Agorism

I saw that there were two threads for communism so I don't see why I can't make one for my political ideology. What is agorism? Agorism is an anarchist ideology which advocates for private ownership and free market. It is very similar to anarcho capitalism, and some could even call it a means to an end. What are agorists against? Agorists are against government and state capitalism. What do agorists believe in? Agorists believe that the state is violence and, on a moral level, has no right to exist. Agorists believe in getting rid of the state non-violently. They support grey and black markets, that is to say, markets that the state considers to be "morally wrong", such as selling drugs or prostitution. Agorists also believe we should try to separate ourselves from the state as much as possible. In other words, limit your interactions with the state as much as possible. Don't vote, don't pay your taxes, live off the grid, use a VPN when you go online, use crypto instead of your country's currency, support your local businesses instead of big billion dollar brands, ect. Class theory (don't worry, it's not some cringey marxist bullshit): Entrepreneurs: these are the good people, the people you want to support the most! Non-state capitalists: these people are neutral. They are supporting the state but not necessarily because they want to. State capitalists: now these are the people you should be angry at! These are the CEOs of multi-billion dollar corporations like Amazon or Google. These corporations have lobbyists in the government to curve politics in their favor. These companies rely on the government to stay alive. They are the biggest scum and are to be avoided at all costs! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYI425gjpZc (some of the things I said here I took from this video. Please give it a watch, it is very good!) http://www.agorism.info/

Just a question to start: You ideology supports things like CHAZ?

While I agree with the anti-state stance, do you honestly see a way to get rid of the state non-violently? This seems incredibly naive. I think I understand how you believe it would happen, the market itself doing this. Once again, I believe that is incredibly naive. I think the free market is at best a poor piece of idealist fan-fiction. Transplanting this into an anarchist society (after you magically get to this point) is bound to rebuild a capitalist system. Private ownership and the idealised free market (not possible) are bound to lead to structures which at best just mimic the state, one must realise that the market structures and striates, that capital is not separable from the states in which it has been set loose on national and ethnic historical fault lines. Free market capitalism was once seen by optimistic economists as the solution to inequality, Agorism is another idealised adjunct to this even if it does not explicitly state equality as a pillar. Basically, Agorism will draw sociological, political and historical veins into itself. While people (rightfully) are astounded by the resilience of capital, to separate it from the circumstances in which it is found is useless, to accelerate it towards a particular trajectory is only as useful as predicting the future. I think the great lie told here, by capital's own tendency to marketise and quantify, is that things will become increasingly predictable... They won't. Any attempt to capture the productive forces for a future revolution, violent or not, with such emphasis on market economics which will surely lead to further fetishisation of work ethic among the pseudo-state forces which will come to dominate society albeit in a more decentralised form (for the time being, as does war, disaster), is just a resituation of power. Sorry for waffling, but I'm curious, what drew you to this ideology? What do you think about it would improve things/your life?

>>18125 Yes! If people want to live in gated communes, they can! They can also set up whatever rules they want inside the commune as long as it's all voluntary and they don't bother anyone outside the commune. >>18127 If enough people stop funding the government (they stop paying their taxes), and if people rely less and less on the government (they do all voluntary exchanges through the grey market), the government will just naturally dissolve. The government is only as powerful as you make it out to be. If everyone who works for the government woke up tomorrow and decided to quit their jobs, the government would be nothing more than just some people sitting on a high chair spewing words no one will listen to. >what drew you to this ideology? What do you think about it would improve things/your life? I believe people are more than capable of taking care of themselves. When I really think about it, I don't use the government for anything. I have no use for it on a day to day basis. I don't think of the government as a noble leader or a servant, I see it as a tumor that's sucking up my money and damaging the economy. Throughout all my life I've always noticed how anything that is "public" tends to be inferior to anything that's "private", therefore, using that same logic, if everything was owned privately instead of publicly, everything would improve. I know that in first world countries like America or the UK, there are public things like roads that look and function just fine, but I grew up in a semi-poor country, and the government here is nothing more than a bunch of opportunists trying to steal as much money from the workers as possible. The public roads are trash here! However there are also toll roads, and they are so well maintained you could practically eat off of them. And of course, as this is a not so well country, I have partaken in grey and black markets before. People selling alcohol without a license, people selling weed, ect. I've bought things from people like that before, and I see them as genuine businessman, not criminals. The reason people sell alcohol illegally here isn't because they're a part of some sort of gang, it's because obtaining the license to sell alcohol legally is really hard and expensive (an example of how the government damages the economy). Then lastly there's the issue with gun control. We have pretty strict gun control here, but does that make this country safer? Nope! Not in the slightest! I live in a pretty peaceful neighborhood and I STILL sometimes hear gunshots in the distance at night. Obtaining a gun in here legally is so hard that you're better off just getting one illegally. I mean criminals do it all the time anyways, so it's either follow the law and get shot by a criminal, or stay safe but become a criminal in the process. tl;dr: the government is incompetent, unnecessary, and is only good for stealing money from the workers, and we'd function much better as a society if everyone was free to live however they wanted and were able to take care of themselves.

>>18127 > is bound to rebuild a capitalist system.....the market structures, that capital is not separable from the states "a capitalist system" today is based on central banks and a centralized form of currency that is controlled by a very small number of people & it is tied to the state through taxation. Things like Agorism promote counter economics such as direct trade, alternative currencies, community currencies etc, It promotes the types of economic activities seen today in black & grey markets. >it does not explicitly state equality as a pillar. Equality in what? do you mean economic equality (to be able to engage in economic activity without any restrictions) like in blackmarkets everyone can sell what they want without the state telling you what you can buy or sell ,no licenses, no gatekeepers. This kind of economic activity can be seen in the black/grey markets of 3rd world countries but in its current form it is not completely unregulated, criminal organizations & corrupt government agencies control some of its commodities(drugs,guns,gold etc) other items that have low value are completely unregulated.The regulation of these markets create economic inequality, > capital, to separate it from the circumstances in which it is found is useless Why? Don't you think the ability of banks to create money out of nothing & their monopoly on infinite money printing are some of the main causes inequality > the pseudo-state forces which will come to dominate society albeit in a more decentralised form Yes it is a possibility, you can call it redistribution of power. Will it be good or not I cant say, it might depend on the people in that community like the post above you asks about CHAZ (insane people = insane community) >>18114 >getting rid of the state non-violently Is that even possible ?

>>18114 Anyone else think that (barring enormous societal collapse), a restructuring of society into anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, real™ communism, or anything so radically different/segmented is impossible at this point? Locally? Maybe. At any kind of larger scale? Not really. The world is so vastly interconnected (and will continue in that trend) that anything going in the opposite direction seems naive. But who knows, maybe the impending climate collapse will shake up things a bit, though probably not for the better.

this is just anarcho nihilism with capital characteristics

Agorism reeks too much of anarcho-capitalism for me to fully embrace it. A class theory as simplistic as "entrepreneurs good!" don't do it for me. Example, there is nothing good about an entrepreneur who makes money by scamming their customers or exploiting their workers or polluting excessively. Market forces alone are not enough to stop this, it takes some kind of proactive measure like a social contract. I think it would be best for a community(like a city block or small town) to collectively manage their common needs like food, water, shelter, self defense, etc but agorist market economics take care of the rest. That said, I have to give agorism props for being the only form of anarchism that makes sense in the modern age. All the ancoms waffling on about revolution will never get what they want, and mutualism cant work in a gigantic dense-packed city where you don't personally know all the people who keep you fed. An agorist model works though, black markets naturally emerge in the absence of state power and it makes sense for anarchists to get with the program.

>>18114 >business good >but business bad when they earn a certain amount of money that I don't like Wow amazing, thank god you didn't base this on some 'cringey marxist bullshit'...

>>18135 >I think it would be best for a community(like a city block or small town) to collectively manage their common needs like food, water, shelter, self defense, etc but agorist market economics take care of the rest You could do that. There would be nothing stopping you from doing that. What you've described is essentially Hans-Herman Hoppe's idea for "covenant communities" (though Hoppe is an ancap and he believes everything should be controlled by a free market, he supports the idea of living in an enclosed community and establishing rules inside the community). The takeaway from this is that "covenants" or "communes" or whatever you wanna call them, would all be entirely voluntary, that's what makes them different from countries or states. And yes, a covenant could theoretically be communist (like Chaz), as long as they don't bother anyone outside the covenant, they can do whatever they want, but I doubt a communist covenant would last longer than a few months. >>18138 You seem confused. It's not that there can't be people with a lot of money, it's the means used to get that money that's bad. Billion dollar mega global corporations are a product of statism. They can't exist without the government. These companies use lobbyists to get unfair advantages over other people. They pay the governments around the world lots of money and in return get special treatment that smaller companies don't get. That is why state capitalists are bad.

>>18134 >this is just [summary of your views in my framework] Amazing post.

>>18132 >is that possible? Of course not, why would the ruling class ever hand over the power to destroy them willingly? >>18140 Companies and the state go hand in hand. There is no way you can get around this. It only exists in our modern day as a tool to protect private property. Your ideology itself, ironically enough, can only exist in this society, it has no historical founding or scientific theory, you are merely picking and choosing from each current ideology to pick-n-mix your own little special niche ideology that you can use to feel special and enlightened. The key point that distinguishes your ideology from the next r/anarcho-x subreddit with 2000 followers of 14 year olds is the fact it is against big corporations (also le edgy we like crime and bad things >:)). Capitalism has failed so much that even the anarcho-retards are seeing the light and starting to realise that when private property leads to immense power- It's a bad thing! I'm sorry but you are mistaken here: these companies don't rely on the government, the government are tools of the ruling class, they always have been and always will be, until capitalism ceases to be. (see pdf) >Entrepreneurs: these are the good people, the people you want to support the most! >Non-state capitalists: these people are neutral. They are supporting the state but not necessarily because they want to. >State capitalists: now these are the people you should be angry at! So an entrepreneur has an idea, he is good, he starts a business and gets some success, then he becomes neutral... Then he gets even more success in your free market, and becomes evil? So why would you get money (and therefore power) in your society if influence on the world is a bad thing? Lets say he is a non-state. capitalist again, and his shop gets destroyed by a hurricane: is he left to fend for himself? Just die because all that he has built is gone? Or will a state give him a small loan to help him get back to business? Oh no we can't have that, that would be relying on the government to stay alive and that is the peak of all scummery! Again your refusal to read a single word of Marx comes to light. You make no mention of the class that does all the heavy lifting (literally), the workers! For every entrepreneur you have you will need a gaggle of workers to exercise the ideas of the 'good people'. What of them? Oh yes silly me: fuarrrk em! We only care about someone getting their big break by making the monotask-kitchen-utensil number 3482 in this society, they are the chosen ones. Presuming you some how even create this society, what is to stop the workers (the MAJORITY) from just rising up and taking all your soykaf? Nothing, unless you want to exercise some huge state control, which of course would be bad for an anarchist like yourself. Read this if you would like to get any idea about how society and states as we know it have come about. Just know that millions won't let you turn humanity back thousands years just so that you can feel like an Elon musk rags to riches cool kid. Overall I like your attitude, but you are fatally naive. I may come across as harsh here, but your infantile refusal to stare capitalism in the eye and hold it accountable for what it has caused, whilst calling Marx cringe because you've heard people say that online, is unforgivable. You call these companies scum but they are nothing but consequence of the state and class system to currently live under.

>>18142 Man, have you even read any of what's already been said or the links provided? I know big companies and government are two sides of the same coin! That is one of the reasons why I want to get rid of the government! To allow smaller businesses to flourish! We don't need to use violence or dismantle the bigger companies to do that! If we get rid of the government, the bigger companies will just naturally dissolve on their own, since they won't survive on an actual free market.

>>18114 So you'd rather be oppressed by the holders of capital than by the government? At least the state occasionally tries to appease people with privileges, private tyranny is the worst kind of authoritarianism.

>>18142 >capitalism has failed so hard that even anarcho-retards are seeing the light Anarchists don't see capitalism as anarchy, we're socialist by default my dude.

>>18143 You have completely failed to take in what I'm saying. They are the same coin yes: to remove one side of the coin requires removing the other. This is what happens when you don't read any political or historical theory, you have no idea WHY the state appears, you just assume that the world is made of lego bricks which you can pick and choose to create your own little arrogant paradise. How about answering my questions about the workers also? And why an entrepreneur would ever make it big if that would mean becoming evil. (I'm sure when Mr Capitalist makes a billion dollars his company will just dissolve rather than try to grow further, like every single capitalist venture in history...). You think these big companies will let you get rid of the government? The government is the machinery used by these companies to enact their decisions. Do you know why police exist? It isn't to keep order, they are not benevolent, it is to protect private property. Take this away and the capitalists will sweat bricks over their oncoming doom: not be happy because more small businesses can flourish. Economically this is gibberish. Not every small business can flourish and AGAIN small businesses aren't just one person, they are comprised of many workers. If every business in your world employs 2 workers on average then there are twice as many workers as there are entrepreneurs or businesses. What will stop them (the MAJORITY of the population) from having a revolution and destroying your imaginary private property for good? Why should I ever want to 'vote' for your system where only a tiny fraction of the population will ever benefit truly, the rest enslaved by 'the good ones' who bring them great capitalist inventions, such as angry birds. >>18145 Anarchists (ancoms) are fine yes, while I disagree with how to use the state for our end goals, my post doesn't aim to criticise them, but the offshoots that fail to actually understand anarchism. (i.e. how anarcho capitalism is just a bastardisation of anarchism)

>>18146 That's on me, I legit missed two lines of your post cause I'm phone browsing.

>>18146 >The government is the machinery used by these companies to enact their decisions. Do you know why police exist? It isn't to keep order, they are not benevolent, it is to protect private property. Do communists actually still believe that the state exists for economic reasons rather than believing that the state exists entirely for the sake of violently imposing its own existence?

>>18149 They exist to violently impose their own existence for economic reasons. What makes you think private enterprise would be more benevolent? Why wouldn't corporations that already have a long history of exploitation and violence continue to oppress the masses without state intervention? Capitalists own the state, all agorism/ancap systems would do is to remove the middle man and the lie of democracy. It would just be a more honest brutality.

>>18150 >What makes you think [things I didn't imply, suggest, or hint at]? I know you probably thought I was the previous dude, but this is still pretty jarring. >They exist to violently impose their own existence for economic reasons. I can't really make sense of this, to be entirely honest. >Capitalists own the state No one owns the revolting mess that is the state, anon. >all agorism/ancap systems would do is to remove the middle man and the lie of democracy. Yes.

>>18151 >I can't really make sense of this It's easy, the state exists to violently impose its will for the capitalists that definitely own it. The western world, especially America, is a plutocracy. The state is already working for capitalists, getting rid of the government and allowing private property changes nothing except for removing the facade of choice. They will still fuarrrk our soykaf up. Unless you're bourgeoisie, in which case, get fuarrrked.

>>18142 >capitalism has failed so hard that even anarcho-retards are seeing the light And yet, even in our failed capitalist society we are still living much better lives than those who lived under communism.

>>18152 >The western world, especially America, is a plutocracy. Bro your brain just runs on nonsense, what the fuarrrk.

>>18154 Cute macro, I've got sources. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty-research/policy-topics/democracy-governance/rise-western-anti-democracy-movements https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://books.google.com/books?id=gOjMHq4jYk0C&pg=PT38&lpg=PT38&dq=the+western+plutocracy+harvard&source=bl&ots=4ly4b6Cr71&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwis76ybj7XqAhXSmOAKHdIsDAEQ6AEwDXoECAUQAQ

>>18142 >Again your refusal to read a single word of Marx comes to light. What are Marx's views on Central banks and money creation? Do central banks & normal banks under pure communism work similarly to banks functioning in the present systems. >capitalism has failed so hard that even anarcho-retards are seeing the light Boom & burst cycles are created by banks with the monopoly on infinite money printing & centralized currency so what is MARK's idea of money creation & control? >>18144 >So you'd rather be oppressed by the holders of capital Corporate tyranny is possible mostly due to the government trying to protecting monopolies Why must their be only one system of society? Why cant you have many forms of societies existing together instead of being under a system of top down centralized control ?Why do people come up with one size fits all solution to society instead of coming up with solutions to the problems of society that can adapt with the local people & local environment & taking into account the natural resources available,demographics,religion... etc ?

>>18156 >corporate tyranny is is possible mostly dur to the government trying to protect monopolies Corporate tyranny has a long history of doing just fine without the government's help, and in fact, typically dwindles with government intervention. There's no reason to believe a sufficiently powerful corporation wouldn't impose brutal oppression. Corporations, by their very nature, exist only to increase profit. The free market won't force them to behave benevolently, and there's no reason to assume they would of their own volition.

>>18157 >Corporations, by their very nature, exist only to increase profit. Corporations, by their very nature, exist only to capture the market. Its about controlling the market and they can only do that if governments make regulations preventing people from entering the market, only the chosen few get to engage in economic activity & get access to capital "Competition is a Sin!" — John D. Rockefeller

>>18159 First of all, Rockefeller was a bastard even by bourgeoisie standards. Second of all, you're saying pretty much the same thing I am. They exist to control the market, make profit, they exist to gain power, bottom line. And focused power is exactly what leads to exploitation and control. There just isn't a world where capitalism can exist without hierarchy, and there isn't a world where hierarchy can exist without tyranny.

Agorism is unfeasible as much like the hippie movement of the 1960s and the Anti-globalisation movements of the 1990s and 2000s for the same reasons which is its Anti-Social Attitude in a very literal sense. which is the "Dropping out" factor which completely goes against the purpose of destroying the state and instead seeking to leave it. A "Free Market" with entrepreneurs and capitalists without the presence of the state is sketchy at best and impossible at most as the state is often the only body capable of regulating private property rights and so on

>>18143 >Man, have you even read any of what's already been said or the links provided? I know big companies and government are two sides of the same coin! That is one of the reasons why I want to get rid of the government! To allow smaller businesses to flourish! We don't need to use violence or dismantle the bigger companies to do that! If we get rid of the government, the bigger companies will just naturally dissolve on their own, since they won't survive on an actual free market. You can absolutely have "Big Companies" without a big goverment (USA / EU / Australia / Russia etc etc). And a "Big Goverment" without big companies (Mao's China / USSR / Warsaw States etc) >>18149 >Do communists actually still believe that the state exists for economic reasons rather than believing that the state exists entirely for the sake of violently imposing its own existence? It violently imposes its existence to appease the beliefs of those in control of the mechanisms of state. Thus governments Capitalist economies use the state and the forces of said to state to first and foremost protect private property. With the protection of individuals being secondary. A government led by Marxists as we have seen in historical examples instead uses state violence to protect state and collective property. So yes the state does violently impose itself but to what end differentiates depending on the government of the day >>18156 >What are Marx's views on Central banks and money creation? Do central banks & normal banks under pure communism work similarly to banks functioning in the present systems. Central banks and paper currency were ideally abolished at the realisation of communism. Realistically this meant that in Socialist states the federal and / or supreme unitary government authority held the only licences to manufacture paper currency >Boom & burst cycles are created by banks with the monopoly on infinite money printing & centralized currency >so what is MARK's idea of money creation & control? This is true thus why states with no private financial institution rarely experience "Boom and bust" economic turns like most states do

>>18151 >No one owns the revolting mess that is the state. No one "Owns the state" in modern society in the same sense that the clergy and noble families didnt technically literally "Own" the estates general. Almost every politican in the western world who wields actual power is either a direct member of Marx's capitalist class dichotomy or is an aspirant using politics as a pretext to enter that class

>>18163 >"Big Companies" without a big goverment in USA & a "Big Goverment" without big companies Mao's China / USSR Give examples, most big companies in the USA like Google/Facebook/Amazon have ties to government. Most of the "Big Goverment" like in China,USSR & Natsoc Germany were financed by international bankers and were developed by technology transfers from "Big Companies", for more detail read books by Antony C. Sutton: Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development , Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler , and The Anglo American Establishment by Carrol Quigley >the federal and / or supreme unitary government authority held the only licenses to manufacture paper currency So just another form of central bank but what is this money being issued based on? Gold ,Labor, Social credit scores,Oil ?

>>18165 >Give examples, most big companies in the USA like Google/Facebook/Amazon have ties to government. Yes. But despite corporate subsidies they still fundamentally operate as independent capitalist enterprises. The US goverment cant just tell Google and Facebook to do things under most circumstances. There have been many periods in US history when the goverment was even "Smaller" or "Bigger" then it was now. and "Big companies" still continued to flourish (The Ante-Bellum / Basically the entire country before teddy / basically the entire country again till FDR etc) >Most of the "Big Goverment" like in China,USSR & Natsoc Germany were financed by international bankers and were developed by technology transfers from "Big Companies", I know very little relatively about Nazi Germany's economy. The USSR and China until the rise of Gorbachev and Deng Xiaoping respectively didnt really have what could be considered "Businesses" in the traditional western sense. They had "SOE's" "State Owned Enterprises" that were basically goverment controlled conglomerates for each major field of industry agriculture and technology. Almost all Soviet Oil drilling was owned by two SOE's GAZPROM in Russia and AZNEFT in Azerbaijan. Agriculture was 99.9% controlled by state Kolkhozes and sovkhoz's etc etc >were developed by technology transfers from "Big Companies" I dont get what you really mean by this. Yes the Soviets and Chinese (to this day in the later case) 'use technology that was developed by big companies' but generally those companies didnt literally "give it to them". A Soviet or Chinese scientist would read about research / a new breakthrough in scientific journals and so on and then...use it? Under this logic Apartheid South Africa "Gave the rest of the world" heart transplants because they just physically did it first and no one payed royalties to the South African government royalties for the 'idea' of Heart transplants >Most of the "Big Goverment" like in China,USSR & Natsoc Germany were financed by international bankers The USSR / RFSSR was not "Financed by international bankers". What was seen in the immediate aftermath of the February revolution was a flurry of Entente and entente-aligned governments sending gifts, forgiving loans and issuing free loans at 0% interest to the FEBRUARY GOVERNMENT Because the entente powers were quite afraid that they may take Russia out of the war which in the belief of Entente powers generals would result in every german soldier on the eastern front swarming into belgium and france and overwhelming them via sheer numbers. The Soviets were actually the first ones to accuse the February goverment of being "Foreign assets" to the point that they (regrettably) began using the rhetoric that Kerensky was A. secretly Jewish and that B. he being Jewish was "Out of touch with the needs of the Russian working class and accepting gifts from his foreign countrymen" Mao never really had anyone supporting him except the USSR and to a much lesser extent Mongolia. Even when he came to power the PRC was derezzed from most foreign conventions (even the Olympics) till the mid 70s. Looking at the entire western worlds reaction to Mao's goverment it dosent seem like they "Financing" him at all

>>18166 >The US goverment cant just tell Google and Facebook to do things under most circumstances..... Google/facebook/Twatter are the government ,they openly censor anyone who criticize US foreign policy or criticize its greatest ally "Pisrael", they remove & censor anyone who challenges the powers that be or people who speak against the official narrative .These companies have deep ties with National Security Agencies for example CIA awarded a contract to AWS worth up to $600 million over a period of up to 10 years & also you cant overlook the "revolving door" between political and corporate positions for companies like Monsanto.Corporate monopolies like Google ,Amazon, Monsanto are part of the power structure along with International banks they are not independent capitalist enterprises >those companies didnt literally "give it to them". >The USSR / RFSSR was not "Financed by international bankers" This is just your opinion, there is evidence that they did give it to them (read the book) & Hitler was also financed by western capital >Soviet Oil drilling was owned by...... Yes but the technology for drilling oil was provided by western enterprises & there was also transfer of capital from the western capitalists to the Soviet Union for development of agriculture and Industry you should read the book by Anthony Sutton .He provides enough evidence in his book to prove that Soviet economic development was caused by western capital & transfer of technology & was not caused by the the release of "Socialism"

>>18167 >Google/facebook/Twatter are the government The relationship is actually reversed. The goverment seeks to silence critique of corporations as those corporations provide lobbying and donations to the goverment along with the hope you may ascend to be a member of this corporation after your time in government is up The goverment is "owned" by these companies in the same way that the estates general was effectively owned by the alliance of Nobility-Clergy >Yes but the technology for drilling oil was provided by western enterprises Even Tsarist Russia had a basic understanding of how oil drilling worked. the USSR / RFSSR didnt like need an American scientist to them "How oil works" >provided by western enterprises & there was also transfer of capital from the western capitalists to the Soviet Union for development of agriculture and Industry you should read the book by Anthony Sutton .He provides enough evidence in his book to prove that Soviet economic development was caused by western capital & transfer of technology Ok well ive just given the book a (quick i admit) look but i already seem to notice some things you dont seem to take into account in you and his argument. The Entente and Central powers and after the war their descendants were very hostile economically and politically to the USSR with many nations (Most notably the USA refusing to even trade things like food stuffs and fuel with the USSR And Poland actively fighting a war with them supported by the Entente and former Alliance powers.) So to say that the Entente and Alliance were 'Injecting technology, development and capital into the Soviet economy' seems a bit ridiculous. The USSR was not even allowed membership into international coalitions like the league of Nations and so on until the late 1920s. Your book also only tracks to about 1930 which is cheeky considering that the early 1930s was when the USSR actually began on mass nationalisation and collectivisation of national and foreign enterprise

>>18168 >>18167 Though i will admit this was not monolithic. Weimar Germany's goverment for instance had an oddly passive to cooperative relationship with the USSR. This included the USSR allowing the Weimar Republic to build several secret military complexes including a weapons and ammunition production facility

>>18151 >>18154 These people try help you and you shut down and post a fuarrrking 9gag image lol. Separating each sentence into points so you can go "no" to each one, proudly displaying your complete lack of understanding isn't an argument or constructive.

>>18164 >clergy and noble families didnt technically literally "Own" the estates general. Absolute monarchs literally owned the state. >Almost every politican in the western world who wields actual power is either a direct member of Marx's capitalist class dichotomy or is an aspirant using politics as a pretext to enter that class No, most politicians are merely career politicians, this is common knowledge.

>>18172 Most politicians also don't get anywhere near any power, or their party being in control of anything. This is important as it displays the sheer power Capital asserts now, even if you oppose it they let you have 'power' by being a politician, yet you make no difference to exploitation, it is a farce, a circus for the people to press the 'vote' button to imagine that they are making an impact while the capitalists roam free. >>18153 Better for YOU. Capitalism still needs an underclass to exploit to survive, you're a white teenager living in the USA so you don't see this, but the suffering is outsourced to the third world from the core imperialist countries, where they can pay a measly wage and not worry about safety procedures. The working class of the USSR was looked after well though, not many people were wealthy but that was because it was a very poor country at the time. Now we have people starving while billionaires buy their 5th yacht, I'd rather have everyone on a modest salary than inequality on this scale.

>>18172 >Absolute monarchs literally owned the state. This was true until about the 1500s. During this period then yeah all land in a given 'state' if it could even be called that was the private property of either a noble lord or a Clergyman But as the sheer size of countries and their colonies grew and the need for at least some centralised state and a system where fiefdoms of land werent literally cut in half or redeliminated every time a nobleman died and left his land for his two sons to share. Thus things like the Privy council (Which would basically become what is known as the British Parliament) Estates general (French analogue to a parliament ) and so on. The primary issue remained that the other three classes that by this time existed the capitalist class the proletariat and the peasantry were often never allowed within this council with it basically being a meeting of the clergy the nobles and the capitalists wealthy or privileged enough to "Buy a title" and "Become royalty" >No, most politicians are merely career politicians, this is common knowledge. There is a concept known as the "Revolving door of industry and government" that is mainly because a politician after they leave office often very likely just so happen to be offered a high paying management level job at companies that he helped while in office

Anarchist ideology seems poorly explained and not really thought out. There are anarcho-commies, anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-libertarians... etc... Won't the most popular variant in the region become the actual government? Or alternatively, outside forces will invade because the entire world is covered in states and the only lawless regions are basically the sea (no potable water without de-salinization or drinking sea animal blood) and some areas that are basically in a state of war. There is also a long history of feudalism and tribalism with anarchy being more of an exception, not the rule. Tribalism tends to lead to some sort of empire or monarchy if successful, since usually a union of tribes has to do with marrying and fighting, and what do you call one family in charge of many tribes? Humans just end up organizing at some point or another, its sort of inevitable unless you remove parts of their brains. Then there will be a group or groups using force and the rest is history. As for the anarchy which is actually not anarchy I don't really know what to say about that. Perhaps properly name things and use the dictionary. >>18131 What do you do if you overthrow the corrupt government and nothing much changes other than not paying tax and not paying for silly licenses? Maybe your country's problems stem from being poor and not powerful or influential. >>18133 Going offtopic here but I have not seen proof of climate change being stoppable by humans but I have not seen the extreme consequences people insist would have happened. The suggested ideas don't make any sense. Carbon Tax: Pushed onto the consumer immediately, no change in corporate behavior. Solar panels: Takes up arable land massively if not put on towers or existing structures. Uses rare earths and plastics! Wind turbines: Some of the same issue, not every place is the best for wind power really. "Biomass": Why is burning wood suggested? I don't understand, it releases emissions and particulates en masse. Why do the people who complain about nature burning in dry places want to burn stuff? Plants and trees are at least renewable I guess.

>>18114 Under absolute democracy, the state should always stand for all the people. In this case, would you be against "the state", communal resolution?

>>18168 >the USSR / RFSSR didnt like need an American scientist to them "How oil works" this is literally the first chapter ,the oil wells were primitive they lacked modern drilling equipment & there was also a lack of technical workers to operate on them.The development of domestic technology would have been costly in both time and expense ,the soviets themselves had no need for gasoline at that period of time but they needed capital for Industrialization process so oil became one major source for foreign exchange to fund more industrialization. International Barnsdall, together with the Lucey Manufacturing Company' and other major foreign oil-well equipment firms signed concessions (a type of agreement between a foreign firm & USSR) to develop the oil drilling industry in the USSR. oil-field work undertaken by Barnsdall engineers and crews;and the installation by Azneft engineers of equipment supplied by the Lucey Manufacturing Company, Metropolitan-Vickers, Ltd., and other companies.The very first refineries were completely built by western companies Craig, Ltd. (United Kingdom)Heckmann, Wilke and Pintsch (German) gasoline cracking units were built by the Graver Corporation of Chicago,kerosene plant was built in 1927 by the Standard Oil Company of New York .....etc Several very large orders were placed directly by Western governments for Soviet oil. The Italian Navy bought 150,000 tons in 1927, the French Navy bought 33,300 tons in 1927, and the United States Shipping Board bought 200,000 tons-at a time when there were no official diplomatic or trade relations between the two countries. >Alliance were 'Injecting technology, development and capital into the Soviet economy' seems a bit ridiculous. Yes the "Alliance" of international bankers and industrialists have always financed both sides, the Rothschilds have done this many times through history,for more info read Anglo American Establishment by Carrol Quigley

>>18174 >There is a concept known as the "Revolving door of industry and government" that is mainly because a politician after they leave office often very likely just so happen to be offered a high paying management level job at companies that he helped while in office Yes. But anon, there is an absolutely immense gap between "politicians do backdoor deals with businesses" and "the U.S. is a plutocracy".

>>18131 >Yes! If people want to live in gated communes, they can! They can also set up whatever rules they want inside the commune as long as it's all voluntary and they don't bother anyone outside the commune. Based beyond belief.

>>18182 Oh i wasnt that Anon sorry if you got confused >International Barnsdall, together with the Lucey Manufacturing Company' and other major foreign oil-well equipment firms signed concessions (a type of agreement between a foreign firm & USSR) to develop the oil drilling industry in the USSR. oil-field work undertaken by Barnsdall engineers and crews;and the installation by Azneft engineers of equipment supplied by the Lucey Manufacturing Company, Metropolitan-Vickers, Ltd., and other companies.The very first refineries were completely built by western companies Craig, Ltd. (United Kingdom)Heckmann, Wilke and Pintsch (German) gasoline cracking units were built by the Graver Corporation of Chicago,kerosene plant was built in 1927 by the Standard Oil Company of New York .....etc Several very large orders were placed directly by Western governments for Soviet oil. The Italian Navy bought 150,000 tons in 1927, the French Navy bought 33,300 tons in 1927, and the United States Shipping Board bought 200,000 tons-at a time when there were no official diplomatic or trade relations between the two countries. Yes but as stated this relationship ended around the early 1930s and viertually all infrastructure and industry development from that point on were almost entirely financed or simply forced by the Soviet goverment itself >Yes the "Alliance" of international bankers and industrialists have always financed both sides, the Rothschilds have done this many times through history,for more info read Anglo American Establishment by Carrol Quigley The Rothschild's are not a particularly wealthy or influential family. If you were to take the entire wealth of every member of the Rothschild family and give it to one man he would still barely be in the top 1000 people on earth much less "The most influential"

>>18177 >Anarchist ideology seems poorly explained and not really thought out. There are anarcho-commies, anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-libertarians... etc... >Won't the most popular variant in the region become the actual government? Cant really speak for the new Post-Left Variants of Anarchism such as AnCaps / Agorists and AnTechs / AnPrims but the Anarchist philosophers of the 1800s (Proudhon / Bakunin / Stirner because one of the logical end points of egoism is Anarchism etc) was not to abolish the idea of any societal organization at all but to simply abolish the concept of the Romantic / Liberal State that Napoleon had helped create. In their minds it served as a natural progression since Europe had gone from Feudalism (All land in a 'state' as Private property + Laws governed by oral codes and religious codes) To Nationalism and Capitalism (Land in a state mixture of private / common / public property + Law drafted by goverment as the basis of moral code + deliminated borders between states) Anarchism was seen as the ultimate step since it results in (Absolute Common / Collective property + Laws collected drafted + No delimination of 'states')

>>18196 >Yes but as stated this relationship ended around the early 1930s There are 3 volumes >Rothschild's are not a particularly wealthy or influential family You should look into their history

>>18114 Sounds cool! Can I own slaves and who is gonna stop me?

>>19057 >Can I own slaves and who is gonna stop me? anarchists would probably not take kindly to that. Unless they're "an"-caps in which case they'd probably ask to buy some.

(Linguistic note: I use ``free'' as in ``freedom;'' cf. ``gratis.'') >>18114 >Agorists believe that the state is violence and, on a moral level, has no right to exist. Agorists believe in getting rid of the state non-violently. Excuse me but I must interject: Agorism isn't against violence per se; Agorism is against aggression i.e. initiatory violence. (That also means that responsive violence should be minimal, because responding with more violence than is necessary to extract restitution is the same as responding with minimal violence, and then doing some more violence.) >Agorists also believe we should try to separate ourselves from the state as much as possible. In other words, limit your interactions with the state as much as possible. In principle, yes. And that's the goal. But in presently, in practice, no. As awful as states are, they provides some services that, at present, keep society functioning. Don't just rip it out blindly. What we need to do is make a plan for how to replace the services that states provide, with services that are not aggressive. Why do you think there are statists? Because there are persons who think the benefit from states; most often, they do benefit from states. If, instead, they found a cheaper alternative to being robbed (i.e. `paying' taxes) and using the `gratis' (i.e. paid for by what a state stole from them) services, and they can be sure that they'll have protection against states robbing them, then they'll switch to the cheaper free (non gratis) services. Then, there are the statists who are getting more than they're being robbed of. As much as I'd love for them to disappear, to pay back all the benefits they've reaped from unnecessary violence, they have power---some of them are not afraid to exercise that power for their benefit, at someone else's expense. To strip them of their power, we need to incentivize (not ideologically, but materially) persons to stop giving them power. Then, statists won't have power. To do that, we'd need to have systems that, together, can compete with each service that a state provides. That means police. That means firefighters. That means sewers. That means roads. I.E. that means a whole lot of boring crap to deal with. (Well, most of it's probably boring to most of us. You or I might find this or that interesting, and someone might find all of it interesting. That's why we specialize.) Furthermore, we need to figure out ways that ensure that the `free' alternatives really are free (i.e. not just seem free). That means their being free should be durable. >Don't vote, don't pay your taxes, live off the grid OK, I think see where you're coming from---you have my condolences. Let's examine these three items. The first seems mostly independent of the second or third. Voting is a way to exercise control over a state. Of course, if you don't know which way to vote, i.e. if it's difficult to know which way to vote, then you might be better off not wasting your time trying to figure it out. I don't vote, because have more productive things to do. At best, my vote would be as good as random. Another thing is that if it doesn't affect me, I shouldn't have any say in it. It's their problem, their resolution. Now, taxes. If you can get away with not paying taxes, don't pay taxes. It should be that simple. In fact, it should be as simple as just ``don't pay taxes'' for everyone. Sadly, in many cases, a person who is not paying what a state says that person should pay, that state might try to further restrict that person's freedom. Maybe if you live `off the grid' (is there a better term for that?), then you can escape their notice. Which brings me to the third item: Living `off the grid.' If you're doing it to avoid taxes, or any other aggression of a state, then it's not freedom---you'd be trapped, in a prison, of your own devise. For example, one person put a mine field around his house and stopped paying taxes. Later, presumably when some supplies were low, he came out. And they caught him. Last I heard, his house was up for sale pretty cheap; how much would you pay for a house with such, er, `landscaping?' More importantly, here is one simple sentence that should be sufficient refutation of that advice to live off the grid: I don't wanna. Now, I'm not saying whether I want to live off the grid---only that that's a sufficient reason for that argument to fail. Some persons might be OK with living off the grid. Many persons won't wanna. There are good reasons that cities formed. It's much cheaper for persons to work together when they're nearer: less work for the same result---more profit---or more result for less work. Here's some advice from a colleague: don't be so kind as to build your own strawman for them to burn. That'll only compel them to thank you by returning the favor by burning that strawman you so graciously provided. Unless that's what you want. Do you really want that? >use a VPN when you go online Again, not Agorist per se but privacy is an important tool for freedom. Also, don't use the term VPN, because (1) it's jargon, which makes it difficult for laypersons to understand, (2) it's an acronym, which are prone to misinterpretation, leading to more difficulties of understanding, and (3) you mean computer proxy, not VPN per se (though a VPN can be used as a computer proxy). >support your local businesses instead of big billion dollar brands I'm sorry, that's not Agorism: that's nationalism. Buy the best service. It might be a local service. It might be a `global' (is there a better word for that?) service. Of course, don't use any aggressive service. >Class theory (don't worry, it's not some cringey marxist bullshit) Shoot! Here I was excited that you were about to introduce Bernays-Gödel. Jokes aside, you don't have to think of those as classes. Instead, you can look at a specific individual, and ask: is this person for, neutral about, or against freedom (or, contravariantly, aggression). It tends to be dangerous to think in terms of classes of individuals, because I often see persons misclassed. It might be not cringey, it might be not marxist, it might be not bullshit, but that doesn't make it good. By the way, nice photo. It brings up a good point about dark markets---they should sell whatever, not just `contraband.'

>>18125 you might want to look into T.A.Z. theories (temporary autonomous zones) https://hermetic.com/bey/taz1 https://beautifultrouble.org/all-modules/ >“Are we who live in the present doomed never to experience autonomy, never to stand for one moment on a bit of land ruled only by freedom?” --Hakim Bey

>>19070 Very cool you mentioned this!!! I feel like all these ideas are coming alive in front of our eyes. w0w! What do lainons think of the secondrealm writings? Its a mix of agorism, TAZ, smuggling, and crypto. w0w! Second Realm - Crypto-Anarchy, Tradecraft, TAZ and Counterculture https://anarplex.net/hosted/files/secondrealm/secondrealm.html They did that agorist roundtable podcast too. w0w!

>>18114 >the state is violence and, on a moral level, has no right to exist Violence is the ultimate authority from which all notions of rights gain their legitimacy, so I can't take your meme ideology seriously on the face of it. You don't have right if they are not impose through force.

>>19097 loll this is literally the line of the military industrial complex. src: have been approached by recruiters

>>19097 and who creates the violence?

>>19108 I don't think >>19097's point was against violence. In fact I think >>19097 was defending violence. Here's my guess about what >>19097 thinks (>>19097, tell me whether this is right): (a) no violence means no authority, and (b) no authority means no defense. (a) is false, because each person has authority of himself. By default. No violence needed. Tell me, is there nothing that you choose to do without forcing yourself? Anything you choose to do of your own accord, that you don't force yourself to do, is done by your nonviolent authority over yourself. Now, one might argue that nonviolent self-authority is a trivial case. Fine. But it stands as a case of nonviolent authority. Here's a case of nonviolent authority over an other person: I don't have time to consider all the details of everything I interact with, so I let others tell me. For example, in some cases, I default to believe the consensus of specialists about that thing. Physics tends to be controversial only when it's yet uncertain. If (about physics) most physicists agree, I take their word for it. So they have some authority---nonviolently---over my mind, my thoughts. I'll leave a discussion of whether (b) is true for other messages. I will say, though, that Agorism doesn't proscribe all violence, but excessive violence---aggression. Some authors define ``aggression'' as initiatory violence, and note about excess violence effectively being initiatory, but all initiatory violence excessive. Defense using minimal responsive violence is always possible.

>>19122 >Defense using minimal responsive violence is always possible. Not doing anything is already losing the game. If you are too strong too attack but don't exterminate aggressive forces, they will simply feast of weaker targets to grow strong and when the forces grow large enough you will be eaten too.

>>19126 >>Defense using minimal responsive violence is always possible. >If you are too strong too attack but don't exterminate aggressive forces, they might simply feast of weaker targets to grow strong and when the forces grow large enough you will be eaten too. Is that so? I'd be interested to know how you came to that conclusion. To clarify: the existence, in the space of potential worlds, of a world in which in which that tendency (i.e. letting aggressive persons strengthen themselves too much) does not exist would refute that as an argument against the viability of Agorism. I do not know whether you meant it that way, but a reader might infer that you did. >too strong too attack My first interpretation of ``too strong too attack'' was equivalent to ``too strong to attack [them],'' which I failed to construe. If that is what you meant, I am interested to know more about the idea of being too strong to attack someone. My second interpretation was ``too strong to be attacked [by them],'' which I construed. There are two factors about that scenario. One is their strengthening. One is their aggression. Their aggression can be mitigated by restitution services. Here is an example of a restitution service: A person might sell the restitution rights of an aggression to a restitution service. If such a transaction occurs, then the seller received sufficient restitution for that aggression, and the buyer received those restitution rights. Making the restitution demand more expensive is aggressive e.g. (a) the person owing the restitution has an incentive for the restitution transfer to be cheap, (b) the person owed the restitution has an incentive to facilely get the restitution. (Is it the case that each person has an incentive to create a cheaper restitution transfer method?)

>>19126 Oops. I forgot to say about their strengthening. I intend to return to that topic.

>>19137 Albeit unintentional maybe it came out ambiguous because i believe it ca be both. In the realm of individuals its frowned upon if you completely destroy an attacker while being the stronger one. People with greater ability are held back by the expectations caused due to their own strength. In comparison the (perceived) weak can get away scot-free causing greater damage. Universally i would however mean the latter interpretation - the attacker will avoid you if you are too strong until he grows beyond your means. This plays out on school grounds as well as in geo politics. Kids only hit the nerds until the school gang is big enough to start trouble with the jocks by numbers. Countries hit the small countries to encroach on the big ones. Its much easier to destroy them early than wait til they hit you. As for restitution services - that would work if you increase the payout beyond the damage caused and act agressive. If you never demand more than damages caused there's incentive to ignore it because you wont have a perfect score catching the attacker. In other terms if i don't make losses paying back i can just roll the dice with more attacks til i hit the jackpot and get away with it.

ditch violence for privacy is society outside of the grasp of violence not possible? many people think 'Roman Power' when they hear agorism better to think cryptography and anonymity?

>As for restitution services - that would work if you increase the payout beyond the damage caused and act agressive. If you never demand more than damages caused there's incentive to ignore it because you wont have a perfect score catching the attacker. In other terms if i don't make losses paying back i can just roll the dice with more attacks til i hit the jackpot and get away with it. Are you an idiot or something? You have to pay out exactly the damage caused. If that turns out to be less than the benefit of the aggression, then overall that's not something to proscribe---it's a positive sum, and nobody was hurt. If, on the other hand, the aggressive action is zero-sum, then the restitution necessary will be greater than the benefit. Then there is the question of how likely it is to be caught.

>>19149 Only works when the hardware doesn't have to run on the base reality. Your cyberspace will always run on transistors located in meatspace, therefore it will always be subject to the power of violence (mostly from the states who have monopolized violent coercion). You can't rise above it through philosophy and ethical rumination alone. Nonviolence never convinces violence... even Gandhi was a big lie. It's too powerful, too effective. All that we can do so far is let the most powerful capture it all so that we know where it comes from exclusively. You'll have to find some way to sever the link. Best of luck. There is no anonymity from these agents. Not yet, anyway. They made tor too lmfao god damn it

>>19070 Ugh burning man garbage You know the guy who wrote this was a pedo who wanted to found autonomous zones to fuсk kids, right? You bougie anarkiddies who like burns probably haven't ever had to live through shall we say a naturally-occurring autonomous zone. A spontaneous one whose emergence was actually actively resisted by the networks of culture and tenuous social bonds that were already there, trying to hold on to peace. Those aren't big hippy dance parties. Billionaires do still tend to air-drop in, though. This stuff is doomed come Tuesday morning, and it doesn't do any lasting good. It's just a quick thrill for the kids who already have no problems and then it's a mess the rest of the world has to clean up once you're looking the other way. Dickheads.

>oh hey, i possess a decent amount of capital, better hire some mercenaries to protect it as those neighboring me don't respect the non-aggression principle! >hmm, better define the borders so people know they can't get into the land of all my capital >also better introduce a system of identification so we know who's who and people can't just come in if they please. >This is not a nation. "Anarcho-capitalism" is a joke ideology and "agorism" is virtually identical, but even more cringe as it's such a pathetic attempt to rebrand such ideas for intellekchuels. You're not special, OP. Your unique special ideology bullshit does not increase your value as a human being.

the abolition of the state will always inevitably end with the creation or a new state. the one same thing happened with the 13 colonies of america. the government was essentially naught and so the states held power like mini countries. there were wars because of this. this is why the constitution exists, because a society simply cannot exist without a government. this is why anything related to ancap is just hopelessly stupid. the only real solution minarchism, which wants as little government power possible. the government has to be there to tax people for roads and public utilities as well as prosecuting criminals and enforcing law, or else people will form groups and violate eachother like in mexico. the government essentially does nothing and people just do whatever there. cartels run the game and if you say one bad thing about them you're gone

>>19631 do you even know what the definition of nation is lol

>>19721 >this is why the constitution exists, because a society simply cannot exist without a government. it was because the original constitution was very poorly designed and created a central government without any way for this central government to be a government. Of course it wasn't going to work. >the government has to be there to tax people for roads and public utilities as well as prosecuting criminals and enforcing law, or else people will form groups and violate eachother like in mexico. what are these "groups that violate each other" but governments? What is the difference between a government and a self-organizing group of individuals? >cartels run the game and if you say one bad thing about them you're gone because cartels have corrupted the government, not because the government doesn't exist.

>What is the difference between a government and a self-organizing group of individuals? Governments coerce. >>19732 Obviously he meant government. >>19631 No, that is a government. Your flaw is assuming that's the only thing that can happen. And assuming that that's still agorist---it's not, as you clearly pointed out. Question is, how do you prevent that?

>>19631 That'd only be possible if the person who owns all that land has the money to maintain it. If no one wants to live there, no one would pay him. That's not to say anarcho capitalism is against things like this however. Hans-Hermann Hoppe proposes something similar to this which he calls "covenants". And yes, the people who live inside the covenant can restrict access to people they don't like and set whatever rules they want. So what? Commies advocate for this too! They want to replace states with "communes", and they also believe in having rules enforced collectively! Anarchism doesn't mean destruction and chaos! I feel like the people who screech "THAT'S NOT REAL ANARCHISM!!!" are edgelords who thought anarchy was about not having any type of structure or order. >Then isn't that a government?! The difference is that a covenant would be entirely voluntary. No one could force you to move into one, as that would be aggression. If you wanna live by yourself in the middle of the woods or on top of a mountain, no one would stop you, granted as long as you own the land you're living on or are paying the land owner, if it has one. And yes, by extension, this also means you could form a commune with your commie buddies and try to live like communists. As long as you don't attack the capitalists who live in their private covenant, or force anyone to live in your commune, then everything is fine. The only people who wouldn't be ok with this idea are people who aren't confident with their own ideology! People who believe that no one would want to live under their ideology if they had the choice not to! And if that's the case then why the hell do you even believe in it? >>19982 >Question is, how do you prevent that? See above. I guess what would separate an agorist from an ancap in this case would be where he would live. A lot of ancaps (but not all of them) tend to be paleolibertarians, that is to say, they are libertarians put a lot of importance in traditional and conservative values (yes really), however they wouldn't support the government enforcing them, however, it is sort of implied they would probably form a Christian-only covenant of sorts that wouldn't allow atheists, gay people, etc. to gain residency. And that's fine, let them self-segregate all they want! An agorist, on the other hand, would most likely rather live in a rural village where he could freely trade and do business with all his neighbors. Agorism is more of a life style that you could technically live by under in any system, it's just that anarcho capitalism is the ideology that would best allow someone to live as an agorist, so that's why the two usually get mixed together, and why agorists and ancaps tend to get along so well.

>>cartels run the game and if you say one bad thing about them you're gone >because cartels have corrupted the government, not because the government doesn't exist. i.e. they became a part of the government, or the government became a part of them---the difference's unimportant: they merged.

>>20305 >Anarchism doesn't mean destruction and chaos! It doesn't mean destruction, but it does mean chaos; chaos as the antipode of cosmos---a fantastical idea that the universe works according to some `top down' rules, which was popular for centuries and was quite rigorously established before later being overturned by discoveries of phenomena that didn't quite fit that cosmic conception---that is to say, it's a `bottom up' structure: there are still rules, as much as there are still physical laws, but they are defined each by the person who follows them, not by some external entity. In practice, individuals might delegate the determination of what rules they ought to follow to an external entity, but they are never ultimately forced to abide by those rules---they can, as it were, switch jurisdictions like one might switch to a different bank, and, as with banks where you can withdraw your money, you can withdraw from all external jurisdiction. (I use, of course, the word ``jurisdiction'' to mean generally, whatever sort of external systems of rules.) So anarchy doesn't necessitate the abandonment of all classical cosmic systems of rules, much like our physical universe, in many cases, despite being fundamentally a chaos, conforms, within tolerance, to our old cosmic conceptions thereof. >granted as long as you own the land you're living on or are paying the land owner, if it has one Details, details. Of course, it's important to go over them, but there's a risk, for some minds, of the details shrouding the concept. However it's grounded in legitimacy---and that may well be a question, to be addressed when appropriate---the point is, you can live separate from convents, communes, coöps, condos, or whatever other good (well functioning, free,,) society that might be conceived. >The only people who wouldn't be ok with this idea are people who aren't confident with their own ideology! People who believe that no one would want to live under their ideology if they had the choice not to! And if that's the case then why the hell do you even believe in it? I smell a good deal of truth hidden under these sentences, but they seem to be veering towards polemics. I'm not quite ready at this time to dig through it all myself to figure out exactly how---perhaps another day---but in the meantime, I'd be interested in reading a few more-detailed paragraphs about whatever thoughts I'm vaguely sensing lurking behind that text. >An agorist, on the other hand, would most likely rather live in a rural village where he could freely trade and do business with all his neighbors. A minor concern, I know, but I'm not so certain about that lifestyle being the most likely for agorists. I do understand the allure, and I do have plans thither in case the excrement hits the air-conditioning, but this agorist would rather reform---or rebuild: remain in---his city from it's old statism. Perhaps it's ardent nostalgia, or futurism, but it is efficient; the incommunities sufficient---nigh-necessary---for so many my intimacies' formation, the intractable heterogeneity for both repondrant entertainment and sempreternal opportunity,, It is, of course, refreshing: a rare lucidity about coexistence of heterogenous anarcho*s; And a---slightly less---rare lucidity of literary style: Were we in-the-flesh I might extend >>20305 a hand collegial.

>>18114 > What is agorism? Just another name for an-caps. Yet another low-IQ edgelords with a strong survivor bias. /thread

>>18114 >What do agorists believe in? This will be interesting >The State is violence "Look guys, he committed State against the elderly woman!" >and, on a moral level, has no right to exist. The same moral, of course, which >support grey and black markets... selling drugs or prostitution To the contrary of all those human lives who are genuinely ruined by the distribution and consumption of these so-called goods. At least it is not State! >Agorists also believe we should try to separate ourselves from the state as much as possible Idiotic, considering that the State, so they say, is violence. The cat declaws himself, so that he may later call himself good. political poppycock.