In Africa, fighting alongside warlords and killing women and children.

>>1123853
oh.

Anarcho-Primitivst up in this bitch. Fuck you and your precious Marx.

>>1123903
What are you doing on a computer? Practise what you preach and get innawoods.

>>1123903
What are you doing on a computer
Dude Freddy Perlman read debord.

>>1123853
Chaos =/= anarchy. Nobody in Africa embraces anarchism (or left-anarchism/anarcho-syndicalism), they just don't have the infrastructure to form a government, so they live in a state of lawlessness.

Also, right here bro.

>>1123853
/thread

>>1123923
It's actually the opposite. If they didn't have the state, they'd be in an all around better situation.

>Against private property
>Allow "personal property"
Whatthefuckamireading?.jpg

anarcho-nationalist reporting in

>>1123957
>Doesn't understand the distinction
>Thinks he has the authority to criticize the distinction

It's the most simple distinction in the world, comrade.

>>1123937
platformistfag you're one of the coolest guys on /pol/
But like
Malatesta and Goldman were pretty right on their criticisms of platformism.

>>1123957
"possession" and "property" are two different ideas.
First and foremost, as Proudhon put it, property is both use and abuse. It is a monopoly of self distributed over physical space.

>>1123984
Just as owning a rock or a plant is a monopoly on who can use that rock or plant. :|

Collectivist Anarchist reporting in.

>>1123972

Hey dere.

>>1123973
Malatesta took back his criticisms. I've never read any of Emma Goldman's criticisms of the Platform, though, but I'm assuming they're based off of the same misunderstanding as Malatesta's.

ITT: anarchists attempting "no true scotsman"

Google mondragon corporation and say you don't love anarchy

go on, just do it statefags

>>1124018
The mislabeling of any argument as a fallacy should itself constitute a fallacy, if it doesn't already.

"Somalia isn't anarchist" and "The USSR wasn't communist" is a statement of fact, not a fallacy.

>>1124014
Whoa man malatesta took them back?
Link me, bro.

Anarcho Capitalist as of about a week and a half ago.

>anarchy
>flag

>>1123923

No true scotsman bullshit. Anarchy is a state of glorified lawlessness.

>>1124043
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platformism#Criticism

>>1124050
all "left" anarchist are actually just nationalists in denial

>>1124055

>No true scotsman bullshit. Anarchy is a state of glorified lawlessness.

Addressed fully here >>1124036

Do you care to enlighten us to your viewpoint, or are you just arguing from ignorance?

>>1123997
not necessarily. Just as a Hobbesian state of nature allows no monopoly, neither does a Kantian definition of private use.
You can certainly dispose of said rock or plant in any way you prefer. However, public interest can never disappear. This is how a state functions: it is the public affirmation of the right of property and the collective functions that allow it to be upheld.

>>1124055
Depends how you define anarchism. If you want to define it as lack of a state, then you are 100% correct - Somalia would fall under the (very broad) definition. However, Somalian society is *not* the *type* of anarchism (surely you can agree anarchy takes many forms?) that I advocate for, and there is no reason that advocacy for, say, anarcho-syndicalism, would devolve into Somalianism. Somalia wasn't a failed anarchist project, it was a failed statist one.

>>1124058
Oh.
thanks bro.

>>1124060

Care to elaborate? I would really like to know your viewpoint and criticisms better, and I might even be able to address them.

>>1124084
Anarchy can't take a form, as a form would entail a set of rules, which isn't anarchy.

communists that call themselves anarchists are not anarchists.

>>1124105
basically all the flag waving and sectarianism that comes with most forms of anarchism also right anarchism like ancaps have nationalistic tenancies.

>>1124121
>ANARCHISM (from the Gr. ἅυ, and άρχη, contrary to authority), the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government — harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being.

So, yeah, nah, you're a cunt.

So my questions for anarchists is how do you guys plan to try and prevent any counter revolution. How do you plan to counter any social reasons for the formation of another state? Also why were states formed in the first place?

>>1124121
Anarchy isn't being without rules, it involves rules as a matter of definition, it's freedom from tyranny.

>>1124121
Whether your statement is true depends heavily on your definitions of the words "anarchy", "form", and "rules", which aren't particularly clear.

It seems like you are trying to portray the left anarchist position as something it is not.

>>1123957
Personal Property is just distributable commodities. Your computer, your TV, your laundry machine are all commodities that has little point in collectivizing. Like a public library in a city of say 10,000 only needs 50 computers at most, there's really no need to collectivize the commodity of computers, it's too much effort and there's really no point. What could we do with all the ipods in the world sitting in one factory?

Private property is a means of production. Factories, Farms, Labs, places of service (restaurants, hospitals, ect.) would be collectivized.

>>1124133
So I can still keep my private property?

>>1124128

>basically all the flag waving and sectarianism that comes with most forms of anarchism also right anarchism like ancaps have nationalistic tenancies.

I know what you mean, but I really wouldn't call it "Nationalism." Especially in it's current context, the term "nationalism" almost always refers to support of a State, which is directly contradictory to Anarchy. Flags, as I see it, are simply a rallying symbol. Given that, coming together under a common cause is a major theme of Anarchism. I don't see any inherent contradiction.

>>1124149
If by private property you mean your house and the commodities in it (which as I said earlier is personal property), then yes. But if you own a factory or some other means of production, then no.

>>1124138
>trying to redefine anarchy so it fits in the communist dialectic.

>>1124149
somehow a bunch of people will have the authority to take away your means of production in an anarcho-syndicalist society

>>1124060

wat

>>1124174
well i mean, it's still yours, it just isn't just yours.

>>1124135
What stops people from returning to hereditary rule in a democracy? Why don't people want that to happen?

Same answer to your question.

so how 'bout them black ops?

>>1124159
I own a workshop with various tools including lathes etc and machinery (skidsteers) which I hire out to interested parties for money. I am the sole employee of this company and land on which the business is based is also the garden of my house.

Anarcho-marketeerist reporting in.

Anarcho-Pacifist reporting in.

>>1124157
On the outside it appears that way but it is no secret how much infighting there is in the anarchist community between different ideologies

>>1124174

>somehow a bunch of people will have the authority to take away your means of production in an anarcho-syndicalist society

But not out of initiation of force. It's akin to a slave rebelling against his owner, which is, in my opinion, perfectly justifiable. One of the main words in the "Anarchist Dictionary" if you will, is "voluntary." If you don't like the way a Community is running, why are you living there? Sure, there may be some barriers to exit, but they are minimal at worst.

>>1124192
you'd have access to all that and more within the collective

>>1124192

Business wouldn't work anymore because the tools aren't used to produce for profit, rather they are used to build what needs to be built and used freely to enrich their own lives and the lives of those in their community.

>>1124189
Well one because the "democratic" state opposes it with force but more so because both state and non state actors promote "democratic" values. What I'm wondering is how the Anarchist values would be promoted.

Also I'd really like to know people's ideas on the reasons for the formation of early states.

>>1124192
congratulations you are exploiting other people and participating in wage slavery against the proletariat

>this is what anarchists actually believe

>>1124218
You don't even have to participate in the community. You can sit in your house all day and be a useless piece of shit too, it's ultimate freedom of coercion. Granted, if too many butthurt rich assholes do this and there's a labor shortage, we will probably have to start cutting power and distributing resources to people who actually contribute to society.

>>1123972
"You support active use property norms. That's what it's called, you own something while you're using it, which references a definition of "use". Your views on self-ownership can be characterized as active use. "Nobody being able to take it away while I'm using it" = ownership. And what constitutes "use" is intersubjective. In practice, your views on property are no different than active use, which suggests that... drumroll please... you're just being a contrarian."

>>1124229

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain#1936_Revolution

>>1124209

>On the outside it appears that way but it is no secret how much infighting there is in the anarchist community between different ideologies

I wouldn't disagree with that at all, but I wouldn't call the sectarianism "nationalism." I think what the various forms of Anarchism need to realize is that whether you are a Collectivist Anarchist, Anarchist Communist, Anarchist Capitalist, or what have you, we are all Anarchists. Who cares what the qualifier is? Once the State is toppled, we are all free to organize how we see fit.

>>1124221
But that shit is mine, I worked hard to pay for that and I enjoy being 50 ft from work at all times.

Does this mean I'd have to drive to some business park where everything would be, and then we'd have to fight over stuff like in the woodshop in school?

>gimme that file, you've had it for ages
>no fucker I'm not done with it
>I'm trying to earn a fucking living here and you're machining dildos

>>1124229
The same way any ideology/value is promoted? Discussing them with other people, leading by example and acting them out in your own life? Cultural change still happens absent state control.

>>1124243
Basically, Ownership is ownership the distinction is arbitrary and you know it.

>>1124135
>how do you guys plan to try and prevent any counter revolution
revolution is not itself fully understood. How we will deal with counter-revolution depends on the structure of its iteration and our collective knowledge of the social sciences.
>How do you plan to counter any social reasons for the formation of another state?
such as?
>why were states formed in the first place?
The current practices of everyday life did not come to be overnight. The greeks were fully in favour of slavery, as it was only by this labour that they could enjoy the idle time necessary for cultural and scientific development. This is mostly a consequence of their time period and the lack of development in their productive means. The effort it took to grow crops and build public infrastructure was much more significant than present, and thus if they were to embrace more egalitarian doctrine they would live no better than the average wage worker of the time (who, mind you, were considered almost at the same level of slaves (going by aristotle, anyways)). Every political economists acknowledged that economic development existed in stages (or at least as development of relations), and primitive production certainly required a great degree of centralization and power-relations.

>>1124243
I support use and occupation being the basis of ownership. The capitalist, who owns the factory without using or occupying it, has no right to the ownership of the factory. Under the present system, of course, ownership is determined by the amount of money one is willing to pay.

AnCaps are just mutualists in denial.

>>1124192
For how long per day is said workshop in operation?

>>1124253

No, you would have it in your community. There would be some form of organization, but it would be there on a strictly voluntary basis. You would no longer work for money, nor would anyone else, you would work for what needs to be produced or completed and no more. This would free up a lot of time, during which you could follow your own interests and pursuits.

>>1124253
Because you actually built the workshop yourself, work in the shop, and it's a one man workshop, then probably not especially since we'd have better workshops anyway.

>>1124229

>What I'm wondering is how the Anarchist values would be promoted.

The whole point of Anarchism is that most people in a given area are in favor of it. That's really the only way it can manifest itself in the first place. So, as far as a counter-revolution goes, there wouldn't be one (ideally). Given that, if you don't agree, you can either go somewhere else, or just, as stated earlier, sit in your house and be a useless shit. If you want to respond with force, you can expect self defense.

As far as promoting Anarchist ideals, are you referring to pre Anarchism or post Anarchism?

>>1124285
Actually there's really no need to collectivize it. It sounds like just a workshop where only 1-2 people can work in it. I'm okay with people building little shops where they can craft shit in as long as they aren't employing other people and exploiting them.

>>1124277
Usually all day (Monday through Friday, occasional Saturdays and Sundays) if I'm not out delivering.

>>1124292
Really, the dependence on mass movements is something anarchism must sadly abandon. In the present environment, where the investments of power produce disciplinary bodies of meticulous programming, mass movement against present society may be impossible without radical insurrectionary action (and, perhaps, not even then).

>>1124295

I guess i'm just referring to the idea that a suburb/district of a city would be a "community" in which people knew each other and such. I'm really just using the word as a metaphor because I can't come up with a better description of it.

You are completely right though, I was just giving him an overly broad example.

>>1124295

>Actually there's really no need to collectivize it. It sounds like just a workshop where only 1-2 people can work in it. I'm okay with people building little shops where they can craft shit in as long as they aren't employing other people and exploiting them.

I think the man in question is pretty much renting it out, though. Correct me if I'm wrong.

>>1124288
>we'd have better workshops anyway

You probably would. This isn't some fancy operation.

>>1124253
What you built on your personal property is your business. If you trick some idiot into working for you, we won't take coercive action because it's a voluntary society, but we will try to convince him that he's being exploited.

>Anteater and Platformist fag in the same thread

Would love to be full anarchist, but please tell me:

1. How does an anarchist nation defend itself from invasion?
2. How do thry ensure the rule of law to protect liberty?

>>1124318
No, full ownership. The workshop is on my property (2.5 acres), I build it up in this little copse by the road.

>>1124307

>Really, the dependence on mass movements is something anarchism must sadly abandon. In the present environment, where the investments of power produce disciplinary bodies of meticulous programming, mass movement against present society may be impossible without radical insurrectionary action (and, perhaps, not even then).

Just look at the Arab Spring. Regardless of whether they were fighting for Anarchism or not (they weren't) or through non-violent means (they weren't), it still gives credit to the idea that mass uprisings can still be effective.

>>1124306
then I would say you're a paradigm of working men, if it were not for the fact that you rent it out.
The rentier, after all, extracts a profit based on property, rather than productive activity.
But nonetheless, good on you for the business venture. Even if I may have some disdain for it, it's certainly better than most other forms.

>>1124346

>No, full ownership. The workshop is on my property (2.5 acres), I build it up in this little copse by the road.

Sorry, my statement was poorly worded. I was trying to say that you were acting as the renter, allowing people to use your workshop for a fee. Is this correct?

>>1124341

1. Hopefully there would be no need to defend against any attack, but in the event an attack happens people would just organize themselves into a militia and defend themselves. It could be organized in a reserve-type situation where people volunteer to fight when the time comes.

2. If we assume that a lot of crime is motivated by social status and economic situation, an anarchist society would have less crime because economically people are equal and social status no longer exists. Serious crimes would be punished by the people how they deem fit I guess, that is something I would need to think about.

>>1124350
Mass uprisings can occur. What changes can they incur, however?
Even a cursory glance at the Arab spring reveals it to be in no way successful. Collective affirmations, new forms-of-life, all the theoretical and romantic ideas that have come to be associated with our sort of revolution have not been exhibited.
In fact, it is silly for us to call it "revolution", in the same way many find it silly to call the October Revolution a proper revolution.

>>1124341
1. Militias mostly.
2. It's almost impossible for liberty to be taken away in a truly anarchist society. If a bunch of guys come up to you and start physically threatening you for voicing your opinion, then everyone else would stop him. Crime of a non-political nature would be drastically reduced, only people who are sick in the head would be a danger. At that point we try to rehabilitate them into society, not punish them.

>>1124243
Aha, so I see we have another Ryan Faulk fan here.

Just got done reading those comments.

>>1124396

Spain had an Anarchist revolution and it was surprised largely by Stalinists.

>>1124341
One does not overturn society without commanding a certain amount of force. The better question is: how could we have fallen in power so much to worry on this question?
2. An absurd question. Law is not what is required of liberty. Rather, liberty is dependent on social organization.

>>1124346
I will say this, if somebody needed to use some tools that I had and supplied their own materials and promised to replace anything they might break I wouldn't mind them coming and using it during quiet times. I just wouldn't want random fuckers turning up off the street.

>>1124370
No I hire out Bobcat skidsteers, it's a good business as it allows people who would otherwise have to do the work by hand to gain access to mechanical equipment without the large outlay of an outright purchase. A lot of my customers rent for a week or weekend and would never need it again.

The workshop is just for repairs and servicing.

>>1124346
Well, you would either let other individuals/groups use it or just work in it yourself. If you actually build a full blown factory on your property though, we would collectivize that.

>>1124410

*Suppressed (Laptop autocorrects words, perhaps I hold a legitimate authority over it to stop that from happening)

>>1124396

>Even a cursory glance at the Arab spring reveals it to be in no way successful.

Yes, I was commenting more on the ability of a mass uprising to form rather than the success of the Arab Spring.

I think, all in all, it simply comes down to numbers. I think that if enough people can gather together under a common cause, they can get things done. If a movement gains a basis of support on a national level, that could provide the means to completely remove the current system.

>>1124418
Again, don't worry about it. It's a little workshop that you built and that you use. We're going to have huge factories and workshops collectivized. Taking your shop would be inefficient. Letting people use your workshop would be the same as letting people look at your aquarium or coming over to your house to play video games.

>>1124410
Collective affirmations and new forms-of-life were most certainly observed in anarchist spain.
Modern society and modern social organization are different from that the the 30's. It's all a product of the post-war period, the post 1968 period, etc etc. What the twentieth century brought us in its halfway point was a radical paradigm shift in nearly all fields of the academia.

>>1124446 here
sorry, meant to say that you would have permission to let people borrow it.

There is no difference between private and personal property. In order to get money (in free market capitalism) you have to contribute to society. People should contribute to society by making as much money as possible. We shouldn't take their money because it's rightful theirs.

>>1124446
Ok then I would have no problem with what you're doing.

>>1124430
Comintern politics are unique to left politics. Leninists, after all, have a large amount of disdain for "left communism" (which is pretty much any form of communism outside ML practices, and to some extent even within ML practice).
It's no secret that the Communist Parties were pretty active collaborators with the mainstream right. After all, it was the PCF that was most instrumental in the suppression of the 1968 Parisian revolts.
Though I honestly don't even consider soviet politics left politics.

This needed to be posted.

>>1124448

That is a very valid point. Chomsky suggested that under an Anarchist society academia and other progressive (in the sense of advancing society) forces would be focused on making life as easy as possible and so therefore labor that could be done in an automated fashion for example would be implemented, or any unpleasant-but-vital labor would be made as pleasant as possible and shared equally.

>>1124456

Doesn't "permission" imply authority?

One surrounds a fence around someone's house to block them so they can starve to death.

Anarchists = owned.

>>1124493
Idolizing "wealth-creators". How cute and original.

>>1124045


Hey, wassup rubes!

Good to see you're making progress. I'm willing to bet you're still a sanctimonious piece of shit, though.

>CTRL-F "homestead"
>0 results found
Sigh~

>>1124458
Again, use and abuse.
Insofar as a person retains a particular lifestyle generally does not proceed farther than their received social motions (for instance, on the eve on the industrial revolution factory owners were perplexed with the problem of labour. A worker was concerned only with making the money necessary for the upkeep of their lifestyle, and so it was therefore necessary to cut wages in order to increase production).
So: as the money of a certain individual increases, the amount that remains idle or is subject to abuse also increases.

>>1124517
I'm not idolizing them, I'm just acknowledging that they do work for their money and they have earned it.

>>1124504
It's in his house though. I mean, I want to give people permission to enter the bathroom, not just barge in. It's not coercion so I don't really see the problem.

>>1124494

Hey shit-sucker. How do you, as an anarchist, justify propping up one of the most lauded apologists of state sponsored terror produced in the last half of the twentieth century.

>>1124493

>Doesn't realize comic is just adding more middlemen to confuse people and the point still stands because the money those investors had was "earned" (siphoned) in the same exploitative manner.

>>1124531
>therefore necessary to cut wages in order to increase production

People will quit and the employers will have to start competing for workers.

>>1124542
Care to give an example?

>>1124542
Are you talking about Chomsky?

If so, seriously?

>>1124494
And Chomsky is very right on the idea.
Really, work has been subject to nothing but challenge since the culmination of the post-war era. Chomsky is not alone in his opinion, this is an idea that has been discussed endlessly by the left.

>>1124534

>It's in his house though. I mean, I want to give people permission to enter the bathroom, not just barge in. It's not coercion so I don't really see the problem.

I think he just meant that "permission" was a less than ideal word to use because it seemed to imply some central authority telling him what he can and cannot do with his workshop. I think a better way to put it would be that his workshop is obviously non-exploitative, so he has every right to use it as he sees fit.

>>1124551
He invested his money and created jobs. He is not only entitled to the money, he deserves it.

>>1124542

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

>>1124533
It doesn't matter what the hell you have accomplished. Everyone has the equal right to the product of all human creation.

>>1124554

Gladly. http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19770625.htm

Now please go break your own fucking fingers.

>>1124553
A job isn't simply a method of curing idleness, which is something rentiers forget.
It is absurd to say "they could have just quit and found better conditions", when at the eve of the industrial revolution ALL wages were being cut as to facilitate the new organization of labour.

>>1124573
Writing an article minimizing the importance of state violence in Cambodia/Vietnam =/= "one of the most lauded apologists of state sponsored terror produced in the last half of the twentieth century."

>>1124571
>Everyone has the equal right to the product of all human creation.

No they don't. Some invest better than others and some work harder than others.
pic related

>>1124573
He dismantled American propaganda, he did not say he approves of Ho being a dictator.

>>1124567

>He invested his money and created jobs. He is not only entitled to the money, he deserves it.

I guess you could say that's one of the major differences between Capitalists and Socialists.

Capitalists view it as "creating jobs."

Socialists view it as "exploiting others to further your own ends."

I would say that the Socialist point is more valid as you can have systems where businesses still create jobs while being non-exploitative (Worker Co-operatives).

>>1124580
>It is absurd to say "they could have just quit and found better conditions", when at the eve of the industrial revolution ALL wages were being cut as to facilitate the new organization of labour.

It gets to a point where people are no longer willing to work for such a low wage when we will start seeing competition among employers. Not that it matters because lowering wages means you can lower your prices.

>>1124617

It could even be argued that the result was exaggerated much more than it needed to be due to the US refusing to acknowledge Ho Chi Minh or work with him. Same for China, which is a much stronger argument imo.

>>1124621
What's exploitative about voluntary action?
Coercion is direct exploitation, and that's what capitalists seek to deter.

>>1124599
Your picture, and your argument, still operates under capitalist logic. You assume that the only alternative to the status quo is a world in which people work their jobs for money, but they all get payed the same. The point of left anarchism is to get rid of systems of money and private property altogether.

Also, organizers are just as important to society as factory workers, cleaning staff, and so on. Society is not built by a few geniuses, it is a collaborative effort which relies on every human being to function. Why should some people be treated as "above" others, if *everyone* is key to a functioning economy?

>>1124621
>Socialists view it as "exploiting others to further your own ends."

It's not exploiting the worker if he wants to work.
Socialism is not valid because it forces the employer to pay someone more than they are worth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY-EHIE456k

>>1124636

Or move production to third world countries and exploit the labor there, then after they get too expensive they move to another. Rise and repeat for shiny hair.

>>1124655

>Socialism is not valid because it forces the employer to pay someone more than they are worth.

According to whom?

>>1124636
Again, you work on rentier logic. A man must eat: this is a simple fact of our existence. As such, he cannot afford to be without employment for extended periods of time. As such, he MUST compromise for the best wages he can find within a given period of time (and must compete with his fellow workers for such a position, no less).
And the lowering of prices hardly matters in an era where most products were nonetheless too expensive for the average wage worker in the first place.

>>1124655
>Criticizing state socialism
>In an anarchism thread

anarchist here
of the insurrectionary bent...

>>1124644
> You assume that the only alternative to the status quo is a world in which people work their jobs for money, but they all get payed the same.

No, some people get paid more than others.

>Why should some people be treated as "above" others, if *everyone* is key to a functioning economy?

Because some people do a better job at contributing to society and they deserve and are entitled to the money they earn.

>>1124670
Have you read the coming insurrection?

>>1124402

1) See attached picture. Working out real fucking well, isn't it?

2) Unless they happen to agree with the guy who is shutting you up.

>>1124598

How is that any different? It's state sponsored murder. If he was an anarchist worth his fucking salt he would have been screaming about it. Instead, he's never retracted his comments and he's never apologized for them.

If you're going out there and telling the world that this regime is making great populist reforms while it exterminates a fifth of it's population, what does that make you?

>>1124670
Have you read Cabal Argot?
If Insurrectionism was a pissing contest whoever wrote that pamphlet has shot a hole through the moon with their penis.
That's not to say it's particularly good, but it's EDGY AS FUUUUUUUCK

>>1124642

>What's exploitative about voluntary action?

It's 3:32 AM here, so I'm honestly simply not going to get in to a full on debate on this, but I would posit that Wage Labor is at worst comparable to Chattel Slavery, and at best comparable to Indentured Servitude.

The idea is that a large portion of the population have the choices of starving or working for another person. If they do not agree with what that person is saying (lower wages, longer working hours, more dangerous conditions, or what have you) he isn't really in any position to quit, because one must eat.

The idea behind a Worker's Co-operative is that if you directly use the means of production, you own it. Each worker in a Co-operative would get a say in the decisions that Co-operative made, rather than one person dictating how it will operate.

For further reading/viewing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oztdRo9GLLk

And that's all I'll say about that.

>>1124678

>Liberia
>Anarchist

lol

>>1124665
>As such, he cannot afford to be without employment for extended periods of time. As such, he MUST compromise for the best wages he can find within a given period of time (and must compete with his fellow workers for such a position, no less).

Same rules apply the employer. The employer has to increase his wages or else no one will work for him and he dies of starvation.

>>1124678
He didn't minimize state violence, he attacked American propaganda.

>>1124675
Ugh. I've read some of it. I really hate a lot of the trendier texts right now. I hate the fucking pretentious know-it-all attitude they put across, it really turns me off.
Give me some Fredy Perlman or Wolfi Landstreicher, prole.info or crimethInc, any day of the week.

>>1124690
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urASFJClhdI

>>1124688
I like Cabol Argot

>>1124644

Are you going to have a division of labor? ie some people are going to do the intellectual work that doesn't involve direct manufacture of products?

If the answer is yes, then you're still going to have money.

>>1124690

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson's_choice

"Freedom" in a capitalist society in a nutshell

>>1124694
The amount of food one takes in is not a value proportionate to income. He who has accumulated a large amount of capital has no fear of starvation, so long as the food comes from the same sources.
As such, if it were simply a question of eating a rentier could outlast any strike.

Smells like feds in this bitch

>>1124709

Automation would be a goal to achieve so that such divisions are no longer necessary. Even Adam Smith himself said that division of labour is a terrible thing.

I find it interesting that some would say would say "work or starve" as if it were some kind of evil totalitarian mandate. You know every bit of food in this world came into existence because somebody somewhere (and more often than not, more than one person) had to work for it. Someone had to plant it, grow it, gather it, raise it, process it, distribute it. All manner of things.

I guess what I'm saying is, it seems kinda selfish to say that "work or starve" is an immoral phrase. I mean, it implies that the alternative is "We should get to eat even if we don't work." However that means someone out there would have to do work FOR you in order for you to live. Basically, it would mean that someone else would be forced to work purely for your benefit and without anything in return.

TL:DR
My conclusion is that the implication of the phrase "work or starve" being an evil mandate is really indicative of a very selfish and egotistical view of the world that is, ironically, a direct imitation of the very poor character that capitalism breeds. In essence, self-serving and hypocritical.
Sorry

>>1124725
Online communication is a huge compromise. It's 2012, anyone knows that. It's not like we're planning illegal activities with complete strangers.

>>1124736
Heh, I posted a thread like that on revleft actually.

>>1124700
Crimethinc is pretty bad, brosephicles. Work was OK, but literally nothing new was said in it. It's only kay because it's a vast improvement on their entire oeuvre (with the exception of Evasion, which was neat)
And really, the authors associated with the IC have been engaged in the french radical circles for years. And frankly, a lot of their criticisms of it are entirely valid.
>>1124706
I kept feeling like it was missing the point of the works it seemed to have been influenced by.

>>1124691

How is it not? Or any other long term failed state. You have communities who've banded together to provide the basics and necessities of life in the face of a state that has completely broken down. This is anarchy and it's a lot meaner than anyone thinks.

>>1124747
Oh hey another person on revleft
why the fuck do we browse /pol/

>>1124720
>The amount of food one takes in is not a value proportionate to income. He who has accumulated a large amount of capital has no fear of starvation,

Sure he does. He's going to run out faster than the worker because the employer has more things he needs to spend to keep his business running. The reason we don't see this today is because minimum wage is too high creating a shortage of employers.

>>1124703

I've seen that video before. He was operating under the idea that working for one person is no different than working for a majority.

1) I would say that's totally false. If one person, or one small group of people, decide how a company operates, most workers get absolutely no say in it. If you went with a straight 51% = win, you would at least still get a say in decisions.

2) "Tyranny of the Majority" can be alleviated in multiple ways. Some simple solutions that a workplace might choose to adopt are..

-- Higher thresholds for important decisions (maybe 80%)
-- Vetoes on important decisions
-- Votes proportional to the degree with which a decision affects you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y2W6U472IM

>>1124757
The employer can easily liquidate a portion of his capital to purchase food.

The worker cannot.

>>1124756
Because I got restricted on revleft and because revleft is full of authoritarian Marxist-Leninist nutjobs.

The worst is that stalinist History mod.

>>1124736

>Objectivism

You know you're spinning yarn when you try to say that people who don't believe in the term "work or starve" are just social parasites. Everyone has to work, but that work can be made as painless, as meaningful, and as unexploitative* as possible.

*Not a word but can't find anything else to describe it right now.

>>1124767
That won't happen, he'd be stupid to do so and if he does then businesses like that will just die out.

>>1124749
Have you read Rolling thunder or a few of their new pieces on their website? They're actually REALLY well done and fucking awesome.
Have you read "Worker Student Action Committees" by Fredy Perlman & Roger Gregoire?
It was written right after May '68 but still EXTREMELY fucking relevant, especially to this whole Occupy thing.
Not to mention, that is the text responsible for turning so many of my friends into anarchists.

>>1124733

Can you say with 100% certainty that that state of affairs will come to pass?

We've had automation. We've spawned entire industries that do nothing but maintain that supply line through various means that don't directly affect the production of goods. The firms that write the drivers for the robots that make your car for example.

>>1124736

I think a more correct assertion of our claims would be that it is unjust to have to "work under the command of another or starve."

As a Collectivist Anarchist, I still hold to the idea of direct remuneration for labor, so if you are able to work and refuse to do so, you aren't going to have an income. The idea is that, giving that having to work (at this point in time) is a fact of life, people shouldn't have to work for others, but rather, should get a say in those decisions that affect them (including in the workplace).

>>1124753

Anarchism is not simply the elimination of the state. Anarchism entails the elimination of all power structures unless it proves itself necessary under a heavy burden of proof. Last time I checked Liberia wasn't a country known for it's voluntary association and equality.

>>1124757
As any business owner will tell you, the majority spending is in wages.
To speak like some old political economists, upkeep on the maintenance of productive machinery is nil when the machinery remains idle (and, obviously, so to is the upkeep of wages). certainly, a rentier must pay certain other bills (taxes, debt, etc...) however, it is unlikely to ruin a rentier as quickly as a it is to ruin a worker. Even today, a worker relieved of his job is unlikely to be able to last more than a month without employment. If a large business has to be declare bankruptcy within a month, then the one who runs it is most certainly a poor businessman.

>>1124774
>Everyone has to work, but that work can be made as painless, as meaningful, and as unexploitative* as possible.

First of all, no.

Second of all, do you think people should get food without having to work for it?
Who works for that food that was given away to the people who did not work?

Now you see that the alternative is worse.

The only thing a worker has to sell is his ability to work. The workers interests are diametrically opposed to the capitalists. The capitalist wants to profit as much as possible off our labor, we want to get the most value out of our labor (well, actually - we want to destroy class society that makes this social relationship obsolete)

>>1124785
Rolling Thunder was pretty bad in its earlier prints.
Otherwise I'm a pretty dedicated reader of it. Crimethinc has really revitalized itself.

>>1124272
So if theres a nun thats not using her vagina its okay for me to fuck her since shes not using it right?

>>1124804
>it is unlikely to ruin a rentier as quickly as a it is to ruin a worker.

No it won't. A worker can just take another job, an employer has to start a whole new business.

>>1124772
Ismael has got to be the worst
I am fully convinced it was him who thought up the story of fascist infiltration in the fucking GAME THREADS.

>>1124809

>Second of all, do you think people should get food without having to work for it?

I'm not even who you were responding to, and I'm annoyed at your lack of reading comprehension.

>>1124699

Are you sure? Because that's not what I read. I read him pinning the killings on a handful of CIA operatives and Operation Menu. The Bombing campaign that had concluded years before the killing fields happened

I read chomsky doing his customary handwave of sources that contradict his narrative as not credible while holding up another that only sited official Khmer Rouge sources.

good work, comrades. you are all such useful idiots!

>>1124827
"starting a business" is not an act of pure spontaneity. It is a basic tenent of economics that a business requires initial capital, and that profit is not guaranteed at the onset. Meanwhile, a man must eat.
And really, you're talking as though jobs exist in infinite supply (or at least, in greater proportion to the unemployed). Really, how far divided from reality can you get?

>>1124790

It would be dishonest to say that it will 100% happen, but it's highly likely to occur. In the current state of things robotic production isn't desirable because people are going to lose jobs and therefore be taken out of the economy because of having no money.

Other than that, technology is increasing at a faster and faster pace every year. Sooner or later we're going to have a machine capable of doing what several men can do, and more efficiently than they can do it. The first supercomputers in the 70s are now less powerful than the iPhone I have in my pocket.

>>1124834
What exactly were the game threads and what happened and what does it have to do with fascists?

>>1124849

>Stalin
>Anarchist thread
>Use of Krushchev quote

>>1124849
troll on troll.
what part of ANTI-AUTHORITARIAN don't you get?

>>1124857
The worker can just get a job, the employer has to start all over again. The worker has the upper hand if we got rid of minimum wage.

>>1124871
Some bullshit roleplaying threads.
There was a purge recently of a large amount of active users. The official statement was that they were letting fascists into revleft by having them enter through the game threads. He is literally the only mod who stuck with the statement.

>>1124803

I know the theory. I just doubt that what you imagine would actually match even a pakistani bricklayers idea of peace and prosperity should you actually get it. And pure voluntary association? Good luck. That would require someone with no previous cultural or familial attachments. Human loyalty works from the most local associations to the most most widely spread in that order.

Should you succeed in dismantling the state, you'll just wind up with Athens and Sparta again.

>>1124886
lol, yeah right now I just post in OI, i'm thinking about quitting all together.

>>1124879
You're not even responding any more. You're simply regurgitating talking points you've already brought up, despite them being already addressed.
Again, it is silly to think that jobs exist in greater proportion to the unemployed. If this ever was the case we should then assume that unemployment itself is but a lifestyle choice. Meanwhile, the employer retains his capital, and can certainly find no shortage of scab workers or overseas labour.

>>1124860

And until that happens. This is the last place that I'm going to look for informed speculation on that matter.

>>1124901
I just go there now cuz #FF0000 is a total bro.

>>1124772
Yo what the fuck is with Marxist-Leninists and thinking only they can criticize the Soviet Union? Any time I argue with them they're like "OMG you're undermining the great things the Soviets did" and yet they still agree with all of my critiques. It's like they can't handle somebody who's not them criticizing the Soviet Union.

>>1124924
Oh yeah he's cool. There are some other good guys there like Nox. What's your username if you dont mind me asking? I'm Belleraphone

>>1124877
back then, we all rolled together.

>>1124827

>No it won't. A worker can just take another job, an employer has to start a whole new business.

Let's look at this as a "worst case scenario". The employer's business is not doing so well. His total expenses are creeping dishearteningly close to his total income. At this point, he is only making 4 times as much money as his employees. If his expenses and income were to equalize, he could simply fire one worker, and he now has a living wage. Also, because the total value of the items a worker helps make will always be more than the pay he receives (otherwise no profit is made), the business owner will not suffer a loss in production relative to his expenses.

As a worker, you either have a job with an income, or you don't. Your situation at your current job is also often very fragile. Laying off one worker is really not seen as that big of a deal.

As the owner, you have many, many, many, many, more options, and I highly doubt one would be faced with a situation of starvation.

Even beyond that, as was mentioned, the business owner also has the options to liquidate his capital.

>>1124925
I won't deny that some parts of the entire history of the soviet union certainly deserve praise.
But yeah, ML's are fucking assholes.

>>1124895

So we ignore the Pakistanis. We concentrate on our own prosperity and needs and leave them to do the same. If they don't want to follow what we advocate after hearing about it, they're free to live their life in their own way. No harm, no foul.

>>1124933
Except for the part where you infilitrated Catalonia and started killing the anarchists.

Just a word to any "free market" libretarians/anti statists:

I don't like to Argue much with Left Libertarians/Anarchists their wordplay and emotional appeals make it hard to have any type of meaningful discussion. I mean if i cant make someone see the distinction between a free market and the state because their definition of a state includes all markets as a whole, then there is not point to discuss anything beyond that point.
Don't be deceived in the illusion that we both seek to achieve the same goal, they seek communal control over the means of production and for the most part the intersubjective consensus has been that they should/are better off privately owned, the means of production were also privately owned before the first religiously justified states so it can be said they are not stepping stones or products of a state.

>>1124930
oh fuck of course it's you, I knew you browse /pol/
I'm "o well this is ok I guess".

>>1124878

A term Lenin supposedly coined the term useful idiot to describe the various and sundry fringe leftists who were giving him such glowing free advertising outside of the west.

More likely, it comes from Ludwig Von Mises in the term "Useful Innocent" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

>>1124949
Man, the day we all roll together is the day we smash Capitalism. Too bad Leftists are such shitheads, and too bad the Capitalists are too good at sewing dissent in our midst.

>>1124917

And suddenly the ad hominem begins.

>>1124879

>The worker can just get a job, the employer has to start all over again. The worker has the upper hand if we got rid of minimum wage.

Also, after that seemingly inexhaustible list of options the business owner has over the worker, as a last resort option, he can always, as you say, "just get a job."

>>1124949
they were all counter-revolutionary fascists and had to be purged.

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.txt

>>1124879
>>1124978
FUCKING TOLD.

>>1124950

>Wants to enforce private property and contract laws
>Anti-state

pick one

i wonder if anyone here has even read the work of the original american anarchists

>>1124947

Yeah, I can actually dig that sentiment even if I think it's lacking in the nitty gritty.

>>1124978
A lot of leftist academics stopped addressing such criticisms and started putting them psychoanalytic categories, and rightly so.
When such arguments are no longer arguments and simply over-repeated statements one cannot be bothered to address them as-is.

>>1124978
because there will be more jobs than workers.. i know in your centrally planned economy this won't be the case, so you can't even conceive of it.

>>1124985
>Anarcho-statists of spain
HAHA NOPE http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/spain/sp001532.html
Also look up Camilo Berneri

>>1125005
>centrally planned economy
laughingproleteriats.jpg

>>1125005
And this is, again, historically untrue.
It's astonishing you can repeat this line, given the current economic climate.

>>1124968

Actually, not you in particular. You're actually pretty fuckin' cool.

>>1124933

>Anarchist/Marxist split occurred before the Bolsheviks even took power

>>1124978
see
>>1124781

>>1124951
oh yeah, i've seen you. You're a pretty neat guy but I always make myself look like a dumbass on revleft since I don't know that much about Marxist theory

>>1125005

>because there will be more jobs than workers

Sounds good to me, although I don't think that's how you meant to say it.

>i know in your centrally planned economy this won't be the case, so you can't even conceive of it.

I'm not a proponent of Centrally Planned Economies.

>>1124966

Dude. We don't have to do shit. You guys troll yourselves.

>>1125022

Okay, sorry for assuming. My bad.

>>1125021
>current economic climate.
it's because of all the statist socialism that we have a shitty economy. freddie mac, fannie mae, forcing banks to loan money to people that have bad credit. give me a fucking break.

>>1125028
You are, again, reiterating points without addressing where they have been challenged.
You'd be chewed out of even a high school UN debate.

>>1125025
>implying Marx wouldn't have sided with the anarchists even before the Bolsheviks started massacring everyone

>>1125047
I don't blame you. I Blame Daily ZOG thread guy.

>>1125045

>Doesn't know that Marx theorized communism as a stateless society

>>1125039
I'm not well versed on Marx, either. Though really, communism can do well without marx and doesn't give a shit about the soviet union.
Though I generally hold my tongue. Not being purged is generally better than being purged
But yeah I've always respected you. Really, some of the best users of that site are restricted.

>>1125028

>That won't happen, he'd be stupid to do so and if he does then businesses like that will just die out.

So you're telling me that on the unlikely chance that a business owner would legitimately be facing starvation, that he would have to be "stupid" to liquidate a portion of his Capital to purchase food? What's the point of Capital if you're dead?

>>1125052
No, I told you that what you are saying won't happen because it is more profitable to increase wages to maintain your business than for the employer to kill his business and become an employee. Try to be realistic.

>>1125051
So when it turns out that it is true that unemployed outnumber jobs, you instead blame current economic organization, as if this proportion has never existed in other era of economic organization.

>>1125051

Be quiet

>>1125067
>So you're telling me that on the unlikely chance that a business owner would legitimately be facing starvation

I was talking about his business dying out in that comment. Sorry I'll try to be more clear.

>>1125071

>No, I told you that what you are saying won't happen because it is more profitable to increase wages to maintain your business than for the employer to kill his business and become an employee. Try to be realistic.

Maybe I'm just reading this wrong, but to me this sounds like you're saying that if the profit of a business starts decreasing, that it would be more wise to increase wages rather than laying off a worker or two?

>>1125061
Heh, that was me I think. I accidentally made it sound like the anarchists started massacring everyone, my new post is >>1125056

>>1125066
You know why I got restricted? Because I took issue with the fact that a woman should be able to abort her child MINUTES before going into labor. Also yeah, NGM85 is also restricted and he's a good guy, he actually tried to warn me when I made that post and told me to delete it, should've taken him more seriously :(

>>1125071
An employer does not need to "kill his business and become an employee", so long as there is less jobs than those in need of jobs. This has already been brought up. And again, a rentier can more than outlast workers in a battle of attrition, and therefore has no need of such compromise so long as such conditions prevail.

>>1125081
stalinist confirmed for butthurt

>>1125094
>Maybe I'm just reading this wrong, but to me this sounds like you're saying that if the profit of a business starts decreasing, that it would be more wise to increase wages rather than laying off a worker or two?

I was talking about how a business lowers and lowers their wages to the point that people no longer want to work for that business. It would be profitable to increase wages so that people are willing to work.

>>1125099
>An employer does not need to "kill his business and become an employee", so long as there is less jobs than those in need of jobs.

But he does have to pay his workers a wage that they are willing to work or else his business will die.

>>1125109

>I was talking about how a business lowers and lowers their wages to the point that people no longer want to work for that business. It would be profitable to increase wages so that people are willing to work.

Ah, well I was operating off of the hypothetical of a business going down the drain. We were obviously trying to argue two different points here.

In your case, I believe this applies.
>>1125099

>>1125081

Think of me as a gradualist. I believe that at a certain point, the state will whither away naturally and on it's own. If you're trying to force it through revolutionary means, well then you're committing the original sins of all of those planners over in the USSR who thought they were smart enough to set prices.

>>1125098
Yeah, I read the post. You linked me to it. It's bullshit, and I'm pretty sure everyone agrees.
Again, revleft is not a place to actually spread your genuine views. I'm pretty sure half the assholes there are just there to disseminate a particular party line.

>>1125120

>But he does have to pay his workers a wage that they are willing to work or else his business will die.

And as he said, so long as there are more laborers than jobs, he is in the prime position. Workers are actively competing against each other through offering their labor for less.

>>1125105

lol, i'm not even mad, I just think it's silly. I feel sorry for whoever wrote it to be honest.

>>1125135
>And as he said, so long as there are more laborers than jobs, he is in the prime position

And that's because minimum wage is too high. It creates a shortage of employers.
see image
>>1124757

>>1125120
"Willing to work". A man, so long as he cannot obtain any other labour, will most certainly work for subsistence pay. And, in this proportion, subsistence pay is certainly not a fanciful prospect. Marx may have not agreed with the iron law of wages, but he certainly acknowledged wages may by certain conditions come to subsistence pay.

>>1125141
so butthurt. your tears make my penis harder. please keep crying for me.

>>1125150
>A man, so long as he cannot obtain any other labour, will most certainly work for subsistence pay.

Not if his options are increased. Which is why we should have free market capitalism to increase his option so employers can compete for his labor.

>>1125061
It's too bad Marx was alienated by the anarchists when he was alive. Bakunin hated him because he was Jewish and lot of the anarchists misunderstood Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat. A lot of the anarchists (Not Bakunin) were really rabid and wanted to completely abolish authority, meaning a conductor would have just as much authority on a train as a passenger. They developed abstract arguments that were just silly. If they had been more rational, Marx probably would've written that a libertarian transitional society would be a better bet.

>>1125133
When I contacted the mod about my restriction, he said the official party line was that a woman can have an abortion at any time during the pregnancy. Also the worst part about revleft is that when rightwingers come into OI, people just start posting cat pictures.

>>1125167
And I'm serious, he said OFFICIAL PARTY LINE

It's ran by Soviet Union deluders.

>>1125145

>And that's because minimum wage is too high. It creates a shortage of employers. see image

Okay, even if you abolished the minimum wage, and workers were willing to work for just enough to live, you still have the prime position. If business starts going bad, all you have to do is lay off a couple of workers to maintain your profit margin. Even if doing this inevitably ultimately results in your business failing, you still have a lot more time and a lot more options than the employee (like the ones you just laid off, for instance)

>>1125164
Again, initial capital is always required in a business venture, which the underclass is wholly without. To raise "business opportunity" is simply to raise business opportunity among the propertied classes, which is hardly a policy against monopoly.

>>1125167
Let's not absolve Marx of all sins "The Poverty of Philosophy" was straight up dishonest and reeked of political motivation.

>>1125132

I believe a similar thing. Socialism from the top down with production being managed by diktat will never work, and will always be chronically inefficient. If things are managed locally the system will be much more efficient because it's the people who live in your area who know what the area needs rather than a guy 1000 miles away.

Lenin was pretty much an opportunist who took power and kept onto it, going against what the revolution was supposed to be all about. The only way for anything to work well is if the people are behind it.

>>1125167
Sometimes the cute cat pictures are justified, just saiyan.
Though I tend to avoid such threads, so I cannot speak on them all.

>>1124990
Its not so much me that wants to "enforce it" but people do, if people didnt then we would have communal ownership.
Not my fault you dont read between the lines.

>>1125185
>initial capital is always required in a business venture

So we have a free market, people save up their money as workers, and then we'll have a bunch of employers. Problem solved

>which is hardly a policy against monopoly.

It is. People will switch to the better business and the small ones can grow.

>TOE THE PARTY LINE OR ELSE
this is why nobody wants anarchists/communists to take over.

>>1125173
Really, it's hard to know who runs revleft. Everyone used to say it was technocrats and the ML's say it's left coms and everyone else says it's ML's.
cmoney seemed like a cool guy and now he's a mod and it turns out he was pretty active in the purges. Really, the most important thing I learned from revleft was how sectarianism works.

>>1125217
And as it has been REPEATEDLY demonstrated throughout the thread, a worker by the conditions of his wages cannot save any significant amount for a business venture.

>>1125222
Sounds more like the communists retarded younger brother, Leninists.

>>1125223
ML-ists will never have their revolution. They will be too frustrated when the proleteriats in the American south rise up but still have negative feelings towards homosexuals. HURR NOT PARTY LINE GET THE FUCK OUT YOU BOURGEOIS PIECE OF SHIT FEFMWEMMMGMGRWM

>>1125217

>So we have a free market, people save up their money as workers, and then we'll have a bunch of employers. Problem solved.

So people are put in to the same situation as indentured servitude in early America or chattel slavery in Colonial Brazil. In both of these systems, you could eventually work to your freedom, and could then go on to become self employed, a business owner, or a slave owner if you so desired.

This is no different than a worker being forced to work for someone else until he can save up enough money to start a business that has a 60% chance of failing.

>>1125222

>Anarchists
>Political system
>Force

>>1124950
Thanks for that post.

Well, I'm off to bed. It was nice having a relatively intelligent discussion with all of you. Good night.

>>1125242
>And as it has been REPEATEDLY demonstrated throughout the thread, a worker by the conditions of his wages cannot save any significant amount for a business venture.

Most millionaires are self-made. So you're wrong.

>>1125249
>you could eventually work to your freedom,

You don't need to work for your freedom.

>This is no different than a worker being forced to work for someone else until he can save up enough money to start a business that has a 60% chance of failing.

No one is forcing him to work. Starvation is not force. To say otherwise is to say that people should get food without having to work.

>>1125212

People enforcing ownership is not voluntary and is therefore employing violence and domination over another. Whether this is done by the individual, a private company, or the state is irrelevant - the ends are still the same.

>>1125280

Why do people have such black and white/absolutist thinking?

>>1125280
So the dichotomy is between millionaires and wage workers? ._.
certain jobs with the aspect of wage are divided from the realities of wage worker (meaning: though it is done with wage, it is absent from the conditions related to "wage work"). A man of upper middle class upbringings certainly has an amount of capital they can invest. However, this is from being divided from the majority of wage workers,

>>1125304
>People enforcing ownership is not voluntary and is therefore employing violence and domination over another.

I am just defending what I tied my labor into. If someone trespasses on my private property then they are the one initiating force.

I don't think you understand what liberty is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

>>1125317
They can still move up.

>>1125343
And again, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that they lack the conditions with which to "move up".

>>1125328

No, I understand what liberty is, I just don't accept your interpretation of it. Another issue is where you got the right to own that piece of land. You didn't build it, it was there before you, and it will be there after you. What gives you the right to say you own it?

And don't say "because I bought it," because the question then becomes "where did the person selling that land get the right to do it?"

>>1125352
>And again, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that they lack the conditions with which to "move up".

Nope. You have it backwards. They can get promotions, raises, and all that good stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDhcqua3_W8

Ya know what I fucking hate? People that assume anarchism = communism/socialism

What bullshit is that. Post-Left Anarchism is the only real anarchism.

>>1125365
>And don't say "because I bought it," because the question then becomes "where did the person selling that land get the right to do it?"

He was the first one to claim it? But so what. Private property gets taken care of better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEEULg-vHIw

>>1125304
So people don't own their bodies?
Thats called slavery.

>>1125314
Ironic

>>1125365
>>1125352

I'm going to bed. It was nice talking to you.

>>1125365
Another issue is where you got the right to own that piece of land. You didn't build it, it was there before you, and it will be there after you. What gives you the right to say you own it?

Most people agree that you own something if you homestead it in some form or another. You cant build land only homestead it you're being semantic. I dont believe i have a right to it, people allowed me to use/own that land because people realized that when people believe they actually own things they tend to take care of them better and become more productive.