Post Your Flags and ideological description

Post Your Flags and ideological description.
> mutualism
> Og anarchism
> Fuck Commies
> fuck rent
> Markets are senpai.
> Labor theory self-management.

Other urls found in this thread:

americanhistoryusa.com/power-of-isolationists-before-world-war-ii/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Bump

Your ID has more sex than you.

>tfw yr an unterrified Jeffersonian democrat

Nope im a Mutualist.

no you're a fucking faggot that never read benjamin r tucker

literally was a mutualist inside joke

yr a fucking phoney

and a poser

so

sage

Buchananite

well, I'm Prodhonian so yeah. And This is Coming from a Fascist which is literally Just rebranded gommunism.
> when you Literally Have no argument so you result to insults.

well at least proudhon was an antisemite.

14/88 sage errytime

He was an antisemite personally Not Publically so I don't really care.

I can't find a good flag for an anti-war, isolationist America First style patriotism. The Gadsen flag is way too mainstream.

americanhistoryusa.com/power-of-isolationists-before-world-war-ii/

> Tfw you don't have an argument so you don't respond.

So was Bakunin

I have serious respect for him except On his opinion of Markets Very interesting dood.

I still have a lot of respect for the classical anarchists. I used to be an anarchist but the contemporary anarchist movement is infected with postmodernism and don't respect the nation as a legitimate and organic way of human association. Peoplen forget tha Bakunin was also a pan-Slavist nationalist for a while too. Malatesta calls out the Rothschilds in an essay

same dood I'm not a nationalist in The racial sense or the Border sense But I do love my Nation.

Underrated comment. You deserve a (You).

reeeee reeeeee just let me be

Same. Race based nationalism makes no sense to me though. It should arise from a given people with a collective history. The border question is complicated, because certain peoples and cultures are inextricably tied to certain lands and regions, which develops over time

What i mean is we should close borders when we have an Outside threat like isis or whatever.

I used to think along those lines as well, but I realize now that demography could pose an existential threat to the continuance of nations if people are allowed to roam and settle too freely, even if it's non-violent. But I guess that's contingent upon how much own values preserving something that is prone to change anyway.

> Markets are senpai.
> Labor theory

How the fuck? all labor theory Is Is you own the wealth Generated from your work and that Labor determines Price.

>you should buy this thing (object A) I made yesterday, I spent 12 hours making it, and yea granted it isn't as good as this other thing (object B) that performs the same function and only costs a tenth of what I'm asking for, but you need to buy my thing because I spent all day on it yesterday, and my labor needs to be comped!

That's LTV for ya, anti-capitalist, anti free market.

1488

wow, You really don't understand the Labor theory. More effort was put into Object B you fucking twat.

Hoppean Strasserism

>More effort was put into Object B you fucking twat.

What if I told you it wasn't though? And what if I told you most areas in the established market operate this way?

You go out into the world and try to create a car from scratch, and try to compete against GMC. You'll make you car in however much time it takes, and GMC will do the same in a guaranteed shorter time.

You both make a car, but there's no fucking way in hell you're selling it cheaper than GMC will.

>b-but I as an individual had no help in the creation of my car, and GMC has factories filled with people around the world!

Society doesn't care. Customers want a car, they don't care how much labor went into it.

Now kill yourself kike.

the difference being is that Gmc would be converted into a Large co-op you fucking twat. People in the co-op would be paid according to they're labor.

National Trotskyism is the future

People could try to build a car But it would be Unlikely therefore co-ops would primarily be the means in which cars are produced.
Yeah no My Goy.

>would be converted into a Large co-op

yea, THAT sounds totally libertarian.

>Fuck Commies

If I find a massive diamond while on a jog, it did not take any effort on my part. However the diamond still has high market value, especially relative to it's labor cost to produce. My labor is irrelevent to the subjective pricing of the concumer, however it is related to the aboslute intrest rate of the object. This is the subjective theory of Value.

Commies don't believe in markets or Individual ownership of the means of production or currency for that matter. youre using the Modern day American Definition of Libertarianism.
You would still be paid for finding the diamond considering you did find The diamond. and Mutualists want to have competing currencies alongside Precious metals according to where a community is located.

The means by which an object is produced is almost always irrelevent to the subjective valuation of the consume. If I build a car from scratch, it is still a poor quality car. No consumer wants to buy a poor quality car, and they certainly would not pay more for it than for a better quallity car produced with less labor. The good iteself determins its valuation, not the labor behind it.

The object which I posess would be exchanged for something which I find to be an equal or higher value. I was not paid for the labor, I was paid for the object. If I had mined for 10 years to find this diamond, the price would be the same.

Thats why the market exists so Individuals can determine what they want to Buy.

you still did something, therefore, you are entitled to the product of finding That diamond.

Thank you for reminding me things I already knew when speaking to you.

Now please re-read

I agree, however, the claim that objects are valuated based on the labor that goes into their production, manufacture, or aquisition, is kind of rediculous. The only case this is true is when the consumer chooses not to engage with a product on the basis of it's production i.e. organic vs factory.

Call it what you want man.
Mutualists do believe in Currency and free markets.

Apparently not when, in their utopia, GMC is forced to become a god-damn co-op.

>By whomst'ly?

>tfw anarcho nihilist
>fuck everything (literally)
>fuck leaving the basement
>fuck morals
>muh guns
>muh drugs
>Nikolaj Gavrilovič Černyševskij is senpai
>tfw no societal collapse
>I don't believe in anything I am just here for the violence

They wouldn't be forced But it would be In GMC's best interest to do so since all the workers would be Turned into Freelancers. and To answer your second question After a revolution.

>green da best
>fuck humies
>WAAAAAAAAAGH!!

> Never read nietzche and dosent understand he > hated nihilism.

>Labor determines Price
>You own the wealth Generated from your work

Dude labor theory as you describe it makes no sense. We've said why labor dosn't determine price. And, if you've worked in a company, you know that some amount of the wealth generated from labor is not given to you directly. If every employee were compensated with exactly the value of their labor (to own the wealth produced by labor), then the company would never grow.

Recycling does more harm than good. Pen and teller did a episode on it.

Your a walking contradiction.

>it would be In GMC's best interest to do so since all the workers would be Turned into Freelancers.
>all the workers would be Turned into Freelancers.
>would be Turned into Freelancers.
>would be
>
>
>
>
>

How would it never Grow?
No im your ideological Grand pappy, you came from me.

What I'm promoting is that everyone involved in creating a product should be paid for doing so Not say a manager or whatever since they did not contribute.

>People produce things valued by the consumer through labor
>These things are sold and generate wealth
>The employees are compensated exactly with the amount of wealth they generated

Where does the company get the funds to expand its operations? The company is not in the black, or in the red, it is flat in the middle, as every ounce of wealth created is in the hands of the laborors. In modern society, a certain amount of generated wealth is "paid" in opporunity cost to the individuals or corporations with which a laboror assocates, so as to create growth.

But the manager contributed directly through labor. Withought the manager's guidence, the company may not have been able to create the product, or not as efficiently. The manager, through creating opportunity or expanding efficiency, has created welath, and, as they are now, whould be compensated for doing so, no?

The mutual bank where people Insert funds to pay for Business Loans. Funds are inserted Voluntarily By those who wish to see growth.

Mutualism promotes self management.

Managers, entrepeneurs, investors and creditors can and do help make products. Your ideology literally is standing in the way of basic facts.

But they steal The Product of others labor.

Are you claiming that managers do not produce wealth? The free market compensates people in accordance with the value of their labor already, granted with government interference.

If you claim managers create no wealth, how do investors and creditors create wealth? Not only that, where is the direct insentive to invest found in the free market system in your ideology? investors stand to profit and invest, but such a mutual fund would not.

Through what coercive means? If through the principle of alienation, then surely you must also dismiss any kind of heirarchical corporation?

Yes.
And People benefit from Investing in a mutual bank because it creates Local commerce.

proudhon was unironically based

>Jews. Write an article against this race which poisons everything by meddling everywhere without ever joining itself to another people. Demand their expulsion from France with the exception of those individuals married to French women. Abolish synagogues and not admit them to any employment; pursue finally the abolition of this cult. It is not for nothing that the Christians call them deicides. The Jew is the enemy of the human race. One must send this race back to Asia or exterminate it…by fire or by fusion, or by expulsion the Jew must disappear’.[66] Proudhon differentiated his antisemitism from that of the Middle Ages, presenting it as quasi-scientific:‘What the peoples of the Middle Ages hated by instinct, I hate upon reflection and irrevocably’

>He held patriarchal views on women’s nature and their proper role in the family and society at large. In his Carnets (Notebooks), unpublished until the 1960s, Proudhon maintained that a woman’s choice was to be “courtesan or housekeeper...” To a woman, a man is “a father, a chief, a master: above all, a master.” His justification for patriarchy is men’s greater physical strength. And he recommended that men use this greater strength to keep women in their place. “A woman does not at all hate being used with violence, indeed even being violated.” In her study of Gustave Courbet, who painted the portrait of Proudhon and his children (1865) – art historian Linda Nochlin points out that alongside his early articulations of anarchism Proudhon also wrote and published "the most consistent anti-feminist tract of its time, or perhaps, any other,"

Then surely you must advocate public ownership of the means of production, as any public owner of such a thing would extract value from his laborors?

If I take two people, one who is a smith, and one who is a miner, and I organise them in such a way that one mines and the other creates nails, and I take the product of their labor through non-coercive means, and, through non-coercive means sell it on the market, have I not labored in finding and organising these people?

I don't think you understand what a bank is.

I'm gonna call you a faggot too, don't worry about it you cunt

What flag is that, im phoneposting and i want to call a variety of nations faggots

This bank is also used to store Money aswell.
I advocate for both the individual and co-oerative Means of production.

The idea is that The miner and Smith should either Work together or individually.

Antisemitism wasnt apart of His political views but only his personal views..

> personally Not Publically
>not an argument

also sage

An easy way to describe mutualism is that its exatcly like the way things work now except you can't hire people to work for a wage, and banks are owned by those that store their money in them

Your argument is invalid.

im a urine glob

and yet his political system would take all the power sources jews have away from them

Pretty much except the abolishment of Debt and Workplace hierarchy as well as Rent.

Yeah but The antisemitism can be separated from that, for instance, I just hate banks and my ancestors are Jews.

>abolishment of Debt

I've always been under the assumption that the mutual credi banks would let people take debts in order such that they can purchase their way into partially owning means of production that requires cooperation, and then they would pay it back gradually, so in what way would "debt" be eliminated?

>I just hate banks and my ancestors are Jews.
you just described half of Sup Forums

I mean student loans mortgages etc... would be abolished and crowdfunded By the Mutual bank including The Individual who is attempting to pay for what they need since you cannot Recieve benefits from the bank if you yourself have not contributed to the bank.

But who could organise such laboros in the means of production?

I mean, the whole idea of aleanaiton is dumb, and the presuposition that you can steal value through volentary co-operation even more so. You are stating:

>That certain volentary assosiations of people can be classified as theft
>That managers, investors, credators, and other people who do not produce material goods cannot produce wealth
>That wealth can only be created through physical labor
>That certain types of wealth production is not in fact wealth, and should not be compensated

As far as I'm concerned you are deluded communists, and that's saying something. You are talking about co-operative ownership of the means of production, but with no state oversight. You claim to favor the market but you have no trust in volentary assosiation. You are advocating for the prohibition of certain types of volentary assosiation on certain ethical grounfs, but, unlike commies, you reject the state. You cannot propose how this would be enforced. You cannot argue how this would not fall apart immediatly. This is not a feasable political system, rethink your concept of theft, the market, and wealth, and I wish you Godspeed.

>I mean student loans mortgages etc... would be abolished
You say this, but then you speak of some vague "crowdfunding" of a bank "you contribute to"

If you have to pay back the amount you borrow from the bank you partially own in full, then you have not eliminated debt, you have just eliminated usury.

Read up on it You may change your mind, and no were all for voluntary association.
The idea is to abolish Debt slavery.

Darwinist I guess? No flag?
>a state is in perpetual competition with other states
>politics is akin to a gene, it naturally strives to propagate itself
>propagation can be the prolonging of the self (tall strategy) or the spread to others (wide strategy)
>there is no one single optimal strategy that can cover all sets of conditions
>constant adaptation of state strategy to counter other states and environment
>this evolution of strategy must be conducted in a timely and decisive manner in order to be effective

Still trying to flesh out where I develop this

>You cannot propose how this would be enforced
Labour boycotting people who attempt to hire people. If the labour theory of value is true, then it would be self evident that you would want to avoid working for someone else if you could avoid it. Once a sufficient mutualist economy had been established, the choice to go work for yourself rather than someone who hires you becomes almost default.


I'm actually not big on the labour theory of value, but I concede that if it is true, then mutualism is ideal for addressing it. I agree that a mutualist state of being would be unstable, but nothing in the world is stable. Your argument of an instable state of things is an argument against anarchism generally rather than mutualism. There is nothing stopping you from having minarchist national mutualism if you so desired that

>The idea is to abolish Debt slavery.
In other words abolish usury

yeah sure. i like mine better.

in fact if you conbine mutualism with catholicism, you pretty much get distributism

>constitutional MONARCHY (not quasi-republics like the ones that exist today)
>common law
>rule of law
>national religious institution, however not headed by the head of state
>charity as a means of alleviating severe poverty, rather than welfare state
>different laws for cities and country, possibly even city walls to demarcate, country side taxation limited to roads, defense spending and parliamentary salaries
>cities have high degree of autonomy
>crown and religious institution expected to fund themselves through land ownership and voluntary contribution (in the case of the religious institution)
>relatively isolationist
>culture of freedom (let's be honest, your constitution can be as perfect as can be and it will still not produce good results if the populace is retarded)

We aren't so different you and I

Oh, and
>no fiat currency/central banking
if that wasn't obvious

oh no we are totally different All actions should be Voluntary and i am jewish myself and Nazis are just rebranded commies.

Ideas only matter if they are in public....bet you wear a black mask in public

Nope. i hate Antifa for they're Violent ways. He Never Encouraged Mutualists to Kill off Jews or hate any other races.

>The Jew is the enemy of the human race. One must send this race back to Asia or exterminate it…by fire or by fusion, or by expulsion the Jew must disappear
>One must send this race back to Asia or exterminate it…by fire or by fusion, or by expulsion the Jew must disappear
>the Jew must disappear
>exterminate it
you sure about that?

Zig hail

Minarchism
The functions of the state
>1) save our security
>2)there is no number 2

>and that Labor determines Price.
ROFL.

Keep in mind the Time period as well he was not the Only Philosopher who advocated this, Modern Mutualists really don't agree with this.
people are paid according to the labor they contribute to a Product say you're building a car, the guy Building the car is paid More than the Guy who Just shilled out Money to build it.

Glad your not antifa atleast

>Keep in mind the Time period as well he was not the Only Philosopher who advocated this
I wonder why that was.
>Modern Mutualists really don't agree with this.
how do you know they don't agree with it personally rather than publicly?