What's the difference between Communism and Lolbertarianism?

What's the difference between Communism and Lolbertarianism?

Its that anarcho-communism works and ancap fails.

Literally everything.

>anarcho-communism works

Thanks for that hearty kek.

nothing. by definition, anarchism has no ruler, so it cannot be made by some ruler to be either communist or capitalist

One group of Jews is demonized or hidden by their people. How many normies are told to hate or do not know who Ayn Rand is?

They are the Jews that want their own peopleto compete on an equal footing.

>Anarcho-Communism works


Thanks, I needed a good kek this morning.

Ancap just cannot function. It dissolves back into statism as soon as one company or person gets a monopoly and becomes the state.

>free market cannot be free unless it has a ruler to make it free

What?

>implying any company would be enabled to grow into the point where it could become a state

Well duh. If there is no ruler, no one can enforce property rights.

>inb4 private security
So you're saying the free market will enforce the free market? That's circular reasoning.

Any organization or society that doesn't isn't based on a hierarchy power, will not work.
The masses needed to be told what to do. There are leaders and there are the ones that needed to be led.

If someone broke into your house an you were sitting there with a weapon i doubt youd sit there and wait for a ruler or the rulers services to enforce your property rights, people can inforce their own property rights.

Im not saying the free market enforces the free market, im saying the people that make up the free market enforce the free market

Both extremist views that dont work.

>Im not saying the free market enforces the free market, im saying the people that make up the free market enforce the free market
Same thing. Somalia has already proven that the lack of a state won't lead to free-market capitalism.

> Implying 1 person could handle an army of niggers

>somalia
>literally hoping a bunch of niggers would do something work
That's actually a bad example.

Ancom can exist within an Ancap framework, but Ancap cannot exist within an Ancom framework.

Ancap is objectively superior, even for people who wish to be Ancom.

One has better PR

Ancaps allow ancom communities to exist while ancoms don't allow ancap companies to exist.

Anarchism is capitalist, the suffixes are usually cultural or societal focus from a voluntary group of like-minded people like anarcho-privitivism. Communism is the opposite of anarchism.

>nigger failed state
>example of a non-state for higher IQ people

Literally the worst example possible.

There are differences among whites too. The point is, without having empirical evidence, you can't argue positively in favor of anarchism of any sort.

Not the same thing, free market does not enforce free market because it being free means it isnt enforced in the first place if it was enforced it wouldnt be free

>muh somalia!

That's a great example of how state altercations can create a failed state, also they have no rules which is different from ancap which has no rulers

>implying 1 missle controlling person couldnt handle an army of club weilding niggers

>nigger failed state
>example of a non-state for higher IQ people
see >also they have no rules which is different from ancap which has no rulers
Without rulers, there's no guarantee those rules will be enforced.

uhhh what redistributes the wealth in anarcho-communism? at least with an-cap, corporations essentially become government institutions- so "anarchy" works, at least on a basic level.

Thats just not true, people can enforce certainly enforce a set of rules without a ruler

>at least with an-cap, corporations essentially become government institutions
Then it's no longer anarchism, but statism.

Of course they *can*, but that doesn't mean they *will*.

except all you have to do to become the state is compete with said institution however you see fit. if they want to keep it, they have to defend it

>at least with an-cap, corporations essentially become government institutions

No they wouldnt

>of course they *can*, but that doesnt mean they *will*

Why wouldnt they have others abide by the rules? Its like saying "parents can tell their children not to hit other kids, but that doesnt mean they will"

But if a certain corporation has enough resources to maintain a powerful military, it can prevent free competition by force.

>>at least with an-cap, corporations essentially become government institutions

>No they wouldnt
I'm not the one who said that corporations would become government institutions, the other user did.

>Why wouldnt they have others abide by the rules? Its like saying "parents can tell their children not to hit other kids, but that doesnt mean they will"
Well, do children always obey their parents?

>well, do children always obey their parents

If it benefits them, yes

And if it doesn't benefit them? If someone has enough power, they have all incentive in the world to simply grab more power by force. Anarcho-capitalism, and any other kind of anarchism, will end up as "might makes right".

For that same person, property rights benefit them, non initiation of force benefit them, ect. While it may not benefit others it certainlt benefits them. And for the other people who also benefit from those same things wouldnt take the risk of allowing someone to gain enough power to act against those 'rights' that they have.

Why wouldn't it benefit them to, for instance, kill their competitors (literally)?

It wouldnt, the cost and risk wpuld be more than the benefit. Explaining this would take ages and i have to get to class but ill probably start a thread round 6EST today. Molymemes 'practical anarchy' book explains it pretty well