Anarcho-communists - That's not how it works.

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Henry Bemis said:
From even further back in the day:
Dennis.jpg
Click to expand...

That's an anarcho-syndicalist, though.
 
I once shared a discussion-oriented college class with an anarcho-communist. Would never, ever make any contribution that wasn't about their* ideologies, which were often barely relevant to the current topic. They seemed to be completely unused to speaking in an environment where words like "transmisogyny" and "ableism" don't immediately stifle all disagreement.

The class also had that particular program's one and only transfer student - a young woman from Vietnam who was, like most people in her country, so disillusioned by the local communist government that she became a staunch pro-capitalist.

Good times.

*Yes, this one was also a tranarcho-communist.
 
Not explicitly about anarcho communists, more just anarchists. I used to know one, relatively normal person, but when he talked politics he went full retard. He once related to me that he thought the perfect society would be one where humanity regresses in technology into fractured tribes covering the earth, to preserve nature, and for those anarchist tribes to be managed by women, as it would calm the natural rage and thirst for power in men, and that women are naturally better leaders since they're peaceful and kind.

I always loved those chats though, as I, a big lover of post apoc shit, always asked what would happen when some guy declared himself king dick of fuck mountain and became a warlord, to which he'd just say that it wouldn't happen, because the people of this era would be enlightened enough to naturally resist such aggression, and no one would ever willingly follow someone like that. This sort of hilarious utopianism always makes me giddy.
 
King_Scrotus said:
Not explicitly about anarcho communists, more just anarchists. I used to know one, relatively normal person, but when he talked politics he went full exceptional individual. He once related to me that he thought the perfect society would be one where humanity regresses in technology into fractured tribes covering the earth, to preserve nature, and for those anarchist tribes to be managed by women, as it would calm the natural rage and thirst for power in men, and that women are naturally better leaders since they're peaceful and kind.

I always loved those chats though, as I, a big lover of post apoc shit, always asked what would happen when some guy declared himself king dick of fuck mountain and became a warlord, to which he'd just say that it wouldn't happen, because the people of this era would be enlightened enough to naturally resist such aggression, and no one would ever willingly follow someone like that. This sort of hilarious utopianism always makes me giddy.
Click to expand...

Uh, hi, has he ever played New Vegas? Nothing's stopping some fuck from making a new Caeser's Legion!
 
whenever i imagine an anarchist "society" i picture a group of citizens attempting to form their own system in order to protect themselves and each other physically, financially, etc. and then a group of anarchist revolutionaries having to then form the "anarchist police" in order to make sure nobody forms any systems, and being unaware that they've formed a system in the process
 
Eldritch said:
They'll form a glorious people's red army and march through the streets with horseshit jerry-rigged weapons. Then they'll get crushed and regroup at starbucks.
Click to expand...

Excellent

002.jpg


"Make mine a latte with extra suger slave."

King_Scrotus said:
Not explicitly about anarcho communists, more just anarchists. I used to know one, relatively normal person, but when he talked politics he went full exceptional individual. He once related to me that he thought the perfect society would be one where humanity regresses in technology into fractured tribes covering the earth, to preserve nature, and for those anarchist tribes to be managed by women, as it would calm the natural rage and thirst for power in men, and that women are naturally better leaders since they're peaceful and kind.

I always loved those chats though, as I, a big lover of post apoc shit, always asked what would happen when some guy declared himself king dick of fuck mountain and became a warlord, to which he'd just say that it wouldn't happen, because the people of this era would be enlightened enough to naturally resist such aggression, and no one would ever willingly follow someone like that. This sort of hilarious utopianism always makes me giddy.
Click to expand...

I take it he wasnt aware that woman can be just as evil and brutal as men then? Also bronze age cultures are not noted for their enlightened world views especially as such idea's will drop off quite quickly if they're realying on oral tradition alone.
 
Last edited:
King_Scrotus said:
Not explicitly about anarcho communists, more just anarchists. I used to know one, relatively normal person, but when he talked politics he went full exceptional individual. He once related to me that he thought the perfect society would be one where humanity regresses in technology into fractured tribes covering the earth, to preserve nature, and for those anarchist tribes to be managed by women, as it would calm the natural rage and thirst for power in men, and that women are naturally better leaders since they're peaceful and kind.

I always loved those chats though, as I, a big lover of post apoc shit, always asked what would happen when some guy declared himself king dick of fuck mountain and became a warlord, to which he'd just say that it wouldn't happen, because the people of this era would be enlightened enough to naturally resist such aggression, and no one would ever willingly follow someone like that. This sort of hilarious utopianism always makes me giddy.
Click to expand...

I mean, he does realize that tribalism is a form of government, right?
 
Emperor Julian said:
I take it he wasn't aware that woman can be just as evil and brutal as men then? Also bronze age cultures are not noted for their enlightened world views especially as such idea's will drop off quite quickly if they're relying on oral tradition alone.
Click to expand...
I doubt he considered that, he was one of those types that considered women to be pure and sacred, do no wrong types, only bad as a response to bad men.

StarvingAutist said:
I mean, he does realize that tribalism is a form of government, right?
Click to expand...
This was the fun part, seeing him backpedal when you asked questions like this. "So it's a tribe right, that's government?" "No! It's not a government, it's a group of anarchists who exist equally, who defer to women for their needs!" Just anything to avoid admitting he was wrong.
 
Any person arguing for Communism with technological regression as a way of life just needs to take a look at what happened to Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge, and the Year Zero policies.
 
Bob's Fries said:
Any person arguing for Communism with technological regression as a way of life just needs to take a look at what happened to Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge, and the Year Zero policies.
Click to expand...

You know you're a failure when the Vietnamese soldiers who fought alongside you to get you in power have to invade and depose you, then you have to appeal to the Americans who tried to napalm you out of existence and swear to them that you've completely abandoned your ideas in the vain hope that they can somehow get you back in power.
 
Bob's Fries said:
Any person arguing for Communism with technological regression as a way of life just needs to take a look at what happened to Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge, and the Year Zero policies.
Click to expand...
But Bob, that's all just propoganda! Those are all peaceful, kind nations misrepresented by hateful American propoganda! Communism is a wonderful system, but it's the backhanded intervention of the United States, always trying to force capitalism on these people, that forces them into squalor and infrastructural weakness. I, however, have the perfect plan for how communism could succeed, and when we overthrow the American government with the help of Mexico, we'll finally have the utopia we need.
-Average American Communist
 
As someone who actually researched communism very thoroughly, I never really got what anarcho-communism is supposed to be.

As far as I know, Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin agreed on pretty much everything except the way that government is disposed of. Communists want it to be eroded from the inside by socialist politicians and anarchists want it eroded from the outside by molotovs and thrown rocks. They supposedly differ in method only.

What I'm trying to get at is that the two are so similar that compromising on the one point that distinguishes them would make them one or the other, not a combination of the two. Am I coming at it from the wrong angle here, or are they the dumb ones?
 
Eldritch said:
As someone who actually researched communism very thoroughly, I never really got what anarcho-communism is supposed to be.

As far as I know, Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin agreed on pretty much everything except the way that government is disposed of. Communists want it to be eroded from the inside by socialist politicians and anarchists want it eroded from the outside by molotovs and thrown rocks. They supposedly differ in method only.
Click to expand...

The actual difference in reality is vast, though, because Marxism, while positing a completely hypothetical endpoint where the state somehow magically disappears as vastly powerful people just out of the sheer goodness of their hearts give up their power, is virtually guaranteed to result in totalitarianism. Anarchism, by comparison, generally results more in a lot of ranting and has very little real world impact.

So I'd say anarchism as a school of thought is far less pernicious.

Both Marx and Bakunin shared theoretical critical underpinnings with regard to the flaws of the state that ring true today, but neither of them offered any practical solutions to any of them.

So the ultimate judgment of history is by their fruits, and Communism as enacted based on Marx's theories killed tens or hundreds of millions of people, while anarchism, outside of a few tossed bombs and some grungy punk music (some of it pretty damn good), has more or less harmed nobody.

Trying to marry the two is a doomed venture, though.
 
AnOminous said:
The actual difference in reality is vast, though, because Marxism, while positing a completely hypothetical endpoint where the state somehow magically disappears as vastly powerful people just out of the sheer goodness of their hearts give up their power, is virtually guaranteed to result in totalitarianism. Anarchism, by comparison, generally results more in a lot of ranting and has very little real world impact.

So I'd say anarchism as a school of thought is far less pernicious.

Both Marx and Bakunin shared theoretical critical underpinnings with regard to the flaws of the state that ring true today, but neither of them offered any practical solutions to any of them.

So the ultimate judgment of history is by their fruits, and Communism as enacted based on Marx's theories killed tens or hundreds of millions of people, while anarchism, outside of a few tossed bombs and some grungy punk music (some of it pretty damn good), has more or less harmed nobody.

Trying to marry the two is a doomed venture, though.
Click to expand...

Worse, both have a key flaw that will lead to an end both desire to avoid, but human nature being what it is, it happens anyway.

Communism seeks to erode the state from inside until it's purpose becomes redundant. This never happens, power corrupts, and they soon become what they sought to overthrow.

Anarchism seeks to erode the state from the outside, but in any realistic sense you can't expect people will not try to seek some form of order and structure sooner or later, which defeats the whole point of anarchism.
 
King_Scrotus said:
Not explicitly about anarcho communists, more just anarchists. I used to know one, relatively normal person, but when he talked politics he went full exceptional individual. He once related to me that he thought the perfect society would be one where humanity regresses in technology into fractured tribes covering the earth, to preserve nature, and for those anarchist tribes to be managed by women, as it would calm the natural rage and thirst for power in men, and that women are naturally better leaders since they're peaceful and kind.

I always loved those chats though, as I, a big lover of post apoc shit, always asked what would happen when some guy declared himself king dick of fuck mountain and became a warlord, to which he'd just say that it wouldn't happen, because the people of this era would be enlightened enough to naturally resist such aggression, and no one would ever willingly follow someone like that. This sort of hilarious utopianism always makes me giddy.
Click to expand...

He was a virgin, wasn't he?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom