No.27
>2014
>not worshipping Errico Malatesta
No but seriously, what's your opinion of him?
No.28
He's dead.
;_;
No.30
>>27Italian thinkers/writers underrated in general
No.72
He was a God amongst men, and forever shall be remembered amongst us mere mortals…
On a more serious note, I really enjoy his views. His criticisms upon syndicalism are not to be ignored. He was a real revolutionary and remains an organic and truly inspirational read. His thoughts were simple in oration but greatly influential and deeply contemplative. To this day, reading him sends chills up my spine, as one can quite clearly see the passion through which he wrote.
His life was constantly interrupted by those with power, and the extensive outreach of his existence cannot be overlooked.
As a synthesist, it is my bias to view within him an open bent towards varying anarchist flavors. Although he stood against syndicalism, and although he constantly berated capitalism, I imagine that he would recognize free-market anarchism as permissible underneath anarchism. Then again, he was staunchly against superficial reformism and so it is possible that he would label free-market anarchism as oppressive, particularly due to the repressed potential of worker solidarity.
I do enjoy both the pic and the following quote:
“One may, therefore, prefer communism, or individualism, or collectivism, or any other system, and work by example and propaganda for the achievement of one’s personal preferences, but one must beware, at the risk of certain disaster, of supposing that ones system is the only, and infallible, one, good for all men, everywhere and for all times, and that its success must be assured at all costs, by means other than those which depend on persuasion, which spring from the evidence of facts.”
No.75
>>72>there is no [..] exploitation of others.>includes anclapsGoing full retard I see
No.78
>>75> ancaps exploit peopleI don't really see it that way. I understand that capitalism is exploitive on a forced, structural level but I do not view free-market anarchism as necessarily such.
Voluntary interactions of hierarchy are not immediately exploitive, particularly if such relationships are mutually conjoined.
However, on that note, I do view statist-based capitalism as extremely oppressive, specifically because of the massive commodification of nearly all existence underneath its banner and the functional repression of worker-based harmony.
No.94
>>80
>he doesn't believe in wage slavery
what exactly do you call a relationship where one must cooperate or starve?
No.123
>>94
>oh boy here we go again
>cooperate or starve
more like find a way to get food (like growing your own) or trade some labor for some monetary compensation, your welfare is not my responsibility. I need to be concerned with my well being first.
No.149
>oh oh somebody said something so I hit to use the word anclaps in a sentence
>no you're totally wrong about the meaning of the word capitalism
1. Real actual proper ancaps are basically mutualists.
2. Most ancaps are actually randroids Lp libertarians
3. Ancaps don't exploit anyone just by being ancaps. You actually have to commit an exploitative act in order to exploit someone. You have to actually go out and oppress people in order to be an oppressor.
4. Wage slavery is such because we live in a world without many viable alternatives. But arguing over wage slavery in any hypothetical anarchist society is more than a little ridiculous
5. ">cooperate or starve
more like find a way to get food (like growing your own) or trade some labor for some monetary compensation, your welfare is not my responsibility. I need to be concerned with my well being first." This is what I'm talking about randroid LP libertarians. Because an actual ancap would have heard of the theory of the firm before and recognize that not even ancappism involves a world full of Jeremiah Johnson wannabe dipshits starving to death in the wilderness. Ancapistan isn't ancapistan without a society of ancaps capable of cooperating with each other by means of something like oh I dunno maybe a fucking free market. Which would require people to give a shit about the welfare of others believe it or not.
6. Now both of you go read a book
No.151
No.154
i do not like solidarity, egalitarism and labour movement