/lit/ - Literature

There is a thread here: >>>/pol/8586174 for anyone interested in calling out people on inconsistencies in their definitions of "violence"

Here are the questions, feel free to answer:
>What is violence?
>Is slavery violence?
>Is blackmail violence?
>Is demanding money in exchange for necessities like food and water violence?
>Are rent and taxation violence?
>Is vandalism violence?

Here's an interesting argument for gradualism:
http://mutualist.org/id13.html

Malatesta was a buddy of bakunin and also a couple other notable anarchists- he also hated syndicalism:

>His arguments against the doctrine of revolutionary unions known as anarcho-syndicalism were later developed in a series of articles, where he wrote “I am against syndicalism, both as a doctrine and a practice, because it strikes me as a hybrid creature.”[7] Despite their drawbacks, he advocated activity in the trade unions, both because they were necessary for the organization and self-defense of workers under a capitalist state regime, and as a way of reaching broader masses. Anarchists should have discussion groups in unions, as in factories, barracks and schools, but “anarchists should not want the unions to be anarchist.” [8]

>He thought that, like all unions, "Syndicalism...is by nature reformist."[9] While anarchists should be active in the rank and file, he said “any anarchist who has agreed to become a permanent and salaried official of a trade union is lost to anarchism.”[10]

>>3277535
The central question is not about tactics, the central question is about the construction of proletarian subjectivities.

>>3277578
Can you clarify "subjectivities"?

>>3277546

Violence is the improper use of force.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sometimes

Anarcho-capitalism is the only true form on anarchism, all others involve the initiation of force upon others.

>want to start a commune in a anarcho-capitalist society
>perfectly fine

>want to start a capitalist community in an anarcho-communist society
>stopped by force

>>3277586
>subjectivities

Individual and collective capacities for reflective action. So people, organizations, disorganizations and cultures capable of expressing thoughtful power.

>>3277592
A truly free market would naturally drift towards mutualism rather than capitalism.

I'm sorry your dream world is literally impossible.

>>3277592
>want to start a capitalist community

You mean a government?

The changes necessary to get to the initial stages of a widespread intention of even seriously considering anarchism as a viable option requires a revolution (intellectual revolution). There is no chance of such background developing gradually on its own given the efforts of the established powers to keep the status quo. So no gradualism, but revolution

>>3277598
>communists
>telling others they live in a dream world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

>>3277602
Property rights can exist without a government. Try harder.

>>3277609

You're underestimating the ideological power of a global economic collapse.

>>3277613
In America at least, a global economic collapse is more likely to bring about Fascism than anarchism.

>>3277611
>capitalism is the only economic system that provides for property rights

Are you high, or just stupid?

>>3277617
>strawman

Property rights are the only reason communists parrot the talking point "b-but CAPITALISM NEEDS GOVERNMENT!!!". You have 10 seconds to provide a reason for why capitalism requires the existence of a state.

>>3277616

Maybe. But a full collapse wouldn't involve just America. It'd be a worldwide event.

>>3277622
>you have 10 seconds
No one can have an actual intelligent conversation under time constraints. If it takes five years to find a flaw, the flaw still exists.

I'm not even involved in this argument or whatever. Just felt like pointing that out.

>>3277597
Right... So gradualism? We need to replace existing institutions, make education more widespread (and free), limit people devolving into factions based on social aspects of society, and support all libertarian and anti-statist movements regardless of their other aspects

Oh godamnit not this /a/ncap shitting up everything again

>>3277634
>I am not capable of refuting your argument, because I am intellectually inferior

Ancaps: 1
Commieshits: 0

>>3277613

I guess that could happen but in any case, that would bring about a drastic change, nothing gradualist about it.again about the

>>3277640
>I'm not even involved in this argument or whatever. Just felt like pointing that out.
I wasn't in this thread before and have no opinion on the argument itself. Saw your post and felt inclined to comment.

Also, that's ad hominem.

You're really bad at this.

>>3277634
>not getting #the #bantz

>>3277622
the state isn't necessary but performs a regulatory function that is necessary for a stable society

>>3277597
>>3277636
Do you guys have any specific examples of these things or subjectivities? Does the Tea Party count because they want less government? (Would be funny to see an anarchist movement alongside them)

Replacing existing structures with autonomous ones and the concepts of dual power are the way to go

>>3277636
No, not gradualism at all, see Malatesta and Rühle's criticism of syndicalism ("Trade Unionism"), or the IWW criticism of non-revolutionary trade unionism.

Power, working class power, before all things.

Organise, Organise, Organise.

>thread about anarchism
>ancaps come in and shit it up

every
single
time

>>3277622
In a capitalist society, it is the government that defines what property rights are and who gets to own property. In capitalism, property may be held absent of utility. In most anarchist strains of thought, absentee ownership of property is considered theft, coercion, or statism.

Capitalism != free markets. And, as has been said, a truly free market would much more likely follow a mutualist model than anything capitalistic.

>>3277661
Do. Not. Feed. The. Troll.

>>3277646
>argument detected: 0

>>3277647
>stable society
>giving up your freedom for "stability" and "safety"

I bet you love going to the airport and having the TSA stick their detecting devices up your asshole.

>>3277666
>slippery slope nigger

yeah that's nice, except i don't particularly want to live in some pre-hobbesian wonderland, even if i get to keep muh guns

>>3277666
could you please get a trip so I can filter you?

>>3277671
>pre-hobbesian
Stop that. Hobbes was shit.

>In a capitalist society, it is the government that defines what property rights are and who gets to own property.
>maybe if I repeat it enough, it will be true

Are you capable of even an ounce of critical thinking? In our current society, the government defines what property rights are, sure. Does that mean that property rights can ONLY be enforced by people with badges on their shirts?

> In capitalism, property may be held absent of utility.

Interesting how you're just using capitalism as another word for "current society" as if it's the only way capitalism can operate. You're a hypocrite if you also say "well Russia wasn't REAL communism". Just as some strands of communism advocate a vanguard party, others don't. Capitalism can function in different ways as well. Look up the homesteading principle, many ancaps prescribe to it in order to define valid ownership of property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle

>>3277659
>commies circlejerk
>ancaps post facts and commies get mad and throw tantrums

Fixed.

>>3277657
>Yfw I am OP and like malatesta

Obviously I am not really understanding all the terms then yet...

What is gradualism then, if not what I posted? I thought it wasn't syndicalism but rather mutualist and stuff malatesta would agree with

>>3277687

>ancaps

There's only one of you.

>>3277680
LOL

>>3277687
>ancaps
>facts

>>3277689
Gradualism is a Fabian strategy within capital. The autonomistic concept of empowering collective subjectivities ignores capital and the state in strategy and tactics, our opponents are irrelevant to our own power and culture.

>>3277693
There's only one in this thread, but I've intellectually dominated commies with the assistance of one of my ancap brethren.

Re: capitalism and people ITT obviously talking about different definitions

Unlike some other market anarchists, Carson defines capitalism in historical terms, emphasizing the history of state intervention in market economies. He says "[i]t is state intervention that distinguishes capitalism from the free market."[5] He does not define capitalism in the idealized sense but says that when he talks about "capitalism" he is referring to what he calls "actually existing capitalism." He believes that "laissez-faire capitalism, historically speaking, is an oxymoron" but has no quarrel with anarcho-capitalists who use the term and distinguish it from "actually existing capitalism."

>>3277592
Starting a commune would often qualify as taking over a workplace and deconstructing private property in an area where there was formerly private property. Would it still be okay with you?

I disagree with the notion that violence against a capitalist place of business would ensue. There are many implication of course to consider in these things, but whether surrounding people would commit acts of violence depends ultimately on those people. It's woefully misguided to generalize either of our politics, and their adherents, as being inherently violent or nonviolent. Much of the antagonism on our side is obviously because the current capitalist system is a vast and oppressive majority.

>>3277702

I'm genuinely curious and not being snarky: How old are you?

In response to claims that he uses the term "capitalism" incorrectly, Carson says he is deliberately choosing to resurrect what he claims to be an old definition of the term in order to "make a point." He claims that "the term “capitalism,” as it was originally used, did not refer to a free market, but to a type of statist class system in which capitalists controlled the state and the state intervened in the market on their behalf."[6] Carson holds that “Capitalism, arising as a new class society directly from the old class society of the Middle Ages, was founded on an act of robbery as massive as the earlier feudal conquest of the land. It has been sustained to the present by continual state intervention to protect its system of privilege without which its survival is unimaginable.”[7] Carson argues that in a truly laissez-faire system, the ability to extract a profit from labor and capital would be negligible.[8]

>>3277702
>He does not define capitalism in the idealized sense but says that when he talks about "capitalism" he is referring to what he calls "actually existing capitalism."

So, he just makes up his own definitions for things and then tells others they are wrong? Here's the actual definition, "Capitalism is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the production of goods or services for profit."

That is entirely consistent with a free market and requires no state.

Carson is a mutualist btw

>>3277710
>Starting a commune would often qualify as taking over a workplace and deconstructing private property in an area where there was formerly private property. Would it still be okay with you?

You wouldn't be allowed to force people by gunpoint to join your commune, no. But like-minded ancoms could form their own community without private property and do whatever the fuck they wanted.

>I disagree with the notion that violence against a capitalist place of business would ensue.

Whether or not actual physical violence would occur is irrelevant, the fact is that ancoms would stop the creation of capitalist communities by force.

>>3277711
See
>>3277708

>>3277720
>You wouldn't be allowed to force people by gunpoint to join your commune, no.
who would ensure that?

>>3277696
/r/ing a wiki article and also specific examples

>>3277726
OP here with several requests:

If you are going to continue posting ITT, please stop saging and stay on topic

If you are going to continue arguing or whatever go take it elsewhere

>>3277726
How would I ensure you don't kill or use force on me? Well, in the immediate sense, my hired security or private police. In the long-term sense, my enforcement agency would haul you before the private court system and deliver justice. Each community would have its own set of laws, so if you have violated them then it is up to the judges to interpret the law according to the will of the people.

>>3277733

Stop it. This is painful to watch.

>>3277734
Compelling argument, slugger.

I find anarchism interesting as a kind of poetry of politics. Anarchist ideals of any stripe are unrealisable in practice or have been realised completely already, which is the same thing really. Politics is a waste of time imo - like trying to use a screw driver to fix a puncture - spiritual fixes are needed - but anarchism is nice and will be remembered as a don quixote figure

>>3277740

>spiritual fixes

Elaborate.

>>3277733
>how would I make sure you don't use force?
>by using force

explain how this is not a state

>>3277749
The state has a monopoly on force. Each community would form their own laws and private judges. The judges that provided the best service, aka upheld the law the best, would receive the most customers and make the most money. The same principle is applied to police.

Are you saying that the use of force on others makes it not anarchism? Are you saying that other schools of anarchism would not use force, say, on someone breaking the law?

>>3277740
The fuck are you rambling about

>>3277750

Bodies of theory like anarchism seem to hold out a hope of settling grievances, making the world right and fair - they are utopian. The need for that kind of hope is based in an individuals envy and anger. There is nothing wrong with these emotions. i think they are a natural consequence of centuries of materialism. a better use of the energy would be creative religious practice - dancing, singing, exercising, music, magic, poetry etc. But proper and dedicated and not self-conscious like the hippies were. Best done alone for a while.

>>3277754

use of systematic violence has no place in an established anarchist system. No one would have a reason to use coercive violence on someone else. I can't see how an anarchist community could even begin to form if that isn't one of its principal prerogatives ingrained on people

>>3277754
all you're saying is that the existing state should be privatized and forced to compete
how would this cease to be a state?
how would society be better off with a system of mercenaries?
if private property is a natural right and doesn't need a state to uphold it, why would there be a need for judges and police, public or private?

>>3277768
>they are utopian
See
>Some people mean that anarchy must be absolute, 100%, or it is not anarchy at all. This absolutistic approach goes very much against the classical anarchists that write about mixed economical-political systems, and degrees of anarchy/anarchism. This approach is called the absolutist trap, because it exludes anarchies of low degree, holding that the term anarchy should only be used for the anarchist ideal with no coercion and no authoritarian tendencies at all. In fact the classical anarchists mean 100% ideal anarchy/anarchism is quite unrealistic, and thus absolutists are utopian, unrealistic dreamers, and not anarchists. Anarchism is above all a realistic concept. Realistically seen the anarchist ideal, 100% degree of anarchy, can only be seen as a very long term aim, that can be reached only asymptotically as times go by, not today or in the short run.

>>3277776
Not even ancoms who are almost 100% delusional deny that force would be used on criminals and such.

>>3277794
The state, like I said before, has a unjustified monopoly on force.

>how would this cease to be a state

How would it be a state at all? The laws would be produced on the free market and enforced by a private judge who did the best job of enforcement. If you found the laws of a particular community didn't suit you, you are free to find one that fits your principles.

>if private property is a natural right and doesn't need a state to uphold it, why would there be a need for judges and police, public or private?

Nobody with a brain believes in "natural rights" in 2012.

>>3277799

I agree that the initial stages would involve mixed practices, but I think it would rapidly evolve into a fully anarchist system. And I agree that dismissing any non-fully anarchist advancement is detrminetal and delusional but I really think it would evolve very quickly unless confronted to great opposing forces. That's why I think there is not even a glimpse of anarchist practices anywhere in the world. They're just too dangerous.

>>3277799
To expand on this, people who say that certain movements "aren't anarchist" are belittling the movement as a whole

Since 100% anarchism around the world is indeed utopia, it is imperitave that we embrace all movements that are in an anti-authoritarian slant regarfless of other factors

Insurrectionary, pacifist, syndicalist, eco anarchists etc all are united in their pursuit of the utopia and all tactics and methods of reaching it are valid

Criticizing movements for having a little authoritarian bent to them (like malatesta did with syndicalist unions) does not mean that we should not support them ideologically, if not actively supporting them

>>3277842
see
>>3277840

..agreed

Question for anarchists:

You focus so much on state power and state violence, but what about non-state power and non-state violence? What about the violence implicit in the market, in certain social/sexual relations and so on?

>>3277650
The Tea Party's mobilisation base is proletarian, but the Tea Party, being run by bourgeois apparatus, is not an example of proletarian subjectivity. It is just another bourgeois political party.

As far as a good recent example of proletarian subjectivity, consider the recent working class riots in the UK—they weren't coopted, they couldn't "sell out". They achieved a large number of large screen TVs. Working class power was maintained, even if the disorganisation wasn't particularly effective.

>>3277858
read some kropotkin

>>3277728
Steve Wright's _Storming Heaven_ which is available for free on libcom.org is a good text.

>>3277858
>You focus so much on state power and state violence, but what about non-state power and non-state violence? What about the violence implicit in the market, in certain social/sexual relations and so on?

Different communities would have different laws concerning social/sexual relations, as they are free people with different opinions. Ancoms will probably chime in about how all hierarchy will be banned and everyone will live in harmony but it's largely just delusion.

>violence implicit in the market

You mean like, "do you want these shoes for $4"? Or, "would you like to work at my store for this voluntarily agreed upon wage"?

>>3277821
way to dodge the questions

>Not even ancoms who are almost 100% delusional deny that force would be used on criminals and such.
>implying "criminal" isn't a term that applies to private property and the state

>>3277858

in a fully developed anarchist society, there is no use for force. Think about what the reasons for aggresion among people are; they will be naturally absent from such a society

>>3277869
Also http://mutualist.org/id13.html

>>3277799
a partial anarchist world is here. we are living in it.

>>3277879
Don't reply to Touhou posters.

Also, avatarfagging is a rule violation.

>>3277879
"Criminal" in the sense of:
>These are the rules of our voluntary community, and these are the punishments for breaking each rule."

Anyone with a distaste for such rules is free to form their own community or find one more suited to their interests.


>>3277890
I'm not using an avatar, I'm using different images of different characters.

>>3277861
I have, in fact I used to be a massive Kropotkin fan, but I feel like he is far too idealistic, arguing that all social problems essentially arise from capitalism and the state.

I still like the dude, it's just I think that far too many anarchists are too solely-focused on state violence (and market violence) and not more subtle kinds of violence that would still be present under an anarchist society if your only focus is the state and capitalism.

For example, how is an anarchist society supposed to establish and enforce moral rules? I am not saying it is impossible to do (like most critics), but rather that most answers to this question merely re-create state violence in an anarchist frame ("citizens' courts", exile and so on).

>>3277888
force is a physical necessity of the material world. look at the sun, the sea, animals etc. to the extent that humans are physical human society produces the force/violence it needs to cohere or even exist.

>>3277888
I don't buy that the only reason people are aggressive towards eachother is because of the state, the economy, and inequal relations between people. For example, a lot of crimes are committed out of passion, out of anger, or out of despair. Oftentimes crimes are committed because of ideological difference or moral disagreement (think ALF/ELF). How would an anarchist society resolve these issues without resorting to some kind of force or coercion?

>>3277876
I have been replying as if I am talking to anti-capitalist anarchists, are you actually trying to defend ancapitalism?

>>3277876

What you advocate is not anarchism at all. Its very definition (regardless of branches or interpretations) implies lack of hierarchies. You also keep using words like "banned" when referring to other anarchist practices, when that is also ruled out by definition. Hierarchies would naturally become extinct. If violent coercion has to be used in any context, it is not anarchism.
The need for the use of force to control undesired behaviour among individuals is an indicator that the state of mind needed to establish a true anarchist society has not been reached, and everything would eventually fall back into an authoritarian system of some kind

>>3277896
Nope, its an avatar. You'd make the same argument if you were posting slightly different pictures of Rika and Erika Furudo. Fuck off, most of us have done linguistics here. You're posting congruent images to identify yourself.

>>3277902

I don't dismiss the nature of human force. I meant coercive/aggresive force against other individuals, not the force needed to achieve daily tasks.

>>3277914

I think the problem for most people trying to understand how an anarchist society would work is that they just can't take their heads completely out of the current context. If you just take the current state of things and just take away the government, of course there is going to be chaos. It requires a whole change in mentality and the ability to abstract yourself to the point where you can imagine a fully established society where the very concept of superiority or hierarchy is absent from peoples attitudes. The man in the perfect society is not the same man that exists in the present, it would be an entirely different being. You have to defy the most ingrained preconceptions you have about human relations.
The point is that the context in which a person is risen would change dramatically, and the very concepts of aggresion and morals would change (or disappear) based on the fact that there would be no need for them in such a society

>>3277927
>What you advocate is not anarchism at all. Its very definition (regardless of branches or interpretations) implies lack of hierarchies.

Anarchism is the lack of a state.

>You also keep using words like "banned" when referring to other anarchist practices, when that is also ruled out by definition. Hierarchies would naturally become extinct. If violent coercion has to be used in any context, it is not anarchism.

So if I want to murder my whole town in an anarcho-communist society, no force would be used against me?

>The need for the use of force to control undesired behaviour among individuals is an indicator that the state of mind needed to establish a true anarchist society has not been reached

This is just pure delusion. Do communists actually believe that all behavior they don't like is because of conditioning that needs to be undone? It's almost like they completely deny facts and science concerning human behavior.

ran butt

>>3277963
I don't think you understand what I am saying. I identified as anarchist for a long time, I understand all the stock arguments like the one you are making.

My question is, how do you expect to go about creating this kind of society and this kind of culture without the use of some kind of power - be it direct power (smash the state) or indirect power (ostracizing/otherizing people based on their behavior and identity).

In a sense, anarchism is somewhat totalitarian, because it asserts that there is *one* morality (anarchist morality) that you must abide by, and if you don't abide by it

My argument is not for the status quo, it is merely that anarchist critiques of power do not go far enough, that we need to realize that there are kinds of power beyond state power and market power that anarchists happily engage in.

Really what we need to do is critique *all* kinds of power in the modern world, not just state/market power, and realize that the coercive institutions that exist today could still exist even absent a state and a market. "Anarchism" is just too simple of an ideology for this process, and can lead people to ignore the ability that the state can have in getting rid of non-state types of power and inequality.

read foucault

>>3277978
go back to mises.org and stop pretending you're an anarchist

>>3277993
>In a sense, anarchism is somewhat totalitarian, because it asserts that there is *one* morality (anarchist morality) that you must abide by, and if you don't abide by it

That's why anarcho-capitalism is the only true form on anarchism.

>>3278000
>no argument

>>3277978

but you wouldn't want to murder your whole town, would you?
Your answer is no, but then you say somebody else would want to do it. And I would ask you why would that person would want to do such a thing? And any reason you give would not apply in an established anarchist society. That is what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying "the state" is to blame for human beings deviances, it's the whole context, in which the state plays an important part, but it is not everything. Just look up for the reasons anybody would want to incur into a criminal act like that. It always has to do with upbringing, which would radically change like I mentioned before.

>>3278017

This is me. I gotta go have christmas dinner but this was a nice discussion. Have a good one yall

>>3278017
So in an anarcho-communist society I would be free to kill whoever I wanted and nobody would stop me?

What if I wanted to start my own capitalist community? I would be free to do so?

>>3278027

still dont get it. You would not have a reason to do any of that

Now Ill go merry christmas errybody

>>3278033
>typical communist debate tactic

>>3278035
>What if X happened?
>w-well X would never happen because it is a magical dreamworld where everyone rides unicorns and there is no dissent or different opinions at all!!

>>3278041
what motive would there be to kill someone?
what motive would there be to steal?

>avatarfagging
enjoy your permaban

>>3277840
>That's why I think there is not even a glimpse of anarchist practices anywhere in the world
Are you blind, ignorant, or stupid?

-Unions are syndicalist, found around the world
-arab spring has some anarchist elements
-Occupy had some anarchist elements (see David Graeber)
-EZLN in chiapas has a big anarchist element
-coop's found around the world
-intentional communities

>>3278068
you forgot squats

>>3278062
>what motive would there be to kill someone?

You're avoiding the question. Nobody would stop me from murdering thousands of people?

>>3278004
>That's why anarcho-capitalism is the only true form on anarchism.

Do you really think that capitalism is somehow "amoral" or "beyond" morality? Tell me why private property is important to hold up, why it is wrong to steal, why it is morally proper for me to spend 40 hours a week working to keep the system running etc, and you're already making absolutist moral claims. What if I don't believe that private property is a legitimate system? Can I freely steal from my neighbor in an anarchist capitalist society? Can I refuse to work and steal from people in order to survive, if I view that as more morally praiseworthy than doing a 9-5?

>>3278077
what?

>>3278085
except they would

but what motive would you have to do so?

>>3278084
>Tell me why private property is important to hold up

Objectively? There isn't an objective reason. You're free to form your own community without private property.

>why it is wrong to steal

It's only "wrong" to steal if the community you live in has a law against stealing. If not you are free to steal.

>hy it is morally proper for me to spend 40 hours a week working to keep the system running

You're free to remain unemployed. Just don't expect things in return.

> What if I don't believe that private property is a legitimate system?

Then live in a community with similar beliefs.

> Can I freely steal from my neighbor in an anarchist capitalist society?

If your community does not have laws against stealing, sure. Stealing isn't objectively wrong, and laws will be different between communities.

>Can I refuse to work and steal from people in order to survive, if I view that as more morally praiseworthy than doing a 9-5?

You're completely free to do so. But if there are laws against stealing where you live, then there will also be punishments that the people have decided on.

There's nothing morally absolute about anarcho-capitalism. Laws will differ immensely depending where you are, there are no magic objective rules everyone has to obey.

(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST)

>>3278062
>what motive would there be to kill someone?
>what motive would there be to steal?

Are you arguing that people only kill eachother because of the inequalities created and supported by state/market coercion? Theft might be a legitimate argument, but murder? Why did that kid shoot up an elementary school recently? Why did the guy in Aurora shoot up a theater? Certainly a lot of crimes (eg inner-city gangs) can be traced to social/economic inequality and violence, but certainly not all of them. Some people are just mentally ill, others are just really passionate about something and get caught up in the heat of the moment, etc.

>>3278098
>You're completely free to do so. But if there are laws against stealing where you live, then there will also be punishments that the people have decided on.

Ok, so it's just as coercive as state society. Good to know.

>>3277899
>For example, how is an anarchist society supposed to establish and enforce moral rules?
the change must be gradual, where you alter societal values and culture to value anarchist ideals and to hate authoritarianism

look at the Nordics, or Le Guin's Dispossessed for examples of how such cultural changes would look like

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jante_Law

>>3278096
>except they would

W-Wait, you mean by using force??? I'm glad we agree.

>>3278101
Is this a joke? I feel like you're just trolling now. People form their own voluntary communities and decide on certain rules, and that's the same thing as the government? There will always be rules, once you get out of high school you will recognize that.

To disregard any system that doesn't allow you to murder everyone you want "just as coercive as the state" is asinine. And anarcho-capitalism isn't even THAT, it doesn't even advocate some kind of universal ban on murder. There would certainly be communities that allowed murder, but also those that don't.

Seeing as how that was your only reply, I'm guessing you're admitting that I refuted all your points about moral absolutism.

>>3278099
obviously I was referring to the economic reasons for murder

though there could be some connection to murders based on one's social class
>be poor
>be outcast
>be driven to murder
or something of that nature, though it would be an extreme example

both the killers were outcast, for whatever reason, perhaps they couldn't seek help because of economic conditions?

>>3277559
Bokonon?

>>3278108
confirmed troll

everyone can go home now

>>3278113
as in cats cradle/book sof bokonon?

my nigga

although why are you bringing it up?

>>3278118
I dunno. Bakunin, Bokonon

I bet half the faggots on here arguing about means of production don't have jobs. You wouldn't get jack shit in a world where your parents were being given a food allowance from the warehouses based on their labor. Enjoy your starvation.

>>3278122
>>3278122
Well vonnegut was a socialist/communist so he was pretty cool and you aren't far off

Bokonon in the book seemed fairly anarchist

you should be able to punish who you want regardless of any crimes.

>>3278149

DYER?

>>3278149
>Knowledge is non-transferable.
Think about the implicit value of your judgement.

>>3278114
You commies are pretty bad at this debating thing, aren't you? Constantly spouting "troll" is not a sufficient replacement for an argument.

Modern day political systems are broken and shit, but anarchism is pants-on-head-retarded.

It's the political equivalent of having erectile dysfunction, and opting to chop your own dick off with a rusty cleaver in an attempt to solve the problem.

Anarchism is the domain of uneducated edgy teens, and Italians with a death wish.

>>3278149
Not the guy who posted this but a related question to the anarchists in this thread: How do you reconcile your political views with working within a capitalist system, working within a hierarchy, earning a wage etc? Also, if you go to the bookstore and buy a Chomsky book you are in part financially contributing to the economic system you seek to abolish.

>>3278289
Anarchism isn't a moral system of slaves. It is a method of action for self-emancipating collectives.

>>3278294
>Anarchism isn't a moral system of slaves.
> It is a method of action for self-emancipating collectives.
>not slaves
>collectives

>>3278288
So in other words, you're a would-be reformist with no clue how to fix anything and nothing to contribute.

>>3278327
I have plenty of ideas regarding how to reform the system, and I come up with more every day. It is precisely because I have these ideas that I treat the idea of anarchy with such disdain.

>>3278323
Merleau ponty and intersubjectivity.

>>3278236
you've been countered time and time again, ignored said counters, presented questions and ignored those as well, how do you expect someone to hold a decent conversation with you?

also, flame wars are illegal on 4chan, enjoy your permaban

>crying about capitalism on a website created by capitalism

>>3278420

What's your point?

>>3278420
>complaining about slavery whilst being a slave

>>3278428
More like
>complaining about slavery while owning slaves

Because you are profiting from the thing you supposedly hate.

>>3278639

>profiting

How so? My family and I are very poor. We work so that others can profit. This is your system.

>>3278642
How do you feel knowing nothing will ever change?

>>3278642
You are benefiting from the use of the website, yet you despise the system that caused its creation.

>>3278647

What benefit? So what?

>>3278645

I've got an outlet in creative work. I'm fine.

hey so, I'm back from that christmas dinner and I just wanted to respond to the avatarfag's last rebuttal, if he's even here anymore. If not we can still have fun though.

The answer is yes, everybody would be free to murder everyone. Actually everybody is free to murder everyone in the present days, if you have the means. The point is, nobody, under any circumstance, would have any reason to want to commit any such act.
Like someone mentioned, "well the state/social inequality are not always the reason people commit such acts". And it's true, and that's when I insist that when trying to imagine how such a society would work, you have to shed all preconceptions on how a person would be brought up, and how the whole context in which any person would grow to become a murderer/thief/rapist,etc, would be entirely different. You are taking the abused, antisocial kid, who was raised in THIS context, and putting him in a completely different scene in which he would not have had the chance to develop that behavior to begin with.
Again, I'm not saying lack of state will magically make people's problems disappear, but anarchism is much, much more than just abolition of the state. It's a whole change in mindset, where solidarity would take precedence over competition, and would be the normal setting for all situations in life. And I know what you are thinking, "people have issues, it's just the way it is, it's nature and people are going to violently compete with each other and it cannot be changed". Well I disagree. And it would become a whole different topic, because we would be moving from discussing the practical side of the formation of such systems, and start discussing something more on the philosophic side of things.
cont'd

cont'd from
>>3279020

In that regard I will briefly say that I believe that every individual is egoist at its core, and such egoism is going to force us to act, when all is said and done, in behalf of our own well being. When you put that in this society, you know what happens. In a place like some of us imagine, that egoism would naturally be transalted into solidarity, cooperativism, and disinterest in harming someone else in any way, because that would go against our own well being. If there is no harm done to you during your upbringing, you will not want to harm others later on in life. You take for granted that serious behavioural issues are an unavoidable part of being a human, I think the opposite. Issues have to have a cause, if the cause is removed, no issues arise

OP here

>mfw stupid as fuck /a/ncap got banned for avatar fagging
>mfw reporting actually works

mods = gods thank youuuuu

discussion is a go people

>>3277546
Violence is physical abuse.
Aggression, and coercion =/= violence.
Ergo, it's dependable whether, or not slavery, blackmail, etc are violent. If _physical_ aggression, and coercion is involved, then yet. Else, no.

>>3277611
Except, communism isn't mutualism. DAB in Hong Kong share mutualism thoughts, but are very democratic, and capitalist, as well as being self-proclaimed anti-communist.

>>3277622
Capitalism is an economic-political ideology, not solely economic. You're thinking of the free-market.

>>3279099
too bad the thread died ;_;

bump

>>3277535
The problem with you guys is that you think everyone is as smart as you.

They aren't. If you mingle enough in society, you'll realize that most people are better off being led by their superiors.

Myself included. I don't want to worry about the menial aspects of the system in which I live. Someone has to clean the sewers, and the state can say who it is.
If I have a problem with it, I can either go into government or vote on it.

>>3281244
>I can either go into government or vote on it.

haha sure

>>3281244
>If I have a problem with it there i nothing I can do about it in the majority of circumstances.

fixed

I don't want to "fix" the system. I benefit from status quo. Even though I feel empathy, neither privileged nor underpriviledged get sympathy from me. What do?

one question about ancaps.

how do you own property if you can't register it anywhere? do you brand it with your name? how do you even people know it's your real name? you put pictures of yourself in all your properties or something?

>my enforcement agency would haul you before the private court system and deliver justice

>>3277733
how is more profitable for your hired security to work for you instead of simply taking the things they are already possessing by guarding them?

>>3279099
I didn't get banned, my images were just deleted.

>>3278068
Unions are clearly hierarchical

>>3278068
CNT
the only historic war i would ever volunteer was the spanish civil war.

>>3282235
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5OsJ81IOj8

>>3282185
>said a representative of US government

>>3282235
>mfw i was thinking about the exact same thing when i woke up.
WTF DUDE.
I didn't even know about this thread.

>>3282235
>not joining the French Resistance
>not fighting for Greek independence

What the fuck.

I wanted to read the Ego and its Own, but it's really boring. Does it get any better or should I just give up?

>>3282235
>not joining the Irish Brigade

Dirty heathen

>>3282235
Why does that sign say "Fat Cunt"?

>>3282780

I found it helps to read out loud and trying to pick up on his massive amount of sarcasm. But if you're looking for the meat/relevant stuff (the first two sections are 'take the piss out of god, as was the fashion of the time') just read the last section, but there's some terminology you'll miss.

>>3282780
AHHHHHH STIRNER

YOU STARTED ALL OF THIS YOU BASTARD

THIS WORLD IS CURSED BY YOUR SEED

>>3283041
>everything I don't like is sarcasm

Liberals do this to Plato, Nietzsche, Stirner, and every other Philosopher who has any ideas opposite their beliefs.

>>3282099

Wait until you aren't part of the hegemony anymore and cry?

>>3283083

His critiques of liberal humanism seemed to use their own arguments in a sarcastic manner and to expand them beyond what seems reasonable to point out the extension of 'God' to 'Human'. This could be an interpretation error on my part.

If it seemed like I was implying that the main body of his work was sarcastic, that was not what I intended. Sorry about that.