How can you be anti-socialist and not an anarchist? If you are not an anarchist...

Socialism is a system where the state redistributes wealth from what it would be under a pure capitalist system

anarchy is a form of economics, not governance.
socialism is a form of economics and governance.

>being this new
Also, mentally ill meme flag

taxes is not a socialist concept.
you can't take things that existed before socialism, and claim them as part of socialism.
all capitalist governments have taxation.
and for the record, take that ridiculous meme flag off if you want anyone to take you seriously newfag

It is a common definition since when the government controls something it's often said to be in the public's interest or it is owned by the people. Collective ownership.

>taxes is not a socialist concept.
How do you redistribute wealth without taxes?

that's not what socialism means
it's a common definition only in America, because Americans are uneducated and brainwashed to love hypercapitalism, not because that's actually what it means

Attached: regulationsbad.jpg (750x470, 63K)

>that's not what socialism means
What's your definition of socialism that doesn't imply any form of wealth redistribution

socialism is the people owning the means of production. This can include electing leaders who organize wealth re-distribution, but it is far from the only component of socialism

Okay, but how can this be achieved without taxes?

it would require taxes and (possibly) other ways of incorporating private wealth from capitalism, like making an oil company state-owned. But taxes are not wealth redistribution on their own.

Right, so maybe I misunderstand you, but how would you answer the question in OP?

I am not anti-socialist, but ill try: First, taxes are not socialism, the idea of paying part of your income in exchange for government services has existed since ancient Rome. Second, libertarians and radical capitalists like Stirner and Ayn Rand base their thinking on anarchy principles, so they actually do believe in an extremely limited state. The difference is that they believe mega-corporations and individual competition should replace the state, while traditional anarchists believe direct cooperation between workers can replace the state

Attached: 1535808263532.jpg (2697x2433, 1.51M)

Ok I think I get it now thanks user

Taxes arent exclusive to socialism, moron. Try harder

>how can it be achieved
Simple, you shoot the capitalists*, the means of production are now under communal control, anyone can use them to labor on and they get to keep the full value of their work, minus whatever upkeep costs are required.

*(note, anyone can choose to not be a capitalist at any time, though doing it last minute will probably result in you being shot anyway)

More formalized systems of community organization will likely be created to make society function smoother, but these are up to the workers to decide.

what the hell is this pic
like half of these deaths listed arent even related to capitalism

Imperialism is a direct side effect of capitalism. You cant have a capitalist system for long before it becomes imperialistic.

Define socialist, memeflag.

what?
Are you talking about fucking mercantilism or rapidly expanding communist dictatorships?

Government has a monopoly on force. They could just force companies to provide whatever the government needs without taxing them.

*whatever the government *wants*

This is the main problem with political discorse.

There is no set definition of anything.

Tell someone your a Liberal, and in the US people will think you a socialist democrat. In the rest of the world, they'll think you a lassaize-faire capitalist.

Say your a nationalist socialist and a lot of people will think you hate jews. Even though all you want is "Germany for Germans, with good public schools"

So there is much arguing over stuff people even agree on because nobody understands the words.

By the way, Dali Llama is a Nazi. So he must be a bad guy huh?

TFW even the most peaceful man in the world knows leftists are fucking tards.

>thinks the world started in 2016
>thinks everything is his choice, like sexuality
>doesn't understand why people picked this stuff
>doesn't realize anarchy is bad
>doesn't realize history is long
>doesn't realize taxes came before socialism
>failed being a useful idiot
>is a useless idiot
books, fren. read them.

ok i understand the famines
but genocides and massacres arent related to the economic system

>taxation
>socialism
No, taxation is a holdover from monarchies demanding money from peasants to fund wars and roads.

It's called voluntary admission you faghot.

>how can you have a government without taxes
Original US government was funded by minimal property taxes and you had to be a property owning tax payer to vote and otherwise participate in governance.
Then morons had these ideas to let people who don’t own property vote, then vote to raise property taxes and make new taxes blahblahblah
Today it is inconceivable to run a government with a million taxes and programs, inconceivable to elect a government without letting every poor idiot illegal have a vote etcetc

>There is no set definition of anything.
Well there are definitions, but then Jews see a word has value and expropriate it and redefine it to exploit whatever value it had.
A ‘liberal’ meant someone who valued liberty for all, liberty meant making your own choices. For a long time, in many places, most normal people didn’t make many choices for themselves in regards of who to work for, who will govern them, etc
Just letting people vote, have freedom of movement etc are ‘liberal’ policies relative to say some feudalism or early capitalism/Victorianism
Of course as Marx predicted, the liberalization program leads to communism because once poor people can vote they eventually reshape government for them.
And the right wing opposition to liberals stems from Plato’s analysis in the Republic that too much liberty leads to communism