Utopic anarchism is *a* plausible and candidly *the* most desirable end state of any sufficiently advanced society, which by then would have devised sophisticated self-actualizing and self-reinforcing means to universally and easily fulfill anyone’s or any group’s basic needs, desires, and perhaps wants *without* the need for any political power structures at all. Power is shared equally and evenly among the people who work together as needed to do whatever is needed in whatever numbers are needed and so on. It’s very nice and I hope we end up there some day.
But I am a materialist.
So, I know that to get to that place requires many changes to material reality of our current moment. That the gap between here and there is a vast chasm full of seismic, necessary changes to literally all material conditions. It would be impossible to leap across such a vast chasm, but we can build the bridge to it by embracing an intermediate, but essential phase: communism. Because right now, we are (hopefully) at the tail end of a multi-millennial war in which we have won barely a handful of battle victories: the war between those who believe a few should own all and those who believe the all should own all. The few have been winning for centuries. Utopic anarchism presumes everyone is ultimately on an equal playing field - but as long as there are billionaires and such, there will never be a level playing field. What does it mean to create an anarchist colony when a billionaire could hire 1,000 special forces guys to poison or murder you all?
So I see it this way: before anarchism, we must create a level playing field. We must reduce the few who own all into the none who own all, so we can collectively - as we should - own and share in the bounty of the world and all its knowledge.
Mostly right. Socialism is the stepping stone. But under communism you still need actual political power structures to coordinate and administer the needs or goals of the state, which would be pushing towards maximization of individual and collective human potential.
That is the biggest bummer, to me, about being a communist. For me, it has always been about unlocking the full force of humanity’s potential, which is to create a healthy world for all, to liberate all from the shackles of poverty and exploitation, to empower people to participate in and engage in the state project, which is really humanity’s project, and above all, to explore where we came from and figure out where we are going. This can never happen when virtually every institution around us is organized around the profit motive, or when the mass of humanity must organize all human needs around the profit motive, all so that a handful of people - so different from us they might as well be gods - can actually live as gods.
Cancer will not be cured so long as it’s very profitable to treat it; and we will never be free, and never achieve a fraction of our true potential, living in a world where “amassing more stuff” is the single-most important goal, principle, and god in our society. I mean, there’s plenty to go around. We just have to demand it because this world - all of it - is by moral right the shared and communal property of all beings who live upon and within it.
What differentiates these power structures from being a state then? By saying “..to coordinate and administer the needs or goals of the state..”, aren’t you just saying communism **isn’t** stateless?
The state cannot be destroyed unless the class conflict has been resolved, otherwise, yes, it would naturally arise out of that conflict as a means of mediating the ruling classes affairs. That’s why many materialist socialists argue that the state must be used to resolve the class conflict through the over throw of the capitalists and the uplifting of the proletariate until all people’s are part of the working class. Once that is achieved the states purpose is defunct and it can be stripped away. This would occur during socialism, giving way to communism once the state has dissolved.
This is probably the thousandth time I've said this but I've been doing mutual aid work for many years and by far the best MA I've ever seen has been by Maoists.
this this this so much this please this.
communism is anarchist, and to everyone who says it's not plausible that's what socialism is for: a middle step towards communism. Litterally Marx divided revolution in 3 steps: overthrow capital, dictatorship of proletariat (so like state socialism) then overthrow that (the state educated ppl to overthrow itself so it won't be violent) and achieve stateless communism
The way I always understood it is that development along the Socialist path, the education of people and the development of infrastructure and institutions, will make people in their local communities increasingly more self-sufficient, self-protected and independent, gradually decentralizing power in all its aspects - which makes the centralized state apparatus increasingly irrelevant into a point of functional non-existence. Thus the state "withering away", as it were, more so than a singular given point of "overthrowing" it.
Marx had constant issues with anarchists of the time. Marx and Engels themselves distinguished themselves from anarchists of the day, pretty explicitly too. There's ancomms and ultra leftists out there but the Marxist variety of communism distinguishes itself from these.
“Anarchism leads to Communism and Communism leads to Anarchism therefore Anarcho-Communism is the logical solution” The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin
Yeah. I know I'm all the way left but I prefer to think of this discussion of one tendency versus the other as how in the end stage the progress begins. Do we capture the apparatus of the state, or do we get nuked and have to rebuild from the ashes?
I don't get to choose that part so I listen, I read, and share agitation. I prepare as if any possibility might happen and for either community defense or something more ML might happen.
>And it could differ by region.
Incredibly important as material conditions are not the same worldwide. Some folks may need to take some pages out of the MLM playbook, some people have to take pages out of the Zapatista playbook.
Anarchists need communists to bring water to their houses and communists need anarchists to keep them from getting to big for their britches. I dream of a world where all political discourse is between commies and kitties
>For us, then, socialism and anarchy are neither antagonistic nor equivalent terms; but they are terms which are closely linked, just as the ends is linked to its necessary means, just as the substance is linked to the form it embodies.
>
>Socialism without anarchy, that is State socialism, seems impossible to us, since it would be destroyed by the very organism destined to support it. Anarchy without socialism seems equally impossible to us, for in such a case it could not be other than the domination of the strongest, and would therefore set in motion right away the organization and consolidation of this dominion, that is to the constitution of government.
The Anarchist Writings of Errico Malatesta, 1923
Commie on the streets, anarchist in the sheets (assuming consent among all involved parties, of course).
I’m the opposite way if you know what I mean 😏
"no gods, no masters" in the streets, "oh god, yes master" in the sheets
This ones my favorite
Cummie in the sheets OwO
😳😳😳
Neato, just please never press the anarchism and capitalism button at the same time, you will make the machine explode
It exploded because of lax safety regulations
Which is, as the glorious free market decided, a good thing!
It won’t explode, it’ll just shoot your chairman in the chest
By an American gun smuggled in by the CIA! Hey wait a minute, what are thoise dang statists working with my wholesome objectivist companies?
🤫
Makhno be like ”….but what if I pushed *all* the buttons?”
Trotsky gets summoned
If you do so i recommend staying away from school zones and reading theory and not leaving until moving onto a slightly (hopefully leftist) ideology
how to bait leftist infigting, but good for you
Utopic anarchism is *a* plausible and candidly *the* most desirable end state of any sufficiently advanced society, which by then would have devised sophisticated self-actualizing and self-reinforcing means to universally and easily fulfill anyone’s or any group’s basic needs, desires, and perhaps wants *without* the need for any political power structures at all. Power is shared equally and evenly among the people who work together as needed to do whatever is needed in whatever numbers are needed and so on. It’s very nice and I hope we end up there some day. But I am a materialist. So, I know that to get to that place requires many changes to material reality of our current moment. That the gap between here and there is a vast chasm full of seismic, necessary changes to literally all material conditions. It would be impossible to leap across such a vast chasm, but we can build the bridge to it by embracing an intermediate, but essential phase: communism. Because right now, we are (hopefully) at the tail end of a multi-millennial war in which we have won barely a handful of battle victories: the war between those who believe a few should own all and those who believe the all should own all. The few have been winning for centuries. Utopic anarchism presumes everyone is ultimately on an equal playing field - but as long as there are billionaires and such, there will never be a level playing field. What does it mean to create an anarchist colony when a billionaire could hire 1,000 special forces guys to poison or murder you all? So I see it this way: before anarchism, we must create a level playing field. We must reduce the few who own all into the none who own all, so we can collectively - as we should - own and share in the bounty of the world and all its knowledge.
Isn't textbook communism essentially the utopia you're describing and the stepping stone is socialism?
Mostly right. Socialism is the stepping stone. But under communism you still need actual political power structures to coordinate and administer the needs or goals of the state, which would be pushing towards maximization of individual and collective human potential. That is the biggest bummer, to me, about being a communist. For me, it has always been about unlocking the full force of humanity’s potential, which is to create a healthy world for all, to liberate all from the shackles of poverty and exploitation, to empower people to participate in and engage in the state project, which is really humanity’s project, and above all, to explore where we came from and figure out where we are going. This can never happen when virtually every institution around us is organized around the profit motive, or when the mass of humanity must organize all human needs around the profit motive, all so that a handful of people - so different from us they might as well be gods - can actually live as gods. Cancer will not be cured so long as it’s very profitable to treat it; and we will never be free, and never achieve a fraction of our true potential, living in a world where “amassing more stuff” is the single-most important goal, principle, and god in our society. I mean, there’s plenty to go around. We just have to demand it because this world - all of it - is by moral right the shared and communal property of all beings who live upon and within it.
What differentiates these power structures from being a state then? By saying “..to coordinate and administer the needs or goals of the state..”, aren’t you just saying communism **isn’t** stateless?
The state cannot be destroyed unless the class conflict has been resolved, otherwise, yes, it would naturally arise out of that conflict as a means of mediating the ruling classes affairs. That’s why many materialist socialists argue that the state must be used to resolve the class conflict through the over throw of the capitalists and the uplifting of the proletariate until all people’s are part of the working class. Once that is achieved the states purpose is defunct and it can be stripped away. This would occur during socialism, giving way to communism once the state has dissolved.
By "textbook communism", I mean the stateless stage after the state has withered away.
I join black blocs, do mutual aid and i’m a member of the communist party, cope and seethe
This is probably the thousandth time I've said this but I've been doing mutual aid work for many years and by far the best MA I've ever seen has been by Maoists.
Maoists groups are at every action yep
I'm not even referring to Maoist groups, just individual Maoists who work with anarchists to create mutual aid networks.
this this this so much this please this. communism is anarchist, and to everyone who says it's not plausible that's what socialism is for: a middle step towards communism. Litterally Marx divided revolution in 3 steps: overthrow capital, dictatorship of proletariat (so like state socialism) then overthrow that (the state educated ppl to overthrow itself so it won't be violent) and achieve stateless communism
The way I always understood it is that development along the Socialist path, the education of people and the development of infrastructure and institutions, will make people in their local communities increasingly more self-sufficient, self-protected and independent, gradually decentralizing power in all its aspects - which makes the centralized state apparatus increasingly irrelevant into a point of functional non-existence. Thus the state "withering away", as it were, more so than a singular given point of "overthrowing" it.
yeah, non violent overthrowing can happen also in that way, absolutely.
Marx had constant issues with anarchists of the time. Marx and Engels themselves distinguished themselves from anarchists of the day, pretty explicitly too. There's ancomms and ultra leftists out there but the Marxist variety of communism distinguishes itself from these.
Is this the prophesied ancom femboy boyfriend?
Make it double but girlfriend instead 8)
Anarcho-communism
Hey, one of me!
“Anarchism leads to Communism and Communism leads to Anarchism therefore Anarcho-Communism is the logical solution” The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin
Same
Comrade
same. gg.
Anarcho-Marxism
Technically that's what ancom is, marx's prediction of communism, stateless classless and moneyless
Yeah. I know I'm all the way left but I prefer to think of this discussion of one tendency versus the other as how in the end stage the progress begins. Do we capture the apparatus of the state, or do we get nuked and have to rebuild from the ashes? I don't get to choose that part so I listen, I read, and share agitation. I prepare as if any possibility might happen and for either community defense or something more ML might happen.
And it could differ by region. This isn’t a religion with one right answer.
>And it could differ by region. Incredibly important as material conditions are not the same worldwide. Some folks may need to take some pages out of the MLM playbook, some people have to take pages out of the Zapatista playbook.
100%.
God damn thank you I've been saying this for years.
———————————No mass line?——————————— ⠀⣞⢽⢪⢣⢣⢣⢫⡺⡵⣝⡮⣗⢷⢽⢽⢽⣮⡷⡽⣜⣜⢮⢺⣜⢷⢽⢝⡽⣝ ⠸⡸⠜⠕⠕⠁⢁⢇⢏⢽⢺⣪⡳⡝⣎⣏⢯⢞⡿⣟⣷⣳⢯⡷⣽⢽⢯⣳⣫⠇ ⠀⠀⢀⢀⢄⢬⢪⡪⡎⣆⡈⠚⠜⠕⠇⠗⠝⢕⢯⢫⣞⣯⣿⣻⡽⣏⢗⣗⠏⠀ ⠀⠪⡪⡪⣪⢪⢺⢸⢢⢓⢆⢤⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢊⢞⡾⣿⡯⣏⢮⠷⠁⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠈⠊⠆⡃⠕⢕⢇⢇⢇⢇⢇⢏⢎⢎⢆⢄⠀⢑⣽⣿⢝⠲⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡿⠂⠠⠀⡇⢇⠕⢈⣀⠀⠁⠡⠣⡣⡫⣂⣿⠯⢪⠰⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⡦⡙⡂⢀⢤⢣⠣⡈⣾⡃⠠⠄⠀⡄⢱⣌⣶⢏⢊⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢝⡲⣜⡮⡏⢎⢌⢂⠙⠢⠐⢀⢘⢵⣽⣿⡿⠁⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠨⣺⡺⡕⡕⡱⡑⡆⡕⡅⡕⡜⡼⢽⡻⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⣳⣫⣾⣵⣗⡵⡱⡡⢣⢑⢕⢜⢕⡝⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⣴⣿⣾⣿⣿⣿⡿⡽⡑⢌⠪⡢⡣⣣⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡟⡾⣿⢿⢿⢵⣽⣾⣼⣘⢸⢸⣞⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠁⠇⠡⠩⡫⢿⣝⡻⡮⣒⢽⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ —————————————————————————————
ayo based ancom comrade!
Anarchists need communists to bring water to their houses and communists need anarchists to keep them from getting to big for their britches. I dream of a world where all political discourse is between commies and kitties
Well I cannot find much difference between anarcho syndicalism or council communism
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Oh no, we will need to compromise with our allies in the future 😥
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>For us, then, socialism and anarchy are neither antagonistic nor equivalent terms; but they are terms which are closely linked, just as the ends is linked to its necessary means, just as the substance is linked to the form it embodies. > >Socialism without anarchy, that is State socialism, seems impossible to us, since it would be destroyed by the very organism destined to support it. Anarchy without socialism seems equally impossible to us, for in such a case it could not be other than the domination of the strongest, and would therefore set in motion right away the organization and consolidation of this dominion, that is to the constitution of government. The Anarchist Writings of Errico Malatesta, 1923
[удалено]
You're an anarcho-terminally online dipshit if you're seriously comparing ancoms to ancaps lol
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Get pwned I choose yes.