Redpill me on anarchism

Redpill me on anarchism.

Attached: Anarchism.png (640x427, 48K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=cpcgS0G7Xj0
whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/lend.html?q=pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/lend.html
youtube.com/watch?v=oB9rp_SAp2U
youtube.com/watch?v=TG-tG-Wo0Do
youtube.com/watch?v=sXutg47BwEU
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin's_Testament
youtube.com/watch?v=yZ6cstY4bLI
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

power vacuums always lead to struggle for dominance by centralized factions
anarchism doesn't last, it's stupid and leads to nothing but conflict

Anarcho-capitalism cannot answer the Fermi paradox of political systems. If it is so good, then why hasn't an ancap state survived and thrived in recorded history? This absence from the historical record indicates that Ancap 'states' cannot survive in the Darwinian pool of geopolitical rough and tumble. By comparison, even a system as fucked as Marxism survived for 70 years in the Soviet Union.
>tl:dr - Less viable than marxism.

Used by intelligence agencies to destabilise societies.

Attached: Chesterton.png (545x104, 28K)

not just ancaps though, the other forms of anarchism as well

anarchy means no rulers not not rules
oh please nigger intel always funds authoritarian regimes like china and ussr

Attached: _20181013_150921.jpg (597x668, 72K)

Anarchists are always purged and executed by the Communists that they, for some fucking reason, always ally with.
Look at the old Soviet Anarchists before the Bolshevik Revolution in the February Revolution.

For any Anarchists reading this. STOP ALLYING WITH COMMUNISTS.

you mean anarcho-commies who are retards anyway
communes =/= communism

Fair point - I forgot what colour denotes which flavour of anarchism. I think the Ancaps have the strongest arguments of all varieties. Anarcho-communism is dazzlingly contradictory and beneath contempt.

Modern day anarchists are teenagers who want to stop feeling alienated so they read up on an obscure ideology to feel like they are a part of something. It was relevant during the 1800s-early1900s as a counter to monarchism but now is a choice for teenagers too edgy for mainstream leftshit parties.

It shouldn't exist. If you wanna do anarchism join a commune. Don't try to be a revolutionary, kid. You're gonna end up dismembered like every other anarchist movement because they can never defend themselves.

youtube.com/watch?v=cpcgS0G7Xj0

Enjoy your food while you can commie, If you ever revolt I sense an immediate shortage

>Redpill me on anarchism.
lol power structures are stupid
why would you need money when you could just barter for goods?
if you don't have anything to barter at that moment, perhaps a promisary note system
and everyone can uphold the rules which we don't really want to have

Is that why the soviet union had one of the highest calorie diets in the world memer?

Absolutely true. Stew made from the corpses of children is calorie dense.

Attached: Screenshot from 2019-06-14 17-59-46.png (676x454, 261K)

>"memer"
You have a literal memeflag
and soviet spent their postwar years on backpedaling on their communism kinda like china does now so they stopped starving. (didnt help ukraine tho)

During the war?
You can thank US production for that. Literally.

The real redpill is understanding that historical anarchism does not have anything to do with antifa useful idiots, and that hierarchies will still exist no matter what. Ultimately I Iike to use the term Anarcho-libertarianism to coin all shapes of anti authoritarian ideologies that advocate for autonomy and a self representative government.

Attached: TheRepublic.jpg (800x534, 208K)

Attached: ancoms.png (427x960, 306K)

what war? the CIA admitted it in the mid 80's

If you're talking about WW2 the Mericans only shipped 1.5 tons of food.

Anarcho-communism is an oxymoron. You need a very strong state to enforce ban on private property.

Attached: 1355121828808.png (752x1668, 75K)

Anarchist communes during that time (ex Grapes Of Wrath) were somewhat traditional and based. But all they really were was just small villages and whatnot

Attached: This.gif (300x186, 446K)

>authoritarianism is when the government does things

Let us not forget the calorie dense diet of the Chinese while under the thrall of Communism.

Attached: Screenshot from 2019-06-14 18-06-58.png (273x437, 29K)

China was even more backwards than russia prior to industrialization. That's why it didn't go over as smoothly.

>If you're talking about WW2 the Mericans only shipped 1.5 tons of food.
whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/lend.html?q=pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/lend.html

Attached: 7BC7D0CB-7F19-4E54-907D-F8A9BD3B33DA.gif (500x275, 1.91M)

>When your source of life is the imperials you hate so much
The absolute state.

>my system of government fails to act correctly given the circumstances of the day.
>therefore my system is correct.
Communism fails. That's the lesson, here.

ancaps aren't real anarchists, daily reminder.

Attached: 1557385261071.jpg (999x1065, 93K)

REMEMBER THE CANT!

Oddly enough (according to Yuri at least), the Soviets loved the Americans, until the closing of the war. Then the propaganda turned.

The amount of lend lease the USSR received is not significant. For reference the british got 3 times that amount. Compare the size and damage britain received during ww2 to the size and destruction the USSR endured. It's laughable to believe it made a big difference.

Attached: Capture.jpg (360x1360, 78K)

>b-but the Brits got more!
And they weren't allied with the Nazis via non-aggression pact early on were they?
Funny that.

>YOU GOT IT ALL WRONG IT WAS ACTUALLY X THAT DID MORE THEN Y SO THAT MEAN GOMMSUNIM GOOD
??????

What do you mean? Stalin didn't wanna ally himself with Hitler. He offered the brits a pact in 39. They turned him down so he felt he had no choice. He was hoping it would keep the soviet union out of the war.

Too disorganized to beat organized opponents. Think the Plains Indians vs. the triumphant Union Army, post Civil War. That's why versions of Monarchy, Corporatism, Democracy (also unstable in the pure form but its ideal of reasoned debate is to be commended,) and Republic are the most frequent forms of government.

In the same way, a man who had had his limbs bound from his birth, but had nevertheless found out how to hobble about, might attribute to the very hands that bound him his ability to move, while, on the contrary, they would be diminishing and paralyzing the muscular energy of his limbs. If, then, we add to the natural effect of habit the education given him by his masters, the parson, teacher, etc., who are all interested in teaching that the employer and the government are necessary; if also we add the judge and the bailiff to force those who think differently--and might try to propagate their opinions --to keep silence, we shall understand how the prejudice as to the utility and necessity of masters and governments has become established. Suppose a doctor brings forward a complete theory, with a thousand ably invented illustrations, to persuade that man with the bound limb whom we were describing, that, if his limb were freed, he could not walk, could not even live. The man would defend his bands furiously, and consider any one his enemy who tried to tear them off.

Malatesta, Errico. Anarchy

Oh so you mean the Brits were at war longer while Comrade Stalin was helping himself to parts of Eastern Europe?
Well, I wonder why the UK got more aid, especially when it hosted exiled governments, militias and militaries and all that sort of jazz.
Really fires up the thinky noodles.

#
>The amount of lend lease the USSR received is not significant. For reference the british got 3 times that amount
Nigger that's like saying the Atlantic is a small ocean because the Pacific is bigger. Nice bait, you actually made me reply to this garbage thread.

Anarchism is the idea that there are no Gods or masters in your life. Sure there is tyranny and heirarchies, but at the end of the day you are free to make your own decisions. Things like government, the church, or royalty have no natural authority over the individual. They are groups of individuals that people believe are the collective.

People make anarchistic decision everyday. When you drive through a red light late at night you are saying that you believe you know what is right for your situation even though the state would tell you it's wrong.

Also I hate that the anarchist flag gets confused with anarchosyndicalism here. Because there are different economic routes within Anarchism.

it's a transitional phase between collapse and stability

>Oh so you mean the Brits were at war longer while Comrade Stalin was helping himself to parts of Eastern Europe?
Not how he saw it. The soviets saw the deal they got from Hitler as liberating parts of poland the baltic states from german yoke. I mean Hitler would have taken them anyway.

I screenshotted this because I have to keep quoting it so often. Lend lease in context, compared to soviet production. Between 3-7% of their total proportional output in almost any category, things that could easily be made up for.

Attached: lend lease.jpg (1225x935, 129K)

Your braincells have been removed.
I diagnose you with aids anda large tumour infection.

>Not how he saw it
COPE: The post
>The soviets saw the deal they got from Hitler as liberating parts of poland the baltic states from german yoke
Jesus Christ, there are actually people who believe this. Oddly enough, none of them are ever from Eastern Europe.

youtube.com/watch?v=oB9rp_SAp2U

also, identifying spooks and recognizing them as spooks is literally the single most redpill thing you could ever do

Attached: 1535380372817.png (500x483, 96K)

Lots of adhom and strawman going on in this thread from both sides. Sad to see that the concept of Anarchism has been so distorted these past few years with the polarization of both the left and right.

People assume that there is law and order now. That it's not already just warring gangs that extort people and unjustly imprison others. In a voluntary society we can have courts and policing. The big misconception is that there would ever be an Anarchist United States or Anarchist London. These structures are too dependant on extortion and violence for them to ever make it. You could probably have state sized voluntary societies, but that's my guess. Maybe old City states.

>anarchy means no rulers not not rules
this is actually very true but when I look at that yellow memeflag I grow suspicious

>After Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, Army Group North reached Estonia in July. Initially the Germans were perceived by most Estonians as liberators from the USSR and its repressions, having arrived only a week after the first mass deportations from the Baltic States. Although hopes were raised for the restoration of the country's independence, it was soon realized that they were but another occupying power. The Germans pillaged the country for their war effort and unleashed The Holocaust in Estonia during which they and their collaborators murdered tens of thousands of people (including ethnic Estonians, Estonian Jews, Estonian Gypsies, Estonian Russians, Soviet prisoners of war, Jews from other countries and others).[1] For the duration of the occupation, Estonia was incorporated into the German province of Ostland.

BUT STALIN WAS SO FUCKING EVIL FOR LIBERATING THEM

youtube.com/watch?v=TG-tG-Wo0Do

Attached: 1550690083303.jpg (552x690, 45K)

loving that Lysenko diet

>A collective group removing the property from the individual because they dissented from the collective state is not authoritarianism

>using wikipedia as a source of truth
jesus christ

facts don't care about your feelings

>Trotsky was the true successor.

This fucking bullshit again. Trotsky was never second in command. Bukharin was more popular than him among others. Trotsky was actually very unpopular with other bolsheviks. As for the meme that Lenin didn't want Stalin to lead the union.

youtube.com/watch?v=sXutg47BwEU

This guy is a far right professor who's obsessed with soviet history.

>Needing a central authority to tell you what's right and wrong

Top C. U. C. K.

Anarcho-capitalism isn't a form of government, it's lack of government. The opposite is communism where everything is nationalized. So everything else is between the gradient of ancap and communism. Most of your life is already anarchistic. When someone breaks in to your house, security guards show up, not the police. The question is how much of the remainder could also be privatized. Switzerland for example doesn't have social tax/public healthcare and in some regions only 3% income tax and they do better than most countries.

Attached: 07777156-5306-41f3-9c2a-ebdfcca4522a..jpg (900x615, 61K)

ok, but claims aren't facts because someone wrote them on a wikipedia article

isn't that what communism is?

It is the belief that you have no gods, or masters, that everyone can organize a society without being told to by someone else. Because otherwise it is oppression.
In short, it is painfully stupid.
The student obeys the master so he can teach him his skills. The worker obeys his boss because that's the guy with a plan. The citizen obeys the state through respecting the laws so he can enjoy safety and rights, etc.
Of course, none of them are perfect, and there are an infinite variety of them in history and cultures.
Even africans arent anarchists since they gather around tribal authorities and warlords.
A fair comparaison would be a galley where everyone rows when he wishes, in the direction he wishes, and imagining that they will agree on doing it right instead of wrecking the ship. And imagining they could built it in the first place. Another good one would be an army in which everyone is a general. Humans live in societies, and above a certain amount of people, if you want to get shit done, you give the role to some to decide the rules, and power to enforce them, aswell as deciding on projects and priorities.
Take a hundred guys for that, and you get infinite discussion, everyone having a different opinion. You see now why parliamentary systems were often paralyzed in the past. Get one or a few guys, they decide quickly and start putting the plan into action.
Anarchism is basically a population sized parliament. It cannot work. And while they are busy arguing, the neighbor with a centralized power structure invade and take over.
Some people argue that anarchism worked in 1930ies Spain.
Wrong. They only rioted, created chaos, and had to use tools created by centralized power structures. When they started to mess with the commies, far more organized, they were crushed. This infighting among the leftist alliance allowing the franquists, supported by other fascists, to mop the floor with their face.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin's_Testament

Probably the only one of his comics I saved.

Attached: cyberpunk-gay-comic1.png (940x300, 47K)

Anarcho Capitalism is logically inconsistent though. It's as logically inconsistent as any other Anarcho-ism. How can you enforce any economic model if there is no centralized government?
Anarchism is logically and morally consistent (if argued well), but impractical.

youtube.com/watch?v=yZ6cstY4bLI

Attached: Svetlana.jpg (636x382, 92K)

Listen to the video. The statement was not dictated by Lenin. It was his wife claiming it came from him. It was not signed and she actually produced an even more damning letter once Stalin wasn't removed from power. Her second letter was actually dated with an earlier date, which makes no sense.

>phoneposting

Sure. That's why the communist is so salty about Anarchism. My point was about the appeal to authority fallacy.

Attached: 1554834805806.jpg (480x480, 42K)

mosrly wrong
its the simple belief that its up to those with authority to justify it. If they can't 'we' will do the jobb for them. So parents, teachers, doctors often get exampt from this rule, because they have arguments for their use of authority.

Bootlickers love to conflate their fetish with merit

I don't follow. You think it's wrong for me to point out that the commie is using unsubstantiated writings on wikipedia as evidence?

Yeah, ain’t gonna argue on it, who knows, I much prefer Stalin to Trotsky so I’m not gonna argue in his favour. But anyway commieanon, what is your precise political ideology?

also, in response to that image, the territory of your country is owned and defended by the state. You pay taxes in return for this.

>In short, it's painfully stupid
Stopped reading.

Why are statists always so bitchy when anarchists point out that they choose not to believe that there is a natural authority to the State? It's the same as religious people

>B_but you have to believe that there is a god! What about all the buildings and priests?!
>My whole world view is structured on a higher power!

Nobody talked about merit brainlet. Just getting shit done, or not. Call me when a group of antifas can organize something more complex than a barbecue or a rave party.
I don't plan to wait since they never will.

Tankie I guess. Marxism leninism.

>muh human nature

lmao remember when occupy wall street happened and it fell apart because everyone had different ideas about social justice and it turned into infighting?
good times

>human nature is irrelevant to human societies

>its painfully stupid
>stopped reading
Illustrating my point brillantly. Thx. And i never talked about religion, nice attempt of a strawman, but it is a failure.

so "dropped as a child"

So, Stalinism? Do you believe in an eventual democratic breakthrough?

Oh if that's your point then yeah. I guess that works. He should probably only be using academic works.

My land isn't defended by the state. Lel. I regularly had to walk outside with a firearm and regulate arguments between the drunks down the block. The taxes go to indoctrination camps and gibs. I'm sure it's different in Europe though.

Attached: 1549607867207.jpg (559x320, 35K)

The only good thing about Trotskyite 'constant revolutionaries' is they tend to see sense in the end and realise the ideology they believed in is fucked. They evolve into conservatives lol

Attached: 1552571995722.png (400x400, 229K)

>My land isn't defended by the state. Lel. I regularly had to walk outside with a firearm and regulate arguments between the drunks down the block.
well that's a massive non sequitor

Kek. Yeah. Anarchism in a nutshell. The only thing they could agree on was sitting on their lardasses, then start bickering endlessly among themselves.

It's a viable short term pathway to something else. But not a long term solution to anything.

the one true divide

Attached: 032.jpg (1920x1080, 380K)

same as with communism: works perfectly for like-minded but requires use of force during transformation period

>Statism isn't a secular religion

Attached: 1550793045293.jpg (500x664, 46K)

>Jesus was an anarchist
>told slaves to be good slaves to their masters

no system is guaranteed succses. Believing in kings is the same as believing in chance, and believing in beurocracy is either 'complex organization' or 'complex stagnation'
No one cares about 'dreams' and 'dreamers', but i guess thats the collectivist, and atuhoritarian way. Be them commies, fascists, or capitalists. What anarchists care about isn't 'getting shit done', its 'getting it done right' or not at all

>communism
>works perfectly
user, I...

The best way to look at all this bullshit about Stalinism or What Is To Be Done or whatever is the Bernstein take:

Socialism is nothing, the movement is everything.

Socialism is not a system or a state that you achieve. It's not something you can obtain via a "breakthrough" or "revolution", it's not a utopia at the endpoint of a long series of reforms.
Socialism, like democracy, is a process. It's a procedure which you must continue to do as long as civilization exists. Find power. Expose power. Demolish power. Rinse and repeat.

Attached: 1550171556771.jpg (365x363, 80K)

all those words and you didn't make a single point

>told slaves to be good slaves to their masters
>stuff that didnt happen

Attached: 150.jpg (1920x1080, 507K)

>implying there is something inherently wrong with power structures

Underrated.

Trotski mutated the definition of racism to mean power + prejudice.
We're all suffering that bullshit. What a legacy. The cunt

Attached: 030.jpg (1920x1080, 565K)

Attached: 031.jpg (1920x1080, 580K)