Leftypol here

Leftypol here.

This is a thread for the discussion of left wing anarchism, the theory of statless communism. Anarchists hold that capitalism and the state are inextricably linked and that to get rid of one you need to get rid of the other, they therefore advocate the immediate abolition of the state and the transferal of power to democratic unions or councils, alonside the abolition of private property, meaning that anarchists support the democratic control of resources by the community. They wish for goods to be produced for need, rather than for profit.

The abolition of private property is NOT taking away your home, toothbrush or television, the abolition of private property is the abolition of that relationship which allows one to profit from the labour of another, the abolition of the private owner, the usurer the banker, the rentier, the factory owner etc. In place of these, the community will own the housing and provide it rent free, the workers will control the factory democratically and its profits will go to them not the owner, etc. Anarchists make a distinction between personal property (home, television, a thing that you are using and whose value would be depleted were it to be used by somebody else, i.e a home is of no use to you if you might go back and find your bed with somebody else in it) and private property (when you charge another for the use of something you are not using (for example, I have my house, and you work every day to pay me to live in my second or third house).

Anarchism is distinct from Marxism in that Marxist believe the state should be seized and used to create communism, whereas anarchists believe communism can only be achieved after the abolition of the state, though there are libertarian Marxists who have considerable overlap with anarchism, the council communists and autonomists etc.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Bookchin
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Graeber
dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/anarchism
delarue.com/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_red_paperclip
youtube.com/watch?v=boEHCIugp9k
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Anarchist Societies have existed in Spain (George Orwell fought alongisde anarchists here) Ukraine, (Nestor Mahknos army successfully defeated the Ukrainian ruling class only to be betrayed by the USSR) Chiapas, and Rojava (Currently fighting ISIS).

The fundamental anarchist belief is that the people should be in control of their own destiny. Ultimately, whatever happens to the community is decided directly by the community and none in that community have any special status so that their input or power can corrupt the willl of the community.

Anarchism goes beyond nationalism. Nationalism seeks to unite man behind the nation, but man has never lived with his nation, man has always lived with his community, his family, his colleugues, his friends, the people who provide him services, these are the people man shares bonds of trust with, this are the people man shares culture with. Anarchism seeks to unite man where capitalism has pushed him apart from his fellows, anarchism is pro community and pro community not by entrusting the fate of the community in the hands of a centralised state, but by putting the community in the direct control of the people.

Throughout history anarchist regions have been far less violent than their capitalist, socialist or facist neighbours, notwithstanding that yes, like every system, they have comitted some violence. Crucially, none of the main Anarchist regions in history collapsed from within, they all went from strength to strength until crushed by much larger enemies, (i.e the USSR or Franco/Germany/Italy)

Key thinkers:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Bookchin

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Graeber

(his book, Debt: The First 5000 Years, is in my opinion the most imporant book of the last 500 years, describing in detail the world debt economy and its history)


I come here in good faith, I don't aim to be a smug liberal, I aim to teach about the historical position of anarchism, I believe it is much unnotticed by pol, but shares many similar beliefs with pol, most notably hatred of Bankers (which even at points runs into hatred of jews, Bakunin and Proudhon in particular) and a love of strong community. Please ask any questions/ make any points for or against.

You have your own containment board on 8ch, so please go there.

Pls sage guys.

AnCom requires coercion, get fucked commie.

How does your ideology deal with people who desire to create a state?

this is a board for politically incorrect ideologies. Anarchist Communism is certainly one of those.

IF you're going to be an an, why not be an ancap? Ancom is a fucking fantasy.

Anarchists who fight on behalf of communism are moronic cucks

In Catalonia they actually worked with the state during the war, though they retained their principles of self management in the work place and so on.

In the hypothetical situation however, I would first ask, under what circumstance members of society are trying to create a state and why are they doing so and with what land and resources. I see no reason why a certain section could not decide to be governed more centrally if that was the populations wish. Provided that section did not mean take lands away from other sections of people who did not want this. I can't image why they would want to however, indeed as my post says, anarchist societies tend to be extremely stable internally and produce great loyalty and a certain form of patriotism, they have been crushed from the outside every single time, from Spain to Korea. Rojava is unique in that it has managed to last a long time, though its enemies have not been so great.

But anyway, hypothetical, you are part of an anarchist collective and you get to decide all the things that happen in your workplace and community by vote and you don't have a boss taking the biggest cut of the spoils and you don't have a central state breathing down your neck and messing things up. What is the state for now?

kill yourself
the idea of ''_pill'' is that the people choose to take it not have it forced down their fucking throat

That's what you cucks don't get, you have no appeal to people with something to lose, only to the lowest of the low, people with nothing to lose and no value to their life.

Your cancerous ideology is wrong, and shit, and so are you.

Your shit ideology will never work.

K Y S

What if I want to keep, and can produce more than is "according to my need" are you dicks gonna come and steal my surplus?

>We want city-state direct democracy with no bosses
Great ideology you have there

>join the union which controls the whole territory you live in or you will never work again in your life and starve
>worked

Redistribution of wealth requires a power structure (state) thus making the anarcho part of anarchocommunism unviable.

Private property requires coersion, the liberation of land from that coersion by the popular consent is a self defensive procedure, reclaiming what was once taken long ago.

Capitalism cannot exist in stability without a state and never has done. Ancaps will give you several extremely dubious examples from pre-industrial society, like ancient Ireland. I believe the only modern example they give is Somalia. You can make a judgement on that yourself.

Capitalism in my opinion cannot exist without a state because all the functions of capitalism require the force of the state to be maintained.

Fiat currencies require a state. Private property on a large scale requires a state, most people or businesses cannot afford to provide their own security. Nonetheless, if security is privatised and up for grabs by the highest bidder, security is in no way guaranteed. Further to this point, if security is up for the grabs by the highest bidder, we all know who the highest bidders are going to be, is that what you want?

Pic related (soros and friends, the capitalists)

In ancompton the situation is much the same, only the merchants don't exist and the community is the highest bidder every time

Do you even know what money is?
Do you even know why profit exists, i.e. why it kept existing despite people not liking it?
Do you seriously think the distinction between personal and private property is not flimsy as fuck?

Why do you call yourselves anarchists (dude do whatever you want lmao) and then go on to tell people what to do say and think or else

What if anyone decides they or society should want any land or resources belonging to one of these government-sanctioned semi-states?

So stupid.

> We need to get rid of the state and capitalism
How do we do that?
> Super statism/socialism

Gayest shit ever. The only way to reach the goal of theorized stateless classless society is to become a global superstate preceded by indefinite revolution. No wonder only 14-24 yr olds and orbiters believe this shit.

I hate 90% of commies but corporations and capitalism are obviously fucked too, so sometimes I think they make good point. It just triggers my tism when they say property is evil.

>Leftypol here
I stopped right there. Get fucked leftist commie faggot.
I haven't read any of your shit but I'm sure it's just like the rest of the leftist bs I see: choc fill o big words and long sentences to make yourself seem smart, but in the end it's just a long winded pile of commie bullshit.
Kill yourself after killing 3 of your like minded friends you insufferable faggot

>Anarchists hold that capitalism and the state are inextricably linked
Bullshit, Achmed. Whites created a separation between church and state, and we can create a separation between state and economics too.
>abolition of that relationship which allows one to profit from the labour of another
So the abolition of incentive. Profit incentivizes production. It's a basic law of economics that people respond positively to incentive. To eliminate incentive is to totally stagnate not only the economy, but development and innovation too.
>the workers will control the factory democratically and its profits will go to them not the owner,
That's called shareholders in the grown up world. But the thing is, some idiot janitor with an 80IQ isn't going to make decisions that are as attractive to either the consumers or the shareholders as a qualified CEO would make, so companies have governing bodies with qualified people, usually Whites. Even in your drug induced, murderous, coercive fantasy of ancom, the loser commie slaves would migrate from a company that provided shitty services (because the nigger janitors are making executive decisions) to a company that has qualified people making intelligent decisions, because it would have more attractive services.

Stop the drugs and be a fucking ancap already, Achmed.

...

If goods are produced for need, not profit how will advancement happen?

If Company A designs, builds and sells a widget, but only produces it for need, not profit, then how do they get the necessary capital to continue development of their product?

How will pharmaceutical companies gain the necessary capital (many hundreds of millions of dollars) to continue research and development?

Because I see a number of problems

>1. Unless there is global anarchy you will need to deal with capitalist nations and corporations. With a need, not profit driven economy you will not be able to compete with them or afford their products or raw materials.

>2. Even if you managed to make it to autarky, you will still lack all the resources to do everything you need to do without dealing with capitalist nations. There is no place on earth that has all the necessary resources for autarky to work.

It's probably a reasonable claim. It's hard to have a store to sell widgets when Jamal and Tyrone can come buy and smash your windows without consequences. I want to live in Ancapistan too, but state-by-consent or contract could still be considered a state.

>The fundamental anarchist belief is that the people should be in control of their own destiny.
The fact you focus on this is the main problem with your ideology. Instead of focusing on making a society stable, which is what allows for true freedom as it means the absence of unpredictable bad outcomes, you focus everything on the individual. All mechanisms society creates to make it stable, you regard it as oppression and promptly victimize yourselves. As such, you become threats to stability and, hence, societies conjured up by you will never ever be stable.

All you have to do to refute this garbage is learn some basics of human psychology. No chance it will ever work.

m8, that private property and the state are linked should not be controversial. There has to be a societal framework, a basic OS, for capitalism to work. That is provided by the state.

>Leftypol here.

Hi leftypol

>Anarchists hold that capitalism and the state are inextricably linked

Uh? How so?

>they therefore advocate the immediate abolition of the state and the transferal of power to democratic unions or councils

Isn't that just decentralizing the state?

>alonside the abolition of private property,

And how exactly do you enforce this in a stateless society?

>meaning that anarchists support the democratic control of resources by the community. They wish for goods to be produced for need, rather than for profit.

Could you give an example of a successful company today that produces something nobody needs?

> the workers will control the factory democratically

You can't possibly think they would ever get anything done that way do you?

To accentuate your point.

How can you say Communism represents the willl of society if Statists are part of society? What if, even once, in one of your communal votes a majority of the population votes for the creation of a State? Do you assume the majority of most nations would desire to live without a state?

Lol, no fucking way. Do me a favor, go out to a coffee shop and tell 10 people you're ancom. Then go to a different coffee shop and tell 10 people you're a fascist, and judge the reactions.

Commies can larp as "le breve outsiders", but their long march though academia has paid off. They are completely mainstream now.

So you want to bring down a system grounded on violence by creating yet another system grounded on violence. Tell me: why can't your criticism be thrown back at you?

sorry where is it being forced? Nigga is somebody making you go on Sup Forums and read threads? You need to stand up for yourself man.

>Your cancerous ideology is wrong, and shit, and so are you.

Thanks for this considered engagement with my points

and thanks too you too

we aren't talking about a society where you are literally given 100 shoes if you make 100 shoes in a day, that would be useless, the shoes are made for the community as it (and you as a member of it) has need. You may order what anybody else may order. In that way, the entirety of your labour is returned to you, as you have as much democratic power in this community as anybody else. Furthermore, consider this a community where you are catered for even if you do not work, your hard work is at your own free will, if you choose to produce more that is up to you and will benefit the community if you do.

The anarchist position (and I believe it to be true) is that most people enjoy work. Most people want to build something, to be part of society and contribute, to help each other with things, the problem is that we are unable to do this because of various barriers, the largest being that we spend the greatest proportion of our time working for the private capitalist, meaning all our labour ours serve him and not ourselves. Working hours need not be as long as they are or as strenuous for us to fill our desires, much less work would be required of you in an anarchist society, so anything you did beyond that would be of your own free will, if you wanted to pursue something academic for example, you could do that for free, if you had an invention, you could pitch it to the community and they could decide if it was good enough to produce or not, just like a businesses. I realise I'm rambling but basically are the motivations for work would change, you would no longer be working just to aimlessly produce as much as possible,but working as a community to a tangible goal

What if me and my 200 friends get guns and shoot everyone who tries to get through our fence?

No bosses isn't just about management, its about the massive surplus of labour value that is siphoned into cocaine and child prostitutes instead of education

read the whole post, read that book at the end DEBT:THE FIRST 5000 Years. Do you know what money is?

Go back to your board and stay there, you are only good for the le stirner memes.

ancom is a oxymoron and we all know it

That's a proto-state. There will be clear rules defining who's in and out, there will be a leadership structure, the group is adopting a set of practices which makes it self-sustaining.

And, yet, if the "official" state is not backing your group and is blatantly against property rights, you are still fucked.

The difference between a "proto-state" and a "proper state" is on the way its authority is regarded, nothing more. Still, any set of property rights needs an institutional arrangement that functions very much like a state to work.

Exactly. Because it seems like you don't. What is money replacing?

Citing autistic anarchists that dance around the true point but don't realize that there is a thing such as scalability when it comes to social technologies is not enough.

an individual? What claim would they have to the land or resources?

haven't even read the post. At all. it specifically talks about abolishing the state and how that differs form marxist socialism. I posted in good faith, you should to.

nobody wants your acre or your toothbrush, we just don't want Soros etc to have 1 million acres

unable to handle opposing opinions is a sure sign of autism

>and we can create a separation between state and economics too.

can you demonstrate perhaps how please, because right now Trudeau rules over you at the behest of economics

>So the abolition of incentive. Profit incentivizes production.

There was incentive before capitalism, and there will be incentive after. If you think there is no incentive to work besides money that says more about you than me. There are hundreds of reasons, love of the community, pride in yourself, fascination with your work subject, prestige in the community.

or y'know.. a quick buck

>That's called shareholders in the grown up world

Only the shareholders (in the grown up world) do not have to work in the company, and in fact rarely do.

>If goods are produced for need, not profit how will advancement happen?

Because people have the need to advance their technologies to make them more efficient because people are lazy and like to have lots of stuff for a little effort.

It was the same before capitalism and plenty of things got invented, like agriculture and the wheel.

We believe that liberty and security are the same thing. It is a false dichotomy that you can only have one or the other, rather you can only have one with the either and neither without the other. Liberty creates security. The obvious example being the right to bear arms. I wouldn't have thought I would have to make this point here.

We within the fence declare ourselves the official state of Fencia. We have developed a self-sustaining system of laws which we brutally enforce upon eachother in agreeable but violent good faith. We hold our authority entirely true and final, and we have established a series of rights that entitles the 200 citizens each to property and a section of land within Fencia. We do not expect anyone else to obey our laws outside of Fencia because they are not citizens. We do allow for peaceful annexation, and will only take up arms against those who seek to destroy Fencia.

People enjoy work because it gives them a place to be in society, a function. However, people do not enjoy being cheated on by retarded power struggles in the "democratic community".

But, please, do tell us more examples on how it worked during the Spanish Civil War, namely on how you found in union magazines constant accusations against workers who refused to contribute and were leeching off the system. Tell us more about that.

Somalia.

...

>Anarchists make a distinction between personal property (home, television, a thing that you are using and whose value would be depleted were it to be used by somebody else, i.e a home is of no use to you if you might go back and find your bed with somebody else in it) and private property (when you charge another for the use of something you are not using (for example, I have my house, and you work every day to pay me to live in my second or third house).
are you serious
under whose authority somebody will make these distinctions?

Pic related is you and your retarded ideology. Feel free to take screencap with your iPhone 7 and piss off for another Starbucks.

>liberty and security are the same thing
hahahaha

if you don't want to be laughed at, develop your point instead of simply saying "it is a false dichotomy".

>Anarchism is pro community
dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/anarchism
>the political belief that there should be little or no formal or official organization to society but that people should work freely together
Maybe I sound closed minded but working freely together may equal pro community but in a practical sense have you ever seen a community thrive without order? Let alone even a small project.
Even in class projects without proper allocation of work a project fails.

Well, I can agree Google's brainwashing operation for example would fall into the 2nd category.

>Uh? How so?

The state upholds the private property relations on which capitalism is built. The state enforces the currency, etc.

>Isn't that just decentralizing the state?

Yes you could call it that, but if the end result is a bunch of self governing communities that come together voluntarily for mutual projects, is that really a state? Its gonna be an arugment by degrees in the end, you could call it either. In any case, that is what I advocate for, call it a state or not

>And how exactly do you enforce this in a stateless society?

The community enforces it

>Could you give an example of a successful company today that produces something nobody needs?

delarue.com/ these people get PAID IN MONEY to PRINT MONEY. Go figure.

>You can't possibly think they would ever get anything done that way do you?

Co-operatives function even within capitalism, agricultural yields in Catalonia increased between 30-50% depending on your sources.

It really runs just like a normal workplace, only pay grades and management are voted on, rather than being selected by a board.

There are large global companies running as co-operatives today, its a perfectly viable business model even within capitalism.

If that was the case a state should be created, as i have said in other posts I see no situation where the people would decide to do this, perhaps in the event of invasion, in which case I would see no reason why they could not simply organise a popular army democratically, as they did in Spain.

Every system is grounded on violence, every system justifies that violence by making out like its the greater good. I think, the proletariat are the 99% of people. The rest are captialists, as you would call globalists and kikes. Fuck them. They don't deserve to live. Do you disagree with that?

Aside from that, Anarchist countries have throughout history been far less violent than capitalists, state socilaists or facists

Liberty does not necessarily mean security, that's a stupid argument. The liberty to kill people and fuck children does not increase the security in a society, especially not for those that I kill or fuck.

Why OP would of course!

There's a reason socialism/communism and all of their anarcho counterparts end up in a totalitarian dictatorship.

What will you do with all the disabled people and those who rely on government welfare to survive?

Anarchy is fine as long as we exterminate Jews and non-whites.

Money replaced a system of debts as that book shows over 500 pages of well researched and sourced anthropological evidence from a Yale and LSE professor.

Purge. Lose your job, lose your life

...

>Anarchist countries have throughout history been far less violent than capitalists, state socilaists or facists
>All of my examples existed exclusively as independent entities during civil wars

Oh, and also direct democracy is retarded, so there should not be that. Hierarchy must exist, but it can be done in the correct manner.

>And how exactly do you enforce this in a stateless society?
>The community enforces it
>community enforces it
>community enforces
so the community essentially turns into a state...

> constant accusations against workers who refused to contribute and were leeching off the system. Tell us more about that.

This is a bad thing? I see no problem with the collective protecting itself from genuine leeches who refuse to work. Do you? I think the community is much better equipped to decide who is and is not faking than some centralised government functionary who has no ties to that community at all and no reason to care about it

Is georgism left wing?

They'd probably fall back on:

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"

And we all saw how much that failed in Soviet Russia.

HEY OP I JUST ESTABLISHED A SOVEREIGN FACIST MILITARY STATE WITHIN YOUR SOCIETY WHAT DO YOU DO?!

The democratic authority of the community. Would you vote for toothbrush redistribution? Do you think most people would? No. Then you have nothing to worry about

And what if I don't want to be part of your shitty hippy community?

So in theory then you have no problem with national socialism, since national socialism was essentially just the German people rising up against the liberal bureaucracy and expelling the leaches from their system.

>stateless communism

>he uses things made in capitalism but is a communist how hypocritical

So when the Americans rose up against the British they did it using products created by british imperialism so they were hypocrits to?

The peasants who rose against their feudal kings were hypocrites because their torches and pitchforks belonged to the king and came from his system?

You know when the leftist scum got their shit kicked in Berkeley, I went to r/anarchism to see the reaction. It was glorious.

>w-we need to organize next time
>maybe we should democratically elect a leader to issue orders
>we need to set up a resupply system
>we need logistics

And my absolutely favorite

>maybe we should take some self-defense seminars

Your retarded ideology didn't survive first contact with opposing force. It's teen edgelord faggotry with no basis in reality.

>The state upholds the private property relations on which capitalism is built. The state enforces the currency, etc.

Capitalism doesn't need currency, and thus doesn't really need a State
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_red_paperclip

>delarue.com/ these people get PAID IN MONEY to PRINT MONEY. Go figure.

Who pays them if nobody needs their services?

>The community enforces it

How?

I did. I provided a real world example. Where the community is at liberty it may provide its own security and to provide security for its neighbours in solidarity, for example, by being at liberty to keep fire arms.

>have you ever seen a community thrive without order?

he says.... on Sup Forums

JOIN THE SOVEREIGN NATION OF FENCIA. THE DESTABILIZED AND DECENTRALIZED POPULACE STAND COMPLICIT IN OUR SOVEREIGNTY DUE TO THEIR WEAKNESS. JOIN US AND CREATE A LASTING KINGDOM, FOR POSTERITY AND WEALTH! WE HAVE GUNS!

no but the liberty to have my own gun and kill people when they come to kill me and fuck my children is security man REALLY REALLY didn't think I would have to spell this one in particular out here

My favorite was them blogging about maybe arming themselves and possibly getting training. These people are honestly redpilling their selves by attempting activism.

I did read what you wrote. And, no, you didn't.

they mostly have families around them... who would be part of the community, voting members, with friends and colleagues who all care for them..... can you see where I am going with this?

we don't need to exterminate jews if we rake away their power (capitalism) and we don't need to exterminate non whites if we take away what makes them do crime and such (capitalism)

>The democratic authority of the community.
>anarchism
>authority
are you sure you are here not to misrepresent what leftists believe?
because you sure are doing a good job

>Aside from that, Anarchist countries have throughout history been far less violent than capitalists, state socilaists or facists
For someone who mentioned Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War as a good example of anarchism, you don't know much about it, do you?

What if someone wants something but doesn't want to work for it?

What type of debt? Give it its fucking common usage name, instead of dancing around the point.

>he says... on Sup Forums
well due to anonymously participating on threads everyone has a say due to having no history bias
>user =/= real world

So then you're not talking about absolute liberty, you're talking about some arbitrary line drawn in the sand. Liberty and security are not the same thing because if they were absolute liberty would create absolute security and that is not the case. Your entire political ideology is based on the idea that more liberty must create more security, and by dispelling this idea I have dispelled your ideology. Instead of trying to create a stable society that minimizes the bad, you just want to create some kind of degenerate cesspool where anything goes and then shrug your soldiers and say "BUT LIBERY IS SECURITY!".

>they mostly have families around them...
The issue is that they dont, which is why they are so heavily reliant on state houseing and support to simply live.

>who would be part of the community, voting members, with friends and colleagues who all care for them

How long would it take for this to be worked out though? People are not used to having to look after the mentally ill and disabled - just look at how egar they are to put old people (their own family) into retirement homes.

These vulnerable people are the types who would literally die out unless people immediatley stepped in to look after them

Isn't it interesting that in times of utmost need these communities come together in unity like this and it is effective against terrible odds.. almost like an organic bodies natural reaction to foreign invaders.

They have not however, carried out atrocities to the same extent as these other ideologies, as I said, every ideology requires violence to defend it. I don't deny that

You could call it a state, it would be a state with made up of directly democratic federations, so each citizen would have the same input and rights in the state, and no one community would be able to take control of the others by force, so their would be no real method of coersion beyond association and dissociation.

why is it retarded and why must hierarchy exist?

>capitalism and the state are linked

post your model or get the fuck out

No, because national socialism upheld private property and therefore the ruling bourgeois class and was anti democratic

Gas yourself you ancom faggot

Those articles are a sign that the system is failing. All they could against those people was to complain. That's why they existed in the first place: because they were powerless to punish free-riders. Capitalism has this system built-in as a feature for the majority of markets already. Having free-riders in your society is a sure way to make it collapse, as humans are conditional cooperators.

You people are retards and Thank God you are powerless to do anything. You morons would kill millions of people just to reach your Marxist nightmare only for you to be shot in the back of the head by your fellow communist shits

Kill yourself

>and no one community would be able to take control of the others by force

How?

>Capitalism in my opinion cannot exist without a state because all the functions of capitalism require the force of the state to be maintained.

Oh buddy we got a fucking idiot over here. Here's just a few examples of complete lawlessness.

Bitcoin
Silk Road
Bitcoin Exchanges
Github
THE ENTIRE INTERNET PRE 1999.

Tell me of all these things which are regulated by the government? And how did they succeed without the government. And go ahead and make the claim the government invested in the creation of the internet. They had absolutely 0 to do with anything after the fact and only came in to tax and regulate it after the economic crash in 2001.

Thanks for admitting that you are a parasite.
Also good job mentioning Americans rising up against british imperialism, considering that today the USA is a superstate.

And peasants rose against feudal lords to replace them instantly with another form of governance.
Even better job mentioning Rojava, considering that Rojava used forced conscription and prison system.

So, you see no issue with how the nazis regarded the Jews, right?

you could focus on those guys, or you could focus on these guys currently fighting a war against ISIS and the Turkish State. Its up to you what you cherry pick

youtube.com/watch?v=boEHCIugp9k