BAKUNIN WAS HERE, MARX IS A LOSER

Anarcho-faggot here. Where are all my socialist comrades?

Stalinists can fuck off, though. Liberals, too, as contrary to popular misperceptions in this board, they are not socialists.

Also, cocks.

SOOOOOOOOOSHALIZTS!!

in before libertarians

>>1
While I believe implementing Anarchist-Communism is impossible, history has proven them correct on one thing; they said that a state would corrupt the revolution, and indeed, that was how things happened.

In b4 bush is socialist

>>1
>>2
>>3
>>4
Same person.

>>5
Butthurt libertarian, who's wrong - yet again.

Back to crying, shoo.

>>4
Why do you say this? Are you of the opinion that the "socialist" transition period is necessary?

>>7
Look at Makhnovschina - they simply died off, unable to defend themselves. A truly anarchist society can only exist if there are no other states trying to crush them, so a "transitionary" socialist government needs to compete, fight and win over its capitalist counterparts before a utopia can be realized. Look at the army, for example. People's militia with no full-time soldiers and elected officers sound beautiful, but an organized professional army just rapes them.

>>8
Didn't the Makhnovists rape the Whites, and give the Red Army a run for their money? From what I heard, they entered a temporary alliance, and the Bolsheviks betrayed them upon destroying the counter-revolutionary armies.

Also, the Spanish anarchists held their own for quite a substantial amount of time. But again, the Stalinists in power fucked them over, and refused to aid them against the Fascists. Had they abolished the Republican state when they had the chance (instead of participating in it later on...), that wouldn't have happened.

One more thing. Anarchism/communism is not a utopia. A utopia means a perfect society, with no pain and suffering whatsoever. Even the most perfectly realized communist society would still have its problems, due to the reality of human existence. People would still get ill, there would be disagreements within a community, there would still be crimes committed by sociopaths, people would die... but it would be a thoroughly human society, free from illegitimate authority and coercion. Not quite a utopia, but definitely a more enriching and fulfilling society.

>>9
The Red Army of 1919 was hardly a disciplined, organized professional army.

>>1
>>2
>>3
>>4
>>6
>>12
Same person.

>>11
>>12
Same person.
Oh snap!

>>10
At first, the army followed the "socialist" way and fought with elected officers etc. but Trotsky decided that it didn't work and reformed the Red Army to a centrally-organized army during the war.

Well, it doesn't matter, in any case. Many anarchists propose a top-down hierarchical army, do they not?

>>14
I thought the point of people's militia, was that the army was formed from bottom to above - a hierarchy did exists, but no one really "outranked" another, orders were questionable etc. but I don't know shit about what contemporary anarchists think.

>>15
So you are an anarchist in the Spanish civil war and the nationalists have your squad pinned down by machine gun fire and mortars and you need support before more young men die. You radio the artillery and ask for help and they reply "we're bombarding something else", so you radio the reserves to ask them to move up but the radio channel is flooded with other messages and they don't take yours as seriously as the other squads asking for help. There is absolutely no organisation or command over the entire army, there is no one to decide how to distribute forces or how to react to the enemy's moves.

MY FORM OF COLLECTIVIZED STEALING IS BETTER THAN YOUR FORM OF COLLECTIVIZED STEALING, MARXFAG

>>16
Why does our column only have one bomber? Also, why would you expect the bomber to come to you if its already engaging another target?  Any military would not call off an airstrike for a smaller group.

>>18
This lack of organization means our column doesn't have any air support at all of its own.  Our column probably doesn't even have a radio.  It's just a bunch of enthusiastic high school kids and bearded wannabee-revolutionaries with a motley of obsolescent small arms from half a dozen countries, using different caliber ammunition, who may or may not have thought to bring some food and a blanket and a spare pair of boots and a change of clothing, who said "hurrah!  We hear gunfire coming from that direction, let's go fight the fascists!"

>>16
>>19
Actually, initially the "disorganized" militia had great success against Fascists, before Hitler and Mussolini started feeding Franco, and Stalin decided a non-stalinist communist regime was more dangerous to him than a fascist one. Those "high school kids" and wannabe revolutionaries did capture several cities and strongholds.

But regardless, in the end Stalin declared that it wouldn't give arms to those who didn't join the "organized" army, which wasn't supplied properly either, and they all we all learned about the long average lifespan of a fascist dictator when he doesn't kill himself or is shot by partisans.

>>17
Property is theft, retarded sycophant.

>>21 has forgotten the rest of that quote.

"Property is liberty.
Property is theft.
Property is impossible."

Proudhon

>>22
retarded sycophant wasn't in the quote either, if you think about it...

>>20
All the while, France and Britain stood there, stroking their dicks.

>>20
The only anarchist brigade that contributed to the fight against the nationalists was the Durruti column, which utilised a hierarchial command structure and consisted only of around 3000 out of a total of around 500000 republican soldiers. 250000 attended his funeral in anarchist catalonia, it seems that less than 2% of his supporters were willing to go on the offensive.

>>25
On the initial stages of the war the other commies too fought in militia fashion - it's just that only anarchists kept doing it.

>>26
I guess a stateless society is a defenseless society.

>>27
No, look at somalia for exa-oh, waiit...

>>28
Because anarcho-capitalism = anarcho-communism, rite?

I read up on Bakunin because due to the fall of communism, libertarian socialism is becomming a lot more popular.
This is what I got so far:
Bakunin completely argees with most of the stuff Marx wrote except the dictatorship of working class. In his opinion it would only result in even more oppression.
Instead, an Invisible Dictatorship is needed. That means individuals who hear the call of duty should organize and protect the society from non-anarchist influences. However, this organization wouldn't act as a government (no foreign policy, no official representatives, no laws whatsoever) and everyone's free to do whatever he wants as long as he's not a threat to the anarchist society.
In practice this means that while there's no law against raping children they'd still break into your house, buttrape you and slice your throat if they don't like what you're doing.
Or, for a better mental picture, think of Mad Max or the Fallout games.
Is this correct? y/n

>>30
It was a reference to no state, I do well realize they are on opposite ends

>>31
It removes "state" as an intermediary body, but naturally I find calling an organization moved solely by the will of people a dictatorship, "invisible" or not, stupid.

>>32
It removes "state" as an intermediary body, but naturally I find calling an organization moved solely by the will of people a dictatorship, "invisible" or not, stupid.
Really?
Well, thank you for your totally worthless opinion.

>>33
Congratulations on crying after declaring every form of rule as a dictatorship. Bottom to top organization with recallable elected leaders? I don't understand that, I just wanted to cry KOMMIE = DIKTATORSHIP!

>>34
Congratulations on crying after declaring every form of rule as a dictatorship. Bottom to top organization with recallable elected leaders? I don't understand that, I just wanted to cry KOMMIE = DIKTATORSHIP!

Really?
Well, thank you for your totally worthless opinion.

Most anarchists nowadays would say that they are not opposed to government, or maybe even laws. They are just opposed to said government and laws coming out of a centralized state. Many of us propose a kind of federalist system, a "commune of communes" (or municipality of municipalities, as Bookchin called them), if you will.

The main difference between Marxists (of the Leninist kind, not the council commies or autonomists) and anarchists lies in how they view the state. Marxists see the state solely as an instrument of class power, which means that they believe it to be a useful tool in crushing the bourgeois and other counter-revolutionary forces. However, anarchists extend their view of the state further, and consider it not only an instrument of class oppression, but a self-perpetuating institution with a monopoly on violent force.

That is why we argue that, no matter how democratic the state is, it cannot possibly "wither away", let alone lead us towards a communist society. By its very nature, a state is oppressive, and puts those at the helm above everyone else. Stacking it with workers or revolutionaries will only corrupt them, and turn them into the same old tyrants.

>>36
So instead of monopolising violence you allow criminal gangs to run free until one eventually rises to power and sets up a dictatorship. Sounds like the summer of 1917 all over again.

>>37
Who the fuck is talking about letting gangs run free? The point is to organize the people, albeit in a decentralized fashion. Do you really think an organized movement would let criminal gangs fuck their shit up?

I do, however, see how this Mad Max situation would apply in an anarcho-capitalist society, because no one would be organized for anything. It would literally be everyone for himself. Lack of solidarity among the people will do that.

And in any case, I believe the root causes of widespread crime will disappear with the fall of capitalism. That you bring up the case of gangs taking over shows how little you think of human beings, as if we are all opportunists just waiting for the po-pos to die off so we can loot and pillage everything in our path, and no one's gonna do anything about it.

Yes, there will always be crime in some form, but a society organized to work towards abolishing the conditions that lead to widespread crime will be least susceptible to mafia rule.

>>38
The cause of crime is the infinite level of greed, ambition, cruelty, treachery, faith and brutality a person can achieve. Poverty just makes it more likely for someone to go right ahead and commit crime relative to the deterant.


If you haven't already noticed, game theory has overtaken sociology (socialistology?) as the science of controlling people. Get with the program.

Chance of committing crime over a period of time = depravity/(depravity + deterant)

If the deterant = 0, then the chance = 1, or certain, regardless of how low depravity levels are. Of course guilt is a deterant, but the highest levels of guilt over a period of time are small compared to even the least depraved a human can be. There must always be laws to protect people from themselves, they must always be punished, seen to be punished and their leader's depravity must be reduced by wealth enough for them to be less likely to abuse their position (or never do anything serious).

>>36
>>38
If you're not a follower of Bakunin then name another political philosopher or write an essay because otherwise any debate about YOUR view of anarchism would be pointless.
Saying what you don't agree on is the least interesting part and can be entirely ignored if you don't deliver your own hypothesis.

>>39
The single most significant and statistically predictable cause of violent crime is African genes.

>>41
Rrriiight.

>>42
Nigger.

>>41
Aggression can be funneled against criminals by creating a culture that romanticises law enforcement in the same way "gangsta rap" is romanticised. The easiest way to achieve this is to inform the "black community" that a vast sum of their problems revolve around ice dealing whore pimping crack heads and not "the man".

OWA - Officers with Attitude
Fuck tha Gangstas