/lit/ - Literature

The Anarchist Cookbook.

>>3131498
No.

A Thousand Plateaus

Haven't read it, but saw it on the shelf the other day next to some other anthologies. Looks great.

An Anarchist FAQ, free online.

<--- this isn't by any means a seminal text but it's quite fun and the most important piece of contemporary anarchist literature

>>3131545

wow unexpectedly good answer

and on anarcho-capitalism? i have always liked the idea of a "true" liberal economy

God and the State, Kropotkin
Essays by Wolff
Emma Goldman

>>3131600

anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron.

Be careful.
I became disillusioned with the whole movement when I tried reading some theory and ended up realizing that Anarchists really hate the jews.

>>3131600

capitalism is hierarchical so it is incompatible with anarchist thought.

>>3131600
"The Ethics of Liberty" by Murray Rothbard is exactly what you want. You can then make up your own mind as to how workable these concepts may be.

>>3131678
ur an oxymoron.

>>3131695
everybody does

Anyone explicitly calling themselves an anarchist was usually shot before they could finish a really significant and novel thought. So... I'll say these three:

He didn't call it anarchism, but James Demeo's Saharasia argues people were naturally peaceful until massive droughts gradually turned us into violent raiders. So it's basically an anarchist sentiment.

Ancient China had two guys named Mozi and Laozi who for the most part had anarchist ideas.

>>3131891
> people were naturally peaceful until massive droughts gradually turned us into violent raiders.

oh wow. read "Cloak of Anarchy" by Larry Niven, short story, so it won't waste your time.

synopsis: when the cops aren't watching, people are assholes

>>3131897
lol @ you literally bringing a short story by Larry fucking Niven into a serious discussion about political thought

also: fuck you

>>3131897

youre really dumb lol

The Conquest of Bread
or Homage to Catalonia if you don't want less of a polemic

>>3131911
err, if you DO want less of a polemic, I mean

There isn't a definitive anarchist book but I can throw out some names; Proudhon, Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Bakunin, Marx (not anarchist but required reading for an anti-capitalist), Graeber, Chomsky.

books are a representation of oligarchic power. They take ideas and transform them into possessions. They are quintessentially anti-anarchic tools of the man and should all be burned.

>>3131977
amazing

>>3131778

>>3131977
Bless you, /lit/.

Though controversial, Stirner is often cited as one of the first proponents of anarchist thought. He was rejected by many anarchists, such as Kropotkin, but this is probably due to a mixture of misreading, Stirner's association with Nietzsche during the 1890s and his criticism of socialism, which however is aimed at Weitling and Moses Hess, whom some would call 'utopian socialists'.

stirner's kind of dumb

The Rebel, though it's very much an anti-communist polemic so it might not be your thing if you're into mass murder and shit.

nonfiction: Machinery of Freedom (1969)
fiction: The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (1966)

>>3131745
Jan Lester's Escape from Leviathan is better and more current than Rothbard. As is Anthony de Jasay's The State.

>>3132643

that kind of stuff always just ends up enabling capitalism

stop recommending anarcho-capitalist stuff in here you fucking randian idiots

>>3132649
>rand
>anarcho-capitalist

Full retard.

>>3132651

pretty sure the only 'full-retards' around here are the ones who think capitalism and anarchy are in any way compatible.

>>3132649
Anarchocapitalism--or market anarchism or mutualism or whatever you want to call it--is unambiguously the only kind of 'anarchism' with any serious intellectual life left. Recommending anything else would be like gifting dead flowers.

>>3132653

it never had any life considering its completely retarded.

>>3132651
A lot of Randians are anarcho-capitalist, even if Rand wasn't.

>>3132655
anarchism as a whole is pretty retarded. anarchocapitalism has hundreds of high-profile economists, up and coming academics, an exponentially growing student movement (eg SFL), and two nobel laureates (VL Smith and Buchanan)

>>3132657
Not 'a lot'... no. And no prominent anarchocapitalists are Randians.

>>3132659

they're 'high profile' because the state and financial elite promote them. soo anarchist.

>>3132653
Argentinian revolution, Latin American independence in general, all done with Menshevism and Proudhon. Meanwhile you skewer people on the internet who are just wrong, probably calling them peasants. So while you're busy finding the most tasty seeds for your American modern sensibilities, other people are planting them.

>>3132662
You sound like a 14 year old girl who hates something just because her parents like it.

>>3132662
the state and financial elite (eg soros, buffett) promote various shades of leftism and statism too. that's just the way academia works.

>>3132667

whoa, you mean the state and financial elite only allow people to choose between two different types of capitalism.... i wonder why that is... ?

>>3132665

nah im just tired of intellectual lightweights that can't see the obvious contradiction between the anti-hierarchical ideology of anarchism and the class-based structure of capitalism

>>3132653
>the strawman in the image is actually a strawman of criticism of libertarianism
Is this picture serious or am I just too tired to detect jokes right now? Either way I'll be happy when the post-election /pol/ spillover dies down.

>>3132664
The Argentine Revolution was over 50 years ago... and was a disaster, resulting in a decade of brutal military statism. Argentina is still in the shitter and Chile had become the most prosperous country in Latin America. Not sure what your point is supposed to be.. anyway, we'll have ancap-inspired charter cities in Latin America going in the next few years thanks to Romer and Patri Friedman (already tentatively started one in Honduras).

>>3132671
>class-based structure of capitalism

Classes don't exist.

>>3132660
In Britain anarcho-capitalism has tended to be more of an ideological choice in the political sphere, and that's how I'm familiar with it. It isn't as clear cut here as in the states the difference between someone who is a Randian and an anarcho-capitalist. It's also not like there isn't a lot of inter-relatedness: you have guys like Paul Ryan that were very much Randians who have turned to things like Anarcho-capitalism, to make out they're worlds apart is splitting hairs from my perspective.

>>3132675

if you don't think classes exist then we already live in an anarchist world.. you dumbshit,.

>>3132669
>i wonder why that is... ?
I bet it's those chemtrails bro, or probably the fluoride in the water! I heard they control people's brains with that stuff!

>>3132674

lol they're gonna fail so badly.

>>3132677
If you define "anarchism" as "classlesness and only classlesness" then yes.

Only you do that, and you're wildly redefining a term that has a completely different meaning to everybody else in the world.

>>3132681
>I heard they control people's brains with that stuff!
That's just what they want you to believe..

>>3132676
I'm not the one who first criticised you, but the poster was probably thinking about the famous disputes between Rand and ancaps. They hated each other and had fundamental disagreement, though indeed on policy they're substantively close compared to, say, revolutionary Marxism or state-centric progressivism.

>>3132681

it might be because capitalism is what actually breeds political domination

>>3132683

lol how clueless are you? on what world do you live where Bill Gates and indian peasants occupy the same 'class'? what kind of blunted, bulgar anarchist theory have you been reading?

>>3132686
define in what sense you're using 'capitalism'

>>3132676
>Paul Ryan that were very much Randians who have turned to things like Anarcho-capitalism

...did you seriously just say that a prominent member of the Republican party has "turned to things like anarcho-capitalism"? There isn't a single position in common between them. He's a statist of the highest order, a religious nut who hates civil liberties of all kinds...Fuck, he's against free trade.

>>3132691

*vulgar

>>3132692

The sense everyone sensible person uses it. One class controls the means of production, the other has nothing to sell except their own labour power.

>>3132691
i assume s/he meant that society can't in fact be explained by struggles between relations to the structure of production, as marxists and some left-anarchists have argued... not that there aren't differences in wealth

>>3132691
I never said they occupy the same class.

I said classes don't exist.

And they don't. They're an abstract tool used to segregate parts of the population into arbitrary groups so that you can pass judgment on some of them, or analyse their behaviors as if individuals in the group are all part of some giant conspiracy. Classes do not exist in reality, and they're a shitty analytical tool at best; basic your political philosophy on such a nebulous, ill-defined, and completely anti-empirical concept is absurd.

>>3132696

lol have you seen what goes on in the world? how do you explain simple things like unions (for example) without making explicit references to class?

>>3131496
Is that last line supposed to mean something or is it merely a simple example of people deserving to live their lives the way they choose?

>>3132701
unions are easily explained by public choice theory without any mention of teh class struggles (which are almost always premised on a labour theory of value, which has been relegated to a few kooks)

>>3132709

and why, exactly do certain members of the public chose to be in unions?

>>3132710
not many do these days, at least in the anglosphere. and the function of unions has changed dramatically since their popularity around the turn of the 19th century. today the answer is easy: rent-seeking.

>>3132715

and what was their function at the turn of the 19th century?

>>3132717
some rent-seeking, but moreso many unions functioned as fraternal societies and mutual aid organisations, providing themselves things such as life insurance and medical care. additionally, they often engaged in something that could actually be called 'collective bargaining' on things like licensing and safety as opposed to state-mediated rent-seeking.

>>3132719

ah yes. and tell me, with this 'collective bargaining', did the owners of the factories give them everything they want? or did they resist in some way?

>>3132693
>He's a statist of the highest order, a religious nut who hates civil liberties of all kinds...Fuck, he's against free trade.
Civil liberties are against anarcho-capitalism. I also know he's declared himself as a libertarian and anarcho-libertarian on a number of ocassions, guy's never been a statist to my knowledge. He's voted yes on a number of free trade bills too, I guess you've confused him with someone else?

>>3132685
I wasn't the one who was first criticised anyway. It makes sense, but to my mind there isn't a massive difference between what we call Randians or what we call anarcho capitalism, and I'm pretty sure there'd be a few people in the Tory party here that would call themselves Randians or neo-liberals and follow anarcho-capitalist economic policy.

>>3132720
you can look up the history of 19th century mutual aid trade unions yourself. the historian david beito has a good book about it: from mutual aid to welfare state.

>>3132721
>Civil liberties are against anarcho-capitalism
no...

>>3132726

you didn't answer my question. what did the owners think of those unions? did they simply agree to their 'public choice' demands for better wages, shorter working hours, better safety conditions? or was there some kind of ... struggle?

>>3132728
Civil liberties are state based (clue is in the civil), anarcho-capitalism would argue for having these things controlled or regulated by the market or private companies.

>>3132729
you're missing the point against class analysis. it's not that there are sometimes groups of people who have conflicting interests on some margin. the point is you must analyse such conflicts via methodological individualism.

>>3132730
well, most articulations of anarchocapitalism argue for market-driven common law which could indeed and has historically entail civil liberties without the state. Arnold Kling's very term for anarchocapitalism is 'civil societarian'

>>3132732

Right, and individuals decide that its in their best interests to wage a class struggle, eventually ending in a communist revolution.

>>3132735
individuals very rarely decide that it's in their best interest to wage class war, and it is even less often in fact in their best interest. communist revolution will never happen again, barring apocalyptic destruction of the existing social order.

>>3132736

lol

>>3132736

we've already seen how class struggle is a natural outgrowth of capitalism itself. workers want the very best wages for themselves, while capitalists want wages to be as low as possible (to maximise their profit). there will naturally be struggle over these issues. this is why class analysis is useful.

>>3132736

At the moment you're waging war on behalf of the capitalist class (by promoting capitalist ideaology). When you realise your own individual self-interests, you will join the proletariat and demand anti-capitalist revolution.

The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopia a nice utopic novel.

>>3132742
the problem is that there never was a proletarian class, only a group of low class individuals that wnated the same rights and life-style as the rich. Thats the reason why now days communism isnt popular anymore.

I feel that my country (Chile) is a good example, as the consumer oriented society has let them live a "psuedo-middle class" life, the marxist movement has lost momentum.
But the social movements of the las 2 years against private monopoly of education and health, plus the death of public services, aren`t examples of a revival of extreme right ideology, but a discontent of a neoliberal economy that was introduced by a dictatorship, we live in a monopoly not in a free market.

Thats why i consider myself an anarcho-capitalist, the problem of our global economy are the result of the use of capitalism as a social and political control of the north. We need to recover capitalism an liberalism as a tool for the individual against big transnationals and corrupt goverments. Democracy and capitalism were born as a weopon against the old regime, we forgot that.

>>3132765
sorry i wanted to say "extreme left ideology" when i wrote about the student movement

>>3132765

lol you should look into the history of capitalism (enclosure) and you'll see that it never was a weapon of the 'individual', but rather a way for the rich elite to extract wealth from the poor masses.

>>3132782
And how do you square that view with the fact that capitalism has been the only economic system to ever lift the masses out of crushing poverty?

>>3132807
>something shitty happens
>true capitalism doesn't exist the state kills all feels muh free market
>something good happens
>all because of glorious capitalism

Corporatism is best -ism.

>>3132832
...who are you quoting?

>>3132833
u

Lord of the Flies

>>3131550
Funnily enough, I lifted that book from Borders during the going-out-of-business fucktastrophe.

My political science professor flipped through it a bit when I mentioned it to him and he looked at me like I was ready to burn the place down

Your daily reminder that anarchism is for idiots. Cause-and-effect systems have a authoritarian bias.

just a reminder that someone seriously posted a science fiction short story by Larry Niven as something that would seriously indicate why anarchism is flawed and anarchy Just Doesn't Work

never 4get

>>3133706
Yes. Nature provides many examples of this. Oh, wait. You're fucking wrong.

Why do people support ideologies with no basis in reality and no chance of ever actualizing?

>>3133717
>cannot into tendency of rationalizing systems to be unbalanced
>cannot into innat authoritarian emphasis
>cannot into cyclical cause and effect systems
>b-b-b-b-ut THE BEES USE ANARCHIST PRINCIPLES!!1!!

yeah no thanks.

>>3132721
>I also know he's declared himself as a libertarian and anarcho-libertarian on a number of ocassions, guy's never been a statist to my knowledge.

please be a troll

>>3133727
'Cos they're cool.

>>3133727
Because they don't like the thought of being raped and murdered.

>>3133727
my first point would be that on a large enough time scale, human societies have been anarchist for a much longer time than they have been statist

my second point would be that anarchism has taken root at various points in time and obscure locales in the modern and contemporary world. i grant that these projects failed or dissolved rather quickly.

my third and major point concerns ideology. are "real" ideologies any better? well then, let's return to feudalism and the monarchist rule of a sovereign king. the sovereign was a real thing, right?

>lol peasant, what are you talking about "the rights of man", that's just idle fantasy

>>3133771
>my first point would be that on a large enough time scale, human societies have been anarchist for a much longer time than they have been statist

This is literally the dumbest and most ignorant thing I have read in my entire life. What the fuck. How could you possibly have gotten something like that into your mind?

This has came up a lot. It really depends what you're looking for.
If you want classical stuff just go to an anthology (Guerin's No Gods No Masters is a good series). If you want more recent stuff, it gets a little trickier. I'd say check out Guerin's Anarchism, Rocker's Anarcho-Syndicalism, a book called Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarcho-Syndicalism.

Also for less established/commercially published stuff check out http://theanarchistlibrary.org/ and http://zinelibrary.info/

All the classical stuff is in the public domain so even just google some anarchists like Emma Goldman and read their stuff.

>>3131556
It is and it isn't. D&G's language and concepts (which I do admire, don't get me wrong) stratify them as people of the academy to some degree. So while there are undoubtedly anarchist threads in their work, for someone who is actually interested in anarchism (its history, etc.), A Thousand Plateaus may be a bit of a waste of time. I will say, however, that A Thousand Plateaus is one of my favourite books ever.

>not one mention of nozick

Come on, step it up.

>>3133854
Was a minarchist not an anarchist. And he eventually gave up on minarchy too.

>>3133704
I don't know who this author is. What's the joke?

>>3133898
mostly it's just the fact that it's a science fiction short story being brought up in a serious political discussion as Proof that Anarchy Just Doesn't Work. but Larry Niven is a spergy hard-SF guy, who is also a libertarian who's independently wealthy because his great-granddad was an oil tycoon. which IMO makes it even more funny.

>>3132697
and yet something so nebulous as SES already has a range of strong, consistent predictors on a range of psychometrics and other outcomes.

john henry mackay
rudolf steiner ( philosophy of freedom )

>individualist-anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism

those two men were very close friends while they were both living in berlin. in a private letter steiner wrote to mackay that his philosophy of freedom is in tune with mackay´s writings about individualist-anarchism.

sadly enough steiner is associated with boring tree hugging people with a very narrow minded world view. read his "philosophy of freedom" with the exciting times in mind he had with his individualist-anarchists friends in berlin and elsewhere. steiner even wrote an essay together with macaky titled: sind anarchisten mörder? ( are anarchists murderers? )

>>3133783
Oldest arguable state: Egypt, BC 3150
Homo Sapien Sapien: ~195,000 BC

modern man has existed far longer than the state. i don't see how i'm wrong. or how it's "literally the dumbest and most ignorant thing you've ever read in your entire life."

surely something like "that muslim nigger is turning this country into socialism" is more ignorant

>2012
>labels other than anarchism without adjectives

i shiggidy diggity wing wam wobbly flim flam popsicle hopscotch monopoly

Isn't anarchism self defeating?

>>3134127

No.

>>3134129
Explain.

>>3134038
As soon as we find evidence of homo sapiens sapiens, we find evidence of societies of some form. At the very least we find organized religion, hunting, and class systems. Though what we may call a "state" is a specific and slippery definition, we can definitely find at least an early form of it immediately within our ancient human ancestors.

>>3133929

also Niven worked with the government to implement racist policies.

>>3134185
"In 2007, Niven, in conjunction with a group of science fiction writers known as SIGMA, led by Pournelle, began advising the U.S. Department of Homeland Security as to future trends affecting terror policy and other topics.[8] One of his suggestions as a member of SIGMA was that hospitals stem financial losses by spreading rumors in Spanish within the Latino community that emergency rooms are killing patients in order to harvest their organs for transplants, in order to reduce illegal immigrants' use of emergency rooms.[9]"

wow sounds like a real cool guy...

It doesn't looks like it from this picture, but this is the defining text of Christian Anarchism and it inspired Gandhi and MLK among others.

>>3134175
They were fucking cavemen, though.

>>3133854

because he's not an anarchist you dumbfuck

>>3134127

Yes, which is why communism is actually the correct anti-capitalist movement

>>3132807

communism actually did a better job of this. see Mao's China for a striking example.

Marx saw the potential of capitalism, saw the technological dynamism, but he also saw the limitations of capitalism. I'm always surprised when people aren't at least familiar with the basics of his ideas.

>>3134185
>>3134190
oh yeah i forgot about that lol

larryniven is even more terrible than i thought

>>3134190
What is it with sci-fi authors and being terrible people
Larry Niven, Orson Scott Card, L. Ron Hubbard...

>>3132739
>weve already seen how class struggle is a natural outgrowth of capitalism itself.

then why was class war a feature of neofeudal early-industrial societies and not, in any significant way, in liberal capitalist countries? because most laborers are consumers and shareholders and property owners too. because the minimum standard of life is high in absolute terms. because of the spectacular failure of socialism in the 20th century.

there's no proletarian revolution coming bro. you're a century too late for that nightmare. sorry.

>>3134276
>because most laborers are consumers and shareholders and property owners too

Uh, no?

The Man who was Thursday by G. K. Chesterton is pretty good, and a short read.

>>3134276

lol do you pay any attention at all to the society around you? welfare state and the boom of post-war america reduced union participation. however, capitalism cannot continue in this kind of boom forever. as profits fall, capitalists will inevitably try to suppress workers wages and class warfare will again rise to the surface. Occupy was the very first sign of this (in USA), get used to it becoming the norm in the coming years. Greece is a good example of this.

Again, this class aspect is built into the fabric of capitalism itself. It might subside for a certain time in certain geographical locations, but it can never be resolved, unless capitalism itself is destroyed.

>>3134295
uh yes... eg in the US over 60% own their own homes and over 60% own mutual funds or stocks

>>3134285

thanks for the Liberal book in the anarchy recommendations thread you fucking moron.

>>3134293
Fascist scum.

>>3134314

this doesn't eliminate the fundamental class contradiction. even Lenin had writings on this, its not a new issue.

>>3134315
the book is about how anarchy and (classical) liberalism are complementary and together are welfare-maximising...

>>3134320

except they aren't complementary and real anarchists have written on why they aren't for hundreds of years.

liberalism is hierarchical, it is not compatible with anarchy.

>>3134323
'real anarchists' were retards who didn't understand marginalism or the structure of the state. lester, among others, shows inter alia how and why they were so tarded.

>>In Defense of Anarchism
>>In Defense of Anarchism
>>In Defense of Anarchism
>>In Defense of Anarchism
>>In Defense of Anarchism

damn, it's like you guys haven't even taken a fucking basic political science course

>>3134349

lester et al are basically just crypto-statists

>>3134349

thanks for the defense of boring liberalism dude. lmao

>>3134353
whatever you want to call them, their ideas are interesting and currently spreading, and anyway they're better than left-anarchists or left-statists.

>>3134360

their ideas are spreading because our corporate overlords encourage their ideas. its the same old capitalism we've experienced for centuries. funny how easy americans fall for it

>>3134368
lester is british and i'm not american...

>>3134371

well i shouldn't generalise, of course the financial elite are an international group. of course their ideas are propagandised worldwide. but i find americans are particalarly susceptible to their brand of bullshit, likely because of the way liberalism has taken hold of their country.

One thing I don't understand about "Anarcho-Communism" is how these anti-property rights ideas will be enforced.

For example, I have no problem with hierarchy and would continue to work for my boss. The only way you could stop me is with force.

i.e. a state.

Also, the whole "no money" thing is equally retarded.

>>3134382

Individuals would likely stop any reactionary themselves through force. No need for a state, just a group of individuals killing a fascist for the good of the majority.

>>3134382

Did you know money itself is an invention of the state?

This is a good read:

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.htm

>>3134385
No, Graeber is full of shit, which is why even leftist academics have distanced themselves from him...

>>3134402

lol no they haven't, his work is highly regarded amongst the entire left. even as a communist i appreciate his stuff

>ctrl + f "human nature"
>phrase not found

Wow I'm proud of you /lit/.

>>3134403
>even as a communist

Graeber calls himself a communist. have you even read his shitty book? and no they haven't.

>>3134415

wow youre dumb lol

>>3134421
lol no u r

>>3134384
So vigilantism replaces the state. Sounds great. What could possibly go wrong?

>>3134379
This is you.

>>3134447
If the world cant fit into the ideal then fuck the world.

that's all there is to it

acceptance is death

>>3134447

This actually does sound a lot better than what we currently have.

>>3134451

It's not a jewish conspiracy. Why are people surprised that a system of competition and domination (capitalism) ends up promoting a group of elites who run the world in their own interests? I hope you don't sincerely believe all that hogwash about democracy, hahaha

>>3134466
Of course not.

I hope you filter your water too bro, you know fluoride is how they get people to believe their lies.

>>3134469

Why do people find it surprising that a system which concentrates wealth in the hands of a few ends up being a totalitarian shithole?

>>3134469

that media and politics is controlled by a relatively small group of elites isn't exactly news.

>>3134472
And the ancient aliens help them maintain control, right?

>>3134471
Unless you live in North Korea, Cuba, or some other similar place, you really don't know what the fuck a totalitarian shithole is. Not to mention that people advocating summary execution by vigilante lynch mobs aren't really entitled to complain about a place being a totalitarian shithole at all.

>>3134476

Cuba is actually pretty nice

>>3134476

I don't think you know what totalitarian means

>>3134477
Sure. Unless you're in the concentration camps.

>>3134479
Likewise.

>>3134476

USA is far more aggressive and destructive than any other country on earth. lol @ you trying to deflect on Cuba. What did Cuba ever do to earn your hate?

>>3134482

USA actually has far more people in concentration camps

>>3134477
no it's not

http://placeitonluckydan.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/havana_decay_roofs.jpg

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/cuban_hospital.jpg

>>3134485

whoa, two unsourced pictures, real convincing. lmao such a good little capitalist propagandist.

>>3134485

what's wrong with those roofs? looks nice to me. sorry not everyone needs a satellite dish and suburban mcmansions. typical decadent american.

ITT: left "anarchists" defending an oppressive military dictatorship

Not particularly surprising (you're almost all statists in hiding) but still...you could be slightly more subtle.

>>3134494

what's oppressive about it? usa government is far more oppressive.

>>3134485

Try harder, man. Seriously.

>>3134495
>usa government is far more oppressive.

This guy.

>>3134485
Gee, those pics really prove that America is lovely.

>>3134497

they really are though. cuba doesn't wage wars of aggression on multiple countries simultaneously. if you support self-determination and freedom then you should support cuba over usa

>>3134501
OK that's it, I'm out.

You're completely detached from the real world...we have no common ground when you deny basic facets of reality.

I mean the conspiracy theory crap is one thing, but this is on another level.

>>3134485
um.. you think the picture of havana is shooped or something? just google 'have roofs' or 'havana decay'

the disgusting conditions in cuban hospitals (for the plebs, not the politically connected) is well-known and has been documented by numerous human rights organisations. see eg

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/galleries/cubahealth/pages/page1.html

http://www.fhrcuba.org/2012/02/08/horrific-conditions-in-cuban-hospital/

http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm

tell me you think those photos and videos are shooped, asshole

>>3134485
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=300803&page=4

Scroll to the middle

>>3134505

how is that on another level? has cuba done anything comparable to killing millions of iraqi & afghani civilians?

>>3134500
those buildings are just bland and government-looking, not falling apart like the jewel of cuba.

>>3134507

like 50,000 people die a year in USA from easily treatable diseases because of a lack of access to healthcare. your hospitals might look nice but they don't actually do their jobs.

>>3134519
no, they don't. and anyway why is 'healthcare' so expensive in the us? because...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBFoC1gkExI

>>3134521

lol so US health care is both 'expensive' and not a problem? nice one moron

>>3134521

World Health Organisation ranks Cuba's healthcare system 39th in the world. That's only two places behind USA. Not bad for a country that is far poorer.

>>3134530

Nice healthcare and being part of a community which doesn't bomb middle-eastern countries at the drop of a hat? Sign me up.

>>3134525
it is a problem, a huge one, but your number of deaths is exaggerated as it assumes, for example, that none of these people would die otherwise. which is stupid. read

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/03/myth-diagnosis/307905/

>>3134536

oh boohoo. by this the holocaust was overstated because it assumes that none of those people would die otherwise.

>>3134511
No he's talking about Operation Northwoods, where the US tried to fake a terrorist attack against its own citizens in order to blame Cuba and subsequently invade them.

>>3134536

And yet the USA just let them die without even seeing if they'd live or not. That's fucking cruel no matter how you look at it, and you pro-genocide apologetics are disturbing.

>>3134536

whoa, conservative rag the atlantic tries to deny reality. so surprisingly

>>3134530
the WHO ranking (which they stopped doing because its methodology was so harshly criticised) is bunk. a socialist healthcare system automatically gets full points for 'fairness' which is 25% of the marking. and they don't control for differences in ethnicity or lifestyle unrelated to the government healthcare system.

read

http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf

>>3134544

haha here comes the denial of reality. give up dude, cuba is objectively a pretty nice place to live, especially compared to all the capitalist hellholes on earth.

>>3134538
the people in the holocaust were not, by definition, already suffering from fatal ailments... unlike the 50,000 people you're referring to. you're talking about potentially extending some of those people's lives by a couple years. that's it. insurance is not magic that cures cancer.

>>3134550

these were not 'fatal ailments' though, they are perfectly treatable diseases that the usa coldly ignored. keep apologising for your masters like a good little brainwashed slave

>>3134554
no. treatable =/= curable. read the criticisms of the methodology. it's not really disputable.

>>3134548
yeah, cuba is so much nicer than switzerland, australia, maine... it's so crazy that those millions of cuban idiots try so hard to escape their egalitarian paradise.

>>3134555

lol @ australia always being named as a 'good' capitalist country. go see how they treat their indigeonous population. might as well be living in hitler's germany.

>>3134560
we treat abos pretty 'well' these days, considering they're legally given privileges and free money in just about every area. of course, I think that government handouts actually hurt them in the long run, but you probably don't.

>>3134561
in other words, you're a typical racist conservative australian

>>3134559

how about you find a study that wasn't released by noted global warming skeptics Cato Institute

>>3134563

not conservative or racist. liberal. don't care what colour you are.

Man, Economy and State

>>3134564
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447381/

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/ranking-the-us-health-care-system/

http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/centres/che/pubs/wp125.pdf

>>3134550
>insurance is not magic that cures cancer.
You know cancer can be treated if caught early enough, right?

>>3134585
you're missing the point. just read mcardles's article.

one would assume spooner would make for a good read

that being said
anarchism is incredibly idealistic, society requires some form of hierarchy

>>3134550
>insurance is not magic that cures cancer.
No, Dichloroacetic acid is.

>>3134606
the intellectually serious schools of anarchism are not opposed to all hierarchy.

Anything by Emma Goldman

>>3134610
then what the fuck is it
i still think anarchism is stupid

>>3134606

anarchy =/= no hierarchy. Communal organization requires it in some fashion in certain instances

>>3134617
anarchism's most common definition is opposition to the state. you can have hierarchies without the state, such as employer-employee relations, a culturally dominant intellectual elite, more well-respected organisations, parents, teachers, common law courts, private security companies, etc etc.

just no mass ideologically legitimated monopoly on violence.

>>3134610
You should tell that to >>3131717

>>3135541

capitalism is class based and involves completely unearned hierarchy. even though that guy didn't state it in the best way, he is absolutely correct.

anarcho-capitalism is just what the hipster libertarians moved onto after mainstream conservatives started calling themselves libertarians. it has no intellectual foundations and is more about justifying the status quo.

>>3134626
Actually, no, anarchism's most common definition is opposition to authoritarian hierarchy. It just so happens that capitalism and the state are the most prominent and dominant examples of these.

>Ctrl+F "CrimethInc"
>Phrase not found

How has this entire thread gone by without mentioning one of the most prominent authors of modern introductory texts on anarchism?

Jesus christ, why do I ever go on /pol/, the political discussion here is actually genuinely interesting.

>>3135546
>unearned

Hahahahahahahaha. A man with a business that employs people is offering a service that his customers consider superior to the service offered by other similar businesses, that's why they shop there.

inb4 MUH PARIS HILTON

>>3135549
>uses the word status quo
>calls other people hipsters

Let's face it, the only reason you're an edgy anarchist is because it's a utopian dream that you can hold onto, that makes it easier to endure your shitty life filled with disappointment.

But go ahead and keep going on about how capitalism(the free exchange of goods) literally raped your family. Anything aside from anarcho-capitalism is tyranny.

>>3134626
Not letting me own property and collectively managing everything is not freedom.

>>3135641

What inherent value do you have that property should belong to you?

>>3135638

Capitalism enables class aggression and usury, which are ethically unsound.

>>3135633

Profit-worthiness =/= utility

>>3135644
>What inherent value do you have that property should belong to you?
>All of your stuff is mine!!!

Spoken like every statist ever. Leftwing anarchists should really just admit to being communists who are upset because Dad made them do the dishes.

"statism"

>>3135647
>implying that I should give a single fuck about the happiness of the masses

Oh wait, I forgot, leftwing "anarchists" put the collective in front of the individual. So much for freedom.

>>3135644
> usury
>ethically unsound

How is it anymore ethically unsound that charging for an other service? They are doing something for you, and you pay interest as a fee for the service. They aren't producing anything, but neither is a waitress.

>>3135644
>usury
>ethically unsound

How is it anymore ethically unsound than charging for any other service? They are doing something for you, and you pay interest as a fee for the service. They aren't producing anything, but neither is a waitress.

>>3135653

Don't ignore the question. Answer it.

>>3135657

There is no such thing as 'individual'. We exist as a collective.

>>3135668

I mean "usury" in the sense of an imbalance of power between classes enabled by capitalism

>>3135712
>Don't ignore the question.

What inherent value does your life have? Therefore I should be able to murder you. What inherent value does happiness have? Therefore utilitarianism can be disregarded. There's no such thing as inherent value.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

>There is no such thing as 'individual'. We exist as a collective.

Let me translate that - "You exist to serve the majority, destined to a life no different than a common slave."

>I mean "usury" in the sense of an imbalance of power between classes enabled by capitalism

"Class" is a social construct. Using such a ridiculous abstract term is pointless.

>>3135719

>Class is a social construct

So is "majority", "slave", and "murder". Watch your language.

>>3135727
>So is "majority", "slave", and "murder". Watch your language.

With these terms, there are at least commonly understood definitions and they are observable. Class is completely vague and pretty much just a buzzword.

I'll take that as your concession of defeat.

>>3135719

Murdering a member of the collective harms the collective. Happiness is not necessarily equable with utility.

Class is socially constructed and politically implemented

>>3135733

I'm not the guy you were arguing with, I just thought you were a bit of a cock.

>>3135657

a group of individuals by definition is more important than a single individual.

>>3135733

Also, you're not even right. Look at the hooplag over the white majority in America going on right now, the concept of 'wage slave', and just about any mildly controversial action that goes on in war to see all those terms respectively muddied.

>>3135740
>Murdering a member of the collective harms the collective.

The life of the collective has no inherent value. The utility of the masses has no inherent value. We can play this game all day long.

It's just astounding that self-proclaimed "anarchists" would reduce the individual to a servant of the masses. The worst form of tyranny.

>>3135765

You have an incredibly naive, top-down and narrow view of the world. The individual isn't serving anything. Nothing is being served. The individual and the masses are not disparate notions.Tyranny is valuing select classes of 'individuals' over others.

>>3135774
>You have an incredibly naive, top-down and narrow view of the world.

I guess you have no argument left after the intellectual I have given you.

>Tyranny is valuing select classes of 'individuals' over others.

Like.. valuing the collective over the individual?

>>3135779

>Like.. valuing the collective over the individual?

Drawing that distinction is the tyranny.

>>3135779

multiple individuals are objectively worth more than a single individual. not sure why you're getting so upset.

would it be ok to kill hitler or do i have to respect his 'rights'? lol, so bourgeois.

>>3135784
>objectively

No such thing.

>>3135797

is that a fact?

>>3135803
Life has no objective value. The burden of proof is on you to prove that the lives of the collective are objectively worth more than an individual.

Go ahead.

>>3135804

Actually the burden of proof is on you to provide some proof that a 'burden of proof' means anything

>>3135804

Define 'life' 'has' 'no' 'objective' and 'value'. All these terms are vague and i'm not sure they really mean anything.

>>3135807
>>3135809
>dat desperation

I guess I've won. You made the statement "multiple individuals are objectively worth more than a single individual" but can't prove it. When it gets to the point where your opponent starts saying "w-well define DEFINITION" you know it's over.

>>3135811

actually i'm pretty sure when someone who was clamoring for 'individual rights' argues 'life has no objective' value then the poverty of bourgeois theory becomes apparent to all.

>>3135811

2 > 1

objectively proven. another capitalist moron served.

>>3135814
I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, champ. I'm just amused that people who call themselves anarchists don't support individual rights or freedom, and make inane statements about the inherent value of life and utility without any proof.

>>3135818
2 people don't have value, and neither does 1 person.

0 isn't greater than 0. Try again.

>>3135647
>2012
>being a utilitarian

Since when is /lit/ overrun by "special" 12 year olds?

>>3131547
Just checked, my uni's library has it in the stacks.

Yes.

>ctrl+f
>no Godwin

Do you even read?

>>3136120
Didn't Godwin believe that humans should have as little contact as possible because that enables them to be as rational as possible?

>>3136144
Tangentially, yes. His main point was about free choice, we are influenced greatly by the approbation and disapprobation of others, so we should form a society of complete free choice. More relevantly, to this thread at least, he argued that no person should have power over any other, except by free choice of the powerless party. Also, he contested there was no such thing as private property, which is pretty fucking cool

>>3131496
>What is the best book I can read on Anarchism?

>>3131695
I was reading a zine once. There was this whole article about nothing but implying jews were evil.
Didn't know how to feel.


OP

Conversations at the cafe by Malatesta for anarcho-communism.

>>3131600
>anarcho-capitalism
>liberal
lel

>>3131678
No, it's not.

>>3137296
He's implying something funny about capitalism, tough guy

>>3137304
What's so funny about capitalism?

>>3137323
Capital inherently breeds inequality?

>>3137328
Equality's neat, and all, but it's all about equity. Capital is a necessity for economic growth, and development.

>>3137354
I'm not arguing about that. I agree with you. I just think independence and equality trump innovation.

>>3137389
Capitalism exercises sovereignty, and independence through democracy more so than the other 3 major systems, while still being a wealth maximizing, innovation machine. Equality is an impossible gain, and can only work in the short-term, because regardless, some people don't have the same intellect, work ethic, etc as others, and shouldn't be treated as if they do.

>>3137354

Capitalism can never provide an even geographical development, because it functionally requires the working class to remain desperate enough to continue selling themselves. Also capitalist growth will always be constrained by the falling rate of profit.

>>3137423

Capitalist democracy is a joke, real decisions are made by the financial elite.

>>3137434
That's called an oligarchy, not democracy. Try again.

>>3137424
You're assuming this won't be prominent in any other system as well. You are forgetting that Capitalism preaches innovation, and is self-correcting. If wages were to fall, for whatever unknown reason, it is assumed people will exit the market, into a new one. Capitalism is upbeat with new technology, and capital, ergo wages for labour will change as new technology is capable of doing the work of what people could be doing.

>>3137466

There is no difference. As soon long as you admit "equality is an impossible gain" then you're admitting that people worth billions of dollars will be able to buy and sell politicians, produce propaganda to sway public opinion, and all sorts of other ant-democratic measures. This is the reality of 'democracy' under capitalist rule.

>>3137466
>people will exit the market

haha by starvation most likely

>>3137480

*anti-democratic

>implying anarchy can be maintained
>implying power structures aren't an inevitable result of the human communal drive
>implying psychopaths will disappear

>>3137480
You're conspiring a false perception of what democracy. Any political, social interference in the democratic system, effectively makes the system less democratic. In a pure democracy, there would be none of that.

>>3137491

This is why communism is the only real answer

>>3137496

Right, that's what I'm saying. Democracy is impossible in a capitalist system.

>>3137486
You're an idiot. In capitalism, you're giving the same opportunities. What you do, and how do it, effectively changes how you live. If you enter a market for product x, when there is no demand for product x, then the best option would be to leave the market, and into the market of product y. It is a sign that product x is of no use to society, but product y does. If someone starves for making a stupid decision, it should not burden society. An example would be doctors, and sex toys. Doctors are evidently more important to society, where sex toys are not, therefor the wages for doctors should be worth more than the interest of sex toys.

>>3137501
By what you're saying. Democracy is impossible in both socialism as well, the only the other major system which incorporates democracy.

>>3137531

If everyone made smart decisions though, the system itself would collapse because there would be no impoverished wage-labour on which the system itself is founded. It's no coincidence that capitalist economy requires constant wars of aggression in order to destroy a countries infrastructure, self-reliance, etc. Then steps in the wealthy capitalist who can buy labourers and land for cheap.

>>3137531

How can you reconcile "giving the same opportunities" with "equality is an impossible gain"

>>3137550
I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that there would be no labour if everyone made smart decisions. If everyone made smart decisions, then there would be the perfect amount of labour, capital, and land. Not the opposite.

>>3137563
Same opportunities=/=equality.

You are given the option to become a doctor, but if you shouldn't be given the same wage as one if you're working in a field that's not as important as the doctor.

>>3137564

Well that's the thing, the "perfect" amount of labour (from a capitalist's perspective) is actually a huge surplus of worker. If the supply of labour-power outpaces the demand, then wages will be lowered. of course, this means mass unemployment, mass unemployment means starvation. This is the reality of capitalism.

>>3137542
>argues with CNN-tier logic of projected antagonisms = argument
>utterly oblivious towards the centralizing tendencies of capital and the marginalization of the middle class

PETITE BOURGEOISIE LOGIC

>>3137531
>In capitalism, you're giving the same opportunities

This is simply and obviously not the case. My parents are mega rich. I have the opportunity to do an unpaid internship that will lead on to an interesting career. I would not have this opportunity if my parents were poor.

By social mobility indexes, socialist states have the greatest social mobility.

>>3137574

But if there's no equality then how are people going to be given the same opportunities? Are you seriously arguing that the son of a US billionaire has all the same opportunities as the son of an Indian sweatshop worker?

>>3137584

No kidding.

>>3137580
lel what
There wouldn't be a surplus, the perfect amount would be at the market clearing price.

In fact, paying the worker more than he should creates a surplus. I drew a diagram if you don't understand all that much. When there's the surplus of workers, you are misallocating societies wealth to pay workers who are not needed in a market, who COULD be working in another market.

>>3137584
>argues with college kid in political science course tier axioms
>utterly oblivious towards to the reality of the world, and that things have the prices
Capitalism has succeeded, unlike Soviet Russia that you have there. Communism is inherently flawed.

>>3137622
>guiz i have a made a pic OC no takey my makey :3

>>3137642
>dat logic of still projecting contradictions
>he STILL doesn't get it
AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHH
AHAHAHAHAHAH

this is like a rodeo circus clown pretending to have a PHD. HONK HONK

>>3137622

"could be working". Again, capitalists don't wont people to work. They want to make a profit. Making the largest profit possible involves having a surplus of workers, which keeps the wage artificially low.

Think what would happen if there was full-employment. Wages would skyrocket because the power of individual workers (and unions) would be high. A capitalist would be hesitant to fire people because there's no guarantee that he could find another worker in the market.

Unfortunately it seems you've taken one too many bourgeois economics courses, without ever paying attention to the real world.

Hey /lit/, any recommendations for a guy that wants to learn about the different varieties of syndicalism?

>>3137593
>>3137596
You are still given the same opportunities. If they are alive, and breathing, they are able to get into the market. You're assuming everything has high fixed costs, that's wrong

>>3137649
>>3137647
Oh, so you've resorted to trolling now. If you had no argument, you could have at least conceded to the case, instead of blabbering like an idiot.

Social democracy is the only pragmatically tenable political ideology left. You can sit there with your thumb in your ass waiting for the revolution. You can have your endless struggle between capital and labor. You can have your Rothbards or your Gary Johnsons even.

I'll actually be authoring some fucking policy that improve people's lives in a concrete way.

>>3137655
Everyone wants to make profit. People are greedy. Having the largest profit doesn't involve having a surplus of workers. That would cause their average costs to raise, ergo lose profit. The market clears when quantity of workers demanded, equals the quantity of workers supplies. The real world has costs, and some costs are higher than others.

>>3137681

lol, and how does this apply to the real world? Why does every capitalist economy have structural unemployment?

>>3137681

Workers don't make a profit. They exchange their labour power for the equivalent in wages.

>>3137681
>The real world has costs, and some costs are higher than others.

Curious: how much do crack rocks cost in your city?

>>3137689
>how do costs apply to the real world
Costs are wages, rent, and interest payed, in order to get profit. The amount payed to the worker is the wage, but when you pay the worker more than he costs, you are misallocating wealth. You create debt by doing so.

>>3137705

Which is why they create a surplus of workers. If the supply of workers is lower than the demand, then the wages will remain low and the capitalist will make a higher profit.

I'm really not seeing how this is confusing to you.

Again; what reason is there for structural unemployment in capitalist economy. If you can't explain this (I can), then you're simply not scientific.

>>3137695
I never said that.

>>3137699
Next to nothing, but iron, computers, doctors, oil, etc, have high costs. Your attempt at a joke was horrible.

>>3137713

>>3137713

Then you're statement "Everybody wants to make a profit" becomes meaningless. The point is that only one class (the capitalists) make a profit. This is a structural inequality that will lead to the undermining of democracy, and eventually the collapse of capitalism itself.

>>3137712
No, they won't.

Paying wages to the worker is a cost to the producer. By having your number of workers lower than the demand, then you have to remember the implicit costs. You are still losing profit, because although the amount payed to pay the wages. You're not producing enough of product x with a shortage of workers. Therefor you're losing profit.

>>3137727

Err, firstly this sentence doesn't make sense "You are still losing profit, because although the amount payed to pay the wages"

Secondly, you still have enough workers to make the product. The whole point is that there is TOO many workers. There are more workers than capitalists know what to do with. This lowers wages.

I notice you still haven't paid any attention to my question about structural unemployment. Remember, if you cannot answer this question you are admitting that you cannot provide an answer to a real-world economic observation. This is an admission that you are not interested in economics as a science, but rather are practicing pure ideology.

>>3137727

If supply outpaces demand, then costs will be lowered. I really don't see why you're having a problem with this. It's simple math.

>>3137717
>things don't have costs
You have to be completely ignorant if believe that.

>>3137725
Everyone wants to maximize their wealth is what I should have said. How exactly does the capitalists making profit, make inequality? You are rewarding the capitalist for the making of the product. Why would someone make Bill Gates poorer by penalizing the making of profit, while also sacrificing the invention of the computer. Capitalism incentivizes people to make breakthroughs in technology, work, etc.

>>3137748

lol @ you ignoring every uncomfortable question and returning back to the standard pro-capitalist line of "Technology! Wealth maximizing!"

>>3137748

Capitalist profit rests on the assumption that he can extract more labour from the worker than his labour-power costs. Read some Marx, fool.

>>3137757
What question?

>>3137743
If supply outpaces demand, you create a surplus. Costs won't be lowered until the long term.

>>3137766

The question about why is there structural unemployment in every capitalist country.

Haha "in the long term". Lets just wait for for full employment in a capitalist economy then... waiting... waiting for 200+ years... still waiting.

>>3137748

Jesus christ no wonder everyone considers Economics a joke. Its more of a religion than a science.

>>3137765
I have read Karl Marx, Capital, Manifesto both.

Communism rests on that labour is the only cost. Which is simply just not true, because there's still land, and capital as well. The capital used (shovels, picks, computers, etc) have a cost, land (iron, gold, wood, etc) have a cost. You can assume that, because the workers who are inefficient are rationed out of the market.

>>3137774
Can you give an example of full employment in a communist system? No system is perfect, but capitalism is better than the other 3.

There's unemployment, because of there being a lack of incentive. Incentive is subjective to the person, but capitalism at least promotes incentive by rewarding the person in their breakthroughs, through supernormal profit.

>>3137780
I haven't seen a single reasonable argument other than marginalization of the middle class.

>>3137797

lmao 7,000 people dying of starvation every day and you say there's a lack of 'incentive'. you're a fucking shithead.

>>3137689
Do you even know what structural unemployment is?

Unless you have a crystal ball that perfectly forecasts future changes in labor market conditions, there will always be structural unemployment. In every type of economy.

>>3137811
>7,000 people dying of starvation every day

Not in any capitalist country, buddy. Your types are to blame for every single instance of that.

>>3137816

Hahaha look at India. Holy shit capitalists are ignorant.

>>3137811
>0MG stahp b in so cruel 2 pepol
Nigga I never said I don't care about people starving. If we could magically afford to feed every starving person in the world I would, but unfortunately it takes rent to pay for seeds, wages to pay for people to farm the seeds, and interest for the hoes, shovels, etc. The problem with paying people over how much they're worth is that you create debt. Subsidies, price ceilings, etc, can work in the short term in a capitalist system, but eventually you create a surplus of unemployed workers, which only creates MORE starving people.

>>3137812

b-b-b-but I thought capitalist markets were perfect and self-regulating!? How can there always be a higher supply of labour-power than there is demand!?

>>3137833

Oh I guess those starving people just need a high incentive then?

ITT: A /pol/ist and the /lit/izens getting upset that the /pol/ist is fucking retarded

>>3137837

Hmmm what incentives can we give to a starving person. Hrmmm.... let me think.....

>>3137835
They are, but not instantaneously. Nobody ever claimed that they instanteneously reach equilibrium, and there is a gigantic literature on the ways in which they don't.

Conditions change, demand in particular sectors increases or decreases. Education takes time and choices made 4 years ago may not be in line with current market conditions. These are all known issues. And as I said they exist in ALL economic systems because it's simply impossible to see into the future.

>>3137837
There's going to be famine in every economy, even communism. You're completely ignoring that feeding people isn't as easy as going to your local grocery store, and buying millions of people food.

>>3137828
>Hahaha look at India.

...what about it? It's one of the least free countries in the world, with government ownership of the means of production in a wide array of industries and pervasive government control in the rest. India's economy is far less free than China's. And they're paying for it.

>>3137838
ITT: /lit/izens don't know basic market structure, and are appalled that things have costs
It's called reality. There aren't many free goods in the world, but food isn't one of them. I said I would like to be able to feed them, but it's impossible to do so.