/lit/ - Literature

>>18770485
Yea read rothbard

>>18770494
i'm not convinced by the subjectivist theory of value, nor his support for the Klan. kindly fuck off please.

anarchism in praise of bourgeois morality? Libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism.

>>18770515
>Libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism.
jesus you clearly don't know anything about leftist theory. please, fuck right the fuck off.

>>18770523
Left and right are just dialectical reflections of classical liberalism. They superficially differ, while fundamentally agreeing. The structural falsehood of the Left and Right is rooted in the fundamental errors in philosophy that established classical liberalism as the de facto collective mind of Westerners.
No need to get defensive, just because I point out the similarity between all kinds of anarchism from the perspective of their root.

>>18770549
yeah yeah i get the whig theory of history. There is a fundamental difference between anarchism and american "libertarianism". One presupposes the labor theory of value, whereas the other presupposes the subjectivist theory of value. This difference is too great to reconcile.
plus, if it's just a westerner's hivemind, then why was Japanese anarchism and russian anarchism so easily accommodated? If korean anarchism didn't exist, then i might be inclined to believe you. but its just wrong. "western" liberalism isnt very western either, since adam smith was heavily influenced by the mid east (trotsky talks about this a bit, but i doubt a middle pather would read a commie jew)

>>18770523
I know enough about anarchist theory to know its a huge waste of time to even bother with it. As soon as you ask the simple questions of "how does one resolve disputes in a bloodless manner" and "what compels someone to share limited resources with neighbors during times of crisis such as famine or warfare" you will find the entire school of thought worthless.

>>18770593
You're saying the fundamental difference between general anarchism and american libertarianism is disagreement in theories of value. These theories of value superficially juxtapose what is fundamentally in agreement. that is the atomistic (reductionist) view of value, which is itself not a presupposition either, but seated into a cosmological view of history, science, and nature. I understand that they are different, but to say the are irreconcilable is to ignore that fact they stem from the same source, which indicates that they are reconcilable.
I think the system is bunk and bullshit, but they certainly are not in as much tension as the Western mind (addicted to dialectical strife) imagines.

>>18770626
>what compels someone to share limited resources with neighbors during times of crisis such as famine or warfare
there's no way an american libertarian would even THINK about doing this. They'd just let them starve
>how does one resolve disputes in a bloodless manner
american "libertarians" like to claim him, but Spooner, who was the first to be called an anarchist, actively argues for contractualism. William green argues that communism entails mutualism. anarchist communism as a rejection of capitalism (or "libertarianism") could work.

does no one have the book i'm looking for?

bump i need the book :(

>>18770648
>that is the atomistic (reductionist) view of value, which is itself not a presupposition either, but seated into a cosmological view of history, science, and nature
any articles? or are you pulling this out of your ass?

>>18770772
Dialectical materialism begins as a system via reductionism, in this case collapsing all predicables into the category of quantity, which is the atomizing view, removing all quality, into a segmented view of "being", so the methodology of counting can proceed. This is where the ridiculous economic theories of utilitarianism, eudaemonism, atomic theories of value like labor theory derive their justification. It's a fake and gay justification.
Real life, real knowledge is not so reductionist and simplistic. This is the youthful view of things, which is impulsive and fiery, and wanting a hammer so that he can have a world of nails to whack. Real life is very complex and rich, and required a nuanced view. You can mature this view by studying grammar, rhetoric, and logic starting, as well as a history of philosophy.
>Why do I have to cite an article? Read more widely on philosophy, starting chronologically with the Presocratics, and over time you pick up this stuff.

>>18770938
i've a degree in philosophy, thanks. and not all socialists are dialectical materialist. You don't need to presuppose dialectical materialism to be a socialist.
You still haven't given a sufficent description of what i was citing. please, if you don't have the book i'm looking for. kindly fuck right off.

>>18770671
Ok and what enforces a contract? Prior to proper third party courts, these contracts lead to clan warfare and endless vengeance cycles. This is why nobody takes anarchists seriously. We already know exactly what happens when disputes arise and there's no way to arbitrate by a third party that necessarily has some power to enforce their interpretation of right and wrong. Instead of wasting your time looking for more theory that attempts to delude you into a system that fundamentally breaks down at the first sign of struggle, read a history book.

>>18771197
the minimal state was originally an anarchist concept. that pseud nozak stole it as well. notice how nozak only superficially cites proudhon. Fascism is the rejection and theft of socialism. American "libertarians" did the same thing

>>18771197
>>18771215
furthermore, Ocalan's Democratic Confederalism would be a sufficient means of establishing a minimal state, in the anarchists conception.#freeocalan

>>18771215
This.
[don’t want to read the above thread]

I can’t think of anything like that OP. Maybe it wasn’t me.

>>18771253
>>18771253
yea not what i was looking for but thx for the rec

>>18771297
I know. I was thinking it might be this guy, but…

>>18771316
na it was about contemporary anarchism. i think on the anarchist library. thx tho <3