Any anarchists here?
Mutualist here.
I'm more of a minarchist in a realistic sense, but still an anarchist in an idealistic sense.
>>30643228
Reporting comrade
>>30643250
my comrade
Libertarian socialist reporting in.
>>30643228
sounds like you people need more 5 year plans
>>30643228
What I hate most about anarchists is the belief that we aren't in a perpetual state of ignorance fuelled anarchy
Genuine Anarchist here,
This is now a thread about milfs.
>Fuck you I won't do what you tell me
>>30643317
top kek
>>30643317
>milfs
Just waiting for the ancaps to show up now.
>>30643341
>implying ancaps are anarchists
>>30643341
Analcap? Sounds like something Freud might talk about
>>30643367
I was actually implying that they weren't anarchists.
>>30643267
Subcomandante Marcos!
Zapatista supporter reportin' in
>>30643341
Oh they'll show up. They always do. Though to be fair, I've come to realize that there are actually two kinds of ancaps.
First there are the realists. The guys who understand voluntary action means not everybody might want capitalism, and in a truly anarchistic society, anyone should be able to choose if they want to live like syndicalists, mutualists, primitivists or whatever so long as they do so willingly. But most importantly they understand that corporatism is authoritarian, and therefore an affront to liberty.
Then there are the apologists. The corporate dicksuckers, the Ayn Rand sycophants, the people who look at the shit that happened during the gilded age and praise the robber barons as great liberators who should be revered for their contribution to human progress. These guys don't want to set you free. They want to set themselves free so they can coax you into their company town and pay you in dirt.
Unfortunately, the latter tends to be more common.
>>30643511
The Ayn Rand sycophants think they and everyone else will end up rich and wealthy, all they are doing is dooming themselves to corporate tyranny.
>>30643566
The funny thing is that Rand despised both anarchists AND libertarians. She basically wanted to live in some kind of corporate monarchy.
>>30643610
Crazy woman
I'm particularly fond of the National Anarchist Movement. In a perfect world, something like Anarcho-Strasserism.
Basically an ethnic/racial guild system amongst different workers unions and people can choose different tasks if they feel they've outgrown another, but the productivity structure remains. For example, a workers exchange program akin to a foreign exchange student program. In case of a national or statewide emergency the entire country would be made aware and mobilized against a direct threat (effectively creating militias or a temporary state to later be dissolve back to Anarchism, the prolonging of a state would have consequences), a completely voluntary movement would be required, and nobody forces anyone to defend it. It either survives, or it doesn't. The oldest members of the unions would mobilize against threats. Basically an industrial chiefdom with a democratic system/weekly meeting to decide who stays, who goes, who comes in, who's getting transfered, new ideas we may have etc, even the chief can transfer or be replaced . It would be a socialist system / internal currency system. But all the money that comes in is effectively distributed throughout the entire participating network. People would earn either digital or traditional currencies, but there would also be programs to help workers move forward. For example a discount on a vehicle or bicycle for those new to the workforce. After five years a new bike opportunity or ten years a new car opportunity is reinstated. But of course that would only be there to help, everyone would still have buying power. I'm undecided on a average national income. I don't think there should be any. And anyone can start a business at any time as a side income to their main job without question or intervention, ever. And guns, lots of guns would be produced in many different plants; ownership implies responsibility. Stand your ground is law, but hopefully in such a system logical procedures would prevail.
>>30643511
On that note, here's some mandatory anti-corporatist reading (listening) for market anarchists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OoLocORBRk
Anarchist here also, anarchoindividualism better I guess.
>>30644404
National Anarchist Movement
>National = for the state
>Anarchist = against the state
Yup.
No fucking IQ deficient moron is going to rule me.
As if I couldn't rule everyone better anyway.
The reason that I don't rule anyone but my own family is ethics and morality.
Ruling people is violence and that's fucking sick shit.
I do believe you can get your ass shot for that.
Digger here.
>>30645011
I like it. Have some based Proudhon in return.
Any Anarchism that isn't basic caveman tribal patriarchy is total bullshit.
AnCap, AnSoc, AnNat, AntFuckingEaters.
It's just another fucking system.
AnarchoJews are cool 'cuz dey know Jehovah is just another fucking tyrant.
>>30645061
>basic caveman tribal patriarchy
That's total bullshit too.
The political axis is an inverted pyramid, and there's only 1 anarchism.
>>30645044
>In those times there were no enclosed lands
>everyone farmed wherever the fuck they wanted
>all of a sudden the nobles decide to drive everyone out and murder people who resist so they can charge rent like Jews
Such progress
What's the difference between ancap and anarchoindividualism?
From A Declaration from the Poor Oppressed People of England:
"The power of enclosing land and owning property was brought into the creation by your ancestors by the sword; which first did murder their fellow creatures, men, and after plunder or steal away their land, and left this land successively to you, their children. And therefore, though you did not kill or thieve, yet you hold that cursed thing in your hand by the power of the sword; and so you justify the wicked deeds of your fathers, and that sin of your fathers shall be visited upon the head of you and your children to the third and fourth generation, and longer too, till your bloody and thieving power be rooted out of the land."
From A New-year's Gift for the Parliament and Army:
"The life of this dark kingly power, which you have made an act of Parliament and oath to cast out, if you search it to the bottom, you shall see it lies within the iron chest of cursed covetousness, who gives the earth to some part of mankind and denies it to another part of mankind: and that part that hath the earth, hath no right from the law of creation to take it to himself and shut out others; but he took it away violently by theft and murder in conquest."
From The Law of Freedom in a Platform:
"if they prove desperate, wanton or idle, and will not quietly submit to the law, the task-master is to feed them with short diet, and to whip them, for a rod is prepared for the fool's back, till such time as their proud hearts do bend to the law ... If any have so highly broke the laws as they come within the compass of whipping, imprisoning and death, the executioner shall cut off the head, hang or shoot to death, or whip the offender according to the sentence of law. Thus you may see what the work of every officer in a town or city is."
>>30645098
No it's not.
Try raising children without it.
Result: Narcissists, Women's Studies Graduates, Career Criminals, etc.
>>30645168
Read more.
>>30645098
Yeah bro, come on, we're human.
Someone has to tell the fucking kids to STFU and go their fucking rooms.
What? Is Mom going to do it? She's too worried about your FEELS.
I'm an anarchist in the sense that I think our civilization is awful, and that it should and will descend into chaos and anarchy soon enough.
not an actual anarchist though because it's against human nature to not exist in structured group environments
>>30645193
Breed more.
Anarcho-Nihilist here.
>>30645207
The original state of nature was communitarianism. The problem is sociopaths inevitably resort to theft and murder to subjugate everyone else.
>>30645236
Love thy neighbor.
Unless he's a dick.
Then round up your fellow good neighbors and go kill the sonofabitch.
Now that's MUH ANARCHISM right there.
>>30645236
The tribal structure of homo sapiens prior to the existence of civilization was basically the same thing as miniature city states. Tribes claimed territory and would defend it from outsiders, there was a proto-political structure with a leadership hierarchy and codes or "tribal laws", there were notions of ownership of private things (e.g. this spear is mine not yours because I made it, etc.), there was diplomacy with other tribes, and so on and so forth. The state of nature was much more anarchic than the big state modern world obviously, but it wasn't pure anarchy, territories and authority did exist, however loose they were.
Niggas don't know about my anarcho-pluralism
>>30644976
National = for the nation, retard.
Why do you pay taxes?
>>30645527
still nationalist wich when mixed with anarchism is an nail ball.
An complete Oxymoron
>>30643228
Anarchism is madness. Without a government, there would be endless violence and zero stability. The wars would just keep raging forever, until a new government emerged from the victors.
You want anarchy? No need to be an anarchist, there are effectively lawless places today. Just move to African countries such as Liberia, and see how much fun anarchy is (endless tribal warfare / rape / murder / mayhem/ cannibalism feces and trash everywhere )
>>30645611
National Anarchism is a protest movement. They don't reject the concept of the state they reject the state in its present form (anti-white, degenerate, corrupt, etc.).
You're in the wrong neighborhood fellow
>>30645235
>Anarcho-Nihilist
But isn't nihilism about rejecting ideologies and find your own set of values ?
Bump for freedumz
I think I might be in love with Gary Chartier.
Who are some other absolutely based modern day anarchists/libertarians?
>>30643267
>>30643228
Removal of EU when?
>>30645611
Nations as a territory of shared culture is definitely not something an anarchist would oppose out of definition.
pro-revolutionary reporting
>>30648402
>Ukraine loyalists want EU federalism
>Ukraine secessionists want Russian nationalism
>nobody wants to reestablish Free Territory for a truly free Ukraine
Fucking hell.
>>30648623
I know that feel comrade.
>>30648623
Why did Lenin have to be a cunt
He and Makhno could have bro'd it out all the way to the Atlantic, but no, Lenin had to be a cunt
>>30649416
Wait, so opossing a rebelious whiteguard anti-semitist, fascist nazi sympathiser suddenly counts as being a cunt?
Anarchist reporting in. It's good to be here.
Anarcho syndicalist reporting in.
>>30645119
Ancaps believe in privatization of good and services, meaning control by private entities where employees get compensated for there work with capital or currency. Individualist would be more of a trading and barter system where everyone produces what they need and want or find another individual to trade with.
>>30652457
Anarchism - not even once.
>>30652457
anarchists' dream.jpg
>>30643228
Anyone here against democracy has matured into a fascist. Somebody has got to be the big guy in order to prevent others from taking power. Time and time again I have seen anarchists turn to fascism, we are all against mob rule. If you have an enlightened despot then all is good. Even better is a fascist republic.
>>30643228
So when we get rid of the government who is going to decide what kind of anarchy we are going to get?
>>30652620
Democracy is tyranny of the majority. Laws the legislature social and moral issues based on trivial beliefs or arbitrary values is oppressive. See war on drugs, civil rights, etc
>>30652822
>ideology in anarchy
You're doing it wrong
>>30652822
No one. That's the point of anarchy.
>>30652457
sounds fun
>>30643228
>>>/leddit/
to leddit you go entitled leftard trash.
>>30653079
Come on, now. There's plenty of room for all of us!
>>30653118
Ancap, crypto, and transhumanists are pals, the rest are filthy commies.
>>30643511
>he guys who understand voluntary action means not everybody might want capitalism
bullshit, it's you leftists who would force us to be your welfare slaves and prohibit voluntary exchange. We libertarians/ancaps could not give a fucking shit about your socialism if you could only practice it amongst those who want to give to their "society" on their volition instead of imposing it on us as you people do and continue advocate doing so retard.
>>30653079
you forgot the part where the first guy kills you for trying to switch
>>30643228
How would your anarchist utopia function? I have been wondering how power could divided so that invidual freedom isn't dangered in anarchy.
>>30653233
>We libertarians/ancaps could not give a fucking shit about your socialism if you could only practice it amongst those who want to give to their "society" on their volition instead of imposing it on us as you people do and continue advocate doing so retard
Isn't that kind of the fucking point of anarchism? If you want to live like a capitalist or a socialist, so long as you do so through voluntary means it's all fine. Nobody here is against that.
And are you really telling me you think corporatism is a good thing, or are you misinterpreting what corporatism is?
>>30653233
This.
>>30653182
Do you know anything about mutualism?
>>30653118
>There's plenty of room for all of us!
look i would love to live in peace with other people who oppose the state/ruleofthemob, but that's not what they want or who they actually are>>30653233 pic related
leftarchists simply aren't consistent against the initiation of force/aggression like we are. All they essentially want is a new state where they steal from us at a greater rate in place of the corporatists they long to oust.
>>30643228
i used to be anarchist
i used to listen to rap too tho
i was retarded
like you guys
>>30652990
Then why do we have different schools of thoughts in anarchy?
One school says we should abolish money and another school says we shouldn't.
Who is going to decide that?
>>30653486
nobody is stopping you from getting together with your best mates and using money for shit. those who don't want to use money will get together with their friends at some other place and not use money for shit.
>>30653421
Why are you assuming that all socialists want to enforce their system on others by means of aggression? That quote you posted could apply to certain AnComs just as much as it could AnCaps.
We all want different outcomes, but we're in favor of the same means.
>>30648623
There are still anarchists in Ukraine.
>>30653518
is this nigga serious?
i can never tell
looks like a joke but someone can take it seriously so idk
>>30645372
Most anarchists aren't against the idea of authority in general, just not authority for the sake of authority, that you must prove that your authority is not only right and beneficial to those under you but also necessary.
>>30653233
Well, you've proven you have no idea what you're talking about by regurgitating the same tired argument. As soon as anyone supports something besides capitalism, people automatically begin their criticism of totalitarian command economies, because they have no clue what collectivism, socialism, and communism actually are.
Serious question
If you have "anarchy" and a group of people creates some other system of their own accord (capitalist, socialist, what have you) is the system as a whole still anarchy?
>>30653421
Maybe we are the people who would like to live in a collective in a anarcho-invidualist system.
Anarchism doesn't work you fucking retards.
Anarchy is a period of time between state policies and figures. It doesn't work on long term like you retards are planning it.
>>30653779
Yes, because system that forces everyone to live in certain system isn't anarchistic.
>>30653779
Yes, anarchy is a type of government, socialism and capitalism are economic systems. It's kind of like how you can have democratic socialism or democratic mixed market capitalism.
if I'm an egoist do I count as an anarchist?
for me, true individuality doesn't give a shit about anything but his own will
say, would you believe a king is an anarchist?
I'd say he's the perfect egoist. Right on top, ruling everything and making justice on his own accord and preferences.
I don't believe in any "ism" but egoism, if it's the will of those corporates to conquer and enslave us, well, too bad for us if we allow it to happen, but there is no difference in the egoism of one and another. I just don't believe in social order or justice/equality or morality forced from the outside, it's all a spook trying to stop you from doing your will.
so would I classify as an anarchist or an egoist? or are they both mutually inclusive?
>>30653369
>anarchism
I would hope so, but talk to leftists from here or leddit and see what they think about you owning the "means of production". These people are just entitled scum in general.
>corporatism
Where the hell did I insinuate corporatism is a good thing? Corporatism is simply the collusion between the monopoly of force that the government holds with certain businesses that endows them benefits/advantages to circumvent the natural rules of the free market. Without the government, these corporatists would be completely fucked, but of course so many leftists/authoritarians from the right support government coercion for their own self-serving interests (welfare,protectionist markets, muh military, etc.) and opens the door for the corporatists to use this massive coercive power for their self-serving uses as well. The point is authoritarians are the truly selfish ones and will always get their way so long as the government holds the power to steal from us, not we libertarians who are simply consistent in opposing coercion by living things against other living things etc.
I am anti-state. I hesitate to call myself anarchist because socialists say that anarchism means opposition to both the state and capitalism. I think people should be free to associate in all sorts of ways, including in capitalist arrangements, so I don't fall under their definition of anarchist.
>>30653543
>it could AnCaps.
how? you do understand our philosophy is simply that of non-aggression, right? Why would we ever care to coerce you into being an individualist when you're just acting amongst other who voluntarily agreed to be collectivists and not coercing us?
I've seen anarchists say that they oppose private gun ownership. What's up with that?
>>30654046
They might be a pacifist or other type of hippy?
>>30643250
what are those? i read the wiki intro on mutualism and i don't get it. care to explain?
>>30653421
Stop shitting up our thread you faggot, one sided contracts are coercion, power in few hands is coercion and somebody shouldn't be able to kill 10 people before his reputation as a murderer gets out.
>>30653831
>in favor of laissaz-faire co-operatism in which property and capital is owned on an individual and collective level
>mfw capitalists accuse me of being a socialist and socialists accuse me of being a capitalist
Feels good being a hard-center Mutualist.
>>30654046
>oppose private gun ownership
I swear to fucking god, how do these retarded leftarchists plan to accomplish this imposition if they want "anarchy"? can someone explain to me why all leftards are so fucking contradictory and inconsistent/selectively ignorant/cherrypick everything? Actually I figure it's probably because of their sense of entitlement and how they need to constantly justify it. They are truly selfish scum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-anarchism
Crypto FTW. For anyone actually interested in decentralizing society, instead of just trying to run away from mommy and daddy.
Sin Dios, Ni amo!
>>30654007
I'd classify you as having anarchist ideals which is more than enough to call you an ally.
>>30654135
>our thread
>you faggot
leftard calls me a faggot, lolz
>contracts
>are coercion
voluntary agreements are coercion, lel
contradictions, contradictions everywhere by entitled retards known as leftists
>>30654046
Who? Are you sure that isn't just a strawman?
>>30654135
This is how I'm going to start responding to ancaps from now on: http://www.tubechop.com/watch/2955846
AnCap
>>30654212
In an anarchist society, if someone wanted to role-play consensual wage-slavery they could, just like S&M freaks can role-play chattel slavery right here and now, even though chattel slavery is abolished.
However, since all property would be communal, no one would be forced to work for anyone else.
>>30654007
>I am anti-state.
call yourself a voluntaryist bro. What you are is what I am, except I prefer for capitalism because it's just voluntary exchange. If people want to be socialist and living in their community where they voluntarily expropriate from each other to tend to their member's needs, so be it, idgaf at all.
>>30643228
Can't post.. I'm dead & my gf is not supposed to post for 4 months. Fuck it, I'll post just to piss people off and watch dumbasses cry, then really not post for 4 months.
>tfw I am best troll of all time
>>30654307
So a libertarian farmer, in order to have property rights to work his own land is going to need to have a contract with every other person on earth. Does this sound stupid to you? These are the types of strawmen you are bringing up.
>>30654363
>http://www.tubechop.com/watch/2955846
Holy shit I lol'd. Thanks for that.
>>30643228
Are you looking for anarchists or left wing, welfare kiddies?
>>30654370
my nigga
>>30654383
>since all property would be communal
no retard, impossible, lmfao. This is what defines leftarchist entitlement/contradictions. You are not for no government in the least you fucking idiot, I, and many others, will not accept your forcing me to share my property with you or your fucking collective, retard.
>wage slave
>>30654307 pic related imbecile
>>30654383
> all property would be communal
Even the toothbrush I use?
>>30654425
captcha: efightd ground
>>30654540
If a left-wing, welfare kiddie wants your item, it is communal property, if that same left-wing, welfare kiddie wants to keep something to themselves, it is now called "personal" property.
>>30654503
Here's a crazy thought: What if property was controlled by individuals who earned it according to the relative value of their labor instead of gaining it through exploitation?
>Ideal AnCap society
>>30654540
A toothbrush is a personal possession.
Personal tools are productive objects that can be used by a single person.
Property consists of the tools and productive systems that take multiple people to operate. For justice and equality to exist, property must be communal. Today one class owns most of the property, but does not work, while another class (the great majority of humanity) owns no property, but does most of the work. A small middle or petite-bourgeois class also exists which owns some property, but also works. These are small business owns and salaried professionals with stock or business equity.
>>30654658
lol
Strawmen? Do you know what they word means you fucking idiot?
>>30654431
>in order to have property rights to work his own land is going to need to have a contract with every other person on earth
How retarded are you? What you're suggesting is an actual strawman you fucktard. So long as his property is clearly indicated to others to be his (e.g. fences, signs, guards, lawns or any kind of demarcating boundary), he can be morally justified in defending it and do to it what he pleases.
>>30653848
>Anarchism doesn't work you fucking retards.
It works between governments, doesn't it?
>>30654383
>> all property would be communal
yablewit.jpg
>>30654694
Wouldn't the persistence of markets lead to all kinds of problems with negative economic externalities like pollution costs, systemic risk, inequality magnified through the generations via gifts and inheritance until the class system reemerges?
Wouldn't any regulatory apparatus powerful and informed enough to internalize the externalities simply be able to run a planned economy in the first place without the overhead of also running a market?
>>30654702
>>30654702
Called it: >>30654662
>>30654702
To elaborate on this point small businesses and the state provide about 85% of the employment, so you have to wonder if big business and corporations really deserve all the special considerations they receive.
>>30654694
>relative value of their labor
lmfao, wtf is relative value of their labor? you mean subjective value of their labor? So you're saying if I voluntary hire some entitled leftist and he voluntarily agrees to work on my property in exchange for an amount that we agree is the worth of his labor, he is then entitled to my property because he worked on it for that wage? Holy fucking shit, you leftists are just too retarded.
>>30654761
Which results in people trying to take his land from him in a never ending cycle of fighting and chaos. Of course mass spamming cartoon strawmen as if I have time to refute them one by one is ridiculous, especially as you don't even seem to know the points of contention.
>>30654967
Now you're just putting words in my mouth. Calm the fuck down, bucko. We were all having a good time until you showed up.
>>30654887
How do you figure out who gets to use what and when objectively if everyone owns everything equally?
>>30655046
Central planning of course.
>>30654702
If nobody can own property, nobody can profit from property.
If nobody can profit from property nobody would make property.
So how are factories made when it is in everyone's interest to not contribute to making that factory and there is no central authority to force people to make a factory?
Yo!
>>30643267
>>30643395
>>30647923
Why still exists the assholism about 'zapatistas'?... Im mexican, from mexico city for all you retards subcomandante marcos was a scam. They only exploit indigenous people on coffe swetshops and then they put them to sell coffe at universities, so hippies can buy 'zapatista-coffe' in order to 'support the cause'. Also marco´s little sister is a senator of the most corrupt-narco-party (PRI). Also the CISEN (mexican paramilitar intelligence) destroy all "bad guerrillas" and let the EZLN continue scamming hippies, this is just a well thought business...dont be retarded, seriously...
>>30655039
>Now you're just putting words in my mouth
where? So what is the relative value of labor? Just answer the question if you assertion is true.
Also what is exploitation, or rather why is it wrong? Exploitation, as I understand it, is simply someone taking advantage of something or someone else, and not necessarily through coercion. In essence, it is simply being intelligent enought to leverage one's property, lmfao. Whether it's my body, or my house, I can voluntarily leverage this to my benefit, but your entitled leftists will cry "muh exploitation" because you're entitled/too retarded to avoid being "taken advantage" (when in actuality it's for your mutual benefit as a voluntary exchange)of by your own fucking volition. Go look at the pic>>30654967
It sums up why you leftists are full of shit.
>>30655301
Calm down, bro. Just take it easy.
Here, have some more Rothbard.
>>30655093
>Central planning of course.
lmfao, ahh "anarchists" my ass, fucking leftards.
>>30655359
>more Rothbard.
cool, we of course don't believe anyone is forced to do anything for anyone else unless they agreed to do it in a voluntary exchange. My parents didn't have to feed me/cloth me/house me and I raised this understanding to them often when they tried to discipline me by threatening to stop supporting me. However, they never stopped under their own volition, and I as another person have no right to coerce them into serving me. Get rekt by the moral consistency of libertarians unlike you entitled, selectively ignorant (e.g. muh private property, personal possessions, w.e arbitrary entitlement justification etc)leftards.
>>30653421
Nah, you're both faggots. Right-wing ones are a bit more insufferably smug though.
>>30655763
So if in an anarchist society I claim that all of Bill Gates money actually belongs to me, then society is using force against me by not giving me all of Bill Gates money?
>>30656118
In equal measure to if an unknown hobo claimed that a Bill Gatesian amount money belonging to a town full of people actually belonged to him.
Classical left wing anarchy isn't based on the NAP to begin with, so it can hardly contradict a definition it cannot use.
Classical anarchy is not so much the absence of coercion relating to person and property, but the absence of legal hierarchy where there would be a leaders (including over property in the work place) and the special class of police who get to enforce laws exclusively. In classical anarchy, anyone can enforce the laws that their fellows have common agreement with. In economics, classical social anarchy essentially says that anyone who works upon a thing has ownership of that thing, so workers own their businesses and can elect temporary managers and work things out to run the factory or whatever. In all cases of anticapitalist anarchy, property can only be possessed, and absentee ownership is not possible.
There are different strains though. Mutualists allow each person to possess a means of production, and they allow private possession of individual product, while making sure collectively worked means of production are the collective property of those workers. Anarcho-communism, by contrast, abolishes money and not only enforces collective ownership of the means of production, but also of products, so that all products are sent to a free store, so that everyone who works to the best of his ability can meet their needs without monetary cost. Ancoms vary on accepting other communities being mutualist or other kinds of classic anticapitalist anarchy, so how far their law goes may vary, but you can see that classically speaking, anarchy does NOT mean no laws, only no formal unrecallable leaders, no title of absentee private ownership, and no special enforcer classes. VERY different from simply being "no coercion."
>>30656118
I'll put it in a way that you can understand.
In an anarchistic society there is no standard for property rights, as there is no coercive state to enforce it. Property rights are contractually agreed-upon like everything else. By claiming ownership of anything, you are subjecting every other human being that could come to own said thing to the terms of a contract they did not agree upon. This is a power-grabbing, hierarchy-forming, criminal action.
In honor of every anarchism thread on /pol/ that gets inevitably shat on.
The one bug jagged edge with anarchy is going to be bribery. People wanting to get ahead will always try to pay somebody off and someone greedy will always have their hand out.
Now with no ruling system to protect from bribery total monopolies will ruin it.
Don't get me wrong I know government don't fix this problem however there is a framework there that somewhat reigns it in.
>>30656768
I didn't do it.
>of course, I have a reputation anyways
>>30657005
lol
Since after you had to let OP know you're here, I've just been lurking..
>>30656437
Property rights are not something agreed upon by society, they are innate.
If a monkey plucks a banana from a tree and another monkey takes it from him, he is going to use violence to get it back.
Did the monkeys democratically decide that if a monkey plucks a banana from a tree, then that banana is his property?
Did the monkey elder decide that?
Your house is not your house because society says it is your house
Your house is your house because you worked to get it.
And you are not pissed of if somebody takes your shit because society told you but because you evolved to be pissed of.
>>30657051
I'm sure you've noticed that anarcho-coldwar is a thing.
>mfw anarcho-coldwar where anarcho-commies and anarcho-capitalists can argue forever
>>30657140
They want anarchy, but they're arguing about economics and what the rules should be.
It's somewhat ironic.
>>30657231
There are two types of anarchists (and it hasn't much to do with left vs right, center is best): stupid ones and smart ones
>shut up and lurk a thread like this sometime
>you will be entertained
Then of course there's 'I'm 12 and what is this?' (that's you, though you aren't really 12, you just haven't ever been able to encounter anarchists for this long)
>>30657105
And that is why Ancaps can't get along with all the other Anarchists. You ditch Individualism from the get-go by starting with presumptions of property rights.
The monkey owns the banana because it is not worth it to the other monkeys to take away his banana. If the monkey were to "own" ALL of the bananas, the situation would be different, as it logically follows.
Your house is yours not because you toiled for it and it is "rightfully" yours. It is yours because we have mechanisms, agreed by consensus, that make other people recognize your efforts and not come and take it.
The mere fact that left-anarchists and loads of other political philosophies reject your notion of property rights, not to even mention the "innate" nature you place upon it, goes to show that they are not, in fact, innate, as they are not even universally accepted.
>>30657231
But anarchy never meant "without rules" to begin with, so it's not ironic in the slightest...
Classical anarchy(ies) = without hierarchy (no masters and no conventional bosses with title or deed in the workplace, only managers chosen if necessary who can immediately be recalled)
Anarcho-capitalism = without coercion (meaning INITIATION of force against person or property)
>>30657408
I always thought it meant no government, no rulers, no hierarchies.
So if there are rules that everyone follows (or else have the others punish them), is that not a decentralized government itself? Unless everyone agrees with the rules and voluntarily follows them (anarcho-fascism), but that's unlikely to last long before someone wants to break the rules. What if the rules are in fact unreasonable and based on some people's emotions? Then someone will have to break them and piss everyone off all the time, causing them to punish them neverendingly. Is that not authoritarian, then?
Minarchist.
>>30657623
If the rule in question was a joke anyways, people probably shouldn't be too mad over it, but probably should have told someone within four goddamned years that it was a joke.
Most anarchists fail at being anarchists somehow. (even you: you'd be vigilante justice, therefore forming a police of sorts to do so, thereby inherently creating a state in the process, just as you are saying here)
>>30657624
What are you scared of? Neverending street wars?
>>30657817
>father joined in the military during the 'nam war
>mother (kind of an old hippie) was affiliated with biker gangs and got in trouble for making meth in her kitchen
>I was constantly in fights at school and nothing makes someone a 12 year old anarchist like a school system where lazy teachers scapegoat a well-behaved kid all the time
I think I see a pathological reason why I take everything entirely too seriously.
>>30657623
>o if there are rules that everyone follows (or else have the others punish them), is that not a decentralized government itself?
You are now beginning to realize that most anarchists are fucking retarded.
The things these 'anarchists' say they want, is not actually anarchy.
>>30657972
>didn't have a childhood, parents divorced
>'hey where u from?'
>'uh.. hell?'
Yeah, but it's not just that. I've gone over it with you a few dozen times now.
Also, your writing is in a kind of childlike style for the greentext.
>>30657623
Anarchism is kind of absolutist and silly, but left wing anarchists such as ancoms tend to define the state as being the instrument for the oppression of one class by another, and given that they believe that after the revolution and expropriation of workplaces, the workers will all live in communism with common ownership of all means of production, there will be no classes, and therefore no need for a state. It all sounds vague to me. Do they imagine that the end of classes means the end of all serious disputes therefore no need for a state? Can an ancom clear this up?
Ancaps often use this definition of the state "a geographical monopoly on the initiation of force". But if that's true would anybody breaking the NAP and initiating force be a mini-state until he was stopped? Also, doesn't this definition allow an individual to get richer and richer while not initiating force, and owning more and more property until they have enough to start telling everyone what to do while supposedly not initiating force? According to Ancap NAP, no, but to everyone else super-extended absolute property rights start to look like a state again.
It seems like all anarchy is incoherent due to being too absolutist. It's liable to self-detonate. The only coherent alternates are libertarianism or decentralism which accepts the state, but wants to minimize the power of rulers, the number of rules and their severity, without pretending you can ABOLISH such things.
>>30657392
>The monkey owns the banana because it is not worth it to the other monkeys to take away his banana.
The only reason it is not worth it is because he would fight to get it back.
A monkey that does not fight to get his banana back would not survive because other monkeys keep taking his goddamn bananas and he would have nothing to eat.
Humans evolved to fight for what they worked for because otherwise we would be distinct already.
>The mere fact that left-anarchists and loads of other political philosophies reject your notion of property rights, not to even mention the "innate" nature you place upon it, goes to show that they are not, in fact, innate, as they are not even universally accepted.
That is their philosophy but not how they would act in reality.
If they build a sand castle and I smashed it they would not say ''that's cool, I don't believe that you can own land anyway''.
>>30658084
>>30658192
It seems to me like the closest thing to pure anarchy would be absense of government and little street wars between groups over resources until eventually, something comparable to a government exists as one group eventually emerges as the victor over a large area.
So it seems to me like if anarchy actually managed to exist, it would self-destruct after a while. Minarchy seems like the closest realistically sustainable thing to it.
>>30658415
>constant street wars and you could live with that
>but ideally, a state could exist for vigilante justice against the most despicable people
I think you've failed to be anarchist in the best way possible.
But ideally, nobody should rule. Best ruler is a dead ruler, amiright?
>>30658647
That would be some type of necrocracy if the ruler were dead.
The only way to bring about anarchy is to kill everyone. There's no hierarchy among the dead.
>>30658723
Not if he's dead because he an hero'd and doesn't want to rule anymore because he saw how that crap doesn't work and then doesn't want anyone to rule anymore.
>>30658213
You and every other animal fight for something not because of some abstract notion of property, but because you view said thing as something that will aid you in whatever goals you seek to achieve. Your base desire isn't that of exclusivity, but of functionality. Ownership is an abstract concept to contextualize that desire, taking into account scarcity and degradability of the things we usually seek. It is not some holy static variable of the human condition.
>>30654935
The SBA and other agencies define "small business" as companies with up to 1500 people and tens of millions of dollars in sales.
These are not mom-and pop companies. The owners are full bourgeois, not petite-bourgeois.
>>30655100
No individual owns property. We all own and manage it collectively.
>>30654887
More like "The Conqueat of Beard".
>>30658775
>anarchy is unsustainable (eventually, a government emerges)
>governments are unsistainable (can't last forever without becoming authoritarian)
>even a dictator with sincerely benevolent intentions doesn't live forever and gets wrekt by other governments
A great thousand-year reich of any kind isn't possible.
>>30655046
Participatory democratic planning with iterated discussions between federated worker and consumer councils.
>>30658920
Despite your tendency to make typoes, you have such good foresight due to an ability to understand how things work and therefore figure out how things will/would play out without/before those things happening, since you have a strategist's brain..
>you are absolutely right
gb2 studying (your time should not be wasted like this for at least 4 months)
>>30643228
Left-Anarchism is just about the most retarded thing ever
Yet another thread ruined by leftists and tripfaggotry.
>>30653518
>Anarchism is government by muh feels
>>30659272
There's no such thing as right-anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism is a misnomer when taken in light of the broader anarchist tradition.
>>30659435
Tell that to people who call themselves left-libertarians
I.e., people who actually think Marxist economic systems are superiour on merit.
>>30643228
Anarchist reporting in.
When we'll get city-states as society's expression of voluntary cooperation is the moment the anarchist movement will finally succeed in becoming a reality
>>30657817
>>30657972
>>30658145
>>30658415
>>30658723
>>30658920
the fuck is with all this samefag? I'm really starting to wonder how small a group of people /pol/ really is...
>>30660001
>anarchists of all walks will never collaborate to claim a massive section of land that will be divvied between socialists, capitalists, mutualists, primitivists and others to run their own separate stateless societies
>>30660652
>people will never realise that city-states are the perfect form of human functioning within a society
>>30660432
>mfw captain obvious has arrived to make a pointless declaration
>inb4 retard posse arrives to complain about a strange couple posting
>inb4 retard posse arrives to suggest me and my gf are the same person
>inb4 retard posse arrives to scream about alleged mental illness
>inb4 retard posse is so upset they always need to comment
>mfw retard posse is always fucking trolled right as I wouldn't be as amused by it anymore, the stupid cunts
I said we'll not post for at least 4 months. Are you capable of not replying to us after I announce this, or did my gf really make idiots cry this hard?
>>30661191
Psyops knows enough about how the mind works to know when to start being upset about it (and that right away is not a good time because that's when someone who is trolling will laugh the hardest). Figures, right?
>>30661278
I think it's just that we're good trolls (we annoy people), thus resulting in what always happens. It just never happens fast enough for us to be laughing right when it does happen.
>>30661340
Hm. Seems likely. Psyops seems like they finally got scared and shoved their weird bullshit up their ass.
>>30661381
It almost seems like they killed themselves sometime last year or something.
>>30661428
That would be nice, but it's more likely that they just gave up during all the chaos.
>>30661569
At least assuming they're somewhat rational, you are probably a very low priority to them. Clearly, we have won against psyops since we got them to give up and leave you alone. So we should stop trolling them and you should gb2 studying. Right now.
I like the idea of anarchy. Liberty and shit is pretty much top priority for me, but, I'm having a really hard time seeing how it could work. Minarchism/Libertarianism seems possible. Is it an idealist thing, like communism or is there some practicality that I'm missing here?
>>30662066
>practicality
Yes, like minded people live in communities where they can agree with one another, consequently establishing an efficiently organised hivemind that can deal decision making easy, without the need for voting or something else.
>>30662287
But could you prevent the extinction of the species absolutely?
Arachno-communism will prevail.
>>30662556
Got any with Proudhon / Warren / Tucker?
>>30662299
>>30662503
>>30662556
kekd
Got any more?
>>30662381
i dont understand your question
>>30662777
Words to avoid the filter, maybe?
pages/Arachno-Communism/564040200355552
>>30643250
sounds edgy as fuck for "totalitarian"
Transportation technology is the means of production
Social ownership of the means of production means individual's access to transportation technology is subject to the will of the majority
Therefore socialism is basically democratic feudalism. If the majority doesn't want you to leave, you're not able to. RIP Liberty
Libertarian socialism is an oxymoron
>>30663303
Uh, no.
>>30663303
>everyone having access to something means nobody has access to it
Not even ansoc, but that's just fucking dumb.
>>30663303
A road is a structure built by several people which vastly increases productivity of just about every productive activity. As such, it should be socially owned and its construction should be decided upon collectively.
A car is a personal item, for personal use, driven by one singular individual. While it may be used in a way that increases productivity, it is still in essence a product geared towards the individual and as such it is owned personally.
"Transportation technology" is an abstraction of both these two and countless other moving parts. It signifies nothing, and affects the use of each methodology of ownership in absolutely no way.
You shallow, dumb, fundamentalist motherfucker.
If you're in a social anarchist community where all of the transportation is owned collectively how are you supposed to leave? Pretty sure they're not going to just let you drive off into the sunset with their stuff.
>>30663303
How to leave a libertarian socialist community:
>Get in car or other means of transportation
>Leave
>>30663303
Anarcho capitalist here
You're arguments are shit and you should leave the commies in peace to get their sharing on.
Fuck off ya ding bat
"Having a few books was fine, but having a private car was unacceptable. Items like cars were communally owned and had to be requested in advance by members or used for work related duties."[24]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz
muh Chomsky
>>30663918
Kek, implying jews could function in a system without ruthless backstabbing individualism
>>30663847
Thank you. This is the post I've been hoping to see all this time.
I'm upset by the large growth of the ancap movement, but if there can just be more people like you raising your voice I'd have a much higher opinion of it.
New thread
>>30666945
>>30666945
>>30666945
>>30643228
>any 12 year olds here
FTFY
Anarcho-capitalism is the best anarchism.
>>30645902
>Without a government, there would be endless violence and zero stability
OH MY GOD THERE ISN'T A GOVERNMENT BETWEEN THE US AND CANADA AND MEXICO THEY'RE GONNA FIGHT UNTIL ONLY ONE IS LEFT
oh wait, those nations have been peaceful for hundereds of years without any coercion happenning between them. same for europe for the past 60, russia and china, etc.
there is already anarchy between governments. it isn't bad at all.
the only thing to lose your shackles.
>>30663977
Do you have any actual statistics on these anarcho capitalists who supposedly say you're not allowed to live in a commune in an anarchist society? You sound like a whiny cunt.
In my past experiences it has routinely been the opposite, with anarcho socialists/Marxists/whatever implying that free trade would not be possible in their utopia, as any form of private property goes against their ideology since it is "oppressive."
So what the fuck are you even on about? Where are the boogeymen you've constructed? Have you done this to easily discount your opponents, you faggot?
I mean, holy shit. Anarchisism as a whole is such a self-defeating, ALREADY divided philosophy, that I could not understand why anyone would subscribe to it. You are literally rebels without a cause.
Anarcho-communist.
>>30653079
>hired gun treating some dirt-farmer like a king
Yeah that's totally how it goes.
>>30671249
What is the A3 in the right corner?
>>30672007
>what are nukes
>what is economics
>what is silent war
>what is profit
anarchy is literally what you see in any after-math story. its not that a government is bad in general, its just that our government is very badly handled. government was originally not more than a basic foundation of rules, so everyone could live in peace, until greedy fucks completely exploited it, and people are too stupid to realize.
the only way, is a government governed by no one, but the people directly itself.
anarchy is wishful thinking and only could work if every single person in the world understands the concept of basic rules like no killing/no stealing/no leading etc
>>30644404
> Basically an industrial chiefdom with a democratic system/weekly meeting to decide who stays, who goes, who comes in, who's getting transfered, new ideas we may have etc, even the chief can transfer or be replaced
> It would be a socialist system / internal currency system. But all the money that comes in is effectively distributed throughout the entire participating network.
> After five years a new bike opportunity or ten years a new car opportunity is reinstated.
>And anyone can start a business at any time as a side income to their main job without question or intervention, ever.
I have seen some shit on /po/l man but what you just described is one of the most batshit insane ridiculously flawed system i have ever heard described.
>>30645611
chinese anarchists were amongst some of the first to oppose foreign concessions in china
>basically the state had failed to adequately protect it's borders and had become so powerless to foreign interests that a non-state situation would be preferable
>>30676800
are you calling for direct democracy
ANCAP here
>>30682487
fuck off and die faggot
>>30685889
>>30682819
statist gulag enthusiast pls
>>30685909
>>30643228
Anarcho-capitalist reporting in
>mfw people legitimately believe in anarchy and think it would work in the long run
>>30653079
sums up their idiotic belief perfectly
>>30686021
>>30685956
>the earth cannot be property of individuals
>wants to steal achievements from people
>thinks mankind can just magically dissolve its differences and achieve utopia
>thinks the people are selfless enough to be all giving to one another despite cultural boundaries
anarchists are so dumb, holy shit
>>30685975
>>30686000
>>30686021
You are actually stupid enough to confuse Libertarianism with Anarcho-Capitalism and Objectivism? And then you're actually stupid enought to imply that Friedman was an Anarcho Capitalist?
Take your shitty facebook tier image macros back to tumblr.
I've never looked up what I belong to.
I don;t care about anything. Nothing. I think humanity tries to hard to act civil meanwhile we wage war over things like Oil, land and we charge people insane amounts of money to save their lives while they die of terminal illness. We fight over skin color, sexual orientation and idiots walk among us who think that there exists some master race who will lead them to a utopia - I feel sorry for them, the deluded fucks.
All of life really is a stage of people pretending we as a race are more than evolved apes. Some say we're chosen by some god - I don't think so. No foreseeing god would be silly enough to not see this shit coming.
I just want to get through life, live in hedonism and then die with No fuss and no alarms.
'This is your life, and it's ending one minute at a time.'
upa bum
>>30686280
What's wrong, too asspained that your shitty ideology got debunked in a couple of simple image macros?
>>30686466
Give you give a shit about violence and people getting hurt? Then you're probably anarcho-pacifist.
Do you NOT give a shit about violence and people getting hurt? Then you're probably anarcho-nihilist.
>>30686798
I contend that there is fuck all I can do about suffering. I'd help someone if I saw them getting jumped for example, but I'm not going to march the street with a sign because of war crimes in some hell hole in the middle east. I'd be lying if I said I cared about it that much.
I'd have no problem killing someone who would put my life in danger.
>>30660652
reminded me of Ringworld, by Larry Niven
>>30660786
reminded me of why that book made me sad...
fucking kill yourselved faggots
>>30689059
>Ringworld, by Larry Niven
tl;dr?
>>30662503
Reminds me of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l453szonvE
>>30660582
so edgy
>>30681513
How is it flawed? The incentive is money and a socialist network, but any kind of business can also supplement ones personal needs.
In other words, there is just enough structured labor to satisfy those who prefer order, and just enough freedom to satisfy those who prefer personal business models.
I don't see a problem with what I said at all. A bike for example is there to help, the help would come directly from a risk pool created by the participating members. They can also opt out if they wish. But ultimately it's to help people who share like minded goals. And it's a privilege not some given right to own a bike or car. If anything people should be working for transportation.
