Communism, socialism, anarchism general

This is the general thread for far-left politics. Included:
- Communism
- Socialism
- Anarchism
- Left-libertarianism

You don't have to be on the left to post here. We're wiling to discuss anything with you.

Other urls found in this thread:

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/michail-bakunin-god-and-the-state.pdf
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own
radgeek.com/gt/2011/10/Markets-Not-Capitalism-2011-Chartier-and-Johnson.pdf
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread
libcom.org/files/Pannekoek - Workers' Councils.pdf
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution
youtube.com/watch?v=45vGBs58TDw
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockean_proviso
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I was in class and I saw one of my classmates was browsing this website, so I went over to his MacBook and checked out the website address, and went on here myself to see what a disgusting website it is with disgusting users. How can you all live with yourselves while expressing yourselves in such a racist, misogynistic and homophobic manner? What are your reasons? Did you get bullied in high school or something?

I am compelled to tell the rest of the class about what my classmate browses and his possible views. He is a danger to our society and so are you.

A
Interesting fact. The Soviets were state capitalist for all but one area of the economy, and that was the agriculture. In the agriculture they actually did go through with an extensive collectivization program, while everything else was not collectivized. That's why they were able to keep tank production and the space race going just fine, while their people starved and food production was minimal.

...

If the kulaks weren't grain hoarders no one would have starved

Labor absolutely goes into securing land, especially for artificial scarcity. If you could acquire land for significantly less effort then it would be worth less and less (to purchase). We see this in the value of land in less densely-populated areas. Now keep in mind the use-value is also a factor.

Except the entire reason that the farmers revolted is because they were being forced to work harder only to earn less wealth, and it ended up not mattering anyways because everybody starved due to agricultural inefficiency brought upon by the Soviets.

Labour goes into securing land because a lot of people value land highly. The relationship between labour and value is the inverse of what you imply it to be.

Anarchist, reporting in.

Reminder that Communist is the single most Jewish ideology, followed at a distance by capitalism

Left-libertarian writings:

Mikhail Bakunin - God and the State
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/michail-bakunin-god-and-the-state.pdf
Max Stirner - The Ego and Its Own
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own
Markets Not Capitalism - Gary Chartier & Charles W. Johnson
radgeek.com/gt/2011/10/Markets-Not-Capitalism-2011-Chartier-and-Johnson.pdf
The Conquest of Bread - Peter Kropotkin
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread
Workers' Councils - Anton Pannekoek
libcom.org/files/Pannekoek - Workers' Councils.pdf
Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution - Peter Kropotkin
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution

>work fields all day every day for months, then the commisars confiscate grain, bury a sack of grain so you and your family don't starve, get shot by commisar jews.

You are not an anarchist, sorry. But you're still welcome here.
youtube.com/watch?v=45vGBs58TDw

Failed ideology general. Always collapses or goes back to capitalism like China and Vietnam and becomes far better off for it. Fuck off back to leftypol.

Trying to summon Basedbr to smash some commiecucks again.

how do communists and anarchists get along? seems like they would not

>stateless socialism
That sounds more like communism to me. From what I understand, anarchy is the lack of a state or any government to impose laws.

Look at all these limp wristed faggots.

>Failed ideology general.
Says the capitalist. Or was mass poverty and total submission to corporations all part of your master plan?

>b-but all instances of [things that are not socialism] failed! You'll just say "not real socialism" stupid commie.
Yeah, so I guess you will own up to all of the things going on today by globalism and neoliberalism, and if you say "it's not actually a free market" I'll tell you "not real capitalism."

The relationship is rather strained, but there is considerable overlap. The main difference is methodology: the Marxist-Leninists think a transitory state is necessary (we all know how well tha worked out), while anarchists propose to abolish capitalism, the state, and all forms of hierarchy immediately. Compare it to the neocons versus the right-libertarians. They're both on the Right, but they tend not to get along.

>From what I understand, anarchy is the lack of a state or any government to impose laws.
Read Kropotkin's quote in that image I posted. Anarchism is the abolition of hierarchy. The state is merely one component.

>Left-libertarianism
what?

See the items posted in the thread. In particular, the discussion between Chomsky and Molyneux.

>Anarchism is the abolition of hierarchy.
fash news, humans are a social mammal. You cannot get rid of hierarchy.

I get the point, but I fail to see how it contributes to your definition of anarchy.
Regardless, I don't want socialism gumming-up my anarchy, let alone any sort of institution that would impose its values on me.

>Anarchism is the abolition of hierarchy
What about voluntary hierarchy?

Hey Mao, whatcha attempting?
>Socialism
Hey Stalin, whatcha attempting?
>Socialism
etc. I don't need to go through the whole list.
Any time the people try to seize the means of production, it fails. It doesn't matter that the results of their attempts weren't real socialism/communism. In fact, that only bolsters the claim that it's a failed ideology.

...

hence why anarchy and communism are diseased, never to succeed ideologies. Human nature dictates it will never come to fruition and actually succeed.

>Libertarian
>Telling people what they can and can't own
That doesn't sound very libertarian to me; it doesn't even sound liberal.

There is no imposition of values. You are under the false impression that socialism is specifically Marxism-Leninism. This is like saying that right-libertarians are all neocons.
What makes it socialism is that it satisfies the following: the workers control the means of production.
We also make a distinction between personal and private property. The latter requires a state (there is no rent-seeking in stateless society).

Commies trying to get a foothold on Sup Forums, lol

Literally faggots trying to turn the friggin frogs GAY

>bear
>human
I see your problem, try with a wolf pack.

>>Libertarian
>>Telling people what they can and can't own
>That doesn't sound very libertarian to me; it doesn't even sound liberal.
No one's telling you what you can and can't own. There is no state to defend your absentee ownership claims. Just like in nature, you claim as much land as you use/occupy. Private property (specifically) is a creation of the state and never existed prior to the state.

>the workers control the means of production.
Fuck that. I don't want my property to be controlled by anyone but me.
If your "anarchist" ideology doesn't impose any values on the individual, then who's to force me to share all my stuff?

The law of property in nature is "might makes right". It's no different under anarchy.

...

The post i responded to had a graphic that stated that libertarianism included the abolition of private property.

No thanks and fuck you. I lived 12 years in a moldy, smelly communal apartment and was beaten and tortured by KGB for waving a Lithuanian flag in 1987. You people disgust me.

>Private property (specifically) is a creation of the state and never existed prior to the state.
kek, nice one... oh, you're serious, let me laugh even laughter

This.
If you fucks wanna take my shit, you better be prepared for a fight.

>Fuck that. I don't want my property to be controlled by anyone but me.
Workers controlling production = those who occupy and work on the land control it.
So your property is your personal property because you use it. Then it's yours.

It does. Read Proudhon. Under (left-)libertarian society, you own whatever land you occupy, but if you claim to own more land than you are occupying/using, nothing will exist to defend it. People will occupy the unused land for personal use, and there won't be a state you can use to evict them. As long as it's land you're not using, your attempts to claim ownership over it and evict "trespassers" would be not be recognized by any entity. And if you take matters into your own hands then you're initiating force and are guilty of assault or murder.

>Workers controlling production = those who occupy and work on the land control it.
And what of any new means of production that are created? Surely the worker that created it is entitled to its ownership?

>left-libertarianism

There is literally no such thing. Your ideology is cancerous and authoritarian as you want to unjustly take possession of people's private property.

>Surely the worker that created it is entitled to its ownership?
Only if you use it. Otherwise it is taken from you by those who will use it.

Then why make new means of production? What's the incentive?

Explain the cat. Why does she wear the gay?

Whoops, thought you were the commie.

>Your ideology is cancerous and authoritarian as you want to unjustly take possession of people's private property.
Read the thread. We are not for collectivization. Rather, there will be no government you can use to defend property you are neither using nor occupying from "trespassers."

Private property is natural ownership of property. The same way you own your body, you own the stuff you collect and produce. Public property requires a state to enforce or it simply does not exist. Otherwise, anything shared voluntarily is contractual.

He doesn't understand how wealth is created. Production is just a word for him.

>>Private property is natural ownership of property.
Just look at my other posts ffs. I answered everything you said. There is a difference between personal and private property.

>We are not for collectivization.

Yes you are, you are trying to claim that land is a public good for all, and thus you are not entitled to any private space, even if you yourself own it and make use of it. If there is no such thing as private ownership of land that nobody owns anything.

>So your property is your personal property because you use it.
Are you implying that just because I may invite other people onto my property to work for me with, pre-determined, due compensation, that my property belongs to them?
That makes no sense. So long as I give them what I promise them for their labor, I should owe them nothing.
Anyway, I think we're no on the same page on what we mean by "libertarian". By that, I refer to classic liberalism, an ideology based on rugged individualism that stresses the importance of individual rights. I'm talking about the Enlightenment Era principles that our founding fathers took into account when they were making this country.
In short, what's mine is mine. I don't want to pay for anyone else's shit.

>There is a difference between personal and private property.

No there is not, if something is not private property then it is government/public property. Once you are in power you want to seize people's "personal property" for "the public good".

>There is a difference between personal and private property.

Rather there has to be a difference between personal and private property, because otherwise your criminal ideology has no moral or structural basis, so such a difference must be invented even if it is not empirical. Much like the Labour Theory of Value (also empirically false) Leftists continually invent reasons for why their invisible and unfalsifiable definition of terms are valid, to skirt around the fact that their ideology is functionally naked advocacy for theft.

>there will be no government you can use to defend property you are neither using nor occupying from "trespassers."
That's what guns and hired security are for.
If you commies really wanna band together to steal our property, you'd better be ready for a war.

>Communism general
>using a picture that depicts a capitalist solider

The difference is its use. One problem is, anyone can claim that somebody's personal property is being used to extract profit and is therefore now property of the collective, even if it's never been used in such a way.

>There is a difference between personal and private property.
Tell me what the fucking difference is.

...

Fuck communism.

This.
The """difference""" between private and personal property is just commie propaganda to justify them trying to take our shit.

It's from a comic strip called Political Ideology Catgirls. The creator is a communist who was kicked out of r/socialism because catgirls are sexist and patriarchal according to them.

Agreed. Commies suck.
>Be farmer
>Save up to buy tractor
>Make le ebin profitz off of tractor
>Communist Revolution happens
>Commies take my tractor and give it to the whole village

But then you are charged with murder or assault, if you are defending property you are neither using nor occupying, since you have no legal claim to such property under the society.

Typically, the difference is whether it's being used by the owner or being rented to a worker. Obviously this is an incredibly sketchy definition, and runs into a lot of problems, but it's generally the definition they use anyway.

>tfw no genetically engineered catgirl for domestic ownership

>charged with murder or assault
I'm talking about anarchy here: there would be no such laws.

>catgirl for domestic ownership
Don't you know that catgirls are a means of production? You can't own them you bourgeois pig!

Striner was hated by Marx, he's more in the middle.

But you asked me about left-libertarianism.
Whatever the case, in true anarchy the community would just hang you.

>Obviously this is an incredibly sketchy definition, and runs into a lot of problems, but it's generally the definition they use anyway.
Fuck commies and their half-assed principles.

shut up nigger

>in true anarchy the community would just hang you.
I'll kill as many of you as I possibly can before you do it, and I'm sure I could easily get others to fight for me if I paid them the right price.

Wish I could address more things but it's getting pretty late where I am and I have to be up early tomorrow.

>I'll kill as many of you as I possibly can before you do it
Well you'd always be outnumbered, but what's the point anyway? If you're not a landlord or a bank chances are all the property you own is property you are occupying and using. Which means nothing would happen to you at all.

True anarchy is a constant war between those who produce the means of production and feel entitled to the ownership of the products of their labour regardless of it's use, and the collective who seeks to steal his labour from him.

>Well you'd always be outnumbered
I'd only be outnumbered if I do something so evil that it clearly violates the NAP. So long as everyone minds their own business, we should all get along.

I really don't understand why you're getting so worked up about something that doesn't affect you and never will affect you. People like you and me use everything we own. This only affects you if you're a rent-seeker. It's kinda strange how you would be defending an action that you don't partake in and that affects you negatively.
Now if you want some NAP-compliant justification, basically we start from the premise that all land was at one time common property since it has existed forever, so the initial claim is an aggression against everyone. Did the claimant ask everyone for permission before he walled off a section of the forest they walked through? So instead we argue no one can claim land forever, and he is entitled to that amount he needs to exist, beyond that he is not guaranteed anything more (which would be a positive liberty).

unowned =/= collectively owned
Go to bed.

...

We're also sexual mammals, but that doesn't mean we go around raping does it?

Just because it's a primal instinct doesn't mean it's beneficial in application to political, economic and societal structure, nor does it mean we can't get rid of it. Especially now that we've established such a high living standard and mastery of production.

>This only affects you if you're a rent-seeker.
Who's to say I can't collect rent from the people who pay to live on my property? If they want to take my land, they'd better be prepared to fight for it.
>the premise that all land was at one time common property since
That's all just entitled commie bullshit. The world was never "common property".You own what you can defend.

What about voluntary hierarchy?

>Stop having sex

But if a man will fight to defend his claimed land then by right of might it belongs to him.

> > > / www.reddit.com /

>That's all just entitled commie bullshit.
Actually my argument was taken from insights from Locke:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockean_proviso
And other classical liberals have gone with the general assumption that unclaimed land is the domain of all. And this persists. For example, outer space is given the same status.

Nobody said hierarchy had to be involuntary. Even if I live in an anarchic society, it wouldn't be implausible for me and a another individual to delegate the decisions concerning a property dispute to a neutral third party.

Until someone inevitably claims it.

Good thing I'm not a liberal.

The difference is between lending to a friend who needs help and lending to a banker who'll charges interest.

>the general assumption that unclaimed land is the domain of all
That was just a cover to justify themselves for in taking land once occupied by the powerless prairie-niggers who lived on it. When they took said land they divided it into private property.
Anyway, I'm not just a classic liberal, I'm an anarchist. If you want to take my property, be ready for one hell of a fight.

>rent toothbrush to roommate
>commies actually would seize my toothbrush
FUCK COMMIES

This is a perfect thread for nazis. they are Socialists. lolo

>The same way you own your body, you own the stuff you collect and produce
>You own the stuff you collect and produce
>You own the stuff you produce

Welcome to the team, comrade!

What's the problem with banks charging interest? Even if kike bankers have too much control over our government, they still benefit society by creating credit that can be used for economic expansion.
If you wanna use someone else's money for your own endeavors, you should be prepared to compensate them for it.

>>You own the stuff you produce
Even if you produce the means of production?

...

Hey commie, you smell. Take a fucking shower.

>have money
>lend money
>get more money from this
>repeat exponentially for no cost

So if I produce a business I own that business and all its proceeds? If so, then we're all on the same page.

Listen /leftypol/... I don't give a shit about any of the dumbass garbage you push. Hurry up and post the porn.