Yes by the ancaps

nah not them lol

Most right-libertarian theorists are jews

i know that lol

but yes
its part of the kosher sandwich

Anarchism is not a party organ. It is an idea, it can't be hijacked. Even it did, the degenerative ones will be rejected for the slow but inevitable development of the revolutionary one. Like how after a body has been wounded, it slowly pushes the foreign objects outward and starts healing in the process.

so would you purge furrykin trannies fighting for their cummies lol

social liberals ruined anarchism imo

Cummies meaning?

sadly communism is popular in my country

orgasms, perversions
so called "sexual freedom" and other degenerates

I see. It's not a question of whether they should or not be purged. If they are at the vanguard of the anarchist struggle then it's our fault, us revolutionaries that didn't work hard enough to reach to the masses and in turn let them be at the forefront. The issue now isn't whether we should purge them (even if so, we wouldn't do it because we're not the party 'leader' of the anarchist party) the issue right now is how hard we can agitate and spread our propaganda among the masses for them to accept our revolutionary programme and forget the furries.

hmm
yeah it would help if you don't isolate/alienate the people you want to spread your propaganda to
which would mean no more anti-white rhetoric, no more pushing freaks to the front of the movement etc
i always say in order to break people's mass psychosis when it comes to the system, is to disrupt people's lifestyles'/standard of living, which means that the system has to collapse
i'm somewhat of an accelerationist, but it has to be done in a certain way
discredit/destroy trust in institutions such as the media, economic institutions, government etc

Majority of the workers in the West are white. Anti-white is synonymous for anti-workers

glad you agree
wish that other leftists got that memo

but that is part of the hijacking which has happened

Im not against accelerationism But I don't personally think it will inevitably lead to the collapse of bourgouis order. The powers that be will probably fall behind the reactionaries and fascists who will promise to restore their power once they're in control. Just like what happened in Spain and Germany. So instead of agitating for collapse, we should agitate for social revolution (which is also the collapse of the olfd order but also the preparation for the new one)

yes, social revolution is a part of it
although i'd say that the international bourgeois also agitate fascist states (which i do agree have somewhat of a class of bougies, you can call them local/national bougies, but are mostly on a leash and are subject to the state and the people) to collapse them and revert back to international financial/corporate control
but yes, i agree that making deals with international bourgeois is a good way to get fucked in the end

and there is also a possible risk of a "back door" to revert back to unrestrained capitalism

Yes

i have rather complex views when it comes to this, but i think that the corporative/corporatist state (not corporatocracy or oligarchy), can be a starting/transitioning point to a economic system where continental federations will form, esp with technology, kind of like the holy roman empire, and other continental regions in other parts of the earth form and we exchange goods etc and will possibly bring some type of a post scarcity anti capitalist order

i know russia and asia/china will form some type of eurasian silk road, with states like iran/syria

the persian peoples will form some type of persian shia federation

the saudis/sunnis will try to fight it

well i have to say i am surprised to have interacted with an intelligent coherent anarchist which isn't crazy lol

But why do you think the leaders of this new state won't collude with the Bourgouisie (national or international)) for material support? Wouldn't then in turn the state will defend the privilege of tge said Bourgouisie by force? Why do you think the workers will get any change to their regime of exploitation and wage slavery? Why don't you want to do away with private property and place it in common for all to enjoy and for it to satisfy the necessities of everyone?

Wouldn't that be the best for the people of your nation instead of a transitional regime where the exploitors and parasites rule and preside over the actual producers of social life, harmony and happiness?

well for corporations, there'd be councils mainly ran by the workers etc in a corporatist state
they would have to be on a very tight leash, the CEOs etc
i don't think we're at a point rn where turning all property public is viable.
it would have to be done in a very sure, efficient systematic way
do you know the economic advisor of mussolini (nicola bombacci) who used to be in the communist and helped advise mussolini on his socialization economic policy?
he wrote to gramsci who was jailed at the time that the italian socialist republic was the socialist revolution realized. lemme find the quote.

and i do agree with the last point
i'll expand some more, give me a sec
are you a national anarchist nick? if so, based

@انتقام

But collaboration with workers organisations (like councils and trade unions) with the capitalists only ends up making them the tool of the employers. Because the workers are still having their surplus value extracted and the the owner is getting that as a profit. Thus je still remains a capitalist and the workers still remain exploited. Now, maybe on the eve of tge implementation of such programs, the capitalist may act loke he's compliant with the revolution, but slowly he'll absorb the workers organisations and the state with money and pollute them woth corruption. When the workers realise this, the owner class will swiftly turn the cannons against the workers and the repress them. With the capitalist representatives in power, the state corrupted and the workers organisations tamed, they will again start their regime of parasitism and oppression. And soon the same moral and spiritual decedence of the old world will follow.

I'm not saying these because I'm making scenarios up, I'm saying these because these have literally happened in the past with all type of corporatist states (whether they be fascist or social democrat)

**But why do you think the leaders of this new state won't collude with the Bourgouisie (national or international)) for material support?**
that's always a possibility, the US did it with the USSR, but that did end

**Wouldn't then in turn the state will defend the privilege of tge said Bourgouisie by force?**
depends on the state. the US definitely does this, that is what happens when the capitalists are unrestrained, but if you want to take advantage of their own capital for nationalist ends, you'd keep them on a leash and if they step out of line, you get rid of them and then still keep the capital for use of the people
**Why do you think the workers will get any change to their regime of exploitation and wage slavery? **
that's the thing, you have to put labor over capital, labor should always be superior to capital, so labor should be for their interests, rather than for the interests of capital. which would mean raising the worker's standard of living and their rights, etc
but it depends on your definition of wage slavery, but we can all agree that its bad

**Why don't you want to do away with private property and place it in common for all to enjoy and for it to satisfy the necessities of everyone?**
answered above

**Wouldn't that be the best for the people of your nation instead of a transitional regime where the exploitors and parasites rule and preside over the actual producers of social life, harmony and happiness?**
yes. corporatism/councils are a good means of this

But why even such half measures? Why are you afraid of total expropriation?

i think if the worker's conditions etc were good, they wouldn't revolt in the first place
the state is a mediator between labor and those who own capital
the state would want a deal which would be fair
but i don't get too much into surplus value stuff, its a little autistic but oh well
i think we agree with lots of things except for a few things

i just don't think people are ready for it yet
like i said it would have to be done in a certain way

Yes not right now. they people are definitely not ready. And the generation that were, that of the 20s and 30s were defeated. But that's where we come in. We need agitation, organisations and education for the preparation of the social revolution. That's why alot of anarchists are syndicalists. They want the creation of revolutionary nucleases in factories, farms and mines so that they could be trained and educated for the management of the economy and their workplaces. Like where do the raw materials come from, how would administration of a factory or workplace work, how to hold comgresses, act as secretaries, how to federate with other councils etc etc.

i'm down for that. i'm more of a third positionist but anything that moves away from international capitalism or even pure marxism is a step in the right direction

But that doesn't mean we're waiting for the majority of the people to rise to spontaneously and overthrow their oppressors in a heartbeat. That's just a pipe dream. We know that the insurrectionary moments of the social revolution can be made by dedicated militant individuals.

But for that tense situation to happen in the first place, we need a mass movement and mass organisations. Not to mention if we want the revolution to be profited by the people themselves, and not by a handful of professional revolutionaries (like the Bolsheviks did) we have to train and prepare the masses and instill in them a spirit of self confidence that workers themselves can manage their national economies through direct action.