Anarchism thread? Currently reading The Conquest of Bread by pic related and it's very interesting...

Anarchism thread? Currently reading The Conquest of Bread by pic related and it's very interesting. Any other writers or works I should read? What are your thoughts on anarchy?

Other urls found in this thread:

econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

If you're genuinely interested and not an edgelord """anarchist""" you should read some Rousseau, specifically his views on the state of nature and social contract theory.

I used to be an Anarchist until I finally saw that niggers are always gonna nig and we need a bare bones State to keep them the fuck away from me.

It's a 10/10 ideology for educated whites.
But a 0/10 in the real world.

Not an edgelord. I'm genuinely curious as to what an anarchist state looks like. I don't wear a Che Guevara tee or beret. This is interesting and taboo for me. I want to expand my mind a little and expose myself to new ideas but I don't want to read books written by edge lords. I'm aware of writers like Proudhon and Bakunin but haven't checked them out yet

>I'm genuinely curious as to what an anarchist state looks like

I'm no expert on the subject but it kind of seems like the term "anarchist state" is self-contradictory. And the fact that such a thing has never existed puts it below even communism in terms of existing solely in the realm of political philosophy and not political reality. Even communism has existed, even if in name only.

There were anarchist provinces in Spain during the 1930's

econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.htm

Rojava is a good example

You are correct. The anarchists of old outright rejected the State and all means of hierarchy, hence, an-archy. An anarchist state is a contradiction just like why many anarchists do not like anarcho-capitalists as capitalism leads to an accumulation of capital thus creating a hierarchy of wealth. Wealth easily then becoming power. The anarchists of old were communists before the communists new they were communists. Look into the interaction between the Communists and Anarchists. Proudhon and Marx actually were well acquainted via letters if memory serves me.

I meant "state" as in current form of society. Like when a doctor says his the state of his patients health is poor. You guys took that way too literally

Prepare for a lot of that if you continue reading Anarchist philosophy.
They were an autistic sort.

>I meant "state" as in current form of society.
Then you used the term "state" incorrectly. Society and state do not mean the same thing in political philosophy, that's kind of a fundamental component of anarchist thought.

Bakunin is a must read. God and the State is great capture of the era and general anarchist sentiments and is a classic anarchist critique of Marxism. Basically Bakunin predicted USSR totalitarianism as an inevitable consequence of marxist thought. He's wrong for his own hilarious reasons but it's still a good read. And it's a lot shorter than the other stuff that drags on and on out there.

read Voltarine de Cleyre for classic feminist anarchist writers before they went full retard.

If you want to understand the kurds and how their trying to make anarchism work then read Bookchin. Ocalan basically went from full commie to full anarchist due to reading his stuff while in jail.

>One hardly bears of it in Western Europe. With the perseverance, however, that characterises the men of the North, and particularly those of Finland, this small yet rising nationality has within a short time achieved results so remarkable that it has ceased to be a Swedish or a Russian province more or less differing from its neighbours: it is a nation. Discussing once this question, 'What is a nation?' Ernest Renan get forth in his vivid and graphic style that a nation is not an agglomeration of people speaking the same language-a language may disappear; not even an aggregation with distinct anthropological features, all nations being products of heterogeneous assimilations; still less a union of economical interests which may he a Zollverein. National unity, he said, is the common inheritance of traditions, of hopes and regrets, of common aspirations and common conceptions, which make of a nation a true organism instead of a loose aggregation. The naturalist would add to these essential features of a nation the necessary differentiation from other surrounding organisms, and the geographer, a kind of union between the people and the territory it occupies, from which territory it receives its national character and on which it impresses its own stamp, so as to make an indivisible whole both of men and territory.

Kropotkin, P. (1885). "Finland: a Rising Nationality". The Nineteenth Century. March, pp. 527-46.

Also OP if you plan on reading anarchist thinkers you should probably also begin to associate yourself with their greatest critics. After reading some Kropotkin try reading Edmund Burke's "Reflection on the Revolution in France." It's pretty much the opposite of anarchism but not in a "I'm just trying to find the opposite extreme" but more of a 'this is the best genuine defense against anarchism/revolutionary socialism at the time.'

You'll a lot better served by reading a variety of authors on the subject than just having the same ideology from different perspectives repeated over and over again. But time is precious so if nothing else read Burke while you read Kropotkin.

Anarchy will never exist because it is by definition weak. Except for the time when the Anarchists conquered all that shit back in... oh wait.
Organized nations will forever be stronger than anarchies.

There is also an okay case to be made that pre-industrial anarchism was the primary political system in the mountain jungles of south-east asia. Basically once you get past the urban areas of Thailand and get into the rural mountain jungles of Zomia, aka 'just not fucking worth it-stan' then you see a people whose lives could be described as anarchist. Havn't read the book but there is a better case to be made that it happened there than in other places.

There are also some African tribes that still just don't understand the idea of private property. It makes governing in the region a bitch.

>As to the nearly 11,200 Russians who live in the country, the 7,000 military of course need not lie taken into account; if their stay in Finland is short-and it mostly is, for only Finnish citizens are permitted to occupy official positions in the country-they remain Russians. But the tradesmen, or farmers, or peasants, who are staying in Finland for a longer time, are quickly 'Fennicized.' In a few years they conform to Finnish customs; and as you see one of them slowly smoking a pipe and rocking in the rocking-chair (an inevitable piece of furniture in a Finnish household), you would hardly guess that he is a Russian immigrant. He speaks little, he has become reserved and contemplative. Under the regime of a liberty be never knew at home, he feels interested in Finland and her prosperity. Nay, even his face has changed. As to big children, their fair heads can hardly be distinguished from the yellow-haired heads of the same Tchoukhnys whom their father formerly regarded with so great contempt. His most interesting that, according to a remark of Herr Max Buch, even the Germans, who so seldom lose their national features, are rapidly 'Swedicized' when they stay for some time in Finland.

You're right in that anarchist states never existed because they're a contradiction in itself. However anarchist societies did exist and sustained themselves just fine. They're not just a philosophical construct. Examples are the Bororo people, the Baining, Onondaga, Wintu, Ema, Tallensi or Vezo people. All anarchist societies.

So anarchy is possible, but the question remains if it is possible to change state-based societal structures to anarchistic ones without reverting technological progress and significantly reducing the world population. Also anarchist societies usually had some mechanism to keep violence in check, like the religious belief that everyone who tries to seize power in some way will be struck down by the gods, so no one ever tries to the first place. I doubt most contemporary anarchist would like the idea of replacing state power with religion.

Go away Nietzsche.

>Contemplativeness-if I am permitted to use this ugly word-is another distinctive feature of the Finns: Tawastes, Samos, and Karelians ire alike prone to it. Contemplation of nature, a meditative mute contemplation, which finds its expression rather in a sang than in words, or incites to the reflection about natures mysteries rather than about the facts, is characteristic as well of the peasant as of the savant. It may be akin to, without being identical with, mystical reverie. It may, in certain circumstances, give rise to mysticism, as it did at the beginning of our century; it produced that tendency towards sorcery and witchcraft toy which the Finns were, and are still, renowned among and tested by their Russian neighbours; but actually it gives rise among the instructed classes to a tendency towards a philosophic and pantheistic conception of nature, instead of the childish wonder with which others are satisfied. It also orients the Finnish folk-lore with an idealism which makes it so strongly contrast with the sensualism of the folk-lore of so many other nationalities. In science it causes savants to devote themselves rather to abstract mathematics, to astronomy, to the great problems of the physics of the earth, than to the merely descriptive sciences, these last being, as it seems, rather inherited from the science of Sweden.

But that would be a limitation by a "god" and so they wouldn't be purely anarchist as the philosophers dreamed. "No gods, no masters" and all that. It becomes a lot like that "but REAL communism has never been tried" meme.