[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ashleyj / cyber / imouto / lewd / lisperer / marx / v8 / wooo ]

/anarcho/ - Anarchism Board

No Rulers
Winner of the 77nd Attention-Hungry Games
/x/ - Paranormal Phenomena and The RCP Authority

April 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


File: 1415197168565.jpg (114.86 KB, 718x781, 718:781, IMG_20140727_014648.jpg)

 No.4381

Pollitical compass thread!

 No.4382

>>4381
This chart is too narrow, what if I am a libertarian individualist? what if I am a utilitarian?

 No.4387

These internet tests are dumb, people. Why don't you discuss actual ideology instead of assigning arbitrary numbers to your position?

 No.4600

>>4382
I imagine most people on this board will end up as left libertarianism as that's what anarchism is.

 No.4604

File: 1415824777272.png (2.7 KB, 480x400, 6:5, political_test3.png)


 No.4635

File: 1415927780574.png (2.71 KB, 480x400, 6:5, graph.png)

I'm totally ok with this.

 No.4636

File: 1415939405470.png (2.03 KB, 554x286, 277:143, results.png)

amidoinitrite?

 No.4641

>>4382
>utilitarian
>a political position
how retarded are you?

 No.4642

>>4641

really this is not a political survey created with anarchists in mind. there are a BUNCH of assumptions built into the questions they ask.

 No.4643

>>4636
Nope.

 No.4644

File: 1416028674779.jpg (38.18 KB, 480x400, 6:5, image.jpg)

Huehuehue

 No.4646

>>4642
while this is true, utilitarianism is a philosophical, not a political, orientation.

I am a utilitarian and an anarchist, i have met right-libertarians who claim to be utilitarians, as well as Stalinists and conservatives. saying "utilitarianism isn't represented here" is silly - utilitarianism doesn't carry any programmatic political content, apart from rejecting some rule based IDEAS within particular political orientations, such as the NAP or anarcho pacifism (although the latter can sort of be justified on utilitarian grounds)

 No.5095

File: 1417652810319.png (2.71 KB, 480x400, 6:5, polit test.png)


 No.5114

File: 1417751312554.jpg (6.55 KB, 187x250, 187:250, 1378845121354.jpg)

>>5095
>:^)

I dont know why i hate this face, but i do.

 No.7423

File: 1423504389571.png (17.32 KB, 480x400, 6:5, chart.png)


 No.7433

File: 1423523265546.png (14.01 KB, 501x472, 501:472, ae.png)

i think i broke it

 No.7434

File: 1423529463191.png (17.25 KB, 480x400, 6:5, chart.png)

I hate this test.

 No.7436

File: 1423552444174.png (17.31 KB, 480x400, 6:5, compass 2-9-15.png)


 No.7448

File: 1423602069299.png (9.7 KB, 436x387, 436:387, compass.png)

I don't know why it's this high, but, whatever.

 No.7449

>>5095
>>7448
You're statist as fuck

 No.7450


 No.7452

File: 1423619924335.png (17.33 KB, 480x400, 6:5, chart.png)

>>7449
Said the statist ayncap to the other statist ayncap XD.

 No.7455

>>7452
lololol silly lolbertardian ayncrap XD

I was at the bottom of the chart, while they were far above.

 No.8756

File: 1432515958955.png (233.52 KB, 1462x817, 34:19, political views.png)


 No.8792

>>7433

That's hilarious


 No.8829

>>8756

>nationalistic….cosmopolitan

>implying that's not a non-issue


 No.8843

File: 1433463867715.png (2.73 KB, 480x400, 6:5, Political Compass Result.png)

>>4381

I get the feeling it makes you more right-wing if you believe capitalism can have merits, which sucks. The whole concept of a capitalistic free-market is a good one, on paper at the very least and in reality in some cases. I just think socialism's better, because capitalism has such a huge window for abuse.


 No.8920

>>4387

People enjoy talking about themselves.


 No.8937

>>8843

All systems have the potential for abuse. Even anarchists ones. Its just that its much harder to abuse an anarchist system due to the shear amount of power in the hands of everyone, thus making abuse very difficult.


 No.10511

File: 1468203630406.png (15.04 KB, 490x524, 245:262, 17-03-2016.png)

Here I am.


 No.10518

File: 1468211100693.jpg (116.94 KB, 500x500, 1:1, 1462624692183.jpg)

Literally anyone remotely sane gets bottom left corner every time, fuck the political compass.


 No.10547

>>8937

>

>All systems have the potential for abuse. Even anarchists ones.

I don't think this is true. Depending on how much potential for abuse you might have, there will be anarchists against you arguing for the destruction of your "anarchist system" calling it out as not anarchist on some psychological or philosophical basis. I think anarchism is a hand reaching into the deep dark shadows of humans, or even life, or even nature at its most core stance, a call going beyond "workers of the world unite." It is receptivity to creativity and goes beyond democracy and tribalism. It does not fixate on a leader as a leader, and can all the same be just as ideological in that it requires individuals to free themselves, which obviously hasn't happened.

George Carlin once said that "the people are fucked" when talking about environmentalists. I think what he meant was that humanity will not pass as an intelligent species. What I think will happen, is either people will continue to put their faith in some leader and ask for authoritarianism to save them from some sort of resource-related catastrophe caused by global warming and mass extinction, (or if we're lucky enough for some good scifi turned reality, a war with extraterrestrials that we inevitably lose) and this faith in another individual will be the end of us.

Again, I hope, a new intelligent species might arise, hopefully being more collectively intelligent than us, to carry on the cause of intelligent life, that of discovery and analysis of the universe, in order to promote its own survival. A search for meaning that feeds upon itself.

Or maybe I've done too much acid.

please rebute


 No.10549

Is there really a need to have a political compass thread on a fucking anarchist board? Or is this a thread to lure out all the ayncraps who need to be banned? :^)))


 No.10639

File: 1468642934381.png (17.26 KB, 480x400, 6:5, chart.png)

No surprise here.


 No.10658

File: 1468751399427.png (18.62 KB, 485x514, 485:514, actual test pol compass.png)


 No.10710

>>10658

You need to get out.

You are nothing more than a ragging Leninist faggot.

here:

>>>/leftypol/

>>>/marx/

or bunkerchan.


 No.10713

>>10710

How is this not considered shitposting?

Are all the people who came here from /leftypol/ underage?


 No.10755

File: 1470292813063.png (17.24 KB, 480x400, 6:5, chart2.png)


 No.10904

File: 1471155691363.jpg (37.86 KB, 470x498, 235:249, Screenshot_2016-08-14-02-1….jpg)

Not an anarchist.


 No.10907

File: 1471169913804.png (17.27 KB, 480x400, 6:5, chart.png)

>>8756

Someone explain to me how a person with an alleged iq of 132 or over reconsiles the fact that capitalism is inherently statist. Since money is power, and it finds its way into the hands of the few who best know how to best game the system, the needs of most human beings become secondary or irrelevant to the will of the few. Social problems created by this necessitate redistribution of wealth and hence a welfare state. Not to mention large businesses are akin to nation states in many regards by themselves. And states are to businesses.


 No.10921

File: 1471299791914.png (17.27 KB, 480x400, 6:5, political compass (1).png)

capitalism is good

please don't hate me

;_;


 No.10922

>>8756

Is there a way to take this mensa test for free? did you seriously pay for it?


 No.10928

File: 1471352247434.png (17.2 KB, 480x400, 6:5, chart.png)


 No.11042

File: 185280b69e9c897⋯.png (139.25 KB, 2000x2177, 2000:2177, a3e1b2d661af47157d360ec12a….png)

>>10928

>Stirnerfags expose themselves as useful idiots for The Ruling Class

can't make this shit up.

It's a test rigged toward the green corner too, you have to agree with shit like "What's good for big corps is good for the people" to get to the right


 No.11048

>>11042

>the ruling class

your xix century is somewhere else faggot


 No.11055

File: 25174ac4c384cdc⋯.png (10.66 KB, 431x366, 431:366, ayylmao.PNG)

Capitalism a shit


 No.11067

File: a13df7850f3c862⋯.webm (381.6 KB, 640x360, 16:9, Current Year Hillary.webm)

>>11048

>Literally CURRENT YEAR


 No.11101

File: b6cf2f2a80d54ab⋯.png (17.32 KB, 480x400, 6:5, chart.png)


 No.11113

File: 4e8ac3387ca0872⋯.jpg (60.18 KB, 960x944, 60:59, 251.jpg)

>>11067

>Literally /pol/ution tier maymay


 No.11115

> /anarcho/ is basically 50/50 left wing anarchists or lolberts/ayncraps

/leftypol/ here, anyone care to explain this?


 No.11117

File: dbb777e971d9e0a⋯.png (263.11 KB, 385x550, 7:10, 1428258455723.png)

>>11115

>lolberts/ayncraps

Huh, where?


 No.11118

>>11115

Aynclaps are not welcome here. But I'm also not going to ban people on sight for posting a political compass thing. Repeat offenders of aynclapism will be sent to the autonomous milk shop gulag.


 No.11119

File: b744eedbddb310b⋯.png (8.35 KB, 420x351, 140:117, ddd.png)

I'm totally serious.

Am I unbanned?


 No.11120

File: f65f5354b2e580c⋯.jpg (232.13 KB, 1242x2042, 621:1021, image.jpg)

>>11118

You always rail on /leftypol/ for being so shitty. How is this any better?


 No.11122

>>11120

Because I don't let shitposters and bait threads stay up with total abandon like /leftypol/ does. But banning people on sight for being on the right side of this stupId political compass thing seems a bit extreme.

I personally don't care about doing that but it seems like that might alienate some people.


 No.11127

>>11122

Actually, after thinking about this for a bit: I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with someone who is on the right existing on the board. There's nothing I can do to stop aynclaps and /pol/yps from lurking here anyways.

Anyone who starts posting Nazi bullshit will be instantly banned. Aynclaps and National "Anarchists" will be banned extra hard for being reactionary liars co-opting anarchism. I will tolerate Marxist-Leninists and Leninists who are chill and don't shit up the board with bait threads or any of their half-assed canned arguments against anarchy. But anyone who comes here with the intent of ruining the vibe in some way is going to be banned.


 No.11136

>>11127

You sound authoritarian as fuck tbh. Nice little hugbox you have going here.


 No.11137

>>11136

the people who swarm in and ruin every online community are much worse than having to deal with some kind of moderation

also this board is his property so don't violate the NAP :^)


 No.11138

>>11137

Well, he's not very principled, then.


 No.11139

>>11138

how?

do you honestly think it's more authoritarian to delete certain threads so that we can discuss the topic of the board than it is to slide the board with ayncrap nonsense and delete the real threads?


 No.11140

>>11139

I think he's subjecting the board's policy to his own ideology. It isn't like this is 8chan's official anarchy board, so it's not like he has an obligation to allow ayncrap discussion, but from any perspective right of mutualist, he's guilty of committing the 'no true scotsman' fallacy. I usually post on /lliberty/, and the only people who ever get hung up on what defines an "anarchist" are your run of the mill Bakunin worshipers from here and /leftypol/. I just find it amusing that he feels the need to impose such a rule on himself and his ilk. And from a centrist standpoint, his distinctions seem arbitrary, anyway.


 No.11141

>>11139

To answer your question more directly, ideological arbitration=authoritarian.


 No.11142

>>11140

>>11141

>'no true scotsman' fallacy

Why do rightists always misuse it? You're taking it to mean that anyone who claims to be a certain thing must be that thing. Of course people on /liberty/ who see themselves in a certain way will see themselves in that way. It has no bearing on history or philosophy. Anarcho-capitalism takes barely any influence from the historical anarchist movement, it mostly comes out of classical liberalism. They're just using the word because they're against the state, but the reasons for being against the state are completely different. Ayncraps are essentially trying to rewrite history and arbitrate their own version of the truth by coming on to this board because they've decided to use a word that refers to something that already exists.


 No.11143

>>11142

You're guilty of committing the fallacy because you respond to the claim of "anarchists are are those opposed to the state as an apparatus" with "no true anarchist would support private property." We could argue all day about how guys like Tucker or Proudhon were truly opposed to all forms of private property kinda tough for you with Tucker, but ultimately it's irrelevant, because an-caps Ayn Rand was a minarchist, btw don't assert an association with the historical anarchists of the 19th century. Rather, the title of "anarchist" is an etymological one.


 No.11144

>>11143

>anarchists are are those opposed to the state as an apparatus

Where was this claim made by anyone? It's pretty ahistorical.

>kinda tough for you with Tucker

he became a Stirnerite once he realised that natural law is fucking stupid

>don't assert an association with the historical anarchists of the 19th century.

why call yourself an anarchist or try to post on anarchist boards then?

>Rather, the title of "anarchist" is an etymological one.

So it's a completely meaningless ideological arbitration that only serves to confuse with its association to an already existing set of ideas? You agree and you'll leave now?


 No.11145

>>11144

>Where was this claim made by anyone? It's pretty ahistorical.

an-without, arkhos-ruler. We can argue about whether you are "ruled" by capital, but the etymology of the word makes no distinction.

>he became a Stirnerite once he realised that natural law is fucking stupid

Irrelevant. He never denounced private property, outside of a couple vague statements about land.

>why call yourself an anarchist or try to post on anarchist boards then?

Because I'm a masochist.

>So it's a completely meaningless ideological arbitration that only serves to confuse with its association to an already existing set of ideas? You agree and you'll leave now?

Extrapolating the goals of a movement relegated to a specific historical environment onto the entire linguistic meaning of a word is more arbitrary tbh.


 No.11146

>>11144

Moreover, the suffixes used for each form of "anarchy" would be entirely meaningless if each branch asserted that it was the only true form of anarchy. You just single out capitalism because you have an economic gripe with it.


 No.11147

>>11145

>an-without, arkhos-ruler. We can argue about whether you are "ruled" by capital, but the etymology of the word makes no distinction.

If you go by that, it means nothing but opposition to the actual Greek Archons that the etymology refers to.

>Irrelevant. He never denounced private property, outside of a couple vague statements about land.

>In times past…it was my habit to talk glibly of the right of man to land. It was a bad habit, and I long ago sloughed it off….Man's only right to land is his might over it.

not very vague my dude

>Extrapolating the goals of a movement relegated to a specific historical environment onto the entire linguistic meaning of a word is more arbitrary tbh.

2+2 can equal 5, if you disagree with me you're an authoritarian who wants to relegate numeracy, 2 and 5 to the historical movement they're

named after

>Moreover, the suffixes used for each form of "anarchy" would be entirely meaningless if each branch asserted that it was the only true form of anarchy. You just single out capitalism because you have an economic gripe with it.

But you just said that anarcho-capitalism is separate from the anarchist tradition. Obviously this refers to all of those but not anarcho-capitalism. I can't respond for a while but I'll be back soon.


 No.11152

>>11147

>If you go by that, it means nothing but opposition to the actual Greek Archons that the etymology refers to

Then use a different word for your ideology. If the word no longer refers to that, then why should it have to refer to the philosophy of the 19th century?

>not very vague my dude

At worst, he was a proto-Georgist. Still never denounced private property.

>2+2 can equal 5, if you disagree with me you're an authoritarian who wants to relegate numeracy, 2 and 5 to the historical movement they're named after

Remember when you said that thing about Greek Archons in this exact same post? Also,

>Mathematical logic

>even remotely comparable to linguistic meaning

kek

>But you just said that anarcho-capitalism is separate from the anarchist tradition. Obviously this refers to all of those but not anarcho-capitalism.

Separate from the anarchist tradition of the 19th century. Only a radical progressive would believe that all subsequent creations using a title must follow from its antecedents ideologically. Also, if the tenor of this board is anything to go off of, ancoms aren't referred to, either.


 No.11153

>>11147

>I can't respond for a while but I'll be back soon.

Ok. I might be going to bed soon, so if you're not back by then or whenever the BO bans me, it was fun to debate against you.


 No.11155

>>11152

>>11153

I suppose the point is that the anarchist tradition of the 19th century is what the name "anarchism" was first given to, so it makes the most sense that the people who inherit more ideologically from that should also inherit the name. It's not the best name, and this whole argument shows that it's kind of vague, and I argued a bit obtusely, but it's the name that the historical movement was given and the ideas now that take the most from that are what the name should mean. This isn't really an argument against anarcho-capitalism in its own right but more about the names and how, since anarchism comes from a different tradition than anarcho-capitalism we should have our own boards and names for different ideas.

My main argument against anarcho-capitalism or capitalism in general as its own thing is that I don't understand how use can turn something into property that wasn't property before. It's meant to start out from self-ownership and owning your labour, which is mixed with land or some other property, but it all seems a bit far fetched to me. I asked someone from /liberty/ about this on /leftypol/ and he said that for the sake of debate he agreed with me about homesteading rights not making much sense.


 No.11156

>>11136

m8, I'm under no obligation to allow you to post here, and no one would argue with my decision to ban you. We fought long and hard a year or so ago to keep you motherfuckers off this board, and I'm not about to give up on that based on your limp-dicked assertion that I'm committing muh no true scotsman fallacy or that I'm moderating the board based on my subjective ideology. I'm a post-left anarcho-nihilist type, and you don't see me banning anarcho-communists or other lefty anarchists. I may disagree with a lot of their tendencies, but lefty anarchists are most certainly anarchists. You are not, and you are not welcome here.

If you're gonna shitpost your aynclap bullshit on here could you at least have the courtesy to use the fucking debate thread? >>10259

This is my first and only warning to you and any other aynclap who posts here.


 No.11161

>>11155

Ok, I suppose that's a fair point to leave it at. I always saw the term "anarcho"-capitalist as one of descriptive convenience–I think that it is the most efficient way to describe the political position, as opposed to something more contextual like "propertarian" or whatever term /leftypol/ wants to peg it with. I can understand why you're so invested in keeping it associated with the continental philosophy of the 19th century. I have more respect for you, at any rate. On the other hand…

>>11156

>m8, I'm under no obligation to allow you to post here

I said as much earlier

>and no one would argue with my decision to ban you

No, you wouldn't. The old BO wouldn't agree with you, as well as my fellow masochists who make up a third of this thread. It's your hugbox, so stagnate it however you like.

>We fought long and hard a year or so ago to keep you motherfuckers off this board

Read: I don't want to debate with you, unless it's to shitpost on /liberty/ a board that is more of a true, nonpartisan anarchist board than this one, at any rate or /ayncrap/.

>and I'm not about to give up on that based on your limp-dicked assertion that I'm committing muh no true scotsman fallacy or that I'm moderating the board based on my subjective ideology

So you admit that you're ideologically invested?

>I'm a post-left anarcho-nihilist type

Lol, you mean the faux-left anarchist movement developed by bourgeois situationists? You're about as divorced from the 19th century tradition as I am.

>and you don't see me banning anarcho-communists or other lefty anarchists

Yes, because they're lefty anarchists, not because they're lefty anarchists. Tell me, why haven't you banned mutualists yet?

>I may disagree with a lot of their tendencies, but lefty anarchists are most certainly anarchists.

Why even bother calling them "lefty" anarchists if you have to be on the left to be an anarchist?

>and you are not welcome here.

Love you too, babe.

>If you're gonna shitpost your aynclap bullshit on here could you at least have the courtesy to use the fucking debate thread?

Nah. I extend an open hand to debate us on /liberty/.

>This is my first and only warning to you and any other aynclap who posts here.

You know, I want to hate you like I hate fascists, but you are all honestly way too cute. You get so paranoid about the weirdest, most trivial things, to the point that you need to self-censor your board so that it won't manifest. Like seriously, it's arousing. I have a thing for effeminate vulnerability.


 No.11164

>>11156

Wanting to censor people with different political views than you is seriously pathetic.


 No.11165

>>11164

Yeah, and I think that the post above says a lot about the quality of discussion that aynclaps bring to the board. There has for awhile now been a precedent set on /anarcho/ to not tolerate "anarcho"-capitalist attempts to slide this board, going back to when the board was first made in late 2014. 8chan has enough right wing manchildren infesting every corner that they can find, and if you're so interested in being a nuisance, you can go to /leftypol/ for all I care. This isn't your safe space; this is our space, you play by our rules.

That being said: We also have a fucking moderation thread. If people have a problem with how I'm handling this, they can voice their opinions there.


 No.11171

>>11165

You're conveniently ignoring the 20-post long discussion that I had with the other anon. But whatever it takes to create your "safespace," I suppose.


 No.11172

>>11165

Also, before you ban me a second time, I'd really like for you to answer this question:

>Why even bother calling them "lefty" anarchists if you have to be on the left to be an anarchist?

This isn't for me, but I'd really like for you to lay bare your own ideology for the interest of anyone else still using this board.


 No.11174

>>11171

I'm not going to get into a back-and-forth with an aynclap - both for my own sanity's sake, and because it would be extremely unprofessional of me to be in that position as a moderator on the board.

Again, if anyone gives a shit about me keeping the aynclaps out of /anarcho/, they are welcome to suggest alternatives in the council thread. I already have a thread up for debating anarchism, and I'm strongly of the opinion that this is the best I can do if the quality of discussion and the vibe on the board is going to be preserved. I've seen what happens when you let rightists post without any restrictions, many times.

>>11172

I've been thinking of writing up a page on the neocities site about this, since people would probably like to know what the political stances of the mods are. But I'm also the only mod here, because we only need one. I'll reconsider doing that.


 No.11176

>>11174

>both for my own sanity's sake, and because it would be extremely unprofessional of me to be in that position as a moderator on the board.

I'd like to remind you that your first post all but begged for debate with those who disagree with you. By implementing your personal opinions into the policy of board moderation and then posting about ut repeatedly, you forsook professionalism a long time ago. If you want to run a board with strict rules without looking like a faggot, then maybe you should take a page from /a/'s moderation.

>and I'm strongly of the opinion that this is the best I can do if the quality of discussion and the vibe on the board is going to be preserved

Consider changing the name of the board to something like "leftists only" if you don't want people with doubleplussungood opinions cropping up, then.

>they are welcome to suggest alternatives in the council thread.

You mean the containment thread, where it's easy for you to ignore? This thread was originally just people posting their political compass, until you took it upon yourself to address whether people are even allowed to exist here if they're outside of your range of acceptable political positions.


 No.11180

File: 934111588a03f0a⋯.jpg (40.11 KB, 563x406, 563:406, 1445459803297.jpg)

>>11176

>"leftists only"

>anarcho-leftists

You have really no idea where you are do you?

To be honest i fully support perming any ayncrap as they have so mutch places to go and never have anything constructive to say. The fetishisation of discourse with people you disagree with is idiotic, most people who are deep in their stance wont change and especially not from someone with complete opposite interests.


 No.11184

>>11180

>You have really no idea where you are do you?

I'm on /anarcho/ - Anarchism Board Anti-Authoritarian politics and discussion. Despite what the original BO's intentions might have been in creating the board, the title makes no distinction.

>The fetishisation of discourse with people you disagree with is idiotic

Wow, that's a new one. So I suppose that leftism is just a monolithic gospel that has no ontological origin or conclusion, and any criticism of it stems from a "fetishisation of discourse."

>most people who are deep in their stance wont change and especially not from someone with complete opposite interests.

Perhaps it's for onlookers, not for me or you. Anyway, I enjoy it, so stop responding if you are so loath to uphold the fetishisation of breathing.


 No.11186

File: a39fb54f9a69bd2⋯.jpg (61.67 KB, 449x750, 449:750, 1468017039649.jpg)

>>11184

>Anyway, I enjoy it,

Its a shit hobby and a pure waste of time, (Time is wastefull in itself tho) especially around people who do a stefan molyneux play of defintions or a critcism on your ideas by their own idealogical logic. Like saying applying Randian Objectivism towards some Green Anarchist his views on techno-industrial society.

>So I suppose that leftism is just a monolithic gospel that has no ontological origin or conclusion, and any criticism of it stems from a "fetishisation of discourse."

>implying i am leftist

If you are up to date with contemporary anarchism then you will know that the relation of anarchism and leftism has died (The left that was) when Bookchin left the whole scene for his Libertarian municipalism.

I would prever that this board would be more foccussed on anonymouse discussion of contemporary anarchism instead of old left bullshit of leftypol (Most folk dont even know their theory or history there) or the new left bullshit of Reddit or the flag wave syndaclist bullshit you have on anarchist websites.

We had plenty of fucking bullshit chit chats with an-cap's and diffrince between all brances of anarchism for decades so maybe its time to get our heads out of our hasses and get a bit updated and drop the outdated.


 No.11188

File: b1dab50e441201b⋯.png (17.18 KB, 480x400, 6:5, chart(2).png)


 No.11190

>>11186

>Its a shit hobby and a pure waste of time, (Time is wastefull in itself tho)

And yet you're still here. Life must be so difficult under self-imposed nihilism.

>especially around people who do a stefan molyneux play of defintions or a critcism on your ideas by their own idealogical logic. Like saying applying Randian Objectivism towards some Green Anarchist his views on techno-industrial society.

I could say the same about Stirner or Zizek cocksuckers. You'll have shitheads among the ranks of any opinion.

>If you are up to date with contemporary anarchism then you will know that the relation of anarchism and leftism has died (The left that was) when Bookchin left the whole scene for his Libertarian municipalism.

I was using left in the economic sense rather than the historical sense. I'm sure that this will devolve into a similar discussion as the one I had about the meaning of "anarchy" if we continue.

>I would prever that this board would be more foccussed on anonymouse discussion of contemporary anarchism instead of old left bullshit of leftypol (Most folk dont even know their theory or history there) or the new left bullshit of Reddit or the flag wave syndaclist bullshit you have on anarchist websites.

Yes, I'm sure your special snowflake brand of anarchy is the only true extant form of anarchy. This goes back to the name of the board being in conflict with what you want it to be.

>We had plenty of fucking bullshit chit chats with an-cap's and diffrince between all brances of anarchism for decades so maybe its time to get our heads out of our hasses and get a bit updated and drop the outdated.

Be my guest, then. Fuck knows nobody else can make heads or tails of where "anarchy" begins or ends by your defining. If I might make a suggestion, maybe you should capitalise the "A" in "Anarchy" when making reference to your purist beliefs? Libertarians did something like this long ago to help eliminate confusion.


 No.11192

File: 7f299f2351415f3⋯.gif (638.35 KB, 350x185, 70:37, cfcf.gif)

>>11190

>And yet you're still here.

The only board where i dont act in pure satire and parody to whatever i am discussing to.

> Life must be so difficult under self-imposed nihilism.

Quallity post as expected from an ayncrap.

>I could say the same about Stirner or Zizek cocksuckers. You'll have shitheads among the ranks of any opinion.

Everyone has them and you also have the problem with langauge and knowledge in discussion. Like for example with you calling anything you dont understand special snowflake. :^)

>Yes, I'm sure your special snowflake brand of anarchy is the only true extant form of anarchy.

Like clockwork, fucking ayncraps like /pol/acks always use the same fucking rhetoric wich makes talking to you people even more of a useless thing to do. Just grab the not true socialism memes with that and we are complete.

>Fuck knows nobody else can make heads or tails of where "anarchy" begins or ends by your defining.

Protip: You wouldnt know if you read what you preach and not just make shit up in random around current existing idealogies. This will again just be a play of definitions.

>If I might make a suggestion, maybe you should capitalise the "A" in "Anarchy" when making reference to your purist beliefs? Libertarians did something like this long ago to help eliminate confusion.

>Le appeal to the masses

You still have a fuckload to learn.

Just go to reddit or liberty or pol and enjoy your hobby.


 No.11199

>>11192

>Quallity post as expected from an ayncrap.

Tell me, anon, what vexes you?

>you also have the problem with langauge and knowledge in discussion.

So sorry that I don't subject myself to your use of language and definitions.

>Like clockwork, fucking ayncraps like /pol/acks always use the same fucking rhetoric wich makes talking to you people even more of a useless thing to do.

Maybe you hear it so much because it has some degree of accuracy. Nihilism is a nonsequitor with regards to anarchy, anyway.

>Just grab the not true socialism memes with that and we are complete.

Both you and /pol/ disgust me equally. Don't you just love equitable treatment!

>Protip: You wouldnt know if you read what you preach and not just make shit up in random around current existing idealogies. This will again just be a play of definitions.

I do read: both positions on each argument. But I suppose I have not yet educated myself enough to satisfy you, in lieu of you making an argument of your own. Protip: until you can do that without referring to a philosopher with every other claim, you will not be taken seriously.

>>Le appeal to the masses

>You still have a fuckload to learn.

Just go to reddit or liberty or pol and enjoy your hobby.

Faggot, I was just trying to help you out. But if you want me to fellate you instead, it's going to have to be something other than your ideology.


 No.11202

File: 9671122bae9e3ea⋯.gif (2.56 MB, 276x336, 23:28, walking-the-cat-37340.gif)

>>11199

>Tell me, anon, what vexes you?

Ignorance and the same ass fucking rhetoric i see with almost 80% of the people on the boards. But what could i expect from the internet or people in general who usually eat shit up what they hear without questioning it, dont develop self-theory (le special snowflake), and never actually fucking research what they preach or criticize.

>Faggot, I was just trying to help you out.

How? Help me out in what way?

I'm just fucking sick and tired for the endless bickering back an forth while the other person wants free speech so badly and demands that i compromise in some kind of solidarity to tolerate him. The constant cycle of rhetoric is pure politics tho so i prever being anti-political and ban the politicans. (Rhetoric=/=Discussion)

>Maybe you hear it so much because it has some degree of accuracy.

This meme comes from ignorant people who follow A idealogy and people with B philopshy mock and meme them and take that meme as their definite argument at hearing any other idealogy around anarchism. And most people do with meming it just reflex bullshit where they get triggerd in pulling the same old boring bullshit tactics.

As if there is a one and true idealogy tho. idealogies will be expected to expand and differentiate during time. Its pure ignorance to just disregard any diffrint idealogy as le special snowflake cause the poster who says that clearly has not fucking idea what he is talking about.

>you will not be taken seriously.

As if i wanne be taken seriouse by people with contradicting interests, even after decades of rhetoric. An idealogy with contradicting interests with an other idealogy will never ever find a compromise and will kill eachother with edgy blades when they can.


 No.11203

File: 6169d1537d9493b⋯.jpg (141.93 KB, 1280x854, 640:427, 1450305460496.jpg)

>>11202

“Truly it is not a failing in you that you stiffen yourself against me and assert your distinctness or peculiarity: you need not give way or renounce yourself” — Max Stirner

Whenever more than a few anarchists get together, there are arguments. This is no surprise, since the word “anarchist” is used to describe a broad range of often contradictory ideas and practices. The only common denominator is the desire to be rid of authority, and anarchists do not even agree on what authority is, let alone the question of what methods are appropriate for eliminating it. These questions raise many others, and so arguments are inevitable.

The arguments do not bother me. What bothers me is the focus on trying to come to an agreement. It is assumed that “because we are all anarchists”, we must all really want the same thing; our apparent conflicts must merely be misunderstandings which we can talk out, finding a common ground. When someone refuses to talk things out and insists on maintaining their distinctness, they are considered dogmatic. This insistence on finding a common ground may be one of the most significant sources of the endless dialogue that so frequently takes place of acting to create our lives on our own terms. This attempt to find a common ground involves a denial very real conflicts.

One strategy frequently used to deny conflict is to claim that an argument is merely a disagreeement over words and their meanings. As if the words one uses and how one chooses to use them have no connection to one’s ideas, dreams and desires. I am convinced that there are very few arguments that are merely about words and their meanings. These few could be easily resolved if the individuals involved would clearly and precisely explain what they mean. When individuals cannot even come to an agreement about what words to use and how to use them, it indicates that their dreams, desires and ways of thinking are so far apart that even within a single language, they cannot find a common tongue. The attempt to reduce such an immense chasm to mere semantics is an attempt to deny a very real conflict and the singularity of the individuals involved.

The denial of conflict and of the singularity of individuals may reflect a fetish for unity that stems from residual leftism or collectivism. Unity has always been highly valued by the left. Since most anarchists, despite their attempts to separate themselves from the left, are merely anti-state leftists, they are convinced that only a united front can destroy this society which perpetually forces us into unities not of our choosing, and that we must, therefore, overcome our differences and join together to support the “common cause”. But when we give ourselves to the “common cause”, we are forced to accept the lowest common denominator of understanding and struggle. The unities that are created in this way are false unities which thrive only by suppressing the unique desires and passions of the individuals involved, tranforming them into a mass. Such unities are no different from the forming of labor that keeps a factory functioning or the unity of social consensus which keeps the authorities in power and people in line. Mass unity, because it is based on the reduction of the individual to a unit in a generality, can never be a basis for the destruction of authority, only for its support in one form or another. Since we want to destroy authority, we must start from a different basis.

For me, that basis is myself — my life with all of its passions and dreams, its desires, projects and encounters. From this basis, I make “common cause” with no one, but may frequently encounter individuals with whom I have an affinity. It may well be that your desires and passions, your dreams and projects coincide with mine. Accompanied by an insistence upon realizing these in opposition to every form of authority, such affinity is a basis for a genuine unity between singular, insurgent individuals which lasts only as long as these individuals desire. Certainly, the desire for the destruction of authority and society can move us to strive for an insurrectional unity that becomes large-scale, but never as a mass movement; instead it would need to be a coinciding of affinities between individuals who insist on making their lives their own. This sort of insurrection cannot come about through a reduction of our ideas to a lowest common denominator with which everyone can agree, but only through the recognition of the singularity of each individual, a recognition which embraces the actual conflicts that exist between individuals, regardless of how ferocious they may be, as part of the amazing wealth of interactions that the world has to offer us once we rid ourselves of the social system which has stolen our lives and our interactions from us.

Fear of Conflict by Feral Faun


 No.11274

File: 56610a3b8f35246⋯.png (17.26 KB, 480x400, 6:5, chart.png)

File: ff449566e77861f⋯.png (16.7 KB, 599x377, 599:377, 1473050140976.png)

Actual anarchist reporting in


 No.11326

File: 06a1f16b2ed1180⋯.png (284.98 KB, 1366x933, 1366:933, screencapture-filteries-po….png)

this political compass is better imo


 No.11816

>>11326

>my compass is better because it deliberately excludes left-libertarianism and frames capitalism as the ultimate statelessness


 No.11817

File: 449fc17df32a2e7⋯.jpg (155.89 KB, 718x840, 359:420, 1481483562600.jpg)

Lads stop bumping this thread, political compasses are shit and we should actually talk about our views instead of reducing it to dots on a square. Merry Christmas.


 No.12119

File: 89df9b1022dd2fc⋯.png (17.19 KB, 480x400, 6:5, chart (1).png)

>>4381

I used to be an anarchist like you then I took a marxism to the knee. Sorry comrades.


 No.12120

>>10518

I noticed that to. Its hard to get into any other quadrant other then left libertarian.


 No.12124

File: dd90e1f03bb9275⋯.png (17.28 KB, 480x400, 6:5, chart.png)

About right.


 No.12434

File: 98ff4018d77c7d2⋯.jpg (41.32 KB, 562x494, 281:247, 0820.JPG)


 No.12438

File: 8e271fe4d402cc5⋯.png (14.26 KB, 466x490, 233:245, ss (2017-01-27 at 02.55.37….png)


 No.12550

>>4600

>anarchy through order

Nigger, que?


 No.12561

File: 92135767b7716bf⋯.jpg (84.07 KB, 850x400, 17:8, anarchist tolkien.jpg)

>>12550

You seem to have confused anarchism-the political theory -with some villain randomness like The Joker from Batman. Anarchism does not mean pro-chaos.


 No.12733

File: 7d1eb3554f1ac9e⋯.png (97.66 KB, 1274x502, 637:251, PolitiscalesAdditions.PNG)

File: 49d2bb9d64489a6⋯.png (205.1 KB, 1270x487, 1270:487, PolitiscalesSliders.PNG)

File: 174ac68ac7a9750⋯.png (6.76 KB, 486x313, 486:313, PolitiscalesFlag.PNG)

>>10907

Test link here: politiscales.la-commune.net/quiz.html


 No.13115

File: e5578699b28e7d9⋯.jpg (44.71 KB, 528x487, 528:487, 25bd21c5-19e1-4183-b09e-72….jpg)

>>4381

libertarian cucks get out


 No.13116

>>4600

i literally lost brain cells


 No.13117

File: 803e290b1a4b273⋯.png (7.14 KB, 400x400, 1:1, untitled.png)

Around here! I think (I did this test a while ago)


 No.13118

File: 7f4a99371bcd13c⋯.jpg (38.49 KB, 506x315, 506:315, NAP.jpg)

>half the questions on any political test don't even have an option that I would consider acceptable, mostly because I disagree with the premise or framing of the question

People who think of politics in terms of multiple choice instead of an open-ended question are the real NPCs. They let "thought leaders" turn every issue into a false dichotomy akin to the trolley problem.


 No.13126

File: ae7aef2129c2566⋯.png (70.48 KB, 344x280, 43:35, 38926473_1835900423166511_….png)

File: adba2217426871b⋯.png (17.21 KB, 480x400, 6:5, chart.png)

File: e723f89c56b0d45⋯.png (107.82 KB, 772x830, 386:415, politicalsextant.png)

File: aa103a885b04bf0⋯.png (50.76 KB, 520x512, 65:64, Screenshot_2019-04-16 Resu….png)

I'm actually in a Trotskyist party, because that's the Leftism that is available to me, but I definitely seem to support anarchist positions/analysis more often.


 No.13128

File: d1b8efa5f39e379⋯.png (17.3 KB, 480x400, 6:5, chart.png)

hewwo


 No.13135

File: 2029b64e4536597⋯.png (60.01 KB, 800x600, 4:3, 8 values.png)

File: 7b1ea833e10f6f9⋯.png (35.26 KB, 654x630, 109:105, chart.png)

File: 17e10021e27f31e⋯.png (66.69 KB, 516x800, 129:200, dichotomytests.png)

File: 73eff7ef0bf2880⋯.png (83.01 KB, 791x1618, 791:1618, political Sextant.png)




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ashleyj / cyber / imouto / lewd / lisperer / marx / v8 / wooo ]