ancap literature

[Anonymous No.16828188]

Where do i start?

[Anonymous No.16828208]

>>16828188
Egyptian book of the dead, than continue on to the greeks, then read the rest of the western canon.

[Anonymous No.16828263]

>>16828188
So do ancaps have an economic theory more rooted in energy, thermodynamics, and dissipative structures? Otherwise it's just more academic bullshit.

[Anonymous No.16828368]

>>16828263
don’t know what any of this means honestly i just want to smoke weed and own guns and not pay taxes and drive as fast as i want

[Anonymous No.16828375]

>>16828188
dont

[Anonymous No.16828384]

>>16828188
>implying Marx had anything to do with the labor theory of value

[Anonymous No.16828392]

>>16828368
wouldn't that lifestyle be easier to do and pursue
as an emancipated worker?
even if you're not in a position where you find yourself at a job, your fellow man deserves democratic control of their own workplaces. it would ease tensions in the public consciousness for the ventures you seek

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16828393]

You cannot have capitalism without a state or some governing body, and if we agreed to a small governing body it would be there to be bribed by the winners of that round and an oligarchy or outright empire would result.
Capitalism keeps classism and unjustifiable hierarchies, which is anathema to anarchism.

Ancap=liberal capitalism again

[Anonymous No.16828394]

>>16828368
Wait until you graduate highschool.

[Anonymous No.16828432]

>>16828368
You'd more likely be a slave in an ancap society. Without anyone to keep private companies in line they would fill the power vacuum and rule your life.

[Anonymous No.16828441]

>>16828188
That meme is dumb. Marx's critique is basically the same whether or not his theory of value is true.

[Anonymous No.16828443]

>>16828432
and who is to say i wouldn’t amass a fleet of vans filled with fertilizer bombs and destroy the entire libertarian commune just so i could live alone in my paradise?

[Anonymous No.16828445]

>>16828368
based

[Anonymous No.16828454]

>>16828393
pseud moment

[Anonymous No.16828460]

>>16828188
images like that make marxism more appealing. gotcha bullshit about fucking people over

[Anonymous No.16828463]

Ancap is like Judaism on steroids so let me guess,
>Rothbard's parents were David and Rae Rothbard, Jewish immigrants to the United States from Poland and Russia, respectively.
Yep.

[Anonymous No.16828464]

>>16828188
read Hoppe obviously, Rothbard, Rockwell

[Anonymous No.16828468]

>>16828460
Marxism school of thought is defunct, literally no one subscribes to it besides pseuds and larpers under the age of 25

[Anonymous No.16828479]

>>16828468
Mostly lowlifes who blame their lack of motivation and bad life choices on "the system".

[Anonymous No.16828487]

>>16828468
As opposed to the vast armies of intelligent and politically credible ancaps over the age of 25

[Anonymous No.16828489]

>>16828479
And liberals who are too embarrassed to call themselves that

[Anonymous No.16828492]

I've never met an Ancap who's employed, take that as you will.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16828502]

>>16828454
Refute it

[Anonymous No.16828513]

>>16828487
cope, ancaps only attend target business schools

[Anonymous No.16828522]

>>16828513
So how come they haven't managed to organise any large successful anarcho-capitalist parties or organisations? Where's the ancap militant uprising?
Right, it's an online armchair ideology for nerds.

[Anonymous No.16828523]

I've yet to see an argument against the notion that ancaps "destroying the state" will inevitably just revert to creating a new state with CEOs at the head. Or, warring states. But seriously what would keep them from hiring private military and laying claim to an area, then enforcing their rule?
Also the whole NAP is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard of.

[Anonymous No.16828542]

reddit.com

[Anonymous No.16828561]

>>16828368
I have the perfect ideology for you

[Anonymous No.16828570]

>>16828393
Okay tell me how you defend the revolution without a state buttz, I'm waitin

[Anonymous No.16828575]

>>16828570
Sucking cock so good that nobody gonna contradict my opinion. And if they do contradict my opinion then i’d suck them more because jesus christ dom men are so hot

[Anonymous No.16828576]

>>16828188
ancap is just feudalism.

[Anonymous No.16828586]

>>16828575
Okay tim now go out and play so the adults can speak

[Anonymous No.16828589]

>>16828561
What is Stirner's central point? Thinking about reading him. Also what are spooks?

[Anonymous No.16828603]

>>16828561
Seriously I don't get why ancaps don't just read Stirner. He's like their ideology but not completely retarded.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16828630]

>>16828570
Seems we all have to be in to win.
Working out in Rojava where the people are all the police/soldiers and the state functionaries are like a given co-op workplace and under (usually?) the people/police.
It has to be organized.

[Anonymous No.16828640]

>>16828589
spooks are fake ideas that people lie to themselves about i.e morals, religion, ethics, etc. his central thesis is very simple, do whatever the hell pleases you, nothing matters other than appeasing yourself. it’s the end point of philosophy, everything else is pure mystification (unconscious egoism)

[Anonymous No.16828651]

>>16828630
Okay but you realize the degree of organization required for what is essentially one big co-op, during a situation where there's a war nonetheless, is nigh on impossible? I'm an ML myself but hell I'm not even saying you need a vanguard party, workers councils, Industrial congresses, literally anything. You know what happened in the Free State and Catalonia, and while in both instances the MLs didn't exactly help you don't mean to tell me you think either the Free State or Catalonia could have dealt with the Nazis and Francoists respectively. Rojava is not even implementing early steps towards socialism btw, capitalism plus co-cops isn't our end goal you know.

[Anonymous No.16828678]

>>16828393
There are literally fucking tens of thousands of historical examples of capitalism without a state. The only argument against this is using some vague and arcane academic definition of capitalism. I agree capitalist hierarchies are unjustifiable (trannys getting high paying jobs, jews etc). What's ironic though is ancom doesn't work either because the capital is already in the hands of capitalists. You don't remove generational capital from them without state intervention. Embrace the third position and pragmatism instead of being brain dead ideologues.

[Anonymous No.16828690]

>>16828678
>There are literally fucking tens of thousands of historical examples of capitalism without a state
Name one (1)

[Anonymous No.16828694]

>>16828468
Its really not though, the average person, including hard core republicans fully prescribe to marxist historical materialism whether they know it or not. The vast majority of society thinks this way.

[Anonymous No.16828699]

>>16828678
Nazbol Gang Unite!
you need to get over the nazitard shit though

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16828706]

>>16828651
Several big co-ops. And in a time of mass displeasure with capitalist systems, all is needed is a comprehensive and satisfactory replacement. Hell, you can satisfy the masses of rightwingers if you can feed them and give them a comfy life. (Talking about ditching accumulative currency and market capitalism) The fight will obviously come from the well armed establishment, but massive numbers would win it.

>>16828651
The Hanseatic League? They had a centralized authority

[Anonymous No.16828710]

>>16828468
>>16828694
How can two people be retarded in such different ways, this is either the duality of man or the identicality of man and I can't tell which

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16828718]

>>16828678
>You don't remove generational capital from them without state intervention
Oh and. They can keep it. We can operate without it.
That will piss off their guard dogs of course. I know.

[Anonymous No.16828721]

>>16828690
Bartering systems of every single society and civilization that has ever existed. Black markets that exist in most societies, they operate strictly outside the realm of the state by definition. I'm a socialist i just don't think buying into ancom fanfiction is prudent.

[Anonymous No.16828731]

>>16828699
the jew and tranny think were mostly tongue in cheek, nazbol gang.

[Anonymous No.16828734]

>>16828718
so you're just another hippy wanting a commune living just outside of capitalist society correct? ancaps are perfectly fine with people pooling resources and forming co ops as far as i know.

[Anonymous No.16828740]

>>16828706
>The Hanseatic League? They had a centralized authority
I'm sorry but I don't quite understand what point you were trying to make here. The Hanseatic League was comprised of cities which obviously had states.
>Several big co-ops
Within which the level of organization will not cause a monopoly in violence, aka a state?
>mass displeasure with capitalist systems
This doesn't mean anything if class consciousness doesn't exist.
>all is needed is a comprehensive and satisfactory replacement. Hell, you can satisfy the masses of rightwingers if you can feed them and give them a comfy life
Listen I'm not saying we shouldn't build socialism, like I said I'm an ML, but how would you do what you just mentioned without state level organizing?
>(Talking about ditching accumulative currency and market capitalism)
With labor vouchers? If so, how can you keep accumulative currency dead without force? How can you conquer the bourgeoise with "volunteer militias"?
>well armed establishment
Which doesn't form a monopoly on violence somehow?
>but massive numbers would win it
Well yeah if everyone woke up tomorrow realizing their class interests that'd be great but I'm not holding my breath.

[Anonymous No.16828741]

>>16828710
I'm correct you just don't understand lol. Read marx.

[Anonymous No.16828747]

>>16828393
listening to ancaps talk or debate I've found that it really is just a neofeudalism. Without the state, corporations will devolve into a sort of Shogunate. It's like one step forward four steps back.

[Anonymous No.16828755]

>>16828721
>Bartering systems of every single society and civilization that has ever existed.
Not capitalism, capitalism is "The socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange, in particular private ownership of the means of production and on the exploitation of wage labour." If capitalism is just free exchange what would Marx's critique of it even be lol?
>Black markets that exist in most societies, they operate strictly outside the realm of the state by definition.
They don't have to if there's no foothold for them to come into existence.
>I'm a socialist
Doubt that.
>i just don't think buying into ancom fanfiction is prudent
Not an ancom myself so no comment.

[Anonymous No.16828764]

>>16828741
>republicans are historical materialists
Homie they don't even use class analysis, even Rothbard did that.

[Anonymous No.16828778]

>>16828721
halfwit. the exchange of goods is not a sufficient condition for capitalism. You might as well be arguing that capitalism is inherent to human nature (I wouldn't disagree) but thinking it's just because you can trade goods for goods is a clear sign you haven't thought things through enough.

[Anonymous No.16828790]

>>16828755
read my first point again 'vague, arcane, academic definitions'. Okay bad example do black markets, operate outside of the state by definition lol. Either way i'm correct. I am a socialist lol i don't care if i don't pass ur purity test. It wouldn't be accurate or honest to describe myself any other way.

[Anonymous No.16828797]

>>16828764
I'm not talking about right wing philosophers or 'thought leaders'. I'm talking about the average republican. that would be pretty dumb of me to point to the great men instead of the conditions of the proles for an example huh?

[Anonymous No.16828802]

>>16828778
I had another example chief. Read on. It was simply off the top of the head and i'm literally not even an ancap, im a 'nazbol'. I've thought them through plenty, much more than you i'm afraid.

[Anonymous No.16828809]

>>16828790
>vague
You used vague abstractions so no u.
>arcane, academic
This doesn't make them false, and they aren't? I'm a retard but I get it.
>Either way i'm correct
Ah I see, the famous time traveling debater, he zaps you to the future where he already made an argument and won the debate.
>I am a socialist lol i don't care if i don't pass ur purity test
These words you use, I do not believe you understand them.
>It wouldn't be accurate or honest to describe myself any other way
The way someone would describe someone such as yourself is "a liberal".

[Anonymous No.16828816]

The only ancap I’ve somewhat respected is Hoppe. His book democracy the god that failed has some good parts. I guess I’ve read some articles by Rothbard that was ok too. Think I’ve read his stuff about Polanyi.

[Anonymous No.16828819]

>>16828797
If you mean the average republican is some cola miner in Virginia, assuming that to be the case they don't realize that historical events are caused by changes in the material conditions, most republicans are historical idealists, as in they believe ideas come about and create the conditions of historical events to happen, rather than the material conditions. Picrel.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16828831]

>>16828740
>Within which the level of organization will not cause a monopoly in violence, aka a state?
No. A neighborhood or about 5000 or so with maybe 10 to 20% too you, old or uninterested. Lots of them obviously. No real interest in waging wars. Many voices drowning out the foolhardy and blood thirsty.
> class consciousness
Is about to exist. Unless the current govt starts feeding them Medicare for all and a UBI to be unemployed. The coming depression is about to wake up a wave of socialists
>state level organization
Which is what in people’s hands? Yes, we need to organize. That’s at the core of starting it and keeping it.
>vouchers
Yes. Though that’s just training wheels for a shared economy. Welcome/lure the class traitor liberals, posh city bitches and the poor rural rightwinger. At first a duel income for those still holding a job (and all the other benefits)
>Monopoly on violence
They do, but we have tons of small armed people in this country. I was admitting the establishment was a hefty thorn in our sides and they will come out fighting. Getting the numbers is difficult because of their divide and conquer strategy
Everyone can wake up tomorrow. Many are waking up now

>>16828747
Agreed. Which makes me believe if my vision were to even take shape there’d be a few neighborhoods that want to use bitcoin for a while. Yuck.

[Anonymous No.16828834]

>>16828802
I am neither of the people you're talking to but wouldn't black markets nonetheless be influenced by the need to avoid state interference/intervention, and hence not truly be "capitalism without a state"?
I am not educated enough to comment on whether the existence of barter systems counts as capitalism.
I guess I'm a Social Democrat if I had to put apply a label.
I disagree that capitalism needs a state to exist, just the social order that >>16828755 described. However, would you not end up with capital accumulating in the hands of a few oligarchs (as has happened in the United States) who, with no limiting body, would simply contract private security firms to monopolize violence (that is to say, become states unto themselves)?
My opinion on Anarcho-Communism is that it's viable on essentially a tribal scale but protecting it from an established state and upending the existing order without state-level organization is near-impossible.

[Anonymous No.16828872]

>>16828831
>No. A neighborhood or about 5000 or so with maybe 10 to 20% too you, old or uninterested. Lots of them obviously. No real interest in waging wars. Many voices drowning out the foolhardy and blood thirsty.
Okay but you understand that even if in such a community horizontal organization existed, the inequality between a collection of these groups is inherent? Geography mandates than some communes be more productive, have access to better materials, not have as many environmental issues to deal with, etc. In such a situation, there needs to be organization between communes yes? And what of defense, you realize while some communes may have enough volunteers to deal with their issues certain communes will simply need more and, as the Free Territory did, mandate conscription? Which, by the Anarchist definition of one, creates a state? I don't see such a commune getting out of creating a state. Or developing production beyond co-ops.
>Is about to exist. Unless the current govt starts feeding them Medicare for all and a UBI to be unemployed. The coming depression is about to wake up a wave of socialists
Discontent does not equal class consciousness, between socialism or barbarism many choose the latter for lack of knowledge on the former. The social liberal can continue to make the economy more of a rentier economy, creating the deepest reaction in human history.
>Which is what in people’s hands?
Educated proles.
>Yes, we need to organize. That’s at the core of starting it and keeping it.
My point isn't that there is no organization in an Anarchist society, but that there isn't the ability to defend the commune or organize on a large scale. With is necessary for the victory of socialism internationally.
>Yes. Though that’s just training wheels for a shared economy.
To be fair my grasp on Anarchist economics isn't the greatest, I'm interested as to how Anarchists believe vouchers will be moved beyond.
>Welcome/lure the class traitor liberals, posh city bitches and the poor rural rightwinger. At first a duel income for those still holding a job (and all the other benefits)
Don't get what you're saying here.
>They do, but we have tons of small armed people in this country. I was admitting the establishment was a hefty thorn in our sides and they will come out fighting. Getting the numbers is difficult because of their divide and conquer strategy
So wait, you believe that a state may be necessary for some time after the revolution? Buttz that isn't what Anarchists believe if that's what you believe.
Everyone can wake up tomorrow. Many are waking up now
Extremely unfounded optimism imo.

[Anonymous No.16828879]

>>16828630
Isn't Rojava an ethnostate? Hmm...

[Anonymous No.16828885]

>>16828879
No it isn't, the SDF has Kurds, Arabs, and some Turkmens in it's ranks, hell there are foreigners living there since they fought with the SDF.

[Anonymous No.16828887]

>>16828879
It's actually very much not an ethnostate and is full of Arabs, Assyrians and Turks as well as Kurds.

[Anonymous No.16828897]

>>16828872
>The social liberal
I meant the social liberal state

[Anonymous No.16828899]

>>16828885
>>16828887
Pretty sure they ethnically cleansed Arabs but alright.

[Anonymous No.16828903]

>>16828899
There are some claims of this occurring and it probably has happened but they are heavily against it and investing methods to stop that from ever occurring. I'm not for them mind you, but nah they aren't an ebin Kurdish ethnostate.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16828974]

>>16828872
Clubs of mutual aid will understandably be limited at the start, but the bigger the6 get the better we get. Direct democracy manages the mandate of this new people’s economy. We need only be productive enough to care for one another’s needs. We’re trying to get to zero carbon emissions asap after all. I don’t see a need for conscription either. Like Rojava we’ll have enough volunteer militia and general neighborhood watch protecting their areas.
>lack of knowledge
And there you have it. Again. We need organizers and teachers and for them to teach more teachers. Stop protesting. Stop voting. Organize.
>socialism internationally
With this happening in the US the world would be stunned, wouldn’t it? I have no Idea how this would go down, but since it’s our last chance I want to see it.
>vouchers
Paul Cockshott’s Towards a New Socialism? Or do you mean beyond that? I see people realizing that the vouchers aren’t that necessary. They’re not accumulative, they expire. The guy at the sandwich shop gave you a meal on the house because he’s still on the clock. Who cares? Economy in kind will flower after soon enough.
>don’t get what you’re saying here
Just that we have to appeal to their needs. As far as one can. Some of them are crazy, I’m sure you know.
This “state” is a Bookchinian kind of thing. Once the reactionaries and Pentagon are dealt with... well your concerned with international actors and what they might do. What can we do if Russia China wants to remain the way they are? We shut down all our bases and they play power politics and want to invade us?

Traditional anarchists want no state, but Mexico and Canada have to be on board with erasing that line too. Drawing the troops down and disarming the nukes is a necessary step

>>16828879
Nope nope

[Anonymous No.16829095]

>>16828974
>Clubs of mutual aid will understandably be limited at the start
This sort of thing organized around geographic interests rather than class ones are bound to fall into non-materialist thinking, I think if you're going to be an Anarchist being an Anarcho-Syndicalist is the way to go in terms of organization.
>but the bigger the6 get the better we get
Wait so do you mean confederations of smaller "clubs" or one actual big "club"? The later sounds like it'd be run like a state to me. I see that you're advocating for direct democracy too, and I think information barriers will make that difficult if you wish for one big "club".
>Direct democracy manages the mandate of this new people’s economy
Planning by the people? Well I mean, that's a possibility, but who's to say your average joe is capable of that at first after the revolution? Experts are necessary, thus the vanguard and all that.
>We need only be productive enough to care for one another’s needs
Absolutely not, capitalism's contradictions make is so unproductive, one of socialism's greatest features will be the massive increase in productivity. Work will become life affirming to boot.
>We’re trying to get to zero carbon emissions asap after all
Productivity doesn't just mean more output, the methods of creation should be taken into consideration, and much more.
>I don’t see a need for conscription either. Like Rojava we’ll have enough volunteer militia and general neighborhood watch protecting their areas.
See that's funny because the Rojava Information Center (based in Rojava) says:
>"In common with all states and major non-state actors in the region, the Autonomous Administration operates a program of compulsory military service for military-age males. ‘Self-defence duty’ is the name given to military service in North and East Syria."
No Anarchist society has existed without conscription ironically enough, well to be fair I only know of these three so that one in Latin America might have been different but if it was then I doubt it lasted long. It is impossible to defend the revolution with volunteers alone.
>And there you have it. Again. We need organizers and teachers and for them to teach more teachers. Stop protesting. Stop voting. Organize.
I agree, but the organizaers should have an organization with which they can discuss issues, and if such an organization also mandates conscription, it is by the Anarchist definition, a state.
>With this happening in the US the world would be stunned, wouldn’t it? I have no Idea how this would go down, but since it’s our last chance I want to see it.
What's happening in the US, because it sure as hell isn't socialism.
>Paul Cockshott’s Towards a New Socialism? Or do you mean beyond that? I see people realizing that the vouchers aren’t that necessary. They’re not accumulative, they expire. The guy at the sandwich shop gave you a meal on the house because he’s still on the clock. Who cares? Economy in kind will-

[Anonymous No.16829110]

>>16828188
There you go anon.

[Anonymous No.16829123]

>>16829095
>flower after soon enough.
I dunno if "bro it'll work out" is the best strategy for economic planning.
>Just that we have to appeal to their needs. As far as one can. Some of them are crazy, I’m sure you know.
No we heighten class conflict and liquidate all classes other than the proletariat, are you implying other classes can just exist and not become wreckers? This si sounding class collaborationist-y, and that's some bad, bad shit.
>This “state” is a Bookchinian kind of thing.
Okay so are you an Anarchist then? If you're a libertarian Marxist like the Zapatistas that's alright I can dig that.
>Once the reactionaries and Pentagon are dealt with... well your concerned with international actors and what they might do. What can we do if Russia China wants to remain the way they are? We shut down all our bases and they play power politics and want to invade us?
Once the class conflict within the country is won, ie we liquidate the bourgeois within out boarders, we develop socialism and slowly cultivate revolution, it ain't that hard to understand.
>Traditional anarchists want no state, but Mexico and Canada have to be on board with erasing that line too.
Are you basing your ideology off of two liberal states?
> Drawing the troops down and disarming the nukes is a necessary step
Neither can occur if you don't wanna get bombed into the stone age.

[Anonymous No.16829139]

>>16829110
>lots of pseud books larping as economics
>no actual econ textbooks or serious theory
never change anc*ps

[Anonymous No.16829155]

>>16829139
Are you saying that ancaps have different economic theories than mainstream econ textbooks?
NO FUCKING SHIT SHERLOCK!!!

[Anonymous No.16829183]

Read the guy from the six flags commercials. Then buy a copy of Atlas shrugged to rest your coffee cups on or whatever it is people do with such a horrid thing.

[Anonymous No.16829213]

>>16829155
Of course they need their own pseud "theories" just like how flat earthers need their own physics "theories"

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16829214]

>>16829095
>Anarcho-Syndicalist
Absolutely. The workplace is a great start, but one of the flaws of Catalonia is that is was just the workers seizing the means of production . The whole community has to seize their whole district. Women work in the homes seize the means of reproduction, as Graeber was fond of saying.
>wait do you mean
I was referring to James Herod’s recommendation for smaller groups “households” of about under a hundred getting together before the bigger meetings. But also referring to the size of the movement as it starts. At first sharing food surpluses with the next door neighbor, then setting up a little farmers market for more. Looping a pediatrician into the club, a dentist, train some out of work people to make shoes, etc. the small meets would fix this “information barrier” wouldn’t it?
>experts are necessary
Absolutely. A very justifiable hierarchy is certainly welcome.
>productivity
What we produce now is a lot of garbage. Work will be had, but there are far too many hands for all the actually necessary work. We’ll have much leisure time and the arts and crafts will likely flourish. Life will be affirmed.
>Rojava
I still need to research them some more. They are in a bit of a bind, besieged from all sides and still doing pretty well. —I hope we don’t need that, but if make something worth fighting for, they’ll do it.
>it is by the anarchist definition a state
It is a transitory period sans vanguard, sans representative governance. As soon as the imperialist and reactionaries melt away we ca get back to living. The original circle-A was Anarchism through Organization
>what’s happening in the US
A depression is setting in and some people have tried wildcat strikes. Then the feds cooked up this race war/IDpol war

[Anonymous No.16829221]

>>16829214
>Anarcho-Syndicalist
>anarchy
The "anarchists" of Spain were actualy Statists. They supported and collaborated with the state too much to be consired anarchists.
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.htm

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16829234]

>>16829123
>class collaborationist-y
Staring with those in need, regardless of political affiliation, I want to bring some class consciousness. Not reach out to the managerial class. That’s all I meant.
>so are you an anarchist
Anarcho-whateverworksism
>we liquidate
Like garden fertilizer? O.O
>two liberal states
What?
And who’s bombing who and why?

[Anonymous No.16829236]

>>16829221
They were anarcho-statists.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16829237]

>>16829221
Because we haven’t gotten that far.
Shits gotta be globally understood

[Anonymous No.16829246]

>>16829214
>the flaws of Catalonia is that is was just the workers seizing the means of production . The whole community has to seize their whole district. Women work in the homes seize the means of reproduction, as Graeber was fond of saying.
Okay, a bit to unpack here. Firstly, all organization should be of the workers, for the workers, who else are you organizing for? Women should be paid a wage for their labor, ie their reproductive labor (house work), because there shouldn't be a division between reproductive and productive labor, but how would you organize around that? The whole point of socialism is for the proles to triumph over the bourgeoise, and I hope you aren't using non-class analysis because id-pol isn't an accurate way of viewing the world.
>I was referring to James Herod’s recommendation for smaller groups “households” of about under a hundred getting together before the bigger meetings. But also referring to the size of the movement as it starts. At first sharing food surpluses with the next door neighbor, then setting up a little farmers market for more. Looping a pediatrician into the club, a dentist, train some out of work people to make shoes, etc. the small meets would fix this “information barrier” wouldn’t it?
This seems like it would just be more efficient to organize this as a collection of unions (in my opinion De Leon's idea of an Industrial Congress is the best model for this) to take this on. The "community" is a abstraction that takes away from class analysis more than anything else.
>Absolutely. A very justifiable hierarchy is certainly welcome.
Well I mean equality isn't a useful political goal, there's all sorts of inherent inequalities like geography and skill, but the distinction between justified and not justified is a blurry one. Many of the things ML states did that Anarchist and Bookchinites abhor, they did because of these inequalities.
>What we produce now is a lot of garbage
1005 agree, productive capitalism is dead everywhere but China (not that we should therefore become like China, capitalism's contradictions exist regardless of productivity or country).
>Work will be had, but there are far too many hands for all the actually necessary work. We’ll have much leisure time and the arts and crafts will likely flourish. Life will be affirmed.
Once again I agree.
>I still need to research them some more. They are in a bit of a bind, besieged from all sides and still doing pretty well. —I hope we don’t need that, but if make something worth fighting for, they’ll do it.
I really don't think that conscription can be done away with until we're nearing full communism, and I don't understand what alternatives could ever work. Historically, volunteer forces have not properly defended revolutions.

(cont.)

[Anonymous No.16829268]

>>16829214
>It is a transitory period sans vanguard, sans representative governance. As soon as the imperialist and reactionaries melt away we ca get back to living. The original circle-A was Anarchism through Organization
That isn't too bad of an idea, better than immediate abolishment of the state at least.
>A depression is setting in and some people have tried wildcat strikes. Then the feds cooked up this race war/IDpol war
There are wildcat strikes happening? In what states? Gimmie all the details please.
>Staring with those in need, regardless of political affiliation, I want to bring some class consciousness. Not reach out to the managerial class. That’s all I meant.
Ah I see, that's something I agree with.
>Anarcho-whateverworksism
Anarcho-Dengist praxis, truly horrifying stuff.
>Like garden fertilizer? O.O
Like they don't exist as a class anymore, but sure, like garden fertilizer.
>What?
You mentioned Mexico and Canada and I didn't get what you were saying.
>And who’s bombing who and why?
If we don't keep nukes post-revolution the international bourgeois is gonna kill us to a man.
>>16829221
>>16829236
Picrel is all I've got to say.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16829294]

>>16829246
I don’t see the conflict. You think the rich middle management guys will even want to come to a meeting? we have always outnumbered them
Direct democracy in the workplace puts them out of work.

>Many of the things ML states did that Anarchist and Bookchinites abhor, they did because of these inequalities.
Like kill them for trying to seize the means of production? Why are ML Leninists going to fuck people over again? The revolution is the translational phase

>>16829268
Ssssssleep...

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16829299]

>>16829294
*transitional

[Anonymous No.16829330]

>>16829294
>I don’t see the conflict. You think the rich middle management guys will even want to come to a meeting? we have always outnumbered them
It's not about social power or something, it's about control of the means of production above all else, they shouldn't be able to come to those meetings as a member of the managerial class because that class will no longer exist (or be in the process of being liquidated).
>Direct democracy in the workplace puts them out of work.
Democracy in the workplace is a nice slogan and all but the more important aspect is that works own the means of production not that "they get more of a say" or something like that.
>Like kill them for trying to seize the means of production?
I mean they weren't gonna achieve much but it was probably a poor play.
>Why are ML Leninists going to fuck people over again?
Besides other leftists who are less able to protect the revolution, all enemies of the proletariat's interests should be dealt with accordingly (that sounds edgy but I mean like having your assets seized or something to that effect).
>The revolution is the translational phase
I mean it depends on when you think the transitional stage should end.

[Anonymous No.16829510]

>>16829213
Swell, but mainstream economics have caused the West to be surpassed by fucking Chinese as we speak - after period of biggest civilizational lead in all human history.

[Anonymous No.16829516]

>>16828443
>live alone in my paradise
Until the big fish came to eat you, faggot.

[Anonymous No.16830212]

>>16828393
>when your ideological economic system is worse than Butterfly

[Anonymous No.16830359]

[Anonymous No.16830367]

[Anonymous No.16830379]

>be so butthurt about marxism being retarded since its pretends like only class struggle matters
>create a retarded system in which only muh freedom matters

[Anonymous No.16830391]

>>16830359
Links for stuff to read
The three wikis
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm- Useful FAQ
http://v.i4031.net/- The Voluntaryist Wiki
https://wiki.mises.org- This one is run by the Mises Institute.
>Three short works for an introduction to voluntaryism:
https://mises.org/library/production-security-0- Gustave de Molinari - The production of security
https://mises.org/library/anatomy-state- Rothbard's Anatomy of the State
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html- The Law by Frederic Bastiat
>Two entry level works for what we are really about
https://caperepublic.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/llewellyn_h-_rockwell_jr-_against_the_state.pdf- Lew Rockwell's anarcho-capitalist manifesto
http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf- The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman
>More libertarian theory
https://www.yorku.ca/comninel/courses/3025pdf/Locke.pdf- Locke's Two Treatises of Government
https://mises.org/library/new-liberty-libertarian-manifesto- The libertarian manifesto by Rothbard
http://files.libertyfund.org/files/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf- No treason, the constitution of no authority
http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=0BF115E5608A753BD31F3FA34F6F6C7B- Our enemy, the state by Nock
https://libgen.lc/item/index.php?md5=0AD5BDD6B98FEFCA5FCF622B0154D56A- Anarchy, State and Utopia[alternative title: Fuck you Rawls, you dumb NPC piece of shit]
>Essential economics(in reading order)
https://mises.org/library/road-serfdom-0- Friedrich Hayek's Road to Serfdom
https://fee.org/resources/economics-in-one-lesson/- Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt
https://b-ok.cc/book/2207894/ccbdb7- Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell
https://mises.org/library/principles-economics- Carl Menger's Principles of Economics
https://mises.org/library/man-economy-and-state-power-and-market- MES+POW by Rothbard
https://mises.org/library/human-action-0- Ludwig von Mises's Human Action
https://mises.org/library/karl-marx-and-close-his-system- Eugen von Böhm Bawerk destroys karl m*rx with FACTS and LOGIC

[Anonymous No.16830404]

>>16830391
>when your political ideology makes so much sense
yeah thats all it is its just a bunch of conclusions from axioms
its literally made up

[Anonymous No.16830436]

>Anarchoids still simping for Rojava when it is literally falling apart as we speak without American support.

[Anonymous No.16830793]

>>16829110
>listed refutations as well
Unbelievable!

[Anonymous No.16830802]

>>16829213
No one cares about your gay economic theories.

[Anonymous No.16830808]

>>16828790
>>16828721

[Anonymous No.16830814]

>>16830391
>When your political philosophy makes so much sense that its only criticisms are unrealistic strawmen.

[Anonymous No.16830976]

>>16828640
If being moral and ethical brought me happiness would they still be spooks?

[Anonymous No.16830980]

>>16828393
Repeating commie talking points against their idea of capitalism is a trite, overdone and certainly unnuanced way to go about attempting to refute ancapism.
>what is polycentric law
>what are cooperatives
>what are gated communities
>what are paramilitaries and private security
I don't trust the corporations as much as the next guy in their current form but I think ancaps make a strong argument for the idea that if the nature of the law system generating corporate cronies, lobbyism and centralized banking is changed, the nature of capital and by extension corporate changes in tandem. It's not liberal capitalism, because liberal capitalism presupposes the state. You've assumed from the outset that what sets anarcho-capitalism apart from liberal capitalism isn't the case and argue backward from that point. I think that's arguing in bad faith, you could at least start with the correct presumptions and see if you could find antinomies within the ideology itself.

On the other hand, you seem to be contrasting anarcho-capitalism with some sort of hypothetical non-state. If we pretend I'm an ancap: I would contend that a ruling body is necessary in *any* case, and that the general nature of ruling bodies is the same in any case. What makes a ruling body bad is the concentration of power, which can naturally only be counteracted by either a dissemination of power, revolution, fragmenting of the ruling body's power, or choking of its necessary resources. Anarcho-capitalism is the only system that guarantees generally the possibility of these, by virtue of the real nature of the market generating both potent and just ruling bodies.

[Anonymous No.16830992]

>>16828368
based

[Anonymous No.16831064]

>>16828394
>highschool
This sounds exactly like my uncle who's in his 50s. He is a complete dumbass though.

[Anonymous No.16831090]

>>16830976
The spook is telling yourself you act that way BECAUSE it is moral rather than because it is pleasing. The former can lead you to accept parts of "morality" contrary to your interests.

[Anonymous No.16831690]

>>16831090
ok so a spook is a belief held because you think you should hold it, kind of just a surface level thing, it's weird I've kind of thought recently people will always just do whatever makes them happy, if people are nice it's because either being nice makes them feel good or because being shitty makes them feel bad/guilt so it's all just trying to maximize their own experience, seems like I'd enjoy stirner got any book recs of his? the more accessible the better hate philosophy shite that's more complicated than it needs to be

[Anonymous No.16832074]

>>16828188
Rothbard was the one who came up with the term.

>>16828678
No there isn't, I've looked into this and it gets very goofy. When you claim ancient Iceland or something could of developed a modern economy because of your interpretation of its legal system but ignore the reality of how economic development occurred everywhere you're high on jenkem

>>16828721
Capitalists aren't collectively working and making things to exchange with each other for some set goal... they're using and making money by employing others and that isn't just an intermediate step but an operative mechanism with no end goal but more money ad infinitum. You can't have a capitalist economy based on barter.
The point of black markets is they function on the periphery of a state with some "legitimate" legislation forbidding them and could legalize them.

>>16830980
The thing is people with wealth and power want stuff like limited liability and a much broader form of property rights which require a central form of enforcement (or confederated "independent" legislators entangled in treaties) up to global governance to make sure they get paid when their rights are violated. You can't just have movie studios hire hitmen to kill people who they think are pirating their stuff all over the globe.
Saying you don't like corporations and want to abolish all those "crony" rights shareholders have means no one with wealth have any reason to care about you. Saying you want to impose massive wage deflation by magically enforcing gold as monopoly money globally and enforce unregulated capital/labour mobility doesn't give workers any reason to care about you.

[Anonymous No.16832245]

>>16832074
>The point of black markets is they function on the periphery of a state with some "legitimate" legislation forbidding them and could legalize them
No it isn't you dumb commie nigger, the point is that they not only exist without a state "protecting" and "regulating" them which inane commie faggots like you claim is vital for capitalism to exist. Not only that but black markets exist DESPITE being outside the liberal democratic state while ALSO being prohibited and criminalized by the state institution which leftist degenerates claim is somehow representative of the collective will of society. Again, the initial argument is that capitalism necessiates the state's existence and the very existence of black markets completely blows this argument out of the water.

[Anonymous No.16832269]

>>16828523
Can an Ancap respond to this? I'm genuinely curious. I'm supportive of anarchism, and I think if we were fully committed to free association inevitably some minor capitalist relationships would emerge, however a full anarcho-capitalist society to me seems kind of infantile. It just seems like it would be feudalism.

[Anonymous No.16832337]

>>16830391
Mfer no, it makes no sense. Who enforces the NAP? Because a state can't. So, mutual destruction between capitalists? I mean WW1 has shown that's far from a stable solution.

[Anonymous No.16832349]

>>16832245
A market outside a state is just a market, there's noting "black" there, but the point is where is that? It's hypothetical and if you deal with real markets in the concrete that's where you're going to understand things but you can't do that a priori and you need to study things empirically lol
People are raised and reared within communities with chauvinistic moral values and if they see you trying to sell something they see as nasty they'll probably shut you down by force regardless of any "natural right" you claim... liberalism is a pseudo-attitude hard to find among real people in real places

[Anonymous No.16832406]

>>16832245
Yes, the black markets that function within state borders using state-minted currency that are only able to exist because the state forbids certain kinds of commerce are a brilliant example of capitalist societies that have existed without any state.

[Anonymous No.16832723]

>>16828441

The LTV is necessary to arrive at the falling rate of profit, which is the mechanism by which profit is supposed to become impossible and thus capitalism obsolesced. If you adopt, for instance, the marginalist theory of value, you would conclude that profit will be possible as long as there are wants to be fulfilled and thus capitalism can theoretically continue forever

[Anonymous No.16832820]

Does anyone even take ancaps seriously?
anarchy mixed with capitalism? Who is this for? what are its adherents trying to accomplish?

[Anonymous No.16832827]

>>16828589
spook is an old term for nigger

[Anonymous No.16832878]

>>16832820
>anarchy mixed with capitalism?
Absent hierarchical structure the free market system is necessary to effectively allocate resources and coordinate efforts. Elementary, Watson,

[Anonymous No.16832881]

>>16832074
>The thing is people with wealth and power want stuff like limited liability and a much broader form of property rights which require a central form of enforcement
Which is why you would be opposed to the existence of the state to begin with. You're misrepresenting the picture of capitalism ancaps are trying to present, again.
>You can't just have movie studios hire hitmen to kill people who they think are pirating their stuff all over the globe.
There was no mention of this. Most lolberts are also opposed to intellectual property laws on differing grounds.
>Saying you don't like corporations and want to abolish all those "crony" rights shareholders have means no one with wealth have any reason to care about you.
What point are you making here?
>Saying you want to impose massive wage deflation by magically enforcing gold as monopoly money globally and enforce unregulated capital/labour mobility doesn't give workers any reason to care about you.
That's not what ancaps think in the slightest, and I made no mention of any of those policies. You're so intent on 'refuting' my apparently libertarian stance that you end up strawmanning me to hell and back. Please do the following
>grab your neck
>pull your head out of your ass

[Anonymous No.16832889]

>>16832878
>markets don't create hierarchies

erupting volcano take

[Anonymous No.16832985]

>>16832889
It doesn't count if it's voluntary. Do commies even sex, or it's too "hierarchical" for them as well?

[Anonymous No.16832997]

>>16832820
>Does anyone even take ancaps seriously?
ancaps do

>anarchy mixed with capitalism? Who is this for?
(You)

>what are its adherents trying to accomplish?
the abolition of the state, in favor of market efficiency and a consent-based ethic

[Anonymous No.16833037]

>>16828188
why is saffron more exspensive than salt?

[Anonymous No.16833068]

>>16830980
>what is feudalism

[Anonymous No.16833135]

>>16833068
A system based on raw coercion as opposed to free market competition - something all statists are fond of and all ancaps despise.

[Anonymous No.16833142]

>>16833068
Please, for the love of god, I beg you: make even a singular little attempt at understanding what libertarians are actually saying before deferring to your ideological rhetorical whipping sticks. I'm not here to murder your family, just to tell you that your foregone conclusions granted you by your personal ideological bible aren't foregone, that the situation is actually much worse than you may think, and that the only resolution is putting down the battleaxe.

[Anonymous No.16833152]

>>16828188
No one seems to have answered this: Power & Market by Rothbard

[Anonymous No.16833165]

>>16833152
This is where I started! And ended too. Not because I didn't like it but because I'm too lazy to read much.

[Anonymous No.16833200]

>>16832881
>Which is why you would be opposed to the existence of the state to begin with.
No it's not at all unless you think less investment and more gold hoarding is a good thing. Stuff like limited liability and intellectual property are responsible for the grand majority of the wealth you take for granted.

>That's not what ancaps think in the slightest, and I made no mention of any of those policies. You're so intent on 'refuting' my apparently libertarian stance that you end up strawmanning me to hell and back. Please do the following
Yes it is since "anarchist capitalism" is a term created by Murray Rothbard who thought "natural law" dictated only gold could be used as money in ancap land or anything else calling itself that had to have a fixed ratio. The fact wage rates are "artificially" kept inflated by positive legislation like minimum wage and citizenship requirements is also a pretty obvious point.

[Anonymous No.16833530]

>>16828523
I don't really have as much baggage as I want to answer that confidently (and I'm ESL) but I'll try.
>Also the whole NAP is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard of.
According to Hoppe the Non-agression principle is not really a principle. The whole ideology is based on the natural right of self property, meaning that you own your body(this is validated by the fact that you have to control your body to argue against it, thus acknowledging self property).
Given that, Hoppe argues that the most ethical way to allocate resources (as they are needed for survival) while avoiding conflict is to extend your natural right to other things in general. For that to work, you would only be able to claim things that weren't claimed beforehand, and you would have to act on said thing to effectively extend your self property towards that.
Using that line of thought:
>I've yet to see an argument against the notion that ancaps "destroying the state" will inevitably just revert to creating a new state with CEOs at the head.
I agree with tyou, because that's exactly what originated the first state. Hoppe (and other ancaps) only proposes one point: The way society is organised right now is anti-ethical, as it's based on agression and monopoly of force.
For me at least, the problem with right wing libertarianism right now is similar to communism. Both ideologies need the majority to believe in the ideology for it to work. With that said, the difference between both, and that is also the answer for your first question is that while communists describe how Communism would be, ancaps only describe how Ancapistan wouldn't be, and while I like the approach of letting the market decide what's the best approach for society problems I agree that is too much for a normal person to accept.
>But seriously what would keep them from hiring private military and laying claim to an area, then enforcing their rule?
Reallisticaly nothing. People would have to defend themselves with their guns, or maybe hire smaller private millitaries, or maybe you hired an insurance company beforehand. In the end, we can't really predict market solutions, so we can only conjecture.

[Anonymous No.16833744]

>>16828589
Stirner is a spook, so is a central point.

[Anonymous No.16834432]

>>16833530
This post just demonstrates delusion on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.

Like, on a basic level the argument that:

"You own your body, so good allocation is naturally achieved by extending this *natural right* to other things in general"

is so philosophically bankrupt on such a fundamental level that there barely anything to argue against. You may as well try reading Plato's Gorgias and Hume's arguments against deriving moral values from states of being just to exercise your mind enough to see what it would mean to argue this kind of thing. What knowledge do you have of cybernetics/control systems/game theory anyway, how coherent a conception of what it means to control oneself in a world with other agents who themselves purport to also have self-control do you have?

The whole thing is just utterly silly and pays so little thought to any practical issue whatsoever that it's adherents fail to see how little reason there is for anyone to desire a society remotely resembling anything based on these 'principals', which are so empty they barely quality as principals. I know you will argue that really, I'm the one who isn't getting shit and if only I understood you I'd see how actually brilliant these ideas really are, but I want you to honestly seriously consider how little weight anything you've said actually has.

>Reallisticaly nothing. People would have to defend themselves with their guns, or maybe hire smaller private millitaries, or maybe you hired an insurance company beforehand. In the end, we can't really predict market solutions, so we can only conjecture.

And what motive does anyoen have to risk to potential consequences of this? Especially compared to alternate forms of communal/syndicalist anarchism where people live in a society which has stake in common property which they mutually agree to defend as commons, hence avoiding the problem of private militias fucking everything up and have common values that there's reason to give a shit about?

[Anonymous No.16834570]

>>16828441
>>it doesnt matter whether my assumptions hold true, my criticism still stands!

[Anonymous No.16834595]

>And what motive does anyoen have to risk to potential consequences of this? Especially compared to alternate forms of communal/syndicalist anarchism where people live in a society which has stake in common property which they mutually agree to defend as commons, hence avoiding the problem of private militias fucking everything up and have common values that there's reason to give a shit about?
I'm not really versed in syndicalist anarchism but what's the difference between mutually agreeing in defending common property and defending private property? What's impeding a group of people from overtaking a commune and building a state there?

[Anonymous No.16834660]

>>16828393

Based butterfly triggering all the ancap cunts.
Have a Theti, you deserve it.

[Anonymous No.16834955]

>>16834595
>defending common property

A large group of people have something in common that they all value and distribute according to what they believe would be best for them, which is an actual, practical set of values and associated stake in valuable resources which a community can form around and have reason to stake their lives on. i.e. someone might own a house for their or their family's personal use, but if someone is handed down a house from a successful uncle that they didn't work for and don't live in, but instead profit from by renting it out to someone else, the anarchist society doesn't have reason to honor this ownership, and can decide that the valuable resource that is this land and property, which this person, by possessing it, is taking away from the community and enabling exploitative relationships (idle owner and tenant), will only continue to be possessed by this person if he can provide the community continuous compensation. Otherwise, people with existing wealth will continue to get more wealthy, effectively allowing them to rule through the enforcement of power that the community did not consent to.

>defending private property

This is explicitly against the above principals. This is not arbitrary, because there is no reason for a society to organist around 'private ownership' as an abstract principal that means nothing except that people are just kind of supposed to allow people with lots of wealth that they can defend with force to do what they want, and not organize against this. Unjust hierarchy must be actively and vigilantly defended against for anarchism to work.

[Anonymous No.16835264]

>sees butterfly
fuck off, not reading this thread

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16835964]

>>16829330
I don’t foresee too many bourgeoisie attending meetings geared towards adopting a non accumulative currency, subsistence farming, switching to reusables, getting off the grid and starting co-ops (more specifically Wolff’s WSDEs). A given community should shun them anyway. Only allowing them in once they’re broken. Starving in their little citadels
Land and resources are the big issue of course. I know. All I can think of is to sneak around the corners till it’s time to take it.
By democracy in the workplace I do mean that, not just REI type phony co-ops.
> all enemies of the proletariat's interests should be dealt with
Tankie governments have always been the enemies of the revolution. The people should hold any kind of managerial departments, waterworks, railways, military divisions, etc. should hold reign over them directly. I think this is Öcalan’s idea.
> it depends on when you think the transitional stage should end.
Once global threats of capitalist encroachment subside. No need to staff DC with reds representatives, paint the White House red, just go to direct democracy, of households, neighborhoods and workplaces

[Anonymous No.16836697]

>>16828188
OK OP - it's Rothbard's The Libertarian Manifesto, but if you have any delusions about desirability of government interventions then you should probably precede that with "Economics in One Lesson"