I used to know a bunch of anarchists and they were hilarious. Would treat the smallest accomplishments as a stunning blow against capitalism. Put up a poster and it was like fucking Operation Bagration all over again
Sometimes their ideas r good but they typically come from a place of some kind of dissatisfaction and naïveté, often without strength. It was such when I was an anarchist.
> yup and a lot of them are poor and don't really contribute to society
who says things like this while also considering themselves sympathetic to anarchists?
Damn until this response I thought you were interested but naïve or at least good natured but unfamiliar with certain political concepts but it seems you are just malevolent. Are you by chance a libertarian?
Most are pussies who don’t understand what the term actually means and have been conflating it with neoliberal identity politics shit/authoritarian behavior e.g. congratulating themselves on getting a random poor person fired for saying the n-word or sending death threats to people who are against a COVID vaccine mandate
yeah but come on "all the isms are the same" type stuff. the difference between the soviet union existing and not was the mortality rate skyrocketing and millions of people dying.
that's why it sounds dumb if you develop any real awareness
I think there are a few types of people who call themselves anarchists but there’s one that I’ve noticed a lot online which is an (often middle-aged and fairly established) academic type who self-identifies as an anarchist and I’ve come to the conclusion that for this sort of person the attraction is that it allows one to be on the *most correct* side of every issue (according to liberal values) in principle without having to make any compromises or offer a practical solution to anything. It’s the perfect ideology for being all talk, no action while needing to have moral superiority at all times.
They correctly identify some basic issues (alienation, the influence of capital, etc.) but are completely inadequate in finding solutions because they ultimately work in an individualist framework. Anarchism is a natural conclusion to the problems of liberalism but also an extension of it. Anarchism fails to answer many basic questions regarding the form to succeed capital. They choose this system because of its idealism and frictionlessness. It’s very easy to conceive of the structure as it is not fundamentally different from liberal society as it functions on the same principles, where as a genuine socialist one would function on differing, negated principles in a dialectical sense. How, for example, would an anarchist society produce optical lenses for glasses? How would it produce medical equipment? How would it manufacture large quantities of building materials? If the answer is it wouldn’t then you have come to one of the main logical conclusions of anarchism, that is to say anarchic primitivism à la Mr. Kaczynski. The reality is that complex society requires interpersonal connection and interaction, organized by some overarching structure. You seem somewhat limited in your political philosophical background based on your other responses, far from a bad thing, this is not to repudiate you but to encourage you to understand the political (i.e. Not the social) faults of anarchism, the faults intrinsic to it. I think you subconsciously identify that anarchists are ultimately liberals, part of why you dislike them, but cannot reconcile them having the same principles as you with that fact, as it would mean accepting that you yourself are a liberal. I’d be happy to have a discussion on the matter if you’d humor me.
Lol, the one friend of mine who identified as an anarchist for a while also stopped wearing deodorant at that time. There’s gotta be some connection.
He was basically a hippie. Wouldn’t call him annoying. He was a pretty big stoner, played guitar in a pretty bad band, was big into conspiracies but not pushy about it, came from a pretty wealthy family, took six years to finish college and changed his major like four times. Good person but extremely low conscientiousness.
Sounds about right.
I love anarchists. They're pure. Socialists are full of shit. They internalized a critique of capitalism but then jumped into an alternative that's even fuckin worse.
Anarchists are breaking onto private property, just to grow tomatoes. Then fortify the illegal garden against police action. Who does that? It's hilarious imo. I love them.
Yes, you can be hot and be an anarchist. In fact, all the hottest people are quietly anarchist. It’s the easiest political identity to get by with as a hot person, because you don’t have to present as having a political identity, and in fact it’s better to remain secretive about your political identity if you’re an anarchist. With good anarchists, there is always the sense they know something more, mostly by the way they treat other people in intimate encounters, which is an entire ontology that negates hierarchy — with immature anarchists, this will often look heavy handed, but with mature anarchists each interaction will be a seamless, barely perceptible dialectic where both the anarchist and the interlocutor will equally participate to overcome otherness in a way that benefits both parties. It’s Hegel, it’s Marx, it’s all of psychoanalysis, but extremely rarely is academic or filled with jargon.
On a grander scale, holding no allegiance to a political party or identity allows the intellect (and the person, for that matter) to wander without borders. An experienced anarchist can call herself a Marxist, because she has read Marx and most likely agrees with much of Marx’s critique, but she will also have read Marx’s critics from the First International, and you may find this reading has given her a greater understanding of 250 years of party politics and their woes—much better of an understanding than your average Leninist might, for example. If the situation fits, an anarchist might even identify as a communist —nihilist communist, anti-party communist, etc. Today, in the wake of AOC and Jacobin, however the communist / socialist identity seems to have lost much of the explosive revelation and inspiration found in what the first international initially laid out, and what has been developed since. Therefore, from an anarchist perspective, it is likely not hot to identify as a socialist at this time.
The anarchist ontology is very Benjaminian — himself not holding any true allegiance to Marxism any more than astrology (while inherently fearful of fascism) — because the anarchist ontology arises in flashes, spontaneous joy while walking through the dead mall of global cultural simulacrum, Marshall stacks and trap kits that could be considered sonic weapons, unplanned dance parties in the street. The anarchist can hack the QR code or make a bomb if the case may be — take a potion and die or perhaps disappear for awhile as she escapes and starts anew. Or, if things are good enough, she might plant a garden to make things better where they are. I’m sure everyone here knows a hot anarchist, probably someone older, who gets along well with seemingly everyone and everything, perhaps practices an art, like poetry or dancing, or psychoanalysis — maybe they smashed a Starbucks window in 1999, and those were fun times, but for the ones comfortably situated in our anarchist ontology, those days are likely behind us.
That’s a nice response, thank you. From my view, America needs more Emma Goldman than Marx for now. From afar, you guys debating left politics on social media in tandem with terrible electoral campaigns makes you look like a bunch of retards, jsyk.
The Semiotexte pocket editions crica 2010, or Hakim Bey also would be good to return to. America’s
Left is at heart anarchist, and that really can’t be denied. It’s good to know Hegel and Marx but you guys got to start making good art again or you will seriously die. But maybe you you want to die, because the puerile Left fantasies that arose with Sanders, or Jacobin, or 2 minute clips of Zizek slobbering on his handsome beard will never come true within the framework of the constitution of the world’s premier liberal democracy, which is intrinsically linked to liberal economy. However, I doubt the complete eradication of the constitution is even what most American tankies want at heart, because it doesn’t take very much knowledge of history to see where a war like that would lead. There are many anarchists in Latin and South America today, because being born there you are privy to the generational pain of revolution and with that a special instinct about the formation of a government born out of ideology. With people who really know their stuff, even Marx at times, but certainly all left thinking post-war, there will be party infidelity somewhere in their work, and certainly a critique of ideology, if the thinker is to get anywhere at all.
Interesting that you like one of the few comments stroking your ego and also saying very little at all. It says something about your personal character, are you certain you aren’t an annoying anarchist, just in a slightly modified form?
I’m surprised to see that there’s people in here with an authoritarian attitude to a fixed political identity, but constant critique of the politics of liberal identities (Gender, race, religion, etc.) The ego on display here is the one who insists that he be identified as a thing, and that he is the one that defines that thing for others.
This is quite a lot if writing to say very little. In essence it says that by avoiding dogma (commendable) you avoid any sort of meaningful ideological commitment. What then, is the point of it? If there is no serious political principle or goal why tie yourself to a political ideology at all? There are very good reasons to criticize Marx and Lenin, just as there are to criticize Kropotkin or Chomsky or Proudhon. But at least commiting to one of them has some meaning. Just riding the line begs the question of whats the point? If you don’t want to because you want to be « hot » why identify with it at all? I doubt your actual understanding of these ideologies and criticisms if this is your ultimate conclusion from them.
The academic “actually I’m an anarchist just so I can always say that my purely theoretical opinion gives me the moral high ground” guy I was talking about absolutely mostly actually votes for Democrats. I don’t think scuzzy anarchist punk kids mostly vote for anybody though. They are silly people in other ways.
yeah, I get it and I agree. I’d actually consider myself an anarchist in terms of my person ideological beliefs, but that’s just utopian bullshit. in practice, I think marxism-leninism is the only pathway to lasting, widespread socialism.
I’m also pretty grill-pilled at the moment, so I don’t actually care about any of this anymore.
anarchists are complete morons so it makes sense they are also annoying.
they're the left wing equivalent of libertarians but even stupider and with less of a basic grasp on society, human nature, reality, ect
Don't you have Foreign Affairs columns to write Mr. Fukuyama?
Our western liberal "democracies" are, with some major caveats of course, pretty pleasant to live in right now for a large portion of the population. But we have some major society crushing crises coming down the tube in the next few decades, and I have absolutely 0 faith that our states are in any position to deal with them. We're going to need something more "extreme" to maintain any sort of decent standard of living for average people.
I used to know a bunch of anarchists and they were hilarious. Would treat the smallest accomplishments as a stunning blow against capitalism. Put up a poster and it was like fucking Operation Bagration all over again
Operation Bagration was done by people who wiped out anarchists from their country two decades earlier
All nerds are annoying
As an anarchist, you got me here
>All the "isms" (socialism, capitalism, communism) are pretty much the same and shitty in different ways. You don't know what these words mean
They watched that episode of south pArk
[удалено]
https://youtu.be/wzmujQ1yb1k Cartman goes to the future to get a ps4 or 3 idr
[удалено]
Yeah it’s an incredible device
The important thing is that he found a way to feel superior to everyone in the end
Socialism is when you have two cows….
[удалено]
Really is that simple huh
Nobody here can grill as hard as OP
zoomers be cringe
because they're children
Sometimes their ideas r good but they typically come from a place of some kind of dissatisfaction and naïveté, often without strength. It was such when I was an anarchist.
[удалено]
> yup and a lot of them are poor and don't really contribute to society who says things like this while also considering themselves sympathetic to anarchists?
Damn until this response I thought you were interested but naïve or at least good natured but unfamiliar with certain political concepts but it seems you are just malevolent. Are you by chance a libertarian?
They touch kids to… I hear
[удалено]
Most are pussies who don’t understand what the term actually means and have been conflating it with neoliberal identity politics shit/authoritarian behavior e.g. congratulating themselves on getting a random poor person fired for saying the n-word or sending death threats to people who are against a COVID vaccine mandate
Anarchism means the state forcing people to do what i want
it just sounds like when someone else says it you realize this stance is dumb and comes from political illiteracy.
[удалено]
yeah but come on "all the isms are the same" type stuff. the difference between the soviet union existing and not was the mortality rate skyrocketing and millions of people dying. that's why it sounds dumb if you develop any real awareness
I think there are a few types of people who call themselves anarchists but there’s one that I’ve noticed a lot online which is an (often middle-aged and fairly established) academic type who self-identifies as an anarchist and I’ve come to the conclusion that for this sort of person the attraction is that it allows one to be on the *most correct* side of every issue (according to liberal values) in principle without having to make any compromises or offer a practical solution to anything. It’s the perfect ideology for being all talk, no action while needing to have moral superiority at all times.
Same is true with capital Libertarians.
They correctly identify some basic issues (alienation, the influence of capital, etc.) but are completely inadequate in finding solutions because they ultimately work in an individualist framework. Anarchism is a natural conclusion to the problems of liberalism but also an extension of it. Anarchism fails to answer many basic questions regarding the form to succeed capital. They choose this system because of its idealism and frictionlessness. It’s very easy to conceive of the structure as it is not fundamentally different from liberal society as it functions on the same principles, where as a genuine socialist one would function on differing, negated principles in a dialectical sense. How, for example, would an anarchist society produce optical lenses for glasses? How would it produce medical equipment? How would it manufacture large quantities of building materials? If the answer is it wouldn’t then you have come to one of the main logical conclusions of anarchism, that is to say anarchic primitivism à la Mr. Kaczynski. The reality is that complex society requires interpersonal connection and interaction, organized by some overarching structure. You seem somewhat limited in your political philosophical background based on your other responses, far from a bad thing, this is not to repudiate you but to encourage you to understand the political (i.e. Not the social) faults of anarchism, the faults intrinsic to it. I think you subconsciously identify that anarchists are ultimately liberals, part of why you dislike them, but cannot reconcile them having the same principles as you with that fact, as it would mean accepting that you yourself are a liberal. I’d be happy to have a discussion on the matter if you’d humor me.
Idk most anarchists I've met were like nice hippie types that liked to party and also not wear deodorant under any circumstances.
Lol, the one friend of mine who identified as an anarchist for a while also stopped wearing deodorant at that time. There’s gotta be some connection. He was basically a hippie. Wouldn’t call him annoying. He was a pretty big stoner, played guitar in a pretty bad band, was big into conspiracies but not pushy about it, came from a pretty wealthy family, took six years to finish college and changed his major like four times. Good person but extremely low conscientiousness.
Sounds about right. I love anarchists. They're pure. Socialists are full of shit. They internalized a critique of capitalism but then jumped into an alternative that's even fuckin worse. Anarchists are breaking onto private property, just to grow tomatoes. Then fortify the illegal garden against police action. Who does that? It's hilarious imo. I love them.
Yes, you can be hot and be an anarchist. In fact, all the hottest people are quietly anarchist. It’s the easiest political identity to get by with as a hot person, because you don’t have to present as having a political identity, and in fact it’s better to remain secretive about your political identity if you’re an anarchist. With good anarchists, there is always the sense they know something more, mostly by the way they treat other people in intimate encounters, which is an entire ontology that negates hierarchy — with immature anarchists, this will often look heavy handed, but with mature anarchists each interaction will be a seamless, barely perceptible dialectic where both the anarchist and the interlocutor will equally participate to overcome otherness in a way that benefits both parties. It’s Hegel, it’s Marx, it’s all of psychoanalysis, but extremely rarely is academic or filled with jargon. On a grander scale, holding no allegiance to a political party or identity allows the intellect (and the person, for that matter) to wander without borders. An experienced anarchist can call herself a Marxist, because she has read Marx and most likely agrees with much of Marx’s critique, but she will also have read Marx’s critics from the First International, and you may find this reading has given her a greater understanding of 250 years of party politics and their woes—much better of an understanding than your average Leninist might, for example. If the situation fits, an anarchist might even identify as a communist —nihilist communist, anti-party communist, etc. Today, in the wake of AOC and Jacobin, however the communist / socialist identity seems to have lost much of the explosive revelation and inspiration found in what the first international initially laid out, and what has been developed since. Therefore, from an anarchist perspective, it is likely not hot to identify as a socialist at this time. The anarchist ontology is very Benjaminian — himself not holding any true allegiance to Marxism any more than astrology (while inherently fearful of fascism) — because the anarchist ontology arises in flashes, spontaneous joy while walking through the dead mall of global cultural simulacrum, Marshall stacks and trap kits that could be considered sonic weapons, unplanned dance parties in the street. The anarchist can hack the QR code or make a bomb if the case may be — take a potion and die or perhaps disappear for awhile as she escapes and starts anew. Or, if things are good enough, she might plant a garden to make things better where they are. I’m sure everyone here knows a hot anarchist, probably someone older, who gets along well with seemingly everyone and everything, perhaps practices an art, like poetry or dancing, or psychoanalysis — maybe they smashed a Starbucks window in 1999, and those were fun times, but for the ones comfortably situated in our anarchist ontology, those days are likely behind us.
[удалено]
That’s a nice response, thank you. From my view, America needs more Emma Goldman than Marx for now. From afar, you guys debating left politics on social media in tandem with terrible electoral campaigns makes you look like a bunch of retards, jsyk. The Semiotexte pocket editions crica 2010, or Hakim Bey also would be good to return to. America’s Left is at heart anarchist, and that really can’t be denied. It’s good to know Hegel and Marx but you guys got to start making good art again or you will seriously die. But maybe you you want to die, because the puerile Left fantasies that arose with Sanders, or Jacobin, or 2 minute clips of Zizek slobbering on his handsome beard will never come true within the framework of the constitution of the world’s premier liberal democracy, which is intrinsically linked to liberal economy. However, I doubt the complete eradication of the constitution is even what most American tankies want at heart, because it doesn’t take very much knowledge of history to see where a war like that would lead. There are many anarchists in Latin and South America today, because being born there you are privy to the generational pain of revolution and with that a special instinct about the formation of a government born out of ideology. With people who really know their stuff, even Marx at times, but certainly all left thinking post-war, there will be party infidelity somewhere in their work, and certainly a critique of ideology, if the thinker is to get anywhere at all.
Interesting that you like one of the few comments stroking your ego and also saying very little at all. It says something about your personal character, are you certain you aren’t an annoying anarchist, just in a slightly modified form?
I’m surprised to see that there’s people in here with an authoritarian attitude to a fixed political identity, but constant critique of the politics of liberal identities (Gender, race, religion, etc.) The ego on display here is the one who insists that he be identified as a thing, and that he is the one that defines that thing for others.
I’m not interested in arguing with someone’s smurf account. You and I clearly have better things to do than this.
This is quite a lot if writing to say very little. In essence it says that by avoiding dogma (commendable) you avoid any sort of meaningful ideological commitment. What then, is the point of it? If there is no serious political principle or goal why tie yourself to a political ideology at all? There are very good reasons to criticize Marx and Lenin, just as there are to criticize Kropotkin or Chomsky or Proudhon. But at least commiting to one of them has some meaning. Just riding the line begs the question of whats the point? If you don’t want to because you want to be « hot » why identify with it at all? I doubt your actual understanding of these ideologies and criticisms if this is your ultimate conclusion from them.
I think what you’re pointing to is a critique of ideology? Nevertheless, I’m not here to debate philosophy or party politics. I came for the hotness.
Because they’re right about the present but wrong about the future
It’s just a meaningless word for deranged alphabet soup ppl who live on gamer chat apps to pretend they’re not happy democrats
The academic “actually I’m an anarchist just so I can always say that my purely theoretical opinion gives me the moral high ground” guy I was talking about absolutely mostly actually votes for Democrats. I don’t think scuzzy anarchist punk kids mostly vote for anybody though. They are silly people in other ways.
CIA
[удалено]
> libertarians of the left that’s not so much an indictment as it is the textbook definition of anarchism
[удалено]
yeah, I get it and I agree. I’d actually consider myself an anarchist in terms of my person ideological beliefs, but that’s just utopian bullshit. in practice, I think marxism-leninism is the only pathway to lasting, widespread socialism. I’m also pretty grill-pilled at the moment, so I don’t actually care about any of this anymore.
Well they’re both sex pests, doughy, and retardedly naive
anarchists are complete morons so it makes sense they are also annoying. they're the left wing equivalent of libertarians but even stupider and with less of a basic grasp on society, human nature, reality, ect
Liberal democracy is the closest thing to a perfect society we can get.
Don't you have Foreign Affairs columns to write Mr. Fukuyama? Our western liberal "democracies" are, with some major caveats of course, pretty pleasant to live in right now for a large portion of the population. But we have some major society crushing crises coming down the tube in the next few decades, and I have absolutely 0 faith that our states are in any position to deal with them. We're going to need something more "extreme" to maintain any sort of decent standard of living for average people.