Anarchism

Anarchists are left over post chanology decentralised government fags who lack the cognitive capacity for non marxian socialism or fascism.

Like how to divide up your corpse for food?

Attached: Anarchy is Stupid.jpg (877x990, 323K)

I think you will find that most societies in the world have chosen to outlaw cannibalism and I never heard of a commune where they voted otherwise

it's really cute that you think this idiotic strawman refutes 170 years of anarchist thought.

>the 'anarchist structure' would hold together in the face of strongmen and 'need to be dismantled'

Attached: gold homer.gif (375x375, 167K)

How would you prevent a state-like entity of gaining power in an anarchist system? You wouldn't. States in some form would spontaneously emerge if there's no mechanism to stop them. Anarchy can be a transitional state at best.

that would depend on which side has the most guns, people, etc. It's called war, look it up

why would anarchists passively let a "spontaneously-formed state" rule over them?

And how do you suppose the 'anarchist structure' is going to get more guns, people, etc than the first tin-pot despot that shows up?
Will it use kickstarter or will there be taxes lmao

...

Because the state would have the power to coerce/convince or force people to accept it's rule. Kind of like it does right now.
Because well organized and administered groups of people are better at getting things done than a bunch of loosely affiliated individuals.

They're too busy not letting anyone tell them what to do to band together and actually fight back against a group that DOES.

education

What if what they want to do is collectively fight back?

It's simple, I'm an anarchist and I own guns. I obviously wouldn't sell them to someone like you, who wants to impose a government on those like me. The anarchists in this thread seem like potential customers, and maybe we should plan to kill you so that we don't lose our ability to be free. We don't need a government, we just need to agree.

No man has the right to rule over your life and tell you what you can and cannot do
Taxation is theft and the state is a criminal organization
People should be able to trade and associate freely

>Because the state would have the power to coerce/convince or force people to accept it's rule.
so?
>Because well organized and administered groups of people are better at getting things done than a bunch of loosely affiliated individuals.
lmao, anarchists communities are much more strongly affiliated with each other than any groups of people under a representative democracy

This next post was meant for you:

yikes dude
>my da sayd we need crops, not educashun
>he sayd the strongman would protect us, so we can gro ar crops in pease
rip your dream dude

Then the idiots that want to do the right thing and fight back will form a ragtag militia with significantly less support and less leadership than they should be getting while the ones that won't do what you tell them to sit back at home and laugh at the idiots until they all get run over and swallowed up.

No, anarchism is a mental disorder.

Now take that a step further. Get your friends together to take the guns from those fags you don't like. You've got numbers. Better yet, now that you've disarmed them, tell the fags you don't like to start giving you a big chunk of their crops or you'll come back and kill them. Now recruit more guys with guns and keep snowballing.
Before you know it the 'anarchist structure' gets rolled up into the next dictatorship in no more than a fortnight, just like everyone knew it would

meant to reply to

You're problem is with idiots, not anarchists.

Intelligent anarchist do consider mental, emotional, and physical fitness. We don't want to boss people around and have them rightfully overthrow us; that's impratical and that's exactly what governments do.

>if everyone were intelligent and did the right thing anything would be possible

Attached: TomsMindBlown.gif (300x308, 951K)

Genuine anarchism (and therefore genuine capitalism instead of predatory corporatism) will fix this shithole of a country, since there's still a lot of good people here who's been itching to make the bad guys become jungle fertilizer or fish food. It simply can't become a fractured and feudal city-states since it will become an unwritten rule that anyone becoming a collective will become greedy ASAP and therefore will hurt profit-making for anybody else.

>people that share an ideology are strongly affiliated, ha!
The problem is there aren't enough of you, and your ideology means you can't do SHIT to garner support outside willing members of your small group without abandoning your very identity.
Any other form of government-gang doesn't have such qualms, and that's why they've taken over the planet.

Or the weak fags hire people who are bigger and stronger than you, have them shoot you on sight and not only take their stuff back, but also get compensation for the stuff you stole from them
Then they keep the military group on their payroll as private security and live peacefully without the need to pay taxes

so you're saying the only problem of anarchism is that there aren't enough anarchists. I completely agree.

Disgusting if you are marxist you are not a real anarchist

Attached: bakunin.png (2225x961, 3.01M)

Oh no user, look out!
There's another group of weak fags that have hired PMCs, and they're eyeing up your fertile farmlands! Theirs failed!
What will do you?!
UH OH your PMCs want a bigger cut lmao
>weaklings with hired PMCs keep eliminating eachother 'in self defence' and taking over the now-free-realestate until there's just a few left
>as they absorb all these farmsteads they have to set rules to prevent backstabbing and new PMC groups from popping up and wasting more lives and resources fighting over the same territory
>whether they want to be known as groups or not, all the leftover anarchists that haven't been taken over (ie have shit for land) have names for these groups and what their rules are
Government is inevitable.

I think I'll stick with Marx, not interested in becoming a left wing nazi.

t. 14 year old

>I think I'll stick being a slave

ftfy, trash.

Attached: 1546212471830.jpg (250x250, 13K)

anarchism would only exist briefly
as soon as a powerful, organized group takes control you no longer have anarchism

And there never will be.
People don't like being on the losing side, and all it takes for your ideology/'structure' to crumple and lose is just a few competent dissenters taking advantage of your shortcomings.

>x would only exist briefly
>as soon as y replaces it you no longer have x
this must have taken you all day to come up with

Natural order would take hold making anarchy the most right wing position you can have, French flag lefty btfo

>People don't like being on the losing side
they dislike being on the starving side even more
>all it takes for your ideology/'structure' to crumple and lose is just a few competent dissenters taking advantage of your shortcomings.
pfffthahaha what? Someone should have told that to Franco, war would have been over right quick.

anarchy is the default state.

The losing side IS the starving side.

>Franco was government v anarchists, not a intra-government civil war with a tremendous amount international meddling
>somehow the 'anarchist' side losing is a point to show how anarchists don't lose

You mean the caveman state?

You talk as if everybody is a land hungry sociopath
Most people just want to live their lives in peace without any war
How many people really want to send troops to IRAQ to steal their oil?
How many people would be willing to go there and fight as soldiers if they weren't brainwashed into thinking that protecting the state's megalomaniacal interests is something good and virtuous?
Most people would rather use that money on something else, but you are coerced into funding it because the state steals your money

Criminals who want to steal money from other people are leeches who don't produce anything of value - only take. People who don't want their shit taken away produce more, have more money and will always be able to outpay whatever ragtag gang the niggers attempt to assemble

woooosh. The point was that people who are screwed enough times by the system they live under will eventually revolt against it, because there's no other option for survival. This is why some billionaires advocate for socialist policies, because they want to perpetuate the stability of capitalism and not see it fall under its own greed.

> People should be able to trade and associate freely
How would you ensure that people can trade and associate freely?

>anarchist structure and organization
>anarchist structure and organization

WTF do you even read the shit you write ?
How can Anarchy have Structure and Organization ?

Attached: pepehydra.jpg (640x480, 38K)

You know, there was no problem between you and us till you started pushing government in our faces. We don't want it. You're the badguy you claim us to be. You're the gang forcing yourself onto others.

>There's another group of weak fags that have hired PMCs, and they're eyeing up your fertile farmlands! Theirs failed!
How do they pay their PMCs if their capital failed you absolute nigger?
>What will do you?!
Kill them. Better yet, make an alliance with white people who don't go around robbing everyone's ass and eradicate the vermin.
>UH OH your PMCs want a bigger cut lmao
Good thing there are other PMCs I can hire and I don't have to pay Mr. US Marine Hyde whatever the fuck he thinks is appropriate.
>Government is inevitable.
No shit. Branding themselves anarchist was the stupidest thing AnCaps ever did. The question is whether there are alternatives to the existing governing structures and whether a man is sovereign or is a subject to the government's whims. State is a governing monopoly, and like any other monopoly it provides subpar services for exorbitant price.

>not everyone is a land-hungry sociopath
>Most people just want to live their lives in peace
And the best way to ensure peace is to use force to keep it.
Kill all the raiders from the next farm over with the failed crop and you have two choices: seed it for free with a couple of your family members or let it sit fallow until another group of vagrants moves in, works it, fails, and then raids your farm again.

The state 'stealing your money' is simply you doing your fair share you shit-for-brains.
Hey this guy right here -> this is the guy that would be sitting at home letting you do the fighting for him while he lives in peace. No, the people that have the most are the ones that produce AND take. That's governments.

Why wouldn't it?

If you always wanted to live in a post war hell hole its okay

tell me how a an ANARCHIST State would look like ?
Whos gonna do the Law ? Whos paying the Judge ? Whos paying the Defense ? or are we doing Trial by combat again ? Because even medival People saw what Kind of shitshow that was

Who will be there to produce medicine ? Cars ? Who will make the Equipment to fucking farm ?

Tell me how your Anarchist Society would fucking look like

>this is the guy that would be sitting at home letting you do the fighting for him while he lives in peace
are we in the same commune? There is no mechanism to force people to use violence (conscription) in anarchist societies but if we are of the same collective then a threat to me is a threat to him. He is of course right in that most people want to live in peace and not burn, pillage and rape their neighbor, but I don't think he extends that concept to self-preservation.

>ANARCHIST State
are you a retard? Go read the definition of anarchism and come back

Thats what YOU fucking brought up in this post

explain you fucking moron

So what you're saying is there will only ever be enough anarchists if society implodes into starvation-fueled riots?
Except there still wouldn't be. Because even once the gov implodes you're back at square one, where there are still never going to be enough anarchists for the 'anarchist structure' to be semi-permanent.
That's what I was saying. You can't reach the 100% intelligent doogooder population anarchy needs to persist unless the population is very, very small.
There will never be enough anarchists.

If not me it would be you. Or your friend. It's a race to the bottom as in everything, which is easy to stumble into, and by taking the most important-but-unsavory actions off the table all you're doing is hamstringing yourself for the first unscrupulous fag that comes along and sees your easy pickings.

And how will your group organize itself beyond just a dozen or so people? It either won't and will lose to a group who does or it will form a state-like hierarchy.

fine but since you don't seem to understand what anarchism even is, it will mean little.
>Whos gonna do the Law ?
the people. This is the only actual distinction between an anarchist and a non-anarchist society. Any further distinction is indicative of a particular brand of anarchism such as my own anarcho-communism.
>Whos paying x and y
Paying? No money in communism.
>or are we doing Trial by combat again ?
I have no idea why people would want to do that but if they vote for it I guess it's possible
>Who will be there to produce medicine ?
Pharmacologists
>Cars ?
Car engineers and workers
>Who will make the Equipment to fucking farm ?
Farm equipment producers

>Because even once the gov implodes you're back at square one, where there are still never going to be enough anarchists for the 'anarchist structure' to be semi-permanent.
I don't see why. The existence of other structures isn't an intrinsic threat to anarchist structures unless they specifically seek to dominate them. If the state implodes and a thousand mini-states emerge, none of them are a threat to the hypothetic anarchist structure as long as they don't seek to integrate them. Anarchists don't give a shit about ruling others, they just don't want to be ruled.

holy shit youre a Walking meme
>fine but since you don't seem to understand what anarchism even is
i understand it completely, if everyone was except for 10 People, those 10 would overrun the world
>the People doing the law
kek, witchburnings and Trial by combat it is then
>Whos paying x and y
yes someone has to produce enough ressources for People like teachers doctors etc., to have the free time and full stomachs to do "non-producing work"
>Pharmacologists
kek, one guy in your commune will produce meds out of think air, who made his Equipment ? who made the raw materials ? care to explain how People would get herbs and raw materials from the other side of the world without a working currency and trade System ?
>Car engineers and workers
see Pharmacologist
>Farm equipment Producers
see Pharmacologist
lol Cave man times coming in France i see

>how do they pay them
By raiding your stores dumbass
>make an alliance
What will you call this alliance? Will there be rules? Taxes to maintain the PMCs?
>I'll just hire other PMCs to kill the current ones!
Before or after you felate the one with a gun to your head?
>anarchy is dumb
Guess we can agree on that.

>And how will your group organize itself beyond just a dozen or so people?
With cellphones and computers and shit I would imagine. Also talking to each other in real life

>people not stealing from you
>is there any worth in it?
gee, you tell me user

The argument is yes, there would be people like that in your commune who refuse to contribute even if they are under threat too. The bigger the commune the more likely. And you'd have to have a pretty big f'ing commune to be able to stay independent.

They WILL seek to dominate them. Resources are scarce, and human history has proved we will fight over them time and time and time again
Anarchist structure is worth nothing if it cannot exist without a government to provide shelter.

>And you'd have to have a pretty big f'ing commune to be able to stay independent.
True-ish. Any large scale anarchist society would be a federation though, not one big commune. People from x deciding laws for people from y is one problem that anarchism seeks to resolve.

Let's say that a governmental structure wants to conquer your anarchistic structure. A lot of people in this thread are saying that governmental structures are inherently more organised, thus more powerful. How would anarchy fight back?

How exactly will a groups with no organized hierarchy compete with a group that has proper leadership and divisions of roles when you're dealing with millions of people?
>cell phones
Really....?

>Resources are scarce
No they aren't. Modern scarcity is artificial, we're throwing food away by the ton and wasting all kinds of shit. Even americans are more and more unwilling to go die for oil, partly because they're starting to realise they've been lied to.

What happens when the pharmacologists and the cell phone utilitymen and the car engineers don't feel like working, or just feel like half-assing it?
Whoopsie-death-pills, communications blackout, and no more catalytic converters?
There's no way that could get out of control and faceplant.
>well their family would ask them to do it pretty please with sugar on top
Still no, they got wasted last night and there's just no way they're gonna put in the effort. No cell phones today.

This is a strawman and I would like an actual explanation.

With guns. If you're interested in the minutia of armed organizations in anarchism, read up on the spanish republican army. Everyone was a volunteer and officers were elected (and revocable) by their own men.

Social libertarianism is the best way.
The best freedom...if you can turn it into something that can make everything free but if you break the rules it's death or everything is taken away from you and you seriously have nothing.
Then you figure out the rest.

This might be a long shot, but would a large-scale anarchistic society be a federation without someone governing the federations as a whole?

Actually if you appointed say lords or Barrons to keep everything in check then you should be ok.

Federations and "representativity". Anarchism isn't meant to force millions, which often have differents needs interests etc., into one giant commune. Representativity would exist to streamline communication and organization but not, unlike in representative democracies, to decide.

>has to pay 20% in taxes
>REEEEEEEEEE
>shit hits fan, no more government
>happypepe.jpg
>no more dollarydoos
>concernedpepe.jpg
>raiders show up and take 100%
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>eek out an existence, hire PMCs for 40%
>thisisfinepepe
>PMCs demand 50%
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>PMCs just shoot your ass and take 100%
Thanks anarchy!

same thing that happens today I would imagine. Or something else. That would depend on the law wouldn't it?

The only reason we have this much plenty is because of organizational efficiency & stability only made possible by an armed, centralized government.
Everything comes from the land or the air or the sea, and all three of those things are FINITE. There will be fighting over them.

>By raiding your stores dumbass
His shitty PMC has nothing on my Übersoldiers I could hire because I don't spend all my wealth being a raiding nigger.
>What will you call this alliance? Will there be rules? Taxes to maintain the PMCs?
Whatever we will agree on. Yes, it's called a contract. If that is according to the contract.
>Before or after you felate the one with a gun to your head?
Good luck finding a job ever again after you kill the guy who hired you. I'm sure shit like that would happen a lot at first if we are talking about Mad Max tier shit where people unironically fight over crops but it's not like state would fair any better in such a scenario. In the end only communities where people can cooperate to produce wealth would survive. It's what happens with states anyway. Stalinist niggers died off, now it's time for niggers with monopoly money, centrally planned GDP growth targets, bloated military-industrial complexes and socialized welfare to die off. Competetive markets are inherently more rational than central plans and societies that impliment them will dominate the shit out of every society that has other forms of production sooner or later. That includes government services.

Can you not fight? Why don't we try to join the PMC and teach them our own skills? I don't mind doing most of the work/fighting, as they make me a better warrior.

You keep creating strawmen. It's a bad habit when debating.

No, you just have to apply the same principles to the federation that you apply at the commune level.
>people come together and decide the rules of the commune
>communes come together and decide the rules of the federation

France used to be ruled by three people until Napoléon knocked down the other two and crowned himself. The idea that a leader a) is necessary and b) can't rule unless he's alone on top, is nonsense.

Wrong.

Attached: IMG_4286.jpg (225x202, 6K)

>all three of those things are FINITE
I'll give you land but the air and sea renew themselves, moreso now that we're starting to be a bit more careful about pollution.

So it would be much more like a direct democracy? The people decide on a course of action by voting but there's no leader or system of administration?

Yep

Anarchism isn't "like" direct democracy, it is direct democracy. The word by itself and without any suffix has never meant anything more or less. The only reason niggers think "chaos" when they hear anarchy is because of 100+ years of statist propaganda provoked by anarchist bombings of the late 19th century. In France, the word was outright banned and you could get jail time for printing it, which is how we got "libertarian" (libertaire).

That actually clarifies it a lot.
But how can a decision in such a system be enforced if say.. 30% of the populace doesn't want to play ball with the result of a vote?

>the word was outright banned and you could get jail time for printing it
In what time period was this the case?

>But how can a decision in such a system be enforced if say.. 30% of the populace doesn't want to play ball with the result of a vote?
that's the best question I've had in this thread and the first where there isn't a definitive answer, even among anarchists. Most anarchists want to deal with dissent first with discussion. If a non-insignificant part of a given commune is unhappy with a law, then they reason there is proably a genuine concern for those people that needs to be adressed, as most people past the age of 16 aren't contrarian by nature. The best case scenario is usually to find a compromise through negotiation and debate. When everything else has failed, people that refuse to follow the rules of collective can be banned from it. Of course this one approach among many and if you're interested there's a lot of ink on that specific subject. While we're talking about expulsions and rule enforcement, most anarchists aren't opposed to the police... exactly. In Rojava, everyone is trained to be a police officer to have the ability to deal with tense situations and defend themselves. What they are primarily opposed to is police being subservient to the state and, through that, to the ruling bourgeoisie class, rather than being subservient to a set of laws and nothing else. That just happens to be 100% of police today.
>In what time period was this the case?
I know it started during WWI because anarchists were threatening violence over conscription but I don't remember when it ended. Couldn't have been more than 10 years or so.

Anarchy is best, but left minded power hungry fags will always mob up and eventually come to take your shit. You need some sort of unifying force to defend against them for when they come. They have no morals and don't value human life. They will sacrifice their useful idiots until they finally get you.

Being able to police and defend yourself should be a mandatory thing to learn PERIOD.
It would save a lot of people and alot of time.