Remember comrades non-arguments are not allowed

Remember comrades non-arguments are not allowed

youtube.com/watch?v=s6zO-qhQx_8

What did he got wrong in his vid ?

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

KYS ASAP TBH.

NO ARGUMENT

"Maoism, Leninism, Stalinist etc isn't left-anarchy"
They all advocated for "True Communism" which is no state - but disagreed on how to get there (Peasant Uprising, Vanguard Party, Dictatorship of the Proletarian). The no state in True Communism is anarchism, and the rejection of private property or money in communism means left-anarchism. Therefore, they are all forms of left-anarchy ideologues.

"Too many personal attacks / ad hominem"
It is not a personal attack / ad hominem to reference that left-anarchists have mental conditions or poor family lifestyles which affects their thought patterns and political paradigms.

"Encyclopedia Dramatica is not a source"
When it comes to the YouTube Ranting community meta, it is a valid source.

"Some Far Right identities are not far right"
If you have an issue, just replace the problem identity with someone else. There are no shortage of ancap/libertarian/minarchism/conservative YouTube content creators. There's a shortage of far-left content creators (And yes anarchopac is in there)

"Mispronunciations of words"
Whoops. Sorry. My bad

"You're stupid/filth/wrong/ancap/disgraceful"
NaA - and we need more helicopter fuel.

Oh boy we are in for a ride Holla Forums!

We've had this thread at least once already.

Yeah, and LLAA mixes YouTube drama, rivalry with LSR, the Spanish revolution and the Alt-Right into one clusterfuck of a video. Does it get more retarded and autistic than that? What the hell has LSR's past to do with capitalism?

Cameron's face disgusts me. He needs to deal with his acne problem.

Spook is a non-argument

Why bring it up? How is it relevant?

No, just no.

Does he really think YouTube is quality? 99.999 percent of all YouTube videos are crap! Hoardes of autists shouting
into a webcam does not prove that capitalism is the best system, that people are rational in supporting the Alt-Right or that Cultural Marxism is real. If LLAA had real content he'd split it into several videos: One video complaining over LSR and FriendlyJoerdies, another video saying that
and a third video encouraging cooperation with neo-Nazis.

There's a difference between saying that the quality of your content appears shady -> you are wrong and
saying that based on the initial impression of the low quality of a video you strongly doubt it has anything to offer and your time is spent better on something else. Do you have an obligation to watch every shit video on YouTube that defends capitalism? Sure watch something made by sincere, open-minded people with focus on good quality, but don't claim we have to watch every idiot out there.

That guy isn't an Ancap.
He was endorsed by the Neonazi BPS.
Alt-righters are disguising themselves as Ancaps, to spread hate and fear, don't fall for Holla Forumsyp infiltrators.
Real Ancaps aren't bigots, you may disagree all you want on economical terms, but they agree with lefties on 90% of social issues.

Social issues stem from economic issues, stop memes pls

Life isn't all about money…

You're right. It's about society's productive forces, how they're arranged, and how that molds peoples' relationships with each other. Money just happens to be the primary driving force behind (and end goal of) production in capitalist society.
read Capital pls

Is it archived?

"argument"

It is not a personal attack / ad hominem to reference that left-anarchists have mental conditions or poor family lifestyles which affects their thought patterns and political paradigms.

That is the literal definition of an ad hominem.

Every time.Why does the right use him so much? Do they even know he was socialist?

It's also filled with strawmen/that we're all idpol.

yes it is, because you try to discredit the argument based in the economical-familiar context of the adversary instead of attacking the main argument, like a normal rational thinker.

Because socialist criticism of socialists is better than anything they could come up with on their own.

I doubt these people know how to wipe their own ass, much less look into writers other than for quote mining.

Well for one, he completely ignores the fact that the reason it was hard to get supplies is because they were in a fucking civil war and not because of the socialist calculation problem or something.

I had an argument with him in the comments and I said " you're relying on propaganda" and he said "yes I made a propaganda piece to get people away from your dangerous ideology, any more questions?"

So don't take it seriously. Read an actual book on the Spanish Civil War.

George Orwell was a retarded red-baiter who pretended to be on the left and gave lists of Communists to the British government. He never understood Marxism,socialism, or the Soviet Union and shills for the totalitarian meme. That's why they quote him and force school students in capitalist countries to read his propaganda novels.

I did, it was fucking boring and redundant.
It literally was the catalyst for me to snap out of Anarcho-communism.

He was such a master troll who didn't understand socialism so much that he went to fight (getting shot in the throat no less) under socialist factions in the Spanish Civil War (who were deliberately under-supplied at the behest of Stalin), had his personal possessions robbed by Stalinist NKVD secret police and risked his life trying to free a fellow brother in arms who was arrested by the NKVD as the Republican forces were losing the civil war.

So it should be no surprise that he would rat out the red fascist scum who were taking direct orders from Stalin.

Get bent LARPer.

Yeah people who commit crime do it because it's glamorous and fun, not that it has anything to do with it being much more lucrative than welfare or long hours of menial labour.

I've worked with people (in shit legit jobs of course) who've been on and off drug dealers/mules, who often tell me that it's all too tempting to get back into that kind of business and it's only the money that they miss and did it for.

I know what you mean. I had a lot of trouble going though it too. It's a lot of dense material with antiquated language. Luckily there are plenty of lectures and summaries of the main ideas out there. You could also–
Okay now you're just being a whiny faggot. And an AnCom should start with Kropotkin or Bakunin instead.

...

I would expect nothing less form a filthy weed smoking Agorist.

I don't care about "muh no argument". You should seriously kill yourself.

He probably has ADHD, I struggled to read books outside of academic requirement till I got medicated.

He probably struggles to get to work on time too if he happens to have a job.

It's all too easy to blame weed I think, weed helps me if anything.

9/11

10/11

11/11

All over again!

...

That's exactly how it went for me, but a comrade of mine kept insisting, I don't regret it, but I think Marx's writings are outdated.

I Started with Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta and Faure.

Cry me a fucking river Traitor of the revolution.

He probably has ADHD, I struggled to read books outside of academic requirement till I got medicated.

I have to be honest you are absolutely correct in all of that.

1:02 far right creating a "free" capitalistic society that guy is fucking full of shit I cant listen to him any more.

Love life and Anarchy, Christopher Cantwell and Stefan Molyneux aren't Ancaps! FFS! they are bigoted conservatives, racial supremacists and fascists INFILTRATORS!

This video is pure comedy gold
This slimy 30 year-old Greek proved himself to be more autistic than Cameron.
Who the fuck does this shit?

The appearance of fascists traits doesn't means that they are fascists

fascism is the mechanic of power not the appearance of power

wtf is a "left-anarchist"

Implying that "right-anarchist" isn't a fucking autistic oxymoron.

He was endorsed by the Neonazi BPS.

Give evidence.

So where are the sources? Or am I'm just going to take everything that comes out of his ass as pure fact.

...

It was out of his personal experience fam. Socialists in fight all the time. How does this surprise you?

Sad!

I liked the part at the end when he claimed politics are genetic and that the non-aggression principle doesn't apply to Marxists.

This dude slurs quite a bit. Also, violent revolution isn't the only answer.

Learn to lurk. Also, I'm pretty sure they would want the state removed either way.

Also, The only good critique of leftism has been by other leftists. If anything, it's usually harder to get in, then out.

That's rich, since we have yo explain ourselves though 20 layers ideology. It's not like the idea of workers owning the means of production is even that new. Of course myself, I would express ideas instead of labels as my responses. Lastly, the only two actually anarchistic things he listed were syndicalism and mutualism, the latter which would actually still tolerate markets. Also, market socialism is a thing.

...

He's using the exact same logic as Antifa. I doubt the users of this board would have any serious problem with that.

Don't use this to silence him
Just to trigger him

First of all, No. Antifa do not use eugenics, so it's not the same logic.
Second, it's hardly relevant what antifa are doing.
He's arguing from a ancap perspective. The NAP as they call it, is the core of objectivism and libertarian believes. He basically tossed his entire ideology in the shitter because some brats are being annoying.
And keep in mind, the NAP is not pacifism, far from it. He's saying peaceful Marxists are fair game because antifa are mean.
I'm not passing moral judgement, it's just funny to see ideology implode.

Aren't Antifa also funded by Soros?

Pretty sure he wouldn't benefit from the workers owning the means of production. If that happens, he will be exposed as the parasite he is. Well, kinda already is considered one, but for different reasons, some ideological.

I just tell you this, Antifa is extremely corrupted with Idpols and Infiltrated by the Tankies and the State.
They are the shadiest organization I have come in contact.

I wasn't paying attention. I don't think you replying to me but another user.

Just highlighting the interesting part of

How anyone (even ancaps can respect him is beyond me.

Yep sorry mate.

bump

...

Only an "An"Com could claim to be against violence while simultaneously murdering anyone who creates a commodity or hires someone to help him because "muh hierarchy."

I have a question: On property based an occupancy and use, what would happen had left say their house for a long period of time?

What they have a note? Locks? Or would they keep things they enjoy with them at all times while there gone? Maybe have a freind hold the fort? Just wondering.

Presumably something along the lines of squatter's rights.

My question is if you lend someone something and they never return it, how do you make a claim of ownership without using a pseudo-private-property claim since personal property does not make an ethical and objective claim against theft?

Personal property based on use*

There is literally nothing wrong with killing a propertarian, as a declaration of property ownership is a threat of violence to all

These are very accurate to his style (except for the lines on Porky but that's alright). I know they're made by two different guys but I can't say I'm not impressed.

Is this real? I thought the guy who made that was a borderline nazi. Guess he's more of a teafag?

Also, there's always multiple variables when it comes to thievery. From simply a neighborhood vanguard, to having home security designed by yourself, to just having a safe bolted to the floor. Or just eliminate the basic causation of thievery, which can be eliminating scarcity.

While doing so is scientifically debatable, even then it might not eliminate thievery forever. Thinking you can do that is silly anyway. Also, vigilantism. Sword duels being a thing again would be neat, so you can challenge someone who fucks with you to one. A man can dream I guess on that last part.

Personal property can certainly be based on an the ethical claim of maximizing social utility. There's no need to make an objective claim against theft.

If you lend something, we first have to ask how it came to be considered "yours to lend" in the first place, and whether you deserve (in a utility-maximizing framework) to have it back at all.

Utilitarian detected

bump

Adheres to a philosophy deliberately bastardized from its original political meanings to neoliberal capitalist agendas a good fool and that is only used in such an ahistorical and revisionist way in the Anglosphere with their special (retarded) language. That is, "libertarianism" (propertarianism)

When will filthy propertarian anti-state capitalists learn?

archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html

^to push neoliberal… a give ^them a good *feel

bump

don't bump this shit you asshole