Is anarcho-capitalism workable? Or should we all be Communists?
We should all be communists void of corruption.
>implying this isn't the perfect state.
We should all be national-syndicalists.
>>1226136
So what is the algorithm you are using? It seems to go: IF NOT anarcho-capitalism, pick communism. But why?
>>1226145
>communists void of corruption.
This is a contradiction in terms.
>>1226168
But I don't own any capital. I just have a brain.
>>1226136
>Should we take things to one autistic extreme or the other
>Should we believe in yellow voodoo or red voodoo
kysmm
fuck off, ray
>>1226168
>communism
>working
Doesn't work with or without faith.
>>1226178
>But I don't own any capital. I just have a brain.
Evidently not.
>>1226189
>hasn't worked
>therefore it shall never work
Nice.
>>1226204
>hasn't worked
>"We just have to believe and try harder ;)))))"
>>1226219
>can't find a solution
>throw hands in air and give up
Kek.
>>1226204
>hasn't been tried meme
No, it has been tried, guess what? Guess fucking what? It didn't work. When the Anabaptist in Muenster tried it, guess what happened, polygamy, starvation, corruption. We don't even need to talk about the secular shit because you already know.
Also, to note, the Anabaptist in Muenster are the first ones to do something commie related.
>>1226156
>muh largely unimpacted social relations
>muh commodity production
>muh state
>>1226189
>communism
>working
It worked. It was no coincidence that in 1950's the fastest growing economies in the world were the socialist ones DESPITE the USA pumping money into Western Europe.
Then it stopped working and failed to adapt.
>>1226239
You mean the USSR playing "work you get shot in the head" game?
>>1226233
hahahahahaha bro, I never said it had never been tried, it's never worked.
>implying humans fucking up a system is the fault of the system and not the humans fucking it up
Nice.
>>1226229
>Keeps trying even though trying means creating a shit-show authoritarian state that kills everyone who disagrees, plus fucking shit up even more for the people who he claims to be helping
Kek.
>>1226243
>never
>tried
It has been tried, and it fails.
>>1226219
>I haven't read worth shit
"With the recognition of the proletarian character of the October Revolution must come the realization that the Bolshevik party, which was in the forefront of the international left defending revolutionary class positions during the First World War and in 1917, was a proletarian party of the revolutionary wave. With the defeat of the international working class uprisings, the isolated Russian bastion suffered a counter-revolution from within and the Bolshevik party, the leaders of the international communist left in 1919, degenerated into a party of the bourgeois camp."
>>1226247
>implying this is related to the fault of communism, and not the few people who tried it and failed.
Keep going.
>>1226253
What are you even doing?
>>1226262
Telling you goddamn proddy shits that communism is a lie.
>>1226191
I don't know, man, I've studied the history and theory of Communism a good bit, it just doesn't seem feasible or even desirable.
>inb4 you tell me to read some specific passage in Capital because it'll change my worldview
>>1226276
Are you unironically supporting heresy?
>>1226276
>y-you're just stupid
let me read the future.
you're going to post a fedora reaction image and try redirecting me to /pol/.
>>1226270
Communism is literally the perfect form of government, it's people who fuck it up that are at fault.
>>1226285
Bro, that's not even me (the guy you were arguing with). You are just that idiotic.
>>1226292
Shut up faggot, that anon you just responded to isn't me.
>>1226286
just too bad governments require people to run.
oh if only things were perfect and humankind was free of faults.
Communists are just genocidal maniacs who want an excuse to smash baby skulls against the wall like Pol Pot.
Just look at leftypol, they are pretty much LARPing 24/7 about hanging rich people, and martyr fantasies of "dying for the cause".
Commies get really upset when they don't have people to murder.
>>1226160
no, "dispute resolution organizations" would immediately become warlords, begin brutally oppressing those under them and fight among themselves
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ha4ea53UGI
>>1226160
oops meant to link to OP
>>1226136
it works but the result is something more along the lines of feudalism
>>1226313
>just too bad governments require people to run.
Are you really trying to tell me out of the countless amount of people who have lived none of them could have ran a successful communist government?
>>1226353
>ywn be part of the Church and be the Pope ruling the land, fucking over the monarch trying to make sure they bow down towards you
Fucking hold me /his/, hold me like I'm dying.
>>1226286
>it's people who fuck it up that are at fault.
>THIS COMPUTER WOULD WORK PERFECTLY IF IT DIDN'T HAVE TO PROCESS ANY INFORMATION
>>1226354
Yes
>>1226385
Well then you are an idiot.
>>1226396
>y-you're just stupid
let me read the future.
you're going to post a fedora reaction image and try redirecting me to /pol/.
>>1226396
The stock commieposter response.
>>1226413
Nice projection, there is literally nothing else you can say to you. That's how idiotic it was, you are simply ignorant, you're an idiot.
Enjoy your shit life.
>>1226315
>tfw the Children under Pol Pot didn't kill him and installed this idea of only children living
>>1226425
Shut up faggot, that anon you just responded to isn't me.
>>1226423
>he didn't read the comment chain
Truly an ignorant capitalist.
>>1226443
Don't steal my line you goddamn proddy.
>>1226136
The problem with anarcho-capitalism is its defense methods.
Since it has no government to run the army, it will just get invaded by a government who does.
However, I've heard the argument that it will have private armies which reminds me of Shadowrun where corporations had their own armies.
Which means either the private armies will fight amoung themselves or one comes out on top and then the owner of the army decides to be the government and none of the true anarcho-capitalists can do anything about it.
>>1226465
Nice projection, there is literally nothing else you can say to you. That's how idiotic it was, you are simply ignorant, you're an idiot.
Enjoy your shit life.
>>1226473
How am I projecting when I was first one to say it? Do you even understand why communism doesn't work?
Even if you back it through "God" it will not work.
>>1226477
Well then you are an idiot.
>>1226486
Because I think communism doesn't work?
>>1226490
Bro, that's not even me (the guy you were arguing with). You are just that idiotic.
>>1226493
Why does she sit like that?
>>1226500
What are you even doing?
>>1226493
Because I don't want a faggot using my goddamn line and acting like he's me on anonymous image board.
>>1226507
Maybe her butt hurts
>>1226516
What are you even doing?
>>1226353
ayn rand hated ancaps
>>1226518
Don't steal my line you goddamn proddy.
>>1226516
Which one, because I'm the one trying to tell you, dirty commies, that hasn't worked ever.
>>1226529
>said the stealing proddy
What the fuck is your faith?
>>1226529
Why does she sit like that?
>>1226530
it works but the result is something more along the lines of feudalism
>>1226542
You mean Ancap shit?
>>1226545
The stock commieposter response.
>>1226553
I'm not a goddamn commie, I'm simple God fearing man who wants to defend the Church from all harmful people.
>>1226564
>hasn't worked
>"We just have to believe and try harder ;)))))"
>>1226572
Are you bullying me?
>>1226583
Yes
>>1226590
Why ;_;
>>1226596
>muh largely unimpacted social relations
>muh commodity production
>muh state
>>1226564
Are you defending Communism?
>>1226353
If there is no government, then there would be no one to protect monopolies and the populace could take up arms against corporations/monopolies they view as harmful.
>>1226627
Communism is literally the perfect form of government, it's people who fuck it up that are at fault.
>>1226637
But that's wrong.
>>1226613
and that would be a violating of all the NAP shit and not anarcho capitalism but rather pure anarchism
>>1226353
>>1226336
Is that supposed to be a bad thing?
>>1226639
>communists
>good
No.
>>1226654
Y-you're bullying me again ;_;
Communism will only occur through socialism, which can only occur through capitalism.
this is an organic process, not one to be forced, the situation will emerge at a point due to the inherent nature of capitalism and its effects.
Bolsheviks and Maoists and etc. are all arrogant fools, they think they alone can "Plan" a society. Like a real-estate developer who thinks they can create "planned" communities (which just end up being slightly upmarket suburb/subdivisions), it's missing the sheer necessities of chaos, of things being built one on top of another, of layers and blending and trial and error, it's missing the need for history and context.
Heck we can see Marx vindicated when we look overseas and see in developing countries, populations adopting similar lifestyles to ours, (eating burgers/chicken-nuggets, listening to pop-music and being hedonistic consumerists). They're becoming alienated from their traditional lifestyles, just like our ancestors were a few generations ago. Communism is only possible through global capitalism. There are weak backwards countries that have rural tribal populations and are all divided, industry and capitalism will unite these countries, and wash away the old, superstitious indigenous cultures with the horrible fires of urbanization, and land consolidation. We see china beginning to outsource to Africa.
They will fight, they will fight hard against it, even those who claim to be "leftists" or "marxists" in the west will fight this process. But this process is inevitable, its due to the infectious nature of global capitalism. These "leftist" fools think that communism and socialism can be created in agricultural backwards societies, when doesn't work. Socialism needs capitalism to develop industry, to develop the economy (which has drawbacks, pollution, alienation, bad working conditions), but also develop the culture of the common peasant.
>>1226658
Yes
I was taking a shit btw
>>1226742
On my dreams to teach the world about why communism sucks?
>>1226752
oops meant to link to OP
>>1226760
No you didn't.
>>1226763
fuck off, ray
>>1226766
Who the fuck is Ray?
>>1226770
Are you unironically this stupid.
>>1226772
Why are you trying to bully me? Do you get off to people tears?
>>1226136
>Communists
No.
Capitalism is the best form of getting third world countries out of the dirt.
I do believe that Capitalism, mixed with elements of socialism can create god-tier nations with economic prosperity and can grant those of lower classes a better opportunity of rising.
Wether they choose to take said opportunities is entirely up to them.
>>1226777
>can't find a solution
>throw hands in air and give up
Kek.
>>1226783
Stop bullying me dammit.
>>1226786
>tfw the Children under Pol Pot didn't kill him and installed this idea of only children living
>>1226791
>copying my shit
Stop that. reeeeeee
>>1226796
Telling you goddamn proddy shits that communism is a lie.
>>1226800
Stop.
>>1226801
hammer time
>>1226653
Yes, the warlords would likely drop even the pretense of supporting ancap ideals so it would not be a good thing from your perspective.
Anarcho-capitalism is a top-down approach like communism and fruitier versions of anarchism which attempts to impose unfalsifiable abstract concepts onto the real world.
Whereas functional capitalism materializes naturally. This is the capitalism we all know and love, and it never required someone like Karl Marx or Murray Rothbard to invent it, people independently developed all the institutions of capitalism for practical purposes. It is a bottom-up approach to something complex beyond human comprehension, that is why it is the only method that works.
>>1226818
>unfalsifiable
There's that word again.
>>1226650
If an entity violates the NAP, then the community has the right to take action.
The best system is mutualism. Private property can ultimately only be defended through violence. Decentralized or no, it's violence. The best society would be one that recognizes that private property and the state are stale memes, but also that the markets ought to be free.
>>1226145
>we shall all be penguins that can fly
>>1226229
>94,000,000 dead
>"We'll get it right next time guys, don't worry"
>>1226336
>>1226818
>warlords oppressing others and fighting amongst themselves
We must be living in anarchy then.
>>1226336
>>1226818
>warlords oppressing others and fighting amongst themselves
We must be living in anarchy then
>>1226818
>capitalism materializes naturally
lel
>>1226826
communists can claim virtually anything is unequal
ancaps can claim virtually anything breaks the non-aggression principle
>>1226876
Communism isn't about 'equality,' though. I know, I know, all your favorite Reactosphere blogs use that word to label their enemies. I agree, equality is an odd ideal to pursue. That being said, you are simply wrong to think that Communism's stated or actual goal is equality. Communism's stated goal is the control of the means of production by the working class, which will become the universal class after a violent revolution dissolves all classes. This is its actual goal, too, it's simply an impossible and literally unrealistic one.
>ancaps can claim virtually anything breaks the non-aggression principle
Sure. That doesn't mean you can just throw the word 'unfalsifiable' around as if it's actually a universally accepted standard for scientific knowledge, or as if all knowledge is supposed to be scientific.
>>1226909
Feudal warlords were pretty great 2bh. We should probably try them again.
>>1226909
>It did. If you want merchants to come to your city you have to promise not to rob them, hence property rights, and so on.
Are you fucking retarded? From the enclosure of common lands to the laws regulating wage labor in early capitalism to the expansion to the rest of the world via military force in the more advanced stages, capitalism was shoveled down the throat of the people by the state.
And inter-city commerce does not constitute capitalism. And even then, you are wrong, barter was practically non existent in primitive societies and didn't take the form of an exchange. Not to mention that pretty much every other characteristic of capitalism is anything but naturally found in human societies through history: private ownership of the means of production, wage labor, production for exchange instead of production for consumption, etc.
>>1226900
The point of the unfalsifiable meme is to coax you into creating falsifiable versions.
Who can deny that sharing bread with the starving isn't the right thing to do, that the state isn't perfect, that a class system is irrational or that rich people are rich because they own shit?
When you do this you put things in perspective rather than push them to their "logical conclusion". You would not think of denying someone the right to own the means of production they worked for or declaring that "the people" decide what they should work on.
>Reactosphere blogs
hurr, maybe when I was 14 I would get sucked into memes but I am grown up now and think for myself and it so happens that even though unfalsifiable has been abused as a meme it is a valid concept along with the top-down and bottom-up information process and hopefully the other things I mentioned, I am also posting this anonymously on a whim knowing 4chan contrarians will tear me apart, not blogging about it for attention or posting it on a reddit echo chamber for le upvotes
>>1226939
>capitalism was shoveled down the throat of the people by the state.
I think you missed his point entirely.
>>1226970
Do you have a better objection to anarcho-capitalism or the NAP than "unfalsifiable?" Falsifiability actually isn't a function of logical form, so when you talk about logical conclusions, I don't really know what kind of thing you want me to say. Do you want an argument, or a peer reviewed study, or some combination of the two?
In addition to this, I'm not even in a position where I have to defend anarcho-capitalism. I'm not an an-cap. I'm just pointing out that, not only is 'unfalsifiable' a literal meme on this website, it also isn't a universal criterion with which you can dismiss a theory. Also, being falsifiable doesn't make a theory true, but you surely know that.
You didn't even get your 'equality' meme from the reactosphere? No excuse.
>>1226980
>I think you missed his point entirely.
What is "capitalism materializes naturally" supposed to mean if not capitalism as a natural phenomenon?
>>1226988
OK, you did understand it. I don't see how your argument demonstrates that capitalism is literally not a product of nature.
>>1227003
How is it a product of nature? It is neither found naturally in societies through history nor evolved "naturally" in the exceptional case where it is present (modern society).
>>1227012
>It is neither found naturally in societies through history nor evolved "naturally" in the exceptional case where it is present (modern society).
What do you mean by 'natural' and why is modern society not natural? Why is capitalism unnatural? I seriously don't understand where you're coming from with this belief that this system is not a product of natural processes.
>>1227014
If a forced process is not an unnatural process, then what social system would be considered not natural?
Talking about "natural" social/economic systems is pretty vague in itself, but i'm pretty sure i addressed what that anon was hinting at (capitalism developing organically and voluntarily as a result of commerce), so i don't see what's your confusion.
>>1226136
Literally a /pol/ thread.
Just go to /pol/ if you want to discuss this. It's not that hard.
>not being a mutualist
>>1227024
>Implying forced = unnatural
>Implying you've proven that capitalism is 'forced' everywhere it emerges
Do better.
>>1226136
How about we do niether.
I think it's somewhat plausible that an ancap society could work, perhaps even work very well - until it get's invaded by some country.
>>1227060
Again, pointing out that it was forced was arguing against the point he was trying to make, you are being retarded. And capitalism didn't "emerge" in several places independently (which against argues against it being "natural", whatever you understand that to be), but rather was spread.
>>1226156
Are there any books you can recommend on Falangism?
>>1227090
>pointing out that it was forced was arguing against the point he was trying to make,
But 1) you haven't demonstrated that it's forced and 2) if you're wrong, it doesn't matter what his point is--you're wrong.
>And capitalism didn't "emerge" in several places independently (which against argues against it being "natural", whatever you understand that to be), but rather was spread.
So you're telling me that capitalism is an eternal form, spread throughout the world by...I don't even know who?
>>1227125
Fucking hell you are retarded, i'm done.
Hi there, I'm a surveyor. I'd like to document /his/'s political affiliations in a very exclusive manner.
How many of you AREN'T communists or anarcho-capitalists?
>>1227142
I'm a fascist
>>1227133
Yeah, thinking that capitalism emerged as a distinct historical entity at some point in the past is retarded.
Did you even read Marx?
>>1227147
Interesting.
Very interesting.
>>1227153
What are you?
>>1227167
Authoritarian left-leaning centrist.
>>1227170
What does that mean, though? What ideologies appeal to you, what politicians, what policies, etc. Those politicalcompass tests don't reveal much.
>>1227178
I honestly don't know what it means.
>human nature
>>1227142
Not a communist, just a libertarian socialist.
>>1227438
>Libertarian socialist
An oxymoron. I'm not sure you understand what libertarian means and only use that term because it's trendy. Unless you believe in full property rights and private ownership you are not a libertarian. If you do then you are a mutualist not a socialist
>>1227325
kek this shit is so ironic
>>1227461
I don't care about trends too much, and the person that coined teh term was an anarcho-communist. Capitalist libertarianism is an ideology for suburban teenagers with gun obsessions and spoiled rich kids.
>>1227470
The* fuck I'm drunk.
>>1227461
Libertarian is sometimes defined as "anti-authoritarian", as it is in the political compass.
>>1227470
>>1227473
The point being, you can't enforce socialism without authority. In a libertarian society, you could have collectivised businesses and property and have private businesses and property. Libertarianism is mutualist because it doesn't believe the state should interfere with economics.
Incidentally, most libertarians are capitalists because that is the most efficient economic system but they believe you have a right to form voluntary socialist enclaves.
>>1227486
You can't enforce private property without authority either.
>>1226573
lick a dick
>>1227489
>You can't enforce the refusal of sex without authority either
Ownership of something gives you authority over it. The libertarian philosophy believes that each man owns himself and his property is an extension of him.
Whether that is right or not doesn't matter, socialism proposes some form of state coercion against property rights. Therefore you are not a libertarian, you are more likely a progressive socialist.
>>1227507
You have a pigeonhole view. You need to read a lot more (and I don't mean more of the libertarian rhetoric) into the anthropology of property.
>>1227507
There's a big jump between self-ownership and owning something else. I know he's well memed, but I'd seriously recommend reading Stirner to see why your notion needs some fine-tuning.
>>1227461
Mutualists are socialists, you moron.
>>1227514
You're ignoring the point I'm making and telling me to read more isn't an argument. I'm not a libertarian myself so I'm not advocating the system at all.
How do you propose we enforce a socialist system without the use of a state? The use of the state is anti-libertarian.
And how do we ensure that people do not have private property? Because if you allow private property then you are not a socialist and are therefore a mutualist
>>1227533
How do you enforce private property ownership without a state? What prevents a landlord from becoming a state themselves?
>>1227527
No mutualism is not a socialist ideology, it is economic anarchism. It allows for both capitalism and socialism.
>>1227537
>How do you enforce private property without a state?
With a gun
>How do you stop a landlord from becomming a state themselves?
Good point, part of the reason I'm not a libertarian or ancap
Your arguments don't seem very libertarian, you seem to be pro state. so why do you call yourself a libertarian?
>>1227539
>No mutualism is not a socialist ideology
Yes, it is. Learn your fucking history. Mutualism aims to abolish standard modes of property ownership and industry to establish an egalitarian system of communal ownership. Where it differs is that it is a system of market socialism. But it is, and has always been, vehemently anti-capitalist.
>>1227545
>With a gun.
So you effectively become a state unto yourself.
I'm not a libertarian socialist. I just don't think anarcho-capitalism is any better in its glaringly pro-authority issues.
>>1227507
>Ownership of something gives you authority over it.
Glad you admitted that, i.e. private property is not necessarily any less authoritarian than socialism.
>Whether that is right or not doesn't matter,
True, I am not arguing about "right" or "wrong" here either. I'm simply pointing out that libertarians are often blind to their own authoritarianism - not that all authoritarianism is bad as I believe it is impossible to avoid it completely.
>socialism proposes some form of state coercion against property rights.
And capitalism proposes coercion against those who do not agree with a particular view of property rights.
Property is a form of power and authority, based on social convention rather than objective reality, and that who owns what justly is highly subjective, whereas libertarians pretend it is something obvious and based on "natural rights" and whantot. This is my point.
Let's say a capitalist hoards resources food for example and prevents people who are starving from using them. Who is "authoritarian" here? According to strict natural rights capitalist "libertarian", it's those starving people who are "coercing" the capitalist.
I may sound like some commie here but I am not, I think property is an useful convention and there are many good arguments for free markets etc., it's just that the capitalist libertarian natural rights thinking is laughably naive to me.
>>1227558
>I've seen no mutualist advocate state enforced collective property
This is sort of what's happening with Cuba as they're liberalizing their economy. They're promoting cooperatives more so than capitalism.
>>1227558
It's not state-enforced. The idea is that with the abolition of standard modes of ownership (Mutualists believe in the use/occupancy principle of ownership) the natural form businesses would take is a cooperative model.
>>1227558
How do you suppose it's impossible to enforce socialised ownership without a state, yet it's possible to enforce private ownership?
>>1227552
You seem to be confusing libertarianism with capitalism.
Libertarianism is the belief that the state should impose on you as little as is necessary.
Capitalism is an economic system centered arround private property and voluntary trade.
While the two are commonly found together, libertarians believe you should be able to create a socialist system with other people as long as it is voluntary.
A libertarian should be against a government that banned voluntary socialist groups.
>>1227568
Cuba is not an anarachist country so I'm not sure of your point. Good for them I guess.
>>1227572
Mutualists may believe that cooperatives are the most efficient economic system.
Capitalists believe capitalism is.
In an anarchist society both systems can occur at once because there is no state to stop them.
>>1227573
How do you stop people from owning private property without a state?
The idea of libertarianism is you can't enforce a ban on social property and a ban on private property. Both are perfectly fine as long as they are voluntary
>>1227590
>How do you stop people from owning private property without a state?
How do you own private property without a state?
>>1227613
If you were the only person in the world, everything you saw is your private property. Anything unowned is able to be claimed by anyone and ownership can be transferred.
Someone's own body is their property, do you need a state to enforce self ownership? What is the difference between someone's body and something they have built?
That said, your points are a valid critique of anarchism and if you really want an answer you'll need to do some further reading into the matter.
>>1226136
Begging the question and false dichotomy.
>>1227142
I'm a feudal warlord. Ist.
>>1227486
>you can't enforce socialism without authority
Consider your family as a nation.
Probably your dad works the most, but your mom spends the most.
Probably when you were young you didn't bring any money nor help much at all, but had food, shelter, clothes and so on given to you. You were educated from your parent's money.
You probably don't have your spoon, your chair, your TV. These are shared, they are used by whoever needs them at the time.
Your family is a communist structure, without anyone forcing you to be like that, there are no armed gunmen telling your dad that you should be able to use a fork, even if he paid for it.
>>1227697
Yeah, until he disinherits you from it all for wearing your Che t-shirt at Thanksgiving. Nice try though.
>>1227705
Not an argument. You are just throwing insults my way, without answering my post.
>>1227697
actually CPS will lock his ass up if he doesn't feed you, school you or if he abuses you physically
>>1227718
And you feel that it was this thread that forced your father into feeding and clothing you?
Those are safety nets, not enforcers, and seldom see use.
How large a percent of families do you feel need such persuasion to feed their children, given that they have the ability to do so?
>>1227721
You claimed nobody is forcing them, which isn't true. If it was a safety net, then the child would be put in a foster home and father not punished. If there is a threat of punishment, then there is authority present.
>>1227733
You didn't answer my question. Did your father feed and cloth you out of fear for his own safety, thinking he'd be arrested and imprisoned otherwise, or did he actually want the best for you?
You are trying to muddy the general case by quoting unfortunate exceptions.
>>1227738
You didn't alter your original premise. It's the basis of your entire argument.
I don't know why my father did the things he did, I'm not him. But generally I'd assume multiple factors play a role in upbringing. Love, ensuring his genetic material is passed on, inherent familial tribalism. One more source of authority would be emotional-societal blackmail, if my father abandoned or abused me he would be outcasted and scorned.
>>1227758
>You didn't alter your original premise. It's the basis of your entire argument.
Alright, let me alter it.
In the vast overwhelming almost all cases, a family operates as a communist society. There are some exceptions, that are policed by the state, but if they weren't they'd be policed by the community anyways.
If you are satisfied with me allowing for this very small percentage of families to exist the argument, we can continue and you can address my points.
>>1227767
So, authority by state affects miniscule part of the population 100% rather than it affects the whole population in varying, albeit small degrees? Can't agree with that.
>>1227775
Stop looking at dysfunctional families as a means to prove families don't function the way we all know they do.
>this broken wheel wont turn, thus the wheel doesn't turn
>this moldy bread doesn't taste good, thus bread doesn't taste good
>women aren't satisfied by my pencil dick, thus women hate sex
>anon keeps insulting me when I post horseshit, thus he must be rude
>>1227783
>we all know they do
now THIS is not an argument
>>1227785
Are you asking me to prove love between father and son exists before we proceed to look at the obvious?
Why are you dodging the argument so much and nitpicking what everyone would agree with?
Just address it.
>>1227791
Do you or do you not claim that most families only cooperate and support each other out of fear that the police will come and arrest them?
>>1227798
In that case you will agree that in most families, the properly functional ones, the family members do indeed form a communist society?
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need and all that.
>>1226233
>When the Anabaptist in Muenster tried it, guess what happened, polygamy, starvation, corruption.
Starvation in a "Country" cut of of all trade by basically all surrounding areas due to "muh burning heretics" and then was besieged by basically all of western Christendom united?
U don't say?
But SUUURrreee ...
It was the system's fault.
What the fuck is the point of this board if we're just going to have /pol/ threads?
>>1226939
>barter was practically non existent in primitive societies and didn't take the form of an exchange.
Top kek.
You realize that specific stone axes from a certain french manufacturer from the stone ages that ditched out hundreds of them a year, were found both in todays britain and as far as todays hungary?
>>1227801
No, from my second reply I said the threat of punishment is the evidence of presence of authority. That authority is distributed in various degrees and affects all families in some way, no matter how small.
That to me is the evidence that on a grander scale, socialism can't be enforced without authority, there has to be some authority present. This is disregarding even more complex issues, like would we care for our cousins as much as our brothers, let alone citizens we don't even know.
>>1227826
I argue that the threat of punishment is not relevant for most families, because they don't even consider it.
Are you arguing that in a functional average family, the father sometimes comes to the conclusion that he should stop feeding his children and instead buy a golf set, but then changes his mind because he remembers he'd be arrested by the government?
>>1227808
But we are reasoning in the last dozen posts, not reposting fake infographs from Stormfront.
>>1227822
Not him, but it's kind of impossible to determine whether it was proto-capitalism, some complicated bartering system, gift economy? I'm sure there's other possibilities too, but there will always be exceptions to the rule.
>>1227142
I'm kinda close to ordo-liberalism.
>>1227830
I argue it affects everyone at some level, it is definitely a factor, not in an absolute vacuum like your example, but yes. It almost surely plays as a deterrent if a parent would to leave, abuse or mistreat their children. Not always successful, but present none the less.
>>1226613
Right, because some workers will go against monopolists who can hire private militias.
>>1226779
>Capitalism is the best form of getting third world countries out of the dirt.
Except in reality, those countries can't achieve capitalism because nobody WANTS them to achieve capitalism.
Capitalism works because of exploitation. It's really that simple. You can live conveniently in North America/Europe because we can cheaply buy raw materials from Africans, because most of the things you buy are manufactured in China for a pittance, et cetera.
So basically, the main goal of capitalist countries is to make sure that we keep the African countries small and dependent, because our richness only exists by virtue of other people's poverty. That's how capitalism works. You cannot prosper without making others suffer.
>>1227855
Not him, but then would it be completely in the rights of a dad to starve or neglect his kids, if he were to live in an ancap society?
>>1227026
>/pol/
>discussion
Pick one.
>>1227861
>because some workers will go against monopolists who can hire private militias.
They actually did sometimes. Read about Henry Clay Frick. Of course, they got crushed, despite having weapons and a cannon, because "muh guns" suck against a bunch of trained mercenaries.
>>1227867
Not only would it be in his rights, according to the person you are responding to, but it would also be something that often happens, seeing how the only reason families cooperate instead of do business among each other is that the state forces them.
>>1226286
>Communism is literally the perfect form
Kek. This delusion. Communism would lead to technological stagnation in its ultimate form. The acumulation of capital is what brings progress to society,if everyone owns all the capital,it would be mostly wasted.
>>1227867
I would preface it that I'm not an ancap nor do I know everything about their ideology.
I'd assume yes. Nobody would be able stop him, unless someone infringed upon his rights, smacked him around and threatened him to stop or stole/bought his kid. If people think social pressure would not be enough to stop people from abusing their children, they could set up a firm that would investigate such cases and sue them* or buy out their children. My solution would be that the mother and father make a contract* which they relinquish their ownership in a case of maltreatment.
>>1227890
>investigate such cases and sue them
On what grounds?
They aren't breaking anyone's property laws.
>>1227869
Well, you and OP picked /pol/ so back to your containment board.
>>1227897
what
>>1227904
OP created a /pol/ thread. You want to take part in a /pol/ thread.
Good news! There's an entire board dedicated to this shit. You belong there. If you people are intellectually incapable of discussion, that's your fault.
>>1226805
Gave me a hearty chuckle
>>1226469
Occupation costs more than just passing a fee,for a company. Anarchocapitalism in the Hoppean sense would be form by private city states with a ruker with its own laws,which could also solve the problem
>>1226731
>Communism will only occur through socialism, which can only occur through capitalism.
>Believing that politics and economics evolove linearly
This is some major level bullshit
>>1226849
property ownership is a social construct not a physical one
private ownership is a fallacy that permits disproportionate power misallocation
can one person physically use an entire lake?
can one person drink an entire lake?
can one person eat all the fish of the baikal?
can one person physically use an entire oil pit?
but one person can use mental fallacies to claim ownership of resources that are physically not theirs.
thus enslaving others into supporting his power over others
>>1227909
Dude, did you ever visit /pol/? Did you ever look at the actual name of their board? It's called "politically incorrect", not "politics". Actual political discussion either doesn't happen or quickly derails, it's mostly just an "alt-right"/neo-fascist circlejerk. Hence why people post threads like these in here, in the hopes that at least there will be *some* discussion.
Plus, this board is about history and humanities, including philosophy, and both communism and anarcho-capitalism have a philosophical foundation, so desu it's fair game to discuss it here.
>>1226838
>If an entity violates the NAP, then the community has the right to take action.
The NAP is retarded and ancaps should drop that crap if they want their ideology evolve
>>1226731
Communism isn't organic. I have eyes, and ears, and a mind. I know people aren't the same. I can see that I am above average, in my drive to succeed, in my hard work to educate myself, in the result of that education and certification, in the wage I make, and as a result in the quality of my life, size of my home, and number of computers in my car.
Making me equal to a 50 year old taxi driver isn't fair to me.
Communism is forced mediocrity, which is a problem seeing how the top 1% of us, the best of us, drive the whole group forward.
If we are all equal, all equally mediocre and unexceptional, you will see less progress, scientific and cultural.
>>1227956
>Communism isn't organic
what is biocommunism
the natural order of cells in organisms is biocommunism
capitalism is an artificial human creation that breaks from the natural order of social entities
capitalism exists because the human mind is fallible into accepting exploitation, manipulation, and subjugation as a means to survive.
similar to the mental state of a farmed cow, which is docile into accepting its existence as prey.
humans are just as docile and domesticated as farm animals.
in capitalism, humans in a society are resources (farmed animals) that are exploited for the benefit of the dominant parasitical, sociopathic class.
there exists a dictatorship of the cells in all cellular biocommunist societies. the single cell entities that create this society do not maintain bourgeois, parasitical class amongst themselves. if a greedy bourgois, parasitical cell arises amongst them, that would be cancer or a foreign entity invading and attacking their communist society.
tl;dr your body is a hive of communist cells
>>1227956
Not him, and not a communist, but I'd pretty much assume that the freaks that make major advances would don so regardless of external incentives, see that Russian mathematician who turned down a million recently.
>>1227038
>being an autist
This thread was moved to >>>/pol/75849377
