>"/pol/ isn't a hugbox, lefties might get shitposted

free discussion doesn't mean pay attention to retards

>>25600076
you only think I'm a retard because of /pol/'s hugbox mentality

>lefties
>anarchism
choose wisely fagballs

>>25600035
Because it is a childish idea.

"DAE thing no gubbment means freedumz"

Anarchy is a childish idea, right next to "let's all share because that's what I learned in 1st grade" communism and "rich bad, poor good, everyone works hard" socialism.

>>25600103
>bosses
>no rulers
choose one but only one

>>25600035
Just because you make a thread doesn't mean people need to post in it.

>>25600125
yes but do you actually have any arguments for why?

>>25600125

That isn't even what anarchism means. Fucking moron.

>>25600147
I never said they did, I just said that it's a hugbox like reddit or tumblr

my thread on /pol/ just died with no replies
L I T E R A L L Y no better than reddit

Anarchism is absolutely stupid.
It may sound great in theory, but the thing you anarchists haven't factored in: the human psyche.

Class and order are needed to contain chaos.

>discussing politics on 4/pol/
That board is now just a general internet shitposting forum. They dont even try tp keep it on topic. Go to a better chan if you want serious discussion

>>25600229
>>25600175

They would have attacked your opinion if it was like Reddit or Tumblr. You're essentially getting upset because no one sat with you at lunch time.

>>25600248
if it sounds great in theory then it has to take the practice into account, don't just spout memes
why do you need rulers to have order?

>>25600125

>being this indoctrinated

Imagine when a religious person says "B-but, if there's no God then nothing makes sense, why does everything exist, it's just stupid".

Then you'll realize how inane and profoundly stupid you sound right now.

>>25600290
I'm saying that it's like reddit and tumblr because it's just a hivemind of the same opinions, not because they attack other positions

File: 1452060596677.jpg (66KB, 477x750px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 477x750px

>>25600035
The difference between /pol/ and the rest of the internet is that you can actually make the thread in the first place, you can make any political thread endorsing any political idea and it will not be deleted. Compare this to leddit and other faggot websites, who delete or downvote everything they don't agree with so it is never seen.

That being said, there is no guarantee you will get replies, or positive replies, but you have the freedom to post and be seen even if everyone disagrees with you.

I've also seen anarchist threads hit the bump limit on /pol/ before so there's an element of luck involved as well, but that is common on 4chan in general.

>>25600248

>2016
>using the human nature argument

Even if all people really are just completely selfish shitholes (which hasn't been confirmed by any scientific research, btw), it's still fine. Worker self-management is objectively in the self-interest of over 99% of the population.

>>25600035
>free discussion means I am entitled to have people reply to me
You dumb fucking leftist anarchism is shit anyway

>>25600334
Thats because its so fast moving. Chans arent meant to have such a large user base. You didnt get any replies because your thread was probably bumped down to 4th or 5th page straight away. Just look at any thread, theres no discussion its just people agreeing with the OP. Its not because the users there arent replying, its that most wont see your thread

>>25600343
but /pol/ is a fast moving board and most people probably never saw the thread I made because they were too busy posting in threads with 2 words and a picture of hitler
the site's design might be different to reddit but it's the same mentality

>>25600391
I didn't say that, just that it's a hugbox
>>25600398
yeah

>>25600097
Circular logic.

>>25600447
then debunk anarchism

>over 18 years old
>anarchist

LMAO

yeah nah

>>25600412
You still have the exact same opportunity as the rest of the threads to be seen and replied to, unlike reddit where you will be banned and censored by mods and downvoted out of sight by the users if you go against the narrative. All it takes on /pol/ to bump you right to the front page is a single reply, it doesn't even need to be a particularly interesting reply.

It really isn't the same as reddit in the slightest, not at all.

>>25600473
well atleast I'm getting shitposts here

>>25600464
how about first explain what you think anarchism is and how it'd work. and don't give fucking vague bullshit answers. be specific.

>>25600473

One of the most well-known and respected intellectuals of the past century (who is in his late eighties) is an anarchist.

porky pls go and stay go

>>25600485
what's the practical difference between downvoting and just not replying?

>>25600504
Please don't say Noam Chomsky

PLEASE

>>25600035
/pol/ is just one big circlejerk, the tumbler of the right wing

>>25600553
except they use facts instead of feelings

>>25600522
Because you can downvote a potentially popular topic just because you disagree with it, as opposed to replies which bump your thread directly to the fucking front if you get even a single reply that agrees or disagrees with you. There is literally no fucking correlation lad.

>>25600500
Anarchism means no rulers, the goal of anarchism is to get rid of rule or government. There's no one way for it to work, but there have been different ideas, like workers councils for example, that have been put into practice during anarchist revolutions in Catalonia and elsewhere.

>>25600549

Like him or not, he is obviously incredibly intelligent, well-read, and commonly cited.

Considering I'm just disproving the notion that anarchists are ignorant children, I think my point is valid.

>>25600580
but even reddit has a "controversial" tab

>>25600595
so raping and murdering is legal?

a niggers paradise

>>25600624
no, because raping and murdering implies dominion over another person

>>25600641
and who enforces that?
the feel good police?

It's best to just stay away from politics in general. It's not like your opinions aren't shit or have any effect on anything

4cuck /pol/ is one of the worst places on the internet but they are good soldiers on the ideological battlefield because they're so fucking many.

File: Rothbard.jpg (39KB, 391x565px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 391x565px

>>25600613
He's definitely well-read but he's wrong about almost everything.

Pic related is a way cooler anarchist, but Rothbard is an ancap so if you're a fan of Chomsky you probably hate his guts.

>>25600660
That's the point of anarchist theory and practice, to find ways to acheive it. In Spain it was the militias in in Ukraine it was the Insurrectionary Army.

>>25600686
an anarchist doesn't believe in bosses

>>25600692
> In Spain it was the militias in in Ukraine it was the Insurrectionary Army.

yeah. white people. all white people

>>25600620
That nobody reads.

Also I mentioned many times that the mods also censor fucking everything they disagree with on plebbit, you pretty much need to make your own board if you actually want to post freely about anything. Mods on /pol/ only delete very obvious shitposts and illegal nonsense.

>>25600717
That's wrong, an anarchist believes in voluntarism. That includes voluntarily choosing to work under someone.

>>25600735
if nobody reads it how is that any different from nobody reading threads they disagree with on /pol/?

>>25600762
then you should just call it voluntarism because it's historically and etymologically incorrect to call it anarchism

>>25600790
>expecting an anarchist to think clearly and actually have defined ideas

>>25600764
To get out of the controversial section is almost impossible, you need a sudden massive influx of upvotes to counter the downvotes to be seen again.

On /pol/ all it takes is literally one dude looking at the catalog, finding your thread and posting a smug anime picture in your thread to put it directly at the top.

It's not 100% fucking perfect but by god it is so much better than any other political discussion board online, I can't believe you're still on about this.

>>25600812
but my whole point is that he's not an anarchist

>>25600790
That's why they typically call it anarcho-capitalism, and what you're talking about is anarcho-syndicalism (if you're a Chomsky fan). There are distinctions if you want to get particular, it's still anarchism because it opposes the undisputed, non-voluntary rule of a state.

>>25600825
I agree that the imageboard format is much better, but /pol/ is still a hugbox

>>25600692
and what's to stop these militarised groups from just establishing a new rule
and who funds them in the first place
who decides what is and isn't to be enforced by them

>>25600862
Then it boils down to opinion, because I personally find /pol/ way, way too fair to be a hugbox. I mean how would you solve the problem of you not getting replies? Force people to reply to you? Pin your thread on the front page because it's not popular enough to survive on its own? That sounds more like a hugbox than what /pol/ currently is, in my opinion.

>>25600859
but anarchism means no government/rule, not no "the government" or no state

>>25600869
>and what's to stop these militarised groups from just establishing a new rule
their entire structure and ideology
>and who funds them in the first place
usually the peasants/workers
>who decides what is and isn't to be enforced by them
they don't enforce anything because they're anarchist

>>25600892
So what body enforces this? If I were living in your anarchist world and I wanted to work for my father or something, maybe we were running a farm, and he would give me a cut of the revenue in return for my work or whatever, who would stop me from doing so?

Is that even anarchism if I am prevented, by some third party, from voluntarily working as an employee under my father? That sounds like statism to me.

>>25600890
It would be wrong to force people to reply to things they disagree with but it wouldn't be a hugbox

>>25600954
It would be unfairly favoring the unpopular opinion over the popular opinion, it would be, by definition, a "contrarian hugbox".

File: 1438443121394.jpg (47KB, 500x636px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 500x636px

>>25600035
Can someone please explain that picture? Goddamn spaceman being high in high atmosphere.

>>25600948
once again, anarchism isn't simply "anti-statism"
it means no rulers whatsoever
a boss rules over his employees
there wouldn't be a body to enforce not working for bosses because bosses simply wouldn't exist in an anarchist society

>>25600999
It's a shoop, lad.

File: hue.jpg (52KB, 581x593px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 581x593px

>>25600464
Fix your logic first. I might consider a discussion with you worthwhile if you do more than say /pol/ is a hugbox because it disagrees with me because it's a hugbox. That's why you're retarded; it has little to do with what you like and everything to do with your inability to form a coherent argument.

>>25600936
in which case, we can return to the original point
what if 10 men get together and decide, fuck it lets just go wipe out a village of people and take all their resources because we want to and there is no active force willing or able to stop us

>>25601017
Okay so you're not talking about the real world, then, you're talking about an imaginary, perfect society.

I mean it's nice to entertain fanciful ideas like this, but in the real world it just doesn't work, it is impossible. Actual, real life anarchism can never be as pure as that, your definition of anarchism is way too restrictive.

I don't like using wikipedia as a source, but the wikipedia definition of anarchism is "a political philosophy that advocates self-governed societies with voluntary institutions", so I will ascribe to that definition, not yours, it's simply too unrealistic.

>>25600989
wouldn't a contrarian hugbox just be a hugbox of people with contrarian opinions?
>>25601022
I was saying that that poster thought I was a retard for dissenting because of a mentality that ignores dissent. How is that in any way wrong?

>>25600999
>>25601019
>You will never hotbox your spaceship with your bros
>You will never explore distant worlds while high as fuck
Born far too early

>>25601063
if they're from a larger militia then the rest of the militia will stop them
>>25601105
m8 you're just shitposting and not giving any reasons why it's unrealistic

>>25601063
It's pretty obvious what would happen. The village would temporarily suspend anarchism in favor of an alliance of individuals, band together, and get slaughtered by the group that's been cohesive from the beginning.

>>25601190
anarchism could accurately be described as an alliance of individuals so you're talking out your ass

>>25601126
You're clearly not worth my time. You're not capable of sound logic and you lack the ability to understand simple statements.

>>25601186
>m8 you're just shitposting and not giving any reasons why it's unrealistic
Really? Answer my question then about wanting to work for my father, who would stop me? If somebody stops me, that is statism. You can't just say "in an anarchist society bosses wouldn't exist" without elaborating on how you can possibly accomplish this.

>>25601238
you clearly have no answer
>>25601247
>the actual definition of what anarchism is isn't what I believe in but I'm an anarchist anyway
What gives your father his property and employees? What lets him hold onto them?

>>25601247
I should add, accomplish this WITHOUT violating the tenets of anarchism. That is what is important.

How would you keep me, in an anarchist society, from choosing to work on my father's farm under his authority?

If I do not have the freedom to choose to work for my father, then it is not an anarchist society in the first place, because there would be some kind of barrier to me doing what I want to do, some kind of authority that rules over me to PREVENT me from what I want to do.

>>25601298
how is a relation between people where one is subordinate to the other anarchistic?

>>25601289
I would be his only employee. He bought his land in a voluntary transaction, he traded it for a bottle of whiskey or something I don't know.

You're just sidestepping the question. Answer me or admit that your "realistic" anarchist society is self-contradictory.

>>25601332
How can your definition of anarchism even exist in the real world if one can not choose to do what they please? How is that anarchism if you are keeping me from doing what I want to do?

>>25601186
what if an entire militia decide that instead of being anarchistic they can enslave rape and rob from a large group of people

>>25600035
>retarded anarchist is a retard
Every anarchism thread ever

The only way anarchism can stand in any serious argument is through a silly moral argument about it never being right to control another person which apparently every system of authority does

The only reason anarchism is even heard of today is because it's advocated by idiots and edgy morons.

>>25601347
If he bought land then obviously there are property rights, and if you have property rights you need the means to defend them, which is going to be a violent, coercive institution similar to a state, so that situation is not anarchistic. Nobody'ss going to stop you from cucking yourself to authority, don't worry.

>>25601427
Once again sidestepping the question.

Your concept of anarchism is impossible in reality, just accept that your definition is fucking wrong, even outside sources favor my definition over yours. I mean have you even studied anarchist thought before or are you literally just a pure anti-authoritarian high school edgelord?

>>25601376
Because anarchism doesn't mean being able to do whatever you want, it means no rulers.
>>25601416
If they formed as an anarchist miltia based on anarchist principles, why would they? If they do they're not anarchist any more and anarchists will resist their rule.

>>25601487
>Because anarchism doesn't mean being able to do whatever you want, it means no rulers.
In your "realistic" anarchist society, who keeps me from doing what I want, and what makes them any different from rulers?

>>25601487
>anarchists will resist their rule
>they don't enforce anything because they're anarchist
which one is it m8ey

>>25601478
how am I sidestepping the question? I'm explaining to you that a society where one person is subordinate to another is not anarchistic. If you want to work for a boss you're not an anarchist, but I can't do anything to make you one. Fucking Rothbard isn't anarchist thought.

>>25600035
>literally no replies

Yes, and? Most people understand that anarchism is fucking stupid, you're still free to create threads and discuss it with other faggots.

File: muhammud.jpg (214KB, 1149x800px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 1149x800px

>>25601487
>it means no rulers
What if someone wants to be ruled?

They're not allowed to do this because it's against the rules of anarchism I guess

Are you retarded?

>>25601575
And a society in which one is UNABLE to be subordinate to another voluntarily is not anarchistic either! This is why voluntarism is in the actual DESCRIPTION OF ANARCHISM GOD FUCKING DAMN.

>Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates self-governed societies with voluntary institutions.

>voluntary

>VOLUNTARY

>INSTITUTIONS

>ANARCHISM

>>25601531
they're different from rulers because they don't rule
I never said it was realistic, stop using scarequotes it makes you look like a marxist and the people keeping you from ruling over others are the anarchists
>>25601540
they stop being anarchists once they rule

>>25601586
then it's not anarchism because anarchism means no rulers
>>25601617
what if you voluntarily decide that there should be a state? is that anarchism?

>>25601675
>they're different from rulers because they don't rule
If they don't rule, then by what authority do they keep me from choosing to work for my father?

And don't call ME a marxist motherfucker you're the one saying that society should be forcibly equal by some magical cosmic god or something.

>>25601717
they don't keep you from working for anyone, they keep rulers from ruling
if you don't want to be called a marxist then don't write like one

>>25601714
>what if you voluntarily decide that there should be a state? is that anarchism?
Yes, depending on your definition of a "state". If a state is voluntary, it really isn't a state, it's a "voluntary institution".

I mean imagine if you're working on building a house with some anarchist friends or something but one guy knows a whole lot more about construction than everyone else, so you all voluntarily elect him as leader of the project, does that suddenly mean that the participants aren't anarchists? They CHOOSE to give him authority, and they can also CHOOSE to leave if they don't like his decisions, that's the definition of freedom right there.

Are you telling me that there should be some kind of "anarchist police" that should intervene and stop the man from being elected as project leader? In that case, the anarchist police are acting as a state.

>>25601815
generally in the english language words have definitions

>>25600412
Ad hominem much?
>hurr durr they ignore me
Man up faggot

>>25601845
And your definition is wrong, please just look it up man, you're missing like half the definition of anarchism.

>>25601837
no, when I say state I mean state if they want a president, a police force and an army is that anarchism?
read what Bakunin had to say about authority

>>25600298
m8 niggers would absolutely chimpout. you'd have nigger/sandnigger gangs roaming around being chimps, raping, stealing, killing.

>>25600035
>2016
>not knowing what the word hugbox means
also
>anarchism
>>>/middleschool/

>>25601863
with the wikipedia article, you're missing it as well because it says self-governing; i. e. they're not governed by anybody other than themselves

>>25600790
>voluntarism
>willingly being a wagecuck

>>25601908
sorry this isn't your hugbox anon

>anarchist wants to force people.to.talk with him about anarchism

Gee, that kind of coercion sounds pretty... Authoritarian of.you, OP.

>>25602035
shut the fuck up before i get the anarchist non voluntary police to force you not to work on your father's farm

>>25601919
Choosing to let someone else govern you is self governance, to imply otherwise is statism.

File: 1449985474970.jpg (25KB, 383x367px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 383x367px

>>25602176
having somebody else govern you is self governance
also ice is hot, if you think ice is cold you're a statist
if you don't want to be governed by other people you're a statist

>>25602209
>having somebody else govern you is self governance
You omitted the first and most important part. VOLUNTARILY CHOOSING TO LET someone else govern you is self governance, because you are CHOOSING. Do you understand? There is NO COERCION, it's FREE CHOICE.

God fucking damn it's like I'm arguing with literal children.

>>25602257
When children grow up in families that abuse them, they think that it's a normal behaviour. Nobody looking to exploit you wants you to outright disagree with them.

By the way, thanks anons for discussing this with me.

File: 1442106162660.jpg (48KB, 458x390px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 458x390px

>>25602569

THE ABSOLUTE MADMAN

>>25602035
>>25602035
>>25602035

The BANTZ

>>25603522
what is the meaning of this shitposting? if you don't desist I will get my anarchist police who don't think that letting other people govern you is self-governance to detain you

>>25600035

Anarchism is what happens in middle and southern Africa

The law of the machete

>>25603682
did you even read the thread famiglia

Anarchism is impossible because in the end, force will always rule. You can choose for yourself all you like but that is no protection from someone choosing otherwise for you. The police, court system, and law are a thin protection offered by the state, but it's better than the free-for-all that anarchism would inevitably decay into, because people are dicks.
>"choose" not to hand over your possessions to someone bigger and stronger then you that wants them.
Get your shit kicked in and then they take it anyway.
>bu-but muh militia of free-thinking individuals that don't take orders from "rulers" will stop them!
Yeah, because that's what any military organization needs, a whole bunch of dumb shits who all think they know best and may or may not be able to work cohesively based on how they feel about it that day
>"choose" not to work
Enjoy starving.
>"choose" to work for yourself
Doing what exactly? Having land requires some kind of property rights, or someone might "choose" to just move right onto your farm and harvest your crops for themselves. Enforcement of property rights means in one way or the other someone must bow their head to the rule of law.

>>25605412
>Anarchism is impossible because in the end, force will always rule. You can choose for yourself all you like but that is no protection from someone choosing otherwise for you. The police, court system, and law are a thin protection offered by the state, but it's better than the free-for-all that anarchism would inevitably decay into, because people are dicks.
survival of the fittest, a society where everybody has to compete for ruling positions is weak because cooperation is probably the most important factor as to how humans got this far
>Yeah, because that's what any military organization needs, a whole bunch of dumb shits who all think they know best and may or may not be able to work cohesively based on how they feel about it that day
That's what Denikin thought
>>"choose" not to work
what?
>>25605412
>Doing what exactly? Having land requires some kind of property rights, or someone might "choose" to just move right onto your farm and harvest your crops for themselves. Enforcement of property rights means in one way or the other someone must bow their head to the rule of law.
never said there should be property rights

>>25600229
>L I T E R A L L Y no better than reddit
only newfags still believe that post-2013 4chin is less shitty than leddit.

>>25600229
>WAHH nobody gave me attentions!!