ancom is, well, ancom

they base their thory on people like Kropotkin

ancoms don't believe in the workers state theory

yes it is bitch anarchist communism is c ombination of marxism and anarchist doctrine also all socialists whether it be marxist, leninist, anarchist all desire the same end goal which is communism

we really need an infographic/cheatsheet that differentiates all that

dont tell me what i do and do not fuckin believe how dare you asshole

@Deleted User ancom would surive as theory without marx though

I wouldn't call htem marxist

and you imply all communism is inherantly marxist?

do you know what you're talking about

i imply fuck u for telling ME what I believe

have you even read theory

@Deleted User it sure would be helpful at times, but any such list will be disagreed on and it will simplify things beyond what many would consider acceptable

have u gone fucked urself

but you are completely right that it is shitty

wow great debate here

well done

not trying to debate dont care to

because you have nothing to say

ok ok, so how would you guys divide up the camps in the left

ancom, marxist and liberals?

as soon as some asshoel tells me what i believe when only i have the authority to lay claim on what i believe i tell em fuck you the debate is pointless

@Deleted User two big camps: Marx and Anarchists

when did i tell you what to believe?

the rest are case-by-case mostly

i just stated anarcho-communism and marxism aren't the same thing

genocide teh fuckin liberlas for all i care

@Deleted User so much for the tolerant left

but Marxists and Anarchists want the same thing, doesn't make them essentially just a variation and not really different things, like capitalism and marxism are

who cares liberal capitalism and their establishment politics is something everyone hates even fascists

fuck them

not here to debate here to find mro eleftist content so i can continue centralizeing it and promoteing it via my website and paid advertisement

im beyond debate and protest i dgaf bout that im doing something practical

http://www.operationanarchism.com

@Deleted User you are right that they share many things, and for this reason I would hve no problem covering them both by the term socialist. I wanna point out that you make a category error when you say capitalism and marxism. Capitalism is a mode of production and marxism is theory

not that it is very important but I felt like pointing out

if any of you have any youtubes, blogs, articles, websites that are not listed on that site let me know

@Deleted User you can say neoclassical theory and marxism or capitalism and socialism

i spend my time networking leftists and spreading the shit they create its what i do i care no fucks to argue with anyone

@Deleted User www.proriv.ru

the fuks that

.ru huh <:leni:312041955896983554>

Marxist Leninist theoretical journal.

being that english is the most popular language in united states im more interested in sites that are in that language

English only?

Nice networking

English speakers are the worst leftist

ok unironically though, what's the best and realistic version of socialism

Posadism.

National Bolshevism
y/n

@Deleted User http://4pv.livejournal.com/11599.html

@Deleted User many would say that marxism-leninism is the key to socialism based on the historical succes of the revolutions, however, at least as many people are not ML and therefore don't agree

National Bolshevism is 80% meme

so it's 50% ML and the other is...?

various

such as?

ML is the most popular world-wide I think

ancoms

The rest are discordian.

Is global communism achievable?

well, I think democratic confederalism would be a success if Rojava were to gain some sort of liberty after the war.

built on *actual* socialist principles.

I have so many questions

@Deleted User this highly depends on how one defines that

having all societies having dominatingly radical leftist ideology is possible

how at one point it was slavery, then feudalism and now capitalism

this has shown to be able to change

and each change has bought more social liberty

and as marx argued it is always according to class interests, which he also argues will end in a class-less world

but if capitalism makes most people content, how will there be an interest to change?

it won't

Change is present outside of interest.

but it also currently doesn't make most people content if you look outside the first world

and marx argues that capitalism will degrade over time

The idea is to let Capitalism give people a kick in the teeth

When I say content I don't mean happy, I mean too comfy for a revolution

Which is what hopefully will happen when automation develops to an even further extent, at which point a lot of people would have their careers at risk

well my point still stands I think

>degrade over time
Will that happen though?

@Deleted User I haven't read any marx about this, but it's called the fall of profits

The only thing realistically I can see is automation

@Deleted User you speak as if capitalism wouldn't have any crisis every 20 years.

automation is also one thing that will lower the chances of capitalism

A significant financial crash at the point where automation is also prevailent will tip the balance, I believe

But even if socialism never existed as a theory, automation would force people to think about it
So i believe we'll hit a socialist/communist type of civilization once automation gets everywhere

@Deleted User once it gets everywhere, it wil be neccesary, but a more interesting question in my opinion is whether only a good about of automation also will do this

The thing is the ruling class will do whatever they can to stop the onslought of automation, because they know this too

@Firefly It has crisis but it's far from purges and breadlines nowadays

You'll see more of things like UBI in the near future

And automation tax

automation tax? I highly doubt it

Perhaps even legislation

@Deleted User did you experience capitalist crisis?

Yeah

I've missed it

Biggest threat ever = once automation hits, the elites won't let it go, they'll create armies and everything, they won't need the consent of the people

If that happens there's no going back

Elites will rule forever

@Deleted User the idea that the elite would rather purge than let go sure is scary

@Deleted User where did you experience crisis?

Greece

>tfw your nation's proletariat is disarmed

why live

what's the employment rate there?

>being a lefist
>being anti-gun
Sounds like an oxymoron
How do you revolt if you're anti gun

is it still really low?

it's low

it's still bad

I voted for the current radical leftist govt

but it won't do any good cause the debt is already too hig

h

not anti-gun

@Deleted User Greece does have a heavy crisis.

also greek anarchists are great

love watching their molotov videos

But Greek crisis is not systematical. It is not a crisis of overproduction in Marxist sence.

It is more to do with imperialist exploitation of lesser countries.

You can bail out Greece from imperialist exploitation. But not from the crisis of overproduction.

Wasn't it a chain reaction from the housing bubble?

in US

It was a chain reaction from EU moving production to more effective economy with greater capitals. Open market where Greece can't compete.

Housing bubble is a plus.

Crisis of overproduction will become a heavy plus.

I just hope we have time to prepare.

the realistic strategy would be to create scandinavian type countries and take away as much as we can from the elites so there is a smooth democratic transition to maximum automation

could you say that socialism/marxism can be subsets of democracy ? Because the Demos (the people) are "ruling"
And the majority will always outnumber the elites

Scandi socialism exists under the ambrela of imperialist countries with access to most of the worlds capital. Any embargo from a capitalist states will ruine their econmy completely. Crisis of overproduction will ruine it too

@Deleted User while I think you word it incorrectly, you are right that socialism is by definition democratic

I think that the first world will go more and more towards scandi-type social democracy

with UBI and so on

but it will still be instable and it will show the inherent problems of capitalism whether welfare state or not

Socialism is different. Under Stalin socialist economy had best results so far. More democratic Cuba can't compete.

I think there is more that differs those countries

also many people argue that the USSR wasn't socialist for this very reason

More. But authoritarian socialism is still empirically more efficient.

At this moment

well yes, whether we call it socialist or not, USSR did fare pretty well in industrializing the country

>authoritarian socialism
Why is it so hard to go past dicatatorship

Maybe later somebody is to show a better example. But now we do not confine socialism to democracy.

Socialist states were awfully authoritarian and dictatorial, the polar opposite of what communism advertises

@Deleted User it is difficult both because of the normal reasons of curroption and so on, but it also didn't happen because it wasn't what people cared about. People cared more about industrialization and the war and many other things, than to go further than authorianism

I genuinely believe that it virtually can't go past authoritarianism

Even zizek I think admitted that a scandi type is the realistic solution

one reason for the USSR to be authoritarian is that it most likely nothing else was possible. The vast majority of the country was illeterate

In every socialist dicatorship the marxist elite never give up their power

I don't think there is a good arguent for authoritarianism if a revolution were to happen in europe today

scandi -> lessen the power of the elites -> automation -> forever happy

I think a socialist/communist revolution is unnecessary

we must remind outselves that scandi-type social democracy is not socialism

and the transition will have to happen

But that's the inner social democrat talking

maybe you can argue that it is possible to avoid violent revolution, but the vast majority of socialism and history disagrees

It certainly isn't socialisic, perhaps that's the reason it works ;d

it very much is the reason it works today

socialism has no chance of surviving in a sea of capitalist countries

Well, USSR was dismantled because it was not authoritarian and/or communist anymore. So it can

>So it can
Can what?

survive?

can go from authoriatarianism to democracyt

I thin

@Deleted User change

@Deleted User change

In fact it always did change

You mean that USSR became less dictatorial that's why it collapsed?

@Deleted User both less authoritarian and less communist.

Ok but it is very frustrating to hear that, in what possible scenario does that work

In every scenario there is change.

sure

for better or worse, history is changing

regimes change

So is ideology

I wish

Everything change

Sure

But

What does that support

That doesn't mean everything is possible

You doubt something can change

I oppose it

Nope

You said that change exists

I agree

>I genuinely believe that it virtually can't go past authoritarianism

The specific system yeah

It always does. And in fact did

perhaps I should add "and work"

Perhaps

I wish there was an example of classless, stateless, moneyless etc sosciety

But it never goes there

there is if you look far enough back

I think all intellectuals, no matter where they are on the spectrum, the somehow trivialize reality, that it's far more complex and multivariable and dynamic

what marx calls primitive communism iirc

from before slave societies began

but that's not useful though, because it has to sustain all external and internal interference

back then societies were simpler

less connected to the world

it isnt very useful, no

and isolated cases don't count, because I can get 10 ancaps, 10 ancoms and put them in their respective islands and because they'd be firm believers of their ideology, it would work for some time

the point is to work for all people, with different mindsets and endure over time

also your point about trivilizing reality; this has to happen in order to theorize it

I don't think marxist doctrine provides that

it has to happen, agreed, but why would you accept it?

because I want some way of thinking about reality

no, you misunderstood my point

You do that when the doubt is little, the cost is bearable

you don't go jumping from your balcony on little evidence you could fly

exaggerated example but I hope you understand

you're saying that it trivializes reality so much that it doesn't really apply to reality in any meaningful way?

taht most political theories aren't robust enough so you can BET entire nations and millions of lives because something sounds nice

political change should be very careful, at least now that we can afford it

we can be smart about it

theories aren't something to be tried, they merely attempt to describe reality. You can use these theories to create fx socialism, but marxism is not a set of affairs to be established

why be attached so strongly to a set of rules that was forged century ago

>theories aren't something to be tried, they merely attempt to describe reality.
I'm not against this

then it doesn't make sense to say you can bet nations and lives on a theory

My issue is that clearly marxist mindset isn't enough to describe reality and we have plenty of disciplines to supplement and change it but most people don't want to

sociology, psychology, complex economics, geopolitical dynamics etc

>then it doesn't make sense to say you can bet nations and lives on a theory
on weak theory

I thought I was clear on that

Obviously theory is all we have, everything is a theory, a model of reality

that's a givegn

we don't have the means to simulate all of universe

you are completely right that theories should be critizised, and that the best critizism often comes from other fields. In fact, I am ringht now reading a book by an anthropologist that heaviliy critizises adam smith

for how long have I been misspelling criticism

: o

When will you criticize marxism ;p

after I understand it

well

I think the "invisible hand that fixes everything" is as wishful as thinking that good will and communism will solve all problems

then it's a good thing that no-one said either

it's the part of the simple weak theories that try to trivialize reality I was trying to communicate

Just saying you implied that I said all theories are bad trivialization of reality.
The problem I think it's obvious, dogmatic ideological follwoing

We should use political systems as tools to ends not as ends themselves

I have ancom and commie friends and acquaintances but I never really talk about politics irl with them bc I have noticed how hostile they become the moment they are criticized by others

and that's a huge issue for me

and it's scary

a theory states that if X is the case then Y will happen. One can then think that Y is preferable and therefore try to make X be the case. However, you cant say whether or not the theory will be satisfactory or not, as you do when you said "I don't think marxist doctrine provides that"

yeah that's really annoying, but that is what ideology is

well you could be ideological and still be open minded?

ideology != dogmatic zealot

in the ordinary sense, yes. I regrettably used the more zizekian version of ideology

>One can then think that Y is preferable and therefore try to make X be the case. However, you cant say whether or not the theory will be satisfactory or not
why exactly do you mean by that?

ideology pretrays itselfs as being able to see the truth, which I argue is the main reason why people strongly defend ideology

@Deleted User my point is that you cannot blame theories, like you cannot prove or disprove them

you can blame what people make of the theory

I didn't blame the theories though

I really think you're misinterpreting me

no, but you were talking about whether marxism was good enough "to work for all people, with different mindsets and endure over time", but this is not what a theory can do

sorry if I might misread you again

hmm