All memes aside, can anarchism ever become a viable ideology?
A recurring argument against any form of anarchism is that the absence of a state would lead to military weakness against organized neighboring states.
Another argument against it is that it is impossible to maintain a state of anarchy (no leader, no ruler, no authority) because voluntary association between individuals would inevitably lead to the formation of micro-states, which would later evolve into large entities powerful enough to assert their authority over the rest of the community.
There are other arguments against it but these two are the ones I see anarchism confronted to most frequently.
Is there any answer to this? Are there forms of anarchism which are more realistic than others?
>>943108
No
>>943110
Why?
>>943113
ever seen mad max m8? (old school ones, haven't seen the new one btw)... yes, that's how the world would be.
>>943122
You mean if anarchy was applied worldwide?
>that's how the world would be
What makes you think that?
Anarchy is a naturally occuring part of man's cyclic nature. It's the outcome that we're trying to avoid with silly shit like the new world order.
>>943132
It's in our nature, we are animals and need an "alpha" to kick our ass if needed, or to guide us. It's impossile for us to create a balanced and just environment for ourselves and the rest of the planet even under certain order. Just imagine how it would be with less, or without it...
>>943108
>can anarchism ever become a viable ideology?
No.
>Are there forms of anarchism which are more realistic than others?
Anarcho-monarchism, a.k.a. pre-modern monarchy.
>>943161
>need an "alpha" to kick our ass if needed
Anarchism doesn't prevent voluntary association, though, does it?
>balanced and just environment
It doesn't have to be, does it? Only in the case of far-left anarchist movements would "balanced and just" societies be created.
>>943172
>Anarcho-monarchism
Could you elaborate?
>>943176
I don't have time so, I hope you have.
Watch the vid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRpOXbZGcdQ
>>943108
Look at the work of Nestor Mahkno post Ukraine, likewise anarchism goes beyond politics and has had some decent applications educationally.
Anarchism is a spook
It works well in small groups but gets increasingly more difficult to implement with more people.
Also it has to be left to its own devices, they have to be allowed to exist. Unlike other ideologies that can thrive or manage with prolonged conflict the anarchists seem to just fall apart or adherents are turned. Good example of this is Catalonia.
A more realistic approach would be to implement direct democracies then to dismantle the bureaucracies through voting, the violent revolutions which the punks seem to advocate simply would not work, you can't force anarchism on people.
The military thing is silly because the anarchists in the Spanish Civil War controlled the Aragon front, took back a lot of territory and then it was basically a stalemate until Lister rolled the tanks in and the government took back control of the war effort and the economy. Makhno's cavalry also was much better than red cavalry and could actually stand up to cossacks and Denikin's elite troops hand to hand. The Makhnovists were by far the most feared adversaries the whites went up against on an individual scale.
The problem hasn't been military organisation but a lack of resources. The more decentralised system of military organisation also has a lot of its own benefits.
>>943219
kek
>>943219
But stirnerian egoism leads to individualist anarchism
>>943108
Has valuable ideas behind it, but I think it will never actually exist as a viable system and this is coming from someone that sits far closer to Anarchist than Leninist on a Socialist scale.
For one Anarchists assume everyone wants to participate in direct democracy and constantly be politically aware on all issues, this of course is false, true for people who are anarchists maybe (because they enjoy politics, sociology etc) but your average person wants to basically have other people think and act in their interests, this is why Representative democracy exists.
Anarchists also do not seem to value specialization especially in Governance. For example police. Anarchists believe police will be replaced by rotating neighborhood watch style militias, but they ignore that police go through years of training, risk management, fire arm usage etc. Also who will solve crimes? Who stops pedophile rings? who stops sociopaths and psychopaths? Who solves a murder?
Also just on a larger scale, the Government employs millions of people because it NEEDS to employ millions of people. Governance is a full time job and not something that can be put together by amateurs, for every cop, paramedic, nurse, doctor, fireman, there is probably 10 or more people doing day to day office work, logistics, planning etc behind them.
Anarchist ideas on justice are also just complete batshit "There will be no prisons, all criminals will be rehabilitated". Yeah "That guy just raped and murdered my 10 year old and 8 year old daughter, I'm totally happy for him to not serve any time and just be made to go see a psych and then helped to get a job again". no.
Also Consensus meetings can easily be hijacked by dominating personalities. This is the failure of anarchist communes in the 70s.
That being said, a more flat organization and transparent government, workers councils and other social ideas from anarchism are viable and could be implemented in a Socialist Representative Democracy.
>>943336
The argument is that prisons and police don't do anything to actually stop crime, if anything they make it worse because prisons are basically crime universities. The way crime should be dealt with is to try and bring about conditions that prevents it from happening instead of trying to pick up the pieces after the fact.
>>943352
I realize this. But the fact is, changing the system does nothing to do away with crimes of passion, pedophiles, sociopaths, psychopaths, rapists, serial killers, cults etc.
There will always be a need for security services and prisons no matter the system.
>>943336
You're only talking about socialist/communist forms of anarchism here. The issues you mentioned don't exist in ancap for example.
>>943364
ancap is to anarchism what nazism is to socialism
they use the same words but it's a completely different thing
>>943364
Anarcho Capitalism will just revert to incredibly brutal oligarchical feudalism within about 10 seconds. That's why.
>>943363
People who don't play by the basic rule of the NAP are not under its protection anymore, so that doesn't really matter.
In a tribalist, national anarchist form of society, those people would get excluded from the community immediately or dealt with directly depending on what they did.
>>943375
please stop with the memes
>>943379
>I have no argument :^)
>>943375
>People who don't play by the basic rule of the NAP are not under its protection anymore, so that doesn't really matter.
Why would rich and elite who already control most of the property play by some NAP? The NAP would be overturned almost instantly as the rich and elite form their own little fiefdoms, use private armies and forces to dominate all those below them and carve out their own kingdoms.
Anarcho Capitalism would revert almost instantly to fedual oligarchy.
>>943380
>Monopolies would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible to form in an ancap society.
Wrong, Monopolies are incredibly easy to form due to basic math and scale.
The idea that Government creates monopolies is absurd.
>>943380
When private property is recognised then authority by principle, or self-justifying authority is recognised. Ignoring that private property is already unjust, when you recognise that one kind of authority unconditionally the other authorities that make use of it such as individual corporations are less likely to be questioned, especially in a capitalist system that relies on instant gratification by principle and not an investigation of what's actually good.
>>943384
I never said that I had an argument you faggot
>>943387
My post wasn't talking about ancap, I took national anarchism as an example.
>>943393
Why is private property unjust? Can't I own my clothes, food, house and gun? Can't I own whichever material goods I make or find? Why should I relinquish my ownership?
>>943409
Clothes, food house and gun are personal property. Private property is the land and the factories and workshops.
>>943390
>basic math and scale
Translation: I have no explanation.
>>943414
Where do you draw the line?
Why shouldn't I be able to own a parcel of land and a factory?
>>943425
because other people are working on/in it
>>943427
What's the problem if they're agreeing to do so by voluntary association?
>>943431
because it's only voluntary if they can go work somewhere else
and they can't if capitalists have all the land/factories
>>943435
They can go work somewhere else. Hell, they can start their own business.
>>943435
Okay
But if you abolish private property, aren't you limiting the freedom of some people?
>>943443
they can't start their own business if it isn't decided by other people that it's a good business
they can't work somewhere else if there's nowhere for them to work
that's why everybody has the right to work for food, clothing and other things and when people have to work any longer than they need to or work for one other person's benefit that's unjust
>>943444
you're limiting it where it limits the freedom of the workers
it's the same reason a society that allows murder would be a less free society
Anarchy a shit.
>>943453
>they can't start their own business if it isn't decided by other people that it's a good business
This doesn't make sense.
>they can't work somewhere else if there's nowhere for them to work
This is a non-point. Its akin to saying something like "I can't breathe if there's no air"
>>943471
for a business to be successful it needs to make a profit, to make a profit an individual needs to forget about what he wants to do and try to please the consumers
exactly, you need land and factories to work and you need work to survive, so not having the means to produce is like not having air, or having to do things for a boss to get air
Why isn't the NAP sufficient to ensure the stability of an anarchist society?
>>943498
because anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism and because they define aggression without any real thought on account of their being political economists and not philosophers
>>943498
Because NAP is fucking retarded. Both ancaps and ancoms should be shot.
>>943508
I don't care for ancap, I'm talking about the NAP alone. The definition is pretty clear.
>>943511
it's clear but it's wrong
i already talked in this thread about how private property isn't just or voluntary
>>943484
>for a business to be successful it needs to make a profit
Not necessarily, but okay.
> to make a profit an individual needs to forget about what he wants to do and try to please the consumers
You need to examine what you're saying here. The consumer selects the service/product, and since the producing individual wants to make a profit, working to achieve that profit is the motivation. Again, he can choose to simply not work, and hence not make any money. Its entirely voluntary.
>exactly, you need land and factories to work
No.
>so not having the means to produce is like not having air, or having to do things for a boss to get air
If you are not willing to produce by working, then you how come do you expect others to work to sustain you? By your very own logic, for you to sustain such a life, you would need to keep people involuntarily working to sustain you.
>>943518
>You need to examine what you're saying here. The consumer selects the service/product, and since the producing individual wants to make a profit, working to achieve that profit is the motivation. Again, he can choose to simply not work, and hence not make any money. Its entirely voluntary.
any decision is voluntary if the other choice is dying, for something to really be voluntary you need another choice
>If you are not willing to produce by working, then you how come do you expect others to work to sustain you? By your very own logic, for you to sustain such a life, you would need to keep people involuntarily working to sustain you.
i don't, that's why i said that everybody should have a right to the means of production, so that they can work for themselves and by their own choice
>>943108
marxist leninist here to explain why anarchism is shit
no way of enforcing anarchism
>>943543
voluntarism
>>943529
>for something to really be voluntary you need another choice
We're talking about work here. You either work or you don't work. If you won't work, then you would be forcing someone else to work in order to sustain you. Your model is involuntary, unless the people who allow those that don't work to survive accept working for said people.
>i don't, that's why i said that everybody should have a right to the means of production, so that they can work for themselves and by their own choice
Everybody has a right to produce, you don't have a right to use other peoples "means of production" unless you sign a voluntary contract.
>>943108
Anarchy is unable to oppose an organised state and is therefore not competitive in, well, any era.
>>943559
>We're talking about work here. You either work or you don't work. If you won't work, then you would be forcing someone else to work in order to sustain you. Your model is involuntary, unless the people who allow those that don't work to survive accept working for said people.
there's some work that needs to be done to survive, but working for others and working for the profit motive are not parts of that body of work
if we have a right to work and to produce, we have a right to the means to work and produce and to not have that right compromised by robber barons
>Everybody has a right to produce, you don't have a right to use other peoples "means of production" unless you sign a voluntary contract.
what makes the capitalist's right to the land and factories supersede the worker's right to produce, and the access to the land and factories that must follow from that? to me it seems the right of the worker is more important, because to have any rights you first must have the right to live, and to live you need to work
>>943563
This. Go as far in history as you want
>Spain
>Makhno
>Wild West
>Nassau pirate republic
>Early medieval Iceland
etc
State has always prevailed and always will
>>943352
>prisons and police don't do anything to actually stop crime
Ah yes very impressive
>>943563
Why wouldn't people form a cohesive armed militia if they were faced with an outside threat? It's in their best interest whether collective or individual.
I think the real problem is that it's a highly unstable situation. Something that looks very much like a "government" is bound to emerge, even if it's just the guy with the most firepower (or the assiciation formed to counter him). Better to accept that government is inevitable from the beginning and try to make the best one possible.
>>943598
a dictatorship is a government of one person
who was the dictator in spain? nobody, it was the worker's councils that decided things
the same with makhno, he was a strategist who held no constituted authority, decisions were made via assembly
just because private property wasn't allowed doesn't mean it was a dictatorship or government, especially seeing as you can't justify private property in the first place
>>943586
Ah yes militias are very competitive against standing armies
>>943610
One person OR one political entity.
>>943629
then it stands to reason that a democracy is a dictatorship because demos is one political entity
>>943586
>militias
Almost every militia ever in history got blown the fuck out. One exception is probably the American revolution but they got bailed out by the French regulars and navy.
>>943633
Of course, democracy is the most pure totalitarian rule that exists. Read Leddihn.
>>943639
>a literal monarchist
>>943645
Yep.
>>943654
don't you see that decrying the rule of one person (or political entity whatever that means)
and then advocating monarchy which literally means the rule of one person is a bit contradictory?
>>943580
>there's some work that needs to be done to survive, but working for others and working for the profit motive are not parts of that body of work
All work is for survival for everyone in the current system. In your model, the person working works not only to sustain himself, but also others who won't work since they won't produce themselves. You need to examine what you need by "survive" if you want people to live average lives then they need more than food and water, which requires far more labor that would need be met by others being forced to work.
>if we have a right to work and to produce, we have a right to the means to work and produce
This is non sequitur. Right to work and produce does not mean you have the right to work using others equipment or land. "Robber Baron" doesn't make sense since you do not own the land, or the means of production. You cannot be robbed of what you don't own. In your model, everyone would be robbing everyone else unless everyone agreed to share the means of production and the land. In your system, everyone can be said to be a "Robber Baron" unless they consented.
>what makes the capitalist's right to the land and factories supersede the worker's right to produce
It doesn't supersede it as your reasoning is fallacious. Right to work does not entail the right to work in other peoples land, using other peoples equipment.
>>943658
What are you even talking about? Where did I "decry" anything?
>>943667
i don't think i'm able to convince you and i need to go to bed soon but thanks for talking anon
>>943108
Anarchism is a ideology too personal to spread out like fascism, socialism or capitalism did in the past.
>>943580
>there's some work that needs to be done to survive, but working for others and working for the profit motive are not parts of that body of work
All work is for survival in the current system. In your model, the person working works not only to sustain himself, but also others who won't work. You need to examine what you mean by "survive" if you want people to live civilized lives then they need more than food and water; achieving such living standard requires far more labor that would need be met by others being forced to work.
>if we have a right to work and to produce, we have a right to the means to work and produce
This is non sequitur. Right to work and produce does not mean you have the right to work using others equipment or land. "Robber Baron" doesn't make sense since you do not own the land, or the means of production. You cannot be robbed of what you don't own. In your model, everyone would be robbing everyone else unless everyone agreed to share the means of production and the land. In your system, everyone can be said to be a "Robber Baron" unless they consented.
>what makes the capitalist's right to the land and factories supersede the worker's right to produce
It doesn't supersede it as your reasoning is fallacious. Right to work does not entail the right to work in other peoples land, using other peoples equipment.
Anarchism works if it's done on a small scale
>>943742
The closest we could ever get to an anarchy is a minarchist state
>>943375
this is literally what happened in medieval England (and I guess other places in Europe).
Is anarchy impossible because we currently live in a world where statism is the norm and would overwhelm an anarchist society?
>>943219
this desupai
>"lol we anarchy now"
>people immediately begin organizing themselves into new societies with their own governments
>get stronger and take control of other societies
>history repeats itself
Depends on the type of anarchy you're trying to implement.
>>943108
Couldn't anarchy function as a federation of independent collectives in order to guarantee cohesiveness?
>>944995
That's out of date, nu-dems are very much hardcore leftists.
>>943108
you shouldn't look at Anarchy as a political system akin to democracy or communism or whatever
its a reactionary movement for the most part, pro-freedom and anti-tyranny
in the end most anarchists agree that society is something that will always exist in some way.
Ted Kaczynski probably has the best idea of an anarchic movement imo
>>944995
>>945043
this is very accurate, though I'm not sure who the 2 ancap balls are as well
I assume the purple ancap is more the occasionally random autistic ancap while the blue ancap represents stephen molyneux fanboys, possibly also redditors revolving around /r/theredpill who keep stealing our memes
one of the blue ones is individualist anarchism, maybe primitive anarchism
black markets matter is ex-silk road users probably, ancaps in practice or drug dealers
>>945445
>purple ancap
>blue ancap
Which ones are you talking about? This is confusing.
>ancaps in practice
How would they differ from ancaps "in theory"?
>>943108
Between individualist capitalism and collectivist communism anarchism offers a systemic approach focussing on the conflicts and interdependencies between individual and society. The same kind of perspective is currently finding its way into natural and humanitarian sciences and should make its way into the mainstream in some time (maybe 100 years, maybe 10, but with modern media it may be faster than one thinks) which should make systemic political ideologies like anarchism and deep ecology more accessible to people.
>>943108
>be me
>be an anarchist society
>get attacked by Liechtenstein an thier nonexistant army
>noproblamo.gif
>call army to counterattack
>no army because anarchism
>no taxes because anarchism
>ofuck.joopeg
>become part of Liechtenstein
>have to follow rules
>fuck
>>946178
>>no army because anarchism
You don't know what you're talking about
>>946226
>Agorism
How is it different from ancap?
>Individualist and Egoist anarchism
How do these two differ? Aren't they pretty much the same ideologies?
Furthermore, why would they be placed "outside" the political spectrum when they should rather be at the bottom center leaning towards the right?
>>946178
>no army because anarchism
muster the local militias
>>943122
Next you will point toward Somalia as an example of anarchism.
>>943629
How can one political entity dictate? Show me one.
>>946237
>How is it different from ancap?
There are differences. Agorists see voluntary exchange as the principal and ONLY way of abolishing the state and oppressive economics, while ancaps might see merit in political action. Agorism is also criticized by other ancaps for the focus on the black market and wage workers making drugs and blowing people for crack while ignoring larger entrepreneurs
>How do these two differ? Aren't they pretty much the same ideologies?
Egoist anarchism seems is the directly Stirnerian subset of Individualist anarchism, which also includes mutualism and the like
>Furthermore, why would they be placed "outside" the political spectrum when they should rather be at the bottom center leaning towards the right?
If I was to wager a guess, they're past the extreme end of the libertarian spectrum because they reject even such limits as ancap's private property or ancom's commune as spooks, and they're hard to place in the left or the right because of this
>>943419
He's implying 'natural monopoly, which of course you probably knew. You're quite dishonest there.
>>946375
>ancaps might see merit in political action
Sorry for being retarded, but I don't understand that statement.
In practice, wouldn't the implementation of agorism be the same thing as anarcho capitalism?
Anarchism just seems way too far away from the way that our current society works to really understand or even argue about, let alone implement. Could it work? I don't know. I used to call myself an anarchist and I still don't even fully understand it as a philosophy.
>>946431
Ancaps aren't opposed to destroying the state via voting or revolution, or organizing political parties while the state still exists
Agorists think the ONLY real way to destroy the state is to engage in black market activities, and pursuing libertarian means through voting and parties is statist folly
The endgame would probably be broadly the same, but the approach to it isn't
>>943108
No, because as a species, one of our innate behaviors is to manifest, or create, things. This is an orderly behavior, wherein we take pieces and form a greater whole. It's just what we do, I'm not even sure we think about the "how's or why's", it's just so taken for granted.
Once there is a breakdown of order, in this case society, our gut reaction is to form new order, to work together to form a new society. We'd do this not only for the fact it makes division of labor more effective, but for the safety and security of our progeny and others for whom we feel empathy.
Maybe you don't feel that empathy, and maybe you don't feel that need to manifest order. You're the exception to the rule, and if you're intelligent, albeit sociopathic, you'll still find a way to work with, if not within, the new societal structure.
>>946456
I see. Then why would they be placed closer to the center than ancap? is that just an error from the chart?
>>946456
To sum it up, yeah, as I see it Agorism is mostly a principle/method of Ancap rather than a self-contained ideology, but there are Agorists who put the agora method (black markets ftw) ahead of everything else which allows to single them out
>>946487
What's the inherent value of black markets that would warrant them being at the center of an ideology?
>>946468
Fuck knows. I didn't make the image. Probably the focus on the small wage worker and voluntary exchange as opposed to muh property rights and muh privatized parliament, courts and military made it seem more "left" to the creator of the image
>>946498
>muh privatized parliament, courts and military
How would agorists deal with military and justice issues without the necessary institutions?
>>946489
Them being the means of exchange that isn't regulated by the state; a natural occurence of libertarianism basically. Thus if miraculously enough people decided that using black markets is more profitable than obeying the government, the state would be eliminated by market forces
>>946527
That seems to make sense.
>miraculously
Practically speaking, it's impossible?
Alot of people think it's fun or cool to break rules and say down with the man. Without larger governing bodies and order, someone will come take your shit. It might not be today while you're young and strong, but you get older, slower, some 20-something will take your shit.
You think "ah fuck it, I'll just die and it won't matter", but it will matter. It will matter to people who are still alive, and they'll make a big, strong, formal, overseeing government to make sure people don't take their shit. That's how we got to where we are, that's how it will be if shit hits the fan.
Is anarchism the "intelligent, nihilistic, and with a wicked sense of humor" ideology?
>>946545
No, that would be fascism
>>946541
And that's why tribalistic forms of anarchy such as nationalist anarchism should be looked into
The main drawback of anarchism is that it'd "force" people into anarchy and that they would presumably have nowhere to go if they wanted to be governed. Tribalism and NA deal with that issue
>>946536
Not any more impossible than enough humans agreeing on the principles of any other anarchist movement to create a sustainable anarchist society. Though right now black markets are several clicks away for anyone with an internet connection, yet we see no significant proliferation of them for anything but dude weed. So I wouldn't have my hopes high for a successful agorist process
>>946559
Some bigger tribe will take all the surrounding tribes' shit, and/or a good leader will come along to form a collective where people pool shit, and a neighboring pool will take their shit, and in 500 years we'll end up exactly where we are now.
>>946561
Well, why would anyone bother to purchase legal goods on the black market in the first place? If the price isn't much lower, nobody's going to buy their mac and cheese from the silk road
>>945040
>nu-dems are very much hardcore leftists.
Only Americucks think this
>>946574
This isn't rocket science. Proto-society was much like this, small agrarian communities constantly raided by bigger stronger people who ran out of food or got horny for the women. Then we started building walls and it was harder to take each others shit, so we made bigger and better technology to better take more of each others shit.
Believe me when I say, we will end up right back where we are now.
>>946574
>Some bigger tribe will take all the surrounding tribes' shit
>form a collective
Why do you assume that?
The basic principle that tie tribalism and NA together is more or less "we do our shit, you do your shit, so just leave us alone". If a collective of individuals starts breaking that isolationist status quo, what makes you think that a bunch of other tribes wouldn't (for example) form a temporary coalition against them in order to preserve their sovereignty? Think some sort of decentralized federation
>>946602
Because it's within us to want each others shit, and if we can take the shit, we will. If you can't kill some roving shit-stealer with his 500 buddies, you are fucked, and no amount of hippie peace propaganda is going to convince him you should have your shit and he should not.
>>946614
>no amount of hippie peace propaganda
Of course not, but several other tribes might not want to get their shit pushed in either.
>>946576
Well, in theory, lower prices, no taxes or regulations, higher efficiency driven by the business acumen of ubermensch free-market atlases
In practice, it has to be a MASSIVE price disparity or VERY heavy government restrictions on certain products in order to make a person go through all of the trouble of using black markets and risking their livelihoods just to get some cigarettes or mac n cheese
>>943108
Given the limitations of hierarchy in coordinating complex activity, eventually, as sociotechnical complexity rises, all viable ideologies will be anarchistic. I think it unlikely, however, that the new anarchies will much resemble the old ones.
>>946628
What do you think they're going to look like?
Some kind of "transhumanist anarchism"?
>>946618
Well, now you're forming a nation and the next question is going to be "who makes the rules", because everyone is going to want each other's shit. So people within the nation start arguing about who should make rules, they pick nominees , and I don't like your fucking nominees and I get 50 people together, kill your fucking nominees and take your shit. Now I'm a despot, if you don't listen to me I'll have you fucking killed, and the only way to stop me is to have a more formal, tighter order within your own circle. That's not anarchy anymore in any definition. That becomes a republic.
>>946636
>now you're forming a nation
A temporary alliance isn't a nation, though.
I'm just saying that people with common interests might want to fight together for the preservation of these interests despite an isolationist policy.
My ideal society would be like a cross between the democratic confederalism of Rojava and mutualist economics.
>>946644
A nation is a society of smaller societal parts working to a greater order, but it only lasts so long as needs are met and wants are placated within reason. Native americans had a number of nations before Europeans even met them, and those aligned tribes did well until there was actually something about which to argue, like who was going to get the benefit of french trade. Then all hell broke loose and what was once a really cool peace pipe thing went to shit with mohawk killing cherokee killing everybody else. It's all about who gets the cool shit and who wants it.
>>946667
> a society of smaller societal parts working to a greater order
But that's not what I described. I specifically mentioned isolationism because that's a big part of it.
>>946676
But people aren't going to listen to you. People will want more shit, even if they're in your isolated hippie circle and make deals with other groups or, while your back is turned, go kill them and take their shit. That's just how we work.
>>946178
>>no army because anarchism
Huh?
>>946689
Guess you're right
>hippie
Fuck hippies, isolationist policies are good because I don't want to deal with other people's shit.
Either way what you're saying is
>group of people wants anarchism
>they do it
>another group doesn't want anarchism
>first group gets blown the fuck out by second group
so there's no answer and it's a dead end apparently
>>943108
>anarchism
Pissing in the wind: the ideology
>>946760
what if I don't want to get fucked in the ass by a higher authority?
>>946765
>what if I don't want to get fucked in the ass by a higher authority?
Get rich.
>>946777
So ancap is fine then?
>>946765
consider atheism.
consider moving to a rural area with no people.
consider moving to a less regulated, poorer nation.
consider suicide.
>>946733
Yup, basically.
>>946780
>So ancap is fine then?
No. Still pissing in the wind. Also not really anarchy
>>946795
>Still pissing in the wind
>not really anarchy
Why?
Anarchy doesn't come about through a compulsive move to instill it as the sole operating form of government overnight, rather it more often happens spontaneously through the concerted efforts of people toward accomplishing a common goal without the incentive of lucrative gain or through compulsive force.
Existing infrastructure that has been built through non anarchistic means may certainly end up being used to achieve this with the hope that it will benefit the bulk of society in the long run.
The digital world is full of examples of this with things like mp3s, pirated media, free to download software, and video game mods.
>>946631
Not really, transhumanism is too individualistic. Effective systems will enhance group decision-making but will be mostly unrelated to personal enhancement except inasmuch as it incentivizes participation.
>>946835
But the future societies will become increasingly individualistic
>>946814
>rather it more often happens spontaneously
rather it never happens*
FTFY
>>946840
The dichotomy between individual freedom effective concerted action is a false one. The future societies will increase both together.
>>946795
>not really anarchy
Where does this meme come from
Ancap is the purest form of anarchy excluding anarcho primitivism perhaps
>>947108
>Ancap is the purest form of anarchy
It's not anarchism
It's not viable for the specific reason that a state is defined as a monopoly of violence, and if a group of people like anarchists imagine that it's possible to have a functioning society of millions of people without a bureaucracy and some form of arbitration, but not a monopoly of violence they are wrong.
>>946802
>Still pissing in the wind
Doesn't solve any problems or actually change anything if successful, disastrous if unsuccessful
>not really anarchy
Higher authorities are still going to fuck you in the ass unless you're rich, but if you're rich then you're already fine under this system.
>>949020
>Doesn't solve any problems or actually change anything if successful
What are you basing that on?
>Higher authorities are still going to fuck you in the ass
I don't understand where that claim comes from, since a "true" ancap society would supposedly have the NAP as a means to prevent unwarranted violence
>>946237
Stirner is outside the political spectrum. A stirnerite could be a dictator, hippie or criminal marauder like Renzo Novatore.
>>943108
Well closest we've had was spain during the civil war, so it has been proven to be possibly viable for at least three months before stalinists come in arrest and kill all your leaders, attack the army they were supporting the day before with no warning and then move onto attacking the non-stalinist socialists.
Once done with the anarchists and socialists they then proceed to lose the war against the facists having crippled their own unified front.
According to people who where there (and anyone who was there was heavily biased toward anarchism or socialism, all the moderates having gotten the fuck out) anarchism appeared to work and people appeared to be happy. But again it was only three months.
I don't understand why Ancap is considered a far right ideology, doesn't it advocate open borders for trade agreements and such? Doesn't it imply multiculturalism?
>>949151
>Stirner is outside the political spectrum
Spooks is another word for social constructs, and Stirner disagreed with private property.
Therefore egoist anarchism is far left.
>>943122
Do you honestly believe gay dudes in leather chaps on bikes could reign supreme?
>>943161
sklavenmoral
>>946782
>pussying out
why not fuck the oppresors instead?
Friendly reminder that 'Anarcho'-Capitalism is not a form of Anarchism. Anarchism as a movement has always been about creating a society without political, social or economic hierarchy. The Anarchist movement seeks to bring about a society in which individual freedom and equality are maximised so that people can live to their fullest potential as fulfilled individuals. Anarchists want to abolish the state, capitalism and private property because they are the basis for authoritarian hierarchies.
'Anarcho'-Capitalists are ardent defenders of private property (as opposed to legitimate personal property), wage labour, profit unearned income (rent) and authoritarian social relationships like the boss/worker hierarchy and patriarchy.
>>949128
>What are you basing that on?
On the fact that the ideal ancap society looks identical to this one.
>would supposedly have the NAP as a means to prevent unwarranted violence
Keyword being "unwarranted"
As long as debt is a thing then violence will be warranted. Debtor's prison is still prison.
This is assuming that you somehow create a magic society where nobody breaks the rules.
Nah.
Humans have only done so well by working in groups.
A government is by far the most efficient, largest mode of organizing people to work together. No ifs, ands, or buts.
>>949376
Because left and right are meaningless terms.
>>943108
No, really, this picture just about covers it up.
>>943108
It's viable as an ideology and raises good points which have found some use here and there, particularly in management.
As a political option it's pure utopian though.
>>943380
>Monopolies would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible to form in an ancap society.
Anarcho-capitalism removes entry costs?
Nature abhors a vacuum. So no.
>>949705
>Spooks is another word for social constructs, and Stirner disagreed with private property.
Stirner did not disagree with private property at all, and you're wrong that a spook is something as simple as a social construct.
Stirner says literally in his book that: "Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property." And, "What I have in my power, that is my own. So long as I assert myself as holder, I am the proprietor of the thing."
So, while he disagreed with there being any "right" to have property, you can't say he didn't agree with rich people owning shit, including factories, as long as they could defend the ownership.
Anarchy is nothing more than complete and utter freedom.
In order for freedom to be prosperous and self-sustaining, it requires huge amounts of self control.
Humans don't have enough self-control for anarchy to be viable.
Any state that worked under anarchy would collapse unless you took away all free will
>>943108
only in communities where 100% of members are anarchist and are willing to put water in their wine
>>943108
no
>>951347
Private property =/= personal property
>>951347
So ancap isn't spooked then?
>>952262
Ancap is like a fucking haunted house full of spooks.
>>952325
This chart is bullshit though
What are the spooks of ancap according to you?
can someone explain fucking spookism to me
>>943108
No.
Anarchism will only be the time period between governments. Just as government was formed from tribes at the beginning, government will rise from anarchy. It cannot sustain itself. It will always lead to a new form of government.
