Defence of ancaps

IMHO (Austrian) Ancaps have more revolutionary potential than (neo-classical) liberals. Austrian econ and branches such as neo-marxian economics have far more in common with each other than either do with neo-classicals. They make assumptions that are stupid, but their actual reasoning makes a lot of sense, if you assume those assumptions are correct (they aren't).

We could fight alongside ancaps during a revolution against neo-classical capitalists. If you believe rightly that anarcho-capitalism would fall, it's pretty obvious how it would:


Now many ancaps are opposed to unions, but they have no reason to be. Take this quote from Rothbard:


AKA strikes do not violate the N.A.P

Other urls found in this thread:

mises.org/library/stateless-somalia-and-loving-it
youtube.com/watch?v=IErlI34-0so
youtube.com/watch?v=oitl7tD8Ebs
thomhartmann.com/users/nimblecivet/blog/2015/05/there-such-thing-free-enterprise-socialism
poal.me/zg59pf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Prove me wrong, you would be aiding my learning and preventing a terrible blunder.

When did Rebel become such an autistic shitposter of this magnitude?

You know what that is? Eh? Do ya?

IT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT BUCKO.

uff, I almost red your post, but luckily I saw your trip after first paragraph

...

Sorry, I'm not going to provide an argument to your idiocy especially after you have tried to post this meme before.

And as always, leftypol is completely disinterested in theory and favours meme posts and hero-worship instead.

*slow clap*

why can't commies make up their mind?

"Property is theft" is a simplification of Proudhon's writings on PRIVATE property, not PERSONAL property, which he makes a distinction between.

Check flag name.

This is fucking retarded. The Communist left is opposed to class society, private property, the state, money, and wage labor. Ancaps venerate private property, money, and wage labor, and the enforcement of private property under anarcho-capitalism will be similar to what we have under the current bourgeois state. This will necessarily produce a class system.

go back to reddit you filthy newfaggot

simply epic Holla Forumsroski

Prithee no more, thou dost talk nothing to me.

Capitalism can`t function without intervention form the state, therefor ancaps could never form a society without creating a psudo-state with monopoly on force.

Therefor it is right to assume that things will not play out as you narrate them.

Huh? That's what I'm saying, the unions will take over and capitalism would collapse.

Alternatively, as you say, a pseudo-state could be created, and anarcho-capitalism would be dropped, but I think it's safe to say this would be met with how it has been met with throughout history when there are minimal worker rights, that is revolution or reform (assuming they still keep a strict hardline capitalist policy).

So either way, we are still in a better position than this current state of society where we are going absolutely nowhere.

Ancaps are completely irrelevant in the world. What strategic advantage does the left gain from cooperating with a group of people who want to roll back the clock to Industrial Revolution era labor protections and give corporations free reign over society?

There is no reason to suspect that unions would actually take over. Private or robotic military force would be used to protect the property rights of businesses.

It would turn out much worse, as corporations would likely intertwine with this new psudo-state leading into hard-line fascism that would turn control of unions to the state.

This is purely hypothetical, if we can convince them to collaborate with us we have more members. If they ever do become a strong force in the world, a pact would be useful.

I've explained the strategic advantage.


Private force would be used, but you aren't going to be able to beat the workers who actually do your work. We're not talking just about violating property rights, we're also talking about strikes.


You need to show that explicitly and the reasoning for it, rather than just stating it tbh.

Did I miss something? I wasn't aware that unions took over the world in the late 1800's or early 1900's.

It's like you really love strawmen or something.

But we wouldn't. We'd just be helping hyper-capitalists.

Sure you can. Workers start to strike, so you fire up your drone army and bomb them.

Historically this has happened every time the fascists take over, it happened in Germany shortly after hitler took power as it did in Italy.

Sucketh min phallus fagot

I like that idea, I was kind of thinking the same thing.

but I got the same replies

As for reasoning, it happens due the goals and policies of fascist ideology.

That might have to do with the fact that unions were mostly fucking illegal, which they wouldn't be in a libertarian society.

We're talking about a pact, not relinquishing our aims. I.E., if a predominantly socialist revolution turns up ancaps agree to help, and if a predominantly libertarian revolution occurs we agree to help them.

U huh, they're totally going to be able to afford a drone army, it's not like most of ancap theory is about how large corporations could never form under such a society.


That has very little to do with a libertarian context though, Germany in the rise of the Reich was a social democracy.

Nothing can be anarcho capitalist because it's a nonsensical ideology. An "anarcho" capitalist society would still have a state apparatus to enforce property rights. The conditions for the working class would be similar to that era.

This is what we call a bona-fide "retarded statement"
Private military contractors would be hired to dispatch any form of worker protest. If workers attempted any form of revolutionary action, there would be hell toupée for the entire working class

Also
Who knew?

I would agree with you, so it would either collapse or have to disappear completely. In any case, much class consciousness would be gained.

Number of workers.
Number of contractors.

Do you see what I am getting at here? No, of course you fucking don't.

This is largely irrelevant, as ancapistan would lack any other powerbase than those corporations so the new psudo-state would emerge as fascist entity with focus on class co-operation that would be enforced trough the control of unions for example.

Why not? In practice, there would arise an informal state military apparatus when property owners realize that they, as a collective, are being threatened by worker militancy. The bourgeoisie infight but can always put aside their differences when their property rights are threatened. This already happens, so I don't see why it would be any different under anarcho-capitalism.

You're naive if you think that the corporate overlords controlling society wouldn't outlaw unions out of some fundamentalist loyalty to the NAP. It's a fucking ruse.

Again, you need to show this explicitly.


Could you give me examples?


Because large corporations are, truthfully, more often than not the result of state intervention. No coffee shop owner could afford a drone army.

smh

...

See what I'm getting at? Of course you fucking don't.

You're retarded, frankly.

You are illiterate, I see.

It would just become a state directed by corporations without politicians playing middlemen. The illusion of bourgeois democracy would be the only real change.

You are making the same mistake of everyone else on this post of not showing your reasoning explicitly. It is lazy.

You know that it is impossible since we are talking about hypothetical situation here.

But logic(and history itself) would dictate that new psudo-state would rise since market forces are dependent on state apparatus to function in any form. Be it in form of gangs,mercenaries or otherwise.

At least TRY and hide the fact you're a shill

No, it's not impossible at all. I'm asking for how it would go about happening, not for a reading of the future. All you've done in your previous post is *state* that that a sequence of events would happen, but you haven't given the economic reasons.


So your point shouldn't be that a pseudo-state forms, but that either a pseudo-state forms or market forces disappear. This is my point of saying you are not showing your reasoning explicitly. You claim a pseudo-state would form but you have not deduced it, you have not exhausted the other possible options.

That was an analogy you retard.

DroneCorp would provide the major property owners with drones at a reduced price, or for free, to crush revolutionary forces.

and strictly in the historical sense, whenever the state has collapsed it has been quickly been replaced by local psudo-state organizations such as clans in case Somalia or Warlords in every case where Chinese empire dissolved itself.

The rank and file ancaps are the useful idiots of the rich. The people who would actually benefit from the ideology don't give a shit about it. You really think that the wealthy won't set up a state apparatus?

Lazy. Get back to me when you have actually given other ideologies except your own a chance.

Large corporations are largely a result of state interventionLarge corporations are largely a result of state interventionLarge corporations are largely a result of state interventionLarge corporations are largely a result of state interventionLarge corporations are largely a result of state intervention

hello fellow leftists, don't you think those ancap guys are just swell? don't you think we should work with them go achieve THEIR society which would definitely be to our benefit because communism HAS to happen?

t. rebshill

but the only difference is that one only becomes private once the capital is rented out. if i rent you a tool that I created, is it theft?

...

Then you don't understand how analogies, because there is literally no point of comparison.

Again, what context? In social democratic contexts, or Feudal contexts.

I entirely agree with you, but there are many intelligent ancaps who know what they are talking about.

Maybe they will set up a state apparatus? That's my point, I don't know how a "wealthy" could exist under free market forces.

And suppose that it was instead a libertarian society, where the state ensures that a pseudo-state can't be set up. What then?

The only thing that seems me excellent about my line of logic is that in the case of a libertarian society the state may have enough wealth and power to do drone strikes, but a single business definitely couldn't.

Somalia wasn`t exactly an social democracy but quite ruthless capitalist one with libertarian state.

Roses are red, violets are blue, your arguments are poo.


Ethics aren't relevant, this is a discussion on what would happen, not what should happen. Ethics generally do not inform world-events.


top kek.

fuq missposted>>1136830

Somalia is an example of a failed state, not an example of anarcho-capitalism.

And actually let's look at this comparatively: Somalia did actually improve a lot when it was without government intervention compared to how it was doing before, and compared to similar countries.

It doesn't need to be a corporation at the level of modern American defense behemoths. Before any revolution even begins, major corporations would likely have already created counter-revolutionary plans, involving the use of both human and non-human military forces.

The function of the state is to protect private property rights. Anarcho-capitalism takes this to an extreme. It is not obvious to me that large corporations are unlikely to exist without the state, provided someone (a corporate police force or a PMC or a robot army) is still enforcing their property rights.

It is an excellent example of what happens to society without a state, it forces itself to create a new one, this happened in every case where state has collapsed due to any reason.

By "this" I mean private property rights.

Holy fuck.

I knew rebel was hanging around with ancaps, but I thought it was just a joke that he was actually turning into one.

You really ARE that impressionable.

What is this, your 5th ideology this month now? You cant just say you're not any ideology so you can avoid criticism and consider yourself above everyone forever you know.

Please, for the sake of everyone, just end it.

Sure…
mises.org/library/stateless-somalia-and-loving-it

How long until he goes to be a fascist and then full circle to a Luxembourgist?

Yes, there is literally nothing analogous between state-based protectors of status quo and company-based protectors of status quo

which libertarians are opposed to


This argument goes both ways, for anarcho-capitalism and socialism.


Under a bourgeois state but it doesn't have to be t. Marx


Ah, well, this is still a matter of state collapse and not of libertarian revolution isn't it. The contexts are quite different, yet again.

Depends on whom you ask.
For the average Somalian it worsened is his life: no hospitals,security or electricity.
But for a captain of pirate ship it must have been improvement form captain of a fishing boat.

Is the cancer messing with your ability to understand rhythms to the extent you can't even create a decent poem?

1. What's stopping large corporations from crushing any union membership? There will be no regulations for them not to.
2. You are the one who quotes Austrian economists you fucking tard. I was addressing you and your shitty argument.

Hi Muke

No? Can you name one?


re-read OP, faggot, or actually read a book some time.


t. leninist before reading Lenin or Marx
t. "tankies r ok"


It's my 0th, because it's not my ideology, fag.


THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE WRONG BUCKO

Ancaps want to get rid of the state, therefor it is relevant as this is impossible without decentralization over longer periods of time. If it is over long period of time, co-operations whom held monopolies in this current state apparatus would have even better position in ancapistan.

Your article can really be used against your own argument, you know that right?


Machiavelli 4 lyf


It's been gone for months


You really don't like receiving new information into your head do you? Short term memory loss? We've discussed this.


How terrible, someone should just fucking lop my head off.

spooky

"It is impossible without decentralization over longer periods of time"


Boyo, you need to fix your lack of explicit reasoning stat.

Not to mention, irrelevant.

Doesn't this retarded argument invalidate ALL contracts?

If future me is not beholden to current me then I wouldn't be obligated to honor any agreements signed by current me?

Who fucking cares what libertarians say they are opposed to? Silicon Valley "libertarianism" for example explicitly endorses the pursuit of monopoly and growing large corporations, banning women from voting because they don't believe in Liberty (tm) and so on. Actual ancaps and libertarians almost always side with the bourgeoisie, on any issue.

Well we currently have a fucking bourgeois state that serves to protect property rights. Actually-existing anarcho capitalism would probably entail a collection of corporations, each functioning effectively as a state, while totally not being a state I swear. Anarcho-capitalism takes enforcement of private property rights even further than our current bourgeois state.

What argument?

youtube.com/watch?v=IErlI34-0so

I cant, I've been told by several people you have though so I've just assumed. I dont care enough to confirm it myself.


Ah, the old read a book meme, while I've actually been reading a shit tonne recently. Dude I probably understand Marxism better than you by this point.


Wait so am I trot or a tanky? You wanna pick already?


Ok lets actually count.

Luxemburgist -> Anarchist -> Vaugly left but not a Marxist because wants to be special snow flake -> """Hegelian""" -> Ancap

So yea this is actually your 5th.


Yea, just keep meming when you run out of arguments.

Not lying or being sarcastic, congratulations.
Can you think past 18 seconds ago?

Well patrician-poster, the point is that one of these are regenerative resources, whereas other contracts generally don't include regenerative resources. Human contracts are therefore bogus tbh.

But maybe? I don't care to defend his retarded ideology.


What is the intention of that article you posted? Did you even read it? I am doubtful.

No.

It was theft the moment that you created it. Those materials belong to the Earth!

leave

1)Because state that would be just allowed to collapse immediately would just reform itself as explained here


2)Those same corporations would hold onto their share of the markets, making a rise of new competators highly unlikely as they would have less resources to compete with.

The current state serves to enforce property rights. Large corporations can exist primarily because of the state, which serves the function of enforcing their property rights. Anarcho-capitalists think that the current state does not go far enough in its enforcement of property rights. Why won't large corporations exist under these conditions?

=3

place your bets boys, who's gonna leave the thread more assblasted?

Wait I take that back. I've understood Marxism better than you for a long time, because you have literally no idea how it works. Need I remind you of that one man factory example you gave in reference to surplus under Socialism?

Yea, I'm not the one who need to read here.

Because they weally weally believe in the principles of anarcho capitalism and totally wouldn't use their material wealth to consolidate power. Duh!!! Do you even NAP bruh???

t. entered this conversation by being sarcastic and belligerent + ignorant


And? Is this a crime against humanity?


We're not talking about collapse. We're talking about revolution. The breakdown of large corporations is part of the process.


This would assume that Mises is wrong in his analysis of natural monopolies as myth, so you're going to have to make an argument against why free market forces don't tend away from monopolies as Mises argues they do.


Yes! You are right, large corps exist because of the state! So if there is no state…..?

So basically you're full of shit, O.K.


Dude, totally true, you should really show off some of that knowledge, because you aren't right now and you come across as a whiny baby who is trying to show who is more intelligent and not engaging in the arguments


IDK you change your ideology every week, how am I supposed to know???


Actually it's:

Anarchist -> Luxemburgist -> Hegelian

over the period of 10 months, so again you're full of shit.


Over a year? Not in a month then is it you utter moron?


Bucko, your theory is bad and you should feel bad.

In that case, I don`t see ancaps gaining any power at all, since they do represent such a minority that ancoms could just easily get rid of them after state would have collapsed(since communalism is quite common whenever state happens to collapse).

What is to prevent companies forming cartels in order to dominate markets? I don't understand why people think that competition between businesses in markets disincentives mutually beneficial co-operation between businesses, especially in industries and Labor markets that tend towards monopoly/monopsony. If there is no state to regulate the formation of cartels and monopolies, say goodbye to "free" markets and voluntary exchange.

If we don't call it a state, but the functions of the state are still being performed by corporations through private military contractors, we still have an informal state. In effect, the corporation will replace the state and carry out its functions. A monopoly on force is not a strict requirement - a corporation simply needs enough force to defend its property rights.

Because you're really showing how smart you are literally defending anarcho-capitalism, I see.


Projecting much? Literally when have I.


Really? Because I was literally talking to you in bunkerchan IRC when you went through the phase I described, dont try and cover it up now.

Oh and posting pictures to twitter of Hegel books dosnt count as reading them, just for the record.


There is such a thing as exaggeration for the sake of shitposting. Your autism is showing my friend.

I agree with you, but we could form a pact so that whichever revolution turns up we all support. If you're right that ancoms could just get rid of them, then surely it is nothing but a boon?

I used to know a good response against this often-repeated argument, but I forgot it. RIP.

I agree, but the state becomes much weaker in any case… the pact is temporary, I am not advocating for anarcho-capitalism.

...

The Libertarian Part was founded thanks to the funds by the Koch brothers. For all their rhetoric about "liberty" they've always been a useful pawn by big corporations. Same with the Tea Party. It's a phony ideology.

Wtf is wrong with you?

Lmao why even fucking respond

Not necessarily. The state also enforces, for example, antitrust laws that prevent corporations from becoming too big, in theory? The state also requires the consent of the governed, so it must provide some concessions to the proletariat in exchange for the protection of property rights, which the bourgeoisie could not enforce by themselves. In a futuristic ancap world of corporation-states, we could if anything see a stronger informal state as these concessions would no longer be necessary.

Is there a response? I'd be curious to know what it was because I think the idea that companies won't use whatever power they have to gain more power in a market, and keep it, a bit ridiculous. Even just taking into account that some industries are far more lucrative than others means that companies that start in a sector where they can get rich get quickly will then be able to take over entire markets of smaller industries. This surely leads to a concentration of power over time.

Do you think the ancaps would be principled enough to actually allow unions to grow? I think businesses would probably hire some forces to crack down on the unions more than likely. They could even sell it to the public by portraying the Unions as scary shady violent organizations.

They generally have private police forces and private courts right? I'm not sure I see how this helps our situation.

Nuance is dead, and you in particular have killed it. This post is a defence of collaboration with anarcho-capitalists, and you would know that if you had half a brain. Everyone else gets it, why don't you?


Leninist > Tankie > Trot > Leninist

:^)


This is a lie?


No, reading them does, silly.


t. wrote this (pic related)


Whose thread is this again? I was aware this was my own, on anarcho-capitalism. I don't see you talking much about anarcho-capitalism. Why are you interested exclusively in LARPing and stroking your own ego? These are the questions that need answering.

That's really the main issue. But the private police forces, under an actual ancap society, wouldn't be able to overcome workers, that's for sure.

youtube.com/watch?v=oitl7tD8Ebs
remember when rebel aspergers was a leftist


hey rebel >>>/liberty/

There is, promise. Tried and tested on leftcoms. I forgot it… I know someone who probably remembers it though, might ask them.

cartels are difficult to form even aside from the govt stepping in and provided there is freedom of entry into the market there wouldn't be much of a threat. The biggest problem will be economies of scale here where monopolies can form without government assistance

Nuance is dead, and you and Muke have killed it.

Didn't know nuance was becoming an ancap

Well now you do, I'm totally an ancap and not at all defending collaboration with anarcho-capitalists for the sake of a stepping stone towards socialism, certainly not.

btw what's wrong with neoclassical economics? aside from their mischaracterizations of socialism I've found them to be pretty alright. Taking a college course rn and they seem pretty ok as far as analyzing capitalism goes.

Why do you think that?

Looking at the actual arguments you're making though, you wouldnt be able to differentiate you from an actual ancap. Name it what you like, but you're defending anarcho-capitalism. See pic related.


No it is not?


I think understanding it is required too.


Fair enough.


I'm not here to debate anarcho-capitalism with you rebel, I cant be bothered to argue against an ideology that everyone here as well as the people on both sides of the argument know is retarded. It's a waste of energy. I've made multiple videos attacking it, as have you, so you already know I've argued against it countless times before.

I'm just here to point out that your tripfagging is literally cancer, and it's leading you to random outburts of attention seeking like this.

Give is two days and you will refer to this whole thing as irony.

Synthesis of classical economics with Keynesianism, the model is literally just an excuse to not follow proper Keynes and keep corporatism alive. True Keynes is post-Keynesianism.


Because large corporations only would give the bosses the means to defeating disproportionately large numbers of workers. I think you over-estimate the power of a lot of semi-expensive weaponry.

"to defeat porky we must collab with porky enablers"


boi

Yo rebel I remember a while ago you said free enterprise is different from capitalism and socialists need free enterprise. I'm not sure I know what free enterprise is because I've only heard classcucks use it as a synonym for capitalism. How can the two be separated?

So then prices don't change on their own eventually? To me the idea that we should spend more and tax less in crisis and spend less and tax more in boom years makes sense. What would Keynes's theory look like without this synthesis? It seems so focussed on the short-term to me.

Nuance is dead, and you have killed it, used necromancy to raise it from the dead, and then killed it again.

You can take my replies out of context all you like, but it's obvious you're lying when the reply itself stands for itself in proper context above your box's head.


If it's not a lie, you have proof? (No, you don't).

In any case, what is changing my ideology thrice in 10 months supposed to prove? That I can change my mind over long periods of time and in depth study of an ideology? Better than blindly following leninism, isn't it?


No, I don't think it is :^)

So get out and stop wasting my time, you faggot.


I want you to do me a favour Muke. I want you to look up a guy called "Kierkegaard". Just do it, eh?

You might learn something about the way I operate, you fucking fruitcake.

I hope cancer kills you.

It didn't hahahaha

not him but I feel like in a way it's kind of like accelerationism. Just creating the conditions in which revolution come about.

You may end up with:
less armies
less nationalism
more class-consciousness
deeper crises

That's a recipe for a successful revolution

Would be curious to hear it and any responses to it. I actually agree with your main premise that if unions were allowed to prosper in an ancap society, it would likely lead to socialism anyway as there are far more workers than capitalists/private armies. I'm just not sure I agree with the premise that large corporations are due to state intervention. There is always an economic incentive for companies to seek control of the market by any means.

Unmeasurable, they operate on levels of asshurt we cannot simply comprehend

The difference is in democratic management. I don't remember saying it but it was probably to do with dialectics of spontaneity? IDK, here's an article about market-socialism and free enterprise I read recently though

thomhartmann.com/users/nimblecivet/blog/2015/05/there-such-thing-free-enterprise-socialism


I've messaged the person on twitter, will get back to you ASAP

not sure

Accelerationism is stupid unless you have a chance of actually winning. I think that time is rapidly running out for the proletariat.

Gotta say guys, I'm pretty disappointed with your attitude in this discussion. Smh tbh…

sasuga

ty for mentioning, didn't see it.


Not if you don't explain it explicitly and expect me to do all your intellectual work for you, dear.

No, as I said in my first post:


This is all you're doing.


It would be blindly following if I wasnt able to argue for it. Furthermore since reading Zizek I have actually changed my attitude towards Leninism, and I have made this open to everyone in my videos. I do adapt my ideology, but only when I read theory about it giving me further insight, not when I get bored and want more attention.


What? If I'm wasting your time so much then….stop replying? What the fuck?


Yea no I've never heard of him it's not like you spent months artistically ranting about him until eventually people who actually understood philosophy realised you had no idea what you were talking about.


It's quite simple.


Also, what kind of insult is fruitcake?

Jesus Christ, go away, you have already admitted you're not interested in discussing the topic at hand. Fuck off, autist, I'm not reading your bilge.

Your starting to argue like an ancap as well now.

The 19 year old leninist's guide to political discussion

fresh OC

Why does prickly get to choose?

This need not mean anything, but the way you've alluded to Hegel in relation with Rebel seems suspicious. The voices of acquaintances can be imagined.


This proposal appears to be both naive and foolish.

Jesus, Rebel, that's not how communist revolutions work!

Private police, armies.

Back then state-owned police(or in extreme cases, military) was used for union busting and it was relatively efficient at it despite the difference in numbers between policemen and strikers. Similarly, in case of actual violent uprising against the capitalists those two groups were also utilized and it apparently worked, as evidence by Paris commune, Spartacist uprising etc. Naturally ancap society would officially lack police and military(no state), but functionally private mercenaries would serve as replacement, so I doubt the appeal to difference in numbers is valid here.

nice oc and cheka'd

I'm not sure this idea would work out but it's worth discussing I'd say.
I dont know enough about what ancaps advocate for in terms of praxis, how do they suggest we remove state power? Are they revolutionary, or do they want to make it redundant through more and more privatisation?

There's definitely common ground to be found with *some* ancaps in terms of decentralised organisation and local autonomy but the loudest ancaps seem more interested in making le edgy helicopter ride memes and defending private property to ridiculous extends like the randian wankers they are.

fuggen saved


the economic systems are far different…


Not all revolutions are communist, we're talking in case of a non-com revolution.

Everyone be more like this poster.

"How do they suggest we remove state power? are they revolutionary?

I believe most are revolutionary, but I'm not going to speak for specific people. The split is probably similar to socialists.

The loudest ancaps deserve nothing less than to be cannon fodder, we agree upon this.

really? Maybe I'm confusing them with libertarians but it seems like most are pro-reform until you do something like take away their guns. Do ancaps have different revolutionary tendencies like we do? Are there any ancap vanguardists?

Like what? Toppling a dictator? After its done there's no further common ground. They wan't capitalism, we don't.

Jesus, Rebel.

You don't even have to use state enforcement as a historical example. The Pinkertons were really effective strike breakers and union busters.

Except ancaps don't want to get rid of their own kind. They're always screaming about DA GUBBAMANT

That's planned

this


smh, that's a matter of ideology and worldview within their sphere, which can be changed by amongst other things, a pact.


that's the point. smh

The only person I know that could be described in any way as "ancap" seems to be more focused on creating decentralised structures that can replace the more centralised systems we have today.
I'm starting to thing the left can learn from this kind of attitude. It's not enough to say "we have a revolution and then we create socialism", we should perhaps be saying "What can we be creating now that will replace capitalism".
I get that in capitalism, non-capitalist organisation is simply impossible but we should be looking to decentralised alternatives within the market system, as well as rejecting the market with things like piracy.
I don't like the prospect of going into another post-revolutionary society where we once again fail to implement socialist economic structures but maybe I'm just becoming a dirty reformist.

That's cool. Haven't read Bookchin, but I've heard he advocates for something like this.

What are the criteria you are using for a revolutionary? It's ridiculous to call them that just because they like to identify with the edge. That would be taking things at face-value.

Do ancaps have revolutionary praxis? No.
They don't engage the masses, they are anti-collectivists, they are confined to a very narrow p-bourg circle.

Do ancaps have revolutionary theory? No.
They have nothing on how organizations should look like, how to transition into ancapistan, 0 philosophy, no ideological critique, no artists, nothing.

Reformists did nothing wrong =(

We're coming after your rights, bucko

Then, let's change it to revolutionary potential. Someone needs to form revolutionary praxis is all that means. It's not as if their ideology has been around for very long is it…

They killed Rosa

Please drop the NAP and learn some real ethics. You people make me want to take a cold shower

=(

...

Oh, NOW you're trying to attack anarcho-capitalism.

Make up your mind, my dude

he made this thread half an hour before his scheduled ideology change, cut him some slack.

srry I forgot :^)

smh, too many posts


I don't see the relevance here, can you elaborate? If there is no state for union busting, then there's nothing with a monopoly on power.

Smh

Economics and ethics are distinct, my dude.

it's what teens do
cut him some slack

tbh we've had this discussion before with actual ancaps. We're just fuckin around because you're a namefag and adhom is fun

k

Do you have any more reading on why the neoclassical synthesis is wrong? I know post-keynesians are against it but I'm not sure why

"Revolutionary potential?" I don't think there's enough of them that aren't obese and near invalid.

Steve Keen's "Debunking Economics" is a good, easy read on the matter

Have you read the guide to post-keynesianism I rec'd everyone here?

also this is easy to read.

...

SAID THE FUCKING TRIPFAG

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha

rebel is ancap now this is just too perfect

Have fun fading into irrelevancy just like your shit tier ideology fam. Even ML's make more sense than you

It lies de facto in the hands of those who can afford it, which gives a huge boost to the capitalist class benefiting from property rights. Let's not mention the fact of the right to strike and/or form unions was not in the contract(not to mention seizing the MoP of more affluent bourgeoisie).

I've read parts of it. When I have time I'll read more of it. I was one of the people who didn't really like the way it was structure or all the jargon. That being said, since I've taken some more econ courses since then I think I'll give it another shot soon.

discuss the op


nod an argumend xD


smh the point of austrian economics is so that power CAN'T lie in the hands of any small groups.

Rabble, it's more viable to try and convert aut-caps to mutualism tbh than unironically trying to get them to fight for socialism. All the famous aut-caps unironically support fascism to weed out bommies rather than defending their rights.
Fuck classcucks and porky enablers, they're anti-revolutionaries

I'm just going to repost this here:

Anarcho-Capitalism is fucking stupid. It's all well and good if you have money and property, but if you don't you are fucked from birth, destined for nothing but minimum wage because your parents had to choose between paying the bills and paying for your education. In such a state of life, initiative and ambition would be lower than a NEET's, driving productivity among wage slaves - I mean, entry level employees - down the shitter.

And heaven forbid you get sick or in an accident, because you'll just be left to starve in bed (until your landlord kicks you out into the gutter for not paying rent, and then you get sent to jail for loitering on a private sidewalk without being able to pay for the muh privilege, and then they fine your dying corpse for the muh privilege of being imprisoned) since you are no longer of any profit to them.

And the work hours, demand quota, prices and interest rates? All designed to keep you too exhausted to retaliate and earning just enough that your needs are met.

Wages will be as low as can be, 8 hour work days, weekends, vacations, holidays, sick pay, employee insurance, health benefits, 401ks and the right for children to have a childhood? Out the fucking window.

Because every single dime the corporations can squeeze out of their wage slaves, they will. It's just reskinned feudalism, now with a little (tm) at the end of it.

And who else are you going to work for or vend with? They monopolized the entire region, there is no one else. Going to create a startup? Too bad, they own all the property and are selling it to no one.
What's that, you're going to leave and go somewhere else? You had better have enough money for the tollbooths, the extra gas while you sit behind 30,000 cars all waiting their turn to go through said tollbooths, the money to rent when you get there and a job all lined up for you to continue paying for the muh privilege of renting a life storage cube or else off to prison you go!

Oh, and don't think you can bypass the roads and take the rivers. You'll end up dying from all the chemical poisoning because it was far cheaper and faster to just dump the toxic sludge in the rivers instead of disposing of them safely.

Of course, if you don't take the river, you will still need to wear a gas mask to deal with all the toxic smog.

Isn't life in Ancapistan truly a beautiful and wonderous place? Especially when the NAP isn't being violated and the corporations' hunter-killer bots aren't massacring everyone. But hey, you're making whatever the company you work for defines as payment, so that's all that counts!

I'm not sure about this, hence the thread.

post yfw you have had the opportunity to witness Rebel's ideology shifts

What's next? Place your bets! I'm thinking he's going full nazi in a month or so.

This is a nice copypasta, but given that this isn't an argument for anarcho-capitalism it's pretty irrelevant tbh

Except they build their shit-tier ideologies on the idea of homesteading giving you infallible property rights and thus they should be disregarded as retards just like you

No, the ideology of anarcho-capitalism is built upon that but austrian economics is separate from anarcho-capitalism.

If you can't understand that, that just shows how illiterate you are.

...

It's post-keynesianism, a.k.a. my special irrelevant keynesianism nobody gives shit about.

So how do Austrians justify property rights dearie?

Austrian economics rely on praxeology, basically magic, so it's garbage.
Only thing we've got in common is anti status quo, but they want private property, hierarchies and "statelessness" (feudalism) whereas we want dictatorship of the proletariat OR just no hierarchies and workplace democracy and so on.
How can we ally with people who aren't even fighting for the same thing? After we've killed the current state, they'll instantly rebel and cause another civil war.
No point.

It makes him a Super Unique Person™ tho and that's what tripfags are only after.

You're retarded. Read a book.


Economic branches don't JUSTIFY rights, you idiot. There are even leftist Austrians. Economics doesn't say what should be, it just says what is.

Leftists can not prove that:
Owning private property is theft.

Leftists do not understand what theft is:
Theft is the classic crime against property, and is typically understood to mean the taking of property from another without their consent.

*intense googling in the distance*

An unironic nazbol or mutualist since he's ancrap now

Read Proudhon dumbass

I will once anybody starts giving shit about post-Keynesian economics, even if as a meme ideology.

...

If that were true you'd have read Mises by now, which you clearly haven't.

:(

That's not Unique™ enough for him. He'll be either a
or

it would do you some good you fair-skinned fuckboy

Oh wait, I just noticed you changed the subject from union busting and stopping the socialist uprisings in the scenario of capitalist society with the absence of the state to "the point Austrian economics"
How smart of you.

Jesus is good. The problem is he's a marksoc. That shit fucks you up.

I'll fuck you, boy. wink wink nudge nudge

Yeah, THAT'S how that went down

I'm not a marksoc, I'm an existentialist who doesn't really give a shit about politics

Rebel is very smart. He reads many a books. He has large following. His intellectual light guides us.

Christian anqueer-mutualist

...

And it shows!

I'm glad!

Feels good tbh

obesity is a qt

Please start more threads that shows your ignorance and disinterest of politics on a political board. That would really help this community. We need more people like you.

I feel pity upon the souls of these dogmatic Leninist failures

Rebel you grow more absurd each day

Read Socrates :^🍀🍀🍀)

thanks

Every female that posts on this board is counter revolutionary.

Oh dear…

Are we talking to boy-Rebel or Rebel's sister right now?

tell your sis I like her videos

poll time

poal.me/zg59pf

Kek, people actually fell for that? Lol it was obviously a joke.

Vote yes or you're a cuck.

but A.W. tho. He's smart but he's such an arrogant piece of trash. I know he's not a tripfag but I like islamposter. He's my favorite of the people here.

Islamposter is on the dubtrack right now, he's a bretty cool guy bit cranky tho

A.W. sort of has reason to be arrogant when it comes to his expertise, but he's still arrogant when it comes to areas that he knows nothing about, so it's hard to tell what he actually is knowledgeable about.

First we were arguing about functional similarities between police/military and private mercenaries in case of strikes, union busting and even worker-based unrests, after I tackled the amount of power in such society in you started babbling about the point of Austrian economics out of blue rather than addressing this problem.

Rebel shifting topics just as fast as ideologies? UNHEARD OF!

DO YOU KNOW WHAT ECONOMICS IS. DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THE AIM OF ECONOMICS IS. NO YOU CLEARLY DO NOT.

Don't you mean

K I E R K E G A A R D - S E N P A I - S A M A - K U U U N?

It's not shifting topics, YOU claimed that private mercenaries would be able to call drone strikes. Now what single substance does the capitalist world run on? Oh that's right, MONEY.

You must have enough fuel units to achieve your dreams.

I meant "Kierkegard-senpai-sama-kun desu"

hey rebel what's your occupation irl?

I work for Trump to bring about glorious anarcho-capitalist society…

Is rebel the most self satisfied person on line?

IF YOU WANT TO SCARE THE REBEL AWAY

SUMMON SARTRE FOR HE ALONE CAN KEEP THE FAGS AT BAY

SARTRE
SARTRE
SARTRE
SARTRE

SARTRE
SARTRE
SARTRE
SARTRE
SARTRE

...

SARTRE
SARTRE
SARTRE

Jean Paul Sartre
Jean Paul Sartre
Jean Paul Sartre
Jean Paul Sartre
Jean Paul Sartre

Trips confirms.

O shet foiled again


fug me, egsposed.

Nah, just fucking drunk

Fek! You fucking Cartesians!!!!!! xDD

...

SARTRE
SARTRE
SARTRE
SARTRE
SARTRE

CAN'T PULL APART THE SARTRE

butthurt


Not me, I joined the conversation shortly thereafter
Maybe not that(at least not the smaller ones), but they would be able to break strikes and unions in a similar manner, like Pinkertons who were mentioned by somebody ITT and other private security guards who are trained to deal with similar things.
Yes, more affluent capitalists would have easier time to afford such private security forces and solidify their position, your point?

No. He's an extremely anxious person who isolates himself socially and reads mainly to show others that he's worthy of love. Your mistaking his thinly veiled dishonesty for "self-satisfaction": he shifts topics, posts "k," attempts self-irony, etc. and he has this same attitude towards himself.

SARTRE SARTRE SARTRE SARTRE SARTRE

that's a bad rhyme tbqh, but it still hurts


No! Stop stealing Hegel's ideas!!!

This is where Austrian economics comes in and says "NO THEY CAN'T" so yes it is relevant, you fruitcake.

anyone who cares about understanding how a modern market economy works gives a shit about post-Keynesian economics

If it's thinly veiled, it must be an invisibility cloak because I can't see it.

k btw

What I'm talking about. His main defense mechanism. This guy can't have a single honest thought about himself.

Well I'm bored now. Same time tomorrow folks?

Lel, are you reading my mind now? Okay mr. thought policeman

You are your own "thought policeman," that's the whole point.

Stop trying to be freudposter, you're not fooling anyone.

Now you can explain that.

*intense googling*

ALAS, REJOICES MY FELLOW MY FRIENDS
BY THE SARTRE ALONE THIS FAG MET HIS END

KEK

You have literally never met an ancap in your life, the entire basis of austrian economics is that free markets tend towards putting power in equal hands.

...

Nice try, but if I wasn't prepared to defend my opinion I wouldn't make the thread.

*googling finished*

It's islamposter, he's in the dubtrack thread rn and we're laughing about it. Jokes on you tbh

I have this virtual friend and we are very bonded right now and its totally a moment we share together, so fuck you hater! RIGHT, FRIEND? plz, love me