All of which have existed for 70 years and counting (excluding the USSR). All of which fought long wars, some of a civil nature, against the forces of reaction.
Anarchist achievements:
Um
Hmmm
Hold on I’m sure I can find one
Paris Commune? But that lasted 2 months and wasn’t entirely anarchist
Revolutionary Catalonia? But that lasted only as long as the civil war did and wasn’t entirely anarchist.
Makhnovia? But they exploited the unrest created during the October Revolution (communist) and lasted 3 years only due to this instability and their relative unimportance.
Kronstadt? But that was started by Whites aiming to establish a non-communist government, nothing anarchist there.
Mondragon federation? But Huawei is bigger and operates from the PRC.
Rojava? But that’s a Kurd nationalist state who oppresses their other populations (such as Assyrians).
Anarchists do not have the high ground to be taking this kind of speech to us, because they have achieved nothing. So they take the *moral *high ground instead. Yes, they didn’t succeed. But their revolution was pure, unblemished by authoritarian acts. Except when Makhno chain-ganged peasants and forced conscription, the anarchists in Catalonia executed priests and the Whites masquerading as anarchists in Kronstadt were about to mass execute Bolsheviks. But we don’t talk about that. Anarchism is pure, it’s not the evil tankie red fash authoritarianism. The fact that is has never succeeded is exactly why it’s pure – they’ve never held to power long enough to actually do anything with it.
So my best advice to dealing with anarchists is to ignore them. I don’t feel threatened by anarchists, because for that they would have to actually pose a threat. I don’t expect them to ever achieve anything (due to their whole ideology), but I fully expect them to fight against the socialist government – they want 0 government, they want to smash the state, they have always been very clear about that. What do you think will happen after we establish the socialist republic? It’s still a state, so they’ll fight against us. And like at Kronstadt, or like in the kibbutz, they’ll side with the reaction. Hey, do this funny thing: google kibbutz. First link is Zionist state propaganda. But they’re still anarchism in practice, I swear!!
… Though anarchists themselves can’t seem to agree on what anarchism is. I’ve seen it described as “anything that fights against the state”, and the person who said that made it clear that the Nazis (who did not actually fight against the state, they were invited by it) would be anarchist at least in spirit under this definition. It doesn’t help, obviously, that they are so averse to reading in general, not just political theory. Anarchism is also usually the first ideology rebellious teens go to if they want to put money where their mouth is (and I get that, it’s not easy being a teen in a late-stage capitalist society) so I’m not holding this anti-intellectual stance to every anarchist. But certainly to most of them.
You have to understand the reasons for being an anarchist lie deeper than merely having ideas – because of course we are not idealists, we are materialists, and we understand the material world one lives in influences one’s ideas and not the other way around. Anarchism is a petty-bourgeois ideology founded on libertarian principles. Now, anarchists will claim they coined the term libertarian first in the 19th century, and the “right-libertarians” like you see in the US co-opted their movement.
But you don’t see right-wingers co-opt Marxism. So why is that? That’s because left-anarchism has more in common with capitalism than it has with communism. They just want to be left alone in their commune, where they are free to make whatever laws they want. Anarchism is mostly found in petty-bourgeois backgrounds (there are more MLs living in the state of Kerala, India than there are anarchists in the world), because then they could make laws for their famous worker’s coops. If you gave anarchists laid-back capitalism, where they could basically live in their gated communities among themselves, work in their manufactures that belong to them only whenever they want, and trade their stuff and make money off it, they would love it. Perhaps that is why kibbutz love having the protection of the Zionist state as well.
It’s not paradoxal. Anarchists believe they can abolish the state (which even then does not necessarily mean abolishing power) while there is still reaction surrounding them. But believing in something and changing the meaning of words still does not make it true. Perhaps in 500 years when communism has had a good run, things will be different. Until then, they are the only ones pretending they are not a state when they wield the monopoly of violence they are so fond of.
Really nice comment, mostly the last two paragraph.
Although in my experiences is the oposite with the “right-wing” of the subject, the more intellectual formation, deeper economic undertanding, more anarchist tend to be the people, and they also agree with what you said:
“That’s because left-anarchism has more in common with capitalism than it has with communis”
I will add that from the ancap perspective, governament is not equal to state. A government is ok so far it is accepted voluntarily, in contrast, the state is always imposed using violence.
Mises and the Austrian school don’t count as deeper economics understanding lol. Their stuff is literally high school level and is based on what one feels like.
Lol, the fun part is that I actually thought I was talking to someone who ise that fleshy blob of meat insode his head.
Go read human action before triying to battle it with a book with an oxymoron in the title. Is kind of pointless, you ignore the theorem of the imposibility of socialosm stated by Hayek, amd call it high scool level jajaja you are funny dude, please, never change xD
Cospaia city (now part of Italy), almost 400y of ANCAP organization, untill ot was anexed by Italy near the 1800s. One of the top tobacco producers of his time, and relatively more prosperous than all his neibours.
Not bad for a tiny city with a population of 300~600.
It even didn’t have prision nor police, no cohertion was needed to bring it to existence, no war, a bit of good luck and one really bad surveyor mapping the land.
Cuba, Vietnam, China… ther is a difference in being sucessfull and just “being” I won’t say they are succesful now, and in the long run I believe they will end to exist, one or two generations after us probably.
Not that successful if they were annexed by Italy of all countries lmao
Edit: also apparently you can still comment despite being banned? Well, that gives me an excuse to flesh out my comment.
I don’t know if you’re aware but the prevalent system in 1400s Italy was feudalism lmao, with some free cities where a bourgeois class developed. These bourgeois organised themselves in guilds, and hired “free” workers that worked on the daily. Capitalism wouldn’t come around for another 300 or so years. So how could a city of 300 illiterate peasants (lmao really found a great example there) be ancap (and invent capitalism in the early Quattro Cento!) when it was surrounded by feudalism lmao. Also 300 people come on, everyone knew everyone else in that hamlet. That’s smaller than some high schools, that’s smaller than some universities at the time. You could house the whole population of this “republic” in a single army barrack. The fact they weren’t invaded is precisely because they were so irrelevant to Italy that no one really wanted to bother with it. It would cost more money to field an army to grab Cospaia than you’d get out of them. The best way Cospaia sums up anarcho-capitalism is perhaps when it was created by a clerical error, a pure accident lmao. And the best way you sum up anarcho-capitalism is when you try to claim it has historical backing and isn’t just the fever dream of some very weird fascistic tendencies.
This is why people say ancap is a meme ideology (and yet it could have never been capitalo-marxism), because you have no idea what you’re talking about and just have a very strong feeling that it would work out for the best if we just gave ancap a chance.
But really the funniest part of your comment has to be the mises link. I read it. It left me with more questions than I had going in. They’re really just preaching to the choir.
You better argument is based in when the ancap term was coined? Also you seem kind of in foght or fly mode, man, you are not going to win amy aword figting on internet with a random guy, don’t make this a homo sapiens version of two chimps throwing shit to each other.
400 years is plenty more than some red examples I must say, and with orders of magnitud less people to defend it, so that look like a overwelming succes for some pesants half starved.
The fact you read the article is something that kind of make up for the tribal defending you do of your believes, and even more if you have more questions now, would be far more productive and interesting if you just share them.
In fact will be really interesting since your perspective will undoubtedly be different and so will do you questions.
Anyhow, I honestly enjoy a book recomendation despite the context, so 👍 tks.
Major ML achievements:
All of which have existed for 70 years and counting (excluding the USSR). All of which fought long wars, some of a civil nature, against the forces of reaction.
Anarchist achievements:
Anarchists do not have the high ground to be taking this kind of speech to us, because they have achieved nothing. So they take the *moral *high ground instead. Yes, they didn’t succeed. But their revolution was pure, unblemished by authoritarian acts. Except when Makhno chain-ganged peasants and forced conscription, the anarchists in Catalonia executed priests and the Whites masquerading as anarchists in Kronstadt were about to mass execute Bolsheviks. But we don’t talk about that. Anarchism is pure, it’s not the evil tankie red fash authoritarianism. The fact that is has never succeeded is exactly why it’s pure – they’ve never held to power long enough to actually do anything with it.
So my best advice to dealing with anarchists is to ignore them. I don’t feel threatened by anarchists, because for that they would have to actually pose a threat. I don’t expect them to ever achieve anything (due to their whole ideology), but I fully expect them to fight against the socialist government – they want 0 government, they want to smash the state, they have always been very clear about that. What do you think will happen after we establish the socialist republic? It’s still a state, so they’ll fight against us. And like at Kronstadt, or like in the kibbutz, they’ll side with the reaction. Hey, do this funny thing: google kibbutz. First link is Zionist state propaganda. But they’re still anarchism in practice, I swear!!
… Though anarchists themselves can’t seem to agree on what anarchism is. I’ve seen it described as “anything that fights against the state”, and the person who said that made it clear that the Nazis (who did not actually fight against the state, they were invited by it) would be anarchist at least in spirit under this definition. It doesn’t help, obviously, that they are so averse to reading in general, not just political theory. Anarchism is also usually the first ideology rebellious teens go to if they want to put money where their mouth is (and I get that, it’s not easy being a teen in a late-stage capitalist society) so I’m not holding this anti-intellectual stance to every anarchist. But certainly to most of them.
You have to understand the reasons for being an anarchist lie deeper than merely having ideas – because of course we are not idealists, we are materialists, and we understand the material world one lives in influences one’s ideas and not the other way around. Anarchism is a petty-bourgeois ideology founded on libertarian principles. Now, anarchists will claim they coined the term libertarian first in the 19th century, and the “right-libertarians” like you see in the US co-opted their movement.
But you don’t see right-wingers co-opt Marxism. So why is that? That’s because left-anarchism has more in common with capitalism than it has with communism. They just want to be left alone in their commune, where they are free to make whatever laws they want. Anarchism is mostly found in petty-bourgeois backgrounds (there are more MLs living in the state of Kerala, India than there are anarchists in the world), because then they could make laws for their famous worker’s coops. If you gave anarchists laid-back capitalism, where they could basically live in their gated communities among themselves, work in their manufactures that belong to them only whenever they want, and trade their stuff and make money off it, they would love it. Perhaps that is why kibbutz love having the protection of the Zionist state as well.
:D
It’s not paradoxal. Anarchists believe they can abolish the state (which even then does not necessarily mean abolishing power) while there is still reaction surrounding them. But believing in something and changing the meaning of words still does not make it true. Perhaps in 500 years when communism has had a good run, things will be different. Until then, they are the only ones pretending they are not a state when they wield the monopoly of violence they are so fond of.
Really nice comment, mostly the last two paragraph.
Although in my experiences is the oposite with the “right-wing” of the subject, the more intellectual formation, deeper economic undertanding, more anarchist tend to be the people, and they also agree with what you said:
“That’s because left-anarchism has more in common with capitalism than it has with communis”
I will add that from the ancap perspective, governament is not equal to state. A government is ok so far it is accepted voluntarily, in contrast, the state is always imposed using violence.
Mises and the Austrian school don’t count as deeper economics understanding lol. Their stuff is literally high school level and is based on what one feels like.
Here have fun http://digamo.free.fr/morishimarx.pdf
Lol, the fun part is that I actually thought I was talking to someone who ise that fleshy blob of meat insode his head.
Go read human action before triying to battle it with a book with an oxymoron in the title. Is kind of pointless, you ignore the theorem of the imposibility of socialosm stated by Hayek, amd call it high scool level jajaja you are funny dude, please, never change xD
Anarchist:
Cospaia city (now part of Italy), almost 400y of ANCAP organization, untill ot was anexed by Italy near the 1800s. One of the top tobacco producers of his time, and relatively more prosperous than all his neibours.
Not bad for a tiny city with a population of 300~600.
It even didn’t have prision nor police, no cohertion was needed to bring it to existence, no war, a bit of good luck and one really bad surveyor mapping the land.
Cuba, Vietnam, China… ther is a difference in being sucessfull and just “being” I won’t say they are succesful now, and in the long run I believe they will end to exist, one or two generations after us probably.
https://mises.org/power-market/republic-cospaia-anarchist-renaissance-city
Not that successful if they were annexed by Italy of all countries lmao
Edit: also apparently you can still comment despite being banned? Well, that gives me an excuse to flesh out my comment.
I don’t know if you’re aware but the prevalent system in 1400s Italy was feudalism lmao, with some free cities where a bourgeois class developed. These bourgeois organised themselves in guilds, and hired “free” workers that worked on the daily. Capitalism wouldn’t come around for another 300 or so years. So how could a city of 300 illiterate peasants (lmao really found a great example there) be ancap (and invent capitalism in the early Quattro Cento!) when it was surrounded by feudalism lmao. Also 300 people come on, everyone knew everyone else in that hamlet. That’s smaller than some high schools, that’s smaller than some universities at the time. You could house the whole population of this “republic” in a single army barrack. The fact they weren’t invaded is precisely because they were so irrelevant to Italy that no one really wanted to bother with it. It would cost more money to field an army to grab Cospaia than you’d get out of them. The best way Cospaia sums up anarcho-capitalism is perhaps when it was created by a clerical error, a pure accident lmao. And the best way you sum up anarcho-capitalism is when you try to claim it has historical backing and isn’t just the fever dream of some very weird fascistic tendencies.
This is why people say ancap is a meme ideology (and yet it could have never been capitalo-marxism), because you have no idea what you’re talking about and just have a very strong feeling that it would work out for the best if we just gave ancap a chance.
But really the funniest part of your comment has to be the mises link. I read it. It left me with more questions than I had going in. They’re really just preaching to the choir.
You better argument is based in when the ancap term was coined? Also you seem kind of in foght or fly mode, man, you are not going to win amy aword figting on internet with a random guy, don’t make this a homo sapiens version of two chimps throwing shit to each other.
400 years is plenty more than some red examples I must say, and with orders of magnitud less people to defend it, so that look like a overwelming succes for some pesants half starved.
The fact you read the article is something that kind of make up for the tribal defending you do of your believes, and even more if you have more questions now, would be far more productive and interesting if you just share them. In fact will be really interesting since your perspective will undoubtedly be different and so will do you questions.
Anyhow, I honestly enjoy a book recomendation despite the context, so 👍 tks.