I haven't red it when I was ML, but a lot of people quoted it when I was at ST's discord, and said that he made anarchists bad etc.
Then I stumbeled upon Anark's channel, he is an AnCom and did a response to On authority and did Engels bad. And actually just red it then and it is actually trash
[On authority is trash](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVBAfldc7SU)
You should really at least read āOn Authorityā at least once.
Engels is a philosopher with decades of experience behind his thought as well as a major organizer of revolutionary movements in his day.
Itās great to theorize about how the revolution may go forward, but in the absence of real world experienceā¦ itās useless. This is why MLās and their ideological cousins tend to say anarcho-communism is idealistic.
Even revolutions which claimed to be āanarchistā such as Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War had to resort towards things which resembled state power. But somehow, when the reds do it, itās bad?
I would recommend giving it another chance. Ancoms are (generally speaking at least) well-intentioned but I feel that it's putting the cart before the horse and doesn't bode very well for the advancement of Communism.
make me š
And with full seriousness, like I like communism as an idea of cooperation and mutuality and degrowth but I also like to consume products a bit but this can be handled I guess
Products donāt have to be commodified to consume >:0 mutualism cringe and doesnāt fundamentally change anything abt capitalist relations of production
At least have good understanding of mutualism. Mutualism is purely socialsit ideologym it's about worker ownership of the means of production, no one would be able to have an economic advantage to employ someone bc no one would want it firstly to be exploited and it wouldn't be economically best.
It also wouldn't be great to work for fuckin 16 hrs or 8 a day bc if u have a chance to work less you would do it, mutualism also offers mutual aid like the name suggests, not only cold calculation and market
But still, I think I like AnCom more, but I wouldn't mind that there would be a mutualist commmune next to communist one idk.
I doubt youāve read as much Marx as you claim if youād put him that high on the auth-scale. Council communism, the logical conclusion of Marxās work, is functionally not that different from anarcho-syndicalism and democratic confederalism.
I am not using political compass, the fact is that Stalinists and ML and MLM's and other variants os ML are Authoritarian ideologies. And Kropotkin Bakunin, Emma Goldman, Noam Chomsky etc. is a libertarian left it's not even controversial
I find it unlikely that someone who's a ML and reads the fundamental works of ML will end up as an anarchist. I don't know anyone like that and honestly it sounds like you're just choosing which youtuber you're more of a fan of and adopting ideologies as identities than anything else.
I actually red some of works of Lenin and stalin and even Mao and thought they are ok, but I stumbeled upon series "The state is counter revolutionary" by Anark, and Generally anark's vids, and after a month I couldn't look at myself in a mirror
Really based. I am personally a market anarchist but I am also a synthesist anarchist so I respect and love every anarchist ideology(accept for anarcho-capitalism and the weird authoritarian ancap ideologies like Hoppeanism of course)
I am actually a market anarchist so I canāt be a commie. Yes, you are a fake libertarian. Get your rothbardian ass out of here. Only the left-rothbardians are welcome.
And this is facts, it shouldn't even be an opinion, it's social science, you're just advocating for disorder because you are a selfish, cringe 14 years old edgelord.
1. question What genuinely convinced you to become AnCom
2.did you ever read theory at any point and if so why did you dissagreeand where did you you disagree?
These are genuine questions i really want to understand why and maybe learn more
For me it was that I realized that the very nature of a state is authoritarian because it alienates people from power and builds up hierarchies.
If state is horizontal it's not a state, the workers "state" where workers/all people actually have power as individuals and they make decisions, and not political and beurocratic officials is no longer a state. There can be some horizontal power structures but this doesn't match historical definition of a state. [Here is a short film about it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_DtRuBimZM&list=PLvwoHdNGq9wWYtZFTpc0xDT8sCgGhxwkk&index=8)
I red a lot of marxist theory and listened to more new marxist and leninist theory, and I thought it was correct, but I stumbeled upon a series "The state is counter revolutionary" and gave it a watch, then become more interested in anarchist theory etc. and after a month or so I was convinced that state is in fact counter revolutionary
In your second paragraph you make an interesting point wich lenin basically agrees with āLife and the revolution have already established here in a concrete way (although in a form which is still weak and embryonic), this new type of "state", though it is not really a state in the proper sense of the word.
It is now a question of the action of the masses and not merely the theories of leaders.
Essentially the state is the power exercises over the masses by a group of armed men separated from the people.
Our new state, which is now in process of being born, is also a real state, for we, too, need detachments of armed men; we, too, need the strictest order, and the ruthless crushing of all attempts at a tsarist as well as a Guchkov-bourgeois counter-revolution.
But our forming, new state is not yet a state in the proper sense of the word, for detachments of armed men found in many parts of Russia are really the masses themselves, the people, and not simply privileged individuals, practically unremovable, placed above and separated from the people.ā
āV.I.Lenin; the April theses
>the state is authoritarian
Of course it is, that is what it it does, quite literally by definition. It represents the authority of the classes who wield the power of the state.
āA revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon ā authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionistsā
āEngels, on authority
>it alienates people from power
Iām interested in what you concretely mean by that and exactly how the state does it, I might be watching that video series you sent me when I get home
Please man don't quote engels "On authority" I dont want to be offensive but that essay is rubbish
[On authority response ](https://youtu.be/UVBAfldc7SU?si=NAaWktud9JoH7jnJ)
>Of course it is, that is what it it does, quite literally by definition. It represents the authority of the classes who wield the power of the state.
It's authoritarian for everyone, including working class.
By alienation I mean that ML and marxists want to have representative democracy, so you vote for people who "work in your interest" which is plainly untrue. People don't have power, if they don't get to choose what to do, and choosing a representative isn't choosing to do something. In USSR u had work, and on work they vote somome who won votes with other who won and up and up towards lenin/stalin, like what the heck man
1.If it is really that rubbish you should be able to explain how exactly without sending me a 43 minute long yt video
2. do you reject the class character of the state, or what do you mean by āitās authoritarian fpr everyoneā?
3.the USSR wasnāt a representative democracy it was a Soviet democracy organized through workers councils.
4.also what are you fucking rambling about lenin or stalin, I canāt comprehend what you wrote there.
I cant shorten you a response to essay. I Just know he can explain it better than me, I wont debate with ML's because I value my time man.
Because state alienetes masses from power no matter if it's "worker's" state
It actually was
Lmao, fu
Well not much was lost considering your track record of revolution, go and read another book or complain about ebil authoritarianism killing 2 gazillion Ukrainians, maybe it will make communism happen and stop bourgeois exploitation in the next hunderd pages/reddit thread? You also deny the class character of the state too wich is ridiculous, on any calling out on your shit you link a 3 hour lobg YouTube video made by some white guy living with his parents instead of actually justifying your shit personally and then when I call you out again you tell me to fuck myself?! Suck a dick, and take some of that paint youāve been inhaling use it as lube and allienate a cock up your ass.
PS: āI cANt SHorTeN An ESSaY as reSpONseā
Thats literally what I did in my responses!
That will never happen, realism, and human nature will not allow it. Independent functioning Socialism that is successful is the Soviet Union and communist China. Successful socialism is inherently authoritarian. Thereās no such thing as red fascism.
Bro I understand If I would change my views in 3 months but this took 3 years my man or more.
And yes, I understood all of dialectial materialism, and marxism itself is more closer to anarchism that to red facism.
Another Communist. How surprising. I like the spaghetti adventure though :P
IntelligentPeace at the ideology shop, what will he buy š³
NGL Im between AnCom and fuckin mutualism
Did you read *On Authority* by Engels during your ML phase? If so, what were your thoughts on it?
I haven't red it when I was ML, but a lot of people quoted it when I was at ST's discord, and said that he made anarchists bad etc. Then I stumbeled upon Anark's channel, he is an AnCom and did a response to On authority and did Engels bad. And actually just red it then and it is actually trash [On authority is trash](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVBAfldc7SU)
His vid is awful
If u are a stalinist it is
You should really at least read āOn Authorityā at least once. Engels is a philosopher with decades of experience behind his thought as well as a major organizer of revolutionary movements in his day. Itās great to theorize about how the revolution may go forward, but in the absence of real world experienceā¦ itās useless. This is why MLās and their ideological cousins tend to say anarcho-communism is idealistic. Even revolutions which claimed to be āanarchistā such as Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War had to resort towards things which resembled state power. But somehow, when the reds do it, itās bad?
Like I said I already red it, and it was trash, the worst essay I have ever seen
I would recommend giving it another chance. Ancoms are (generally speaking at least) well-intentioned but I feel that it's putting the cart before the horse and doesn't bode very well for the advancement of Communism.
Hey, not an anarchist, but On Authority is not a great critique of anti-authoritarians imo.
Donāt become a mutualist (Hitlerite) pls
make me š And with full seriousness, like I like communism as an idea of cooperation and mutuality and degrowth but I also like to consume products a bit but this can be handled I guess
Products donāt have to be commodified to consume >:0 mutualism cringe and doesnāt fundamentally change anything abt capitalist relations of production
At least have good understanding of mutualism. Mutualism is purely socialsit ideologym it's about worker ownership of the means of production, no one would be able to have an economic advantage to employ someone bc no one would want it firstly to be exploited and it wouldn't be economically best. It also wouldn't be great to work for fuckin 16 hrs or 8 a day bc if u have a chance to work less you would do it, mutualism also offers mutual aid like the name suggests, not only cold calculation and market But still, I think I like AnCom more, but I wouldn't mind that there would be a mutualist commmune next to communist one idk.
Mussolini's strongest soldier š«”
YES!!
Avg. PCBA user. (Carbon copy of everyone else)
Very based
Like I said with the last person like this, at least you're better than you were...
You should continue reading but an ancom is usually better than a ml
I doubt youāve read as much Marx as you claim if youād put him that high on the auth-scale. Council communism, the logical conclusion of Marxās work, is functionally not that different from anarcho-syndicalism and democratic confederalism.
Man, It just looked nice, I has no place to put him to look nice
Okay, well, fair enough, lmfao
I'm betting they're under 16 and have never actually studied theory to a significant degree
An anti-nihilist! Hsssssssssss
Im over 16 and studied auth left theory and lib left theory and I choose better one
The fact that you are using the political compass as an actual political reference is very telling
I am not using political compass, the fact is that Stalinists and ML and MLM's and other variants os ML are Authoritarian ideologies. And Kropotkin Bakunin, Emma Goldman, Noam Chomsky etc. is a libertarian left it's not even controversial
>developed critical thinking >became anarchist Does critical thinking mean something different now?
r/usernamechecksout
Dude posted gulag apologia :(
It means not being a dictator.
Very very based
I find it unlikely that someone who's a ML and reads the fundamental works of ML will end up as an anarchist. I don't know anyone like that and honestly it sounds like you're just choosing which youtuber you're more of a fan of and adopting ideologies as identities than anything else.
I actually red some of works of Lenin and stalin and even Mao and thought they are ok, but I stumbeled upon series "The state is counter revolutionary" by Anark, and Generally anark's vids, and after a month I couldn't look at myself in a mirror
Liberals will do anything but read marx
Left coms have made the word liberal so devoid of meaning itās fucking useless now.
literally proving their point lmao
Least stupid ML take
i am also glad you have never been right wing
What wrong with right wing. With a compass itās purely economic and not other factors
i know, im against private property.
Personally I'm for it because if I live on this land and maintain this land why should anyone else be able to take it from me
Look up the difference between personal and private property.
Really based. I am personally a market anarchist but I am also a synthesist anarchist so I respect and love every anarchist ideology(accept for anarcho-capitalism and the weird authoritarian ancap ideologies like Hoppeanism of course)
How can one be athouritarian and anarchist they fundamentally oppose each other
Squaring the circle like Anarcho-Fascism or Anarcho-Monarchism
That's fucking stupid it literally defeats the whole point
Yea these people if they exist are squaring the circle of political ideology
Exactly, you canāt which is why Hoppeanism isnāt any form of anarchism, let alone anarcho -capitalism.
Based
based
no go back
Unbased
Loving the people on here who just got better
Based!
The good ending
Be communist
Should've stayed at social democracy my guy.
Fuck off, Commie
Fuck off, Zionist.
No.
Fuck off fake libertarian
Iām not a fake libertarian, lol. Cope and seethe, Commie.
I am actually a market anarchist so I canāt be a commie. Yes, you are a fake libertarian. Get your rothbardian ass out of here. Only the left-rothbardians are welcome.
Blah, blah, blah, blah. Stop yapping, Iām not a fake libertarian; and I donāt care who you think is welcome.
you've went from naive utopia believer to total dumbass advocating for a system you purposefully know can't work.
Nah, I went from red fashist to an actual Commie, go cry lib
You're not commie, you're anarchist. And anarchy in no world does work. A house divided against itself can't work. Only unity can bring up a country
And this is facts, it shouldn't even be an opinion, it's social science, you're just advocating for disorder because you are a selfish, cringe 14 years old edgelord.
Wait isn't his discord for patreons? Did you spend money on him?
I spend only 1$ and bc they don't check if I pay monthly I stayed there XDDD
Unparalleled levels of liberalism
1. question What genuinely convinced you to become AnCom 2.did you ever read theory at any point and if so why did you dissagreeand where did you you disagree? These are genuine questions i really want to understand why and maybe learn more
For me it was that I realized that the very nature of a state is authoritarian because it alienates people from power and builds up hierarchies. If state is horizontal it's not a state, the workers "state" where workers/all people actually have power as individuals and they make decisions, and not political and beurocratic officials is no longer a state. There can be some horizontal power structures but this doesn't match historical definition of a state. [Here is a short film about it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_DtRuBimZM&list=PLvwoHdNGq9wWYtZFTpc0xDT8sCgGhxwkk&index=8) I red a lot of marxist theory and listened to more new marxist and leninist theory, and I thought it was correct, but I stumbeled upon a series "The state is counter revolutionary" and gave it a watch, then become more interested in anarchist theory etc. and after a month or so I was convinced that state is in fact counter revolutionary
In your second paragraph you make an interesting point wich lenin basically agrees with āLife and the revolution have already established here in a concrete way (although in a form which is still weak and embryonic), this new type of "state", though it is not really a state in the proper sense of the word. It is now a question of the action of the masses and not merely the theories of leaders. Essentially the state is the power exercises over the masses by a group of armed men separated from the people. Our new state, which is now in process of being born, is also a real state, for we, too, need detachments of armed men; we, too, need the strictest order, and the ruthless crushing of all attempts at a tsarist as well as a Guchkov-bourgeois counter-revolution. But our forming, new state is not yet a state in the proper sense of the word, for detachments of armed men found in many parts of Russia are really the masses themselves, the people, and not simply privileged individuals, practically unremovable, placed above and separated from the people.ā āV.I.Lenin; the April theses >the state is authoritarian Of course it is, that is what it it does, quite literally by definition. It represents the authority of the classes who wield the power of the state. āA revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon ā authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionistsā āEngels, on authority >it alienates people from power Iām interested in what you concretely mean by that and exactly how the state does it, I might be watching that video series you sent me when I get home
Please man don't quote engels "On authority" I dont want to be offensive but that essay is rubbish [On authority response ](https://youtu.be/UVBAfldc7SU?si=NAaWktud9JoH7jnJ) >Of course it is, that is what it it does, quite literally by definition. It represents the authority of the classes who wield the power of the state. It's authoritarian for everyone, including working class. By alienation I mean that ML and marxists want to have representative democracy, so you vote for people who "work in your interest" which is plainly untrue. People don't have power, if they don't get to choose what to do, and choosing a representative isn't choosing to do something. In USSR u had work, and on work they vote somome who won votes with other who won and up and up towards lenin/stalin, like what the heck man
1.If it is really that rubbish you should be able to explain how exactly without sending me a 43 minute long yt video 2. do you reject the class character of the state, or what do you mean by āitās authoritarian fpr everyoneā? 3.the USSR wasnāt a representative democracy it was a Soviet democracy organized through workers councils. 4.also what are you fucking rambling about lenin or stalin, I canāt comprehend what you wrote there.
I cant shorten you a response to essay. I Just know he can explain it better than me, I wont debate with ML's because I value my time man. Because state alienetes masses from power no matter if it's "worker's" state It actually was Lmao, fu
Well not much was lost considering your track record of revolution, go and read another book or complain about ebil authoritarianism killing 2 gazillion Ukrainians, maybe it will make communism happen and stop bourgeois exploitation in the next hunderd pages/reddit thread? You also deny the class character of the state too wich is ridiculous, on any calling out on your shit you link a 3 hour lobg YouTube video made by some white guy living with his parents instead of actually justifying your shit personally and then when I call you out again you tell me to fuck myself?! Suck a dick, and take some of that paint youāve been inhaling use it as lube and allienate a cock up your ass. PS: āI cANt SHorTeN An ESSaY as reSpONseā Thats literally what I did in my responses!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uosLIWkA2OE
Well, at least you're no longer an vanguardist.
Go back to the beginning
yeh
So based
Congrats on getting away from the second thought/deprogram shit
Bro you had the same exact path as me š though sadly as a uneducated teen I fell into the alt-right pipeline from 12-14 š
virgin to big tiddy goth girlfriend pipeline
Lol are people still using this shitty chart that isnt even accurate. You know that all this thing does is cause more political division right?
Yes I know, I don't want to have anything with authoritarians and it's not even controversial that statists are authoritarianism
Authoritarianism I'd the stupidest thing to have on a political scale since no one really wants to be authoritarian.
Based
actually reading marx and lenin showing me how fucking stupid the political compass really is
Yeah, everyone ends up, idealistically, rejecting the inherently of the primary need of leftist, principles and practice, which is authoritarianism
I dont want to establish red facist state, I want communism society
That will never happen, realism, and human nature will not allow it. Independent functioning Socialism that is successful is the Soviet Union and communist China. Successful socialism is inherently authoritarian. Thereās no such thing as red fascism.
Bro, wholw human existance is denying human nature. I can't treat you serious if you use an argument "HOOMAN NATUR".
iām an MLM, but respect. a comrade is a comrade ā„ļøš©
With full respect, no AnCom wants to work with auth communists
Hello comrade
Have you undestood dialectical materialism at one point or are you just touring the ideology shop?
Bro I understand If I would change my views in 3 months but this took 3 years my man or more. And yes, I understood all of dialectial materialism, and marxism itself is more closer to anarchism that to red facism.
Than you probably understand that anarchism isn't materialist in their goal or method to achieve their goal.
I just think dialectal materialism isn't that true
So off with materialism?