Be anarcho-communist

the last time i had this argument, Holla Forums told me that communists just want to abolish private property, and retain personal and public property. go fuck yourself.

Because it functionally never has existed outside of state?

You know it's only reformists that believe that, right? May as well ask why so many ancaps support Pinochet.

Real life hair can never look like this.
This is impossible.

are you really using the "it has never worked so it never will" argument, as a communist?
not to mention there are examples of the free markets working perfectly without the government interfering: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Historical_precedents_similar_to_anarcho-capitalism
even somalia, which you people constantly make fun of as an example of an "anarcho-capitalist" society had a successful telecommunication industry during it's government-less state.

economically he was very pro-market, meanwhile ancoms seem to support the people and policies that are incredibly pro-state with nothing in common with them

Even reformist Chomsky type people don't support state ownership as an end, they just want welfare for now in the short term. Pinochet was a dictator and ancaps believe they can reach their goals specifically through a dictatorship. Ancaps probably support Pinochet so easily because they just want to replicate every function of the state except taxation through the market anyway.

no he wasn't

fucking dumb faggot

why are all ancaps fucking jokes? at least the nazis sometimes are tough to argue with. It's always the same b8 posts from ancaps. lurk moar fagget.

just like how the communist party in the USSR was supposed to dissolve, and was only a "temporary" solution?
oh the irony, said by a damn communist
most of the support for pinochet is for the helicopter meme, his economic policies were pro-market, thats why ancaps and libertarians support him.

hoover.org/research/what-pinochet-did-chile

are you implying you dont have the right to the device youre using to post? then why arent you giving it to some poor african kid or some chinese sweatshop workers then?

why cant you fucking argue for shit?

Nice strawman. Now go back to fantasizing about child sex slaves.

god damn literally see
even you communists agree ancoms do support welfare as a """"""""short term""""""" solution.
go fuck yourself.

pic related, what Pinochet did while ruling chile in red

yes, human and natural rights are a spook

No, they saw it as an end in that case, like ancaps with Pinochet. A welfare state is not in general a part of even the most reformist ancom's idea of how things should be changed.
Actually the real irony is that both tankies and ancaps support dictatorships, whereas anarchists are the only ones that don't.
I'm so glad I don't form my political views based on memes anymore after actually reading some books.

Personal property wouldn't necessarily be strictly enforced nor would it require strict enforcement. Personal property isn't used as leverage to gain social power, generally.

From that it follows that people won't want to steal from each other generally. When they want to use someone else's personal property, they'll probably just ask. Any further conflict can be solved through local councils and organizations. Essentially enforcement of personal property, while present would be minimal.

"Public property" doesn't seem like a good fit really for what socialists want, given its association with the state in our current society. Most socialists refer what you're referring to as the absence of property, or collective ownership. Minor thing tho I guess.

Also anarchists don't want more taxes. They want stateless socialism.

Shut the fuck up and give me the grain, faggot.

Because if there currently is a State, they'd rather have a State with welfare than one without.

Definition of strawman.

You, on the other hand, if your flag is to be taken seriously, literally support child slavery.
mises.org/library/children-and-rights

god fucking damn lefty/pol/ strikes again as red fascists

econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.htm
the arrogance is just so disgustingly cringy and embarrassing. how much do you even know about libertarian philosophy?

but I did

here

How was the Spanish Second Republic a dictatorship? I do know about libertarian philosophy because I believe in it.

so you do admit that there IS rights to property then?

at least you're honest. whether you're right or not is debatable. right now lets just all agree and admit that leftists are hypocrites.

if you fail to make everyone even on this 600 people board understand your ideology, how the fuck can you educate agitate and organize the whole of society?

literally read the link. and i was referring to right-libertarian philosophy

The first sentence says that the communists were worse than Franco, despite killing less than half the amount of people. Really induces one to think. Right-libertarian is an oxymoron.

what? yeah I guess in a way. I'm not so I guess I take a different view. They will not require the same sort of enforcement as property now though. I would imagine it would be entirely manageable without private police or whatever you would use to enforce private property.

how about you read beyond the first sentence, you absolute fucking mongoloid?

if you cant even agree on one view for "anarcho-communism", there's no reason for me to keep arguing with you faggots. sit down, tell each other to read and agree on one solid ideology. im addressing anarcho-communists, not MLs or maoists or any other retarded subgenres of your retarded ideology.

Now he's complaining about muh catholic church, as if there was a real separation of church and state in Spain in the early 20th century.

He's also talking about an "Orwellian anarchist council", probably not realising that Orwell was actually there and that the Spanish Revolution was probably the biggest influence on his political views.

I'm not an ancom. But yes I think he's wrong even from an anarchist's perspective. There will probably be personal property rights, but maintaining those will not be nearly the same sort of undertaking as maintaining private property rights. I'm under no obligation to agree with him. But I think personal property rights can still be made consistent with anarchism. There are a lot of different kinds of anarchists though. Ancaps aren't one of them of course :)

I don't see how supporting welfare in the short term in any way makes anarchists hypocrites though. Don't most ancaps support private property rights, private police, private legal systems etc. in the long term? It's really just the state if the state were reorganized to prioritize profit rather than being beholden to potential donors and, to a lesser extent, the general public. Also I know that many ancaps tend to like fascism, at least as a response to communists and as a means of achieving ancapistan. I'd say it's clear that you're not anarchists at the very least.

why would we be against more taxes in the current society when we don't value property anyway, and side with what benefits the working class (the mass of people)
ancoms are against violence, the violence of the state, yes, but also the violence inherent to enforcing property

Can you tell me how this statement doesn't apply to literally anybody? Would ancaps deny me the freedom to take their property or what?

stop saying "ancoms" u stupid fuck. there is only one form of anarchism and it's communist. you delusional fuck.
enough with your shit tier b8. your made up stupid ass "ideology" is over anyways. even lolbertarians don't give a fuck about you. how low you can get?
smh. give me an example irl. give me just one faggot, I dare you.

chomsky or LSR? To be fair to OP, there are a lot of anarcho-liberals out there

"Liberalism demands tolerance as a matter of principle, not from opportunism. It demands toleration even of obviously nonsensical teachings, absurd forms of heterodoxy, and childishly silly superstitions. It demands toleration for doctrines and opinions that it deems detrimental and ruinous to society and even for movements that it indefatigably combats… Against what is stupid, nonsensical, erroneous, and evil, liberalism fights with the weapons of the mind, and not with brute force and repression." - Ludwig Von Mises

"It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history." - Ludwig Von Mises

rude as fuck.

pls, he's an academic who has an "interest" on the topic of anarchism, nothing more. he's not in the fight. he has an academic ticket for talking about anything he wants whenever he wants.

...

I don't talk shit to Holla Forums for trying to do research, my problem is that they try to derive an ought from the is that is Autism Level scores

Let's pretend from a moment these so called "niggers" are actually close to be mentally retarded, its still not my issue and I do not have the power to dictate their lives, as this is the justice of anarchism

lel

Are you buttmad I was saying rehab centres that taper people off and provide them with other skills are more effective than treating addicts like violent criminals, on /liberty/?

he's actually afraid of graphs lel.

is that real or nominal GDP?

Be ancap. Support the existence of central bank

it's not a snowflake "my ideology is the best" statement. go deep and you will see:
ancom=destroy private property and state
anfem=destroy private property and state
anqueer=destroy private property and state
anpacifism=destroy private property and state
ansyndicalism=destroy private property and state
……..
"anarcho"c*pitalism= doesn't exist