Anarchy general

No you giant faggot because if you actually wanted to know, you would have looked it up for yourself. So what are you trying to slide, Shlomo?

Some anarchists them make some good points, but I think it is ultimately an unworkable fantasy.

A peaceful withdrawal revolution to deprive the economy any profits by going underground market.

Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state in favor of self-ownership, private property, and free markets. In other words, everyone can do whatever they want to do without the authority. It is a purest form of Hedonism.

Anarchy isn't politics, it is lack of. Fuck off summer fag.

Anarchy is the real future of the white race. The right is a fucking dead end and is being replaced by post-right ideologies like NazBol, tribalist (which is basically anarchism) groups and so on. Only anarchy and left-wing praxis is set up to actually resist and dismantle the current system and power structure that white people are subjected to. The right has never done anything for white people and the few times that the right either overlaps or appropriates left-wing praxis (from Hitler, fascism to WLP) is the only time that the right actually gets anywhere.

Oh ffs.

kek

The far right at least recognizes the need for a racial homogeneity. I'm sure Hitler would love his people to someday live as free as they possibly could, but they were in dire circumstances and needed to establish their place. Ancap and related could only work for the homogeneous white society that Hitler was attempting to build. You need stronger ideologies for the initial great work. Even then though, how would an anarchist society effectively stop periodic visits from invading hordes? The Russian state formed pretty much in order to stop the brutal human waves from Asia. You either have to first eliminate all threats or periodically go back to the type of militaristic authoritarian system that Hitler used, if you want to survive.

Anprims are more busy fussing over how they can get intersectional trannies into their movement to be more inclusive and sit around wondering why only white males join their ideology suggest the idea that white males are simply the most ambitious and creative race and they lose their shit

For all their MUH REWILDING rhetoric, they're totally out of touch with nature and operate from a Marxist perspective, then wonder why their ideology is so slow to take off

interestingly though it's one movement where the far left and far right elements exist within it and they both acknowledge each other somewhat

We need an A.I. to tell us what to do

Marxism and communism are so fundamentally incompatible in my mind that can't help but feel the dissonance splitting my brain from afar when I see their stupid red and black flag.

Incompatible with anarchy*

Sorry been up reading all night.

That you should grow up.

You misspelled mental gymnastic circlejerks over utopian thought experiments.

Not even these do. An iron fist is also necessary.

I knew some AnComs back in the day. They seem to like communism simply because it was a system that wasn't capitalism. They used to shit on commies equally as me, but they were essentially drugged up bums who dressed like shit and did nothing but get drunk

Anarchy is always a failure because it tells you don't need others in order to achieve shit. When anarchists take over within a few days they have to employ a government like system or leaders because they otherwise get nowhere.
Any form of anarchism is bullshit, that's why there are so many special snowflake versions.

Same counts for communism and liberalism in general. Leftypol is just that, a failure.

Agorism is a good model. Just wish its theorists would see the writing on the fucking wall.

Who cares? It's a conversation designed to keep people arguing forever about autistic shit that doesn't actually matter that much to satisfy the need to defend something that actually matters, like the family, people, and nation which has been denied to you.

shit thread

A good board can turn even a shitty thread into a good thread by discussion, but a shitty board will remain shit no matter what the topic being discussed is. Half of you faggots don't even engage in political discussion at this point.

OP, you're a massive faggot one way or another, though, for making such a shit-tier and low effort thread to begin with. Try harder next time instead of being a useless semi-shitposting cunt.

Moving on to the topic at hand:

Anarchism is the ideal philosophy for someone who is just smart enough to realize that the world is fucked and a better system is needed, but not wise enough and experienced with worldly affairs - and more often than not, just not that smart to begin - to realize that most people in the world are not actually very smart. It's also a great philosophy for people who feel as if the government is somehow depriving them of something - whether it be sex, or drug use, or whatever else the situation may be. In this manner, it often comes from a source of entitlement - people who hate being told "NO".

The benefits are apparent, to some degree. No government means no government corruption. Anarcho-Capitalism, for its part, is correct that the free market will run things better than a regulated market. Even Anarcho-Communism is technically freed from the corruption problems which plague a communist society.

The problem which is not addressed is the fact that something like the NAP actually holds no bearing. Private enforcement is doomed to fail, or turn into tyranny which eventually develops into a plutocratic feudalism (if in a capitalist state) or just outright tyranny (under a socialist state). Unless everyone is living in Amish communities, and all follow rules on breeding to control population - not easy to enforce with no state - there will eventually be conflict brought about. But even then, you have the quality of life issue. No travel. No internet. No expansion of medical knowledge.

Anarchism in this regard is the absolute most static form of state, but it will inevitably develop into something else, which will generally be worse than whatever was present before. I say generally, because there's a chance that you have some strong, wise leader rise up instead, who brings about reforms and actually makes things better for everyone. Of course, such a state, also, will eventually decline into something else.

In the end, it's another model which simply cannot stand, and brings about no benefits to humanity while it exists. A republican government, or a monarchy under its initial founder, will both serve far better as stewards for advancing the nation. All nations are doomed to fall, and all systems are doomed to collapse. That is the single law of human history which cannot be overcome. The answer, then, is to determine which systems can advance us the furthest in the shortest amount of time with the least amount of conflict and the longest period of stability. And that is a republican government operating under a free market.

People living in Anarchy will naturally come together and organize themselves. They will form agreements, make their own small or large sacrifices for their communities, and put their ingroups before others. They will get together and decide on rules that everybody in the group must follow, or face penalty. As the organizations get larger, they will join with others who are of like mind. The increasing size will require increasing complexity of institutions. I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this: "states" (even if you're an anarchofag and don't want to call them that) will arise organically from a lack of organization. It is the human tendency to do so.

What do you think states arose from, nigger?

This just has to be bait. Nice dubs, but kill yourself.

Holla Forums considered ancaps and anyone left of them to be cucks as you well know.

Nationalist Anarchist might be compatible for the most part, but we can all agree the form of government doesn't matter at the moment what matters is getting rid of the shitskins.

That is an oxymoron retard.

Isn't anarchism just lack of rulers? I imagine an anarchist society would require every member to be hyper-political.

It just breaks the singularity of the state and instead divides it to self-organized collectives. Imagine USA without the federal government, with the individual states also having no leadership and their workers collaborating in unions within. At least that's what I understand anarcho-syndicalism is.

In america it probably is.

You mean anarchy without planned economies. Ironic isn't it?

No shit, all anarchies rely on a form of collectivism. Any ancap can confirm this to you, they don't deny it. And, frankly, nobody does except the extreme individualists.

SAGE AND REPORT FOR ZERO EFFORT.