“Not relying on their capital, currency, or their rules…” So just create productive forces from nothing? The local anarchist commune will simply just create a batch of medicine or ammunition… after the proletarian revolution in a extremely undeveloped country. “We don’t need a state to defend us from invasions.” That’s literally the primary reason for the existence of the state in Socialism… Every electoral, anti-authoritarian, etc; project fails to keep in mind the necessity of a revolutionary state, against both foreign and domestic enemies. Ironically hoi4 logic, just wish the state away while changing none of the circumstances (the existence of differing classes in the world). They just read a fucking headline from POLYMARKET of all things, and immediately believe it to the absolute letter; as if Cuba is not trying to gain NECESSARY productive forces in the same route as the Chinese Opening Up and Reform. Not to mention the uneven distribution of resources… i fucking hate anarchists.
Motherfuckers probably think they can grow coffee in their backyard.
Yeah, lol. Imagine really barren lands (which I live in) trying to produce coffee for the community. Shit is just red sand here, with a tiddly-wink of yellow or brown grass. Anarchists do not comprehend that society, like the productive forces, centralize- and they do so for a very observable reason.
We literally invented agriculture to solve this problem and Anarchists think community gardens will solve every issue.
I honestly struggle to understand how ignorant anarchists are about their lack of solutions to unequal development. These people have simply nothing to offer to countries that have been imperialized for centuries and lack sufficent productive forces
Anarchism as an ideology had its death knell by the middle of the 20th century, after ww2, when all its tries over the previous hundred years failed completely.
It should be studied as an historical curiosity, like positivism or something, but not be taken seriously, and indeed be seen as harmful for its tendency to lead worker projects to complete failure.
‘Just create electricity, housing, and water bro…’. The PCC is changing because they’re completely unable to procure materials and productivity due to their geographical location, even when disregarding their uneven development. That is why they are attempting to allow limited but open market reforms. They are in such a shittier position, both developmentally and geographically, in comparison to the DPRK- which has been able to maintain (atleast from what I have read) Soviet-style five year plans and centralized planning. All due to their geography, despite the development being literally torn apart in the Fatherland Liberation War. Anarchists unironically think they can just change a doctrine or the state/government (as if they make the difference, like Libertarians), removing it in this case, like we’re in a game of Crisis of the Kremlin; as if the entirety of what Marx has analyzed doesn’t exist (i.e. the state arrives due to the existence of class). Anarchists are just struggle-rhetorical Libertarians. It never ‘comes-down’ to CLASS, but, instead to AUTHORITY or the STATE.
”anarchism is your best shot at preventing this” as if anarchism will ever be practiced in reality
As we know “the state” is an evil gremlin that does mischief and prevents communism
The following is not meant to be a “strawman” of anarchists; I don’t know every single argument any of them could make. More like walking through how one may arrive at needing a state, no matter how into bottom-up power they are.
“How would you defend yourself from invasions?”
“With armed community defense.”
“How would you coordinate with other communities under the same umbrella of interests, to ensure you are not picked off one by one?”
“Via a central communication hub.”
“Who would be in charge of this communication hub in a crisis?”
“A central authority.”
“How will people know which areas are considered to be yours / under your protection?”
“With clearly defined borders and regional names.”
“What is to be done in case of sectarian disputes that threaten these border designations?”
“They can leave.”
“And if this makes it even harder for you to defend yourselves in the future?”
“We’ll convince them to stay.”
“How?”
“Via promotion of collective benefits.”
“How will you create and distribute these benefits?”
“Via a central logistics hub.”
“Who will oversee this hub?”
“Representatives from each area.”
“So you have both local and central military, a central authority in a crisis, central logistics with representatives from each area, and clearly defined borders. A state.”
This will always be my eternal annoyance with anarchists, especially online. They simply describe the functions of a state, down to its role in suppressing classes, yet refuse to admit that it’s a state. It’s the unwillingness to understand that which they are opposing which gets on my nerves.
Good thing On Authority is short enough to show to an Anarchist.
I’m not certain asking them to read it works. They seem to treat us suggesting the text as a meme these days as they cling to people’s banal attempts to “debunk” it.
I meant showing the text to Anarchists in real life. Online Anarchists are a lost cause.
We should never give up on explaining.
These gentlemen think when they have changed the name of things, they have changed the things themselves. That is how these profound thinkers mock the whole world.
This is what happens when you suffer from a severe case of idealism, kids.
So essentially they’d relly on magic.
Just kidding, of course. They’d do the same but call it something else.
This looks like trolling.
Unfortunately,… No! OOP was not trolling.
Deeply unserious and terminally online person.
Socialism with hopes and prayers characteristics.
Get the spray bottle
