/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2133578]

Okay, /lit/. Anarcho-communist here. I think if I really want to be fair I should read up on both sides of the coin, so please give me some right-libertarian literature (not she-who-must-not-be-named; I've read her work and wasn't impressed) that explains how a completely free market will create more jobs and a society in which everyone who is willing to work can thrive.

I currently am of the opinion that such a society would be impossible to sustain, or at the very least, couldn't for long remain a society of equals. What would stop money and goods from collecting in the hands of a very small percent of the population, who then hire police/soldiers to protect their fortunes, leading to some kind of neo-feudalism?

tl;dr I want a book on how right-libertarians believe society would work in a free market capitalist society.

[Anonymous No.2133581]

>>2133578
how about a fucking history book?

[Anonymous No.2133586]

Look at some Anarcho-capitalist texts you moron.

The state is necessary.[spoiler\]

[Anonymous No.2133588]

>>2133578
Wouldn't anarcho-communism, having no central authority, lend itself naturally to a free-market economy? I'm not sure you've thought this thing through.

[Anonymous No.2133589]

serious question here. how is anarchy and communism compatible as political systems? i understand, or at least i hazily remember, that anarchy is merely a transitional phase when the proletariat rises up against the bourgeois. anarchy reigns until communism can be put into place. if this is correct, wouldn't it be redundant to self-identify as anarcho-communist? also, isn't anarchy INHERENTLY incompatible with most, if not all political systems?

[Anonymous No.2133592]

>>2133581
>unhelpful vague posts implying most of history wasn't a hellish nightmare
>>2133586
Yeah. See, I was asking for anarcho-capitalists to suggest specific ones.
>>2133588
Voluntary collectivism. Kropotkin explains it really well in "The Conquest of Bread," and elaborates on how humanity has evolved to work together in "Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution."
>>2133589
You're thinking specifically of Marxism. Anarchism is incompatible with Marxism as a political ideology, but provided the people are willing to share, it's not incompatible with communism as a way of handling property.

[Anonymous No.2133595]

Are you aware anarcho-communism relies on the absence of humans?

[Anonymous No.2133597]

Anarcho-communism:
>If one retarded form of governance isn't enough for you, now you can have two!!!

[Anonymous No.2133600]

>>2133595
>>2133597
Did you notice that the first post didn't say "ITT: OP explains left anarchist theory to people too lazy to read about it themselves," but instead asked for right anarchists to suggest books I could use if I wanted to read up on their political ideas?

[Anonymous No.2133602]

Don't you feel any congnitive disonance associated with thinking that anarcho-communism can work long term but a libertarian society couldn't, neither of them are likely to work long term

[Anonymous No.2133604]

> Anarcho-communist here.
It's like I'm in the nineteenth century but on the internet somehow.

[Anonymous No.2133605]

>>2133597
>communism
>anarchism
>governance

[Anonymous No.2133606]

Are you aware anarcho-communism relies heavily on a surplus of eggs for each leap year?

[Anonymous No.2133608]

>>2133600
Your time would be better put to use reading up on free market capitalism. Anarchists/Communists are seriously the most ridiculous people ever.

[Anonymous No.2133611]

>>2133600

Then he shouldn't have come in with such a shit ideology that is even less likely to be able to work than libertarianism

[Anonymous No.2133612]

>>2133600
Did you notice that neither of the posts you linked said 'I don't understand your political leanings, so please explain them to me?', but instead were mocking you for being an idiot?

[Anonymous No.2133614]

>>2133606
But the weekly egg laying rate is unaffected by leap years...

[Anonymous No.2133616]

>>2133612
You obviously don't understand it, though.

[Anonymous No.2133620]

Leninist here,

Hows that stateless society coming along?

[Anonymous No.2133621]

this thread is out of control

[Anonymous No.2133623]

>>2133620
How's your God's relationship with Yoko coming along?

[Anonymous No.2133626]

okay, after reading the relevant article on wikipedia, i think I can say with some confidence that there is a reason why this anarcho-communism thing never got off the ground: it's fucking retarded

[Anonymous No.2133627]

>>2133614
That's what the capitalists want you to think.

[Anonymous No.2133629]

>>2133616
>I could get a hell of a good look at a T-Bone steak by sticking my head up a bull's ass, but I'd rather take the butcher's word for it.

You don't have to be a genius to understand that communism failed and that anarchy is doing wonderful things in Somalia. Free market capitalism/benevolent dictatorship is the way to go.

[Anonymous No.2133630]

>>2133616
I do though. It's quixotic and hilarious. If you consider yourself an anarcho-communist, I can bet both that you put absolutely zero of the ideals into practice, and that you've never spent any time in the real world.

But totally, I'm ignorant and old fashioned, you've got shit figured out.

[Anonymous No.2133631]

>>2133626
>I read the Wikipedia article so I understand it fully
Cool. I'll be right back. I'm going to become an astrophysicist in 15 minutes by reading a Wikipedia article.

[Anonymous No.2133632]

>>2133621
>HE THINKS WE WANT CONTROL!

[Anonymous No.2133641]

>>2133626
> this anarcho-communism thing never got off the ground
It did get off the ground, a number of times. Most notably in Spain.

[Anonymous No.2133642]

>>2133631

>I love to distort things!

[Anonymous No.2133644]

>>2133631
Astrophysics are more understandable than anarcho-communism because only one of the two is silly and juvenile.

[Anonymous No.2133645]

>>2133641
AH but for how long?

[Anonymous No.2133646]

[Anonymous No.2133648]

>>2133630
>If you consider yourself an anarcho-communist, I can bet both that you put absolutely zero of the ideals into practice, and that you've never spent any time in the real world.
First, that's ad hominem. You're attacking me instead of the ideas themselves. Second, you seem to be implying that everyone who ever considered himself or herself an anarcho-communist was some kind of basement-dwelling neckbeard who had no idea about the real world.

>Tolstoy
>Thoreau
>Goldman

>>2133645
Until an outside force invaded.

[Anonymous No.2133652]

>>2133629
It's easy to hold that viewpoint when you've only got a capitalist viewpoint, rather than a neutral one. Change is a bit daunting i suppose.

[Anonymous No.2133655]

So, from this thread we can infer that rightists are completely uninterested in educating people that express interest in their beliefs and reasoning, and would rather belittle anyone that disagrees with them.

[Anonymous No.2133659]

>>2133645
Some amount of time...

To be fair on it, the anarchist experiment in Spain seemed to fail due to external political forces, not because it was internally stupid.

[Anonymous No.2133661]

How's anarcho-communism distinct from regular anarchism?

I'd always understood anarchism and communism to be the two major branches of socialist thought.

[Anonymous No.2133663]

>>2133661
they whine less but talk more

[Anonymous No.2133667]

>>2133659
Curiously enough, you can say the same for every attempt at an egalitarian, socialist society, even the USSR.

[Anonymous No.2133668]

>>2133648
>Until an outside force invaded.

Isn't this a big issue with the feasibility of anarchism? Wouldn't all states have to disband in order to stop the exploitation or takeover of anarchists? And if that did happen, couldn't someone just attain followers and form a new state?

[Anonymous No.2133669]

>>2133652
By that logic I should switch genders because, hey, how do I know if something's bad unless I haven't tried it? America hasn't gotten to be the biggest superpower in the history of the world because of anarcho-communism, kiddo.

[Anonymous No.2133670]

>>2133648
I am attacking you, and you proved me right by crying ad hominem instead of responding. We both know you don't live by the ideals you claim to represent. Most of the people that say they do, don't. Secondly, I was referring to you. I am not talking about Tolstoy or Thoreau, I am talking about the current age of edgy overgrown kids who have profited from the systems they claim to hate.

[Anonymous No.2133671]

>>2133670
>the current age of edgy overgrown kids who have profited from the systems they claim to hate

STRONG TRUTH

[Anonymous No.2133673]

>>2133578
>I want a book on how right-libertarians believe society would work in a free market capitalist society.

I'd think anything the von Mises Institute puts out would do.

[Anonymous No.2133675]

>>2133659
If a system can't survive, it can't survive. You can't say that it's a great system if it's faults weren't there; they are there, and they're glaring.

[Anonymous No.2133678]

>>2133670
I don't think you understand logic. I don't need to defend myself. It ISN'T about me, whether you try to make it about me or not. It's about the ideology itself. I have no desire to defend myself from a stranger on the Internet who won't know who I am if we reply to each other in another thread. Why would I care what you think of me as an individual?

[Anonymous No.2133679]

>>2133670
>I am talking about the current age of edgy overgrown kids who have profited from the systems they claim to hate

There's a lot to commend about recognising the injustices of a system that privileges people like yourself.

[Anonymous No.2133680]

>>2133669
You got that logic completely misinterpreted.

And that depends on how you measure america's success.

[Anonymous No.2133684]

[Anonymous No.2133686]

>>2133679
>There's a lot to commend about recognising the injustices of a system that privileges people like yourself.

Injustices? In what way is the system unjust? It's not my fault that I'm more successful than someone leeching off welfare.

[Anonymous No.2133691]

Read Hayek.

Then read about what the Boys from Chicago did to Chilean trade unionists, and the Chilean economy.

[Anonymous No.2133692]

>>2133684
>>2133646
>STOP TALKING STOP TALKING STOP TALKING

[Anonymous No.2133693]

>>2133667
>>2133668
USSR were the major political force against the Spanish anarchist experiment. The internal struggles at the formation of the USSR were between anarchist groups and Leninists.

The question of whether an outside force can invade (is it feasible?) has economic, political and ethical factors. So the success of an anarchist society depends upon it being infeasible for one of these reasons.

[Anonymous No.2133694]

>>2133581
gonna pat myself on the back for this one. best retort ever to an idealogue.

[Anonymous No.2133696]

>>2133686
You're absolutely right, it's not your fault. It's the system's fault, and several happy accidents on your part.

[Anonymous No.2133697]

>>2133686

>It's not my fault that I'm more successful than someone leeching off welfare.

But it should be.

[Anonymous No.2133702]

>>2133694
Not a very useful answer to someone asking a question in good faith. Not a very good quip if you stop to think about it for a moment.

[Anonymous No.2133703]

>>2133693
But, is there any way that an anarchist system can defend itself?

[Anonymous No.2133706]

>>2133693
>Guys, guys, communism works! It just hasn't been given a chance! All its massive failures are just flukes!
>Guys, guys, anarchy works! It just hasn't been given a chance! All its massive failures are just flukes!

You people have the silliest arguments to why anarchy/communism doesn't suck.

[Anonymous No.2133707]

>>2133678
Keep dancing around the topic kid. Ideology is lovely when it works on paper but when it can't be put into use it's worth nothing more than the paper. You can continue to bullshit and fault my 'logic' but you're simply too good an example of my point.

>>2133679
There is when you do something about it. Continuing to participate in the the thing you are very vocal against is not commendable, it's hilarious and typical.

[Anonymous No.2133710]

>>2133703
With force. The Spanish did.

[Anonymous No.2133712]

>>2133702
it's perfect. things that seem to work in books don't work in the real world for a reason, and books can't dismiss those reasons. history books outline those reasons, and the reasons both anarchy and communism fail, and fail hard.

and kill tens of millions of people in the process.

no, this "seeker" is a useful idiot, and dangerous, and should be forced to read about the real world results of her bullshit "philosophies" hiding their tyrrany.

good faith my ass.

[Anonymous No.2133713]

>>2133706
People are always trying to better themselves. Isn't it natural that they aspire for a better system than capitalism?

[Anonymous No.2133718]

>>2133707
You can't just opt out of capitalism if you live in a capitalist society, don't be a moron.

[Anonymous No.2133719]

>>2133696
>>2133697

Poorfags detected. The system favors the stronger members of society and those in its upper tiers. There are going to be rich men and poor men in this world, deal with it. It's no different than the existence of clever people vs dim people or beautiful people vs the deformed.

The bourgeois will never fall. The proletariat will never rise.

[Anonymous No.2133720]

>>2133713
i don't hear the winners of capitalism whining for change

wonder who that leaves

[Anonymous No.2133721]

>>2133691
>>2133691
>>2133691
>>2133691
>>2133691
>>2133691
>>2133691
>>2133691
OP here. Thank you very much.

[Anonymous No.2133722]

Guys, is it...

>Communism has killed millions of people.
or...
>Millions of people were killed for communism.

[Anonymous No.2133723]

>>2133718
You're right. But you can certainly uphold those ideals as an individual, or move out of the society.

But that would take effort and discipline and it isn't as comfortable as staying in the horrid capitalist society.

[Anonymous No.2133724]

>>2133721
shouldn't you be getting paid by rich people to go sit-in somewhere and rail against capitalism? i hear it pays well these days, even has a health plan!

[Anonymous No.2133725]

>>2133719
> The system favors the stronger members of society and those in its upper tiers.

But that's not true, even if it was a desirable state of affairs. It's pure just world fallacy - you see there are rich people and poor people, and conclude that the people at the top must be innately more gifted because that's the world you'd like to live in.

[Anonymous No.2133728]

>>2133703
Trade; the Spanish anarchists apparently ran their factories very efficiently, and if that's the case they could make very healthy trade relationships. But it's very context specific. The argument here is that the Spanish experiment occurred at the wrong time, with Franco wanting to take Spain, and the USSR wanting to remove anarchist societies.

[Anonymous No.2133729]

>>2133725
watch a poorfag win $20,000,000 in the lottery and be dead ass broke in 10 years, and get back to me on that, k?

[Anonymous No.2133730]

>>2133720
But capitalism is always shifting towards the left or the right.They know that if they continue to succeed, it won't be capitalism for much longer.

[Anonymous No.2133732]

>>2133728
oh, gee, so the collective has to protect itself from outside aggression?

oh noes!

can't we all just get along????

useful idiots

[Anonymous No.2133733]

>>2133729
>Paris Hilton deserves to be rich because she's an example of the best humanity has to offer

[Anonymous No.2133734]

>>2133725
>the people at the top must be innately more gifted because that's the world you'd like to live in.

I don't think it can be argued that those of the upper class are more valuable than the dregs of the lower class. People aren't equal, sonny. Tyrone the cracksmoking McDonald's employee is not equal to Bill Gates.

[Anonymous No.2133737]

>>2133733
You can be the best of the worst.

[Anonymous No.2133738]

>>2133734
see
>>2133733

[Anonymous No.2133740]

>>2133730
wrong

capitalism pays both sides, just to be safe, and bets on winners

[Anonymous No.2133741]

>>2133737
That's fucking stupid. It makes no sense with regard to explaining how she's in any way useful to society, or earns the money she has. She's an heiress.

[Anonymous No.2133742]

>>2133733
she's was rich because her family's rich; now she's rich on marketing her own entertainment value and personal appearances. they pay her to go to parties you can't get invited to.

u just jelly

[Anonymous No.2133743]

>>2133740
Please give an example, because that makes little sense to me/

[Anonymous No.2133745]

Glenn Beck is probably the best libertarian writer. Especially in his recent incarnation as the Mormon gold-hoarder. You could read something like Reason magazine if you wanted a contemporary discussion of libertarianism in America, but Reason is really just like a pretentious Glenn Beck: they're both saying the same thing but with vastly different rhetoric.

[Anonymous No.2133747]

>>2133741
in your egalitarian despotic dictatorship, you can strip all her money away from her and have her parade naked down the street

that seem about right to you?

[Anonymous No.2133748]

>>2133741
paradoxes don't need to make sense son!

[Anonymous No.2133750]

>>2133743
Donate $100,000 to G. W. Bush
Donate $100,000 to Al Gore

Bush wins

"Hey, Bush, we were on your side the whole time! 'member that $100k we kicked in? how 'bout a contract, bitch?"

replace Bush with Gore in bizzaro land where Al Gore won something

[Anonymous No.2133752]

>>2133747
Or we could have a society where everybody gets paid enough to live on and nobody has to strip naked if they don't want to. That would be nice.

[Anonymous No.2133753]

>>2133745
Mark Levin > blubbery mormon crybaby erryday

[Anonymous No.2133754]

>>2133747
>either you accept that she deserves all the money she did nothing for or you want to force her to strip naked and parade down the street for your amusement
False dichotomy. I have nothing personal against her. I don't think she should be used as a sex object. I think she should have to work if she wants money. Isn't that what you all say as your argument against welfare all the time? Nothing makes her any "better" except luck.

[Anonymous No.2133755]

>>2133732
I bet you say that playing Age of Empires.

[Anonymous No.2133758]

>>2133752
and you vote in yourself to determine what "enough" is for erryone?

lol welcome back to the ussr; you don't know how lucky you are, boy; back in the us, back in the us, back in the ussr

protip from the Simpsons: Mr. Burns: I'd give it all away, for just a little bit more.

[Anonymous No.2133760]

Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Ends up argueing monarchy as a form of privatized government. Lots of realtalk, although I suppose ignorant leftists hate that.

>Hoppe has been criticised by his fellow libertarian Walter Block for his views on homosexuality: Block attributes the quote to Hoppe, "Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They — the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism — will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.

I lol'd heartily.

[Anonymous No.2133761]

>>2133754
luck? do you know how babbies are born? when a mommy and a daddy share a special hug, and a babby comes out 9 months later?

what was "lucky" about that?

[Anonymous No.2133762]

>>2133752
>Or we could have a society where everybody gets paid enough to live on

I can see how that would be an attractive prospect when you are a welfare-leeching parasite living in the gutter, but you should have to work for your living. Your system would just encourage laziness and decadence.

[Pseudonym !YgQRHAJqRA No.2133765]

OP, let me give it to you straight in as moderate and balanced a tone as I can manage.

Ever since we settled down from nomadic groups with very small family based populations social classes have been necessitated by more complex societal structures and division of labor. Anthropologists have their own division of the way that societies evolve, and according to them you guys do have a point that you are rarely awarded: quality of life was higher during the periods of nomadic living than it was for millenia afterward due to high availability of food, low population density protecting from a high rate of disease, and relatively little warfare. Compared to what came after for a very long time until we came up with technologies and institutions to counter the downsides of it, it was preferable living. However this state could not last. Why not? Shortages of hunting and foraging grounds: man was so successful that there was less and less territory to live on. So this is where something like crude horticulture was developed (most likely by women) as a means to increasing food levels (some societies began looking into domestication at this time too).

(Cont, field too long)

[Anonymous No.2133767]

>>2133758
I'd rather not do it myself. We could probably have some kind of participatory democratic process instead of arranging things like fantasy of socialism you've invented to prove it's unworkable.

[Anonymous No.2133768]

>>2133761
That this particular babby happened to be born to a mommy and a daddy with shitloads of cash.

[Anonymous No.2133769]

>>2133760
been that way for thousands of years, literally.

just changed this generation

and, um, are we better off now? society stronger? families intact? crime down? anything good at all happen when we "tolerate" dysfunction and mental illnesses as though they were on equal footing for a society?

no?

huh

[Pseudonym !YgQRHAJqRA No.2133771]

>>2133765

Up until this point societal structures were very flat. There were a such thing as chieftains, but they had no authority: a chieftain was simply someone who was influential and persuasive enough to get everyone to see eye to eye, but group decisions required everyone's consent. If you had two strong leaders, the group simply split.

After the transition to a more sedentary lifestyle, there came to be a surplus. This is where the transition occurred: it was up to the chieftain how to allocate that surplus, either for his own personal benefit or for the benefit of the chieftain's tribe. As surpluses grew from greater innovations and societies became more complex with social classes shifting how things work, land became more important due to population growth, and so things changed in such a way that made the idea of anarchy unfeasible.

I'm not an anthropologist, and my economics knowledge is fairly niche as related to international trade with some micro training, but I am an International Relations guy: I can tell you that no anarchist collectivist state could survive the basic litmus tests of surviving in today's political climate while remaining true to what you consider to be its ideals.

Let me dig up a list of readings for you, as you requested.

[Anonymous No.2133772]

>>2133754
Not the guy you were replying to, but my 2 cents on the Paris Hilton issue:

Her family earned money. They amassed a sum large enough to provide for their progeny. If she chooses to blow that money on cocaine and bottle service, that is her prerogative. I despise her as a human being but I don't resent her wealth and I have no delusions about redistributing it because of my own perception of her 'worthiness'.

[Anonymous No.2133775]

>>2133767
lol

okay, this year, the people associated with the party not of your choice, your political enemies, as it were, are distributing the food, medicine, and gasoline

you still okay with this system?

[Anonymous No.2133778]

>>2133768
and the automatic presumption that she was born into a better state than a babby born in the sudan

meh

if money is the yardstick, then yes; otherwise, how can it be? do you know any rich kids? really rich kids? they seem okay to you?

[Anonymous No.2133784]

>>2133778
I'll start listening to you when you say to me that you would rather be born an AIDS-infected, malnourished Sudanese baby than an heir to a fabulous fortune. Money is the definition of success in this world, deal with it.

Pic related, all the poor people ITT.

[Anonymous No.2133785]

>>2133778
Not the guy you're responding to, but yes, and they're generally decent people but oblivious to their privilege.

[Anonymous No.2133787]

>>2133750
Alright, that almost made sense. But aren't both Gore and Bush both winners here from profiting?

Imagine a someone like Gates. He continues to amass wealth, and it becomes a vicious cycle. Eventually he gains a monopoly.The amount of power that could be controlled is immense.

And on the opposite side of things, imagine if the government attempted to curb this monopolization to the extent that it almost becomes state capitalism.

Wilhelm Liebknecht also said: "State Socialism is really State capitalism!"

It teeters and leans both left and right.

[Anonymous No.2133788]

Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Prepare your anus to be throughly trolled by this aspie kraut

>In his lectures, Mr. Hoppe said that certain groups of people -- including small children, very old people, and homosexuals -- tend to prefer present-day consumption to long-term investment. Because homosexuals generally do not have children, Mr. Hoppe said, they feel less need to look toward the future. (In a recent talk at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, which Mr. Hoppe says was similar to his classroom lecture, he declared, "Homosexuals have higher time preferences, because life ends with them.") [The student], Mr. Knight found that argument unwarranted and obnoxious, and he promptly filed a complaint with the university. In a telephone interview on Saturday, Mr. Knight said: "I was just shocked and appalled. I said to myself, Where the hell is he getting this information from? I was completely surprised, and that's why I went to the university about this."[3]

[Anonymous No.2133791]

>>2133775
I feel pretty comfortable saying that most people wouldn't support a system where people get to eat or not depending on who they vote for, so I don't see things happening the way you seem to imply tbh. people are more altruistic than you give them credit for. capitalism explicitly encourages selfish behaviour, is all.

[Anonymous No.2133795]

>>2133784

That is not a good choice. No one would choose the poor AIDS infected baby not because of the poverty but because of the AIDS.

[Anonymous No.2133797]

>>2133784
>this world
>what does it profit a man to gain the entire world, and yet lose his own soul?

yeah, no

[Anonymous No.2133800]

>>2133787
>Imagine a someone like Gates. He continues to amass wealth, and it becomes a vicious cycle. Eventually he gains a monopoly.The amount of power that could be controlled is immense.

That's pretty much how things are now though. Free markets have never been real.

[Anonymous No.2133804]

>>2133784
>AIDS-infected, malnourished Sudanese baby
OR
>an heir to a fabulous fortune
Why so binary?

[Anonymous No.2133805]

>>2133791
>people are more altruistic than you give them credit for. capitalism explicitly encourages selfish behaviour, is all.

I hope you're not implying that the wealthiest of society aren't the most charitable.

[Anonymous No.2133810]

>>2133805
In terms of monetary donation, well no shit the most comes from people with the most to spare.

Besides, I never claimed that the rich are necessarily bad people, just that the system is fucked.

[Anonymous No.2133812]

>>2133804
i still can't make that decision; the ultimate destination to me is more important than how exotic my food, shelter, and clothing is for less than 120 years. if sudanese babby makes it to heaven, and paris goes to hell, obvious choice is obvious.

[Anonymous No.2133813]

>>2133804
Because the world is binary. You win or you lose

.>>2133797
Okay, you can keep clinging to passages from the Bible. I'll be out making that cashmoney.

[Anonymous No.2133818]

>>2133791
dude, ever heard of Mao? Stalin? Pol Pot? Kim Jung Il? Ethiopia? Darfur?

all of those people starve to death if they are not in the ruling circle, or the circle's elite.

starve, to, death, by the millions

so yeah, this socialist/communist nightmare is just that; a fucking nightmare

[Anonymous No.2133820]

>>2133812
>implying there is a heaven or a hell

>>2133810
The system is only fucked for those too weak and stupid to profit from it.

[Anonymous No.2133821]

>>2133810
you're saying the natural result of a fucked system is okay rich people

no, you're saying eat the rich, but you don't want to be lumped in with OP

can't have your cake and eat it, too

[Anonymous No.2133822]

>>2133813
>You win or you lose
Not if you're bi-winning.

[Anonymous No.2133824]

>>2133788

His "Democracy: The God that Failed" is a great example of assembling a fantastic argument… then missing the point because of an ideological commitment.

Oh well, it's still great stuff.

[Anonymous No.2133829]

>>2133813
can't worship God and mammon, dude; you have to choose which one you worship. and since love of money is the root of all evil, yeah

you want to see good rich people, get to know some really rich, bible believing christians. now there's some good rich people, that you'll never hear about, if you don't know them personally.

[Anonymous No.2133831]

>>2133820
Weakness is relative to the strong you know. It works both ways

The system is only excellent for those too strong for others to profit from it.

[Anonymous No.2133839]

>>2133721
>>2133721
Glad to be of help OP. Hayek is the most cogent, and most academic, of the unrestrained market fascism supporters. He makes some serious methodological and interpretive errors in his political work, but, who doesn't.

Personally I suspect you'd get more out of reading Harry Braverman on the labour process theory, but you wanted right wing cunts to read, and Hayek is a right wing cunt worth reading if you have to read a cunt.

[Anonymous No.2133840]

>>2133821
I'm saying rich people shouldn't exist as long as there are poor people.

I have no objection to being lumped with the OP.

>>2133818
I'm no authoritarian. In fairness to Mao and Stalin, they did modernise their countries' agriculture to the extent that they could actually support their population. Their heavy-handed brand of communism was an improvement over the feudal shitholes china and russia were before.

[Anonymous No.2133844]

>>2133829
k dude

[Anonymous No.2133845]

>>2133829
>implying your primitive superstitious fantasies exist

>>2133831
>The system is only excellent for those too strong for others to profit from it.

I see nothing wrong with this.

[Anonymous No.2133847]

>>2133840
and another useful idiot is made

[Pseudonym !YgQRHAJqRA No.2133848]

Also, OP, a question for you since it's something I've never actually done: explain to me how your Anarcho-Collective society would work politically so I can actually do some calculus on how it would work if I dropped it somewhere on the face of the Earth and tried to figure out if it would survive.

I don't think anyone in my profession has ever bothered to try and figure it out before. Some questions:

-How are national and international level decisions made?
-How are national services compartmentalized, or are they?
-Is your system democratic, a representative democracy, or more of a long term thing?
-Who runs the military and foreign services?
-How is civil society structured and what are its cultural attitudes and interests structured?
-I assume political calculus will be conducted according to Western Paradigms, correct?
-What would be its interests abroad? I assume it would be a missionary state in the sense that it would be attempting to foster its ideology abroad, but what other interests would it need or posess?

I don't fully understand what you mean by an Anarcho-Collectivist society simply because the idea seems crazy to me, but I can give you an idea of how it would function on the international level if you could make it work on the ground level and fill in those blanks.

Pic possibly related.

[Anonymous No.2133852]

>>2133844
that's just, like, your opinion, man

[Anonymous No.2133853]

>>2133848

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html

[Anonymous No.2133854]

>>2133840
>I'm saying rich people shouldn't exist as long as there are poor people.

It is not the duty of the strong/the rich to support the weaker members of society. Doing so only drags them down and weakens the already feeble lower class by causing them to be dependent on others.

[Anonymous No.2133859]

>>2133848
HELP THIS MAN

[Pseudonym !YgQRHAJqRA No.2133862]

>>2133853

That's a nice link. Could you summarize or take a stab at answering please? I'm seeing the word "Syndicate" on the "How would it work" section, and that word tells me quite a bit about how long such a society would last outside of a white room.

[Anonymous No.2133863]

>>2133854
But that's wrong. What they're doing is trying to lessen the class divide. If you don't help them, they will revolt.

[Anonymous No.2133864]

>>2133863
fuck 'em. let them eat cake.

[Fairtaoclitus No.2133866]

>>2133854
Yeah, Glenn Beck is strong; he's superrich...

[Anonymous No.2133869]

>>2133863
>But that's wrong. What they're doing is trying to lessen the class divide. If you don't help them, they will revolt.

There will always be a divide, it is human nature. And so what if they revolt? Even if the aristocracy are all displaced/murdered, it shall rise again in a few years time And soon the status quo will be restored.

[Anonymous No.2133870]

>>2133864
Let me remind you that the army is always poor.

[Anonymous No.2133875]

>>2133866
When did I ever say anything about Glenn Beck, faggot?

[Anonymous No.2133876]

>>2133869
Such is the bloody swathe that capitalism inflicts upon us until it is overthrown by a new system.

[Anonymous No.2133879]

>>2133876
No system will ever eliminate the upper/lower class paradigm. Best adapt to it now instead of holding out for deliverance.

[Anonymous No.2133883]

>>2133879
How do you adapt to something that continually destroys itself?

[Peter Streusel No.2133884]

>>2133864
agreed...

[Anonymous No.2133886]

>>2133862
I don't feel well-informed enough to answer all your questions, I'm in the process of educating myself on anarchist theory.

[Anonymous No.2133891]

>>2133886

>Okay, /lit/. Anarcho-communist here.
>I don't feel well-informed enough to answer all your questions, I'm in the process of educating myself on anarchist theory.

And Marxists try to tell me it isn't a religion.

[Anonymous No.2133893]

Have fun OP:
http://mises.org/literature.aspx

[Anonymous No.2133897]

>>2133891
>>2133891
what is this i don't even

[Anonymous No.2133904]

>>2133891
Religion is an idea. Anarchism is an idea. Thus, Anarchy must be a religion!

Eureka!

[Anonymous No.2133912]

>>2133904
It's more like
>I consider myself to be a X, but I don't know too much about X

I agree with him. It's no different than identifying yourself as a certain religious denomination but not reading your respective holy book/going to worship/etc.

[Anonymous No.2133916]

ron paul - dude, where's my gold?

[Anonymous No.2133918]

>>2133912
ah, i see. I missed the point, sorry.

[Pseudonym !YgQRHAJqRA No.2133923]

Okay, pic related: this is what I have an understanding of as far as the basic structure of an anarchist state. I'll follow this up by tier by tier commentary, but I'll wait a bit for people to correct me as needed in case I got something conceptually wrong. I will also explain the circles and their meanings as needed.

Preliminary Evaluation: Okay, in very crude and base form the way an Anarcho-Collectivist state seems to be structured, it is not inured against some very, very basic means of engagement that make up foreign policy 101 in both the Western and Asiatic playbooks. Societies do not exist in a white room: even without any field experience I can devise ways of weakening or outright demolishing large portions of a society without even resorting to warfare, hostilities and engagement begin before arms even factor into the equation. Does not do well in Realpolitik calculus. There are ways to structure such a state as to inure it against such basic assaults, but those require a more sophisticated method of structuring syndicates, a potential centralized authority, and a very advanced civil society. Will detail my analysis of those next.

[Anonymous No.2133928]

how about 'i'm a big dumb baby who cries about the free market in my dirty free market diaper' by every austrian economist ever

[Anonymous No.2133933]

>>2133923
>structure
>anarchy
>you're doing it wrong

[Pseudonym !YgQRHAJqRA No.2133939]

>>2133933

Am I? All societies have some sort of structure, my understanding of anarchism is that it's just a flat structure.

Unless you are trying to tell me that this society functions solely in terms of individuals bartering with one another, in which case I'm going to laugh you out of the room. I'm trying to give you a shot at refining your ideology here.

[Anonymous No.2133946]

>>2133891
Protip: those posts were not made by the same person.

[Anonymous No.2133958]

>>2133939
never fuck with Webster's:

a : absence of government

b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority

c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

protip: utopian = fictional

[Pseudonym !YgQRHAJqRA No.2133971]

>>2133958

Yeah... if you're not a proponent of that system I don't really care about your definitional arguments. I'm against the notion and trying to offer them a chance to explain their theories, then explain how such a society couldn't survive. Just let it play out.

If you are a proponent of anarchism then enjoy splashing around on the shallow end of the political theory kiddy pool, the big boys will be over here.

Seriously, are there no anarcho-collectivists who have thought out how such a state would conduct foreign policy or how it would function for themselves? Please tell me the reason you can't answer isn't because you really are all just teenagers living in utopia, I'd hate to win by the opposing view having no competent advocates.

[Anonymous No.2133974]

[Anonymous No.2133988]

>>2133971
you must be seriously aspie to think i'm a anarcist/communist, pal

you really need to learn to pay attention to contextual clues

for instance, post #2 was mine, and it was a gem. i almost hurt my arm patting myself on the back for posting it later in the thread. almost.

serious adults do not discuss the merits of anarchy for a simple reason; it is a fiction, a playtoy of the young and naive, of the foolish, of people with no grasp of the human condition whatsoever.

if you think you're going to learn how an anarchist communist state would function in the real world, you're in for a shitton of disappointment

[Pseudonym !YgQRHAJqRA No.2134002]

>>2133988

Yeah... except this is a hypothetical society for my own amusement and an attempt at introducing people with an interest in socio-political systems but no real understanding of it into a way to transition into actually viable theory, hence why I am humoring edgy teenagers.

Sorry I gave a branching set of responses to your open ended statement to cover multiple possibilities just in case I mistook your meaning over the limited channel of communication that is the internet.

[Anonymous No.2134006]

>this thread

This is fucking pathetic. OP asks for some literature explaining the stance of right-wing-libertarianism, instead gets a bunch of butthurt reflexive capitalist propaganda and name-calling. Yeah, so pretty much any strong ideological position is 90% full retard, but did OP's post ask to start a fucking argument about issues that will never be settled on an imageboard?

Anyway, I know very little about economics, but I would say the one mandatory text is Hayek's Road to Serfdom.

[Anonymous No.2134011]

>>2134002
not at all

kids these days aren't even aware of history 100 years ago, much less 1000 years ago, and have absolutely no idea how good they have it.

tyrrany has been the norm for human governance for thousands of years; we have a brief respite, and they want to go right back to tyrrany, citing that the competition of capitalism and the responsibility of republics is "too hard".

and they are being groomed for this one world government, whether they like it or not, because they don't even know what freedoms they are giving up.

useful idiots, the lot of them.

[Anonymous No.2134013]

>>2134006

[Anonymous No.2134026]

>>2134006
yeah, you wouldn't want to read any Milton Friedman, or John Locke, and she's already dismissed Ayn Rand, and who has ever heard of "Google" or "capitalist authors"? or Keynes, Maynard, Marshall, Galbraith, etc., etc.

let's give ol' Marx another chance

"Man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite."

--Old Russian Saying

[Anonymous No.2134029]

>>2134026
What kind of society isn't structured on greed? The problem of social organization is how to set up an arrangement under which greed will do the least harm; capitalism is that kind of a system.
- Milton Friedman

[Anonymous No.2134033]

>>2134029
By pursuing his own interest (the individual) frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.
- Adam Smith

[Anonymous No.2134035]

>>2134033
very nice
-borate

[Anonymous No.2134044]

>>2134035
much like you're positng

[Anonymous No.2134048]

>>2134029
>capitalism is that kind of a system

[Anonymous No.2134066]

>>2134026

>my lack of a face when the proletariat has never owned a majority of the modes of production nor had a say in the majority of surplus food/energy that are harvested from their labor.

Revolutionary oligarchies that become permanent conservative oligarchies or dictatorships =/= communism

[Anonymous No.2134074]

>>2134066

revisionist trotskyite garbage

[Anonymous No.2134092]

>>2134074

Yes because it's so revisionist, you Stalinist dog, to state such an obvious fact as "the proletariat has never owned the majority of the means of production" nor has it owned control over the majority of energy/food surpluses that form the material bedrock for state power.

Communism has never happened, only revolutionary parties and their subsequent consolidation as a new class over the proletariat.

[Anonymous No.2134102]

>>2134033

>my lack of a face when capitalist interests throughout this entire 20th century caused immense damage because of said greed

>>2134029

A feel good quote that ignores the problem of externalities, concentrations of capital, and that it plays to a simple mindedness whereupon government is opposed to capital without realizing that the entirety of society is part of an impersonal system of power in which both capital and government feed off each other.

[Anonymous No.2134103]

>>2134092
>he thinks it would work if it did indeed happen

[Pseudonym !YgQRHAJqRA No.2134114]

Welp, never mind. My lowest expectations have been met. I offer informed conversation and practical models of analysis, and no one can answer the necessary questions to have the discussion.

[Anonymous No.2134133]

>>2133988
protip: yer a faggit harry.

[Anonymous No.2134149]

>>2134103

Well a whole magnitude of time longer than the history of our civilization was spent in a form of social organization whereupon the modes of production were "owned" by everyone, in so much that it's hard for a single man, or a small percentage of a social group, with primitive tools to monopolize an entire area of land, defend it, and extract or enslave fellow men to do the extracting.

Of course this wasn't universal in areas where a material resource existed that was monopolizable (Salmon runs in the pacific northwest). But those used to be the exception rather than the rule for the hundreds/thousands of radically different cultures which humans adapted themselves to based on environment. But then with the advent of farming, you get a mode of production (based on monopolizable resources) eliminating the competition with great speed.

And this mode of production led to a master class whereupon they universalized the accidents of their mode of production as universalities.

The impossibility of imagining a working "communism" is a result of the natural short sightedness of ten thousand years! A man mistaking his historical-social nature as an eternal nature!

[Pseudonym !YgQRHAJqRA No.2134165]

>>2134011

Actually one world government is just a silly conspiracy theory because the logistics behind it are unworkable. That said, I'm no longer in the mood to entertain cranks.

[Anonymous No.2134172]

>>2134011
You like that term 'useful idiots', don't you?

Freedom from responsibility and liberty is still a freedom.

[Anonymous No.2134180]

>>2134092
But when the parties are composed of the proletariat?

[Anonymous No.2134192]

>>2134165
That's what >they want you to think.

[Anonymous No.2134200]

>Anarcho-communist

[Anonymous No.2134201]

>>2134149
hear hear, although there have been exceptions, always.

[Pseudonym !YgQRHAJqRA No.2134210]

>>2134192

Not really. If they were doing it they would probably end up trying to hire me at some point.

[Anonymous No.2134214]

>>2134033
>>2134029

America was doomed from the start.

[Anonymous No.2134216]

[Anonymous No.2134227]

>>2133713

Your premise is bad. I haven't really been trying to better myself for years, although I have the means to.

[Anonymous No.2134232]

>>2134227
Are you 'People' ?

[Anonymous No.2134241]

>>2134210
>misplaced delusions of self-importance

[Anonymous No.2134272]

>>2134241
>psychoanalysis
>2011

[bassetsquirrel No.2134276]

>>2134241

ALPHA BITCH

[Anonymous No.2134291]

>>2134272
>implying it takes psychoanalysis to realize "the illuminati can't be real, they would've hired me" is a delusional statement

[Anonymous No.2134312]

>>2134291
>Implying either myself or pseudonym were serious.

[Anonymous No.2134354]

>they can't list any books that can defend capitalism because they don't exist

[Anonymous No.2134359]

>>2134312
>mfw I realize there's a tripfag on /lit/ who isn't an egotistical Ignatius Riley clone

[bassetsquirrel No.2134361]

>>2134354
by way of stupidity.

[Anonymous No.2134370]

>>2134354
Refer to: >>2133581

[Anonymous No.2134375]

>>2134361

[Anonymous No.2134381]

To OP: Anything by Murray Rothbard, but it's been a long time since I was into that and I don't remember many titles besides Man Economy & State and that would probably be more than you want.

[Anonymous No.2134394]

>>2133581

/thread

[Anonymous No.2134397]

>>2133589
You've got that backwards.
After the revolution, socialism is the transitional phase, until all classes and the state can be abolished and a communist society is started. Thus, communism is a stateless, classless society. Thus, communism is inherently anarchist

[Anonymous No.2134398]

>>2134370
Capitalism was always warped towards the fulfillment of ideological doctrines, as displayed in the Scramble for Africa, the Cold War, and now with global equality and stability. Capitalism by itself is stagnant, and thus not in the interest of changing active desires of the elite. There has never been true capitalism, and there never will be; the accumulation of wealth is secondary to the realization of principles, and putting certain people in great positions of power will lead them to follow these rather than purely trying to gain more moolah.

[Kropothead No.2134399]

The amount of misinformation in this thread is appalling
Capitalists suck my dick

[Anonymous No.2134409]

What is the general consensus on Leninism?

[Anonymous No.2134423]

>>2133988
Congratulations, you have proved, beyond any doubt, how well the idea of representative democracy provided by a state and the free market can so completely mold a person to blindly uphold this system and remove any ability to seek a remedy to the current order of things.

[Anonymous No.2134430]

>>2134397
>Thus, communism is inherently anarchist

I've never heard someone else say this. I like you.

[Anonymous No.2134435]

>>2134399

>doesn't realize the ambivalence of that picture
>teenager with che gueavara shirt detected

[Anonymous No.2134439]

>>2134423
>he doesn't think your system is feasible
>HE'S A BRAINWASHED AUTOMATON WHO HAS NEVER CONSIDERED ALTERNATIVES

[Anonymous No.2134440]

>>2134430
you deaf?

[Anonymous No.2134446]

>>2134439
>I LIKE TO JUMP TO EXTREMES TOO

[Anonymous No.2134449]

>>2134399
>privillage

[Anonymous No.2134454]

>>2134449
I was about to say, what the actual fuck does this mean.

[Anonymous No.2134474]

>>2134409
Depends who you're talking to. Most communists are Marxist-Leninist so obviously they fetishize leninism. Orthodox M-L's cast Lenin in the dear leader light, but anarcho-communists (at least the ones I've met) are obviously anti-Lenin, and RAAN (Red Anarchist Action Network) goes so far as to say "The existence of Leninism as a force - albeit a discredited one - in today's political movement will no longer be tolerated, neither by our action network nor by the overwhelming
force of the revolutionary mass, which by its very nature will destroy the ridiculous notion
that the total suppression of bourgeois society can be achieved, much less led, by those who
continue to worship the fascist doctrines of past state-capitalists.
We are a union of anarchists, autonomists, situationists, and Marxists who believe that Lenin,
Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, and all those who affiliate themselves with the statist movements and
ideologies they represent are not our allies, never have been, and never will be. To them we
say:
We will hunt you at your conferences, burn your newspapers, and beat you in the streets. We
will never submit to the authoritarian schemes that you put together in all of your attempts
to organize us into a silent "mass movement" of Bolshevik-saluters. The coming revolution
has nothing to do with the supposed correctness of your party's line or its PC slogans - it is
the organic supersession of all the injustice and contradiction embedded within this world,
and the existence of Leninism is at this time the single greatest obstacle to the evolution of
the REAL revolutionary communist tendency"

[Anonymous No.2134485]

Everyone itt yapping about how anarchism is incompatible with reality because it is human nature to act selfishly and to to cause harm to others in the pursuit of selfish goals have no idea what human nature is. Human nature is almost completely shaped by human society. It is not biologically predetermined. People are not solely naturally this or that; we are naturally capable of selfish and altruistic behaviour. The society humans have constructed around themselves is what determines our behaviour and mindsets.
The two biggest factors that influence human nature are the state (including government) and the current material mode of production (global capitalism). The sovereign state is maintained by the idea of representative democracy, which is nothing more than the illusion of freedom designed to reconcile people to supporting a controlling and ruling government master. And capitalism, which pervades every aspect of society and life, shapes human nature by punishing altruistic behaviour and rewarding selfish behaviour. Both the state and the market define human nature more than any other force. The market creates the perception that the attainment of material wealth and social status are the things to devote one's life to, by maintaining an essentially aggressively self-seeking attitude; and the state convinces people of the legitimacy of this kind of life.

[Anonymous No.2134552]

>>2134485
Anarchism is not simply a radical political and economic system; it is a complete change of human nature. Anarchism relies on a very different human nature that is commonly thought of as 'natural' to function; it's underlying mechanism is the philosophy of altruism and cooperation. Anarchism cannot work if it was suddenly implemented in the current world, because the type of human nature it relies on and promotes does not exist. The thing is that an anarchist society is not designed to be suddenly implemented. Rather, an anarchist society is the last and ultimate stage in a evolutionary process. The pure communist society that Marx advocated was in fact an anarchist society because he proposed that the state would 'whither away'. And Marx envisioned that the attainment of this kind of society would begin first with the working class achieving class consciousness, which in today's society would mean the working AND the middle class shrugging off the perceived notion of a necessary master (the state) and a empty, materialistic lifestyle. Marx then said society would evolve into a socialist society, where the means of production would still be in the hands of some private owners. And finally this would give way to a fully communist (or anarchist) society.
During this process human nature is conditioned into a selfless and cooperating nature.
So anyone under the impression that it is the natural order of things to remain self-seeking, greedy and violent doesn't realise that we are this way because the world we've built around ourselves, including but not limited to the ideas of a state and a capitalist free market, encourages and thrives on this version of human nature, A different version is incompatible and punished.

[Anonymous No.2134626]

>>2134552
Except the fabled transition to some anarcho-communist utopia never happens. In every socialist country that has existed, the transition was to a more centralized, all-powerful and oppressive government. In the European countries that have introduced Social Democracy, there is a clear pattern of eroding personal freedoms and growing abuse of state/bureaucratic power. Consider the rise of QuANGOS (Quasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organizations) in England and what their proliferation means for civil liberties and the citizens voice in their own affairs.

How can you entrust any transitional government to wrest power from the people and then give it up?

[Anonymous No.2134703]

>>2134626
Those socialist countries you're referring to attempted to establish a centralized bureaucracy. As in that was their intention. That's why they all became oppressive and totalitarian in nature. Communist or anarchist societies call for radical decentralization. Thus that is why any so-called 'communist' society that has existed was never actually communist, and that transition to socialism you mentioned never really took place.

Social Democracies call for larger government and greater centralization, not less. Social Democracy is an offshoot of Liberalism, not Socialism. It is no wonder the government in these countries has a tendency to abuse its powers, although it is now worse than in Liberal democracies with limited government.

[Anonymous No.2134707]

>>2134703
*it is no worse

[Anonymous No.2134708]

*kkkkkkkksssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh*

[Anonymous No.2134734]

OP, just read Upton Sinclair's the Jungle... but
>>Imagine Jurgis not being a total dumbshit
>>End it with him going to a Ron Paul Ralley

[Anonymous No.2134739]

>>2134734

...lol?

[Anonymous No.2134740]

>>2134739
Well... if you read the Jungle, and were an Anarchist (nonaligned)... it is.

[Anonymous No.2134744]

>>2133578
humans have fucked all forms of government up because some people want to be the elite, ie. they want to feel superior, and a lot of others can be easily manipulated by the ones who want to become the elite. This is a major failing of democracy.

[Anonymous No.2134762]

>>2134474
Wow, well... That's some militant commitment if ever i heard it. The main problem is that surely Leninism could be seen as heretical by the Anarchists, but it's surely not the biggest obstacle like they make it out to be.

But thanks for the input, rather enlightening.
Might i ask where you come from?

[Pseudonym !YgQRHAJqRA No.2134763]

>>2134485

One point, because I really don't feel like getting into it again now that this thread has necromanced... actually your posts are so trolly I don't know if I can not get into it with you over this. If troll, 6/10.

>The two biggest factors that influence human nature are the state (including government) and the current material mode of production (global capitalism)

No, not really. That's the realm of psychology and sociology, even though I realize anarchists assume that the root of all immorality is the government and corporations I'm afraid that simply isn't the case. If you wish to make useful assertions, explain to me how an anarchist state could survive or prosper in today's world of geopolitics, or at least fill me in on how it would function, eh? How are you even going to implement it?

>The sovereign state is maintained by the idea of representative democracy, which is nothing more than the illusion of freedom designed to reconcile people to supporting a controlling and ruling government master

This is a personal pet peeve of mine you touched on: you call democracy an illusion. Okay, ever cast a ballot that wasn't including your vote for a presidential election? Ever voted in purely local elections where turnout is so low that your vote and your campaigning really does make a difference? Ever pushed a ballot initiative? Ever organized a community program or advocacy group? Ever gotten people out to vote down or vote up a measure you didn't like?

I'm assuming the answer to all of those is no: at least 90% of people who bitch about democracy being a lie have never even bothered to try those things either. You have the means to have a direct influence on your daily life and your local political structure, and if you build up some clout locally you move up to regional politics if you are so inclined. That's how interest groups and voting blocs are formed, and that's how democracy functions.

[Anonymous No.2134765]

>>2134744
You're a bit simple, aren't you?

[Anonymous No.2134769]

Guys, guys, guys...

What if we simply abolished money?

[Anonymous No.2134783]

>abandone thread
>out of nowhere the black army! the international brigades! the cavallary of the republic!
where have you been all day fags

[Anonymous No.2134786]

>>2134763
Are you voting for what you want, or what you prefer?

[Anonymous No.2134787]

>>2134769

I said this to a teacher in primary school once. I would have been about 8. She said that was a stupid idea and no one should come up with that.

If I remember correctly, she was from Eastern Europe or something, so maybe that's why she got pissy at a child.

[Pseudonym !YgQRHAJqRA No.2134791]

>>2134786

If I'm pushing a ballot initiative (and I have) I'm voting for whatever the Hell I know I can get away with because no one else votes outside of the presidential campaign.

[Anonymous No.2134793]

>>2134787
I'm sorry to hear that tovarisch

[Anonymous No.2134803]

>>2134783

>LiamNeesonSmokingCigar.jpg

[Pseudonym !YgQRHAJqRA No.2134861]

>>2134783

Great, glad the anarchist brigade is here. Now can someone please give me a straight answer about how an anarchist society would work and conduct policy?

[Anonymous No.2134867]

Well, in the absence of a state, what would prevent a very small percent of the population in an anarcho-communist society from ...
>229 posts and 42 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
Nevermind.

[Anonymous No.2134879]

>>2134867
you forgot your sage

[Anonymous No.2134883]

>>2134867
the answer btw is 'everyone else'.

[Anonymous No.2134885]

>>2134879
I used to sage, but it's so mainstream these days.

[Anonymous No.2134888]

>>2134883
Much like in nowadays Somalia?

[Pseudonym !YgQRHAJqRA No.2134890]

>>2134883

So you'll answer his question about the logistics of your society, but if I'm willing to grant you that and ask how such a country would work you draw a blank?

[Anonymous No.2134905]

Socialism in one country is demonstrably impossible.

Stop trolling.

[Anonymous No.2134998]

>>2134861
what types of policy?

[Anonymous No.2135044]

http://mises.org/books/egalitarianism.pdf

[Anonymous No.2135048]

so much trolling....

what about just reading Adam Smith?

[Anonymous No.2135071]

>>2133578
Are you seriously considering "more jobs" to be a good measurement of a successful radical political utopia?
>> laughing-anarcho-capitalist-whores.jpg

[Anonymous No.2135074]

>>2133589
You got it wrong, the proletarian state is meant to be a transitional state which dissolves itself into actual anarchism. The correct term for OPs perspective would probably be 'anarcho-syndikalism', though.

>>2133588
No, because the 'communist' part of it includes that there is no private property of the means of production (and in the legal sense no property at all), which makes a free market more or less impossible.

[Anonymous No.2135082]

>>2133923 anarchist state
...

[Anonymous No.2135180]

Consider watching The Trap a documentary by Adam Curtis that follows, "how a simplistic model of human beings as self-seeking, almost robotic, creatures led to today's idea of freedom" (which provides an answer as to why most posters go straight to mocking at the mention of left thinking.)

All of the characters mentioned in The Trap are worth looking into. Specifically, as to the initial post, Friedrich Hayek and Francis Fukuyama.

You can watch the documentary on Archive dot org.

[Anonymous No.2135195]

>mfw retards say anarcho-communistic societies have never existed
>mfw retards talk about "human nature" as a vague concept that somehow negates such systems
>mfw humans were living largely in anarcho-communistic, egalitarian societies for ~200 000 years before the advent of agriculture

[Anonymous No.2135200]

Wealth of Nations
Adam Smith advocates government interference.

[Anonymous No.2135209]

>>2135195
>mfw humans were living largely in anarcho-communistic, egalitarian societies for ~200 000 years before the advent of agriculture

totally not fucking true. there's evidence of tribal leaders, shamans, and other roles of authority or wisdom in our ancient ancestors. evidence in the form of things buried with them and in cave paintings. so don't tell me that ancient humans were anarcho-communist

[Anonymous No.2135211]

>>2135209
All primate species are tribal, and mostly patriarchal, except for Bonobos, where the males are kept slaves by the lure of free sex.

[Anonymous No.2135212]

>>2135209

Village elders whom are respected and listened to != authority in the sense we have it.

Give me some evidence. Also notice the "largely" in my sentence. Of course exceptions occur based on the environment.

[Anonymous No.2135214]

>>2135195
>implying life is as simple as it was in the days of hunter-gatherers
>implying the world's population could support itself without a regulated business infrastructure

[Anonymous No.2135215]

>>2135214

I implied none of that.

[Anonymous No.2135216]

>>2135212
then your argument is relative. if you say that they didn't have authority in the same sense we had, then you can say that they didn't have a community in the same sense we have. if you can say that, trying to impose a modern political system on a community that's old enough to be alien is asinine. stick to arguing the merits of your ideology, rather than trying to argue that it has existed since the dawn of time.

[Anonymous No.2135221]

>>2135216
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7LZbU5-YvA

[Anonymous No.2135222]

>>2135214
What use is it to point out that anarcho-communism allegedly worked within the tribal structure of proto-humans when we're discussing it's application in the modern world? You've added nothing to the conversation.

[Anonymous No.2135223]

>hey guys, I'm an anarcho-communist, you wouldn't understand, now tell me about the other ideologies that I have researched so much that I have realized my beliefs make me an anarcho-communist and not just a whiny cunt that's being pretentious on the internet

[Anonymous No.2135225]

>>2135222

I was responding to the factually incorrect statements people made in the thread. I am curious why you use the term "proto-humans" though.

[Anonymous No.2135227]

>>2135216

I'm simply saying a village elder who people listen to and whose advice is heeded is not an authority in the same sense of the word an officer is an authority.

I mean of course, even in anarchy, there are people who are the practically leaders in certain situations, not because the position is appointed to them but because they know the most about the issue at hand and they are trusted. If you setup a factory that produces metal goods in an anarchy, and you have a fellow who has worked 30 years in the business and 5 new lads who don't know anything about it, there's going to be leading going on. It isn't the same thing as authority though.

[Anonymous No.2135232]

>>2135227
your analogy takes your point further away from arguing that ancient humans were anarcho-communists. there is no possible analogy to explain the pre-agriculture system as anarcho-communist. (it's a fucking myth that agriculture came chronologically after a nomadic hunter-gatherer system. they occurred mostly contemporaneously)

[Anonymous No.2135235]

>>2135212
How about you give me some evidence that there was no coercion in early human societies, which is highly unlikely if we look at groups of animals.

[Anonymous No.2135236]

Road to Serfdom

[Anonymous No.2135241]

>>2135212
the fact that you are trying to defend your fairy tales about mankind before agriculture by referring to "village" elders already disqualifies you from the discussion by demonstrating your lack of basic knowledge regarding the topic.

[Anonymous No.2135242]

>>2135232
> (it's a fucking myth that agriculture came chronologically after a nomadic hunter-gatherer system. they occurred mostly contemporaneously)
wat
did humans start farming immediately after they fell out of the trees or was there a transition stage where they were powered by the sun?

[Anonymous No.2135246]

>>2135232

>your analogy takes your point further away from arguing that ancient humans were anarcho-communists

How?

>it's a fucking myth that agriculture came chronologically after a nomadic hunter-gatherer system. they occurred mostly contemporaneously

Source? (obviously they existed at the same time because hunter-gatherers still exist today, but you seem to be implying something more than that.)

>>2135235

But I wasn't arguing there was no coercion.

[Anonymous No.2135249]

>>2135241

It's just a habit of wording, obviously I meant the elders in the band of humans who were most likely nomadic.

[Anonymous No.2135260]

>>2135246
If there is coercion, it is neither anarchy nor communism.

[Anonymous No.2135266]

>>2135260

Thus the

>largely

[Sage No.2135273]

As in "Cola is largely the same as Pepsi"? Or as in "your contribution to this thread was largely meaningless"?

[Anonymous No.2135274]

>>2135273

Largely as in for the most part.

[Sage No.2135275]

>>2135274
My point (hidden behind the irony) is that it does not make sense to speak of "for the most part" anarcho-communism, just it makes no sense to say that someone has "for the most part" no aids.

[Anonymous No.2135277]

>>2135275

But that's not what I meant, I meant out of the societies that existed, for the most part they were egalitarian anarcho-communist.

[Sage No.2135279]

>>2135277
Then you were incorrect in using the "largely" as a hedge against my complaint that coercion cannot be part of anarcho-communism. You are not making sense and I take that as my cue to leave this discussion.

[Anonymous No.2135286]

>>2135279

Perhaps I should've pointed out that I was referring to the sentence where I used "largely" in >>2135195

If you interpreted that sentence incorrectly that's not my problem.

[Anonymous No.2135525]

>>2135286
Am I high or is that post somehow gone?

[Anonymous No.2135526]

>>2135525

you're dead, you've been dead the whole time. just let go. you need to learn to let go

[Anonymous No.2136883]

Tumping Bhread

[Anonymous No.2138397]

you should probably read some stuff by Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Proudhoun
you'd be suprised on how much they would agree with you you should also read Murray Rothbard. Another book which i've heard is very good is by Francis Dashwood Tandy with the very ironic title, "Voluntary Socialism". hope this helps.

[Anonymous No.2138617]

I stopped reading at "anarcho-communist".

[Anonymous No.2138677]

>>2138617
Should learn to read, bra.

[Anonymous No.2138714]

>>2133578

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

[Anonymous No.2138758]

[Anonymous No.2138765]

>>2133754

Reading through this drivel for the hell of it, and I came across this garbage.

No, she SHOULDN'T have to work if she wants money. If your parents were extremely wealthy and they decided to give you stacks of money, you should be able to do whatever the fuck you want with it.