/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14246820]

What are your essential anarchist texts?

[Anonymous No.14247024]

>>14246820
I like reading their obituaries. Anarchists are left-wing trash, and the only real value they have is that satisfying crunch their necks make when they invariably hang themselves, or are hanged as the thieves that they are.

Hearing about how pathetically, and in what agony Berkman died is one of favorites. A good little Jew, couldn't even operate a gun correctly to kill himself. A life of sin and criminal behavior, ended in squealing porcine agony. Like a good little leftist.

[Anonymous No.14247302]

>>14247024
cope

[Anonymous No.14247316]

>>14246820
I don't get how anyone can follow female authorities willingly. They're so cringe. You know that old saying that a man should never live in his mother-in-law's house? Yeah, it's not good. Women when given power are much more psychotic and deranged than men. Look at any home run by a grandma or older woman and you'll see. So why did we let women into politics to run nations?

[Anonymous No.14247325]

>>14247316
what the fuck are you talking about

[Anonymous No.14247329]

>>14247325
females in power bad
try living in a house run by your mother-in-law if you ever get married and think about some grandma running a nation
CRINGE

[Anonymous No.14247330]

>>14247024
you're a horrible person anon. not even the worst people deserve to suffer like that

[Anonymous No.14247337]

>>14246820
UwU

[Anonymous No.14247340]

>>14247329
i lived with my single mom and have also lived in a grandma-run house, it was much better than my experiences with man-run houses

[Anonymous No.14247350]

>>14247316
the point of anarchism is that there are no authorities dumbo

[Anonymous No.14247358]

>>14247024

Rekt

[Anonymous No.14247381]

>>14247350
There's always an authority, dumbass.

>>14247340
I'm not going to doubt it. It can turn out well, but it's very rare. I would not advise anyone to gamble on it. By man-run houses I guess you mean step-dads, major yikes. Americans...

[Anonymous No.14247382]

>>14247340
Is there an analogous term for the Stockholm syndrome teenage trannies feel for their single mother enablers?

[Anonymous No.14247392]

>>14247340
Allow me to add that you may have also internalized their abuse, or may not be aware of it. A guy I know lives with his wife and rich mother-in-law. She abuses him all the time but the guy is too naive. He always comes back crawling and whimpering. Women with a stick are powerful beings. Vagina + power = hell.

[Anonymous No.14247504]

The Machinery of Freedom, by David Friedman

[Anonymous No.14247526]

Here you go

[Anonymous No.14247532]

>>14247330
Anarchists want to destroy everything that makes life worth living. Human extinction is preferable to their success.

[Anonymous No.14247537]

>>14247024
Based, but I hope you're not a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist either. If so, then you deserve to be hanged too.

[Anonymous No.14247541]

>>14247532
Sounds like bootlicker propaganda. Read theory brainlet.

[Anonymous No.14247606]

>>14247541
Real meaning in life comes from the development of a identity over that of humanity, the reification of that identity thought the development of States, and the use of state resources towards the brutalization of the other.

Your ideal amounts to nothing more than tribesman maximizing the number of orgasms they can have on a daily basis.

[Anonymous No.14247633]

>>14247606
Sounds like bootlicker propaganda. Read theory brainlet.

[Anonymous No.14247642]

>>14247633
you make yourself look worse to onlookers, not better, when you do this. seems petty and immature.

[Anonymous No.14247645]

>>14247606
Is that you, Schmitt?

[Anonymous No.14247652]

>>14247642
Sounds like bootlicker propaganda. Read theory brainlet.

[Anonymous No.14247658]

For me, it's Rothbard.

[Anonymous No.14247659]

>>14247633
Theory, at least of the anarchist variety, always amounts to a list of ways in which the body is deprived of comforts and the assertion that the all-important body should be the center and priority of human organization in order to gain those comforts. I merely question what makes the body more valuable than social systems which allow it to achieve something far greater and which itself achieves something greater than that.

[Anonymous No.14247674]

>>14247658
cringe

[Anonymous No.14247689]

>>14247659
>Anarchism=Utilitarianism
no
>achieve something far greater
which is not done through the means of the state

[Anonymous No.14247702]

>>14247645
I've never read Schmitt, but I'm probably edgier than he would ever want to be.

My attitude comes from an understanding of the underlying principles of leftist (in the broadest possible sense of the term) normative claims and rhetoric and why I find them so distasteful. I avoid reading any authors. My only interested is in understanding the corporeal plague that leftist.

[Anonymous No.14247704]

>>14247659
Anarchism is being released from the restrains of the state there is still a social system in place and if anything it opens up the potentials for greater things.

[Anonymous No.14247710]

>>14247702
>Leftists BAD
yeah seriously just read theory and stop being underage

[Anonymous No.14247721]

>>14246820

It is always interesting to me that leftists only ever want to do violence against those who do violence to them but fascist and authoritarians want to do violence against any one who isn't them (part of their scam).

Makes it real easy to both identify and to choose sides.

[Anonymous No.14247733]

>>14247721
Leftists will just claim that anyone who isn't them wants to do violence to them. Everyone is the same when it comes to politics. Just pick your flavor.

[Anonymous No.14247833]

>>14247704
Yes, but the purpose of that society is the protection, comforting, and advancement of the body. The social system is secondary to the body and nothing can be achieved beyond it.

What makes all other social systems Superior to any system of communism is that the society itself takes priority over the bodies and can move beyond them.
>>14247710
Leftism is bad at the most fundamental level. Anyone who asserts that lives are more valuable than the systems they can participate as subordinates is fundamentally evil.

[Anonymous No.14247894]

>>14247721
It's a tad easy when they can use academic authority to produce new types of violence. Self defense to justify a decentralized authoritarianism. We must make sure that our precious lives always defended.

[Anonymous No.14247927]

>why anarchism?
at the cafe by malatesta
Abc of anarchism by berkman
mutual aid by kropotkin
>how would it come about/work?
Anarchosyndicalism theory and practice by rocker
conquest of bread by kroptkin
fields factories and workshops by kropotkin
anarchy in action by ward
Facing the enemy a history of anarchist organization by skirda
>anarchism vs marxism
marxismfreedom and the state by bakunin
my disillusionment in russia by goldman
>various but great
what is property by proudhon
god and the state by bakunin
anarchist revolution by malatesta
history of the makhnovost revolution by arshinov
youshould read marx angels and lenin tho

[Anonymous No.14247957]

>>14247833
all petty idealism and flimsy ideology

[Anonymous No.14247995]

butterfly's diary desu

[Anonymous No.14248082]

>>14247532
You really have no idea do you

[Anonymous No.14248094]

Syndicalism is the way forward bro. Bookchin's last interview is really interesting, on the death of Anarchy and disagreements with Bakunin.

[Anonymous No.14248172]

>>14248082
The centralization of the body is worse than human non-existence.

[Anonymous No.14248193]

The Bread Book for fucks sake. For me it was also Noam Chomsky's essay On Anarchism.

[Anonymous No.14248227]

>>14247927
thank you

[Anonymous No.14248231]

>>14247659
Big brain post. This cult of the body is the primal origin of egalitarianism, that is, to see all living matter as an undifferentiated heap. To you anarchists ITT: all your greatest works were born in opposition and are a byproduct of struggle. Removing struggle will not emancipate humanity but leave it in a truly subhuman state. You would come to learn that the life of the sovereign individual is one of loneliness and misery; that the freedom you’ve given men is the freedom of the cow or house pet

[Anonymous No.14248238]

Cant beat the classics.

[Anonymous No.14248420]

>>14247302
A pretty good cope desu

[Anonymous No.14248428]

>>14247330
Nigger, anarchists get major boners when there is violence done unto kulaks and right wingers get killed.

[Anonymous No.14248433]

>>14248238
Renzo Novatore was the real deal when it comes to egoist anarchism. If you ever want to see what happens if you try to live Stirner, he's the man for it.

[Anonymous No.14248472]

>>14248231
t. 19 year old posting on an incel anime site cozily lying in bed his your laptop
stop indulging in ideology. you are basically just promoting and romantisizing the drudgery of what the ordinary person is living today and what they have lived out for most of history which nothing really good has come out of restricting the potentials for creativity. your post is just neolliberal self help platitudes that redditors down on their luck spout.

[Anonymous No.14249351]

>>14247024
el basado

[Anonymous No.14249379]

>>14246820
Anything from Thought Slime. He's one of the best anarchists on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ7XQBkuSL0

[Anonymous No.14249409]

>>14247957
>anarchism
>not petty idealism

[Anonymous No.14249418]

>>14247024
ABSOLUTELY BASED

[Anonymous No.14249439]

A fucking masterpiece, a people's history of the USA. shows how the people fight the goddamned rich.

[Anonymous No.14249448]

A people's history of the USA. a fucking masterpiece. shows how the people fight against the rich mother fuckers who ruin everything.

[Anonymous No.14249452]

>>14249409
Yup it's not idealism. It cuts away from abstractions like the state, nation, borders, etc and focuses on concrete reality i.e. interconnections within social and ecological spheres. Just read theory.

[Anonymous No.14249470]

>>14249379
thought slime is fucking cringe, his voice is grating and he's a self-described anarchist who also thinks that language should be policed

[Anonymous No.14249479]

>>14247541
>>14247633
>>14247652
why is it so grating when leftoids abuse the word theory? just call them books you fucking pretentious wanker

[Anonymous No.14249492]

>>14249479
Read theory brainlet.

[Anonymous No.14249500]

>>14249479
books about what?

[Anonymous No.14249510]

>>14249492
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjRpXu2wZ2o

[Anonymous No.14249519]

>>14249500
well this is an anarchist thread so books about anarchism i guess

[Anonymous No.14249524]

>>14247330
>not even the worst people deserve to suffer like that
Oh, but they do.

[Anonymous No.14249528]

>>14247537
This.

[Anonymous No.14249625]

William James and Pragmatism for method. Whitehead for metaphysical framework. Marx for critique of political economy. Deleuze for your toolbox for power.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14249843]

>>14247337
>3000CE
Sweet

[Anonymous No.14249914]

>>14247024

Remind me how logical and rational the right are again? You're no better than those you spite, you sad individual.

[Anonymous No.14249924]

>>14249914
It's both logical and rational to take pleasure in the destruction of evil things.

[Anonymous No.14249972]

>>14247721
leftists want to kill all rich people and anyone who disagrees with them, and any counterrevolutionaryies which is anyone that disagrees with them, funny

[Anonymous No.14249979]

>>14249924
>durrr das ebil durrr
get out of kiddie morality and superstition and read theory.

[Anonymous No.14250040]

>>14249972
>reftists r meen to beezos and drumpf :(
sorry that you are short sighted and have a one dimensional view of everything. it is about systematic change and ushering something toward something novel ridding ourselves of our toxic relationship with nature which is especially needed today in this time of urgency. maybe you should read some theory.

[Anonymous No.14250052]

>>14250040
you totally ignored what I said, you also want to outlaw religion and kill all priests, so it's gonna be a no from me, and the growing muslim populations in many countries

[Anonymous No.14250085]

>>14250040
right, because billionaires are the only members of the bourgeois, oh and don't forget the petit bourgeois, they gotta go as well

[Anonymous No.14250212]

>>14250052
uh it's not the 18th century. leftists are open and fine with religion as long as you aren't a reactionary and fundamentalist. read up on theory and ecology.

[Anonymous No.14250236]

>>14249979

Yup let's build our system of government around the theories of people who look at the two most important moral forces, then put their fingers in their ears and yell : 'lalalala you aren't real lalala'

You can be cynical about the existence of good and make a pretty strong argument against it, but to deny the existence of evil is just, dare I say, retarded.

[Anonymous No.14250250]

>>14250236
>gud vs ebil
read neetchan

[Anonymous No.14250287]

>>14250250

Lol the fact that you think Nietzsche didn't believe in evil proves that you didn't actually read the book.

Beyond good and evil is posing the possibility of rising well, beyond good and evil, hence the title. It doesn't straight up deny the existence of either, because that would be, dare I say, retarded.

[Anonymous No.14250330]

>>14250287
He criticizes the dogmatic premises of morality. Moral standards don't exist. I look onto ethics and ecology, how we interconnect with social and ecological spheres, instead.

[Anonymous No.14250597]

>>14247537
Perish the thought.

[Anonymous No.14250620]

>>14250212
>leftists are fine with religious people unless they're religious in a way they don't like
Ebin

[Anonymous No.14250637]

>>14250620
If you're a dogmatist and your doctrine doesn't evolve with the times then yes it should fade into the past because at that point it isn't anything but meaningless repitition.

[Anonymous No.14250650]

>>14250637
The gospels were the same yesterday, the same today, and they'll be the same tomorrow :^)

[Anonymous No.14250654]

>>14250637
cringe
someone hasn't read guenon

[Anonymous No.14250663]

>>14250650
which is why religion today is nothing but an unthought label someone gives themselves or an excuse for terrorism and will never aspire to anything great again. have fun at your mcchurch.

[Anonymous No.14250670]

>>14250654
uh who cares about a pseudointellectial rhetoritician. read something of discernible talent. Psh.

[Anonymous No.14250713]

>>14249524
no

[Anonymous No.14250723]

>>14246820
PicRel is anarchism from the right (not fake hoax shit kike ancapism)
From the left, Murray Bookchin's Ecology Of Freedom

[Anonymous No.14250757]

>>14250650
Will just post this here.
The present state of religion among the European races illustrates the statements which I have been making. The phenomena are mixed. There have been reactions and revivals. But on the whole, during many generations, there has been a gradual decay of religious influence in European civilisation. Each. revival touches a lower peak than its predecessor, and each period of slackness a lower depth. The average curve marks a steady fall in religious tone. In some countries the inc terest in religion is higher than in others. But in those countries where the interest is relatively high, it stilI falls as the generations pass. Religion is tending to degenerate into a decent formula wherewith to embellish a comfortable life. A great historical movement on this . scale results from the convergence of many causes. I wish' to suggest two of them which lie within the scope of this chapter for consideration. In the first place for over two centuries religion has been on the defensive, and on a weak defensive. The period has been one of unprecedented intellectual progress. In this way a series of novel situations have been produced for thought. Each such occasion has -found the religious thinkers unprepared. Something, which has been proclaimed to be vital, has finally, after struggle, distress, and anathema, been modified and otherwise interpreted. The next generation of religious apologists then congratulates the religious world on the deeper insight which has been gained. The result of the continued repetition of this undignified retreat, during many generations, has at last almost entirely destroyed the intellectual authority of religious thinkers. Consider this contrast: when Darwin or Einstein proclaim theories which modify our ideas, it is. a triumph for science. We do not go about saying that there is another defeat for science, because its old ideas have been abandoned. We know that another step of scientific insight has been gained. gained. Religion will not regain its old power until it can face change in the same spirit as does science. Its principles may be eternal, but the expression of those principles requires continual development. This evolution of religion is in the main a disengagement of its own proper ideas from the adventitious �otions which have crept into it by reason of the expression of its own ideas in terms of the imaginative picture of the world entertained in previous ages.

[Anonymous No.14250761]

>>14250757
Such a release of religion from the bonds of imperfect science is all to the good. It stresses its own genuine message. The great point to be kept in mind is that normally an advance in science will show that statements of various religious beliefs require some sort of modification. It may be that they have to be expanded or explained, or indeed entirely restated. If the religion is a sound expression of truth, this modification will only exhibit more adequately the exact point which is of importance. This process is a gain. In so far, therefore, as any religion has any contact with physical facts, it is to be expected that the point of view of those facts must be continually modified as scientific knowledge advances. In this way, the exact relevance of these facts for religious thought will grow more and more clear. The progress of science must result in the unceasing codification of religious thought, to the great advantage of religion. The religious controversies of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries put theologians into a most unfortunate state of mind. They were always attacking and defending. They pictured themselves as the garrison of a fort surrounded by hostile forces. All such pictures express half-truths. That is why they are so popular. But they are dangerous. This particular picture fostered a pugnacious party spirit which really expresses an ultimate lack of faith. They dared not modify, because they shirked the task of disengaging their spiritual message from the associations of a particular imagery. Let me explain myself by an example. In the early medieval times, Heaven was in the sky, and Hell was underground; volcanoes were the jaws of Hell. I do not assert that these beliefs entered into the official formulations: but they did enter into the popular understanding of the general doctrines of Heaven and Hell. These notions were what everyone thought to be implied by the doctrine of the future state. They entered into the explanations of the influential exponents of Christian belief. For example, they occur in the Dialogues of Pope Gregory? the Great, a. man whose high official position is surpassed only by the magnitude of his services to humanity. I am not saying what we ought to believe about the future state. But whatever be the right doctrine, in this instance the clash between religion and sci<,:nce, which has relegated the earth to the position of a second-rate planet attached to a second-rate sun, has been greatly to the benefit of the spirituality of religion by dispersing these medieval fancies.

[Anonymous No.14250771]

>>14250761
Another way of looking at this question of the evolution of religious thought is to note that any verbal form of statement which has been before the world for some time discloses ambiguities; and that often such ambiguities strike at the very heart of the meaning. The effective sense in which a doctrine has been held in the past cannot be determined by the mere logical analysis of verbal statements, made in ignorance of the logical trap . religion rent Christianity in the days of Pelagius and Augustine-that is to say, at the beginning of the fifth century. Echoes of that controversy still linger in theology. . So far, my point has been this: that religion is the expression of one type of fundamental experiences of mankind: that religious thought develops into an increasing accuracy of expression, disengaged from adventitious imagery: that the interaction between religion and science is one great factor in promoting this development. - I now come to /my second reason for the modern fading of interest in religion. This involves the ultimate question which I stated in my opening sentences. We have to know what we mean by religion. The churches, in their presentation of their answers to this query, have put forward aspects of religion which are expressed in terms either suited to the emotional reactions of bygone times or directed to exCite modern emotional i:p.terests of nonreligious character. What I mean under the first heading is that religious appeal is directed partly to excite that instinctive fear of the wrath of a tyrant which was inbred in the unhappy populations of the arbitrary empires of the ancient world, and in particular to excite that fear of an all-powerful arbitrary tyrant behind the unknown forces of nature. This appeal to the ready instinct of brute fear is losing its force. It lacks any directness of response, because modern science and modern conditions of life have taught us to meet occasions of apprehension by a critical analysis of their causes and conditions. Religion is the reaction of human nature to its search for God. The presentation of God under the aspect of power awakens every modern instinct of critical reaction. This is fatal; for religion collapses unless its main positions command immediacy of assent. In this respect the old phraseology is at variance with the psy· chology of modern civilisations. This change in psychology is largely due to science, and is one of the chief ways in which the advance of science has weakened the hold of the old religious forms of expression. The nonreligious motive which has entered into modern religious thought is the desire for a comfortable organIsation of modern society. Religion has been presented as valuable for the ordering of life.

[Anonymous No.14250777]

>>14250771
Its claims have been rested upon its function as a sanction to right conduct. Also the purpose of right conduct quickly degenerates into the formation of pleasing social relations. We have here a subtle degradation of religious ideas, following upon their gradual purification under the influence of keener ethical intuitions. Conduct is a by-product of religion-an inevitable by-product, but not the main point. Every great religious teacher has revolted against the presentation of religion as a mere sanction of rules of conduct.Saint Paul denounced the Law, and Puritan divines spoke of the filthy rags of righteousness. The insistence upon rules of conduct marks the ebb of religious fervour. Above and beyond all things, the religious life is not a research after comfort. I must now state, in all diffidence, what I conceive to be the essential character of the religious spirit. haracter of the religious spirit. Religion is the vision of something which stands be· yond, behind, and within, the passing flux of immediate things; sometlJ,ing which is real, and yet waiting to be realised; something which is a remote possibility, and yet the greatest of present facts; something that gives meaning to all that passes, and yet eludes apprehension; something whose possession is the final good, and yet is beyond all reach; something which is the ultimate ideal, and the hopeless quest. The immediate reaction of human nature to the reo ligious vision is worship. Religion has emerged into human experience mixed with the crudest fancies of barbaric imagination. Gradually, ' slowly, steadily the vision recurs in history under nobler form and with clearer expression. It is the one element in human ex- . perience which persistently shows an upward trend. It fades and then recurs. But when it renews its force, .it recurs with an added richness and purity of content. The fact of the religious vision, and its history ol persistent expansion, is our one ground for optimism. Apart . from it, human life is a flash of occasional enjoyments lighting up a mass of pain and misery, a bagatelle of transient experience. The vision claims nothing but worship; and worship is a surrender to the claim for assimilation, urged with the motive force of mutual love. The vision never overrules. It is always there, and it has the power of love presenting the one purpose whose fulfilment is eternal harmony. Such order as we find in nature is never force-it presents itself as the one harmonious adjustment of complex detail. Evil is the brute motive force of fragmentary purpose, disregarding the eternal vision. Evil is overruling, retarding, hurting. The power of God is the worship He inspires. That religion is strong which in its ritual and its modes of thought evokes an apprehension of the commanding vision.

[Anonymous No.14250781]

>>14250777
The worship of God is not a rule of safety-it is an adventure of the spirit, a flight after the unattainable. The death of religion comes with the repression of the high hope of adventure

[Anonymous No.14250791]

darwinism ain't real nigga
it's just an occult theory taken too far and backed by sloppy "science", like a bad joke