/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16608334]

Is he still a good source for understanding Anarchism?

[Anonymous No.16608341]

>>16608334
No. Berkman. Big Bill. UKLG. And that's just sep cunts.

[Anonymous No.16608348]

>>16608341
>Berkman. Big Bill. UKLG.
First time hearing about these guys, is there one that you would consider more essential than the others?

[Anonymous No.16608443]

Anyone got more suggestions?

[Anonymous No.16608444]

>>16608348
For literature, Ursula K LeGuin. Hain cycle. For anarchism direct: Orsianian Tales and other Orsinian texts.

For politics as ideology Alexander Berkman.

For politics as praxis, historical accounts of Big Bill's actions in organisations. Particularly IWW histories.

[Anonymous No.16608452]

>>16608444
thanks

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16608523]

Chomsky is a big advocate of Rocker’s syndicalism, which isn’t bad, workers seizing the means of production is a good start and all, but ancoms lower classes seizing everything is full revolution.
As I was reading this book, I caught his dryness and put the book back. I was still considering myself a progressive at that point, but yeah, couldn’t get into it.

Pic related is a good way to understand the early thinkers

[Anonymous No.16608535]

>>16608523
Thank you

[Anonymous No.16608539]

>>16608334
>understanding Anarchism
there's nothing to understand, you just have to hate your dad

[Anonymous No.16608542]

>>16608334
he's not a good source for understanding anything

[Anonymous No.16608550]

>>16608542
he is a good source for vote blue no matter who

[Anonymous No.16608562]

Read Le Bon and realize how full of shit it all is.

[Anonymous No.16608563]

>>16608550
>t. Briahna
Brie, quit fucking around, you aren't going to be the next chapotraphouse. You cute tho.

[Anonymous No.16608564]

>>16608334

no such thing.

[Anonymous No.16608568]

>>16608563
the chapo fears this face

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16609788]

>>16608539
Clearly you do not understand anarchism

[Anonymous No.16609866]

Berkman's Bolshevik Myth, Emma Goldman's writings on Russia, Arif Dirlik's writings on China, Bakunin's Statism and Anarchy, Voline's Unknown Revolution

[Anonymous No.16609923]

>noam "vote for biden" chomsky
>noam "on the payroll of rich kids and the us government" chomsky
>noam "im actually le fith column man" chomsky
>noam "travel around charging thousands for speeches and sell abridged compilations as books" chomsky
>noam "never relied on a working class job to survive" chomsky
hes an okay linguist but you should find somebody who actually practiced something similar to what he preached and isnt a sellout learn political philosophy from.

[Anonymous No.16609948]

>>16608334
Read a couple of his books and he has very interesting content. That being said I think it’s smart to take his ideas and claims to propel you to study the topics yourself. Don’t take him as the final word in anything he says.

[Anonymous No.16610210]

>>16609788
no interest in understanding a teenager's fevered dreams

[Anonymous No.16610239]

The only worthwhile non-linguist content he's done is Manufacturing Consent.

[Anonymous No.16610264]

>>16608334
The unconventional anarchism of voting for Joe Biden

[Anonymous No.16610270]

>>16608523
pure ideology

[Anonymous No.16610321]

>chapofaghouse
Why are leftists such sniveling faggots? I want to stomp all your soi faces in while you hopelessly cry about class warfare to the dirt some more.

[Anonymous No.16610330]

>>16608334
never was

[Anonymous No.16610623]

>>16608443
Anarchism by Daniel Geurin
Demanding the Impossible by Peter Marshall
Against Equality by Various

[Anonymous No.16610641]

>>16610239
yes, except while reading it you have to be aware that he has always been part Manufacturing Consent

[Anonymous No.16610646]

The anarchist argument for Vote Blue No Matter Who

[Anonymous No.16610648]

On anarchism isn't very good as far as developing a full understanding or original theory. It's more, what does noam think about all the different versions that have happened around the world over time. It's a mix of his lectures and his actual writing, so it's not really focused either. Just generally meh. Worth a read, but not really as a serous stepping stone in any particular direction. Just kinda okay discussion.

[Anonymous No.16610693]

>>16610648
>5/57
I am a sham

[Anonymous No.16611759]

>>16608523
Butterfly are you no longer a progressive?

[Anonymous No.16612094]

Never realized how many unironic chapofags were here on this board.

[Anonymous No.16612627]

no one understands anarchism

[Anonymous No.16612631]

>>16608334
Read Murray Bookchin

[Anonymous No.16612898]

>>16612094
Who?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16613584]

>>16611759
Oh no. Progressives still believe that we can legislate capitalism into something friendly and workable and unironically think there can be a government that run with minimal money and corruption. Naïve. I was one for only a few years of my life. I feel sorry for anyone who sticks with it.

>>16612094
You are outnumbered. Please pack your things and go.
>>16612898
Just his way of saying “lefty”

>>16612631
He’s a hybridization though. He’s okay, but not very anarchist.

[Anonymous No.16613645]

>>16608334

No, read Nozick. Chomsky should have stuck to linguistics, his other work is just bloviation.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16613654]

>>16613645
He called out the injustices and propaganda of our age like no other.
Now we got Jimmy Dore

[Anonymous No.16613974]

>>16613654
Bookchin stands out as being outright scathing, tho

[Anonymous No.16614105]

>>16608334
no for fucks sake how many times do we have to have this thread
>at the cafe - malatesta
>abc of anarchist communism - berkman
>conquest of bread - kropotkin
those are the absolute basics, if you want to know why chomsky has a really strange view of anarchism read https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-chomsky-nod

[Anonymous No.16615076]

>>16610648
Why are none of stalins works included?

[Anonymous No.16615128]

>>16614105
>All anarchists should get into their heads, those of them who have some room for it there, the truth that democracy isn’t anarchy at all, it’s the final stage of statism. It’s the last wall of the castle. It’s the curtain with the man still behind it.
What you recommend for learning more about this? All the anarchists I've seen online are usually talking about how anarchy leads to real democracy. Also this essay is pretty interesting, thanks for linking it.

[Anonymous No.16615147]

>>16610321
b-b-b-b-based

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16615190]

>>16615128
Individualists are the teenagers who find anarchism through punk bands and post Stirner memes without having read him. Their ideals are idiotic and would lead to chaos. They’ve never heard of Proudhon so don’t know why there’s a circle/A tattoo on their arm. It stands for “Organization through Anarchism”

In an anarchist world they’d be free enough to not participate in the community. But there has to be a community.

[Anonymous No.16615198]

>>16612094
>>16612094
chud

[Anonymous No.16615220]

>anarchism
Grow up
Unless it's only for research purposes
But I'm guessing it's not, so grow up.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16615238]

>>16615220
What are you?
It really is you who ought to grow up. I've explained several times, but we're not going to make it with this status quo

[Anonymous No.16615333]

>>16615238
the status quo are just other people's preferences, which you can't change unless you are a fascist and apply force to their minds

[Anonymous No.16615603]

>>16608334
I haven't read this book but anarchism is just and idea that humans should not be coerced by other humans. Absent this the society could still be self-organized in many ways and different branches of anarchists have different views about the most desirable implementation - this partly deriving from the fact that there is no common agreement about what "coercion" even exactly means. There shouldn't be any conflicts between them as there is only natural that different groups of people just organize themselves differently and it's s a sign of our statist, totalitarian and democratic times that many anarchist groups spend their efforts to convince others that there is only one - theirs - *true* anarchism.
I'd say that Chomsky is perfectly in his right to describe his vision of an anarchist society - whatever it might be - as long as this vision doesn't include *coercing* people into adapting it. There are certainly other anarchist with different views about anarchism and - somewhat unfortunately - reading just one book may not give you the whole perspective.

[Anonymous No.16616384]

>>16615238

[Anonymous No.16616430]

>>16615128
anti democracy anarchy is mostly post-left anarchy and individualist anarchy, for contemporaries
>bob black
>jason mcquinn
>john zezran
>anarchy a journal of desire armed
>>16615190
>In an anarchist world they’d be free enough to not participate in the community. But there has to be a community.
read bob black
>They’ve never heard of Proudhon
if an anarchist hasnt read proudhon i agree they should be ignored
>circle/A tattoo on their arm
what kind of moron would do this regardless of what it means/they think it means

[Anonymous No.16616444]

>>16616430
People get tattoos of cartoon devils and tweety bird too

[Anonymous No.16616453]

>>16613584
Does it bother you that socialism is a larp ideology and the large majority of people aren't even center left let alone anywhere close to a socialist?

[Anonymous No.16616464]

>>16608334
Fuck no

[Anonymous No.16616471]

>>16616444
even those make more sense then getting an anarchist tattoo

[Anonymous No.16616567]

>>16615603
good post

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16616692]

>>16615333
14 year olds mentality. No it is the elitist minority’s preference. Everyone else is suffering and have been conditioned like you to not accept the alternative

[Anonymous No.16616943]

Anyone remembers an anarchistic anthology but with an emphasis in anti eurocentrism? i don't remember a lot of details i think it had "red" somewhere in the title and it was out of stock in the big sites

[Anonymous No.16617011]

>>16616943
anarchism: a history of libertarian ideas? it has long sections on chinese/japanese/korean/south american anarchism

[Anonymous No.16617042]

>>16615603
In classic Chomsky fashion it’s mostly a modern historical take at attempts around the world to implement different variations of anarchism. It’s a very short book.

[Anonymous No.16617068]

>>16616692
Answer me butterfly

[Anonymous No.16617097]

>>16615128
>that pic
What the fuck?

[Anonymous No.16617396]

>>16617011
Actually i found it ,it was Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism but thanks nonetheless your also sounds interesting

[Anonymous No.16618896]

>>16615190
The problem with most conceptions of anarchism is that it's still profoundly materialistic. Without a metaphysical grounding, it's just a sad larp.
Also why are most anarchists jews?

[Anonymous No.16618912]

>>16618896
That's where you're wrong

[Anonymous No.16619022]

>>16618912
The fuck is this from?

[Anonymous No.16619028]

>>16619022
Negative Mystics Of The Mechanistic Sublime, it's an article, you can get the whole thing just searching google

[Anonymous No.16619059]

>>16618912
In the real world almost all anarchists have been some kind of historical-materialist. I doubt this satisfies your desires around some metaphysical category. But they've mostly been about fighting for real advances for the working class here and now as the way of building the power required to kill all bosses.

[Anonymous No.16619074]

>>16619028
Thanks

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16620221]

>>16619059
Sure, but it’s a false premise anyway.

[Anonymous No.16620233]

>>16620221
>>/lit/thread/S16619927#p16620178_1 in re flash. will be deleting this in 15 minutes.

[Anonymous No.16621369]

>>16610648
Imagine including "Homage to Catalonia" as a anarchist core lol, let alone in any way pro-socialist. There is maybe no greater indictment of leftist bullshittery of all stripes than this book.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16621429]

>>16621369
Have you ever read it?

[Anonymous No.16622290]

>>16618896
>Without a metaphysical grounding, it's just a sad larp
BASED retard

[Anonymous No.16622634]

>>16608334
mmmmmmvotebidenmmmmmm

[Anonymous No.16623130]

>>16608334
anything history related, chomsky sucks at

[Anonymous No.16623139]

>>16608334
that's the font they use at burger king

[Anonymous No.16623302]

>>16616453
it bothers me, wouldn't it bother you?

[Anonymous No.16623335]

>>16621369
Orwell was a left wing anarchist IRL

[Anonymous No.16623350]

>>16608334
Isn't "Anarchism" fundamentally oxymoronic? Aren't there always power structures and resource-opportunity imbalances vying for certain outcomes in whatever ways? I haven't read this book but it seems in order to co exist without power enforcing certain standards would be for everyone to just stop being opportunistic at all and that shit just isn't going to happen.

[Anonymous No.16623514]

>>16623350
99% of populations "thinks" exactly like that. Meanwhile, their rulers are enjoying their anarchy - as they are practically above the "law" and are just policing themselves.

[Anonymous No.16623526]

>>16623514
btw, 99% isn't a coincidence - human parasitism can sustain only a very small fraction of abusers.

[Anonymous No.16623529]

>>16623514
Yes, at any given point someone's might is making right. And this is inescapable. No matter what changes you make, you will never have "anarchy". You will just have power changing hands. Your quotations are entirely unnecessary spergo, there's a vast middle ground in totally unthinking and just trying to bridge the gap between your point and mine. Go outside.

[Anonymous No.16623617]

>>16623529
My point was that the might of the 1% is smoke, mirrors, deception and naivety of their subjects.

[Anonymous No.16623626]

>>16623617
Okay, thanks for shoehorning your shit where it didn't belong, now the question you were responding to was asking for some definition of anarchy that wasn't just denial and goalpost shifting.

[Anonymous No.16623632]

>>16623626
>Aren't there always power structures

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16624002]

>>16623626
Try reading theory instead of redefining it.
I mean there’s no point in you shoehorning yourself i to this thread if you’re a devout bootlicker, right?
If that’s not you, good, but read some Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin

[Anonymous No.16624092]

>>16624002
>These guys totally made sense of it so I don't have to.
No, make an argument that isn't made of straw. There will always be power structures at play. Shift them around, relabel them, destroy the bigger ones, do what you want, it will still be government, and will not be anarchy.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16624615]

>>16624092
>Provide source material
>”That’s a strawman!”
C’mon poltard.

> There will always be power structures
“anarchism is the challenging of all unjustifiable hierarchies” —Proudhon
> relabel them, destroy the bigger ones,
Oh! On the contrary. We the larger body should destroy the smaller ones that enslave us!
>it will still be government
It will be direct democracy, neighborhood by neighborhood and perhaps paradoxically a hundred times freer.
Anymore questions?

[Anonymous No.16624713]

>>16624615
Will it be gay?

[Anonymous No.16624727]

>>16624615
what anarchist retards don't understand is that the hierarchy of "I" vs. "Others" is the universal hierarchy that gives birth to the rest and can never be abolished no matter what kind of muh revolution occurs. A classless society is peak fucking cope that ignores the fact that as we become more self conscious we accept the idea of assigning roles to others.

[Anonymous No.16624762]

>>16624727
In the book in op Chomsky says something like 'anarchism is how we get to place where we can deal with interpersonal human problems' which seems to be what you're talking about. Roles don't need to have status attached to them amiga

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16624810]

>>16624713
I imagine there won’t be any difference in homosexuality. Hopefully less of the trans craze, but maybe I’m just seeing that more because of the reactionary/liberal IDpol press, and there is no craze.

>>16624727
What are you even talking about? The individualist and the collective aren’t hierarchies. In anarchism they’ll both be perfectly fine with one another. They’re stages of life actually. Stages of the day even. Balance your life. There’s your role.