Anarcho-syndicalism Thread

Because money is for people that can't take care of themselves.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion#Economic_background
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

wtf is this meme?

Anarchy is inherently impossible debate me.

Im simply an anarchist. Protip: either you are an anarchist or a monarchist. There is no inbetween

Living in a place free of a coercive government is not impossible actually

Sage

We should take all the edgy autist anarchist and put them on one island. I bet they won't be able to function without goverment handouts, lel.

...

Actually it is.


You don't think if we abolished our governments, that China and/or Russia wouldn't take over immediately?

You can thank an anarchist commune for your 8 hour work day.

...

How will that work when our enemies are practically at our front door waiting for the door guard to take a bathroom break?

...

>Living in a place free of a coercive government is not impossible actually

Yes it is. Imagine me and you and 100 people are on an island and I have a gun. I announce to everyone that I am the government. I am now the government.

There will always be opportunists that govern by force. It is inescapable.

...

Militias

This. No state = no unified military advanced enough to fight an invading force. We'd become the 47th oblast overnight.

Militias

>implying that an anarchist commune wouldn't be armed to the teeth

You really havn't read up on anarcho-syndicist history.

>unironically being an anarchist
How is elementary school treating you?

Tell me youre in Halifax

How is anarchy possible again? Wouldn't that mean everyone would have to AGREE not to be "ruled"? Is that not an agreement by all people to follow a SYSTEM? And isn't that what government is?

You're doing a great job of defending yourself from liberalism, leaf.

You think some two-bit militia would be powerful enough to stop one of the world's strongest militaries?

>2016
>living in Hellifax

No

>implying that an anarchist commune wouldn't be armed to the teeth

So they are the government then.

Woah easy there with that logic you might trigger someone

Might equals right deal with it fag

Anarchy is the absence of a coercive ruler

>the people are the government

What a novel idea.

and how did that work out for mahko hmm ?

>Anarchy is inherently impossible debate me.
for most of human history there has been no such thing as government. government developed with organized religion and civilization, roughly the past 10,000 years of our history. homo sapiens developed about 200,000 years ago

a better argument is civilization and anarchy are incompatible

Anarchy isn't about having a coherent belief system user. It's about sounding edgy and freaking out your mom.

Yes...

You'd shoot 4 people. They'd realize life under you is awful and they could die at any minute. They all attack you at once.

You shoot 3 more people.

Then they kill you.

No more you. If you had been smarter, you'd not have isolated yourself against 100 people, but since you're an idiot, your death is simply Uncle Darwin taking out the garbage.

Someone commits a rape. Who will prosecute it?

so your advocating for democracy then ?

You dont, the rapist gets hung in public

Really? That's not what the dictionary says.

The friends and family of the victim.

Just like nature intended.

>democracy
Objectively the worst system of government.

Direct democracy works pretty well on a small scale.

im not debating the merits of democracy retard im saying what the edgy anarcho-faggot is advocating for is democracy but hes too stupid to know it

>anarchist commune
no government
you know this is an oxymoron

>armed to the teeth
How would you get these weapons you don't have any money.

No trial by jury? The accusation is enough?

Well thats what it is faggot. There are only two possibilities. Either you are subjected to a ruling party or you arent.

So it's just mindless mob rule with no standards whatsoever. You create a state whenever is personally convenient, do whatever you want, then act as if there was never any kind of unjust coercive action taken because "they deserved it" or some ambiguous shit.

If you split society into small workers' enclaves, how are you going to acquire geographically-specific resources? For example, rare earth metals are mostly only found in northern China.

If you're an enclave of dragon dildo manufacturers living on the East Coast, it would be harder for Chinese resources to reach you - because the system of state mandates and capital would not be as unified. Also, the Pacific shipping guilds could just decide they don't want to bother shipping any more goods than they can immediately sell for the Pacific Coast population.

Rare earth metals are necessary to produce many modern electronics. It's hard to imagine a commie faggot without his i-Phone.

if you have an involved populace which we dont people will be to busy doing things like working or jerking it to porn to care about voting for every law its hard enough for us to these retards out to vote for the president

These two are going to administer justice.

Anarchist communes are small by nature. Most people know each other, so most people have a decent feel for their neighbors.

Also since the consequences are swift and dire, there wouldn't be all this cry wolf.

What will be used to regulate resources (food, water, electricity, gas, other natural resources) to ensure that they aren't quickly depleted? If you get rid of money, something will be needed to replace it.

>feminist cries rape the mob rises up kills her supposed rapist cries rape again this time the crowd is sceptical but still lynch's him cries rape again this time the town doesnt believe her but her few beta orbiters do it any way

Faggot. Never heard that before. Anyway, can you name one time that this "anarchy" thing has ever truly existed? Cause I don't think it can. I mean, even monkeys form tribes with leaders.

>mob rule
No, there is no ruling in an anarchist state

17th century america

also what this guy said

>food
Grow it. Potatoes and meat.

>water
Dig a well anywhere and chances are you'll get water.

>electricity
Solar is cheap now.

> gas, other natural resources
Time to get some good old fashioned physical activty by chopping wood (honestly one of the funnest things ever)

communities are micro civilisations - your argument is bullshit.

You need a stable parent government to make sure that justice and punishment is fairly meted out.

Anarchy is bullshit and results in mayhem VERY quickly - until you build a new civilisation and elect a government again, that is.

You don't prosecute' because there is no laws or government. You could try to kill the person or hire the local cartel to kill them.

>Anarchist communes are small by nature. Most people know each other, so most people have a decent feel for their neighbors.

So basically eliminate cities and towns, and go back to a primitive tribal society where small pockets of people are secluded from the outside world? That doesn't sound very progressive to me.

>ruled by britain with colonial governors to act in the crowns stead
>revolution
>ruled over by a republic
yea nah

In a government controlled society who will maintain the roads?

Explain

What? That's very broad. Are you talking about the Indians? Pilgrims? Be a little more specific.

And here I was hoping /leftypol/ or /r/anarchism had stopped by, but all we really have is a faggot.

So basically the wild wild west, except worse since you can kill anyone you'd like and break no laws? So now you've made the world a million times more dangerous than it already is.

I wouldn't want my children growing up in a world like that.

>explain
hes being an edgy little faggot that thinks you either have total freedom or totally subjugation with no in between

The only legitimate anarchist ideology is individualist anarchism because it completely neglects the notion of human rights altogether and places the desires of the individual above all else, it pays no mind to any notion of community or society as a whole, it is based upon your own will, which is the only way actual anarchy can manifest in any way. Any other form of anarchism is a complete contradiction because in order to maintain this "societal anarchism" you need some kind of state to keep it how you want it, to disallow coercion in some impossible way that does not also involve coercion.

There is no such thing as a workable "anarchist society", there is only anarchism on an individual basis, anything else is a complete contradiction.

10,000 years ago is when we began agriculture. It's not sufficient to say that government brought us out of chaos. The certainty of food production that agriculture brought may have quelled our previous chaos and government was just superfluous. It'd be worth a shot, and if any group could pull off relatively effective anarchy of any variety, it would be intelligent whites.

Faggots. The only way to choke the leeches (nogs kikes etc) is anarchy. No more tax funded roads for corporations

Cartel = system with a ruler. Lol, you don't want anarchy, you just want a bunch of small factions fighting with each other.

>implying /leftypol/ or /r/anarchism arnt faggots
user pls

How could they be leeches of there is no system/government to leach off of?

So who will build and maintain the roads?

I don't find Anarcho-syndicalism convincing because any economy based on exchange is still capitalism to an extent. To truly be free from it you would have not have any exchange whatsoever.

>Implying the wild west was filled to the brim with a bunch of rabid thieves and crooks.

Turns out the "wild" west was very safe and tame, it's just a myth. It was safe despite organized law enforcement because we had only white people around who have an innate sense of duty and justice.

but even in our hunter gatherer phase we had chieftains

Do you actually expect normal people to join in your revolution that will probably change their life forever? It would probably be you and your fellow college students who share your impossible utopian vision.

>but democracy used to be considered utopian too!!!!111
Even today we don't have true democracy, we have Republics which require only a little more effort to keep stable than a monarchy.

or you know we could have the government initiate force against them that seems to work pretty well

Guilds and shit

Lot's of examples in Spain and Russia/Ukraine.

One time a Anarchist "army" took on multiple soviet army divisions and inflicted heavy casualties. Also the Spanish civil war was brutal as hell and the anarchist made Franco pay dearly for every foot.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion#Economic_background

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War

Anarchism is such a naive, even childish, idea.

You are basically throwing a tantrum.

>I cant have what i want.
>Wahhh
>Smash everything up
>If i cant have it no one can
>Everyone should just build their own stuff
>Everyone should just take what they need to survive, ownerships not FAIR. WAAAH.
>No one can have money anymore, just use everyone else's stuff.
>I dont want to work for my bread - i want it now, somebody else should make it and give it to me
>I'll make something for them too, maybe....

See how quickly it breaks down?

Who will run the guilds?

Everyone needs to realize that even if 2 guys get together, and one guy makes decisions for the other guy, THAT IS NOT ANARCHY. EVEN WHEN MONKEYS FORM TRIBES, THAT IS NOT ANARCHY.

Anarchy is the absence of coercive government. Not related to capitalism

The workers

If I work from home, does that make my house personal or private property? What about my computer or car since they too are a means of production?

Once again how did any of those work out in the long run
>Mahko BTFO by Soviets
>CNT BTFO by based fascists
say what you will about commie's but atleast their violent revolutions had some successes anarchism has had zero

How are they true "anarchists" if they led an organized army with a leader.

Anyone as long as no coercion is involved

Wouldn't say I'm AnSyn, I just want comfy automation and basic income

Anarchy != Anarcho-syndicalism

>implying I wouldn't have an army of syncophants who would crush political dissidents

Anyways, them killing me would be an act of revolution and they would become the government. Eventually someone smart enough and opportunistic enough will rule by force.

How will that guild be managed? Will there be a leader elected to manage the day-to-day activities of the guild and ensure stability?

Political anarchy doesn't mean a complete lack of order.

Fair enough. I'm not familiar with the role of chieftans, but it sounds like they were elder/father figures that had a very local rule. So perhaps family units are the most necessary form of government.

Well you are born about 200 years too early for that.

The problems in our society, stem from coercive government. Leeches always find a way to benefit from it. Anarchists believe the solution is to abolish coercive government.

Open outcry, like God intended.

What? Since fucking when? How could there be "order" without force. (Just realized I'm probably falling for bait and this guy isn't an "anarchist")

>Anarcho-Syndaclism
>We'll force you to be equal and work
>O-Or not, it's your choice!