal gain. Then this society is clearly not ready for anarchy!
>I must assume that the people are content with it
>true anarchist revolution must be absolutely bottom-up
>rooting out of antisocial behavior must precede Anarchy.
>ifyou're part of a society that really accounts for you, that has a role in mind for you, then you don't resort to crime.
And herein lies my main beef with utopians. Society will never be ready until a million factors are accounted for. But realistically, the only way for these things youre hoping for (and really, they are just hopes) you must establish a anarchical puritan as a philosopher-king who will develop society in a way so that it can eventually be finally ready for your utopia. But as you’ve already acknowledged, a true anarchist would not allow himself to be the leader of any state. So the next best option would be a humanitarian who has no problems holding the reigns of power but is not particularly dedicated to your utopia. But then you would need to ensure a long line of these leaders to continually develop society in the way you see fit.
I just want to make it clear, I am not opposed to this anarchist state of yours. I just honestly dont think that it is reasonable to have any hope of it happening and to spend much serious thought on it. I also think that someone with revolutionary attitudes can end up just LARPing because they dont see society as fit for revolution.
1 of 2

2 of 2
>To each according to his need. From each according to his ability.
>if they don't interfere with anyone's livelihood, they can keep doing it!
But allowing for there to be individuals who triumph over in winner takes all (even if its just a sport) is counter-productive to the values of society. Couldnt this lead to people realizing that they can be the winner all the time? That instead of putting in more effort in a disproportionate amount to his needs, he can reap all that he sows?

>Wanna see who can create the largest supermarket chain and completely dominate the market? No
What are you gonna do if someone wants to do this?Inb4 “in my society, nobody will want to do this”
Thats a bit to hopeful isnt it? That for the rest of human existence that there wont be outliers that will challenge convention and become succesful doing so. That there wont be people who see there success and want to recreate it for themelves.

>I'm sure science has lots to say on that topic. [of monsters]
im sure too. But if the answer they come up with is that sometimes there is just an anomaly that creates people who kill for pleasure. what would be the way to go about dealing with them?

>time-sharing groups for stuff like home appliances, gardening, tools.
This is a pretty good one, especially for lower income households.
>some kind of socialist uber to drive massive car-pooling where no money changes hands (aside from gas money, that sort of thing)
like a bus? Iirc buses are kind of cheap if you have a pass. But I guess if was more socialised and not for profit it would be almost nothing. But then again if everybody was participating in it, there would need to be more buses which could raise the price again. Probably still cheaper than a for-profit bus.
>community laundry rooms. (already a common thing, make it commoner) community kitchens, community workshops, offices, etc.
like this one, kind of the same as the first though. I think it would also be good to develop a culure where each person is responisible for the places they use. (kind of like Japan I guess, but I know nothing of Japan)
>e-government platforms where people can vote and compare their decisions to those of their "representatives".
im not exactly sure what you mean here.
>read a story about some townsfolk in Brazil somewhere who built a bridge over a creek by themselves.
Goddamn I wish that would happen more often here.I think if you want this to happen it would need to be in less developed cities though. There would also need to be accountability too, in case its poorly made

>>11978835
>antisocial behavior
Here's my take on antisocial behavior. It's pointless whether it's biological or not. In situations of scarcity (or perceived scarcity) it makes sense for the individual to behave antisocially. The reasoning being "maybe the group as a whole can't survive, but if I (and my loved ones) survive, at least the race has a chance."
Is this "hardwired instinct" or just simple logic? Doesn't matter. The solution is to do our best to maintain abundance.
Capitalism stimulates antisocial behavior because it maintains perpetual apparent-scarcity. A centrally planned economy removes this tension at it's root: If every healthy adult is working full-time (whatever we define full-time to be) and all the goods are distributed equally, any scarcity must necessarily be due to a real lack of resources. In capitalism, resources are all but abstracted out of exitence, and if somebody can't get access to something they need/want they don't question whether or not there is enough of it to go around, it's their own fault that they can't afford it.

So I see stamping out antisocial behavior as a fairly straighforward task. We build resilient, integrated communities that take care of their own and design their goals and priorities around their human capital, and not the other way around. This level of connectedness is naturally going to bring about much strong social bonds. The better the community performs in taking care of itself, the more each member believes in the collective and forms their identity around this affiliation.
It's a positive feedback loop, that's why I think it's straightforward.

>You didnt answer how to deal with [actual psychosis] in an anarchist society.
hospitals.

>Sure, but how can anarchism give someone opportunity? Or how can a stateless society give someone a role?
my favorite kind of question.
Evidently you're envisioning anarchy as some sort of weird isolated sovereign-citizen households and you haven't read anything about the associations I've been describing. A stateless society is by no means without large-scale organization or cooperation. It just means no one individual has the authority to dicate the terms of this organization to the majority. People can still operate large industrial complexes, except there's no boss, it's run like a co-op (Mondragón is the shining example here) and the "owners" are every single member of the community.
So how can an anarchic society give it's members roles and opportunities?
The community has some number fields and facilities, requiring some number of workers to operate them all. like I said, these would have been conceived with the population in mind (what else?).

>>11978835
>>11979220
It's balancing act between how much of each good/service do people need/want, and how much work are they willing to do to get it.
to distribute the work, some variation of the Gale–Shapley algorithm could be used. Workers submit a list of the positions they want, ranked from most preferred to least, and the most qualified professionals of each field convene to compile a list of the best candidates for each position.

>It's probably easier to wave a bat around than spend all year tending to crops.
sure, but how are you going to raise children as a bat-waver? where do you run to after you've batted all the farmers in your region and they start ganging up to catch you? egoism is always self-defeating in the long run.

>>11977167
Read Stirner retard

>>11977248
>he didn’t bother to read further than the point he was looking for
Definitely a /pol/tard

>>11977171
Am very okay with this

>>11979220
>Here's my take on antisocial behavior
I don't give a fuck

>>11978571
>>you're thinking of a negotiation, not dialog.
No, I'm thinking of conflict resolution, which is both. Jesus, it's like people are so satisfied with their ability to spew out words they feel the need to do so whether they're warranted or not.

>>11979220
Ok I see now, I was assuming just what you said about an individualistic sort of anarchism. I should have realized you were an amarch-communist based on your rules. I'm not sure how I missed that. Must have been tired, and still am. It was nice chatting with you though. I actually like anarchism as a concept, I just honestly have no faith in it ever being achieved. Especially by the type I assumed you were. I still kind of think you're a utopian, but I guess that comes with the territory huh?

I just think that capitalism has already won. Anarchism is already associated with disorder. I think the culture at large is focused on social issues where minorities arent in the same positions of power as white men are. They dont care if they're still fucking us in the ass, as long as the people doing it are diverse.
I'm not a particularly optimistic person and I've just gotten back from the gym. If this thread is still up tomorrow I would like to discuss more.

In the meantime, if you had any recommended reading, maybe something more contemporary would be nice in case this thread isnt up tomorrow

>>11976338
He doesn't mean this, but by original definition right is the government and left the opposition. So, he's not wrong

>>11979192
> They WILL have to use violence and they WILL have to make an exception to their way of living or pay the consequences.
Yes. As I've already stated, extraordinary circumstances call for extraordinary measures. Politics is when two people need to make a decision together and they agree to hash it out verbally. If we're talking about a person who cannot be reasoned with, there can be no politics, it's something more akin to animal control.

> Society will never be ready.
Some people see the ugly side of things. I see how far humanity has come already. I see the degree to which violence has been de-normalized in the last few centuries. Chopping off someone's hand was a common punishment not so long ago, historically. Banal even. Now it's unthinkably cruel. (inb4 Africa, middle east. yeah, the improvement is not homogeneous)
I don't have much hope to see anarchy in my life-time, but that doesn't mean I should give up on it, define myself as something more "realistic". I mean, I fucking vote, I get involved with real politics. But if you ask me what I really believe in, there only one answer. I'm not ashamed of being called a utopian.

>>11979197
>Couldn't this lead to people realizing that they can be the winner all the time?
If a person wins a game of basketball and then decides he wants to do some kind of capitalist revolution... I don't know, that guy's problems go waay back.

>That instead of putting in more effort in a disproportionate amount to his needs
why should this ever be the case? All things being equal, people would arrive at an equilibrium where they work just enough to produce a sufficient amount of stuff.
And if you want more than average (because you're a filthy materialist), no one has any motivation to prevent you from using the tools and any non-critical resources outside of normal working hours.
>What are you gonna do if someone wants to [create the largest supermarket chain]?Inb4 “in my society, nobody will want to do this”
Why would they? What is intrinsically interesting or appealing about running a supermarket chain? Nothing. It's as appealing as anything else in capitalism because it's a platform to compete and pursue riches.
Competing can be done more satisfyingly and with no casualties in sports, sciences, games, etc. Pursuit of luxury and excess is an artifact of the perceived-scarcity mentality I was talking about earlier. Real wealth is healthy human relationships, even the most vapid "woke" celebrities confirm this after making their fortune.

> But if the answer they come up with is that sometimes there is just an anomaly that creates people who kill for pleasure.
like I said, this isn't a political matter, it's a public health matter at that point.

>i'm not exactly sure what you mean here. [e-government platforms]
e-government platforms could pave the way for more of that autonomous bridge-building club that I talked about.

>>11979220
>>11979353
Actually one more thing. How do you solve the issue of effort vs reward? By this I mean that the effort to become a doctor is obviously very high. How do you make it so that it becomes worth it to spend 12 years of training to become a doctor? Obviously there are people who will do it out of kindness, but that obviously wknt fill the vacancies that there will surely be.
I mean if a doctor with a family of three and a janitor with a family of three each recieve "according to their need" what motivation is there to spend years of your life being a doctor in highly stressful situations every day, with a surplus of patients who you cant always treat properly? If I want to do something nice for my community, why dont I take a teaching position instead? It still helps the community while being infinitely less stressful than being a doctor.

>>11979337
If we're trying to resolve our conflict and each of us needs to leverage something to ensure the outcome of the conversation favors us in some measure, then it's not a real conversation, the strong party is just checking whether it will be necessary to act unilaterally or if they can get voluntary cooperation.

The kind of dialog I'm talking about is where we're both trying to re-structure our problems such that we can both win.

>>11979353
yes, like I just said elsewhere, I don't mind being called a utopian, and yea, it does seem like I'm more optimistic than most.
I'm not in a hurry for anarchy to arrive. In the long run I believe it is inevitable.
>Anarchism is already associated with disorder.
yea, dissolving this association is one of my biggest hobbies.
>recommended reading
Kropotkin is my favorite.
>>11979398
first of all, let's imagine you could determine objectively the motivations of people, and your doctor does it 100% for the money. He would literally be doing anything else, but he ended up as a doctor. Is that the guy you want to have operating on you?
If you see society as a bunch of people just bribing each other to get cooperation going even on a basic level, than how can you have any political beliefs at all? Let's accelerate the collapse so we can Mad Max this bitch already.

But seriously, there's fundamental question here. Why do people live in society? Are they thinking "what do I get out of this?", in other words, "what can my country do for me?", or are they thinking "what can I do for my country?"
It's both, right? Like I already said, during actual times of scarcity, egoism makes more sense. Survival takes priority. But during abundance, what do people want?
They want to be useful. They want to matter within their social context. They wanna make a difference.
Once again, we need communism because it will bring out the best in humankind. Effort is no object to a man when he is working for people he loves, or a cause he believes in. Capitalism cheapens all of these connections. Your doctor saved your life, yeah, but that's his job. Would he have done it otherwise?

>>11979478
>>The kind of dialog I'm talking about is where we're both trying to re-structure our problems such that we can both win.
>dude I have nothing to offer you whatsoever
>let me have my way
You seem to not understand the meaning of the words you use. Your post is non-sense.

>>11979512
Welcome to Marxism, where the laws that govern the world are meant to be obfuscated rather than understood.

>>11979267
I mean I read all of it, and I found it interesting. However, I really was specifically asking about a certain feature of Delueze's thinking. My original question wasn't me being obnoxious, I was just supporting OP's desire for an explanation of what the quote means when coming from Delueze.

>>11979512
My words are nonsense to you because you cannot conceive of a world where actual social bonds exist. You see a world where society is held together exclusively by straight quid pro quo. And all the problems that come with this attitude a merely historical accidents, or perhaps caused by some race of bad people who infiltrated your country in the past.

Here's an alternative theory: society is held together by sacrifice.
Firstly, child-rearing is sacrifice. (capitalists sometimes try to conceptualize it as an investment. If they were serious they'd never have children because that's the worse investment imaginable.)
But in general, we know that accidents happen and that we all make mistakes. The thought that these misfortunes should affect our livelihoods for ever and even extend to our descendants is evidently cruel, especially in any wealthy society, perfectly capable of mitigating these issues.
As I've been saying above, people want to give, they want to contribute. But under capitalism that's not feasible, it's self-sabotage.

>>11979478
I cant sleep so im back
>Like I already said, during actual times of scarcity, egoism makes more sense. Survival takes priority.
Ithink I see where there may be a disconnect. I’m assuming your utopia is in a bad situation as a way to test whether it can still be viable even in pretty dire consequences.I mean, capitalism was able to survive the depression, even at the cost of the lower classes, but as a system it survived.(I wont pretend I know all that much about the great depression btw, just a casual example)
Could the same be said for an anarcho-communist society? If scarcity leads to egoism (which seems to be the bane of a community driven system) wouldnt that society eventually devolve into a winner take all situation?
Im not sure how large you imagine each community, I usually imagined it around 200-250 (the number of people you can care about, forget the name of it), but wouldnt scarcity at the very least lead to the rise of city-states where these communities that once worked together compete for the limited resources?

How do you suggest people should plan ahead to keep this from happening? I mean, how could I go back to working alongside people who may have caused the death of one of my own beloved community members. How do we keep things from devolving into tribalism?

Or how do we keep a community from trying to leverage more goods for themselves from other communitiesfor the sake of accumulating wealth in order to be better preparedfor an eventual scarcity?
If a group is responsible for most of the food in a region and they begin to demand more fuel, etc., because they forsee a potential shortage of food so they want to be properly compensated for having a “rare” item, you dont have time to establish a dialogue. If youve only supplied people according to their need, they have not accumulated extra resources to wait for prolonged negotiations, or even worse, a military battle that could destroy the infrastructure necessary to farm.

Sorry for all the questions, you seem to be pretty knowledgable on anarcho-communism which is unfortunately very rare. So I just want to get a lot of the questions i’ve had out of the way.

>>11979580
It's nonsense to suggest compromise exists without leverage. Spare us your drivel.

>>11979580
>>Firstly, child-rearing is sacrifice. (capitalists sometimes try to conceptualize it as an investment. If they were serious they'd never have children because that's the worse investment imaginable.)
Tell that to all the depressed woman who never had children, we're biologically wired to seek fulfillment via family, the nature of the payoff may not be obvious but it's obviously there if you're serious about analyzing the cost/benefits.

>>11977004
Leftism is the reduction of good things and rightism is the limitation of that process.

>>11977504
By me throwing your pencil neck down a flight of stairs and fucking your sister raw, because I can and you can't stop me

>>11979591
> capitalism was able to survive the depression, Could the same be said for an anarcho-communist society?
this is actually really funny. The great depression was a credit crunch, a kind of crisis absolutely unique to capitalism.
but to answer your overall question about the resiliency of anarchism:
Yes, I think anarchy should prove far more resilient than capitalism. Like I've been saying, under capitalism we're accustomed to live in (perceived) scarcity. Egoism is our default mode. During natural catastrophes we're always guaranteed to see people stooping to looting stores to survive, and store-owners stooping to barricading their stores to prevent people from surviving at his expense.
Anarchy's extra resiliency comes from those social bonds I've been talking so much about. We're less likely to back-stab the people on whom we've relied on and worked with all our lives. In capitalism, our neighbors are just people who happen to live near us. Fuck them!

>Or how do we keep a community from trying to leverage more goods for themselves from other communities...
that question presupposes greed as a normal thing. We've been over this. If the scarcity gets really really bad, people get correspondingly bad. that's precisely why we need to promote the formation of tight-knit communities.

>>11979653
You're interpreting the desire for more as greed. What if its security? In the case of an upcoming drought, why wouldn't a community of close knit people want to carve out a more secure future for each other. The Dunbar number is at most 250, so probably your local neighborhood. You're assuming that compassion is the end all issue to any social unrest, but ignoring that a mother will kill for her child out of that same compassion. Why wouldn't I kill for 200 of my closest friends and family?

>>11979603
alright, I'll spare ya.

>>11979611
yes, there is a biological reward mechanism for reproduction. This is actually besides the point in this conversation.
Our society is a contract among all of us living today. But in the future there'll be all of these new people, and they're not a part of this contract. How could they be? They don't exist yet, and when they come into existence they will be completely helpless and unable to negotiate any kind of contract.
By the time they become capable, they've already been assimilated by our society, their agreement on the contract completely tacit.
So in a contractualist framework, reproduction makes no sense. That we reproduce and allow the new generation to inherit all of our stuff is an act of sacrifice.

but I could also use a similar argument to yours:
"tell that to all the parents that they're not really sacrificing anything by working shit jobs and putting up with all the sleepless nights to raise their kids"

>>11979681
I think if we can achieve harmony at the very local scale, that will also help engender a more abstract compassion for people in general.
This means anarchists would be less likely to stake out resources by force, but it would also mean that other communes would give willingly all that they could.
Can the same be said for capitalists? Try to picture the gated-community people of your town opening their gates and sharing their wealth during some calamity.

>>11978768
You do realize "grandeur" is not an inherently positive term in French?

I'm honestly baffled what sort of confusion could drive a person to believe in the fundamental goodness of human beings toward each other, but then, it's still not the dumbest thing I've seen posted here over the years.

>>11979695
>I think if we can achieve harmony at the very local scale, that will also help engender a more abstract compassion for people in general.
I can agree with this

>This means anarchists would be less likely to stake out resources by force, but it would also mean that other communes would give willingly all that they could.
I agree with this too, but the point I'm trying to make is that enough scarcity will inevitably result in the opposite society we envision. It will devolve into a competitive way of being, even if it takes longer than a capitalist society.

>Try to picture the gated-community people of your town opening their gates and sharing their wealth during some calamity.
It could be argued that they are just a tight-knit community that would be looking out for each of the people they have formed strong social bonds with. The only difference is that unlike your society, they will have accumulated enough wealth to be able to support people outside of that community, but choose not too. ACs would want to share, but because of their disdain for accumulation as a form of greed, they wouldn't have the resources to do so.
I wouldn't make that argument, but I would like to hear how your respond to someone who would.
But this can also be seen as accumulating wealth (resources, etc.) as a proof of concept that it provides security for those who do it. In an AC society, trying to leverage extra goods wouldn't be because you're a materialist, but because you're trying to provide a more stable future for community in the case of a scarcity

>>11979787
>enough scarcity will inevitably result in the opposite society we envision. It will devolve into a competitive way of being, even if it takes longer than a capitalist society.
and if a meteor hits the planet, Anarchy will devolve into dust and ashes. What's your point?

>but because of their disdain for accumulation as a form of greed, they wouldn't have the resources to do so.
what does 'accumulate' actually mean in this context? For example, could it mean overproducing food to stockpile for a rainy day? That could be smart, but also very costly. Food is perishable and has very particular storage requirements. A community would elect to undertake this measure based on how likely they believe those calamities to be.
What if they fail to foresee these circumstances? Then hopefully they'll have some smarter neighbors who are also very patient and generous! (Actually in that case these neighbors could have warned them beforehand about these possibilities. And what if they didn't heed the warning? In that case it's literally the ant and the grasshopper, and it ceases to be a political question, it's a purely moral one.)

but really, 'accumulate', for the capitalists during the calamity, means "buying up all the available food with no consideration for the needs of others." This very possibility should count against the system for anyone with a conscience.

>>11979751
honest question to you and any misanthrope / pessimist:
What keeps you going? Why post something like you just did? Doesn't it feel pointless and grotesque to spend time associating with humans, like you're wallowing in shit?

>>11979910
>misanthrope
What could anyone possibly enjoy that doesn't involve people?

>>11979910
>What keeps you going?
Life is beautiful.
>Why post something like you just did?
I want to prevent people from falling into patterns of thinking that aren't rooted in reality and will hurt them in the long run.
>Doesn't it feel pointless and grotesque to spend time associating with humans, like you're wallowing in shit?
No, because there's plenty of fine people all around. I just don't see why you'd think they're that way by nature.

>>11979901
>What's your point?
My point is that in the case of scarcity, anarcho-communism ceases to be viable and will eventually dissolve into hyper-competitive city-states. It's only viable so long as there is abundance. A capitalist society may fall apart under the same circumstances, but its dissolution still results in the hyper-competitive society that it already was. The type of society we are trying to turn away from. I guess I'm trying to figure out what would be the point of developing such a society if it will inevitably devolve into the society we are trying to stay away from? Or if its preventable, how do we stop it from happening without falling to the trappings of greed and competition over favorable resources.

>what does 'accumulate' actually mean in this context?
What you said: stockpiling resources. If ACs were smart, they would always stockpile at least something. There are plenty of ways to increase the life of food (dehydration, canning, vacuum sealing, etc.) They would just end up stockpiling more if they did forsee a calamity. They probably would tell their neighbors, if they formed the bonds you've talked of as well.

I guess you could work together to try to weather the storm, but if you have one last shot of medicine, and this other communities child is sick, but you know that your people could get sick soon, my compassionate side would hurt for that family, but ultimately I love my community more and save it for them. This may be a moral issue, but I think it does well to break down the idea that solidarity and social bonds are all we need to prevent competition. when things get tough, you will end up looking out for your own group. And you dont do this out of greed. You look out for your own group, at the cost of others because you love them. It is the same social bonds that prevented you from taking advantage of your neighbor before that drives you to do so when times are very hard. And that love for your community, when your back is against the wall, can lead to you doing some truly horrible shit to people outside of that sphere. And that sphere is small. The dunbar number is about 250. That's about 1-2 suburban neighborhoods.

You've claimed that social bonds will prevent a lot of the things I've said up until now from happening (people taking advantage of others, trying to cheat your neighbors for more goods) and I agreed with you, but if the only way to protect those you love is to try to take advantage of your neighbors because theres not enough to go around, why wouldn't you? What would prevent these communities from devolving into competing city-states? Ones not based on greed, but compassion.

>>11980000

>>11979989
I still don't see a point.
The breakdown is either preventable or not. If it is, great, if it isn't, then anarchy is tied for last with capitalism and every other conceivable system.
In other words, if there aren't enough resources, there's no amount of politicking that will resolve the situation.

>>11981374
I'm trying to find out how we could stop the breakdown. If you have measures in mind to prevent it from happening, AC is a superior system. If you dont, and everything devolves into competitive city-states given enough time, then why bring AC about? If everything ends up tied for last, then who cares to change from one system to another?

>>11981586
>everything devolves into competitive city-states given enough time
but why do think this is the case? If you reach a dynamic equilibrium with the biosphere, and make sure to nuke any incoming asteroids, the earth should be able so sustain life just fine for a few billion years still.
Why so doomy?

>>11977171
Truly an enlightened society. Humanity has much to learn from them.

There is no argument for communism. There are only arguers, their rhetoric has nothing to do with logic or even coherence, in fact those are precisely what they seek to evade with their casuistry, instead communist rhetoric relies on sounding good, sounding like it answers an issue, while dodging it entirely going around in some specious circle. For example:
>>11979686
>>yes, there is a biological reward mechanism for reproduction. This is actually besides the point in this conversation.
All reward mechanisms are biological, it isn't besides the point at all, it just directly and obviously contradicts your mouth-flatulence.

>Our society is a contract among all of us living today. But in the future there'll be all of these new people, and they're not a part of this contract. How could they be? They don't exist yet, and when they come into existence they will be completely helpless and unable to negotiate any kind of contract.
Tabula-rasa is absurdity. How could they be? Simple, the entirety of all conditions ever that came before are what determine their conditions in the future. Everything from genetics to environment is how, it's all a consequence and contributor of a system directly contrary to what you describe. It's like saying maybe newborn infants won't be subject to the laws of gravity, how could we know, they aren't born yet. This is why communists were so bent on creating their own theory of evolution, since nature itself refutes their maxims. They failed.

>>11981883
you are, evidently, very dogmatic about all this. I'm not going to waste my time re-explaining my arguments to you.

>>11976338
DUDE CENTRI SOCIALI LMAO

>>11976338
Completely wrong, leftism has everything to do with government. Leftism is the government-centered life.

>>11982746
You haven't given any arguments though, all you've done IS waste time and repeat your beliefs, and conflated that insistence with argumentation. But regardless of how many times you regurgitate them, your beliefs have no grounding in reality or argument. And then you call others dogmatic, because they demand evidence or coherence! You've no logic, and no shame, the ideal communist.

>>11983170
this thread had been nice and civil until you got here.
yes, I call you dogmatic. I refer you to the first paragraph in your post. You have clearly convinced yourself and re-confirmed your beliefs with regards to communism a thousand times over.
I did not demand evidence or coherence. Already you are being dishonest. Already you project upon me all of the attitudes you love to despise.
And yes, I do have arguments. here are a couple of them:

>>11977256
>So no, money, classes and governments are not necessary. People are essentially capable of performing these tasks, as they already do under capitalism, and they are able to exercise this kind of responsibility over their own lives. Of course, Responsibility can only be learned in practice. mankind will never display it's true potential for self-government while papa state and mommy corporation infantilize and spoil the population.
>>11977696
>greed is not innate. There is no reason to believe that it is. You are inducing that it is, because it is generalized in the population. But this isn't sufficient to draw your conclusion because there are other variables which are also generalized which could account for greed. The big one being capitalism itself. People look out for themselves because that's what they're expected to do in this system. No one else will do it for them.
If you change the rules of the game, at the same moment you observe a corresponding change in player behavior.

I've also described in this thread quite a bit of ~how~ an anarcho-communist society could work, since this is often the first big stumbling block: Actually imagining the ways in which things could be different, and the implications of this differences. You're clearly not interested in any of this.

As for the arguments you brought up, I will say this: It's important that we have a conceptual model for what our society IS. And, indisputably, the best model is a contract. Biological and psychological approaches are also very important in understanding society, but when we talk about systems, as we are doing here, anarchism versus capitalism, the bio- and psycho- angles are the support material. The system must make sense, it must be coherent, it must be capable, at least in theory, of satisfying the goals it was designed to address.
I was making the point that quid-pro-quo is not sufficient to justify any social system. Here the bio/psycho evidence is absolutely in my favor.
I really don't know what direction you took my argument in,
> the entirety of all conditions ever that came before are what determine their conditions in the future.
this is fine, it's true, in what way does it contradict what I said?

>>11983464
>And yes, I do have arguments. here are a couple of them:
Feel good sentiments are not arguments.
>So no, money, classes and governments are not necessary.
False, there has never been anything remotely human that didn't exist within hierarchies, which are determined by ability and resources. Fucking ants have classes, anything living organism that co-exists with others of its species has hierarchies this is such an innate aspect of the evolutionary process that all you're doing here is revealing your deep ignorance of biological processes. All you have are platitudes like "greed is not innate" when your loaded term of greed is just a substitution for nature, which very fucking obviously is innate, in principle and by definition. Society itself is by definition is a hierarchy, a system of differentiation. There is NOTHING to suggest what you say is true, which is why for the umpteenth time I tell you to give a single shred of evidence to support it. I look forward to you rephrasing the sentiment and repeating it, again, instead.
>Actually imagining the ways in which things could be different, and the implications of this differences. You're clearly not interested in any of this.
You're right, I have zero interest in imagining a world that only exists in your imagination.
>this is fine, it's true, in what way does it contradict what I said?
How can you create a generation or an environment distinct from the one that precedes it if the latter informs it? You cannot. If any of your "arguments" were true, your system would exist already, it doesn't because it cannot.

>>11983464
>And yes, I do have arguments. here are a couple of them:
Feel good sentiments are not arguments.
>So no, money, classes and governments are not necessary.
False, there has never been anything remotely human that didn't exist within hierarchies, which are determined by ability and resources. Fucking ants have classes, any living organism that co-exists with others of its species has hierarchies, this is such an innate aspect of the evolutionary process that all you're doing here is revealing your deep ignorance of biological development. All you have are platitudes like "greed is not innate" when your loaded term of greed is just a substitution for nature, which very fucking obviously is innate, in principle and by definition. Society itself is by definition a hierarchy, a system of differentiation. There is NOTHING to suggest what you say is true, not one example in all of history, which is why for the umpteenth time I tell you to give a single shred of evidence to support it. I look forward to you rephrasing the sentiment and repeating it, again, instead.
>Actually imagining the ways in which things could be different, and the implications of this differences. You're clearly not interested in any of this.
You're right, I have zero interest in imagining a world that only exists in your imagination.
>this is fine, it's true, in what way does it contradict what I said?
How can you create a generation or an environment distinct from the one that precedes it if the latter informs it? You cannot. If any of your "arguments" were true, your system would exist already, it doesn't because it cannot.

>>11976338
>countless intellectual giants throughout the history of humanity have agonized on the question of man's right, how can man be equal when such disparity exists within the world
>dude just get rid of the government lmao
French thinkers, not even once

>>11983785
>there has never been anything remotely human that didn't exist within hierarchies
this doesn't mean anything. You folks can declare the "end of history" all you want, there's a first time for everything and there always will be.
>Fucking ants have classes
they also have physiological polymorphism. FFS, if you're going to use biology analogies, than you gotta know the biology. Ant colonies are a superorganism. The different "social classes" are more like different organs of the colony, which also justifies the polymorphism.

Or would you claim that the ananoly still holds, and that money lenders, landlords and others of the capitalist class are valuable organs of the human superorganism?
If any part of the body profits from the others, the specimen eventually dies.

>All you have are platitudes like "greed is not innate"
I posted complete rebuttal of the argument that greed must be innate because it is generalized. I then greentexted it just for you. Still no acknowledgement.
The biological argument for innate greed is barely worth addressing. For every example of competitiveness in nature, I give you 10 counter examples of mutualism and symbiosis.
If you have any other arguments for the innateness of greed, I'll be happy to address those as well.

>Society itself is by definition a hierarchy, a system of differentiation.
I am very curious about your peculiar definition of the word "society" here, but it's probable not worth getting sidetracked

>I have zero interest in imagining a world that only exists in your imagination.
So human imagination is unimportant. It's of no use for us to imagine different ways to live? Is that right?
The human migration across the face of the earth, for example. Even if conditions aren't great where you are, why risk voyaging into the unknown?
And what of technology? Does it not take any imagination to invent new theories, new contraptions?

>How can you create a generation or an environment distinct from the one that precedes it
And yet, every generation is so wildly different! There must be a reason the phrase "generational gap" is such a common expression.
But that is still not the point.
The new generation is not part of the social contract because they didn't participate in it's creation. They did not sign it. The thought that a contract should apply to unborn people is ludicrous.
The idea is not that each generation should have a different constitution, the contents of the constitution don't matter here, what matters is that associating yourself with others, forming a society, should be a conscious, deliberate act, which babies or unborn persons cannot perform.

>>11978743
By modern standards it was right wing since it wasn't liberal. Liberal==leftist by modern standards, at least in the developed world.

>>11976338
>first I'll redefine what "leftist" means
>then I'll redefine what "government" means
>now you have to follow the definitions I just made up, because I said so and also because I'm Deleuze, the king of all pseuds.

>>11983464
>greed is not innate. There is no reason to believe that it is. You are inducing that it is, because it is generalized in the population. But this isn't sufficient to draw your conclusion because there are other variables which are also generalized which could account for greed. The big one being capitalism itself. People look out for themselves because that's what they're expected to do in this system. No one else will do it for them.
Capitalism is generalised? Are you trying to say that we never witnessed any system other than capitalism?

>>11985587
you ignored everything else I said and zeroed in on this one, trying to goad into the ULTIMATE SIN: The No True Scotsman Fallacy! Because the Soviet Union is all anyone needs to know about communism.
I'm done with you.

>>11986668
>you aren't allowed to look at the details of my argument
>brings up the ussr
>accuses me of bringing up the ussr in that same comment
>you don't deserve to argue with me
wew, looks like I hit the commie jackpot

>>11977167
deleuze, foucault and the other french lefties were proto-neo liberals in the social aspect

>>11986879
instead of memeing you could have explained where you were going with that rhetorical question. You have have proved your point.
But of course, I did anticipate your shit argument, you were going to bring up the USSR (or cuba, venezuela, north korea, whatever you felt like today), and I'm not going to waste my time going in that direction. I don't defend authoritarian communism, and you've never actually read a book about what life was like in the USSR anyways.
So what do you win? A nice screenshot to show your troll friends over at r/thedonald or whatever shithole you like to hang out at.

>>11977085
They are leftists.

>>11986929
Or you could have answered my question. You can try again now:
Is it true that we never witnessed any system other than capitalism?

>>11977696
Which societies would you cite as examples of societies without greed, i.e. in which people did not desire to increase their "wealth", whatever form that may have taken in the context of their culture?
>>11979653
>During natural catastrophes we're always guaranteed to see people stooping to looting stores to survive, and store-owners stooping to barricading their stores to prevent people from surviving at his expense.
This is far more of a problem in societies of low mental and cultural capacity, such as Haiti. Compare this to Japan during the 2011 earthquake - I wouldn't consider Capitalism to be the defining factor here.

>>11987005
yes, human societies have organized themselves without the use of money or private property in the past.
Here's a suggestion, If you do have a point to make you can be generous and presume I'm not a complete retard just so we can move the discussion along at a reasonable pace.
>>11987025
> examples of societies without greed
native north and south Americans (but not central, for the most part)
Lots of examples in the pacific islands, pre-Europe, of course
These are the examples of "savages" that you probably won't take seriously, given the cultural prejudice you already displayed.
There's also this whole class of modern religious communes, the Anabaptists in the christian world such as the Amish, the Kibbutzim in Israel, and so on.
And then, of course, the non-religious communes, i.e. the "hippie" variety, but I won't bother listing any for you guys.

>societies of low mental and cultural capacity, such as Haiti. Compare this to Japan
can you think of no other variables that might have affected the behavior of the population during these catastrophes? You really go straight for "mental capacity" without bothering to cite anything at all?

>>11987482
So, to clarify, you deny that Native Americans, despite their long history of intense trading, not just for objects of daily use, but objects exclusively of exchange value such as copper, silver, and gold, who also frequently engaged in tribal warfare for no discernible reason other than conquest, did not feel a desire for acquisition or wealth? No pacific islander ever desired to have more land or seashells than his neighbor? What, in your mind, caused their constant tribal warfare among each other?

>can you think of no other variables that might have affected the behavior of the population during these catastrophes? You really go straight for "mental capacity" without bothering to cite anything at all?
I can think of numerous variables, many (but not all) of which are connected to very plain biological factors. Not that that's an interesting direction for this conversation to take, IQ talk is boring. Are you going for the old poverty = crime yarn?

>>11979620
>you have the choice between things going to shit fast or slowly
Freddums, and hard choices.

>>11987482
To any meaningful extent, no, they haven’t. You’ve listed some examples in your reply to >>11987482 and I’ll just go through all of them. Let me know if you have more.
>”hippie” communes
They aren’t independent, they live within capitalist countries and participate in their markets. They’re provided with emergency services and governed by the law of capitalist countries. If your point is that a communist society can exist as long as a larger, capitalist one is supporting it, I can agree with you.
>Anabaptists, Amish, the Kibbutzim
Same as above and most of them also have very rigid social order or limitations to personal freedom related to their religion. Membership is voluntary and many simply leave. It’s unfair to assume that a group of volunteers is a good model of the entire population.
>pacific islands, pre-Europe
>native north and south Americans
Extremely poor. If their existence proves that communism leads to a lack of greed, it also proves that it leads to a lack of hygiene, access to information or medicine more advanced than eating herbs and ritual dances.
If your claim is that a non-capitalist society can exist as long as everyone remains below the population density and civilisational level of North American Indians, I can agree with you as well.

>>11977126
Justin Murphy has some good interviews. Did you listen to the one with that Catholic Socialist cutie?

>>11977256
Dear lord, imagine being this much of a faggot

>>11977412
Yes. And I still mostly believe it. After all, capitalist private ownership killed the aristocracy. The big factor with the USSR being that workers never owned the means of production. "The State", especially a corrupt pseudo-democratic authoritarian state, can not be an acceptable stand in for the workers it turns out.

>>11988535
It didn't kill them in a real sense. It just changed them.

>>11976338
Leftism is about democracy in the workplace, which has nothing to do with government. One giant corporation owning everything isn't leftism, that's extreme state capitalism. The democracy that really matters is democracy of land ownership and the means of production.