Why aren't you an Anarchist Jow Forums? why do you insist on licking capitalist/communist/statist Boot?
> inb4 red flag commie REEEEEEEE
I'm a Proudhonian Anarchist / Mutualist, not a communist, Mutualists/bakuninites used Red first during the first international/Paris commune, I hate Communists.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
fr.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
actionfrancaise.net
fr.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
The red in your flag literally means communism.
Because I'm not fourteen years old.
Fascists are the only true anarchists
>Why aren't you an Anarchist Jow Forums?
True Anarchist here!
AnCap all the way !
You need a history lesson:
en.wikipedia.org
The symbol dates back to the paris commune, red (socialism) of all sorts not just marxism.
k, I dont care if youre a fascist, you guys should have a platform so long as you don't take mine.
Anarchism and capitalism (as well as communism) are incompatible.
Anarchism is the final red pill, the infrastructure of the state is only a figment of your imagination, reinforced by coercion Instead of what it could be: reciprocity.
socialism without capitalism becomes communism, capitalism without socialism becomes fascism
both are needed to create a system of balance but
all systems are prone to failure
the true anarchist way is to not care and just do what you can to get by
>socialism without capitalism becomes communism, capitalism without socialism becomes fascism
??? Wat ???
Dont speak befor you're educated.
You're making a joke of yourself.
No masters no gods
No fiat currency
The structure of capitalism is fundamentally similar to the state, requiring theft to survive. capitalists through Rent, Usury and exploitation of their workers by not giving paying the equivalent to the collective force. The state through taxation, eminent domain, wars, imperialism and so on.
Commies aren't anarchists either.
Not true there is socialism with free markets, the markets are conducted by the ltv but they are still markets. capitalism just implies private property and thus absentee ownership, while mutualism promotes possession instead, whoever uses the land owns the use. Mutualism is a Halfway point Between the two and rejects both as absolutes. I believe each commune should define its own economy uniquely fitted to their needs, without private property or the state of course.
Socialists were the first to critisize Fiat currency, Just an fyi.
>Dont speak befor you're educated.
>You're making a joke of yourself.
>befor
I don't have to do a damn thing you say.
Learn how to spell, retard.
He's trying to troll you Just ignore him.
>Pol supports capitalists
Lmfao gtfo you fucking dumb commie
>Not true there is socialism with free markets
Thanks for providing a prime example of socialism and capitalism working perfectly in tandem, I don't even know why I commented. Anarchism isn't a functional ideology nor a basis for a system to be built upon and I'm really sick of idiots who don't understand what it means using it as added spice for their ideas of a futile utopian state to make it sound edgy and appealing.
Why don’t you just move to Africa? Literal Anarchist continent.
>not much of a government just one autocratic faction after another
>little boarder control, people can just waltz into different countries
>not many people own property since everything belongs to either some tribal leader, a war-lord, or China
>no taxes spent on things like infrastructure, buying farming equipment, transport, or investing in the economy
>instead powerful people just racketeer and strong-arm weaktoids
Is this really the future you want?
fucking hell, what he said
This can honestly go for you brain-dead lobertarians aswell
>The structure of capitalism is fundamentally similar to the state, requiring theft to survive
Wrong.
Bit i dont expect someone that never created anything of value to understand that.
P.S.: Kill all Cummunists ( Parasites )
You’re not as different to the far right as you might think, but you had to fuck it up by being sympathetic to anarchism and communism, which are meme ideologies at this point
> credit unions
> mutual banks
> auto clubs
These are prime examples of free markets and social ownership in agreement. Anarchism used to be its own ideology separate from
>not much of a government just one autocratic faction after another
> autocratic.
You Just contradicted yourself, Africa is a land of MANY govts thats the reason why its so shitty, not to mention American and European corporations poisoning the water there.
> little border control, people can just waltz into different countries.
Im not against borders, I think borders should be defined by the people who occupy the land, if one commune decides to not allow in a refugee caravan, I'm cool with that.
* Anarchism used to be its own ideology separate from Communism and the like.
There isnt a far right in the way your think about it, Natsocs, fascists etc.. are left-third-positioners.
Im not a communist for the millionth time.
How will 8 billion people abide by the same singular system of Anarchism out of near a dozen in some kind of universalized, stateless harmony? Of such a situation cannot be forged, than why pursue anarchism?
communists are just as bad as capitalists/statists They want to transfer the power to the community, while anarchism wants no-one to hold power.
They won't, different communes will have differing functions economically, anarchisms goal is to dissolve the incorporeal glue which holds capitalism, communism, and the state together, replacing it instead with reciprocity and mutual aid.
By dissolving this "glue" and replacing it with Mutual aid, all of the nesecery systems the state holds stay maintained, but voluntarily funded and owned by voluntary investment by the members of the commune, sort of like holding shares, but since these members use these services, they are not committing absentee ownership.
But how are you going to magically get billions of people to abide by a system of reciprocity and aid able to satisfy every individual and group? Going to reach one standard capable of achieving your theoretical goal, and the goals of most other non-anarchist people? If people value the glue that binds the isms you hate, how will you make them stop in order to induce a anarchism?
>he actually believes it's even feasible for 8 billion people to do that
>people in an anarchist """"""""society"""""""" wouldn't evolve into a proper order after a few months or kill each other
Imagine living in this kind of lala dream land
When looking at examples of historical communes and their dubious track records, how would you expand that to the needs, wants and desires of mass society? How would you made a standard of mutual aid agreeable to all involved? A standard capable of being maintained by individuals or communes networked to a standard equal to or better than the economic standards of capitalism, or the social standards given by nation states?
But how are you going to magically get billions of people to abide by a system of reciprocity and aid able to satisfy every individual and group? Going to reach one standard capable of achieving your theoretical goal, and the goals of most other non-anarchist people? If people value the glue that binds the isms you hate, how will you make them stop in order to induce a anarchism?
The means already exist in Localized government, the federal Govt is dissolved and the local governments are replaced with decentralized and free tosyndicate and competing Mutual banks who distribute the funds nessecery for payment for the local's needs such as roads public transportation and so on while collecting tolls on those who didnt invest for use of public services.
(((""society""")))) is nothing more than an incorporeal abstraction, which ought to be dissolved. Im an individualist.
We aren’t anarchists because we don’t associate with homosexuals.
How are you going to have the governments of the world dissolve into little decentralized fiefs? How are you going to stop the formation or reformation of states? How are you going to get a mutualist vision of anarchism universalized and working to a standard equal to, or better than capitalism? How are you going to make all individuals voluntarily choose mutualism to the tee you require? What if they choose otherwise?
When looking at examples of historical communes and their dubious track records, how would you expand that to the needs, wants and desires of mass society? How would you made a standard of mutual aid agreeable to all involved? A standard capable of being maintained by individuals or communes networked to a standard equal to or better than the economic standards of capitalism, or the social standards given by nation states?
Past communes haven't really stayed consistent to anarchist doctrine, even going so far as to establish absolute economies such as communism, syndicalism and so on, while Mutualism as described in Proudhon's work never did suggest such a thing as this would fundamentally withdraw freedom of choice in how to function.
My solution is that the state be seized and overthrown possibly with the aid of some crisis, the federal government destroyed and local government atomized and broken down into a horizontal alignment to locality and the local destroyed by its citizens, violent or otherwise.
sure fooled me faggot.
How are you going to stop the formation or reformation of states?
because whats being destroyed insnt infrastructure but the destruction of icons and incorporeal hierarchy based on coercion.
> How are you going to get a mutualist vision of anarchism universalized and working to a standard equal to, or better than capitalism?
as mentioned before, Mutualism can operate within a capitalist system eventually swallowing it.
> How are you going to make all individuals voluntarily choose mutualism to the tee you require?
Mutualism exists on a sort of spectrum, mutualism can be either entirely market based or entirely collectively based so the economy conforms to the needs of the independent and federated communes.
fucking commie
> mfw not a commie/
If property is theft, I'm entitled to your clothes. Enjoy freezing to death OP.
Many ifs, maybes, buts or wishes there. Every single concept based on the idea that people would cooperate and would not look for a better system when the group expands and there are more individuals in it.
There's a reason why shit like capitalism and even communism works at its core, it's not a good reason, but the bigger chunk of the populace will always gravitate towards laws and rules of someone "above" them.
Anarchism unironically sounds nice on paper in some aspects, but it's wishful thinking like saying
>why don't we all just hug each other
>why don't we just like not have wars
>why don't we just like all be happy lmao
Eventually people would elevate a small and look at them for leadership in specific areas of their day to day life. Then you'd have people who would gradually abuse that same system and you'd be back to where we are now.
Im using my clothes, therefore, its mine, Its called the labor theory of property.
Are you Talking to Me?
the commune was communist
fr.wikipedia.org
> Many ifs, maybes, buts or wishes there. Every single concept based on the idea that people would cooperate and would not look for a better system when the group expands and there are more individuals in it.
> ignoring the existence of Mutual banks, credit unions, and auto and gun clubs, some which have been around for 100+ years..
Yeah, kid it totally doesn't work.
That's not really accurate, at the time "Communist" or more accurately "communard" Just meant people who lived in the Paris Commune and acted in a social system, Marxism didn't develop until much later.
The State is to culture as Capitalism is to commerce.
It is the natural progression of the fundamental systems of human interaction scaled beyond the level of a village/commune/community. The natural human family structure is itself functionally a State ruled by the patriarch.
Anarchism, Communism and other "utopian" ideals are inherently doomed to fail in practicality. They are simply peddled to the dangerously naive by those who wish to spread violence and seize power for themselves.
Because people can't be trusted with too much freedom.
>doesn't understand the difference
>It would JUST work
Damn sorry, for one second I imagined you were human and able to think, but I need to remember that you unironically think your """system""" can work out and that's all the answer needed.
Bakunin hated the jews
You do realise that dont you?
not anarchist but allied with Proudhon
youtube.com
Not anymore though. Not since the jew banker Schiff started funding the bolsheviks
its doesn't say they were communists but that their ideology was comparable to communism
I never said it would " just work' not much fundamentally changes, the systems still operate because the physical faculties of the state still exist, they are just managed and funded differently and broken down onto the local level effectively destroying the coercive aspects allowing more access from their citizens.
Because they are both socially owned likely since Marxism is more mainstream.
No he hated Bankers, jew use to be a synonym for a banker.
You're a socialist to.
and bush funded the axis powers from Rockefeller and company.
I agree with credit unions and mutual banks
Im against usury,rent seeking and other ills of predatory internationalist capitalism
Thats why Im 3rd position - but with order and liberty ensured through a small, but strong nationalist government
Because it’s the black mans natural place at the top, white boys belong in their dirt and their women, this country, this world belong to us.
you still need a central power to coordinate all of the local actions otherwise every of our countries will be split in countless communities
hence the interest of monarchism
There’s literally no way of enforcing public ownership of property without a state.
No he hated jews. Can't say I blame him
Im a third positionist - not a socialist
Small but strong government ensuring liberty and order. Ban on usury and other predatory/parasitical behaviour
Encouragement of credit unions, reformed monetary system
>the infrastructure of the state is only a figment of your imagination
"it's a social construct bro" doesn't mean anything and pretending social/culture power isn't a real force that holds power of people demonstrates fundamental ignorance of how people think and act as a group at any scale.
>reinforced by coercion Instead of what it could be: reciprocity
Any kind of agreement between people requires an incentive.
People agree to live under a state and abide by its rules because they have the incentive of (among others) access to resources, stability through adhering to a common culture, and protection from lawlessness, such as "a group with more power than yours takes over you group and enforces their laws" which coincidentally is the process through which Anarchy is naturally ordered into a State.
Listen to me:
Slit your wrists and do a flip. Post it too.
You cannot have theft without property.
So do what the tankies and the capability’s couldn’t do.
Teach a nigger something and create your own perfect anarcho-(faggotry)socialist state.
Bush and his family are criminal scum. Rockefeller and co funded the axis initially to make money and possibly in an attempt to coopt - not out of any sincere belief in 3rd position
I recommend you read Anthony Sutton
imagine being this deluded by serf morality
I don't even consider Marxism in its purest form a form of socialism, but still leftist communism is private property of the collective stealing from the worker and giving to the collective.
- but with order and liberty ensured through a small, but strong nationalist government
Fascists want to unite the working and upper class in a very Marxian like dictatorship of the proletariat like fashion,
> other ills of predatory internationalist capitalism.
that's, not internationalism, internationalism is a show of solidarity in international struggle, like against capitalism, what your describing is globalism, something that capitalism needs to survive.
You mean private, social ownership is a matter of fact, private ownership is a figment of the imagination of the capitalist and the state.
Property is different than possession, I want to abolish the formality of the ownership of property which is derived from usury, not the possession of the property. Capitalism and the state could neither exist if there were no public funding corporations get big not only because of their international presence, but various states subsidize their existence.
No shit but your saying your an anarchy (((socialist))) your end state is communism, total anarchy, or a complete ethnostate you tard.
It’s all just dependent on who does the best purging and where you do this.
> imagine being a bootlicker.
y, or a complete ethnostate you tard.
It’s all just dependent on who does the best purging and where you do this.
Thats not anarchism, like at all.
You think theese guys are political? theese guys have historically funded all sides of wars for hundreds of years.
>Im using my clothes, therefore, its mine, Its called the labor theory of property.
You're entitled to the clothes on your back because you've endured the labor of WEARING them?
What about the Chinese sweatshop workers who stitched them together, or the laborers who harvested the material, or the people who designed them in the first place?
>reap all benefits of capitalistic environment and contribution
>complain about it and want to do away with it
>inb4 duuuuuuu i can complain and critize it all i want brah!
Change our current system, make adjustments or brainstorm something else. Falling back on idiotic black and white absolutes are the hallmark of someone who can’t think for themselves and fear the complexities of tackling the problem vs. just doing away with it all.
anarchism is inseparable from anarchism, anarchism maintains order and stability through reciprocity and mutual aid, all things which exist today.
No, my clothes are a direct output of my labor and therefore mine.
Im not going against Free markets, i own a business myself, Im against capitalism as in usury and absentee ownership.
gg.
Property is different from possession.
Someone can possess what is not his property, like if I built a house and was renting it to you when one day you just decide it's yours - you'd be in possession of what is not your property but mine.
Not marxian - but classical order with cooperation and fraternity of all classes
Im a third positionist but not a pure fascist despite meme flag.
I'm not a capitalist - and capitalism is by its very nature internationalist - consuming all for the sake of profit
Denying this through semantics is willfully disingenuous
I'm well aware of that. The "elite" jews are the same.
Yeah, before Marx made his manifesto too. So?
How does that help today?
You need structure to filter out trash and viruses from places they shouldn’t be. Like your soiboy innards and the sack you call skin that prevents it from leaking all over your perants rug.
i decide to buy more then one house, who is going to stop me. oh, thats right, you jack boots. why? because your serfs and your only religion is toil.
you've been fed materialism by your merchant class masters to keep you vapid in your beliefs that toil is the only thing that matters, that deciding to rise above toil and be able to be free to act, not toil.
you'll realize your folly when you grow up after 17 and find that the regular working people, those beasts of burden your counting on for your revolution, couldn't give a shit about your ideology as long as they have a six pack of beer in the fridge and a nice pair of tits to nut on.
>my clothes are a direct output of my labor and therefore mine
You made your clothes?
Because before your stated position was that you were "using them, therefore, [they are] mine." I don't see how simply wearing clothing is labor in any meaningful sense.
>commune
Hmmmmmmmm
> it's a social construct bro" doesn't mean anything and pretending social/culture power isn't a real force
Not at all what I was saying, the state as in the series of associations and relationships needs to come into question
Property is land, you own the house, and you own the use to the land, but not the land itself because you did not create it. also are you living in the same apartment with your tenant ? because if not it is a matter of fact that its in his posestion, not a matter of the incoporeal sense of "ownership"
> Not marxian - but classical order with cooperation and fraternity of all classes
The thing about this is Marx would often take already existing ideas, rebranding them with his name and saying it's his, to me class friendliness and the abolition of a class is the same since it isn't financial equality that we want but equal access.
You're all the same kind of pathetic larping brainwashed middle class kids who have absolutely zero idea about economy and human nature.
Red this red that in the end you all get the same bullet.
Your critique of capitalism is almost identical to mine. Youre not a commie so kudos there too. You also agree that we need to ban usury and other predatory/parasitic behaviour
You want credit unions, mutual societies and cooperatives as do I.
Our only divergence is my understanding that you need a small but strong state to ensure and guarantee these things and preferably within a fairly homogeneous nation to ensure high trust and harmony
Saying you can't own land is nonsense. I don't own the granite until I - what - turn it into a cube? And then it's fine and mine if my home rests on it?
Or is there some super special, magical time period at which the cube of granite ceases to be my property for... some special reason?
You're renting my property. It's in your possession. It's not your property, and if you stop paying what you're contracted for and I want you to leave and you don't, you're violating the property of another person.
Marx was a crass materialist and totally disregarded 2000 years of accumulated tradition,philosophy,theology,kinship relations etc. Not surprising given his ethnicity. I conversely believe in restoring this wisdom to guide us towards healthy ordered governance with cultural and ethnic cohesion and stewardship. The total opposite of marx who sought to rip apart everything of value.
I really wouldn't say jews, because of that tendency isn't necessarily inherent in the Jewish race such as the Rockefellers who weren't Jewish, and neither are the Rothschilds, they were converts.
i decide to buy more than one house, who is going to stop me. oh, that's right, you jackboots
No not at all, you can own something financially, but a possible squatter owns it physically if you were to come back and physically remove them, im fine with that. Property is impossible.
>you've been fed materialism by your merchant class masters to keep you vapid in your beliefs that toil is the only thing that matters, that deciding to rise above toil and be able to be free to act, not toil.
I don't believe in Materialism, I believe in the will to power.
Not but i exchanged my money for the clothes, I'm not against or for markets.
> you'll realize your folly when you grow up after 17 and find that the regular working people, those beasts of burden your counting on for your revolution, couldn't give a shit about your ideology as long as they have a six pack of beer in the fridge and a nice pair of tits to nut on.
I own a business guy, in 32 years old with two daughters and a wife.
This Downie is clearly a Marxist.
Fascism did receive some inspiration from Proudhon, through the syndicalist movement, although I have a disdain for labor unions myself, I see them as capitalist institutions which exist to negotiate rather them take what's already theirs back.
yea, you basically got it. you can't own something unless you bought it or you created it yourself, its a matter of fact, land literally cannot be owned by anyone by fact because you cannot possess the land.
>You're renting my property. It's in your possession. It's not your property,
Not true, its in my possession, its mine.
Im, not a materialist, i adopt the will to power, what I create/possess is real to me and is mine.
Im not a racialist or a nationalist either im an individualist.
Honestly i dont care if fascists exist, i Just dont want it in my commune.
>the state as in the series of associations and relationships needs to come into question
And in the rest of my post I demonstrated one example of how and why "the State" naturally comes into being as societies interact and evolve, in a process that has repeatedly occurred thousands of times all over the world throughout human history. It is part of a universal aspect of human culture.
The State is to community as songs are to music and language is to voice.
The idea that all centralized power can just be offloaded and spread across the thousands or even millions of local communities that they manage or otherwise influence and things could just continue as normal or at any acceptable level is insane. People would naturally seek to re-institute centralization simply because it's much more efficient and more conveniently fulfills their wants and needs. That's the bottom line.
So a liberal then
A bourgeois "individualist"
How quaint
>Not true, its in my possession, its mine
Do you not realize how moronic a statement that is?
>it's in my possession, therefore it's mine
Consider the implications of that for one damned moment. They're absolutely absurd.
This
Fascism is closer to socialism than capitalism
I work harder than other people, why should I put out for retard who can't into the job market.
Can't trust my fellow citizen to pay me if I don't make them sign a contract.
Why are these bad things?
No Liberals advocate for liberal economic globalist capitalist trash.
If its in my possession, until you can prove otherwise its mine.
Rothschilds were ashkenazim were they not. If converts then khazars from AD800. Besides the point. Denying the major role jews have played in the banking and monetary/usury system is just silly
Also in my system - youd be allowed your little commune
You've confused division of labor for globalism, answer the question with intellectual honestly please.
Unrestricted internationalist capitalism is just as corrosive and toxic as bolshevism
>You live on this plot of land but you don't really "own it" man, it's not in your possession
>I live in the house you built. It's in my possession, so it's mine now
Do you realize your concept of ownership is even more imaginary than you claim "the infrastructure of the state" is?
You hand me your cell phone as you do something unsafe.
I'm dogsitting at your house for a weekend.
You're at my home to buy a lawnmower I listed on Craig's list, and you hand me the cash before I give you the lawnmower.
Well that changes everything. Tell me more about how you will be the ideal herald of this new system.