420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
A day after grandstanding about morals on the senate floor, Flake reminds up Republicans have none by Fanny Drammlestock - Wed, 25 Oct 2017 09:46:00 EST ID:D3IZqUk/ No.398183 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1508939160201.jpg -(31644B / 30.90KB, 400x300) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 31644

Don't be fooled by Jeff Flake's grandstanding the other day, he has no morals or values, just like the rest of Republicans. He's only upset that Trump is getting in the way of licking corporations boots efficiently like he hoped would happen when Republicans gained total control. If you need proof, just look at his vote to roll back protections for consumers that stopped corporations from putting stuff in the fine print that would essentially make it impossible for consumers to sue in class action lawsuits. This is the shit they do.

This is why if you pay attention to actual policy and you aren't a psychopathic billionaire, there is no way you turn out republican. The only ones who are republicans ignore it when laws like this are passed. They ignore when republicans roll back internet privacy laws or internet neutrality even when the public overwhelmingly supports it. They ignore when the government takes away people's legal rights to fight back against rich and powerful corporations. They ignore when the Republicans try to take away healthcare from millions of low income Americans to finance a tax cut for the wealthy. Do not be fooled by grandstanding speeches about morals from Republicans, because they have none.
Cyril Pickcocke - Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:24:48 EST ID:HpJPm84P No.398185 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>This is why if you pay attention to actual policy and you aren't a psychopathic billionaire, there is no way you turn out republican.
or racist. you forgot about people who vote republican because they are single issue voters that care about keeping brown folks down.
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Wed, 25 Oct 2017 14:34:04 EST ID:iFsdrSSG No.398186 Ignore Report Quick Reply
What's the point of this post? Honest question. Democratic Party boosterism is, at best, morally depraved, so the charitable reading is that's not your intention.
Emma Chenningkick - Wed, 25 Oct 2017 15:15:50 EST ID:WQQ+NOb5 No.398187 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Just because you hate the republican party doesn't mean you're a booster for the Democratic party ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

There are more than two parties and very many more ideologies beyond that. This "us vs them" thinking is part of the problem.
Edwin Wockleway - Wed, 25 Oct 2017 16:03:40 EST ID:Fwx4IBJF No.398188 Ignore Report Quick Reply

You know pretty much all ideologies involve making distinctions between "us and them"?
Emma Chenningkick - Wed, 25 Oct 2017 17:04:43 EST ID:WQQ+NOb5 No.398191 Ignore Report Quick Reply
That doesn't make it ok or mean that we should perpetuate it.

It's important that people know there are more than two ways of thinking.
Fanny Drammlestock - Wed, 25 Oct 2017 17:49:59 EST ID:D3IZqUk/ No.398192 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Believe it or not, there are some people who actually don't understand that the Republican party is literally pure evil and wants what is best for the rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else. They don't pay attention to all the actual laws that get passed and let the politicians distract them with stupid social issues. It's important to draw attention to the actual things politicians do rather than just the words they say. If we just have threads about some dumb shit Trump says and never about laws being passed or other functions of government, then we're playing right into their hands.
Augustus Goodway - Wed, 25 Oct 2017 18:08:18 EST ID:ocfgTAf6 No.398193 Ignore Report Quick Reply
We can further divide liberal and moderate minded people further, making it easier the Republicans to win, or we find a way to turn the Democratic party more progressive. I don't want partisanship and hatemongering, either. But what you are suggesting is harmful strategically.

You don't want the Rich and powerful to get more rich and powerful?
You don't want the Supreme Court fucked with?
You don't want to do away with ACA subsidies?
You want more sensible governing?

You vote democratic. Yes, they have major issues, most of which have been outlined by Ralph Nader, but further splintering the left and middle will only ensure all the above mentioned will happen without a hitch.
George Mablingdale - Wed, 25 Oct 2017 20:23:32 EST ID:Fwx4IBJF No.398195 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Are you high?
"Two ways of thinking" is not the same as the fact that ideologies create an "us" group and "them" group.

Even though revolution is a far-off possibility, I honestly wonder how you can take stock of the present conditions and conclude that "sensible" politics (more capital, more jobs, more debt) is a solution. How much do you make in a year? What stakes do you have in the present conditions?
Frederick Snoddock - Wed, 25 Oct 2017 21:22:27 EST ID:mv5oRpxE No.398196 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1508980947534.jpg -(250322B / 244.46KB, 594x473) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Revolution isn't some grand future that lyes ahead, it's literally dependant on the acts of individuals and groups who have had enough. It doesn't matter if the masses support it because that's an abstraction. Where oppression exists, the opportunity to resist also does. If the dream of a better and new world exists, the potential to build it in the here and now also does.
Nicholas Nicklewater - Wed, 25 Oct 2017 21:40:40 EST ID:ocfgTAf6 No.398202 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The best revolution that we can have in this country is pushing out the oligarchs in this country, especially ones beholden to foreign governments. We don't do ourselves any favors if we wait for the revolution to happen while the GOP run this country into the pavement.

I'm not rich if that's what you're asking. I just want a country that isn't continually regressing. Forget the more nuanced policy making at the moment. Whatever the Dems want would be far better for this country in the general sense. But don't take that to mean that I suggest that we should settle. Our goal is to take our country back from foreign powers and the oligarchy. The only way we hope to generate this change is by rallying against the GOP. Not to tear down the Democratic party until it's splintered off into endless parties. That's exactly what the rich and powerful want.

What we should do is band together and to revitalize the peoples party. Democrats can never lose when there is a progressive message. The only reason the left loses in this country is because people don't vote. Lower voter turnout = loss. Every time Dems have a high voter turnout, they win, despite all the voter suppression and gerrymandering exists.
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Wed, 25 Oct 2017 23:12:41 EST ID:QiGBcKwL No.398206 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1508987561804.jpg -(63436B / 61.95KB, 609x836) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
The US Democratic Party is a sheepdog, intended to divert anticapitalist, anti-bourgeois sentiment into electoral politics in order to frustrate it.
>Our goal is to take our country back from foreign powers
Here you sound more like Mussolini than FDR, but never mind. Desiring what's "better for this country" is the sort of moral depravity I was talking about. "This country" is built on a mountain of corpses. Burn it all down, liberate the oppressed nations within the state. Break up the settler garrison. That's your revolution.
Shit Drillyman - Wed, 25 Oct 2017 23:33:29 EST ID:SbB5tCtI No.398207 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Voting Democrat > dirty proles armed to the teeth engaging in mass expropriation a
Martha Tootforth - Thu, 26 Oct 2017 10:35:10 EST ID:D3IZqUk/ No.398213 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I'm starting to realize something about Republicans. Most of them mentally align themselves with rich people even though they themselves are not rich because they're fucking delusional and need to see themselves in a positive light and believe that they are "winners". They vote against their own interests because they cannot accept that they are poor and voting as if they were rich makes their delusional little minds feel better, They often use race as a means to align themselves with rich people, they take pride in the accomplishments of the entire as a proxy for pride in themselves, so if a policy hurts minorities they will vote for it, even if it also hurts them because they see a win for rich whites as a win for all whites, and of course they mentally view themselves as someday being one of the rich whites and not one of the dirty "takers". They are fucked up beyond all belief. They are mentally broken people.
Nicholas Nicklewater - Thu, 26 Oct 2017 10:48:24 EST ID:ocfgTAf6 No.398214 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Most people that depend on social welfare are Republicans. If you are a Dem, chances are you live in a highly populated city and cities tend to run Democratic. Since cities are large enough, they are more capable of caring for their own, but much more difficult in smaller areas in which Repubs reside.

The people that stand to be hurt by Republican policies the most are Republicans themselves. It's one of those political ironies.
Phoebe Sendlecocke - Thu, 26 Oct 2017 11:15:45 EST ID:d2K5URtx No.398215 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>They vote against their own interests because
They aren't voting against their own interests. They are just more interested in taking rights away from gays, blacks, women, etc. than their own financial security.
Martin Drisslesadging - Thu, 26 Oct 2017 11:21:19 EST ID:fb6dASVk No.398216 Ignore Report Quick Reply
blacks and lower income whites often have the same inherent interests. they get them to eschew this though basically by getting them to believe/act the way martha said.

keep the poor fighting each other using racism so they can't unite.
Hannah Fucklebut - Thu, 26 Oct 2017 21:31:55 EST ID:RECqzvsy No.398225 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1509067915902.png -(722313B / 705.38KB, 1280x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
As an outsider I'd say that part of the problem is clearly the binary thinking. You should partly blame your FPTP system. Only an American (well, obviously not, but you see my point) could think that "bipartisan" was a synonym for "neutral". So let's not let the Dems off scott free just because the republicans are limboing under a low bar. Quite frankly the idea that there are only two ways of running a country; one right and the other wrong, appears ingrained in both sides.
Eliza Fanderstone - Thu, 26 Oct 2017 22:07:33 EST ID:ocfgTAf6 No.398226 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>one right and the other wrong, appears ingrained in both sides.

At the moment, that's all we have. When the right are still "debating" against single-payer and want to turn an already rightist policy of Obamacare ever more right, which is impossible, you know you have issues. That's the paradigm in the country at the moment.

And the left certainly has it's own problems to answer to. They've ruined themselves since they started taking money from special interests in order to help them win elections. It made them beholden to those at the top, which undoes the notion of it being the peoples party. You can't be the peoples party while enacting policies of the rich and powerful; It's an oxymoron situation.

The right used to be more sensible.
Wesley Drommlemutch - Fri, 27 Oct 2017 03:32:25 EST ID:FK4XCaIN No.398228 Ignore Report Quick Reply
refer to this post's pic for the dynamic changes within the Democrat and Republican Parties overtime: >>397034
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Fri, 27 Oct 2017 05:05:02 EST ID:QiGBcKwL No.398229 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>black and lower income whites often have the same interests
I think this is a reassuring bromide but doesn't hold up against a materialist investigation of US history. What we see is that the settler nation has consistently mobilized armed counterrevolution against the threat of Black liberation. White paramilitaries crushed the Reconstruction out of class interest. They engaged in terrorism against desegregation out of class interest. Racism is not a magic spell the US bourgeoisie cast on poor whites to confuse them, it is a weapon of class warfare.
Wesley Drillerridge - Fri, 27 Oct 2017 10:01:48 EST ID:ecYnnUSp No.398231 Ignore Report Quick Reply
i meant more like education, medicine, housing, etc. poor whites are fucked in a lot of similar ways as blacks, but they get it slightly better than them, thus creating an underclass beneath them that they can loathe, that they can hold themselves superior over. this is how the settler mentality is maintained, since they can no longer explicitly delineate slave vs freeman. that's the "magic spell"/"weapon of class warfare".

the white paramilitaries you're talking about were organized by the ruling class seeking to preserve their status, but employed largely lower class whites. same with those who engaged in terrorism against desegregation.

in that sense, racism is absolutely a "spell" that the US bourgeoisie casts on poor whites to confuse them. if only they could dispel it and unite with other lower class citizens, they could defeat the ruling class and better their lives.

but instead they're blinded by the notion that they're somehow the same as their ruling elite (temporarily embarassed millionaire syndrome), that they're better and not the same. that's the "spell," i guess. and it is "cast" regularly by conservative news outlets.

>all you need is a strong work ethic and you're guaranteed to be a millionaire someday!
>if you don't, it's because the minorities/immigrants are dragging you down!
>no, don't join them silly, FIGHT THEM!
>(because God forbid you unite and take us out...)
Ian Blinderstot - Fri, 27 Oct 2017 11:28:25 EST ID:D3IZqUk/ No.398233 Ignore Report Quick Reply
A few more pieces of the Republican puzzle explained by a neuroscientist


>Why should the human brain be structured so that mere repetition, without any more evidence, causes us to believe a claim more strongly? The more often we are exposed to a statement, the more comfortable it seems. The fundamental error most people make is mistaking statements that make them feel comfortable for true statements.

>Our brains cause us to believe something is true because we feel it is true, regardless of the evidence—a phenomenon known as emotional reasoning. This strange phenomenon can be easily explained by understanding some basic biology behind how our brain works.

>When we hear a statement, the first thing that fires in our brain in a few milliseconds is our autopilot system of thinking, composed of our emotions and intuitions. Also known as System 1, the autopilot system is what the Nobel Prize-winning scientist Daniel Kahneman identified as our two systems of thinking in his 2011 Thinking, Fast and Slow, and represents the more ancient system of our brain. It protected us in the ancestral environment against dangerous threats such as saber-toothed tigers by making us feel bad about them and drew us toward what we needed to survive such as food and shelter by making us feel good about them. The humans who survived learned well to heed the autopilot system’s guidance, and we are the children of these humans.

>Unfortunately, the autopilot system is not well calibrated for the modern environment. When we hear statements that go against our current beliefs, our autopilot system perceives them as threats and causes us to feel bad about them. By contrast, statements that align with our existing beliefs cause us to feel good and we want to believe them. So if we just go with our gut reactions—our lizard brain—we will always choose statements that align with our current beliefs.


>Lacking trust in the mainstream media and relying on social media instead, a large segment of Trump’s base indiscriminately shared whatever made them feel good, regardless of whether it was true. Indeed, one fake news writer, in an interview with The Washington Post, said of Trump supporters: “His followers don’t fact-check anything—they’ll post everything, believe anything.” No wonder that Trump’s supporters mostly believe his statements, according to polling. By contrast, another creator of fake news, in an interview with NPR, described how he “tried to write fake news for liberals—but they just never take the bait” due to them practicing fact-checking and debunking.


>Such truth-oriented behaviors rely on our other thinking system, the intentional system or System 2, as shown by Chip and Dan Heath in their 2013 book Decisive: How to Make Better Choices in Life and Work. The intentional system is deliberate and reflective. It takes effort to use, but it can catch and override the thinking errors committed by System 1 so that we do not adopt the belief that something is true because we feel it is true, regardless of the evidence.

>Many liberals associate positive emotions with empirical facts and reason, which is why their intentional system is triggered into doing fact-checking on news stories. Trump voters mostly do not have such positive emotions around the truth, and believe in Trump’s authenticity on a gut level regardless of the facts. This difference is not well recognized by the mainstream media, who treat their audience as rational thinkers and present information in a language that communicates well to liberals, but not to Trump voters.

So essentially Republicans are using their emotional lizard brains and aren't engaging higher level brain functions to check the validity of these emotional reasonings.
Matilda Tootfield - Fri, 27 Oct 2017 11:36:29 EST ID:FZwyp5B6 No.398234 Report Quick Reply

It's not that they aren't engaging it. I honestly believe they're incapable of using it.
Thomas Sammlestock - Mon, 30 Oct 2017 04:33:43 EST ID:nppI2w1T No.398256 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1509352423580.jpg -(116061B / 113.34KB, 564x538) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>White paramilitaries crushed the Reconstruction out of class interest.
Poor whites fail to identify what class they're part of, it doesn't make them part of the ruling class.
What class interests have poor whites had that were exclusive with those of poor blacks, excepting the construction of segregated schools using black tax dollars/commerce?
Whatever the market value of black labor is worth, poor whites have to compete with that. The policies that hurt blacks harm more poor whites than poor blacks as there's more poor whites.

>Racism is not a magic spell the US bourgeoisie cast on poor whites to confuse them, it is a weapon of class warfare.
Racism has always fallen upon economic faults to keep the working class divided against itself, the very concept of what ethnic groups constitute a race shifting accordingly.

Shit, you can find quotes from Ben Franklin essentially calling every ethnic group that wasn't British niggers or "Tawney".
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Tue, 31 Oct 2017 07:09:56 EST ID:QiGBcKwL No.398288 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1509448196393.jpg -(73265B / 71.55KB, 609x836) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Your confusion is in thinking that there is within the US a unitary working class with a shared interest. This is not and has never been the case.

A hundred and seventy years ago, Engels recognized the existence of a favored minority of workers in England, then the most advanced capitalist country on Earth. This class of artisans and trade-unionists he called the "labor aristocracy." Lenin followed him on this point, and realized that English trade-unionists enjoyed a privileged position and possessed a degraded, petit-bourgeois class consciousness because they shared in the superprofits that the British Empire was reaping abroad. This is exactly the analysis we must apply to the position of American settlers.

Why does the United States have no working-class political parties of the kind that have existed in Europe for more than 100 years? It's because the United States was never a nation, or even an ordinary country (from the beginning it was an empire), and it has never been home to a white proletariat. (The proletariat, remember, are the lowest, most immiserated working class who have nothing to sell but their labor.) The "white working class" as such has always enjoyed a privileged position made possible by US imperialism and the superexploitation of nonwhite labor — African slaves, Chinese, Mexican, Eastern and southern European migrants, etc.

The self-determination of the Black, Latino, and Indian nations would mean the dismantling of the US state. The US state ensures that settlers remain a protected class of citizen, it subsidizes their high individual income through imperial depredation, and it creates the conditions for the existence of a massive white petit-bourgeoisie that is free to take the most comfortable and lucrative non-productive sector jobs. These interests are in conflict.
Ebenezer Bunwill - Tue, 31 Oct 2017 09:14:26 EST ID:8Jh2i/ky No.398289 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Stop reading ancient socialist's texts and babble around their terminology in your posts.
It's obvious you don't understand shit.
Emma Mebbleman - Tue, 31 Oct 2017 10:58:42 EST ID:uW9KWJtY No.398291 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>It's because the United States was never a nation, or even an ordinary country (from the beginning it was an empire),
What's the meaningful difference and how does this apply to the existence, or lack thereof, of working class political parties in the US? I guess I fail to see how England and the USA are meaningfully different when using descriptors "Nation", "ordinary country" or "Empire".

>and it has never been home to a white proletariat. (The proletariat, remember, are the lowest, most immiserated working class who have nothing to sell but their labor.) The "white working class" as such has always enjoyed a privileged position made possible by US imperialism and the superexploitation of nonwhite labor — African slaves, Chinese, Mexican, Eastern and southern European migrants, etc.
Are we not there now? I understand that poor whites are better off than poor blacks, but not to the degree that voting Republican (and all the anti-labor policy that comes along with it) would benefit them in any way. Social security plays a part here, too. The "lowest class" don't understand how "low" they are thanks to government support (that the white folks vote against).

At what point do they realize this?
Sophie Worthinggold - Tue, 31 Oct 2017 18:04:02 EST ID:MLmCrJ8J No.398300 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1509487442205.jpg -(159731B / 155.99KB, 323x432) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

There is no mass working class awakening. Social dominance rears its head in every aspect of life, and it is not simply a top down structure enforced by the state, but a web of networks that reinforce racism and power in daily living. Before we can talk of shared economic interests, the descendants of poor white migrants need to abandon their whiteness and become traitors against the social class they've been integrated into. They have to remember their history, embrace it and become anti colonial. Pic related.
Sophie Worthinggold - Tue, 31 Oct 2017 18:05:02 EST ID:MLmCrJ8J No.398301 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Poor European migrants***
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Wed, 01 Nov 2017 05:21:41 EST ID:QiGBcKwL No.398314 Ignore Report Quick Reply
A nation is a group of people with a common territory, a common language, and a common culture. An empire, broadly speaking, is one nation which rules over several others.

The US, unlike Britain, France, or Austria, emerged fully formed as an empire. The class divisions in Europe, whether between football team fans or political parties, are the result of 1000 years of conflict — between the aristocracy and the peasantry, between the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy, between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The US did not develop this way. When it emerged as a sovereign state in 1776, it possessed, in addition to a ruling bourgeoisie, the mutant class hydra of the settler occupying army — an amalgamation of labor aristocrat, lumpen, and petit-bourgeois elements. There was no Euro-American proletariat because all unskilled productive labor (and a good deal of skilled labor too) was provided by an internal colony of enslaved Africans. The short and distorted history of US class conflict has always reflected these distorted objective conditions. Hence, no US labor party.
Rebecca Peblingway - Wed, 01 Nov 2017 17:00:00 EST ID:nppI2w1T No.398324 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1509570000002.jpg -(141588B / 138.27KB, 600x361) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>all unskilled productive labor (and a good deal of skilled labor too) was provided by an internal colony of enslaved Africans.
The fuck?
That wasn't even true in the south where white independent farmers competed against slave plantations, and it certainly wasn't true among the northern factory workers.
Jack Crellerforth - Wed, 01 Nov 2017 18:59:25 EST ID:dixyb44e No.398330 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Actually, there was labor struggles in America. They became assimilated and became an extension of white power. Why? There's limits to party politics and trade unionism. All history proves this. Ideas of communism and labor have been assimilated into European society the same way people were assimilated into the privileges of white supremacy in the USA. The syndicalists inherently were structured in a manner that allowed workers organizations to become an integrated continuation of capital rather than a force in direct confrontation with it. For instance, in London trade unions were calling for a general strike way back in the 1900s. They denounced the band's of lumpens and anarchists who were clashing with police, and extending the general strike thru the means they had. They actively supported the police and liberalism, even many of the socialist and communist elements. You have to read method of freedom by Malatesta to understand this more.
Wesley Cimmerchine - Thu, 02 Nov 2017 10:28:53 EST ID:L7Dp7Ocv No.398339 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Most people are. Since I learned a bit about logic and proper arguing I realised most adults are just childish retards who want to ramble about shit they never bothered to get informed about. They just want a pat on the back and be reassured they said the right thing like a dumb dog never mind having an actual discussion that's not just dirt slinging.
Eliza Snodway - Thu, 02 Nov 2017 15:49:33 EST ID:i+8mSKdH No.398342 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1509652173153.jpg -(101864B / 99.48KB, 513x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>398314 >>398324 >>398330
The US developed an unique form of individualist anarchism while Europe was mostly social and/or communist. (Britain was an exception too, never having a strong anarchist movement either.) Social anarchism was imported with mass waves of European immigrants to the US.

The reason the US focus was individualistic (according to Spirit of Revolt) was because of the great western frontier. Anyone who wanted to escape just had to travel west where there was no imposing government. Now there's no escape.

Some unions retained their revolutionary basis, but most were integrated. For example the IWW retained, but lost membership drastically during the 1920s, after a few mishaps and for other reasons I don't know. In contrast syndicalist unions in Southern America continued to gain membership and retained their insurrectionary viewpoints during this time. Spain was an anomaly too. The primary reason anarchists in the Spanish Civil War were a major force was because of the anarchist syndicalist unions there.
Shitting Dovingforth - Thu, 02 Nov 2017 19:19:45 EST ID:y4EuAgoL No.398345 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Well I'd say Europe had a lot of individualist currents too. You had most of the early anarcho communists in Russia being inspired by their participation in the early nihilist movement, then you had groups from South Europe that dated back to the bonnot gang and their support networks. You had Malatesta who believed in individualism in a sense and even Bakunin himself had a lot to say on individual freedom. Even Proudhon. Then further you had people like Alfredo who denounced parties and vanguards. Anarchism has always had individual values more so than socialists and communists no matter where they stood. Since their birth they believed in taking individual actions to contribute to a greater collective liberation rather than the ideas of a collective awakening being the role of intellectuals. This was basically why the first international split between Marxists and anarchists. Marxists believed the time had to be ripe and a party had to be strong whereas anarchists believed that if individuals felt oppressed they ought to act against that oppression.
Jenny Lightspear - Thu, 02 Nov 2017 23:30:53 EST ID:i+8mSKdH No.398350 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1509679853748.jpg -(128149B / 125.15KB, 720x900) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Good points. Towards the end of the Bonnott gang, alot of social anarchists and syndicalists closed their doors to the individualists because of their distress at them for raising the heat of police repression and making it harder for all them to do their work. Even before the Bonnott gang existed, the tendency they were a part of crashed social anarchist speeches and meetings. So there was definitely contention between the different tendencies from the start. Although some intellectuals of the times praised one another for their well-thought out theory, despite not seeing eye-to-eye on everything.

I like the idea of combining both individualist and social focuses instead of either or. Sort of like how that Vanguard essay that you linked puts it.

Clearly time vindicated the anarchist wing of the first international. Its funny how a split that long ago had such reverberating repercussions for centuries.
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Fri, 03 Nov 2017 04:43:17 EST ID:wwSF8zav No.398353 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Yes we agree completely, the only thing I would add is that the American trade union movement was compromised from the start and not necessarily co-opted at some particular point in time.
You're right, I was being fast-and-loose. Here's what Sakai gives for the class breakdown of American settler society in 1775:
80% bourgeois & petit-bourgeois:
10% — Capitalists: Great Planters, large merchants, etc.
20% — Large farmers, professionals, tradesmen & other upper-middle element
40% — Small land-owning farmers
10% — Artisans: blacksmiths, coopers, carpenters, shipwrights, etc.
15% — Temporary workers, usually soon moving upwards into the ranks of the small farmers
5% — Laborers
That means 70% of settler men were of the propertied middle-class, and even those "without taxable property were not poor, but had comfortable incomes and were respected enough to be elected to public office." The point being again that American society was totally parasitic on an African slave class, to the point where there was no Euro-American proletariat to speak of.
Graham Tillingville - Fri, 03 Nov 2017 07:29:39 EST ID:dixyb44e No.398356 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>closed their doors to the individualists

they basically threw people under the rug. This is also partly due to ww1. A lot of people talk about ww2, but not enough people study ww1, and its impact on the human pysche and the shift of global and national politics. For instance, a lot of the people who "closed their door to the individualists" were swept up in nationalistic and liberal fervor. To simplify it, they were all like "yo,theres a war going on,show some respect, lets tone it down a bit guys!". A lesser example would be the slowing down of the anti-global trade movement after 9/11. You had people on the left, even people who were self-identifying as anarchist swept up in the narrative, and basically approaching things like "nows not the time".
Graham Tillingville - Fri, 03 Nov 2017 07:40:25 EST ID:dixyb44e No.398357 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1509709225518.jpg -(125418B / 122.48KB, 200x298) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>> and not necessarily co-opted at some particular point in time.

You're right. What I meant by co-opted, is more so the new deal, was a method of counter-insurgency used to assimilate the identity of European migrants into American whiteness. In turn, the mass amounts of people living in conflict with the state, were broken up, and rapidly became proponents of American nationalism, and the colonialism it implies. Though, I'd say they were all doomed from the start. People have this naive, or simplified understanding of the history of trade unionists, as if they were some how connected with revolutionary thought inherently when this wasn't really the case. Even the IWW denounced a woman who burnt draft papers. There may have been people preaching revolution within their ranks, stirring and agitating oppressed workers up, but this wasn't sanctioned by trade unions themselves.

Another book to check out, basically for America, if you haven't already, is "Immigrants against the state" some great history on this topic, including things such as culture, assimilation and the effects of American nationalism.
Graham Tillingville - Fri, 03 Nov 2017 07:42:16 EST ID:dixyb44e No.398358 Ignore Report Quick Reply

By they were all doomed from the start, i meant the trade union organizations, not the immigrants against the state. but eh, in the end, aint most of us just doomed from the start? lolol
Angus Nurryhet - Fri, 03 Nov 2017 15:39:19 EST ID:iqP6ImxC No.398368 Ignore Report Quick Reply

A bunch of brainwashed useful idiots of Marxist politicians stroking each other's egos. Yawn
George Narringstone - Sat, 04 Nov 2017 23:40:38 EST ID:i+8mSKdH No.398395 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1509853238341.jpg -(472943B / 461.86KB, 2048x1365) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
The closest I've learned of Marxism is the book: The Value of Radical Theory: An Introduction to Marx's Critique of Political Economy, which was pretty informative. The bits about Fictitious Capital was the most rewarding in conceptualizing one of capitalism's major faults.

Sort of like the lesser of two evils argument? WW1 was the beginning of anarchism's decline worldwide. Maybe that shift was a part of it. As well as everyone that was killed too.

Another reason the alter-globalization movement fell apart was because of the anti-war movement. That became everyone's focus. The largest protests across the world ever, yet the war began and continued, and still continues, now in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Libya, and expanding to Africa in Niger and Somalia.

Interesting detail about the IWW. The work they're doing now seems to be meaningful, focusing on smaller businesses, prison solidarity, and involved in the broader struggle. The lady killed by that fascist driver in Charlottesville was a member of the IWW.
Martha Pockway - Sun, 05 Nov 2017 22:57:18 EST ID:1RfiufKJ No.398434 Ignore Report Quick Reply

IWOC and the black cross groups are a healthy compliment to prison riots and strikes. Workers don't always in a sense need a group to speak on their behalf or vouch for them but voices can get lost or smothered easily behind the walls so a group dedicated to listening and having them heard is proper.
Jenny Crammlewater - Mon, 06 Nov 2017 04:51:38 EST ID:xQbV1JEs No.398449 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You do realise that the % of global war has been declining since the 19th century or some shit?
Charles Turveybury - Mon, 06 Nov 2017 13:16:54 EST ID:oYZD+Ql9 No.398455 Ignore Report Quick Reply

We don't really know the reasons for that though. The power structure in geopolitics is starting to resemble the 19th century and you already see increasing tension between the powers.

The real question is whether nukes have made war too costly, but when we find out that, it's already too late isn't it.
Charles Turveybury - Mon, 06 Nov 2017 13:16:54 EST ID:oYZD+Ql9 No.398456 Ignore Report Quick Reply

We don't really know the reasons for that though. The power structure in geopolitics is starting to resemble the 19th century and you already see increasing tension between the powers.

The real question is whether nukes have made war too costly, but when we find out that, it's already too late isn't it.
Wesley Fivingham - Mon, 06 Nov 2017 17:21:18 EST ID:y4EuAgoL No.398460 Ignore Report Quick Reply

It's called advanced capitalism. Most of the imperialism and warfare that expanded to put entire people's and nations under the heel of higher classes has already been done in history. Why do you think the US has military bases all over? The same reason our goods are produced by the 3rd world. After ww2 States began to integrate the proletariat into a bourgeoise logic through "social democracy" making things appear less brutal, when in fact the nation's that once had wars waged against them more actively are under the heel of a smarter Western counter insurgency. This exists prevent the third world nations from rising against the neo colonialism that comes with organizations like the IMF/world bank. This smarter form of counter insurgency means manipulating world events covertly,drones,puppet wars,secret prisons, funding States who will crush repression to these things, etc. You bet your ass that if someone steps out of line and wanders too far from US interests that bombs will eventually drop though.

TL;Dr things didn't get better or more free. The powers that be just began to rule more intelligently after ww2 after realizing the threats of revolution were always immanent in despotic societies. After the coldwar it advanced even more, to what we see today. A world of slaves shaking hands with their masters. Though that is changing thus the reasoning behind the "return to the brutal 19th century" reactions worldwide.
Wesley Fivingham - Mon, 06 Nov 2017 17:26:11 EST ID:y4EuAgoL No.398462 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>funding States who will crush resistance to these things

Wesley Bimmleridge - Wed, 08 Nov 2017 01:03:41 EST ID:i+8mSKdH No.398517 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1510121021995.jpg -(35481B / 34.65KB, 480x480) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Got that right, and not only for political purposes. Its amazing how important having a penpal can be when you're behind bars.

Yeah okay, but the war in Afghanistan is the longest US war in history, and the US has been engaged in wars pretty consistently since the close of WW2.

Another reason may be due to the interconnections of the economy now. Also we got dangerously close to MAD a couple times during the Cold War.

Exactly, to get loans from the IMF or World Bank the country had to pass certain policy. If they refused, no loan, and the corporations would take their factories to where a country did obey and there were poor working conditions and few regulations.

>This smarter form of counter insurgency means manipulating world events covertly,drones,puppet wars,secret prisons, funding States who will crush repression to these things, etc.
Sounds like a different kind of war, not between states, but against their people.

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.