>>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.
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.
>>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
>>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.
>>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.
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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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
>>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?
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
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?
>>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.
>>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
>>25601714 >You're not allowed to do what you want because I the rules said so >somehow this isn't ruling over someone >this is what real anarchism is despite it being a definition I made up one night after my mom sent me to my room for being rude
>>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.
>>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.
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
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.