Left anarchism general

Hello fellow lainkamaraden I don't see this thread anywhere after a whipe, meaning it's high time for this thread again. Tell us about your favourite left anarchism? Anarcho-communism? Anarcho-sindicalism? Green anarchism? Anarcho-transhumanism? Tell us about your favourite left anarchist writer? For me, I was very inspired by the Revolutionary self theory. Therefore i'd say that the ideological supermarket, like any supermarket is fit only for looting, and because of that I don't follow any ideology to a T. However I do tend to loot the most from the anarcho-sindicalism section. It's because I probably think of it as the best implementation of anarchism without society devolving back into an agrarian society. I mean I support saving our planet, but not everyone wants to plow the field. And AnPrims are just ridiculous. Basically post-revolution I want industry and science to be there as well. And hopefully eventually allow us to reach anarcho-transhumanism and gay luxury space communism. And I consider that Sindicalism gives good methods to do that in an anarchist society. About my favourite authors... There's of course the bunch of anonymous people that wrote the revolutionary self-theory. And of course there are the classics Bakhunin and Kropotkin. I have also started to look into Stirner lately, but still need to read one of his books. I think it will be worth it if only for the meme magic.

>>1592 >I don't follow any ideology to a T (In some of my views I even deviate from anarchism itself, though IMO not too far. You could really say I am building my own self-theory)

So that means there is left-anarchy and right-anarchy? Just when I thought there was a movement that was free from that bullsoykaf dichotomy.

>>1596 I just meant it to exclude 'anarcho'-capitalism and similar. It does not really belong in this thread anyways. It would be a big flame war if we had that. I could have used anarchism or anarcho-communism, but this gets the message.

again with this political bullsoykaf mods, please get lainchan rid of this bullsoykaf(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST (RULE 2))

>>1598 Man, I am against having /civ here, however, banning all politics from lainchan is both impossible and even if you could it's questionable if you should do it. There's nothing wrong with a couple politics threads on /r.

>>1598 meh, there is a politics thread in /tech/, you can disguise politics as anything.

Anarcho-Syndicalism. Of course the end goal would be communism. However as an economic model I find it to be the only one that can deliver us to communism in the fastest way, but not sacrificing real worker autonomy. so far I don't have a favorite, but I like Bakunin, mainly because, to be honest, his works are shorter and easier to read than most writers of his time. The tradeoff is that it's not as complete as something like The Conquest of Bread. It's all good though. >>1596 No there, is no right-anarchy. "An"cappis like to call themselves anarchists when their ideology is as far from worker freedom as possible. "But we don't like the state so we're anarchists" doesn't work like that. When the "founding fathers" of anarchist thought were all 100% against capitalism, you're not an anarchist if you want it.

0ch might be a better bet...

I'm not sure which prefix it is but I don't like the anarchism where you pepper spray soccer moms and throw explosives and bottles at regular people then hit them in the head with bike locks. Just not my thing.

>>1611 Those are called bullies, or what they prefer to call themselves "antifa".

Bros, do you even political compass?

>>1611 I am a pacifist myself, however... I don't care what someone is, but when someone is a fash sympathizer, a fash collaborator or an actual fash, he is an asshole and is himself responsible for what he gets. And the pro trump crowd has many of those. Also remember, freedom of speech is supposed to protect you from the government, not the citizens. If it did protect you from the citizens it would be freedom from consequences.

Continuing from: >>1637 Honestly I don't even consider Trump a fash, although he is a reactionary. But there's a lot of fash sympathizers in his camp. And just because there's a lot more people like that now than there was 5 years ago, doesn't mean I want to allow it to become normalised.

>>1637 If you condone attacking someone for their words, no matter what those words are, you are absolutely not a pacifist. You are just another violent thug who claims to be on the right side of history. This isn't even a free speech issue, this is a bodily integrity issue.

>>1596 There's left anarchism and post-left anarchism.

>>1639 Neo-nazis are not attacked for their words, but their goals that they are actively trying to achieve.

>>1642 ... which they are doing by using their words. Not violence.

>>1642 I'm always amazed at how people that identify as anti-fascist don't seem to have a problem with using fascistic methods.

>>1646 >>1639 Well how do you want us to defeat fascism? The liberal care bear stare obviously is not and never has worked. Debating also doesn't work, bvecause as soykafty as liberlas are, they outdebate anyone on the right 8/10 times and it still doesn't work. I want to hear your solution to fascism?

>>1643 If someone has goals like them, I don't care if they are using words to achieve them. Hitler used words in the first phase of his plan as well. In fact if it's a nazi I don't even care if he used a care bear stare for spreading nazism. They don't deserve a political platform.

>>1643 They don't have to speak. A silent Nazi march will be disrupted just like any other.

>>1652 As if you guys are even capable of being silent.(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST (RULE 3))

Alright we have deariled so much, let's get back on topic.

>>1599 >>1600 so you guys have no problem of promoting national socialism here? you guys don't have a problem with me spamming national socialism material? oh, okay

>>1655 obviously the core of any anarchist movement is reaction to fascism It has nothing to do with actual anarchistic support or anti-government sentiments, when in fact most these organizations are funded by NGOs or people who have vested interest in having a chaotic political playing field for government to just pass their laws while everyone is looking at soykaf that is happening in the streets. Todays anarchists are pawns for global elites to create chaos to have people dazed and confused.

>>1596 The right and left sides of anarchy don't see themselves as being part of the same movement though so you're still safe. Anarcho-capitalism is a misnomer anyway. Anarchy means no leaders and a CEO or company president is obviously a leader. I imagine so called anarcho-capitalism would be like the community on the series Deadwood. Now imagine that on a global scale, with nukes.

>>1657 >most these organizations are funded by NGOs or people who have vested interest in having a chaotic political playing field What organizations? and provide proof please. Don't say Occupy either, that was a broad coalition which included some anarchists but mostly was made up of other ideologies.

>>1659 Occupy wasn't even NGOs; it was promoted by the FBI via Sabu and lulzsec. I'll agree that it was mostly non-anarchist though.

>>1656 No replies? Well then, I am going to make a thread about trying to protect diversity and multiculturalism instead of pushing mass anti-white illegal immigration into Europe and US

>>1663 Your days are over, whitey. Get over it.(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST(RULE 3))

>>1656 I have a problem with you spamming anything. Spam ruins boards. I don't have a problem with you starting actual discussions about national socialism and trying to convince people, but then, I'm not a mod.

>>1665 no counter argument, just mindless screaming and crying(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST(RULE 3))

>>1657 >the core of any anarchist movement is reaction to fascism Anarchism predates fascism.

>>1669 >>1665 >>1663 Why are you talking to yourself?

>>1672 I'm not?

>>1679 If you weren't s4mef4gging when you responded to that "whitey" comment then you must be very new to the internet. Also, proving others are throwing tantrums by throwing one of your own. lol.(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST(RULE 3))

Stirnerite Egoist here you're all spooked the lot of ya. Sooked I tells ya!

I'm -6.66, -6.66 on political compass. Dunno if it makes me anarcho-socialist or simply satanist, but i don't care much, i decide which are my opinions on things from time to time, without following a specific ideology. Only things i'm quite sure about is that religion and (almost actual) nations are spooks and that capitalism is not the best for mankind.

>>1682 wait, if I keep samefagging to myself does that mean your comment is just mine? does that mean you don't exist? holy soykaf batman, I think we stumbled on some deep soykaf here

>>1623 3 tests, same answers no, i don't. they're all soykaf

>>1698 I think you got a good head on your shoulders. >>1685 Which of his books would you recomend to someone like me?

>>1598 >Global Rule 2: Do not call for mods, or announce reports in a thread. if you want political discussion derezzed, start a thread in /q/. >>1653 >>1665 >>1669 >>1682 >Global Rule 3: Always argue in good faith and avoid using personal attacks.

>>1602 Right-wing anarchism is a individualistic form of anarchism. The individual freedom extends to personal property and other rights. The foundation is (among other principles) the NAP. Also, your "founding fathers of Anarchism" are different from mine.

>>1713 Right-wing anarchism is generally very concerned about private property, not personal property. I don't understand how the NAP can cover that.

>>1602 Nice to see another An-Syn lain. I would highly recommend reading Rudolf Rocker if you get a chance. He was a great Anarcho-Syndicalist writer from Germany.

>>1713 The NAP is probably the biggest spook I have seen all day. What is it with Lainchan and spooks lately? >Also, your "founding fathers of Anarchism" are different from mine. What you're saying is essentially the same what the .jp crowd did and if they said 'For me seph is the founding father of lainchan not Kalyx and Appleman.'(If we ignore whether or not Kalyx does or does not support .jp). It's illogical, because chronologically, Kropotkin and Bakhunin are the originators of all anarchist thought. If you want your ancaps to be the founding fathers of anything than ancapism itself, then rename your movement. There is only one anarchism and it has only one founding fathers. And the general consensus so far lies on Bakhunin and Kropotkin. I never intended to trigger any rightists with this thread. But I love how many I have triggered. Stay triggered

Anarchism is neither left nor right. Communism, being another word for anarchism, is also neither left nor right. Communism and anarchism are two words for the same thing, and are also centrist. I'm an anarchist, and therefore a communist. I choose not to be a Marxist.

>>1739 >An-Syn lain read that as "Auld Lang Syne"

Just because you plebs watched Mr Robot doesn't make you an anarchist. There are so many sects and so much small fractured groups that when you're not attacking trash cans you're attacking yourselves. Anarchism is the ultimate defeatist ideology for those who have truly given up on themselves and those around them. It's a childish "if I cant have it nobody can" worldview that coddling educational institutions are failing to act upon. They should be preparing kids for the world not offering them a safe space room with bubble wrap and puppies then throwing them to the curb. No wonder they have no idea what to do with their useless dance degrees. No wonder they can't get a job with a bull ring nose piercing and pink Mohawk. We need to educate our young better to prevent kids from turning to suicide, or anarchism.

>>1799 Read a history book. Anarchists in Spain during the 30s not only kept production going steady in factories and on the farms, they were simultaneously fighting a civil war before they were crushed by Franco who was backed by Hitler. Anarchists played a major role in the Russian revolution as well though their mistake was underestimating the power the Bolsheviks would come to hold. Stop believing everything you see on the TV news.

>>1787 I wouldn't say anarchism and communism are synonymous. The difference, as with many leftist ideologies, is in the method of achieving the society. What makes you say anarchism is not left wing? By standard understanding of the political spectrum its as left wing as you can get. If you are saying the spectrum is redundant that's different.

While I am a transhumanist, I think its unnecessary to merge it with ideology. Sure anarchism is basically a necessity for transhumanism, but it does not need to be a foundation of the new world. Besides, all the anarcho transhumanist movements I've seen are ayn craps.

>>1802 >Read a history book. Leftists keep recommending me this one. Is it good? Once were's are irrelevant in this day and age, especially in this geopolitical climate. And I don't deny their achievements during that period of time. But I would like to read more if you had a particular book in mind when you said that? Anarchism these days is only for teens trying to kill people handing out Pepsi cans. Leftists are their own worst PR nightmare.

>>1807 Marxists believe that a dictatorship is neccessary until people are ready for anarchy, and that the state will "wither away" as people get used to working together without it. As to what a monumentally stupid idea this is, I think history speaks for itself. >>1808 I used to follow the Extropy Institute, not because I agreed with their principles but because they were so smegging weird, it was fascinating. Eventually I realized that a lot of their devotees had just read a lot of science fiction and were spinning some SF of their own and passing it off as a model for the real world. They meant well.

>>1809 >"Anarchist," is something edgy teenagers call themselves, like, "Satanist." >Therefore, all anarchists are edgy teenagers. >Comes into a thread full of people talking about anarchist literature of the 19th century >Where the OP names three authors >"If you're not all stupid teenagers, then recommend a book." How about The Conquest of Bread? Or Anarchism – A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas? >>1810 To be fair, using SF as a model for the real world has given us some cool stuff, like pic related.

>>1846 I think what happens in a lot of these cases is the writer sees something in an article about proposed new inventions and thinks it'd make a neat item in a story, and then a few years later the real thing emerges.

>>1665 Kill yourself subhuman.(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST (RULE 3))

And what the fuarrrk is up with this thread remaining up but the anti-left one being locked for supposedly being "low quality"? Is lainchan a leftist white genocide community then?

>>1855 Actually it is.(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST (RULE 4))

>>1855 Yep. Step this way whitey. Time for your... shower.(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST (RULE 3))

>>1855 There's a difference between "i want to talk about X" and "i want to be anti-x". In one of them your conversation is about a subject of interest, shared among your peers. In the other it's just the means to get people who enjoy x annoyed. If you create a thread pro-right and enough people care about it, i'm sure you will not be locked. As for your reference of low quality, please point it out if the moderation hasn't warned already.

>>1855 considering the fact that the people posting anti-white rhetoric are alt-righters trying to make lainchan look bad so they have an a reason to post more nazi propaganda

>>1876 >people posting anti-white rhetoric are alt-righters people posting pro-nazi rhetoric are just communists false-flagging.

>>1807 >What makes you say anarchism is not left wing? Because I see socialism as the left.

>>1888 Anarchism, at least as it was originally defined by 19th century philosopphers is nothing less or more than a different socialism.

>>1871 This guy is probably right. All of those other threads mostly came here as an outrage after seing this thread. And funny thing is we had dosens of 'anarchism threads' before. Both before and after /civ.

>>1904 Socialism is statist. Communism/anarchism is mutually exclusive with statism. That's the fundamental difference. One can see much of this stuff as existing on a 2D plane: one axis is freedom from capitalism, the other is freedom from statism.

>>1912 Well under socialism I meant communism. Sorry my mistake.

>>1855 >leftist white genocide

Happy international workers day fellow lains, all of you, left anti authoritarian, left authoritarian and even you rightists. Do you want to know about the origin of the international workers day and how may day became associated with it?

>>1915 >trying to pin white genocide on national socialism White genocide is misstreatment of white people with unlivable conditions that make them have smaller birthrate, politicians and corrupt corporations pushing mass immigration only into white countries and pushing for "diversity" quotas. It is literally a systematic way to kill a group of people and make them not exist anymore. Like 20 million christians killed under communist russia.

>>2090

Happy international workers day a.k.a. may day everyone.

>>1915 >2800 deaths On March 9-10 1945, when United States bombed Tokyo 88,000–100,000 civilians died.

>lainkamaraden >kamerad I'm pretty sure leftists address each other as "genosse"

>>2111 My German is above average but I am still not a native speaker. Thank you for your correction though.

The gifts of capitalism are so clear lains. How dare you deny the iphones, self-driving cars and viagra. Your slave mentality political ideologies would give mankind nothing.

>>2117 iPhones are soykaf, self driving cars and Viagra can still happen. >would give mankind nothing It will give mankind freedom. Technological and cultural progression will continue, tech might even progress faster because it will be made by and primarily for enthusiasts rather than appealing to brainwashed consumers.

>>2117 Wyh don't you create a thread about capitalism then? Or at least provide factual arguments to back up your words.

>>2117 How can I be free when I'm a slave to the capitalist system?

>>2117 Here's a few memes that provide their own counterarguments.

>>2117 Here is one with feudalism in the same situation.(sorry multiupload doesn't work from my phone for some reason)

>>2117 And here's the last one.

>>2117 I think this was sarcastic, and everybody took it seriously.

>>2136 Oh well, sorry then. Sarcasm doesn't go well over text you know.

>>2146 what the halo doesn't give it away?

>>2128 >"Here's a few memes that provide their own counterarguments." >fails to provide proper counterarguments and instead posts le reddit-tier funny pictures Ahahahahaahahahahaha, you don't even know what a counterargument is; No anarchist knows what a counterargument is. Proof of that can be found here and elsewhere, such as this thread here: >>1683, in which eighty-two posts were made following OP's, all of which failed to provide counterexamples to disprove OP's position, and the thread was locked because the only things anarchists know how to do is spread cancer, mindless destruction, and to post CP when they can't win an argument. Don't believe me? I'll challenge you then, anarchists, make a single coherent counterargument against the capitalist system and prove to me that without the tenets of capitalism, i.e. the protection of private ownership and the means of production, technological progress would thrive more than what we see now in most first world countries, where free markets, for the most part, reign supreme and private ownership is generally protected, (emphasis made because capitalism can never perfect - it isn't a utopian system unlike what anarchists and other Leftists believe in). For those of you with humility (which I mostly doubt) and don't understand what's being asked, keep reading: A counterexample (in this pretext) means providing an example in which one of two things occur; 1) An instance in which a business thrives beautifully without the protection or environment for private ownership and the means of protection, or 2) An instance where the protection or environment of private ownership and the means of protection clearly chokes the progress of a business in question. My position is that you will never be able to find an example to support a successful argument against capitalism, because such a thing doesn't logically exist. Please also note that crony capitalism is not a proper counterexample, because crony capitalism is not the same as capitalism, (that is, it is not the government's job to protect specific business interests). Try providing a proper counterexample without resorting to changing the subject, posting CP, attacking specific sentences in this post without adhering to the subject matter, or citing scientific theories that have no relation to the subject matter. I bet you all my memes that you can't.

To tack onto >>2152: despite all the criticism against capitalism, legitimate and not, there are successful capitalist countries and unsuccessful capitalist countries. Is there even one extant and successful communist/anarchist country/society/polity? Real communism/anarchism, whatever that means to you but not communist in name only like the PRC. HARDMODE: Not counting Rojava, seeing as they owe their very existence to American and Russian (i.e. capitalist/oligarchic/imperialist) support, arms, and air power.

>>2152 Yeah give us dosens of conditions and a set of goals that are all set up so we can only fail. And call it a fair discussion lol. Do you want us to provide counter arguments, counter examples or both? Also you are falsely implying that technological progress is the end all be all of societal progress. But since you really want that, what do you think about the fact that capitalists aren't willing to fund any scientific research that is still decades or centuries away from having a return on investment or a practical use.(And those that do are an exception to the rule) And the simple fact that scientific research in general is still mostly governemnt funded. >it isn't a utopian system TBH that is one of the things I don't like about it. It has no end game. Or if it has one it is unclear. 1) &2) The point is not to have businesses for businesses sake. Yet you are implying that for some reason businesses must thtive. >>2158 How could I mention examples if people aren't experimenting with novel societal examples enough? Especially at this current moment. It's like you are asking someone to write a research paper without allowing him to set up the proper experiments.

>>2163 Adding up: >1) &2) The point is not to have businesses for businesses sake. Yet you are implying that for some reason businesses must thtive. Businesses would exist only forfulfilling a practical purpose. Not for thriving or making anyone or anything, or even itself wealthy.

>>1597 >tfw u put anarcho-nihilism and any non social anarchism with fuarrrking -anarcho-capitalism- off with u. shoooooo.

>>1698 >Only things i'm quite sure about is that religion and (almost actual) nations are spooks and that capitalism is not the best for mankind. You're an anarchist. gratz.

>>2163 >Not allowing you to change the subject is setting you up to fail. >Not allowing you to post CP is setting you up to fail. >Not allowing you to quote specific sentences without relating it to the general subject matter is setting you up to fail. >Not allowing you to cite scientific theories that have no relation to the general subject matter is setting you up to fail. Bro, how did you even make it through school? Did your school raise you to be a thinker or a mindless puppet? Can't you provide a counterargument or a counterexample to any of my claims without resorting to doing other things entirely or resorting to logical fallacies? Like, why is this so difficult for you? You've already resorted to a low-end tactic by implying that I've implied that >... technological progress is the end all be all of societal progress. Yes, I've cited technological progress as a benefit of capitalism, but where have I even used the term "societal progress" in my post? Yep, that's right, if you re-read my post you'll see I never mentioned the term. Strike one for you, stupid anarchist. Putting words in my posts won't get you anywhere. >... what do you think about the fact that capitalists aren't willing to fund any scientific research that is still decades or centuries away from having a return on investment or a practical use. A broad statement supported by no example. You see, if you did provide an example, what you would have is a counterexample to my own argument. But since you are so stupid, you forgot to provide the counterexample to backup this statement. For example, great technological progress and managerial strategies were developed by Henry Ford, because he was allowed to control his own inventions, products, and company. And because individuals were able to take other inventors' ideas and build on them and have the freedom to make them their own to some degree, people like Ferdinand Porsche picked up Ford's visions and brought them to their own countries, in this case to make a car for the everyday man. Even Ford was influence by past and contemporary inventors around him. But you can't provide examples like I can because you don't have any, you're just arrogant. >And the simple fact that scientific research in general is still mostly governemnt funded. Same problem as stated already, you have no source. >TBH that is one of the things I don't like about it. It has no end game. You have no understanding of what capitalism is. Absolutely none. The end game if freedom and liberty, you stupid monkey. Things like liberty allow you to provide a home for yourself and your family, something anarchists, socialists, and communists alike have no interest in. It's not "business for business' sake", that's just a slogan developed by anarchists and Leftists with the mind of a tiny snail. So respond with effort or I won't respond to you again. >How could I mention examples if people aren't experimenting with novel societal examples enough? Especially at this current moment. It's like you are asking someone to write a research paper without allowing him to set up the proper experiments. You sound like an insane person saying this. What kind of experimentation is enough for you? Are the citizens who suffer in North Korea, a country devoid of all senses of capitalism not enough or you? Oh wait, you're an anarchist, right? How does Africa look to you? Do you like the place? Do you live there. You're insane. I know that one reason why anarchists and Leftists can never provide examples to back up their own claims is because the closest examples they can point to are places like these two, which are absolute failures of societies and nations.

>>2163 >How could I mention examples if people aren't experimenting with novel societal examples enough? Especially at this current moment. >It's like you are asking someone to write a research paper without allowing him to set up the proper experiments. People aren't experimenting with novel societal examples enough? Such an experiment is coming to an end in Venezuela at this current moment, and the conclusions to be drawn are clear. What about the past experiments? They weren't successful so they don't count as proper experiments either?

>>2181 No, they are not. Ideally there should be dozens if not hundreds. And they should be made up of volunteers. The problem is, countries aren't really willing to donate territorry. So to conduct the experiment, you pretty much have to take over the entire country.

>>2181 And those experiments don't have to neccessarily be anarchism or any other form of communism.

>>2185 Of course, how could I forget, it's never real socialism!

Can an anarchist explain to me how they are capable of living in communities without collectivism rising either within them or externally and through the merit of their combined efforts over taking anarchistic ideals via, production, trade, conflict, culture? Regardless of how 'right' you seem to think it is I cannot forsee any situation in which an anarchistic community isn't absorbed into whichever unified force that eventually encounters them.

>>2189 Image-meme replies have become quite a problem in this last week. Memes are not arguments. Stop using them as such.

>>2191 Repeating the same thing over and over expecting different results isn't a meme, it's insanity.

>>2193 You're under no obligation to repeat yourself, if you believe the other side is incapable of understanding what you have to say, then you have nothing to say. Using images achieves nothing, only undermines anything you have to say.

>>2195 Are you being willfully dense?

>>2190 Collectivism isn't inherently bad nor is individualism inherently good. What's bad is any vertical hierarchical structure to which you have not specifically agreed on. The idea would be that there would be different places with varying amounts of collectivism/individualism. You pick the one you like. As for defense from internal or external threats. Well just as with any form of society, if it's people are not willing to keep it, it will eventually morph from inside or be defeated by outside forces. As long as the anarchists in the community would be willing to keep it somehow going, the community would survive.

I will refer to >>2152 as your first post and to >>2176 as your second post. You are far from a perfect debater either. Let me list just some of your fallacies: -you are trying to set yourself up as an impromptu moderator of the debate yet you are obviously biased -you are commiting the 'begging the question' fallacy which itself is a type of circular reasoning -and that being said your first post as a whole sounds a bit like a loaded question. -you are literally insulting the guy in your second post(AD HOMINEM). >in general you are having a patronising, condescending tone and you are obviously not debating in good nature. But let me try give my own examples... >technology The space race. The soviet union was the first one to put a man, an animal and a satellite into space. Even NASA and all of it's contractors from back then... the operational and research processes they used for the moon landings were so much like the soviet unions that I have heard them be called 'almost socialist'. No capitalist on earth back then was insane to seriously attempt anything in space. As the cost and RoI would have been enough to bankrupt anyone. Ford is a bad example of 'others being able to build upon his own stuff' as his own stuff was under heavy patent and copyright protection as well as trademarks. But it may be just because I am on team Stallman and like stuff like open science etc... Also if anyone asked me about Edison vs Tesla I am definitely on team Tesla. >Bro, how did you even make... You made a lot more 'limitations and rules' in your original post than the ones you mentioned. Go back and read the first two paragraphs of your starting post, and ask yourselves, 'Which ones of my lines could be in any possible way be interpreted as limitations and rules?' >Yes, I've cited technological progress as... You may have not mentioned it, however I completely agree with him. Societal progress is almost always more important than technological progress. In fact technological progress should only be subservient to societaly progress. that is if a technology does not in some way improve quality of life or society itself, it may in effect be useless or even harmful. We have noticed this on lainchan ourselves with the advancements of surveillance technologies. >sources I am not writing this for college and I don't have time and energy to go source hunting now. Google stuff if you really want to. >>2181 To give you two examples,,, 1936-Spanish civil war Catalonia. Yep, the bigger part of the Spanish Catalonian region went full anarchist during the Spanish civil war. They were obviously on the side of the republicans. And they had majors successes early on in the war.,. especially the feared 'Durruti column'. They only started losing after the enemy general Franco asked for support from Nazi Germany. Anarchist Aragon happened at the same time in the same war. The reason why Catalonia disappeared was not because of inefficiencies in it's economy or way of life, it was because it was back stabbed by some of it's own allies that were loyal to Stalin while at the same time fighting a proxy war against Nazi Germany. The other example is Freetown Christiania. While rather small in size, it now is ~40 years old. At this point it has it's own anarchist tradition.

>>2224 >The idea would be that there would be different places with varying amounts of collectivism/individualism. You pick the one you like. Wouldn't most people just stick with the one they were raised in anyway, like religions?

>>2259 Yeah, but the important thing is that you would have choices. And sticking to what is familiar is also a choice.

>>2262 At what age can somebody choose to change collectives? The age of majority? The age of reason? If a baby uses a toy screwdriver to escape its playpen and adventures over to a different collective, does it live there now? It seems unfair to be stuck in a certain place for any length of time just because you were born there.

>>2228 The following picture id a picture of Freetown Christiania. It's a fuarrrking soykaf hole. You want to live there? You want the whole world to live like this? Be my guest, if you want to live there, but to say that this is a good and successful place is ludicrous. There are violent gangs there and it is generally an unsanitary place. What a joke. Also, you posed the space race as another counterexample, but that example fails because the space race wasn't a capitalist endeavor, it was a defensive one, retard. Don't like how I called you a retard? Well you are, because the space race had more to do with missiles and nuclear technology than anything else, and the number one job of a government is to protect its citizens from foreign powers and invaders. Of course no capitalist wanted to invest in space technology at the time, they had (and still, for the most part) no need to. Did you forget that the space race occurred in the middle of the cold war? That means the number one goal for countries like America was to defend themselves against nuclear threats from the skies, and they needed to advance the technologies for such defense as quickly as possible to do so. Would an anarchist society be able to defend themselves against nuclear threats and propel themselves to space? I doubt an anarchist society could even build a hundred toilets for themselves to sh!t in.

>>2282 >Christiania Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. I find pic related beutiful in fact. I especially love their graffiti art in this picture. In fact when you said it looks ugly I even actually expected it to look worse. >violent gangs As in violent against the police yes. But for any anarchist this is mostly a positive thing. >the space race wasn't a capitalist endeavor It was done by a capitalist country, which is capitalist enough for me. Also, are you now commiting the moving goal posts fallacy? You literally asked me to provide you with an example of when is socialism better for technological development. And I provided you with the space race. Now you even said: >Of course no capitalist wanted to invest in space technology at the time, they had (and still, for the most part) no need to From which anyone with a sense of logic can conclude one thing: If capitalism has at least one weakness, it is that it does not invest in technology(something which you specifically asked me to) or science, or generally any area where it does not see an immediate return of investments. >nuclear threats lol, most countries as it is aren't capable of doing that. Infiltration and sabotage would probably be the best thing one could do. Or a global revolution, one where even the nuclear powers are affected. Then once the silos would be seized a steady but fast decomission of all nuclear material with the help of cooperating nuclear experts. >propel themselves to space? The inner workings of the academia, that is the society of actual engineers and scientists are perfectly compatible with both anarchism and state socialism. And I think that free(as in freedom) software has proven to all of us that spontaneous masses of hobbyists can indeed create technology of value. >hundred toilets It's not toilets, but a very limited space like Christiania literally has it's own bike shop among other things. A place where they fix their bikes and make their own hand crafted bikes. Considering the constraints of Christiania, that is IMO good enough.

>>2264 >It seems unfair to be stuck in a certain place for any length of time just because you were born there. True. >At what age can somebody choose to change collectives? Whenever it's reasonable for the person in question really. There are many factors that would go into that really, and this is a situation that would be better handled with 'on the spot' decision making by involved parties.

>>2289 fuarrrking troll, this is cp don't open

>>2282 > It's a fuarrrking soykaf hole. You want to live there? That kind of just looks like a few old houses and some people walking down the street or stopping to chat. I don't really see anything wrong with it.

>>2300 >old houses Literally 90% of Europe.

>>2302 Exactly. I would believe that photo was from any small town in Europe or the Northeast US. What's so soykafty about it?

>>2303 It's actually a part of Copenhagen AFAIK. However even large European cities have lot's of old style architecture buildings, as that is something that some tourists like when going to Europe.

>>2285 Those are all words. You say you would like to live there and that it's beautiful but really you wouldn't, and most of all, you aren't. Lying on the internet to win an argument is stupid. And the rest of your points like calling the space race within the United States a socialist endeavor as opposed to a purely defensive one is stupid as well, because the country was in fear of nuclear war. Nuclear fuarrrking war. There's nothing socialist about getting your government together to defend your country against such a threat either, because it's purely instinctive, and it's the government's number one job, once again, to defend its people, even if it means losing a ton of money, which it did. Reagan's Star Wars project in 1984 was met with massive failures, because it was a government project and government projects always suck, as history tells. Just look at defensive spending in general, so much money is wasted, because the government is in charge of it. But we need it, because we need a government to protect us from foreign invaders at great speeds when needed, even if it costs a ton of money. Overall, you talk like a dreaming ten-year-old about things like wishing that all the nuclear weapons in the world would get disarmed and capitalists never invest in technology, a statement of which is so stupid even most Leftists in academia of your own yolk would probably laugh at you. Yeah, capitalists never invest in technology, wow what a weakness! In other news, Apple Inc. is about to surpass the trillion dollar threshold in worth! And in other news, your idiocy is about to pass the threshold of no return. Keep dreaming, kid. >>2298 Never open unspecified links by anarchists. I warned everyone in this thread in my post here, >>2152. And se what the response was? Hurr durr, you're an improptu moderator. Haha, anarchists are nothing but animals, and they love their CP.

>>2304 >even large European cities have lot's of old style architecture buildings I was getting, "Small town," more from the distance between buildings than from the style of the buildings, but it is apparently in Copenhagen, so I was wrong.

>>2309 Why do you sippose he was an anarchist? The cp-bait seemed to be aimed AGAINST anarchists in this case (see pic related). I think he is only a troll who doesn't care about politics. anyway, about technology: apple can be valued trilions and trilions, but they follow only profit, not science progress. If profit can be made by creating smartphones, apple will continue creating smartphones. Probably things like, for instance, quantum mechanics, are far more interesting for mankind and science than smartphones, but since they can't make profit, public universities where people research about quantum mechanics will always have less money than apple corp. in a capitalist system, and this imho is a bad thing.

>>2312 People who post CP more likely than not have anarchist leanings, literally because anarchists don't believe in laws, nations, borders, or any policing force. Well, that means they are on the same page as people who post CP. I don't care who the person is posing as, it's obvious which side of the border they're closer to. You're misrepresenting greatly what the developers and businessmen at Apple do. You're saying that the tail is wagging the dog and it's blatantly false if you re-examine your words. Developers at Apple want money and the means to live, any civil human being wants that, but they need to make a product people are willing to buy to do it. Anarchists and Leftists will kill people (their own people, not invaders) if they don't give them what they want, and this is uncivil, inhumane, and blatantly evil. Look at what this anarchist admits here >>2285 when he advocates for violence against police (in other words, his own people) and says, >As in violent against the police yes. But for any anarchist this is mostly a positive thing. Yes, violence is a positive thing according to the anarchist, the uncivil animal. Words from his own mouth (or yours). I'm not making this up, you are. Others don't believe in such violence against their own people; In a capitalist (and civil) environment, people give others what they want and then receive something in return. Therefore, the developers and businessmen at Apple create a product, give it to the people for a price, and the money circulates throughout. This pushes Apple to further their technology according to what their buyers want, whether it's making the phone smaller, faster, hold more storage, etc. This is called technological progress. You lied and said this isn't "science progress". You are a joke. Whatever you don't like you say it's not "science progress". Hahaha, it's so obvious you're butt hurt at the progress capitalists make in society. Elon Musk is the capitalist head of Tesla Inc. and SpaceX. He's making electric cars, he's progressing the technological field of space transportation, is this not "science progress" to you? Clearly you're implying it isn't, because you don't want anarchism to look bad. But any rational lurker will see my counterexample to yours and see I'm right, that capitalists are the ones who bring progress, not anarchists. The only time people should be somewhat forced to build things is during times of war when speed is very important, e.g. projects like Star Wars or ordering military parts from the manufacturing companies at home. Even then, people are always payed for their work. Something people like you hate.

>>2317 > I don't care who the person is posing as, it's obvious which side of the border they're closer to. Have you ever read about anarchism outside of hollywood movies? You are aware that fight club is not about anarchism, right? And even if you were serious and somehow based on any real definition of anarchism, that doesn't excuse you for lying. Why are you even in a discussion if you're so ready to jump into baseless conclusions?

>>2318 Just for the record I am not him, and I hate to say it, but that really isn't an argument. I can understand that there is more to anarchism than spraying ACAB on supermarket windows, but you can't deny that hating the police is a large part of many anarchists' ideology. It isn't difficult to see that people who want to do illegal things also hate the police, putting them (at least superficially) in the same camp.

>>2322 But i'm not the one he's replying to, either. The rest of his arguments are straight out fallacies and lies, cheap sophism to win internet arguments, i'm not interested in refuting this kind of crazy. What did bother me, specifically, is his specific statement that "i was wrong but does it matter?!". Yes, reality matters, truth matters. You can't justify a lie with "i think it's true because reasons".

>>2317 >People who post CP more likely than not have anarchist leanings, literally because anarchists don't believe in laws, nations, borders, or any policing force This is like saying atheists can't be moral: a bullsoykaf. Are you implying that, if CP was legal, you would post it? People have a consciousness, and they can avoid doing things cause they think those things are wrong, and not only cause they're forbidden by law. Also, anarchists disregard lots of laws, but this doesn't mean they don't fear prison like all the others. If an anarchist knows that CP is wrong, he won't post it. Same with a non-anarchists. If instead that anarchist doesn't care about moral implications of posting CP, he will decide if doing it or quitting the idea depending on how high is the possibility he has to be caught doing it. Same with a non-anarchist. So where is the difference? It seems that the possibility of posting CP of an anarchist and the one of someone who believes in a different ideology are the same. About technology: i can't understand your objection. Are you saying that having devices with wireless earpads is more useful and desirable than knowing more about quantum mechanics? Ah, and about Elon Musk, he represents only a coincidence, a rare case where someone who made a lot of money is genuinely interested in progress of technology. Probably there are tons of students out there with the same interest and cleverness of Elon Musk, but they don't have the economic capability to use these. In a socialist system with good public universities and state funding of research there would be a lot more people like Musk than now and science&technology would progress, if not even more quickly, AT LEAST at the same rhythm of now. P.S. I'm not anarchist, and i began posting from 2298. Also sorry if bad engrish somewhere in this post.

>>2309 I never said that capitalists NEVER invest into technology. You're commiting the fallacy of putting words in my mouth now. >own people Why would I ever consider the police my own people lol. The police are nothing more than an element of power designed to keep the ruling capitalist class in power. I see no reason to pity any policeman, because at one point it was their own career choice to join the hunting dogs of capitalists. It is their own responsibility. Oh, but you don't want to face the anger of the people? Fine, quit your job and join us in the black bloc. What's questionable is the morality of protecting politicians and big businessmen even from the will of the people themselves. >Anarchists and Leftists will kill people (their own people, not invaders) if they don't give them what they want, and this is uncivil, inhumane, and blatantly evil Show me one example where anarchists killed other leftists... Also, capitalism is barely any better, if better at all.(pic slightly related) Capitalisms's immorality lies in it's neglect. It treats people like math, like numbers. For soome reason you can't be productive or provide anything of value? Bam, you're a 'loser' now, die. You have a curable disease but the treatment is too expensive that you could ever be reasonably expected to pay it back? Sorry kid, blame your parents for birthing you into a 'loser' poor user family. Also, last I checked Capitalism reigns supreme in Africa. Responsibility is a prerequisite for anarchism, and in such a state there would be no need for policemen to enforce anything.(even if we assume that the police force is a force for good) Again: >own people There is no 'own people'. There is only: >the people(multitude) Anarchism is inherently internationalist. I don't reject only nations, I reject nationalities as well. > it's making the phone smaller, faster, hold more storage, etc Yes, that is progress. Technological progress, not scientific progress. Learn the distinction. My issue with it is that due to profit needs it is too slow and incremental. There's this story that we have the technology to build airplanes that can go up to mach 10, but nobody wants to do it as it is too expensive. I consider this a fault of capitalism. >Elon Musk Is only an exception that confirms the rule. Also without initially rocket hobbyists, then later the soviet space program and even later NASA. there would be no space X. Is it so morally wrong of me to think that dark matter research is a lot more important than to make a 2% better interface for iOS? Let me give you an example with making a bycicle out of spare parts. A capitalist and a bike enthusiast are making bikes out of spare parts they have enough parts to make 10 bikes, however those parts are of varying specs and quality(they all work though). The capitalist will build 9 bikes for PROFITABILITY COMPROMISES. While the bike enthusiast will quite simply build the one best bike he can build. >cp It's usually the "anarcho" capitalists that post cp in my experience.

>>2317 >Elon Musk is the capitalist head of Tesla Inc. and SpaceX https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJgtRBkFnfw Working within the system that already exists doesn't mean you're necessarily a fan of that system. Having lots of money doesn't necessarily make one a capitalist.

>>2318 >>2318 >Have you ever read about anarchism outside of hollywood movies? Yeah I have, right fuarrrking here in this thread. I'll quote him once again, >>2285 states that violence against police officers is a positive thing for anarchists. So don't hurr durr Hollywood me, I'm taking those words right out of an anarchist's mouth right here. The question really is, was he serious about violence against police officers? Were you serious? Anarchists and Leftists use violence and kill their opposition to bring about their political dreams. Capitalists don't, and capitalists make great technological progress to bring products to others in the process as well. It's so obvious to see which political side seems more pleasant when you look at it rationally. Anarchists live in a dream world where they hate everyone around them, so they blame their problems on invisible rich people and believe they live in a slave world. Perhaps in other countries this is true, but in nations like America, there is so much free opportunity that to call yourself a slave is not only stupid but evil, considering how rare these opportunities in the world are. >>2325 >>2318 When you put these two posts together you can see there's no counterargument. Yet you say, >The rest of his arguments are straight out fallacies and lies, cheap sophism to win internet arguments Yeah? How so. You're stupid. >>2327 Dude, I've seen this argument you're making in school when I was about eleven-years-old. You have the mind of a child. If people don't know what I'm talking about, let me describe the childish argument: >People only don't do things because of federal and state laws. Welcome to the mind of the anarchist/Leftist. (I simply don't believe you when you say you're not one of these things.) They think all things in this universe are based on the government. They think if we do something, it's because of the government. They think if we don't do something, it's because of the government. And they think that if we should do something, it should be with the help of the government. Laws laws laws everything I don't like is also because of laws. Why do we have laws? Waaahhh I'm a big fuarrrking baby. What these idiots don't realize is that there is also good will in people that allow people to form laws based on their idea of a society that is as free as possible (from government) and allows for people to trade and protect themselves willingly, e.g. the US. But instead of reading into the history of modern democracy in civil societies, all you do is spout nonsense that somehow leads you to the conclusion that >It seems that the possibility of posting CP of an anarchist and the one of someone who believes in a different ideology are the same. This is one among many of the stupidest statements I've ever heard in my entire life. Also, please don't just take every counterexample against your argument and say "Ho ho ho, it is but a coincidence". Really, dude? Was George Stibitz, American researcher at Bell Labs, who is considered the "father" of the personal computer also a coincidence? Was Percy Spencer, the man who invented and patented the microwave in 1945 also a coincidence? Do you have the nerve to say that even as all you little anarchists sit at home heating your ramen in your little magic boxes, oblivious? >hurr durr I'd rather have muh quantum mechanics >[Microwaves ramen externally] You people are insufferable. Stop using the "muh quantum mechanics" meme. How many inventors and entrepreneurs living in capitalist societies do I have to list until you give in? >>2328 I'm sick of replying to anarchists, who have no brain, so I just skimmed your post. >Why would I ever consider the police my own people lol. You're fuarrrking immoral. Next. >Yes, that is progress. Technological progress, not scientific progress. Learn the distinction. What the fuarrrk is this? Technological progress is devoid of scientific methods? You're a fuarrrking moron. Not gonna reply to anything else. I will now proceed to go throughout my day driving cars made possible only by capitalistic endeavors. Have a nice day, sh!tters.

>>2330 >capitalism is about making people free well anarchism is literally about making people even more free. Free^2. >What these idiots don't realize is that there is also good will in people Funny thing is that when criticizing anarchism , most people criticize anarchism because 'it requires too much good will from people'. Protip, no it does not, it just requires people to be responsible adults. >How many inventors and entrepreneurs living in capitalist societies do I have to list until you give in? Until you realise that the value of contribution to society goes rougly like this: scientists>inventors>... ...you may as well post an infinite amount of examples, I don't care. Could the guy who invented the microwave have done it without all the scientists before him that formulated all the physics theory and math that goes into a microwave. I doubt it. Although morality is also yet another man made abstraction(yeah nihilism is a thing)... The only people I really consider my own are the 7 billion people on earth. I refuse to put anyone above or below someone just because he is or is not of a specified nationality. That alone already makes me more 'moral' or at least emphatic than a whole bunch of people. Now I may have perhaps expressed myself wrong. I do not condone unneccessary violence against the police, as the policemen are made of flesh and bones as much as anyone. However when the police are used as a tool of oppression of the people, then violence against the police is and can be considered 'popular self defence'. Even in the USA the police apparatus is more often than not used as a tool to suppress the will of the people, stuff like massive NSA spying programmes and stuff like little rock and stuff like Ferguson etc... You say that Capitalism is all about minimising the government... Anarchism replies:Why not get rid of it alltogether? Or is that perhaps too much freedom and liberty for you? Also: >pretends to care about proper debating form yet obviously he does not >commits many fallacies himself >skims over other peoples replies >insults people >does not even want to discuss in good faith as the rules of this website state. >leaves And nothing of value was lost IMO.

>>2327 > Show me one example where anarchists killed other leftists Well, anarchists and communists did have a shootout over the telephone exchange in Barcelona but I can't tell you which side fired first. I know communists killed plenty of anarchists though, after pretty much every 20th century revolution (USSR, Cuba, you name it)

>>2329 > Having lots of money doesn't necessarily make one a capitalist "Capitalist" originally referred to an occupation, not an adherent of any ideology. Some still use it that way.

>>2344 Okay, but that's not the most common definition, so it's not the one I would generally assume first. >>2342 >still replying to that guy I really don't think any good was ever going to come out of treating him seriously. >it just requires people to be responsible adults. From what you've seen of the internet, do you really think people can do that? It seems like trusting other people to be responsible and sane might be too much for me.

>>2359 >I really don't think any good was ever going to come out of treating him seriously. Well yeah, I am pretty sure I presented my case so i will just stop replying to him now too. >From what you've seen of the internet, do you really think people can do that? It seems like trusting other people to be responsible and sane might be too much for me. Some lainons sometimes bring me a glimmer of hope for that. Other than that it's not really a place on the internet, but I regularly visit alt culture places and I see that I couldround up a couple of responsible people from there. They are usually the adventurous type, but yeah you can find responsible people there too.

>>2330 i'm >>2327, and your post was 99% name calling and 1% bad argumentation. Read again my example and tell me where it fails to demonstrate that anarchists have the same probability of posting CP than the others >If an anarchist knows that CP is wrong, he won't post it. Same with a non-anarchists. If instead that anarchist doesn't care about moral implications of posting CP, he will decide if doing it or quitting the idea depending on how high is the possibility he has to be caught doing it. Same with a non-anarchist. So? And, about technology: I have no doubt that there are many scientist in the actual capitalist system, (we are 8 bilions, even with a veeery low percentage of innovators the number would be huge), but i'm saying that in a socialist one there would be more. Again, re-read my old post >Ah, and about Elon Musk, he represents only a coincidence, a rare case where someone who made a lot of money is genuinely interested in progress of technology. Probably there are tons of students out there with the same interest and cleverness of Elon Musk, but they don't have the economic capability to use these. In a socialist system with good public universities and state funding of research there would be a lot more people like Musk than now and science&technology would progress, if not even more quickly, AT LEAST at the same rhythm of now. This time please try to reply clearly to the core of my argument without manipulating words to avoid a direct answer. Sorry lainons for continuing to give him attention, if his reply is another time without real intention of a serious debate i swear i'll stop doing it.

>>2282 Please respect rule 3 :( Argue in good faith and avoid using personal attacks

>>2378 >i'm saying that in a socialist one there would be more Not him but tbh the XXe century showed pretty much the opposite, okay the cold war didn't help because most of the scientists in socialist countries were building weapons but the thing is that you can have as many scientists as you want, without a reactive market to know precisely what the people need they're far less effective to innovate where it's the most urgent. Also state funded research is like kicking dead whales down the beach at managing money because they'll be bailed out every time if they fail and you can't make cost-effective investment decisions without assessing risks correctly. So basically you end up with underperforming scientists, unsatisfied people and raising taxes/inflation/increased public deficit to sustain the whole thing. I totally get the concerns of socialists but fuarrrk their solutions just don't work

>>2429 > without a reactive market to know precisely what the people need they're far less effective to innovate where it's the most urgent The reactive market currently seems to want better mobile devices so they can put cat ears/noses on their Instagram selfies without learning Photoshop, and fridges that can access the internet for some reason. I say we're screwed either way.

>>2430 yeah well you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. It may have something to do with education but honestly I have no idea anyway it would be too hard to reform in my country

>>2430 also the market isn't that reactive, there's a ton of badly designed regulations which let big companies form oligopolies, patents for instance. It ruins competition for arbitrary reasons and they get away with a lot of stuff like that

I'm the person who's been posting CP. I'm not an anarchist nor do I conform to any ideology but if I had to box myself in I'd say I'm at home with right-wing libertarians. I posted CP (the pic here, video in other thread) simply to trigger whomever fell for it; it's funny. I'll be coming back with more tricks soon enough Present Day, Present Time! AHAHAHAHAHA!

>>2436 so, basically you're an asshole? anyway, back on topic. Markets are like wildfires. A wildfire doesn't necessarily need wind to spread, they create their own wind with their heat. Similarly, a market doesn't have to respond to any external forces, it can make its own, via advertising and lobbying and so forth. That's how you get stupid soykaf like the tech bubble.

>>3631 Dont you just loooooove anarchy? ;^]

>>3633 anarchy != no rules. anarchy = no rulers.

>>3634 Hey dont tell me what to do!!! See?😂 no more rules I need to abide by Also, stop with mods and admins if you believe in no rulers

ngl this is some top-quality b8

>>3636 Srry wrong fella Go back to your IRC circlej3rk

>>3635 Lainchan is not an anarchy.

>>3639 Ohhhhh Good for country not a website? You know, I thought people try to make practical small scale examples of their wide and big ideas. Having a whole country in anarcho socialism is big goal that would take long time and even if you got there you could simply say "it wasnt real anarchy cuz X" to evade admitting defeat. National Socialism works on small scale though

>>3640 You really have no idea what you're talking about. The people who run lainchan never said it was an anarchist space. It's just an imageboard where many different discussions are possible. This particular discussion happens to be about anarchism.

At the most lainchan is anarchocapitalistic in ideology. Really it cryptoanarchic through, which has some ancap influence.

>>3644 My point was, that if you tried to make a forum/chan with anarchy at core of its ideology then it would get flooded with cp and scammers

>>1611 I believe those are just anarchists. The idea with all that is to 'cause chaos that would turn in to change in the system. Works poorly to moderately since no one but them knows the idea.

>>3665 They'd still have janitors. How many times does it have to be repeated, anarchy doesn't mean "no rules". You seem incapable of grasping this rudimentary idea. You don't have to agree but it helps for the purpose of any discussion if you are able to absorb the basic points of that discussion to begin with.

>>3665 Again, anarchy = no rules, anarchy != no rulers. People can even be empowered to enforce those rules, if it must be done; the point is that if people decide that they dislike the way the rules are enforced/created, they don't have to follow them -- so long as they're not actively harming others by doing so(i.e. by posting CP) It really makes no sense to make an imageboard "anarchist" since an imageboard doesn't follow the same rules as life in general. Generally people aren't anonymous, nor is there any reason why you need moderators, since individuals can moderate individual situations without needing any special power over others. I don't know why I responded to another one of those "le anarchism is disproven with a thought experiment" but I did. >>3657 Cryptoanarchism and propertarianism do have some intersection, but I think lainchan itself isn't really ideologically inclined, besides a strong tendency towards anti-authoritarianism.

>>3669 whupsie, got my = and != signs mixed up

>>3668 >>3669 Janitors (moderators) would still imply rulers. You are false.

>>3674 OMG ur right! An imageboard can't be a microcosm of society after all. You win, may as well close the tab now.

>>3677 >no way to make a small societal experiment in seeing what political ideology is best You heard of cities build just for that purpose, right? You heard individual and group projects, just projects mind you, just to see if their way of hierarchy is more beneficial and productive? >hurr durr imageboard in no way could simulate society fuarrrking idiot

>>3678 You already "won" the debate, you can leave now.

>>3678 >You heard individual and group projects, just projects mind you, just to see if their way of hierarchy is more beneficial and productive? Heard of the various large-scale anarchist experiments, many of which were great successes, and some of which exist prosperously to this very day? >society, a massively complex dynamical system, can be accurately simulated in artificial and restricted conditions what a charming story!

Let me see if I have this straight. Anarchy is impossible because lainchan which was not started by anarchists at all, has janitors?

>>3679 I can? Oh thank you >>3680 >many of which were great successes >and some of which exist prosperously to this very day? don't know what you mean by "great successes" but I would like to see an example. If it isn't better of a system than what we already have in place, then no they aren't. >>society, a massively complex dynamical system, can be accurately simulated in artificial and restricted conditions you are probably that retard from another thread who says "100%". not accurately, but trying to emulate societal exchange of ideas and resources on a small scale to exemplify anarchy would at least give you guys a much needed PR, would it not? Retardo >>3681 Right on, small brain cell count man

>>3682 >If it isn't better of a system than what we already have in place, then no they aren't. nice double standard. Luckily it's not hard to beat. In anarchist Catalonia basically every measure of social well-being improved. And that was during wartime. what's the point of trying a simulation if it will necessarily give you inaccurate results? Anyway, this is all a tired liberal argument that anarchism needs to "shape up" before it's a "real ideology". Not to mention you're an obvious flamebaiter.

>>3683 Catalonia? 3 years of killings those wanting to put things into order, and you call that a success? If it were it would still be standing tall.

>>3685 also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcSVfLV-2C4

>>3685 The other side had all the airplanes and artillery already, not exactly even odds. They also overthrew a democratically elected government. You call them the good guys somehow?

>>3691 >he thinks even odds are needed for better people to win Life isn't "even odds" and rich people didn't become rich because they were born that way. Most of them had to work and have an uphill battle against other people and businesses to succeed. Catalonia couldn't do that. Catalonia isn't a success.

>>3693 By that logic, fascism wasn't a success in Spain either. It just took longer to die. Looks like democracy won after all :)

>>3696 Exactly Why do you think I would disagree?

>>3693 > rich people didn't become rich because they were born that way OK this can officially be written off as a troll thread. This is stupid even by lax imageboard standards.

>>3699 >>3696 A thing has to last forever to be considered a success?

>>3702 No, just outlive others and beat them out. >>3701 66% of richest 100 were born poor. Stop with your inflammatory "I CANTZ BELIEVES DIS" posts and either join the conversation or ignore it. Buh bye.

>>3702 >>3706 To add on. Whenever we think of "successful person" or "successful thing" we obviously think of person better than others or thing better than other things. It doesn't mean THE BEST, or "immortal". Just that you're better. Successful rap artist? Successful painter? Successful programmer? Common nyaow.

>>3708 I usually think of "success at _" to mean fulfilling some set of requirements.

The s4mef4gging going on here is embarrassing.

This thread has been locked because of the influx low quality posts, squabbling and thread derailment that occurred after >>3633. Please feel free to create a replacement thread, but calling it a general for such a specific topic is not recommended. Please note that if a thread to argue the definition of anarchy is wanted, then that should be a separate thread and not in the replacement for this thread. Please try to spill less soykaf in future.