I mean, it's an oxymoron, it's conceptually contradictory, that in itself proves the failure of "anarchocommunism" but I'd like to read some articles that go into details about the true non-democratic nature of the AnComs in Spain.
>>924682
>If you don't see through the oxymoron of """Libertarian Communism""" you must be an American! xDDD
I'm Argentinian, but nice ad hominem anyway. I'd appreciate actual arguments more though.
>th-they didn't let us have private property
>waaaah oppression
>it's conceptually contradictory, that in itself proves the failure of "anarchocommunism"
>he thinks anarchism and capitalism can coexist
This is why mass graves existed.
>>924696
I meant "if you see".
>>924675
>I mean, it's an oxymoron, it's conceptually contradictory, that in itself proves the failure of "anarchocommunism" but I'd like to read some articles that go into details about the true non-democratic nature of the AnComs in Spain.
Its been debunked but not in the way you are looking for. The biggest that can be tied to their ideology alone was that their overly democratic system made it very difficult to wage war effectively against the nationalists when it came to anything other than resisting the early attempts by garrisons and units from taking over. I belive there are some decent quotes by Duriti on the matter.
>>924696
Libertarian is just the opposite of authoritarian. Anarcho-capitalism and right totalitarianism is more contradictory because they promote authority, just not authority of the state.
>>924699
To add to that if you want a more general critique look at Mahkno's (fammed for his role in anarchist Ukraine) work he wrote in exile and the huge change it underwent
>No hierarchical governing authority
>Capital producing properties (like factories and farms) are owned and managed collectively by the workers
>If even the barest form of management exists, it's elected democratically, which is to say, from the ground up
Yeah OP, I'm sure that all of those communes and workplace cooperatives are totally non-anarchic when compared to to the standard corporate model. I'm sure all of those CEOs, once unfettered by the presence of government would only even act as to preserve the freedoms of those below his station. And to suggest that they may work alongside like minded businessmen to create a governing class? SImply delusional.
>>924699
>We're such Libertarians, guise, unless you want to exercise your right to private property, freedom of religion or we arbitrarily consider you a rightist, in which case we'll shoot you, so much freedom, right?
>I'll imply he said anarchocapitalism isn't contradictory, that will surely prove that anarchocommunism isn't an oxymoron.
>>924752
>Democracies aren't really democratic because you're not allowed to shoot people in the streets for fun
>>924733
And if one guy decides to start a business and another guy decides to be employed by the business starter because he believes he will be better off that way than in the collective, then a bullet will solve such token of oppressive fascism, so much for democracy.
Besides, I'm sure that all the mass killings didn't coerce people in those elections, right?
And nevermind the fact that the councils decided how much money the workers could keep.
Lol, "anarchocommunism".
>>924752
>exercise your right to private property
By owning private property, you're elevating yourself to a position of authority.
>>924764
Huh? I said the opposite, they shot people who didn't want to engage in their collectivist plans or who were rightist or who were catholic. Where's the democracy in that?
>>924779
If a guy decides to start a business and there still are collective factories, a person who decides to be employed by the business starter is doing so out of his free will, because nobody forces him to leave the collective factory or farm.
>>924696
Think of it as the relationship to the world outside the individual. Right-wing libertarians believe it doesn't belong to anyone so it's free to reap for ones own pleasure, while left-wing believe the world in itself belongs to everyone and as such has to be treated as a property that a lot of people own.
So if you've a forest. The right-wing libertarian will say it's free for all to take as much wood you want as long as no one owns the property it's on. The left-wing will say that since it's in nature the people taking the resources has to agree on what to do about it since there's a shitton of owners.
>>924786
Your logic that "it was tyrannical because they didn't let people have private property" is identical to the logic of "a democracy isn't really democratic if it doesn't allow murder".
You're implying a libertarian or otherwise non-hierarchically organized society cannot have any laws.
>>924793
>muh voluntaryism
Employment is exploitation. Why is this so hard for capitards to understand?
>>924793
But who the fuck would let somebody else be their boss after getting a taste of the sweet nectar of cooperative industry? They would only go to work for him unless forced to, in which case the community would collectively decide to take that property back.
>>924805
I think Corporatism is a better system, people get to take more wood than other people if they work for it, but if a guy with a crane decides to take off lots of logs when people carry logs with their bodies, then the state intervenes and sets fair rules.
>>924816
If employment is exploitation, then so is owning a farm. After all, you are being oppressed by the seasons.
>>924813
Oh, I get it. That's fallacious, shooting people for fun is a heinous act that is fairly condemned, private property and initiative is not. What's the harm and working and setting up a woodwork shop for example?
>>924818
Someone who finds a better wage in the offer of the man who sets up his private business perhaps? Besides, if cooperatives were such wonders, why did they have militias and regulations to forbid private property? If a guy starts his own business, and everyone's so happy at the cooperatives, then there's no need for coercion, right?
>>924846
>and working
in working*
>>924846
>Someone who finds a better wage in the offer of the man who sets up his private business perhaps
>wages
There would be no wealth in anarchy
>Besides, if cooperatives were such wonders, why did they have militias and regulations to forbid private property?
To prevent reactionaries from trying to exploit people once more.
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.htm
>Practical experience gradually revealed a basic truth of economics for which theoretical reflection would have sufficed: if the workers take over a factory, they will run it to benefit themselves. A worker-run firm is essentially identical to a capitalist firm in which the workers also happen to be the stockholders. Once they came to this realization, however dimly, the Spanish Anarchists had to either embrace capitalism as the corollary of worker control, or else denounce worker control as the corollary of capitalism. For the most part, they chose the latter course.
>As Bolloten writes, "[T]he Anarchosyndicalists, contrary to common belief, were not without their own plans for the nationwide control and rationalization of production. Rootedly opposed to state control or nationalization, they advocated centralization - or socialization, as they called it - under trade-union management of entire branches of production [...] The Anarchist solution for this danger of absolute dictatorship was to call absolute dictatorship by a different name. "In the opinion of the Anarchosyndicalists," explains Bolloten, "socialization would eliminate the dangers of government control by placing production in the hands of the unions [...] This was the libertarian conception of socialization, without state intervention, that was to eliminate the wastes of competition and duplication, render possible industrywide planning for both civilian and military needs, and halt the growth of selfish actions among the workers of the more prosperous collectives by using their profits to raise the standard of living in the less favored enterprises." Of course, one could refuse to call a union with such fearsome powers a "state," but it would need all of the enforcement apparatus and authority of a state to execute its objectives.
>>924816
>Paying someone a wage in exchange for their work is exploitation
Marxists unironically believe this.
>>924875
It's not paying them for their work, it's paying them for their work and then sucking the excess ectoplasm from their product.
>>924875
Using somebody else's efforts to make yourself more wealth is exploitation
>>924869
>There would be no wealth in anarchy
You could save money and start your business, if they don't allow you to do so or if they don't even allow the existence of money, so much for freedom.
>To prevent reactionaries from trying to exploit people once more.
How would people be exploited if they had such a great time at the cooperatives? I specifically mentioned a case where a man decides to start a business and another guy willingly leaves the cooperative, to be employed by the man who starts his business. Wow, such reactionaries engaging in private initiative, they must be stopped!
>>924843
>muh natural opression
If we could change the system of the seasons in favour of farmers, we would. But we cant, so we should do away with the systems that we can.
>>924874
Thanks, man, I'd like to see butthurt commies try and debunk this.
>>924903
Post this every time some retard barges in with the "HURR MARXISTS THINK NATURE IS OPPRESSIVE HAHA" bullshit.
>>924898
You wouldn't need money if the community provides all that is needed for everybody. If something wasn't provided for you, you can propose that a factory is built to produce it, and you can find comrades who wish to work there, but you wont be able to make wealth off their labour.
>How would people be exploited if they had such a great time at the cooperatives? I specifically mentioned a case where a man decides to start a business and another guy willingly leaves the cooperative, to be employed by the man who starts his business. Wow, such reactionaries engaging in private initiative, they must be stopped!
Because there's always asshats who will want to rule over others, and it's up to the community to stop them.
>>924903
And what makes you think that removing capitalism possible?
Somebody is going to own shit. Either private people do, or the State. Deal with it faggot.
>>924924
>its just always gonna be like that bro. like, forever and stuff
Got more baseless shit to say?
>>924930
Well it isn't baseless at all, but whatever you delusional idiot.
>>924930
Why is it baseless to root your political and economical views on how things actually work, instead of how you imagine them working in a future that exists only in your head?
>>924924
>My child, it's foolish to try and dismantle the feudal hierarchy. Be thankful that the lords are here to provide protection for you, and dispel any foolish notions of "private enterprise."
>>924903
>If we could change the system of the seasons in favour of farmers, we would
I think we would think twice before enacting such a radical change in the way of physical nature, since such changes do not always go as intended and can fuck things up in an irreversible way.
Pic related, last time commies tried to change nature it went like that.
The irony is that now leftists understand that you can't mess with nature without getting unexpected results so it's better to be careful, they are all environmentalists now. But they still don't apply the same principle to political, social, cultural and economical spheres. They think they can just remodel the entire society by political action and nothing bad will happen.
>liberals are so butthurt that this happened that they need to actively search for """""""""""evidence"""""""""(propaganda) against it so they have a chance of not looking retarded
>>924936
>if it ain't broke don't fix it
The mantra of short-sighted cowards.
>>924919
>A man has everything he needs in the cooperative.
>If he willingly decides to be employed by someone setting up a private business and leave the cooperative, he's being exploited.
Pick one. If everything's so great at the cooperative, leaving it to be privately employed is not exploitation, because he's doing it out of his free will.
>You have everything you need in the cooperatives, comrade, we decide what you need or not!
>>924944
It was quite foolish to dismantle the feudal hierarchy, desu.
Still, the comparison isn't equivalent. No one thought of dismantling feudalism until it was decrepit, it just withered away.
That's the difference between capitalism and communism that commies can't understand. When Adam Smith wrote about capitalist society, it was already existing by at least 150 years, he didn't invent it from scratch and then began a political movement to implement his ideas. He was merely describing a reality that already existed.
>>924958
>It was quite foolish to dismantle the feudal hierarchy, desu.
Oh you're one of THOSE people.
>>924958
>spend every day wracked with existential fear about the eternal void that waits for you on the other side
Only if one is weak in mind and spirit.
>>924944
You aren't paying attention.
Either people come to own things through some system whereby they can procure those items without using violence, or the world will literally be bellum omnium contra omnes.
If you think that it is possible to do away with the concept of private ownership of the means of production, but not the concept of personal property, you are delusional, because they literally the same thing.
>>924954
I'm sure you follow that in your personal life. It's just that being a commie holds certain personal advantages for you that you mask as selflessness, so you don't care when your ideas ruin whole countries.
I mean, where are Noam Chomsky and Tariq Ali now to talk about the "Bolivarian Revolution" in Venezuela? They couldn't shup up about it in 2005. Will they ever say they are sorry they supported such an unmitigated disastrous regime? Of course they won't. Such people never do.
>>924968
I'm not selfless at all, and I don't pretend to be.
I hold socialist beliefs precisely because I think they will benefit me.
>>924973
Then stopping trying to justify it and just say "I hope to become part of the nomenklatura".
>>924973
Not him, but they clearly won't benefit you at all, unless you are a member of the elite...
Oh wait. You're one of the those people who think that a socialist revolution won't turn into a de facto dictatorship aren't you?
>>924977
I don't want to be part of any nomenklatura; I would be benefited by not having any masters.
>>924971
>BRO BRO JUST LOSE THE WAR BRO
>DON'T ALLY WITH THE COMMUNISTS WHO HAVE ALL THE GUNS BRO
>BRO EVEN THOUGH AT THIS POINT YOU GUYS HAVE WRITTEN HUNDREDS OF BOOKS ABOUT IT LET ME TELL YOU THAT PRIVATE PROPERTY IS FREEDOM
>BRO LET ME QUOTE THIS TOTALLY UNBIASED LIBERAL HISTORIAN, I'LL PROBABLY ALSO QUOTE TROTSKY ABOUT MAKHNO
>BRO ATTACKING THE CHURCH WHICH WAS ALLIED WITH NAZISM IS LITERALLY THE HOLOCAUST
>WHY DOES NOBODY TAKE US ANCAPS SERIOUSLY?
>>924984
You can organize a worker's cooperative now. Why don't you do it?
Of course, because that takes effort.
>>924985
>Ancaps
>DUDE OUR PHILOSOPHY TOTALLY WOULDN'T DEVOLVE INTO FEUDALISM WITHIN FIVE MINUTES OF BEING IMPLEMENTED I SWEAR
>>924999
There is nothing wrong with feudalism.
>>924997
Well no it's because I don't have much money and am still in classes.
>>925003
You can pool resources with your fellow worker's, there is no excuse.
>>925001
t. Julius Evola
>>924985
>Bro, why don't you buy into anarchocommunism? You must be an ancap or a lolbertarian.
>I'll dismiss authors based on them not being ancoms but hold ancoms' books as totally legit irrefutable stuff.
>The Church is allied with nazis because..uhh..because we say so.
>The local priests and people of faith are guilty of our made up alliance between the nazis and the Church.
>We dislike nazis but we become allied to stalinists, they are sure so democratic and libertarian unlike nazis.
>We are in favor of freedom as long as it doesn't collide with our collectivist utopias or our atheism.
>>925009
>>The Church is allied with nazis because..uhh..because we say so.
The Catholic churches of Spain were openly backing the Falange. This is commonly accepted fact.
>>925008
Evola favoured the House of Hohenstaufen and Ghibellinism, who wanted to centralize the Holy Roman Empire, he was a commie.
>>925009
>>The Church is allied with nazis because..uhh..because we say so.
The church was allied with the Nationalists who were allied with the Nazis.
>what is the transitive property
>>925009
>BRO I DON'T KNOW THE BIGGEST FOCUS OF THE POLITICAL RIGHT IN SPAIN BUT HERE'S MY OPINION ANYWAY
>BRO BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE HYPOTHETICALLY MIGHT WANT TO WORK FOR THEM IT'S PERFECTLY FINE TO ALLOW PROPERTY OWNERS AND RELIGIOUS GROUPS TO AFFECT EVERYBODY ELSE AND TAKE AWAY THEIR FREEDOM
>BRO STALINISTS BRO THEY'RE STALINISTS STALINISTS JUST LOSE THE WAR SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO ALLY WITH THEM AGAINST THE OBVIOUSLY GREATER EVIL
>>924999
>I defend misandric feminazis and feel guilty for being white, am I not such a progresive person?
>>924752
Are you the OP? because that doesnt seem like a response from someone who has any interest in the events of the Spanish Civil War.
Do you understand the distinction between republican democracy and democracy as concepts?
>>925036
>I reflexively denounce every non-controversial opinion and quote 18th century philosophers I've never read while jerking off to monarchy, am I not so enlightened and red-pilled
>>924786
>Huh? I said the opposite, they shot people who didn't want to engage in their collectivist plans or who were rightist or who were catholic. Where's the democracy in that?
Democracy = majority rule how are any of the things you attribute to them contrary to that?
>>925036
>implying I feel guilty for my gender or race
I can still acknowledge that I have been granted advantages due to these things without feeling ashamed of it. I simply want to level the playing field for all so that everybody may live as well as I do.
>>925023
>Dude, Falangists are right wing, dude. What is Third Position? What is Corporatism?
>Dude, cooperatives are so great that we have to forbid people from setting up a business and from deciding to be employed by such private business.
>Dude, Stalin is the lesser evil despite killing millions more than the nazis and giving his people worse living standards and less freedoms.
>>924752
>rights
>existing
>>925062
>What is Third Position? What is Corporatism?
Some retarded shit rightists made up to draw wavering left sympathizers to their side.
>>Dude, Stalin is the lesser evil despite killing millions more than the nazis and giving his people worse living standards and less freedoms.
How many people did the Nazis kill in ten years? How many did the USSR kill in thirty?
>>925062
yep, the ancaps have once again found a way to shoehorn defending nazism into the conversation
>>924908
>>924971
That article doesnt actually debunk their position. It just acts as if any planning = dictatorship which is flawed reasoning. It ignores the managment of firms at the ground level as well as how unions were composed and how their leadership functioned. There was no dictator or chairman type position which this seems to hint at
>>925062
>What is Third Position?
Right wing authoritarianism that appropriates leftist speech and propaganda, and maybe includes social democratic styled welfare sometimes.
>>925075
He even included the classic DUDE FASCISM IS CLOSER TO SOCIALISM LMAO meme. He's on a role.
>>925074
>Capital being submitted to the interests of the nations is right wing.
>Workers having rights, classes living in harmony, people exercising private initiative is a bad thing.
Tell me how many people were killed by Hitler and Stalin respectively.
>>925075
>Mentioning that more people were killed in USSR than in Nazi Germany means defending nazism.
That strawman sure has some swag, man.
>>925114
Hitler was responsible for about 30 million deaths in the USSR and Poland alone.
I don't think Stalin killed that many over his entire career, retarded "muh 60 million" figures nonwithstanding.
>>925128
>DUDE THE NAZIS GAVE THE GERMANS GOOD LIVING STANDARDS AND FREEDOM
>WHEN I'M SAYING THAT HITLER WAS MORE LIBERTARIAN THAN DURRUTI YOU KNOW MY CONCEPTION OF FREEDOM ISN'T ABSOLUTELY RETARDED
>>925077
>It's right wing although it doesn't have right wing speech or right wing policies, but it's totally right wing!
By that logic, you might say that Stalin was actually right wing and that he appropriated left wing policies to attract sympathizers to his cause.
>>925152
Stalin was pretty fucking right wing tbqh. He reversed a lot of the revolution's more leftist reforms.
How is the traditionalism and glorification of nationalism and honor and all that shit endemic to Fascism not right wing?
>>925152
>By that logic, you might say that Stalin was actually right wing
>implying he wasn't in a lot of ways
>>925152
>right wing speech or right wing policies, but it's totally right wing!
Fascists advocated for a return to traditional values and suppression of communism. All the social democratic policies in Nazi Germany were leftover from the Weimar Republic. And his rule was reliant on the support of wealthy industrialists and the Prussian aristocracy. Fascism is literally a way of preserving the capitalist status quo.
>>925151
>Dude, I'll just distort what you said because I have no arguments.
>Dude, under Stalin's rule there were as few civil liberties as under the nazis, and less economic liberties than under them, and more political repression, but somehow commies are freedom lovers, trust me.
>>925177
>DUDE I'LL IGNORE WHAT YOU SAID THAT WAS WHAT I LITERALLY SAID IN ANOTHER POST BECAUSE I DON'T FEEL LIKE ADDRESSING IT
>DUDE THERE'S MORE FREEDOM IN A COUNTRY THAT BUILT FUCKING INDUSTRIAL DEATH CAMPS THAN IN A FAILED SOCIALIST STATE
>>925194
inb4 he tries to compare the Gulags to the concentration camps.
I'm no fan of Stalin but there's no way the Gulags were comparable. They were forced work camps and people died as a result. The Nazis built their camps for the soul purpose of extermination and working people to death.
>>925206
So to you the Roman Empire was socialist? By the way, I unironically believe it's impossible for people to do something that isn't in their interest, just reminding you.
>>925206
>So to you nordic social democracy is right wing
Left of center. Nowhere near far left.
>By the way, Hitler had support of workers too.
Which is why he went after labor organizers once he took over and replaced the unions with a Nazi controlled version.
>>925194
>Dude, saying Stalin killed more people than Hitler is defending Hitler, why are you not adressing what I claim you said? Don't you like my strawman?
>Dude, I believe in the gas chambers myth, by the way, people executed, people worked to death and people starved to death somehow are different from people in "industrial death camps" that Allied propaganda taught me about.
>>925217
>I'M NOT DEFENDING HITLER
>THE HOLOCAUST NEVER HAPPENED
can't make this shit up
>>925214
He did that to stop the spread of communism in unions. If Hitler is right wing because of preserving capitalism, then so is nordic social democracy by that logic.
>>925221
>If Hitler is right wing because of preserving capitalism, then so is nordic social democracy by that logic.
Yes and you'll find that on the left that's a commonly held view
>>925221
It fucking is.
There's a reason socialists back in the day called it Social Fascism.
>>925220
I don't believe in the gas chambers. That doesn't mean defending him. I don't like totalitarian goverments that send execute dissidents or send them to concentration camps. I like nordic social democracy, not nazism or stalinism.
>>925238
>I don't believe in the gas chambers. That doesn't mean defending him.
Only on 4chan.
>>925242
What does "playing yourself" mean? I don't understand you.
>>925241
>If you don't believe the official story 100% you're a nazi.
I don't believe Stalin killed 60 million people either, does that make me a nazicommunist then?
>>925259
Why, of all things to not believe in, you chose the gas chambers exactly?
>>925259
maybe
Lol, no, I consider myself a social democrat a la nordic.
>>925266
I'd become a Nazbol if they guaranteed me a qt butch gf
>>925263
The Leuchter Report.
>>925299
>pseudoscientific
>>925266
>this_is_your_brain_on_drugs.jpg
>>925320
>>pseudoscientific
How?
Did someone say anarchism?
>>925322
More people need to know about Dugin desu. The man is that right brand of batshit that transcends laughable and is actually fucking scary.
>>925173
>Fascism is literally a way of preserving the capitalist status quo.
You do know that this concept of fascism was invented by Stalin (and Georgi Dimitrov) for political purposes, right? It has no intellectual basis whatsoever.
>>925173
Also.
>Fascists advocated for a return to traditional values
Nice meme. The Nazis fought against every organic institution in Germany (the Catholic Church, the aristocracy, Junkers, Bavarian nationalism etc) in order to replace it with their LARPy bullshit.
>>925242
Does that mean I'm accidentally revealing myself as a closet nazi? If so, I'm afraid to say you're wrong. The fact that that both social democracy and nazism employ a reformed version of capitalism does not make me social democrats nazis
>Hitler drank water, so do you, therefore you're a nazi.
>>925378
Yes and no, its undispuitable that the fascists used plenty of socialist ideas to endear themselves to the public only to purge these ideas and their supporters from their ranks once they could count of the money of the establishment
>>924964
Kill yourself
>>925393
>does not make me social democrats nazis
does not make me or any social democrat a nazi*
>>925400
What socialist ideas did they drop once they came into power?
>>925414
Well for starters they purged the Strasserites aka the only Nazis who were even close to socialist.
>>925431
But what specific policies that they promised were dropped once they came into power?
>ITT ancaps thinking there will be wage-system on anarchy
Wage-system is a strange cross between servitude (feudalism) and cooperation (anarchy). You aren't forced to do it, like servitude, but you don't really receive what you've worked for, like cooperation.
>>925674
>Wage-system is a strange cross between servitude (feudalism) and cooperation (anarchy)
yes, its called a contract between two consenting parties.
>>924958
>1/3 of days feast/celebration days
not this shitty meme again
>>925783
How else are the modern aristocrats going to convince the masses that they DESERVE to be serfs? *tips crown*
>>925740
>yes, its called a contract between two consenting parties
This would be true in a fantasy world where competitive markets exist. But in reality corporations need a big state to protect their property rights and make sure unemployment is kept as high as possible without agitating the population too much.
>>925867
Not that I meant to imply massive corporate welfare states are the only problem, although that's inherent to the system. Even if the mythical free market existed here in the US we still wouldn't have anything remotely resembling a competitive market. Capitalism just doesn't naturally generate that many producers.
>>925867
The idea is not that both parties have something of equal value, that hardly ever happens in any contract. one side has something the other side needs and the other side has something they want.
There probably would be more firms in a state with a freer market, The US is actually behind several other countries on that front.
>>925414
-Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.
-nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
-division of profits of all heavy industries.
>>926243
What did they mean by unearned income?
>>926269
I get the sense that this was referring to rent incomes.
>>926403
I see, thanks. And what about "division of profits"? Is that profit sharing?
>>926497
They deliberately kept things very vague, that could mean anything from profit sharing to giving out shares in companies
>>926497
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program
Here is a full list of their early program
>>924752
>right to private property
lol
>>924890
this
>>925013
>he was a commie
this may be a bit of a stretch
>>924890
What if the one who is "exploited" uses the "exploiters" efforts also?
>>928078
If you're talking about coming up with ideas, keep in mind that by defending the idea of intellectual property you're literally advocating thought-policing in the name of freedom.
>>928088
Intellectual property is not thought policing though.
>>927025
The alt-right will eat itself
>>928088
Intellectual property, with it's variants artist creation and industrial creation protected with patents are designed to protect the use of them. It's derived from property, not freedom of thought, so you pulled that from your ass
>>924752
>He doesn't know where the word Libertarian comes from and it´s original meaning
>>925336
>Leuchter Report
>He believes a report written by a fraud who didn't even have an engineering degree
