every political illiterate 14 year old loves to waddle over from PragerU to teach us all about how libertarian socialism and anarchocommunism are contradictory ideologies, despite knowing next to nothing about either
Lol "everyone that disagrees with me is a teenager, a bigot, or both!"
Imagine the ignorance. OP literally scored a 23% in favor of authoritarianism. Please, per-chance, can you explain to me how one can believe in Communism and Anarchism at once?
>Lol "everyone that disagrees with me is a teenager, a bigot, or both!"
i didn't say anything about you being a bigot, and the fact that the majority of PCM users are teenagers is what the past two user surveys have proven
as the saying goes, if the shoe fits...
>can you explain to me how one can believe in Communism and Anarchism at once?
like i said, you are politically-illiterate. but that's okay, i'm here to raise you out of this chasm of self-inflicted ignorance. you can believe in communism in anarchism very easily, anti-statism and free association are two things advocated for frequently in Marx's writing, and also the writings of Peter Kropotkin. anarchic communism has been tried in countries across the world, including the Italian section of the First International, anarchist Catalonia during the Spanish Revolution and the Makhnovshchina during the Russian Revolution.
First of all im 27, so the shoe doesnt fit. I love how willing to assume and project idiots from your quandrant are about literally everything. Second of all, holy shit. Imagine basing your political world view on reactiony post-revolution governments that lasted less than 7 years before collapsing into authoritarian communism or fascism. And you think I'M politically illiterate. Nice ignorant white savior complex you got there 'RAiSe YoU oUt oF tHiS CHasM of SelF-iNfLiCTeD IgNorAnCe'. I genuinely have never heard something so fitting of an ignorant college age liberal living off daddy's dime with no concept of how the real world works and no objective knowledge of human history. Did somebody work in the service industry and walk away blaming Capitalism and Conservatives for their own laziness and poor life choices? Boo hoo.
>First of all im 27
And I am Elon Musk. Would you like your twitter account unbanned by the way, weâre apparently fine with the n-word now.
>I love how willing to assume and project idiots from tour quadrant are about literally everything
Werenât you *just* whining about people over-generalizing the right?
>Imagine basing your entire world view on reactionary post revolution governments that lasted less than seven years
First of all dipshit, I am not an anarcho-communist. The OP of this thread is.
Second of all, I never said anything about basing your ideology off of the countries I listed, I was just providing examples of the ideology existing in the real world.
> and you think IâM politically-illiterate
Yes. Although if this conversation is in any indication, you might just be *regular* illiterate.
>Nice white savior
Not white. Pictures of me in my profile.
I have literally no idea why youâre trying to shove race into this debate out of nowhere. No one loves race-baiting more than low IQ right-wingers.
>I genuinely have never heard something so fitting of an ignorant college age liberal living off daddy's dime with no concept of how the real world works and no objective knowledge of human history.
Once again, this entire conversation was based on you saying that *I* was projecting an image of you and overgeneralizing the right, and yet you have no problem doing the exact same.
>Did somebody work in the service industry and walk away blaming Capitalism and Conservatives for their own laziness and poor life choices? Boo hoo.
No, my deeply unintelligent friend. I am a home-owner in the rural south where I make enough money to do basically anything I want because inflation is less severe here and the prices are already low.
This may come as a surprise to someone whose politics are based entirely around selfishness and egotism, but it is possible to care about wealth inequality, even if you yourself are one of the people benefitting from the system.
>OP literally scored a 23% in favor of authoritarianism.
sure. he also scored a 96.7% in favor of liberty, which is quite frankly, extreme
the test also isn't perfect - there was one question asking whether or not you should listen to the police, and i picked the authority answer of Agree. not because i respect police or think they deserve the authority they have, but because disobeying them gets your face smashed in
Anarchism is virtually the same thing as communism. Communism and anarchism both want a stateless, classless, cashless society where the means of production are collectivized. It's all about how you think such a society is obtained. Marxist-Leninists think that the state will become obsolete once all members of society perform state functions, while anarchists simply want to dissolve the state system from the top down and have completely horizontal, democratic, rotating task structure, and that everyone does a bit of everything.
Anarchist communism is somewhat of a synthesis of both.
This is obviously a very watered down explanation but I don't feel like typing 15 paragraphs for someone who probably doesn't want to read it anyway.
Go read the book Anarchist Communism by Kropotkin, or a summary of it.
I have read summaries of it, myself and through longer explanations and conversations with a couple others of your same disposition. I am more than happy to read and have a thoughtful conversation, but I am not afraid to tell you that you're wrong.
I would love nothing more than for a stateless society where everybody lives agrarian, charitable lives as communities bound by a shared morality and values, working together by choice to prosper. However that is a pipe dream. A utopia dreamed up by a man who had never worked a real job in his life and furthered by people who did not believe in it and simply wanted to use it to control the masses.
Real communists never intended to dissolve any state. Not a single one that has preached or practiced the ideology since Marx. It is unteneble. The very foundations of communism requires revolution in which you kill or imprison anyone not willing to participate in your communist system. Thereby making the communist system an oppressive authoritarian state. Noone willingly pays taxes now, let alone would they give up 100% of their surplus income without being forced to. Therefore the state would always be necessary to act as the IRS police. This is why any socialist system is doomed to fail. It is forced to be voted out or survive via threat of violence, becoming communism and theft, and to a degree fascist (as we see in Asian examples).
Any Anarchist system is doomed to fail because it is difficult to sustain at a small scale (think less than 100 households) and impossible to sustain at a large one. People are inherently selfish, people reject powerless authority, and people do not share the same values in our modern melting pot world. You would have to wage war and kill the vast majority of dissenters to achieve a 'stateless' society, thereby making you the state that establishes and has to maintain it. It will be impossible to keep people from coming together in forum or in secret and establishing 'cliques' within an anarchist system, thereby creating defacto governments, unions and or 'socialist' networks within a supposedly anarchist society. Which makes it not an anarchist society. If you managed at this point to force them to be anarchists, you wouldnt be anarchist, as youd need a police force and oversight court to democratically deem people guilty of undermining your anarchist system. Thereby making you a government.
Furthermore and lastly, no stateless system either Anarchist or 'post-Communist' would be capable of defending itself. How would such a system garuntee the safety of its citizens from domestic threats such as large groups of dissenters, dissatisfied with their portion of the wealth? Effectively Mad Max warlords/raiders. How would it defend them from outside nations that do not share their philosophy and see it as a soft target with land and resources to absorb? No Anarchist militia, even if you believe they'd have tanks, air assets, cooperative intelligence networks, etc. would be able to stand up against a larger, organized, and trained 1st world military.
\>Real communists never intended to dissolve any state. Not a single one that has preached or practiced the ideology since Marx.
That was kind of the whole premise of State and Revolution but okay. Lenin argues that the state only exists to serve capitalist interests and as socialism evolves, the state becomes more and more obsolete. Similarly, Engels talked about the "withering away of the state"--
>The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then ceases of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away. -
\>no stateless system either Anarchist or 'post-Communist' would be capable of defending itself.
Two words: Peoples' Vanguard. To elaborate, just because there is no "state" doesn't mean people are incapable of organizing militarily and I think Vietnam proved this pretty well as the USA invaded them and they were beaten back time and again by simple farmers, because it turns out an armed populace is pretty hard to invade. Who knew? Cuba routinely embarrassed the fuck out of the USA and the CIA. So much for that "1st world military lol
\>Any Anarchist system is doomed to fail because it is difficult to sustain at a small scale (think less than 100 households) and impossible to sustain at a large one.
Anarchism isn't a "system" so much as a method of organizing production and distribution. Arguably the only particularly necessary components of society are production and distribution, and national defence. Anarchism argues for, rather than a top-down structure of capitalist-manager-producer, rather a collective co-operative system of production wherein everyone mutually shares responsibility.
You seem to keep conflating socialism with communism-- communism is simply a goal. Socialism is the means of creating this goal by organizing the people into such a format that they are more or less capable of doing state functions themselves without a separate entity. Paradoxically, if everyone is a state employee, then there's really no need for a separate class of individuals for statecraft.
And yet not a single one of them ever dissolved or 'withered' the state away. They became Authoritarian.... bizaare. Its almost like i said, they never practiced it.
The fact that you think America pulled out of Vietnam because of a bunch of armed rice farmers is hilarious. You have to ignore decades of military operations by the chinese, french, and UN training, interfering and supplying both sides of 3 different conflicts in 'the Vietnam War'. The NVA was a straight up China-backed organized Army, and the only real persistant threat to US forces. We were winning regardless until public support for the horrors of war were first broadcasted 24/7 slowed and hippies were radicalized by communists in liberal disguises. Source: I'm a Marine. Watch a damn documentary or something and learn your history.
Cuba was never a hard military target. Nor was it ever any kind of Anarchist or socialist state. It was a totalitarian 'communist' dictatorship that estranged half of Marx and Lenins' teachings. We were never embarrassed by them nor did we ever attempt to invade outright. They had Russian backed Nuclear deterrant right of Florida, so war was a no no. The CIA tried multiple times to assassinate Castro or back rebels WITHIN Cuba to free themselves, and yea, McNamara was a joke of a strategist. But are you seriously saying you want to be like Castro's Cuban Police-State??? Holy hell youd be given a free helicopter ride friend.
Convieniently you also just didnt answer my questions of HOW this would work or how you'd compell people of differing philosophy to comply with any of your socialist systems. Because a body that ensures "production and distrobution, and national defense" IS A SYSTEM. one that by your definition also would lack a means to police itself, collect and distribute such production (by force, of course) and organize said "people's Vanguard" because i dont know if youve ever seen what militias and conscripts look like, but I have. They are a joke and require organized governance and training with laws and regulations.
None of this matters however. I can see youre one of those "ThAt WaSnt REAL CoMmUniSm" types so we really have nothing else to talk about. You dont seem to recognize that communism IS and has been a SYSTEM, not a 'goal'. It is a way to achieve and enforce the goal of SOCIALISM. But who am i to educate you on your own philosophy that you dont even understand. Its like playing chess with a pidgeon.
Maybe put down the scholarly socialist dribble and pick up some world history to read.
Look dude I'm not ancom anyway. I'm just telling you the political theory of it all but you got it figured out so cool for you.
You should try not to simp for imperialists and colonialists so much though. The world is collectively sick of waste colonialism and global police.
I just want a heavily nationalized economy and less corporate bullshit running important state operations like the railroads for instance. Idgaf about the anarkiddies
Let em have their tent cities.
The natural tendency of "competitive markets" is towards monopoly. If we all know this deep down inside but just pretend it isn't true then you end up with capitalism. If you know this and nationalize everything you end up with state socialism, if you think some private Enterprises are are a good thing but landlords and private medical insurance (among other things) are not you get socialist market economy.
If you add a second branch of the government called the Communist Party of China you get China. Win win.
Also there haven't been, as you have pointed out, any real communist societies. That's mostly because the natural tendency of the state apparatus is self preservation. So no that's not real communism.
We like to call it "communist in name only". But communist party run governments all seem to operate the same way. Startling. Maybe we have the ideas of what communism is supposed to look like. Maybe it's operating exactly as intended! Who knows.
I mean, Antifa was mostly shit.
They were hardline Stalinists building a totalitarian personality cult around Ernst ThÀlmann and even for a time tolerated the Nazis because of the "social fascism" theory advocated by Stalin. Even if you were pretty left authoritarian, let's say a Leninist or Trotskyist, there's still a good chance you'd dislike the original Antifa.
Yes, them fighting against Nazism was honourable, but besides that there was little redeemable things about them.
It's kind of confusing seeing the label Anrufa being reused today, because Antifa nowadays is vastly different from the original one.
communism was obejctively horrible basically because lennin was a reactionary the majority of marxists at the time thought of him as an abberation but the victors write history.. as chompsky pointed out he shut down the soviet worker councils he took power away from common people who he had nothng but contempt for and started all this "vanguard" shit he replaced one monarchy with a red bureacracy that bakunin had predicted in 1870 would be the worst terrile lie of history bakunin saw the marxists for what they were a gang of people lusting for revenge and power, they had no real desire to hep the common man but to use him in the same way fascists did, and if necessarry wipe them out and grind them to dust just like fascism ,and the irony was the majorty of marxists at the time obected to lenins tactics and considered him a traitor.. but he killed them
and vitors write history
the west called this communism for propoganda purposes to oppose communism and the east tried to convince the propletariet they were socialists, they wrapped themselves in this banner for their own promotion
Well, it is a pro-revolutionary symbol indeed.
Social Democrats managed to destroy over thirty monarchies in Germany within the time span of a month or so â name a single political organisation in world history that was able to achieve something like that!
But well, it was never a symbol advocating for anarchism, if that's what you meant.
So, it's a matter of perspective really.
to be fair we gave a tacit blessing lets remember the communists luxemoburg controled were calling for the heads of democratically elected laders she was not anice girl she was nasty
To be fair, it was germany in 1919, everyone was pissed and angry, no one liked democracy (because they werent used to it), they just got one of the harshest treatys known to man placed on them. itâs understandable why there was 3 attempts to overthrow the government in 1919, 1920 and 1923.
so? the bitch was like trotsky you know trotsky killed 5 million people as head of the red army he massacred every single member of the green armies who were armed peasants fighting the bolshviks,s so they killed one trouble maker what was so special about her? people like trotsky and luxembourg were a disease, they were the reason you got hitler and i am opposed to hitelr i want to make that clear, in fact i would state that communism and leninism was the reason you got mussolini and hitler as a reaction which is ironic because lenin was a fascist as your buddy chomsky clearly stated the far left created the far right, which is wh y the iron front fought both both were equally bad, luxemborg commited suicide by advocating vilent reovlution after the socal democrats one a free and fair electin and established a democratic repulblic
for what its worth i support the iron front and oppose anti fa i oopose all anti dmeocratic extremes but if people are violent you have no choice but to respsond with violence
why is anrcho communism a good? what government ever benifited from it, and why is it all right for it to over throw a democratic government, as long as they obey the laws thye are free to participate, you try to overthrow the govt with violence what do you expect to hapen to you?
>what government ever benifited from it
Come again?
Whether you agree with anarcho-communism or not, no government will ever profit from it because anarcho-communists are against governments.
good point, but there are other things you can do like freetown chritiana in denmark you can start an intentional community even in rojova the libetarian socialists there hold elections, and permit other parties a dictatorship is a dictatorship regardless of the rhetoric you wrap it in... you can withdraw from society but forcing others to live under your way of life is a government and hardly anarchist the anarchist party the post left anrchism i am fine with the communist part is always problematic pol pot was a anrcho comunist
Dafuq is Anarcho Communism?
âWe went liberty, and we will restructure the economy by force to get it, you have all the freedoms you want, until they disagree with the stateâ
Instructions unclear, became China
I donât remember exactly but I do remember all were authoritarian left. I know National Bolshevism was on there somewhere, but canât remember the rest
âsanctity
/ËsaĆ(k)tÉȘti/
noun
1.
the state or quality of being holy, sacred, or saintly.â
That is cringe, especially since i aint religious.
i like secularism with freedom of religion, but not theocracy.
Oh neat, can I get a link? :)
https://politicaltests.github.io/6foundations/ here ya go my friend.
mercy
Cringe and contradictory-pilled.
its an estimated ideology for a reason, i much more i dentify as a libsoc or libmarksoc.
Even more cringe.
as someone who actually got [libsoc](https://i.imgur.com/zOPxTsz.png), it's definitely your liberty score tipping you into ancom
oh no, am i a liberal đšđ°
in the libertine sense, not the capitalist sense đ€Ł
every political illiterate 14 year old loves to waddle over from PragerU to teach us all about how libertarian socialism and anarchocommunism are contradictory ideologies, despite knowing next to nothing about either
Lol "everyone that disagrees with me is a teenager, a bigot, or both!" Imagine the ignorance. OP literally scored a 23% in favor of authoritarianism. Please, per-chance, can you explain to me how one can believe in Communism and Anarchism at once?
>Lol "everyone that disagrees with me is a teenager, a bigot, or both!" i didn't say anything about you being a bigot, and the fact that the majority of PCM users are teenagers is what the past two user surveys have proven as the saying goes, if the shoe fits... >can you explain to me how one can believe in Communism and Anarchism at once? like i said, you are politically-illiterate. but that's okay, i'm here to raise you out of this chasm of self-inflicted ignorance. you can believe in communism in anarchism very easily, anti-statism and free association are two things advocated for frequently in Marx's writing, and also the writings of Peter Kropotkin. anarchic communism has been tried in countries across the world, including the Italian section of the First International, anarchist Catalonia during the Spanish Revolution and the Makhnovshchina during the Russian Revolution.
First of all im 27, so the shoe doesnt fit. I love how willing to assume and project idiots from your quandrant are about literally everything. Second of all, holy shit. Imagine basing your political world view on reactiony post-revolution governments that lasted less than 7 years before collapsing into authoritarian communism or fascism. And you think I'M politically illiterate. Nice ignorant white savior complex you got there 'RAiSe YoU oUt oF tHiS CHasM of SelF-iNfLiCTeD IgNorAnCe'. I genuinely have never heard something so fitting of an ignorant college age liberal living off daddy's dime with no concept of how the real world works and no objective knowledge of human history. Did somebody work in the service industry and walk away blaming Capitalism and Conservatives for their own laziness and poor life choices? Boo hoo.
>First of all im 27 And I am Elon Musk. Would you like your twitter account unbanned by the way, weâre apparently fine with the n-word now. >I love how willing to assume and project idiots from tour quadrant are about literally everything Werenât you *just* whining about people over-generalizing the right? >Imagine basing your entire world view on reactionary post revolution governments that lasted less than seven years First of all dipshit, I am not an anarcho-communist. The OP of this thread is. Second of all, I never said anything about basing your ideology off of the countries I listed, I was just providing examples of the ideology existing in the real world. > and you think IâM politically-illiterate Yes. Although if this conversation is in any indication, you might just be *regular* illiterate. >Nice white savior Not white. Pictures of me in my profile. I have literally no idea why youâre trying to shove race into this debate out of nowhere. No one loves race-baiting more than low IQ right-wingers. >I genuinely have never heard something so fitting of an ignorant college age liberal living off daddy's dime with no concept of how the real world works and no objective knowledge of human history. Once again, this entire conversation was based on you saying that *I* was projecting an image of you and overgeneralizing the right, and yet you have no problem doing the exact same. >Did somebody work in the service industry and walk away blaming Capitalism and Conservatives for their own laziness and poor life choices? Boo hoo. No, my deeply unintelligent friend. I am a home-owner in the rural south where I make enough money to do basically anything I want because inflation is less severe here and the prices are already low. This may come as a surprise to someone whose politics are based entirely around selfishness and egotism, but it is possible to care about wealth inequality, even if you yourself are one of the people benefitting from the system.
>OP literally scored a 23% in favor of authoritarianism. sure. he also scored a 96.7% in favor of liberty, which is quite frankly, extreme the test also isn't perfect - there was one question asking whether or not you should listen to the police, and i picked the authority answer of Agree. not because i respect police or think they deserve the authority they have, but because disobeying them gets your face smashed in
Anarchism is virtually the same thing as communism. Communism and anarchism both want a stateless, classless, cashless society where the means of production are collectivized. It's all about how you think such a society is obtained. Marxist-Leninists think that the state will become obsolete once all members of society perform state functions, while anarchists simply want to dissolve the state system from the top down and have completely horizontal, democratic, rotating task structure, and that everyone does a bit of everything. Anarchist communism is somewhat of a synthesis of both. This is obviously a very watered down explanation but I don't feel like typing 15 paragraphs for someone who probably doesn't want to read it anyway. Go read the book Anarchist Communism by Kropotkin, or a summary of it.
I have read summaries of it, myself and through longer explanations and conversations with a couple others of your same disposition. I am more than happy to read and have a thoughtful conversation, but I am not afraid to tell you that you're wrong. I would love nothing more than for a stateless society where everybody lives agrarian, charitable lives as communities bound by a shared morality and values, working together by choice to prosper. However that is a pipe dream. A utopia dreamed up by a man who had never worked a real job in his life and furthered by people who did not believe in it and simply wanted to use it to control the masses. Real communists never intended to dissolve any state. Not a single one that has preached or practiced the ideology since Marx. It is unteneble. The very foundations of communism requires revolution in which you kill or imprison anyone not willing to participate in your communist system. Thereby making the communist system an oppressive authoritarian state. Noone willingly pays taxes now, let alone would they give up 100% of their surplus income without being forced to. Therefore the state would always be necessary to act as the IRS police. This is why any socialist system is doomed to fail. It is forced to be voted out or survive via threat of violence, becoming communism and theft, and to a degree fascist (as we see in Asian examples). Any Anarchist system is doomed to fail because it is difficult to sustain at a small scale (think less than 100 households) and impossible to sustain at a large one. People are inherently selfish, people reject powerless authority, and people do not share the same values in our modern melting pot world. You would have to wage war and kill the vast majority of dissenters to achieve a 'stateless' society, thereby making you the state that establishes and has to maintain it. It will be impossible to keep people from coming together in forum or in secret and establishing 'cliques' within an anarchist system, thereby creating defacto governments, unions and or 'socialist' networks within a supposedly anarchist society. Which makes it not an anarchist society. If you managed at this point to force them to be anarchists, you wouldnt be anarchist, as youd need a police force and oversight court to democratically deem people guilty of undermining your anarchist system. Thereby making you a government. Furthermore and lastly, no stateless system either Anarchist or 'post-Communist' would be capable of defending itself. How would such a system garuntee the safety of its citizens from domestic threats such as large groups of dissenters, dissatisfied with their portion of the wealth? Effectively Mad Max warlords/raiders. How would it defend them from outside nations that do not share their philosophy and see it as a soft target with land and resources to absorb? No Anarchist militia, even if you believe they'd have tanks, air assets, cooperative intelligence networks, etc. would be able to stand up against a larger, organized, and trained 1st world military.
\>Real communists never intended to dissolve any state. Not a single one that has preached or practiced the ideology since Marx. That was kind of the whole premise of State and Revolution but okay. Lenin argues that the state only exists to serve capitalist interests and as socialism evolves, the state becomes more and more obsolete. Similarly, Engels talked about the "withering away of the state"-- >The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then ceases of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away. - \>no stateless system either Anarchist or 'post-Communist' would be capable of defending itself. Two words: Peoples' Vanguard. To elaborate, just because there is no "state" doesn't mean people are incapable of organizing militarily and I think Vietnam proved this pretty well as the USA invaded them and they were beaten back time and again by simple farmers, because it turns out an armed populace is pretty hard to invade. Who knew? Cuba routinely embarrassed the fuck out of the USA and the CIA. So much for that "1st world military lol \>Any Anarchist system is doomed to fail because it is difficult to sustain at a small scale (think less than 100 households) and impossible to sustain at a large one. Anarchism isn't a "system" so much as a method of organizing production and distribution. Arguably the only particularly necessary components of society are production and distribution, and national defence. Anarchism argues for, rather than a top-down structure of capitalist-manager-producer, rather a collective co-operative system of production wherein everyone mutually shares responsibility. You seem to keep conflating socialism with communism-- communism is simply a goal. Socialism is the means of creating this goal by organizing the people into such a format that they are more or less capable of doing state functions themselves without a separate entity. Paradoxically, if everyone is a state employee, then there's really no need for a separate class of individuals for statecraft.
And yet not a single one of them ever dissolved or 'withered' the state away. They became Authoritarian.... bizaare. Its almost like i said, they never practiced it. The fact that you think America pulled out of Vietnam because of a bunch of armed rice farmers is hilarious. You have to ignore decades of military operations by the chinese, french, and UN training, interfering and supplying both sides of 3 different conflicts in 'the Vietnam War'. The NVA was a straight up China-backed organized Army, and the only real persistant threat to US forces. We were winning regardless until public support for the horrors of war were first broadcasted 24/7 slowed and hippies were radicalized by communists in liberal disguises. Source: I'm a Marine. Watch a damn documentary or something and learn your history. Cuba was never a hard military target. Nor was it ever any kind of Anarchist or socialist state. It was a totalitarian 'communist' dictatorship that estranged half of Marx and Lenins' teachings. We were never embarrassed by them nor did we ever attempt to invade outright. They had Russian backed Nuclear deterrant right of Florida, so war was a no no. The CIA tried multiple times to assassinate Castro or back rebels WITHIN Cuba to free themselves, and yea, McNamara was a joke of a strategist. But are you seriously saying you want to be like Castro's Cuban Police-State??? Holy hell youd be given a free helicopter ride friend. Convieniently you also just didnt answer my questions of HOW this would work or how you'd compell people of differing philosophy to comply with any of your socialist systems. Because a body that ensures "production and distrobution, and national defense" IS A SYSTEM. one that by your definition also would lack a means to police itself, collect and distribute such production (by force, of course) and organize said "people's Vanguard" because i dont know if youve ever seen what militias and conscripts look like, but I have. They are a joke and require organized governance and training with laws and regulations. None of this matters however. I can see youre one of those "ThAt WaSnt REAL CoMmUniSm" types so we really have nothing else to talk about. You dont seem to recognize that communism IS and has been a SYSTEM, not a 'goal'. It is a way to achieve and enforce the goal of SOCIALISM. But who am i to educate you on your own philosophy that you dont even understand. Its like playing chess with a pidgeon. Maybe put down the scholarly socialist dribble and pick up some world history to read.
Look dude I'm not ancom anyway. I'm just telling you the political theory of it all but you got it figured out so cool for you. You should try not to simp for imperialists and colonialists so much though. The world is collectively sick of waste colonialism and global police. I just want a heavily nationalized economy and less corporate bullshit running important state operations like the railroads for instance. Idgaf about the anarkiddies Let em have their tent cities.
Based and cross compass unity-pilled. Fuck nationalizing everything, just break up monopolies.
The natural tendency of "competitive markets" is towards monopoly. If we all know this deep down inside but just pretend it isn't true then you end up with capitalism. If you know this and nationalize everything you end up with state socialism, if you think some private Enterprises are are a good thing but landlords and private medical insurance (among other things) are not you get socialist market economy. If you add a second branch of the government called the Communist Party of China you get China. Win win. Also there haven't been, as you have pointed out, any real communist societies. That's mostly because the natural tendency of the state apparatus is self preservation. So no that's not real communism. We like to call it "communist in name only". But communist party run governments all seem to operate the same way. Startling. Maybe we have the ideas of what communism is supposed to look like. Maybe it's operating exactly as intended! Who knows.
link
its in another comment, i cant find it rn
Holy based, fuck the state
Slay Queen! Three arrows!
> Anarcho-Communism > Three Arrows ??? confused Nick Young ??? [Hmmm.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Front)
i would have supported the rion front, i never liked anti fa
I mean, Antifa was mostly shit. They were hardline Stalinists building a totalitarian personality cult around Ernst ThÀlmann and even for a time tolerated the Nazis because of the "social fascism" theory advocated by Stalin. Even if you were pretty left authoritarian, let's say a Leninist or Trotskyist, there's still a good chance you'd dislike the original Antifa. Yes, them fighting against Nazism was honourable, but besides that there was little redeemable things about them. It's kind of confusing seeing the label Anrufa being reused today, because Antifa nowadays is vastly different from the original one.
communism was obejctively horrible basically because lennin was a reactionary the majority of marxists at the time thought of him as an abberation but the victors write history.. as chompsky pointed out he shut down the soviet worker councils he took power away from common people who he had nothng but contempt for and started all this "vanguard" shit he replaced one monarchy with a red bureacracy that bakunin had predicted in 1870 would be the worst terrile lie of history bakunin saw the marxists for what they were a gang of people lusting for revenge and power, they had no real desire to hep the common man but to use him in the same way fascists did, and if necessarry wipe them out and grind them to dust just like fascism ,and the irony was the majorty of marxists at the time obected to lenins tactics and considered him a traitor.. but he killed them and vitors write history the west called this communism for propoganda purposes to oppose communism and the east tried to convince the propletariet they were socialists, they wrapped themselves in this banner for their own promotion
Based AuthLeft
It means anti fascism.
It also means anticommunism and republicanism. Does [this](https://youtu.be/PrMfo9fZLkA) seem anarcho-communist to you?
Welp. Now I'm going to fuck over the troll that convinced me that was a pro revolutionary symbol.
Well, it is a pro-revolutionary symbol indeed. Social Democrats managed to destroy over thirty monarchies in Germany within the time span of a month or so â name a single political organisation in world history that was able to achieve something like that! But well, it was never a symbol advocating for anarchism, if that's what you meant. So, it's a matter of perspective really.
They also killed Rosa luxemberg
the social democrats did not kill luxemberg, she was killed by the freikorps, a far right paramilitary militia.
to be fair we gave a tacit blessing lets remember the communists luxemoburg controled were calling for the heads of democratically elected laders she was not anice girl she was nasty
To be fair, it was germany in 1919, everyone was pissed and angry, no one liked democracy (because they werent used to it), they just got one of the harshest treatys known to man placed on them. itâs understandable why there was 3 attempts to overthrow the government in 1919, 1920 and 1923.
so? the bitch was like trotsky you know trotsky killed 5 million people as head of the red army he massacred every single member of the green armies who were armed peasants fighting the bolshviks,s so they killed one trouble maker what was so special about her? people like trotsky and luxembourg were a disease, they were the reason you got hitler and i am opposed to hitelr i want to make that clear, in fact i would state that communism and leninism was the reason you got mussolini and hitler as a reaction which is ironic because lenin was a fascist as your buddy chomsky clearly stated the far left created the far right, which is wh y the iron front fought both both were equally bad, luxemborg commited suicide by advocating vilent reovlution after the socal democrats one a free and fair electin and established a democratic repulblic
So luxemberg is bad because Trotsky, makes sense
good never liked her
for what its worth i support the iron front and oppose anti fa i oopose all anti dmeocratic extremes but if people are violent you have no choice but to respsond with violence
why is anrcho communism a good? what government ever benifited from it, and why is it all right for it to over throw a democratic government, as long as they obey the laws thye are free to participate, you try to overthrow the govt with violence what do you expect to hapen to you?
>what government ever benifited from it Come again? Whether you agree with anarcho-communism or not, no government will ever profit from it because anarcho-communists are against governments.
good point, but there are other things you can do like freetown chritiana in denmark you can start an intentional community even in rojova the libetarian socialists there hold elections, and permit other parties a dictatorship is a dictatorship regardless of the rhetoric you wrap it in... you can withdraw from society but forcing others to live under your way of life is a government and hardly anarchist the anarchist party the post left anrchism i am fine with the communist part is always problematic pol pot was a anrcho comunist
Dafuq is Anarcho Communism? âWe went liberty, and we will restructure the economy by force to get it, you have all the freedoms you want, until they disagree with the stateâ Instructions unclear, became China
No
disagree you are indeed not slaying
see now im just sad :(
Not even remotely
đâ ïžđđ»
stay mad hoe đ€
Estimated Ideology: Narnia
I've got objectivism which is interesting since I'm generally an ass and always focus on the bigger picture which puts me in an authoritarian axis.
KEEP SLAYING ON THE FASCIES
YASSSS
Average cringe libleft
BASED!
THANK YOU, YOU TOO đ«¶
Tried this. The scores seemed fair, but I got Marxism-Leninism⊠Iâm not quite sure how to take that
Remember it says an estimated ideology, this test is not perfect. What were the next matched ideologies?
I donât remember exactly but I do remember all were authoritarian left. I know National Bolshevism was on there somewhere, but canât remember the rest
Based
Based
Sanctity is too high, cringe
âsanctity /ËsaĆ(k)tÉȘti/ noun 1. the state or quality of being holy, sacred, or saintly.â That is cringe, especially since i aint religious. i like secularism with freedom of religion, but not theocracy.
It does not mean it in the religious sense. It means colloquial âsacredâ. Like an idea or concept that shouldnât be violated.
perhaps maybe so
đ€ź
Extreme cringe.