Is anarcho-anything basically the autistic political equivalent

No, it's just tweens trying to come up with their little toy utopias

>>1806350
LARPing: the ideology

>>1806350
I don't see what's wrong with Anarchism, or subscribing to a certain type of Anarchist though.
Obviously though, this is all invalidated by your memetic rhetoric.

File: anargy.png (137KB, 848x565px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 848x565px

Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism.

>>1806400
Anarcho-anythingism is pure autism.

>>1806350
No there's legitimate thought in it. Some more than others.

Don't compare two different things.

File: adamsmith.jpg (96KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 850x400px

>>1806400

There's a certain logic to the way communism is supposed to be achieved according to Marx.

anarcho anything basically wants communism to be achieved by DUDE NO MASTERS NO PARENTS NO BEDTIMES ANARCHY LIVES LMAO!

>>1806389
>I don't see what's wrong with Anarchism

Flys in the face of everything science tells us about human nature, and also of all history.

>>1806426
Honestly the biggest problem I have with Marx is the autistic idea that a stateless society is the end goal of socialism. Not only it isn't desirable, it doesn't even make any sense. I understand his notion about socialism being basically a worker-ruled society, but the thing that comes after that - communism, is pure horseshit.

>>1806436
>science tells us about human nature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>1806436

Why don't you enlighten us about what science says about "human nature"?

>>1806436
This is certainly a post

>>1806438
It basically boils down to a state of post scarcity being achieved where most people wouldn't have to work any more. Think China building ghost cities that no one can afford to buy on a global scale. Except people can afford them.

>>1806474
But the spontaneous vanishing of a government would happen only if the only role of a government was resource distribution, which certainly is not the case.

>>1806489
I think the issue is that the 19th century concept of the state is different from the modern one. Marx only saw the state as an entity that protected private property.

Idk I'm not really a Marxist so I can't competently defend what he meant exactly.

File: anarchists.jpg (150KB, 729x729px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 729x729px

rev up those memes lads

Anarcho Socialism sounds like a huge contradiction. Then an Anarcho Socialist will be like "ugh you just dont understand how it would work" and then they proceed to not explain anything

>>1806506
>neutral evil
>anarcha-feminism
where's egoism as well?

>>1806523
Anarchism has traditionally always been socialist.

>>1806544
You mean the people identified traditionally as anarchists often asscociated with and identified somehwat as anarchists? Or that anarchism as an ideology is socialist?

File: plsstop.gif (3MB, 640x266px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x266px

>>1806506
>Anarcho-Monarchism

>>1806558
I had the same reaction the first time I heard about it, but it actually makes a lot of sense and isn't self-contradictory at all. Read Hoppe's Democracy: the god that failed.

I mean I'm not one of them myself nor do I endorse this idea but it's not nonsensical horseshit like the name indicates.

>>1806557
Anarchism as an ideology is almost always socialist. Being against hierarchies usually implies some kind of socialism.

File: analchy.png (6KB, 634x345px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 634x345px

>>1806523
Exactly this.

>we want democratically elected councils ruling and policing society and redistributing resources
>but it's totally anarchism because we don't call it a "state"

File: ayyyyyyy.gif (4MB, 700x298px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 700x298px

>>1806571
>but it actually makes a lot of sense

>>1806350
>anarcha-feminism
>queer anarchism
Literally what

>>1806581
You pic don't make any sense. In an anarchist's or socialist's ideal society there would be no rich to take from and no poor to give to; they're not fucking socdems. Also there are no rulers and police in an anarchist society, just horizontal organization that aids in coordination. Any anarchist "policing" would just be for people's protection, not to coerce others into doing shit.

These threads are so fucking tiring because no one knows anything about anarchism and just spews memes.

>>1806618
Identity politics that aren't taken seriously by actual anarchists and whose only prominent thinkers are people who wouldn't even identity with those labels.

>>1806636
>no rich to take from and no poor to give to
This would be impossible to establish and enforce. The rich would find ways to keep their wealth and use it to assert dominance on others.

basically.

>>1806649
Obviously an anarchist revolution would eliminate the rich's control over the country, but after that is done there would be no more rich to deal with and no more would appear because the society would make it unfeasible and pointless to become wealthy.

File: implying.jpg (8KB, 239x241px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 239x241px

>>1806350
yes because anarcho capitalism and anarcho primitivism is so similar XD

>>1806558
Tolkien was an anarcho-monarchist. He wanted a complete figurehead king, one who cares more about stamp collecting than governing, to fulfill his romantic medieval desires.

>>1806581
anarchism is about removing hierarchies, not organisation

File: 1388414488728.jpg (103KB, 682x600px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 682x600px

>>1806680
>Tolkien was an anarcho-monarchist

File: 005.png (299KB, 674x754px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 674x754px

>>1806649
this is the thing these anarcho-autists fail to understand. There is no way to create their utopian society because there is always going to be someone to (as you said) "assert dominance" over somebody else (both from inside and outside of the society [if it dosen't control the whole world]) if there is noone above him to prevent that

File: 14601047_1177968065616972_4139982397578910376_n.jpg (48KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 960x720px

On the topic of Anarchism. If anyone here has heard or read "Might is right- Ragnar Redbeard"
Can you please explain what the fuck the political ideology that book promotes?

I've seen both Natsoc /pol/ types and Anarchists recommend this book. And after reading it i cant find a cohesive political ideology being pushed by the author. I can see hints of Anarcho-Primitsm/Anarcho-Egoism and alot of hatred for the state. While at the same time not disavowing collectivism when it comes to Race or nation. And even justifying kings and warlords.

In other words, am i retarded for not understanding the logic behind Anarchist books or are anarchist books retarded?

>>1806667
>if you removed all wealth and power from the wealthy and powerful people, they'd be just like anyone else!

And that's where you're wrong. These types of people come out on top no matter what you do. There's a positive correlation between intelligence and wealth, these guys always find a way. Ff you abolished capitalism tomorrow, the evil capitalists of yesteryear would become the head comissars that would send you dumbasses to the uranium mines.

This is what we mean when we say your horseshit ideas don't correspond with human nature. There's way more to a person than what he has on his bank account.

>>1806685
Well it depends how seriously you take his letters (he was a trickster after all) but he said he was Anarchist in spirit and opposed the concept of a government, but also lavished praise on the idealised idea of a monarchy.

>>1806667
While an anarchist revolution would be harmful to the elite, it is unreasonable to expect all of the elite and all their possessions to be destroyed. Even if wealth inequality were eradicated, people would gradually gain influence over others because inequality is inevitable. As history proves, civilization and states are dependent on each other, and states would eventually arise to maintain civilization.

>>1806680
If Tolkien were a devout anarcho-monarchist, someone like him would've reflected his ideology in his writing.

>>1806718
You can see anti-authoritarian sentiments in his work. The Shire doesn't really have any form of heirarchy, representing idealised country life. But even the other good societies don't seem to be controllled be strong central authority, and the monarchs (such as Aragorn) are followed out of their virtue, similar to what I was saying about how Tolkien liked the idea of an idealised king. He'd want a king like Aragorn. On the flipside, Sauron, Melkor and Saruman are all depicted as despotic rulers, commanding absolute authority over those they rule.

I'm not certain if he is an anarcho-monarchist, but he expressed clear sympathies to a form of monarchism and he considered himself anarchist 'in spirit'.

>>1806400
anarcho-capitalism is the only real and pure form of anarchism

>>1806746
>The Shire doesn't really have any form of heirarchy, representing idealised country life.
Nah, man. The Baggins are the fatcats of the Shire.

File: 1474669651973.jpg (90KB, 640x599px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 640x599px

>>1806618

>>1806759

You can't have capitalism without the state fucktard.

>>1806688

Anarchist believe that the one who prevents it is not someone above but the people themselves.

>>1806506
Ancap is chaotic and anarcom is lawful? Where do you get that?

>>1806647

Yeah Emma Goldmann wasn't a real anarchist guise.

>>1806709
>As history proves, civilization and states are dependent on each other, and states would eventually arise to maintain civilization.

That's not some inevitable force of history but a consequence of deliberate actions of those who have power and are afraid to lose it.

>>1806636
>"policing" would just be for people's protection, not to coerce others into doing shit
Except you would coerce others into sharing their resources.

File: FreedomPunch.jpg (18KB, 251x237px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 251x237px

>>1806350
Pretty much, yeah, it's amazing how many processed food eating Applebees faggots use this as their political platform.

It makes no sense whatsoever.

>>1806680
Tolkien was philosophically an anarchist because he saw how fucked up politics was. He had a hardon for the classic righteous kings of old but he didn't take those fantasies as serious political thinking. He also wasn't stupid enough to believe something so ridiculously optimistic and contradictory.

>>1806812
Emma Goldman wasn't interested in identity politics, she said women oppress women more than men do, that's why she opposed female suffrage.

>>1806823

Private property literally cannot be sustained without a police.

No one would coerce someone to give away their car, apartment or other personal posessions. The workers would control the the means of production and land and unused real estate would be free for use.

>>1806830
I said later on that he didn't quite fully believe it, sorry for the mix up. I don't think he was all too concerned with politcs to be frank.

>>1806833

Identity politics didn't exist as an idea until the 70s. She opposed the bourgeois female suffragettes, and first wave feminism because it wasn't radical enough.

>>1806792
>The Baggins are the fatcats of the Shire.
This is true. Bilbo was living a very comfy life of mostly leisure even before he returned his fat chest of coins.

It seemed like some Hobbits farmed and they clearly had advanced dairy/meat processing, but it seemed like Bilbo himself just did some light recreational gardening and was a part of hobbit Society.

>>1806853

Hobbits are a weird combination of prelapsarian weed smoking merry fat hippies and 19th century English gentry with strict social hierarchies.

>>1806808
not him but im guessing its because ancom would by definition have to have some form of authority
whereas ancap is just every man for himself

i know im probably not properly representing the ideologies

>>1806849
Didn't she argue that voting will get people nowhere, as men couldn't break down oppressive society with it, so neither could women?

>>1806849
She didn't just think they weren't radical enough, she saw suffragettes as outright reactionary.

>>1806705
That's why you create a system where no one can gain power and influence over another. Marxism is stupid for that exact reason. There would be no one abusing their powers as commissar because there would be no commissar.
>>1806709
Again, there is no way for people to gain power over each other in an anarchistic system unless the system was deliberately destroyed or reformed to the extent that its no longer anarchistic. The most that could happen would be a charismatic guy getting a lot of followers, but since everyone is indoctrinated to hate authority and hierarchy and have the means and weapons to oppose it, a guy like that isn't going to be able to control anyone who doesn't want to be.
>>1806823
It depends on the specific anarcho-ideology, but you're probably thinking of ancoms and they would think that the resources are no one's resources but everyone's. If they wanted to be a greedy and not share, people would just refuse to associate with him and he'd be effectively ostracized; they're be no coercion involved, just social policing, if he didn't like it he could go find some ancap community that supports him.

>>1806882
Purity spiraling. I would say that's the defining trait of all commies but I've been seeing it on the right as well, I mean just checked the alt-right personalities on twitter and bask in all the autism.

>>1806869
>ancom would by definition have to have some form of authority


> Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognise no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.

>>1806350
Anarchism is the "There are 63 genders" of ideology

>>1806887
>That's why you create a system where no one can gain power and influence over another.

Such a system can never be created. It's biologically impossible.

>>1806887
>Marxism is stupid
>so let me propose something even more retarded than Marxism!

>>1806863
Given the extreme Britishness of Tolkien, some deeply innate classist tendancies were bound to come through his writing.

Still, any society which has fully renounced shoes is going to be wayyyyy chill.

>>1806842
I forgive you babe. But ya, he didn't really care much about politics other than realizing it was fucked up and that he wished a righteous king came along and restored virtues and goodness to the land.

>>1806892
>Purity spiraling
What the hell is that?

>>1806901
Explain your hypothesis.
>>1806907
Not an argument.

>>1806821
No. The fact of the matter is that not all people are equally useful to each other. That isn't to say that people that are in power are the most useful, but to say that skills being distributed unevenly through the population will lead to some skills being more appreciated. Even in cooperation, some people will negotiate from positions of power over others.

You get 100 farmers and 1 medic. Naturally farming is the most useful skill in that everyone would without doubt starve without it, but because the doctor's skills are so much scarcer the doctor will have more influence than any one farmer.

>>1806930
You still are thinking in a competitive mindset where everything is a zero-sum game. When people are genuinely invested in their community and the people around them, they usually aren't going to have solely selfish or egocentric desires and usually do what they believe is in the interest of the community. A purely competitive mindset towards ones peers usually comes from alienation.

>>1806930

What? Anarchism has nothing against certain skills being appreciated more.

>>1806913
>I believe we need to stop all this political correctness in our country. No BLM shit, all races need to work together!
>ARE YOU A FUCKING KEK? NIGGERS ARE OUR ENEMIES, WE CAN NEVER BE FRIENDS, THEY NEED TO BE REMOVED!

>I believe we need to put an end to white genocide and remove all the blacks and spics from this country in order to prevent a demographic catastrophe and the extinction of our race. Jews can stay.
>WAIT, WHAT DO YOU MEAN JEWS CAN STAY? NICE TRY SCHLOMO!

>Jews are a bane to the progress of our civilization and they're always working against us, they need to be deported as well
>DEPORTED? WHAT DO YOU MEAN DEPORTED? NO OVENS AND RIGHT WING DEATH SQUADS? FUCK OFF MODERATE SHILL

This is purity spiraling. The best example of all time would be the French revolution when all the revolutionaries started calling each other counter-revolutionary and reactionary for not being radical enough, purging each other and even the purgers would later get purged. Then Napoleon stepped in and put an end to this gigantic autism by restoring a monarchy lmao.

>>1806922
>Explain your hypothesis.

You can assert power over people in almost infinite number of ways and it doesn't have to be a formal power. Fucking hell, even complimenting someone on his looks can be used as a currency for gaining power.

>>1806821

If history proves us anything it's that the state as it emerges after feudalism is inherently tied with treating it's citizenry as a resource to be shaped and used - and that capitalism cannot thrive without a state that ensures property rights.

>>1806960
No, it's about seeing women as a reactionary political force at the time. The prosecution of prostitutes, Prohibition, and the age of consent were caused by women getting into politics, and Emma Goldman was writing when these were hot topics. She also saw women who were into voting as more likely to push through anti labor laws.

>>1806968
Informal influence isn't the same as someone literally being able to beat, torture, cage, or murder you without consequences. Sure, you can observe a group of friends and see which ones are more respected and listened to, but that doesn't mean anyone is going to tolerate that person beating up the fat nerd of the group.

>>1806980
>She also saw women who were into voting as more likely to push through anti labor laws.
Well the exact opposite happened.

>>1806983
Oh yes it is. Calvin in Geneva also had just informal influence, he had no actual position and all of "his" property was owned by the council, but he was the de facto dictator. Formal power structure is literally irrelevant, it's all about the people.

>>1806983

The development of tools, communication and the use of violence correlate with development of less hierarchical structures, not more.

In a state of nature the alfa male of the group set all the rules. In neolithic human society the others can band together and bash his head in with a stone while he sleeps.

>>1806838
>Private property literally cannot be sustained without a police.
It can be sustained by force, same as public property.

>The workers would control the the means of production and land and unused real estate would be free for use.
Efficient management of the means of production and of land development would create a new admnistrative class.

If I start my own community with other people and we agree on private land ownership, wouldn't you be there to stop us? Would you not consider this to be "protection" of your system, of your way of life?

The core of the issue is that our interests wouldn't align, and this would breed conflict. Individuals would only hold land if they coerced others into respecting their claims and communes would coerce individuals into not holding land. If so, we must admit that only through coercion any kind of societal order is imposed and protection is just coercion against the coersion of others.

To make things clear, I don't think socialism isn't possible, I just don't believe in ancaps, anarcoms or any of those that hold governments to be something apart from the rest of civilized society or the market. From large-enough associations government-like institutions spring up.

>>1806869
>whereas ancap is just every man for himself
ancap is literally "privatize the government", it's pretty much the most anti-anarchic anarchy variant there is.

>>1807004
>the others can band together and bash his head in with a stone while he sleeps.
What is enlisting the aid of Beta males to watch over him while he sleeps while they, in turn, sleep in shifts.

You really only need like 20 people for hierarchies to emerge. Shit, even with 10 people, there will be those who like to take direction, and those who have shown that their ideas seem to work well enough that followers will entrust them with extra privileges.

Think of your own group of friends, if you have such a thing.

>>1807013

I'm not an anarcho-pacifist so I'm not against the use of force when necessary.

Regarding land ownership I don't believe that anyone has the right to privately control any land that he or she doesn't actively personally use.

Most anarchist models of administration are based on consensus, rotating leadership and the like. I can't elaborate on it much more than that since I'm by no means an expert and not an anarchist per sé (i.e. I'm not engaged in any activism) - but am interested in it's ideas and have sympathy for it.

>>1807020

My observation was anthropological and based on what we know of early human per-agrarian societies and the nature of the violence in them (which is usually anti-authoritarian).

>>1806350
No it is not. The equivalent of "check my gender pronouns" is far-left authoritarianism. In an anarchist society, you would not give a flying fuck about your own gender or sexual identity and preference, nor about that of anyone else.

>>1806436
>Humans are bad guys!
>They need more humans to tell them what to do!

>>1807003
I don't know who that is, but I can probably safely guess that his informal power came from the actual power of the state and the soldiers who fulfill its will.
>>1807004
>The development of tools, communication and the use of violence correlate with development of less hierarchical structures, not more.
Source?

Also, I don't see how this is relevant.
>>1807013
A true anarchistic system would allow people to fuck off if they want to and design their own system. Ancoms wouldn't force you to be apart of the commune if you didn't want to.
>>1807020
>Think of your own group of friends, if you have such a thing.
Unless you have a really shitty group of friends, they're not going to form a hierarchy and demand you follow certain rules or they'll beat you up.

It's the constant alienation and propaganda of society and the state that makes people think that everyone is going to immediately descend into violent thugs once there's no longer any violent thugs telling them to behave. If your community is likely to devolve into some violent hierarchical structure, then it's already failed and no system will save it.

>>1806523
>>1806581
The mistake you make is that anarchism is primarily about removing the government monopoly on the legitimate use of force, and returning that to people and communities. Yes, I'm aware you can call that a government, but there's a clear difference.

>>1807057
This is one of the best arguments for anarchism in my opinion. The ridiculous superstition that the people in power will be any better than the people they're ruling when everything says it's the exact opposite.

>>1807066
>he doesn't know who John Calvin was

What the fuck are you even doing on /his/

>>1806954
I didn't imply it is a zero-sum game. Resources can be created. People will also act in their own self-interest even in small tribes and villages - look at sexual division of labor and the power of men over women that exists (more or less) in every society. Men are stronger and can thus demand more from women than women demand from men. This unbalance of power is dressed up in tradition, religion, philosophy, and whataveyou, and that helps cementing that unbalance even in societies where physical force is less of vital skill, but when we pull the veil there we see that power can be it's own justification. Say a doctor among farmers or a witch doctor among hunter-gatherers - same difference.

>>1806959
Not anarchism. In every society or social context, there is an unbalance of power from which divisions within groups people.

>>1807066
Funnily enough, Stirner used a group of friends as an example of a union of egoists, individuals working together for their own self-interest.
Maybe some people do have strange heirarchies in their friendships though.

The problem with anarchists, communists and right-wing libertarian types is that they don't get that humans are a species that live in groups to survive. Any group needs rules that govern interactions to function and thus survive, and those rules can only exist if there is some ability to enforce them. Any population size that exceeds the ability for everyone to know everyone else personally, and thus operate using simple social pressures, must create a codified impersonal system of rules to be administered consistently. This of course necessitates an authority ,whether democratic or authoritarian, to decide upon and enforce those rules and WHOOPS! you have a government. Libertarians, Communists, and Anarchists wanting to get rid of government and states are like Ant's going without a colony or Bee's without a hive. You can't get rid of states without getting rid of humans because states whether democratic or tyrannical are an integral part of humanity.

>>1807066
>Also, I don't see how this is relevant.

It's relevant in showing that violence isn't necessarily historically authoritarian.

>>1807066
>they're not going to form a hierarchy and demand you follow certain rules or they'll beat you up.
It's not so much that, but you can easily imagine one person who is known to be more of a leader, someone who is kind of a clown, someone who is kind of a jerk, etc. There is a subtle stratification that emerges. It can be as simple as who decides where people are drinking, or what movie to see. Sure, there can be group consensus, but usually someone is going to instigate what the group's options will be.

I agree that groups of strangers and the ensuing alienation are where the problems _really_ begin, but you can still see it on a micro level in any group. Any schoolyard shows the monkey dynamic that is behind all these attempts to solve exploitation, but it seems pretty damn inherent.

>>1807066
>Source?

>>1807091

https://archive.org/details/ViolenceAndSocialityInHumanEvolution

>>1807089
>a union of egoists, individuals working together for their own self-interest.
Certainly they can be that, and I'm sure Stirner was secure in his alpha status to be able to say such things. Marx, meanwhile, knew that he was cucked as hell and did his damnest to write fanfic in which everyone would be equally cucked. (intentional misuse to of the word cuck to hasten it's devaluation, and inevitable abandonment)

>>1807091
Honestly one person can observe that after reaching a certain technological level (agriculture as the bare minimum), ALL societies tend to form a state. Even when there's a war or some other catastrophic event that creates a power vacuum and thus a de facto anarchy, it will soon return back to the state because that's what the people want.

That alone refutes basically all forms of anarchism except for perhaps hunter-gatherer anarcho-primitivism, since it literally denies human biology and psychology and all of our recorded history.

Anarcho-communism in particular is just offensively stupid, like a fucking 5 year old child can look at it and regard it as nonsense.

>>1807081
Never heard him ever being referred to as Calvin of Geneva before.
>>1807082
Before agriculture societies were more more egalitarian, so it's not an aspect of human nature but a certain way humans live. People will act in their self-interest but usually they also genuinely care about their community and friends and family and won't have any desire to fuck them over or control them.
>>1807091
Even if everyone doesn't know everyone that doesn't mean societally rules can't be enforced informally. There's also the fallacy of thinking humans have to live in large nations.
>>1807094
That's true, but history shows the worst examples of violence comes from authoritarianism and hierarchy. You can't create a perfect world but that doesn't mean you can't drastically improve this one.
>>1807102
Sure, but none of this is really relevant. There will never be a society where everyone is socially equal, but it doesn't really matter and doesn't discredit an attempt to make everyone materially and "legally" equal. Some people will have more influence and that's fine because ultimately you can just save no and do your own thing if you don't like what the others are doing.
>>1807107
Thanks
>>1807130
It's fallacious to say that states always tend to form because people want them to and not because of certain factors allowing a small minority to force it upon others. There are examples of ancient cities where there doesn't seem to be any formal hierarchy or group of rulers.

>>1807136
He said in Geneva not of Geneva you illiterate cuck.

>>1807136
>There are examples of ancient cities where there doesn't seem to be any formal hierarchy or group of rulers.

Nope. Just no.

>>1807034
I don't believe that anyone has any rights if these are not enforced and acknowledged.

When we look at examples like Catalonia, we do see that brutal governments and police are not required to admnister a large community - brutal councils and armed thugs can fill those shoes. Basically the same, without pesky "due process" and "rule of law".

And if we're just changing to "we all gather to decide on what the collective does next" isn't it just a disorganized direct democracy?

>>1807066
>A true anarchistic system would allow people to fuck off if they want to and design their own system. Ancoms wouldn't force you to be apart of the commune if you didn't want to.
How do you keep outsiders from stomping your system?

>>1807140
S-sorry senpai
>>1807142
Yes. Just yes. I forgot their names but one was located in Turkey and had an interesting layout where the rooftops were basically the roads and another I believe was an Indus Valley Civilization.
>>1807147
Catalonia is an unfair example. Revolutions are always violent and especially so during a civil war.
>How do you keep outsiders from stomping your system?
By telling them to fuck off or you'll shoot them.

>>1807147

Catalonia isn't really an example of an anarchist revolution, but of the anarchists stepping in when the government basically collapsed. I'd say that they played a large part in societal organization staying functional and in some cases being more productive than when under capitalist control. I wouldn't call it a disorganized direct democracy, but rather a slowly functioning but highly organized form of democracy that is designed to keep people engaged and avoid the mistakes of referendum based "direct democracy".

>>1807136
>never be a society where everyone is socially equal, but it doesn't really matter and doesn't discredit an attempt to make everyone materially and "legally" equal.

An example being the "legal" equality most existing states claim for their citizens, despite the reality being anything but. Recent immigrants, people that don't look like you, annoying retards, all of them will soon find themselves less equal than others, and I have yet to see a non-authoritarian, state-sponsored model that deals with this problematic reality.

>>1807107
I'm not talking about levels of violence. nothing in that paper disagreed with what I said. We're talking about organizing large societies of people, not whether those societies are violent/non-violent. A state can be either.

>>1807171
>there were non-hierarchical cities I don't know their names but trust me on this it's true

kek, were they built by the Nephilim too?

>>1807181
While no one has fully achieved it, the progress has been enormous. Just think that only about 100 years ago (a very small percentage of human history) most people in the U.S were okay with slavery. Now black people have the vote and one is the goddamn president. Things may never be perfect, but everytime we make progress everyones lives improves.

>>1807185

I and most anarchists don't disagree with the possibility for commonly established rules and the use of force. Just that the use of force isn't automatically authoritarian.

>>1807171
>By telling them to fuck off or you'll shoot them.
I have trouble imagining an anarchist commune large enough to hold territory against a nation-state's military, but I respect the sentiment.

>>1807206
> Just think that only about 100 years ago (a very small percentage of human history) most people in the U.S were okay with slavery.

Nigger what? 100 years ago was 1916.

>>1807208

anarchist militas have usually performed pretty well defensively but been shit in executing offensive operations.

File: franco kek.jpg (36KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 720x540px

>>1807224
>anarchist militas have usually performed pretty well defensively

>>1807207
What do you mean by "authoritarian" I'd agree if you mean the common definition of a non-democratic state, but not if you include democracies as "authoritarian". no large-scale population could survive without the kind of organization a state brings. It's simply our duty to make sure said state is a democratic one that serves the rule of law, protecting both the will of the majority as well as the rights of the minority.

>>1807181
And has a state-sponsored model dealt with this at all? How many times has the state intervened in slave revolts or enacted racist laws? Obviously just because the society is non-hierarchical doesn't mean they're nice people, but it does mean they don't have the a select group of people forcing them to return slaves or obey racist laws.
>>1807208
Obviously one small group can't do shit against an entire military, but you can look at the Spanish Civil War at how anarchists are capable of fighting against a proper military.
>>1807239
Wars are won or lost regardless of the winners and losers' ideology.

>>1807223
sorry, meant to type 200 and didn't check before hitting post.

>>1806700

There are various forms of anarchy. If you want some quality anarchy, look into egoism and individualist anarchy.

For anyone interested in a good introduction to anarchist arguments against authority and the state (Though not really against hierarchy in general)
https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/15885670/Larken_Rose_-_The_Most_Dangerous_Superstition_-_pdf

is a pretty good book. He repeats himself a lot but the arguments are pretty solid.

>>1807239

Yeah after 3 years of getting help from Benito and Adolf and getting stabbed in the back by the tankies.

File: fransisco_franco_y_adolf_hitler.jpg (31KB, 336x349px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 336x349px

>>1807257
>they would've won if they didn't lose

Whoops!

>>1807243

In leftist jargon the state usually means the state that appears after feudalism and is tied to the rise of capitalism. Most people today wouldn't consider 18th century England as democratic and anarchists today don't consider the modern nation-state as democratic.

File: ENOUGH.jpg (9KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 250x250px

>>1807257
FUCKING TANKIES AND MARXIST-LENINISTS HAVE TO RUIN FUCKING EVERYTHING

>>1807206
While I agree with the noble intention of a the spook of progress, the ludicrous end state of total, yet unenforced reality remains forever beyond humanity's grasp.

>>1807276
tankies need to be taken out and shot 2bh, or atleast gulaged

>>1807284
While I'm all for freedom of ideas, any tankie who touches a gun should probably be immediately considered an enemy.

File: women-laughing-and-having-fun.jpg (60KB, 600x399px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 600x399px

>mfw an anarchist military wouldn't even function since chain of command is a form of hierarchy

>>1807338
>inb4 individuals would associate to defend themselves without a chain of command
Either hierarchy would naturally form or it would be the worst army ever. They would have to vastly outnumber the enemy to stand a chance.

>>1807338
>Later it became the fashion to decry the militias, and therefore to pretend that the faults which were due to lack of training and weapons were the result of the equalitarian system. Actually, a newly raised draft 'of militia was an undisciplined mob not because the officers called the private 'Comrade' but because raw troops are always an undisciplined mob. In practice the democratic 'revolutionary' type of discipline is more reliable than might be expected. In a workers' army discipline is theoretically voluntary. It is based on class-loyalty, whereas the discipline of a bourgeois conscript army is based ultimately on fear. (The Popular Army that replaced the militias was midway between the two types.) In the militias the bullying and abuse that go on in an ordinary army would never have been tolerated for a moment. The normal military punishments existed, but they were only invoked for very serious offences. When a man refused to obey an order you did not immediately get him punished; you first appealed to him in the name of comradeship. Cynical people with no experience of handling men will say instantly that this would never 'work', but as a matter of fact it does 'work' in the long run. The discipline of even the worst drafts of militia visibly improved as time went on.

>>1807338
>>1807405
>In January the job of keeping a dozen raw recruits up to the mark almost turned my hair grey. In May for a short while I was acting-lieutenant in command of about thirty men, English and Spanish. We had all been under fire for months, and I never had the slightest difficulty in getting an order obeyed or in getting men to volunteer for a dangerous job. 'Revolutionary' discipline depends on political consciousness--on an understanding of why orders must be obeyed; it takes time to diffuse this, but it also takes time to drill a man into an automaton on the barrack-square. The journalists who sneered at the militia-system seldom remembered that the militias had to hold the line while the Popular Army was training in the rear. And it is a tribute to the strength of 'revolutionary' discipline that the militias stayed in the field-at all.

>>1807405

What exactly are you quoting from?

>>1807411
Homage to Catalonia

>>1807405
>>1807409
Funny, I'm reading Homage to Catalonia for the first time right now. No worry Orwell hated Marxist-Leninists so much.

>>1807244

>Wars are won or lost regardless of the winners and losers' ideology.

Anarchists are typically opposed to any kind of hierarchy so they would have a very hard time organizing an army.

>>1807405
>hereas the discipline of a bourgeois conscript army is based ultimately on fear.

Shows how much he knew about the military.

>>1807435

>Expecting conscripts to have high morale

>>1807405
Oh, homage to Catalonia!

>The whole barracks was in the state of filth and chaos to which the militia reduced every building they occupied and which seems to be one of the by-products of revolution. In every corner you came upon piles of smashed furniture, broken saddles, brass cavalry helmets, empty sabre-scabbards, and decaying food. There was frightful wastage of food, especially bread. From my barrack-room alone a basketful of bread was thrown away at every meal--a disgraceful thing when the civilian population was short of it.
>Practically every building of any size had been seized by the workers and was draped with red flags or with the red and black flag of the Anarchists; every wall was scrawled with the hammer and sickle and with the initials of the revolutionary parties; almost every church had been gutted and its images burnt. Churches here and there were being systematically demolished by gangs of workmen.
>nobody said 'Señor' or 'Don' or even 'Usted'; everyone called everyone else 'Comrade' and 'Thou', and said 'Salud!' instead of 'Buenos días'.
>Discipline did not exist; if a man disliked an order he would step out of the ranks and argue fiercely with the officer. The lieutenant who instructed us was a stout, fresh-faced, pleasant young man who had previously been a Regular Army officer, and still looked like one, with his smart carriage and spick-and-span uniform. Curiously enough he was a sincere and ardent Socialist. Even more than the men themselves he insisted upon complete social equality between all ranks. I remember his pained surprise when an ignorant recruit addressed him as 'Señor'. 'What! Señor? Who is that calling me Señor? Are we not all comrades?' I doubt whether it made his job any easier.

Literally tumblr: the country

>>1807433
Read>>1807405 >>1807409

>>1807435
Except it obviously is. People are there because they fear going to prison, and they obey because they fear being punished.

>>1807435
Obviously nothing at all, having only served in the British army followed by a measly single civil war. Undoubtedly your 9 tours each of Afghanistan, Vietnam and Korea trump that.

>>1807452

You realize they lost right?

File: agorism.jpg (235KB, 720x1600px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 720x1600px

>>1807427
Good read

>>1807459
For reason unrelated to their militia system.
>>1807465
Not sure I get the joke. What does Agorism have to do with the Spanish Civil War?

File: aihfai'dfjawd.png (54KB, 406x892px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 406x892px

>>1807459
>Discipline is the only reason people ever lose wars
>The anarchist defeat in Catalonia had nothing to do with the Nazi/Italian supply of tanks, aircraft, guns and small arms to the fascists

>>1807449
And there's more of this comical horseshit:

>Meanwhile the raw recruits were getting no military training that could be of the slightest use to them. I had been told that foreigners were not obliged to attend 'instruction' (the Spaniards, I noticed, had a pathetic belief that all foreigners knew more of military matters than themselves), but naturally I turned out with the others. I was very anxious to learn how to use a machine-gun; it was a weapon I had never had a chance to handle. To my dismay I found that we were taught nothing about the use of weapons. The so-called instruction was simply parade-ground drill of the most antiquated, stupid kind; right turn, left turn, about turn,marching at attention in column of threes and all the rest of thatuseless nonsense which I had learned when I was fifteen years old.
>On our third morning in Alcubierre the rifles arrived. A sergeant with a coarse dark-yellow face was handing them out in the mule-stable. I got a shock of dismay when I saw the thing they gave me. It was a German Mauser dated 1896--more than forty years old! It was rusty, the bolt was stiff, the wooden barrel-guard was split; one glance down the muzzle showed that it was corroded and past praying for. Most of the rifles were equally bad, some of them even worse, and no attempt was made to give the best weapons to the men who knew how to use them.
>I admit,
too, that I felt a kind of horror as I looked at the people I was marching among. You cannot possibly conceive what a rabble we looked. We straggled along with far less cohesion than a flock of sheep; before we had gone two miles the rear of the column was out of sight.

It would be sad if it wasn't so funny.

>>1807472
Nothing really, just the only vaguely related image I had on my computer

>>1807484
>We had just dumped our kits and were crawling out of the dug-out when there was another bang and one of the children of our company rushed back from the parapet with his face pouring blood. He had fired his rifle and had somehow managed to blow out the bolt; his scalp was torn to ribbons by the splinters of the burst cartridge-case. It was our first casualty, and, characteristically, self-inflicted.
>I could see nothing--seemingly their trenches were very well concealed. Then with a shock of dismay I saw where Benjamin was pointing; on the opposite hill-top, beyond the ravine, seven hundred metres away at the very least, the tiny outline of a parapet and a red-and-yellow flag--the Fascist position. I was indescribably disappointed. We were nowhere near them! At that range our rifles were completely useless. But at this moment there was a shout of excitement. Two Fascists, greyish figurines in the distance, were scrambling up the naked hill-side opposite. Benjamin grabbed the nearest man's rifle, took aim, and pulled the trigger. Click! A dud cartridge.
>I remember one little brute throwing a hand-grenade into the dug-out fire 'for a joke'.

>>1806803
you can have one, but it would be a very weird market where even contract protection and your own property rights are open for purchase or sale. so... in hindsight, an anarchic capitalists system would just be capitalism with slaves.

>>1806350
Who /anarcho-fascist/ here?

>>1806350
What's stopping me from being a misogynist asshole in anarcha-feminism? Or from polluting the rivers in green anarchism? Or from forming collectives in anarcho-capitalism? Or from having private property through the use of force in anarchist communism?

Anarchism is just anarchism, distinctions are meaningless.

>>1806350
There is no anarchist movement. Society itself is always preceded by Feudalism.

When people say "Oh, but my anarchist movement is superior", they're just pretending that their ideology actually works.

Ideology is inevitably what you wish society to be. "Free trade" is a redundant idea, because trade always requires protection; you need protection to avoid being stolen from. And if you need protection, then who's to say that you shouldn't be protected against other immoralities, or something they consider "immoral"? Anarcho capitalism thus is a statist movement. It will always eventually lead to statism. Anarcho communism is no better; centrally planned voluntary governments will rob us what it means to be a "people", and they'll continuously devolve into a pro-trade state where (you guessed it) capitalism prevails.

When you impose a system, you're just setting yourself up for failure. You need to start from scratch... No ideology.. You have to work with what you know works, and you have to know what you want in a society.

File: TommyHobby.jpg (199KB, 1109x1169px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1109x1169px

Y'all niggas need Hobbes to cleanse your souls

>>1808713
literally how?

File: anarchofascism.png (141KB, 595x879px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 595x879px

>>1808853

File: anfasc.png (144KB, 595x879px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 595x879px

>>1808874

>>1808894
kek

File: snata.jpg (86KB, 480x657px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 480x657px

>when you live in an anarcho-syndiclist collective and an imperialist monarch asks who your lord is...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA

>>1806759
you have autism

Let's try all of these fucking things.

Couldn't suck any worse than the current shitfest.

>>1806350
Certainly. They're all pretty retarded. Mixing the concepts of anarchy with the concept of governance is retarded too.

>>1806746
This is some next level retardation. OP can wrap this up. Proposition confirmed.

>>1806350
No. Anarcho-Pacifism is literally epilepsy.

>>1806350
It's more equivalent to communism because of its contrariness
>Edgy teens in murka: anarcho-some shit
>Edgy teens everywhere else: gommies

>>1806685
He actually was though. At least aesthetically.

File: 1474081938438.jpg (67KB, 300x334px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 300x334px

>>1809883
>aesthetically
We need a moratorium on this word.

File: 1328551633962.jpg (9KB, 210x200px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 210x200px

>>1806426
>no bedtimes

>>1809904
Captain Ron is basically an anarchist

>>1809910
That's Snake Plissken

>>1806680
>Tolkien was an anarcho-monarchist.

No, he considered himself to be either an anarchist or a monarchist, as in he would have preferred one system or the other.

>>1809913
Well, so is he.

>>1806680
Tolkien's use of "anarcho-monarchist" was facetious. He did not literally believe anarchy and monarchy could co-exist, he was saying that he was agreeable to either scenario.

In modern times, a president or even a monarch isn't the owner of the nation, he's just an administrator of something that's publicly owned. Anarcho-monarchism is basically the idea of a "public" state vanishing and becoming all just the king's private property. Basically early warlord feudalism.

>>1809921
Snake is Ted Kaczynski without the autism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHUqNCDwQj4

File: 1466474827339.jpg (29KB, 500x550px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x550px

"Edgy" and "autistic" aren't insults, they're compliments.

File: 1328425154023.png (258KB, 492x372px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 492x372px

Okay no seriously what is anarcho-monarchism?

>>1809928
Captain Ron is Snake Plissken without the autism.

>>1809930
Ancaps who've realized that feudalism is the natural progression of private property in a nominally stateless environment.

>>1809930
see >>1809924

>>1809931
Captain Ron is the milquetoast kosher version of Snake

File: tumblr_inline_nlfu256tcn1qgecwd_400.jpg (17KB, 280x224px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 280x224px

>>1809934
so "anarcho monarchism" is just monarchism?

>>1807244
>just because the society is non-hierarchical doesn't mean they're nice people, but it does mean they don't have the a select group of people forcing them to return slaves or obey racist laws.

Right, but slaves were freed by a president. Who would of stopped slavery in the U.S. if the North and South had accepted anarcism?

>>1809937
No, he's just freed of his spooks.

>>1809938
No, it's a specific type of monarchism. For example modern England is a monarchy but the Queen doesn't really own shit and is more or less just a figurehead sponsored by the public structures.

>>1809940
>Snake
>spooks

He's the least spooked person of them all senpai

>>1809939
>Who would of stopped slavery in the U.S. if the North and South had accepted anarcism?
The American people as said yourself since accepting anarchism also includes rejecting private property. Slavery ending is implicit to the idea of accepting anarchism.

File: later homo.jpg (34KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 300x300px

>>1809941
Yeah well what you're describing is called absolutist monarchism. There's nothing "anarcho" about what you described.

>>1809943
No, he still spooked by "tough" and "cool".

>>1809946
Right wing "anarchists" are extremely liberal about their use of the term "anarcho".

This isn't news.

>>1809946
It's not even absolutism. In fact absolutism is a close precursor of modern states, anarcho-monarchism is implicitly feudalist.

>>1809949
Those are not spooks though that's just his nature.

>>1809939
Well, if they were real anarchists they wouldn't own slaves nor would an anarchist revolution not eliminate a powerful upperclass like slave owners, but regardless, it either would've slowly went away as people refused to return slaves or the abolitionists would've told the very small minority of slave owners to free their slaves or they'll do it for them or the slaves wouldn't just revolted and there would be no military and police to help the slave owners.

File: me irl.jpg (65KB, 720x690px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 720x690px

>>1809951
yes but WHERE'S THE ANARCHY??????????

>>1809950
I feel like ancaps and more anarchistic libertarians have their heart in the right place, they're just too idealistic and naive to realize what their ideal system would lead to. Not that it'd work to begin with, class conflict would eventually destroy it.

>>1809959
In the state not existing.

>>1809963
but the king / feudal nobility is the state in that system

>>1809963
>monarchs exist with the right to enforce and practice what they like within the confines of their property.
>states don't exist
This does not make any sense.

File: FB_IMG_1475653366321.jpg (29KB, 500x339px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x339px

>>1809963

>>1809967
He isn't. It's his personal posession.

>>1809968
Read Hoppe then.

>>1806506
Wtf is anarcho-monarchism? Why is it lawful good? Sounds like something a reactionary NEET neckbeard would come up with.

>>1809988
>using reactionary as an insult

>>1809984
That implies Hoppe makes sense either.

>>1809982
Yes but private property is statist.

>>1806350
>politics is my identity
think about not being

File: anmil.jpg (60KB, 503x275px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 503x275px

>>1806350
Who /anmil/

>>1809946
You can't actually be an absolute monarch without a politically centralized, bureaucratized, modern state.

File: 220px-MurrayBW.jpg (16KB, 220x318px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 220x318px

>>1810022
No it isn't

>>1811601
Yes it is. The assertion of private ownership over something is effectively statehood.

>>1806350
Can somebody explain to me in meme arrows what anarcho-feminism and queer anarchism are all about? I have trouble believing that they are even legit ideologies

>>1811662
They're not exactly. Basically they're both ideas that the liberation of their particular groups coincide with the struggle against hierarchy, class, and the state; that liberation of women and LGBT folks can't be meaningfully accomplished within a hierarchical system.

>>1811671
>>1811662
Sorry for no meme arrows, I was never very good with those.

>>1811671
But why make it separate? Doesn't it already fall under anarchism?

>>1811678
Yes, I'm not sure where the idea of separation came from. Like Emma Goldman can be considered more or less the origin of Anarcho-feminism, and she just considered herself an anarchist and also a feminist. I think it's just a means to note a specialization of the particular theory or theorist.

>>1806802
>When the community dies in a generation because no one reproduces
I'll never get militant faggots.
t. Faggot

>>1811745
Is that really a bad thing?
t. Nonfaggot with no real desire to reproduce.

File: 1470617111709-1.jpg (44KB, 391x565px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 391x565px

>""""Anarcho"""" capitalism

>>1812353
All of those aren't real anarchism.

The only real anarchism is individualist anarchism. And even then, you simply don't believe in the authority of the state, not that other people do not in fact, have actual authority stemming from their might. There's no magic spook to fix anything.

>>1812353
what the fuck is an anti-capitalist market economy

File: not-all-anarchy-is-created-equal-a-helpful-guide-to-1999827.png (98KB, 500x309px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 500x309px

>>1812353
Update your memes, boy.

>>1812401
Market socialism I guess?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titoism

>>1812401
You do realize the primary feature of capitalism is the ownership of capital, hence the name capitalism, and not free markets. You can in fact have a capitalist barter economy if you wanted to.

>>1806353
Hello anon. I welcome you to Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War.

Anarchy is the stepping stone to return of feudalism

>>1809138
Have you seen Mad Max?

>>1806400
Yea ancap is pro-hierarchy and anti-equality. Should keep the name just to piss off lefties.

>Take Back the Streets: Crush Criminals. And by this I mean, of course, not "white collar criminals" or "inside traders" but violent street criminals – robbers, muggers, rapists, murderers. Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error.

>Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear, that is, move from the ranks of the petted and cosseted bum class to the ranks of the productive members of society.

>Egalitarianism, in every form and shape, is incompatible with the idea of private property. Private property implies exclusivity, inequality, and difference. And cultural relativism is incompatible with the fundamental----indeed foundational----fact of families and intergenerational kinship relations. Families and kinship relations imply cultural absolutism.

>>1807057
The will of the group is usually less bad (and less good) than the will of the individual. This is true of virtually any group and any individual, but the bigger the group and the more unusual the individual, the truer it is.

File: geg.png (149KB, 600x219px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 600x219px

>>1806412

File: heh.png (162KB, 600x353px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 600x353px

>>1806412
>>1812741

>>1806954
so the goal is to make everyone feel a strong sense of community? that's even more hopeless than eliminating authority

File: jej.jpg (109KB, 600x635px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 600x635px

>>1806412
>>1812741
>>1812754

File: kek.jpg (138KB, 1172x520px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1172x520px

>>1806412
>>1812741
>>1812754
>>1812830

File: ;e;.png (291KB, 1024x429px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 1024x429px

>>1806412
>>1806412
>>1812741
>>1812754
>>1812830
>>1812838

File: 'e'.png (127KB, 710x764px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 710x764px

>>1806412
>>1812741
>>1812754
>>1812830
>>1812838
>>1812844

>>1812399
People need to stop thinking authority is synonymous with power or might. Authority is the moral, legitimate use of power to control and coerce others. A gunman has power to make you do what he says, but he has no authority, because he has no legitimacy.
>>1812773
Humans are designed to desire a strong sense of community, and for the majority of our history we've had one; rural undeveloped countries still possess a strong sense of community. It is only in the modern industrial, urbanized society that people are so hopelessly alienated from each other that they can only think in terms of competitive individualism where everyone is untrustworthy and just waiting to fuck you over.

>>1812741
who is his epic memer?

>>1812964
And anarocho-pick-your-spookism claims there's moral legitimate organization of society, about how things should be, and how people should use coercion to enforce that ideal, except anarcho-pacifism, although they still claim authority, there's just no force behind them.

>>1814525
Anarcho-spookism is my new favorite political school.

>>1812848
>>1812844
I like how this sociopath parasitic motherfucker is railing against parasites.

>>1814525
Some anarchists can be spooked, but there's nothing spooky about wanting a certain world and society that benefits you and everyone else the most. No anarchist ideology supports using coercion to enforce the system. All the systems are voluntary and are maintained through voluntary relationships.

>>1814590
>No anarchist ideology supports using coercion to enforce the system
Yes they do. Most at the very least advocate for the violent suppression of state like elements emerging.

>All the systems are voluntary and are maintained through voluntary relationships.
Oh, you're an ancap where the violence is built into the NAP
>b-b-but muh voluntary contract property spooks

I love how ancoms and ancaps call each other names, it's like two children with Down's syndrome calling each other retarded

The goal of egalitarians: abolish nature.

When all creatures are dead, you will have equality. Do you affirm, then, the desirability of omnicide?

You'll be dissolved, in any case, either by those who don't desire to abolish distinction between beings but see them as they are, or those seek not to abolish distinction but who believe in false, transcendental distinctions. Hope there is enough of the former left to reverse your degradation of humankind.

>>1815467
Only if I can destroy the entire universe. Life might exist on other planets.

>>1812964
>Authority is the moral, legitimate use of power to control and coerce others. A gunman has power to make you do what he says, but he has no authority, because he has no legitimacy.
He has authority, for all practical purposes, from the viewpoint of the person under his power. Those with power* shape moral norms and laws, in order to legitimize, and in that way cementing, their use of power over others.

*(and under power, if they are relied on, needed - even serfs and slaves can rebel, it's just they often aren't willing to pay the high price of becoming a threat to someone more powerful)

>>1815467
Well, I do wish to exert power over nature yes. I want to rise from the spawning pool.

>>1814593
>Yes they do. Most at the very least advocate for the violent suppression of state like elements emerging.
Most advocate for the violent overthrow of the state because the state is coercive and directly harms them and interferes with their lives. You're basically say that any man who uses violence to defend himself against violence and coercion is inherently violent and coercive. It's not coercive to demand that others don't try to coerce people.
>Oh, you're an ancap where the violence is built into the NAP
No, I'm not. All anarchist systems are voluntary. Anyone can leave the ancom commune or go work in a different mutualist factor.
>>1816365
Authority is ultimately a supernatural or moral quality, not a practical one. The head bandit can call himself king and say that God has given him this divine right and others will say he has authority, but only because they believe in his divine right, not because he said so. What you said is the reason why authority is contradictory and illusionary. All authority figures gained it when they did not have authority, thereby making the means they gained it with illegitimate; they have to retroactively legitimize their actions with their current authority.