Hello Comrades. This general is for the discussion of Libertarian Socialism a.k.a Anarchism, the ideology of workers control of the means of production and freedom from hierarchy.
What is anarchism? An Introduction:
theanarchistlibrary.org
Important Anarchist Reading:
theanarchistlibrary.org
theanarchistlibrary.org
theanarchistlibrary.org
libcom.org
Other urls found in this thread:
uk.coop
youtube.com
twitter.com
>posting on Sup Forums
>expecting stormfags to provide arguments or reasoning
This is why Bernie should have won, he would have redpilled the masses
I feel like this thread is much needed what with the tankie bootlickers trying to establish a base of support here. It would be rather unfortunate if authoritarian shitheads corrupt another socialist movement and set back socialism another century.
DAILY REMINDER
So what you wanna do stuff like the Paris Commune?
given the rising degree of spying and censorship our only hope may be a widespread decentralized resistance
feels a bit like waiting for the weather to turn
I personally subscribe to anarcho-sysndicalism. I think it's important to build up a network of revolutionary worker's unions with a priority of utilizing funds raised by the union to create new worker owned industries. Anarcho-syndicalism aims to eliminate private industry through an economic means. Rapidly establishing worker owned industry, and seizing private industry to be used for public purposes will force the social superstructure in an area to change by shifting its economic base.
Im genuinely shawked at the resolve to steal Sup Forums glory. Whats the matter? Your ideology not very popular? The proletariats think your full of shit, and going nowhere? Its likely because their not at stupid as you like to believe. Where is pinochet when you need him.
Dont forget to sage these useless assholes.
Mate but at least this is politically incorrect topic, i don't want to see filthy communist who killed a lot of anarquist during spain civil war.
The irony in this post would be hilarious if you weren't serious about this garbage.
???
Wow, literally proving my point
Pinochet was right : ^ )
your ideology is almost as good as Marxism Leninism.
>Dick Sucking General
The key difference between anarchist and authoritarian socialists is the desire to imminently remove hierarchy. Anarchists believe that given the opportunity, in a socialist society with hierarchy a new ruling class will implement an economic system with surplus value extraction similar to capitalism where the workers have their value stolen from the by the ruling class. This can be seen time and time again in authoritarian "socialist" societies in which the transition towards worker ownership of the means of production was never achieved or in which it was achieved in small sectors with there being major disparities of capital inbetween proletarian sectors and sectors with a high concentration of elite.
Reminder to report for being a Poltically Correct topic
>wow
>literally
Can you at least pretend you didn't just come from reddit?
>Anarchism
Anarcho-Communists and Trotskyists need to an hero. Please buy an ice pick and an hero, you open borders retard.
We allready know your plan ,you IDIOT,GTFO of Sup Forums and Sup Forums or this will end up yust like in 2014.
...
roll
>Main group of skwackers directs people to read x y or z to prove their arguments
>Hurr when they do it it not an argument
This is why no one here takes you seriously.
yep, i can't understand how they call themself left/pol while they're not /pol, at least they should be racist, anti inmigration, etc...
roll, thats all these threads are good for anyway
>Libertarian Socialism
is this a joke
...
>How can you call yourselves leftist politically incorrect?
According to Wikipedia's citation of someone named Herbert Kohl,
"The term “politically correct” was used disparagingly, to refer to someone whose loyalty to the Communist Party line overrode compassion, and led to bad politics. It was used by Socialists against Communists, and was meant to separate out Socialists who believed in egalitarian moral ideas from dogmatic Communists who would advocate and defend party positions regardless of their moral substance."
I live not too far from a hippy commune that's been around since the 60s. In many ways I imagine they'd sorta be what guys like Bakunin was aiming for in a way with how they run things.
It's literally a Politically Correct topic :')
Roll
No. Look up Leon Trotsky and the Spanish anarchists. These retards think their classless and stateless society will be equal.
roll
these are shit where are the good ones?
read this
There is nothing wrong with this. I welcome different discourse. Just be able to cope with memes and not freak out if people call you kikes. If they do, respond constructively and if fit to do so.
The workers have no position of influence any longer [*effectively*]
They've been replaced by the technocrats
rolling
Maximum personal freedom. Minimal economic freedom.
Rollin
None of those are good but i think K is best, huge ,Average,pear ,sometimes gentle sometimes rough ,bookworm and nazi.
>Hello Comrades.
Goodnight, left side.
"an"caps are not anarchists whatsoever. Capitalism is based upon the idea of utilizing capital to extract value from workers, this is innately hierarchical, and therefore, anything to do with capitalism is not anarchist. Furthermore, "an"caps in general tend to subscribe to the liberal misinterpretation of the word anarchism and assume it means no rules, but in actuality, anarchist societies are built upon lots of rules in order to maintain organization and freedom from hierarchy.
>rolled virgin, submissive, nazi, and family oriented
wew
roll roll by the boat sliding commie threads
Oh wrong meme then mb
>/generals/
>Actual meaningful discussion
No idea why you fags want to colonize Sup Forums when you can't even recognize the basics. Fucking brit/pol/ is one of the oldest gens and the most intelligent conversation they have is fucking karenposting.
Still wrong meme desu lad
That's the ussr flag
>minimal economic freedom
So in other words not libertarianism at all. In other words, just regular socialism.
Wasn't prepared for a authoritarian anarchy colonization mb
mods are sleeping, post some Pinochets
>minimal economic freedom
Well actually, lots of anarchists oppose central planning, it might even be safe to say that most do. For instance, in an anarcho-syndicalist society the economy is very decentralized and is very much controlled from a personal level. In anarcho-syndicalism, the local workplaces or local unions decide how to exchange resources with the other workplaces and trade agreements are made inbetween unions democratically.
I consider this to be a lot more free than a market system in which the average person has no economic power whatsoever and everything is determined by profitability.
Daily reminder comrades
classcucks pls leave
easy there comrade, no need to further alienate the proles
You replace a private " boss " with big daddy government. Pathetic. Learn to take care of yourself, don't rely on somebody else you weak nu male scum.
...
>wanting to eliminate private property
>politically correct
>be me
>oppose hierarchy
>get told I want hierarchy
well shit, btfo I guess
...
on the contrary, we wish to replace the boss with the workers.
worker co-ops, read up
uk.coop
...
...
...
This.
It would be really cool to get something like mondragon started in the United States. I think there is a lot of potential in utilizing a federation of co-ops as a means to fund new co-ops. What I'm thinking is that all the co-ops could be members of the same union and then the union dues are used to build new co-ops.
...
Sieg Heil comrades!
It's not really anarchy if there is still some force governing over who can and can't own a means of production
anarchy means no rulers not no rules
The people making the rules are the rulers
Fuck off shitlord
what if the workers all decide they should delegate the management of the means of production to a single individual in exchange for a portion of the output for efficiencies sake
>saged and hidden, faggot
Communism always leads to the tyranny of the government. Not once has it gotten past its dictatorial stage, and that's because of human nature. No one would give up power like that willingly.
Communism has never and will never work.
Nah
so if the rules are made by group consensus based on the entire population, that makes everyone the ruler? Sounds good.
A ruler is defined by what is not a ruler. If everyone is a ruler, then the word ruler has no functional meaning.
Actually, management can exist under anarchism. There is a difference between having a position of authority and just being a consultant or organizer of sorts. If for instance a factory decides they need someone to manage who runs which assembly line and so on, they'd democratically nominate that guy and decide on what percentage of the value they produce to give to that guy much like they decide on what percentage of the value they produce to collectivize for the sake of maintaining the industry in running condition and so on.
The key difference between being in a position of authority and simply being a manager is basically this:
if the manager had authority over the workers, they'd decide the workers pay and not be on social par with them.
In an anarchist society, the manager is on social par with the workers and the manager and the workers collectively decide the managers pay since the manager doesn't actually produce any value.
Actually you'd voluntarily being giving up your economic self control, same as anarcho capitalism really
not more faggoty lefties.. GTFO
Hell yeah
You newfags need to learn what sage is and how to use it. Stop bumping trash on Sup Forums
they'll bump it themselves, they've been raiding for hours
might as well humiliate them in the process
That sounds more like democracy than anarchy
If everyone is a ruler then who is making all the rules necessary for a communism, i.e., who is saying who can and can't own means of production?
>quoting a nutcase terrorist
Not an argument.
the lawgiver, those who set up the initial framework for society. They however, are not the rulers, as once this framework is established, the people make all the decisions within it.
Pretty much, it's too bad we don't have real democracy almost anywhere in the world.
Shhh... This triggers the traditional capitalist.
The solution is simple. Don't give that over-arching power to any such body.
Anarcho communism is a hilariously stupid oxymoron.
Democracy is the opposite of anarchism
Kill yourself
I don't see any reason to call what you're describing anarchy
or any reason to assume that the people would choose communism
what I'm describing is Rousseauian democracy, which is still pretty damn close. But regardless, every system requires a group of people to set it up, anarchism is no different.
Co ops are useless and non productive
No wonder they've got such a small market share
They're actually more stable than conventional businesses. Many more of them make it through the crucial first few years.
That was a good read, haven't seen it before, thanks.
literally nothing on that list applies to socialists tho, it's all liberal shit
why does that logo remember me of that?