Uniting under a common enemy

Why are ancoms so hard-headed about this idea? Don't they realize that Anarchism implies that people are allowed to form their communities and decide for themselves what economical system they can adopt?

Other urls found in this thread:



You are starting to sound like a statist.

Meant for you.

you will be gulaged


Nice arguments.

A praxeological anarcho-capitalist Mises Institute professor and contractual voluntarist was teaching a class on Murray Rothbard, known paleolibertarian. "Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship the free market, and accept that the accumulation of exploitative private capital and contractual slavery are the only means to world peace, and taxes are literally Hitler!"
At this moment, a proud, marxist-leninist dialectical materialist comrade who had page-by-page annotated the collected works of Marx and Engels, and tattooed the Theses On Feuerbach to his inner eyelids, held up a copy of Human Action.
"Does man act and think of his own volition?"
The arrogant professor grinned (voluntarily) and conservatively mumbled "of course you statist islamic obammunist nazi. all thoughts are causa sui. if the poor have no bread, let them eat cake"
"Wrong. Our values, desires, and preferences are inculcated in us by ideological state apparatuses, the bourgeoise controlled superstructural sphere which infuses our defining social practices and the belief in our self conscious agency through interpellation. They are but products of social reality and the reproduction of the modes of production by the superstructure, further engendering the base in reciprocal, dialectical fashion."
The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his chalk and copy of "Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom". He stormed out of the room crying those unregulated, market chosen tears (his property ofcourse). There is no doubt that at this point our professor, Hans Hermann Hoppe, wished he had pulled himself up by his bootstraps and become more than a racist bourgeois capitalist interested in somehow being against immigration despite his libertarian stance (???). He wished so much that he could reconcile with Habermas, but the market had selected against it!
The students applauded and all linked hand in hand singing The Internationale, marching to emancipate the workers from their enslavement, overturning the private ownership of the means of production and accepting the end of history and class. An eagle named "The Proletariat" flew into the room and perched atop the volumes of "Das Kapital" and shed a single tear on the stack. "What Is To Be Done?" was read several times, and the spectre of communism itself showed up and demonstrated how the history of all hitherto existing society was the history of class struggle.
The professor lost his tenure and was fired the next day (by his own choice). He died of dehydration rather than (voluntarily) drinking fluoridated water and his "books" were disregarded for all eternity.
Oh, and that student's name? Maybe you've heard of him: Louis Althusser.


Ancap society:

Ancom society:

You are just regular communists in a different disguise.

wow user does anyone ever tell you that you have a really deep and nuanced understanding of philosophy

How can you call yourself an anarchist dumbfuck

Anarcho capitalism is an oxymoron. Private property is upheld by the state. Classless society cannot have companies with bosses because…that's class. Anarcho capitalism is antagonistic with itself etc etc..


devil's advocate but,
let's not act like it's not a problem for Socialism too
this isn't necessarily an ancap thing, it's quite nice being able to pay with cryptocurrency

in an ancom society nobody would care if you said this; the question is why anyone would work for you in the first place - there would simply be no need to do so
you have this idea that in capitalism people freely work for others; in fact there's a lot of coercion and necessity to do it, combined with the fact that people generally aren't class-conscious

devil's advocate again: why is private property upheld by the state? could it not be you yourself (with some kind of force) protecting it?
and what do you mean by bosses? I mean, usually there needs to be someone to oversee large projects, and that's the person you report to; sure, you wouldn't be handing over the product of your labour to him, but you would need some management role, at least in most jobs with multiple people and where hierarchy might be necessary (education of children for example)

How can you? You are saying that someone isn't allowed to work for anyone for pay, because that would disrupt you """anacho""" communist regime.

Private property is upheld by one own ability to keep it. The state controls public property. That's what makes ancom an oxymoron. Who is going to make sure that goods are disputed to everyone equally? Why can that guy work for that guy for money? Is he not allowed to decide to exchange his labor for something else?

wow some anarchist you are for not believing in the freedom to work for the state

Hope you like voluntarily calling the leader of your of your local 'milord' :^)

nigga wat?

Of your local private security force

Shit flinging in effect


False. There is WAY more coercion in equally distributing resources to everyone than individuals earning themselves at their choice

Working for the state implies that the freedom of someone else is been infringed. If the NAP isn't being broken, there is no problem.

Hope you realize that there is nothing the landlord can do to force you to live there.

how is my freedom to use the land not being infringed there?

From Wikipedia: Anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of all human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system.

Sounds pretty classless to me user.

Because that would be stealing. Unless you are willing to exchange something for a piece or negotiate with him/her to share.

Your little commune, in a sense, is private property, just shared with many individuals. So technically you must defend it in the same way ancaps have to defend their communities.

Why is stealing bad?

And you're just regular corruption lovers disguised as anarchists.

You can't promote an anarchist society and still have money. Who controls the currency then? The central bank? A privatized central bank? kek what a fucking joke your whole ideology is.

Private property (means of production) can and are sometimes protected by individuals but usually if someone tries to seize it the state intervenes with the police/military. Remember that private property is different to personal property, some cat burglar stealing your jewellery is different to workers rebelling against their boss and taking a factory. Also by boss I meant to mean 'capitalist'. In any form of group work it usually is necessary to have a manager of some kind and this would still be the case under socialism but they should not have any authority over the democratic will of the workers and should not receive more for their work.

You were all 'might makes right' five seconds ago.

Private property is all theft.

Occupation and use isn't really the same as arbitrarily claiming to own some land because you pissed on it it at some point in the past.

I don't know, just chances is that people will defend what they own. Stealing can be bad or not, it depends on how your moral compass is aligned, but you don't want to take something from a guy with a gun.

Money is just a "i owe you" note. Old money was just gold, then it turned to paper that was backed by gold, then it turned to this fiat shit. Most ancaps hate fiat, so my question is, why can't someone assign value to what ever they want? People don't have to agree to the same values that are set. No one is forcing you to accept the US dollar, that is the state.

Yeah, and in a real society where the state is abolished, you are going to defend your little commune, and anyone with the right amount of guns will be able to run atop of you. It's the same thing, even with the state.

Say that to the guy with the gun.

Unless you are a nomadic society, you are going to settle down at some point.

I might have misunderstood the ancap position. Isn't the idea that you have a natural right to own land that you have mixed with your labor and that nobody must ever interfere with it because everyone agrees with the NAP?

I know this might sound crazy to the rest OP but I think you have a point.


Why do descriptions of ancap society even ones from ancaps themselves sound like fucking mad max? Why do you want to live in a world like this?

Me on the ancapism: youtube.com/watch?v=QLt0lerdgKs

Land is defined as something that can be maintained and defended by a single person or many persons. Labor is something that can be exchanged, and as all thing that can be exchanged, the value of labor isn't fixed. So you are allowed to exchange your labor for anything you and your exchangee agrees on.

Everyone doesn't have to agree with the NAP. If that was the case, the NAP wouldn't need to exist. The NAP is basically "I should do to others what I want done to me", "An eye for an eye." Second grader stuff.

We don't live in the Apocalypse, so comparing an ancap society to Mad Max is foolish. It also depends on circumstances, so comparing all possible ancap societies to Somalia, cause you ancom types always like to do that, is also illogical, since Somalia was a shit place, even before the state was destroyed.

I know that dude why are you bringing that up? I said descriptions of 'ancap' society not 'current society'. If ancap society is going to be similar to current society then what's the point of even abolishing the state? If nothing would change why bother acting? Also what circumstances? Your entire defence of how ancap society would work seems to be whoever has the biggest and mostest guns gets to keep their property which sounds pretty post-apocalyptic to me.

If everyone doesn't agree with the NAP then why would they respect arbitrary private property rights and there wouldn't just be an an endless cycle of people who disagreed with the NAP slaughtering whoever has the most shit? If your answer to this is 'just get lots of guns' then you've proven my first point about ancap society being like mad max. If you agreed with the NAP then why would you work for a wage? If "I should do to others what I want done to me" then why wouldn't I just rebel against my capitalist boss who has been exploiting your labor i.e. stealing most of what could have been the product of your work and giving you a small percentage? It just seems to me like ancap society would be one of extreme violence, if you went to 2nd grade you would know that the whole expression goes: "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". So how is ancapistan not gonna end up being totally blind?

why are you memelords so bad at taking criticism or questioning of your own orthodoxies?

The world doesn't have to be "apocalyptic" to want to change it, you dunce.

Call me edgy or whatever, but that's how the world works, it's been that way since the state; it's especially going to be that way after the state. Your commune be destroyed if you don't defend it. Welcome to Earth.

The NAP applies to every type of anarchism, and is an understood part of human nature in a different name, if you like it or not. You and your comrades fail to understand that once the state is abolished, the land that the state used to own will be now void, a "default" form of anarchism, if you will. Groups of people will form their communities, they will decide how it will work. And the NAP will apply to all of them. The ancoms will decide that everything within their community is publicly owned. That is the agreed social contract within your community, and anyone who challenges this would be breaking the NAP. Ancaps decide they want to make their community somewhere else, and they will form their own social contracts, and rinse and repeat.

You again?

didn't we had this discussion 3 days ago?

Anarchism is against all Hierarchies and is deeply rooted into Anti-capitalism.

Capitalism needs the structure of the state to keep the workers from expropriating the means of production.

You can go fuck yourself you little fascist prick.

we are coming bucko you are not an ally you are the enemy.
Get into Mutualism and Market socialism even Agprism and you will be fine.
But Capitalism has to go.

This. Like when the state makes a law declaring is mandatory for everybody to have car insurance, but every insurance company is private.
So you're forced by law to give your money to private companys. Yet this idiots still think unregulated capitalism will do wonders.


this is the kind of society you guys are advocating for. this is what ancapistan really looks like. this is what happens when you combine a society that values accumulation of wealth above all other pursuits with a lack of a governing body. anarchism can only work without capitalism. you still didn't explain how the whole world won't end up blind in ancapistan since as you admit the NAP is basically 'an eye for an eye'

Sure thing, pal. You can go do that someone where else. Not everyone wants to be in a commune though, so are you going to force those people to be in your circlejerk? Ancapism allows you to create your communes, you just can't shit all over everyone else.


I never said it was.

Yeah, because it isn't like people agree in anything, am I right? We need to develop a system where EVERYONE must follow these exact rules or they will be jailed. Oh wait.

Exchange labor for goods or "currency" (I know this word triggers you, but anything that is used as a "IOU") isn't classed. No one is forced to work for someone.

This is implying that everyone agrees on communism, or that you forced them to, which just shows how much of a statist you are.

Now you are going into the realm of non-argument.

Implying that your ancom commune wouldn't starve to death since all your resources have been depleted and no one is willing to work because of no incentive. See how easy it is?

You posted a wiki article about a KING, you fucking retard. Who collects TAXES, and who runs a fucking COUNTRY. He is the definition of the State. All you are proving that the state is bad. State owned "private enterprise" is still the state.

damn I thought you would at least understand what communism is in its most basic way but I guess I was wrong. Talking about currency and the market and anarcho-communism in the same breath pretty much proves this. Communism has no borders, no state, no money, no class, and especially no tribes. Not because it was forced that way or because people are being held hostage by da gunning but as a natural evolution of human society after enough time with social ownership of the means of production but yeah it's obvious you think communism is 'government does lots of stuff and if you don't give up your toothbrush the government will gulag u' so how about next time before you post you actually read some Wikipedia articles first. Speaking of King Leopold II was a monarch but he wasn't the king of the Congo. he inherited it and owned it and used it to extract resources for capital (hmmm gee whiz how could this be connected to ancapism????) you would know this if you bothered to read the article but that is clearly beyond your ability.


Consider how that would be applied. If there is no accepted state authority dictating who owns what piece of land, then the only way to hold onto land as well, as keep the poor saps you have working on it in line, is to cordon it off and control it by force using hired mercenaries. At that point, what you have is definatively a lord with his soldiers and peasant workers–a feudal state. It's not anarchy, and it is not capitalism.

Why would it not? Do you expect workers on your land to just accept whatever wages you deem them worthy of and simply move along when you fire them? It takes guys with guns to make people do that.

You sound like a brainwashed drone. And it's arrogant and ultimately retarded to think that you know for certain that that's how society will evolve, especially with no basis.

Nah, dipshit. He is the King of Belgium, which is a state institution, if you didn't know. You know where he got all that money? From the fucking state. People don't just magically turn rich, and he didn't even earn his money, he used the state's taxes that go straight to him, because he's the fucking king.

It's a safe assumption, because literally every communist country ever made was a oppressive state. You meme reply is a strawman, btw.

Yeah except you left out the 'anarcho' part. It's like saying that over 12 million people died in state communism, therefore the same thing is going to happen under ancom.

Just because it can happen, doesn't make it likely. You can technically suck your on cock down to it's hilt if you tried hard enough but it probably not going to happen.

First off: You make it seem like there isn't any other businesses that can have different wages and levels of safety.

Second off: If the workers don't like the wages, they can go on strike. The boss has to make money or the business will fail, so just don't work until you get better wages.

Thirdly: No one said you had to work for anyone. Go form your group of freeloaders somewhere else if you feel the need.

Because """""anarcho""""" capitalists are literally the biggest retards on the planet with a self-contradictory ideology that doesn't benefit anyone but whoever is first to try to exploit them.

I don't mean the usual pragmatic issues with anarchism, I mean it's utter nonsense that redefines every commonly accepted term based on retarded Ameriburger anti-knowledge of politics.

Because anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron.

But without the state, who will give you the welfares?

Anarchism is a substitute for anti-hierarchism. Capitalism is a hierarchy.

I don't think you'll be gulaging anybody if your tiny powerless group can't even conceive cooperation with other factions that have a common enemy.

Thank you for reinforcing my assumption that ancaps are just autistic neocons.

Over here on the left we have this thing called "theory." It's kind of like praexology except it actually is subject to verification based on facts and reason.

That's right. He had it minted. Of course, that money would not have meant jack shit if not for the fact that it was exchanged for useful goods that were produced by his subjects.

Leopold II is an example of what we call an "aristocrat" which is an individual who is a member of the aristocratic economic class. That means that he makes most of his income by claiming ownership of a particular territory which allows him the right to extract the surplus value produced by the individuals who live in that territory.

Do you know the difference between communism the ideology and communism the system?

You really do not want to compare body counts.

What does that have to do with anything?

Exactly. What do you think a strike is? They shut down a place of industry and refuse to allow production until their demands are met.

Here is the thing: your striking workers have absolutely no reason to ever give you any concessions. It would not take long for them to realize that they do not need you for anything. In fact, they can just keep on working and sell what they make on their own. Who is going to stop them?

Fuck you. Why should you get exclusive rights to a particular piece of land? What exactly makes you its ruler? If the workers who are there can make use of it, what sense is there in leaving a piece of real estate in your hands?

No one expects anime-posters to be told that either.

No, the definition of anarchism is:

belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.

And the definition of capitalism is:

an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Note the "rather than by the state" bit.

So capitalism, by definition, is not in conflict with anarchism.

Nice rebuttal.

Except it isn't a theory, it more like a "hypothesis."

The value of the currency was forced by the state.

We are talking about systems, not your self-righteous bullshit.

By what basis? I went with the number killed by the governments themselves.

They can work for them instead.

Why would we? We are Ancaps, remember? No one is going to stop them from starving themselves, regardless on how much you don't think you don't need the "oppresive capital boogeyman n sheit."

My ability to defend and maintain it. I won't be the only one on the land who will own it, of course. I wouldn't be able to defend it on my own. Neither would you with your commune. Businesses and people will come to set up shop, we agree on a price, and then they get a piece of the land.


I mean, how would you have gotten into the ancap community for this scenario to work? If you don't want to work, why don't you head out with your comrades and make that freeloader paradise? I'm not saying that you would necessary starve, there are some charitable people out there, you know. It's just you won't have any money.

This thread was shitty gay bait the last three times you made it

I was just pointing out capitalism is not made up of voluntary transactions.

Wew lad.

Not an argument.

It does not need a rebuttal, your statement was pure stupidity.

If I'm starving and you offer me food to be your servant for life is that a voluntary transaction?


Your highly specific and circumstantial scenario does not prove that capitalism is some how non-voluntary.

That's pretty funny.

That is basically all transactions in capitalism.

So, how many armed mercenaries are you going to need to make your property yours?

A nation huh? Real anarchist there, boyo.

You don't even know what it is.

Oh good, because communism the system is a stateless, moneyless, classless post-capitalist mode of production. That system has a body count of exactly zero precisely because it has not been achieved yet.

Why count government murders when we are talking about economic systems? Are you under the mistaken impression that economic systems are a fuction of the state?

Oh, can they? We have unlimited open positions in a capitalist society? How is this perpetual labor shortage achieved?

Who is starving? They can keep working and trade what they make for food, assuming that they do not produce food.

Oh, this is rich. You are going to have a collection of landlords who maintain control of a piece of territory, as well as the people on it, by virtue of the power of their hired soldiers. That is definatively feudalism. That is not capitalism, and it sure as hell is not anarchy.

Sorry, but I must give another "Wew lad"

Wew lad.

Apparently bartering on a good price for Halo 5 is the same as life or death to you.

I don't know, how many will it take for yours? Communes don't defend themselves.

Everything has to be defined at some point. Ever heard of "My home is my castle"? It's the same concept. Even you will have to define some borders for your red plague.

I don't care to know what your autistic Marx writings is. Unless you mean the definition of Hypothesis. Here you go:

a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

Top fucking kek. You actually made me giggle IRL. The fucking 'real communism hasn't been tried' meme is true.

Maybe because it's the same government that wanted to achieve communism. I have NO clue why I would make that connection.

No, but you answered your own question in the next statement.

Who is starving? They can keep working and trade what they make for food, assuming that they do not produce food.
See, now you have made your own business! You are really getting the hang of it!

Stop right there. You know in an ancap society, everyone would have guns, right? If they let the landlords take their guns without a fight, they deserve to die for how stupid they are. Any oppressive force can be stopped by the power of the people. The new group can now the divide the land up to what they agree with.

Except when you swear they are both the same.

Like you would know what anarchy is :^)

NAP and your precious human nature are completely contradictory to one another. This is why your shitty ideology will never work. Get fucked, fag.

Nice evidence you have provided.

Considering its actually how academia takes the subject outside of the soft science of the field of Biology, and how many noted philosophers have taken the topic of Biopolitics and critiqued it heavily, how evopsych has been basically shat on debunked and thrown aside

You really have no position to talk about evidence since all of it has been blown the fuck out

Id like to see you provide a single shred of evidence that ancapistan won't devolve into violent exploitation.

His goal is a violent exploitation fantasy where he isn't being exploited.

>a tripfag and a """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""''""""""""""""""""""""""""""""Anarcho""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" Feminist.

You can only see it here folks.

The burden of proof is with you, friend. You make the claim, you give the evidence.


I seem to remember you making the thread you mighty genius

You ARE the enemy though.

Someone in college who might stand a chance in Anarcho-Capitalism due to the usefulness I provide in dealing with the psychiatric issues its proponents always have.

I just told you the burden of proof.

Everything you told me about Biopolitics has literally been debunked.

There is nobody outside of the PopSci figures of Biology (which frankly, isn't even much of a science), can take seriously.

Your only proof is misunderstanding what Science is, and not understanding how soft a science Biology actually is in this case.

Science, is not your political cudgel. It is a means to understand, not a means to an end.

Nice ad hominem butthurt ancap. what's the going rate on the free market for someone who still can't show that the hierarchy of business isn't antagonistic to anarchism?

You are cancer.

YOU made the claim that Anarcho-Capitalism would turn out to be violent. The only thing the thread claims is that ancoms are unreasonable hot-heads, which is what everyone, this guy included , have proved. I made the thread to reason with ancoms, but NO, you have to be "hurr he a capitalist n sheit hes dumb!!! XDDDDD" Your autistic parade is useless.

The burden of proof thing wasn't directed to you.

Inb4 real communism hasn't been tried.


None. The people organize and arm themselves.

No, we do not. Lines on a map are unnecessary when land is not privately owned.

No surprise there. It is clear that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

We did not go somewhere else and HURRDURRSTARTABUSINESS. We stayed right where we were, siezed the means of production, and threw the boss out.

Goddamnit, ancap, that IS communism. The workers decide they do not like the boss, and violently expell him from power. Then they work just like they had before while exchanging what they make for the things they need. Christ, this is exactly why you need to read theory.


The funny thing is that I do. You are the guy who does not seem to undersrand how a stateless society could work.


Show me a stateless, moneyless, classless post-capitalist society.

You've been told a million times in this thread already illiterate scum. communism hasn't been tried because you don't know what communism is. communism is a state without ANY form of class or hierarchy or STATE that evolves naturally after a period of societal development after the means of production have been seized from capitalists for the love of god. So yes! Communism hasn't been tried and it likely won't for a long time, in the meantime there are many examples of SOCIALIST countries that have existed and currently exist with varying degrees of success.

your arguments rest on fundamental misunderstandings or reinterpretations of the most basic definitions of terms

1. communism is da gubmint welfare lmaooo!!!
communism has NO STATE fuck
2. anarchism is about getting rid of da gubmint so I don't have to pay taxes lmaooo!!
anarchism is the removal of all hierarchy from human society. THAT INCLUDES BUSINESS AND ENTERPRISE "hurr durr my special snowflake utopia of how capitalism works isnt like that mug crony capitalism etc etc" sorry

your ideology is cherry picked notions from left wing analysis of capitalism formed into s Frankenstein' monster of economic and political fedora tipping



Nice admitting that ancapistan is just an excuse for autistic neck beards to fantasise about committing a violent bloodbath wow se epic XDDDD pls don't hurt me cool sunglasses Snake man!

This is some grade A autism right here.


Do you get state benefits for being this retarded?


Exactly. Like I said before, it would be dumb to not be armed in any anarchism type really, so no problem here.

So when is the line where we ebil capitalist settle in huh? What's going to stop us when we enter your non define territory?

And I bet you never read anything about Ayn Rand, but you still have a basic understanding what ancap is about, no? Or Murray Rothbard?

If you are making product, and you are trading it, you made a business. You don't need a boss, it's commonly owned by the people who makes the goods. It's still a "business" by definition, if the profit is what you get from the exchanges.

Nah, I'm pretty sure it's called a "coup".

Sure thing. Just watch one of you comrades for now on, you're going to hear it sooner or later.


All you are doing is repeating yourself.

AKA something that can never exist.

I guess all those historians are wrong because you said so.

belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.

He could be paying him in blowjobs, we just don't know, now do we?

If any historians say I'm wrong than they are making the same retarded mistake you are of confusing communism and socialism but again your reading comprehension is awful since you clearly didn't read my post. That definition of anarchism you keep whipping out confirms that you have no idea what anarchism is either and that you have read any literature. It's clear to me that you've based your entire understanding of anarchism on that one narrow dictionary definition. I guarantee you won't address this but the 'voluntary' part of that definition kinda blows the 'capitalist' part out of the water. Capitalism recquires non-voluntary labor, if it was truly voluntary than why would anyone work? The answer is you work or you don't meet your basic human needs I.e. not voluntary. ANCAP IS AN OXYMORON


How cute.

Actually I have read plenty of ancap literature, and I bet you have read a lot of ancom "literature." We have different opinions as a result of this. Welcome to the 2 hour flame war.

It's the most basic definition of it. And you act as if the leftist version of it is the definitive. Just because it was the first schools thought of (the most early is Mutualism), doesn't mean more will not come.

Because people prefer to have more than they need, even when the state provides their basic necessities.

Wah wah, I'm sooooo lazy.

Also who will provide those needs? Someone will have to do something, which means someone will get the short end of the stick. What if someone doesn't want to have barely enough to survive and they want to make their own food? What will you do then, freedom police?

Forget about it, your little utopia is too good to be true. Go run to you daddy, Stalin.


The NAP is a spook, and fuck the bourgs anyway, only workers matter.

Strawman, not an argument.

How is it a strawman if it's true? You can't just call something strawman and expect to win an argument, you have to actually point out which parts are strawmen. So go ahead…

What do you mean "exactly?" You are talking about enforcing private property ownership with mercenaries, and I am talking about defense being the collective responsibility of the general population.

None. Nobody owns land.

I have read enough to get a handle on the basic premise, which is clearly more than you can claim concerning communism.

Participating in the exchange of goods is not what defines a capitalist business.

What do you think "profit" is?

They are not confusing feudalism with capitalism. They are saying that the system you are outlining is feudalism and not capitalism. Hilariously, ancapism fails to maintain a capitalist mode of production.

Some anarchist you are.

Communism is an economic system, not a historical event. By the way, I am a historian.

The system you are outlining features force and compulsion.

The dictionary is a vocabulary tool. It is not a guide for understanding complex concepts.

It is a logical deduction in a world of little to no community teaching from our "human nature", in quite some time, perhaps thousands of years since we developed agriculture, and throwing piss to the wind about it and saying "EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF", people will look to their shoes and imitate the "human nature" you so adamantly believes exists.

They will imitate more of a natural disaster, than an actual form of organization. It would be complete and total disorganization and human suffering.

But at the end of the day, the most powerful people on the planet would rather have that than anything sensible, so feel happy for yourself you're actually on the "winning" side.

That is until you break your arm and it costs you a fortune, then you can complain about crony capitalism

This is golden.

How are you are going to defend yourself from people who have more money than you and can hire more mercenaries? Oh maybe you could work together with some other people. Like a commune. I wonder which ideology is based communes instead of private property and the amount of money you can extract from it.

I know who are they. And please correct if I'm wrong but isn't anarcho-capitalism capitalism without a state?

There isn't any law in capitalist societies prohibiting the exploitation of people using private property and if you think that we don't need a boss than why aren't you a market socialist or something like that?

Any kind of anarchism is a coup against the state.

Because he doesn't know what a market socialist is.

No, capitalism can not exist without the free movement of capital which can not exist without a currency.


i think you would have a bettter time asking this question on /anarcho/

Oh, I forgot it.

There are probably more anarchists here.

Damn, I knew you faggots had fallen low, but I did not know that you had started taking in ancaps.

That bullet heading towards your head isn't. The NAP isn't negotiable.

No, YOU did:

Then what is stopping the ebil capitalists from kicking you off of it?

Sure thing, buckaroo.

Then what is it then?

Yield, proceedings, surplus, etc.

Hilariously, ancomism fails to maintain a communist mode of production.

Yep, an anarchist that doesn't believe in shit political ideologies followed by a bunch of lazy bums and mad dindus.

Yeah, like I said about the guy who wanted to make a little more food for himself, what are you going to do to him?

Anarchism had to be built off of something. Proudhon made his leftist definition, and now ancaps are making their right wing version.

What will protect that commune if the attacker has more people? Your shit argument is shit.


Because that would be solved by armed people getting pissed.

I used to dabble in left-leaning anarchism til I grew up. But I not saying that it's necessary that bosses do not exist, just if it come down to it. That is the under lying greatness of ancapism because, by the NAP, every other an-ism is allowed to exist in it. It's TRUE freedom, regardless of what my ancom friend likes to give off.

Yeah, ok?

Currency can be literally anything as long it used as an "IOU". "I own you a blowjob" cards maybe?

I'm not a Holla Forumstard, but this is funny watching leftists crash and burn.


Whoa dude hella f*ckin epic burn XDDDD I'll bet ur mom don't give u no shit my dude. F*ckin pwned them cucks lefties lmao. Better get this boy his tendies or he's gonna get u, commies beware xDDDD

Literally no ancap that says one says the other.

So…if there's no state why would there be state borders??

Did you even read it? And why do you think that people with more power than others would follow the NAP?

What will protect you in Ancapistan if the attack hired more people?

Then people would overthrow capitalism or just continue the cycle:


Shigy diggy.

Borders extend to my property, dipshit.

And like I said plenty of times before, what's stopping a bunch of capitalists that are way powerful than you from dropping you from helicopters, huh? Your shit argument is a strawman.

Then they will get the taste of communism. Isn't fighting over bread crumbs fun?

I believe you mean "Corporatism."

It's also not enforcable.

The fact that they do not have the ability to do so without capital.

An economic entity that utilizes capital to generate profits.

Those are three different concepts. Yield is just the outcome of a process. I am not really certain how you are trying to use "proceedings." Only surplus is profit, and it describes receiving greater value for a finished product than the value of what was used to create it.

No, you see ancoms can actually produce a theoretical framework by which a communist mode of production could function in an anarchist society. Ancaps cannot explain how capitalism could be maintained without a state. That is the difference, and that is why ancoms dismiss you.

Do you mean the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

Then it is not even anarchism by your own definition.

How is that even a response to a statement about the purpose of a dictionary? What does that even mean? Are you claiming that the dictionary is the basis for your theory of anarchism?

Where did the "attacker" get a bunch of people?

Wait, what do you think capitalism is? We have been operating under the assumption that you knew what it was, but it is starting to seem like that is not the case.

He really doesn't know what either of them is.

What difference does it make if a thing is allowed to exist when it cannot actually exist in reality?

Rights objectively do not exist.

You assume in your autism fantasy land that you'll be a property owner.

Crony Capitalism is the only Capitalism relevant to any analysis of Capitalism in the modern world.

Or any other point in history. Capitalism has been "crony" since its inception.

Man stop trying so hard no one likes you.

I would prefer to fight on the same team with a Tankie than with an Ayncrap.

Go to liberty they love pinochet and Nazis you will fit in there just fine.

your Ideology wont even get to praxis you believe in memes.

or go to >>>/suicide/ and overdose on fentanyl.

confirmed retard

Way to completely ignore my question you genius

And what exactly would stop 'corporatism' from occurring under ancapism? it seems to me that corporations don't rely on the existence of the state, sure some countries have corporate welfare but some don't and corporations do just fine in those countries too.

lol i'll never filter you, you're comedy gold

It's enforced by the person/persons who's NAP is being broken

So just more things that are unsustainable?

No, it's not anarchism by YOUR definition.

Yet you used the same argument against me?

an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

They can exist in a tribal manner, it's just ancaps aren't imperialist enough to attack other tribes for not following the same ideology.

What happened to your "right to food?"

You don't even own a house? Also aren't you supposed to be in your gender studies

Communism has also killed 100 million people in total, but I guess I can't make the "real X has been tried" fallacy, huh?

So edgy, m8.

Top kek. Let me teach you what corporatism means, kiddo:

the control of a state or organization by large interest groups.

Corporations get bailouts from the state when they go bankrupt as well. So when a corporation is supposed to go out of business, the state uses our stole funds, or "taxes" to pay for their recovery. Corporatism is just another way of saying fascism.
Here is a video that describes it better.

Cause who will be giving the money fo dem programs doe? Racistass cracka, you want to put the brothers down

It hasn't though, the authors of the Black Book admitted to inflating numbers. They also calculate deaths based on population deficits - which makes absolutely no sense. You can't die if you aren't born. Not to mention there was a "Black Book of Capitalism", that came to the same death toll using the same methodology (of any unnatural death being caused directly by communism). Look, I can stockpile millions of deaths to. Why did you starve to death 14 million in Bengal, 10 million in Persia and 5 million in the congo you dirty cappie? Not to mention the 12 million the axis murdered. And don't even get me started on the population deficit of 7 million during the great depression (which is clearly the same as people being dead in the street).

Also besides the point, which is you don't want to expropriate property gained by statism because your a vulgar """""libertarian""""".


Don't dodge the fucking question. And you can't make points invalid by calling them a strawman. Oh and don't tell me that people can't be a lot more powerful than others in capitalism.

So anarcho-communism or any other system CLOSE to that will result in starvation (it didn't happen in Catalonia) because some AUTHOTARIAN socialist countries prioritized producing machinery (not eatable) over producing food (eatable)?


All you do is glorious uprising in streets and break shit. You aren't better, you are even worst.

ayo crackas, why you keep ignoring me?

My bad m8 it's hard to keep track of all the terms ancaps use to describe their special 'versions' of capitalism without realising it's all the same thing. I wonder where all that 'lobbying' money will go when the state is abolished, I sure hope it doesn't just get redirected towards powerful private individuals who have enough private military and accumulated wealth to act as a corrupt de facto state that answers to no one. But nah I'm sure that no one would ever do that it would be completely unprecedented.

Yeah same with you guys:
"""Anarcho""" communism

The list go on…

You would fuck us over if we worked with you - Thats why.

Only thing that every person on the far-left agrees on is that they don't wan't capitalism. It varies over people that what kind of system should be the replacent. This is why the left-right scale on the political compass is very misleading.


p-post more cute cosplayers

We share something in common then ;)

Most of us wish that you get the helicopter.


thx m8

Then it is nothing more that a personal morality.

It's not anarchism by your definition either.

"belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion."

"without recourse to force or compulsion"

Not an argument. Where did the "attacker" get all those people without capital?

Wow, the dictionary really is your only source of theory isn't it?

Ancapism with the private property contradiction removed. What made you think that it was a good idea to put that contradiction back in?

What? That everyone eats in a communist system is not a result of any imaginary right to do so but rather from the reality that food is available to everyone to be eaten.

So, the reality of every capitalist society and institution. So, what do you think a state is?


Why are you assuming he wouldn't have capital? He could have easily promised them bounties of food or anything. Why are you asking these dumbass questions?

Then 'anarcho' communism is most definitely not anarchism. How would you enforce your communism?

Nice may may.

Pic related.


Also I know this is splitting hairs but how does a snake throw someone out of a helicopter? They ain't got no arms. How does a snake pilot a helicopter at all??

why is this thread still a thing

anyone with half a fucking brain knows anarchism and capitalism are ideologically opposed

mods pls


Wow dude your memes about murdering people in cold blood has really convinced me that ancapistan is not gonna be an apocalyptic wasteland bravo


I would post an image about ancap failures but considering it's never been implemented I have to say that your litlle idea has less ground to stand on than communism.



get out retard

You first.

How would anarchy capitalism in any kind of way be economically favourable to the working class? Without state regulations under capitalism we would all live like the poor in india, earing 1 dollar an hour and working 12 hours each day.


Because there is no means by which capital can be produced in a communist society.

Why would people be willing to risk their lives for things that they already have?

Because you do not seem to have answers for them. You are imagining the impossible to be possible and the inevitable to be impossible.

It does not need to be enforced. That is the whole point of developing a system without a state.

Also very apt.

When you try to mock something without knowing what it actually is you just look stupid.


This is a "kick the autist until he cries" thread. Ancap is serving as our autist.


Jesse, this batch of ideology is the purest yet!

The whole earth won't be under your marxist regime.

Lel you actually believe this.

Oh look, it another one of those meme anarchisms.

That's not a valid response to my question

Every point he has made has been refuted. He even skips questions that blow him the fuck out. He's down to just memes now. There is something satisfying in it.

You meant satisssssssissssssssssssssfying, right?


Yes, it will. This is why you should try to understand what you are arguing against before trying to do so.

If a system needs to be enforced, then the agency doing the enforcing is a state. Thus it is not anarchy.


You still haven't responded to my question

Guess you're right, kind of sad they're that thick



Then you cannot control the entire earth.

What is your retarded question.





Nobody controls the earth. Anarchy is not a global empire and land is not a thing to be owned.


I'm sure you won't read it and dismiss most of it because "muh state" so:
Children Killed by Preventable Diseases yearly – 5,000,000
Children Killed by Hunger daily – 17,000 (multiplying to get a year so 17,000*365=6,205,000)

Just like state controlled communism killed all those people as well! Well isn't the state just a shitty thing huh?

pls ancap-kun you don't have stand for this shitty idealogy read some leftist literature and become a comr8


NAP=Literal retardation

Yeah man. Altough you shouldn't dismiss any leftist idealogy in the future.


Your not anarchist your stateless capitalists as you accept unjustifiable hierarchy and take your bosses cock up your arse.

I even think the term stateless capitalist might be going too far as the person with the largest private army could cut out his own piece of land and have every one pay rent on it.


you do realise he operated under a uggggh state right?


Wrong one

Oh really? Would you please explain to me how you will distribute all of the goods to everyone without the state? Or get anyone to produce the goods when there is no incentive to work?


so predictable.

Autist fuck go fuck yourself to >>>/liberty/

The NAP does not apply to communists, because there mere existence threatens our way of life.

Oh, am I harming your safe space?

What makes you think money is the only incentive?

I also notice how you ignored either of my previous critcism and moved on to a new and unrelated topic so good job on that fam.



you can post up to 5 pictures at once on Holla Forums, comrade.

No. You're just a retarded shitposter.

And he has yet again been unable to explain how Chile operating with a state is anarcho capitalism pro tip it's not
But hey at least your admitting your not an anarchist so it's a start

Every communist country ever.

shit I'm convinced now