How come we still talk only about Fascism, Nazism and Communism?

How come we still talk only about Fascism, Nazism and Communism?
What about Anarchism?
In this case specifically, Anarcho-Pacifism?

How about you quit the stupid ideology memes and become pragmatist? Reality much?

In a fully lobotomized and emasculated word, where people have no greed or ambitions, it may actually work.

i'm an anarcho-fascist

>How come we still talk only about Fascism, Nazism and Communism?

no one talks about communism

No ideology is pragmatic, neither Communism nor Fascism. Not even Democracy for what we see nowadays.
P.S. Christiania is a thing, so...

What about anarcho-botanism?

Anarcho-Trolling in your case but yeah.

>spanish telling italian that anarchism is shit and that pragmatism is the solution
Like pottery

Yeah.

I am an anarchist and I used to be a pacifist. How do you see an anarchist pacifist society protecting its people and resources when others try to take them by force?

Whose job would it be to protect?

If the society is pacifist, how come there is someone taking something with force?

if the society is normie, how come I am autist as fuck?

'cause autism is your fault, not society's.

and violence is not? kek

What about anarcho-cuckoldrism? Is it the final redpill?

That's why i don't think you need a government to give you rules, 'cause you first you have to learn them yourself, then it's useless to even have one. They should teach you why something is wrong, not telling you that is wrong and that you will be punished if you do it.

Anarcho-Pacifism? Is this the ideological version of autism?

If this is the only thing you can come up with, means that your cuckolding is more powerful rather than reason so... not my problem and none of my business

Nope, that's called Anarcho-NormieFromFrance-ism

>They should teach you why something is wrong
>Indoctrination works wonders
>Right and wrong is universal

any form of anarchism is a moronic system that can only be temporarily mantained. People will always form "groups", congregate and recreate a state with laws, thus rendering anarchism (and even more so anarcho-pacifism) an utopic ideology

The basic stuff are universal.
Let me give you a few examples:
> Killing Someone
Is bad, in any form

> Killing Animals
Is bad if not done for eating them

> Stealing
If everyone has everything 'cause no one own anything, there is nothing like "stealing"

> Rape
Rape is bad. Period.

This is pretty basic stuff you can understand yourself.

isn't Anarcho-Pacifism just a fancy name for being a cuck

The concept of "Anarchy" lives perfectly with the idea of grouping and association (There are forms of Anarchism called Anarcho-Collettivism). The point is that no one is more important than someone else, but everyone is equal (really equal you SJW dumbass).
So it's not utopic as you thing m8

you tell a latin gangsta if killing is bad
they kill random people as a rite of passage, I don't think they believe it to be wrong
same goes for all the other examples

>killing a murderous psycho is bad
>killing a dangerous pest is bad
>stealing deadly weapons from crime lords is bad

How do you uphold such basic principles in an anarchist society without a state and most importantly with pacifism?
What if I just come there and rape your mother and shoot your brother in the head? What can you do?

Not in my vocabulary. Maybe in yours, where everything that doesn't match what you are or thing is "Autistic" or "cuck".

You start on the assumption that people want to be equal. This is not true for 99% of the population, otherwise no one would be motivated to study, work, etc.
True equality is to be all mediocre, and most people don't want to be a mediocre sob

Yeah they are totally not pragmatic since they have both existed in many people's lifetimes. Society changes quickly, it only takes one economic crash to to make the pendulum strike back.

A latin gangsta is answering the basic instinct of survival, 'cause the world of a "gangsta" is pretty dangerous, not killing someone means that that someone will kill you, so it's more or less survival.
Without a government, there would be no "gangsta" to work aganist the laws, so no latin gangsta shooting each other. Problem Solved.

The job of that society, the group of citizens who comprise the anarchist pacifist society? How do they protect themselves?
It's not my society, I am not a pacifist. Anyway, it's unlikely that the entire world would suddenly become anarchist pacifists. In which case even if you had a perfectly internally functioning anarchist pacifist society, non-pacifists could easily come and take your shit and rape your kids. That's what I'm asking about.

>complying with everything no matter what has no similarities with literal cuckoldry
WEW
E
W

>Without a government, there would be no "gangsta" to work aganist the laws, so no latin gangsta shooting each other.
>if we abolish laws crime will just disappear
this is how retarded anarchists are

How come a psycho's life is worth less than yours for a disease? Why not helping him by not giving him any chance to kill?
How come you have to kill it? Why not take the pest where it will either die or live without disturbing anyone else?
Who needs a crime lord when there is no law?

If you know that rape is bad, why should you do it?
Same thing for shooting my brother

People are not the same, that is different from equality.
Equality means you all start from the same base, everything that goes over it is personal and it SHOULD NOT interfere with anyone else personal development.
Still not utopistic.

Don't mix economics with politics, that's why democacry is failing.

You are taking extreme case, but anyway, they could do it, but nothing says anywhere that you can either avoid it or defend yourself without killing them.

why s a victim's life less valuable than a murderer's life to you?
why do the lives of dangerous animals matter more than the people that could die trying to peacefully capture them?
why do you promote people getting gunned down by some gang in order to gain power

Crime is the product of people willingly deciding to take a path that doesn't follow laws to achieve something. Without laws, there is no crime. If everyone is willing to not kill and steal, then prostitution, drugs and whatnot would be legal, so is not crime.

>Equality means you all start from the same base
Economically? So basically communism and complete wealth redistribution. Good luck doing that without getting genocided in the process.
Or do you mean legally? Because if that's the case, it's already in place in most civilized countries with a constitution and a democratic republic

I'm praying that it does fail. All we need is another recession and it is as good as dead.

*shoots you in the face*
you can't complain because it's not a crime

How come that the victim life is worth less? Never said that.
Never said that Animals > Humans. I litterally said the opposite 'cause i said "Killing animals is wrong fi not done for eating them" that means kill the animal if you need food.
Same thing here, who said that i promote people to be gunned down?

As i said before, don't mix economics and politics.
I mean legally, the problem is that everyone is mixing the economic part (for example the SJW with sexism at work, it's an economic problem if they don't want to hire you, not legal, legally you can ask for the job but economically i can decide that a man is better suited than a woman)

>Without laws, there is no crime.
So if I simply want to take your car I can. I mean there's no law to prevent that anymore
>If everyone is willing to not kill and steal
Too bad that that's an utopic vision. Even if you completely made people economically equal with wealth redistribution, you would still have violent crime and theft, again because people always want more power and more wealth, and while some people will achieve those honestly and peacefully (only to have it later on redistribute under your ideal system), others, be it for lazyness or incompetence, will achieve those with violence and dishonesty.
Your system is flawed at the root and quite frankly childish

Technically, i can't complain 'cause i'm dead.
The thing is prior to the shooting:
if you know that shooting me is bad, why should you do it in the first place? Why shoot me?
That's the point where you need no laws, you know it's not good to shoot someone in the face so you don't do it. Simple as that.

>I mean legally
As I said, legal equality already exists in most civilized countries. I don't know how it works in Italy, but I assume it's the same as the rest of Europe, where you have a constitution and the laws present in such constitution apply to all citizens indiscriminately, thus ensuring legal equality

you said that we shouldn't use law to prevent murderers from murdering.
you said we should try to capture a dangerous animal no matter the risk of human life.
you said that organized criminals should have all the weapons they can get.
why?

There is nothing like "My" or "Yours" so yeah, you could take that car and then i'll take it back.

>Your system is flawed at the root and quite frankly childish
The thing is that i never talked about economics, the politics SHOULD NOT mix with economics, that's why everything is failing.
Also, the point is that in this ipotetic society, everyone know that is bad to acheive something with violence so it just doesn't do it. Period. Lazyness and incompetence are something that concerns you, and that shouldn't get on any other person in any way.
The people have flaws, the system works.

>you know it's not good to shoot someone in the face so you don't do it.
seriously dude? Have you ever stepped out of your house?
You have to be 18 or above to post here

that's nice and all

but we live in a world where people think it's a good idea to kill each other for a pair of sneakers

*stabs your daughter in the stomach*
*stabs your wife in the face*
*stabs your mother in the face*
i didn't know it was bad, and it felt good
it wasn't a crime so you can't complain

Yeah, but the thing is that it goes over the legally part and starts to take in the economic part. In italy we have a fucking law that ensure to at least a couple of woman to be in the parliament. THAT'S BULLSHIT. if she is worth the place, she will get to it, if she isn't, she won't. Period. That's the problem.

> you could take that car and then i'll take it back.
If I were a car thief I would probably kill you if you tried to

So you want to abolish private property like in communism. Explain me why anyone, be it the richest person or the poorest worker who struggled all his life to buy a house and a car for his family, would want such a thing.

And btw this brings me back to my original point: if I can steal private property without effort, why should I work and get more money to be able to afford what I desire? Why not just steal it?

If you know it's bad to murder someone, why should you do it in the first place?
I never said to capture it, i said to keep him away from any people, that's exactly the opposite.
I said that without a government there is no organized criminals, 'cause many of the things criminals nowadays (prostitution and drugs) would not be illegal (there would be no laws, duh) so is not crime anymore so why the guns?

...

>Yeah, but the thing is that it goes over the legally part and starts to take in the economic part.
I don't get what you mean with this, care to explain?
> In italy we have a fucking law that ensure to at least a couple of woman to be in the parliament. THAT'S BULLSHIT. if she is worth the place, she will get to it, if she isn't, she won't. Period. That's the problem.
I completely agree, that's stupid. Quotas of any kind are idiotics and jobs should be assigned based on meritocracy, not gender. How does this correlate with anarchism however?

I've been out, that's why i said "People have flaws". People are soo stupid that they do things they know it's wrong to do. That's a people problem, not a system problem.
Why should i have less freedom 'cause you are stupid?

First of all, yeah, i know.
But that's a problem that people have. Why the fuck do we have to fix the system if the problem is with the people? Let's fix the people

In this ipotetic society you know it, so no, still not a good example.
Fix the problem, the problem is with the people, fix the people.

what if they didn't know it was bad and liked how it felt
>tries to shoo bare away
>bare claws face off
>bare kills entire village because self defense is wrong
>an-cap drug lords take survivors of bare attack as slaves

>That's a people problem, not a system problem.
Government systems are tailored around the people they govern, not the contrary.
Otherwise you are no different from the totalitarian systems you mentioned in the OP, since you want to forcefully change people to adapt to your system (which would prove basically impossible in a pacifist society btw, since such radical "reeducation programs" often rely on violence and coercion)

why do you think psychopathy is a myth?

Communism took it from Anarchism, not the opposite. Anarchism is older than Communism.
Also, to take (not steal) something, first that something should be bought or created, so if 10 people need a car, but there is only 1, instead of killing over the 1 why don't work together to take the other 9?
Also, without private property, everything you take is for everyone, but that doesn't mean that everyone relies on the single person. Everyone relies on everyone.

You are insanely naive.

>so if 10 people need a car, but there is only 1, instead of killing over the 1 why don't work together to take the other 9?
That was the concept behind communism. Redistributing the means of production to the proletariat.
How did every communist society end up again?
>Everyone relies on everyone.
So you trust everyone you see? I presume you don't lock you car and front door then, correct?

The laws should ensure the legal part. Many laws (expecially from UE desu) enforces something that has nothing to do with legal part, but with economic part.

That correlates 'cause even if legally we are equal, people still thinks that the law should enforce economic equality, and that's bullshit, that's why i hate having laws in the first place. If there is no law, they have to rely on themself. period.

They have to know it, that's the point.
Also your examples are going too specific and too far, you have to take the assumption that everyone knows that's bad and they don't do it 'cause of that. You're going too far from the point with stupid examples.

>let's fix the people
That's what Sup Forums is trying to accomplish.

Never said that it had to be forceful, there would not be anything like an institution that would take care of it.
Everyone knows it's bad, when we are born, even stupid people. When we grow up... family, friends, other people forge us to think that something is not as bad as you think.
We should reeducate everyone now, to understand that there is something else rather than violence vs each other, and then let the people grow with that.
The only utopistic part, i'm sad to say, is to let everyone understand that.

So wait a second, because you dislike some economic policies imposed by the EU (which I most likely dislike as much as you do, I'm not a big fan of the EU), you want to scarp ALL laws?
Why not just work towards changing the laws you dislike?
> people still thinks that the law should enforce economic equality, and that's bullshit,
You previously told me that you believe there should be an equal economic starting point for people though. You are contradicting yourself

Nope, it's a disease.

maybe, but still everyone is for his beliefs, right?

First of all, that's an anarchist thing they took from us.
Then, never said redistribuiting, 'cause if i don't need a car i don't take it, i said to just let everyone use everything.

>when you establish anarcho-pacifism but then a psychopath is born so your entire society collapses, so then you establish it again but then a bear comes in your village so it collapses again

I never said we should be equal economically, go read some posts ago, i clarified i don't mean economical equality

Meme ideologies like these made me start hating radical politics. I am now a pragmatic, ideological Liberal.

>You are taking extreme case, but anyway, they could do it
I don't think it's an extreme case. The entire globe isn't going to become pacifist overnight, and the second you say "hey guys we aren't willing to engage in violence", someone will try to take your shit and rape your women.

then that means it is possible for some one to not know murder is wrong

>Everyone knows it's bad
Not necessarily true, but even if it was true, some people simply won't care. Some people will just kill you because it takes less effort to pull the trigger and take your car rather than to build one for themselves.
All criminals know that what they are doing is wrong, yet they still do it. And in a pacifist and anarchic society you won't be able to defend yourself from such people, who will gain power through force and submit you to a set of rules they created. They'll do this with enough people, who will have to choose between death or submission and violà, a state is born

topkek
oh i see by 'pragmatic' you mean useless

Also, sorry i forgot to answer, people are too stupid to not rely on laws if they exists, so the only way to "force" them to fix themselves is to remove the laws.

When you don't have any idea.

>Then, never said redistribuiting, 'cause if i don't need a car i don't take it, i said to just let everyone use everything.
Then what stops me from taking your car as well as everyone else's cars, call up my friends, get some weapons and force everyone who wants to use a car to pay us or work for us?

The ipotetic society i am talking about have as assumption that they know it. That's the only utopic part.

Political beliefs are not the same as religious beliefs.
Politics exist entirely within the mortal human realm.
There are things that "work" and things that are impossible.
Politics have to be grounded in reality.
Your beliefs are not at all grounded in reality.
The fact that this shit is impossible makes it worthless to even talk about. There are no benefits to discussing an impossible ideology. You just get yourself hooked on a ridiculous idea.
Should you cling to your delusion you will be considered an idiot by reasonable people.
If you're underage you need to stop posting as this is an 18+ board and adults have no interest in entertaining stupid ideas. Communism is already enough of a pain in the ass.

Because we're aspies, not retards.

ignorance and diseases? Combo!
No, really, how does ignorance and diseases are related?

>people are too stupid to not rely on laws if they exists
then by this logic, laws can fix people, since they will automatically rely on them. Thus proving the need for laws

>when you establish an anarcho-pacifism but you forgot that other countries exist so you immediately get invaded by a dictatorship

Still, not a problem of the system, but a problem with the people.
Why do you criticize the system and try to fix it instead of criticize the people and fix them?

>implying that any form of anarchism will work
Btw you can be inspired by them but you can't pursue them since nobody is going to follow a "state" without a "state".
Top kek for "pacifism", how the hell can you enforce "pacifism" if you don't have a government ?

Your knownledge that doing it is bad, technically.

if you are a psychopath you don't have empathy and therefore can't discern right from wrong

First of all, i am fucking 18+.
Also, as Machiavelli said, there is a way things should be and way things are. Systems are what things should be, then people make it what they are. So the system itself is good, the people aren't.
Also, there are a shitload of posts in Sup Forums to "entertain" you in a better way, so if you're not interested, GTFO and don't bother me with your useless critics.
BTW i'm an atheist, so don't teach me political beliefs and religious beliefs, 'cause they are the same fucking thing ok?

Aspies? You mean autistic.