Posting mode: Reply
[Return] [Bottom]
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Verification
reCAPTCHA challenge image
Get a new challenge Get an audio challengeGet a visual challenge Help
File
Password(Password used for file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 3072 KB.
  • Images greater than 250x250 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Read the rules and FAQ before posting.
  • Japanese このサイトについて - 翻訳

  • File: 1335396984.png-(138 KB, 1000x1933, Anarchist-Symbols.png)
    138 KB Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)19:36 No.2810080  
    Anarchist schools of thought & discussion general.

    Anarcho-Communist reporting in.

    Trolls welcome.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)19:37 No.2810098
    what the fuck is queer anarchy???

    fuck this board
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)19:39 No.2810117
    Anarcho-Syndicalist/Anarcho-Communist reporting in. Bump.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)19:41 No.2810140
    >>2810098
    It's the philosophical counter-point to queer socialism, obviously.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)19:42 No.2810147
    >>2810098
    Queer Anarchy is a branch of movement that emphasizes gay rights above all.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-queer
    I personally hate them though, coming from an Anarcho-Communist.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)19:43 No.2810160
    >>2810098
    It's extraneous if you ask me. Along with Anarcha-Feminism.
    The most pants-on-head retarded though, if you ask me, are the Anarcho-Primitivists. I mean, we at least have shot at abolishing capitalism and the government in a limited area, but convincing people to give up technology? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)19:43 No.2810161
    >gay rights above all
    that's gotta be the dumbest thing I ever heard
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)19:43 No.2810162
    How's school?
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)19:44 No.2810164
    >Green anarchism
    >Anarcha- (with a fucking "a") Feminism
    >Queer Anarchism
    >Anarcho-Pacifism

    Oh_shit_nigger_what_are_you_doing.jpg

    What the fuck is this shit?
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)19:44 No.2810172
    please do not, as an anarchist, recognize and thus legitimize "anarcho-capitalism".
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)19:44 No.2810173
    >>2810147
    How do you guarantee any rights in an anarchist society?
    >> PlatformistFag !!JuB1MCnwvsO 04/25/12(Wed)19:45 No.2810183
    >>2810173
    You can't, which is what makes the entire premise absurd.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)19:45 No.2810185
         File: 1335397526.jpg-(17 KB, 250x292, 1322521316355.jpg)
    17 KB
    >>2810160
    >>2810164
    >mfw primititards want to "rewild"
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)19:45 No.2810191
    >>2810164
    What this shit looks like, is anarchists who also happen to care strongly about environmental or gender issues. There's no conflict there?
    >> Kurt !8bECH3UGVE 04/25/12(Wed)19:46 No.2810199
    >Queer anarchism
    doesnt that go without saying
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)19:46 No.2810202
    >>2810173

    You can't. That's why you edgy 15 year olds that call themselves anarchists are always full of shit.

    Like this thread.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)19:46 No.2810208
         File: 1335397607.jpg-(9 KB, 272x185, Kim Jong Il - Kim Jong OK.jpg)
    9 KB
    ...Anarcho-Communist?

    You're title is an oxymoron. Anarchy means no government, while communism calls for government control of all property, industry, and agriculture, amongst other things.

    Therefore, you do not exist!

    2/10
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)19:47 No.2810212
         File: 1335397624.jpg-(21 KB, 472x355, Mill-breaktime.jpg)
    21 KB
    >queer socialism
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)19:47 No.2810213
    >>2810160
    >there are anarcho-primitivists on the internet
    This has got to be the biggest fucking joke since the AnCaps came on the scene.
    >> Kurt !8bECH3UGVE 04/25/12(Wed)19:47 No.2810215
    >>2810208
    4/10
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)19:49 No.2810246
         File: 1335397750.jpg-(9 KB, 640x272, 1322423119447.jpg)
    9 KB
    >>2810213
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Anarchism
    >National-Anarchism is a radical, anti-capitalist, anti-Marxist, anti-statist, right-wing political and cultural ideology which emphasizes ethnic tribalism.
    >As a prelude to an anticipated racial civil war and a collapse of the capitalist system, National-Anarchists seek to establish autonomous villages for völkisch communities, which have seceded from the state's economy and are no-go areas for unwelcomed ethnic groups and state authorities.
    >mfw this sounds like my type of ideology
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)19:50 No.2810260
    Anarcho-Pacifism is definitely the best of those option indisputably by far.
    >>2810160
    Anarcha-Feminism is a pretty distinct movement, bitches seriously believe we need to switch to a female-run society which would mean no need for patriarchal male organizations like a centralized government, and likely also that anything resembling either modern capitalism or real-world socialism would be out the window as well.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)19:52 No.2810293
         File: 1335397920.jpg-(8 KB, 150x116, 2372435765234.jpg)
    8 KB
    Anarcho-Capitalist master race

    >implying collective worker societies wouldn't just propagate statism
    >implying a free society shouldn't have a free market as well, and private ownership of what you've created/bled for
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)19:52 No.2810301
         File: 1335397942.gif-(1.78 MB, 250x187, 1320702737279.gif)
    1.78 MB
    >>2810246
    >no state
    >no capitalism
    >no niggers, jews, or spics
    >only the white master race working together in harmony
    This is glorious.
    >> PlatformistFag !!JuB1MCnwvsO 04/25/12(Wed)19:53 No.2810317
    >>2810260
    Common sense says no, my femdom fetish says yes.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)19:54 No.2810334
    >>2810293
    >ownership of what you've created/bled for

    the definition of socialism
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)19:54 No.2810339
    Quick and easy way to sound cool in your own mind:

    >choose a political philosophy
    >now, write anarcho before it

    Edginess is now yours.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)19:54 No.2810341
    >>2810317
    your femdom fetish is a product of a patriarchal society, sorry dude.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)19:55 No.2810360
         File: 1335398152.jpg-(6 KB, 184x184, 1327605073005.jpg)
    6 KB
    >>2810334

    Ownership, as in you own it. Not having it taken away from you to benefit society.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)19:56 No.2810372
    >>2810360
    >not having it taken away from you to benefit the guy who put up the money for the tools you use
    >> ANARCHY - a poem by John Henry Mackay Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)19:57 No.2810393
    >>2810339
    Ever reviled, accursed, ne'er understood,
    Thou art the grisly terror of our age.

    "Wreck of all order," cry the multitude,
    "Art thou, & war & murder's endless rage."

    0, let them cry. To them that ne'er have striven
    The 'truth that lies behind a word to find,

    To them the word's right meaning was not given.
    They shall continue blind among the blind.

    But thou, O word, so clear, so strong, so true,
    Thou sayest all which I for goal have taken.

    I give thee to the future! Thine secure
    When each at least unto himself shall waken.

    Comes it in sunshine? In the tempest's thrill?
    I cannot tell - but it the earth shall see!

    I am an Anarchist! Wherefore I will
    Not rule, and also ruled I will not be!
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)19:58 No.2810399
         File: 1335398292.png-(102 KB, 288x320, 1327963932535.png)
    102 KB
    >>2810372
    >having it taken away from you to benefit members of society who have had fuck all to do with your advancement

    Jesus, it's called personally motivated charity. If you want to give back to society then give back yourself. We're all adults capable of making our own decisions and not have our hard-earned work thrown out to anyone who applies for it.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)19:59 No.2810409
    >>2810393
    Anarchism: culturally relevant a hundred years ago.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:00 No.2810422
    >>2810409
    It's always relevant politically, and relevant economically and socially depending on what school of thought you follow.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:01 No.2810437
    >>2810339

    >Anarcho-Fascism

    I like it. It does sound cool. Now to figure out a way for it to work...

    >>2810191
    >putting women's/gay rights before HUMAN rights
    >Implying that focusing only on group will eliminate prejudice against that group, rather than alienate it
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:02 No.2810444
    >>2810437
    see
    >>2810246
    and
    >>2810293
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:03 No.2810458
    >>2810444
    whoops for the second post I meant
    >>2810301
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:03 No.2810463
    anarcho-monarchy
    anarcho-feudalism
    anarcho-theology
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:03 No.2810464
    You call put Anarcho on anything you want, you're still psychopaths using anarchy as a scapegoat for the sick shit you'd like to do.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:03 No.2810465
         File: 1335398615.jpg-(29 KB, 396x400, 1316218087938.jpg)
    29 KB
    >>2810444

    See there you go confusing capitalism with fascism. Where in my post did I say anarcho-fascism (which is contradictory in nature anyways)?

    Anarcho-capitalism allows for the most freedom out of any of these schools of thought.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:03 No.2810467
    >>2810399
    Again, no. That's capitalism under a social democratic government. Socialism is when the workers keep what they make, and decide what to do with it. Often things are made by collective effort, so they are collectively owned and managed. Capitalism deprives the worker of this autonomy, and is inherently hierarchic and exploitative, which is why it is not and can never be a part of an anarchist society.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:03 No.2810472
    >>2810465
    I misquoted. Sorry.
    >> PlatformistFag !!JuB1MCnwvsO 04/25/12(Wed)20:04 No.2810482
    >>2810465
    >Anarcho-capitalism allows for the most freedom out of any of these schools of thought.

    >Communism guarantees economic freedom better than any other form of association, because it can guarantee wellbeing, even luxury, in return for a few hours of work instead of a day's work. Now, to give ten or eleven hours of leisure per day out of the sixteen during which we lead a conscious life (sleeping eight hours), means to enlarge individual liberty to a point which for thousands of years has been one of the ideals of humanity.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:04 No.2810489
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)
    >Contemporary mutualist author Kevin Carson holds that capitalism[3] has been founded on "an act of robbery as massive as feudalism," and argues that capitalism could not exist in the absence of a state. He says "[i]t is state intervention that distinguishes capitalism from the free market".[26] He does not define capitalism in the idealized sense, but says that when he talks about "capitalism" he is referring to what he calls "actually existing capitalism." He believes the term "laissez-faire capitalism" is an oxymoron because capitalism, he argues, is "organization of society, incorporating elements of tax, usury, landlordism, and tariff, which thus denies the Free Market while pretending to exemplify it".
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:04 No.2810496
    >>2810463
    Anarcho-theology sounds pretty baller actually. Accept no authority, temporal or spiritual.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:05 No.2810498
    Anarcho-communist here
    as far as i'm concerned communism is anarchism so it isn't necessary to put anarcho in front of it and most of these other types of anarchy are either not a type of anarchy (anarcho-capitalism) or anarchy with an emphasis on the rights of one thing which isn't anarchism either
    so in reality their's communism (anarcho-communism) anarcho-primitivism (which will never happen unless the entire society is uneducated) and anarcho-pacifism which i don't really know about but i assume its the same thing as anarcho-communism with out the uprising
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:05 No.2810508
         File: 1335398750.jpg-(7 KB, 125x125, 1317269352905.jpg)
    7 KB
    >>2810467

    Capitalism does not deprive anyone of anything. It allows for the most freedom, completely outside of a collective thought and pseudo-government, like your anarcho-communism would propose.

    Thus anarcho-capitalism is the truest form of anarchism. Under tenets of mutualism, workers can profit from each other and earn their hard day's work. There is no hierarchy and no one's cheated.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:07 No.2810519
         File: 1335398858.jpg-(47 KB, 323x323, 1271988173586.jpg)
    47 KB
    >implying Anarcho-capitalism isn't the only form of anarchy that makes sense
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:07 No.2810521
         File: 1335398859.jpg-(261 KB, 640x911, Karl_Marx_001.jpg)
    261 KB
    Fellow AnComs/AnSynds,
    What do you think about Marx? Personally, I think he was an ambiguous wackjob who was wrong or disproven about just about everything he ever churned out. I have to give him credit for demonstrating how the worker is exploited by using the LTV, though.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:07 No.2810523
    >>2810467

    >anarchist society.

    wat. does not compute.

    Anarchy does not have a way to protect your natural rights, short of you defending them yourself. So, instead of building society and civilization, you have to stand on your porch with a 12 gauge all day, protecting your land from idiots who want "your" land. But that land isn't really your land, because there is no governing body to say "hey, that's his land there. You can't have it".

    Anarchist society cannot into existence.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:07 No.2810525
         File: 1335398866.jpg-(153 KB, 535x798, 1317621042093.jpg)
    153 KB
    >>2810482

    >Work the same job without any chance of advancement or a job change, for your entire life

    or

    >Work hard at a job for years and retire early, thus giving you all the free time in the world.

    Ya, there's definitely a flaw in your argument there buddy. I'll take true, unadulterated capitalism anyday.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:08 No.2810538
         File: 1335398928.jpg-(38 KB, 430x320, missile-command-psp.jpg)
    38 KB
    Sometimes I see people wearing a pin that has the colours yellow, black and red. The angles are all straight and I think the black takes up half while the other two take up a quarter each. I've seen those same colours on the voluntaryist standard, but this one doesn't have the big V as part of the design.

    Can any of you pinkos tell me what ideology this standard belongs to?
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:09 No.2810547
    >>2810508
    Capitalism very clearly deprives people of everything they can't afford to purchase, that's the basic premise of private property.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:09 No.2810551
         File: 1335398979.png-(139 KB, 190x187, 1332011763516.png)
    139 KB
    >>2810521
    >>2810521
    >LTV
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:10 No.2810554
    >>2810519
    >pretending people are implying obvious truths that they have stated outright
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:10 No.2810557
    >>2810538
    I think it's mutualist anarchism or just anarchy without adjectives (the movement to unify all the anarchist schools under the common goal of abolishing the State).
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:11 No.2810569
    >>2810551
    I personally detest the LTV and think labor should not and cannot be valued, and Marx believed about the same thing, but he used it as a tool to prove his own theory.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:12 No.2810580
    >>2810463
    anarcho-kleptocracy
    anarcho-tribalsim
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:12 No.2810592
    >>2810521
    His critique of capitalism is spot on and rightly influential, it's impossible to imagine what economics would look like today if Capital had never been written.

    As a socialist thinker he's pretty much a non-entity.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:12 No.2810593
    >>2810547

    The premise of private property is the means to own for yourself what you've hard worked for.

    And if you can't afford something, you work harder to be able to reach it. It's that simple.

    What you have confused for capitalism, like most Communist academic liberals nowadays often have done, is crony-capitalism. Under pure capitalist terms you get what you earn.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:13 No.2810598
    >>2810547
    That is what credit is for. Duh
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:14 No.2810606
    >>2810525
    Without the last sentence, I'd assume this post was advocating a socialist economy.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:14 No.2810615
    That's a very interesting list of all the retarded political philosophies that won't work anywhere but fantasy land.

    The question is: which is the most retarded and unrealistic?

    Also, have a quote:

    "Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man. For war consisteth not in battle only, or the act of fighting, but in a tract of time, wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known: and therefore the notion of time is to be considered in the nature of war, as it is in the nature of weather. For as the nature of foul weather lieth not in a shower or two of rain, but in an inclination thereto of many days together: so the nature of war consisteth not in actual fighting, but in the known disposition thereto during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is peace.

    Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:15 No.2810623
    >>2810593
    Your theories about what capitalism is and is not are irrelevant. What you would call capitalism doe snot exist. It never has existed and it never will. It cannot exist. Your hypothetical bullshit is meaningless.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:15 No.2810633
         File: 1335399345.jpg-(54 KB, 630x630, 42342.jpg)
    54 KB
    >>2810393

    Ooh a poem, that's me told
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:17 No.2810655
    >>2810623

    Um... no.

    How about, America before FDR and an oppressive nanny-state style government?
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:17 No.2810660
         File: 1335399447.jpg-(32 KB, 215x276, Pffffffff.jpg)
    32 KB
    >>2810623

    And your communist bullshit can't exist either. What the fuck do you think the twentieth century proved? That ultimately Communist societies devolve into poor, corrupt, dictatorships where the people suffer under harsh conditions, poverty and famine.

    Jesus christ; those who died during the Great Depression in capitalist countries don't even remotely come close to those who perished in the famines and purges of Communist societies.

    Fuck off with your Marxism shit already.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:17 No.2810668
    >>2810598
    To bolster the capitalist system by strengthening the hold of the bourgeoisie over the working class? Well obviously.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:18 No.2810680
    >>2810593
    >pure capitalism has never been tried!!!!!!!
    You're on the same level as the Marxist apologists for vangaurd-state communism.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:19 No.2810689
         File: 1335399556.jpg-(32 KB, 307x291, 1279276724123.jpg)
    32 KB
    >>2810660
    Rofl, cool strawman bro. I'm not even a Marxist, or even a communist. You lolbertarians are so silly.

    Pro tip: the Soviet Union had nothing to do with communism.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:19 No.2810694
         File: 1335399577.jpg-(16 KB, 200x264, machiavelli.jpg)
    16 KB
    >>2810615
    >implying anarchists are smart enough to understand that

    If they were, they wouldn't be anarchists.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:19 No.2810697
    >>2810680

    Removes state.

    Apply mutualism:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)

    Boom! No more hierarchy and people getting fucked over.

    Tell me where that's been tried and actually failed.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:20 No.2810706
    >>2810444
    >>2810458

    Sounds legit, but I'm not racist enough to support racial separatism.

    >"The most important thing for us is the Natural Order. It is natural for men and women to procreate. Anything which threatens the harmony of Nature must be opposed."

    >"National-Anarchists publicly advocate a model of society in which communities that practice racial, ethnic, religious or sexual separatism are able to peacefully coexist alongside mixed or integrated communities without requiring force"

    Interesting concepts, though.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:20 No.2810712
    >>2810538

    It does SOUND like the mutualist/voluntaryist flag...

    I wonder.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:21 No.2810717
         File: 1335399678.jpg-(63 KB, 587x387, kissinger 19750429.jpg)
    63 KB
    >>2810694
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:21 No.2810720
    >>2810689

    It was attempt to instill communism. And like the others; it failed.

    And I'm sorry, I automatically assumed you were Marxist.

    The fact of the matter is that history has shown that capitalist societies with free markets have always been more prosperous than communist societies. Why do you think China loosened its economic controls in the '80s?
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:22 No.2810728
    >>2810697
    >no state

    It's already failed.

    What can a state-less society do if they get invaded? Utopia the invaders to death?
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:22 No.2810731
    >>2810720

    *Install
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:22 No.2810734
    >>2810615
    >each man is waging war against each other
    Is dat some Hobbes?
    that's the most laughable proposition ever. Man is a social animal. The State is an extraneous, malign, and tyrannical apparatus hindering the true potention of man, be it capitalist or communist.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:23 No.2810750
    >>2810660
    >Jesus christ; those who died during the Great Depression in capitalist countries don't even remotely come close to those who perished in the famines and purges of Communist societies.

    The funny thing is, they do. People who died as a result of crop failures or whatever are routinely included in statistics of Mao and Stalin's COMMUNIST DEATH REGIME BODY COUNT. The same standards are never applied to western regimes by western historians, for some unfathomable reason.

    The 20th century proved that a form of socialism can exist in the real world, and has the power to create a state that feeds the masses and educates the oppressed, even in impoverished and underveloped countries that had to pull themselves out of the pre-industrial era by main force, while facing constant aggression from the capitalist world. It's a shame it didn't last.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:24 No.2810758
    >>2810728

    I heard an interesting theory (just a theory) where in a society such as this defense is left to private defense agencies (mercenaries) who are paid by societies based on credit.

    So if they decide to go against their contract to defend an area, or commit atrocities; they aren't paid, and it negatively hurts them in the free market.

    The problem would be; do you really want mercenaries protecting you?
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:24 No.2810769
    What do you left-anarchists think about the Social Democrats proposing government regulations on big business, tax increases for the rich, and general Progressive reforms?
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:25 No.2810775
    >>2810734
    >Man is a social animal.

    Indeed.

    That doesn't mean that he isn't naturally selfish and shortsighted, which is what he is. A society without a state is a society with a power vacuum, and you'd have to be childishly naive to think for a second that a power vacuum is simply going to remain unfilled.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:25 No.2810776
    >>2810729

    Agreed. Christmas colors are the only decent ones.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:26 No.2810794
    >>2810523
    An "anarchist" society would have to be composed of individuals having high moral character, so nobody would raid your garden or steal your tools. If you need locks on the door it won't work. The border of your society would have to be patrolled, however, 24 hours a day.

    If I were to found such a society, the first person to join would be a psychologist specializing in psychopathy to prevent selfish, greedy individuals from joining.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:27 No.2810807
    >>2810769
    I'll take it but I'm not going to accept for a second that it justifies capitalism just because first world countries guarantee their citizens a basic standard of living. The exploitation is happening on a global scale.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:28 No.2810817
         File: 1335400089.jpg-(23 KB, 350x300, Batman.jpg)
    23 KB
    >>2810750

    That's because they simply do not exist. You're pulling bullshit out of more bullshit to try and save your argument that you think these failed societies were actually "good".

    I mean holy shit how can you believe a society is good where millions perish from disease and state-induced famine and terror? How were peasants fed after the Russian Civil War? In 1930s Russia? In 1960s China?

    They weren't. They starved to death as the result of government mishaps and failed programs. You're failure to see this is probably due to you worshiping the ground that your Communist-party affiliated academic "intellectuals" walk on.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:29 No.2810830
    >>2810769
    quite frankly I'm divided. I hate big business and capitalism, but I also hate the State. I'm probably going to be taking a spectator role from now on.
    OWS, if they want to be fresh and relevant, needs to adopt the left-anarchist platform.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:29 No.2810844
         File: 1335400199.jpg-(123 KB, 788x1024, Marx and Bakunin.jpg)
    123 KB
    >>2810521
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:31 No.2810872
    >>2810758
    Also, who pays for these mercenaries?

    A large business? Then it essentially becomes the state.

    Voluntary donations? Won't happen. You can't run a military on bake sales.

    Mandatory contributions? Who's going to enforce those contributions without a state?

    Not to mention that you can't just hire them on the fly. They would need to be constantly funded even in times of peace as you need to constantly be putting money into making sure that your military is up-to-date, otherwise you might run into a situation where you're essentially fighting with pointy stick against men with tanks.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:31 No.2810882
    >>2810844
    That's probably one of the best things to come out of /pol/, along with niggerwalk.
    >inb4 niggerwalk was made on /new/
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:31 No.2810884
    >>2810817
    I'm not failing to see anything, I'm recognising the prevailing narrative as slanted. Nobody claims that the USSR was remotely perfect, only that it made improvements and was less harmful overall than forces like the US and Britain.

    Seriously, millions of people died in the great depression, in the indian famines, in dozens of instances where swift action on the part of the state could have saved lives. When people starved in the USSR, it was because the country was too poor to feed them. When people starve in capitalist countries, it's because there's no profit in helping them.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:32 No.2810894
         File: 1335400360.jpg-(69 KB, 400x294, 1334938735675.jpg)
    69 KB
    >>2810830
    OWS is a vehicle of the radical Left. It's an enterprise designed to get their message out there, and to gain recruits from all the ripe, idealistic 20 somethings who are being the movement's useful idiots by taking part in Occupy without fully understanding what it is.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:32 No.2810895
    >>2810775
    > naturally selfish and shortsighted
    This may be the case for some (maybe you), usually people who choose positions of leadership, so they assume everyone is like them. Most people are not. I am not.

    >naive to think for a second that a power vacuum is simply going to remain unfilled
    It will remain unfilled if nobody seeks power. Anybody that wants any kind of power over others would need to be identified and excluded from the society.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:33 No.2810913
    >>2810894
    Only because the way things are going these days, anyone who doesn't want to privatize the atmosphere is a radical leftist.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:37 No.2810971
    >>2810913
    Pardon?
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:38 No.2810975
    >>2810895
    >Most people are not.
    Wrong. All of history shows that this is the way that people are. Your ideological bullshit cannot change that.
    >I am not.
    I seriously doubt it. Let's put you in a position of power, or at least in a position where you stand to gain a lot of power, and see you not try to take it. People are basically selfish and seek to better their own lot. I doubt you're that much different. I'd be willing to bet you're just in a position where you don't stand to gain power, so you don't understand the thirst for it.

    >It will remain unfilled if nobody seeks power.
    Everybody seeks to gain power

    >Anybody that wants any kind of power over others would need to be identified and excluded from the society.
    Then you'd have a society with nobody in it.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:38 No.2810983
    >>2810884

    You are definitely failing to see something if you think the US and Britain were more harmful overall than the Soviet Union.

    >Russian Civil War: 5,000,000 dead
    250,000 of those executed by the Cheka (Soviet secret police)
    >5 million dead in the 1921 Russian famine
    >2.4 to 7.5 million dead from the Holodomor (state induced famine in Ukraine)
    >millions dead in the Soviet genocide of Cossacks
    >millions dead in the Soviet genocide of Kulaks
    >millions perished in the Soviet famine of 1932-1933
    >millions dead under Stalin in general
    >1.5 million dead in the Soviet famine of 1946-47

    Where the fuck do numbers come even close to this in Capitalist countries? It's absurd.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:40 No.2811008
    How would the other forms of anarchy even exist?
    How could you have anarcho-communism without using some sort of force or authority?
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:41 No.2811027
         File: 1335400911.jpg-(91 KB, 800x460, brazil.jpg)
    91 KB
    I can't wait for the Brazilification of the U.S.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:41 No.2811028
    >>2811008

    Because everyone will share and human greed will disappear because sunshine.

    makes more sense when you're high.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:44 No.2811080
    >>2811008
    These faggots have hugely misjudged the nature of humanity.

    They think society would just sort of go with it.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:44 No.2811087
    >>2810983
    The only one of those numbers that is maybe not just propaganda is the russian civil war death toll, and I agree, it is deeply regrettable that people die in wars. Now do you care to explain why famine in communist countries is always apparently state-induced, and why capitalist regimes are never held to be responsible to famines that happen on their watch?
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:45 No.2811096
    >>2810975
    Speak for yourself.
    If I were that selfish I would have left my family years ago. Raising two children is the most difficult job I have ever had, but I care more about them than I do about myself, otherwise I would have run out the door 10 years ago. There are more selfless people than you can possibly know, but you can't believe it, because from your perspective, everyone is a selfish bastard like you.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:46 No.2811118
    >>2811028
    I'm not talking about greed.
    If everyone just decided to work together and there were no government then technically it would just be anarcho-capitalism.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:47 No.2811131
    >>2811080
    You see, all this boils down to is different interpretations of human nature. I, along with other anarchist communist, believe that man is an inherently social animal and will work with others voluntarily, through mutual aid, for not only the betterment of all but also to increase their chances of survival.
    Anarchist Communists do not believe in forcing people to adopt their system, rather, they believe in leading by example.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:48 No.2811150
    OK, an exercise: what would happen in your town if all the administrators and cops just vanished instantly?
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:48 No.2811152
    Anarchism works on the non-aggression principle, anything other than AnCap is an act of coercion to private individuals. That is unless you're allowing other forms of Anarchy to exist while you create a private state and pretend it's not the same as every other communist nation that has failed.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:49 No.2811159
    >>2811096
    >>2811096

    >implying ensuring your offspring are raised isn't self-interest
    >implying you didn't choose not to leave because you'd get thrown in jail

    You aren't a saint; just another greedy, selfish person.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:49 No.2811170
    >>2811087

    My point is that famines like these never happened in capitalist countries. It happened in Communist Russia. In Communist China. It was a tool by the government to quell rebellious subjects.

    Anarchism had a foothold in the Ukraine, for example, as did Ukrainian nationalism and a yearning for their own country and identity.

    Stalin used famine as a means of weakening them. And he COULD do that because he was the state, and had all the tools under his disposal.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:50 No.2811182
    >>2811131
    I'm not even going to comment on how ridiculous that sounds, but if a bunch of people want to work together voluntarily, isn't that just anarcho-capitalsm at work?
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:51 No.2811193
    >>2811152

    >Anarchism works on the non-aggression principle

    >work for a boss or starve
    >not coercion

    >cis privilege
    >not social oppression

    AnCaps just call whatever corporations do "freedom" and leave it at that.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:52 No.2811197
    >>2811170

    p.s. I'm referring to the Holodomor here.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:52 No.2811198
    >>2811096
    Care for one's children is a basic instinct. In fact, caring for one's loved ones isn't any great show of selflessness. It's no more different than protecting your belongings. True selflessness would be making sacrifices for people you've never met before, will probably never meet again, with no expectation to get anything in return. A few people possess this trait, but there are far too few to base a society around their behavior.

    I'm talking large scale here.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:52 No.2811216
    Guys, can we stop the AnCap vs. AnCom bickering and focus our efforts on those Statist shills?
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:53 No.2811224
         File: 1335401606.jpg-(131 KB, 500x333, 3368425688_49d0b8cf0c.jpg)
    131 KB
    >>2811193
    >cis privilege
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:54 No.2811236
    >>2811193
    Why do you feel entitled to other people paying for you to live?
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:54 No.2811245
    >>2811159
    No, I have empathy. I would feel bad about how my kids would feel if dad just up and left. I couldn't live with myself. Obviously you are a soulless, psychopathic bastard. You are what is wrong with humanity. You have not risen above the level of an animal. Humanity is capable of more. I hope you don't reproduce.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:55 No.2811250
    >>2811193
    >referring to working for pay as coercion
    Keep fabricating, no one forces you to work, you can starve and die

    >implying monopolies exist in a free market and are not a product of the aggressive state
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:55 No.2811262
    >>2811216

    But the [insert opposing faction] are Statists in denial.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:57 No.2811292
    >>2811170
    And my point is that famines did happen, are still happening, with regularity, in capitalist countries, but they're not talked about so much and they're usually regarded as unfortunate natural disasters rather than indictments of the free market or representative democracy.

    >http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/19-05-2008/105255-famine-0/
    >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
    http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/foreign_affairs/Food_speculation_blamed_for_East_Africa_famine.
    html?cid=31607472
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:57 No.2811299
    >>2811250

    If I stole the fruits of your labor and made you work to get them back, would that be coercion?
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:58 No.2811304
         File: 1335401887.png-(130 KB, 396x381, disgruntled_frog.png)
    130 KB
    >feminist anarchism

    >queer anarchism

    LOL.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:58 No.2811309
    >>2810208

    >...Anarcho-Communist?

    >You're title is an oxymoron. Anarchy means no government, while communism calls for government control of all property, industry, and agriculture, amongst other things.

    Communism calls for a stateless, classless, moneyless society.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)20:59 No.2811320
    >>2811193
    So who exactly is initiating force on you by not giving you money for free?
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)21:00 No.2811334
    >>2811198
    I've done it. I have done work for people and haven't billed them if it looks like they can't afford it. I give anonymously. I volunteer in my community. It's mutualist. I only hope that when I am a feeble old man I won't be thrown out with the garbage. Other than that I expect nothing but happiness as a reward.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)21:00 No.2811338
    >>2811299
    >implying private property is theft and not homesteading
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)21:00 No.2811341
    >>2811320

    How do you infer that?
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)21:02 No.2811369
    >>2811341
    You're >implying that not being provided for is coercion.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)21:02 No.2811372
    >>2811338

    >kick farmers off of their land
    >kick workers out of their factories
    >we homesteaded it!

    Capitalist logic.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)21:02 No.2811375
    >>2810975
    people do worse things to hold on to power than they do trying to gain power
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)21:03 No.2811397
    >>2811372
    Who's kicking anyone off of their land?
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)21:04 No.2811417
         File: 1335402289.jpg-(8 KB, 300x300, anarchy.jpg)
    8 KB
    >>2811152

    You don't understand the tyranny of wage labor.

    Capitalism is where a proprietor, who owns the means of production, uses the labor of others to enrich himself, and pays a remuneration(wage) back to the laborer. There's no SHARING of the PRODUCT which was MUTUALLY CREATED by both "PROPRIETOR" and "LABORER". There is the "exploiter", who owns that which he did not labor for, and the "exploited", who loses most of what he labors for.


    Now, I thought you "capitalists" accepted the idea that you should keep all the profits of your labor?

    This inherent contradiction is why American "libertarianism" is so retarted of an ideology, because it contradicts itself.
    >> Anarcho-Capitalist DCPagan !!paTigYENfdV 04/25/12(Wed)21:05 No.2811423
         File: 1335402315.jpg-(8 KB, 377x233, dd.3.jpg)
    8 KB
    Communists, answer me this:
    what is there to stop people from acquiring means of production, investing in capital, and freely trading with others?
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)21:08 No.2811478
    >>2811423
    Well, people don't have the power to do that on their own. The peasantry had to be forcefully dispossessed of their land to get capitalism started in the first place, after all. It takes a well organised bourgeois class with the support of the state to make it happen.

    Whatever you can make on your own, or in free association with others, you can of course give or trade to whoever you please.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)21:10 No.2811514
    >>2811309
    Anarcho-Stalinism/Marxism-Leninism/Maoism is an oxymoron
    Anarcho-Communism is redundant

    also I'm an Anarcho-Communist but the time I've spent playing Paradox grand strategies is making me really dislike that flag
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)21:13 No.2811571
    >>2811417
    Your concept of labor is flawed significantly

    >individuals choose to work for others
    >plenty of common resources for private individuals to compete
    >anyone can quit their job and open up shop for themselves

    Your egalitarian concept doesn't factor in individuals who do not work and still reap the benefits of the labor and it forces subsidization by means of mere existence.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)21:14 No.2811591
         File: 1335402878.jpg-(124 KB, 400x523, all seeing eye.jpg)
    124 KB
    >>2811423

    > Acquiring means of production

    > Implying anarchists are against that

    We are against capitalism because the capitalist steals the majority of the product that was produced mutually between HIS means of production and the laborer, and his labor.

    This is inherently forceful.

    Ideally, everyone should have their owns means of production. That just isn't technologically feasible, although we are getting closer each day.

    That's why "communism" doesn't involve ANY force. It is actually LESS forceful because everyone gets equally what they contributed.

    Otherwise, we get "crony-capitalism", where corporations pay the government to use its force.

    Eventually it becomes another despotism.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)21:15 No.2811602
    >>2811417
    Capitalism = mutual agreement
    there's no contradiction, the people in the factories are working there by choice. If the factory owner is completely redundant then the workers could likely just get together and purchase the factory themselves. But the owner is the one who supplies everything, and takes all the risk, if the workers think that's unfair they are free to leave.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)21:22 No.2811707
         File: 1335403343.jpg-(180 KB, 623x768, Henry_David_Thoreau.jpg)
    180 KB
    >>2811571

    > Individuals choose to work FOR others, as in, in a hierarchy-in capitalism

    > Instead of individuals choose to work WITH others, as equals- in anarchy

    YOUR idea doesn't factor in that most products are created as a result of the cooperation of laborer and proprietor in our society. That means that, in order for all to experience the benefits of the labor, SOMEONE has to be subjugated( as in, most) in order to get the product. This is inherently wrong.

    Lazy bums in an anarchist society don't last long. One would have to work for what they contributed, TO THE FINAL PRODUCT. So if you didn't work, you don't get anything, OF THAT PRODUCT.

    One could still stake out a living for himself, rough it. He just wouldn't have the aid of his fellow man to get higher luxury in his life.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)21:24 No.2811733
         File: 1335403449.jpg-(66 KB, 456x468, 1335208400422 (1).jpg)
    66 KB
    Look at this crazy red zealot. I wonder how many of you anarchists have the same crazed eyes.
    >> DCPagan !!paTigYENfdV 04/25/12(Wed)21:25 No.2811749
    >>2811591
    No it's not.
    Laborers freely chose to work for the capitalist; they, the owners of labor, freely sold their labor to the owner of production at a price that they bargained for; there is nothing forceful about wage labor.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)21:26 No.2811767
    >>2811707
    But I want to work for other people, because it's much more efficient that way. Why can't the people who want to work with other people get together with the other people who want to work with other people and work together, and the people who want to work for someone do that.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)21:29 No.2811814
    >>2811334
    Well, good then.

    But you aren't a whole society. Even if you are the shining pillar that you say you are, that doesn't mean the rest of society behaves like you do.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)21:31 No.2811859
    >>2811707

    Not all products are derived from cooperation. Individuals choose to freely assemble around production. You seem to believe because one owns a business, the person who risks the initial capital, organizes the labor, oversees production, and employs, that he is forcing individuals to work for him. Individuals are compensated fairly for the work they put in. Not everyone is a laborer, some are management, and most have experience. The average worker doesn't have the experience or familiarity that certain jobs require.

    Resources are fairly distributed by nature with a wide array of common resources to be fished upon without end. Private individuals who enact labor on a section of land can claim ownership of that said land. There is no force in creating a business around that.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)21:32 No.2811867
    >>2811749

    Yes, the agreement isn't forceful.

    But that's why were advocating for people to STOP doing just that.

    Just as we are advocating for people to get rid of their government. We are advocating a different way of life. A better way of life, for all.

    >>2811767

    > It's more efficient to work FOR people

    In your experience, is it more productive to work with someone as a lower person, or as an equal?

    Your last question is exactly what anarchists want. People sharing in the productivity of their fellow man, each contributing his worth, voluntarily(if he wants the final product).
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)21:35 No.2811914
    Anarcho-Capitalism, where slavery is voluntary.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)21:35 No.2811922
    >>2811867

    Individuals work better alone, ever hear of scientific management?
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)21:37 No.2811959
    >>2811867
    You're a moron if you think that absolutely every means of productions is always more efficient when everyone is equal.

    >Your last question is exactly what anarchists want. People sharing in the productivity of their fellow man
    You missed my point, I want to know why the people who are willing and want to work for someone shouldn't be able to do that, as everyone who wants to work together with mutual benefit is free to do that.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)21:37 No.2811962
         File: 1335404273.png-(559 KB, 495x627, paulscum.png)
    559 KB
    They're all for 13 year olds
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)21:39 No.2811997
    >>2811922

    >Individuals work better alone, ever hear of scientific management?

    Pretty much this. People who always want to work in groups can't produce anything worthwhile on their own.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)21:43 No.2812068
         File: 1335404587.jpg-(146 KB, 557x800, rich.jpg)
    146 KB
    >>2811859

    >Not all products are derived from cooperation.

    Damn right. That's why, in an anarchist society, edgy assholes who don't want to cooperate with people can stake a living for themselves, and be assholes somewhere else; enjoying the products of their labor, also known as property.

    > You seem to believe because one owns a business, the person is forcing individuals to work for him.
    Why is it wrong for people to sell themselves into bondage?

    > Individuals are compensated fairly for the work they put in. The average worker doesn't have the experience or familiarity that certain jobs require.

    Ahh, so it's finally come out. You believe that the capitalist should be UNEQUALLY ENUMERATED for his "managing labor" because it's so much more valuable than any other type of labor.

    Who decides that it's more valuable? Was it the capitalist!? I think so! Gosh, I'd like you to tell the janitor at your state-school(prison) that his work is less valuable than the manager who enjoys the fruits of his labor.

    What you need to grasp, conceptually, is that the final product is RIGHTFULLY owned equally by those who worked for it.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)21:44 No.2812092
    >>2811397

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSvoj76NRLM
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)21:48 No.2812175
    >>2812068

    >What you need to grasp, conceptually, is that the final product is RIGHTFULLY owned equally by those who worked for it

    Why?
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)21:51 No.2812237
    >>2812068

    >Unequal work does not equate to equal ownership or ownership in itself
    >Laborers willfully contribute to a business for monetary gain and d not expect to get the same pay as the person who has more experience/owns the business

    Also how the fuck is the janitor at a school teaching children? You have to contort yourself to view private property the way you do.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)21:59 No.2812372
    >>2812175
    The workers are the ones making the product and running the factory, they can easly run the business too. This is how Valve operates.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)22:01 No.2812398
         File: 1335405660.jpg-(58 KB, 1024x768, the godfather3.jpg)
    58 KB
    >>2812237
    >>2812175

    Let me set up a very clear, real world example of why the final product should be equally shared, even if someone arbitrarily contributed "more" or was "more valuable", which is the most subjective qualification, but whatever:

    > I own a factory
    > 99 people agree to produce clothes on the factory
    > I keep 80% of the profit, simply because I owned the factory
    > They get 20% of the profit
    > I can go and enjoy my life, living off of the 80% which I did not work for. I don't work, I don't supervise, I simply own the factory, and reap the benefits.
    > Meanwhile, the workers have to work day and night, for shit pay in a shit place. They don't know if they're going to be fired or not, whether they'll harm themselves. Some have been working there since childhood.

    Can you not see the depravity? Tell me I'm not alone?
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)22:01 No.2812411
    >>2812372

    Yes and no one is stopping them from opening their own business and doing that.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)22:02 No.2812430
    >>2812372

    But that doesn't say anything about ownership. How do people get to own things? Other workers can march in, and kick the old ones out. They can run the place, does that mean they rightfully own it?

    Also, do you believe in the subjective theory of value?
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)22:04 No.2812446
         File: 1335405854.jpg-(118 KB, 489x453, french-revolution-2.jpg)
    118 KB
    >>2812411

    So you want everyone to open there own business, so everyone isn't exploited?

    I suppose a real capitalist society would be very lonely.....good thing we have corporatism!! Which is not at all an inevitable result of capitalism, right? ;)

    Or, you could open your mind. Think a bit. Read some books.

    You'll get there. It took me a while. There's no reason why the state, or hierarchical corporations should exist. IT is willful ignorance to suggest otherwise, in the face of sound logic, which I have showed you.

    End oppression. Protest the system on May 1st. Don't go to school. Don't go to work. Occupy.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)22:04 No.2812447
    >>2812398

    >They choose to work there
    >He owns the property and is paying them to do work
    >He risked the capital to open the business
    >He ensures the business is running well
    >He chooses the products
    >He invents the products
    >He coordinates marketing of the good
    >He is the only one with a long-standing loss if the business collapses
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)22:04 No.2812452
    >>2812068
    Laborers in a capitalistic society do own a portion of the final product. Their paycheck is a monetary representation of the portion of the product that they own.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)22:04 No.2812460
         File: 1335405894.jpg-(71 KB, 371x364, donteven (2).jpg)
    71 KB
    >Anarcho-communist

    What's the difference between annarcho-communism and communism?
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)22:07 No.2812499
    >>2812398
    But the beauty of capitalism is that those 99 workers don't HAVE to work in that factory.

    They can create their own factory, produce the clothes for themselves, and share them equally if they want to.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)22:07 No.2812507
    >>2812446
    >not sure if trolling

    Corporatism is the product of the monopolistic state, monopolies do not exist in a truly free market. Additionally, you are correct, each individual is likely to become his own merchant, often engaging in the trade of goods.

    I don't argue for a state, I argue against anything other than AnCap.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)22:08 No.2812514
         File: 1335406090.jpg-(14 KB, 300x400, 1335080956244.jpg)
    14 KB
    >>2812446

    You do realize the French revolution only ushered in a bloody decade, replacing ruler after ruler until Napoleon rose to power, right?

    It's not something i would idealize in any way.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)22:08 No.2812523
    >>2812460

    You've never heard of hipsters, have you.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)22:09 No.2812533
    >>2812398
    In a capitalist society the only people you would have to make share the benefits are the ones who want to work for someone else. If mutual benefit is so much more efficient and everyone wants to work for equal benefit then there would be no problem, they'd already be doing that, so you're focusing on the people who want to work for a factory owner, that's their decision. So why aren't they allowed to choose that? If your completely equal utopia idea is better then everyone will choose that instead anyway.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)22:10 No.2812551
    >>2812411
    Actually there is, it's caleld big business and they've been passing laws and regulations to stomp out what it calls 'unfair competition'. Didn't you just see in the news the other day of the hot dog vendor who was closed down because it was unfair to the local restaraunts?

    And why the hell does them being able to open their own business make it okay for others to operate the way they do?
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)22:11 No.2812564
         File: 1335406293.jpg-(2.01 MB, 3434x2959, links.jpg)
    2.01 MB
    >>2812447

    > He owns the property

    AH HAH!! So you think landed property is legitimate. That is where the discrepancy lies.

    Does anyone own the air or sea, my friend?

    > ...and is paying them to do work

    Paying him what he shouldn't rightful "own" in the first place! If a person has 3/4 of a pie that you both worked on, who is screwed, IN PRACTICE?

    Pic related, it's your corporate controllers.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)22:11 No.2812572
    I like these threads because there's little ad hominem and lots of theory.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)22:11 No.2812573
    >good thing we have corporatism!! Which is not at all an inevitable result of capitalism, right? ;)
    I refuse to believe you're not trolling, even for /pol/ this post is beyond retarded.

    I would seriously advise learning something before having opinions.
    >> Anonymous 04/25/12(Wed)22:12 No.2812577
         File: 1335406334.jpg-(40 KB, 500x456, 1323986539752.jpg)
    40 KB
    TO ANYONE WHO SAYS THAT WORK UNDER CAPITALISM IS VOLUNTARY:

    I get that, on the uppermost level, that's true. you are not subjected to violence just because you don't show up for work, not directly. the thing is though, you are not entitled to the right to live under capitalism, because you cannot legally obtain food shelter and clothing , without working. If you feel you are entitled to life, and you simply take food, then your ARE subjected to violence through the law. In this sense, you are really ARE forced to work under threat of violence. that being said, people should work because it's a good thing to do, but you should not be exploited.


    [Return] [Top]
    Delete Post [File Only]
    Password
    Style [Yotsuba | Yotsuba B | Futaba | Burichan]