0chan [ 0040 / deck / bash / xeno / life / kvlt ] [ tor / meta / ukko ] [ rules / about / news] [Matrix / IRC / Follow us on Mastodon]
/0040/ - It seems to me that the only way to actually end the exchage of commoditys and capitalism would be some form of central planning where all production is managed from one point. Wouldn't "decentralized planning" be just another form of commodity exchance as

/0040/ - Anarchy

Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Password (For file deletion.)

File: 1516594296236-0.jpg (110.49 KB, 802x605, CRISIS!.jpg)

 No.1080

It seems to me that the only way to actually end the exchage of commoditys and capitalism would be some form of central planning where all production is managed from one point. Wouldn't "decentralized planning" be just another form of commodity exchance as each sector where planning takes place essentially exchanges with the others?

 No.1081

because there will always be despicable worms who want to control everyone as much as possible, and if you centralize things it's just making it that much easier for them to gain control.

 No.1082

>>1081
Couldn't this just be avoided through democracy? Decentralization would just move control from all of society to little bits of it.

 No.1084

>>1082

That's what the Soviets tried. Turns out that democracy devolves into dictatorship pretty quickly if you centralize power.

 No.1086

I don't see why would it necessitate exchange.

 No.1090

File: 1517097747117-0.jpg (104.34 KB, 600x704, b-digga.jpg)

Hey my d00dz what if I told you that the centralization around the revolutionary program of the international dictatorship of the proletariat will spontaneously manifest based on the historical necessities of our class and the most militant and unswerving revolutionary minorities will steer the revolution organically?

 No.1091

>>1090
ironically, that sounds idealist af
>FUCKING BORDIGISTS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

 No.1092

>>1091 cont.
I should clarify. Saying that the proletariat will self-organize in an organic manner doesn’t convince me that this movement is actually capable of abolishing the present state of things. Read all the Marx you like, but take one look at the October Revolution and tell me what material conditions caused class society to immediately reproduce itself as a result of that. If the communist movement were staunchly non-hierarchical, shit like that wouldn’t happen. That’s why we’re anarchists.

 No.1094

>>1092
Thanks for clarifying fam. I share your concern about the dangers of centralization deteriorating into a totalitarian bureaucratic nightmare where the proletariat is not abolished but governed by an elite political class, but I also share the concerns of OP about the danger of decentralization deteriorating into a sort of federated regionalism where capitalism is not abolished but democratized. Both of those possibilities arrive to the same endpoint, that being social democracy, or "democratic centralist" state capitalism.
I'm not a "Bordigist" so maybe I'm being revisionist or whatever but I don't think that the concept of organic centralism was meant to reproduce those conditions but rather to specifically avoid them. Also B-Digzy and his boyz might disagree but don't think it necessarily implies hierarchy in any contrived bureaucratic sense, just the centralization of the proletariat around a program (not a leader or cabal) for the abolition of Capital/State and unilateral imposition of (non-hierarchical, stateless) communism. The role of revolutionary minorities is not leadership from above in the name of the proletariat but the guidance of class autonomy to class abolition from within it through consistent and militant rejection of all concessions to any aspect of the bourgeois order. That's not democratic, but democracy is negotiation between classes and revolution is their destruction.

 No.1098

>>1080
>>1081
That's why I'm mutualist, I don't trust planners.

 No.1100

>>1094
>>1092
I think the thing that a lot of anarchists are missing is that we shouldn't have an end goal. I've found that once people begin to lay out plans for how their new utopia is going to function it either admits its own non-revolutionary state of existence and claims that it's working towards its inevitable realization (Leninists) or they transfer oppression to municipal levels and ignore the potential large scale corruption that that enables (Bookchinites, Maknovists, Syndicalists, etc.) All of these ideologies talk a good talk, but at the end of the day we still haven't found utopia.

This idea doesn't seem to be very common among anarchists, but I think that we should focus on the struggle itself instead of the end goal. We should realize that liberation exists in the act of defiance, not as a result of it.

 No.1102

>>1100
Struggle isn't all fun and liberating though. I mean sure it can be in certain moments but it's more often painful and sad and if you don't have a clear objective and a good strategy it's just for nothing or possibly just making things worse.

 No.1103

>>1102
In that case the struggle should at least revolve around material objectives instead of ideological ones. Struggling for the sake of struggling is a rhetoric that I find often in radical circles, especially among social anarchists and their marxist cousins. Often they don't seem to realize that social upheaval isn't something that can be caused by obnoxious agitation.

 No.1104

sure, short-term objectives and short-term strategies. Then when you succeed or fail, make new ones.

 No.1108

>>1100
>>I think the thing that a lot of anarchists are missing is that we shouldn't have an end goal.

What anarchists, exactly? this is basic anarchist stuff and i havn't really met many anarchists who think otherwise, i'm curious.

 No.1109

>>1100 unless you have an incredibly narrow view of what constitutes an anarchist, you haven't met very many.

 No.1115

>>1109

I spent about a decade and a half doing the whole anarchist thing, living in squats and social centres, giving my life to projects, having my social circle as mostly exlusively anarchists. but okay. good argument m8.

 No.1116

File: 1517676406834-0.jpg (65.09 KB, 620x800, malatesta.jpg)

>>1115
Story time?

 No.1117

>>1115
did you read the first part of that sentence?

 No.1118

>>1117
I'm not >>1115 but what do you mean then?

 No.1119

File: 1517961130004-0.png (54.61 KB, 2000x1000, Egoist Juche.png)

>>1116

Are you implying that Malatesta was actually an anarchist?

 No.1120

>>1119
Who ever doubted that he was one?

 No.1121

>>1120
anarcho-kimist-rodmanists obvs.

 No.1126

>>1098
and you do trust the impersonal forces of the market?

 No.1127

>>1092
Any form of decentralized organization is denying that the proletariat has a sole class interest.

 No.1128

>>1127

Marxlets pls. what does that even mean?

 No.1133

>>1127
Any form of centralized organization is denying that the proletariat is international.

 No.1141

>>1100
>or they transfer oppression to municipal levels and ignore the potential large scale corruption that that enables (Bookchinites, Maknovists, Syndicalists (union-centric organizing is deprecated by history), etc.)
I'm sorry but I just don't consider direct democratic confederation oppressive. In fact I can contrast it to your suggestion and make the case that your strategy is far more oppressive.
>transferring oppression to random acts of atomized, self-interested individuals, or gangs of individuals acting exclusively on egoistic desires, making malfuctioning explosives costing civilian casualties and baiting out the militarization of the police and mass-media influenced fascistification of the working class.
Now you might say "yeah but whatever man reason is a spook, channel your inner voodoo doctor, I do what I want" or whatever then my answer to that is how elitist of you that you would think that you and your 'affinity group' of 2-20 persons could decide the fate for a regional population numbering in the millions like that. Not merely authoritarian, but despotic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1903 Learn your anarchist history.

 No.1156

>>1127
Don't underestimate the tendency for organizations that start out atomized and decentralized to organically centralize around the interests of our class, comrade! The party of our class will not just materialize out of thin air!

>>1133
It's exactly because the proletariat is international that it has unitary interests, and those interests will necessarily manifest in the unitary programmatic centralization which will be the driving force of the process of communization and the key factor in its victory. Again, by centralization we're not talking about the foul 'democratic centralism' of the state capitalists, but radically directed organic centralism conceived exactly to avoid the pitfalls of bureaucratic opportunism.

 No.1165

>>1156
Tryna figure out whether you're Bordiga_irl or some other kind of Marxist/crypto-Marxist trash. Remember, folks:
>Die Linke ist tot! Die Linke bleibt tot! Und wir haben ihr getötet!
GOOGLE LANDSTREICHER

 No.1171

>>1165
I've read a lot of Wolfi's rants and translations. I liked some of them too. But puerile sectarians like you have managed to turn neo-anarchy (wolfi's term btw) into such a pathetic shitshow of a scene that even Wolfi doesn't want to be associated with it anymore, and honestly there are parts of Bordiga's (flawed) thought that are really compelling in comparison to the collective brainletry of the 'post-left' subculture. Obviously you haven't bothered to read Marx or Bordiga though, or you would at least understand the difference between the left wing of capital and the communist left.
I suggest you ixquick Rühle or Mattick, for a start.

 No.1182

>>1171
>But puerile sectarians like you
oho
wait up
that's spicy
you're saying that the way I act is somehow going too far *as opposed to Wolfi?*
>honestly there are parts of Bordiga's (flawed) thought that are really compelling in comparison to the collective brainletry of the 'post-left' subculture.
It's hard to say that anything in Bordiga's (or Rühle's or Mattick's) writing addresses the post-left critique, a critique which does not necessarily say that Marxism of any form is strictly "wrong" or makes bad factual statements, but which focuses on the assumptions underlying, namely: that we care to have class war at all, that capitalism won't cannibalize itself before we can oppose it, that the system we are in is similar enough from the system that Marx or Bordiga described to apply the same analysis, etc.
>or you would at least understand the difference between the left wing of capital and the communist left.
Entirely irrelevant to my point and also (conveniently enough) wrong. No, the post-left critique does not only apply to left capitalism.

 No.1184

>>1141
I hate to ruin the satisfaction that you got from all that bold text pontificating, but when did I say that political authority should be transferred to affinity groups? I'm fairly certain that I contradicted that when I denounced municipal governance.

 No.1188

>>1100
>>1184
>I think the thing that a lot of anarchists are missing is that we shouldn't have an end goal.
>This idea doesn't seem to be very common among anarchists, but I think that we should focus on the struggle itself instead of the end goal. We should realize that liberation exists in the act of defiance, not as a result of it.
Your isolated defiance is powerless against international corporate capital and statism. This is pretty much why those 'stupid syndicalists, Makhnovists and Bookchinists' want to organize. So as to not be powerless.
If you think you can oppose the state and capital by your lone everyday actions I honestly don't know where to start. Try it out for a month. See what happens. Live on stolen food items and squatted lands, by yourself. See how long you can last before you get health problems or police abuse and detention, which snowballs to future worse punishments due to the state-registry.

Some of us actually want sustained, long-term structural change and it has proven to work far better than your shitty strategy, whether you want to 'label' it that or not. If I'm still off then feel free to elaborate beyond "focus on the struggle". As if that's not what "class struggle anarchists" wants to do; the ones you dismissed as "authoritarian".

Also we're not struggling for "utopia". We're struggling for anarchy. If that's so crazy to you then maybe you shouldn't call yourself an anarchist/anarch or hang out in these circles at all.

 No.1189

>>1188
Firstly, wow, if you talk like you type, you must be a real pain at parties.

Secondly, your sustained long-term structural change will never happen. It simply isn't possible to implement ideals onto society. The structures of human relations cannot be changed by a faction that claims to be libertarian without reverting to despotism. There has never been a successful escape from tyranny since the rise of the State, and there never will be.

It is simply impossible to live by ideals (whatever those ideals are, anarchy, liberty, justice, etc. etc.) and not open your mind up to exploitation. All movements eventually contradict their own goals and purposes because they put their trust in individuals who claim to represent those ideals (just as Catholic priests claim to represent the world of god). Your loyalty is then lost from the ideal and becomes affixed on your glorious leader. This always happens, no matter how democratic your system is.

Face it, anarchist society is something that will never happen. Not only is there literally nobody in the world who would be willing to allow such an endeavor to exist, but any attempt at doing so will devolve into a degenerated quasi-state like Rojava or anarchist Catalonia.

And since you seem to be exceptionally eager to jump on the ad hominems, yes, I do consider myself an anarchist. I'd say I'm a hell of a lot more anarchist than you since I'm not willing to sell out to the highly authoritarian nature of anarchist organizations.

 No.1190

File: 1519236505892-0.png (424.07 KB, 583x683, 27971784_536024563444068_6….png)

>>1188
>we're not struggling for "utopia"
Maybe if your definition of utopia is something that is de facto unrealizable, then yes, of course you're not. But when you really look at it, a global, sustainable, anarchist society is wishful thinking in every sense of the word, not only because of Empire, but also due to climate change.
>live on stolen food items and squatted lands, by yourself
The fact that you say "by yourself" reveals a lack of understanding when it comes to post-left theory. When we say anti-organization, we are rejecting formal apparatuses. Affinity groups are encouraged so we can (if we're inclined to do so) set up mutual aid networks between us. Furthermore, no one is under the impression that dumpstering will change the world. People squat because they want to change the now, not the future.
>it has proven to work far better than your shitty strategy
Has it though? No sustained change has come about from anarchist revolutions (or at least no changes that aren't similar to what insurrections produce i.e. inspiration, temporary liberation, etc.)

>>1080
Small communes would be easily capable of ending exchange within themselves. Centralization is inherently rigid and inflexible, and is therefore incapable of abolishing alienation.



[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]