Recent comments in /f/Anarchism

throwaway wrote

escaping poverty should never mean being attached to a system that doesn't even want you to thrive

We're peripheral: get a degree, get a job, get a this, get a that; but then you're a player. You don't even want to play in that game, you want to reclaim your mind, and get it out of the hands of the cultural engineers who want to turn you into a half-baked moron, consuming all this trash, that's being manufactured out of the bones of a dying world... Where is that at?

Classic Terence.


Jefferey wrote

This is an oversimplification, but western countries staved of insurrectionary and revolutionary conditions through wealth redistribution and massive social spending. However, this was not done with good intentions as social democrats tend to believe.

Instead, such spending intentionally built up the racial wealth gap which had the effect of atomizing the working class and thus stabilized economic hierarchies at large. It also killed any internationalist tendencies western workers may have had which ultimately gave western capitalists the freedom to carry out their imperialist projects unopposed.

I also think modern neoliberalism is in part an effort made to reclaim much of that lost wealth now that global capitalism permeates most of the world's economies. However, that has had the effect of recreating many of the conditions present in the prewar period. Maybe not to the same degree, but the rise of the left and the far right is evidence of that.

What remains to be seen is if western capitalists can find a way to stabilize current social and civil unrest even as economic inequality continues to rise.


rot wrote

the 'west' is defined by capitalist progress and liberal democracy so by definition there are no communist states there. Countries like the u.s. and u.k are very stable economically (or were) and have a history of opposing communist governments/ movements so it never really took off


Ennui wrote

I think Communism hasn't taken off in any democracies, even those often called communist. Communist nations never established communism; they mostly used it as a rhetorical tool to justify the expansion of ruling class power by creating a common enemy (e.g. capitalism, imperialism). In terms of political-economy, those nations were state-capitalist. For those few cases when communism was going to be voted in, democracy was quickly disassembled, and revolution/counter-revolution replaced it.

P.S. Workers in both capitalist and communist nations were/are organizing unions, though few of them are self-described communists. In both cases, coalitions of industrial and state power led to the destruction of said unions. Nowadays, syndicalism is more historical than possible due to the heavy business and government management of unions. In so-called communist nations like China, this is extremely obvious—China has one state-run union, non-membership in that union is impractical, and it is wielded as a propaganda tool and a way to keep the workers from striking. Most of my knowledge of why syndicalism failed stems from American history, though. I highly recommend reading "Labor Struggle in a Free Market" by Kevin Carson at C4SS.


FuckCopyright wrote (edited )

One way they can be motivated to fight the state is realizing that the as a result of streaming, companies can control the very circuses people enjoy, and can remove it from their "ownership" (no thanks to DRM) through opaque licensing agreements. This is what motivates me to consider more anarchist stances on life.

Sadly a lot of philosophies encourage people to accept these bread and circuses unconditionally. Yes, there are those who live in poverty, but escaping poverty should never mean being attached to a system that doesn't even want you to thrive the way you want.


FuckCopyright wrote

Western democracies have grown to consider communism as incompatible with Christian and capitalist values, the latter enshrined as a result of the industrial revolution and the former having turned quite individualist and pro-capitalist almost as a result of the West's history (maybe the Enlightenment period which saw a lot of questioning of Christian orthodoxies and the result of interdenominational divides, I'm not sure).

One could argue the individualist Anglo-Saxon mentality almost naturally discourages communist thought, but I think this is less reliably true than what I've mentioned.

Any attempt at installing communism has generally been viewed far more suspiciously in the West than in the East, the West being afraid to allow its industrial progress to stall, and its religious and philosophical authorities to be replaced by authorities of a more secular and class-conscious nature.

Otherwise, I'm going with what ziq has mentioned, especially when you consider nations such as Vietnam and Cuba having recently embraced privatization without providing any meaningful civil liberties.