REDDIT ANCAP SOCIAL EXPERIMENTS [GONE REVOLUTIONARY]

What if they become intelligent enough by doing the same exact thing except for Ancoms? Let's look out for a post called "Who's In Favor MUH BREAD LINES?"

In an Anarcho-Capitalistic society nobody cares how you run your company, whether it is a co-op or not, as long as you don't impose your ideology on others. If your co-op works better than the non co-op ones then people will start copying you, if not then people will be more hesitant in trying a co-op in the future.

This, it sickens me how modern leftists are just a bunch of nihilist degenerates

Your Holla Forums is showing.

Wasn't really funny. Felt more try-hard than anything. What's worse is that posting that shit and laughing at how dumb they are without demonstrating TO THEM how dumb they are defeats the purpose altogether. All you've done is reinforce their ideology while passively mocking them with people that agree with you; it's circlejerking by, ironically, pretending to circlejerk. There are people gone enough to actually believe absurd, contradictory shit. You need to agitate them more.

This is something I've been asking myself.
There is nothing wrong with traditions voluntarily being kept right? Shouldn't there be a balance between social conservatism and cultural liberalism? You know the knew and the old?

There is nothing inherently good or bad about a tradition. It's wrong to say "we must keep doing this because it's tradition" and equally wrong to say "we must stop doing this because it's tradition". Being tradition is not a reason to do something or not do something.

I agree. Traditions shouldn't be seen as an authority and people ought to always be critical. But they can be nice and comforting. If it is seen that something traditional is lacking or blind to the recently discovered reality of some aspect, it should be modified to keep it modern. I just don't think it's a good idea to ditch everything because everything of old is "stupid and bla bla bla". If this happens, people will get lost. The ways of the new and old should be balanced and not in conflict. That's what I think. How about you?

Traditions are fine insofar as they don't contradict greater principles people abide by. If you believe in "freedom" then you shouldn't restrict people based on tradition. Personally, I'm about individual liberty and freedom and shit, so no manner of tradition should keep back an individual's agency and self-determination. Traditions themselves are not fixed, they change with time to fit the greater cultural context. Thinking culture is static and something to "preserve" is fundamentally misunderstanding how it works.

So can a leftist be a social conservative (if I'm using this correctly) in the sense that he'd like to see the continuation of cultural practices but wishes to end class division and of course, wouldn't make any distinction between people of other cultures? I.e. he wouldn't impose anything?

I agree. I'll add that enshrining useful practices in tradition and other spooky cultural values can be a good thing. Most people don't have the time, energy, inclination, or ability to pick apart that sort of thing and reason about best practices. As long as you have people who take care of that part to critique the system (and the rest follow along instead of clinging to obsolete traditions or ditching useful ones), it should work fine in theory. Such is the nature of specialization.

Moral values have material basis. In first hunter gatherer societies, if the valued trait was strength, there could have been a ritualistic cannibalism of old and weak, and it would be completely moral to them. Even if it did not actually happen.

Today the moral code also serves to solidify the private ownership of means of production of the bourgeoisie.

So the future moral code must respect the principles of movement, progress and revolution, not hold it back. Again the moral code would obviously have basis in material, and would inspire progress. And it would definitely be obviously stating that we should all try to get along.

The principles of social and economical progress cannot be held back by man made arbitrary rules. If that is the case, obviously contradictions happen, which in turn are the cause of movement towards progress.

Maybe the word progressive has been stolen from us, because as the word suggests, it means to be for progress(real progress, not just some vague illusion that the ruling class allows you to have). How many of those who call themselves progressive are not guilty of being regressive?

No, not really. By uprooting the economic system you would really screw up the culture as you knew it (the superstructure is determined by the base). I'm not so naive to think that we would be in a utopia afterward, and some things might be preserved, but most things would reorganize themselves. I think leftism is necessarily socially liberal in that it aims for liberation of ALL oppressed groups, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, sexuality, or whatever, under capitalism; they're all united as proles. That's not to say you can't preserve aspects of tradition (e.g., food and home life), but most other things would transition to a new form.

I guess I would have to ask what kind of "cultural practices" you want to preserve.

Well I guess you're right. Let's say this group of people like doing this particular dance once every month and have certain dishes they like to make along with specially decorative attire. After the emancipation, this can continue right? There will of course be no authority bestowed upon these tradition to prevent people from doing whatever they want. And some people in these groups would like to see this continue so they introduce their children to these things. Is that conservatism? I'm confused as to what it means to be socially liberal and socially conservative. Is it about what you tolerate, prefer, impose or what?

I think "social liberalism" is precisely that that allows you to conduct and participate in such traditions without someone coming in and telling you that's "wrong" because it conflicts with their traditions. I've yet to see an example of "good" social conservatism; for all I know about it, it's stuff like banning abortion, keeping marriage strictly heterosexual, preserving the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. Social liberalism is not about infringing on anyone's rights (e.g., to refuse abortion, to be heterosexual, to say the Pledge of Allegiance), but it's fundamentally choice–to choose to get an abortion, to marry whoever, etc. The proponents of conservativism seem to have this weird notion that morality is deeply tied to the current cultural order and that "progress" undermines that order and is thus a kind of "degeneracy."

If I'm wrong here, let me know. I've seriously never seen "social conservativism" referred to in a positive way, low-key racists notwithstanding.

Yeah, I'll have to read about it because I just don't get it. On multiple videos, Chomsky has called himself conservative and alleged that the self-described conservatives of today have twisted the word to mean reactionary neocons. He implies that the word conservative has lost its traditional meaning but again, I just don't get it what it means.

Here's one of the videos:
youtube.com/watch?v=ujDltzATwk0

Why are you people talking about social conservatism and traditions?

Hahaha because I wanted to see what other people here saw in it. I don't really get it so it's reading time.

Oh. Yeah if you're talking about Chomsky and this outside of the US then it means something totally different. I think social conservatism is more like "classical libertarianism" abroad (actually, yeah Chomsky says this). Conservativism, in the US (where I'm from) is basically "anti-progressive," neocon, neoliberal stuff. Same stuff happened with "libertarian." So basically "social liberalism" in the US is at least partly the same, though I think there might be some subtle differences between them.

Why do yankees have to make things so complicated?

Not "complicated" actually. More like childishly oversimplified through twisting of the social and political narratives by media. Tons of nonsense issues become crammed into two camps ("right" vs "left," "red" vs "blue," "conservative" vs "liberal) to give people something to fight over, meanwhile, both camps quietly push shitty neoliberal agendas. Politics in the US is like sports.

Except "works better" means makes more profit, and takes not heed of worker's rights or well-being, environmental consequences, how communities are affected, how consumers are affected, etc.

I wish more leftists were a bunch of nihilist degenerates.

I am!

Lose the beard fam

reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/4idbre/weve_been_infiltrated/?sort=confidence

They got mad lol

I'm a modern leftist, though I'm a Buddhist, so I suppose that strikes off the "nihilist" label and the "degenerate" label if you're referring to excessive indulgence in sense-pleasures.

...

...

Why does everyone get so butthurt about the slipknot shirt?

I havnt worn it outside in years, it's just comfortable. Do I really have to get all dressed up to do vids? I thought the fact I was the leftist excused me from having to do that.

...

just do your videos nude in the future

...

...

yeah. Problem?

I like all your others videos but that was kinda cringy cuteboy

Today, I was confronted with such SICK religious indoctrination. I had to look at the Christian Commie flag and an image of Kierkegaard again! I shouldn't even see such filth, people should just pick sides and learn their fucking place.

It's almost like they're doing this deliberately

Straw man fallacies falsely reduce arguments to absurdity. Aynclap logic is, in fact, that stupid.

Coopts cannot work in capitalism, cause in capitalism sharks are eating each other, and the own that is eating more smaller fish wins.

The less you exploit workers the less profit you get.

Nowadays, it's even, the less you exploit consumers the less profit you get.

And coopt, would be bought off within a few years, if it didn't go full capitalist.

still nomenclature

A Bretty good vid, overall. Your comedy need A LIIIIITLE more work.
And now, to technical stuff.

The music was more than fine, BUT!
You should have it a bit lower, so that it doesn't mess with your voice being heard.
You should cut it, when you become serious. At the end it prolonged it's stay too much and became annoying.
You could use different voices, or give more emphasis, when you are quoting the texts. It makes it more clear and produces better comedy.

Do one for pol, but not immidiately, or they'll be suspicious.

This is the silent majority tbh. How the fuck isn't this a thing?

Well since in a co-op workers aren't exploited they would receive the highest wages, compared to the alternatives where they are exploited and thus receive less wages, so they would rather join your business. You could even use this as a marketing point:
Nobody is forcing your co-op to be bought, if you don't want to be bought up by the greedy capitalist then don't do it. If he is selling his products at a much much lower price in order to drive you out of business, then just buy as much as you can and sell those products somewhere he doesn't have a store.

This video should have been five minutes long, tops. Work on your editing mukey.

When the fuck are you gonna have me on Bunkerbantz?

ayy

Shocking.

...

...

Nope. Learn what surplus value is.

From what I understand surplus value is the profit(or surplus) that the capitalist takes by exploiting the workers. Am I right?

Yea. Being paid a wage of any size while the person paying it still profits is exploitation.

This area is too white, let's diversify it.

it's not really funny or achieving anything

Ok so if all the profits are either fairly or equally distributed among the workers then they won't be exploited. It also means that these workers will have the highest wages available, thus attracting a lot more people to your company, among which are the brightest and the most hard-working available.

Well then it's not wage it's collective ownership.

Not operating for profit makes a difference as well.

Well the original argument was that co-ops could not exist in an anrcho-capitalistic society and I tried to argue that co-ops could exist. Though you might not be the same person(it's not as easy without ids) that said that. Do you think that co-ops could exist in an An-Cap society?

The reasons I gave for it to exist was because, if workers truly are exploited under the capitalist then they would rather work in a co-op that paid them the full value of their work. They could also marketeer it saying:"Nobody was exploited in making this product for you!" or something similar. I guess they could also voluntarily give a part of their value for the firm(repairing a broken window, opening another store, buying an extra vending machine, etc.).

The problem with co-ops under capitalism is that workers need to be ruthless and give themselves worse working conditions/lower wages to compete with traditionally run companies who are more prepared to go to any length to make a profit. Because of this co-ops normally dont do as well because believe it or not workers dont want to give themselves worse off conditions. The whole reason they join a co-op is to get better pay and better conditions. Under the capitalism we have today it seems some can get by, but I think in a free market they just wouldnt stand a chance against the unregulated mega corporations.

I don't see why workers would need to give themselves worse working conditions. to compete with the traditional firms. If both firms sell the same products at the same price then workers would rather work in a co-op since it gives them a wage equal to their entire value. If the capitalist sells a product cheaper, because he sells the products at a loss, then the co-op could just buy as many of those products as it can, and resell them in another place where that firm doesn't. If the capitalist sells a product cheaper, because the capitalist invented a new method of creating the product cheaper then you are out of luck.

Normally they sell the product cheaper because they have lower wages though.

OK, but why would anyone want to work in such a place, if co-ops would yield higher wages?

Because co-ops cant get better business so either cant stay afloat or, as their wages are based on how well they do, end up not being able to give their workers better conditions in the first place.

People don't always buy what is cheapest. Some people will buy healthy and organic food even if it's much more expensive than the artificially grown food. Some people will also buy from the co-op just to feel better since they think that at the other companies, the workers are being exploited. So there will be business. Now of course you might not get a monopoly or become a mega corp, but I don't think you are pro monopoly or pro mega corps.

What does that mean? That workers are lazy and don't produce enough to have better working conditions? Couldn't they voluntarily put together a part of their value to buy an air conditioner or to repair a broken window?

Yea but the majority of time they do. You can have co-ops of any meaningful size depending on 'organic food' or catering to people like vegans. There will be some sure but, ultimately the vast majority around and actually available to people will be traditional companies,

What does that mean? That workers are lazy and don't produce enough to have better working conditions? Couldn't they voluntarily put together a part of their value to buy an air conditioner or to repair a broken window?

I'm saying that if you have one company laying off workers and giving lower wages to allow them to have lower prices, other companies need to follow or find other methods to lower their prices, but it will usually be by doing the same thing. If they do not, they will go out of business eventually.

Coops however are not going to want to reduce their own wages and working conditions or lay off their own workers because they're run by the workers. Hence they will be unlikely to be able to compete in a meaningful way, or if they can they can it defeats the point of having a coop in the first place because they have just as shit conditions as the other companies in order to compete.

Sure! I AM!
But unregulated markets create monopolies and megacorps.

See how WW2 happened.

Crisis, trusts and megacorps.

Here ill put it in porky's terms for the an-cap-handicapped.

My farm abolishes slavery, we are a bunch of people who don't agree with the institution of slavery.
We are in the minority among the free-people so we get shafted at every opportunity.
We collectively own the means of production.

On the other side.

This other farm has many MANY slaves working for barely any sustenance, the supposed " inefficiencies and safety-nets"
that an-caps presume (invisible NaP self enforcement) don't exist.Slavery is fully institutionalized and accepted for the profit of the big players involved.
The big players among others subsidize some form of enforcer-police.
The cost of these enforcer pales with the profit extracted by herding people almost like cattle.

Our free-men farm is always struggling to keep up with our competitors technological advancements, since we perceived as an ideological threat
it makes it very common for the slavers to boycott us.
On the other hand, we have to subject ourselves to labor processes equal or worse than that of the slaves to keep up in the production of product.

We tried selling our produce as free-of-slavery,hoping to justify a higher price, but the entire continent is dominated by slave-owners and their propaganda has conditioned empathy for the slaves away from the consumer.Over some generations both the free-people and the slaves have become used to their place and only minor struggles happen.Small time businesses and free-workers are happy with the occasional perks of slavery in their life, and rarely if ever do they get to see the grueling reality of hard-labor like mines or farms.

Our co-op farm exists for some time as a novelty, then we subject ourselves to slave-like labor and finally,having made no ideological(porky dominated) or economical impact
we are priced out of business.