Is Anarcho-Marxism the only plausible form of anarchism where

>>1835532

As far as I'm concerned, the only successful forms of these ideologies which I have seen, which didn't result in mass death and authoritarianism, (it seems anarchocommunism is a bit of a contradiction, considering that communism seeks to abolish the state) was anarcho syndicalism amongst the Zapistas and the Spanish during the 30s.

Aside from that, I can't really say.

This is ridiculous and has as its root the idea that states form primarily to distribute resources and that if everyone had infinite shit, no states would form, no one would want to group together, and no one would fight over differences in ideology.

>>1835538
>Marx: You need to achieve utopia before achieving stateless utopia
>Everyone else: If you achieve statelessness you you will achieve utopia

>>1835547
But why would people need ideology if their needs are met and they don't need to justify things or fight over things? This is provably true, every modernized society is more secular than ones that are not. And within these societies, the tendency is for have-nots to be more religious.

>>1835532
Well it is only realistic if and only if, people are able to obtain enough material wealth to make that scenario possible and that humans move past there jealously of other people who they perceive to have more than them.

>>1835532
How does mutualism "rely on everyone following a set ideology", while Anarco-communism (Anarcho-Marxism isn't a thing) does not?

>>1835554
But that's almost exactly what Marx says. He says you have to achieve socialism before achieving communism, because a capitalist society will be unable to make the last push to post-scarcity. Only a socialist society can.

File: 1456080509076.png (51KB, 694x364px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 694x364px

>>1835551
You're confusing religion and ideology. The basic problem is meta-ethical. People do not all have the same values or seek the same things, and there is no objective basis for values, therefore divergences in the ends people seek will always create conflict even if omnipotent means existed.

TLDR: Stirner BTFO Marx once again.

>>1835556
Anarcho-communism is not the same as Marx's stateless communism, and mutualism relies on everyone playing by mutualist rules.

>>1835561
But if there's plenty of everything you don't have to fight for things, even if you want different things than someone else. The only thing that you would need to fight over is the desire to dominate others. But the root of the desire to dominate others is to obtain more things, not dominance in of itself.

>>1835566
Unless you are going to tell me that you believe that material conditions completely dictate value-systems [which is to say, you're an idiot who doesn't understand values, memetics, etc], you have to accept that people are going to want things you don't no matter how hard you try and control for all the variables.

Some people may decide they think another group of people or their values are "evil" and decide to fight them.

Others may decide to fight because they like fighting, or view conflict as essential to a healthy society.

Others may decide to fight for any number of other reasons.

To put it simply, your entire idea depends on all mankind being perfectly "rational" utilitarians when put into post-scarcity Marxist conditions, which is to say, it depends on them following an ideology.

You saying the incorrect notion that material conditions will GUARANTEE they follow that ideology does not make it any less dependent upon that ideology.

>>1835566
People are dick heads and needlessly cruel. They don't need a real reason to kill each other in an organized fashion.

>>1835571
Of course values and memetics are dictated by material conditions. Those without will be more susceptible to certain ideas and values than those with. That's why you see ideological differences on people with different material conditions.

People decide other people are evil because they feel threatened by them. If they are given security by material abundance, they won't feel threatened.

>>1835575
But they normally do have a reason.

>>1835532
Doesn't fix the anthropocentric value system
The Marxist worker-centric ideology will never be relevant because we will never be able to sustain an industrial society.

>>1835532


The extent to which an anarchic philosophy is adaptive is the extent to which it engages in unprincipled exceptions to anarchism.

>Post-scarcity

How is this possible?

File: cnt.jpg (69KB, 736x469px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 736x469px

Fully automated luxury anarcho-communism (people working 10-15 hours a week with all their basic needs guaranteed) would be easily achievable within a decade with our current technology if not for spooks like property rights and the state.

>>1835532
Marx has too much focus on "Oppressor vs Oppressed"..
If post scarcity could be achieved, and we switched to an anarchic society, the rule of law would be nonexistent, therefore people would rely on innate human relationships. The relationship of the family, for example, would prove precedence over all else; in a manner of speaking, people would become tribalistic. In the mouse utopia experiment, this was proven true. Regardless of income, people become tribalistic. Scarcity sustains intersectional relationships through law.

Class is inherent.