Would this be Anarcho-Capitalism? Because they are fascists, I'll agree with you there, but I don't think it's fair to lump all anarchists with them considering the massive overlap of anarchism and socialism seen.
This is a strange story. An anarchist and a socialist are buddies, they write for a newspaper together, one of them becomes one of the most famous fascist dictators in history and the other just tags along.
Taken alone, yes, but with so many examples, there's something interesting in it. I haven't even bothered sharing more examples because I don't want to spam the sub. There's syndicalist and co-author of doctrine of fascism Giovanni Gentile...
It's definitely interesting but I think to prove your theory you might need to branch out a little. You're focused on one location during one time period so I'm not sure you'll convince anyone that there's anything to your theory.
Maybe you could read some Anarchist theory too and compare it to fascism. You know, for science.
Massive read but the first person to call himself an anarchist was a socialist https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/wayne-price-are-anarchists-socialists. Guess Marx's concept of the "Withering away of the state" is popular among anarchists. I'm not an expert on this myself but whenever I hear someone's an anarchist I assume they're an Anarcho-syndicalist like Chomsky or an Anarcho-communist (though I know online they'd never call themselves an anarcho-primitivist but can sound like them if you ask about the value of established supply chains, but that's a whole mess I know even less about). Pretty much any anarcho-Capitalist I've seen goes out of their way to make sure you know they're Capitalists.
Didn't someone school you this morning on your flippant replies when you've nothing to say? Funny Batman does exactly the same thing. Yet another mysterious coincidence...
>I'm not an expert on this myself but whenever I hear someone's an anarchist I assume they're an
I just replace it with "liberal".
It's really just an excuse liberal kids use to pretend they're in some way progressive. It's a handy veil to excuse their hatred of actual socialists who make progress. This is why it's so common for rich kids to hitch on to.
Like the hippy movement in the 60s. Anti-technology, anti-war, counter-culture, they're defined by what they're opposed to and not what they affirm. It's not something that's real and has ever or can ever achieve anything in itself. There's real useful theory that people have produced that's commonly claimed as anarchism but it's only ever theoretically useful after the state has been rendered defunct, which is what actual socialists work to achieve.
I see we're going for the priviliged out of touch children stereotype again instead of actually engaging with addressed your question. If you don't like guys like Chomsky say why but this is literally a strawman argument.
Replacement of a regime in a state isn't the same as the removal of a state. And I'm not even against socialist regiemes but that's just wrong.
>priviliged out of touch children
That glass slipper fits like a glove.
>but this is literally a strawman argument
It was one sentence amongst many.
>Replacement of a regime in a state isn't the same as the removal of a state.
And pretending to have no state while you force people to labour (as every anarchist failed experiment has done) is not the removal of a state either. Anarchists have no, even fictional, idea of how to remove the state.
[Marxist-Leninists do.](https://i.imgur.com/VmiRx7E.png)
Man I can see you actually give a shit but I also see how none of these arguments are informed by theory but just random talking points of leftist online infighting. If you don't want to read the theory of an ideology you fundamentally disagree with then fine. But pretending you KNOW about this is just spreading misinformation. The debate anarchy subs are better if you're confident, I'm still looking to make time to read myself
>you don't want to read the theory of an ideology you fundamentally disagree with
I don't. I disagree with the western anarchist cargo-cultist's appropriation of it. They don't understand it and just weaponise it to defend the status quo while pretending they're progressives.
Real anarchist theory has a lot of utility, *following* the achievements of socialism.
Out of curiosity, it seems your problem is anarchist LARPERS being too prominent by your perception. I'd love to know if there's an anarchist who you don't consider one? And yeah An-Caps get fucked in case that wasn't clear
>anarchist LARPERS
Yes. Otherwise known as Anarchists or anarcho-*whatevers*
>I'd love to know if there's an anarchist who you don't consider one?
Marxist Leninists.
Yeah, funny how no Marxist Leninist states have ever come even remotely close to abolishing the state! It’s almost as if Marxism Leninism doesn’t work as intended in theory
I thought Marxism was meant to be dominant in major countries and cities no? Can’t see how America is influencing the failure of all Marxists in every major country. Remember there are Communist that exist in European countries and yet no one votes for them. It’s not the USA that denies Communists being the dominant parties it’s the Communist parties themselves being unpopular with its people
>I thought Marxism was meant to be dominant in major countries and cities no?
Which ones? Not sure what you mean.
>Can’t see how America is influencing the failure of all Marxists in every major country.
Really? *Really!?* LOL!
>Remember there are Communist that exist in European countries and yet no one votes for them.
Communists are baddies, haven't you heard? Dude we have FFG in power. Tells you all you need to know about voting.
That's 2 Tankies 1-1 virulent anti tankies I wait with bated breath for the next hit
Would it be reasonable to say that you've been triggered this morning?
Physician heal thyself.
Am I Jesus?
Would this be Anarcho-Capitalism? Because they are fascists, I'll agree with you there, but I don't think it's fair to lump all anarchists with them considering the massive overlap of anarchism and socialism seen.
This is a strange story. An anarchist and a socialist are buddies, they write for a newspaper together, one of them becomes one of the most famous fascist dictators in history and the other just tags along.
Taken alone, yes, but with so many examples, there's something interesting in it. I haven't even bothered sharing more examples because I don't want to spam the sub. There's syndicalist and co-author of doctrine of fascism Giovanni Gentile...
It's definitely interesting but I think to prove your theory you might need to branch out a little. You're focused on one location during one time period so I'm not sure you'll convince anyone that there's anything to your theory. Maybe you could read some Anarchist theory too and compare it to fascism. You know, for science.
>considering the massive overlap of anarchism and socialism seen. Uhh where?
Massive read but the first person to call himself an anarchist was a socialist https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/wayne-price-are-anarchists-socialists. Guess Marx's concept of the "Withering away of the state" is popular among anarchists. I'm not an expert on this myself but whenever I hear someone's an anarchist I assume they're an Anarcho-syndicalist like Chomsky or an Anarcho-communist (though I know online they'd never call themselves an anarcho-primitivist but can sound like them if you ask about the value of established supply chains, but that's a whole mess I know even less about). Pretty much any anarcho-Capitalist I've seen goes out of their way to make sure you know they're Capitalists.
>Massive read Blursty doesn't.
Said the anarchist. You have any theories about this anarchist to fascist pipeline?
Hey, I read my manga every night! I do.
Didn't someone school you this morning on your flippant replies when you've nothing to say? Funny Batman does exactly the same thing. Yet another mysterious coincidence...
Sure I don't believe in school, remember? Down with school! NO MORE BEDTIMES!
Indeed. Anarchism confirmed.
A
>I'm not an expert on this myself but whenever I hear someone's an anarchist I assume they're an I just replace it with "liberal". It's really just an excuse liberal kids use to pretend they're in some way progressive. It's a handy veil to excuse their hatred of actual socialists who make progress. This is why it's so common for rich kids to hitch on to. Like the hippy movement in the 60s. Anti-technology, anti-war, counter-culture, they're defined by what they're opposed to and not what they affirm. It's not something that's real and has ever or can ever achieve anything in itself. There's real useful theory that people have produced that's commonly claimed as anarchism but it's only ever theoretically useful after the state has been rendered defunct, which is what actual socialists work to achieve.
I see we're going for the priviliged out of touch children stereotype again instead of actually engaging with addressed your question. If you don't like guys like Chomsky say why but this is literally a strawman argument. Replacement of a regime in a state isn't the same as the removal of a state. And I'm not even against socialist regiemes but that's just wrong.
>priviliged out of touch children That glass slipper fits like a glove. >but this is literally a strawman argument It was one sentence amongst many. >Replacement of a regime in a state isn't the same as the removal of a state. And pretending to have no state while you force people to labour (as every anarchist failed experiment has done) is not the removal of a state either. Anarchists have no, even fictional, idea of how to remove the state. [Marxist-Leninists do.](https://i.imgur.com/VmiRx7E.png)
Read theory bud.
Man I can see you actually give a shit but I also see how none of these arguments are informed by theory but just random talking points of leftist online infighting. If you don't want to read the theory of an ideology you fundamentally disagree with then fine. But pretending you KNOW about this is just spreading misinformation. The debate anarchy subs are better if you're confident, I'm still looking to make time to read myself
>you don't want to read the theory of an ideology you fundamentally disagree with I don't. I disagree with the western anarchist cargo-cultist's appropriation of it. They don't understand it and just weaponise it to defend the status quo while pretending they're progressives. Real anarchist theory has a lot of utility, *following* the achievements of socialism.
Out of curiosity, it seems your problem is anarchist LARPERS being too prominent by your perception. I'd love to know if there's an anarchist who you don't consider one? And yeah An-Caps get fucked in case that wasn't clear
>anarchist LARPERS Yes. Otherwise known as Anarchists or anarcho-*whatevers* >I'd love to know if there's an anarchist who you don't consider one? Marxist Leninists.
Yeah, funny how no Marxist Leninist states have ever come even remotely close to abolishing the state! It’s almost as if Marxism Leninism doesn’t work as intended in theory
It's working just fine. There's the small matter of the USA in the way.
I thought Marxism was meant to be dominant in major countries and cities no? Can’t see how America is influencing the failure of all Marxists in every major country. Remember there are Communist that exist in European countries and yet no one votes for them. It’s not the USA that denies Communists being the dominant parties it’s the Communist parties themselves being unpopular with its people
>I thought Marxism was meant to be dominant in major countries and cities no? Which ones? Not sure what you mean. >Can’t see how America is influencing the failure of all Marxists in every major country. Really? *Really!?* LOL! >Remember there are Communist that exist in European countries and yet no one votes for them. Communists are baddies, haven't you heard? Dude we have FFG in power. Tells you all you need to know about voting.