Ancom here. Tell me why your ideology is better than mine

Sorry, you're like an orthodox Marxist, or more of a Bakunian? Help me out here "AnCom" is a bit vague.

It isn't an oxymoron

because you are incapable of maintaining a sufficient military force capable of surviving on the world stage.
There is a reason Makhno lost. There is a reason the Paris commune lost. You have to be able to survive against external aggression.
At best you get a scenario like the Zapatista's where you're not invaded becausce your country is actually 'not-worth-it-stan', rather than your own ability to maintain military power.
Also your ideology is incapable of innovation, maintenance of infrastructure, it's ability to survive economically in a system where not everyone is also anarcho-communist, generally contradictory, and so prone to infighting from special interest's that it's incapable of unified action.
Either go Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, or Canton-style Municipalism. But fuck communism.

Attached: 1484210100209.jpg (788x1024, 126K)

Firstly, I would argue that capitalism also requires force or power. Secondly, The Will to Power was just one guy's interpretation of what drives humans. It doesn't really make sense to draw any conclusions from that one point.

>i want to regulate how you live and take away your guns, but i'm definitely an anarchist!!
ancom is literally a meme ideology, just assume you're another commie and get over with it.

Why would you have it that way, and not the other way around? A pizza covered in gold leaf and crushed diamonds probably costs a million dollars, and tastes like shit, but by definition it is personal, and not private property. Private property by contrast is actually useful, and people who own it tend to utilize it to create consumer goods.

You would think that the intelligent thing to do to escape the entropic nature of Capitalist consumerism would be to outlaw the excesses of personal consumption.

Attached: seal wheel.jpg (720x960, 40K)

because a state is needed to keep the ancaps from fucking everything in sight

It's not based on an imaginary post scarcity environment and assuming everyone is selfless and valuable.
Marxists ideology is literally naive child thinking.

Your ideology would ruin my quality of life because it would prevent me from doing anything I enjoy, along with all my friends and family.

t. Neoconservative Supply Side Economist

The military would be replaced by local militias, that way we aren't fighting pointless wars. If someone were to invade (In my case, the US), we would have weapons out the ass so I'm not too concerned.

Because you unironically believe you can create a stateless society.
Even if you "won," you guys would still create a specific method of controlling society, which means you'd still have a state, even if you don't think so.
And if you don't even try to regulate society, you'll just fail.

It's not that we would abandon the resources and means to produce products that are owned privately, it's just that ideally they wouldn't be controlled by a few rich people or even the state.

"Itll work this time, dont worry!"

Attached: w8hfo7feo0531.jpg (467x618, 77K)

yeah no fuck you I want more profits

When your country loses money to feed Moscow when your uncle gets jailed for singing your own countries national anthem when your ancestors get treated with the Holodomor when even the food on my plate does not belong to you how does this ideology benefit anyone that is not in power

...

mine won
/thread

your ideology is based off of people giving when they are not forced to, which is retarded

Funny ecofag here's a (you)

I believe in no rules, and the forced redistribution of wealth!

I believe this is a result of rich countries having really good infrastructure, which capitalism is good at doing. The point is that despite having these systems in place, many people are still going into debt and can't afford the medicine they need.

Attached: 1558091881362.jpg (610x358, 29K)

Sounds like problems caused by the state, no?

>Ancom here. Tell me why your ideology is better than mine.

Your ideology can only hold power for a handful of years before the authoritarian communists take over and gulag you.

Fucking based

Because mine doesn't result in mass starvation you Tankie faggot. Now go do what commies do best and kill a commie.

Most everyone is weak or directionless and soon after achieving anarchy those people quickly look to someone to lead them. Anarchy doesn't work and communism requires a government. Your ideology is a joke from the word go.

Mine works. Fuck off pinko

>There's a difference between personal property and private property.
Define both and expose how retarded your ideology is.

forced redistribution of wealth wouldn't be a rule? and who would enforce this rule, the police? what's preventing capitalist pigs from amassing wealth afterwards?

exactly when the state has all the power the state will do what it wants

Anarcho communists are upholders of the status quo. They are the ultimate militant normalfag and shills for corporations. They seek to destroy unions by advocating open borders so the greedy capitalists can underpay white workers.

Attached: dkv35yl15q711.png (960x605, 881K)

Private property:
Is not being used by anyone for free, and;
Can be used, with or without current occupants/users, to produce profit

Personal property:
Everything else

Because Bob Dylan explained what was happening in poetic/bilblical terms.
youtu.be/hUvcWXTIjcU

No government doesn't mean no leadership.

Reminder that Ancoms are literally financed by leftist billionaires.

Attached: ((((((Billionaires))))) literally fund ANTIFA's websites.png (667x967, 133K)

Your example of how to survive against a united state is.....a local militia.
How'd that work out of the original Zapatista?
Or Makno?
Or the Paris Commune?
Or the 1848er's?
Or the anarchists of the Chinese civil war?

Forget the US. How would such a state survive against a non-black totalitarian communist state, i.e. USSR? Or a fascist state? Or China? Or Prussia or Austria-Hungary? A united entity capable of mobilizing hundreds of millions or even billions of people?
And your response to that is the local militia?
Hey at least the USA is going to care about killing civilians, especially if it's all about a war in 'not-worth-it-stan'. But you can be assured that any strongly authoritarian state will not be so willing to back down in the face of opposition.

Of course this all assumes that your militia even wants to fight. Remember Poland's resistance? Turns out that not everyone wants to be like you. Some people genuinely believe in God, King, Country, & Property. Your system is incapable of living alongside such people. So you have to either let them be independent, weakening your resource base even further, or you maintain an iron grip on them, completely invalidating your ideals and providing a third rail against any invasion.

Your ideology literally cannot survive the basic fundamentals of international relations. Go read Thucydides on International Relations. This is basic stuff that needs to be accounted for in order to survive.
It's why the only version of "anarcho-communism" to survive against a world of states is the Xiongnu highlands region of south-east asia. AKA "Not worth it stan". And even that would only be a primitive village version. Nothing with actual industrial capacity.

In short, study more about why you might be wrong. Spend five genuine soul searching years doing it. Then maybe you'll be able to defend your ideas and understand the context of their failure throughout history.

Attached: 1482653710832.png (315x367, 148K)

Just get in the oven faggot is all i have to say

Attached: 7215A6CB-C517-4A39-8AE9-CD82C79884F6.jpg (638x960, 62K)

Daaaaaaammnnnn op got fucked

Okay but what if we had anarcho-communism but made an exception to have a military for international affairs?

Sage

>Is not being used by anyone for free, and;
Well, what can you use for free without taking value away from it? Any type of machinery is going to lose value when you use it if you consider that you are whittling away some of it's lifetime if you don't maintain it.

Attached: 5.jpg (1156x2031, 505K)

Three. Square. Meals.

>Anarchy or military
Pick one

The cost of maintenance is factored in to these things. No one is going to buy a machine that costs more to maintain than they're going to get out of it in profit.

Respond to my comment, your system would destroy the system of life of the middle class Americans.

The military question is something I do struggle with, but honestly I don't think an ancom utopia is even realistic, I'm more of a reformist.

What specifically would it ruin?

>The cost of maintenance is factored in to these things.
Your definition is still unclear. How can something be freely used if it has to be maintained? Who has authority over the property?

The property owner has authority over the property. When I say freely used, I mean by anyone other than the property owner. The only circumstance in which a factory worker is going to be using a machine is if it's being used to create profit for the people who own it.

I’ve thought about it the only solution is to create an ethnostate of the likes of North Korea. On an island, with a nuke.

firstly, i fucked up. The region of South-east Asia that is Not Worth It-Stan is called Zomia. Not Xiongnu. Xiongnu is basically Mongolia. A slip of the tongue.

Second I want you to really take a hard consideration of what would be needed for such a system to have a modern military capable of holding off a mid-tier authoritarian power intent on it's destruction.
Just really tease out the consequences of such a "Federal" government. The consequences of the concentration of power. The consequences of the requirements for technological innovation, production, and allocation of resources. The consequences of this unitary federal bureaucracy which, by requirement, issues top down order to lower levels of production. The military training required and culture that results from it. The close relationship from this top-most level of organization and it's, let's call it a "Monopoly on the Legitimate Use of Force" that it creates. It's ability to police internally to ensure that production is maintained in order to ensure that the system can self-perpetuate.
It sure is beginning to look a lot like a State isn't it? A top-down centralized bureaucracy with a Monopoly on the Legitimate Use of Force.

It is the inherent Anarchy of the World System that is the first problem. There is no policeman ready to intervene on the world stage. There is no God which will come down and stop another tribe which is opposed to your ideals from coming in and murdering you and taking your land. The only way to stop someone intent on using force is by your own use of force. And developing that use of force always, inevitably, results in the creation of Authority, hierarchy, and eventually, a State.

It wasn't an accident that the world is comprised of States. It is an inevitable reaction of the same set of circumstances encountered by all peoples everywhere.

I want you to go read Thucydides on International Relations and "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics". Start there.

Attached: bakunin.jpg (502x670, 114K)

Ah, i see. reform is nice if it's done right. But I don't think any country can fulfill all the conditions necessary for the Utopia at the moment

>Can't rise through the ranks of your firm, investing your returns in stocks, and using surplus money on hookers (in Nevada where its legal)
In a communist state it would simply be work, consume, sleep ,repeat.

Idk wtf your ideology even means and it'll never fucking catch on but that flag is aesthetic af

>Work consume eat and sleep
Throw in the hookers and simulate personal achievement you got yourself a Utopia though

You still have made no real distinction between 'private property' and 'personal property'. Is personal property that which you can't derive further value from? What if I realize some way I can create value from someone else's property? (a computer for example) Does it then become 'private property'? Is 'personal property' those things that are an end unto themselves?

>hookers
Well isn't sex a human need?

>simulate personal achievement
Rising in the corporate dominance hierarchy is the only achievement worth any note ever. It's the only non fake achievement.

What about communal property. Would it really be so bad sharing the van with neighbor. user, please they need to get their kids to skol

but anarchism has been tried, it leads to kings and brutal oppression.

Attached: 1510927006001.png (300x277, 178K)

Yeah but you can simulate the feeling of achieving something. Normies don't need reality, if they have adequate virtual reality

So becoming a powerful elite is now a fake reality? That's what corporate rising is.

I don't think your ideology is good nor bad

I just feel ideologies tend to correspond with egos, one positive aspect about your ideology that you can create a commune with your own laws and rules as long as you don't get infringe in a person's individualism, I can respect you as my neighbor.

OP i'm going to assume you are genuine in your beliefs and that you believe it because you actually care about the well-being of others.
Furthermore i'm going to assume you care about what is true pragmatically. That what actually happens in real life matters more than some Hegelian ideal of what should happen yet somehow never does.

With that in mind please, I beg you, hold back on expressing political opinions until a couple years of genuine study. The world will wait. You are not so important that you need to be correct and an activist for it right now.

I am not well versed enough to recommend the appropriate books on economics & political philosophy, but you should at least be able to Steel-Man those that would be considered Orthodox today.

What I can recommend is the following. Please read the following on International Relations & History.

Thucydides: The Mytilene Debate

jstor.org/stable/1086942?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

The Tragedy of Great Power Politics by John Mearsheimer

amazon.com/Tragedy-Great-Power-Politics-Updated/dp/0393349276

On War by Carl Von Clausewitz (Just the first part is necessary. His commentary on Napoleon is not relevant to understand the nature of War that he explains so thoroughly in the beginning)

amazon.com/War-Indexed-Carl-von-Clausewitz/dp/0691018545/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=WK3Z9873ZFQ3RNH88E0J

I want you to listen to the history of the French Commune, starting with the rise of the second French Empire. It'll be fascinating, trust me.

revolutionspodcast.com/2018/05/81-the-second-french-empire.html

I want you to START there. Not finish. Keep reading after that. Consider why those ideas may be wrong. Why your own ideas may be wrong. Study and read more. What I have given you is an incredibly easy starting basis to evaluate other ideas. It's "what happened to the french commune." "what is war, really" and "What is IR Theory"

Attached: Carl_von_Clausewitz.png (485x616, 491K)

This still cracks me up to this day.

>expecting this faggots to read anything other than Noam Chomsky and a chapter or two of Marx

>No government doesn't mean no leadership.
Someone has to make a decision between two conflicting interests or they fight.

Food and Private Property.

Anarcho anything is objectively ridiculous

No, being a powerful elite means you are inherently unsatisfied. Elites hunger for power, thus cannot be integrated in the Utopia. that is why for Marx, class revolt is conditional for his utopia. The construction of elitism is eliminated and replaced through simulation. And it feels good man

baste

let it not be said that he was never told appropriately how to study why he might be wrong. And from an a-political point of study as well. It's not like i'm recommending he read fucking Metternich or Hoppe or someone else fundamentally opposed to him. Basic International Relations School of Thought: Realist Theory, as well as the Nature of War should be both apolitical and yet unsettlingly decisive in their implications.

Also by god i hope it's not just Chomsky and Marx. If you are going to walk around claiming you are an anarcho-communist at least fucking read Kropotkin & Bakunin.
Seriously, if you are Red & Black and having anything other than seething hatred for Marx then you are doing it wrong.

Also hey OP, take a look at what happens when there is no central Authority to maintain a complete "Monopoly on the Legitimate Use of Force" and each ethnic group hates the other and has claims to the others lands.

This is how peace actually came to Baghdad.

Attached: Baghdad Ethnic Cleansing.jpg (3000x1370, 1.11M)

Would you define a "state" as a monopoly on force?

>TFW the last one OP replied to
>Feel obligated to keep thread going for more sage reading recommendations
>Devil advocate Marx's points
Sorry dude I don't read. Government doesn't let me.

>This is how peace actually came to Baghdad.
Is this sarcastic ? Am i retarded ?
How?
Last time i watched a documentary or news people wanted hussein back

I'm fucking off anyways. This thread is basically dead.
But if you are interested user here is one last recommendation.
Do you ever get in arguments with people about how to ACTUALLY stamp out Al Qaeda? Or the Shining Path? Or why the IRA actually gave up. Or why FARC lasted 60 years?
Did you ever step back and think, wait, how the hell do these groups either flourish or die anyways?
I present:

How Terrorism Ends: Understanding the Decline and Demise of Terrorist Campaigns

amazon.com/How-Terrorism-Ends-Understanding-Terrorist/dp/069115239X/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1WQ1TBFZFUZKR&keywords=how terrorism ends cronin&qid=1560831187&s=gateway&sprefix=how terrorism ends,aps,114&sr=8-1

Just fucking read it. It's completely unknown and absolutely fascinating. It is comprehensive, readable, and decisive in it's quantitative analysis. Yes quantitative, not qualitative. It is a brutally authoritative look at what works against terrorism, what doesn't, and why.

If you only read one book on terrorism to explain to people why nuking Kabul doesn't stop religious fundamentalist pashtuns in the mountains yet bulldozing Chechnya does work, it's that book.

Also read Peter Zeihan. Fucking everyone should read Peter Zeihan. Both of his books are great reads for why America is going to thrive in the coming future.

Attached: literally Zeihan.png (1570x872, 308K)

Christian Anarchist, the only legitimate order is the Lord put in place, any other hierarchy humanity creates is born out of sin and is doomed to always collapse and must be actively resisted and destroyed if possible

Attached: A3E0142A-652B-44EE-96A2-82A38C9BB6B0.jpg (1200x800, 28K)

FPBP

Also, we dont rely on coercion to implement our ideas.

Attached: 1557988196401.png (1000x1000, 188K)

Piracy is an ideology about stealing. We like to steal things. Also, we like ney neutrality, freedom of speech, and all the nice liberties of having access to information and freedom of speech.

Pirate parties are awesome, because you are allowed to form your own opinion, and you dont have to pay for anything.

Attached: 1560367129693.gif (250x300, 624K)

cuz it works. embrace anarco-fascism.

Attached: 1540701479913.jpg (712x474, 23K)

looking at Iraq there was an ongoing civil war in the mid 2000's.
The popular myth in the US is that a "surge" of US troops provided the boots on the ground necessary to stop the bloodshed.
A slightly more advanced viewer may conclude it was actually the bribes to various militias to get them to be under the government that did it.
The primary truth was that by the time the "surge" of the US troops came baghdad was already growing less violent becausce the violence did it's job. Baghdad was ethnically cleansed enough that mixed sunni-shia neighborhoods became with full shia or full sunni. The Shia's won out for general domination of Baghdad overall. The Sunni's who survived did so by fucking off to concentrate in areas. Once Baghdad was cleansed of sunni's there was nothing left to do, so the violence decreased and the US declared victory.

And every single scholar of the war knows it. and they all admit to it. and none of them will focus on it when teaching it because the implications of "a successful ethnic cleansing, not US counter-insurgency policy is what brought relative peace to Baghdad post-2003" is too unsettling for them.

Attached: 9bd1d1428428c78b9afa9aa07556a04e.jpg (1280x656, 284K)

nazbol here fuck off globohomo trotskyite we will have a workers revolution without shit skins

Based thread. sorry, I btfo'd OP.

>anarco-fascism
is this meant to be ironic or people seriously think that such ideology does exist

Attached: 1556566167646.png (434x524, 426K)

it makes perfect sense, blin.
everyone takes care of their own or they'll be fucked up by the individual collective of individuals enforcing the NAP

Attached: 1533900304507.png (1024x683, 75K)

Better genetics. Logic is on our side.
Get born right next time.

anarchism implies lack of authority and fascism is all about it
ur dumb

u r

Attached: 1546500887055.png (1920x1080, 265K)

Explain to me why I should debate you when they banned me so many times today on l*ftyp*l that I ran out of roaming IPs for just stating my opinion.