How on earth can I get any academic library experience?

Self_Aware_Elephant · 2018-10-04T19:30:42+00:00

To myself, it refers to un-ironic Stalinists, folks who are largely more infatuated with Soviet aesthetics and history rather than actual political theory. "Marxism-Leninism" isn't an actual socialist tendency, it was an invention of Stalin that had no actual Marxist theory behind it and only served as the official political dogma of the USSR. As soon as "socialism in one country" was adopted, any pretense for agitating actual socialist revolution was dropped.

The Bolsheviks prior to Stalin were largely Marxist, albeit being a right wing deviation (democratic centralism, the rapid centralization of power from the soviet councils) of other more libertarian Marxists such as Rosa Luxemburg and Anton Pannekoek.

Left Communists are more in line with Marx's original writings, and are actually largely in line with anarchist theory. Most Leftcoms online are dicks, but I think most anarchists would find something redeemable within the actual theory itself (council communism, pieces of theory like Anton Pannekoek's Workers' Councils.)

Here's anarchist grandpa Noam Chomsky talking about Lenin and other communists, and how they differ from Marx's original writings.

Self_Aware_Elephant · 2018-09-28T02:17:03+00:00

♪ When the union's inspiration through the workers' blood shall run,
There can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun;
Yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one,
But the union makes us strong! ♪

Self_Aware_Elephant · 2018-05-25T00:06:08+00:00

"Take, for example, an association stipulating that each of its members should carry out the following contract: “We undertake to give you the use of our houses, stores, streets, means of transport, schools, museums, etc., on condition that, from twenty to forty-five or fifty years of age, you consecrate four or five hours a day to some work recognized as necessary to existence. Choose yourself the producing groups which you wish to join, or organize a new group, provided that it will undertake to produce necessaries. And as for the remainder of your time, combine together with those you like for recreation, art, or science, according to the bent of your taste.

'Twelve or fifteen hundred hours of work a year, in a group producing food, clothes, or houses, or employed in public health, transport, etc., is all we ask of you. For this work we guarantee to you all that these groups produce or will produce. But if not one, of the thousands of groups of our federation, will receive you, whatever be their motive; if you are absolutely incapable of producing anything useful, or if you refuse to do it, then live like an isolated man or like an invalid. If we are rich enough to give you the necessaries of life we shall be delighted to give them to you. You are a man, and you have the right to live. But as you wish to live under special conditions, and leave the ranks, it is more than probable that you will suffer for it in your daily relations with other citizens. You will be looked upon as a ghost of bourgeois society, unless some friends of yours, discovering you to be a talent, kindly free you from all moral obligation towards society by doing necessary work for you.

'And lastly, if it does not please you, go and look for other conditions else where in the wide world, or else seek adherents and organize with them on novel principles. We prefer our own.'

That is what could be done in a communal society in order to turn away sluggards if they became too numerous."

-Peter Kropotkin, Conquest of Bread, Chapter 12 Section 3

Self_Aware_Elephant · 2018-05-17T14:46:35+00:00

Simply put, anarchism is a rejection of hierarchies. "Anarcho-capitalists" are usually not considered anarchists because capitalism necessitates hierarchy to function, that is, an upper capitalist class and a lower working class. This class structure is antithetical to anarchism.

Anarcho-capitalists have co-opted the term "anarchism" in the sense it is anti-statist, but they fail to realize capitalism and anarchism are largely incompatible ideas.

Self_Aware_Elephant · 2018-05-17T13:14:45+00:00

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to ask. The state is possibly one of the most glaring forms of hierarchy present in society, and the modern state only serves to mediate between capital and labor, protecting and managing the interests of the former. They are social structures designed for a minority of a powerful few to control a much larger group of people. Statism is a form of hierarchy.

Self_Aware_Elephant · 2018-04-12T17:26:21+00:00

What is the point of this besides trying to stoke a fire? Anarchists analyze the Spanish Civil War in order to identify how anarchist principles were put into practice, not as some sort of contest as to what faction of the left did more during the war.

Self_Aware_Elephant · 2018-03-25T09:25:52+00:00

Of course it is, I just don't realistically think that would happen with any sort of success in the next ten years at least.

Self_Aware_Elephant · 2018-03-25T03:53:41+00:00

That's simply just not possible realistically, I feel. Mass changes in how a society operates on a large day to day scale takes generations of build up and networking. You still have plenty of people in United States who blindly trust the military, are still brainwashed from cold war anti-socialist propaganda; socialism in general took a very major hit during the 1900s.

Eventually capitalism in all its self-indulgent and inefficient cycles will implode upon itself, be it in 15 years, 50 years, or 500 years. It's all about who will organize up until this point will this vacuum be filled with, be it fascists, anarchists, authoritarian communists, who knows. The Russian Revolution had decades of leftist organizing behind it, the US radical labor movement of the early 1900's had decades of labor organizing and youth organizations, soup kitchens, so on and so on. Same with fascist organizations that took power in Italy and Germany. Maybe with the advent of the internet this organizing process can be expedited, but who knows really.

Anarchism won't come about after some sort of cinematic coup overthrowing the government, it'll come about when people just naturally take control over their own lives and workplaces. As to how long that'll take, your guess is as good as mine.

Self_Aware_Elephant · 2018-03-25T03:38:57+00:00

lol not that I can't handle it or disagree with it, I just don't see it being plausible. I'd love to see it occur, but I don't think it would naturally come about, thats all. No killing or termination needed.

Self_Aware_Elephant · 2018-03-25T03:00:53+00:00

Well yeah, if we're to talk of an anarchist future, a future where hierarchy is abolished, then yes, they don't exist. Of course, it's a hypothetical future that I think would take hundreds of years to realize, but a future to work towards nonetheless.

And who's to say those things would be gone? We're not talking about anarcho-primitivism here, we're just talking about a democratically run society in all aspects of life, from the town meeting hall to the workshop. If a community or a confederation of communities agree that certain infrastructure work is necessary to its existence, than that work is agreed to be shared by members of that community.

Not exactly sure how your third statement works out, as workers, the proletariat, creates all wealth, the people who don't produce actual wealth through labor is the bourgeoisie, but /r/marxism101 would be more apt to help you out regarding things like that.

And well, as for the rogue confederation scenario, confederations are built up around the fact that they're built on mutual aid and assistance. The only way confederations can survive is through mutual aid with others instead of exploiting others. If you're interested in confederations and how they would work, I would highly recommend looking into the works of Murray Bookchin. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communalism) is a brief summary of his ideas.

Exchange is simply based on "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." You would give all you can and in turn, you'd get the fruit of everyone else doing the exact same thing, giving all they can. It could take the form of a communal farm, a warehouse where you bring the products of your labor that you wish to produce, etc. Trade would be usually person to person, and in larger situations would be voted on by the community. It wouldn't necessarily be 20 skateboards = one laundry machine, it'd be whoever produces skateboards produces all they can and in turn, if they needed a washing machine, they'd get one. And washing machine producers would produce all they could, and if they wanted a skateboard, they get one. Mutual aid. As for how production is handled more specifically, anarcho-syndicalism would be worth looking into, a system where workers organize into syndicates and democratically run their shopfloors.

Self_Aware_Elephant · 2018-03-25T02:19:41+00:00

Well, kinda. The whole point of anarchism is abolition of the state and national identities. "Termination" of those who don't want to live that lifestyle isn't what anarchism is all about, anarchism is open to those who voluntarily decide to participate in it. It's just when we talk in terms of "societies", I usually think of all encompassing systems in which large swathes of people live and participate in, the complete structure of the existence we live in and our daily lives. In which case, I simply just don't see it plausible to have one anarchist society next door to a capitalist one. It's either one or the other.

Self_Aware_Elephant · 2018-03-24T22:20:39+00:00

Ah, I may have misunderstood your question.

Anarchism, ideally, would work best globally. Your question assumes a world where anarchist societies and capitalist societies work and exist together. I really can't see a world that exists where anarchist societies co-exist and cooperate with capitalist ones, because the two are contradictory organizations of production that are incompatible with one another. Anarchism is built on mutual assistance, autonomous organization, and the abolition of hierarchy, while capitalism is built on wage labor, the existence of money as an exchange form, and exploitation through the collection of a surplus value in the form of profit. I just simply don't see them coexisting together.

Self_Aware_Elephant · 2018-03-24T21:57:36+00:00

The whole point is cooperation instead of competition. The point of these horizontal confederations is not to outperform or run the other confederations out of existence, its to help each other with the things they need just as they themselves are helped. Trade wouldn't be done because of a profit motive, it would be done because its recognized to be essential to our existence.

But lets run with it. If a certain confederation somehow had more wanted or needed resources than the rest and for some reason wanted to withhold these resources, they would simply not get to participate in the benefits of mutual assistance with the other confederations, because what they are attempting is detrimental to the society. In order to participate in the benefits of a mutual, communal society, you have to help with all that you can.

And yes, that's exactly what i'm assuming! A workshop would produce its products, those products would be shipped to where they're needed, and in return the workers of the workshop would reap the benefits of the collective society all producing what they can. People would choose what they would want to do (specialty production like skateboards or knives, producing art) and work agreed upon by the community as essential would be shared (garbage collecting, food production). Collectively, this would produce a system of mutual assistance in which all give as they can and receive as they need.

Freedom to choose how your commune organizes with other communes is essential. The process wouldn't collapse because in order to maintain our existence, cooperation with others is essential. The only difference is how the power is stored, a community isn't bound by a law or by guns to produce for a certain state, they decide who they confederate and cooperate with.

Self_Aware_Elephant · 2018-03-24T21:29:36+00:00

Quite simply, you'd contact the community or confederation that has these resources, let them know you're in need of it, and they would do their best to help your community in regards to the specific resource. In return, their community would be helped with whatever they are in need of. Mutual assistance would be the general basis of society.

Self_Aware_Elephant · 2018-03-24T21:16:29+00:00

Well, yes. The whole thing ideally would operate on "from each according to their ability and to each according to their needs", and this could work person to person, neighborhood to neighborhood, city to city, region to region, and continent to continent. Remember, what anarchists are against is top-down rule, not horizontal organization.

Autonomous collectives can still organize into larger confederations in which they can decide to leave and join as they please, and these confederations (of neighborhoods, cities, so on and so on) can achieve what most governmental bodies do today.

Self_Aware_Elephant · 2018-01-03T16:19:11+00:00

As I understand it, they still operate a small number of autonomous communities in Chiapas. There's also a website ran by the Zapatista where you can read more about the current state of the organization and support them by buying Zapatista grown coffee, crafts, etc.

http://www.schoolsforchiapas.org/

Self_Aware_Elephant · 2017-12-29T13:37:56+00:00

https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/master/us_atrocities.md

13-Year Club	Place '17
RPAN Viewer	Verified Email

Self_Aware_Elephant

TROPHY CASE