Favorite books on Anarchism?

But Bakunin was proved right.
Stirner is still right.

Attached: 5FCF1410-3E93-4743-90EF-32DEBFD83D26.gif (132x131, 782K)

In what sense was Bakunin proved right?

He simply knew the nature of states.
Look, as difficult as it is to achieve “full communism” by way of anarchism, it’s proven impossible to achieve it through state authoritarian socialism. You have to get the masses on your side, and promising them a long period of brutal dictatorship to get there ain’t gonna fly, comrade.

>as difficult as it is
Marxism has had made far far far more progress in single countries alone towards actual, real world liberation than anarchism has as an entire, global movement

Read Robert Michels and realize what a fool you've been to believe non-hierarchical polities were ever possible.

They’ve arguably set us back about a hundred years. All a filthy cappy has to do is say “Marx” or “communism” and the masses think of brutal dictatorships and run the other way. To fetch their guns.

omg stfu Chomsky honkey

That was inevitably going to happen to any socialist movement that had a modicum of success because that's just the nature of propaganda. Is that really your defense? Try looking at the masses outside of the west. Stalin is more popular than ever in Russia, millions openly call themselves Marxist-Leninist in India, the Philippines, Brazil, South Africa, China, and elsewhere. Despite this deluge of supposedly damning propaganda, people have not flocked to anarchism. And what anarchist experiments have gained even the smallest grain of success, like Rojava (assuming we're certifiable enough to call hem anarchist in the first place) did so by compromising the supposedly core principles of anarchism re the state, '''authoritarianism''', etc.

Haven’t actually read any Chomsky. His thoughts set me to taking a second look at anarchism though.
Are you the (un)ironic Chomsky is a bourgeois CIA psyops poster? Doesn’t even matter now. I know we can’t vote our way left. There’s no political solution to this social malaise

>That was inevitably going to happen
I think you’re missing a few things.
>Is that really your defense?
No, I’ve got lots more.
I am encouraged by the rising tide, and can even bring myself to cautiously forgive China if they can pull off their plans, but this is a thirteenth hour stage of things that I believe could have been handled better if not for certain people’s incompetence and hero worship.
Hence why Stirner is more important than ever now.

Attached: 0879E4A8-9EF7-412B-87AD-3B2487524D34.jpg (413x620, 63K)

>to fetch their guns
As they should

Based

Read this please. Very simple stuff, he’s a good guy, doesn’t encourage a violent revolution, just wants to promote a kind of workers co-op. He’ll teach you some things you never knew.

Attached: ABEB5FAA-9344-4DD2-B866-9445670A264E.jpg (445x600, 54K)

I'm missing nothing. The single anarchist movement that offered the slightest resistance to Western imperialism (Catalonia) was slandered with exactly the same propaganda campaign as the ML states. Given this, and the failure of anarchism to make any inroads whatsoever into the global socialist movement, the antifascist struggle, the national liberation movements, it represents nothing more than a less successful, less rigorous version of Marxism. Even your attempt at optimism comes down to a defense of China, ironically making you a better Marxist-Leninist than half the retards I speak to.

Not reading Voline is pretty understandable, but not having read friggin’ Orwell?

At least you admit M-Lism is just state authoritarian capitalism

I've read Homage etc., I'd suggest you read Hemingway, and really any history of the Spanish Civil War that actually explores the question of who could've WON against the fascists - Paul Preston springs to mind, but there's others. Even anarchists like Dolgoff admit the anarchists were nothing more than an idealsitic failure. Well guess what, socialism has enough heroic defeats, we need to win. Your shit about capitalism (let alone '''authoritarianism''' - read Engels) is lazy and has been responded to so many times I won't even bother. Suffice to say if Cuba isn't socialist Catalonia most definitely wasn't.

They could have won had they
1. Support from any existing socialist states
2. Not lost 200+ fighters in the pointless infighting
So again, Bakunin was right. Statism, and all the spooks of this cult you apologize for, have been our undoing. All of us.

>Cuba/Catalonia
Re: Wolff.

I don't want a workers co-op of it means my family and countrymen getting raped by the Chinese

>I’m a pretend reactionary on an anime porn chat board
Really?

You realise how little all that means, especially given the USSR managed to defeat Nazi Germany under much heavier losses than the CNT-FAI? And again, the forefront of both anti-imperialist activity and socialist construction today remains ML states, not some nonexistent anarchism, so Bakunin was thoroughly wrong there.
Your ref to Wolff means nothing either, given that he spends half his time praising socilaist China for its rapid development (as well as the fact that he himself is an Althusserian Marxist lmao). The assertion is not that ML is perfect, merely that anarchism is irrelevant.

No, I'm a very real conservative who isn't blind to the realities of global politics and the nature of power structures. Go suck a dick, and furthermore, you will never be a real woman

>Red imperialism is at the forefront of of anti imperialism
You are a foolish cult follower.

You will never be a real man.
But do read the book.
>real live conservative. Not liking rape.
Funny funny

Attached: 9180DBCC-A8E4-402A-B021-4B1B138D4A6D.jpg (225x225, 8K)

hehehehe

Attached: 005.png (674x754, 299K)

"Leviathan" completely BTFO'd anarchism in the 1600s, this is a waste of time and effort

modern geopolitics is just the history of failed US imperialism and foreign policy. not every country thinks that bombing children and invading nations for "freedom" is a good policy.

Geopolitics isn't an unipolar affair. That's an incredibly naive view to take. The history of the world isn't the history of America

>not every country thinks that bombing children and invading nations for "freedom" is a good policy.
yeah they do, when convenient, and if they can.

Anarchism exists if you desire it, you need only reject the law.
Anarchists are the most hypocritical people of all time, for they force their views upon others, in contrast with their view of "freedom", they cannot be satisfied with rejecting laws and society alone, they must destroy society itself and only then will they be satisfied, they act as if laws are bricks and they can simply smash them, laws are in the minds of other people, and unless you kill every man, woman, and child on the Earth, there will be law.

I always get hit with the no true scotsman of not being a "real" anarchist
I'd probably end up in a gulag reading all the leftypol stuff on this site

>for they force
Underage posting.
Fucking rich. There was a tankypol posting just now, fully defending state socialism as the only true way, and here you are claiming anarchism is the real fascism. Fuck you kid.

Real stupid filter there guy. *T a n k y

>anarchists force their views on others
How many levels of shitposting are you on?

It’s not like armed anarchists ever went into villages and forcibly dissolved governments or anything like that before.

And that's fucking cool, look at this cop and laugh.

It is hilarious the way you guys usethe word cop and then literally behave like volunteer cops for the neoliberals

Attached: Democracy,_the_God_that_Failed.jpg (258x386, 15K)

Hey cop, cope.

>cop
>spouts CIA line verbatim on socialist countries

Holy shit you're a fucking retard

My favorite successful anarchist revolution since Bakunin is... Oh wait

>liberal
Wrong thread.

Trotsky did an interesting analysis of the Kronstadt Uprising which you occasionally hear anarchists using as evidence of Bolshevik 'betrayal'
marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/01/kronstadt.htm

Just be a fucking normal commie, christ anarkiddies are tards

Noam Chomsky is a liberal.

le maximally left-wing extremist XD. Kill yourself tranny

Trotsky killed socialists. Who gives a fuck what he could say?

There aren’t any communists, user. Realizing left fascism isn’t the goal so why emulate it?

Naw, but even if true, completely irrelevant.

“Left” where I am is all about balance. So put your thumbs back in you ass.

Attached: 5F7FA181-FA39-4F67-9774-3DB28984D8CD.jpg (750x527, 30K)

God I'd love to choke you your manly tranny neck and feel that adam's apple your desperately try to hide with scarfs and turtlenecks...

Firstly, I'm not a Trot, just getting that out of the way. Secondly, more importantly: the claim that someone isn't a socialist simply because they killed socialists is infantile, if we even call the Kronstadters 'socialist' in the first place that is, given that they were led by White Guardists and met fierce resistance in the local area from Bolshevik workers before the arrival of the Red Army anyway. Capitalists often kill other capitalists, they're still capitalists. There's many conceivable situations where socialists might kill other socialists. You think your precious anarchists never killed any of the evil 'Stalinists' or traitor 'Social Democrats'?

>Naw, but even if true, completely irrelevant.
youtu.be/N8iaGb732Z0?t=291
"I'm a classical liberal" - Noam Chomsky

The propaganda you read lied to you. They were ordinary people who thought they had experienced a socialist revolution and attempted to get just that.
Another example are the Ukrainians fight which Trotsky took advantage of and then squashed. The USSR was not a socialist revolution in my opinion
Not a Trot? Good. Don’t defend him till you get the whole picture. Book for you already posted

>my propaganda is much better than everyone else's
>Ordinary people
Fetishistic and reductive. They were a mixture of petit-bourgeois conscripts, disillusioned workers (you'll note one of the most brutal wars of the 20thC was being waged), and white guardists.
>Makhnovism
Employed all the same tactics of repression, murder, and workers dictatorship as the Bolsheviks, just far less successfully. Also crap fighters, couldn't choose to either consistenly aid or oppose the Reds, ended up doing both simultaneously and getting knifed pretty early. Meh.
>USSR not socialist
Why not. Something to do with the phrase 'worker ownership' no doubt. Here.
socialistmlmusings.wordpress.com/2017/12/16/towards-a-critique-of-workers-control/
>Condescending shit about who and what I should/shouldn't defend
I'll decide that for myself thanks, so kindly fuck off with your patronising bullshit. Take your own advice, read some Red sources as well as your precious anarchist failures. Maybe you'll acquire some nuance.

Oh and you didn't actually respond to my original point anyway, that 'the claim that someone isn't a socialist simply because they killed socialists is infantile'

I still don't know what type of anarchism I am other than it being Christian

Christian Anarchism is absolutely based: Simone Weil. Ellul, Dick, Tolstoy and many others...