Anarcho authoritarianism?

Da fuck is this?

Doesn't this class against itself? Like oil and water? What

Still less retarded than "anarcho communism"

...

Encourage a global stateless society of anarchism, so that you can then take over and found an authoritarian world state?

Than that would not be anarchist anymore
Anarchy = no chief

Sounds like total bullshit to me.

An ideology is different from a society.

I could have an ideology that goes first fascism, then communism, and then a libertarian utopia once it collapses. Would be retarded, but as long as that's what I want for whatever random reason, then that's my ideology.

Anarchism=no government; I think we can agree on that. The goal of anarchism is to establish and enforce ethical norms through social pressure and mob rule rather than a centralized governmental force.

So what we need to do to make the clearly oxymoronic stance of anarcho authoritarianism appear consistent is establish a definition of authoritarianism which is compatible with anarchism. I'm just gonna run with this one:

So basically, authoritarianism may be compatible with anarchism if you simply get rid of the state and establish the laws via social forces. If you do drugs, the masses with beat the shit out of you and take your shit. If you're into butt stuff, the mob will castrate you. The media complex will be heavily regulated and speaking out against it will result in coercive force being utilized against you by the people who enjoy living in the cohesive society which results from a common platform.

Debate me, fagets.

Some retarded shit made up by retards. In order to have authoritarianism you need a ruling class, therefore authoritarianism is impossible under an anarchy.

And who enforces these laws? No one, right? If there was a force that enforces these laws then it would cease to be an anarchy. Laws don't mean shit if there is no one to enforce them. Authoritarianism isn't compatible with anarchy, they are on opposite sides of the spectrum. You are a massive fucking idiot.

LEFTIES BTFO

The collective. This is literally a central tenet of any anarchistic ideology m8. Whatever rules are set by the society are enforced by the people who agree to them.

Creating a non-government government in order to not not enforce anarchism.

It's just as retarded as it sounds.

And then eventually have to be enforced by a centralized government. See: Communism

And who is to stop the collective from forming a controlled group? People like to get together and push similar ideologies, this is why collectivism always fails.

First off, that's not the point. Whether it will eventually become statist is completely independent of whether the ideology is feasible on a conceptual level. I was talking about the idea itself, not the realities of whether it would actually work in practice.
Second off: name one instance where an anarcho communist society transitioned to a statist one. Almost every case where we had communsm with a central government it was through the utilization of state forces that the communism was first put into place. The fact that a revolution had to happen to put this government in power doesn't make it anarchist.
If you're curious, the difference is methodology here. The communists we generally see are those which utilize the state to abolish capitalism, with the end goal of abolishing the state after the fact. The method many anarcho communists with to follow is one which abolishes the state first with the notion that communism would be a natural result of this.


Well not all controlled groups constitute a government. Many anarchists actually support the notion of workers in the same or similar fields forming unions and whatnot regardless of whether a state exists or not.

The communists we generally see? You mean all communists? Once capitalism is abolished, there is a need to regulate the market and it takes a government to do this. Communism is just a meme, even Marx realized this when he made up the concept. He never expected it to actually become a thing, because it can't exist.

...

free market = No regulation of the economy, dog eat dog

egalitarian market = strict regulation to ensure that everyone is equal

It's a pretty simple concept. See: Internet

If you abolish the state first you will end up with an ancap society, genius.

you didn't actually explain why there needs to be regulation

Yes I did. Equality doesn't exist, so in order to impose it, you need regulation. Life isn't fair, we aren't all one collective of equals. There are strong people and there are weak people. This is why communism or socialism will never work. It goes against nature.

...

No i'm not, idiot. I'm literally saying that it is anti-human.

Communism, at its core, it the abolition of private property and currency. If there is no state, there is no private property or currency.

Good job, you read the definition of communism on wikipedia. Too bad that it can never happen IRL.

Actually, you end up with a chaos of various militias, until a military junta restores order, followed by a democratic state as stability returns.

Anarchy is everywhere but a temporary affair. Nature abhors a vacuum. Capitalist autists are as retarded as communist autists.

This isn't about whether it's feasible.

Does The Great Depression mean anything to you?

sure, a crisis caused entirely by government regulation