Are there any anarchist, feminist, socialists on this site or are all of you mra...

Are there any anarchist, feminist, socialists on this site or are all of you mra, "you have to be for the rights of both," capitalist, dumbasses

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=KEAHi_sF1UE
youtube.com/watch?v=PIfKrI6Q_W8
heritage.org/index/ranking
twitter.com/AnonBabble

yes, it is quite amusing to watch the idiots from pol now and then

bad bait is bad

ain't b8 m8 I seriously wanna know if there are any people on this site that can actually think

still me. anarchism is for spaniards, noam chomsky and idiots, though. Communism seems to me like a much more realistic option.

what do you define as the difference between the two. I see them as the same in modern days as socialism was meant to challenge marxist's authoritarian communism but with relatively the same conclusions

Feminism is the opposite of anarchism. I'm an anarchist MRA, btw

im a girl btw

Lol when you guys breach the age of 25 i hope you remember this retarded thread

I'm an anarchist

There are many things wrong with your comment but I don't want to sound personal or aggresive. Socialism was previous to marxism as it was a term used to describe a number of political philosophers that were against authoritarianism, violence as means of population control and that designed peaceful utopias.

Marx made an excelent analysis and superation of Hegel's hegemonic prussian-authoritatian philosophical justification of the burgeoise statu quo of his time.

In his development of a new way of understanding history called historical materialism he proposed that the material conditions in which a person and colective are found determines many of their personal and historical aspirations, roughly (it's much more complex).

Continued:

Took me till 30ish. And it'll never happen if they keep going up to Uncle Sam with their hands out

anarchism - the belief that the burden of proof falls upon those who claim hierarchical priveleges for themselves or others and if it cannot than it must be dismantled and replaced with a more democratic and equal system
feminism - the belief that the current society values men over women and should therefore be dismantled and replaced with equality

seems to line up to me

individualist anarchist here

What are you, OP? Some kind of 13 year old faggot who thinks he's edgy? Finish your chores and homework before you piss off that disappointment you call mom, pussy.

Here OP

fuck it I'm taking the bait. No I'm 16 nor am I edgy. I've merely done an analysis of our world, read some books, and done more than sit on this dumbass site all day

socialism and anarchism are opposites,

is what a Libertarian or a Capitalist might tell you.

Capitalists might see regulations as the instruments of oppression, and propaganda, through government-media relations, as the way people are led like sheep into oppressing themselves.

The education system is compromised in the same way that all other industries are compromised in my theories: government regulations are in place which require people to stand on top of them and command the whole power-system. The original justifications for regulations become irrelevant; all that matters after some time has passed, to the person "surfing" on already-existing regulations is:

1. What kind of powers do these regulations give to my agency? and
2. How can I justify the continuing use/existence of those regulations which benefit the people who bribe me?


Feminism is cool. I have yet to find another person who I respect as much as Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, as regards feminist thinkers/leaders.

We need more anarchy; i.e. we need less government.

please continue. I like you user, you actually can talk about shit

Marx, despite the popular believe, understood capitalism as a natural historical process, not as some evil whatever. However, he saw how pure rough capitalism meant extremely miserable working conditions for a new emerging class called the proletariat and the control of the state's institutions by a parliament formed by the economical elites for the economical elites.

As the living conditions of workers degraded, and as predicted by his materialism, revolts began. He thought that as people organized more and more (as they were doing), the forces of the emerging class in their class with the ruling burgeoise clash would eventually end in the collapse of the state.

He understood that the way to give the workers power was through the state's institution, not destroying the state (as anarchists generally thought) and through the state they had to socialize the means of production (aka factories, machinery, agricultural lands...)

continue.

(OP here) I completely agree. I suggest you check out Emma Goldman as she had a lot of feminist stuff along with anarchist and socialist/communist stuff

im a socialist ...basically regret voting for siriza right now,,i feel pretty buttfucked

Yes and I do agree with Marx on a lot of issues such as that however we anarchist propose a system based on take what you need and make what you can rather than the statist "do this or starve" system

>HURR DURR I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POLITICAL SYSTEMS SO I'M JUST GOING TO CALL YOU A COMMIE.
>HURR DURR CAPITALISM IS GOOD BECAUSE THE TV SAID SO

Fuck off feminist.

10/10 well constructed argument. Completely destroyed all feminist thought. Amazing

>anarchist
I'm sure there are some anarchists here. And I'm sure they'll grow out of it by the time they reach high school.

>feminist
Doubt it... I don't have a generally high opinion of Sup Forums's reasoning skills, but feminism requires mental gymnastics that I don't think Sup Forums is capable of.

>socialists
Sure, plenty of socialists on Sup Forums. Lots of Bernie supporters, and lots of millennials. So many people here that have never had to work for anything, which generally leads to more socialist beliefs.

Now put those together...
>anarchist, feminist, socialist
Well, these are all mutually exclusive. Feminists and socialists require a massively authoritarian government to exist, which rules out anarchy. And feminism is so self-centered that it could only use socialism to infringe on the rights of others... never to propagate actual socialist ideals.

>mra
I don't think there are many actual MRAs here. MRAs are pretty much just feminists with a different cause, and maybe a few more somewhat legitimate issues. It requires the same sort of mental gymnastics.

>"you have to be for the rights of both"
Well, don't you? Unless you're some sort of bigoted supremacist, you should promote the equal rights of all.

>capitalist
There are lots of capitalists here. And to be fair, it has been the most successful economic model in improving the living standard for the general population. Yeah, it has had massive problems over the years, but when compared to the results of socialism, it's made a fucking utopia.

>mra, "you have to be for the rights of both," capitalist, dumbasses
Really, it sounds like this person would be less of a dumbass. Someone that believes in equal rights, equal opportunity (rather than equal outcome), and believes in merit and accountability... sounds like a typical Western liberal perspective. (And I mean liberal by definition, not by political affiliation.) MRA doesn't really fit in there, though.

Sorry for the typos, not checking my spelling:

The communist ideology was much more revolutionary at the time than it is today. Today the state provides many forms of regulation of pure capitalism which was absolutely brutal to the European workers.

Newspapers, collectived and different small-scale organizations were born and marx's, bakunin, kropotkin and other left wing ideologies expanded through a population that relied in those communities for their sources of protection and education almost entirely.

The communists grew very strong in germany and russia, mainly. In Russia, after failed attempts of revolution, finally exploded into civil war.

Lenin read marx and developed a concrete and defined form of communism called Marxism-leninism. Despite popular confusion with stalinism, marxism-leninism was quite democratic, much more that other countries at the time. It relied in local councils and it aimed at improving living conditions, mainly.

It succeded very well. In a matter of years the russians stopped starving, started to get the best public education in the world and that forced capitalist countries to reform their states in a socialdemocrat way to appease the people and avoid revolution.

When lenin died. The councils called "soviets" lost completely any power. The state centralized a lot and Stalin began a brutal process of industrialization.

That idea was a success in some ways. Russia beat nazi germany in the war and only 30 years after the revolution they were already on the way of putting a satellite in orbit (science fiction at the time).

However, the working conditions were brutal and the population suffered greatly. The state become much more authoritatian as whispers of revolution were heard again in the midst of general discontempt.

continue?

Thank god I'm not the only one who think men should be stripped of their rights and owned collectively by the community. I was starting to think my ideas were obscure.

Where the did you get that shit-tier definition of anarchism?

I think a revolution in our thought would come if we consider Marx as being inaccurate due to his obsession with "capitalism."

It is like looking at the stomach of a man and saying, "it is his stomach which coordinates him."

What really matters is government. "it is his nervous system which coordinates him." Sounds a little better, right?

The founding fathers of the U.S. really broke new ground with what they developed. They took the science of republican government to the cutting-edge, and implemented it. Their focus was Liberty; always reminds me of Linux and other open-source projects.

no need to continue I know about it however I do thank you as that is a well put summary. I think we're arguing the same point but kinda like an argument against each other as often happens

(OP here) oh my god a person that actually thinks this is what feminist is I thought they were a myth. I'm tearing up I never thought I'd find one

See ->

No offence but I think you are really ignorant on this subject. Communism is not a "do this or starve" system as opposed to anarchism being a "take what you want". That is absolutely not what this is about.

Communists believe that the state will dissappear due to it being not needed once communism has globalized. We advocate for forces of order such as a police, a judiciary system and so on.

Anarchists are naive idealists who think that destroying the state without properly replacing it will somehow end with colectivization of all means of production and that we will all live happily in close communities were any crime will be solved by popular juries and everything will be perfect.

Anarchism is only viable in small communities in rural societies. Communism is a historical progression that call allow for scientific, technological and human development.

(OP here) That was a beautiful response

HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR HURR DURR

HODOR

Glad to see you speaking your native language.

HORR DOR DOOOOR

hold the door

...

This is now a Hodor thread.

Anarcocapitalist here, fuck everyone i am done with this government state bullshit. Free market and right of property is all that matters

I wouldn't be suprised if I was ignorant. When I said the "do this or starve" system I may have exagerated what I meant; apologies. While that is the case under capitalism I do still believe that so matter what economic system, the state is still inherently evil. If there was some sort of genuinely honest representative democracy utopia than I'm all in however that's not gonna happen. And while there should be some sort of transition anarchists don't think it should happen through the state as the chances of corruption are far too high. We believe that a culture of rebellion along with widespread knowledge of the ideas will do just fine in protecting the people from a new fascist rising

No response to user, just as I'd expect from a feminist or socialist.

I consider myself an anarcho-communist, but not one of the modern tumblry PC/SJW pseudo-anarchists. I actually support free speech, freedom of religion, the right to own guns, the right to use drugs, the right to be gay, etc.

Anarchism is the rejection of the use of force against peaceful people. Communism/socialism and feminist are violent ideologies that have absolutely nothing to do with peaceful capitalist anarchy. OP is obviously autistic, or a paid government troll.

>There are lots of capitalists here. And to be fair, it has been the most successful economic model in improving the living standard for the general population. Yeah, it has had massive problems over the years, but when compared to the results of socialism, it's made a fucking utopia.

You are confusing capitalism with socialdemocracy. Capitalism was reformed by the thread of revolution and the USSR so that it gave some democratic power to the people and improved its living conditions.

A common mistake done by the general population is to compare poor socialist countries to rich ones.

Rich counties will generally not revolt towards socialism as conditions must be very bad for that to happen. Revolution only happens in misery as it implies fighting and death.

You have to compare contries with their past history, similar countries and take into account the problems originated by the reactionaries.

For example: venezuelan living conditions have improved vastly from the pre-Chavez era. He won elections 18 years straight because people loved them (inb4 rigged democracy the UN described Venezuelan election system as one of the most democratic of the world).

Cuba, being a caribbean country suffereing massive blockades by the US, has ZERO child malnourishment, one of the best health care systems of the world, comparable to modern countries, and one, if not the lowest rate of illiteracy of south america.

Ok the anarchocapitalist belief that free markets will bring about a system with the most freedom and equality is a utopia fallacy as it ignores people in poverty who will do any job as they need to

>be nearly 20 trillion in debt
>country overrun with sjwhorseshit
>unemployment stats juked because genuinely troubling
>tax system completely fucked
>lobbyists/corporations run amok
>"capitalism is a success guys"

truuu

Cultural hegemony is amazing, it can make stupid people believe whatever shit is thrown at them.

I don't see what the big deal is about rape. It's just a dick in your hole for a few minutes. It's nowhere near as bad as murder, cancer, or getting flirty eyes from a fat chick. And really, women can't be raped since the vagina is designed to accommodate cock. Only men can be raped. If a woman is violated anally against her will, she's just experiencing male rape, which is an excellent learning experience for her, to discover the struggles that men go through.

For women, rape isn't a big deal. It's just typical female exaggeration to get attention. They all fantasize about rape so they actually enjoy it. They just want to trade in their "victim" status for clothing and jewelry and don't want to give sex away for free. Really, the only punishment for rape should be to pay the equivalent of the going rate for whatever sex act was performed with a local prostitute of equivalent attractiveness. Since it's the same punishment, why would anyone rape a Feminist instead of a beautiful woman?

Those fat ugly feminists that scream the loudest that "no means NO," are actually hoping to limit the amount of sex the genetically gifted attractive women get. And, in so doing, hoping that some hapless male starving for sex will find himself scraping the very, very bottom of the barrel where the fat and ugly feminist will finally have the chance to scream, "YES, FUCK ME HARD."

Hey fat ugly feminists, it isn't going to work. You only really have one option. Lose the weight, learn how to use make up, and get an overhaul of your personality. In some cases you may need extensive plastic surgery to have any hope of getting my cock rammed into your ass. In some extreme cases, it is entirely hopeless and you should just give up. If you are this last case, try having sex with animals if you find you can approach them without scaring them away.

Socialism, anarchism, feminism, equality etc. all jewish creations for divide and conquer..
Keep being dummies..

yea, national socialist, now go hang yourselfe you fucking kike.

oh my fucking god you're a dumbass cunt

I am with freedom, fuck you and your gay systems
Proof? Do you think you know shit you little brat? Medieval Iceland - before the dam christians - was pratically anarcocapitalist and were fine for about 200 years. Its not utopic, statism is utopic, infinite stupid systems that dont work are utopic, you have no arguments. Anarcocapitalism is based on logics, reason, modafucking money, man creativity; and if those things dont work then fuck me

Women are already equal to men in western civilization

The edge is sharp, I see

> I actually support free speech, freedom of religion, the right to own guns, the right to use drugs, the right to be gay, etc.
>anarcho-communist

You can support all those things and not subscribe to a crazy ideology. i.e. Liberalism/Libertarianism

ITT: A bunch of teenage "anarchists" who think a world of 7 billion people can govern themselves peacefully.

dude have you read anything about medieval iceland beyond a couple of capitalist posts; it sucked ass.

"No I'm 16"
GTFO UNDERAGE B&

Pure capitalism was in place after the industrial revolution. The capitalists used a state they themselves created/took control of for their own interests. It is completely naive to think they will stick to being good and not form societies of control when they are completely corrupting our current democracy.

And saying that we should implement a system that worked in medieval iceland is so retarded I literally can't even.

>Medieval Iceland
>Total population under 50k
>Density under 0.5 /km²
>wants to use their governing model for the modern world

*Tips fedora taking a long drag off my vape pen*
Can we talk about how chivalry is dead?

And that is, frankly, degrading. Men are filthy, base creatures that spend their time eating, masturbating, destroying things, or fantasizing about one of those. Women deserve better than that. Don't forget, we're the ones who give birth to you in the first place. You owe us everything.

Get rid of 6 billion, there'll be plenty of land for the rest.

Mutualist reporting in.
>feminist
Not beyond the dictionary defintion
>socialist
Libertarian socialist. Fuck the Fabianism, Leninism, and everything in between.

>Anarchism
I would like to see slow and steady reduction of the state, but that requires more people seeing not necessarily that the state and other structures are 'bad', but not necessary.

>Implying 7 billion people govern themselves peacefully now.

Great plan, Pol Pot

Communists/Socialists/Leftists of any kind literally cannot be Anarchists. Communism is inherently statist.

The Nazi's were literally Socialists.
Kill yourselves.

1776 WILL COMMENCE AGAIN

Obvious bait is obvious
> sage goes in fields

fucking screaming

Anarchism is just a romantic philosophy not matter the school of thought.It's based on utopian ideals without taking into account human nature.

you cant be all 3 of those just fyi. idiot.

anarchy alone means nothing else matters.

you are just a poser as skank who wants people to take care of her.

poser bitch

youtube.com/watch?v=KEAHi_sF1UE
youtube.com/watch?v=PIfKrI6Q_W8

Oh come on, we're both anonymous here. You've already said "rights of both" is bullshit, so why not take it to its conclusion? Men have no real feelings and love doing technical work. "Owning the means of production" really refers to owning men.

Kek that ugly last sentence. Whataver; I wasn't an English major.
>he belief that the current society values men over women
Which society or societies?
Quantified how and by what metrics?
Qualified how?

human nature is what we mistake conditioning for. anarchism would work in the absence of hierarchical conditioning.

anarchist, socialist reporting in.

You do realize there are multiple feminist ideologies under that umbrella, right?

Surprise surprise, A bunch of faggy anarcho leftists think they're perfectly correct? Mind blowing.

Kill yourself. It is literally impossible to seize the means of production and have a class of people collectivley own them without the creation of a state, because that is literally what a state is.

End of discussion.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

The world was a sane place back in the 1900s when world population was around 1 bn. Just start a war to wipe out the non-whites and we're good to go. Bonus: No more racism, and it'll even be good for the economy

>implying self government would result in more peace
I'm not the one advocating for a different system, here. Sure, the current systems in place around the world suck pretty bad. But the children in this thread advocating for anarchism have the burden to prove that the system they're propagating would be better. They are making the claim, not me. So go ahead, tell me how a world of 7 billion people would ever manage to maintain anarchy, not kill each other rampantly, then eventually reorganize into oppressive governing bodies all over again.

Id consider myself to be a socialist, feminist in the traditional sense, and an mra. There is no need for conflict.

>read some books
the simple act of reading does not constitute learning useful information or even factual information

Doesn't anarchy kind of clash with socialism on a large scale?

Mah fuckin' nigga. But even as a very libertarian person, I consider the state an unfortunate necessity. We need the state to create and enforce laws that protect people from harm and exploitation, because people are not inherently good and will harm and exploit others if there is nothing to stop them from doing so. We also need the state to keep big corporations on a leash, and to do things like maintain infrastructure. The place I want to see less of the state in is people's private lives. The state shouldn't get to tell people what they can put in on and around their bodies and mouths, shouldn't tell them what media they are and are not allowed to consume and shouldn't tell them what physical products they are and are not allowed to purchase, so long as these things aren't being used to harm or harass others.

That's just the problem- how can one be for or against an set of beliefs and propositions when the people who use the term hold to different beliefs and propositions?

It's much simpler for be to say
>I believe in equal rights and opportunities for both sexes

I despise modern "socialists" or "leftists" as they label themselves. Fucking disgrace.

Left = Lenin, Napoleon, Frech revolution, US independence, human rights, freedom of speach (essence of Sup Forums) etc. ...

Not some fucking "new age feminists" bulshit. or racist black guys ... this is just buch of degenerates, claiming to be "left" to make themselves SEEM like their ideas matter. Disgrace.

Quit trolling. Everyone on this site is right wing and fed up with what is obviously too much liberalism, whether they admit it to others/themselves or not.

Medieval iceland was pretty fucking awesome, they got worse after christianism, and you sound like a faggot teenager who thinks government is good, or that it can be good if well made. Big systems, centralization, government, those are things wich take of the dynamics of the society. Wealth is made up by work and creation, if you take that of, or reduce its dynamic, wealth shrink. You still have time brother, make research over free market and move on
heritage.org/index/ranking

>anarchism would work in the absence of hierarchical conditioning
That's basically the same as saying:
>anarchism would work in the absence of higher reasoning
Except it seems more likely to have a broad population base without higher reasoning

>implying I implied anything of the sort
Just because you got called out on obvious bullshitting doesn't mean I advocate anarchy.

>higher reasoning
>conditioning
Pick one.

The way you see yourself will always be in relation to another human, hierarchy will always appear in groups of humans.

Does your name start with a J, OP?

no