I am Anarcho-Communist

Agreed!

No, smaller than that. I'm on the west coast of Norway.

Yes, it literally does.
If you are going to hold up career criminals as paragons of your ideology, you simply have a shitty ideology that attracts shitty people.

All developed societies stretching back to pre-history have always relied upon the rule of law.
The fact that you are against law as a concept, shows just how childish and edgy you are.

Get the hell over your silly authority issues and grow up.

Oh the irony.

As much as I do like the term.
I have explained over and over again why it is inaccurate.
As even the thought of objective reality makes annarcho-kiddies run for the hills, it is not surprising that my counter points have never so much as been attempted to be disputed by your ideological ilk.

Again, ironic coming from an anarchist.

I think silly name calling is quite fitting for you anarchists.
It is just as mature as your ideology is.

Stopped reading there. Go to Holla Forums, faggot.

Are you suggesting that illegally occupying buildings does not make one a criminal?

Outside of the an-cap paradise of Somalia.
I cannot think of any other place in the world in which it would not be a crime - as such making the perpetrator a criminal.

Have you anarchists become so detached from reality that you have started out-right rejecting it?

Your initial post was just name calling and auto-fellatio. "I find you gross and I am mature"

You're such a cuck, do you recognize the property claims of capitalists to unoccupied/deteriorating buildings?

Fuck of weeb
anime fucking sucks

Thank you, Holla Forums.

Obviously I do not believe that they should have such rights.
However the reality of the current situation is that until the system that gives them such rights is removed, occupying their properties is a crime.

Holding up literal criminals as your 'comrades' is only going to accomplish two things.
Further alienating the working class that you claim to represent from you and making you all look like childish, edgy thugs.

shetland?

Stop writing like an autist

"Everyone who disagrees with me is Holla Forums"
Then why recognize them as legitimate? Why condemn people who don't?
And why is crime inherently bad other than "muh optics"? I'd even argue that the optics of occupying and maintaining abandoned buildings is actually pretty good. If porky won't take care of our communities then we will.

Wrong.

There is nothing to disagree with, you would have had to present an argument for that.

You just called me a 'cuck'.
A term associated with Holla Forums.

Because the state recognizes them as legitimate and the state derives its authority from its armed forces.

Unless you have the ability to challenge such authority, you are only left with impotent acts of 'resistance' that are just masturbatory in purpose.

I would condemn them for the same reasons that I would a dehydrated camel that refused to drink from a water source.

Anarchists clearly recognise that something is very wrong with modern society.
However rather then attempt to diagnose and address such problems to any effective degree.
They are instead content to impotently commit crimes and project their own personal issues regarding authority figures.

Simply put.
I find anarchists frustrating because you are half way there, yet you are content to stay in your own masturbatory mire, rather then advance.

If you have to ask why the rule of law is bad, I just don't know what to tell you friend.
Society is and has always been built on a certain degree of legalism.

Unless you are an An-Prim, I don't see how you could be against the rule of law.

Admitting that you don't care about perception by the people that you claim to represent really does confirm much of what I have said about your ideology.

If you only care about doing things to feel rebellious, then you are every bit as juvenile as I have said.

Sure, to people that share your ideology.
To the average person, you look like a bunch of violent thugs, at the very best.

If you do not care to model yourselves to be appealing to the public.
Then you are just indulging in some masturbatory LARPing.
A public that hates you is not one that is about to start singing the Internationale with you, friend.

Please do try and understand this, kid.
The average person does not want you in their communities.

If you have a group that is publicly committing crimes.
It is much more likely that you will either be arrested by police or shot by a group of vigilantes, then it is that you will be liked in the community.
Regardless of your motives, people do not want to live near criminal gangs.

I'm willing to found Ancompton with you, comrade.

I'm not responding to all of this shit. Please do try to be more succinct, and try to respond to whole arguments instead of fragments of arguments next time.

You're assuming that anarchists aren't effective here to argue that their actions aren't effective. It's circular as fuck, and it ignores much of the reason why squatting is even done. I think most anarchists will readily admit that squatting isn't a revolutionary act, and that it's done for more pragmatic reasons.
Wew, but law is only good insofar as it maximizes the freedom of the people living under it, and that clearly isn't the case in this situation.
Perception isn't the only thing that matters, and acting like it is will lead to a practical impotence in which you can't take any action because you're too worried about what people think. I obviously do care about perception because I went on to address this later on.
Lmao, bullshit. Occupying an abandoned building and taking care of it isn't thuggish in any sense.

Well that is to be expected.
Next time I will be sure to post a picture of police being murdered, shadow the hedgehog or some equally edgy shit to keep your attention.

Don't make posts with large numbers of things to address, if you want something succinct.

???

Please do tell my why you think it is done then, friend.

Because I can guarantee you any answer you give will not only fail to justify breaking the law, but will ultimately be very self-serving.

Firstly, no.
The law is of absolute importance as it is the glue that binds society together.

Secondly.
'Freedom' is a stupid meme used right libertarians to justify their rubbish.
What is important is maximising the total average happiness of the population - something that cannot be achieved in a 'free' society.
'Freedom' is a dragon to slay, not something to be striving towards or value.

That is irrelevant.
If you pick and choose what laws to follow, then you are directly attacking the social fabric.
I hate a large number of current laws, but I still follow them for the sake of social stability.

That's right.
However, disregarding perception results in an ideology that is content to stay powerless and masturbate over how rebellious it is.

While I do agree that it is not the primacy concern, public perception should be on your mind at all times.
Given how anarchists tend to act, clearly that is not the case.

Post-hoc justification is a different beast entirely from constant mindfulness, friend.

Please try and picture what the average person sees when they are exposed to your ideology.
Black clad tugs engaging in looting, assault and property destruction.
With the exception of other black clad thugs, you are not going to find many that support you.

It takes seconds to lookup the definition of a word, I invite you to try it out.

A criminal that is hostile (quite often physically so) to authority figures fits quite nicely with the definition of a thug.

Of fucking course any pragmatic answer for squatting will be self-serving, squatting is done to benefit the people/communities doing the squatting. Why shouldn't communities benefit from the buildings going unused in their areas?
Lmao, you're a cuck. Why is a conception of law as "the glue that binds society together" better?
Freedom isn't just a stupid meme. Why even be a leftist if you aren't concerned with individual freedom? What motivates your politics then?
No it isn't
Lmao, you're a massive cuck. Laws that prevent certain groups from benefiting from production attack the social fabric to a far greater degree than a victimless crime like squatting does.
You're again assuming that anarchists are useless to argue that their actions are useless and masturbatory. This argument is circular.
Your perception of anarchists isn't the perception of the average person. Most people don't really know or care about anarchism.
Using a dictionary definition to argue your point is dumb, especially since the definition you used here depends on anarchists being "hostile", which isn't the case for most squats. And if you pose a threat to anyone you could characterize them as "hostile", it's still ultimately down to subjective judgement whether they'e "thugs" or not.

Well in that case.
You have failed to justify breaking the law.
Self interest is should never overrule law.
Keep following that train of thought and you end up with 'sovereign citizens', 'egoists' and other assorted mentally ill people..

Because it is against the law to do so.

Yes.
I'm such a massive 'cuck' for placing the same value on legalism that the Romans, Chinese and really all advanced civilisations have.
The better part of humanity are all 'cucks' for not being as edgy as you.

Because it is objective reality?
If you do not have the rule of law, then you do not have society.
It is literally that simple.
As I said before, it would only make sense to oppose the rule of law if you are an An-Prim.

Sure.
It is also a dangerous buzzword.

I'm not, nor have I ever claimed to be a leftist.

'Freedom' is opposed to what is best for society.
The Chinese figured this shit out thousands of years ago.

Individuals should have autonomy.
However that autonomy must exist in a wider societal context.
Individual autonomy must never come at a cost to the collective.

Fundamentally?
A strict adherence to a combination of Utilitarianism and Positivism.

I'm not arguing that.
However furthering that damage by committing crimes and undermining the rule of law is not only more damaging, but it is far more dangerous.

I have to disagree.
As a wage-slave that interacts daily with other wage-slaves, I have a rather good grasp on what the average normie finds comfortable and uncomfortable.

I can guarantee you that some normie putting on the news to see a rioting tugs in black smashing up stores, cars, police and bins is not about to see you in any sort of positive light.

Every single neo-liberal party on the planet invests an incredible amount of money in finding out what normies are comfortable with and tailoring themselves to fit that.
That is a big reason why they have been so successful.

If you study them for any amount of time, you will see that normies like listening to people dressed in suits, not some black thug costume.
They react positively to people that are well presented and respectable, not people that go out of their way to be edgy criminals.
If you want pointers on how to get some public support, emulate the strategies of those in power.
Until you do that, everything you do is masturbatory as you will never come close to achieving your ideological objectives.

They may not, no.
However I can bet you that they would remember the black clad rioters.
Or the criminal gang that is occupying a place near their home.

Just because the average normie is unable to put a name to you lot.
Does not mean that they do not have a negative opinion of you.
People do not think very highly of criminals.

I disagree.
Objective anchor points are always the best thing to attach an argument to.

Oh really?
So you consider resisting arrest, rioting, assault, looting and property destruction to be non-hostile acts?

As anarchists frequently engage in such things.
They will ever make threads here to masturbate over the idea of doing such things.

If you think for a second that your average normie is going to see a black clad criminal gang and think that they are anything but thugs.
Then you are so deep in your ideology that you have lost the capability to look at things from outside that bubble.

You're a retarded bootlicker and your insistence that people should always follow the rule of law necessarily precludes the possibility of any significant change in the power dynamics within a society.
No it isn't, it's your take on what objective reality is. It's a value judgement.
Then stop posting on /leftypol, cuck.
The collective is made up of individuals, and as such the individual's autonomy is what determines what the aggregate autonomy of the collective is. Sacrificing individual autonomy in some areas to increase collective autonomy only makes sense as long as it actually does increase aggregate autonomy.
Lmao, a strict adherence to two of the worst philosophical positions. Nice.
""""""Objective"""""""". Lmao anarchist aren't black clad criminal gangs, so you """objective""" point here is invalid.

Wonderful.
I can see why anarchism is such a respected ideological position.
Keep reaching for the stars, friend.

As I have already shown.
It is your ideology that is incapable of effecting any lasting change on society.

My strategy for effecting change is very simple, clean and orderly.
Steal from the state the source of its authority.
Without the loyalty of its armed forces, the state loses it's authority and without authority, the state loses it's sovereignty in short order.

Go and stay go, subjectivist.

Firstly.
I have been posting on this board since its inception and have no intention to stop.

Secondly.
This board is not, nor has it ever been a 'safe-space' for just leftists.
Fuck off to reddit if you want that.

Ok, good so far…

Oh dear.
No, friend.
you seem to have missed the point of my message.

Autonomy is not what matters.
The well being of the collective is what matters.
Autonomy is a secondary thing that should always be kept upon a short leash.

There is no real point engaging you on this.
As I will equally object to whatever sad excuse for philosophy your ideology is based upon.

Now I'm going to break this down nice and easy for you, friend.

Anarchists frequently clad themselves in black.
As such they are 'black clad'.
Anarchists frequently break the law.
As such they are 'criminals'.
And finally Anarchists frequently group together, sometimes even live together.
As such they are a 'gang'.

So put that all together and what do you get, friend?
I'm sure you will be able to work it out eventually!

You haven't shown that, you've just baselessly insisted that this is the case over and over. Either engage with anarchism on a theoretical level or shut the fuck up.
Pointing out that your claims aren't actually objective isn't subjectivism, retard.
It's pretty funny that you're telling me to fuck off back to reddit with this awful reddit spacing in your post.
Lmao, I love the implication that autonomy isn't one of the most important things to a person's physical and mental well being. Self-actualization is very important friendo, and reducing people's autonomy directly prevents self-actualization from happening.
Also, please define what you mean by "the well-being of the collective" without referencing the well-being of individuals or individual autonomy.
Black bloc is a tactic, idiot. Anarchists don't only wear black, you're out of your depth and it's showing.
Even lifestylist anarchists don't break the law as much as you're implying they do. Lifestylists are more about their community and self-sufficiency than they are about "breakin' tha law xD".
People with similar beliefs of any kind associate with other people who share their beliefs. Would you call Christians a "gang"? Obviously not, that's retarded.

Weebs get the bullet too

Thread derailed by autistic technocrat…

Comraderery.

Just curious; are there any comrades in Normandy/Brittany?

After all, it wouldn't be a Howard post if he didn't find a way to insult anarchists.

Ancoms give good blowjobs

i'll be your comrade
during the next red Clyde side come and find me i'll be the one shouting ready aim fire once we have lined the bourgeoisie up against the wall.

I'll be the guy with the 155mm sniper doing the shooting.
Ancom here too.

I'll be your comrade, friend. As long as you don't mind me always listening to Žižek all the time

Rennes, ici.

I'm here buddy.

Lofoten?

In Austria

Maoists give awful ones, the one leftist girl I meet and she sucks at sex.

Ancoms are the best, nut in a second

did OP find any comrades yet?

this was written by that necrophiliac meme dog that that alt right chick made..
cringe.. you've never touched a marijuana joint have you? no way man, the stuff's illegal!

Interesting. I was just wondering, considering I live in the Channel Islands, if there was any comrades closer to me in France than in the mainland UK.

hiya comrade! ^w^

OwO what are you doing??

Ay yo more comrades representin

I'll be your comrade, at least until I get banned again

Someone get afroplasm. He is the only thing that can turn Howard_Scott's posts from unbearable to mildly entertaining.

Has howard even read the ego and it's own?
M8 the state's authority also comes from them spooks
Them laws don't dictate right and wrong

This thread is going to devolve into avatar faggotry real quickly ain't it?

Why were you banned?

How about you personally try debating me, friend?
I'm sure you can do it if you try!
I believe in you.

No.
If I wanted to read the mad ramblings of a mentally ill man.
I would go to a dementia ward and read what has been smeared on the walls with shit.

The states authority -as with all authority- is derived ultimately from the barrel of a gun.
As such, as long as the state has a large military supporting it, nothing short of another state can challenge its authority.

That is why my strategy for coming to power focuses on stealing the loyalty of armed forces away from the state.
This reliance on the armed forces is the biggest weakness that the modern civilian government has.

Sure.
However going out of ones way to break a law (especially publicly) is simply wrong.
Not because the law may have been just, but because undermining the law is undermining organised society.

The rule of law is paramount to society.
Even when the law is unjust or simply cannot help but to be broken, care must always be taken to ensure that the Form of law itself is not harmed.

Try reading a history book sometimes.

Try learning some reading comprehension, friend.
I was quite clearly speaking of contemporary governments.

Them ad hominems
Because the capitalist hegemony doesn't exist. People have authority because people ""think"" they have authority.
Spooky.

I was wondering where the inspiration for your posts came from.

Yes and I do apologise for that.
However I do think that it communicates the disgust that I feel for the man (or persona).

I would not read his work for much the same reason that I'm sure that you would not read any Shang Yang or Auguste Comte.

Well, no friend.
We are quite literally living under a capitalist hegemony.
Short of sticking your head in the sand, I fail to see how you could claim that we don't.

No.
The state has authority because they ultimately have the ability to enforce it.
If they lost the ability to enforce it, then they would have no authority.
Ultimately it all comes back to force and violence, "the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived".

Please do feel free to expound upon this.
Keep in mind that not everyone shares your (thankfully dead) meme ideology.

HEY COMRAAAADE!

How are disputes resolved in an anarchocommunist society? (There's no universal monopoly on force and there's no rule of law, so the easy ways of handing things in societies with states doesn't apply here.)

I'm still pretty new to this ideology. I'm reading the conquest of bread and I've been wondering if there are other good sources that talk about how (specifically) to bring about the revolution? How would existing populations/cities change or adapt post revolution?

It's kind of hard to speculate about this stuff since we're nowhere near anarchist communism and there's not really a shared consensus about this stuff. A common argument is that most crime will go away once capitalism is abolished, like it has in several of the nations who have attempted communism.
Google Bookchin!

Because you don't like the person, doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to understand what they're saying.
If we were debating about ancient Chinese history, I probably would. A key part of debating is the ability to understand the opposing side.
I was being sarcastic.
Right and wrong don't exist, they are social constructs made by man to constrict others. Ghosts of the mind, spooks.

Just to be clear, the only issue I have with ya, howard m8, is calling anarchists filthy criminals. I mean for gods sake your first reply is an ad hominem attack on their ideology.
Not all anarchists are filthy. The ones that do live in the "disgusting hovels" are either doing it to help those who have no other option or are there out of necessity themselves.

You seemed to have misunderstood me, friend.
My point is that I find his ideology objectionable on principle and would not want to spend my time subjecting myself to his writings.
Just like how I'm sure you would not care to read Shang Yang, as I'm quite sure that you would find Legalism rather objectionable.

You are quite free to believe that, friend.
However I personally disagree.
I hold that the Forms of both 'right' and 'wrong'. do exist.

Well obviously not ALL anarchists are necessarily criminals.
However anarchist squatters are by definition criminals.

With the exception of some rather pleasant IWW members.
I would describe just about every anarchist I have interacted with in person as 'filthy' in some manner or another.
On one particularly horrific occasion, I observed several anarchists actually jumping into garbage containers in-order to fish out food scraps - something I would most certainly consider quite filthy.