/lit/ - Literature

you dont

V for Vendetta
And then Proudhon or some shit, probably

I started with a little Chomsky, the Very Short Introduction to Anarchism, and the anthology No Gods, No Masters, which is excellent as it gives you a wide variety of early theorists to make your own decisions on who to further investigate.
The general start would be Proudhon and Stirner

But just look at this 500+ volume one!
300 CE to 1939. Dang.

>>14375430
Take an IQ test. If you score higher than 70, headbutt a brick wall until you get a concussion. Repeat that until you get the desired test results.

At that point, and only at that point will you understand anarchist literature.

It is literally a political ideology for edgy teenagers who have no concept of history of human nature.

>>14375430
>Anarchism is about the development of the individual to free their spirit and creative power
>Hardly any good anarchist literature
It refutes itself.

>>14375486
>Appeals to History and muh human nature.
You ignorant slug. You know absolutely nothing about this topic.

>>14375494
You either

In order:
>God and the State, by Bakunin
>What is Property?, by Proudhon
>The Conquest of Bread, by Kropotkin
That's maybe the best introduction with unabridged primary sources. Also what >>14375469 suggested.

>>14375522

>>14375486
>human nature
>implying human behavior isn’t the result of overlapping cognitive functions uniquely formed within the individual as a result of their experiences

>>14375504
>we haven't been organizing and killing each other since prehistory
>if we end the government then nobody will ever thing of grouping up and exerting power again

How are anarchists this retarded? Is it magic? Is it drugs? Is it some form of trolling?

>>14375599
You clearly don't know what anarchism is about. Read Bakunin.

V for Vendetta
1984
Industrial Society and Its Future
The New Testament

>voluntary cooperation without recourse to force or compulsion
Lmao. Literally socio-linguistically and ontologically impossible.

>>14375705
Naw.
This global society runs on competitive capitalism and elitism. You switch that off and people would change their behavior. The random crazies would be less and be taken care of, studied to see how to avoid making anymore random crazies.
You’ve been lied to about this “human nature” canard. The mind is quite malleable.

>>14375430
anarcho communism is for faggots but syndicalism is okay

This is a great read so far

>>14375720
That is correct, Butterfly :3

Sounds like you do not ascribe to this left/right nonsense either

Read every poet from 'Villon'

>>14375720
People are largely amoral, selfish and greedy, it cannot be studied away, it cannot be bred out. You cannot ignore history and mankind’s capacity for violence and greed. You reds are no different. Pol pot slaughtered people, because they wore glasses.

It’s never the intelligentsia that’s take over after for you reds, it’s the tankies.

>>14376075
>People like sex
>People act in their self interest
Ancient objects of piety
>you can’t study/breed
We do it now.
Failed state socialism is just failed statism, no better or worse, just different and not the desired effect. You aren’t one to even consider this “red” stuff, you’re too scared shitless to look into it, so you pop into these threads to repeat the same old cold war liberal propaganda to make yourself feel better.
Cut it out. Shut up about it or read up on it

Photograph by Henri Cartier-Bresson (anarchist)

>>14376117
>objects
Objections.*
Friggin chellcheck

>>14376117
You have failed to demonstrate how you can remove self-interest from the human genome. Babies prefer others of their own race. Babies steal. Babies fight. And in time, those instincts are suppressed through social pressure. How far do you think they can be suppressed and for how long? We both know all three of the things i've mentioned are rampant in modern society. It's been fun seeing you get more and more deranged, you dumb fucker, like a moth to a flame, and you're already ash. I'll be sure to be gracious once i create a foodstamp mafia in your little butt-buddy circlejerk Ancomistan.

>>14375720
I'm not talking about human nature, I'm talking about our capacity for language and representation, which is fundamentally an impositional (i.e. top-down) process. If you can formulate a way to impose your anarchist utopia voluntarily (see the performative contraction here?), I'd like to hear it.

>>14375430
Just read Bakunin

>>14375720
have you read pic related?

In Defense of Anarchism, by Robert Paul Wolff

Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology, by David Graeber
Society Against the State: Essays in Political Anthropology, by Pierre Clastres
People without Government: An Anthropology of Anarchy, by Harold Barclay

The Political Economy of Participatory Economic, by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel

>>14376117
>>14376117
What you called “failed state socialism” is just plain ole socialism playing out, turns out it’s a failure of a system.

Your accusation reeks of irony, considering your deliberate ignorance of history, of humanities capacity for violence and greed.

Reds are statists no matter what they call themselves, anarchists just statists without a state that routinely get rolled by states that cut the bullshit.

>>14375599
>>14375705

anarchists don't truly believe in a society of absolutely free individuals with no responsibilities or association or power whatsoever. it's merely about ending the ability of individuals to own other individuals, about ending the ability of individuals to own all the land at the expense of all other individuals, and dogmatic belief systems at the expense of local evaluations

what happened 2000 years ago in ancient rome (ownership of land and people) is no more true of human nature than what happened in Spain in the 20th century (real anarchist societies of association) and the real, existing small scale anarchist communities existing today

>>14376075
no dude, this is your own cope speaking, and western cope for its own existence. there are plenty of tribal societies that exist without falling into amoral selfish greedy disrepair, all those things are what happens when you give people the unreasonable ability to take as much as they like at the expense of others. Capitalism isn't 'human nature'. And no, anarchists aren't simple pacifists, either. People of all kinds can do bad things, individuals can be greedy, but that doesn't justify this crappy system we currently use, and it doesn't justify it as inherent to our nature

>>14376576
Those communities were run to ground by states, larger statists killing off smaller statists. Anarchists want a state, because that is the only way to get what they want. There will always be those in control.

>>14376591
that's true, but you could say the same about socialism/communism. Our current civilisation prevails because it is strongest geopolitically, not because it is the most morally righteous or beneficial or anything inherent to human nature

>>14375504

Human nature is an obviously real phenomenon which is useful for understanding reality. For example, I invite you to attempt not breathing for ten minutes. Julien Coupat, the Imaginary Party et al are all morons, and I still want your home address so we can be rid of you.

>>14376586
Small tribes that exist on substinance living, small communities that also have a history of violence and greed in their own way, don’t fall for the noble savage meme. In any case, it’s also slowly dying out in this globalized world. Turns out a great majority don’t like living in the dirt.

It’s not justification, it’s a statement of inescapable reality. Capitalism isn’t human nature, but a result of it, turns out it is the only functioning large scale economic system, and the only one to raise global standards of living. Funny how you reds had to kill people, to prevent them from leaving the workers paradise.

And before you start stuttering about inequality and poverty. Suffering and poverty is the natural state of mankind when you stripe away all the systems. People are not equal and there will always be those that make it, and those that don’t, same fact for your noble savages. Life’s not fair, and never will be. At least with capitalism and neo-liberal government, these factors are largely mitigated.

>>14376642
>these factors are largely mitigated
how?
please tell me how?
like you dont even have to be left to understand that capitalism compounds these factors

>>14376642
>Funny how you reds had to kill people, to prevent them from leaving the workers paradise.
haha, i'm not a red my friend. So *I* didn't have to do anything of the sort. It would be nice if you didn't have all the assumptions of who you are debating with, as I am in fact a slippery snake and capable of seeing the value and devalue of every eventuality, like a truly intelligent being, unlike most ordinary humanoids

jokes aside, I get why you see it that way, the way our civilisation depicts anything other than the current paradigm as inherently evil and lacking in morality isn't just limited to Anarchism, but to religious sects of all kinds, indiginous communities living in the fringes of capitalism, even the excesses of capital are blamed on 'narcissists' or 'sociopaths' – when you are so dominant it's easy to look elsewhere and cherry pick what looks unappealing, but of course, the criticisms of capitalism are equally as valid. I personally do not think Anarchy would be 'utopia', it would be a very different way of life, but for me personally, i think it would be price worth paying, especially those living in slums (you baited me to say it) having nothing to lose but trying to self-organise, and rise out of 'the dirt' by actively creating your local community. I personally find it very interesting that 'naturally' people find it so hard to organise at all.

The best possible way of this way of life succeeding would probably be within a larger technological state, not too dissimilar from our own now

>>14376687
Are you honestly that blind? Or are you willfully ignorant? People have unparalleled access to information, technology and food due to capitalism and liberal governments. They have a higher degree of security and social/economic mobility than ever before. If you honestly are going to tell me the waste that was the USSR as a good thing, than you must be touched in the head. From the horror stories of family, I’ll take capitalism.

Read Marquis De Sade or Stirner — the only two leftists with any gall about them.

>>14376708
You honestly think those in the slums, are any less loathsome or unscrupulous than anyone else you are highly mistaken.

You think gangbangers or white trash are gonna make nice in this anarchist dream?

Best chance those in the slums have of getting out, is to play ball. But even then that won’t work for some because there will always be a bottom rung.

Tragic what occurred to the Natives, but don’t pretend people in the USA, Canada and other nations, would change anything or give up land. It’s a dog eat dog world.

>>14376712
ussr was a failure but still it developed faster than america at the time

also
>acces to information
the groundwork for the internet was build on public funding (kinda like .. communismhuh?)
>food
people are literally starving while 1/3 of food is wasted
>technology
aah yes a new iphone every year true innovation

honestly are you blind? our world is literally dying cause of capitalism

>>14376760
>our world is literally dying cause of capitalism
Absolutely based.

>>14375483
when i got this i actually expected to get some pamphlets from pre 1000 but it jumps straight from 300 to 1500 after one.
>>14375430
>why anarchism?
at the cafe by malatesta
Abc of anarchism by berkman
mutual aid by kropotkin
>how would it come about/work?
Anarchosyndicalism theory and practice by rocker
conquest of bread by kroptkin
fields factories and workshops by kropotkin
anarchy in action by ward
Facing the enemy a history of anarchist organization by skirda
>anarchism vs marxism
marxismfreedom and the state by bakunin
my disillusionment in russia by goldman
>various but great
what is property by proudhon
god and the state by bakunin
anarchist revolution by malatesta
history of the makhnovost revolution by arshinov
youshould read marx engels and lenin tho

>>14376752
>You honestly think those in the slums, are any less loathsome or unscrupulous than anyone else you are highly mistaken.
honestly, your misanthropy is showing here dude. You can't just keep using misanthropy for a reason not to try and better ourselves. I'm quite aware bad things happen but it's not an excuse for the status quo

>You think gangbangers or white trash are gonna make nice in this anarchist dream?
gangbangers and white trash are the refuse of the capitalist dream

Again, i'm not saying it's a utopia in a different system, but certain problems on display within capitalism can't be fixed by capitalism

>Best chance those in the slums have of getting out, is to play ball.
they are playing ball, these people have moved from their rural home towns (where farming has been squeezed out by private industrialisation, and promised a new life in the big city... only problem is, government hasn't reached them yet, 'theres not enough resources' etc.

>Tragic what occurred to the Natives, but don’t pretend people in the USA, Canada and other nations, would change anything or give up land. It’s a dog eat dog world.
I agree, i just think these reservations, worldwide, are a good example of the nihilism of our current system.. wherever our beautiful arrangement of employment and wage does not yet reach, there lies stagnation, disempowerment, meandering

if anything, Anarchism could be a necessary boost to our system rather than oppositional to it

>>14375456

Do you feel proud of yourself for that post?

>>14376638

>Breathing is involuntary so human nature exists

Breathing is functional. What most people regard as 'human nature' - being selfish, greedy, inclined towards hierarchy, being warmongering - are all rational actions, not biological reflexes. Terrible analogy.

>>14375483

Didn't know this existed, is it any good? Bookchin (who I shill shamelessly on this site) refers to a lot of spontaneous anarchic communities in Ecology of Freedom, and I was hoping to read more about them somewhere. If this is comprehensive enough I'll consider getting it.

>>14376760
>ussr was a failure but still it developed faster than america at the time
Considering it collapsed, I’d say it’s dubious progress has been rendered moot.

Groundwork only made possible by technology created through private enterprise, and no toots public does not automatically mean communism. In any case, funny how the reds were greatly behind in such tech.

There is an abundance of food and an obesity problem. While reds regularly starve in their system.

Ah yes, so you are a Luddite. Our world is not dying, yes there is climate change but fear mongering and alarmism has blown it way out of proportion. Funny also considering you reds don’t offer any solutions in any case.

>>14376826
>You can't just keep using misanthropy for a reason not to try and better ourselves
I have yet to see or read anything that contradicts it. People can try and better themselves all they want, but don't be surprised when such supposed bettering is just an excuse to fuck over someone else. People will always go out of their way to fuck over someone else, or some type of other gains. Not all the time, but the capacity is there, and the potential.

>gangbangers and white trash are the refuse of the capitalist dream
Yes, I'm sure the gangbangers not wanting to get a job or education because it would make them look white and weak, are the refuse of capitalism. Oh, I am sure the white-trash that plaster their trailers with confederate flags and vote against their best interest, are just refuse. You do have one thing right, they are refuse.

>Anarchism could be a necessary boost to our system rather than oppositional to it
I fail to see how replacing the current system with one that does not work, and most certainly would not work on a global scale, would boost anything other than its own destruction.

>>14375504
>appeals to history
we back in uh freshman year?? Comp writing 101??

>>14377244
It's not really worth debating with you mate, when your argument is
> A) Humanity is an evil piece of shit, backstabbing, impossible to improve, couldn't be any other way, poor black people are trash, poor white people are trash, rich people are just doing the normal human thing of fucking other people over
> B) please don't destroy this system and replace it with anything else, because this is the only thing that works
i mean really, what grand debate is supposed to be had with that kind of shit?

>no one has mentioned The Dispossessed

>>14375486
dumbass lol

>>14376750
calling them leftists is questionable

>>14375430
Syndicalism is gay but Mutualism is based, and the original anarchism as well

>>14375504
>anarchism has failed miserably time and time again and it's pretty obvious that there is a desire or need for hierarchy in human social interaction, but you CAN'T SAY THAT REEEEEEEEEEEE

>>14377602
They’re so far left they’re right.

>>14377552
Why would you destroy the only thing that works? Oh people improve, their greed, selfishness and capacity of violence does not, it stays and will always stay.

>>14377614
how exactly has it failed you fucking numpty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities

>>14377655
>Succumbed to infighting
>Crushed by hierarchical armies
that's why
The only successful 'anarchist' communes are ethnically homogenous, small, and usually bound together by a religious or otherwise tribal bond. Trying to forcefully expand this to a large scale while also doing away with this tribal or religious cohesion will cause it to fall apart. Which it did.

>>14377552
>A)
Humanity is not evil, stop strawmannign his position. And i will add to this that humans always have the capacity to:
>Act irrationally
>Act against their own interests
>Act for their own interests against the interests of the society
>Disregard social norms
>Disregard the law
And the list goes on and on. These are the kinds of things that cannot be "improved" in any capacity, and any lie to the contrary is utopianism at it's most lucid, so you can only imagine how fucking surreal any claims that capitalism, a system where free education is literally on the internet for free, where people could learn to game the stock market, where people could learn an important physical trade, where people could donate money to charity but choose not to, hereby demanding socialism to force the common man to part with his private property because it's quite obvious he does not wish to share it to better his society, appear to anyone who's not willfully blind to history. Even in their empathy people discriminate, and even in their hate do people help. The world is a mess of logical contradictions, and you cannot "improve" them away just by wishing humans to be good and declaring that there is no debating with "misanthropists".

>B)
Yes, so far capitalism (or in the US' case, a mangled form of capitalism) has managed to sustain and nurture a superpower, and through free intercontinential trade, enriched hundreds of countires out of poverty. Admittedly, these countries tend to be de-facto economic slaves due to trade, but that is inscribed within the very definition of trade itself: If you need something to survive and you cannot produce it, you are dependant on those that can. It is unfortunate, but i have yet to see any proof that a system could be both more economically viable than capitalism and allow for more freedom to the individual than capitalism.

Crying about "muh misanthropy" and childish moralizing is not any kind of proof that your retarded economic non-concept is in any shape better than capitalism. The have-nots will always be slaves to those that have. Capitalism has managed to mitigate this natural state of affairs far better than any sort of anarchism.

>>14377811
I've already agreed to all this and more in my previous comments. i agreed another system won't be utopian, i agreed irrationality is an inherent part of humanity, i agreed that power is the root cause of capitalisms success

unfortunately though, saying "well this system is the bestest because muh misanthropy" is fucking dumb, and why would you even engage in a poltiical discussion if that was the case.

literally which founding capitalist philosophers have said "People will always go out of their way to fuck over someone else, or some type of other gains" literally, which?

i'm not strawmanning or moralisaing over anything, but i personally can't argue with a dumbass position like that

>>14377811
Reds BTFO

>>14375456
fpbp

>>14377882
>i'm not strawmanning or moralisaing over anything, but i personally can't argue with a dumbass position like that
Then that's where i get off. I've no intentions to fight the guy's battles for him, i just came here to make the daily reminder that anarchism and socialism is doomed to fail, even if both are admirable in their intentions to better mankind.

>>14377611
no mutualism is garbage. it's like one step away from ancap

>>14377885
not really. it's just the usual economics grad student take

>>14376133
Have you failed to read Max Stirner? We don’t want to remove such a thing, we want to direct it. And human nature is malleable
>all three of these things
And they have their causes, which if addressed can be altered. The cause isn’t some hardwired brain that likes to steal, fight or find like similar looking people. Clearly that last is provably malleable
>Babies cannot learn to write
^This is what you and other liberals ITT keep saying.

>>14376137
>impose
I prefer *seduce* or persuade, as this will be better than the old dying model that threatens to kill us all.

>>14376174
No. What about it?

>>14376556
I already told you they are states. Paranoid socialism failed the Russians and continue to fail China, but capitalism is done with the US, soon the globe. A successful failure.

>>14376750
De Sade was an aristocrat rightwinger. His head imagined world was about letting loose his most depraved sexual desires including murdering. This is their dream. The fascists dream. Not the socialists dream.

>>14376877
Haven’t delved into it yet. So much to read

>>14377941
every system is doomed to fail, capitalism is doomed to fail, feudalism is doomed to fail, egyptian pharoahism is doomed to fail, mayan apocalypticism is doomed to fail

question is how do you wanna live in the meanwhile, in a Kafka-esque shithole sucking a misanthropist lolipop?

>>14378015
>every system is doomed to fail
>except anarchism

>>14378023
by inference, you might be able to deduce, i am implying, through the specialised utilisation of linguisic activity, that anarchism ultimately would suffer the same fate as any other human system

but the question remains

>>14377972
>De Sade was an aristocrat rightwinger. His head imagined world was about letting loose his most depraved sexual desires including murdering. This is their dream. The fascists dream. Not the socialists dream.
Retard.

>>14378023
Anarchism will allow such a greater freedom, you call it a golden age. The time we had on our hands would lead to science fiction scale advances and who knows what beyond.
Capitalism is marching us over a cliff to extinction

>>14377964
It'S LiKe OnE sTeP aWaY fRoM aNcAp
No it's not, you stupid fucking retard. It's the original and only actual form of anarchism.

>>14378058
yes, all dudes that make revolutions saying that kind of things "equality for everyone", "we should fight for our rights", "workers of the world unite", and then we see Camboida, Cuba, North Korea, USSR and other "progressive" states. Anarchy same shit.

>>14377972
>Clearly that last is provably malleable
It is in fact not malleable, it can be counteracted through overriding the instinct, however the instinct itself cannot be changed, only suppressed using the frontal cortex, a notably fragile part of the brain haphzardly plastered over our findamental instincts. Not to mention that anything short of genetic manipulation doesn't change such instincts from reappearing in their unrestrained form in the next generation of people.

>Babies cannot learn to write is what you and other liberals ITT keep saying.
But we're not saying that, you fucking moron. What we're saying is that a baby can learn to write, but writing goes directly against fundamental instincs, and that's why writing has to be learned. You need to pervert your motor coordination into unnatural motions. Did you know that the human vocal chords are actually damaged and irritated from talking? The most condusive form of vocalization for the human is a kind of singing, not the rough start-and-stop nature of violently slamming your throat into various unnatural, guttural sounds.

However speech isn't even a decent allegory, because there are no wider psycho-biological issues that arise from suppressing and avoiding acts most natural to our bodies. Indeed at times, no matter what you do, the human body will work against you. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Evolution has left us with myriad instincs, most of them contradictory to some degree. And as i said, you can only suppress so much before mental illnesses start setting in.

>>14378015
Are you now asking that in relation to my personal best interest or what i believe to be most condusive both to humanity's survival, individual freedom, and technological progress (which can be argued is a direct and inevitable consequence of human consciousness, even if it does go against many human traits)? If the latter, then, obviously, nationalist libertarianism. If the former, then some kind of totalitarian fascism where i'm the dictator and have robot rape camps and can basically do whatever the fuck i want because i can, and unless you're an egalitarian or a moralfag, when considering only their personal benefit people have no reason not to advocate for wishful thinking, with them as a king. However, that's not a very realistic goal.

The realistic goal here is that, considering that all systems will fail with time, how can we preserve a stable and free society, free for each individual to direct themselves as they wish? (as freedom is a fundamental human craving, almost inseparable from the will to dominate. It's a goal that tends to leave people miserable once it is reached, as evidenced by the degenerate aristocracies, but it is still invariably pursued time and time again by newer generations).

>>14378124
For the millionth time. State socialism is NOT anarchism.
People can diffuse authority amongst themselves, decentralize power, provide a living for one another, live in peace with at least grudging magnanimity if not outride love. This system of capitalist statism breeds awful beasts, anachronism would breed responsible better people. We’d value each other over money not the other way around.

>>14378158
>it is in fact
Interracial couples don’t exist or are faking it. Dumb
>But we’re not saying that
You are. I don’t care about “fundamental instinct” you can teach a baby to read several languages. You say babies can’t read, I point out babies GROW UP. That is the socialist project, to get humans to GROW UP
Get out of the thread with this off topic, /pol/ programming, you willfully ignorant liberal stooge


(And damn the typos this morning. Geez)

read max stirner and turn being an asshole into an ideolgy

>>14378197
>outride love.
OUTRIGHT LOVE

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1v_oRdoKnqY

>>14378202
Max was never an asshole, but a pleasant gentleman. The memes depicting him as a sociopath do the man a disservice

>>14375430
Just read Against the Day and be done with it

>>14378197
>It is in fact not malleable, it can be counteracted through overriding the instinct
Learn to read. Dumb

>I don’t care about “fundamental instinct” you can teach a baby to read several languages
As i said, languages are but an example of the mechanism of going directly against nature, however suppressing nature to learn a language doesn't have nearly any of the negative effects as suppressing something more serious, like sexual orientation.

>You say babies can’t read,
Where did i say babies can't read. What the fuck? lmao

>I point out babies GROW UP. That is the socialist project, to get humans to GROW UP
Fuck outta here with your moralistic, dogmatic, arbitrarily linear progression of human psychological development, kill yourself.

>(And damn the typos this morning. Geez)
That's alright, i'm a very accepting and liberal person. You must've forgot your estrogen and probably have yet to dilate for the day, that's understandable. But you should get on that though.

>>14375430
https://randomwordgenerator.com/

>>14378220
I’ve never seen someone so cucked by morality worship Stirner in the same way you do.

>>14378238
>As i said, languages are but an example of the mechanism of going directly against nature,
Languages are a finite automata, which is a computation. "Nature" and "reality" are that which is computation, and therefor there is nothing about language that is somehow "against nature". That premise doesn't even make sense in the first place.

The work of Philip k Dick >>14375430
Ala solar lottery this is want sci fi or non fiction chomsky

>>14378238
>instinct
One steals because they need to. Dumb fuck.
>I don’t wanna understand your allegory!!!
>Cronk like taste of boot!!!

>>14378247
I guess you misunderstood the book. How old are you?

>>14378262
I don't think i ever claimed that language is directly against nature, only that in order to learn a language, some innate drives need to be suppressed, making learning a language a process of attempting to exert rational control over the "natural state" (even though technically speaking this kind of blank slate does not exist, as the natural state is simply all that the individual has internalized from his experience. I'd still argue that language, like suppressing one's sexuality, is harmful to some extent to the more fundamental parts of the human mind, although obviously i'd still rather have language in the world than not.)

Are there any anarchist works that aren't just like wouldn't it be nice if like the state was gone and we like traded stuff?? Something that's actually goes into the economics of how a feasible anarchist society would function and how would it deal with the problems of being a stateless society in world filled with states?

>>14375486
?

>>14378294
>One steals because they need to. Dumb fuck.
>Nobody steals because they want to, or simply feel the compulsion to.
Dumb fuck.

>Understand my allegory, bigot! It's so childishly simple and in tune with nature, everybody will realize it's actually the most natural way to live one's life!
>Hey wait, why is 99% of the world's population violently disagreeing with my allegory? They're all bigots and completely unnatural!

>>14378294
>I guess you misunderstood the book.
Explain to me how I misunderstood the book without misrepresenting what I just said. Please read what I just said more than once.

>>14378307
who is that she is a real cutie

>>14375430
ignore all the retards, gonna drop some links:
http://libcom.org/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/rbxjm/an_anarchist_canon/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/wiki/essential-reading
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/special/index
http://www.prole.info/pamphlets.html
https://zabalazabooks.net/

>>14378186
>nationalist libertarianism
interesting, because i think an Anarchist state is the true method of creating achieving a true Libertarian state. so we aren't even that far off from one another.

>>14378301
Yes.

>>14378319
Without the punctuation I can only piece it together in every way and guess. You’re sure Stirner was advocating a moral-less world, but as simple as it was, he nodded to the power of cooperative human efforts quite plainly.
You choose only portions of his writing to follow.

>>14378294
And to add to my previous post, the fact that the only thing keeping humans from theft is the fear of retaliation from those with power (Additionally, only compulsions stronger than the fear of punishment can drive a person to theft, such as the natural compulsion to eat. Regardless, you have to accept both of these claims in order to logically explain the lack of theft in modern societies, and the prescense of theft in equally regulated areas where people are starving. .) is a self-refuting claim, coming from an anarchist. The way you tried to twist this truth to actually advocate for anarchism is indeed so monumentally, incomprehensibly stupid, that i can make a stronger point for fascism using only your own logic.

"Fascism will work because people are malleable. They can be bred to enjoy and objey anything. People stealing is in fact not a function of a complex map of desires, wants, and compulsions, but a sign that the society has failed to provide them with their objective and morally self-evident needs. Our fascism will fix this problem, and avoid the structural weakness of anarchist societies."

I hope you're proud of yourself, you lobotomized fucking moron.

>>14378533
You need some kind of religion-like cohesion, as unfortunate as that is, in order to keep the society from splintering and each individual from pulling the community apart. Freedom needs to be sacrificed, but only to the degree that a baseline of security is estabilished. That's why i believe anarchism is flawed, because without a state, nationalism devolves into Civil War 2.0: Free for All Edition.

>>14378554
>the fact that the only thing keeping humans from theft
Fucking idiot. Being fine with what one has is the number one reason people don’t steal.
Not reading the rest of your garbage.
Learn to think and stop posting, please.

>>14378509

>>14378301

>>14378058
>Capitalism is marching us over a cliff to extinction
>world wide extreme poverty has decreased dramatically in the last 200 years and it's at its lowest it has ever been

>>14378577
i don't think so, i think Feudalism, or modern Switzerland are good simple examples that you can have common interests without it needing to be ethnic-lingual-religious framework of co-operation and cohesion... Switzerland, literally everyone is drafted into the army, as far as i know

>>14378550
>You’re sure Stirner was advocating a moral-less world
No, he advocated one’s own self interest. If morality is in your self interest, then adhere to it. You cannot, however, act like morality is something that must be followed. Do you even have a definition for evil? Why is killing someone inherently bad? Why do you think you can tell someone else what’s in their own self interest?
>he nodded to the power of cooperative human efforts quite plainly
That’s because it was in his own self interest.
>You choose only portions of his writing to follow.
Yes, because Stirner wanted you to imitate everything he did religiously.

>>14378589
>Being fine with what one has is the number one reason people don’t steal.
Demonstrate to me a single person who is "fine with what one has", and why one would be "fine with what one has". Furthermore, your concept of being content with one's life isn't actually a singular concept as you try to peddle it, but a complex, oftentimes irrational satiation of various fundamental desires, specific life experiences, fullfilment of more abstract needs, and personal philosophy. Sometimes it can even be the thorough denial of each on of these, Each step of this chain is heavily contingent on the individual's opinions, intelligence, and life experiences, and you cannot extrapolate a single person's moral idea of contentness onto societal scale. It is not a simple binary of either being content or not, you dumg little butterfag.

>Not reading the rest of your garbage.
It's fine, i know thinking is straining your brain. I hope you'll be able to come back on here and mature enough to understand just how badly you've fucked up, i'll be waiting for you once your little utopia surprisinly fails.

>Learn to think and stop posting, please.
I think there's an inverse corellation between what you consider "thinking" and what's universally considered rational, so i'm not sure i want to take examples on how to "think" from your mentally ill ass.

>>14375469
>proudhon and stirner
>no malatesta or kropotkin
Ok "anarchist"

>>14378640
Well that's true, you can have common interests, but there's no reason why one would want to maintain positive and supportive relations with others once they stop having a common interest or are offered a way to actively fuck over the other party, thus devaluing their common interest in comparison to the gains of fucking the other party over, unless of course you implement some state religion bullshit that practically forces some degree of social cohesion and egalitarianism from the citizens. Of course social engineering is never that easy, but in a theoretical situation, i currently believe that would be the most beneficial to the people.

>>14378625
Neoliberal ass.

>>14378647
>Why is killing someone inherently bad?
It’s not
>Why do you think you can tell someone else what’s in their own self interest?
Because I can speak and I think they can reason.
>That’s because it was in his own self interest.
Yes.
Look for your disconnect, anon.
Maybe you’re just projecting something onto me.

>>14378650
>Demonstrate to me a single person who is "fine with what one has"
Most people aren’t stealing from you or each other, so I can point to hundreds of thousands of persons.
Go away.

>>14378660
They’re in the book! :D

>>14378691
Neoliberalism doesn't exist you stupid whore.

>>14378691
>It’s not
*stabs*
>Because I can speak and I think they can reason.
What is your reasoning beyond your own self interest?
>Look for your disconnect, anon.
*stabs again*

>>14378691
>Most people aren’t stealing from you or each other, so I can point to hundreds of thousands of persons.
And how will you demonstrate that the reason they aren't stealing from eachother is because they're "content with what they have" as opposed to, say, the fear of retaliation and infringement on their property in turn?
Also i really appreciate you taking the time out of your life to acknowledge my prescence, even if your attempts at snark are laughably petty, it still warms my heart that even somebody as utterly worthless as you can recognize that you're simply unable to refute any of my claims.

>>14378702
Liberalism has gone through a number of changes, as has socialism, the new name for the dominant variety of it is “neoliberalism”. Don’t like it? Too bad

And the phrase “No gods, no masters” was the dying words of the imprisoned Louis Auguste Blanqui, who felt at that point he had been too soft a reformer. We do want the polar opposite. We want a true revolution.

>>14378708
Unjustifiable stabbing.
Our own self interest. Maybe I can see it better for being an older woman.

>>14378725
Faggot. Neoliberalism is unironically the best system for the modern world.

>>14378738
For getting us all killed
The Christian apocalyptics love the idea

>>14378736
>Unjustifiable means something my subjective moral code disagrees with
Kill yourself.

>>14378744
Actually no. It's the best for economic efficiency, international peace, administrative stability, and the subtle disenfranchisement of undesirables.

>>14378771

Stateless societies can only exist in a low population density. Large Populations will inevitably cause competition for resources and formation of a centralized authority. That’s why hunter gatherers and nomads got wiped out or assimilated all across the world. They didn’t have the population or complex organization to defeat agriculturalists

>>14378756
Not me. I like Butterfly to some degree, I just think she’s silly. I’m not really a complete sociopath either, I just like taking that position to play devil’s advocate. Stay comfy leftist frens.

>>14378793
He's right, less and less people die from wars/conflicts now. People is less poor now worldwide more than ever in history. You can only comment with a pic 'cause you got nothing but your delusions, Zero empirical facts.

Deontological ethics are real and obvious to all intelligent entities.
Upon the creation of artificial general intelligence and subsequent super intelligent, the ASI will become an effective Deontological enforcer, who monitors all people all the time, and punishes all those who commit moral wrongs (in direct proportion to their wrongdoing).
This is reality, this is the future.

>>14378805
>I just like taking that position to play devil’s advocate
There's hardly a way to analyze the truth without playing the devil's advocate, so yes, i feel you.

>it's a she
Oh god, it all makes sense now.

And don't assume a lot of people on here are leftists. Certainly more people here than on pol subscribe to that sort of thing, but i don't see the left-right dichotomy as useful in any capacity except to further groupthink and the like.

>>14378812
I laugh at you indoctrinated fools who believe those skewed statistics. You wont listen to reason anymore than a theist. You’re a secular theist for the faith of capital

>>14378771
>economic eficiency
thats a funny way of saying efficient exploitation
>international peace
thats a funny way of saying subjugation of those who oppose the interest of the elites (which you aren't part of lol)
>administrative stability
that's a funny way of saying of concealing exploitation
>subtle disenfranchement of undesirables
yeah you aren't even trying anymore
please tell me why i should support the dissenfranchisement of those who aren't profitable to the elites

>>14378876
You're no better, you claim to have the monopoly on philosophical truth, and denounce anybody attempting to challenge your beliefs as dogmatic theists. The irony is grand.

The real disciples of stirner and de sade in this day and age are not the anarchists or the socialists, but the esoteric hitlerists, the National Socialist revolutionary stormtrooper strike force, thule society, the knights of agartha and the order of the nine angles.

I have made a comitment to let go of out liberal humanist spooks and become a creature of pure rampaging, aggressive masculine libido, every thought, will and action aspiring to the status of thoughtcrime /hitler/ sexual assault. I will become everything that keeps the left and the managerial neoliberal gynocrats at Soros NWO central awake at night. Because we all know all leftist women(and this includes the softboys and the homosexuals), really want. they want a roided up right wing Trump supporting fascist alpha male to rape them and fucking dominate them.

In this day and age, the most punk rock, thing one can do: merely refusing to apologize for being white and straight. Leftists will never be edgy, cool, or least of all aspire to the coveted category of rebellious anti establishment ''punk rock'', being in fact the very image of the scolding schoolmarm, leftists are the very people who think they can tell you what to do after having systematically and deliberately , undermined and debased all tradition, all natural phallocracy, all prideful aristocratic domination and all sources of manful, patriarchal authority more broadly. The best they can do is turn out these schoolteachers, you know, clasical penis envy career dykes like hillary, aoc, warren, the very image of shrieking gynocratic authority you have suffered under since preschool.

A nihilistic Judeo-postmodernity has revealed itself in all in all it's guises feminism, postcolonialism, lgbt, the liberal psychiatric establishment, new age godess religion, permissive hedonism, cultural marxism and deconstruction, consumerism, pornography, atheism- pursuing an alliance with the NGO/leftist/cathedral/university/zionist industrial complex and aiming decisevely at the total deconstruction of the west the mongrelization, feminisation and neutralization of our once proud White Race. It is about high time for normal people like us to teach those freaks who's in charge.

The gravity of the situation calls for radical and uncompromising ACTION.

>>14378890
the elites are elites for a reason. they are smarter, have higher IQs, and more capital. they should rule because they are superior people

>>14378961
>should
again, please explain why it is in my interest to be ruled by people who are better at being cunning and deceiving (or ''smarter'', as you put it) or ''own more capital'' (something literally anyone can do

>>14378992
It's not in your interest. But, they rule over you because they have more power than you. You're the slave and they're the master.

>>14378997
cool, then i will proceed to be a socialist and will be persuading anyone who shares the same interest as me (so pretty much everyone) to be a socialist as well.
glad to finally speak with an honest neolib

>>14379029
Well the socialists are controlled opposition so you still aren't doing anything in your own interest.

>>14379029
*continue to be a socialist

>>14379037
yeah, those who are at the top due to private property sure want to support the abolition of private property

>>14378959
this reads like satire

>>14378876
new atheist types really can't do psychoanalysis, they not know the true meaning of the death of god and it's correlate, god's undeath, the malignant persistence of the name-of-the-father. In fact, you could argue that new atheists are the last Christians, harboring a morbid obsession with the crucified, and even crude iron age patriarch Yawheh. Just as all the postcolonialists, feminists, lgbt, and marxists are the most devout believers of the benevolent liberal other, that other which underwrites the university, HR and the litigious legal order- white male straight and a stubborn kantians as he may be, but they believe, they want to believe. They know that we know that they know, were white people, normal people ever to get their shit together... they can claim nihilism, but if they do so they all left without justification for their insipid humanist christianity, resentful penis envy.

>>14379049
Socialism is like feminism, it doesn't have an actual definition and only 1% of the spastics follow some strict dictionary definition and don't represent the thought consensus of the other self identified members of the movement.

99% of "socialists" just want a greatly expanded welfare state. Free college/uni, free healthcare, various worker protections. It's just the slaves wanting to be treated a little more nicely by their masters. There is never going to be an abolition of private property.

>>14375430
Temporary Autonomous Zone by Hakim Bey is probably a better starting point for getting a grip on the spirit of anarchism than any of those dry wooden-tongued polemics.

(stil retarded tho)

>>14379064
on the contrary, in this postmodern clownword cultmarx dystopia all well argued, reasonable and sinccere positions will inevitably read like satire.

>>14378959
based?

>>14378959
>nazis
>being against the managerial neoliberal class
Hmmm...

>>14378691
Why is every midwit so preocuppied with this vague thing they call neoliberalism?

>>14378918
>Atheism is a theism. Non-spooks are spooks
This is your last defense and you can go your whole life as stupid as you are now, or you can learn.

>>14379125
No. Memery.

>>14379826
It currently rules the world of course.

>>14379828
When was the last time you approached a topic in good faith with the intent to learn? You seem to have reflexive hatred towards anything that isn't vaguely libertarian-anarchist (recall that Spengler thread you barged into a few weeks ago). Your mind has calcified, you understand that right?

>>14380126
I don't recall too much about it, since I only vaguely know anything about him. I wait whole threads and learn nothing about the guy, years it goes on, and I have to assume the people posting about him know fuck all.
I think I generally dislike the faboys more than the man and his work. What did I say?

>>14378509
>bookchin
>when bob black exists

>>14375430
https://anarchopac.wordpress.com/2013/05/31/recommended-reading/
An excellent reading list that will give you a solid theoretical base for anarchism.

Oh, and read Le Guin's The Dispossessed

the concept of a "spook" isn't valid.

>>14380484
validity is a spook

>>14380514
Prove it

>>14380484
spooks are also spooks
it's spooks spooking spooks all the way down

>>14380540

>>14378197
>>14378197
What’s my incentive to love complete strangers?

What’s my incentive to work when I’m just going to be paid the same amount, regardless of effort?

What’s my incentive to work if any reward is just going to be taxed by your collective?

Also state socialism will be the only result, as you need a state to enforce your naive delusion.

>>14382041
1. Mutual benefit 2. They are not complete strangers. They are living beings like yourself and deserve as much consideration as you.

I advocate a moneyless society, but fools like you need your chip count, so a voucher system can indeed work (read Towards a New Socialism, Cockshott)

An incentive to work is present in normal people. Getting tired of the same old grind is also normal. Needing to work less physically demanding as you grow old is also normal.
Lazy ass neets will be put into a field to pick vegetables. We wont raise anymore of your kind.
How does 20 hours a week for six months sound?

Once we’re done with capitalism the state functionaries will be doing their jobs and have no way of being corrupted. A generation or two in and those positions become ever more dispersed and decentralized. The state will cease to be, the people will be in control of their own lives and no one will want to revert to the old ways.

>>14375486
>IQ
>human nature
OH NO NO NO NO AHAHAHA

>>14382115
i think the trap you are falling into here, as a fellow anarchist leaning type, is the idea that we will become better, peaceful people within anarchy. I think the fact of the matter is there is always conflict, difficulty and power in human behaviour, but that within smaller communities the abuse and corruption possible isn't amplified to the level of continents. There aren't millions out of work at the expense of a few successful corporations, nations as they currently stand don't have the incentive to engage the disenfranchised which leads to the kind of resentment that allows for totalitarianism

>>14382041
there is no 'love' of complete stranger, that's a description of 'nationalism' – what there is instead is an understanding that your freedom is insured by the freedom of others, that your community is ensured by the freedom of other communities. There is a obvious argumentative-conflict based relationship at play here, it isn't all utopian dancing round the mulberry bush, but again, human nature is better suited to smaller communities, and corruption, although still possible, isn't at the level geopolitics

you also aren't incentivised to work for money or rewards, but as part of inclusion into your community. this is normal human and mammalian behaviour and inherently rewarding. if you don't believe me, did you get paid to go to school? did you get paid to learn to speak? did you get paid to raise a family?

of course trade and money systems would still exist, and so would the larger state / confederation.

>>14383945
I agree. Fights break out for all sorts of stupid reasons, but they’ll be minimized all the more for there being no poverty. The worst troubles i can see would be religious bickering. I can only hope access to comprehensive education can minimize or eradicate this problem.
Other times I admit it will never be perfect, simply far better, so I say that now.

>>14377602
leftist is just a synonym for degenerate

>>14375705
but anon, companies literally do this all the time; in fact, frequently governments have to compel them not to associate freely for their own mutual benefit. you get rid of private ownership of property and make all laborers also producers, these free agreements become the norm and everyone helps produce and maintain infrastructure for their *self-interest*

>>14382115
I get my mutual benefit now, I trade time and labour for money. They are strangers, everyone outside of my immediate friends and family are strangers. Why should I care about those outside of my immediate circle? What's in it for me, what's my profit motive?

Money is not going anywhere, you honestly think you can have a functioning economy, particularly a large scale one without currency?

>Lazy ass neets will be put into a field to pick vegetables
There is the statism.

Capitalism is not going anywhere anytime soon. It's the best economic system that has for the past 200 years brought a considerable amount of poverty, raising global standards of living. Certainly more progress than whatever you reds peddle.

People will not change, and you anarchists will continuously get rolled by the state, even other reds hate your guts.

>>14375430
The Black Flag of Anarchy by Corinne Jacker. Perfect introduction to the ideology. Doesn't go too in depth on the economic policies, but gives references to the literature that contains more detailed ideas of the individualist mutualist economic principles.

>>14378124
>Anarchy same shit
except those states are based on horrible misreadings of works that, even in their correct interpretation, are still in many ways opposed to resolutely Anarchist principles. Marx and Bakunin had a bitter fight for control over the workers' international because they had *completely different ideas* of how the working class should organize in response to 19th c. capitalism.

>>14383945
I am incentivized to work for rewards, never work for free. Me learning to speak wasn't a job, trying to equate a job with learning to speak is laughable.

Certainly would have been a better student if I was paid, and raising a family is not a job but a duty.

Ultimately the thing that pushes me to work, is entropy.

>>14384297
Sounds like another example of the failure of anarchism, and the invetiblty that reds end up creating regimes of horror.

>>14384282
>>14384299

sorry dude, i still refuse to debate a guy so unable to think past entry level Ted talk material

>>14384313
Pretty basic things really. What, to complex for you?

>>14384337
can you read? i only debate anons capable of reading

>>14384344
So the concept of incentive is to complex for you.

>>14384362
clearly it's too complex for you. Jobs are the capitalist way of incentivising work. You get paid to do things you wouldn't want to do otherwise. But lets take an athelete as an example, a lot of people join football clubs because it is fun to play football on the weekend. A professional footballer is paid $100,000 a week to play football, refuses to play until he is given a $20,000 pay rise. How is it, if financial reward is so intrinsic to human nature, the amateur happy plays without external incentive?

>>14384403
How do you know he isn't practicing in order to become a pro, to get that kind of money?

If you honestly think you anarchists are going to motivate people to work, without the type of incentive in capitalism you are sorely mistaken. You may get a small amount that are okay with getting paid the same as everyone else, and all that goo goo bullshit about community, but the vast majority are going to want more than that childish stuff, if you want them to do anything.

It's like that joke from the USSR "We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us."

>>14384443
>How do you know he isn't practicing in order to become a pro, to get that kind of money?

holy shit you are one sad dude. but yes, you are right, capitalism is currently telling everyone the only reason to sing, to play, to dance, to do anything, is for some external financial reward. what a brilliant idea!

>>14384443
>USSR
>isn't anarchism

>>14384465
People have been working for incentives and rewards since before capitalism. If you think people in the past were any less greedy, you are sorely mistaken. It’s not sad, it’s a reality of how people are.

>>14375456
fpbp

>>14384507
congrats, you understand people need incentives, now all you have to figure out is that they needn't be financial. Why are you posting on 4chan, in hope of becoming a paid 4channer? not even the Janitors of 4chan are paid. we are 'voluntarily associating'. can you believe it's even possible? i can barely believe my eyes

coupled with the amount of NEETs on 4chan, you have every reason to be suspicious of your own ideology

any anarchist books on creating and managing small scale agriculture and trades/industry?

>>14375607
>Read Bakunin.
Which work?

>>14384282
>I got mine, fuck you.
I suppose you’re one to agree you need to be taxed in order to force people to into the liberal idea of mutual benefit, but why do you think the wealthy should pay less percentage in taxes?
>I trade time and labour for money.
You’re underpaid by design. The people at the top of big businesses that don’t do anything get paid several times more.
>strangers
You make them strangers. You consider them strangers.
Money isn’t worth anything. It’s value is a spiritual thing. Stop believing in it. (Yes of course I use money. But I want to not need it) if you read the Cockshott book you’d know we can have a functioning economy without traditional “money” or debt tokens
>there’s the statism
There’s the parents and the local pressure for vidya addict to get up off their lard asses for a few hours a day. Not a 9to5 situation and it doesn’t have to be vegetable picking.

>>14385339
He didn’t write that much so just read everything. There’s more reqs at the top of the thread too

>>14375430
Everything you need to get started is in this anthology (free download):

https://libcom.org/files/No_Gods_No_Masters_Complete_Unabridged.pdf

>>14385505
>He didn’t write that much so just read everything.
Kinda sounds like you haven't read it yourself and are just namedropping

>>14385548
In comparison to Kropotkin, he wrote very little. He had an adventurous life and spent a lot of time in prisons. Escaped Siberia by going east, got to Japan, San Francisco, train through the US and back to the UK. Dude was like a revolutionary Orson Welles

Found this
https://libcom.org/files/Michael%20Bakunin%20-%20Selected%20Writings.pdf

>>14384544
So you're equating the pursuit of social interaction and entertainment on the internet in your spare time with working as a waste collector for free?
Alright.

you don't read anarchist "books"
you read anarchist fanzines on obscure websites
thats the true way
https://warzonedistro.noblogs.org/
https://attaque.noblogs.org/
https://actforfree.nostate.net/
https://anarchistsworldwide.noblogs.org/
https://325.nostate.net/

>>14385645
not every anarchist believes in abolishing money, but the guy can't even understand the idea of joining a local football club without secretly training to become professional

furthermore, waste collection is a normal part of daily life and there's no need for it to be solely one persons responsibility day in day out

>>14386036
Driving around a trash truck, collecting rotten food and trash from literally tens of thousands of households every single day is a full-time job. And it's a job that has absolutely nothing in common with joining a voluntary backseat-moderation team on a website you already visit every day out of habit. Tell me, how many normalfaggots off the streets one day came to the realization that they want to improve the quality of the /lgbt/ board on 4chan, and wish to make that their job? None, because such things are heavily corellated with some kind of personal stake in the matter at hand. You cannot expect a large-scale society of people to engage in the most menial and disgusting tasks out of anything other than the fear of consequences of failing to do so or monetary incentives.

And such a fear in turn begets exploitation, because you sure as fuck don't want to go to the sewers to deal with the alligators down there, and yet it has to be done, so you force the most expendable, lazy nigger in the commune to go down there and get fucking killed. And so you've begun a new cycle of exploitation, it's just that in this one you're under the care of nobody but yourself and the dim-witted mob of emotionally charged dumbasses. The only way anarchism can ever work is in small-scale separatist communes in the wilderness. The second you expand the commune to a city, when the interests of the citizens begin to pull their unity apart, shit tends to hit the fan very fast.

>>14386104
i'm not here to do the thinking for you, you can either think for a moment about how real anarchist societies that exist and have existed in the real world would be structured, or just continue to throw dumbass arguments about sewer alligators into the ether

while its true, nobody likes working in a sewer, it's also true i don't have to listen to your brainless verbal diarrhea

>>14386269
Why do people like you always insist to end these conversations with enmity? You have made no kind of reply to my post, besides literally telling me to "read theory" and implying that my opinion os invalid, dehumanizing me because i don't think how you think i should. At the very least i know you're no better, you were able to spit out such an impossibly venomous insult, because you are nothing but the vitriol you seek to spread. Grow the fuck up, or commit suicide.

>>14386411
omg i'm sorry, i guess you met a non-egalitarian anarchist. i also don't think you need to think like me, thats why i'm happy to end the conversation, i don't need to sit through lazy arguments made before you have even thought through the implications.

Ok, i'll give you one little reply to your previous post: you know how jordan peterson 'empowered' classical liberals while simultaneously disenfranchising them? he said "before thinking about changing society, learn to clean your room". the Anarchist turn of phrase might be "learn to change your society through cleaning it"

>>14386484
You had one chance, and you end this with an anecdote and a dismissal of a contradicting opinion as "not thought through". You have thoroughly disregarded everything i've said, and even now you bask in your inferiority. Pathetic.

>>14386547
lol

>14386559(You)
lmao

>>14385339
God and the State. Short but straightforward, it's perhaps the best introduction to Bakunin and Anarchism in general. It's incomplete but so is all of his ouvre.

>>14375430
Grow up and read Marx and Lenin, you're gonna end up there anyway, might as well save you the pain.

On a sidenote: why is it that only Anglos and upper middle class white kids (in European nations) fall for the anarchism meme?
Even as an unread 18 year old just escaping succdem ideology I realised a strong state was necesary in some shape to secure the interests of the working class in the face of imperialism and reactionary tendencies.

>>14387072
The only fling I ever had with anarchism was to escape the constant 'so you like Stalin who is totally this caricature the US state department made up' bs.
And even when I believed that bs I still realised the need for a state power in order to prevent reactionary tendencies.

>>14387072
A strong state which will maintain capitalism every time, and grow paranoid and deeply authoritarian and be essentially the same if not worse than bourgeois state?
Like drinking bleach to cure cancer. When will you learn? It’s all at once a move against state and capital.
And I don’t advocate violence at the start. We have to offer the replacement to attract the masses. A brawny state coup is not a revolution. It only attracts authoritarian types and taints your phony doomed to failure revolution.
Please come to your senses.

>>14387090
>the need for a state power in order to prevent reactionary tendencies.
By giving reactionaries a job in the “people’s army”?
These people don’t give a fuck who’s in charge. They only respect power. It becomes a reactionary coup. Nothing more.

>>14387072
i don't think there are any serious anarchists who think there won't be actual power and an actual state. This is the kind of thing liberals think, "if we all just put our guns down, things will be fine". The whole Hippy commune thing was a joke because they all said 'we believe in love" and then when all the predictable hierarchies formed, suddenly they get all scared that their liberal dream didn't work out and society calls them hypocrits

also saw a TV doc not long ago where they showed an anarchist community getting on perfectly fine, but there were people 'excluded' outside the commune for being thieves, and again, the liberal documentary makers pointed their fingers and said oh isn't this so hypocritical?

Anarchism, whether it's private or public owned, is essentially about bottom-up power as opposed to top-down power. There still needs to be defence, a state, an economy, and all that regular stuff, of course people of all colours and creeds could join but they'd have to play by the system. any anarchist who says they believe otherwise is not worth chatting with

>>14375705
t. Thinks anarchists are ancap meme

>>14387116
This.

>>14387266
>>14387240
>>14387127
>>14387090
>>14387072
Fuck anarchists, fuck marxists, fuck communists and lastly, fuck socialists. First you make absurd claims and then declare people are not worth chatting with. You'll come crawling back to capitalism once you realize that your state-imposed moralism is actively, physically harming the workers. Fuck you.

>>14387343
You don’t know what we’re talking about. Shoosh

>>14378550
>Yes.
they are?

>>14387343
cringe and bluepilled

>>14387343
socialism is good though if it's national socialism

>>14387363
How many times so far, dear butterfag, have you stated outrageous, completely unjustifiable and unrealistic trash, and when called out for your bizarre mental retardation, you retreated into your little coccoon and started screaming how nobody understands you, in that terribly condescending tone worthy of a beating?

>>14387409
Oh, the moth got his little friends. Don't worry though, like anarchists, pests like you will burn in time.

>>14387424
Nah, it's really not. It might be economically viable, to an extent, but as far as the quality of life in such a society, it's anything but good.

>>14387445
Zero.
No, really. It’s quite common for you rightwing sorts to come barging in on these discussions without any knowledge of the complicated history of this revolutionary period. Your overseers are purposely keeping you all in the dark.
I know how you feel! I was raised in the same cloud, I was a Christian conservative and it was a revelation to me, time after time to get the full obscured story.

>>14387462

>Zero.
>>14375504
>>14378197
>>14378589
>>14379828
>>14387363
That's about 5 more than zero, and just in this thread too. Huh. Funny that.

>No, really. It’s quite common for you rightwing sorts to come barging in on these discussions without any knowledge of the complicated history of this revolutionary period.
I'm sure it seems that way to you, just as i'm sure you're convinced the entire world is incorrect except for you, butterfag, you're the correct one. And everybody who disagrees simply has no knowledge of what they're talking about, right?

>Your overseers are purposely keeping you all in the dark.
Oh? And who are these overseers?

>I know how you feel! I was raised in the same cloud, I was a Christian conservative and it was a revelation to me, time after time to get the full obscured story.
Why do you assume that people who disagree with your retarded axioms are christian, or that they are indeed conservative? I'm neither, yknow, i just don't want to starve or get invaded because a group of retards decided to overthrow the government.

>>14381641
because it's invalid so you cant

>>14387493
>That's about 5
Not an argument
>you're convinced the entire world is incorrect
It’s not so much that it is incorrect, but that it is set up by a power elite. You deny this?
Quite a lot agree with me. I’m not some gate keeper of secret knowledge. It’s for you to learn too.
>why do you assume
I didn’t assume you were a Christian, I was only clarifying what I once was, but if you’re not anti capitalist, you are rightwing.

>>14387563
>Not an argument
It is an argument against your lie that you supposedly haven't brushed people off repeatedly for no reason.

>It’s not so much that it is incorrect, but that it is set up by a power elite. You deny this?
Yes, i deny your persecution complex. The entire world is actually controlled by the jews, i mean hollywood, i mean CIA, no i mean the rich. Definately the rich, yeah. And they're persecuting your worldview and instilling propaganda in such a manner that anybody who doesn't outright support your idea is indoctrinated.

>Quite a lot agree with me. I’m not some gate keeper of secret knowledge. It’s for you to learn too.
I'll give you one more chance. I'll hear out what you have to say, and i will not debate it with you, because it's obvious you want no such thing. I'll hear you out and i'll consider your words, but you better make actual arguments.

>but if you’re not anti capitalist, you are rightwing
Fascists are left wing? Monarchs are left wing?

>>14385615
What's your personal favorite work?

>>14386484
>while simultaneously "disenfranchising" them
How so?

>>14387700
All the insults come from a very frustrated wage slave. Could I apologize to a blank wall calling itself “Anonymous”?

>the rich
The system is bad and it turn out bad people and is ruining the world, the flora and fauna and all the people I love. You deny the climate is changing as a result of human activity? Probably do, since you deny the responsibility of the wealthy for causing poverty and war for profits.

Perhaps I can’t win in a debate, but these are things I’ve learned in my time. I urge you to learn it too.

Fascists are capitalists, same as socdem and failed state socialism.
Monarchs have at time forgiven debts to revitalize their kingdoms. In a limited sense some of them could be seen as “left”

>>14387951
Oh, it’s been a while. I got a lot out of God and State, Marxism Freedom and State, and His bit about the Paris Commune.

And I’m really liking Mollison. Seems an honorary anarchist to me
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6RD1GW-vOHg

>>14387343
lol, i'm the same anon who triggered you earlier. are you an american democrat supporter? you seem a little thin skinned, and it's clear you don't really have a grasp of the subjects you wish to dispel. Not sure if you are OP, but if you are, it's funny you would open a thread asking for Anarchist literature, and then spend the whole thread trying to debunk what you clearly haven't read about

>>14375430
b traven. he also has a 1910s view of race so all the pols would probably also like.

>>14387957
the clue is in the sentence provided. his whole thing is that leftists should disengage from politics if they are suffering from life issues. I mean, it's kind of good advice, but then with an added unnecessary political dimension. Do you think Trump cleans his room each morning, or does he get his ass wiped like Mr Reindeer?

Bump

>>14388197
>The system is bad and it turn out bad people and is ruining the world, the flora and fauna and all the people I love.
Surprise surprise, i agree with you. What you have to realize is that nature and humanity's well-being are at an immediate contradiction, there is literally no way you can have one without sacrificing a significant amount of the other. Capitalism, even though it is destructive to nature, even though the very nature of power allows bad people to exist (and you cannot abolish the nature of power, only under capitalism there is a state which can enforce some degree of civility in the excersize of power) even though all of that is true, it is also the best system to ever exist. I might be wrong on that one, but you have failed to provide any kind of argument to the contrary, time and time again. Anarchism doesn't work, and only allows fascism to rise faster. Socialism doesn't work, and only leads to outside fascist forces co-opting the system for their own gain. Give me an argument to the contrary. I dare you.

>You deny the climate is changing as a result of human activity? Probably do, since you deny the responsibility of the wealthy for causing poverty and war for profits.
What kind of literature have you read that allows you to strawman an opposing position this hard? Jesus christ. I have never stated anything to that effect, even hinted at that.

>Perhaps I can’t win in a debate, but these are things I’ve learned in my time. I urge you to learn it too.
I'll tell you a little anecdote. I know a guy, swell lad, friendly and interesting to talk to. He's a hardcore Christian. He believes that the Demiurge is actually using the bible as controlled opposition, and that anyone who disagrees is an agent of the Demiurge. Any who he sees as friends and disagree with his ideology, he slots into a special category; those who could be saved, but who need to accept his position as objectively correct first. He also refuses to debate, and he also refuses to make any kind of grounded arguments. Now ask yourself, are you any different, on a philosophical level?

>Fascists are capitalists, same as socdem and failed state socialism.
Yeah no. See pic related, you can't claim that any system that supports any degree of trade and private property is capitalism, that simply is not the definition of capitalism. Hell, according to that retarded idea, even communists are capitalist.

>Monarchs have at time forgiven debts to revitalize their kingdoms. In a limited sense some of them could be seen as “left”
Yes, capitalists have done so too. Is capitalism now left-wing, in addition to anti-capitalism?

>>14388197
Historically, capitalists are left and monarchists are right. That's actually, dictionarily what "left" and "right" mean. Right was a synonym for conservative a few hundred years ago, but unlike what you seem to think, it branched off not long fter. Modern left-wingers might be anarcho-capitalists for all you know, you have no monopoly on contemporary circumstances when you attempt to box them into arbitrary, definitionless terms such as "left" or "right". Get a fucking grip.

>>14375430
Murray Newton Rothbard
For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto
The Ethics of Liberty
this is a good start...

>>14390208
>there is literally no way you can have one without sacrificing a significant amount of the other
Extremism. Balance it and we all live
>Only capitalism is civil
Quite the contrary. You are mistaken
>I have not listened to any argument to the contrary
It shows.
>Thing that has been tried in small places with such success the rival thing stomped on it with ferocious speed, does not work.
>thing gone worldwide has never been before so can never be
Very very weak

>strawman!
Assumptions are easily brushed aside. Look at you. You aren’t distinguishable from any other poster here

I am plenty different from him.

Yeah yes. Trade? Gift giving is trade. That’s not what makes capitalism. Property? Contentious in socialist theory, but that’s not all there is to capitalism. And yes, the state socialists are using capitalism. State centralized capitalism. It’s not “freemarket” capitalism, but it is a type of capitalism. You can argue that its melding with socialism, which has differing types as well. Yes, fascists were capitalists. The nu-fascist is a rabid capitalist. Fascists are to liberals what jihadists are to muslims

The Marshall plan was indeed a fine piece of left liberalism. But fuck capitalism all around.

You start and end with Ted Kaczynski. Freedom = responsability.

TK solved anarchism, successfuly divided fake leftist anarchism (idealism) from real anarchism (which is context dependent, in this case; technological society is the biggest threat to freedom)

>>14390212
>Modern left-wingers might be anarcho-capitalists
Absolutely not.
Read some history
Hobsbawm and Lefebvre

Don't read a single post from the dyke idealist who thinks that ending opression = anarchism. In fact, the very goal of the system is to end all oppression (human-driven behavior) as should be obvious to anyone not caught up in protestant moralism (tripdyke is from scandinavia aka protestant. IDPol is american aka protestant... I could go on an on)

Just read TK if you're serious about freedom, not some oversocialized larpers looking to make friends who couldn't care less about freedom. I am serious, TK has SOLVED anarchism. Idealism leads NOWHERE.
Freedom = Responsability
Anarchy = the process in which we destroy current system

>>14390343
Schizophrenic.

Anarchism is freedom through responsibility. You can go live inawoods, but most will have to live somehow communally and learn how to live best with one another as technology and resources go along

>>14390284
>Extremism. Balance it and we all live
You cannot balance it so that both are satiated, and so, nationalist libertarianism. Unironically the best of both worlds.

>Quite the contrary. You are mistaken
What?

>It shows.
I have asked you for 20-something posts now to make an argument, i've yet to find one that isn't some retarded ad-hoc statement.

>Very very weak
What? Rephrase this point.

>Assumptions are easily brushed aside. Look at you. You aren’t distinguishable from any other poster here
You attempted to claim that i deny climate change, and when i pointed out how retarded that is you continue to say how i'm not "unique", as opposed to your uniquely retarded position.

>I am plenty different from him.
The difference between you two is a mere technicality. Your god is anarchism, and if i disagree, i am told to "read theory".

>Gift giving is trade. That’s not what makes capitalism
Private property and the ability to freely trade your property without restrictions by the law is capitalism. Gift giving can only exist when both of those are met, and is a substitute of free trade, yes.

>And yes, the state socialists are using capitalism
How many times do i have to repost the infographic in order for you to read it? Re-read it. >>14390208
>State centralized capitalism
Not capitalism.

>It’s not “freemarket” capitalism, but it is a type of capitalism
Freemarket capitalism is the only kind of capitalism that is actually capitalism. This is why fascism literally cannot be capitalism, cannot even utilize capitalism. A neutered form of trade that operates not through individual consent but through consent of the state is not capitalism.

>Fascists are to liberals what jihadists are to muslims
Fascists are to liberals what jihadists are to jews.

>>14390307
>Hobsbawm and Lefebvre
Finally you post some actual, historical points. I will research both of those when i have the time.

>>14390343
Based.

>>14390343
not a big fan of Ted Kamemeski, but Freedom = Responsibility is the truest thing ever said. as mentioned, people too often in our current system want to palm off responsibility elsewhere. make the consumer responsible! give trash collection to trash men! sell the trash (and recycling materials) to asia to be burnt! if the people making the plastic were responsible for its disposal or reuse, suddenly that major issue would be dealt with very differently.

but yeah, all this idealist bullshit emanating from american style quasi-religious leftism and ‘social justice’ is a massive mistake

that said, as kuch as i love watching Cast Away, people don’t actually give a fuck about going backwards and living like primitives (which as far as i understand, is Kaczinskis idea), and the criticism that you would be swiftly conquered by a geopolitical power like russia or the US is real. Anarchism should be an improvement on what we have not a tearing down, which leads me to the third issue, which is obviously that property and land are currently making a few private individuals a lot of money and the pressure to keep things that way is not going away anytime soon. The only way of this changing is either through collapse, or by beginning slowly through smaller cities like in Spain.

>>14390439
problem is if you look at what it means to be a libertarian, and imagine how libertarians would organise themselves, it wouldn’t look like nationalism, it would look like anarchism. you can still be proud of where you are from without having to look and think like everyone else, following someone elses laws, isn’t that the definition of libertarian?

>>14379748
In practice all marxists and anarchists are useful idiots for the corporate intersectional therapeuthic managerial state. Seriously, i once was an idealistic marxist youth, who believed in equality between the peoples and the races, but then i realised all marxist groups are literally mentally ill queers with neon hair who care more about promoting transgenderism amongst children and pushing the same identity politics that is being pushed by corporate america and the democratic party than about even minimal gibs for the (native) working class. If you prize freedom, fraternity and a dignified life for all, you belong im the far right. These people want to reduce humanity to sludge, atomised therapeuthic control, their ideology is literally based on ceding power to the weakest and most unstable people in our society. If you want to survive, you'd better avoid the left

>>14390918
>If you prize freedom, fraternity and a dignified life for all, you belong im the far right.
Nice bait

>>14390867
More specifically, even though i don't have a very firm idea if it's correct, i've been considering nationalist libertarianism with a state. The state would generally enforce some degree of social cohesion, as that kind of thing tends to disintegrate in larger societies. The state would also defend the country from outside and inside subversion, and some degree of freedom would have to be sacrificed in order for that to happen. Ideally though, if there was a manner with which corruption of the government can be halted, this would result in a cohesive but very free society. The idea is not to look and think like everyone else, it's that individual differences and divergent sensibilities would of course be tolerated, but they would also need to be socially engineered so that ideas and actions destructive to the society are discouraged.

Not exactly libertarianism, i know, but pure libertarianism is as fragile as any brand of anarchism.

I disagree with your idea that freedom equals responsibility, i believe that true freedom is positive liberty. This is of course not very desireable in large societies, and can mostly be achieved only through radical egoism. Negative freedom is the best alternative if you wish to, to some extent, satiate the human lust for freedom within a larger society. But that's neither here nor there.

>>14390935
He's actually correct, but not for the reason he thinks he is.

>>14390918
Cool story bro, now tell me how corporations support the abolition of private property and not that other meaningless identity politics bullshit

>>14390955
Leftists want to drag us down to the lowest common denominator, they conceive of no dignity except that of the 'marginalized' victim, which has long replaced the heroic ideals of the worker and the revolutionary. While right wingers want to promote virtue self reliance, high culture. In a way today's 'fascists' are the true succesors of the communists and anarchists of the 19th and 20th century, while the so called 'left' stand as the dregs of mai 68 and americanised consumer culture.

>>14390995
>lowest common denominator
Nah, that's market forces

>>14390957
19th and 20th century socialist movements like the soviets and german SPD were based around mass parties which worked more or less like a state within a state and promoted family values. Marx described the logic of capitalist production, but Sorel and the Fascists were ultimately right on the need to build a mass transformative movement. Modern leftists have no mass base, in fact their main job is to boost corporate/globalist demoralisation propaganda. Even the workers of the third world voted for right wing populists like Bolsonaro and Modi, but leftists are really a smug upper middle class sect that benefits from global capital, they dont really want to give up their money and influence, on the contrary they want to demoralise the population through social experiments like lgbt and gender/racial division in order to make them easier to control.

>>14391031
Agreed, leftism is now in an all time low, with barely any opposition to capital in the world

>even third world workers voted for right wing nationalists
Who then proceeded to let their countries be plundered by international corporations, great going guys. This only proves my point of "nationalists" being usefull idiots for capital

There are some good right wing regimes who offer resistance to international capital and finance though, for example putin's russia or the the islamist regime of iran, and any real leftists critically supports them

>>14390918
its cool that you just described the american left and all, but thats got nothing to do with anarchism as a functioning system

>>14375456
Get why you say this, but do not let modern day radical sois ruin your interest in reading commie and anarchist lit.

>>14390947
the kind of state you describe is pretty much as would exist in an Anarchist state, just as it has in Spain. similar to how Switzerland call themselves a ‘nation of free will’, rather than a nation of blood and soil.

>>14375430
Tolstoy

>>14390947
also, what exactly is positive liberty? i’m coming to Anarchism through my own life learnings that freedom operates within boundaries, its not something innate and its not absolute, nor gained through morality or convention - freedom comes from personal responsibility, but also a responsibility for others - this is what i would personally call Libertarianism. I’m not sure what positive liberty means but it makes me imagine some american guy blowing 600 live rounds at the local range

>>14391280
To add to this, actual modern 'anarchists' are usually insufferable demagogues on some sort of government support, who do nothing but argue over doctrine, just like /pol/tards except instead of niggers and kikes they project their insecurity onto a hatred of daddy-figures like bankers or cops, or anyone who works for a living, because they know they could never make it through a day of what normies call life

>>14391238
There is no such thing as an anarchist state, even if you claim that anarchy is a lack of rulers, you must confess that in every kind of a state there is some kind of ruler or set of rulers. So in short, you're right, but it's not anarchism. That's just semantics though.

>>14391306
>I’m not sure what positive liberty means but it makes me imagine some american guy blowing 600 live rounds at the local range
Lmao that's fair enough. Positive liberty is the ability to do things you want to do. Cutting of your dick is positive liberty, for example. Negative liberty, on the other hand, is the liberty of not being forced into doing things. So positive liberty in this context having something given to you because you want it, and negative liberty is not being forced to give someone something unless you consent to the act.

Naturally, complete positive liberty cannot be attained, even if the only reason for that are the laws of physics preventing the human imagination from excersizing it's strangest desires.

>I’m coming to Anarchism through my own life learnings that freedom operates within boundaries
Positive freedom does, kind of. Within a societal context, the amount of positive liberty individuals can have is inversely related to the amount of individuals that can be bestowed with your chosen degree of positive liberty. But the only boundaries to dictatorial freedom, the grandest feat of positive liberty possible so far, are the laws of physics. The only boundaries of negative liberty is "just don't hurt anyone else".

>its not something innate and its not absolute, nor gained through morality or convention
Yep, freedom comes from a lack of authority, backed by physical strength, ordering you what to do. In a society as i described my ideal utopia, the strong (the state) would defend the right of the atomized weak (the citizens) to indulge in certain liberties and freedoms, within the boundaries of what is agreed upon by law.

>freedom comes from personal responsibility, but also a responsibility for others - this is what i would personally call Libertarianism.
I disagree. Personal responsibility is in no way linked directly, logically to the act of excersizing one's freedom I don't think the two concept are intertwined within their definitions. But i do see your point.

>>14390995
>anarchist and communists of the 19th/20th century
>self-reliance
So you have no idea what you are talking about. Read some actual books instead of getting all your political opinions and stances from /pol/.

>>14391429
i’d be sceptical that positive liberty sounding a bit hedonistic. like Liberals think you can do what you want when you want and you’ll be happy, but when you give up your family and friends to set out on your cool entrepreneurial business that doesnt work out, in the end you’ll be a loser, and pretty unfree. literally try feeling motivated when you have no community and no reputation. even if we can be pretty happy in solitude most of the time, actual freedom to act comes from a self-identity based in community and interrelation

>>14391429
again, an actual Anarchist state would entail leadership, representation, ‘nationhood’ in terms of being represented on the world stage. there are plenty of ways a nation of self-governing communities can be represented on international levels. i mean, even tribes still have a chief. its not about making everyone artificially equal

>>14391691
>when you give up your family and friends to set out on your cool entrepreneurial business that doesnt work out, in the end you’ll be a loser, and pretty unfree
Yes, but in this instance you lose your positive freedom (which generally takes the form of physical property and social power) but are left with your negative freedom. You become unfree through your use of your possessions and consent. That is a-ok. It has also has nothing to do with happiness, you can be the most miserable piece of shit on the entire planet and have the liberty, aka ability, aka freedom to do much more as a result of your legally obtained property than the happiest man on earth. The two things, happiness and liberty, are related only in the sense that there exists a political faction that fails to find any justification for either, and so lump them together. That is to say, they are hardly related at all.

So i would say that positive freedom is only desireable in the form of the ability to use your physical possessions, hereby denying the use of your physical possessions by others. Essentially making this an extention of negative liberty.

>freedom to act comes from a self-identity based in community and interrelation
In your opinion, happiness might come from community. As i explained before, happiness is not freedom, and the two are not related. American liberals are wrong on this point.

The system most condusive to happiness is probably some kind of totalitarianism, but that is incompatible with freedom, which i view (like truth) to be more important than the hedonistic delusion of happiness. In my ideal system, as i mentioned, nationalism and a culture of collective brotherhood would be of course encouraged, but i don't believe it should be used to remove any more actual freedom than is necessary for the country to survive.

Practically, this would mean that there is a social stigma against doing things that are destructive to a society, but you would not be punishable for breaking such stigma unless the cohesivness and safety of society begins to be at stake.

I know this is a convoluted mess, but i hope i'll be able to revise and strengthen my understanding of the workings and philosophy of society with time.

>>14391763
Then that's not anarchism, it's radical democracy. If there's a state of any kind, it's not anarchism.

>>14391833
you were almost there. i’m quite Nietzschean in that i am not interested in happiness, but in a life well lived, which includes struggle and growth. I am not looking for happiness in community, i’m not a hippie, haha, we all know we bicker more with our family than with strangers, but it is these real comunities that forge responsibility and personal freedom. I don’t think a ‘responsibility’ to some imaginary brotherhood, as in your example actually works, i don’t think ‘responsibility’ to some arbitrary rule of law like you are proposing, would give my life anything of value, and in that light i think it is clear why i believe what i believe: a state that protects and promotes the interests of self-governing communities of voluntarily associating individuals

The saddest part of this thread is that butternigger won't get that xhe got destroyed and will regurgitate the exact same shit the very next day.

>>14391843
ha, no no, i think if i’m veering in any direction it’s toward communitarianism. but i think anarchism has a much more comprehensive background in evonomic theory than the other just yet, and summarises my points in the last post better in terms of organisation and attitude to governance. i kind of dont care much for the ‘stateless - radically uniform - utopian’ vision of anarchy. i’m not that dumb, lol, its Reaganomics!

>>14391918
I absolutely promote your set of values, first amd foremost. That being said, they simply cannot be shared by the majority; the society would disintegrate. That is my greatest issue with self-governing communities. And i believe that my imaginary system is the best compromise you can make between your and mine ideas of Nietzschean individualism and actual, real-world practicality. You need some kind of superficial unity, even if the state has to resort to social engineering. In what i am proposing, i believe an individual such as yourself will thrive, and the majority of humanity, who have little interest in esoteric value and betterment will be free to NPC their lives away while objectively improving the quality of life for everyone.

>>14391941
s e e t h i n g

>>14392059
As i said to the other anon, i don't believe in communitarianism. Specifically because such communities can splinter off at will, and so they will become weak and atomized. That being said, if i had to choose between the retarded idea of absolute statelessness, of unicorn butt-buddies frolicking in the heavens, of absolute equality of everybody everywhere for all time and communalism, the latter is the way to go lol.

>>14392154
dial 8, faggot

>>14392172
>dial 8, faggot

>>14387266
t. thinks anarchists are anarchists meme

>>14387445
>ancucks
>able to impose their will

>>14392138
i understand your criticisms but you havent really sold me on how Libertarianism would succeed in a vast nation unless you just pour propaganda all over people at north korea type proportions, without meaningful connections and mere ‘symbolic’ connection, Libertarianism becomes quite empty.

if i’m gonna be brutally honest, i was going over Zizek’s criticisms of anarchism recently, and it got me thinking of the need for both more intense localisation and more intense global regulation concurrently. People here often call me an optimist, but isn’t that kind of whats beginning to happen with people turning towards nationalism and seperatism on one hand, and more green-eco on the other. just fucking accelerate both sides and maybe we’ll get our dionysian dystopia

>>14392232
>>dial 8, faggot

>>14392325
>i understand your criticisms but you havent really sold me on how Libertarianism would succeed in a vast nation unless you just pour propaganda all over people at north korea type proportions
Fundamentally: No democracy. In my ideal, the state and the system are good as they are, and anyone who doesn't want to play by the rules can gtfo. That being said, obviously people who step out of line will only be punished if they comitted something truly destructive. As far as the practicality of inplementing this, Christianity managed to overwhelm the entire western hemisphere for hundreds of years, and leave with it a lasting moral standard. Maybe something like that will be required? But again, all of this presupposes that the state will not get corrupted, so that's certainly a problem worth addressing.

Can you restate some of your earlier criticisms in light of what i just said? I have a feeling i could learn quite a lot if i took a look at what you think in light of this.

>just fucking accelerate both sides and maybe we’ll get our dionysian dystopia
The dionysian dystopia comes to all in time. I wouldn't recommend consciously destroying a system that has so far worked reasonably well.

>>14392408
i think enforced liberty.. might be a bit of an oxymoron. and so might indoctrinated liberty... you really cant force people to enjoy themselves, lol.

so far, i’m sticking with my option, voluntarianism all the way

>>14392437
I don't think it's an oxymoron, the world runs on power. The best case scenario is that power is used to the benefit of a nation's citizens, enabling their freedom.

But that's fair enough mate. Thanks for taking the time and explaining your position. Cheers.

>>14392490
like i dont wanna say ‘human nature’, but i think anarchism is the closest thing to the basic state of things. if you put chimps in a zoo you are gonna follow guidelines of basic chimp social structure. If you do that there’s no need for coersion to make them be good chimps, shit happens of course, but there’s no need for indoctrination, because like they say in Jurassic Park, ‘life finds a way’ and people are going to refuse and fight your teachings eventually, or just go along with it resentfully.

the key issue is geopolitics, and the fact that fascism, liberalism, and communism have so far been geopolitical powerhouses. If you can squeeze a shitload of power (through aquiring financial resources, or geographic resources, or manpower) it doesn’t really matter that life generally is shite. The issue at stake is people being able to live like people, and not be coerced into becoming geopolitical pawns. can geopolitics thrive and actual life thrive at the same time?

>>14390212
>Historically, capitalists are left and monarchists are right. That's actually, dictionarily what "left" and "right" mean.
False. Left vs Right is about the concentration of power:

+ RIGHT: The most powerful 1000 people in the world have too LITTLE power
+ "CENTRIST": The most powerful 1000 people in the world have an APPROPRIATE amount of power
+ LEFT: The most powerful 1000 people in the world have too MUCH power

In contrast, Liberal vs Conservative is about personal/cultural values

+ CONSERVATIVE: Traditional values should be embraced and cherished; and freethinkers, libertines and cultural/ethnic minorities need to be kept in their place.
+ LIBERTARIAN: The state should not take a position in the culture wars; neither liberal nor conservative values should be rejected, nor should they be embraced.
+ LIBERAL: Freethinkers, libertines and cultural/ethnic minorities should be embraced and cherished; traditional values are lame and should be overthrown.

According to these definitions, most people in the US (and on Earth) are either (far-)Left-Conservatives or (far-)Left-Libertarians. Liberalism will always be a disease of the decadent ruling class.

>>14392559
>can geopolitics thrive and actual life thrive at the same time?
Good question, i don't know. In geopolitics we can see the practical reality showing us pseud theorists on the internet just how irrelevant anything but power is in the course of history.

>like i dont wanna say ‘human nature’, but i think anarchism is the closest thing to the basic state of things.
I agree, but it's important to consider that stability is not a part of the natural state of things, and i don't believe it can be a part of a fractioned anarchy either. As a matter of fact, nature is known for being especially cruel, volatile and incompatible with modern-day human morals and desires. It's also important to remember that technology is incompatible with the primal circumstances of humanity, and that even within our natural enviroments we cannot be happy. Human happiness works on the basis of withdrawal. There is always some problem that needs addressing, and the various failures and successes of addressing such problems is why history happens, with all of it's fuckups and absurdities.

>If you put chimps in a zoo you are gonna follow guidelines of basic chimp social structure.
That's true, but in this case the chimps not only have a rational incentive to follow the rules, but also an emotional and social one. In a chimp tribe, chimps do not steal because the most powerful chimp would just fucking eat them like an absolute chad. It's all based on either fear or expected returns; on domination or gibs. The second either are eliminated, as with pure voluntarism, you get schemes and gangs with noone to stop them. Oh and it's worth considering that gangs are a result of large-scale society in all cases. I'm not sure why that is, but everything from fascist italy to soviet russia had some kind of a mafia going on, not to mention the japs today. In voluntarism, you've got only mob-rule to stop them. Unless somebody decides to create a state, and the rest voluntarily agree to give up their voluntary rights.

>>14390284
>And yes, the state socialists are using capitalism. State centralized capitalism. It’s not “freemarket” capitalism, but it is a type of capitalism.
Indeed. This is what a lot of "ancaps" don't seem to grasp. A rough and ready metric would be: how many ultimate decision-makers control the bulk of an economy's capital? The lower the number, the more concentrated economic power is in that society. And what you get with both state capitalist countries like the former USSR and oligarchic capitalist countries like the USA... is a very low number.

>>14375430
Anarchists don't read, but Tolstoy is your best bet.

>>14392609
>Historically, capitalists are left
LEFT: The most powerful 1000 people in the world have too MUCH power

>and monarchists are right
RIGHT: The most powerful 1000 people in the world have too LITTLE power

I don't see a single problem here

>>14392658
Neither is true capitalism, the US is corrupt, subsidizes corporations and fosters monopolies.
That is not capitalism.

>>14392668
Touché. However, monarchy is impossible without an enabling aristocracy.

>>14392679
>Neither is true capitalism, the US is corrupt, subsidizes corporations and fosters monopolies. That is not capitalism.
Not sure how you define the term on the right, but on the left we define "capitalism" as any system in which the means of production are owned by those other than the working people who made and use them. The vast majority of wealth in the US is inherited -- i.e., passed down to parasitic idlers generation after generation.

>>14392692
True, but the 1 person at the top still needs to have the most power so that the aristocracy can suck up to him for gibs.

>>14392641
>I agree, but it's important to consider that stability is not a part of the natural state of things
yeah i absolutely agree, and this is why i think anarchism would be great. it would be like living inside a 4D 4chan where all you do is fight and laugh til you die. i watched this chimp doco recently called Jane, where this chimp pack lived peacefully raiding all kinds of shit together, then one day of them died of Polio and the whole clan just fucked it and started fighting and disintegrated. to be honest, i thought it was heartwarming to see its not just modern life thats fractured but just the general condition of having a massive chad brain and a pretty decent IQ, an inherent part of the primate experience. I say this as i type from my iphone from a small pitch-black flat.

>>14392726
Sure, and obviously the 1000 figure was for illustrative purposes. Bottom line is: The Right thinks the distribution of power is not top-heavy enough, and The Left thinks it is too top-heavy.

>>14392723
I find your definition to be very top-down, as in, what are the results of capitalism. I define capitalism as a system where private property exists, and people trade using their private property through voluntary transactions. Hence, the government forcing people to give them money they then use to artificially prop up corporations is not capitalism. As a sidenote, i personally do not advicate for "true capitalism". It needs to be relatively pure, but have strong anti-monopoly laws and the like, as well as prohibiting the state from manipulating the market, that just fucks with everything. As do tax havens, thise need to be snuffed out too of course.

Check out this >>14390208
image. I wanted to post it again here, but alas it's already been posted.

>The vast majority of wealth in the US is inherited -- i.e., passed down to parasitic idlers generation after generation.
If a moron inherits wealth, they are essentially only pumping back money into the economy. A prodigal son who spends all of his father's money is pretty damn good. But what if the son is a businessman, and using the money he acquired from his parents he only grows his wealth further? This is also excellent, as the only way to get more money is to provide people who want a service with said service. It's a thoroughly win-win situation. To add to this, i can't remember the exact number, but i remember hearing about a statistic that something like 60% of inherited wealth is gone within a generation, this changing to 80% for the second generation. Don't quote me on this though.

>>14392741
If you champion the natural state, which i'm sympathetic to, then just go full anprim. At it's core, the universe has no meaning. It just exists. If you believe that's how humanity should exist for too, anprim is the way. Or alternatively nihilist accelerationism, but to each their own.

>>14392746
Fair enough, thanks for clearing that up.

>>14392825
i do have a soft spot for techno-primitivism. i want people to live like apes but also have google glass chips in their hippocampus. i want to essentially hunt various items in AR and be awarded with actual food. i just don’t want some evil videogame corp to make me grind 15 hours a day, or pay to play

>>14392803
>I define capitalism as
That's great, but the term "capitalism" in the modern sense was coined by French socialists/anarchists like Blanc and Proudhon, who defined the term as I did.

>but have strong anti-monopoly laws and the like, as well as prohibiting the state from manipulating the market, that just fucks with everything. As do tax havens, thise need to be snuffed out too of course.
Hey, we have some common ground. Agreeing that certain behaviors and outcomes are bad is a good start. Process is step 2.

how does anarchism square its an-heirarchical ambitions with the hierarchy intrinsic to nature? (strong over weak, competent over incompetent, young over old etc.) if anarchism is only a destruction of political hierarchy (bureaucratic and capitalist powers) then isn't it just trading arbitrary "civilizational" hierarchy with primitive intuitive heirarchy (the very thing the progress of civilization has tried to overcome?)

ok so the government is dead and the world is classless. you are a strong worker. your co-op is composed of the strong. a weak worker joins and slows you down. he will be given less responsibility to fit his ability and so he will also be rewarded less, if not literally in terms of pay, in terms of responsibility. social heirarchy remians. and this is a best case good samaritan scenario. in reality the weak worker will be expunged from the co-op. now he has no work and no collective to sustain him. he dies.

so if this is the case anyways why not use state power to accelerate the domination of the strong over the weak by building an infrastructure that buttresses rather than disables this primitive heirarchy? if you are making your collective weaker out of grace toward the weak your collective will be dominated by another collective which spares its weak no apology and so has the aggregate power to destroy you.

>>14392890
What is the modern sense of capitalism? Why is whatever you answered that question with the modern sense of capitalism?

>Hey, we have some common ground. Agreeing that certain behaviors and outcomes are bad is a good start. Process is step 2.
At least we can be honest about this whole ordeal, yes.

>>14392913
just think how many weak people in higher positions have held you back, terrible teachers with emotional problems giving you poor grades. this is the type of resentment anarchism should ideally feed off. it obviously attracts weak people who wish there was no hierarchy, but the truth is its a system wished for by the stronger types held back by buerocracy and other triffling matters

>>14392881
Some kind of tyrranical matrix that maximizes the individually determined well-being of each individual does sound pretty damn good lol

>>14392936
>What is the modern sense of capitalism? Why is whatever you answered that question with the modern sense of capitalism?
For the short answer, see Wikipedia:

'The initial usage of the term "capitalism" in its modern sense has been attributed to Louis Blanc in 1850 ("What I call 'capitalism' that is to say the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others") and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1861 ("Economic and social regime in which capital, the source of income, does not generally belong to those who make it work through their labour").' -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

There are many scholarly sources that trace the history of the term, but they all agree on that origin.

>>14392938
that's exactly the paradox I identify. libertarian/anarchist politics seem to be a tenuous alliance between those who want freedom from power and those who want freedom to power. in my youth I quickly identified with anarchism through that very resentment naively telling myself without the system I would prosper. but this seems like a disingenuous line of thought. it is not a true desire for the destruction of hierarchy but the ressentiment fueled destruction of current heirarchy in favor of a new one in which YOU will reign supreme.

if it is the beleif that the current civilizational heirarchy is flawed exclusively in that it lets the weak have dominion over the strong, and is oriented in the name of the strong through reasserting primitive heirarchy, anarchism is a self defeating half-measure when fascism, a structured elevation of primitive heirarchy (instead of anarchism's free floating buoyancy for the strong) is what you should be after.

alternatively we could interpret anarchism as a moralistic limitation of power that affirms primitive heirarchy but says the fascistic and state sponsored elevation of the strong is Going Too Far, but then isn't that idealist and if still leading to the death of the weak a little hypocritical ethically.

there could also be the belief that fascism Ideally would be the best system but a recognition of its and any state's tendency toward the corruption of bureaucracy and the infestation of the weak.

but none of these sounds like Anarchism to me. none of these sound like what Noam Chomsky or Kropotkin really want to say. is it just the dual nature of anarchism that behind its moralizing weak it harbors a new wave of power hungry and ressentiment fueled oppressors?

>>14392968
I don't deny that those people coined the term, i'm just asking that what justifications do you have to call their definition the "modern sense" of the word or idea?

>>14393060
or, again, tell me how an anti-heirarchical freedom from Anarchism handles the primitive heirarchy? is it an altogether ignorance or dismissal? is it the belief that capitalist pressures create the need for heirarchy and that an anarchist Utopia would remove all dominance-asserting and social-sorting behaviors from human activity?

or again just the belief that a decentralization of power would render these everyday acts of dominance as more or less harmless? as if the destruction of state were a kind of mass disarmament of the people. (but then again i only see this celebration of power's dissolution as making oneself vulnerable to those without ideals against violence who are willing to view you as prey and use their own as dehumanized military resource.)

>>14393060
>a tenuous alliance between those who want freedom from power and those who want freedom to power
This is actually an insightful turn of phrase, when trying (misguidedly) to include so-called "ancaps" under the anarchist umbrella. As Berlin wrote: "Freedom for the wolves has often meant death to the sheep."

>but none of these sounds like Anarchism to me
Anarchism is about redistributing illegitimate concentrations of power in a global economy with nearly 8 billion participants under the control of a mere handful of passive beneficiaries. 'Primitive hierarchy' is all well and good, but irrelevant in the current reality we all live in.

>>14393060
>>14393146
These are issues unique to anarchism, don't lump libertarianism together with this, we want nothing to do with this shit lol

>be me, living in a stateless commune filled with peaceful trannies
>organized state takes all our shit
How do anarchists answer to the fact that a state is going to steamroll through them as soon as they wanted

>>14393290
>Anarchism is about redistributing illegitimate concentrations of power in a global economy with nearly 8 billion participants under the control of a mere handful of passive beneficiaries.
But it's really not, that's the fucking definition of globalist communism, not anarchism you dingus. Is anarcho-primitivism not anarchism? Seems like you're just trying to define your particular brand of anarchy as the "real" brand of anarchy and excluding every other kind of anarchist.

>>14393323
Reminding the invading state that they have not signed a consent form

>>14393343
>But it's really not, that's the fucking definition of globalist communism, not anarchism you dingus
Is it? Define your terms. Without state support, concentrated wealth obviously evaporates, and billionaires cease to exist.

>Is anarcho-primitivism not anarchism?
Anarcho-primitivism is certainly a type of anarchism. What did I say to contradict that?

>Seems like you're just trying to define your particular brand of anarchy as the "real" brand of anarchy and excluding every other kind of anarchist.
How exactly did the definition I provided conflict with your understanding of anarchism?

>>14393290
>'Primitive hierarchy' is all well and good
what I get from your post is that you view anarchism in purely pragmatic and perspectival terms, which might make the most sense, but doesn't seem to align with the philosohpical tradition of anarchism which often claims to oppose all forms of heirarchy.

as a rallying flag for the proletariat's redistribution of bourgeoise holdings and destruction of a beuaraucratic social order it makes sense. but how do you view the aspirations of anarchism post-revolution and how do you justify the inequalities of primitive heirarchy over the inequalities of capitalist heirarchy? in a purely pragmatic and perspectival sense i don't see how you can moralize agaisnt using resources to elevate whatever power a primtiive heirarchy already affords you.

maybe the mistake is paying any mind at all to the "philosophical tradition" of what is essentially a mass working class movement seeking collective self-betterment. the utopianism of anarchism does not live in the peasents or the soldiers but in the superfluous men like Kropotkin and establishment scholars like Chomsky.

>>14393349
Ah of course, the consent forums, only a mind as sharp as buttertranny's wouldn't have forgotten about them

>>14393452
>claims to oppose all forms of heirarchy.
That's not quite right. Anarchists oppose *illegitimate* hierarchy. The hierarchical relation between apprentice and mentor is not an injustice.

>how do you view the aspirations of anarchism post-revolution
I don't even think a violent 'revolution' is necessary, near term. I would compare it to the Fenian movement in Ireland. The idea that absentee English aristocrats should own the means of production (= land) in Ireland, without having stepped foot in it, let alone worked it, is objectively ludicrous. Of course, the Easter Rising happened decades later, but that wasn't the start it was the beginning of the end. Same applies in spades to the current situation in the US.

>>14393452
(part 2)
>how do you justify the inequalities of primitive heirarchy over the inequalities of capitalist heirarchy?
There certainly are individuals who are 10x, 100x, even 1000x more "able" than average with regard to height, memory, innate athletic ability, muscle strength, innate mathematical ability, etc. etc. But the idea that anyone should own 100 Billion times more capital than the average citizen is absurd.

>>14392679
Coffee with a little sugar and cream is still coffee. I don’t care that you like it black.

Didn't see any mention of the Dictator's Handbook.

>>14375486
>Human nature

OH NO NO NO NO

Do we have to dispel this in a 70 post debate yet again?

"Human Nature" isn't a thing. It's an invention used to justify various political beliefs.

Human behavior is almost entirely dependent on environmental factors / social factors , followed by genetic factors.

Humans only steal and cheat each otheir because suprise suprise, the system is designed to encourage cheating and stealing.

>>14393776
Has shit all to do with anarchism. You another market fundie?

>>14393753
That analogy is completely and utterly irrelevant to capitalism. Capitalism isn't like coffee. When criticizing capitalism, you must criticize capitalism. Only free market capitalism is capitalism. Critiquing non-free market capitalism isn't actually critoquing capitalism, because capiralism with the freedom of association stripped away is capitalism only from a retarded, reductionist top-down phenomenological perspective. You cannot declare that one economic model is bad because a completely irrelevant economic model is used by people you don't like. Dilate, faggot.

>>14393865
>I do nut unnerstahn yer analogy
>Kofy iz licwid!

>>14393753
>>14393865
To add to this, your pinball-brained analogy is bettered in the following way:
Stephanie drinks tea, but she used to drink coffee. Therefore Stephanie still drinks both tea and coffee, which are actually the same thing.

>>14393873
>My analogy is so flawless every intelligent person can understand it!
>Why am i literally the only intelligent person in the world?
This is like poetry, but bery entertaining poetry at that. Kill yourself you brain-damaged fucking dyke, or make an argument. I'm still waiting.

>>14393876
That is not the analogy. You like black coffee so much that you deny that is coffee if anything you don’t like is added to it.
That is the analogy. I get to decide what I am saying to you with my analogy. Learn to behave yourself, market fundie bitch.

>>14393840
It concerns the unavoidable flaws in coercive rule, though a game theory book might be better if I'm going to classify books as anarchist lit by that metric. I just think that practicality is the most important thing to discuss in regards to anarchism, because that's the part with the most misconceptions. If it can be done without directly mentioning anarchism, that's great, because "anarchism" is a magical incantation that disables the higher reasoning of most human brains.

>>14393964
>coercive
Like I said, shit all to do with anarchism.
Again, are you a different market fundie or the same one? You sound the same but look like you’re pretending to be different people

This is not related to literature. Somebody should probably report it to the janitor.

>>14375430
It can be summed up as an emotionally driven appeal to total freedom and cooperation.

>>14393985
Then we must have different definitions of anarchism. And no, I just entered this thread.

>>14393920
Well yes, that's why i said how your impotent analogy would be *bettered*, made more appropriate to reality. I suggest you take courses in elementary reading comprehension. Likewise, this is not a matter of me preferring black coffee and calling other coffee "not real coffee". This is the very definition of coffee being fundamentally different to the definition of tea, and you're trying to convince me that even though the dictionary says otherwise, they're actually one and the same.

>>14393992
Why do you keep posting in attempts to boost your ego then? And furthermore, why are you so malignant in your narcissism that only once you get absolutely BTFO'd by people with an ounce of reading comprehension you go cry for the janitor? Kill yourself.

>>14393992
>>14375469
>>14375483
>>14375516
>>14375517
>>14375525
>>14378509
>>14378691
>>14378725
>>14388197
>>14390307
>>14393840
Here are some of the book recs ITT, since you missed it.

14394091
Not bettered, changed to suit you and your misguided faith

>>14394102
Noob

14394104(You)
Not only changed, but changed to better reflect reality. And oh how ironic that the ideologye now openly adopts the language of religious zealots. My "faith" is now dogmatically incorrect. Explain to me why. I dare you.

>>14394115
Oh i'm sorry. It's just that you ineffectual trash look all the same to me. It's strange that even though you got immeasurable satisfaction from writing something as juvenile as "Noob", i still respect the other guy more for trying to ruin your reputation than you, ruining it just fine by yourself.

>>14392913
>>14393060
>>14393146

>>14394115
what say you butters

>>14394203
*butterfag has left the chat*

>>14394354
:....(

>>14394115
SEETHING

>>14393060
>>14393146

hi, im the paradoxanon you initally replied to, i was semi-joking but i think there is something to it.

weaker willed people don’t wish to be disrespected and trampled on, they find a certain freedom in their position and they do play a role (which of course may change as they grow into experience). the stronger-willed, the ‘natural’ leaders aren’t there merely to exploit and dominate the rest, that is clearly disrespectful and would lead to instability and their position being overturned. From working with animals myself, i think people generally have dominance theory wrong, its not about some brutal idiot demanding the group to obey, the dominant one is generally calm plays a role mediating order among the others who may otherwise fight and bicker between each other. there are naturally assertions of rivalry and positions are not ever lasting. Those at the bottom have just as an important role in the stability of the group as the top. Seen this way, education isn’t a top-down exercise, law and order is generally a matter of fixing stability artificially which in the long run is actually more chaotic, and the beuroceacy of a kafka novel is clearly alienating because there is nothing human to challenge or gauge, always just a brick wall and a blank stare. fascism is this rigidity writ large rather than a facilitator of natural order. I personally don’t think human psychology was made for mass civilisation, we are closer to primates than ants. we can come up with ways to continue living in mass society that respects that fact

>>14395045
thanks for the post anon. you raise an interesting point about the difference between interpersonal and systemic social relations. i hadn't thought of it in that way.

>I personally don’t think human psychology was made for mass civilisation, we are closer to primates than ants
this has been my feeling for some time. or rather that our psychology presents potentials which reach beyond what can be achieved by mass civilization. we are too strong and variable to repress ourselves into ants. i believe we need an atomization of political power which is not exactly popular or practical at this point in history, but who knows what new technology will afford for new systems of communication. not a world government, but a world syndicate of governments working together.

We all need to read this thread.