Hey user, Did ya Hear user isn't an Anarchist

> PIC saved

why're you a capitalist?

Nice strawman, Anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism has been tried, anarchism in its original form (mutualism) has never been attempted.

Land ownership In Mutualist theory applies that land belongs to those who physically use it, China may hold legal ownership from the exchange but they don't own it if they don't occupy it, it isn't theirs if they can't use it, so their use of the land would just be appropriated by the workers, or broken up into individual ventures.

Not at all, red has historically been used as a flag of resistance and patriotism, Just look at the french revolution of 1848, where Mutualism originated.

>Land ownership In Mutualist theory applies that land belongs to those who physically use it, China may hold legal ownership from the exchange but they don't own it if they don't occupy it, it isn't theirs if they can't use it, so their use of the land would just be appropriated by the workers, or broken up into individual ventures.
I don't think you understand the question. What if china decided to enslave you all for workers on the resources in your land? Then fuck all your women and kill you when they're done with the resource extraction.

Attached: ###.jpg (460x430, 20K)

> implying there wouldn't be a revolt,

it's ours as we can defend it, the property belongs to those who use it., no different from today if you were to cap a Home-intruder.

> image: Proudhon, founder of Anarchism.

Attached: Proudhon1.jpg (220x305, 18K)

>Marx and the guy who founded mutualism were good friends and wrote their books at the same times
>OOOO BUT THIS ONE IS ORANGE

Attached: 1539814169832.jpg (794x1024, 97K)

Yeah earlier in their relationship, Untill marx stole from Proudhon, and then they started a long intellectual battle, which went into the first international where it split into two separate branches, the anarchists and the state-communists, and later dissolved. Traditional anarchists aren't too fond of Marxists.

I dont like sanders, or comunists, or syndicalists.

You think you would fight off China? Interesting.

ugh all you whiny emo anarchist teens are the same. Your kin believes everything is nothing but fascism.

Attached: antifa.png (500x379, 81K)

The point he's making that without the kind of military you can only have with a government, your band of plucky individuals won't be able to protect the land from the encroachment of actual powerful nations.
You can revolt if you like, but it will be crushed into the ground.

>Not if you have goys on the inside, double agents.
lol I bet this is what legit communists think when they talk about Cortez, and other assorted Demo-Socialists that they pretend to dislike.

>still using the anarcho communist flag (ie, the marxist flag), while talking about how much his new ideology hates that specific flag and ideology.
Yikes.

We wouldn't necessarily fight them directly but through the intrusion of their numbers and insurgency.

Not at all, I'm against Antifa, and i have a Business i own myself and i dont want commies stealing muh shit.

> Viet cong
> sand niggers
> the American revolution

Red was associated with anarchism before it was communism, such as in the first international which consisted of both ideologies, and even then Mutualists often add arrows around the circle-a to symbolize Mutualism, so there isn't a misunderstanding.

Insurgency has a pretty good track record.

I Think she's a horse face Marxist-Leninist cunt.

Anarcho communism makes no sense as an ideology.

agreed, the point of anarchism is to rid power over others from everyone, not put that power in the hands of the collective.

> orange version

Unfortunately, Mutualism is one of the Least well Know Anarchist Ideologies, even though it was the first.

Attached: 2000px-Anarchist_flag_black_top.svg.png (1998x1334, 71K)

>We wouldn't necessarily fight them directly but through the intrusion of their numbers and insurgency.
So such a society couldn't last at all, right?

Antifa are communists, i wasnt every posistion to have a voice and be able to act on it besides extremes such as capitalism, statism or communism.

* I want every position to have a voice and be able to act on it besides extremes.

The inherent difference in people's abilities and character compose their worth and worthiness within a society where people have to contribute effort to ensure collective survival.

Treating the Drug addict, pedophiles as if they deserve the same respect as the doctors and teachers in that community is insanity...
Which is not to say that people who serve the greater good should be worshipped...but that contributions should be the basis of order and should be incentivized.

True.
Pretty much every single ancom juts picked these two ideologies they know fuck all about and put them together thinking "oh now it's even cooler!".

Probably the vast majority of anarchists are these sorts of brainlets.

Its the only economic system that provides the individual with rights. The right to property, and the right to free trade.

More pics coming right up

Attached: IMG_1039.jpg (2000x1273, 3.17M)

Usually, the truth is somewhere in between, Mutualists don't care if a particular community uses a market economy or a communitarian-barter one, that sort of thing should be allowed to happen spontaneously and the economy should reflect the needs of the people is serves.

> The inherent difference in people's abilities and character compose their worth and worthiness within a society where people have to contribute effort to ensure collective survival.

This is due to outside influence, not something inherent in people, while something like pedophilia is, and in that they are an inherent authority over the innocence of a child and should be dealt with accordingly.

Id say the vast majority of communists and capitalists are, Anarchism is neither compatible with either.

But You don't own the air, or the water or soil, How can you claim to "own" property, The reason I ask is that i see Investment & occupancy as the basis of ownership, not a legal documentation of something incorporeal. I believe you own the improvements on the land, not the land itself since land cannot really be "owned" just used temporarily by a Tennant. if say You rent out a house in say Canada, but you live in California, and you collect rent absentee from your own occupancy, How is this any different then a far-off govt doing the same through taxation?

> forgot to post my pics.

Attached: 4999756c3024.jpg (750x441, 122K)

Actually, the hammer and sickle is representative of soviet communism, the hammer representing workers and the sickel representing peasants. In other countries where there have been communist revolutions, the symbols vary (though the hammer is often kept). Also, if you knew anything you would know that anarcho communism is very different from soviet communism

> pic from anarcho collectivist but still good.

Ancoms Have used it n the past, while (((Anarcho)))- communism is "different" from Soviet communism, communism is an absolute economy, Markets cannot exist within them, making them rather governmental, same going for capitalism but in reverse.

Attached: 1520659380439.jpg (850x400, 55K)

The ancom flag is not a Marxist flag you fucking larper. Marxists believe in a transition state where a dictatorship of the proletarian is established with the purpose of redistributing wealth, and that eventually said dictatorship would wither away and leave a stateless worker run society. Ancoms basically say “fuck your transition period, we don’t need that shit! We’re gonna make our ideal society without your statist bullshit!”

Do we own our selves and our own thoughts? If we produce goods and sell these goods to buy, or discover and claim, land, why should this land not belong to us?

Attached: 4ewdhncnjk2y.jpg (599x911, 99K)

Its different because its voluntary and not forced and coerced taxation. The free market =/= government force

Because every fucking retard who flies that flag is a commie who is just too stupid to realize it.
It has never been tried because it's a retarded system, it would be like a plague of grasshoppers. People wont care what happens to the ground because noone owns it. But there will be rules, who will decide the rules and enforce them in your so called anarchy?

If you use land to produce something, than, in a way, you could say it “belongs” to you (though I hesitate to say land can be owned due to my pagan beliefs. I see it more as a relationship between the land and the occupier, but that’s a whole other story). The problem is capitalists don’t use the land to produce stuff; they get other people to do it for them, yet they claim ownership even though they themselves produce nothing.

> Ancoms basically say “fuck your transition period, we don’t need that shit! We’re gonna make our ideal society without your statist bullshit!”

Bakuninists said this, Not ancoms Kropotkin still wanted to establish communism while Bakunin wanted to establish a mixture of individualism and collectivism with communal owned markets.

You create your thoughts, we own our bodies because our mind uses it. Natural resources are neither the product of your labor nor are they Possible to own, "Property" is entirely a state fabrication, a relationship between the capitalist and the state, btw I don't mind markets, I believe in the LTV so the only thing I consider to be mine are things I use, produce and investment, these three things are

Property is a Figment of the incorporeal, Occupancy and use are a matter of fact. usury is the continual appropriation of wealth beyond the initial transaction, which may or may not exceed the value of the property. which is derived from how much use i receive from it.

*g I consider to be mine are things I use, produce and investment, these three things are the basis of my ownership.*

the fact is antifa are so retarded i just simply don't want to see those hypocrits.
they're saying that they're silenced because the state knows their ideology works but they don't even bother trying to implement things that would reeally bother big companies.
plus i like borders i want my country and culture to subsist in 1000 years

Attached: antifanarchists.jpg (640x480, 105K)

It has never been tried because it's a retarded system, it would be like a plague of grasshoppers. People won't care what happens to the ground because noone owns it. But there will be rules, who will decide the rules and enforce them in your so-called anarchy?

You know nothing about anarchism, it's not that you can't own anything, its that you can't own anything that you didn't produce, so improvements on land such as roads, buildings etc... are the products of labor, not directly the product of land. the ownership of public services and the rules set for these services are set by those investors who use and fund public services, Public services are held co-operatively without hierarchy examples of this idea exist today, Just look at Credit unions, Mutual banks and some grocery stores which are owned by workers who use them, the only difference would be that worker-ownership is direct and not through the stock market and so on which is absentee ownership.

I dont Like antifa, the're largely communists.

>strong borders
>close the market to big companies
>establish some sort of independant cities (in terms of food and energy)
>no immigration, the population must diminish

I like to call them Williamsburg fascist since 99% of them have never worked a day in their life, but they think their being "authentic" , which couldnt be farther from the truth.

In the end human nature gets in the way of anarchism. However, you can have forms of anarchism within a society.

I think the internet is a nice example where a form anarchism produced something very interesting. The original internet is a decentralized global place where information/data is free and not owned by anyone. Of course it is now being regulated more and more.

> Loose borders based on the use of property
> destroy globalization.

perhaps but this is the face of anrchism today. I don't want to do anything with those people.
plus as i told you before i like my countries and borders and the idea of a borderless world with big companies does not attract me at all

After listening to Rand and Molyneux on the beauty of Capitalism, I know it to be the best system. But due to my inability to argue my point for it, I concede you guys victory.... for now

Attached: better_tomorrow_by_yuumei-daa3fwv.jpg (2000x921, 1.82M)

i don't see your point
if you establish loose borders and a single market (like the EU today) you open yourself to foreign investment
>jobs will go away as companies will delocalize
>local shops will diseappear replaced by big companies
>the entirety of the country is held by big companies

> writting this way
wow OP, you have to go back

>98 percent of the population are liberals
>let them go into those cities
>as cities independant no need for countryside
> most territory back to pristine form
>barely populated by the minority that doesn't want to live in an overpopulated shithole
also tourism only between big cities

when anarchists say they want "borderless" nations that don't mean we want to destroy the natural boundaries of the use of land, we want to abolish the formal state which perpetuates borders and destroys the individuals rights to say what they want to happen in their communities, some communities may have open immigration others might not, its all a matter of vote by those who invest in and use the public services of their communities. When power over a community is given to absentee govt, that separates the individual from their land.

Just know as a mutualist I don't want to take your shit, I suggest reading "what is property" by Proudhon, it may convince you otherwise, if not that's fine to ill be glad to fight along anyone who has freedom in their hearts.

Internationalism is different then globalism, Internationalism is a form of aid, say if a nation is having a revolt, anarchists in another nation will show support by fighting alongside them or aiding them in some way, I want to localize everything to the Limits of the boundaries of property being used.

>the immigrants community wnats more shitskins
>the locals don't
>immigration is allowed because one community wants it
you still need state enforced borders otherwise this becomes a hotspot for illegal immigrants and criminals (libya, somalia)

Attached: MZBL6060.jpg (1920x1080, 602K)

I never understand when conservatives make this point, any anarchist who wants open borders would also believe we should end climate change and military intervention, which are the 2 big causes of immigration.

there are still nations
the concept of nations is tied to the state
plus who will decide who to fight with, most of the people who consider themselves as anarchists are antifas, they will fight alongside other antifa to destroy shit in our country, if there is no authority you will have endless violence

I don't think antifa have much of an idiology really. So their communists? But they play the identity politics game very actively. Far left identity politics is a game invented and promoted by the bourgeois/elites to keep everyone angry with each other so they're not angry at them. Many contemporary radicals are too stupid to see that.

this is. if you want to stop immigration no wrecking other countries is a good start but again i'm no anarchist nor am i a neocon

i know. Anarchists in a city close to mine are tied with groenlinks and amnesty. This would explain why thay can break shit without being prosecuted
>if you want to see the epitom of this try AFFAIRE MERIC in france

This post made no sense whatsoever, If the immigrant doesn't invest in and use the land they have no say in how that community works, while they may own say a house, that doesn't mean they hold ownership, therefore, a vote over the community and how its services are governed. Militias could easily be established to prevent theft.

The community and locals are indistinguishable because the community is the locals.

> ut they play the identity politics game very actively. Far left identity politics is a game invented and promoted by the bourgeois/elites to keep everyone angry with each other so they're not angry at them. Many contemporary radicals are too stupid to see that.

ALL Identity politics are stupid left or right. I don't force you to be an anarchist, so why do you force me to be a statist?

Those are communists, not anarchists.

they are trying to shift the conversation from identity politics to class. You will see a lot of anarchists that talk about trans issues, race, etc. but it is part of a larger strategy to make liberals more aware of class/wealth, identity politics is not the end game for anarchists.

Personally Im only a class Guy, i dont understand the gender solidarity shit, i Just want freedom.

the very aim of this thread is to convince us to be anarchists
>militia are good but aren't they considered as a form of authority?

You should really know what you're talking about:
mutualist.org/id24.html

> the very aim of this thread is to convince us to be anarchists.

No it's not, its to clear up misconceptions and even if it were, that would be a choice., and no Militia are peacekeepers they stop things from being stolen and people killed they aren't a standing police force.

mutualist.org/id24.htm

Class awareness as Marx puts it at least makes some sense but class in identity politics is largely based on very vague postmodern notions. In many cases class conflict in identity politics is highly irrational, which is exactly what you would expect from postmodernists, because they attack the very fundaments of post-enlightenment Western civilization. We can see that this only leads to a very authoritarian society in the West.

Anyway, ask yourself why the biggest multinationals and financial elites love identity politics so much.

Also There is a huge hole in your argument that you may be to dogmatic to see, The Government as a singular entity is simply something in the minds of men, Government, once deconstructed into its basis is nothing more than an ongoing series of relationships which work together because of an invisible but perceived authority, If this invisible authority is abolished, you can see what's left, and replace it with mutual aid and reciprocity which is mutually beneficial for all involved.

> Anyway, ask yourself why the biggest multinationals and financial elites love identity politics so much.

> Marx puts it at least makes some sense but class in identity politics is largely based on very vague postmodern notions. In many cases, class conflict in identity politics is highly irrational, which is exactly what you would expect from postmodernists because they attack the very fundaments of post-enlightenment Western civilization. We can see that this only leads to a very authoritarian society in the West.

Oh great, you're a fan of Peterson, Post-modernism isn't what you think, Postmodernism is a Time period existing after "modernity", Post-modernism as a school of thought critisizes this new society which exists after modernity usually described to be post-Regan, for its nihilism and lack of meaning, usually resulting in consumerism or how Nietzche described it, the "last-man" as a result of Christian values, Postmodernism in some circles rejects identity politics as it doesn't exist within the present, The mind is separate from the body, but that doesn't mean you are physically a woman Just because you say so.

Im fully aware, But note that these Global capitalists want that.

> Marx puts it at least makes some sense

My goal as a post-modernist/structuralist myself, as well as a mutualist, is to deconstruct all of the incorporeal hierarchy of this mad world, These Multinationals only serve to hold up the pillars of Modernity.

Attached: 7.jpg (788x1024, 123K)

>*imitates anarchistic lifestyle*
>*subtly undermines the whole to serve own needs*
>*betrays comrades when slightly-less retarded dudes invade, turning into the only viable resistance*
>Grows Stalin-moustache

Yes comrade, is excellent idea.

>Militia are peacekeepers they stop things from being stolen and people killed they aren't a standing police force.
What do you think about whats been happening in Cheran, Mexico?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherán

>To defend ourselves," explained a community leader,"we had to change the whole system — out with the political parties, out with City Hall, out with the police and everything. We had to organize our own way of living to survive”[3]. Thus, on April 15, 2011 a group of women and men using rocks and fireworks attacked a busload of illegal loggers associated with the Mexican drug cartel La Familia Michoacana and armed with machine guns. The vigilantes assumed control over the town, expelled the police force and politicians and blocked roads leading to oak forest on a nearby mountain which had been subject to illegal logging by armed gangs supported by corrupt officials.[4][5] The new autonomous government is composed of councils elected directly by the people. This community administration is leading an effort to plant thousands of new trees. The community has since seen a crime rate of nearly zero.

>"In Cherán’s unique form of government, the real power lies wholly with the people. There is not a single decision taken without consensus, from who will get a local job in construction, to the allocation of public services and overseeing the spending of the budget. The authority of the community’s assembly is above any other local governmental body

The connection between Marxism, or Better yet Post-marxism occurs through a group of communists a while back who were unsatisfied with the results of the Russian revolution they formed a group called the "situationist international" To be a situationist, that doesn't make you a communist but many situationist ideas and criticisms spring from Marx's Capital. I am a post-Marxist in that I reject communism, But I accept many of the criticisms that Marx made against capitalism and that these criticisms can actually be expanded beyond a criticism of capitalism, but a criticism of mass-society. including communism as well.

Basically what happened, although it is a misconception that Bakunin was a communist.

sounds good, however, I hope they don't turn to oughtright anarcho-communism and hopefully state open minded to markets AND the LTv

mutualism is the ideology of the chad. do you have any kropotkin memes?

bakunin was based and redpilled

Attached: bakunin jewish nation.png (394x392, 63K)

No I'm not a fan of Peterson per se. I know very well it's a very broad spectrum and initially just a time frame theory based on a dielectric of old vs. new. But many postmodernist were clearly attacking the fundaments of rational Western thought such as Lyotard, which he later considered a mistake. Basically they considered facts a eurocentric tyranny which only ultimately caused world wars. Which is an absurd claim even if there is a little truth in there.

Anyway, it is this this application of postmodern 'theory', that I see as the problem. Ever since Foucault this is strongly tied to identity and identity politics strongly rely on these postmodern theories, e.g. look at gender studies, race studies, intersectionality etc. And as both the Sokal and Grievance studies affair showed, it's largely pseudoscience.

This doesn't mean that all of postmodernism is BS, people like Baudrillard have interesting things to say and postmodernism as a phenomenon cannot be denied.

ID says woo, that's how you know this is a fun thread

Attached: bakunin what is true equality.jpg (736x475, 82K)

Do you allow me to opt out?

Attached: bakunin on maintaining dictatorship.jpg (640x820, 117K)

youtu.be/AQmMe2IeGPU

watch the first few minutes where hoppe breaks down property rights

Well Marx always intented a revolution to take place in the most advanced societies. It might work better with advanced technology. But he made a few fundamental mistakes.

-The proletariate does not get more and more poor it seems. This is because of technological progress and this deceases the chances for a revolution.
-Human nature. People like conflict and hierarchy it seems.
-Most importantly, people are intrinsically unequal and not empty slates. Controversially, groups of people may not even be quite equally capable. This is a huge problem for radical egalitarian philosophy. As a result, they simply try to deny this very agressively.

What happened to "bash the fash?"

Attached: cuktiffa.jpg (1252x834, 300K)

>universal rebellion leading to anything other than anarchy
>anarchy leading to anything other than tyranny
how are all these degenerate fucks so dumb

this is the big thing anarchists have yet to explain to me. hierarchy seems inevitable.

It's a non-issue. Hierarchy can be innocuous. It's a hierarchical relation in a sense when I tell the guy I've hired to mow my lawn to really get around the bushes this time around. That's fucking fine - there's nothing wrong with that at all.

It's violently imposed extortion and subjugation of people that anarchists object to.

wow the two imaginary people you made up in your head don’t like me. i’m BTFO.

This post is proof positive that antifa faggots are schizophrenics who talk to multiple personalities in their heads all day.

Attached: 2878299_09.png (1012x1088, 711K)

This. A common mistake is that anarchism means no hierarchy, it means no unjustified hierarchy

Attached: quote-does-it-follow-that-i-reject-all-authority-perish-the-thought-in-the-matter-of-boots-i-defer-t (850x400, 53K)

>plant trees for air
>collect water for drinking and bathing
>collect manure for soil
holy shit

You're just another idiot 14 year old trying to re-define what everyone else already knows. Anarchy is, by definition, from it's very inception, the absolute freedom of the individual precisely meaning there would be 0 hierarchy that any one individual recognizes or adheres to (justified or not). You're a fucking brainlet that doesn't even understand the ideology you're trying to champion which is why you faggots get laughed at every single time you try to post on this board. Angsty teenagers that think they know shit about political ideology are pure, unadulterated cancer.

Attached: 1542592433373.jpg (250x241, 25K)

how interesting...

finally a good thread God bless you OP anarcho-communism is an oxymoron

Attached: 1524508535197.png (591x654, 704K)

>individual precisely meaning there would be 0 hierarchy that any one individual recognizes or adheres to
You are an idiot. Is a parent/child relationship not inherently hierarchical? A doctor/patient relationship? As this user says

no user, anarchism means no RULERS, hierarchies are perfectly justified

freedom of the individual doesnt mean no heirarchy retard