Anarchism vs. Authoritarianism

Is Sup Forums more anarchist or authoritarian?

authoritarian
anarchism here is pure shitposting

fpbp
anarchism leads to degeneracy

Anarchism is freedom - better dead than red.

Oh the irony.

>irony

>Better dead than red
>Anarchism

Have you actually read Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Tucker, etc?

>trippfagging
>on Sup Forums

next level stupid

Sup Forums itself operates closer to anarchy

You ever used basic logic?

AUthoritarian

Anarchist dream of Old west movies, to be a bandit on the run. They dont see reality or how society works

Seriously? Individualist anarchism is Josiah Warren, Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, etc. If you're going to make shit up, at least have the decency to pick a name that doesn't already exist.

You missed the point of that image completely.
As expected of random nobodies who unironically want someone to tell them how they're going to live their own life (or else)!

You missed the point of my argument. I'm not saying that anarchism is desirable. I'm saying that your disagreements with an ideology does not change its historical definition. Anarchists must always be socialists by definition.

>muh sancrosanct definitions
What a great argument!
As expected of autism!

I think anarchy would be best, in an ideal sense. That's not how the world works tho, so probs authoritarian

...

I was pointing out how stupidly ironic your first post was. You don't seem to understand the historical beliefs of the ideologies you are naming. It's not autism, it's accuracy,

Most of Sup Forums is authoritarian, but there is a substantial paleoconservative/1776-style libertarianism minority here (of which I am a part). People wouldn't make a shitload of ancap memes to strawman us if we didn't.

I'd like to be more libertarian, but I know the only way to get there is massive ethnic cleansing.
>take the red-then-yellow pill

Ha.
Hahahaha.

Sup Forums is whatever will piss off OP more.

Look at primary documents, not Google. Do they not teach historiography in schools anymore?

>paleoconservative
>libertarian
pick one nigger. Nice digits though faggot

You mean like Bastiat?
Rothbard?
Mises?
Tolstoy who believed in absolute non-aggression?
Keep appealing to authority you faggot cocksucking nigger random.

...

Paleoconservatism is limited federal government but without the retarded border policies of straight libertarianism. The idea is to instill conservative culture but have a small government. There is huge overlap between paleoconservatism and libertarianism.

Authoritarian, unless you're pretending to support Redpanels for the lulz. I had no idea a-caps were genuinely as deranged as the memes. His autistic rage at the thought of being obligated to help a child starving in front of him was amazing

>without the retarded border policies of straight libertarianism.
Which is why it is at odds with libertarianism.

The nice thing about authoritarianism is that give it a few generations and it will indoctrinate you into loving it, whereas anarchism is always prone to authoritarians taking over should things get too bad. Plus, authoritarianism leads to unity, whereas anarchism leads to divisiveness like nothing else.

None of those are anarchists. Anarchism as we know it comes from Proudhon. Perhaps I'd entertain arguments that Godwin was a proto-anarchist.

You have just proven my previous statement. Why would you even want to name yourselves after those you disagee with so vehemently?

Paleoconservatism is closer to libertarianism than the actual modern Libertarian Party is. Read a book, nigger.

>none of those are anarchists
Jesus Christ.
Jesus. Christ.
Your "anarchism" is a definition I'm going to ignore then.
You have fun talking about your "anarchism" - I'll be talking about anarchism.

I would be a natsoc in national socialism but I would be an anarchist in a communism . The US right now is hard left in terms of culture (cultural marxism etc) that's why I would hate it if the US turned authoritarian

Correction: Tolstoy was an anarchist. Missed his name.

Anarchism isn't real, it's just a stupid meme teenagers who hate their parents believe.

Pretty much this

>overlap in several ways
>but they don't agree on this one point so they're opposites

Did you graduate high school?

Plus every generation raised in a more authoritarian state accepts it, is open to a slightly more authoritarian state, and will allow their children to be raised in it, who themselves will be open to a more authoritarian state

I'll talk to you after you actually read all the people I have named in this thread.

Now I know how Civil War historians feel when arguing with pro-confederate racist who wont read primary sources.

Then why have two different names if they are the same except for one thing which apparently doesn't matter? Either you are for open borders and are a libertarian or you're not and are a paleoconservative. Like I said, pick one nigger.

I want to live in a society with a culture so virtuous that authoritarianism is not required for its citizens to behave in a way that isn't morally abhorrent.

That being said, I suppose I prefer authoritarianism to anarchism because 'permissive liberal culture' is one of the most repugnant things to happen to western civilization.

I have - I'd call what they articulate authoritarian. They're in favor of forceful violence to affect changes in the world, and then forceful violence to maintain them.

That's not about freedom.
Freedom is not a value in their philosophies.

I'll reiterate - Jesus Christ.

both things are the same

fpbp

I never said I was both; my exact words were:

>but there is a substantial paleoconservative/1776-style libertarianism minority here

As in there are a lot of libertarians and paleocons here. I happen to be a paleocon, many in the group are libertarians. We have more in common with each other than we do with the Nat-Soc majority here, which is why I lumped us together in that sentence.

Your reading comprehension needs some work, although it's late so I can't rib you too much

anarchist

we're too acoustic to play follow the lederhosen

You seem to miss the point every time. You can't falsely classify them just because you disagree with them. This is not about the real world implications of their ideology, it's about the category it falls under.

This is my last post to you. Read up on historiography and learn how to properly classify ideas. Being a historian means drawing honest conclusions about historical figures, regardless of what you personally think of them.

That's not how to use a forward slash then. And the majority of this board is not Nat-Soc, the majority of this board are retarded faggots now

>falsely
They literally advocate violent revolution and property seizure.
You know that because you've read their works, right?
Right?

Both are shit. Sup Forums should be able to think for themselves.

>the majority of this board are retarded faggots now

I'll agree with you on that

100% accurate tango boy

Exactly. Eventually an authoritarian state will become almost incorruptible, as the leaders will be drawn as the citizenry, who would never think of betraying the state. You become happy under slavery, but that's okay because slavery isn't objectively bad and your happiness as long as you're happy what does it matter anyways?

This.

I think anarchism is fucking retarded on a personal level, however, that doesn't mean this user isn't correct.

>If someone SAYS they're an anarchist despite not being one, who are you to say they aren't! THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES THAT GET TO DECIDE THAT, NOT YOU!
>If someone SAYS they're an woman despite not being one, who are you to say they aren't! THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES THAT GET TO DECIDE THAT, NOT YOU!
Keep at your blind appeals to authority, surely because they're published and you've dicksucked them they'll suddenly ascend into not being retarded like you're being right now.

You're literally incapable of articulating your own definition of what anarchism is, so your only recourse is to squeal like a stabbed nigger about how other people agree, so you must be right. You're not. Regardless of what others have said, your ideas cannot stand up to refutation, therefore, you're wrong and are a dipshit for thinking that screaming "PROUDHON!" over and over will change that.

Authoritarian, because muh stability, but really, anarchy won't even last long, you're in constant discord, government is gone, massive outtages, always worrying when some dindu will kill your family and you, rather be ruled over than not

What about me or any other person becomes "in constant discord" without government goons around?
Want to enlighten us?

Free for all

>anarchism here is pure shitposting
Newfag detected

What do you mean "free for all"?
What am I going to do differently without government goons taking my money?

>this

Protection your money at all cost

ESL

fpbp

Post-Natural disaster scenarios provide a window into what anarchy could look like, since law enforcement isn't present.
Like after hurricane katrina where there was all this looting and shit.
So basically unless you protected yourself at all times it wouldn't work.

Then, probably mobs would offer groups of people protection in exchange for some money, basically a bunch of warlords will come up, etc.

>People start writing about this new idea.
>Call it anarchism
>Goes on for about 100 years
>Each seems to be in agreement with each other on basics
>100 years later comes a jew
>O vey, I'm an anarchist too
>I disagree with all of you

If one wants to define something, they have to look at its historical roots. The people who come up with an idea get to define it, that's how it works. If others come along and modify minor bits, they can claim to be following a variant of the first idea. If they change it too much, especially if they don't draw at all from the original idea, then they are not following the same idea. They have created a new idea, which they get to define. To define it as having roots in an idea which it does not have roots in is dishonest. It's also historically false.

I have not defined anarchism because I would need a book to do so. Anarchism is not one thing. It's an umbrella term for a series of ideas that derive their origin from a similar idea. There are nuances that are very subtle between the anarchist schools, some of them almost insignificant.

I should also make this clear. I'm not an anarchist or even a lefty. I just care about accurately portraying the historical idea.