What is the difference between Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin?

...

Kek.

varying flavors of utopianism characterized by a general ignorance of value-form theory.

bakunin hated jews, proudhon hated women and kropotkin supported world war 1

Proudhon and Bakunin were vicious anti-Semites who'd probably have applauded the holocaust, and Kropotkin wasn't.

Proudon hated Jews too

anarchonazbol?

wasnt aware, thanks for the info

A really fanatical one too. This shit might as well have been written by Hitler or Heydrich.

why is this so?

what's the functional difference between the freeD market guys and ancaps? seems like freed market ppl just think anarcho capitalism will magically not be anarcho capitalism and actually be socialism in the end bc reasons?

...

age of consent laws.

how did kropotkin grow such a good beard?

lmao

ww1 was the best war in history tbh, shame that we need to wait for nuclear one

I knew Vermin Supreme was a Kropotkin lover ever since I saw his own beard.

They're products of their time
And basically everyone hated jews then

the meme that porky is all jewish is actually an ancient one

They are all utopiasts who cares?

there is no functional difference because mutualism cannot functionally exist

like 5 seconds into it someone will claim private property and enforce it because wealth inequalities will not have been dealt with

I wish Goldman was my cool aunt or something.

goldman is anarcho-grandma
kropotkin is anarcho-grandpa
bakunin is anarcho-weird uncle

Kropotkin is a communist, he believes in adhering to the maxim "from each according to their ability, too each according to their need." Bakunin is a collectivist, he believes, "from each according to their contribution" i.e wages in the form of labour tickets instead of cash. Proudhon is a Mutualist, he believes int he formation of mutually owned co-operatives acting as individual competitive businesses.

Tbh I think the revolution will include all three of these relations.

...

Kropotkin is based

Proudhon and Bakunin are okay but they're still cucked by wage labour

Inaccurate. Both Bakunin and Kropotkin read Das Kapital and liked it. Bakunin hated Marx but he still liked Das Kapital.

So elucidate a babby here. Marx is autistically screeching because the proposed society has a market, despite with collective ownership, is this right?

oh and also none of the other three, Kropotkin, Goldman, Proudhon, fucked their sister

why though?

Marx is autistically screeching because illiterate anarkids equate him to Stalin.

...

They are all old, outdated fools who pitched a failed economic or political idea. Their ideas have become a circle-jerk because once you get hooked into the fallacious logic of socialism and wealth redistribution, any mental gymnastic postulate will sound "deep." If these people postulated anything of value, it would be talked about today. Read some Mises, Hazlitt, or Rothbard, and vote for Libertarianism.

You have autism kid, go to doctor

I'd tell you to kill yourself, but you'd probably get a rail-on, you sadomasochist fuck

He has a point you know

...

(checked)

[Citation Needed]

Stop it, you are only hurting the people around you, listen to the doctors and take your ritalin

...

"Praxeology is a theoretical and systematic, not a historical, science. Its scope is human action as such, irrespective of all environmental, accidental, and individual circumstances of the concrete acts. Its cognition is purely formal and general without reference to the material content and the particular features of the actual case. It aims at knowledge valid for all instances in which the conditions exactly correspond to those implied in its assumptions and inferences. Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts. They are both logically and temporally antecedent to any comprehension of historical facts"

In other words, Austrian Economics reject positivism, empiricism, is by nature unfalsifiable and thus unscientiffic.

...

Look at your own quote. See the problem?

Good.
Now tell me what the difference between Math and say, Physics are.
What are they trying to describe?

Think Hume's fork here.

Praxeology isnt a meme tho

Maths is the pure study of numbers, and Physics is the application of maths. Your point?

Learn to read Ahmedoupolus.

Physics, depends on observations of real-world phenomena, because it tries to be a comprehensive model of what actually happens in the real world.
Math, on the other hand, is self-isolated and cannot itself be directly applied to the real world or proven outside of its own axioms, as Gödel demonstrated.

In other words, your theory of economics sucks if it is not desigend to describe economies, a real-life phenomenon.

Same is true for Marxism, Mises was at least a self-aware kike.

Good post, shame about the fact that you are human trash, nazi

While I am not a Marxist, and admit that there are plenty of devastating critiques of Marxism that undermine its ideological basis, calling one of the first systems trying to apply simple empricism to economics "unfalsifiable" is simply backwards logic.

Markets isn't Capitalism. Freed market anarchists are against wage slavery and landlordism, and recognize that Capitalism only came about with state intervention.

Wealth inequalities are irrelevant. No one should care that Chad has nicer shit than you, only that Chad is able to steal your labor, live with more freedom than you, and can control your life.

why are ancoms so fucking retarded god damn

...

the tankies aren't wrong tho

even the stupidest liberal compromised trot has better theory than anarchists famalam

they are savages that should be dropped of collectively possessed helicopters

Funny Engels should say that because his theory has done more than anarchists ever have.

name the last time marxists-leninists accomplished to abolish the law of value

Name the last time an anarchist left a goalpost in one place.

oh shit

Nice to see you are nothing but proof of how marxists circlejerk accomplishes nothing, you claimed that marxists have both better theory and have accomplished morte than anarchists yet you have failed to prove any instance where they did

several schools of anarchism have managed to engage in political economy praxis and are most are still functioning today, unlike every single marxist-leninist state

every instance to abolish the law of value using any form of marxist thought has ended in failure, this is a fact, feel free to prove otherwise

...

i'd be screeching too

No, you said an ounce of action is worth a ton of theory. So we will add together the ounces of tanks and tons of theory and that is the only way we can solve this debate.
In WW2, there were over 100,000 tanks made by the USSR.
Over the course of history, anarchist have produced a tiny little horse and cart with puny puckle gun on the back (to shoot at Marxists as they were escaping with their supplies)
I hope you have millions of tons of theory to counterbalance this action deficit.

Dual nature of "an ounce of action is worth a ton of theory" and "an ounce of machine-gun carriage is worth a ton of tank"

just like with the law of value kek

the law of action=theory*

Okay, if we're moving the goalposts again.

This is the glorious nation of the DDR (tanks related!), you might remember it from the end of WW2 and all the books and films you weren't mentioned in. It has a landmass of 108,333 km². Earth has a landmass of 510.1 million km². That is around 0.02% of the whole planet.
The Earth weighs 5.972 × 10^24 kg. That means Marxist-Leninists have done 1.1944 × 10^22 kg of action.

Checkmate, anarkiddies.

ftfy

The ton of action made by tankies was good tho, no amount of theory would have showed how much of a fucking failure marxism-leninism would have been

...