/lit/ - Literature

Socialism and anarchy inevitably lead to authoritarianism

>>18361046

>>18361052
Care to explain?
>>18361066
What makes you think I'm baiting? My request is completely genuine.

There’s a plethora of theory to choose from but generally for origin stuff we have Stirner, Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin.
Contemporary thought include Graeber, Bookchin, James Herod and Gelderloos.
The thing about anarchism is that there’s no one thinker we must all fall in line with. The world is huge and there’s enough variation to it to accommodate everyone.

No Gods, No Masters is a very good four volume anthology, but this more recent three volume looks interesting. I’ve only peeked in a little of it though.

>>18361046
>what are some books i can waste my time reading
internet warrior

Also I enjoy some fiction (okay, Bolo’bolo isn’t exactly fiction)

Michael Malice just put out a nice anarchist reader, you might like it.

>>18361071
Anarchy is the strong takes over the weak . Socialism is the centralization of everything (including decision making) this will always draw sociopathic people to make a power grab

>>18361088
He’s not an anarchist

>>18361092
State socialism is a dumb liberal idea

This is all you need m8

>>18361071
Because you're polluting /lit/ with your leftoid nonsense.

>>18361109
It’s a simple request. You have nothing? Get lost

>>18361104
>This is all you need, b8
You too

>>18361098
It's a compilation of everyone from Rothbard to Proudhon to Bakunin, you retarded tranny.

>>18361125
you can't tell me what to do bitch

stick to books because that is the only place any of these retarded ideas of yours exist

>>18361126
A book on anarchism ought not include liberals

>>18361132
Should a book on capitalism include communists?

>>18361143
Such as? We’re talking about this liberal propaganda piece peddling capitalism within an anti capitalist ideology. What are you talking about?

>>18361159
>Peddling capitalism
> Compilation which includes Emma Goldman, Bakunin, Kropotkin and Spooner

A. You don't have a monopoly on the term 'anarchism'

B. A compilation which includes perspectives that are in polar opposition to capitalism can definitionally not be pedaling capitalism.

How did you get this retarded? Is it the estrogen pills making you argue like a woman?

>>18361184
I am referring to Rothbard.

>>18361098
>He’s not an anarchist

1. Yes he is.
2. It's a reader, ie a collection of short works and excerpts from primary sources.

>>18361189
So because a book on a retarded idea(anarchism) includes a perspective which differs from that retarded idea, it's no longer about the retarded idea?

Cool.

>>18361194
>It's a reader,
Okay. I suggested a couple of those too >>18361074 both free of liberals. Call me purist, but I’m an anarchist because of what the private sector has done to me, not because I’m heavily taxed.

>>18361200
It’s the idea that one can maintain free market capitalism without a state, and it will be magically wonderful, that sets me off.

>>18361125
>You too

It not a good intro?

>>18361220
>but I’m an anarchist because of what the private sector has done to me

for instance?

>>18361074
>The thing about anarchism is that there’s no one thinker we must all fall in line with. The world is huge and there’s enough variation to it to accommodate everyone.

>>18361132
>A book on anarchism ought not include liberals

Look at the butterfly lie to itself and others.

>>18361263
Liberals are not anarchists even if they believe they can do things without government
We’ll see them try, use bitcoin and everything. But it won’t be very accommodating to the working class of their fiefdoms

>>18361046
>anti-authoritarianism
>anarchy
Mega cringe, read Lenin you western cuck onions leftoid. Go be an edgy punk rock loser incel screeching on the streets and supporting western imperialism due to your distorted world view shaped by the CIA.

>>18361283
This isn’t your thread either.
Not even making a reasonable argument.

>>18361280
>>18361297
Anarchist are mega libs, cope and seethe. Nobody cares about anarchists, they're politically irrelevant, they have an history of failure. They're a backstabbing bunch and they lack common sense.
They're scared of bigness, verticality, and power. They want to live in cuck sheds made with sticks and larp around doing tasks on a voluntary basis. Prove me wrong

>>18361283
Why are you like this? OP only asked suggestions for books.

>>18361046
>Das Kapital, Kritik der politischen Oekonomie, by Karl Marx; Erster Band. This work will need to be translated into French, because nothing, that I know of, contains an analysis so profound, so luminous, so scientific, so decisive, and if I can express it thus, so merciless an expose of the formation of bourgeois capital and the systematic and cruel exploitation that capital continues exercising over the work of the proletariat. The only defect of this work... positivist in direction, based on a profound study of economic works, without admitting any logic other than the logic of the facts - the only defect, say, is that it has been written, in part, but only in part, in a style excessively metaphysical and abstract... which makes it difficult to explain and nearly unapproachable for the majority of workers, and it is principally the workers who must read it nevertheless. The bourgeois will never read it or, if they read it, they will never want to comprehend it, and if they comprehend it they will never say anything about it; this work being nothing other than a sentence of death, scientifically motivated and irrevocably pronounced, not against them as individuals, but against their class.
>Michail Bakunin

Read De Maistre and grow up.