LinksRUsBlog

 In that article, Antiff says the following : "Todd May claims that Anarchists need to look back at classical “classical” figures from the nineteenth-century European wing of the movement .May suggested that  anarchists had yet to come to terms with power as a positive ground for action.  (positive power as in Marxism/Marxism Leninism) The anarchist project, he argued, is based on a fallacious “humanist” notion that “the human essence is a good essence, which relations of power suppress and deny.” This impoverished notion of power as ever oppressive, never productive, was the Achilles heel of anarchist political philosophy (ibid., 62). Hence May’s call for a new and improved “poststructuralist anarchism.”  The poststructuralist anarchist would not shy away from power: she would shed the husk of humanism the better to exercise power “tactically” within an ethical practice guided by Habermas’s universalist theory of communicative action (ibid., 146).  But in the piece, Allan Antiff

I can be described as a Post-Anarchist, as I do not have a set of social arrangements, or even any particular revolutionary project I engage in, but rather I have a sensibility, a specific ethos or way of living and observing the world which is impelled by me realizing the freedom that we currently posses.  It suggest that revolution – as a method of thinking of radical political changes – is no longer operational, and I propose a notion of insurrection instead – of which we distance ourselves from power, instead of us seeking to battle against it directly creating a new rule. In layman's terms, my strain of Post-anarchism is not one coherent theory, but rather my Anarchism of a combination of works of any amount of post-modernists and post-structuralists including Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, Jacques Lacan, Jacques Derrida, Jean Baudrillard; postmodern feminists including Judith Butler; and besides those, also of classical anarchist and libertarian philosophers including Zhuan

Some people falsely think most Marxists are first world university Trotsyists and Anarcho radlibs. In reality the majority of Communist parties on Earth sustain at least some manner of Marxism-Leninism Anarchists and Libs are perfect for each other. Libs have only destroyed the planet and Anarchists have accomplished next to nothing. But hey they will convince the enemy with some mutual aid /s Anarchism is a radlib ideology There's a reason that essentially all of the worst radlibs are Anarchists. The whole anarchist philosophy is devoted to fighting abstract "hierarchy" instead of materially uplifting the workers, which means that from the outset, Anarchists are operating on an idealist framework instead of from a material framework So what this means is that Anarchism consummately itself to wokeness and the fuzzy radlib conceptions of "oppression" and "struggle". (though Karl Marx, Frederich Engels and Vladimir Lenin use these terms as well! They do

In a Russia Tsarism society is would be like in pre USSR Russia , like in 1917 which would be a pretty well system with democracy where the tsar would push for a lot for education of the poor (which would mesh with the Mythological socialism/communism part of this society) There would be a monarch counterposed against state bureaucracy, a representative for the people against the state. This would be done to prevent counter revolutionaries and dictatorships from arising There would also be elements of  this .

Mythological Socialism/Communism is basically for all intents and purposes  Communalism Mythological Socialism/Communism has literally everyone being paid the same exact wages regardless of what job they do (like US pro athletes and CEOs having the same exact income as janitors and deputy dog catchers. No need to tax the rich when the rich wouldn’t exist under this system). In this system income is redistributed so that everyone always had the same amount of money as every other person In Mythological Socialism/Communism people themselves are collectivized . Donated hair would be exported. There would be a more identifying National Id created for citizens. There would be less excessive high technology (between moderate Neo Luddism and Anti Consumerism) since high technology is capitalistic. Dozens of people would even sleep under the same huge blankets in communes.  In Mythological Socialism/Communism there are elements of  meme J-Stalinism Unlike Marxism Leninism, Mythological Sociali

 A national budget going three-quarters to socialist-type entitlement programs, with legal protections for unions, mandated equality in all areas of life, an economy controlled through a centralized Federal Bank and a government that “creates jobs” by writing rules. Being subject to all manners of international law and treaties (within reason), rendering national sovreignty dubious by obeying surprisingly Communist “human rights” based rules of the internationalists. There would be capitalism in this mess, but under layers of edicts, regulations, precepts, affirmative action, and taxes — at all 3 levels levels, with some special fees and registrations — and with high legal cost of complying with all of this stuff. With circular pyramid economy going, under a fake economy that is concealing a covert, camouflaged command economy. Technically, this would be a constitutional liberal democracy, but with a constitution with a market socialist system along with civil rights as its focus. It w