Meme ideology

humanism isn't pragmatic at all

This

>still more plausible than communism
It factually isn't, because communism was and is being applied, on a grand scale at that. Communism arises from structures and forces organically present in societies: which are professional unions, and obvious interest of laborers to get more for less, it simply creates more organized and complex structures from that, similarly to Liberalism and the Third Estate and its' self governance and representatives.

No such thing with Ancap. It does not represent naturally existing drivers in society. It is not being practiced even by its' self proclaimed followers (Seriously though, you could at least try to create an ancap court or something).

lmfao communism is a joke. What you are describing is what was managed to be enforced of the socialist ideology, and that will only be an example of actual socialism if all the economy in any given state is run solely by cooperative enterprise and manages to sustain itself indefinitely, which is unlikely.

Ancap applied to reality is basically feudalism, which is manifestly more tangible in the sense that it has already happened before in history: large capital and land holders making micro-states for themselves after the fall of a great empire.

Benevolent monarchy

>Ancap applied to reality is basically feudalism
Well, if Feudalism is Ancap, than everything is Ancap, including Communism. Hold your horses with your reductio ad absurdum here.

>What you are describing is what was managed to be enforced of the socialist ideology, and that will only be an example of actual socialism if all the economy in any given state is run solely by cooperative enterprise and manages to sustain itself indefinitely, which is unlikely.

Says who? This is no true Scotsman. Socialism/communism in practice, just like anything else, is when people apply its' theory in practice. Full stop.

If we follow your logic, than, indeed, nothing is an actual "thing". Liberal England has elements of Aristocracic monarchy, Revolutionary France has elements of Despotism, etc. etc.

>humanism isn't pragmatic at all
There certainly is pragmatic Humanism, and a fairly major share of it is. Society with internal conflicts is inherently unstable, and each member may eventually find himself with the short end of the stick. Society without internal conflicts would, in theory, muster great power outwards, and provide security and guarantees to each individual.

humanism is putting human shit before religious shit therefore anything that isn't a theology is a humanist system

>Well, if Feudalism is Ancap, than everything is Ancap, including Communism.
Ridiculous. Do feudal serfs own the means of production? No, therefore it isn't communism. Can feudal lords opperate like property owners hiring workers under voluntary contract? Then it is very similar to feudalism. It could manifest itself in other ways, but this is one of them.
>just like anything else, is when people apply its' theory in practice. Full stop.
And you were just complaining about reductio ad absurdum, how ironic. If we follow your logic, then ancap is also followed in practice because our societies are also toying with what you would probably qualify as neoliberal economic ideas, many of which are followed by ancap thinkers.

>humanism is putting human shit before religious shit therefore anything that isn't a theology is a humanist system
Nonsense. Secular, and even anti-theist regimes have initiated aggressive wars of conquest and engaged in execution of prisoners, etc. These are easily actions that you could classify as "anti-human" by many so called humanists standards. So it sounds to me that your definition of humanism is bullshit. In practice, humanist states behave like secular teocracies, enforcing their state ideology like a theocratic state would its religion.

syndicalism
I mean it basically died after WW1 until Kaiserreich revived it as a less authoritarian version of communism

no you fucking retard I'm saying that you put the idea of human systems as being more important than your religious standing god damn it takes two seconds to google

Just don’t think too hard about Darwin. Enjoy your “not faith.”

How is darwinism a faith?

Religion doesn't just mean "something people believe"

t. literally retarded

Attached: minority_representat.png (187x255, 50K)

Like it was dying in the 30s and 40s?

I was saying don’t think too deeply about trying to reconcile secular humanism with Darwin. It’s no fun to lose one’s faith.

How is darwinism incompatible with humanism?

Without leaving materialism, why would human systems be important? Why would you trust your thoughts on the matter to be correct, if your brain is geared for survival, not Truth? Is Truth even accessible under Darwin? From a Darwinian perspective, how is Humanism different from a religion? Why would human life be considered good, rather than the meaningless flicker of existence of a particularly rapacious primate? Just a few for starters.
For the record, I’m a humanist as well, just one of a different kind.

Where does Darwinism require hard materialism?

So we are in the realm of faith rather than fact. Glad we agree.

You think only the material is subject to verification?

No, I don’t, because I believe in God. What’s your excuse?

>USSR vs Somalia
who would win?

Also please remember not to think too hard about the questions I asked.

I'd say conservatism too. There's sharp distinction between conservatives(who wants to preserve traditions) and reactionary (who wants to time travel 2-3 centuries in past) though

Feudalism lasted 1000 years. Your system is barely 200-300 years old

Also hard for modern people to truly grasp that “feudalism” wasn’t an ideology, theory, process, or even a single system. It was just the way of life that emerged in the Middle Ages as things settled down after the Fall of Rome (I know there were other “Feudal” societies elsewhere, don’t reply). Understanding this is not just a challenge for liberals, but for reactionaries, as well.

Anything that isn't a constitutional republic with humanist and democratic leanings is a meme.

Ancap is unironically grounded in gaming.
Gaming gives nerds a world experience where obvious meritocracy actually happens, nothing can ever really go wrong, and people are fine by themselves. Economic liberalism in that world makes sense.

>Anarcho-capitalism
>ฯmeme
Its the only true capitalism

Who says you can't believe in God and darwinism?

No one. You can’t believe in Darwinism and secular humanism, though.

>there are un-ironic orthodox Marxists on /his/

Attached: 1547745244261.jpg (927x859, 143K)

monarchism
>muh d-divine right!

Hard to call the default form of government in most cultures through most of history a meme.

I find funny how ancaps believe that left anarchist ideologies are retarded and cannot be applied, but irl they are the only anarchist ideologies that were tried.

nazbol

You learn from history user, you don't repeat it.

Attached: 555-come-on-now-1687205.png (500x522, 133K)

>Egypt during monarchy vs Egypt today
>India during monarchy vs India today
and countless such examples

>you don't repeat it
The exact opposite. Traditionalism is essentially the science of civilizations. We observe throughout history formulas of social organization that were able to survive for countless generations, and ones that are transient. Monarchic governments often sustain civilizations for thousands of years. Democratic republicanism is a very peculiar form of government that only worked in very specific societies for a limited amount of time. In fact modern liberal democracies wouldn't even classify most of the aristocratic, slave driven republics of old democratic.

The thing about liberalism is that it lead to a current societal structure that seems to be unable to adapt to the current state of the world, both in terms of demographics and technology. It got to the point where democratic countries are failing to reproduce themselves, and their populations could theoretically be replaced and their system destroyed. It barely lasted 200 years and it's obviously falling appart in a way no other system has before. It literally destroyed western society, irreparably. It is likely to end up killing its people.

It took europeans away from being one of the most expansionist and dominant civilizations in the world to becoming a tiny minority within it, and hating itself, in a few hundread years. It's the most remarkable failure in human history.

>Why would you trust your thoughts on the matter to be correct, if your brain is geared for survival, not Truth?
This, I assume, is bait.
Scientific practice specifically does not trust your thoughts on the matter, it relies entirely on observable, repeatable phenomena. As a result of this, Darwins theories are no longer considered the final word in evolutionary theory as his work prelates the entire field of genetics and thus fails to account for its influence in speciation.

>but irl they are the only anarchist ideologies that were tried.
And are tried. Anarcho communists live and communes, maintain co-ops and labour unions. Ancaps just bitch about stuff and write books, which were only once somewhat relevant in the context of Cold War propaganda.

>Britain before Robert Walpole vs Britain after they have a prime miniater
>France before revolution vs after revolution

>France before revolution vs after revolution
It was better before though. Is that your point?

>Ancap applied to reality is basically feudalism
are you retarded?

>a nation that falls pray to anarcho capitalism wouldn't invariably end up organazing itself in a way very similar to feudalism
Are you mentally ill?

>I find funny how ancaps believe that left anarchist ideologies are retarded and cannot be applied,
They cannot be applied because there is no such thing as "stateless" socialism. At the same time, anarcho-capitalism cannot be applied because you need a establish a state in order to have private property. Both ancaps and ancoms are fucking retards.

>but irl they are the only anarchist ideologies that were tried.
You mean the ones that didn't stay "anarchist" very long and failed quickly after?

>Anarcho communists live and communes, maintain co-ops and labour unions.
Name a single instance of one that didn't immediately turn into an authoritarian hellhole and fail, I'll wait.

Anarcho-Capitalism does degenerate into feudalism however I would like to point out that feudalism is unironically a superior system to communism.

>What are some meme ideologies?
Anarcho-Communism.

Attached: AnCom.png (1200x800, 3K)

They didn't riot for a fucking giggle m8.

I never said anything about superiority or inferiority.

Yeah they rioted to destroy their country and replace its institutions with lesser ones that became even more corrupt.

>I never said anything about superiority or inferiority.
You didn't I did.
Feudalism

Anarcho-communist endeavours are too small scale to affect the state, and to warrant anticommunist propaganda, but they are very much present, unlike that of Ancaps.

They rioted because corruption is better then incompetence, something that comes with comple power over a nation.

They really aren't. Co-ops only exist in the context where the system tolerates their cute, unthreratening isolated efforts, much like amish communities represent some sort of proto-anarchic patriarchical theocracy in the US and its perfectly tolerated. Also,a labor unions are not anarchist, they are corporate entities by nature.

>anticommunist propaganda
You have entire majority sects of academia, which are institutions subsidized by the state itself and appointed as holders of truth in our technocratic societies protecting your ideals much more than they would capitalism, which they ridicule and criticize more often. The current system generates more propaganda against ancaps than ancoms.

Name one that did? It isn't hard to find anarchist groups or communes. While hardly big they at least accomplished something unlike an-craps
>Communism is when government does things
Also ask an average person if he supports communism, he thinks they literally are red facist. That academia does criticize capitalism doesn't mean they are communist.

>Also ask an average person if he supports communism, he thinks they literally are red facist.
That's probably because of the way communists countries actually behaved, no? It's hard to deny some of its shortcomings when it did in fact engage in violence.

Now think about your own words for a second, why does your theoretical average person associate fascism with the definition of evil? Is it because fascism was in fact murderous in its implementation or theoretical nature? Certainly, but the reason why it is quite literally demonized as a satanic cult is because marxists regarded it as its ultimate enemy, and pushed extreme propaganda against it to the point where people picture fascists as cartoonish evil people without even bothering to understand what its theoretical ideas even were. The average person will tell you that the SU was effectively evil, but many will regard communism itself as a noble, utopic ideal.
>That academia does criticize capitalism doesn't mean they are communist.
No, but they are evidently progressive and most sympathize with communism more than with, say, capitalism, fascism or any pre enlightenment reactionary ideal, of which they constantly put forth extreme propaganda against while treating communism with kids gloves in comparison.

>That's probably because of the way communists countries actually behaved, no? It's hard to deny some of its shortcomings when it did in fact engage in violence.
It did but so does any other country. If we go by deathcount that was deliberate Stalin killed 800 thousand people. What pales in comparison to Nazi Germany. This record was also released by Yeltstin, an anti communist.
>Now think about your own words for a second, why does your theoretical average person associate fascism with the definition of evil? Is it because fascism was in fact murderous in its implementation or theoretical nature?
It was
>Certainly, but the reason why it is quite literally demonized as a satanic cult is because marxists regarded it as its ultimate enemy, and pushed extreme propaganda against it to the point where people picture fascists as cartoonish evil people without even bothering to understand what its theoretical ideas even were. The average person will tell you that the SU was effectively evil, but many will regard communism itself as a noble, utopic ideal.
Most people know jack shit about SU or communism. Most will tell you are evil even if you don't support the SU. Also thanks for not so subtlety confirming facist sympathies.
>No, but they are evidently progressive and most sympathize with communism more than with, say, capitalism, fascism or any pre enlightenment reactionary ideal, of which they constantly put forth extreme propaganda against while treating communism with kids gloves in comparison.
What the fuck are you talking about? Ask an average person about what they want and they answer social democracy or Nordic "socialism". A really small percentage of population is for communism.

>It factually isn't, because communism was and is being applied, on a grand scale at that
I thought Communism is was the end goal, as it implies post scarcity. Don't you mean Marxism?

Ideology itself is always a meme.
-my boy Zizek

But in general I find it funny how all the laymen (all across the spectrum) who don't study political philosophy, are still stuck with ideas from like centuries ago.
Like seriously?
You think we have not done shit for a whole fucking century?
You're still talking as if 90% of the population is subsistence farmers or factory workers. Come on. Fucking idiots.

Attached: 800px-Slavoj_Zizek_in_Liverpool_cropped.jpg (800x1133, 157K)

Hitlerism

>It did but so does any other country. If we go by deathcount that was deliberate Stalin killed 800 thousand people.
Thanks for not so subtly confirming your tankie sympathies, like a typical shallow anarkiddie.

What impresses me the most is that you think anything against your beliefs is harsh anticommunist propaganda, but anything that goes against the things you hate is simply organic reasoning and truisms. "Fascism is bad because it was bad. Pre-revolutionary monarchies were bad because they were bad". It can't possibly be propaganda. The very concept of its intolerance being the result of propaganda is unthinkable to you.

Meanwhile, the fact that anything other than socialism and liberalism is intolerated in general society and especially in academia is just natural. In fact, because liberal thought is seemingly more dominant you seem to think it must be because of some great injustice, a conspiracy of the capitalist state against your beliefs, while everything else is just perfectly coherent and simply the way things should be, not the result of propaganda against it but logical conclusions given the historical facts.

Zizek is a meme. Zizekism is a meme ideology.

What point are you trying to make?
Fascism and Monarchy are widely regarded as evil because it goes against pretty much all that we stand for.
Why would it not be seen as evil?
Why would the people want to be enslaved?

Your whole posts is nothing more than screeching about BOTH SIDES as if it makes sense to believe that both sides are equally wrong.

Nah, you're just a brainlet that is too stupid to understand his work.
Also there is no Zizekism, retard.

>Why would the people want to be enslaved?
This is a valid question for any Stalinist.

>Thanks for not so subtly confirming your tankie sympathies, like a typical shallow anarkiddie.
I'm neither a tankie or anarkiddie, you would be right I'm a commie tho. I don't support Stalin, I just said that it hardly is comparable to third reich.
>What impresses me the most is that you think anything against your beliefs is harsh anticommunist propaganda, but anything that goes against the things you hate is simply organic reasoning and truisms. "Fascism is bad because it was bad. Pre-revolutionary monarchies were bad because they were bad". It can't possibly be propaganda. The very concept of its intolerance being the result of propaganda is unthinkable to you.
And where did I say that? I mean, yeah I think Nazis are bad, hardly a controversial opinion to have about a country that in large part started a world war and put millions of "undermensh" in gas chambers.
>Meanwhile, the fact that anything other than socialism and liberalism is intolerated in general society and especially in academia is just natural. In fact, because liberal thought is seemingly more dominant you seem to think it must be because of some great injustice, a conspiracy of the capitalist state against your beliefs, while everything else is just perfectly coherent and simply the way things should be, not the result of propaganda against it but logical conclusions given the historical facts.
I mean they have no reason to support communism and they hold the power. I don't think there is some great anti-communist conspiracy. There are organizations that are funded by US government who promote anti-communist propaganda, that's a fact.

>we stand for.
>we
Who is this we? Is it the very propagandists that shape our societies, the ones usually in academia and the media? Those are the ones. Your very post indicate that you are an intrinsic part of the very propagandist society you complain so much about. You are part of it and is in fact closer to the status quo than you are willing to admit to yourself. You are only engaging in factionalism.

You aren't saying anything of substance. "We" is simply the vast majority of society which for this question is probably approaching 100%, minus a few tards like yourself, of course.

Sure, OK. But Humanism isn’t like that, is it?

>I just said that it hardly is comparable to third reich.
Only after swallowing enough pro-communist propaganda. Thankfully, most westerners are vaccinated against it with healthy dose of anticommunist propaganda.
>hardly a controversial opinion to have about a country that in large part started a world war and put millions of "undermensh" in gas chambers.
You gladly believe this while thinking that deliberate mass famines or the cruel slave labor implemented in the USSR and Maoist China were just exagerated capitalist propaganda.
>There are organizations that are funded by US government who promote anti-communist propaganda, that's a fact.
There are also organizations funded by the US government who promote communism, and that's a fact. If you go to a classroom and your teacher is giving you communist propaganda, this is the government directly promoting it. A significant percentage of university professors openly admit being marxists and are compltely tolerated. Meanwhile a professor who, say, openly supports some extreme reactionary view would much more likely to lose his job. The status quo is obviously liberal democracy, but your beliefs are simply more tolerated by the system than others. I don't know why are commies such crybabies about admiting this. Does it upset your narrative that the liberal and capitalist state fears you the most, while glady allies with fascists?

>truth has a bias towards some ideology
And? That is expected. Of course it would. Both sides cannot be equally correct.
You're just butthurt because you chose the wrong side.

>however I would like to point out that feudalism is unironically a superior system to communism.
Only if you disregard literally all of history.

>ITT
>HOW DARE ACADEMICS NOT SAY I'M RIGHT
>FUCKING PROPAGANDISTS ALL OF THEM

>"We" is simply the vast majority of society
This is wrong though. Most things pushed through society were done so with propaganda purposes. A minority of people defended liberalism or socialism, it was push forth by institutions like universities, courts, organized political parties and so on. This is hardly an "organic" development in the sense that it is just how people naturally think and behave without outside influence.
>"We" is simply the vast majority of society
But isn't your narrative that your side has lost? This confuses me. So you accept that liberals and communists are part of the same thing?

Also, my "side" didn't lose. I'm not 90 years old and I didn't support fascism in the 30's, and I don't support any form of neo-fascism now. I grew up consuming the same liberal and socialist propaganda you did all my life, and only now am I starting to question it as the only possible moral paradigm to inform greater society.

Academia is very church-like in its organization. Yes, questioning it makes you a heretic. This is my exact point.

Fair enough.

You can question it all as you want.
Just with credibility arguments on your side.

>Only after swallowing enough pro-communist propaganda. Thankfully, most westerners are vaccinated against it with healthy dose of anticommunist propaganda.
If archives released by anti communist are communist propaganda, then sure.
>You gladly believe this while thinking that deliberate mass famines or the cruel slave labor implemented in the USSR and Maoist China were just exagerated capitalist propaganda.
I don't think that. Gulags were harsh but again they weren't Aushwitz, most people who were in gulags left them alive. As far as China's famine goes from my knowledge it's from Mao's retarded plan to kill birds, not Mao walking up one day and deciding to kill millions.
>There are also organizations funded by the US government who promote communism, and that's a fact.
Like? Don't say Soros, he funded capitalist at the end of USSR.
>If you go to a classroom and your teacher is giving you communist propaganda, this is the government directly promoting it.
Only happens in delusional right winger head. Back when I was in school I didn't hear much else than WW2 when it came to SU and the teacher frequently shat on Stalin
>A significant percentage of university professors openly admit being marxists and are compltely tolerated.
That's hardly controversial. He's one of the most important philosophers. You can be a Marxist and not support communism.
>Meanwhile a professor who, say, openly supports some extreme reactionary view would much more likely to lose his job.
No shit, I also don't think someone praising Stalin will have a job for long
>Does it upset your narrative that the liberal and capitalist state fears you the most, while glady allies with fascists?
They would rather ally with facist, trust me. They might not support it now but they certainly prefer facist.

>credibility
And credibility comes from academic sources I'm guessing?

> liberalism

Attached: Reaction 111.png (813x679, 646K)

>Like?
Academia itself.
>Gulags were harsh but again they weren't Aushwitz, most people who were in gulags left them alive
Most people in concentration camps in fascist states were also left alive. You're just choosing to believe russia propaganda about how overblown western estimates about how harsh USSR gulags were, while completely accepting western and communist propaganda about how bad the nazis were. If they had won the war, there would be plenty of highly promoted propaganda about how Aushwitz was exagerated and how Nazis concentration camps were less harsh than the USSR or US ones and how the holocaust is jewish propaganda.
>That's hardly controversial. He's one of the most important philosophers. You can be a Marxist and not support communism.
Can you support mussolini's ideas and not be a fascist? Why are people with ideas that are anti-socialist and anti-liberal so much more shunned than marxists?
>That's hardly controversial. He's one of the most important philosophers. You can be a Marxist and not support communism.
Ok so you recognize that the state is currently tolerating and even helping promote your beliefs while actively punishing the people you particularly hate. But I'm to believe you that they will ultimately side with people they are treating like satan because your marxist historic perception tells you think the 30's will jurepeat itself? How pampered an ideology yours is. You have great institutional advantage over your worse historical enemies that you essentially prop up as strawmen to beat up at this point in time, and yet you still think you can paint them as scary and dangerous allies of the "system" and yourself as a rogue revolutionary fighter. This is pathetic.

This one is actually pretty good.

>Academia itself.
Well, point me to those Marxist who are for communism in academia
>Most people in concentration camps in fascist states were also left alive.
Doubt.jpg
>propaganda about how Aushwitz was exagerated and how Nazis concentration camps were less harsh than the USSR or US ones and how the holocaust is jewish propaganda.
Wait, you deny the Holocaust? Time to post the holy jpeg, you Jow Forumstard.
>Can you support mussolini's ideas and not be a fascist? Why are people with ideas that are anti-socialist and anti-liberal so much more shunned than marxists?
Well, Marx was an economist and a philosopher while mussolini was a politician. It's obvious I hope why those aren't like each other. Also anti liberal ideas are hardly shunned in US. The republican party is the second largest party. In Europe liberals are considered right wing so you have opposition from the left and far right.
>Ok so you recognize that the state is currently tolerating and even helping promote your beliefs while actively punishing the people you particularly hate. But I'm to believe you that they will ultimately side with people they are treating like satan because your marxist historic perception tells you think the 30's will jurepeat itself? How pampered an ideology yours is. You have great institutional advantage over your worse historical enemies that you essentially prop up as strawmen to beat up at this point in time, and yet you still think you can paint them as scary and dangerous allies of the "system" and yourself as a rogue revolutionary fighter. This is pathetic.
Shut up retard. The state isn't supporting communism. They at best tolerate people who do Marxist analysis. If you want to see a place which has Marxist academia go to Cuba or China, not western Europe. And yeah, they will support facist if things get bad enough. What reason do they even have for supporting communism?

Attached: HolyImage021.jpg (2056x2736, 3.56M)

How left liberals can win centuries of cultural and political victories and still proclaim itself the underdog remains the most remarkable act of civilization all self-deception I can think of.