ITT we discuss anarchism.
I may explain how my particular brand of it, anarchocommunism, works, how it doesn't work in some ways, but how overall works better than the current form of government.
I will also be explaining how youre brainwashed if you support the current establishment.
If youre enjoying being farmed and are here to talk shit or troll, u can fuck off, please prove me wrong, not simply insist i am bc you think youre right.
okay please explain how we can live with no state, no police
Sounds retarded mate.
So at my office/warehouse does everyone now get an equal say in how the company is run?
By all means, enlighten us.
U got it.
First of all the police aren't actually doing the job thier supposed to do. They don't prevent crime. And the "deterrence" they do provide only forces criminals to use more cunning methods. And even They do catch the criminals they put them in cages and treat them like animals. This fosters a hatred for society. It makes men bitter hardened and sadistic.
Second, we've been told the state creates order, stability, safety...it doesnt. It makes a show of doing these things, but in the end, after the banking cartels, mandatory insurances, unnecessary military campaigns, bailouts, invasion of privacy, massive taxes, a popular vote that's actually uncounted towards the presidency, the list goes on and on...i would say its clear the government is corrupt, as all entities possessing power become, and creates far more problems than it claims to solve.
So we would live, without the burden of government, which is creating the socioeconomic conditions which in fact lead to the nessacity of the police, in a much more morally conscious world. Which is inn turn how we would live without police.
That's the long as short of it anyway. Anarchism is a deep and complex political ideology. Not at all what it's portrayed as in pop culture.
>First of all the police aren't actually doing the job thier supposed to do. They don't prevent crime
If you don't think the existence of police deters crime, you are a sheltered little bitch boy. Do you not know criminals?
Well... Yea. Because it wouldn't be YOUR warehouse. Anything that is made by, worked for, and benefited from the community, is the community's. Its not to say you couldn't contribute more and therefore deserve and have more than must ppl. There would however have to be a real contribution for it. Not the nebulous notion off "creating jobs" that could be had and done without you to larger benefit of the ppl. If only they possessed the means of production.
Honestly man, I want to listen to your opinions but you're making it really hard to take you seriously.
Not only do you think that criminals will go away without police, or that police don't deter crime just by virtue of existing, you also use bad examples of your specific country failing and attribute it to the very concept of modern government. Not all states create bad places to live.
But no cops and no state will lead to chaos. It has literally not worked on any significant scale in the modern era. It is literally not possible without bloodshed and nightmarish conditions.
But some people are morons and the bosses are generally smarter and more qualified to run the business. If everyone at my work got an equal say in how things were done, I guarantee that the office would go out of business. A lot of people in any give any selected group amongst all tiers of society will be shit at making important and difficult decisions that affect a lot of people
How do you not know this? Be honest, you haven't spent much time working have you?
Can you provide any factual evidence or are you just spouting off your opinion? Can you prove that these entities you believe do not work actually do not work? You have stated your case now back up your lunacy.
I used too be one. I robbed a lot of shit. They didn't deter me once. Ive since given back financially to my community and swore to never steal again. But Im not a sheltered bitch boy. Ik for a fact with the right gear, a bit of caution, and a backup plan u can get away with mostly anything. The policemans job requires the criminal to be stupid. Otherwise he's looking for a needle in a haystack. The smart ones get away with it for the most part and the stupid ones don't care. Besides locking ppl up, most of the time, doesn't rehabilitate ppl. They end up right back in there eventually. Its a cash scheme man. You would know that if you weren't a little bitch boy.
>anarchism
>communism
pick one
Ive spent enough time working to know the opposite is true. Managers do not always get to where They are by being good workers. As a matter of fact it is common practice to not promote your best workers into supervisory roles, but to keep then churning away in entry level roles. They make the managers more money that way.
I hope you realize that the sole reason that a lot of people drop the idea of crime as a job or even a career is because they don't want to live in prison. I hope you realize that a lot of criminals would be a lot more ambitious if they had no cops restricting their actions. If you don't think being a criminal would be easier without cops, you're fucking stupid kid. I don't know what else to tell you. That is the most naive pipe dream I've heard in a long time.
The managers are still generally the more competent and intelligent at managing people in the area. user this is fucking basic shit, and here you are,
"WHY DO WE NEED COPS OR BOSSES MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN
I almost think you're trolling
i have very anti-authoritarian leanings as well.
we're hundreds of years away from being able to have a fully voluntary society imo, but keep fighting the good fight opie
You misunderstand what anarchocommunism is. Its a society without government or private property, in a nutshell. Your thinking of regular communism, with a government.
>without private property
So can I just move into someone's house without their permission?
Maybe if they're weren't trained to be dimwitted robots in the "schools" they wouldn't have to be controlled in order for them to do what is nessaccary to ensure Their community's and from it thier, survival.
what if i own a militia and take some land. technically then it's private property.
No dude. If by circumstances you needed to temporarily until You get your own place then yea. Ppl still are going to use shit that everybody uses. Its not practical too share everything. The notion Behind the abolishment of private property is it can go where it is needed more than where it is wanted.
>ITT we discuss anarchism.
We will not.
You can't tell me what to do!
>Anarchism
>Communism
>not free market
You get it wrong, dude.
Okay, so what's stopping some unstable homeless junkie from sleeping in my family's house? I can't call the cops, do I have to attack a homeless junkie in my house?
Every single thing you say is just refuted as soon as you realize how many shitty people exist who don't care about society and never will. I can't imagine the bubble you've lived in which has made you this naive.
Militias are pretty hard to come by but... Of there was unpopulated land it wouldn't matter. You would still be a group of ppl living on it, whatever You called it. Of your conquering i would say nearby communities would want to do away with You bc you threaten thier land too. Which would be an untenable position. The motivation Behind communism is putting the wealth inn the hands of the ppl and preventing it from being pooled into the pockets of the few. Ppl would have little to no reason to take more by force of they have everything they need. And Idc what its called so long as the accompanying rise in quality of life still exists.
Just as stupid.
Id say your living in the bubble. Yea you should get rid of the junkie! Right now, bubble boy, you approve of yourself living in this pseudofascist country so instead of dealing with anything remotely threatening or asking for your neighbours help..you call the police. Who more often than not will show up half an hour later and then not really give a shit.
Former punk rock fuck boi here to debate this nonsense.
This shit is just silly mental masturbation.
Anarchism is not good, go back to times of early weak governments (BCs & early AD besides Rome and some other outliers ) and you'll see what eventually comes out of anarchism. People covet power, if no formal institution exists one will be created.
No it's not, it is the belief that all government is corrupt and that existing governments should be dismantled, combining anarchism with other words makes no sense, it's like combining "no" with everything.
Op here. I think ancap would still foster greed and competitiveness in man. Things Which i believe are unnecessary for him to live a happy life. But id take it If that was the only anarchism achievable as circumstances dictate. Still would bee leaps and bounds better than the current system.
The more people involved in a process the slower things move. I have worked in places where process is very open and everything has gone sideways as well as places where no one had a say that resulted in the same.
But I will generally tell you that in the latter the person responsible for the cluster fuck usually gets shit canned. If nothing changes then a more efficient company will replace them (unless there is some large barrier to entry )
I don't see the point in debating this, it will never happen. It doesn't matter if theoretically your way is better for everyone because it literally could never happen. When there is no order someone will create one through whatever mechanisms possible, with anarchism all mechanisms are possible because nothing formal exists.
Wtf is a punk rock boi?
Youre not giving ppl a chance to learn from thier mistakes. These old societies had ppl with uneducated, physically smaller brains. Were dealing with a significantly different human being now.
And it makes perfect sense. There are many ways to run society with government, as there are without it.
Its clear you never read a single book on the topic. But that's cool you used to dress up and listen to bad music.
greetings comrade
Oh Its possible. There would bee some type of formal ordering. Weekly community meetings, basic rules agreed upon by everyone they effect, procedures for dealing with disaster, etc...
Hello. Plz help answer some of These questions i can't keep up.
And Thats fucking hilarious. Most I've laughed all week.
hah I'll try to help even though I'm tired as fuck
Anarcho communists are not communists. Period.
Individualist Market Anarchists are the only true anarchists, the rest just replace the state with the community/corporations/syndicalist bullshit.
Go fuck yourself OP.
True. Im not saying Its a perfect system. It comes with its pitfalls like any other system. But it does prevent a lot of big problems like mass war, colonization, globalism, mass starvation, genocide, unjust imprisonment...
I think Its by far the lesser of all evils.
Are not anarchists* Fuck. I'm high as shit, I apologize.
anarchism is not "lack of goverbment" or even "smallish government". its both the idea that authority should be questioned, and deemed illegitemate, abolished. it is also the act of acting horizontally, or without the master/servant relationship. aka a highly organized horizontalist society would come from this, not the tyrranny and chaos failed states produce
It wouldn't work user. You have no cops and your businesses have no managers or bosses. It's a system that you think about once as a utopia and then you realize it's fucking ridiculous because a lot of people don't care and will never care about a huge complex society as a whole, and your system requires that to be false.
Naive, that's the best summary.
What's wrong with a commune spanning the world? And why the hatred man? We both want the abolition of gov. Ancaps can live in a different geographical area. And coexist and even barter with ancoms.
Were on the same side nigga.
Name a modern stateless area of this planet that is a better place to live than western states.
>What's wrong with a commune spanning the world?
Because modern society is extremely complex and a hierarchy is 100% necessary to run it with any reliability and success.
The commune has the capacity to exert such control over the individual as to make the distinction between it and the state meaningless. Theres no liberty if your bread comes predicated on conformity.
No. Youre right about ppl now. But i know if ppl weren't born and raised in a society where self interest is encouraged, they would be much less self interested.
Imagine a school that encouraged morality and curiosity instead of roboting ppl too be cogs in the machine. Your looking at a morally conscious intelligent ppl. It will take time But is certainly possible.
and market anarchists replace the state with small business. whats ur point
There was one i know of. The black territory. An area the size of the third of Ukraine. If not for the perpetual war CAUSED SOLEY BY neighbouring governments, i could cite it as a better place to live.
And if your a reader look up the insurrectionary revolutionary Army of Ukraine on wikipedia. Its fascinating to say the least.
It illustrates how anarchist societies don't exist not because they can't, but because outside of a global revolution, they must defend themselves constantly not against ppl, but governments. Which do not want any anarchist society to exist anywhere. It threatens thier stability.
i cant because i guess your definition of "better" is not the freedom of its citizens, but the amount of stuff it produces
You guessed wrong bitch, HDI murder rate, violent crime rate, has the area become an armed conflict zone, infant mortality rate, median income, healthcare, education scores, seriously.
Give me one. You can't, because the absence of a state is a fucking retarded idea which creates a power vacuum that will be exploited. Learn some basic facts of our reality.
There would be as much liberty as possible. I wouldn't say anarchocommunism breeds conformity. No more so than ancap. Both less than a governed society.
Why the hate? Srsly me and your beliefs are closer to each other than each is to the average joes. We can present a United front against government then live as we choose with other similarly minded ppl in different areas.
They replace it with small businesses and voluntary associations to mitigate against externalities, its all voluntary cooperatives that mutually compete against both the economic interests and good will of the populace --- that is not a dictatorship by any means.
ok. you do know the reason anarchist societies dont exist are because authoritarian ones destroyed them with military force right
What anarchism are you quoting that has those qualities? Africa? I can't think of any other area.
Those places aren't anarchisms. The political social and economic situation There is heavily influenced by foreign government. The basic facts of "reality" that you've learned Are from and only apply to a governed world.
this market anarchist and ancoms often collaborate. no need to fight theres merit in both
soooo please tell me the moral difference between small business governing society and small communes doing the same?
...
That's what happens when a society makes itself much weaker and vulnerable to conquest.
...
:l
Google is not going to provide a complete definition of anarchism. Come on man. Thats like asking a cop if his job is nessaccary.
yeah, please research that "anarchism as a political force part" so you can see what we've historically stood for and done. namaste
/thread
>highly organized by no one
Dude, what are you talking about. The only organizations that work best flat are ones with a high population of smart people : tech companies, law firms, consulting firms, startups.
The general population is not intelligent enough to make rational choices for the greater good of everyone else. And smart people who don't give a fuck about other people will exploit it to establish a system that benefits themselves.
Even the examples I gave have a hierarchy, it is just not as top heavy.
Like jesus christ dude, humans are literally wild animals that need to be managed or else we will devolve into chaos. There are whole portions of society that need control and need supervision or else they will ruin things for everyone else.
cant tell if youre trolling or nah. anarchist societies faced pretty much the combined forces of all the surrounding countries and military superpowers when the revolutions of spain and ukraine began. still they held their ground for quite some time. id you want a modern example just look at YPG(their ideology and society are based out of anarchist thought) that more or less kicked ISIS out of syria while fending of turkey and al assad. theyre pretty much the first force that managed to beat ISIS while western superpowers shook to their knees at its progress
The idea is to not have anything in the world that conquers. It's a worthless activity and harms society as a whole.
Once you realize the only reason any country Has a military is to protect themselves from other militaries.... Which in turn have militaries to protect themselves from the first military... You see its a Mexican standoff nobody wants to be at. If both duelists simply put thier guns down, nobody has too fear getting shot. Then nobody needs the guns.
Theyre a massive drain on resources anyway.
This has been a painful read.
Learn some fucking economics, OP.
>ontological reductionist
Holy fuck this thread sucks.
I think the alternative...
SOCIETY IS GREAT!
Is by far the sentiment that's retarded.
The Kurds had and have a ton of external help, that's a huge factor. I don't know about the other two, but choosing two examples who were conquered in a few years is not a good fucking start lmao
>The idea is to not have anything in the world that conquers. It's a worthless activity and harms society as a whole.
>Once you realize the only reason any country Has a military is to protect themselves from other militaries.... Which in turn have militaries to protect themselves from the first military... You see its a Mexican standoff nobody wants to be at. If both duelists simply put thier guns down, nobody has too fear getting shot. Then nobody needs the guns.
>The only organizations that work best flat are ones with a high population of smart people : tech companies, law firms, consulting firms, startups.
ha! pretty much all those branches you mentioned are bogged down with bullshit jobs and the stupidity of hiearchy
>The general population is not intelligent enough to make rational choices for the greater good of everyone else.
much unlike the brilliant elite who still havent figured out how to solve the ceonomic or ecologic crises tearing the world apart
>And smart people who don't give a fuck about other people will exploit it to establish a system that benefits themselves.
change "smart" to "powerful" people and thats pretty much capitalism explained. our system was established and upheld by brute force not the wits of the ruling class
>division of labor
>specialization
No organization is without hierarchy. Luther Gulick is rolling in his fucking grave.
You're completely ignoring the miltiaries that conquer to expand their power. Jesus christ you're dumb
>First of all the police aren't actually doing the job thier supposed to do. They don't prevent crime.
Someone has been watching WAY too much Minority Report.
>Anarchocommunism
Stopped reading there middle schooler official
MODS
Sooooo if the general populace had access to the private schools, superior childhood diet, tutors, amazing colleges...
Don't you think they'd be smart enough to organize a cabbage field? Distillery? Pharmacological lab?
literally this
Some idealistic shit right here in this thread. The absence of a state leads to "a state." Anarchy is a concept. Its not something that can actualy exist. Will always give way to fuedal systems large and small scale. Basicaly ...with no societal protection someone will always try tontake yo shit nigga..and eventually one group will have succeeded
>we're hundreds of years away from being able to have a fully voluntary society imo, but keep fighting the good fight opie
A fully voluntary society is only possible when anarchism and communism can coexist completely because the means of production are ubiquitous and free. In other words, never. So get used to working in the capitalist world.
I think Anarchism will fail because it depends on the good will of the people. (something which I haven't found) Yet?
Please explain how a true anarchy is possible when it's an inherent property of human nature that in the absence of any more organized government, we submit to a certain original, fundamental system of government -- the simplest imaginable, perhaps best called a "party" -- whereby nations are very small (on the order of about 10 people at most) and nomadic, the military consists of all of them, leaders have absolute rule and are chosen by their ability to negotiate with and/or mortally intimidate the populace, period of rule is indefinite, there is no written law, and a tight race for power is almost always resolved with mutual secession that may or may not be followed by war.
Is that what you want? Because that's technically not anarchy. It's the closest we can get, but it's not quite there, because true anarchy isn't in our nature. The strong will always dominate the weak, and that's technically a form of government, if a very primitive one.
>The Kurds had and have a ton of external help, that's a huge factor.
bruh ALL forces in the syrian war has had a fuckton of external help. case in point is that anarchist societies can be powerful and outperform authoritarian ones.
>Once you realize the only reason any country Has a military is to protect themselves from other militaries.... Which in turn have militaries to protect themselves from the first military... You see its a Mexican standoff nobody wants to be at. If both duelists simply put thier guns down, nobody has too fear getting shot. Then nobody needs the guns.
true. thats why anarchists want to put down the guns of the state. in YPG controlled rojava everybody gets police training so people will be able to handle dangerous situations themselves, ultimately leading to the abolishion of the police
Well he's not entirely wrong , if nothing is illegal then there is no crime , no crime = no criminals
I prefer National Socialism but okay
Anarcho-Monarchism is the best form of government. Really, it is.
Basically you abolish the government and you give the most liked and trusted person in the nation a sceptre, crown, robe, and a really big gun. Everyone else can pretty much do whatever they want and should probably buy guns too. The King or Queen's only real job would be to go around the nation and, because they're so well liked, rally up citizens to go out and raid anyone trying to start up a new government.
Of Course England would have the queen, America would have Tom Hanks, and so on and so on. If you want to go further, Anarcho-Nazism, a similar system in which a zombified Hitler would forever lead the world, rooting out jews, gypsies, non-whites, and pro-government statists who tell people what to do.
This is my ideology, an Individual Anarchy vouching for Electoral Monarchy with some Ethnic Cleansing thrown in, and I personally ask you to respect it
idk, some anarchists are anarchists because they think people are petty and evil and shouldn't be trusted with power over others
...
>>The only organizations that work best flat are ones with a high population of smart people : tech companies, law firms, consulting firms, startups.
>ha! pretty much all those branches you mentioned are bogged down with bullshit jobs and the stupidity of hiearchy
I didn't say that was the reality of all the companies in all of those industries I just said that those are the only organizations that I have heard of a sizable majority being flat or almost flat.
>>The general population is not intelligent enough to make rational choices for the greater good of everyone else.
>much unlike the brilliant elite who still havent figured out how to solve the ceonomic or ecologic crises tearing the world apart
You're not debating my point just redirecting to talk about how elites "haven't figured out how to solve ceonomic or ecologic crises". Guess what, they don't want to because they are the ones benefiting from them.
I'm not pro elites and globalists, I'm just debating anarchism doesn't work.
>>And smart people who don't give a fuck about other people will exploit it to establish a system that benefits themselves.
>change "smart" to "powerful" people and thats pretty much capitalism explained. our system was established and upheld by brute force not the wits of the ruling class
No, you don't get it. A CEO of a bank can't decide he wants to have a murder squad execute the homeless people outside of his branches, he doesn't force people to work on his land and take all his profits (i.e. serfdom). Our current system is not nearly as bad as tyrannically dictatorships and to say they are is just silly. And if there was no government then the "smart" people could create their own and make their own rules, which could allow them to do things like I mentioned previously.
i hate to be an academicfag but none of thats true. anthropologists have long since studied "primitive" societies that are organized completely differently.
believe it or not there are ancaps who would like almost what you described. peter thiel is one of them
oh
>anarchocommunism
Literally the most contradictory shit I've ever read
That's with the ppl of today. Given a chance to be raised in a compassionately orded Society, ppl will be more compassionate.
...
Does a commie not understand the difference between voluntary exchange and cooperation and coerced ones? Me thinks he does not.
>No, you don't get it. A CEO of a bank can't decide he wants to have a murder squad execute the homeless people outside of his branches, he doesn't force people to work on his land and take all his profits (i.e. serfdom
that's.... almost exactly what CEO's of banks can do. case point: how IMF razed Ireland and Greece to the ground for disobeying their rules. or how the world bank has robbed and exploited thirld world countries over the global south. sure in the civilized world they cannot literally have mured squads execute people outside their banks, but the will use as much force as they possibly can to throw them out, often through private security
please tell the difference. liberal myths about the free exchange of the markets don't apply since they're not based in reality
But what of the tendency of power to corrupt?
Anarchocommunism isn't inherently self contradictory, it would just require neuroeugenics to implement. We would have to breed a morally superior subspecies of man. (And before you racists and anti-racists get pumped up, no, I am NOT implying we should make everyone white. Skin color has nothing to do with what I'm saying, which is that we should breed out bad BEHAVIORS, that may likely correspond to alleles that govern BRAIN development, NOT necessarily development of visible racial characteristics.)
People, as we are now, are too greedy for true and perfect communism to work. We have to breed out the greed