I propose a compromise, a type of anarchism that libertarians, nationalist and communists can get behind. It will be called Anarcho-Centrism or AnCen for short.
The basic tenants are fuck the state and fuck immigrants. Every community handles property rights, currency and markets differently so there's plenty of room for economic experimentation. Any opinions?
This is what ancap can be summed up to: just balkanize a country and pretend you haven't created many little states
google bookchin tbh
Oh look its accelerationism.
Everything that shits things up is accelerationism.
How about going back to the OG synthesis of capitalism and socialism, the fascism?
You can't have fascism without a state though
You can, since the corporations(syndicates of fascism) would be autonomous much like the communes that Marxism tries to build under its socialism.
Fascism is as capitalistic as it gets.
No, since its eliminates the freedom of markets and shapes them according to national interests, until national corporations are autonomous enough to take over.
Fascism seeks to perpetuate class and maintain the status quo. Capital doesn't serve meaningless abstracts like "national unity", it only serves capitalists.
No, fascism seeks to end social classes not via violent revolution but with reforms that make poverty impossibility and class cooperation in the interests of the state apparatus.
While the capital itself does not service these goals, it can be made to abide by them with control over markets and key industries.
...
It can and it will as a tactic its no different form democratic socialism.
Except its not a tactic, its end goal isnt socialist, its capitalism with intervention. In fact the whole reason fascism rises is to prevent socialism, not enact it
that flag.
Hate to break it to you guys but there will always be hierarchy and thus, class. This will never change and has never been able to change. You will be stuck as retarded virgin losers forever. Might as well abandon hope and noose yourselves.
How can it end classes when class collaboration only reinforces the antagonisms between them?
.
...
Are you Porky or are you just one of his underlings?
Because clearly you probably benefit from the people getting only more poorer.
You fucks are making me want to become a tanky day by day. If you don't remove the bourgies, you'll never be free and you will never save the people.
You'll only exploit them even further.
You certainly possess the brain of a neanderthal.
Just permaban me then.
I only wish nothing but suffering for the weak and sickly men like yourself to whom nature must run their course.
read a fucking book. We're not advocating going back to that, you said hierarchy will always exist, i proved that it hasn't always existed. We invented it and therefore we can uninvent it. Except this time we will keep the technology
You didn't though. Your own example actually even proves you wrong, because even those many thousands of years ago, before people even made farms, they made a fence to indicate their property. Communists literally btfo.
...
...
Where's the proofs?
Fascism exists to subjugate the working class and rob us of self-determination, the only way it might manage to end social classes is when automation reaches the point that the ruling class no longer needs workers and simply turns us into soylent green, not exactly the future most of us would like. All throughout history the ruling class has treated the workers like shit and you're a fool to think that would ever change as long as classes exist. Just look at Trumpcare for example- it's pretty much designed to cull the poor so the wealthy can have even greater wealth.
You are a communist though so being retarded isn't far-fetched for you.
ok cite an academic source proving hunter gathers had bequeath-able private property you illiterate fash
BASED MODS
Alright, this might be a stretch for a literal cuck like you, but if you have a man and his harem living in a shelter - and another man comes along and wants to get in on 'some of that,' he'd probably have been slaughtered outright for infringing on the original man's property. This is nature, observable in all creatures and even primal civilizations today.
Weak communal herd animals like you would die in natural order.
...
...
He's strawmanning. Since primitive communism could only satisfy the basic means of subsistence, it did not meet the preconditions for private property to appear. That did not happen for thousands of years until the rise of productivity thanks to the discovery of agriculture and cattle breeding.
...
Fighting for territory and your shelter designates it as property.
Wrong again.
People went on to create all of these terms and continue the behaviors that developed into the earliest societies because of all these natural behaviors.
You can't be forced by your parents to marry a person if you are not property.
...
This is why you should never talk about something that you are entirely ignorant of.
...
...
...
Recommend looking into the code of hammurabi, cuck.
marxists.org
READ
A
MOTHERFUCKING
ANTHROPOLOGY
TEXTBOOK
YOU ILLITERATE
PIECE
OF
SHIT
I bet you think Wolves don't have concepts of territory either, literal cuck. Other Wolves don't infringe on each others mates without a fight.
This is ownership, demarcation of property.
I know you are a petty slave that will never strive for something better who wishes to be fed on the scraps of men better than you but nature doesn't work like that.
lol
Was the stage of history which happened right AFTER hunter gatherer society
...
Why don't you link us to sources on lupine behavior user, so that we can all be as knowledgeable as you
Monogamy is not the same thing as a title deed to a piece of land, factory, warehouse.
its a book, just because its hosted on marxists internet archive doesnt change the content.
You literally held a "title" to your wife. If you left her you had to return Dowry to the family, retard.
There is a relation. Thats the point. The evolution of various forms of society
You think wolves have private property? fucking WOLVES? I mean i know there was movie called the wolf of wall street, but you're aware that he was a guy, not an actual fucking wolf right? Animals can own property now? Well excuse me imma go ask my pet dogs opinion on the best hedge fund. /thread gaiz we really got btfo
Are you dumb? Animals mark territory.
Posession =/= ownership. You can posess personal property because you can defend it yourself, that's not the same as private property, you can personally control a bit of land that's not the same as owning something in absentia. In order for you to own something more than you can personally defend, that requires a third party to defend it for you i.e. the state. And the state didn't exist in primitive society hence neither could private property.
...
Books kill fascists, unfortunately, no one reads today.
That was a very well thought out and cogent argument. You didn't just assert a bunch of claims. You deserve a (you) for that, now run a long and play with your friends the grown up need to talk.
Marxists are so stupid, keep stroking your neckbeards over how nobody reads but you, dumb faggots.
neck yourself
Keep being gay and stupid. Your revolution of weak failures will never happen.
...
Is that you, Sargon of Akkad?
Again, i say, read some of our actual theory before criticizing it.
infoshop.org
section B.3.1
Lol.
Ever read a book? Writers constantly use words in new ways to refer to previously undescribed phenomena, language's relation to reality is tricksy like that. You literally ignored his post to throw down the dictionary like a little spastic.
Explain how referring to a specific thing is in anyway 'fundamentally incorrect' argument, you fucking retard.
Keep ignoring the posts though, that's what you right-wingers are best at.
Real talk what's the difference between ownership and possession? Am I a brainlet leftist?
A dictionary is not a textbook on political science, economics, or anthropology, and it really isn't the best source to get a nuanced definition or explanation of anything.
And that page cites other sources extensively. Which you would know if you actually read through it.
Since your so fucking confident in the ability of fucking google dictionary to tell you everything you need to know about anything, lets do an experiment. Here's a picture of the google dictionary definition of the 'integral'. Now here's an integral. Explain how using only the information in that dictionary definition, take the definite integral in the section of the second picture. Go on, im waiting, professor dictionarius
cringe
Once again your poor grasp of the English language has slighted you. What you posted is an equation, an integral equation to be specific. It is not itself identified as simply 'integral' since the word is only used to denote for specificity. Such is what dictionaries exist for, you should try owning one sometime instead of reading sad anarchist FAQ pages.
Ok ill one up you. Use any normal english dictionary definition of any related word (calculus, etc.) and using that information, show us how you'd solve that equation.
Okay kid.
rationalwiki.org
So what you're saying is, you can't learn calculus, or any other complex field of human study just from fucking dictionaries, because its complicated, but you think quoting a dictionary is an adequate source to explain paleolithic society, or the institution of private property and its historical evolution?
get reckt
What I said is pic related.
...
Stop. Stop right at this instant. I think you should check the carbon-monoxide values in your apartment. Something must be wrong, I'm worried about your health.
Are you really too dense to understand the difference between personal property and private property, and the logical explanation of why you can't own property in absentia, because that requires a state to enforce property rights? There was no state in hunter gatherer society, thus there was no private property in the modern sense. Are you really too dense to understand the a colloquial definition given by google dictionary is not the same as its use as a technical and specific term in political and anthropological theory?
Since you're just stupid I'm going to move on.
Using Wolves as an example of this nature we speak of, the Alpha(much like the human world) creates the demarcation lines for behavior within the pack. If another wolf attempts affection from the females he is reacted to with violence to enforce this boundary of territory, this should seem very familiar to you, much to your chagrin.
The pack creates borders they protect, but more importantly adapt a hierarchy. Boundaries of property are drawn, especially individually exclusive boundaries that aren't shared between the pack, and uplift the individuality and strength of the alpha.
inb4 >b-b-but all cavemen were marxists
Yeah, no. Sorry kids.
...
...
For the last fucking time, 👏google 👏dictionary is👏 not👏 the👏 authoritative 👏final👏word👏on 👏the👏definition👏of👏private👏 versus👏 personal👏 property
Yes, the term possession in colloquial use can refer to ownership, but as with many, many things in life, a common use of the word is not the same as its specific use in a technical sense. All of your equivocation with regards to the semantics of 'possession' are just a way for you to ignore the actual historical and anthropological argument being made.
Answer the fucking questions: do you deny, that in order for you to own property more than you can individually protect, you need a government? and do you deny that there was no such government/state in primitive society? If you can understand that, you can understand why we say there is no such thing as private property in hunter-gatherer society.
Oh, and by the way: The concept of alpha males and all the fuss around it was trashed ages ago, in 1999, as it was only observed in captive and broken communities. The wolf collectives observed in nature comprise commonly of a male and a female accompanied by their offspring.
en.wikipedia.org
Your argument relies on the false belief that if a society requires definitions for a behavior or concept to exist. If you simply ignore that humans have fought over territory and possessions for its entire existence then you can say, in your deluded belief, that humans behaved in a marxist fashion. They didn't.
Dominance hierarchies exist throughout a great number of mammalian species. Denial of this won't support your Marxist interpretation of nature.
pinniped.net
No, that's what YOUR argument relies upon, your the one arguing from dictionary definitions
answer the original question: Do you deny that you need a government that enforces property rights in order to have private fucking property? Yes or no
Trick question. Not all governments are states. Hoppe and David Friedman, among others, elucidated nonstate systems of property recognition, protection, and maintenance.
As for property in and of itself, see: "Private Property from First Principles".
...
Ok, let me rephrase, do you deny that you need a third party of enforcers in order to have control of property beyond what you can personally protect?
NO QUARTER FOR THE ETERNAL SOCIAL FASCIST
When? Where? Marriage rites and traditions vary wildly from regions and cultures.
But he's still right. Monogamy isn't the same thing as a title deed.
lern 2 sage
Of course this gets ignored, just like the rightist cucks ignore everything that displays just how fucking ignorant they are.
God you are so easy to BTFO I'm sad you have somehow tard-waddled your way into a bunch of other "leftist" tards. These people didn't have private property as in they didn't have a means of production that was owned by someone and worked by someone else. This has almost never existed throughout human history, and is a recent, widespread occurence. This has almost entirely came about due to the rize of Industrialization. A house that is occupied by the owner is only private property in the modern sense, as no distinction is made between private and personal property. A house owned by a caveman would be personal property. To say a caveman owned any means of production or even had someone working under him on a means of production is severely retarded, seriously neck yourself you retarded motherfucker. Get the most impolite sage for this terrible thread you somehow made worse.
Can you really be an immigrant to a stateless community?
Ethnicity and government are two different things
posting this here because it triggers people
what about actual socialist fascists?
...
Swastika goes the other way, you faggot.
That's called Voluntaryism. It's a cop out for ancaps that realize their ideology is shit, and say "hey, at least WE let people do whatever they want! That's good, right guys?"
um, no lmao
Do it. Go full tankie. I did. Make no apologies for your communist views. Once you do, you realize how stupid it is arguing with people that are your enemies.