[ art / civ / cult / cyb / diy / drg / feels / layer / lit / λ / q / r / sci / sec / tech / w / zzz ] archive provided by lainchan.jp

lainchan archive - /civ/ - 960



File: 1470467303359.png (174.49 KB, 300x300, oopsmyanarchysymbol.webm)

No.960

Continuing >>>/cyb/33897 since it got locked.

What is anarchism?
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-anarchism-and-other-essays#toc3
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/larry-law-revolutionary-self-theory

The last thread put an emphasis on the (still recent) events that had occurred in Dallas and Baton Rouge as well as how tech illiterate most anarchists appear to be. Discussions on both anarcho-transhumanism and #BlackLivesMatter-fueled class conflict were scarce so let's try this again.

What are your guys' thoughts on targeted police murders? Are they justified?

Sources on the murders:
http://anarchistnews.org/content/clarity-rupture-dallas-and-los-angeles
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/17/us/baton-route-police-shooting/
http://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/07/dallas-police-robot/490478/

Is the backlash a symptom of even more civil rights violations to come? What are anarchists' thoughts on gun control? For our conservative friends in the united states, it's interesting to note that the stereotype of the straight white male gun advocate never quite existed until after the civil rights era--where sweeping gun regulations were implemented on the tail end of racist sensibilities.

Sources on the boomsticks:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/alton-sterling-philando-castile-2nd-amendment-guns/490301/
http://www.thepolemicist.net/2013/01/the-rifle-on-wall-left-argument-for-gun.html?m=1

Other relevant articles:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/30/opinion/the-first-global-terrorists-were-anarchists-in-the-1890s.html
http://anarchistnews.org/content/deadliest-terror-attack-sf-history-happened-100-years-ago-today

  No.961

File: 1470467359804-0.png (429.98 KB, 200x200, prim.pdf)

File: 1470467359804-1.png (388.79 KB, 200x200, kaczynski2.pdf)

File: 1470467359804-2.png (506.79 KB, 200x200, FuturePrimitive.pdf)

Lastly, what are anarchists' thoughts on anti-civ or anarcho-primitivist thought? Does anarcho-transhumanism suggest a viable alternative? I've attached John Zerzan and Ted Kaczynski's essays in support of anti-civ and anarcho-primtivism as well as William Gillis' deconstruction of that narrative to this post. Contemporary "green" anarchists such as Individuals Tending Toward the Wild are often cited as being in line with Zerzan and Kaczynski's criticism of industrial society; do you find their methods acceptable?

Sources on anarcho-transhumanism:
http://blueshifted.net/faq/
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/gillis20151029
https://ensorcel.org/political-transhumanism-is-a-deep-dark-rabbit-hole/
Sources on Individuals Tending Toward the Wild:
http://ritualmag.com/toward-savagery/
https://www.wired.com/2013/03/mexican-ecoterrorism/
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/individualists-tending-toward-the-wild-communiques
http://www.nature.com/news/nanotechnology-armed-resistance-1.11287

  No.965

>>961
>Lastly, what are anarchists' thoughts on anti-civ or anarcho-primitivist thought?

any philosophy that advocates for the death of the majority of the world's human population(either explicitly or implicitly) is not one I can get behind.

  No.968

>>965
Totally. I think Primitivists in general don't really understand what they're actually advocating. Primitivism IS the opposite of progress, and what's the point of the human species as a whole if we don't make any technological progress for the better of man kind. We have space travel and immortality to research, we don't need to just drop everything and play with sticks and stones all day.

  No.970

>>961
>@H+
'nother AMA wrapped up this week; seems pretty constructive: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnarchism/comments/4vbm9l/2016_ama_on_anarchotranshumanism/

  No.976

>>961
as someone increasingly dissatisfied with the climate movement, I really don't. Which sucks, because while techies don't seem to realize that bright green environmentalism can only get you so far, I fully expect primitivists to deny science if it doesn't fit their narrative. That can only spell bad news. The position this puts me in is people who don't really care about the earth - liberals and techies who don't go far enough - on the one hand, and reactionaries whose main solution to saving the earth seems to be "we need to kill a lot of people" on the other.

And another perspective, veganarchy is probably the most bourgeois form of environmentalism -or- anarchism I've yet to encounter, I'm sure there's influential vegans out there who can prove me wrong and while I don't disagree with veganism as a life choice - it's more sustainable - many vegans just seem to be rich and/or white + willing to rub that in everyone else's face. None of the vegans I've run into here, mind you, and the IRL vegans I know are pretty good. I hear they've reformed a little, but PETA still leaves an awful taste in my mouth, and it's not the taste of rancid meat but rancid politics.

So I'm just glad social ecology even exists in first place, as it's my safe place in this hellhole. But compatible with transhumanism? Remains to be seen.

  No.982

>>968
My own personal philosophy is largely influenced by Primitivism and while I don't agree with letting billions of people die or literally reverting back to the stone age I think it's important to analyze what technology is really doing for us and whether "progress" really is progress.

Sure, longer lives, less disease, cool gadgets and the prospect of space travel is nice, but what has it cost us and what has it given us? Why did we trade a life that we evolved millions of years for for working in factories, living in concrete cities, and not knowing the people who live two houses down from us? Medicine became much more needed when diseases started widely spreading because of cities; we had to create a solution to a problem we also created. What's the point of smart phones when people ignore the real people in front of them and then proceed to suffer the effects of alienation?

Again, I don't think technology or even civilization itself is bad, but the shortsightedness of it so far. I think that's the main problem with transhumanism; they think that more technology will solve the problems that technology and an alienated lifestyle has created in the first place.

  No.987

>What are your guys' thoughts on targeted police murders? Are they justified?

I don't live in the USA, so I don't know how the climate is there, but on general principle this type of violence is never justified, the revolution must be a revolution of the consciousnesses. Especially when they target cops, it shows that the perpetrators never gave a thought about what they were going to do.

>What are anarchists' thoughts on gun control?

I don't see how you can be an anarchist and be for gun control. Gun violence is due to social problems, or cultural clashes, it has nothing to do with number of privately owned firearms. Just compare two countries' gun laws and number of gun related murders, like Iceland and Brazil.

  No.997

>>982
One thing: I think your critique is actually of the culture that's using these technological advances, not the technology itself. It's a known fact among lefties that Capitalism causes alienation, so I think that any successful revolution would change our technological use. We'd be more invested in our neighborhoods. Of couse this is idealism and there's no way to know for sure, but it's worth a try.

As for urbanization, I actually think it's a good thing. Hear me out. In cities, we can make everything more efficient. We can use vertical farming to increase crop yields. We can pack people into skyscrapers that allow them to live reasonably comfortably. If everyone lived on the land, a) most people would be constantly uncomfortable and b) the land would rapidly deteriorate. Nature does have its bonuses, but I think it should be considered more of a temporary thing than a place to live.

  No.1001

File: 1470511673646.png (10.17 KB, 192x192, spook.png)

Who egoist marxist/anarchist here?

  No.1003

File: 1470512314858-0.png (57.81 KB, 133x200, cache683_9ff14608830a0809316d6f4999c82668.jpg)

File: 1470512314858-1.png (190.33 KB, 200x150, Black-Lives-Matter-shut-down-highway.jpg)

File: 1470512314858-2.png (596.43 KB, 200x200, Hakim_Bey__T.A.Z.__The_Temporary_Autonomous_Zone__Ontological_Anarchy__Poetic_Terrorism_a4.pdf)

>>976
Oh man, I wish I had as much luck with veganarchists as you; all of the ones I've had the pleasure of sitting down and chatting with showed their true colors almost immediately. What are your thoughts on communalism?
>But compatible with transhumanism? Remains to be seen.
I like to think anarcho-transhumanism is a way to view and structure an anarchist society; it's trying to extrapolate on Murray Bookchin's libertarian socialist ideas in an attempt to make it more resilient on a global scale. I'm reminded of Hakim Bey's "Temporary Autonomous Zones" more than anything tbh.
>>982
>I think that's the main problem with transhumanism; they think that more technology will solve the problems that technology and an alienated lifestyle has created in the first place.
most transhumanists would be calling you a luddite at that point; this idea that transhumanism somehow transcends politics and is solely defined by its supposed utilitarian constraints only turns a blind eye to how tech is actually affecting disenfranchised people. It's grounded in that nearly-constant war against pessimism that futurists love to tout at every waking moment.
>>987
>the revolution must be a revolution of the consciousnesses.
Totally, by the time any faction resorts to such violence then the damage has already been done; one can speak about evolving our consciousness to ensure that this type of shit never happens again, but if that ever happened once in history then we wouldn't be talking about such recent events to begin with. I think targeted cop murders are awful, but it's not like I'm going to lose sleep over it y'know?
>>997
>As for urbanization, I actually think it's a good thing.
I agree; it reminds me of this article: http://qz.com/666153/megacities-not-nations-are-the-worlds-most-dominant-enduring-social-structures-adapted-from-connectography/

As well as books like David Kilcullen's "Out of the Mountains: The Coming Age of the Urban Guerilla" where he basically emphasizes the future of warfare will take place not in heavily isolated villages somewhere in the middle east, but rather it will take place in sprawling megacities along major coastlines. People make much ado about how ridiculous #BlackLivesMatter protestors walking onto highways happens to be, but have you all ever seen that and realized just how utterly easy it is to temporarily shut down entire portions of some of the world's largest cities? It's mind-boggling to me. Kilcullen did a talk on it with Google a couple years ago; if anyone has a pdf of the book then please feel free to share.

  No.1004


  No.1007

>>997
Well, of course the culture is to blame, that's why I said that technology wasn't inherently the problem, but I don't see a political revolution changing the culture in this aspect.

Blaming it all on Capitalism is anachronistic, since we've been heading down this path of alienation (specifically alienation from the way of living we are evolved for) since the first cities were built and people preferred the less nutritious diet from agriculture over hunting and gathering.
>As for urbanization, I actually think it's a good thing. Hear me out. In cities, we can make everything more efficient. We can use vertical farming to increase crop yields. We can pack people into skyscrapers that allow them to live reasonably comfortably. If everyone lived on the land, a) most people would be constantly uncomfortable and b) the land would rapidly deteriorate. Nature does have its bonuses, but I think it should be considered more of a temporary thing than a place to live.
But that's the real problem: the desire for efficiency and comfort over all else. When we were still in the savanna having the desire for more comfort and doing less work was evolutionary beneficial, but now we've outgrown our programming and continue towards on a path that we weren't evolved for.

Again, I'm not advocating to literally go back to a hunter-gather lifestyle, I'm saying it's necessary to examine what we've paid for this lifestyle of comfort and security and whether it's worth it.
>>1003
>most transhumanists would be calling you a luddite at that point; this idea that transhumanism somehow transcends politics and is solely defined by its supposed utilitarian constraints only turns a blind eye to how tech is actually affecting disenfranchised people. It's grounded in that nearly-constant war against pessimism that futurists love to tout at every waking moment.
I don't think the problem with technology is that specifically affects certain demographics. I think the single-minded drive towards "progress" in the pursuit of more comfort, more things, more cool technology, has lead humanity down a path to where the majority have voluntarily "domesticated" themselves into zoos and are suffering the effects of it, mainly mental illness, just like the caged elephant suffers and then proceeds to pace back and forth in its cell or bob its head up and down. So while you have the elite and powerful oppressing those under them, possibly with the use of technology, they in turn are still victims of the system and their behavior is the symptom of their own alienation; they think that if they can only get a bit more power, a bit more wealth, they'll finally be happy.

  No.1009

>>1007
>we've been heading down this path of alienation (specifically alienation from the way of living we are evolved for) since the first cities were built and people preferred the less nutritious diet from agriculture over hunting and gathering.

first off, the less nutritious diet is also much more constant and much less physically demanding. You're less likely to starve to death. The advantages are obvious.

Second, I was speaking of alienation specifically of the sort where people don't care about their neighbors or their work or their government or what-have you. That lack of care is influenced heavily by the fact that we have no personal investment in the things we do for a living or in the political processes happening around us.

>But that's the real problem: the desire for efficiency and comfort over all else.


it's both a biological imperative and something that appeals to my forebrain. Physical comfort lets one focus on the 'higher' things in life, like say intellectual persuits. For me, and for most people, comfort isn't the thing that's desired, it's a necessity for achieving a fulfilling life.

  No.1012

>>1009
>first off, the less nutritious diet is also much more constant and much less physically demanding. You're less likely to starve to death. The advantages are obvious.
More constant might be true, which fits into the desire for security, but saying agriculture is less physically demanding than hunting-gathering doesn't seem true at all. Same with their being less chance of starving to death; whether that's true or not it still stems from the desire of security above all else. Starvation might've happened less but disease happened more, and more deadly with the weakened immune system of the agriculturalist.

The point being not that agriculture was/is bad, but that a lot was sacrificed for it and no one paid any attention.

>Second, I was speaking of alienation specifically of the sort where people don't care about their neighbors or their work or their government or what-have you. That lack of care is influenced heavily by the fact that we have no personal investment in the things we do for a living or in the political processes happening around us.

I was also speaking of alienation in that sense. That's partially a result of a lack of personal investment but that lack of investment comes from being in a metaphorical zoo. Whether living in compact suburbs, doing the same task over and over for 8 hours a day just to make money and then spending that money to buy and consume, then sedating yourself with social media or vidya or television or drugs in your free time, then maybe spending time with your friends and family a few hours a day or few days a week: it's all things that humans didn't evolve for and haven't adapted to. Regardless of the political or economic system in place, the way of living is fundamentally the same.

Sure, bringing down Capitalism would change a lot of things, but humans have still faced these problems without Capitalism. Humans created Capitalism because they were alienated, not the other way around. The main creator of alienation is that we continue to think we're still in the savanna - that security, comfort, less work is a necessity - even though the circumstances are completely different.

>it's both a biological imperative and something that appeals to my forebrain. Physical comfort lets one focus on the 'higher' things in life, like say intellectual persuits. For me, and for most people, comfort isn't the thing that's desired, it's a necessity for achieving a fulfilling life.

I don't know about you, but I would say the majority of first-worlders seek comfort as an end in itself. They think they'd be happier with more free time, a better house, more money, etc.

I don't think it's true to say comfort is a necessity for focusing on the higher things or for finding fulfillment. Many philosophers lived austere and uncomfortable lives and felt like they were better from it; the Cynics being a prime example, but also many others who practiced asceticism.

  No.1019

File: 1470534191847.png (6.7 MB, 200x200, politicians_love_gun_control.pdf)

>>960
>What are anarchists' thoughts on gun control?
related

  No.1020

>And another perspective, veganarchy is probably the most bourgeois form of environmentalism -or- anarchism I've yet to encounter, I'm sure there's influential vegans out there who can prove me wrong and while I don't disagree with veganism as a life choice - it's more sustainable - many vegans just seem to be rich and/or white + willing to rub that in everyone else's face. None of the vegans I've run into here, mind you, and the IRL vegans I know are pretty good. I hear they've reformed a little, but PETA still leaves an awful taste in my mouth, and it's not the taste of rancid meat but rancid politics.

well PETA is shit obviously, but the anarchist scene I grew up in was very animal liberationist and it wasn't like that. Just like anything, the people most dedicated tended to be the people with the most on the line. Sure there were privileged college kids who ended up integrating well into the nonprofit industrial complex, but there were just as many vegan queers, vegans of color, etc., who had a LOT of skin in the game and never compromised.

Veganism is in fact not a lifestyle that you need to be rich to afford; it's centered around not consuming certain things. Eating at a lower trophic level is actually cheaper, you just have to get around the "vegan" branding that companies use to sell to the rich. Vegan food is way easier to dumpster because it doesn't go bad as fast, too.

  No.1021

>>1003
I haven't talked with any veganarchists, honestly. Mostly ordinary vegans, but I've heard stories.

>What are your thoughts on communalism?

I'm a big fan. Rojava is the keyword in successful anarchist projects at the moment, and they're communalist, right? I'll need to read more bookchin.

I was thinking the other day about the idea of intersecting communalist societies, such that any one person could be a part of several communes with the help of cyberspace. Such an arrangement would be a bit wasteful, but it could finally put to rest a problem I was thinking about, which is how a series of communes which themselves are organized into larger councils (sending one representative into the council) would not be a hierarchy of some kind.

> but have you all ever seen that and realized just how utterly easy it is to temporarily shut down entire portions of some of the world's largest cities?

Someone I know was in such a protest last month. I saw a lot of unrelated people get mad about it, and I only hope they understood the point of it but I know most of them are just gonna be mad. Aw well, I guess it's more to talk about when I go back to college in 2 weeks.

>>1020
interesting, I'm glad to hear it. Like I said, I haven't met any vegans on lainchan or in the real world who are as spooky as I say, which is why I assume vegan hate is almost entirely spooky.

  No.1054

>>1001
egoist syndicalist reporting in because all unions should be unions of egoists

  No.1055

>>1054
To elaborate on this:
I think that unions provide a convenient support structure for empowering individuals to carry out their motives, I think that unions should not be seen as collectivist, but rather as individualist simply because its not possible for an individual to get what they want if they don't have a bit of support. There should be a union for everything, and there should especially be unions that focus on using shared assets for creating new worker-owned industry and new unions.

  No.1123

>>1019
thanks lainon

  No.1206

File: 1470958128331.png (51.6 KB, 200x200, larry-law-revolutionary-self-theory.pdf)

>>1055
I agree with you there. Collectivism/Individualism has always been a false dichotomy to create the illusion that communist/anarchist modes of production are anti-individualistic.

On syndicalism, I think you are on the right track when you say there should be unions for everything.
I refer you to the last paragraph in file-related - the constraints of capitalist wage labour is only one part of what we must liberate ourselves from.

  No.1236

I cant seem but notice that most people wanting anarchy are living in first world countries, are middle/upper class and never had a big hardship in their lives

  No.1239

>>1236
Historically anarchist revolutions were usually led by the poor peasant class.

  No.1240

File: 1471171647408.png (103.53 KB, 200x115, class structure.png)

>>1236
What differences in hardships faced doesn't necessarily imply the desire is somehow without merit. In "first world" countries, the classes themselves aren't very distinct at all to begin with. According to economists like Guy Standing, the middle class has diluted itself into the lower class, thus leaving more bastardized derivatives in its wake (pic related). What it means to be a proletarian is markedly different in the United States or United Kingdom than what it means in say, India--where millions of people still vote communist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Results_of_Communist_Party_of_India_(Marxist)

The obvious fact regarding countries that aren't described as being "first world" are either still industrializing, or are reaching peak industrialization. In these countries, the idea of a proletariat and the emergence of a middle class are just now becoming common place. Take "second" or "third world" countries for example; many economists have been speculating these past few months that China's growing middle class will begin to demand changes that could spell the end of the maoist regime: http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21701653-chinas-middle-class-larger-richer-and-more-vocal-ever-threatens

This is very reminiscent of practically every major public source of contention in the "first world" over the past two centuries. "First world" countries today are all mostly post-industrial; enough time has gone buy to see at least one generation grow up under service-based economies. The idea of a blue-collar factory worker demanding a fair wage today is absurd because if that type of work hasn't already been outsourced to "second" and "third world" countries, then it's being automated to some degree as I type. No, I'd say the hardships of the average "first world" worker culminates in the emergence of fast-food unions which, up until very recently, were practically non-existent. The people making much ado about raising the minimum wage to $15 have been behind the unionization efforts; I sometimes see that and find myself utterly bewildered. Like we all know the stereotypes surrounding working fast food, yeah? Oh it's a low-paying, entry-level job for adolescents who don't know any better, right? This couldn't be further from the truth: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/01/nyregion/older-workers-are-increasingly-entering-fast-food-industry.html?_r=0

Where the hardships of the average worker in a country that has a relatively stable middle class would be clean cut, it's simply not the case in countries that don't. In the "first world", workers' wages are so underpaid that some don't even have the privilege of being a wageslave--at least then, slavery denotes some semblance of predictability. A proletarian's life in countries like the United States is defined by a sort of unpredictability or precariousness; it's defined by their lack of job security and the subsequent socioeconomic problems that comes with. The jobs we have don't pay enough partly because they were stigmatized by past generations; so we settle for more than one just in order to make ends meet: http://qz.com/711773/millennials-are-obsessed-with-side-hustles-because-theyre-all-weve-got/

If that doesn't sound like a "big hardship" then I don't know what else to tell you.

  No.1241

File: 1471172717470.png (2.76 MB, 200x200, Standing. The_Precariat__The_New_Dangerous_Class__-Bloomsbury_USA(2011).pdf)

>>1240
I say this as somebody that grew up in a family that lived the middle class lifestyle without any real job security; certain family members worked as defense contractors throughout post-9/11 Iraq and Afghanistan. They were paid six figures but once their contracts were done, that was it. Fast forward to now and they're struggling financially. By Standing's reinterpretation of class structure, this would put my upbringing squarely under the "profician" class. I think his book, "The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class" is worth a read; has anyone else read it?

  No.1242

>>1241
It also sounds like it may put your relatives under the "not very good at saving and handling money" class.

  No.1245

Most if not all anarchists come from first world countries, are younger than 30 years old, were brought up in middle to upper economic class homes

prove me wrong

  No.1250

>>1245
You're the one making the bold claim, you need proof not us

  No.1251

>>1245
well, the people who incited the anarchist spanish revolution where they actually succeeded in making this type of society work were none of those things. But that was 80 years ago.

The other factors are mostly associated with spending time as a student within a higher-education facility, which is about the only organised place apart from actual anarchist groups where such topics are discussed and new members are found. I personally see this also a failure of the movement, not actually going out there towards the rural/low-income sections of the population to present the ideas and educate "ordinary" people. Give them the literature and stuff and incite them to think about the ideas instead of sitting around in seminar rooms circlejerking about unions and revolution and so on. Currently it's all concentrated with urban areas and the student population.
But like you I just make the claim that this is the way things happen. Maybe anarchist groups actually do go out, I dunno.

  No.1253

>>1246
Lmao you're the one that's indoctrianted. Oh boo hooo black people steal my jobs wah. Muh pure aryan race. Dude get over yourself. No one talks about Anarchism/Communism in a positive light anywhere because they don't understand it, so IDK where all this supposed indoctrination is coming from since you have to dig to find any legit info on Anarchism

  No.1254

File: 1471183460462.png (16.36 KB, 200x150, 1470957058367.jpg)

>>1253
>Oh boo hooo black people steal my jobs wah
Not really, blacks don't have intelligence to do STEM or get into it without affirmative action

>Muh pure aryan race

R1a and R1b genotypes have built most of scientific progress of human species. Prove me wrong.

>Dude get over yourself

U2, ever heard of that band? I heard pussies like you might like it.

>No one talks about Anarchism/Communism in a positive light anywhere because they don't understand it

No one talks about National Socialism in a positive light anywhere because they don't understand it

>so IDK where all this supposed indoctrination is coming from since you have to dig to find any legit info on Anarchism

sure thing fam, go spray paint A and "Fuck the police" on every wall, you little rebel you.
I bet you just loathe your first world problems and capitalism and STUFF

>>1251
>not actually going out there towards the rural/low-income sections of the population to present the ideas and educate "ordinary" people
that is because most people act smug enough and "you just don't get it" mentality of general leftist. Aint got anything to do with the movement itself.
Every movement, whether left or right, tries to use general topic and mentality of peple to get its voice out. Smug leftists don't, they just tell you "go educate yourself".
That's on you.

>Give them the literature and stuff and incite them to think about the ideas instead of sitting around in seminar rooms circlejerking about unions and revolution and so on

yea, just give them a book, that will make them want to listen

>Currently it's all concentrated with urban areas and the student population

aka smug know it alls

>But like you I just make the claim that this is the way things happen

"things just happen" is like lowest common denominator of excuses

>Maybe anarchist groups actually do go out, I dunno

Well you apparently don't

>>1250 (uk)
>>1251 (switzerland)
>>1253 (us)
need I go on?

  No.1279

Please take all discussion regarding mods and deletions to the following thread on /q/:
>>>/q/11266
And please stick to the topic. Thank you.

  No.1282

File: 1471191177539.png (282.5 KB, 142x200, 04054b2a70721f12c9ac07b4c6ce2be8.png)

Authorities are no good.

  No.1284

>>1282
Oi, as much as I agree with this, why not expand on the idea? The OP has some really really cool links for stuff.

Also, would you say that authorities are inherently bad, mostly bad in real life, or have the potential to be good that just doesn't get utilized?

  No.1285

File: 1471192074027.png (550.49 KB, 157x200, 68b50e97ad6ae7e79807eaf7d64116f8.png)

>>1284
I treat any form of non-voluntary imposition on the experientiality of the human form as a moral indignity. No choice is superior when it is chosen for you, even if it's better.

  No.1296

File: 1471210004343-0.png (49.72 KB, 200x150, syriaancom.jpg)

File: 1471210004343-1.png (30 KB, 200x150, egyptancom.jpg)

>>1021
>I'm a big fan. Rojava is the keyword in successful anarchist projects at the moment, and they're communalist, right?
For the most part, yeah; they've become less so since the start of year however with their ratified constitution. They fall much more in line with Ocalan's notions of "Democratic Confederalism." It's not strictly communalist (and therefore not particularly anarchist), but I do find it interesting nonetheless: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Confederalism
>I was thinking the other day about the idea of intersecting communalist societies, such that any one person could be a part of several communes with the help of cyberspace
I don't think it'd be very wasteful. Rojava, like most anarchist schools of thought these past twenty years, is like an experiment regarding how anarchism would sustain itself on an global scale more than anything else. Because from my understanding, everything is still pretty anarchist on a neighborhood level; people still organize through local affinity groups it seems like. But I don't know; I'll have to read more into it. Maybe that intersection provided through cyberspace could play a big part in downplaying potential hierarchies from sprouting up.
>>1242
It's not that simple; the money mismanagement was the culmination of being absolutely fucked over by defense contractors' refusing to treat their contractors as employees. It's weird because unlike Uber, where the job is ultimately menial and only intended to be some sort of side hustle, most overseas' defense contracts often last years (and usually in middle eastern countries). http://fortune.com/2016/03/04/uber-driver-unemployment/
>>1245
Even if that were true, I don't see why that matters. Thanks for addressing >>1240 ; you're really contributing to the thread. It doesn't take much effort to search for anarchist groups in non "first world" countries. Egypt and Syria are probably the easiest examples.
>>1285
Can our actions truly be voluntary under capitalism? That's really the one thing that always struck me as ironic with radical right-leaning libertarians, like they make much ado about voluntary action yet they defend property rights with every tooth and nail. It just doesn't make any sense.

  No.1314


  No.1736

In an earlier thread someone posted this link:
http://www.laboriacuboniks.net/

Which elaborates on an idea of a global anarchism instead of autonomous zone.

To me this sounds very optimistic, if not utopian. Then again everybody looks at Anarchism with varying degrees of realism.

  No.1761

>>1019
Very nice read, thank you

  No.2046

I have some questions for Lainons:

Do you think traditional familiar and clan bonds would help in creating an anarchist society?

Can one be rich through legal means?

What is the best way of conflict resolution without resorting to coertion?

How to defend anarchist land from a centralized country?

How can anything related to communism be anarchist?

Is taxation theft?

Do laws against hate speech alienate the freedom of speech?

Please discuss.

  No.2047

File: 1474253335491-0.png (16.79 MB, 200x200, TACM.pdf)

File: 1474253335491-1.png (61.95 KB, 200x150, 26th-of-july-flag-64kb-19172-20100722-898.jpg)

File: 1474253335491-2.png (17.9 KB, 200x150, hqdefault.jpg)

>>2046
>Do you think traditional familiar and clan bonds would help in creating an anarchist society?
If by "familiar and clan bonds" you mean a sort of culture of cooperation and mutual responsibility, then certainly.
>Can one be rich through legal means?
Sure, but that's completely beside the point. What is "legal" solely depends on who controls the political power of the institutions that make up society itself. In the Philippines, I'm sure you've read President Rodrigo Duterte has openly incentivized his citizenry to murder whomever they perceive as drug addicts for the sake of saving local businesses. or something. Even if people get rich through such needless violence, is it ethical? Of course not; such coercive sensibilities will always spiral downward.
>What is the best way of conflict resolution without resorting to coertion?
Within a social group, one person’s problem is everyone’s problem; when there is a dispute, strangers, friends, relatives, or other third parties must intercede to help the disputants find a mutually satisfying resolution. Quarrels between members of a social group is dangerous in that they threaten the supportive social net on which all depend. So to put it simply, cooperation; this could mean anything from talking it out over a cup of a coffee to performing pagan rituals for the sake of goodwill.
>How to defend anarchist land from a centralized country?
Guerilla tactics; fourth generation warfare. You may wanna give the attached pdf a read. All of the newest anarchist schools of thought within the past twenty or so years have been attempting to refresh anarchism's resiliency on an international scale; this is because one of the biggest problems with anarchism is just that--every attempt had fallen short due to unforeseen consequences. From insurrectionary anarchism to libertarian socialism, there are a variety of solutions that remain mostly speculative.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works#toc57
>How can anything related to communism be anarchist?
Unlike communists who see merit in having an establishment for transitioning to a communist society, anarchists see no merit at all. When communists say "We need to smash capitalism!", anarchists see an asterisk next to "capitalism" that also cites "the State" (or establishment). They agree with the marxist criticism that capitalism is slavery, and such hierarchy is detriment to the evolution of our species; yet at the same time they also know that the single most benefactor of capitalism are established institutions--culminating in the State. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, etc etc. This comparison has marked anarchists with accusions of sectarianism, counter-revolution and plain ol' blood for almost a century.

If you agree with communist rhetoric, then chances are you'll see merit in anarcho-communism, which posits that the only way to achieve a communist society is through the abolition of the State. If you think that's too simple or utopian, then you may come across anarcho-syndicalism which is merely one of many extrapolations on anarcho-communism since its conception inbetween the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Anarcho-syndicalism put forth the idea that in order to transition towards a communist society, the abolition of the State requires that all workers must unionize into syndicates that are cooperatively owned and eventually take over the economic functions of society--thus ending capitalism and undermining the State at the same time. That's a brief summarization of classical anarchist schools of thought--many anarchists agree that we need to transition towards a communist society; HOW we do it is where we differ. For instance Anarchism (specifically communist and syndicalist mindsets) in Cuba was prevalent before the 26th of July Movement; hell, even their flag bears the same colors flown by Spanish anarchists during the interwar period. It was only after its revolutionary vanguard starting gaining more influence did the West consider intervening.

Before anarchism intersected with communism however, it was mostly an individualist philosophy to boot. One of OP's links outline the history of how the world's elites at the turn of the twentieth century thought there was a global anarchist conspiracy to depose them. Illegalism is probably the most remembered aspect of individualist anarchism from that period. Insurrectionary anarchism expands on egoist/individualist sensibilities and it applies to contemporary methods of organization (primarily communist/synidcalist ones). As far as I'm concerned, very few anarchists unironically identify themselves as "egoist" or "individualist" these days. It's all either whichever flavor of communism or "anarchism without adjectives."
>Is taxation theft?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2HBdRCroks
>Do laws against hate speech alienate the freedom of speech?
Laws against hate speech certainly /limit/ freedom of speech, however that doesn't mean hate speech itself should be encouraged in retrospect. Shutting people up and being capable of choosing not to listen are two very, very different things--this falls back on the integrity of social groups themselves; such vitriolic behavior puts the entire group at risk. It has nothing to do with what "rights" you have; diffusing disputes is paramount.

  No.2055

File: 1474323237707.png (100.41 KB, 167x200, serveimage.jpg)

>>2047
Even though we disagree on many things, I liked your post

>>2046

>Do you think traditional familiar and clan bonds would help in creating an anarchist society?

Certainly. Families and other bonds are the basis for a functioning stateless society.

>Can one be rich through legal means?

If by legal you mean moral, yes. In his pursuit for happiness a free man may chase material wealth as long as he doesn't steal or corrupt.

>What is the best way of conflict resolution without resorting to coertion?

Using some sort of middleman or conflict resolution corporation to take the parties to a compromise.

>How to defend anarchist land from a centralized country?

Although guerrilla warfare is a possible answer, it is to be believed the locals will assemble their lifes and funds to repel the invader.

>How can anything related to communism be anarchist?

If a doctrine coerces people, it can't be called anarchism.

Is taxation theft?
This shouldn't even be a question

>Do laws against hate speech alienate the freedom of speech?

Yes. But, you can't let this hate speech turn into action. As soon as a group that threatens your life and freedom is formed, they should be physically removed, or so to speak.

  No.2057

>>2046
>Is taxation theft?
Property is theft, comrade!

  No.2069

>>2047
>Before anarchism intersected with communism however, it was mostly an individualist philosophy to boot. One of OP's links outline the history of how the world's elites at the turn of the twentieth century thought there was a global anarchist conspiracy to depose them. Illegalism is probably the most remembered aspect of individualist anarchism from that period. Insurrectionary anarchism expands on egoist/individualist sensibilities and it applies to contemporary methods of organization (primarily communist/synidcalist ones). As far as I'm concerned, very few anarchists unironically identify themselves as "egoist" or "individualist" these days. It's all either whichever flavor of communism or "anarchism without adjectives."

I think this is inaccurate. Anarchism has always been a communist ideology. Pre-First Internationale "anarchists" were either proto-communists as well as proto-anarchists (Proudhon), or not anarchist in any meaningful sense (egoists). Anarchism converged on subset of other radical tendencies that attack all aspects of totality simultaneously, and it's nonsensical to say that an anarchist outlook can be capitalist, patriarchal, white supremacist, in exactly the same way the politically naïve realize that it's nonsensical to say an anarchist outlook can be statist.

Additionally, illegalism is not mutually exclusive with explicit communism. Illegalism is a strategy to bring about communism, or perhaps even a specific set of tactics part of a larger strategy. It isn't contradictory to have an illegalist syndicalist union, for example, and various factions between the IWW were effectively this outlook with their embrace of sabotage and expropriation. Likewise insurrectionism. Modern insurrectionism is even more post-Marxist than post-anarchist (Invisible Committee).

Certainly the market anarchist sect (though, like all pro-capitalist ideologies, more represented on the internet by masturdebators than by boots in the street) is unironically individualist; this faction commands a great deal of funding because they can pull big donors that are protecting their class interests while wanking (C4SS), but who's to say it isn't

  No.2072

I don't want to shitpost or cause any vitriol, and this is an honest question: what exactly is wrong with anarcho-capitalism? While I wouldn't want to live in their world, they don't seem to argue for anything immoral or nonsensical, regardless of terms or definitions of capitalism used. Ancaps seem to just want completely free interaction between individuals in a free marketplace; is such a system wrong? If some guy got some resources together and started a factory, why would it be wrong for him to hire people who didn't, for instance, want to work in the co-ops?

  No.2075

>>2072
It's self-contradictory. Basically when you say that everyone has absolute control of their property, they are equivalent in every meaningful sense to a small state

  No.2076

>>2069
>I think this is inaccurate. Anarchism has always been a communist ideology.
Anarchism predates communism tho; I'd wager the similarities between the two only became apparent at First International. Anarchist sensibilities had been espoused throughout European society as far back as the seventeenth century with the fabled pirate colony, "Libertatia." I feel like the distinctions between anarchism, socialism and communism are primarily grounded in a misunderstanding of Proudhon's work.. most notably whatever the fuck >>2057 meant. From Stirner to Marx.
>Additionally, illegalism is not mutually exclusive with explicit communism.
I'm sorry if I was implying it was; I wasn't.

  No.2077

File: 1474475301735.png (36.28 KB, 200x119, 7pht2EpVKZl2qezXV7XEEzXul4q-u0fc_m1gOb8DJMY.jpg)

>>2072
>Ancaps seem to just want completely free interaction between individuals in a free marketplace; is such a system wrong?
Capitalism is a morally bereft system that harms much of the planet. Ancaps often cite the necessity of markets free of regulations, ending the fed and returning to the gold standard. Yet the fact remains: there can be no such thing as a gold standard; there can be no such thing as apolitical money. The idea that we will somehow find a technical fix, whether you call it bitcoin or some technological evolution of money that will replace what fiat money the Fed, the European Central Bank, and so on, print--this is simple fantasy. Those aren't my words, those are Yanis Varoufakis', the former minister of finance of Greece. The whole reason why kenyesian "New Deal" economics were so pervasive in the wake of the Great Depression was because it supplemented the pessimism that had created a downward spiral of public investment throughout much of global society (much like how it is today). The only thing you can do in such an environment is to intervene politically or risk near permanent stagnation, and observe the emergence of nasty political forces in your country.

Ancaps don't see a reason to; they'd be perfectly fine with that stagnation if it meant they could keep their toothbrush. I'm sure they mean well, but most don't understand that their ideology is grounded in neoclassical economic theory. It is this relation to neoliberalism that has caused some of its proponents to overtly embrace such a disposition. For instance anarcho-capitalists like Hans-Hermann Hoppe publicly advocated for a return to monarchy in his 2001 book, "Democracy: The God That Failed." I think this is what served as the foundation for what eventually became "neoreaction", and what is now colloquially known as the "alt-right." Oh, you want markets free of government control? You already got it thirty years ago! Thanks Reagan, thanks Thatcher; their administrations made the West great again, don't you remember the nineties? /s. Technically speaking, the Trans-Pacific Partnership may as well be the best thing since sliced bread for anarcho-capitalists, as it practically gives corporations a level of extraterritoriality much akin to shadowrun. Ancaps unwittingly advocate all of this under a gross misunderstanding of individualist anarchist thought, and it's most worrisome.

  No.2080

>>2072
this supposes impossibilities in the same way "wouldn't it be okay if we just had a lot of states to choose from" does.

What ancaps want are mercenary armies (loyal to whom? the most rich) enforcing their private property (and how did they come by this? workers) against a working class.

This is headless feudalism, not anarchism. We effectively live in the "anarcho-" capitalist world, because corporations now have power over nation-states.

The other thing that's very wrong with ancaps are that they dilute and co-opt the movement.

  No.2081

>>2075
That would only apply if a person could own an enormous amounts of land and have infinite power over it. As far as I know most ancaps believe land ownership solely comes from investing your labor into it and even then your rights to it only extends to what you're using it for, i.e. if you're using it for farming that doesn't mean someone can't walk through it.
>>2077
I feel like you're saying they're wrong because their economic theories are wrong, but I'm not seeing how.
>Oh, you want markets free of government control? You already got it thirty years ago! Thanks Reagan, thanks Thatcher; their administrations made the West great again, don't you remember the nineties? /s. Technically speaking, the Trans-Pacific Partnership may as well be the best thing since sliced bread for anarcho-capitalists, as it practically gives corporations a level of extraterritoriality much akin to shadowrun.
The way ancaps see it is that a market cannot be free from government control unless the government doesn't exist. As long as government gives personhood to corporations or have any regulations at all, then the market is not fair. I don't think any ancaps are for the TPP because the power that the corporations could exercise with it would derive from the power of the state.
>>2080
In a stateless society how would someone else become more much rich than someone else? How would you prevent that from happening?

  No.2098

>>2081
>I don't think any ancaps are for the TPP because the power that the corporations could exercise with it would derive from the power of the state.
The state will always be a front for private interests; what makes them think removing the shroud will make things hunky-dory? For ancaps, giving personhood to corporations is good as it further incentivizes privatized subversion of what laws ground the State; the only real downside to this is that it necessitates a coddling of wage laborers under the umbrellas of these evermore powerful corporations--falling back on what I said about stagnation, thus ruining any individualist notions of liberty to be found. This equating of free trade with wage labor (the kind that offers a level of agency every socialist/communist/anarchist strives for) is at the crux of the contradiction that is anarcho-capitalism.

  No.2101

>>2081
>In a stateless society how would someone else become more much rich than someone else?

In a feudal, multi-state ancap society? By being born to rich parents.

In a stateless (read: classless) society this is of course impossible.

>How would you prevent that from happening?


Destroying class.

  No.2102

>>2081
>As far as I know most ancaps believe land ownership solely comes from investing your labor into it and even then your rights to it only extends to what you're using it for, i.e. if you're using it for farming that doesn't mean someone can't walk through it.

You're factually wrong about this, by the way. Ancaps support the concept of private property as currently enforced by the state, only enforced by multiple, market-based mercenary forces. They oppose the state's monopoly on force, but approve of how it leverages that force, and want to leverage that only to enforce their property rights.

  No.2120

>>2101
>Destroying class.
totally doable in theory, but completely impossible in reality.

  No.2121

File: 1474708576730.png (36.33 KB, 200x160, NbHMhAI.jpg)

>>2072
You could always look to Kropotkin for answers.

  No.2123

>>2120
There's a difference between things that are possible and things that are worth doing.

  No.2124

>>2102
>>2098
No ancaps I know of approve of corporations or they level of power they hold over society and the economy, they just think the problem is the state giving them that power and control, which they believe wouldn't happen in a stateless free market.
>>2101
What about individuals why weren't born to rich parents? John D. Rockefeller was born to a poor family and became the richest man in the world. What would prevent a similar situation in a stateless society?
>>2102
>Ancaps support the concept of private property as currently enforced by the state, only enforced by multiple, market-based mercenary forces.
I know a few ancaps and they might be unorthodox in this, but they don't agree with that position at all. In general they agree with the Lockean Proviso and believe land can only be owned if it's worked on or it is bought from someone else who worked their land.

  No.2125

Friendly reminder to all fellow thought criminals to normalize browsing and posting through Tor.

  No.2126

File: 1474772278231.png (501.65 KB, 200x120, 1208736921758605.png)

>>1001
It seems like dialectical egoism is the gem that could save anarchist/communist theory. Especially since we've got our historical examples of spooked, organizationalist anarchist theory in practice. The two primary currents being syndicalism and platformism.

Before revolutionary Spain we could see massive swathes of organizationalists, particularly of the IWW variety, being lulled straight into the capitalist mega-machine dreamland that was the Soviet Union, to where many migrated in the "radical" desire for comfier factories and bosses who would be totally okay with their identities as 'Workers', even speaking of it in favorable terms. Meanwhile you could keep destroying yourself, working for the benefit of someone else. But here the union reps were - by design - already there. No longer would you need to contact them to then come over and subsequently minimize your demands and end up with an elevated comparative income. All that could instead just happen right there, from the get-go! Also here the leader of your new nation could also keep acknowledging your identity as a 'Worker' in a favorable light, encouraging you to keep on working harder for his benefit! After all his growth in power meant the growth of Socialism! He and his henchmen do keep saying just that and their favorite color is red!

Under stress Syndicalism starts to look more and more like the tamer version of early the early Soviet Union. Both were organizationalist and reformist. The real difference was in the level of forceful implementation and maintenance. If one takes syndicalism and centralizes each point to it's logical conclusion, it will become near-indistinguishable.

The super-glued "anarchist" variant of the irradical "gimme a raise" church choir that is syndicalism showed it's ugly face during the Spanish revolution, which happened in spite of the CNT-FAI and without anarcho-syndicalisms fabled General Strike being the central lever of the revolution - even in the historical peak of anarcho-syndicalist organizationalism.

The organizationalist (and ComIntern) theory of the United Front, gullibility adopted by platformists and anarcho-syndicalists of the time, put the organizationalist anarchists closer to state-socialists collaboration while moving them away from the rest of the anarchist movement, particularly the libertarian communists. Apparently Lenin & Trotsky hadn't already demonstrated over a decade earlier the level of Leninist tolerance for anarchists. But while submerged within the haze of organizationalist phantasmagoria, trying to beat fascists at their own game becomes a good idea. It is during this period many CNT-FAI "anarchists" join the government, because Marxists took government. Therefore with organizationalist logic, anarchist must as well. This is the point of anarchist activity after all - state sector.

  No.2127

File: 1474772585468.png (81.38 KB, 200x131, anarchy-vs-hierarchy.jpg)

>cont.
Meanwhile, from the country-side and outward individuals composing presently stateless, autonomous and moneyless communes preferred the idea of keeping the social revolution rolling, which was by this time unevenly distributed across Spain, to eventually horizontally cover the whole of Iberia. This revolutionary will was met with resistance by the now Stalin-POUM-CNT-FAI coalition who preferred to "fight fascism", which was nothing but code-speak for centralizing both militarily and politically into essentialist social structures, or, dare I say it counter-revolution. Also, was such a response by the the Stalin-POUM-CNT-FAI supposed to imply that the wide distribution of stateless, autonomous communism, completely transcending the basis for hierarchy both mentally and socially would NOT be of use in fighting fascism?? Truly ridiculous when analyzed today.

The downturn in anarchist organizationalism in the post-war period, where a couple of platformist organizations ended up turning to parliamentarism, lead to the renewed rise of the previously suppressed current of insurrectionism in response, from which huge leaps in theory emerged, finally more recently communization theory, these developments are nothing but good news and I think that it's from this continuously developing body of work that anarcho-communist theory will reach a point of refinement that will make all previous periods of anarchist theory seem absurdly misguided.

This century is ours. No illusions.

  No.2128

What's everyone's thoughts on Rojava? Do you think it's actually implementing anarchism or that it's working? From what little I've read about it it's certainly interesting and better than the alternative, but I'm worried that there's still a large presence of authoritarianism and coercion and in general seems like it's an incoherent mess of ideologies. The constitution I read seems like an unfinished mess that doesn't seem to guarantee any actual significant rights without a clause immediately after saying "except when it's necessary to take away this right".

  No.2129

>>2128
They seem alright, but I hope they won't end up like other national liberation groups that are more nationalist than socialist or betrayed their socialism/anarchism.

  No.2131

>>2128
For every new perspective I read on revolutionary Kurdistan I get a conflicting POV. And I mainly read stuff in anarchist and libertarian marxist circles. Yet people can't seem to agree on whether this is some sort of militant 'social democratic' sham or some post-civ, post-left, post-structural autonomous utopia.

I generally like what I'm seeing though.

  No.2135

>>2124
>No ancaps I know of approve of corporations or they level of power they hold over society and the economy
But fundamentally-speaking, they do. Capitalism and the state aren't opponents; they are two united pillars of hierarchical oppression and control. The idea that any socialist ideology is bad as it restricts people from working for privately owned businesses is like saying abolishing feudalism was bad as it restricted serfs from farming the lands of lords. It just doesn't make any goddamn sense. Capitalism needs coercion to sustain itself, and that coercion is manifested in the form of the state; anarcho-capitalism denotes a freedom to exploit, not a freedom from exploitation. Anyone that believes the latter is a fool; ancaps are just butthurt that their chosen authoritarian thugs are putting them up against the wall--they consider themselves somehow too competent, virtuous and useful to end up as one of the serfs just like the rest of us.

  No.2136

>>2129
Nationalism seems like a possible concern, but I'm mostly concerned about them diluting any actual anarchism until it's just words only.
>>2131
>militant 'social democratic' sham
Ya, I definitely get that feeling a lot. Where they prefer "equality" over actual freedom.

  No.2142

File: 1474903487896.png (46.21 KB, 150x200, qthitler.jpg)

>>1254
Oi, some people think of NS in a positive light.
You can set your axioms regarding what a good social/political system is such that war and blind patriotism is good for the sake of preserving tradition.
It doesn't need to be NS but some people feel that these sorts of things are good even though they appear abhorrent to most of us.

>yea, just give them a book, that will make them want to listen

If just books then don't need to worry about blacks or gypsies getting ideas and revolting with a plan :P
>I bet you just loathe your first world problems and capitalism and STUFF
Hey, sometimes I gotta adjust the wifi antenna, sometimes I lose my mp3 player and sometimes my butt itches real bad

>"things just happen" is like lcd of excuses

>and "so it goes" and other such vonnegut phrases.

nothin wrong with a bit of smugpostin
(wonder what the wordfilter was getting. I didn't use any mean words :T )
>>2125
What about other kinds of partial anon tools? Also can I be a cipheranarchist or does cryptoanarchist already take that role?

  No.2164

>>2135
I've never understood the huge opposition to anarcho-capitalism by other anarchists. If ancaps and everyone else follow the non aggression principal who cares what they get up to.

What's wrong with some people wanting to have an economy that you don't have to participate in ?

How could you stop an economy from happening if people wanted it without using force or coercion anyway ?

I don't think private armies/mercenaries for contract enforcement make sense either. Trusted third parties escrow accounts and the fact that people want to keep track of and not do business with asshats should be enough.

  No.2165

File: 1475357225159.png (552.92 KB, 200x200, truf.pdf)

>>2164
Read this right quick

  No.2174

>>2165
Thanks for the clarification anon that does a good job of illuminating the huge differences in thinking. There's alot with you position and that pdf i disagree with but i don't want to turn this into an IM AN ANCAP DEBATE ME thread.

  No.2186

>>2174
Thanks for that

  No.3820

Let's reboot this here thread.

What does everybody here think about how to get from here to there?

I think the primary goal right now should be information dissemination. Anything that gets anarchism or anarchist ways of thought into the public mindset is worth persuing. Ideally, I think this involves openly anarchist groups doing volunteer work.

  No.3829

>>3820
I believe the biggest issue with anarchism historically has been its affiliation with the far left of the far left. It's certainly a radical way of thought but cannot remain a fringe idea if it is to ever gain mass public attraction today.

How you want to go about doing that varies and I don't think there is a single good solution. But certainly you can't just keep on catering anarchist media to anarchists. Propaganda of the deed isn't the way to go at the very least.

  No.3849

>>3820
>What does everybody here think about how to get from here to there?
I am more sceptical about revolutions nowadays. The world is a lot more connected than in Bakunin's era so if a bunch of people overthrow their government, others states and corps are going to raid them, with all the disgusting propaganda (we bring democracy). One solution would be to rise up in all of the world at once but it's just not going to happen. There are 7.4 billion people and most of them don't give a fuck about radical politics.

I recommend to focus on the local, and settle small communes in the country. Once civilisation breaks down because of climate change and overpopulation we can use our already existing networks to at least survive.

  No.3850

>>3849
>Once civilisation breaks down because of climate change and overpopulation we can use our already existing networks to at least survive.

It's a mistake to think that any of those things will destroy civilization, it will only change it.

Also, you say the world is more connected now and then say because of that, we have to think locally. I think the opposite is true: we're so connected now, we have to think globally. We need to counter the enemy propaganda with propaganda of our own.

  No.3862

>>3829
>Propaganda of the dead
That's a weird name for 'literature'.

We must read, use and rely on the experience of the past to know what to do because otherwise movements will go the way of the Occupy movement. Occupy had the passion but they lacked the ideological backing because they were scared to come out as 'leftists'. What else can you expect from millenials who want to be coddled by the neoliberal system.

>>3849
The Coming Insurrection by the Invisible Committee is an interesting read

https://tarnac9.wordpress.com/texts/the-coming-insurrection/

  No.3864

>>3862
>>propaganda of the dead

read that post again comrade.

  No.3875

>>3862
I wasn't saying anything about literature. In fact literature is probably the most important thing to spread not only in an academic but a more social setting. Propaganda of the deed doesn't mean literature.

  No.3876

>>3864
>>3875
>>3864
>>3875
>propaganda of the DEED

My bad. Thought it said propaganda of the dead.

  No.4027

File: 1483929310806.png (107.61 KB, 146x200, dune-illustrated.gif)

In response to the discussion on technology and anarcho-primitivism, I had something of a discussion about this with a relative the other day. I think the best option is perhaps a return to traditional social, religious and political structures which kept the pace of technological development at the most safe and optimum growth rate and ensures an equitable (though not totally equal) distribution of technology.

I'm reminded in some ways of what Frank Herbert's Dune predicted: that mankind's careless development of technology for the sake of progress alone almost led to humanity's own destruction. The Butlerian Jihad in the Duneverse was a war against advanced machines as well as the "machine state of mind" and what replaced the machine order was a more organic order of space age feudalism which outlawed "thinking machines". Basically, the Duneverse predicts that at least in some ways, the only way to stem the negative effects of rapid technological growth which endanger the freedom and even longevity of the human species will likely be a return to aristocratic and theocratic forms of government modeled after various medieval social structures which will direct the course of technological development in the best way that ensures that man remains the master of machine and not machine the master of man and also creates a meaningful society rather than just an efficient one.

  No.4049

File: 1483947342989.png (1.47 MB, 158x200, a8c3bec984b115d6ad99060a6307763bc04736e48b50f6ef8865cf5d511de53e.gif)

>>4027
>i want to base society off of a scifi book

  No.4052

>>4049

>>i want to base society off of a scifi book


that wasn't what I said, at all.

The point was that that Frank Herbert's work touched on an important issue that most people don't really stop to consider.

As humanity's technological progress threatens to destroy it or make men obsolete, it may be that men will revert to older forms of social control in order to curtail the negative side effects of technology that are amplified by a democratic, wholesale approach to technology.

It is not impossible that if things reached a breaking point, a group of counterrevolutionary Luddites could easily emerge, demanding a return to something simpler and demanding firm absolute rules be established with respect to what directions technology may or may not develop. With automated machines making human labor more and more obsolete, with artificial insemination and cloning potentially making sexual intercourse unnecessary, with the tools of modern warfare making war much more volatile than it ever has been, it's not impossible that people would demand a return to a world that felt much more innocent and predictable.

  No.4058

>>4027
> I think the best option is perhaps a return to traditional social, religious and political structures which kept the pace

This is how you go fascist.

  No.4059

>>4058
Fascism destroyed traditional social structures by replacing them with new ones (the fascist youth organizations as opposed to children being raised by the family), religious structures which may have posed a threat to the state (see: the Catholic Church in Germany, Italy, and Japan- its position was never that stable), and political structures by replacing them with ones that could better channel the force of the masses (there is a line in Horst Wessel Lied about reactionaries, and the Kaiser was never invited back as some elements of the inter-war military elite had wished). Fascism is, as Zizek said, a "conservative revolution," that does not wish to return to feudalism, but to stabilize the position of capitalism in industrial society.

  No.4060

>>4027
you say social control, but I think you mean *lack* of social control. IMO, with increased technological advancement people will be freed from the rigid social order necessary to keep people alive way back when.

Luddites are certainly a thing that will show up, though.

  No.4064

>>4060
You're misunderstanding what >>4027 is saying I think, they seem to be vouching for control over social roles to keep them "traditional" as a way to prevent technological advancement.

You're totally right in that what >>4027 is saying being total nonsense and exactly what you'd expect from someone basing their ideas off an interpretation of fantasy literature instead of how the world actually works

  No.4065

>>4058
it's not just how you "go" fascist, it IS fascism. Keeping people in "roles" based off some vague sense of "tradition" is the core tenant of fascist ideology, that when humans are left unchecked and un-controlled they'll create bad situations. That poster conflated it with "technology" but you'll usually see it as "degeneracy"; a one size fits all term for "things people do that makes me uncomfortable"

  No.4071

File: 1484044502862-0.png (295.49 KB, 165x200, 1457464237694.png)

File: 1484044502862-1.png (122.7 KB, 200x158, 1461785592409.jpg)

>>4065

As this poster pointed out >>4059, fascism differs greatly from feudalism and any attempt to treat the two as somehow the same or even from the same school of thought is kinda disingenuous

Feudalism is itself best described as a kind of confederate order in which there is a central figurehead, but this figurehead himself has little overwhelming power over the other aristocrats as they expect him to mind his own business and let them handle their own private affairs and in exchange for this buzzing off, they give him tribute and display a pageantry of loyalty. Such order is highly individualized and may feature a wide variety of local customs & laws as local rulers and local populations are given much more autonomy by the central government.

Fascism, by way of contrast, seeks to consolidate power in the center to such a degree that all regional governments are merely echo boxes of whatever is mandated by the center. Before, in feudalism, kings might issue decrees here and there, but the power and privilege granted to the aristocracy and to local guilds made such laws much less laws as much as suggestions, since really the only obligatory law was the canon law of the Church, which itself could only be enforced to the degree that the church as just one institution among many held a great enough influence to rally enough knights, lords, merchants/craftsmen and/or peasants to its cause. Another important characteristic that distinguishes feudalism from fascism is the fact that feudalism is really an example of a highly privatized system of land ownership. Fascism, to the degree that it was influenced by nationalism, held fast to the idea that the country was the collective property of the people or nation and was to be administered by the centralized state which represented the will and pure spirit of that nation. This didn't exist in the feudal period, the entire country was property of the king to lease and sell as he pleased more or less to whomever.

Fascism was one attempt to bridge the volatile gap between the left and the right, it took on the left's concern for progress, namely scientific and technological progress, especially in the area of military, the right's concern for social morality (more from a social darwinist or Nietzchean standpoint than a religious one) and combined it with a nationalist rhetoric and scientific racism. Fascism also created a centralized authoritarian political system which attempted to monopolize for itself things like the provision of social services and the possession/development of military technology in such a way that owed more to the Absolutist regimes than the Feudal ones. But even Napoleon probably never thought Europe would ever give anyone the kind of power that they gave fascist regimes in the 20th century.

>Keeping people in "roles" based off some vague sense of "tradition" is the core tenant of fascist ideology,


The conception of people who are meant to occupy certain "roles" is the cornerstone of most civilizations. Plato talks about it extensively in his Republic and it is basically the foundation of all modern divisions of labor based on merit.

>That poster conflated it with "technology" but you'll usually see it as "degeneracy"; a one size fits all term for "things people do that makes me uncomfortable"


Except when I speak of technology, I'm speaking of real observable changes in how society begins to behave as technology upsets traditional (read long-standing) forms of communication, organization, defense and production. A small example would be the decline of the art of letter-writing with the advent of text messaging and email. Other less subjective examples, include again, the more destructive nature of warfare due to the introduction of new machines of war.

  No.4089

>>4071
As long as we have it straight that you are indeed advocating fascism. That's not a bad thing necessarily, but we don't need to dance around it.

Arguing that people are meant to occupy roles as well, is something you're fine to advocate for. But don't conflate it with some sort of fundamentally understood fact that everyone will agree with you on.

Now let's address the actual content of your post from the first quote down.

When fascists talk about roles based on "tradition" it's a dog whistle for "patriarchy". Don't pretend it's not. "Traditional values" doesn't actually mean anything without you specifying which specific culture and time period you're trying to take the tradition from. I'm going to take a guess and say that you're going to name either the American 40's and 50's, the height of the Roman Empire, or possibly Feudal Japan, those are the go-to's for kids in undergrad philosophy classes who can't get girls to pay attention to them.

The technology part of your post is even less of a real position. Again, what time do you plan on reverting to? Is 21st century technology all you want to eliminate? The 20th century saw chemical and mechanized warfare so that's out. You mention letter writing as a lost art so we can't deal with the telegram.

You see what's going to happen here? At some point you will have to arbitrarily decide some cutoff, some point in history that you don't think we can advance past. Which is silly, and unhelpful, and won't accomplish what you're talking about but you CAN do it.

In fact people already have. Go join a Mennonite or Amish community, which does the exact same thing. They pick a moment in history and arbitrarily ban everything after it as it "disrupts life". There are even schisms within Amish communities that developed over disagreements about whether rubber tires involve too much technological complexity and shouldn't be used. You'd be right at home there.

I'd also like to leave you with this; https://xkcd.com/1227/
This is by no means an academic source, but it will give you a good idea of the fact that the ideas you're talking about aren't new, and are more or less derided in philosophical circles. Humans don't like change, and any change that upsets how they view life will be especially hard to swallow. Now it's cell phones and the internet, before it was the telegram and the printing press, before that it was chess and writing. There will always be Luddites complaining about technology.

  No.4090

>>4071
Also, what on earth are these images you've included, and how do you think they're relevant?

  No.4092

>>4090
Dank political meemays
He probably added them for attention and aesthetics

  No.4095

ITT: yet another fascism thread, for some reason.

  No.4107

>>4095
This board has been getting idiots from 'the board that cannot be named' for a while now. The priority of janitors seems to be stopping people from talking about it instead of stopping it.

  No.4111

>>4089
>As long as we have it straight that you are indeed advocating fascism. That's not a bad thing necessarily, but we don't need to dance around it.

It's pretty obvious at this point you have no absolutely no clue what fascism even is

>Now let's address the actual content of your post from the first quote down.


you didn't address any of the differences listed between fascist governments and feudal social structures.

>Arguing that people are meant to occupy roles as well, is something you're fine to advocate for. But don't conflate it with some sort of fundamentally understood fact that everyone will agree with you on.


Even you believe that we should live in a society free of things like class hierarchies and division of labor, this tacitly acknowledges that up until this point, most if not all civilizations have had these kinds of structures in place and have been prone to view them as representing something of a natural order of things. That's not a judgement on the validity of those structures

>When fascists talk about roles based on "tradition" it's a dog whistle for "patriarchy". Don't pretend it's not.


Patriarchy is older than fascism

>"Traditional values" doesn't actually mean anything without you specifying which specific culture and time period you're trying to take the tradition from.


This probably is the only intelligent statement in your entire post. There is very much a difficulty in the vagueness of a term like "tradition" that makes it easy for people to exploit for their own ends. Fascists for example, have used the term to give themselves credibility as somehow the protectors of what is old and sacred. I would argue that the best way to objectively define tradition is by at least 3 characteristics:

1. A set of customs or beliefs which have are long-standing and widely accepted in a particular given society
2. Said set of customs traces itself back to an original source through a lineage of authorities or ancestors whose collective example is intended to be followed
3. These customs/beliefs are seen as sacred and inviolable in some way and not something that is to be subject to change over time except to that degree which is widely accepted as inherent within the principles of the tradition itself.

According to this definition, which I think most rational people can accept, the relative nature of tradition is accounted for but also it becomes possible to distinguish more traditional elements of a society from later developments as well as to distinguish more pro-traditional developments from those which are more anti-traditional. For instance, both Protestantism and Catholicism both lay claim to the heritage of Christianity, and to some degree both cling to the same traditional hallmarks of Christian belief and practice, but between the two, Catholicism is clearly the more "traditional" branch. Who's right and who's wrong here is not the point. But by this same criteria, something like fascism is more modern than it is "traditional", regardless of whether or not it attempts to incorporate some traditional elements into itself. The fact that it incorporates some traditional elements though does not make it traditional in an absolute sense, not in the sense that Catholicism is "traditional Christianity". Rather this fact is probably more indicative of the sheer psychological power of "tradition" that few modern political movements can really divorce themselves fully from it since some sense of tradition at least is necessary for there to be any consistent sense of social identity. What sense is there for instance in an African American taking any pride in his African American heritage if he doesn't believe there's any real thing that can be consistently identified as African-American culture or tradition?

  No.4112

File: 1484189372165.png (470.65 KB, 200x104, castle-P.jpeg)

>>4089
>>4111
>I'm going to take a guess and say that you're going to name either the American 40's and 50's, the height of the Roman Empire, or possibly Feudal Japan, those are the go-to's for kids in undergrad philosophy classes who can't get girls to pay attention to them.

nice ad hominem, but I'll bite anyway. The feudal Japanese social and political structure made sense for the Japanese because of the unique set of values and customs they had developed through centuries of living on their islands and centuries of Shinto and Buddhist tradition. The only traditional "Roman" structure Western Europe could possibly return to is maybe The Holy Roman Empire just because Greco-Roman paganism is a dead tradition whose heirs were either wiped out or absorbed by the Catholic Church. Unless they convert in masse to something like Islam or Buddhism and imitate their sociopolitical structures, there's no other "traditional" option for them. In the context of the United States of America, it's more difficult to ascertain what a traditional society would mean because it doesn't really have a "traditional" past like Europe, Asia or the Middle East do and much of such an ancient or traditional past was destroyed

>The technology part of your post is even less of a real position. Again, what time do you plan on reverting to?


The fact that you use the term "revert" definitely says more about your own views than anyone else's, that you see everything through the lens of progressive linear passage of time that you have internalized through your modern education. You also divide technology by eras rather than by the types of devices themselves in typical progressive fashion, implying that a person can't be allowed to pick and choose because it's not kosher for the old to mix with the new according to individual tastes. Traditionalism tends to see progress as a big lie, implying that time and the universe has no axis beyond a blind march forward towards some vague end that is somehow better simply because it is new (again, in this manner, fascism is far from traditional). In the case of technology, a traditionalist doesn't reject technology per se as much as he or she rejects technology that is not in conformity with the principles he or she believes to be absolute and unchangeable, being divine in some way (these principles may differ between civilizations). For example, the telegram, email and letter writing could easily exist in the same society, but if a society holds letter writing as a kind of sacred virtue, a person who would rather send an e-mail than write a letter may be seen as less cultured, sophisticated or just plain rude. The result would be that while said society's values permit the telegram and other devices, people consciously choose to use such things minimally in order to continue to uphold and cultivate a social custom that they believe is a symbol of honor & virtue, or it could also result in other forms of communication trying to better imitate the activity of hand-writing so there's less of a dichotomy. It doesn't necessarily mean people who value letter writing above all else will throw out all other forms of communication, unless that happens to be the logical end of their particular value system. The restoration of the values of a feudal society in this case does not have to mean returning getting rid of any technology developed after the 15th century, similar to how anarcho-primitivists and Amish people draw a line in the sand and say "no further" it would only mean that the directions of technological development would shift, where maybe some things we take for granted are consciously neglected and others we neglect are expanded in way we never imagined because of the change in the predominant social system and its values.

  No.4113

File: 1484189762030.png (47.46 KB, 200x105, 1483158500930.jpg)

>>4089
>>4111
>>4112

tl;dr you don't have the slightest clue what fascism actually was and the return of traditional social and political systems doesn't mean the return to primitive standards of living since technology can develop in an INFINITE number of directions based on each individual society's own particular value system. "High tech feudalism" is something that is perfectly plausible because human being are creative like that.

  No.4117

you've managed to throw out more text than I can possibly go through and address point by point. If all you're arguing is that I'm calling your ideas the wrong name... okay? Let me real quick do a find-replace on my posts for "fascism" to "high-tech-feudalism"

Which to be clear, at no point in your post really distinguishes itself from fascism. But whatever.

You clearly view time as progressing forward because every time you talk about "values" and "roles" you use the term return, but I guess my use of "revert" is just too much. My bad. I'll use "return" next time.

Why the obsession with terminology anyway? You call the Amish "anarcho-primitivists", which doesn't make any sense to me, the Amish aren't primitive in any sense nor are they anarchists. Are you using that term in a different way than it's normally used?

In fact most people would describe the Amish using the word "traditionalists" . Honestly I don't understand your distinction between what you're talking about and the Amish.

The entire point of my bringing them up (that you missed) is that they don't actually use their line in the sand.

In fact the Amish do almost exactly what you're talking about, decide on specific items to allow/disallow. Their 'line in the sand' comes from electricity being out whole heartedly, but the rest is up for debate. I've talked with Amish who used diesel engines for balers but refused to attach them to axels in order to drive a tractor. For some Amish bicycles are out but for others fixed gear bicycles are in.

And in all Amish cases they run a strict patriarchy with 'traditional gender roles' (gender roles circa 19th century), there's one bishop at the top of each enclave who enacts punishments and decides what happens to people...

I don't care about terminology at all, and I don't care about your goofy memes you keep posting.

Explain how this system your proposing is different from how the Amish run things, and explain what you think the benefits are. Don't go off on some tangent complaining about how school has changed my brain after you just complained of had hominem.

  No.4123

>>4117
>Which to be clear, at no point in your post really distinguishes itself from fascism. But whatever.

Except I already listed a number of differences between feudalism and fascism here >>4071 including the fact that feudalism is far less centralized and authoritarian than fascism and far less secular, things which you failed to actually address in your post.

You just chose to ignore them because you didn't have any rebuttal and just insisted on using a term like "fascist" as some objective statement on others people's political dispositions without any regard for the historical context of that term and what school of thought it historically refers to. I bet if I called anarcho-capitalists anarchists you'd probably explain how they're misappropriating the term "anarchist" to refer to something that differs sharply from the principles of anarchist thought and how its wrong to define anarchism so subjectively.

>You clearly view time as progressing forward because every time you talk about "values" and "roles" you use the term return, but I guess my use of "revert" is just too much. My bad. I'll use "return" next time.


The term "reversion" usually is used to imply a kind of digression and comes across a value judgement. Reversion usually implies going backwards along a straight line. Return implies something more cyclical so obviously it's more appropriate for someone like myself, who is skeptical of the very existence of a real thing called "progress" would prefer the cyclical terminology over the linear to express my point.

>You call the Amish "anarcho-primitivists", which doesn't make any sense to me, the Amish aren't primitive in any sense nor are they anarchists. Are you using that term in a different way than it's normally used?


I didn't call Amish anarcho-primitivists at all though. I said that anarcho-primitivists, Amish people and Mennonites all represent one extreme kind of reaction against technology in that despite differences among themselves they share a certain attitude. I'm sorry if your reading comprehension is bad.

>In fact the Amish do almost exactly what you're talking about,


Except they don't. While the Amish are one example of an extreme reaction to technology, they aren't what I was talking about at all really.

  No.4124

>>4117
>Explain how this system your proposing is different from how the Amish run things, and explain what you think the benefits are. Don't go off on some tangent complaining about how school has changed my brain after you just complained of had hominem.

The system I propose, or rather I shouldn't say propose, because again it's not something I advocate as much as accept as a likely future outcome, regardless of my own personal feelings, is that people will return to traditional systems of social organization, particularly of an aristocratic character, which allow for people to keep many of the technological conveniences they've grown accustomed, but with traditional social relationships and institutions acting as kind of fail-safe measure against possible abuse.

Most people may want to return to a state of affairs where human life has real meaning and purpose and where man doesn't have to worry about things like world wars and environmental destruction threatening their lives and live under a more benevolent and spiritual social order, but they don't want to go back to living in a world where there's no vaccine for Polio and I certainly don't either, but they will likely recognize that technology needs to be regulated in some way to prevent its abuse.

The best illustration of what I would I could consider a plausible form of "high tech feudalism" would be a society where devices like computers, televisions and such still exist, but the knowledge and tools for producing these devices is held secret by local guilds who decide who is "worthy" of this knowledge and help to distribute the technology only according to individual needs of each particular class or group of people. A peasant farmer doesn't need an HD television with access to 900 channels of garbage that doesn't help him become a better person or help him to do his just of tending the land for his family and his land lord better. That's just a waste of silicon. Artists only need technology that helps them make better works of arts for their patrons and share their work with other fellow artists who are cultured enough to understand it. The abbot of a monastery only needs a computers for storing backups of important church documents. The mass distribution of complex technologies to millions of consumers who didn't understand this technology fully was a mistake and only resulted in waste and psychological and even physical harm. And these devices should be provided by guilds of local craftsman who only teach this knowledge to their apprentices who upon their graduation set up their own workshops to meet the needs of local communities just as the blacksmiths used to do.

So this is different from the Amish approach because it's not a wholesale ban on anything made after the 13th century but merely a restructuring of society along a more traditional aristocratic framework where technology is accommodated for in the appropriate manner relative to the kind of social system in place which is meant to ensure a kind of quality control and prevent abuse of the ignorant masses through complex machines they don't really fully understand yet. And I think most people will naturally, even unconsciously gravitate towards such a system unless they want their technology to destroy them.

  No.4167

>>4124
Okay, thank you for actually outlining things.

Other questions I have:

You still haven't defined what you mean by "traditional social relationships". Like I said before, unless you clarify that statement it doesn't really mean anything.

>Most people may want to return to a state of affairs where human life has real meaning and purpose and where man doesn't have to worry about things like world wars and environmental destruction threatening their lives and live under a more benevolent and spiritual social order, but they don't want to go back to living in a world where there's no vaccine for Polio and I certainly don't either, but they will likely recognize that technology needs to be regulated in some way to prevent its abuse.


I don't see how this fits in with your previous statement that time is cyclical and "progress" is arbitrary and a invention, without really existing. You've pretty clearly divided history in this current comment into a time period where "human life has real meaning and purpose" and defined that time as before technological advancements led the way for polio.

I would also ask you what you mean by "real purpose and meaning"? That's a question that humans have been asking since all time, I can't imagine a point in human history where some group of people had claimed to find that, and then later lost it. Maybe with a universal religion? But that doesn't preclude technology.

>he best illustration of what I would I could consider a plausible form of "high tech feudalism" would be a society where devices like computers, televisions and such still exist, but the knowledge and tools for producing these devices is held secret by local guilds who decide who is "worthy" of this knowledge and help to distribute the technology only according to individual needs of each particular class or group of people.


No offense, but you don't have a background in computer engineering do you? If you did, you would have learned how to reverse engineer just about anything. The knowledge to build a modern computer doesn't start from the ground up, from silicon to JVMs, it's a process of putting together other people's ideas and tech that you don't fully understand into one cohesive package you do.

I guess you could argue that with total state control you could accomplish these guilds, where information was tightly controlled, but in this scenario is the society totally global? Does the state have ultimate power? Because if not, some Chines company is just going to ignore copyright protections and reverse engineer whatever they want. Hell, *I'll* reverse engineer whatever I want, and sell my skills to some group that has the resources to produce their own devices.

>he mass distribution of complex technologies to millions of consumers who didn't understand this technology fully was a mistake and only resulted in waste and psychological and even physical harm.


[citation needed]

Overall, I'm a little confused as to why you think this is so inevitable, and would love to hear your thoughts on that. I know you'll reject any attempt to paint history as moving in any direction, but I think you'll have a hard time disagreeing that there's definitely been a trend towards information dissemination growing in speed. From the printing press to phone lines to the internet, people have pretty much always sought to spread information as far and as wide as they possibly can. Why would we see a sudden reversal, and have people accept certain gatekeepers of information installed? Wouldn't human nature dictate that we resist this guild system?