By - Monke-Mammoth
Anarcho anything is a LARP
Just be grounded in material reality
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand anarchism. The ideology is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of political theory most of the jokes will go over a typical liberal's head. There's also Bakunin's antisemitic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation - his personal philosophy draws heavily from William Godwin literature, for instance. Anarchists understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of this ideology, to realize that they're not just funny- they say something deep about SOCIETY. As a consequence people who dislike anarchism truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Noam Chomsky's support of the Khmer Rouge, which itself is a cryptic reference to Stirner's The Ego and Its Own. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Chomsky's genius unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools... how I pity them. And yes by the way, I DO have a Nestor Makhno tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZedong) if you have any questions or concerns.*
One of the few spots where On Authority directly speaks to them. How the hell you gonna operate a factory or power plant or whatever without someone at least someone managing it and making sure people are cooperating to operate the machinery? *Any* hierarchy is evil? Great, now since you don't want to do what the guy monitoring the alarm is telling you, the reactor just combusted and took out a small city. Great job.
Anarcho-syndicalism??? A Bas!
Only reason it is popular is HoI4 mod Kaiserreich. It's irrelevant in real life.
Anarchists that unconsciously understand that working class power will exist and that organs that have political power are necessary (even if the conception of these and how to implement them are flawed)
In my view the the underlying issue of any hypothetical anarchist society is that such a society, “decentralised”, “non-hierarchical” and whatever other anarchist nonsense you can dream up, goes against the trend of societal development. As societies have developed and productive forces increased production and administration have become more and more centralised processes. Capital expands and accumulates, more and more people partake in the production of a single commodity and goods are distributed on a larger scale; herein lies a contradiction (in capitalist society) between the increasingly social character of production and the private appropriation of its result (profits/revenue). This contradiction, the primary contradiction in capitalist society, intensifies and will eventually necessitate a socialist society, where the character of the productive process and the appropriation of its result are both social.
An anarchist society, which isolates labourers from each other and maintains the appropriation of surplus labor hours by a particular group (even if said group is a union, cooperative etc.) will necessarily lead to a regression of the productive forces (as production cannot be as effectively organised and cannot occur on as large a scale), perpetuate the irrational expansion and investment of capital (i.e. production does not occur according to a definite plan that would allow resources to be best allocated for the needs of society) and furnish the conditions for the return of capitalism (which would allow for greater organization of production compared to anarchist society). This is not even mentioning other stupid things like the infantile anarchist opposition to all state power and all “authority”, as well as the efficacy of using trade unions and not a vanguard party as the principal means of organising the proletariat.
Thus, anarchism, in its rejection of historical materialism, is a utopian, idealist ideology.
For variety I’m going to quote Bukharin and not Engels here:
> We communists believe not only that the society of the future must free itself of the exploitation of man, but also that it will have to ensure for man the greatest possible independence of the nature that surrounds him, that it will reduce to a minimum "the time spent of socially necessary labour", developing the social forces of production to a maximum and likewise the productivity itself of social labour.
> Our ideal solution to this is centralised production, methodically organised in large units and, in the final analysis, the organisation of the world economy as a whole. Anarchists, on the other hand, prefer a completely different type of relations of production; their ideal consists of tiny communes which by their very structure are disqualified from managing any large enterprises, but reach "agreements" with one another and link up through a network of free contracts. **From an economic point of view, that sort of system of production is clearly closer to the medieval communes, rather than the mode of production destined to supplant the capitalist system.** But this system is not merely a retrograde step: it is also utterly utopian. **The society of the future will not be conjured out of a void, nor will it be brought by a heavenly angel. It will arise out of the old society, out of the relations created by the gigantic apparatus of finance capital. Any new order is possible and useful only insofar as it leads to the further development of the productive forces of the order which is to disappear.** Naturally, further development of the productive forces is only conceivable as the continuation of the tendency of the productive process of centralisation, as an intensified degree of organisation in the "administration of things" that replaces the bygone "government of men".
"L'anarcho-syndicalisme... A bas !"
– Thomas Sankara.
Irrelevant and useless in contemporary times; idealist and unsuccessful in the past.
good ideas but they get taken over by capitalists/fascists nearly every time
I find it, and Syndicalism in general to be pretty dangerous for workers. It threatens our organisation. It aids the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by undermining the Proletariat.
Lenin also argued against it publicly because it undermines the power of the Proletariat [here](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1907/5thdraft/6.htm)
Syndicalism is explicitly anti-party and allows the class collaboration with the fascist petit-bourgoisie and Bourgeoisie. The essence of Syndicalism is "the General Strike" which is supposedly how Syndicalists want to overthrow capitalism. A General Strike alone surely can't wipe out capitalism, and
Syndicalism led to the counterrevolution in the Spanish Civil War of the 30s because the Syndicalists drifted into abstention. The anarchists in that war refused to align with the Proletariat for a "peaceful revolution".
My point is that Syndicalism undermines and attempts to overthrow the establishment of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat by "The General Strike". The October Revolution 100 years ago refuted the thesis of Syndicalism like just about every other Revolution.
I think it's a hipster ideology and anarchism isn't really a viable ideology outside of Hearts of Iron.
syndicalism is already an ideology that became relevant just because of a hoi4 mod,so that+anarchism,which is already soy
idk that much abt normal syndicalism tho other then it being larp
Let me ask you this: what about it appeals to you? What makes it sound feasible? How do you think it would work?
Pro tip: if it's got Anarcho in front of it, you shouldnt take it seriously.
Oh it's not appealing to me, I'm just trying to gather arguments I can use against an Anarcho syndicalist friend of mine. Should have specified in the post, sorry.
Oh my mistake, then disregard my silly comment!