Anarchist thread

[Anonymous No.4393501]

I'm not an Anarchist but I find the topic of Anarchism to be interesting. I'm looking for some good books by Anarchist writers.

[Anonymous No.4393509]

So far I have read
Ego and Its Own - Max Stirner
God and the State - Michael Bakunin
Conquest of Bread - Peter Kroptokin

[Anonymous No.4393516]

What does /lit/ think what would have happened in Spain if the Anarchists were able to triumph over both the Stalinists and the Fascists?

[Anonymous No.4393519]

[Anonymous No.4393522]

[Anonymous No.4393528]

[Anonymous No.4393542]

Do you think that Max Stirners way of organizing society on the basis of unions of egoists is essentially anarchistic?

[Anonymous No.4393571]

Could you regard Henry David Thoreau as an Anarchist?

[Anonymous No.4393577]

>>4393542

Yeah it's basically anarcho-communism

[Anonymous No.4393586]

[Anonymous No.4393587]

>>4393571
No. He just romanticized the contemplative life a lot.

[Anonymous No.4393592]

I liked Berkam's 'ABC of Anarchism' as an introduction. Maybe branch out to mutualism (Proudhon) or individualist anarchism.

Reading about mutualism lead me to David Schweikart's 'Economic Democracy' which I think is the best thing to come out of left wing economics in a long time.

[Anonymous No.4393600]

>The Jew is the enemy of the human race. This race must be sent back to Asia, or exterminated. H. Heine, A. Weil, and others are simply secret spies. Rothschild, Crémieux, Marx, Fould, evil choleric, envious, bitter men etc., etc., who hate us." (Carnets, vol. 2, p. 337: No VI, 178)[53]

[Anonymous No.4393606]

>>4393571

I would regard him as a huge windbag for all of the bourgeois overtones testing the holding capacity of whatever shitbag he uses.

>Civil Disobedience
>One Night in Jail
>Made Bail
>Every man owes a debt of civil disobedience

Fuck off David, and go play outlaw elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.4393618]

>>4393600
Also: "By steel or by fire or by expulsion the Jew must disappear"

He was sexist as well.

Doesn't mean we should ignore the rest of his works.

[Anonymous No.4393624]

Here is the whole thing
"December 26, 1847: Jews. Write an article against this race that poisons everything by sticking its nose into everything without ever mixing with any other people. Demand its expulsion from France with the exception of those individuals married to French women. Abolish synagogues and not admit them to any employment. Finally, pursue the abolition of this religion. It’s not without cause that the Christians called them deicide. The Jew is the enemy of humankind. They must be sent back to Asia or be exterminated. By steel or by fire or by expulsion the Jew must disappear. "

[Anonymous No.4393625]

Are the anarchists actually worth reading?

[Anonymous No.4393633]

>>4393516
Capitalists would have conquered anyway.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4393638]

>>4393509
Is Conquest of Bread a good intro or is it dated you think?

Just knowing about them and their basic premises I admire the cause. I don't think it would have worked so well in Spain had enough people rushed in from around the world and flattened the fascists. Another group would have risen and defeated them.

This is the goal, the aim of civilization, to be free and equal, and we wont stop till we get it. 6th day of Saturnalia.

[Anonymous No.4393641]

>>4393516

Mass unemployment. A nation left behind technologically. Sort of like North Korea, but controlled by large organizations instead of just one person.

It's also really unlikely. As many advantages as workers have under anarchism, they're safer under communists. The Spaniards switching over to communism was natural. It was never some war between people who were married to one side and wanted to destroy the other. That's not how the communists won. People just noticed what benefited them, and switched sides.

Anarchists would like to believe it was Soviets back stabbing them and tricking workers. It wasn't. That's absurd. Workers are smarter than that.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4393645]

>>4393641
True there were many factor that screwed them over, but they didn't end up communist.

[Anonymous No.4393668]

>>4393638
>This is the goal, the aim of civilization, to be free and equal, and we wont stop till we get it.

>>>/reddit.com/r/shitredditsays

Seriously, butterfly -- why are you here? Your leftist, lesbian SJW bullshit stinks to high heaven.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4393676]

>>4393668
Have a nice day Spengler-cycle.

[Anonymous No.4393684]

>>4393645
Barcelona was communist.
Facts nigga.

[Anonymous No.4393690]

>>4393668
Fuck of with your stale and boring easily explainable misanthropy. Variety is the spice of life you dumb nigger.

[Anonymous No.4393725]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehzC937Q9Dc

[Anonymous No.4393728]

What are /lit/s thoughts on Nastor Mackno?

[Anonymous No.4393730]

>>4393501
For A New Liberty by Murray Rothbard. He is an anarchy-capitalist. This is more of a Libertarian book but it gets the point across. Look him up.

[Anonymous No.4393732]

>>4393730
sorry meant anarcho-capitalist. Fuck autocorrect.

[Anonymous No.4393737]

>>4393625
They make good points about personal liberties. The anarcho-capitalist do anyway. Anarcho-communists make some good points but their basis to me would only work small scale.

[Anonymous No.4393739]

>>4393501
You should read Emma Goldman's essays if you have not already.

[Anonymous No.4393740]

>>4393737
Property is a spook.

[Anonymous No.4393744]

Read Lugi Galleani and Renzo Novatore.

[Anonymous No.4393743]

>>4393740
yer a spook ya fackin cunt

[Anonymous No.4393747]

>>4393743
If the people want to improve their material conditions it is their best interest to seize the means of production or whatever property may benefit them. You need to read some Stirner.

[Anonymous No.4393752]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUig0lFHDDw

[Anonymous No.4393770]

>>4393516
they wouldn't have. without the USSR they would have been crushed even faster. There is a reason that there are no major anarchiat factions in any country today. It is just laissez faire to an extreme.

[Anonymous No.4393776]

>>4393638


youre always and already free and you'll never be equal, difference is an ontological necessity.

[Anonymous No.4393780]

>>4393528
the truly

[Anonymous No.4393785]

>>4393776
freedom is a worthless metaphysical concept that doesn't acknowledge empirically verifiable determinisms. equality is a relative term and difference is massively exaggerated by exonomic and institutional factors.

[Anonymous No.4393789]

>>4393785


thats nice dear

[Anonymous No.4393794]

Any good more recent anarchist texts? Most of the classic texts were written with quite a different world in mind than the one we currently live in..

[Anonymous No.4393795]

>>4393668
what is with people that think 4chan should ve purged of SJW. it's like they want a free space for anyone to be able to say anything, but just for white supremacist libertarian misogynists.

[Anonymous No.4393807]

>>4393795


they are doing their duty (unconsciously or [disingenuously] consciously) by enforcing their visions of righteousness. this is not a bad thing, we merely should be more honest about the whole business so as to skip the fiddlefaddling over inconsistent attempts to universalise rights and go right to the judgement part, where debate is most pertinent.

[Anonymous No.4393819]

>>4393795
and that's presuming the buzzword strawman of 'SJW' in the first place. as if once one entertains anything that resembles an opposition to 'political correctness' means that one also has bought into this entire constellation of beliefs

>Oh, so you think women are people? Then you must also be a vegan who voted for Obama, too.

polite sage

[Anonymous No.4393825]

>>4393795
>what is with people that think 4chan should ve purged of SJW

Personally, as someone who was active in OWS, I've become exhausted by the SJW crowd. I think it does more to factionalize people than create coalitions. I'm also convinced that it was used by undercover Feds as a means to destroy committees (or spokes councils) by challenging any white person who was vested with power on behalf of said committee or council. Identity politics is a disease that's destroying the left.

[Anonymous No.4393829]

>>4393825

Re undercover Feds in OWS:

I'm sure we'll hear about their involvement in 20 years. And, yes: I'm POSITIVE that a number of them took on radical SJW roles to confuse and alienate less radical participants of the movement, and destabilize the leadership that grew up from within the more powerful spokes.

[Anonymous No.4393835]

>>4393825
Interesting, and I agree that identity politics too often trumps economic arguments that are better for coalition-building. But I do not think Anon was attacking an undercover Fed.

[Anonymous No.4393839]

>>4393825
Yes, the SJW warrior crowd is fucking awful. It is awful how they have spread everywhere in recent years. I wish these people were not in the left.

[Anonymous No.4393845]

>>4393795
Can't we have everyone post what they want to say. I for one am for the Nazis, Libertarians and SJWS to have their right to say what they want. As Voltaire put it "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

[Anonymous No.4393848]

>>4393839
The US left is so weak. We have to take our allies where we can find them and use economic arguments to bind groups together. Most people in the left who hate SJW are also straight white males who dont have to deal with those kinds of issues.

[Anonymous No.4393854]

>>4393829
>And, yes: I'm POSITIVE

Based on nothing but your own suspicions. That isn't very logical.

[Anonymous No.4393856]

>>4393845
I am fine with that, but then we need to crit these Anons who try to force people off 4chan. I'm not saying Anon should leave--just that they should engage the post not send people away to reddit

[Anonymous No.4393861]

OP read Homage to Catalonia to see what it was like to during those times in Spain. Also check out the Kingdom of God is Within by Leon Tolstoy which is a more pacifistic christian approach to anarchism the work also influenced Gandhi to a great deal. But if you want more violent literature check out Renzo Novatore, Luigi Galleani and Max Stirner.

[Anonymous No.4393865]

>>4393825
identity politics, gay rights, et al. has been completely and irrevocably coopted by neoliberalism. SJWs corral and divide the population into small factions of "victims" who often compete with other factions for public voice and resources. it's a classic divide and conquer strategy -- and it's worked perfectly.

a teacher of mine was an old anti-apartheid fighter from south africa. he joined one of the SA communist parties, was sent to the Libyan desert for guerrilla training, and bunked with an assortment of men from different nations around the world. instead of being punished for making racist comments, everybody was encouraged to be as offensive as possible. it wasn't long before the teasing became playful and friendly; the joking diffused any underlying tension and brought them together as a fighting unit.

this was why political correctness was baffling to my old teacher. he said it didn't solve racism in the slightest; it only repressed it, fomented resentment, and made earlier prejudices stronger.

this, more than anything else, completely changed my opinion on SJWs and PC culture.

[Anonymous No.4393867]

>>4393861
The Anarchist Renzo Novatore wrote a work called
Toward the Creative Nothing which draws heavily from Stirners work. It is quite interesting.http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/renzo-novatore-toward-the-creative-nothing

[Anonymous No.4393870]

>>4393854

>COINTELPRO
>literally decades of unclassified documents reveal Fed "divide and conquer" tactics
>undercover agents routinely placed as moles within dissident groups
>high FBI presence at OWS rallies
>NSA leaks reveal widescale wiretapping

Yep, just based on my suspicions. Guess I'm the crazy one.

[Anonymous No.4393872]

>>4393856
I will agree you on that. Free discussion can be stifled here by people on the right just as discussion can be stifled by the left on reddit,

[Anonymous No.4393875]

>>4393865
Slavoj Zizek said that discrimination will only disappear when we can openly have racist jokes. I don't always agree with the man but he makes a good point there.

[Anonymous No.4393880]

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/leo-tolstoy-on-anarchy

[Anonymous No.4393881]

>>4393737

>he seriously thinks anarcho-capitalism is anarchism

[Anonymous No.4393883]

>>4393856
>we need to crit these Anons who try to force people off 4chan

Why? Honestly, Reddit seems like the perfect place to take discussions if you fear being called out for SJW bullshit.

One of the refreshing things about 4chan, in my opinion, is that it has much less tolerance for political correctness.

[Anonymous No.4393884]

>>4393865
discussing problems with SJW is not the same thing as dismissing everyone with a somewhat left-leaning rhetoric and trying to scare them off 4chan. personally i think white males in the US are not the best people to say when it is or isn't a good time to tell a racist or misogynist joke.

[Anonymous No.4393885]

>>4393737
Anarcho-capitalism is more terrifying to me than fascism.

[Anonymous No.4393889]

>>4393881
Thank god. I hate how this capitalist bullshit is flooding anarchism. A week ago someone even told me that Stirner was an ardent supporter of capitalism.

[Anonymous No.4393891]

>>4393884
Listen you have free speech. You should be able to say a racist or sexist joke whenever you want. Repressing that stuff leads to more discrimination in the long run.

[Anonymous No.4393894]

>>4393884
>personally i think white males in the US are not the best people to say when it is or isn't a good time to tell a racist or misogynist joke.

See this right here? That's exactly the kind of shit I'm talking about.

This is the kind of talk that DIVIDES people. This is what ALIENATES people from the left. This is exactly what is KILLING the left.

[Anonymous No.4393895]

>>4393884
That person might be a troll.

[Anonymous No.4393896]

>>4393891
I'm not saying you should repress it. I am saying that you shouldn't tell people to leave 4chan. That is stifling free speech, not engaging in it.

[Anonymous No.4393897]

[Anonymous No.4393898]

>>4393895

>tfw the easiest way to divide the left is for /pol/ to pose as radical SJW and further antagonize straight white males, pushing them to the right

[Anonymous No.4393899]

>>4393889
>>4393885
>>4393881
Trying to understand anarchism by classifying it as capitalism or not isn't helpful, because anarchism doesn't take a stance on it.

If a community is okay with all the tenants of capitalism, then anarchism would result in capitalism. American anarchists would probably be more capitalist than Spanish for instance, because Americans own more of their property, having beaten back feudal sentiments of property rights in the early 1800s.

[Anonymous No.4393900]

>>4393896
Alright I will agree with you there that they should explain why they disagree not just resort to a knee jerk reaction. But then again it is there right to say it.

[Anonymous No.4393902]

>>4393865
>he joined one of the SA communist parties, was sent to the Libyan desert for guerrilla training, and bunked with an assortment of men from different nations around the world.
>an assortment of men
>men

Would women, under the same conditions, have developed the same sense of camaraderie?

[Anonymous No.4393904]

>>4393896

Next you'll be saying that we shouldn't agree with the janitor's policy of deleting right-wing threads, or telling people to go back to /pol/ if they say something that hurts our feelings. No, this is madness.

[Anonymous No.4393905]

>>4393902
only after their menstrual cycles aligned

and a long cry

[Anonymous No.4393908]

>>4393885

It should be. It's always scared elites.

[Anonymous No.4393909]

>>4393904
Why do the janitors delete right wing threads. Even if they are filled with its happening fags people still got free speech.

[Anonymous No.4393910]

>>4393908


it also scares people who dont think they can compete, or autists obsessed with control.

[Anonymous No.4393911]

>>4393898
i am not from /pol/, nor am i a troll, nor am i a SJW nor am i an undercover fed nor am i being disingenuous. it's fine if you think the only thing dividing the left is SJW and not any actual history of racial or sexual oppression. personally, i think insensitivity is also something that divides the left. but i think the way to sidestep all those issues is to just focus on economics all the time.

[Anonymous No.4393913]

>>4393909

Ask Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ. She's this board's janitor.

[Anonymous No.4393917]

>>4393898


its inevitable, your very existence is racist and oppressive, dontchaknow.

[Anonymous No.4393919]

>>4393911

Who was ever implying that you're an undercover agent?

[Anonymous No.4393921]

>>4393904
I think the janitors should only clear out any threads that don't have to deal with /lit/ in some way or form and are also obviously bait.

[Anonymous No.4393922]

Why do you people think Communism got the upper hand over Anarchism?

[Anonymous No.4393924]

>>4393919
dude it's a joke from earlier on ITT. people were saying the SJW crowd at OWS were stirred up by undercover feds

[Anonymous No.4393925]

This 4chan is a powderkeg for bored nerds.

[Anonymous No.4393930]

>>4393910
It's scary because someone will always try to control the game, that's the dominant strategy. Anarcho capitalism is the absurd oxymoron that there could be a game without rules. Anarcho syndicalists wants a game that's worth playing no matter if your aspiration isn't just owning shit.

That's why ancaps shouldn't be taken seriously, but syndicalists should.

[Anonymous No.4393932]

>>4393922


because they had the dual psychic opiums of equalitarianism and utopianism, along with a more tangible game plan for delivering this opium.

[Anonymous No.4393934]

>>4393930
Agreed.

I'm not an anarchist, but I think the anacho-syndicalists have a lot of the right ideas.

[Anonymous No.4393938]

>>4393930
This. An Cap society would resemble victorian england.

[Anonymous No.4393939]

>>4393921
It should just be renamed books.

A lot of fags seem to have had their thinking on what the board is supposed to be changed by the word literature, and the conjuring of an uncreased sweater vest that goes along with it.

[Anonymous No.4393945]

>>4393934
me too. anarcho-syndicalism is by far the most interesting/attractive that i have come across

[Anonymous No.4393948]

>>4393939
i am fine with books, just not ridiculous things like the thread yesterday on women's taste in music. was glad to see that go.

[Anonymous No.4393949]

>>4393930

What's the difference between anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-syndicalism other than the predominant form of voluntary organizations?

I assume syndicalism still operates within a free market based on money exchanges.

[Anonymous No.4393950]

>>4393930


>It's scary because someone will always try to control the game, that's the dominant strategy.

i know, and infact, thats the ideal, since 'the game' as you term it, is always and already the case.

[Anonymous No.4393951]

>>4393641
>Mass unemployment. A nation left behind technologically. Sort of like North Korea, but controlled by large organizations instead of just one person.
I honestly cannot see this happening. The economic structure of North Korea and Anarchist Spain are so alien, I cannot honestly comprehend how they would naturally transition without force. The syndicates power was as flimsy as anything so I don't see Anarchist Spain transitioning into an oligopoly.

[Anonymous No.4393954]

Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism, CounterPower Vol. I

[Anonymous No.4393955]

>>4393930
You don't understand an cap
an hero pls

>>4393938
No it wouldn't. People can't go back to Victorian standards you dumb shit. It was only possible by being massively ignorant of the way the world worked.

[Anonymous No.4393977]

>>4393955
Anarcho-capitalism is the tycoon's wet dream.

[Anonymous No.4393979]

>>4393954
Thanks for the rec.

[Anonymous No.4393989]

>>4393951
Workers that own shares in their business have incentives to:
1. Minimize comparative advantage at the national scale, so immigration and trade with other nations goes down the hole.
2. Not hire people that would take shares of their company, leading to large unemployment.
3. Not automate their jobs. Leading to a technological backwater.
4. Make sure businesses that do any of these things can't exist.

They would capture the state's regulatory agencies more easily than any business interests have in any western liberal democracy, as workers outnumber capitalists. It would be effectively North Korea, but democratic. Or the USSR. Same difference.

Of course, they can't do this without having everyone with ownership of businesses move the fuck out and tank the economy in the process. Hence they need state power to keep everyone in. Hence communism.

[Anonymous No.4394000]

I'll also recommend a book by Rothbard.
I was was similar to most of you and claimed that anarchy and capitalism can't really go together.
But his history of american colonies up to war for independence is a interesting read on what can only be called early anarchist practices. Especially in states of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.

Here's a link to it:
http://library.mises.org/books/Murray%20N%20Rothbard/Conceived%20in%20Liberty_Vol_2.pdf

There's also this short book on RI, that kind of proves Rothbard's claims on it's history:
http://archive.org/stream/towngovernmentin00fostrich#page/n3/mode/2up

Also I'd also like to point out, that I'm not an-cap. I'd say I'm left leaning free market anarchist, where I understand free as in freedom to manage your means of productions and organise them freely (in a capitalist, socialist, or anything else) if those who join also agree with the organisation.

[Anonymous No.4394001]

How are Makhno's books? Struggle Against the State and his Ukraine Histories.

[Anonymous No.4394012]

>>4393977
Are you going to start complaining about Jews and the NWO next?

[Anonymous No.4394013]

>>4393950
>i know, and infact, thats the ideal

Yes, who has money ought to decide what is right and wrong, that's what justice and any virtue of the good is; cold hard cash.

It's like it's the 1800's all over again.

[Anonymous No.4394016]

>>4393949
In anarcho-capitalism you have private ownership and right to property.

[Anonymous No.4394019]

>>4394012
That's usually the ancaps who are held down by the scheeming communist Jew who wants to take away the fruits of his labour by force.

[Anonymous No.4394024]

>>4394016
So it's just like today just without the state? How basic, that can only be American.

[Anonymous No.4394035]

>>4394024
exactly. total free-for-all... but the corporations and rich people have a huge head start.

>>4394012
What are you even talking about? How could you possible move from what I said to that?

[Anonymous No.4394038]

>>4394024
Isn't that all we need? Anything more and it's just another version of not-really-bust-still-a-state.

>>4394035
Why? There's no big government to support them. Or even to protect their assets.

[Anonymous No.4394040]

>>4394016
I can't find it right now, but there is a great article on why the US government left the anarcho-capitalists alone and went after the commies and syndicalists. The short version is that ancap is totally in line with dominant US beliefs.

[Anonymous No.4394044]

>>4394038
They don't need the government to protect their interests. That's why corps everywhere are for dismantling the state as much as possible.

[Anonymous No.4394047]

anarcho-capitalists want to replace government tyranny with corporate tyranny.

[Anonymous No.4394048]

>>4394038
>There's no big government to support them. Or even to protect their assets.

Nor is there any government to hinder them or make them responsible for what they ruin in their one eyed pursuits. You only argue from one side that's disingenuous or maybe you didn't know political tradition or thought beyond your ancap fancies?

[Anonymous No.4394059]

>>4394016

Isn't syndicalism just a system where workers own the means of production of the industry they work at? They still have private property of land and consumer's goods,

[Anonymous No.4394061]

>>4394044
Well tell that to GM, Opel and loads of other big businesses, that were to big to fail and saved by the government.
In an an-cap society, they would fail and there would be any state to save them.
After that an-cap or any other anarchist society is the same, people are free to organise themselves as they want.
They can create something something like Mondragon, or something like Zapatistas network of production, or whatever, be it capitalist, socialist or feudal (if they want that). Only thing I see as necessary is that, they shouldn't be able to give away their freedom, even if it is "voluntarily".
>>4394048
>or maybe you didn't know political tradition or thought beyond your ancap fancies?
I'm not even an-cap. I'm just saying, that in the end there isn't that big of a difference what kind of anarchist society there is.
In an-cap society there's nothing (well probably some kind of militia for hire) that stands in the way of workers taking over the means of productions. And about that militia, there's no gun control, so on the end there's a big chance that worker's "revolt" would succeed.

[Anonymous No.4394065]

>>4394044

>That's why corps everywhere are for dismantling the state as much as possible.

... but that's wrong.

[Anonymous No.4394066]

>>4394059
no.

[Anonymous No.4394068]

>>4394035
>Corporations
Corporations wouldn't exist in an anarcho-capitalist society. They are government inventions, after all. And who is to say rich people have a huge advantage? Wealth can be gained and lost quickly in the US today, with social mobility allowing one to both experience stark poverty and bourgeoisie wealth within their lifetime. Such mobility would come even faster in an Anarcho-Capitalist society.

When people ask "What is the difference between the current state and the corporate entities that could form under anarcho-capitalism?", they misunderstand anarcho-capitalist thought. What defines something as "the state" is a unilateral power sequence, where someone can break the non-aggression principle and face no/inadequate repercussions. Business cannot force you to buy anything, or interact with them in any way, so it is not a state. If no coercion occurs, and the interaction is completely voluntary, then the people doing business possess no similar characteristics to the state.

[Anonymous No.4394071]

>>4394066

then do explain.

[Anonymous No.4394076]

If anyone is interested in a critique of anarchist thought (even if a bit broad) in the sense that state is seen as a this huge monolith, I recommend Foucault's lectures:
Society must be Defended
Security, Territory, Population
Birth of Biopolitics

I think they're basis for modern post-anarchism. Interwoven within his history, is the bottom line that state is a set of practices and those practices could be changed, or taken up by other means of organisation than state.

[Anonymous No.4394077]

>>4394061
>I'm not even an-cap. I'm just saying, that in the end there isn't that big of a difference what kind of anarchist society there is.

Sorry, I guess I was to fast on the trigger there. Yes, I agree, I don't know where this idea comes from, but I see ancaps as useful idiots whose utopian wet dream is a society of gated communities where the poor are there for servicing the rich and producing their goods and protecting their property, and maybe waging war against other richers. So basically as today but with a more materially based feudal society. I just can't see the beauty of this dream, but maybe I have it wrong.

>In an-cap society there's nothing (well probably some kind of militia for hire) that stands in the way of workers taking over the means of productions.

Except the ones who is the gatekeepers of the basic necessities are the owners of the means of production and their payed henchmen.

[Anonymous No.4394081]

>>4394071
In syndicalism, syndicates own everything.

Collective farms are a good example of those. Kibbutzes especially.

[Anonymous No.4394082]

the coming insurrection

[Anonymous No.4394086]

>>4394061
this is called government intervention to keep the economy from collapsing, because capitalism (and ancap) are all about boom and bust. in the future, the government will become increasingly involved in the economy and capitalism's irregularities and injustices will be gradually smoothed over into something that looks a lot more like socialism with nationalized industries run for the public good, not for profit. in ancap or even a slightly more libertarian world we would all be in the great depression right now thanks to capitalism's tendency to create bubbles.

[Anonymous No.4394087]

>>4394068
I just can't stand the naive assumption that you are voluntarily doing anything. Have you never heard someone say "but a man have to eat"?

[Anonymous No.4394095]

>>4394066
corportaions and Chamber of Commerce-->massively funding GOP/Tea Party candidates who want to get rid of most of the gov's functions
global corporations-->moving against sovereignty on things like taxes and regulation of workplace conditions so that they can continue to expropriate the maximum number of people at minimal cost. Ancap plays right into their hands.

[Anonymous No.4394096]

>>4394081

Do syndicates own the food you eat? Do they own your car? Can they take things away from you by force if you're not supposed to have them?

[Anonymous No.4394112]

>>4394095
>corportaions and Chamber of Commerce-massively funding GOP/Tea Party candidates who want to get rid of most of the gov's functions

yeah sure

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00009638

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12../contrib.php?id=N00005906

http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/index.php?cmte=&cycle=2012/

oh my god look at how much money was poured into the GOP by evil white people

I mean shit, it's a surprise that Obama got any screen time at all since the only people funding him were syndicalists, communists, the working class and other champions of the people

[Anonymous No.4394113]

>>4394096
> Do syndicates own the food you eat?
Yes.
> Do they own your car?
You don't own a car, syndicate does, but syndicate that you are a part of may lease it to you.
> Can they take things away from you by force if you're not supposed to have them?
Yes.

[Anonymous No.4394114]

>>4394086
And you think that other would just go with that boom-bust cycle?
Obviously an-cap would at the end would turn into a worker's coops instead of supposedly impersonal corporations.

[Anonymous No.4394117]

>>4394013


magnates dont exist in a vacuum, generally speaking, they get their ideas of right and wrong from the same bhramin caste that the rest of society does.

[Anonymous No.4394118]

>>4394113

I'm seeing very little difference between "anarcho-syndicalism" and straight out totalitarian communism.

[Anonymous No.4394120]

>>4394112
>Obama is a communist
>not neo-liberal

When will America learn...

[Anonymous No.4394125]

>>4394118
Syndicates are by their very nature small scale, democratic and voluntary.

But yes it is a form of communism.

[Anonymous No.4394128]

>>4394125

Can I form a one-man syndicate composed of me and myself?

Can I barter with other one-man syndicates in exchanges involving token units of value and consumer's goods?

[Anonymous No.4394133]

>>4394128
> Can I form a one-man syndicate composed of me and myself?
Okay maybe I have been a bit unclear here. No. Syndicate is the same thing as a trade union.

Think of collective farms (not the soviet type). They are an archtype example of syndicalism. In syndicalist nation, all people would belong to groups like that.

[Anonymous No.4394136]

>>4394087
So, because the laws of nature dictate that you must eat, there can be no interaction that is voluntary?
I agree that it is not your decision that you need to eat, but it is entirely your decision how you do so. Don't want to work for anyone? Do you not want any form of authority in your life whatsoever? Go out, homestead some land, and grow food yourself. No land available? Find someone who isn't using the land, homestead it, and have the better claim for it. Most think it's easier to give someone some of your time and labor for food, but if you just really hate business that much, then go for it.

[Anonymous No.4394140]

>>4394133
I (not the person you're replying to) am okay with that, as long as these small collectives are a) voluntary b) organised as the member want it (so if they want it to be a capitalist or even feudal, or hey even slaveowning economy, they're free to do that) c) can exit out of that collective whenever they please and join another (that could be organised in a different way).

[Anonymous No.4394144]

>>4394140
>voluntary slavery
>b-but he signed the contract!

Top kek

[Anonymous No.4394152]

>>4394144


if youre not open to the possibility of indentured servitude, you dont believe in free markets.

[Anonymous No.4394153]

>>4394144
That was just a caricature, that even more extreme organisations of production should be allowed (and in anarchy, there's nobody to enforce what's legal and what not).
Even "slaves" should be "free" to exit their collective. So basically they wouldn't be slaves.

[Anonymous No.4394158]

>>4394152
What does free markets have to do with anarchy. When morons talk about muh free markets they talk about a set of rules that obviously wouldn't be enforced under anarchy. Free markets ceases to be free the moment you define them.

[Anonymous No.4394159]

>>4394114
The crazy thing with ancaps is that they think pissed off people would actually be able to resist corporations and not get stuck in a downward spiral of exploitation where force and wealth are distributed asymmetrically.

[Anonymous No.4394161]

>>4394153
If they are property they are slaves.

[Anonymous No.4394168]

>>4394112
>thinking I am a democrat because I dislike the GOP more than Obama

[Anonymous No.4394173]

>>4394161
So how do other flavours of anarchy solve problem of possible slavery? And no, saying that there's no private property isn't really an answer.

>>4394159
So basically what you're saying is that no kind of workers revolt or even revolution is possible, because hey force and wealth are already unequally distributed.

[Anonymous No.4394193]

>>4394173
Yes. Do you actually see some sort of revolution occurring any time soon? Are you blind to the state of America/the world? Capitalism is winning everywhere. Anarchism, socialism, and communism are all dead and have been for decades. The only improvements we will see will come from national economies increasingly realizing that the capitalist system poses a serious danger to their political stability and working, through government, to rein it in piecemeal. The government bail out of GM is a perfect example of this: bubble busts, gov steps in, industry saved, depression averted=gov much more likely to do this again in the future. I hope you are not deluding yourself into thinking people are actually going to get up and man the barricades with you.

[Anonymous No.4394197]

>>4394168

No, I'm pointing out that large corporations seem to be way more interested in funding the party that is for big government and economic intervention than they are in funding libertarianism.

They know what's good for them, and it's not libertarianism.

[Anonymous No.4394209]

>>4394193
I'm sad to admit, that you're probably right.
There are few "revolts" like OWS (which then spread through most of the western world), but that seems to die down (just like every other revolt in western world, remember 68?). On other hand you have Arabian Spring and other variations on this theme of demanding democracy (mostly coupled with free market capitalism) that too many times ends in chaos or a new tyrant government.

But I still believe in small scale anarchism. Personal self-sufficiency. And I have high hopes for 3D printing and a bit less high hopes in bitcoin (which still is a showcase of how much de-etatisation is going on right now)

[Anonymous No.4394217]

>>4393989
>1. Minimize comparative advantage at the national scale, so immigration and trade with other nations goes down the hole.
Explain?
>2. Not hire people that would take shares of their company, leading to large unemployment.
Ok, here's a hypothetical argument. A person who works on his own to meet his daily needs working 8 hours. If we had two people working together, specialized in certain areas of the labour process and both become efficient in that particular task they do then they'd gain a surplus of what would normally be 2 hours of work. The two workers split the hours together and now only have to work 7 hours necessary labour time. If hiring workers means you can get the same share with a reduced working time, I don't see why they wouldn't hire more workers.
>Not automate their jobs. Leading to a technological backwater.
Not sure what you mean here. If you are saying they won't use machinery and technology, I don't see why. Given that using machinery would produce more surplus and mean less time spent working.
>4. Make sure businesses that do any of these things can't exist.
Why?

That being said, there was evidence that they did document workers, but I don't think this is necessarily solely done by states. Corporations often take your details and personal information.

>It would be effectively North Korea, but democratic. Or the USSR. Same difference.

The USSR and North Korea are much more different then you make out. Also, they both weren't democratic and definitely weren't communist, so I'd be careful at putting Anarchist Spain in the same category.

Also, as long as things are productive or at minimum, bearable I don't see why they'd emigrate. People working in factories in the UK worked 16 hour days and suffered from malnutrition, but they didn't emigrate to America now did they? In Ireland it took the potato famine for that.

[Anonymous No.4394227]

>>4394197
Everybody knows that the democrats are also the party of big business, but you should keep in mind that corporate money follows whoever is elected or seems like they will get elected (i.e. why Ron Paul doesn't get so much money). Corps are much more interested in having influence than in just supporting one agenda. That is why all of the parties basically support capitalism. If you want to understand how businesses think, you should look more at how organizations like the Chamber of Commerce. You should also look at funding over time, not just in one election. Even more than that, you have to look at the types of lobbying they do: whoever they elect, they push to deregulate.

[Anonymous No.4394335]

I like that we talked about this. Good thread.

[Anonymous No.4394349]

>>4393899

Except anarchism literally cannot be capitalism, because it takes a government to enforce property rights.

[Anonymous No.4394352]

>>4394158


i know that of course, a market system, as such, relies on certain standards and conventions as a matter of course to exist. that is simply one of my favorite memetic hazards for voluntarist fundamentalists.

[Anonymous No.4394365]

>>4394349
Actually it can be, you just have to either secure your property on your own, or hire someone to protect it for you.

>>4394352
I think that free market just means "free trade". And even in anarchy there will be trade between individuals or collectives (you just can't produce everything you need)

[Anonymous No.4394616]

>>4394365
Say that you hire someone to protect your property for you.
What is this person but a private policeman?
And then what will you do, throw the offender in a private jail?
This is statism by any other name.

[Anonymous No.4394737]

>>4393501
OP read Leon Tolstoy and Max Stirner.

[Anonymous No.4394769]

Read this http://www.amazon.com/Struggle-Against-State-Other-Essays/dp/1873176783/ref=la_B001I0QJIS_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1387753320&sr=1-2

[Anonymous No.4394775]

[Anonymous No.4394783]

[Anonymous No.4394785]

[Anonymous No.4394792]

Tolstoy also had some Anarchist ideas. Read his essay on Anarchism also the Kingdom of God is Within You.

[Anonymous No.4394874]

[Anonymous No.4394879]

[Anonymous No.4394882]

[Anonymous No.4394894]

[Anonymous No.4394899]

[Anonymous No.4394907]

[Anonymous No.4394928]

>>4394616
he's creating his own unique snowflake anarchy anon, theres no arguing with him

[Anonymous No.4394944]

>>4394928
Yes Ancaps are quite retarded.

[Anonymous No.4394975]

>>4394928

it's not even unique though, so many people think like this and don't realize the complete lapse of reason

[Anonymous No.4394989]

>>4394944
careful with that word anon, soon everybody is an ancap and whatever point you were trying to make becomes instantly invalid.

>>4394975
the reason is an attempt to make something work that at its core never would

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4395066]

Capitalism must go first. Its just a stupid game anyway. Government may follow but only after we take the corrupting factor out and extend an education that brings sensible people into the world. An responsible and egalitarian society can result from the right steps. This isn't impossible, it's just not going to happen overnight.

>>4393776
We're currently wage slaves and our justice (what is meant by equality) is for sale. Law and freedom are ephemeral concepts just the same as capital, but I'm American. I prefer my positive freedom and fair treatment

>>4393891
>You should be able to say a racist or sexist joke whenever you want. Repressing that stuff leads to more discrimination in the long run.
You should, but as a joke that we can all laugh at, not to make someone feel bad. And keeping that shit to yourself does not lead to more discrimination. Say your grandpa is a Goose steppin' Nazi, but he keeps it all to himself, your dad never knew, you never knew. Like magic, no Nazis in the family after gramps kicks the bucket.

>SJW.
Social Justice Warrior? As if justice were bad?

[Anonymous No.4395084]

>>4395066
>Capitalism must go first
before or after scarcity?

>extend an education that brings sensible people into the world.
what do you mean?

[Anonymous No.4395448]

>>4395066
i like your style Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

[Anonymous No.4395460]

>>4395448

I know, right? She's like that precocious, idealistic baby sister you never had.

Keep dreaming, Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ. Sure one day you'll see the peaceful overthrow of the system, and the implementation of a utopian state in which no one ever gets offended by potentially offensive jokes.

[Anonymous No.4395489]

thread is old and I have not the time or interest to read all of it.

But as it happens I was thinking about this moments before, and it struck me as quite possibly the most irritating of all (largely) internet political movements outside of libertarianism

Their philosophic ideal isn't particularly bad, and indeed seems to often have a reasonably compelling sway in itself, but practice lives up to the standards dismally. Nonsensical arguments against the naturally emerging character of central authority, and holier than thous ideologues with no relevant import. Unlike the marxists, they have no particularly compelling argument for why the system should attain power. And indeed, there are no plausibly realistic options on the table either. And so, it remains the domain of angsty teenagers looking for quick justifications, and disconnected and ineffectual ideological critics that are inevitably amalgamated into the larger left-wing parties anywyas

[Anonymous No.4395500]

>>4395489
only then did I realize I had been writing a polemic for a board that neither asked for or deserved it

[Anonymous No.4395553]

>>4395489
I created the thread. I just wanted to have people recommend me stuff so I could learn about Anarchism from a historical perspective. Even if Anarchism is a bit idealistic you have to admit it is a fascinating philosophy. Also the history is interesting from the Ukraine to Spain and even early 20th century United Sates Anarchism played a historical role.

[Anonymous No.4395575]

Oy vey, before you take all my shekels /lit/, maybe you should read some modern economics works from an opposing view. You think people have been ignoring anarchist and Marxist arguments? Is that why you haven't bothered to get a more informed opinion?

[Anonymous No.4395594]

>>4395575
If you read through this thread you would realize most people on this thread are not anarchist. We were just discussing the various strands of anarchism. anarchist literature and anarchism in history. Also some anarchist movements are also pro-capitalist.

[Anonymous No.4395606]

>>4395594
Don't want to jump to conclusions, but it seems like this is another anti-Semite trying to provoke us

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4395612]

>>4395460
>Sure one day you'll see the peaceful overthrow of the system
Doubtful that'll happen in my time. I think in maco-historical terms.

>>4395084
>[B]efore or after scarcity?
Scarcity of what? Food?
People aren't starving because there isn't enough food. Yup resources will dwindle at the rate we're going in the system we're running. Pretty lame.

>>4395553
Same interests.

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.4395622]

>>4393794

Kevin Carson.

Hey.

Listen.

Kevin Carson.

[Anonymous No.4395624]

>>4395594
Yes yes, I exaggerate my concern. I know you all are not the same. All uncut sausages look the same to me is all I'm saying.

[Anonymous No.4395632]

>>4395622
Graeber

[Anonymous No.4395637]

>>4395489
>>4395500
>Doesn't read the thread, gets mad someone wants info on anarchist movements/ideology
> calls anarchism an "internet political movement"

Great Job!

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.4395641]

>>4395632

I really need to finish "Debt: The First 5,000 Years."

Fuck. I should convert that to a mobi file tonight so I can read it on my flight, tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.4395642]

>>4395637
that's amusing, but it looks as if you didn't actually read or understand the reasoning behind my post

>4chan
oh right

[Anonymous No.4395668]

>>4393606
Don't forget that facade he played up of being one with nature, when really he relied heavily on his neighbors to cloth him while he wrote about ants

[Anonymous No.4395701]

>>4393865
I think the biggest problem with the social justice brigade is that they're rhetorically essentialist. By this I mean regardless of what you've spent time doing against privilege or against racism or misogyny, or attempting to understand these phenomena, as a white male you're treated as mentally incapable of understanding someone based solely on an identity -- one that they then go on to insist is entirely socially constructed, of course.

If I can't understand you, then what is it you want? Total acquiescence to whatever complaint you might have about privilege unchecked? That's emotional blackmail, not a fucking political program for real social justice.

The focus for them is personalized and direct: you, individually, need to prove you're NOT the bad guy. Individuality is utterly irrelevant for the privileged group in SJW discourse, or worse yet seen as accomodationist. Meanwhile they insist that male/white/straight/cis privilege is hell bent on individuality at the same time. It's psychological projection 101.

I think it'd be better oriented toward something measurable like disparities in economic and social outcomes. There's a great deal of empirical evidence there that supports the existence of social privilege, despite the awful accusatory tripe you might read on tumblr or whatever.

[Anonymous No.4395707]

>>4395701
>Meanwhile they insist that male/white/straight/cis privilege is hell bent on destroying their individuality at the same time.

Sorry, meant to type this.

[Anonymous No.4395714]

>>4395489
>naturally emerging character of central authority

You're confusing natural and artificial. The existing order is human-made and human-maintained, not naturally emerging. Same with any hypothetical anarchist society, I might add.

>they have no particularly compelling argument for why the system should attain power.

Social and economic justice is apparently not argument enough? Systems don't attain power, people do. Again you are confused on some very basic concepts about revolutionary leftism in general.

[Anonymous No.4395717]

>>4395701
one straight white male to another: just drop it. our forebears pretty much did everything they could to make sure people would hate us. it's going to take a lot more than a few nice dudes to reverse that. so like you said, we should focus on the economic issues. we can also try to show with our actions that we're trying to do the right thing. raging against SJW is just going to make us look like asses tho

[Anonymous No.4395721]

>>4395717
You're making the same mistake they insist on making a cornerstone of their ideology. I'm not my ancestors. That's the entire point. Do I treat them like my ancestors did theirs? NO.

>raging against SJW is just going to make us look like asses tho

That's due to their insistence that even an ounce of skepticism or critique is a sign of unchecked privilege. Since this is an anonymous image board I couldn't give 2 shits about how it looks. I have the tact not to grind my axe in public since it's a great way to get people to try to ostracize you.

[Anonymous No.4395731]

>>4395721
Maybe you don't treat them like our ancestors did, but there's still a lot of racism, sexism and homophobia out there. Some people who have experienced those things are going to react against white males the way they've been treated—by pigeon holing them, by creating stereotypes. We can either rage against them or we can become SJW ourselves or we can focus on economics. Clearly the best option is the last for us. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that strategically there's nothing to be done about it. It's totally understandable and even good that a small group of people has become hypersensitive about these issues. Hopefully that means in a generation or two things can chill out a bit.

[Anonymous No.4395741]

>>4395714
yes yes, revolutionary mentality. But do you really refute the iron law of oligarchy?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy

granted. It is an argument and not a "law" in any proper sense and I am of course conflating some imaginary human nature I can't rigorously prove... but it seems to me that a locus of authority is an inherent part of all organized society. The very idea of a functioning government or something resembling it necessarily requires division of labour for tasks. A portfolio manager for some sector of economics and maybe foreign relations departments etc etc, If you don't, you are simply not competitive enough to stand up against external threat and we'll just leave it at that.

my awareness of anarchism is hazy so bear with me, but my understanding is that the counter-argument is that of course there will be workers councils and democratic voting and instead of overt coercion there'll be a kind of opinion control (that anarchists strangely don't seem to hate) based on popular opinion and that'll be that. But in practice all democracy has only ever spawned is a vast bureaucracy intended to control the voter and we're fooling ourselves to think organizations that call themselves popular happen to constitute something else If we want to be an "economist" and talk game theory it seems to me that what is being ignored is incentive to gain more at the expense of other. Whether capitalism has conditioned this behaviour is irrelevant

[Anonymous No.4395860]

>>4395741
>a locus of authority is an inherent part of all organized society

I think most anarchists would agree that there's legitimate authority and illegitimate authority. This sort of comes back to the basic Marx axiom -- "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

Let's say you've got a guy with the engineering expertise for creating and maintaining a system for delivering potable water, and through a hypothetical democratic process (and research conducted by other experts etc) society decides that this system needs to be built.

Generally, in this context, the engineer's knowledge is more important than whatever concern the group might have with respect to this specific technical need -- at least within reason. If said engineer mis-allocates resources (tries to hoard water on the side, for example) or does a bad job, obviously there would be recourse to a democratic decision making process where he can be removed, reprimanded or replaced.

If we want to speak in terms of incentives, the incentive here is to do the job right to ensure everyone (including oneself) has clean water. His authority, as it were, exists only within the specifically delineated parameters.

Compare this to how authority over the means of production is exercised under capitalism, where this ownership is a specific right protected and privileged by state power.

In this case the authority over said property is FIRST held arbitrarily and without account to society as a whole. The only incentive here is (obviously) to extract the value from the workers' labor to accumulate profit.

Anarchists would argue social hierarchies predicated on illegitimate authority -- like that of the capitalist -- in general promote gain at the expense of others.

I think the Iron Law ignores the context in which its examples of "democratic" organizations exist e.g. in a society of private ownership, wherein the vast bulk of wealth (and means of survival/production) is held by few is a constant.

It raises some powerful objections otherwise, but I think the idea that authority can't be delegated and withheld from individuals effectively and justly is a question of transparency within the organization and perverse incentives.

[Anonymous No.4395875]

>>4395860
Or you could refer to the concrete processes of such a social organisation in the recall of delegates, sacking of managers, supervision of engineers etc. in the Hungarian Workers Councils.

It isn't like this hasn't happened before.

[Anonymous No.4396539]

ANARCHY IN THE UK

[Anonymous No.4396933]

What should I read if I wanted a good introduction to the overall concepts and practice of anarchism, rather than the thoughts of a single person? Or, if such a book doesn't exist, who is the definitive anarchist whose thought one should be familiar with over all others?

[Anonymous No.4397549]

>>4395860
It took me a day but here I am.

it is erroenous to think technocracy is non-biased and concerned with apolitical questions, as there are often many answers to the same "problem" and the outcomes are decided by specialist. It is also dubious to think that it is comparable with an egalitarian form of democracy, as each form of specialist becomes a class dominating certain aspects of society (with the benefits of doing so) regardless.

Business of incentives. It ignores the fact that there may (and often are) varying graduations of the same quality and it is not feasible to provide the same thing in a uniform manner. So there is already imbalance motivating selfish incentives.

And then there is the political idea of all his, that voters in a democratic system will not actively seek to dominate voting questions for egotistical purposes removed from personal relevance and organize factions for this purpose. It seems very naive- politics is always a process of one thing dominating over another, regardless of whether the process involves voting. To think that factionalism will not develop is to suggest that differing approaches to the same problem do not exist

actually, the iron "law" exists as a natural extension of division of labour. You can have the same state of persons owning the same amount of propery, but as long as there is division of labour there will arguably be progressive economics divergence

[Anonymous No.4397599]

Can't Ancaps just have a free market under the condition of fair grounds? All market things are fine unless an individual is under-represented or his rights to the same opportunity are taken?

[Anonymous No.4397612]

>>4393795

>it's like they want a free space for anyone to be able to say anything, but just for white supremacist libertarian misogynists.

Hahaha, how have I never noticed that hyposcrisy

fucking /pol/tards bitch about reddit more than anyone because it's the place where other opinions aren't tolerated

the irony

[Anonymous No.4397785]

Read Stirner and Renzo Novatore.

[Anonymous No.4397793]

OP check out the BBC'S documentary about the Spanish Civil War. It has a part devoted to anarchist spain. It is rather fascinating.

[Anonymous No.4397811]

>>4397793
not OP, but good rec. thx

[Anonymous No.4398162]

Read this.

[Anonymous No.4398206]

>>4397612
I'm probably the only libertarian I know that likes a good political conversation every now and then. Maybe I'm content with my views enough to not try to shut anyone up. Maybe it's because I know I'll be a conqueror of this world at some point, so I don't need to get upset over an ideology.

A good chunk of libertarians are angry at something and I can't put my finger on it. What's there to be angry at?

[Anonymous No.4398218]

>>4398206
I think we anarchists and libertarians can work together at least when it comes to spreading information regarding illicit government activity.

[Anonymous No.4398223]

>>4398206
It is only that the American libertarian is so crude and loud.

[Anonymous No.4398227]

>still being political

[Anonymous No.4398233]

>>4398223
Coincidentally, I am an American libertarian. But I'm not going to try to discredit your statement. Even as exceptions always exist, any ideology adopted by US citizens looks like a joke. Socialism, capitalism, even feminism all get bastardized by US simpletons.

>>4398218
Sure. As long as those secrets aren't just skeletons in closets. Imagine national security being put at stake by freedom of speech. I think it is a government's responsibility to serve and protect its people. Can't do that if every single secret is out in the open.

[Anonymous No.4398234]

>>4398227
Life has no meaning so why can't someone choose to be political. If being a nazi, a communist, a libertarian or a communist makes someone happy let them follow their political beliefs.

[Anonymous No.4398243]

>>4398233
Maybe not all secrets. But still we must do everything we can to watch all governments. Now there is a tendency to attribute everything bad that happens to the US espically on the left but I think we should watch China, Iran and Russian just as much.

[Anonymous No.4398246]

>>4398227
Not being political in the context of the transvaluation of values or the manifestation of the proletariat as the immanent potential presence to be leapt into.

1844.

[Anonymous No.4398254]

>>4398233
Maybe I was being a douche about making a stereotype of American libertarians. I mean I know in my country crazy SJW feminists and Neo-Nazi types.

[Anonymous No.4398267]

>>4398227
A lot of Nihilists are anarchists.

[Anonymous No.4398275]

>>4398243
You know, I'd like to take this moment to play devil's advocate. What the both of us want is for the people to have control over their government, not the other way around. Not arguing against that. I argue this instead:

Imagine that not every government agent/worker likes what the government does. This isn't too much of a stretch; think of all the departments government owns. There's bound to be at least one guy who says, "This stinks and I want it to not stink." Imagine that that one guy works in the CIA or the FBI or the military or Congress or whichever. That's one man that can influence wonders of change after a few years of dedication and trustworthiness. Now imagine that man is not alone and there's a portion of them in every department. Would that be acceptable as the people controlling the government?

[Anonymous No.4398284]

>>4398254
Crazy feminists seem to be in every first-world country these days. As for the Neo-Nazis, nobody takes them seriously enough for them to have an influence.

I think it's funny what the feminists are doing these days. They're acting as an external force that wails against the big, bad regimes of the world. Don't they know that the only change that can incur in a power has to be inside that power? Fighting against a non-corporeal opponent only makes it stronger.

[Anonymous No.4398282]

OP read Bruno Philipi. He is similar to Renzo Novatore. http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bruno-filippi-the-rebel-s-dark-laughter-the-writings-of-bruno-filippi

[Anonymous No.4398290]

>>4398284
Yeah the crazy ones are anoying. I mean there are a lot of them that are not that bad. But the ones who scream cis-gendered oppression are extremely annoying. Thankfully there are not many here. I think we only have to deal with the people freaking out over the joos.

[Anonymous No.4398295]

>>4398275
I am little uncertain of what you are getting at.

[Anonymous No.4398297]

>>4398267

this is a great movie about his life, sort of

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWkCrTUhJjU

[Anonymous No.4398301]

>>4398295
What if the people have control over their government right now?

[Anonymous No.4398302]

>>4398297
Oh, thanks I had heard of that movie.

[Anonymous No.4398309]

>>4398301
They have only a little of control. I would say. My ultimate vision would be decentralization and extension of democracy to an industrial level. Maybe that is a bit idealistic. What the western world has now is a more advanced than anything in previous history. But I feel like history has not ended so to speak and humanity can experience yet better forms of freedom and dignity.

[Anonymous No.4398314]

>>4398267
If by anarchism you mean ataraxic stirnerist vagabondage dada then I'm all for it, but I'd say that is a position beyond conventional anarchism and beyond politics.

[Anonymous No.4398317]

>>4398297
It is unfortunate that much of his work can not be accessed easy online.

[Anonymous No.4398322]

>>4398234
>nihilist liberalism

[Anonymous No.4398325]

>>4398314
I would say is fine if you want to live that lifestyle. But wouldn't be fun to smash the state and extend democracy to the community.

[Anonymous No.4398333]

>>4398322
I believe in Nihilism.

[Anonymous No.4398344]

>>4398314
Muh nigger.

[Anonymous No.4398353]

>>4398309
I don't know about a "little" control. Something vast and metaphorical tells me that people potentially have a great amount of control over their government. However, that potential is reached only by a few and antagonized by so many others. It is not a machine or ideology that runs a government, after all. It's people. So the people in power want to do this and that? It either gets done because no one wants to resist all that power or it's thwarted because at least one strong-willed person said no. The problem isn't how much power is GIVEN to the people that changes the tides, it's how much power is TAKEN by the people.

[Anonymous No.4398358]

[Anonymous No.4398363]

>>4398353
Alright I agree.

[Anonymous No.4398365]

Any want to discuss Max Stirner?

[Anonymous No.4398370]

>>4398325
I say: Liberate yourself as far as you can, and you have done your part; for it is not given to every one to break through all limits, or, more expressively: not to every one is that a limit which is a limit for the rest. Consequently, do not tire yourself with toiling at the limits of others; enough if you tear down yours. Who has ever succeeded in tearing down even one limit for all men? Are not countless persons to-day, as at all times, running about with all the "limitations of humanity"? He who overturns one of his limits may have shown others the way and the means; the overturning of their limits remains their affair.

[Anonymous No.4398382]

this thread has some good vibes

[Anonymous No.4398385]

>>4398370
The biggest thing right now is raising about ecological issues. Right now all the left focuses on is things like gays rights and identity politics. They should focus on things that effect all people in common. Maybe it is a thing that should not be converted into terms of left or right. It is a human universal concern.

[Anonymous No.4398387]

>>4394193
>socialism is dead

It's anything but.

[Anonymous No.4398388]

>>4398370
You. I like you. It's a "the world is beyond saving, but you can still save yourself" mentality that I use a lot, but you probably have a good brain (I've got three major and six minor concussions under my belt. Shit sucks if I get a headache).

[Anonymous No.4398395]

/lit/ we should form a futurist, stirneran,egoist gang We could just travel around NYC causing mayhem and destruction. Attack politicians and raid apartment stores.

[Anonymous No.4398398]

>>4398388

he's just quoting Stirner

[Anonymous No.4398406]

Has anyone studied the American individualist anarchists?

[Anonymous No.4398413]

>>4398398
My brain damage is showing yet again. I'll just leave the thread now.

[Anonymous No.4398426]

>>4398413
no m8, just read stirner.

[Anonymous No.4398427]

Anarchist futurist art.

[Anonymous No.4398432]

>>4398395
We'll call it the bonnet gang

[Anonymous No.4398434]

>>4398426
Any writers similar to Stirner you can suggest?

[Anonymous No.4398440]

>>4398406
I've readabit aye tucker & walker, but they fail to be enticing.

[Anonymous No.4398442]

>>4398432
They were pretty interesting.

[Anonymous No.4398447]

>>4398434
I don't think there are any. There are the 'something something anarchist' type of guys but they get spooky quick.

[Anonymous No.4398449]

Bonnot Gang.

[Anonymous No.4398462]

>>4398447
Renzo Novatore and Bruno Filippi probably are the closest.

[Anonymous No.4398465]

>>4398267
>the feeling one experiences when people do not translate the writings of tsuji jun

[Anonymous No.4398471]

>>4398449

[Anonymous No.4398473]

>>4398427
>calling that shit art

[Anonymous No.4398476]

Sade is also interesting from an egoist anarchist point of view.

[Anonymous No.4398482]

>>4398465
That is one of the most obscure feels I have. I need to call up someone who speaks English and Japanese and get that person to translate pronto.

[Anonymous No.4398483]

>>4398471
"stop slowing down le car, andré"
-bonnot gang when soudy stuck his head out of the window

[Anonymous No.4398486]

>>4398476
Consult Adorno and Horkheimer on him as one of the most honest expressions of modern capitalism

[Anonymous No.4398489]

[Anonymous No.4398498]

>>4398482
There was this one guy on /lit/ who's an expat japdweller supposedly and spoke about maybe attempting a bit of translation of Tsuji but I haven't heard about it since.

I wish some cunt like Wolfi Landstreicher got his minions on it if he's even alive.

[Anonymous No.4398494]

>>4398473
>Not liking futurism

[Anonymous No.4398496]

>>4398482
honestly, it's probably not that worthwhile. wasn't he a drunk and treated with ridicule? sounds like just another dude who concocts or adopts some philosophy to get through life while barely managing himself and needing drugs to get by

[Anonymous No.4398508]

>>4398496
just his wikipedia sidebar thing is enough to get a major hard on though

[Anonymous No.4398516]

>>4398496
Supposedly his writing is pretty good. He is an interesting personality so I would like to see what his writings would be like.
>>4398498 I like Wolfi's Idea of blending individualistic anarchism with collectivist anarchism.

[Anonymous No.4398526]

>>4398508
This person, “Tsuji Jun”, is the most interesting figure in Japan today... He is like a commandment-breaking monk, like Christ...
Vagrants and labourers of the town gather about him. The defeated unemployed and the penniless find in him their own home and religion... his disciples are the hungry and the poor of the world. Surrounded by these disciples he passionately preaches the Good News of Nihilism. But he is not Christlike, and he preaches but drunken nonsense. Then the disciples call him merely “Tsuji” without respect and sometimes hit him on the head. This is a strange religion...But here Tsuji has regrettably been portrayed as a religious character. It sounds contradictory, but Tsuji is a religious man without a religion... As art is not a religion, neither is Tsuji's life religious. But in a sense it is... Tsuji calls himself an Unmensch... If Nietzsche's Zarathustra is religious... then Tsuji's teaching would be a better religion than Nietzsche's, for Tsuji lives in accord with his principles as himself...

[Anonymous No.4398536]

this guy reminds me of tsuji jun:

http://www.beyond-the-pale.co.uk/

http://www.beyond-the-pale.co.uk/about.htm

http://www.beyond-the-pale.co.uk/manifesto.htm

warning: huge amounts of bear gay unwashed piss beards etc, but also strange poetry and articles by a geriatric welfarian irish semi-bum diogenes worshipper with mystical nihilism and erotic genet type of strange homocore

one of the more interesting places on the internet

[Anonymous No.4398538]

>>4398508
He seems a bit unhinged.
In 1932 Tsuji was institutionalized in a psychiatric hospital after what would become popularly known as the "Tengu Incident".[12] According to some accounts, one night during a party at a friend's residence, Tsuji climbed to the second floor and began flapping his arms crying “I am the Tengu!”, eventually jumping from the building, running around, and jumping onto the table calling “kyaaaaaa, kyaaaa!!”[13]

[Anonymous No.4398540]

>>4398538
we've all been there m8

[Anonymous No.4398556]

>>4398536
Oh cool thanks for directing me to the site.

[Anonymous No.4398569]

>>4398536
I think that one should be a combination of Stirner, Diogenes and Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.4398592]

>>4398569
His take on Diogenes is worth reading:

http://www.beyond-the-pale.co.uk/diogenes.htm

[Anonymous No.4398621]

>>4398592
Thanks interesting article. Diogenes is certainty unique among western philosophers.

[Anonymous No.4398694]

Does anyone think that Stirners Union of Egoists would be sustainable?

[Anonymous No.4398705]

You guys might find this interesting. http://www.marxists.org/subject/anarchism/levy/stirner-nietzsche.htm

[Anonymous No.4398722]

Chesterton trips on acid towards the end

[Anonymous No.4398726]

Lib.com has some interesting pictures regarding anarchism.
http://libcom.org/gallery/anarchist-demonstration-union-square-new-york-1914-photo-gallery
http://libcom.org/gallery/spanish-civil-war-revolution-photo-gallery-1936-39

[Anonymous No.4398737]

>>4398722
Also this book is good.

[Anonymous No.4398739]

http://libcom.org/library/proletarian-insurrection-in-ukraine-1918-1921
http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/krem/visit.htm

[Anonymous No.4398744]

http://radicalarchives.org/2010/05/18/nietzsche-and-the-anarchists/
Interesting article.

[Anonymous No.4398752]

http://anarchistnews.org/content/garden-egoists-short-introduction-epicurus-and-stirner

Can we connect Epicureanism and Stirnerism?

[Anonymous No.4398755]

>>4398722
Chesterton was an anarquist?

[Anonymous No.4398758]

>>4398755
No he wrote a book featuring anarchists. The man was politically conservative.

[Hirox !aJvcJjvfhU No.4398761]

>>4398755
i don't think so
though he did influence anarchists like dorothy day.

[Anonymous No.4398763]

>>4398755
You Spanish or Portuguese?

[Anonymous No.4398768]

God damn could Chesterson write.
The wild worship of lawlessness and the materialist worship of law end in the same void. Nietzsche scales staggering mountains, but he turns up ultimately in Tibet. He sits down beside Tolstoy in the land of nothing and Nirvana. They are both helpless — one because he must not grasp anything, and the other because he must not let go of anything. The Tolstoyan's will is frozen by a Buddhist instinct that all special actions are evil. But the Nietzscheite's will is quite equally frozen by his view that all special actions are good; for if all special actions are good, none of them are special. They stand at the crossroads, and one hates all the roads and the other likes all the roads. The result is — well, some things are not hard to calculate. They stand at the cross-roads.[30]

[Anonymous No.4398806]

>>4398763
How can you tell?

[Anonymous No.4398814]

>>4398806
Your spelling of the word Anarchist.

[Anonymous No.4398821]

>>4398758
Chesterson was not conservative at all.

[Anonymous No.4398824]

So what are some good Anarchic-Syndacalist or other anarchist texts that approach the subject from an economic standpoint or experiment with alternative economic models? I've only read a bit of anarchist literature and most of it seems to approach the subject from a political or philosophical stance. I plan to major in econ and thought it would be interesting to read about anarchism from an economic and less social standpoint.

[Anonymous No.4398825]

>>4398821
Are you using my lap top again?

[Anonymous No.4398829]

>>4398814
Jesus Christ. I noticed it now.
My bad

[Anonymous No.4398831]

>>4398824
No expert but I heard Kroptokin approached from a more empiricist angle. Also a lot of anarco-syndicalists use marxian criticism of capitalism for their economic foundations. But the anarchists usually approach from a more philosophical and political angle. Espically the egoist anarchists.

[Anonymous No.4398837]

I like the more gentle anarchism of Tolstoy.

[Anonymous No.4398844]

>>4398837
http://humweb.ucsc.edu/bnickell/tolstoy/tolstoyan.html

[Anonymous No.4398848]

>>4398831
Thanks for the rec man. I've heard of Kropotkin but never got around to reading him. It makes sense though that anarchists would approach society from an individual angle being they're are anarchists and all, but I figure the movement could gain strength if it used a more empirical stance.

[Anonymous No.4398852]

>anarchy
at least communism makes sense in the context of a scarcity-less society. surprise! people lie and cheat and there will never NOT be a need to have property rights and contracts enforced, otherwise the cost of labor exceeds the incentive to produce and society and the economy stagnates.

[Anonymous No.4398868]

>>4398844
>At the same time, he often acknowledged that he felt ashamed that others followed his ideas more closely than he himself.

I imagine most--if not all--philosophers/writers know that feel.

[Anonymous No.4398872]

>>4398852
>incentive
Turn work into play and theres plenty incentive. Its possible to get shit done and still have fun and it would be its own reward.

[Anonymous No.4398873]

>>4398852
Not an anarchist. but the Anarchists of the Spanish Civil War had workers militia and direct democracy that extended to communities, farms and factories. You need to read Bakunin

[Anonymous No.4398875]

>>4398872
not every job can be fun, not every job has a person who has it as their calling

>>4398873
>You need to read Bakunin
you need to seriously think of what you just said in the context of the very idea of
>anarchy

[Anonymous No.4398881]

>>4398875
I know. They should have called themselves something different.

[Anonymous No.4398886]

>>4398875
I know. They should have called themselves something different. But these peoples conception of revolution was much different than the Communists.

[Anonymous No.4398896]

>>4398881
interim spanish worker's republic sounds more like what they managed, and I came up with that without even googleing them

>>4398886
> But these peoples conception of revolution was much different than the Communists.
elaborate, to me all 19th - 20th century anarchist / communist "revolutions" come down to overblown strikes

[Anonymous No.4398897]

IN THE FUTURE THE CALLED JADEN WILL LEAD THE ANARCHIST REVOLUTION. HE WILL DESTROY THE MIRRORS THAT DESTROY OUR EYES.
DONT LET JADEN GET KILLED.

HE IS THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN KILL THE MIRRORS.

[Anonymous No.4398901]

>>4398896
Study the anarchist revolution in the Ukraine and Catelonia. But yeah Anarchism was overshadowed by Marxism. But if you are looking for someone to argue with I am not an anarchist.

[Anonymous No.4398923]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehzC937Q9Dchttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUig0lFHDDw

[Anonymous No.4398935]

Essential Individualist anarchists
Max Stirner
Renzo Novatore
Bruno Fillippi
Benjamin Tucker
Tsuji Jun.

[Anonymous No.4398950]

Essential Collectivist Anarchists.
Emma Goldman
Peter Kroptokin
Michael Bakunin
Pierre Proudhon
Jose Durruti

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4399133]

>>4398923
This just gets me.

Polite sage.

[Anonymous No.4399137]

Someone archive this thread.

[Anonymous No.4399144]

Or don't all the threads get archived?

[Anonymous No.4399641]

>>4398694
I don't think it's supposed to be since it's based on actual voluntary collaboration. You walk out when you feel like it instead of sticking together for the sake of remaining your union.

[Anonymous No.4399654]

>>4399133
I believe it also uses your Sapphic browsing behaviour to form a selection of recommendations.

[Anonymous No.4400635]

>>4399654
I think it would be immensely destructive.

[Anonymous No.4401169]

What are the best works of Max Stirner?

[Anonymous No.4401177]

Anarchism < Capitalism in its regulated form.

[Anonymous No.4401183]

What do you guys think of egoist anarchism?

[Anonymous No.4401645]

>>4401169
The Ego And Its Own And Stirner's Critics.

[Anonymous No.4401647]

>>4401183
egoism doesn't need one specific political organisation to go along with it.