What's your real Political philosophy Jow Forums, no memes, I am a Proudhonian anarchist
> inb4 edgy teenager.
Nope, I've written some essays on the subject of libertarianism, and left libertarianism and finding myself agreeing most with Proudhon on the state, capitalism, and usury, as well as his open-minded nature, unlike many "anarchists" of today who are only commies trying to be edgy, but weren't satisfied with the commie label.
> pic related to my ideology.
> inb4 This id only has one post,.
That's because I have value for my own security and privacy after I close my browser my cookies are flushed so every time I get on here I pretty much get a brand new id.
Okay, where do I get a loaf of bread in your idealistic society?
Brody Perez
You buy it, we still have a market, and money, just no corporations instead we just have large-scale co-operatives.
Andrew Cooper
So it's still do what someone else says for 8 hours a day or starve? That's fine, this is a hyperbolic argument anyway.
>no corporations instead we just have large-scale co-operatives What's the difference?
Easton Hughes
and unlike Marxism you can own your own business, its just when you want to expand you do it in horizontal arrangement instead of verticle, the major means of production are owned by the workers considering in order to expand the workers, as well as the founders, pool money together as well as work alongside one another making it only fair that they hold a major piece of the co-op, and the ownership of the means of production cannot be separated from those who work in the co-op, the risk is distributed among the work force to curve the risk and increaset the reward.
Matthew Sanders
philosophical neoplatonist and an anarchist- that means i see concepts such as nation, private property and similar as artificial and inherently non-existing however generally fatalistic, not an activist and personally mostly high tory
Jonathan Brown
You are paid according to the necessity and complexity of your work, as well as hours worked, and you're paid accordingly.
interesting
Jacob Lopez
also economically corporatist, distributist, communalist, anti- free market, anti- big business and such
Adam Morris
I'm pro free market obviously, can you tell me the difference between communalism and communism? I genuinely don't understand the separation.
Sebastian Williams
So I'm at the mercy of my co-workers and/or employees? Starting my own business doesn't sound very appealing in your system.
As judged by who?
A good programmer thinks his work is simple, give the same work to someone else and they'll take weeks to sweat out the smallest changes. We're rapidly approaching a technological society where complexity is entirely dependent on the individual's skills.
Landon Mitchell
Honestly i wonder when the rabble realise that by advocating unlimited freedom they advocate the dominance of the strongest. And as the strong will always perform well regardless of the system, they are usually just advocating a system with less protection for themselves. It seems weirdly masochistic.
It also seems counterproductive on a larger scale, as a group of varied capacity produces more under "freedom" where the strong are prevented from subjugating the weak than under freedom where the weak are utterly exploited by the strong.
Carter Lee
you wouldnt call me an anarchsit probably just like msot anarchist wouldnt cause i dont fit the subculture at all but from a philosophical level i fit into anarchist because of my rejection of any categories that arent natural and divinely ordained more controversial opinions include opposition to contemporary conception of borders, anti- free market and anti- private property i mentioned before, complementarianism...
in this context i mentioned communalism as governance by common property by decentralized units such as corporation and kinship groups and similar, as opposed to private property held by individuals and also as opposed to purely state or collectively owned
> So I'm at the mercy of my co-workers and/or employees? Starting my own business doesn't sound very appealing in your system.
No, by no means there plenty of free association, I see the individual as their own personal means of production that they are essentially selling their labor independently. Programming is a very complex thing, take into account how many functions and lines of code they have to go through, it is nesecery aswell you answered your own question already we are approaching a world where programming and Information technology skills will be very important and mesentery in the everyday life and market, without programming there couldn't be the software we are using right now.
Gavin Morris
ah, ok got ya, personally, I believe property is held through labor, be it using it as a means of production and personal property for land such as homes etc..
Gabriel Russell
> Honestly i wonder when the rabble realize that by advocating unlimited freedom.
This isn't what we want at all, we advocate for laws, the law that if you physically hurt of actively coercing someone that is illegal. also your kinda wrong about the strong, i see it as communism doing exactly what capitalism does, by putting one class above all else, in the case of communism is is the state/collective "good"
Oliver Morgan
thats why common property it cannot be handed out, inherited, turned into a bargain, turn people poor and rich, its stable, makes sure families stay stable and large, makes sure land is used productively im quite prone to romantic thinking, that one cannot "own" land, it belongs only to God and the ruler, people only mark which land they need to use
Nathaniel Morales
Quick reminder:
> "Proudhonian anarchy" is impossible because an enforcement against private property must come from a position of authority, and positions of authority do not exist in anarchy
> "Proudhonian anarchy" is a plot by moochers, leeches, and other jobless welfare fags to steal the fruits of your labor in the name of sinister notions of "equality"
Nationalist social democrat in support of a European Confederacy Please ignore the you know what, I'm abroad
Camden Green
are you aware that thats the system we currently live in in europe
Austin Bailey
through history, there has been a constant shift between, 'slave morals" which is generally values that hold that they are victims, and actively try to victimize themselves, think identity politics and "master morals" , think The rich and powerful who value power over all else, the slaves revolt against the master and inevitably become the masters and making them the slaves, i want to destroy institutional power so this constant shit of values.
> "Proudhonian anarchy" is a plot by moochers, leeches, and other jobless welfare fags to steal the fruits of your labor in the name of sinister notions of "equality"
This is so wrong, we want to abolish welfare and replace it with mutual aid, you do something for me I do something for you, its called reciprocity.
> "Proudhonian anarchy" is a plot by moochers, leeches, and other jobless welfare fags to steal the fruits of your labor in the name of sinister notions of "equality"
This is also wrong since the only way to acquire funds in mutualism is through labor.
Dominic Watson
and your image is wrong, I'm against raising the minimum wage, I can't speak for all anarchists but that's what I think, and I want to abolish taxation, but I am in favor of nationalizing production, not limiting sale to other countries of course.
Matthew Foster
The degree to which a system deviates from human nature can be measured by the amount of force necessary to maintain it.
A ban on private property would require an immense amount of force to maintain.
Your system eats itself.
Alexander Thomas
I should've made it clear that I also strongly support the Fortress Europe idea Other than that I am content, except for fuckery with the Euro and young people leaving to go to the West
Are you the same user here yesterday talking about Proudhon and usury? I made the argument that most of that left leaning ancap stuff could be done in a capitalist system.
Robert Wright
Post ironic neo-reactionary monarchical fascism in the vein of the Romanian Iron Guard.
Jeremiah Rodriguez
Anarcho capitalism is the only moral and functional system.
what do you advise to someone that lives in eu, but hates everything that europe is and stands for
Angel Foster
I think capitalism and communism are fundamentally the same systems, they are two systems that place one class over another, eventually people like Antifa attempt to revolt and later adopt the master values themselves leaving everything unchanged, I would like to have another revolt but with the sole purpose of destroying slave and master morals, this is an idea that is very much influenced by Nietzche.
> The degree to which a system deviates from human nature can be measured by the amount of force necessary to maintain it.
The system relies on free association, not the amount of force nesecery to maintain it.
> A ban on private property would require an immense amount of force to maintain.
> ban on private property.
private property cannot exist without the state, whats left is personal property the process of acquiring property is essentially equal to buying a tomato.
Oh yeah, i saw your posts i cant remmember part of it but if mutualism happend how you purpose it would no longer be capitalist, it would be mutualist considering the means of production would be held in co-operative ownership, while somewhere else someone would be practicing capitalism, my ideology's only valid in the land it is being operated under, also you say that loans are voluntary, yes this is semi-true, many people are essentially forced to take loans to live, also in the case they are buiying a house, whats stopping banks from doing what they did in 2008?
Tyler Bailey
>Capitalism and communism the same How to spot the shabbos goy
Of course my country will always be above Europe. Of course I want to return to the glorious past. But what do you do about America? How do you stop China, the red dragon rising in the east? How do we protect ourselves against the African?
I will always choose a fellow Hungarian over, for example, a Spaniard But I will always choose a Spaniard over a Bantu African
Nathaniel Ross
lol i dont think you understood me a single bit but ok i really have no patience explaining why i hate hitler and racialism
Jaxson Thompson
it's doing better, but not thanks to central planners or any kind of lefties. I am nationalist paleolibertarian myself
>explaining why i hate hitler and racialism Then what the fuck are you doing here?
Jacob White
Yeah imn against central planning and statist and lefties, although i a technically a "socialist".
Anthony Collins
Capitalism fused with National socalism.
Evan James
> "Capitalism and communism are fundamentally the same systems"
fucking kek
> The system relies on free association
Something that humans do not naturally do. Some of us will accumulate more wealth. Other will just outright steal shit. There is no way to prevent some people from having more than others unless you implement an insanely powerful and oppressive regime. That is a fact.
> They are two systems that place one class over another
Yeah, but communism places incompetent bureaucratic fags in power, while capitalism puts smart, productive elites in charge. If you succeed in capitalism, it's because you deserve it. If you succeed under communism, it's because you're a bootlicking authorityfag.
Evan Campbell
christian distributism
Jackson Sanders
talking to people online cause im too introverted irl and cause irl people dont understand edgy stuff you can talk about here
Parker Price
Transhumanism, I advocate for the female genocide by means of systematic replacement with gynoids to turn the tables on the sex war that is going on as a first objective, and I seek for the creation of xanadu as an ultimate end in this reality or in any full imersion virtual reality to free us from God, no, emancipate us from God. in order to do so I must show my world view and support anything that could fit the agenda.
Yeah I don't really get the distinction with co-operatives precisely, I guess what you're saying is that all workers in a business must necessarily all own equal shares in it and thus take equal shares of the profits?
So here's some questions. How would businesses start? There's some new idea that requires a new type of machine, that machine needs a large investment. Who pays for that?
What stops me from aligning with you on this is fundamentally risk, people take a risk and invest their savings (or take a loan) in order to get a disproportionate payback if the enterprise actually turns out to be profitable. They get a cut of the profits that normal "workers" do not.
If say 10 people start a business together like I want to do, and say 5 of us privately fund it. In a mutualist state presumably if we then went on to hire 50 people in a few years time they'd all have equal shares? Just by virtue of the fact they work here? But they accepted none of the risk, I get the same share they do, so why would I risk the initial capital if essentially I get the same shares? Why not just go and work for someone else, immediately get a share in their business with zero risk myself?
You can't realistically share the debt equally because some people simply aren't able to save money, they're not contentious enough, most people will never invest in a business because most people will never have set enough cash aside to be able to significantly contribute.
Like communism, this system seems to have the same problems, it ignores risk as being a factor for starting businesses and it seems only viable as taking over previously capitalistic states which are already established, there's really no decent mechanism for starting new businesses.
Robert Carter
> fucking kek > didint read the explanation.
> Something that humans do not naturally do. Some of us will accumulate more wealth. Other will just outright steal shit. There is no way to prevent some people from having more than others unless you implement an insanely powerful and oppressive regime. That is a fact.
yeah, and we don't care how much money you have in your bank account, we care about power, we belive everyone should have equal power over themselves and their faculties. we want to eliminate class by eliminating power, if every one has power then no one does.
> Yeah, but communism places incompetent bureaucratic fags in power, while capitalism puts smart, productive elites in charge. If you succeed in capitalism, it's because you deserve it. If you succeed under communism, it's because you're a bootlicking authorityfag.
> smart productive. > nestle using slave labor to produce chocolate. >foxxcon
> people have to live at the factory campus and they try to kill themselves regularly while working underpaid and undertreated, with no control of the means of production they work in, the 2008 banking crisis and the banks who survive off of leaching off anothers labor by manipulating money., again their class systems, we want neither, you should do some actual research instead of screaming Socialist!! and trying to insult me.
Kevin Baker
I'm a classical Liberal, a bit leftie Meaning I am situated in the center of the lower-left quadrant of the Political Compass chart, aka I'm "Libertarian Left"
>Pretty much a radical centrist in today's USA desu
> equal shares in it and thus take equal shares of the profits?
no, they are paid for their contributions of the work and nothing beyond that really.
> how would business start.
well initially it may start out as a mom and pop store as many businesses do, and then they federate with other businesses to expand, who would pay for upkeep and expenses, would be through the use of Mutual banks and credit unions thus it is the workers money who work at a buisness who are the sole owners of the co-op, which dosent exclude the foremer sole owners who will be paid more due to their labor being more nesecery and complex this can and likely will if there is an abuse of power managerment which holds no ultimate power is replaced with someone who meets the qualificatiins of descion making aswell as there main job being their primary source of income, the credit unions or mutual banks dispense interest-free loans by extracting the interest from funding collected from public services like buses, and toll roads, which charge those who actively refused to fund the project in the case they need to use a public service or people from other community's which eliminates taxation as an issue.
Liam Cruz
I wonder how a society of only chads and stacys would look like. Maybe it's truth and you're right, maybe we should go full agatha, but still, xanadu it more appealing for me.
Adam James
> You can't realistically share the debt equally because some people simply aren't able to save money.
They don't need to actively save money, the money can come right out of their paycheck and go towards this, so long as its a voluntary transaction.
You and I align, for the most part, you should check out some Proudhon and see if you agree. Interesting your french considering that ic the country mutualism originated from.
>no, they are paid for their contributions of the work and nothing beyond that really. So they don't have ownership in the business then by joining? And thus no cut of the profits? If they just take a wage then how is that different from being an employee in a capitalist system?
There's many businesses that cannot start as a mom and pop store, if you want say a steel mill then you need millions in investment in land, buildings, equipment and tools, as well as enough money to pay all the workers at the start until you're profitable.
Let's put this another way. I'm some broke guy in this system, I'm healthy and can work but I have no savings, I blew it all on whatever, doesn't matter. I have the skills to work in a steel factory and turn steel ore into steel beams. What is the process of me getting a job precisely?
For example do I just turn up, they give me a job and now I have 1/nth the share in the business profits for where I work? How much do I have to pay into the pot to get that share? Or better yet, how would my employment there be any different from a capitalistic system?
Landon Rogers
Some fusion of natsoc and the sort of ideology our founding fathers had, which isn't far off. Plus a little bit of libertarianism.
Adrian Barnes
You hold ownership as long as you work and pay for the things needed to run the co-op, as would everyone else they would all need to give an equal amount.
> There are many businesses that cannot start as a mom and pop store, if you want say a steel mill then you need millions in investment in land, buildings, equipment and tools, as well as enough money to pay all the workers at the start until you're profitable.
They could still take a loan out, they are members of the community and pay for the various things that make a community, and therefore they have a share in their local credit union or mutual bank, they take a loan from there and pay it off without interest needed, this money goes to the other members of the bank in exchange for taking a loan.
Wyatt James
They can also align themselves with an already existing co-op, essentially they just join the funding pool.
Though I don't think this thing gets all the authoritarian aspects of my ideology. I'm authoritarian to a point, just not thoroughly. I'm just not totalitarian.
>You hold ownership as long as you work and pay for the things needed to run the co-op, as would everyone else they would all need to give an equal amount.
So there's 2 major problems with this.
1) People who founded that coop may have had to put down huge personal finance to start it, and how can some average Joe possibly hope match that large investment, even through deducted wages. 2) The people investing at the start did so not knowing if the business would be successful, so they took a risk the employee joining later on did not take.
I keep coming back to risk because it's one of the fundamental components missing from Marx-like ideas. People focus on labour and fair enough, but the machines and tools they use have to be bought by someone and they have to be bought speculatively and that inherently means risk and people will not take risks unless there's some reward attached. If what you get at the end is the same as what someone got who took no risk then no one would take risks.
Most people do not actually want that risk, this is what I was saying the other day. If you look at capitalist markets and the people in them who complain of the employer/employee dichotomy. Those people could very easily be employers, they simply save some cash, or take out a loan, pay some people to produce some goods, sell them and whatever profit is left over at the end goes straight in their pocket. The problem is that no one wants to take that risk, no one wants a loan hanging over their head or to risk years and years of hard work by putting their life savings on the line.
The reason that most people are employees and not employers is that they'd prefer to reduce the risk and reduce the return. The employer takes the risk of the business not making any profit while the employees take zero risk, they get paid at the end of the month whether the business makes a profit or not.
I like the form of state capitalism that is now practiced in Singapore.
Xavier Mitchell
Hey, awesome response, will checkout that thing, in a few, I'm on work break.
People don't realise how Individualist, how anti-collectivism and anti-multiculturalism france can be.
The Norm here is Civic Nationalism (so non-racist form of nationalism) even though they don't seem patriotic, french people defend The Declaration of Human Rights, the basis for our constitution(s) replicated worldwide (except the US).
It's a very interesting subject, I'm the norm in France, just more extreme, because internet boi since I was a youngster
> People who founded that co-op put down huge personal finance to start it, average joe.
He cant receive a loan for a debt he couldn't possibly handle, everything is made through mutual agreement and considering he is putting money in a bank which he is a member and partial owner he wouldn't be allowed to take such a large loan, he is essentially taking it out of his own pocket, also it is done individually with those choosing to fund it to be able to while others don't if they so choose, in a private bank they would just pull money from nothing and give you a number that represents nothing being paid to those who also have nothing because money in a capaitalist-statist society is fake. Banks control the masses through an imaginary number m8.
Josiah Morales
And no I disagree with Proudhon. He's a real socialist. A anti capitalist, anti private property, so fuck no. I'm liberal, meaning I'm capitalist-socialist. There should be capitalism, but also as we advance we should implement universal revenue, to counter the effect of AI and robotisation of most industries, and jobs will/are declining and being pushed towards sercived and entertainment.
again the people funding a project, are also the ones who work there considering you cannot separate ownership from labor, by saying you'll help fund something means you are agreeing to work at the steel mill. Yeah but he's for the best parts of capitalism, the free market aspects of competition and free association while maintaining an "old-socialist" form of Business structure and maintaining the ability to own independently from a co-op.
Ryan Myers
Oh btw I'm in total agreement with you on the aspect of civic nationalism, except I don't mind trading with other countries in a free market. The part of anti- private property stems mostly from banks and landlords, not to mention homelessness, aswell as those who hold a centralized form of power within a buisness, thus the boss is stealing a portion of the workers wages, in the case of small buisness, mom and pop offten have to take out loans to keep their business and life afloat, and to pay the loan they have to take more out of their workers wages, so its a loose loose for the small guys.
Jacob Price
I'd make the presidency imperial in nature and take away the law making aspect from congress and give it to the president. I'd give them the veto power.
I'd nationalize all laws and give the president the power to command the state governments, to the point where he could fire state employees, including the governors and mayors.
On criminal punishment, I'd impose capital punishment on anyone who is part of a criminal organization. I'd do the same for serial offenders in the worst of crimes, like murder, rape, armed robbery, etc. I'd have all foreigners who commit those offenses put to death.
All violent felonies would have indefinite sentences, but everyone would be given a minimum term not to exceed 20 years. You'd have to prove you deserve a second chance to get let out by fully participating in rehab.
I'd ban usury, particularly mortgages.
I'd make adultery illegal and make everyone married when they make a baby.
I'd sterilize welfare leeches, drug addicts, alcoholics (if they have documentation for crimes or welfare use), and the low IQ.
I'd actively attack Islam and communism through propaganda, immigration limits, and banning them from all public or private positions of importance.
I'd make it illegal for news agencies to lie and punish them for doing so.
Hudson Bell
Money in a capitalistic society isn't fake, you're thinking about fiat money that government control through central banking. That's NOT at all even remotely capitalsitic. This is something we agreed on yesterday, I'm fairly sure.
I'm not pro central banks and pro usury, I get the impression that you think these are capitalistic ideas and they're not. These are ideas of central control that come from government meddling in the economy through the illegitimate use of force. Capitalists do not want public banks they want private banks.
Part of the problem these days is that people look at the failures of the system we have today and point to capitalism being the cause, when that's not true at all. It's straying away from capitalism that has caused these problems, often referred to as crony capitalism.
To address your question here about the 2008 financial crisis. The only reason banks did this is because they knew the government would bail them out because government insures the depositers money and the banks are seen as "too big to fail", so they know the government wont let the thing collapse that any loss will be socialized across the country.
That creates a situation where people who own and run banks get private profits (if they risk and win they keep the winnings) but they have socialized losses, which means if they risk and lose the public pay for those losses. All that does is make banks take bigger and bigger risks because there's no downside for them.
If you dont want a repeat of 2008 then it's super super easy, you get government 100% out of monetary policy, all banks become 100% private. If a bank fucks up by giving out bad loans you let that bank fail and the depositors there lose their money. The public who then demand safety for their money will only bank with private institutions who have proved they're trust worthy by only making good loans.
Gabriel Perry
Oh, I'd also send welfare leeches, defined as those who end up on welfare because of irresponsible behavior numerous times, or who are caught using drugs, gambling, etc. to work camps where they would be forced to work until such time as they've paid back taxpayers.
Jeremiah Russell
> Money in a capitalistic society isn't fake, you're thinking about fiat money that government control through central banking. That's NOT at all even remotely capitalistic.
It's state capitalism or a banking oligarchy I'm just as against bankers as you but I consider this system to be capitalist, you and I are using different words to describe the same thing, you see I don't want large business to have a central leadership. If your pro usury your essentials pro-private bank, I want to get rid of private banks and the government, of course, the association.
> they knew the government would bail them out.
The "money" used to bail these banks out is money out of the taxpayer's wallet, it is stolen, so I'm in agreement with you about this, the only solution to the issue of mass usury like this would be a socialist system, not what you think of as socialist, with welfare. but mutual aid. something that irritates me about the Austrians is they are an anti-central bank and yet they refuse to admit there is such thing as robber barons, there clearly is a class hierarchy and this thought isn't exclusive to Marxism. we are for abolishing private property in the sense that the state cannot maintain it, be it things like bailouts or subsidies as well as legal documentation placing the large-scale ownership of the means of production in the hands of the few, making co-ops the alternative expansion to small business. essentially what you think of as capitalism, I just refer to as capitalism, and free markets being an entirely different thing.
Gabriel Hall
I am Falangist and also National Syndicalist.
Jose Robinson
"state capitalism" doesn't make any sense. The state is inherently public, and capitalism is inherently private ownership. it's why no left leaning libertarian ideologies make any sense because the socialist/communist side always conflict with the freedom side.
I'm not anti-banking, I'm extremely pro banking, I think the loans that banks give out to allow people to start business they otherwise do not have the capitol to start is an extremely important part of the economy. I just want banks to be privately run, to live or die on their own merits or failures. Private citizens should be able to loan each other money, i see nothing wrong with that.
Usury is a term you're probably using wrong, there's nothing wrong with interest payments covering the risk of issuing loans, usury is where abnormally high interest can be charged because the people doing the loaning have some control preventing competition offering better loans. Usually this is through government control.
I don't see a way at all for large businesses to exist in a society that has no lending, that has coops where people have to pay in, how do you fab microprocessors that require hundrends of millions of investment in such a society? You literally cannot.
>The "money" used to bail these banks out is money out of the taxpayer's wallet, it is stolen, so I'm in agreement with you about this The only people that can steal are those with a monopoly on force which is basically the government, they're the ones who can tax people, enforce central banking, can rob the public to pay for private institutions mistakes, etc. To be pro capitalist is to be anti-government, capitalists want everyone to keep their own money, they want limited government and free markets.
What you seem to want is a funny version of capitalism where a government can poke its nose in and prevent trade if certain conditions aren't met. So you're pro government/state
Thomas Carter
I'm a male feminist. I think that men, especially white men, should be forced to give ALL women everything they need. It is our duty to fix their problems, no matter how small. And any white men who resist can be sent to the gulags.
Kek, cybernetics would be vastly more efficient than biological brains. Your neurons can only fire something like 200 times a second, whereas computer signals can travel at the speed of light. Your brain has a limited amount of hardware, whereas a superintelligent AI has a virtually unlimited amount of hardware, and could potentially use computing methods like cloud computing.
