Explain this shit to me

explain this shit to me
why do you maintain that anarchoegoism is against capitalism?

Other urls found in this thread:

theconjurehouse.com/2016/11/18/the-stirner-wasnt-a-capitalist-you-fucking-idiot-cheat-sheet/
encyclopediadramatica.rs/Offended
youtu.be/fodrQUW0MKM?t=128
youtube.com/watch?v=F0mne8bAdiY
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_GDP_of_China#/media/File:GDP_per_capita_of_China_and_India.svg
infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionG6
mises.org/library/not-so-wild-wild-west
sredniowiecznaislandia.com/english-summary/
jakubw.com/2013/11/a-realistically-optimistic-scenario-for.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility#/media/File:Intergenerational_mobility_graph-1.jpg
epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/
trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=anarcho capitalism
youtube.com/watch?v=0IfRmkCxyk8
miasik.net/archive/tag/ip/
libcom.org/library/capitalism-communism-gilles-dauve
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/francois-martin-and-jean-barrot-aka-gilles-dauve-eclipse-and-re-emergence-of-the-communist-move#toc7
sinistra.net/lib/pro/whyrusnsoc.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

inb4 muh bootstraps

egoist is overtly above-average of course

No one claims that. Our claim is that capitalism is not in the self interest of the workers.

mhm and you know better than workers themselves what is in their self interest because much false consciousness

Class isn't an identity, retarded Standpoint Theory doesn't apply here, and no, obviously having one's labor exploited does not benefit one in any meaningful way. Don't be retarded.

...

Capitalism relies on the spook of private property.
An egoist in the vein of Stirner values autonomy from fixed ideas. Capitalism subjugates people to them.

Because private property is a massive spook and no egoist gives a damn about.

the logical conclusion of rational self interest is co-operation
see stirner's idea of a union of egoists, kropotkin's idea of mutual aid and marx's idea of class struggle

ancap is anti-individualist

And where did Stirner ever say that exploitation is simply "wrong"? Did you get that from a meme by a guy who got his info on Stirner from memes and so on? Maybe he said rather something along the lines of being a slave not being in your self-interest, and likewise with some other social roles.

theconjurehouse.com/2016/11/18/the-stirner-wasnt-a-capitalist-you-fucking-idiot-cheat-sheet/

/thread

It's against your self interest to be exploited. Who the fuck said anything about "wrong"?

Under this formulation the present state would always be in the self interest of all parties. What a banal "point"

that reasoning leads you no where as you can rationalize anything into being a spook, you could simply say that marxism does not offer what is in my self-interests no matter which position you occupy. The easy way would be to compare the real wages across countries with different political systems in the 20th century.

they way Stirner acted, it would be parasitic co-operation

I would have an honest discussion with you if you weren't posting gore for no reason

>you could simply say that marxism does not offer what is in my self-interests
You absolutely could
And that's why we argue that it is

the left button is ayn rand not striner

Society is not a zero-sum game, misanthropic jackass. We are greater than the sum of our parts.

you really drawed that shitty meme thing only to be told that Stirner doesn't gives a fuck about who exploits who.

But he is sure as hell that those exploited should just embrace their egoism & fight back for their own individual welfare.

as seen:

it took you all that effort to just fuck off back to Holla Forums with nothing. What a retard hahahah.

But any abstraction can become a spook.
Even fucking Sonic lore. It all depend on one's relationship with ideas, more than the ideas themselves.

Fuck, you finally figured it out?

I don't think he even read any of Stirner books.He is retarded thinks Stirner is a "socialist/communist/marxist" lmao.

giving Stirner any of those identities or the identity the retard likes (i.e. Capitalist) is so dumb.

This for fucks sake.

Since I'm part of the working class the capitalist exploitation is against my own self interest.

prove

if i get rid of morality why should i baww about much exploitation proles?

i do

not always u moron

it is an opinion, egoist doest not give a shit about opinions of others

what about
?

is not it?

encyclopediadramatica.rs/Offended

she embraced morality u moron

why? why did he value happiness of proles more than happines than higher class?

bosses work too u fucking moron

imagine being this much of a retard

ok now tell me how much $ should i have to be considered borgouise

Class is defined by your relation to means of production, not your salary.

this nigga

everyone is a mean of production in service economy

Let me just conjure food and housing out of thin air. Totally don't need farms or factories for that.

protip: sell your labour to buy food and housing

pro tip: get your homies, grab your rifles & get rid the "boss". Do whatever you want with the means of production for your individual(s) self-interest(s).

protip: think of the reasons why today we have almost no co-ops
because they are outcompeted by hierarchical firms

Most people do not own private property. It is against the self interest of the majority of people so it is rational for that majority to be against its use and wielding

Do you believe all previous systems of governance were equally beneficial to all who lived under them? If not, then the other statement does not follow.

there you go you said it yourself.
hierarchy.
state.
capitalism = state. gn retard.

is my house with garden private or personal property?

where did you take this from?

only weak ppl fear hierarchy because they are at the bottom

Personal

You'd be surprised, my work is extremely boring for large stretches of time. But if he's not willing to learn then you're right and I'll be done with it

yeah, just go read some book you're interested in. this guy is still a manchild, until he grows the fuck up he won't learn anything.

govern your own slaves not other free ppl, live and let live

capitalism

The capitalist exploitation of the worker is against my self-interest because I am a worker, not "morally wrong". You are an illiterate bootlicker who believes socialists think in terms of moralism because you obviously don't read. Tell me why I should defend porky's property rights when I stand to gain nothing for it without resorting to some form of moralism in the form of "muh theft" or "muh natural rights".

You do realize we are critical of liberal feminism because their idea of justice is just "more female CEOs lmao" right? We want to abolish the throne, not become the new king.

oversensitive sjw detected
also
boss is a worker too

it is totalitarian feminism not liberal one

XD ebin

>>>/incel/

anarchy = pro capitalism

Commies are just too stupid to get that freedom cannot exist without capitalism.

homeless ppl in capitalist countries live better than normal ppl in communist countries

Why do you have a child's understanding of anarchism?

lol

Alright OP, if we're whipping out the witty images and starting to argue in bad faith, let me ask you a few questions

Why do you support pedophilia?
Why do you support selling drugs to kids?
Why do you support corporate tyranny?
How are taxes not a form of rent that the government charges you for living within their sovereign territory?
How is exerting property rights over a huge territory not a state?

if capitalism means hierarchy for you then 2 sexes mean hierarchy for you too?

To be fair, why don't you? Were you never a kid before?

Why? You some kinda humanist, anti-science faggot? How gross.

Here OP, get BTFO
theconjurehouse.com/2016/11/18/the-stirner-wasnt-a-capitalist-you-fucking-idiot-cheat-sheet/

I know it's you, crypto-ancap faggot.

The value of what I produce is greater than what I am paid back in wages, the surplus is privately appropriated. I engage in this activity in spite of this because the means of production are privately monopolized. This phenomenon is fundamental to this mode of production. I want control over labour and the surplus I create because it is in my self-interest. The sjw buzzword would be "oppression". Exploitation as used by marxists and most people is purely descriptive and not moralizing. I'm saying this for the good of your brain: read more books please. Come back when you've cured your illiteracy.

most people here*

it does not harmy anyone

volenti non fit iniuria

???

it is not legitimately owned because it was stolen

see above

it was simplification

tldr

are you living in 3rd word country?

Like everything you think, eh?

Go figure the faggot who constantly posts about how we need to stop the de,generate sexual minorities would think something so silly and still have the audacity to use an anarchist flag.

i did not write that only 2

Nice spooks nerd. I though this was about egoism being in support of capitalism.

this spook is beneficial

you are fucking braindead, kill yourself crypto-fascist

I'm a tankie for not rejecting organization instead of opting for post-left smashie bullshit?
that's homophobic dude, reported to the thought police
that's not me, jackass

nope
i care about environment and im not a commie

You're a sick fuck, you know that?
Non-adults are completely socially and intellectually developed now?
Corporations and governments collaborate yet your solution is to just let corporations reign free and replace state power with private institutions.
How so? The modern nation-state evolved out of feudal territories.

nihilism isn't so much post-leftist as it's divorced from the left, born in a vacuum and such.
Well that's who the "ancom" who keeps calling me an ancap is.

Mises praised fascism. And see pic related.

Privatized rights is just another way of saying muh privilege. Whenever we want to take away muh privilege, you screech. If you have more money, then you have a higher advantage of obtaining property. You are born with life, and born with liberty, but the right to private property ends the right of life and liberty.

Yes, but in the first world. Where do we get all our goods from that make the first world possible? Pic related

Too bad that quote was said by Gregor Asser, who was killed by Hitler's Government.

Property rights are always state enforced, dumb anarkiddy.

He's about as anarchist as you are communist.
So like, not at all.

shut up normie

no

yes

not every property owner agreed to be included to state

im not mises and yes hitler was a socialist proofs youtu.be/fodrQUW0MKM?t=128

privilege is sth granted from state

youtube.com/watch?v=F0mne8bAdiY

ok lets destroy state and see if property rights are maintain

Sure. when you're child slaves revolt against you don't expect the police to intervene.

Thanks for proving us right.

Sweatshops are unfair do to the employers taking advantage of desperate people. If people are desperate, then higher the price they are willing to buy. The same rule applies to wages, the more disparate they are of wanting a job so they do not die, the more they are willing to accept low pay and harsh conditions.

i think most ancaps do not think that child of a slave is a slave
i think most of them do not acknowledge slavery as being ok with NAP, they are ok with subservience tho

property is not a muh privilege
also picrel

Collective and personal property are not.
Private (as in, stolen) property definitely is though, it's a position of muh privilege over the people who you necessarily must exploit to maintain a form of property defined by its exploitation.

...

...

no one forces ppl to work for burgoueise

it is opression if you have no other option

it is not opression

You seem to ignore my argument here

"Work or starve, you have the choice!"

...

fortunately you do not have one employer on market as in communism

Being a bootlicker for your boss is real shitty egoism. Have you tried actually reading stirner if you want to reconcile him with capitalism?

Stirner's definition of property is vastly different than anything compatible with capitalism. In capitalism property is a fixed idea. In legal standpoint you can very well not own a particular thing but think you do (eg. your facebook account), or legally own something but be unable to make use of it. For Stirnerites owning means using. One thing can be used/owned at the same time by multiple people. Ownership is not based on any legal allowance but action.

...

...

Good god, read a book you illiterate retard. Communism and markets/wage labour is antithetical. If you have one you do not have the other.

im to be self employed

But in capitalism, all the employers want to exploit you. The free market is a slave market.

Holy fuck you're retarded

yes in communism you have duty to work or you are killed

also communism ends as state capitalism, always

you can go to co-op

lmao

Shit ancaps say: People who don't work are lazy. Everyone should work and stop being a parasite. But communism is bad because it wants everyone to work

Market does not exist without state, because private property and trade commodity requires legal status to function.

But how can co-ops compete in a free market with the domination by the big corporations?

communism is free time and nothing else
no you fucking can't. co-ops will inevitably be forced to adopt abusive business practices in order to stay in business

Was meant for that

this is how communism looked like

ancaps do not want to be coerced to anything

so why we have international trade yet no international state?

so co-ops are not productive enough? sad!

you forgot about unicorns

ruling class are socialists

???

All systems rely on violence, so it is petty to be complaining about it. We do not care if oppression is peaceful or violent, we just see it as oppression.

Which Striner would press the left button since it is something he would never agree with. Not like he would press the right immediately too though

Except communism.

liberalism is totalitarian fam. totalitarian ancapistanism.

do wages exist in ancapistan?
oh vey, the libertarians know, shut it down!

defeating capitalism is going to require a lot of violence user

Neo-cons: Let's bomb socialist countries like Iraq, Libya, and Syria in order to have global capitalism.
Ancaps: That's stupid, we should just do that peacefully.

Ancaps are no different from neo-cons, both want the same thing.

all international trade functions based on trade deals procured through corresponding states. state is well within power to lock out private proprietors from dealing with other states

Defeating capitalism and building communism will be two different events tied directly to each other.

I like how it outright admits that ancaps are just misanthropes who see democracy as mob rule and just want an oligarchy.

So productiveness justify exploitation according to you?

Stirner would have spit on buttons and made up his own goddamn mind.

wow ancaps r dum

I'm not a Stirnerite, but the basic gist is, unless you're a bourgeois yourself (and there a 99% chance that you're not), your self interest as a wage worker is antithetical to that of the capitalist class. Therefore, capitalist exploitation of the working class is wrong because it entails that you are being exploited.

pic unrelated

what if someone wants to be "opressed"?

when ppl tried to do communism it finished extremery violently inb4 not real communism xD

maybe in the usa

we will see

i respect choices of other ppl (commies included) unlike commies

black market too?

it is not exploaitation if it is voluntary

No. That was state capitalism. inb4 it wasn't.

Here, I have some voluntary spanking for you. I'll just tell private court you liked it.

"Be exploited or starve! But if you choose to be exploited it's not exploitation then!"

[citation needed]

Literally made up by the BIG BLACK BOOK

That's what I wanted to say fam

how many times implementation of communism must fail in order for you to realize that it will always fail?

classes are spooks

they will not be killed and they can get food from bins

...

you realize you are a liberal on steroids right?
You already tried this, faggot. Material conditions are not spooks.

drug dealers are legitimate businessmen with special legal status and zero tax rate, without state there is no black market as well. cryptocurrencies are legal only as long as the state allows it.

you can rely on charity

im right wing

so homosexualism is not a spook too?

so what is their legal status?

were you literally born yesterday
dumpster diving and handing out food to the homeless is illegal in many parts of America

The successes of capitalism relies on sweatshops and the exploitation of the poverty stricken countries.

what is voluntary

Normal people aren't killed in communist countries you moron.

The executions under Stalin's Purges and the Cultural Revolution were almost exclusively other communists, state apparatchiks and certain elements of the intelligentsia. Normal people were not killed.

i do not support current system

kys sjw scum

go to dictionary

Solid argument here. You still haven't dealt with class being a material reality, btw.

so in ancapistan you can go dumpster diving for free? Won't you get shot by private security forces for violating muh private property rights?

I'm a nihilist, I recognize that building communism before destroying everything else first won't work. This is why I advocate destroying everything except communism.

i visited dictionary, sounds like some metaphysical mumbo jumbo with no basis on real human interactions

Ancapistan is whatever the ancap wants it to be.

What is a liberal?

im not normal person

we will see

you are cryptocommie-altruist-sjw who wants to seem edgy

right wing

"Crony capitalism" is actually pretty redpilled if you ask me. Think about it. The politician and the businessman voluntary exchange goods and services.

The taxes go into bombing socialist countries and to kill leftist scum

if you aren't smart enough to use the state to benefit yourself then you are too dumb to run a real business. Besides, i'll be able to buy more goods at cheap prices, and my customers will be happy.

Why should I care about my competition? I am strong, and they are weak. Why should I give up my profits so my competition can steal my customers away?

...

Ok user

uhm, I'm not a mirror

Ancapism is a big psyop to get nerds to defend actually existing capitalism.

And yet by declaring something as your private property you have effectively treaded on the rest of the world. Ancaps are just half past six anarchists

according to european definition yes im sort of liberal

politician does not exchange his goods

using a state is immoral

I see linking to a video of a half baked conspiracy theorist counts as evidence these days. No need to show that they abolished value form of eliminated the wage position and private property, ITS SOCIALIST BECAUSE THIS TARD SAYS SO

neck yourself

here goes your stirner out the window m8

He exchanges services aka laws

There is no morals in capitalism you dumbass. It is amoral. What matters is profit and that's it. If it benefits me the individual to use the state to profit personally, then I will do it. Trying to make the majority happy by making things fair makes you a socialist.

You're spooked, user. Study the history of the American labour movement.

"Be exploited or beg!"
Wow, what an improvement.

bydło tire

i do not care about you feeling offended lol

but he has monopoly on it

we need certain mentality in order to maintain ancap

what for

you cannot get rid of morality

To see something of market morals in action.

If capitalists shape the monopoly of power in our favor then no socialist will come into power.

Can the "crony" state capitalist change his flag (for rethuglican as example)? It's becoming confusing to follow.

Boss isn't usually owner. Why are you posting limp one liners about an ideology you don't understand?

Fine, you commie scum

crony capitalism is kinda socialism :/

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

Define socialism.

Thanks, porky flag is perfect.

Socialism is when the means of production are owned by workers. Crony capitalism seeks to use the state to prevent this. Ancaps wouldn't stand a chance against socialists uprising; especially if tankies rise in power. You need to end the revolution in the bud. We must use the state to our advantage in order to save private property.

And?

...

i do not know how about you but i live in generally service economy
marxism is outdated

and i would have been killed by commies for being queer

statism is socialism

And where do all the goods for those services comes from? Sweatshops
I keep going back to the same point yet you don't seem to get it into your head.

For real?

So you don't know what socialism is, I'm sure you think about social-democray or even Stalinism.

Production is always most important. You need food and stuff.

Indistinguishable from a troll.
So for you, humans have been socialist since agriculture, and they were protosocialist communitarian hunter-gatherers before that?

You keep assuming only the first world is capitalist or something yet stop where all the goods come from. Our problem with capitalism isn't in the first world alone but the whole world. Capitalism has two fronts, the producers (exploited) and the consumers (Exploiters). They are divided by countries (first and third worlds). The successes in the first world rely on the sweatshop and exploitative labor of the third.

Since when Nazbol gives a shit about third-world? Aren't they subhuman according to other Nazbols?
Are you sure you're not some kind of Maoist?

co tam na kurahenie

...

A bit of a ramble bu bear with me. I've been Nazbol for a long while but slowly moved away from nationalism and racialism over time. I still consider myself a nazbol in some regards but I believe in a month or two I'll just be a communist. My attitude toward immigration greatly change seeing that neither letting immigrants in or baring them our will solve the underlying problems. My conclusion is that only a global revolution can solve these problems and by that point national almost seems like a useless thing to support.

but workers can expropriate "bourgeise" via state

poor nations become rich thanks to factories etc. see china

good luck working in production for lowest wages

dej kmk

now suddenly you can make a living having your own human capital only, you do not need machines like 100 years ago. wake up

And I believe you're already just a communist, you should really drop that flag right now, comrade.

Like I said, indistinguishable from a troll. Read C4SS to balance out the Mises institute lectures.

Can you believe that two years ago I was a ancap? And today, I drop all aspects of rightists two years later? My past self would be in horror.

...

Only the owners of those factories becomes rich, the workers stay poor.

I hope OP will becomes like you even if it must take years.

Uh, no.

The state doing things isn't socialism. Socialism is the means of production being directly controlled by the workers. This can be done through the medium of the state, but that doesn't make everything the state does some form of socialism.

so why chiese ppl are not poor now?

They are.

Because the chinese people you're talking about are not workers, they are owners or managers.

Take a look at statistics

you too

...

bere ar da proofs :DDDDDDD

What statistics?

That a "middle class" grows around industrialization?

Sure, but that doesn't mean the basic factory worker is treated any better.

The argument isn't about being poor or rich. It's really about power. There was a time in the American south where slaves could pay to be free from slavery. Here, they are far richer than African Tribes. Yet, under the African tribes, the members had power over their tribe. The free slaves had no power over their nation when they were freed. What we want is the worker to have power over his community, and to run it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_GDP_of_China#/media/File:GDP_per_capita_of_China_and_India.svg

middle class = factory worker
no?

i do not want to be ruled by proles

so socialdemocracy is not socialism?

lel

I guess you're talking about the raise of wages, that's absolutely nothing compares to rise of profits that owners have made on the back of the workers. You should take a look at statistics too.

And why are you defending China anyway, do you like Authoritarian State Capitalism now?

I told you to read about the labour movement, fam
Indistinguishable from a troll. How much of a narcissistic do you have to be to believe that you're right in your criticism of ideas you clearly have no understanding of? Jumping on the first alternative politics you see and learning nothing about opposing systems is silly. Step up your game.

this is how it was in the usa 50 years ago
average worker could feed his 5 kids and nonworking wife
thanks to capitalism

borgoueise should have profit because it is he who risks his commodities not being sold and not making profit- he has to pay wages to workers despite commodities not being sold at protif

...

Too bad. You will be ruled by the proles and the peasantry. I do not care if it is peaceful or violent. Ancaps like to say that we do not understand economics. I say to you, that you don't understand politics. Politics is about obtaining, retaining, and making power invincible. This is done first through peace but the foundation is violence. All system, whether capitalism, and socialism relies on violence. To defend and to be vigilant of oppression. That is all. Ancaps like to be petty about violence, yet even their NAP relies on violence to a certain extent. Of course, it is "just" in their eyes. But it is also just in our eyes to take away the bourgeoisie' property. It is irrelevant and petty to whine about voluntary exchange. In the end, I do not care about it.

No. Chinese factory workers don't have it any better. The "middle class" pops up in the form of the bureaucracy that forms around this large-scale production and the petit bourgeois that pop up to provide services in large population centers. The factory workers' lives are not made any better by industrialization.

thanks to capitalism when the labor movement was still strong, long before neoliberal deregulation and privatization

You're using the USA fifty years ago to support le magical market fixing everything?

nah, we want full gommie abolition of work and money

...

Yes.

Social democracy is a form of Keynesian liberalism. It isn't socialism.

Social-Democracy is Liberalism with a strong welfare state.

But it's the workers who make the commodities, the bourgeois don't do shit, if the workers could collectively run the factory, they would not need the bourgeois anymore, but in capitalism the bourgeois needs the workers.

XD

so why factory workers in the 50 had high wages etc in the usa?

wikipedia says you are wrong

Are unions a legitimate market force?

Not an argument

Social Democracy is not the same a Democratic Socialism.

Another Ancap lie.

in 13 years it will be 50 years of le magical market ruining everything

in ancap?

wikipedia says socialdemocracy is part of democratic socialism

see categories

we live in socialism now

Read where is says not to be confused with Democratic Socialism

Sure.

If we pretend that anything you decide is socialism is socialism.

It's related to socialism. The other poster has highlighted the important part. I can't imagine what the inside of your head is like if the category is more important than as clear a statement as that.

i wish

How so? I would like to here how we live under socialism. Even you said we are mostly a consumerist society in the west. How can we live under socialism where the means of production are owned by the workers when most of the production is outside the west?

yes

because we have no real private property today, everything is collectivised

ok i'm done here

If you keep responding after this post you're a fucking retard.

surely this guy is just a masterbaiter not even ancaps are this retarded

not an argument

What does that even mean?

But that has been the case for a long time.

well yea it's an insult

that if you own a plot of land you have pay tax to state so you kinda just rent it

So you must be retarded..

Ok everyone loves ancap baiting but enough is enough.

kys commie scum
go to north korea

The fuck has this got almost 240 replies?

Land value tax is not fucking collectivization, I'm not gonna explain you everything about politic and economy.

You don't know what socialism is, and you don't know what collectivization is, so you probably don't know what capitalism is too, you're just an illiterate anarchist who (according to the memes you keep posting) comes from Holla Forums and that took the last internet trendy ideology.

...

do not tell me what to do with my children commie

Because:
1) Unions were at the height of their power in the mid-20th century.
2) There was a labor shortage in the United States. There had historically always been a labor shortage in the United States up until the 70s, but this was greatly increased in the post-WWII United States, where the US was the only power to have its productive capacities completely unharmed by the devastation of the war. This meant that throughout most of the mid-20th century the United States supplied Western Europe (as well as areas in other parts of the world that now-destroyed European factories once served), creating a massive demand for factory workers and an incredibly competitive labor market in favor of the worker.

This, however, was not something built to last. Industrialists dropped American workers at their first opportunity and no amount of free market magic is going to cause these conditions to return.

...

Enough.

Not as if people can hunt on state or private land without interacting with the state or private property owner

Detroit's economy fucking up and left it. The Democrats are shit, but the fate of Detroit had nothing to do with them.

Mfw I can no longer tell if ancaps are shitposting or being honest

Maoists are fucking retarded. The Kims basically own everything in North Korea.

who do you cite?

you both benefit

People call naturalistic fallacy on this because this sort of ancap logic only works in some kind of fantasy land, whether you're some kind of Robinson Crusoe on a remote island, a farmer in the middle of nowhere or the last man on earth, it has nothing to do with our current reality. It's an attempt to establish some kind of "natural law", a sort of secularized version of Divine Right or the Great Chain of Being, where capitalism rules on a mandate from "nature" and all of its shortcomings can be handwaved as being somehow an immutable part of "nature".

ancap exists where mutually voluntary transaction exist

this is embarrassing. stop throwing a temper tantrum.

The difference between socialists and communists saying it is not real communism or socialism is vastly different compared to capitalist doing the same thing.

When we say that it was "Not real" we give an objective definition that we can all agree on. That is, the worker ownership of the means of production. We all agree on this definition but has different interpretations. This is why ancoms and marxist leninists keep getting into heated debates. Even the Marxists leninists and ancoms give real world examples of socialsim and communism. If there are negative aspect, they critique and try to improve it.

This is unlike ancaps. Their view of capitalism is so vague and subjective that is can mean anything and thus can never be wrong or have negative sides. It is just simple "Free exchange". Even in communes, there is free exchange of goods. Your definition can make you move around the goal post into saying "Capitalism has never been tried". At least socialists and communists admit they have tried in the past.

communism is totalitarian because it wants to exterminate any other way of economy
it is the antinomy of liberty

Capitalism also exterminates any other way of economy. What's your point?

capitalism does not ban collective ownership

...

Does anyone have the anarchist version of this?

Yes it does. Pinochet?

So was feudalism ancap? After all, peasants would "voluntarily" swear fealty to their lord in exchange for protection.

Not him, are you saying chile under pinochet was ancap? How fucking retarded are you?

Keep it up OP, it's funny to see a pack of commie brainlets collectively throw a 3rd-grader temper tantrum while trying to hidet their anger poorly

kys pussy

i ment lessie faire capitalism

not really because all the land was monarch's

All land was privately owned by the monarch.

did he get the land peacefully?

Capitalism didn't get its land peacefully either.

crony capitalism =/= free market capitalism

has free market capitalism ever existed :thinking:

...

"Free market capitalism" is an impossibility.

Capitalism spread itself through violence. All capitalist property only exist because state violence made it possible sometime in the past.

Just a reminder capitalism cannot be human nature if capitalism never happened.

All land is "privately" owned by the state. Nice logic you literal fucking idiot.
Holy shit, forget "basic economics", communists literally know nothing about basic politics. Commie thought is just one long succession of retards making up their own social theories equally completely ungrounded in reality pretending their knowledge is legitimate and that they're not retards because they back up each other's retarded statements. This board is a joke. remember when it got absolutely btfo by a literal reddit?

Seriously dude, you're a fucking idiot.

yes

state is a threat to property not its defender

when my dude?

private property is a threat to personal property, not its defender

...

r u ok

Not this meme again. Crony capitalism is the inevitable result of a free market.

iceland, wild west

how?

you howhow me first on how state is a threat to property

ah before capitalism existed. And where they had slaves.

Fake news, link me some actual historians claiming this ty

Nah dude, I'm just having a flashback to that one time this board pissed it's pants and threw a pathetic temper tantrum because even reddit wouldn't let it in. pretty funny.

im happy for you

infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionG6

Sums it up pretty well. Although i really don't understand how you can interpret Stirner as pro-capitalism

you cannot shot trespasers in europe because of state

mises.org/library/not-so-wild-wild-west

Adam Smith, one of the earliest capitalist economists (in fact, he was the one who coined the term "capitalism") noted capitalism's dependency on state violence to maintain itself.

-Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

Ancaps don't even understand foundational capitalist literature, much less "muh basic economics". Go back to reading your neolib propaganda.

it is crony capitalism

so clearly free market capitalism doesn't work since rip the wild west

You mean when they had slaves or when there were a big welfare state?

Oh, you mean the time-period who's most iconic figures, the cowboys, were cattlemen who didn't give a shit about private property and Old West Porky (the ranchers) had to get big daddy federal government to apprehend them?

Gold.

it works but it needs NAP

I mean it clearly doesn't since it fuckin died no spook can save it

All capitalism is "crony" capitalism.

...

(you)

ancap defense league turn up

Isn't that from the comic that ended because the author was a schizo who thought she saw saw some redditor outsider of her house and then threw a childish fit?

/liberty/ pls

I was once libertarian. I could look myself in the eyes and not see a libertarian. I could join a group of libertarians and there will be no libertarian. To this day, i do not believe libertarians exist because all of them claim to be the real one.

sredniowiecznaislandia.com/english-summary/

we need change in mentality for ancap

who are you citing?

I have literally never heard that before. There's no foundation to that claim.

yea you need to accept it doesn't work, every real free market society died

If we're alone on an island with one stream and I mix my piss labour with the stream first, are you going to peacefully accept this state of affairs and work the land on my island for a share of the crops you raise?

Got me, that meme is the epic new way to say "downvote" for all your reddit uhh.. I mean Holla Forums pals

...

jakubw.com/2013/11/a-realistically-optimistic-scenario-for.html

no such thing

Why are you ancap rather than mutualist?

just go full Pinochet you cucky

Socialist. I mixed my labour with the stream, you moocher fuck.

i feel bad about expropriating ppl, and i disagree with proudhound because i do not hate every hierarchy

t.bootlicker

Okay then.

Nobody but absentee ""owners"" would be.

He has been selective in what he answers through the whole thread.

i want to buy plot and do nothing on it because i want to observe wildlife, will i be expropriated?

No she just wanted to do more widely appealing art and felt like she couldn't make time focusing on a niche comic that just leftypol reads
I hope one day she decides to pick it back up

No, you'd be using it.

...

what if i go to vacation?

i love you, do you have a youtube channel?

Every time.

yes i do

link it my dude

i do not want to be doxxed

??

Hard to get doxxed from a youtube alone my friend

Proudhon comes back to cuck you you and sets up a workshop.

That shit.

yes life is not just but free market makes it more just- if you work hard and are ambitious and have predispositions you can climb social ladder

So the state is stopping this from happening atm right?

yes beacuse of minimal wages etc

how good was the social mobility in Iceland

ask mr gogłoza

There has always been modes for social mobility. In the Roman Empire, there were methods for slaves to earn their freedom and for non-citizens to become citizens. Under feudalism, peasants could join guilds, the clergy or become squires. The mere existence of social mobility doesn't justify the system.

i agree

im asking you were is the proof that free markets improve social mobility. Did the wild west have tons of it?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility#/media/File:Intergenerational_mobility_graph-1.jpg

epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/

So the welfare states of scandinavia has higher social mobility than the US?

How does this prove your point again lul

uk is more free market than denmark

Read theconjurehouse.com/2016/11/18/the-stirner-wasnt-a-capitalist-you-fucking-idiot-cheat-sheet/

Ancap explain to me how intellectual property would work in ancapistan. What can you do if someone "steals" your immaterial property, like Music (rights), Movie (richts) or innovation? Can you shoot them? Can you sue them efficiency, without the need for a coercive state and thus crony capitalism? Because if not, you'd have no Music, Movies, Software, Games, etc. since everyone would rather torrent the stuff than pay for a license. Also, industrial espionage (or any kind of privacy invasion or stalking for that matter) wouldn't be illegal, so there would be no incentive to innovate, since you can just copy someone elses patents for free.

You know you can't sustain that, especially considering that there is no method to ensure the websites doas promised.

Also, what ca you do against permanent banckru bankruptcy? Let's say I pay my pension or insurance all my life, then suddenly th company goes bankrupt (PR scandal because of who knows what - maybe something related to social justice or a smear campaign by a competitor - why ? Because it's profitable, and that the only thig capitalism will do). The next day I break my leg or something, but can't get the money to get well again. What now? My insurance is gone, I'm broke and free because I don't habe to put chicken in my chicken soup or something like that. Same applies for pensions.

It's all nonsense, and nobody outside of the US is even remotely interested in that. Just stop being an embarrassment. Half of your replies are just memes, the other helf is worse. Capitalism, the way we use it, is a mode of production. Something you don't care about, since it's all a distribution dichotomy, and that's the only problem. Having the abstract "freedom", to choose between two or more options - a market. It's a abstraction, a metaphor, a ideal - and as sch won't an can't exist. Anarcho capitalism is hence the futile attempt to adapt the real world to the flawed assumptions of (neoclassical/bourgeois) economic and the super human conception ofnthe " homo economicus". And you say we don't know anything about human nature.

You dont understand the graph, the lower the number the higher the social mobility

epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/

so how does this prove your point lul?

if it was online and someone downloaded it you cannot do anything about it

how come we have perfume industry and design industry yet no intellectual property there?

depends on specific agreement

im not from the usa

????!?!?!

pls respond to me why you post graphs you dont understand and how stronger the welfare state is= higher social mobility

proven by the graph you posted btw ty

Extra note for >>1788115:

Anarcho capitalism has to be borderless. If not, outside (non NAP respecting forces) will rush in and take over. No random mish-mash of uncoordinated, voluntary gun-owners can protect themselves from a professional army. Therefore for anarcho capitalism to exist, no governments are allowed to reign - ignoring the fact that the conditions for governments to form still exist.

So, without borders, and assuming the inevitable feudal system hasn't set in yet, anyone can move anywhere they want - and get employment. In fact, it's even better - they have to. But since there is a far grander demand for jobs than are offered (everyone is competing with everyone after all), the global wage-level will be equalized. And think of how that would look like now. The mean wage of Africa, China, India competing with Europe and the USA. Even within Europe there would be great problems, looking at the difference between northern and southern wages. Plus, child labor is profitable again (nobody is punishing you if you do it), so families might just send their children to Bangladesh instead of going to school, since otherwise they would just starve. It's profitable. But of course, the child will stay in poverty since he doesn't have any relevant skills and is probably illiterate. Good luck living beyond 20.

So we have a international game of people, competing with each other to get some wage, to survive, mass migrations to where ever wages provide a minimally better life, total freedom to fire anyone, abuse them or anything else, because they signed a """voluntary""" contract, and they totally have the freedom to go work where ever they want to. But at the same time, every business can fail, due to the most random reasons one can imagine. So much for a stable economy, everyone will trust and invest in.

It's obvious that none of this will ever be implemented - the people who are currently in power would never want it to happen. Your only role is to ensure orthodoxy in libertarian parties, making sure they don't start getting more realistic and allowing certain (obviously necessary) market regulations.

What strikes the normal person as obvious, evades your mind totally: the government isn't here to provide the best possible service, in the way markets would. They are only supposed to ensure stability and preserve the conditions for a economy, where nobody has to fear that their fringe private currency might loose all it's value tomorrow, their bank might be gone for good, or all the businesses in the region might move on to somewhere where it's more profitable to sell. These aren't the circumstances for a market to flourish. In fact, the opposite, ie. stability is exactly what all your "market success stories" are based on. Do you think people would have founded Apple or Uber if they had to fear for their life? I doubt it. Your level of hypocrisy is unimaginable.

That's what I'm talking about - you sell me a song, I upload it on piratebay. As you said
Nobody will give you any money, you'll make a loss on your production, and as such, since it had become unprofitable to make music (movies, games, etc.) they won't be produced, no matter the demand. Since paying customers don't exist. And why should anyone pay you, if everyone is born into a utilitarian, materialist (in the bad sense), profit-maximising mindset, not caring about anything that won't be of a benefit to exactly an just them? Ignoring the fact that there won't be a state to ensure the propaganda flowing, through schools and so on

1. We don't live under anarcho capitalism???
2. What does the perfume industry have to do with anything? Are you talking about formulas (here we have the intellectual property), which can be copied, especially if it's profitable to do so?
3. Same applies to the "design industry", except if you implied something else nobody understood.

There is nobody to agree or disagree with. The company you made a deal with is gone, has vanished, nonexistent. You've lost all your money, and can't get it back, and will die now because you have to pay for health care. But since your choice to do so is totally voluntary, there's absolutely no chance anyone will try to rip you off at all. Ignore the UK before the NHS. That's totally not what it's going to be like.

Sidenote: if you unironically conciser this a voluntary choice, taxes are voluntary too, since you have the permanent freedom to kill yourself at any time you wish.

But according to google trends, 100% of the searches on "aanrcho capitalism" come from the USA: trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=anarcho capitalism

I know special snowflakes like you exist everywhere, but ancapism still is only "relevant" (in a relative sense) within the USA, since they have a retarded hate of governments anyways.

Excuse my polemics. I was making fun of the ancap conception of a market, in the most abstract form possible (choosing between two or more options). Hence all the stupid analogies like "marketplace of ideas".

youtube.com/watch?v=0IfRmkCxyk8

these industries thrive having no IP

they should be taken to court for not abiding to agreement

taxation is extortion, commies can set up co-ops to escape "exploitation" and i cannot set own free territory legally

coops wont escape exploitation read Marx you pleb. Also i want more graphs you dont understand

because rightwingers will work in hierarchical firms?

Read Marxs critique of Proudhon. Also can we agree that clearly welfare states increase social mobility and free markets do not. As you say britain has a freer market than the US and lower mobility. Good graph good graph

no, you tell me

You are in desperate need of reading anything when you post graphs that disprove your statement

My point wasn't that industries can only thrive with IP, but certain industries cannot exist without. The degree to which you misunderstood my point is astonishing, which explains my response.

Who? The bankrupt company, with no more money? And you except them to pay? Great and successful economy ensured.

Not even related to what I was talking about, and since there is a conversation already going on about this, I'll not comment.

Also, why are you ignoring vast pasts of my posts (and misrepresenting or derailing the rest)? What about ? Anarcho capitalism is the easiest ideology to argue for, since whatever the issue is, you just have to say the market will do it and assume the economists are right. But you still fail miserably at it, and if you weren't that dishonest and stubborn, you would have given up a long time ago. **Which you have the freedom to do at any time, btw''

what?

they can sell their organs

If you had been reading along, you would remember my examples (from ):

1. You only have so many organs to sell
2. Try telling that to everyone, and still except the market not to be overflowed with organs.

Just pathetic.

funny because maciej miąsik- famous polish game developer is against IP

This is the worst case of a anecdotal evidence fallacy I've ever seen. Not only do you not mention any of his arguments, or cit him saying something related to it, but you post no information about this allegedly "famous" game developer. When you google him, half the results are in polish, so I have no idea what the argument is even supposed to be.

You're basically saying "someone else has a argument, so my position is ok"

Again: pathetic

google translate u moron

Give me at least a source or a article where he talks about it, before I translate everything I can assume he wrote.

Pathetic.

miasik.net/archive/tag/ip/

While I try finding an argument in between all the articles, could you so kind as to summarize his position or the position (you too seem to hold) in general. Remember, the thread in anchored, so times running out.

Or any articles where he talks about the points I've made.

I saw this quote in one of his articles:
And frankly, it has nothing to do with the objections I raised.

if you pirate a game you do not steal it because someone must lose sth for it to be the case of stealing. and it is not certain that these ppl would buy if they had not possibility of downloading illegally

Is that seriously everything? Thats once again entirely unrelated to what I'm talking about (if it is actually everything). I'm not arguing that is is or is not illegal (or should be), I even put "steals" in quotes in my first post

My argument is coming from a totally amoralistic position, I'm not concerend with what's right or not. All I'm saying is that without IP Games, Movies, Music would be distributed for free over Piratebay or whatever, and the producers would have a very hard time to make a profit, regardless of whether it's "actually" illegal or not.

Pathetic.

monty python's dvds skyrocketted after making their movies publicly avalible

That's a nice statement you've got there.

Assuming your argument is "Monty Python making their movies public, and experiencing higher CD sales, means that whenever a company would do this, they would sell more CDs":
- You're ignoring the whole context. Usually companies don't do this (if it were profitable, they would be doing it), so their "kind gesture" was well revived by loyal fans.
- They are Monty Python - not a no-name series, but one of the most famous comedy shows ever - it's not naive to assume they have a bit of a benefit because of that

why only the famous benefit from this phenomenon in your opinion?

I'm not talking about any law or regularity here. I'm saying this was a very specific example, within a specific context, that doesn't necessarily mean that it would work for everyone everywhere whenever they tried to do so.

Or do you actually believe that this would be the case, even if everyone gave away their stuff for free? Under anarcho-capitalism, the last grain on non-comercialized relationships would eventually fade away, and all of human existence would be geared towards one and only one goal: Profit for the sake of Profit. The kind of empathy we still do experience, like in this case when older actors publish their old movies, without any real risk in the end, would probably be far more weaker, since everyone would be born into a
(From )

So if you would please stop evading my arguments, ignoring more and more of them, sidestepping and deraling, can you then just admit that there is a intrinsic problem with intellectual property and capitalism, where at the same time it is necessary but it's also impossible to uphold. If you do so, you've admitted to yourself one of the contradictions of capitalism - with hopefully more to follow.

wtf are you talking about? it is obvioous strawman

It's a bit hyperbolic, I'll give you that, but I still insist that that is fundamental to capitalism (as a mode of production). Or do what exactly are you disagreeing about. How is this a strawman, because you know, you can't just shout out some fallacy without explaining why it's relevant here.

capitalism is for plurality of mentalities unlike totalitarian left wing ideologies, i support capitalism because i like diversity

We're talking about a mode of production, sweetie. And regarding that, you have still not brought up a single point.

Strawman, because you are assuming all "left wing ideologies" are the same, or at least the same in their aspect of being totalitarian, which you don't further elaborate, and leave me having to assume and guess what you're talking about

Could you elaborate? Diversity of what? All if see is formal diversity, nothing essential. What company can reproduce itself in a method other than producing profit to sustain itself? It seems pretty un-diverse, if you ask me.

in capitalism mode of production be like in socialism (co-op) but do not steal. but commies just want to pretend they work and get money and in capitalism they are outcompeted by traditional firms so they bawww much opression

You're grammer is getting worse and worse, so I have no idea what you are trying to say.

I'll try to reformulate what I am understanding, and you correct me if I'm wrong:
>A capitalist mode of production would be like socialism, with co-ops, but without theft.

Also, try reading this, since you seem to lack very elementary knowledge of what we are trying to talk about: libcom.org/library/capitalism-communism-gilles-dauve - even if you disagree, knowing the opponents side better, is always a plus.

capitalism does not ban common ownership of means of prodution, but the thing is that co-ops fail on free market usually- what proves that traditional firms are better

Capitalism doesn't "ban" anything, the way a state would. But it is mutually exclusive with society as a whole owning the MoP and using them for for a social good, and not the individual good of those who own it. Because, you know, co-ops aren't socialism. Again, read the article.

+ Where did you get that co-ops usually fail?

ah so every bourgouise must be expropriated in every part of earth for socialism to work?

I'm too tiered to go through all the standard gotchas and strawmen, so I once again beg you to read the article.

Nowhere did I imply anything like that, I'm guessing you were just waiting for me to say something along those lines to spit out some baseless accusation. If not, please explain how you got the that conclusion. Also, please stop the retarded formulation - eg. "for socialism to work" - it has such a negative baggage, brining with it tons and tons of cold war memes and assumptions that are just based on propaganda and the same paroles one hears over and over again.

i read somewhere that in order for communism to work whole earth must be communistic

I'm pretty sure that if a communist wrote it, he didn't phrase it that way, since while I might understand what he would be intending to say, people like you would interpret the wrong message.

The point is that capitalism, in an effort to save itself, will always try to crush communist uprisings, as we've seen in history over and over again. If at war, the already established force (capitalism) would have a decisive advantage, for I believe obvious reasons, in the same way feudalism had a advantage against capitalism (at first). So it's not a issue of for "communism to work" (again, I'm assuming you're thinking of the USSR here or something), since the same if true for capitalism. What's special about capitalism, is also it's permanent will to expand, meaning that it will, wherever the circumstances exist, for wage labour to take place and production for exchange is viable, go there and take over. In fact, one might argue that if these conditions still exist, capitalism was never overcome in the first place.

So we see it's a far more nuanced issue that you tried to make it out with that crude statement, even if I just wrote a short paragraph. If you intend to know more, again, I advise you to read the article. I've even linked it as a pdf. And here's another link: theanarchistlibrary.org/library/francois-martin-and-jean-barrot-aka-gilles-dauve-eclipse-and-re-emergence-of-the-communist-move#toc7 ! It's really not that hard to read it, and it will help you understand what you're arguing against, much easier and more efficient!

via ppl selling in communism goods for money in black market?

So you are talking about the USSR? Read this: sinistra.net/lib/pro/whyrusnsoc.html to find out why the soviet union (and all it's satellites) were capitalist.

Long story short: if markets do arise, especially if it's not just people trading stuff they don't even need for survival, like clothes or games (which doesn't stand in conflict with communism - we don't indent to abolish trade as such, but with production for exchange additionally, we want to get rid of trade being the fundamental part of society which coordinates it's productive process. Two people swaping stuff in their free time, is not our concern nor our problem. We don't care)

Oops, forgot to finish my sentence ^^:
we haven't overcome capitalism, as a mode of production, no matter how planned the economy officially is. Don't fall for the trap of believing black markets were a subversion of the USSR - they were an integral part of it's operations.

hm maybe capitalist states attack communist ones because communists murder own citizens

1. You know they couldn't care less. How many other states have committed genocide without capitalist interventions
2. "Communism" is still stateless, but I get what you're trying to say "the alleged socialist regimes of the cold war"
3. I'm talking about uprisings, not states in the quote you took from me. This is anything from the Paris commune to enlightend modern day strikes
4. Don't ever belive a word Marxist-Lenninists/Tankies/Stalinists tell you

how many?>>1789085

Look, you're obviously either trolling or have no interest to honestly participate in a conversation. I'll leave you with these two pictures, and once again a strong with and recommendation to read "Capitalism and Communism" by Dauve. Either way, at least for now it makes no sense to continue this conversation, since it's late where I am, and I have to go to sleep. I'll check by tomorrow again, to see if you actually bring up any worthwhile points, so this isn't necessarily over, don't worry.

it is not capitalism fail that some niggers die
the problem is that capitalism is so productive that 1st world countries send aid to africa and niggers breed like crazy and even ebola and aids cannot help

Fucking ancraps BTFO all over this thread.

yea who gives a fuck tho. just ban all of them for being socially retarded.

Threads like this where capitalists are BTFO actually strengthen my "faith" in leftism, though. I want them to keep it coming. But to each his own. But I can see how it can get irritating. I'm actually new to leftism, so I need to be reassured. I'm still trying to educate myself, but I can't decide what to read first a lot of times.

where was i btfo?

This. An egoist capitalist will seek to maintain capitalism, and an egoist prole will seek to abolish capitalism.