anarchism

File: image.jpg (30KB, 327x327px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 327x327px

>>531999
Anarchist here.

It can literally ONLY work if the vast majority of the populace is made up of anarchists, something like 70% minimum. Otherwise statists have plenty of strength to reestablish coercive organization and thus the state.

(Also voluntarist anarchism is the only true anarchism)

revolutionary catalonia, free ukrainian territory

inb4 "anarcho"-capitalist /pol/aks shitting up the thread

>>532087
OP asked for working.

The Catalonian anarchists were collectivists i e fake anarchists. Not sure about Maxho's crowd.

Either way, deffo not working. They were too busy fighting off statists to really get rolling as socieities.

>>532102
>The Catalonian anarchists were collectivists i e fake anarchists.

Please fuck off

>>531999
anarchism - utopia

>>532107
>hurr durr we're all going to share everything equally!
>nope no coercion here! Everyone is participating entirely by choice comerade!

Fuck off, stealth commie.

>>532102
>Not sure about Maxho's crowd.
As I had heard, was peasants farms and regular tax to Maxho. Banal version of feudalism.

>>532117
>Stealth commie

What the fuck? Anarchism is a socialist movement and most are openly commies.

>>532122
Which is fucking ridiculous, seeing as those systems require organized coercive action to be established and maintained, resulting in de facto government.

Real anarchists did not exist until individualists got their hands on the idea.

>>532135
I see your point about socialism, but you should look up the actual definition of communism.
Individualist anarchists understood themselves as socialists too though btw, just very unorthodox ones.
Either way individualist anarchism and lifestylism is never going to get shit done.

the problem is that anarchists get btfo extremely rapidly. they are like very heavy radioactive elements, blink and they are gone

>>532153
historically left and right hated them all the same
people can't have freedom

>>531999
I don't understand how anarchists can be lefturds.

By definition anarchism means no authority. The delusional collectivistic fantasies of Karl Marx and his ilk require force to implement. So how exactly can "social-anarchism" ever appear.

The only kind of anarchism I could envision happening would be anarcho-capitalism.

>>532161
capitalism is necessarily hierarchical. companies are nothing but private dictatorships.
read up on individualist anarchism and mutualism if you've got a boner for markets and dislike collectivism.

also >>532090

>>532170
>capitalism is necessarily hierarchical
Well of course, because life is necessarily hierarchical. Ability isn't distributed uniformly. Some people are better than others at certain things.

In an anarchist society hierarchies would naturally occur. People who believe that people will magically coalesce in collectivistic communes are braindead morons.

>>532161
By definition no authority means no capitalism, anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. And social production and distribution doesn't necessarily need force to exist.

>>532170
how can people interpret capitalism as an altered economic expression of anarchism if anarchism's basic principle is living liberally but taking other people's liberty in considertion? Capitalism basically violates people's liberty with means of economic dependency and exploitation.
> capitalists calling me commie incoming

>>532177
>By definition no authority means no capitalism,
No it doesn't you fucking idiot. No authority means no centralized authority. It doesn't mean that someone cannot accumulate capital.

>And social production and distribution doesn't necessarily need force to exist.
Kek'd heartily.

Tell me honestly : are you underage? Do you browse reddit?

File: Tolstoy Leo.jpg (54KB, 386x490px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 386x490px

Who's Tolstoyan up in here?

>>532176
>People who believe that people will magically coalesce in collectivistic communes are braindead morons.
I recommend you to read some anthropology before making retarded claims about human nature.

>>532181
>two people trading a commodity is exploitation
Why are commies so fucking stupid? You should be deported to North Korea.

>>532188
Well, that totally convinced me that capitalism is a system that can be sustained without violence.

>>532188
pal, that's the mere idealized imagination of a cooperative community. Get your facts straight. I am totally supporting such an idea but capitalism in its modern interpretation is none of this

>>532176
well what you said literally goes against everything anarchism stands for

>>532183
>No it doesn't you fucking idiot. No authority means no centralized authority. It doesn't mean that someone cannot accumulate capital.
What? Are you retarded? You are saying "negating X means negating only a specific aspect of X". Completely arbitrary, and retarded from an argumentative standpoint.

>Tell me honestly : are you underage? Do you browse reddit?
No, do you usually argue based on buzzwords and ad hominems?

>>532176
>People who believe that people will magically coalesce in collectivistic communes
Some sects and religions are did attempt to do that, but at ants and at bee this do much better, imho.

>>532187
Anthropology? You mean the marxist infested garbage of Boas or classical anthropology? Fuck off.

>>532191
Tell me how two people exchanging a commodity is violence.

>>532192
>pal, that's the mere idealized imagination of a cooperative community.
A cooperative community already has a name : a capitalist free market society.

>>532194
Anarchism today mostly stands for underage redditors with che guevara tshirts expressing their homosexuality.

>>532203
> A cooperative community already has a name : a capitalist free market society.
> A cooperative community already has a name : a capitalist free market society.
> A cooperative community already has a name : a capitalist free market society.
> A cooperative community already has a name : a capitalist free market society.

haven't kekked that hard for years

>>532090
>>532090
>>532090
>>532090
>>532090

saw-gay

>>532203
>Tell me how two people exchanging a commodity is violence.
Well, you literally advocated for forcible relocation of a person to a place where they would face overt political violence because they said something you don't like. That doesn't really make me think you're actually interested in a non-coercive society.

But fine, let's start with this: What defines ownership of property?

>>532203
>Anthropology? You mean the marxist infested garbage of Boas or classical anthropology? Fuck off.
Lel. Wether you want it or not, people "magically coalescing in collectivistic communes" is part of history. The market, on the other hand, was forced upon society.

>Tell me how two people exchanging a commodity is violence.
90% of workers in the world are forced to sell their labour power, with the alternative of starving to death. It's like pretending that giving a robber your money at gunpoint is a volontary exchange.

The level of your arguments is extremely low, but at least try not to write like an angsty teenager.

>>532201
>What? Are you retarded?
No, are YOU retarded? Are you claiming that capitalism is a centralized system? Do you literally have shit for brains?

>No
I find that hard to believe.

>>532202
Humans aren't ants or bees.

>>532203
cooperative societies and mutual dependency might work in an anarchic system, but as soon as one party tries to gain advantages it neglects basic ideas of anarchism

>>532215
>Are you claiming that capitalism is a centralized system? Do you literally have shit for brains?
You are definitely retarded. I didn't claim that at all, you have no reading comprehension. I claimed that "centralized authority" is just a specific aspect of the term "authority", and that negating an aspect of a concept doesn't imply the negation of the whole concept.

You're the stupidest person i've read on /his/ so far.

>>532206
Hey, did you know that in western countries, it is legal to create your own commune?

Well, what are you waiting for?

>>532213
>Well, you literally advocated for forcible relocation of a person to a place where they would face overt political violence because they said something you don't like.
But that's just me. That's not capitalism. Could you please avoid switching the subject and answering the goddamn question? Or is it that you don't have any answer because you're a moronic faggot?

>What defines ownership of property?
In an anarchist society? Nothing. But ownership would be defended by the owner, since there would be no laws prohibiting him from arming himself and defending however he feels his property.

>>532214
>people "magically coalescing in collectivistic communes" is part of history.
HAHAHA, look at this idiot and laugh.

All right I'll humor you : care to give historical examples?

>90% of workers in the world are forced to sell their labour power,
>forced.
Nobody's forcing them. They can choose to starve to death.

Just like you can choose to stop breathing. And then you die of suffocation. Is oxygen oppressive? End the oxygenarchy!

>It's like pretending that giving a robber your money at gunpoint is a volontary exchange.
No, that would be coercion, i.e. leftism. Get your facts straight.

>The level of your arguments is extremely low, but at least try not to write like an angsty teenager.
Well considering that I'm talking with mentally deficient retards such as yourself, I'm trying to stoop down to your level to make myself understandable.

>>532223
"cooperative" dependencies in capitalists systems are not anarchic, since people can't just stop cooperating with each other as soon as they feel exploited.

>>532228
great idea, I would love to have my own commune but that is not how my political and moral conscience work. I cannot just isolate myself and atttempt a life in peace being aware of recent injustice and suffering.

>>532223
>cooperative societies and mutual dependency might work in an anarchic system
Cooperative societies will never work.

>but as soon as one party tries to gain advantages it neglects basic ideas of anarchism
Kind of, which is why anarchism as a stable system is completely moronic.

>>532225
>You are definitely retarded. I didn't claim that at all,
O RLY? From your post :
>You are saying "negating X means negating only a specific aspect of X"
You are conflating capitalism with authority, which is completely fucking stupid and should warrant your immediate sterilization.

When one talks about lack of authority when one talks about anarchism, one talks about CENTRALIZED authority, i.e. a state. Jesus Christ I'm losing brain cells wasting time with you morons.

>You're the stupidest person i've read on /his/ so far.
People orders of magnitude smarter than the average can sometimes appear stupid to the simple mind.

Now run along little child.

>>532232
>since people can't just stop cooperating with each other as soon as they feel exploited.
It's called "quitting your job" you fucking moron.

>>532236
>I cannot just isolate myself and atttempt a life in peace being aware of recent injustice and suffering.
Also add the fact that your commune would collapse and its inhabitants would have to resort to cannibalism, since ganja smoking hippies can't build successful societies.

>>532228
>All right I'll humor you : care to give historical examples?
Basically any primitive society that has been studied. I recommend "Stoneage Economics" by Sahlins and "The Great Transformation" by Polanyi if you want to read how primitive societies worked economically. When your beliefs go against an entire body of knowledge you should be a little humble and open a book.

>Nobody's forcing them. They can choose to starve to death.
LEL
Completely violence free exchange guys! You can work for me or die!

>No, that would be coercion, i.e. leftism. Get your facts straight.
Saying "that would be coercion, i.e. leftism" is not an argument, anon. You have to explain why the analogy doesn't work and why it applies to left anarchism. Which will be hard considering you already conceded in regards to workers having death as an alternative, making the analogy valid.

>>532228
>But ownership would be defended by the owner, since there would be no laws prohibiting him from arming himself and defending however he feels his property.
In otherwords, property in you vision of "anarchy" is one where property is defined by the ability to use violence to 'defend' what you deem to be your property?

>>532206
>everyone under capitalism is a dickhead
This simply isn't true.

If you own property under capitalism it can be yours forever unless you are incredibly stupid with your finances or your government has huge property taxes

A large proportion of the world have entered the middle class and have a surplus to spend on such things if they have the motivation, most of the population still live in poverty but the middle class grows every day in emerging markets. It's 2016 not the 19th century where every single person with money is a bourgeois shill, even Marx and Engels had money to waste on their socialist ideals. If people want to be cooperative and create a little socialist utopia, many have the will and the means to do so, in fact there are attempts to create cooperatives, worker managed companies and the like. They might not be able to compete in the capital markets and gain as high a return on their investment as a purely profit oriented corporation, but they can't be forced to sell their capital just because their returns are lower.

>>532248
HAHAHAHAH "quitting your job"
and then? Having no existential minimum.
OHHH please mister capitalists give me some money please

"In a capitalist system everyone has the same opportunities, everyone is enabled to pursuit his happiness irrespectively of the odds against him"

sure, mate absolutely realistic. 1) uneven distribution of wealth 2) uneven distribution of abstract means e.g. education, job opportunities. There is NO choice in capitalism, people are forced into work they might not even feel well with.

>>532206
>>532264
>every single person with money is a bourgeois shill, even Marx and Engels had money to waste on their socialist ideals
oops, I mean "nearly every"

>>532243
>You are conflating capitalism with authority, which is completely fucking stupid and should warrant your immediate sterilization.
Jesus christ you are dumb.
>"negating X means negating only a specific aspect of X"
X represents authority and "a specific aspect of X" represents central authority. I'm saying that by defending capitalism you are negating central authority but not the entire concept of authority. So no, i didn't claim that capitalism is centralized authority, i claimed the exact opposite.

>When one talks about lack of authority when one talks about anarchism, one talks about CENTRALIZED authority, i.e. a state.
But that's completely false, read any of the founders of anarchism, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc. Not one of them resctricted authority to centralized authority. Why are you debating about something you having read the basics about?

>>532264
they certainly can't be forced to sell their capital just because their returns are lower. But they will feel financial repression and eventually have to give up because of competitive reasons

I am not denying the principles of a free market, we merely have to rethink it and modify it properly

>>532258
>Basically any primitive society that has been studied.
I should have been more specific : I want examples of a CIVILIZATION which "magically coalesced". I don't really care about hunter gatherers.

>Polanyi
Also please avoid referring me to marxist jewish authors, it triggers me a lot.

>LEL Completely violence free exchange guys! You can work for me or die!
No, you can work for anyone. You can even work for yourself. Just because you're a useless NEET who would probably die in a fortnight if deprived of his welfare check doesn't mean that rest of the world is like that.

>Saying "that would be coercion, i.e. leftism" is not an argument, anon.
It is, actually. Leftism is based on redistribution of wealth, which is LITERALLY what theft is.

>You have to explain why the analogy doesn't work and why it applies to left anarchism
I wasn't talking about left anarchism specifically.

Left anarchism is an impossibility anyways, so I don't really know how I could insult it.

>Which will be hard considering you already conceded in regards to workers having death as an alternative, making the analogy valid.
NO NO NO YOU FUCKING IDIOT.

capitalists do no realize that the very insisting on their most beloved value "liberty" restricts their political flexibility and thus, which is paradoxe, limits their actual freedom

>>532263
Precisely. Which is why I'm not an anarchist. I believe the existence of a state is a good way to avoid the excesses which will invariably follow the existence of private protection.

>>532265
>HAHAHAHAH "quitting your job"
>and then?
Changing jobs, you fucking idiot.

>OHHH please mister capitalists give me some money please
Or you could you work for yourself. But I doubt you possess the required intellectual capabilities, sadly.

>"In a capitalist system everyone has the same opportunities, everyone is enabled to pursuit his happiness irrespectively of the odds against him"
Absolutely correct

>1) uneven distribution of wealth
So what?

>2) uneven distribution of abstract means e.g. education, job opportunities.
So what?

You sound like a bit of a whiner.

>>532273
Stop arguing semantics. Do you have anything of value to add to the discussion? I've told you twice already why you were wrong. Stop posting if you don't have anything to contribute.

>But that's completely false,
Kill yourself.

Read Rothbard :)

>>532283
>paradoxe,
Putain dis moi pas que t'es français

>limits their actual freedom
Yeah, compared this to the "liberated" north korean and cuban people...

>>532161

god damnit youre fucking stupid

>>532295
>Precisely.
Well, congratulations, I've found a functioning civilization that implements your vision of liberty.

It's located just north of the 48th parallel.

>>532278
>Leftism is based on redistribution of wealth, which is LITERALLY what theft is.
Woop. Contradiction here. If the state manages to take something from you, it was their property to begin with.

>>532295
Alright, either you're a troll, which would explain your lack of empathical intelligence and understanding of socio-political issues or you're wealthy

Pal, what I am trying to point out is that capitalism doesn't work the way it should. Where is the mutual profit?

Capitalism's biggest flaw is that it's alleged alturistic principle emerges from humans's egoistic drive of maintaining their existence.

>>532203
>>532188
>>532183

Kill yourself you subhuman shitstain

>>>/tumblr/
>>>/reddit/

>>532308
>t's located just north of the 48th parallel.
Which is? Did you mean 38th perhaps? As in North Korea?

I don't understand why you would link to me a communist country as an example. Probably because you're such a delusional moron everything which fails is "capitalism", even communist states.

>Woop. Contradiction here. If the state manages to take something from you, it was their property to begin with.
Of course not. Jesus what horrendous gymnastics. If a robber robs you then it doesn't mean that it was their property to begin with. You stupid faggot.

>>532307
Drink bleach.

>>532312
Tolstoyan here: Capitalism's biggest flaw is that it is based on theft. Even operating without any other human being, the Capitalist commits theft in his search for profit.

>>532278
>I should have been more specific : I want examples of a CIVILIZATION which "magically coalesced". I don't really care about hunter gatherers.
Nice goalpost moving. Glad we agree that libertarians claiming that market/capitalism is natural and that communes aren't are objectively wrong. Any large scale experiment was sabotaged by states. Although it is worth noting that premodern empires were based more on distribution that on exchange.

>Also please avoid referring me to marxist jewish authors, it triggers me a lot.
>I don't like this author baded on race and politics, even though it's irrelevant
I didn't expect more from you. The book is great.

>No, you can work for anyone. You can even work for yourself.
The classic libertarian extreme naivety. Just go and tell sweatshop workers that they could have worked by themselved all this time! Everyone working for themselves in the current world is both impossible individually and macro-inconsistent. Private property of the means of production implies that someone will necessarily have to work for other, whether it is one individual or the other is irrelevant.

>NO NO NO YOU FUCKING IDIOT.
You did, but i'll discuss as if you didn't if you want.

>>532300
you guys's problem is your unidimensional thinking patterns. Just because I criticize capitlism doesn't proove any ostensible personal sympathizing with ultra authorian communist system such as north korea

I am liberalist morons, an ACTUAL liberalists, you guys are economic coporatists.

>>532228

>Just like you can choose to stop breathing.

do people this stupid really exist? sometimes I'm honestly baffled. just can't wrap my mind around it.

>>532321
>I don't understand why you would link to me a communist country as an example.
It's exactly what you want. A free exchange of labor, where property is defended by force.

>If a robber robs you then it doesn't mean that it was their property to begin with.
So if not force, what makes it your property?

>>532312
>Alright, either you're a troll,
I'm not. Although I do like the anonymity of 4chan to abuse faggots like yourself (something I sadly can't do in real life)

>lack of empathical intelligence
There is no such thing as "empathical intelligence". And don't get all high and mighty, mr. commie, because I'm sure you'd kill "filthy kulaks" in a heartbeat.

>understanding of socio-political issues or you're wealthy
Yeah I'm pretty wealthy.

>Pal, what I am trying to point out is that capitalism doesn't work the way it should. Where is the mutual profit?
Where is the mutual profit??? Ever heard of the word "salary"? Probably not because you live in your mum's basement and have never held a job in your life.

>Capitalism's biggest flaw is that it's alleged alturistic principle emerges from humans's egoistic drive of maintaining their existence.
It's actually its BIGGEST STRENGTH. That egoist-driven actions benefit the community as a whole.

>>532320
Why would I go to plebbit? You probably belong there, on /r/berniesanders.

File: drank.gif (2MB, 240x135px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 240x135px

>>532155
>tfw Anarcho-Syndicalist and you realise no matter what you will be repressed by both the Left and Right

>>532331
>>532331
/r/Iamdoinggoodbuteveryonelsesuffers

>>532278

kkkkkkkilllllll yourselfffffff

>>532328
>It's exactly what you want. A free exchange of labor, where property is defended by force.
I never said I wanted anarchism you stupid faggot. Could you PLEASE make the effort to read my posts instead of resorting to attacking strawmen?

And no, it's not a free exchange of labor you stupid faggot, because north koreans aren't free. They're forced to live in a collective, which is the biggest crime against humanity one can do.

>So if not force, what makes it your property?
In an anarchist society or in a state? You keep muddling up the discussion with tangential points and retarded analogies, could you please stick to a subject for 5 consecutive minutes?

In an anarchist society, yes force defines property, so that property becomes the robbers' property. Of course in an anarachist society there is no official bill of property, so that property is ups for dibs for ANYONE who wishes to gain it.

To circumvent the social issues which stem from this problem, mankind invented civilization.

>>532295

>everyone has the same opportunities
>yet wealth is distributed unevenly
>so are abstract means

???

>kill yourself
>after that, read the book I recommended

???

>>532339
To suffer in today's society you have to be pretty fucking stupid t b h.

>>532341
Why would I do such a thing?

>>532295
>Stop arguing semantics.
I'm not arguing semantics, if you don't reject every type of authority you are by definition not an anarchist.

>Read Rothbard :)
Rothbard: "We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists"
In any case, rothbard doesn't get to define what anarchist understanding of the word authority is when hundreds of anarchist authors had been using the word for decades.
On the other hand, the cooptation of leftist words to associate the extreme right with liberty is premeditated, and the worst example of newspeak in our society. Kind of spooky.

>>532347
>everyone has the same opportunities
Yes.

Of course some are better equipped than others to seize those opportunities, but that is irrelevant.

>>532349
>I'm not arguing semantics, if you don't reject every type of authority you are by definition not an anarchist.
Oh please, your definition is fucking retarded. There is no possible way for any relationship between any two humans to ever occur according to that definition.

>>532343
>And no, it's not a free exchange of labor you stupid faggot, because north koreans aren't free.
Hm, maybe it's time to rethink your principles.

>They're forced to live in a collective, which is the biggest crime against humanity one can do.
They have the choice to leave available to them.

>In an anarchist society or in a state? You keep muddling up the discussion with tangential points and retarded analogies, could you please stick to a subject for 5 consecutive minutes?
I didn't ask for either. I asked for what defines property, period. So far the only definition you have offered is violence.

>>532354
>There is no possible way for any relationship between any two humans to ever occur according to that definition.
Who's coercing you to be here?

>>532331

>>>/facebook/
>>>/9gag/
>>>/https://www.hillaryclinton.com/
>>>/https://www.tumblr.com/tagged/sjw/
>>>/http://www.jdl.org/

You're a mouthbreathing, subhuman waste of oxygen. End your life.

>>532354
>Oh please, your definition is fucking retarded. There is no possible way for any relationship between any two humans to ever occur according to that definition.
That is the definition of anarchism. If you think it's impossible, you aren't an anarchist, which is what i've been saying. Glad we agree.

>>532357
>Hm, maybe it's time to rethink your principles.
Why? My principles are perfectly fine? It's just that you claimed a thing which was incorrect, that is that north koreans are free. They aren't. Hence your argument falls apart.

>They have the choice to leave available to them.
No they don't actually. If they try to leave they get shot or deported to the gulag. That is the fate of every collectivistic society : to turn into a brutal repressive society.

>I didn't ask for either. I asked for what defines property, period. So far the only definition you have offered is violence.
I gave you the definition in an anarchist society.

Society is basically a way to transfer this role of protecting property by violence to the state.

>>532360
4chan is not an anarchist place, but an authoritarian place.

>>532361
Are you for real? Kill yourself you subhuman kike.

>>532365
Then this is my definition of your definition of anarchism : feces.

>>532354

>Yes.

so some nigger born in somalia has the same opportunities as a jew born into a wealthy family with contacts in every ivy-league university?

that's what you're saying?

>>532377
>so some nigger born in somalia has the same opportunities as a jew born into a wealthy family with contacts in every ivy-league university?
We're talking within the same free society, you fucking idiot. A nigger born in detroit has the same opportunities as a kike born in NYC, yes.

>>532374

>>>/https://twitter.com/BernieSanders?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor/
>>>/https://yclbritain.wordpress.com/
>>>/tumblr/

>>532374
You are embarrassing yourself, anon.

>>532385

>A nigger born in detroit has the same opportunities as a kike born in NYC, yes.

are you being serious right now? do you honestly believe this? really?

>>532374
>4chan is not an anarchist place, but an authoritarian place.
I didn't ask about 4chan, I asked about you. Who's coercing you to exchange your opinions with me?

>>532389
I can't be any more ridiculous that someone who professes being a left-winger, so that's fine.

I don't mind being hated by triggered tumblrinas.

>>532391
Yes, I'm being entirely serious.

>>532392
No one. Who coerces someone else when a boss hires an employee?

And anyways, we're talking about SOCIETY, not 4chan.

>>532398
The member of the class that concentrates private property coerces the member of the class that doesn't with the alternative of dying.

File: 1433421343053.jpg (11KB, 178x188px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 178x188px

>>532398
>>532385
>>532374
>>532331
>>532321
>>532295
>>532278

>>532398
>No one.
And no one is coercing me.

You should be pretty excited right now. Just a few minutes ago, you said there was no possible way for any relationship between any two humans to ever occur according to this pattern.

Surely, this has caused some critical reflection here.

>>532411
>The member of the class that concentrates private property coerces the member of the class that doesn't with the alternative of dying.
[citation needed]

Y'know, Das Kapital was written 150 years ago and has proven to have not AT ALL predicted the future of capitalism. My question is, why do you fuckers still believe that meme book?

>>532413
>You should be pretty excited right now. Just a few minutes ago, you said there was no possible way for any relationship between any two humans to ever occur according to this pattern.
This is not a relationship you stupid faggot. I'm talking about real world relationships.

Take parental authority, is parental authority also proscribed from anarchist society? Is the family anti-anarchist according to your retarded definitions?

Stupid faggot.

>>532418
Das Kapital doesn't debate if volontary exchange is or isn't volontary as far as i remember.

>>532423
>This is not a relationship you stupid faggot.
It's not two people behaving towards each other? Are you not a person?

>I'm talking about real world relationships.
So, do you not exist in the real world?

>>532442
>It's not two people behaving towards each other?
No, a relationship is two people deciding to share their lives. When I say hello to the cashier I don't have a relationship with her.

>So, do you not exist in the real world?
Do you? If for you talking with an anonymous person on the internet is "a relationship" you must have pretty low standards.

Also, you fucking faggot, why did you ignore my question?

>Take parental authority, is parental authority also proscribed from anarchist society? Is the family anti-anarchist according to your retarded definitions?

>>532457
Well, you seem to have argued yourself out of the problem.

It seems you don't have a relationship with your parents.

File: drake refuses your bullshit.png (444KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 800x600px

>>532090
>people should be able to do business as they would like without a government to intervene on behalf of corporations; therefore consumers have plenty of options when it comes to purchasing goods
"das that fake anarchism!!!:D:D"

>people should have their belongings forcefully taken from them at gunpoint just because you don't like private property
"Real anarchism; definitely no state here"

>>532177
>no authority means no capitalism
1. With that logic, people with guns forcing others to participate in the commune is an oxymoron

2. Having a boss and/or manager isn't the same thing as a bureaucratic government

>>532470
Jesus, what a shitty copout.

I'm guessing you're not going to answer the question. I understand, because that question exposes how fucking retarded your views are.

>>532214
>90% of workers in the world are forced to sell their labour power
In a free market society, workers would not be forced to work for one low-paying employer, as there would be no government to enact legislation on behalf of the under-paying employer.

>>532489
>1. With that logic, people with guns forcing others to participate in the commune is an oxymoron
Indeed. For example, in anarchist catalonia:
>If you didn't want to join the collective you were given some land but only as much as you could work yourself. You were not allowed to employ workers. Not only production was affected, distribution was on the basis of what people needed. In many areas money was abolished. People come to the collective store (often churches which had been turned into warehouses) and got what was available. If there were shortages rationing would be introduced to ensure that everyone got their fair share. But it was usually the case that increased production under the new system eliminated shortages.

>2. Having a boss and/or manager isn't the same thing as a bureaucratic government
Different things, but boths are expressions of authority.

>>532504
I never claimed so.

File: subcommandante marcos.jpg (53KB, 637x360px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 637x360px

>>532509
>Different things, but boths are expressions of authority.
Let's be honest here: there is a natural hierarchy in life.

Your parents, coaches, teachers, etc. are people you see as superiors, in a way. Hierarchies such as these cannot be removed effectively. Even anarchists have leaders like Mahkno and Marcos.

As for bosses, this is one such hierarchy. However, in a free market society, one would not have to work at the whim of one man. They could simply form a socialistic business, in which the workers own production, and then compete with other businesses..

>>532609
Emergent authority isn't the same as hierarchy. You can defer to someone's greater expertise in a matter without serving them.

>>532609
>Let's be honest here: there is a natural hierarchy in life.
>Your parents, coaches, teachers, etc. are people you see as superiors, in a way. Hierarchies such as these cannot be removed effectively.
Not really, you are just naturalizing what your inductivist mind observes, which is pretty short sighted. You are historically incorrect (as non hierarchical primitives societies have arised by themselves), but also wrong in your specific examples (for example, anarchist schools have existed and exist and catalonian anarchist "armies").

>They could simply form a socialistic business, in which the workers own production, and then compete with other businesses..
If you don't have the capital to form a business, you can't. If you do have the capital, you have no reason to form a cooperative. Again, the extreme right vision of capitalism is extremely naive.

>>532117
>anarchism=jungle

>>532078
If 70% of the population were good enough not to need laws any utopia would work.

>>531999
Question: Does money exist in an anarchic society? If not: How do you guarantee that people will act in accordance with reciprocal altruism?

>>533077
I did take that in consideration, this is why I asked for an example of a working anarchic societal system

>>533238
Well, the closest thing I could think of are small self-sufficient tribal societies of a handful of people. Money there is not necessary because everybody has to fulfill a social function for the group to survive. But there are still people of (at least) moral authority so it's kind of a moot point.