[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / asmr / bbbb / pyong / radcorp / senran / strek / traffick ]

/cyber/ - Cyberpunk & Science Fiction

A board dedicated to all things cyberpunk (and all other futuristic science fiction) NSFW welcome
Winner of the 15th Attention-Hungry Games
/leftyweebpol/ - Anime girls against capitalism!
Comment *
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 12 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.

"A future is not given to you. It is something you must take for yourself. "

File: 1445890669161.png (34.11 KB, 720x534, 120:89, anarcho_syndicalism__versi….png)


Every anarchist except primitivsts are accepted here.

Yo, here is anarcho-syndicalist AMA.


File: 1445910377096-0.jpg (30.15 KB, 447x447, 1:1, 1444779221760.jpg)

File: 1445910377136-1.png (316.65 KB, 1348x1243, 1348:1243, america under ancap.png)

>inb4 /pol/ shill shitstorm

>inb4 aynclaps

Also, ancom reporting in. I prefer nihilist insurrection to syndicalism myself but ansynds are still mah comrades.

Also, I find anarcho-transhumanism to be a very interesting idea, but it seems like very little has been written on it. What are some essential A-H+ readings?



Ancap policing doesn't work like that. You pay police before the crime happens, just like the current system except you get to choose who will investigate any crimes against you and what you consider to be a crime. No more victimless crimes. The idea that nobody would be able to retrieve the brouzouf because they're not being paid to is silly. Even if the person wasn't paying into police coverage they'd easily be able to find someone to retrieve the brouzouf for a reasonable percentage. If an investigator retrieved the BTC and kept it for himself he would be considered a criminal, hunted for the brouzouf he stole, fired from his job then blacklisted from credit unions, land registries, etc, so just like today's policemen it is rational for him to not steal the brouzouf. I do wonder who would protect the poor though. One could ask that question now: Not too long ago in my country the cops used to pick up homeless people during the winter and drop them off in the woods naked. Go figure.

Not all ancaps are randians, you know.

How would you handle policing in other anarchist systems? I can't see it being any different. If you had a police organization that was authorized to forcefully extract their operating costs from the population but no more than that, then you'd have a kind of minarchist system which isn't real anarchism. The cops would make up pointless crimes just to put people in prison so they can hire more prison guards and grow their business.

All the ancom literature I've read is about revolt with all the economic details being extremely vague, which leads me to believe that the entire thing is just a scam to destabilize regions so an authoritarian dickhead like Lenin can take over. I've never seen a rational explanation of how an anarchist communist system would work. Perhaps you could provide one?



OP here! I have ancap friend, and he hates randians, as they know shit about capitalism or anarchism. He considers Rothbard, Mises and other guys gods.

Also what should I read to get good arguments as Anarcho Syndycalist?



>Also what should I read to get good arguments as Anarcho Syndycalist?

No clue, I figured you'd know since you believe in it.

What is the end goal anyway? Society and economy uncontrolled except for the stabilizing presence of strong unions and associations? Or are unions and associations just tools to be discarded once the state is abolished?


Commie Anarchist here. I plan on opening up a scrapyard and using it to educate people about science and engineering through Socratic seminars (and class consciousness). The way to liberate the proles is to provide free education in my opinion. agitate, educate, organize.

I hope my thing will be the start of a schway cyberpunk scrap city. Hope it doesn't get massacred like the paris commune.


Crypto-anarchist here. I'm not a real anarchist, because anarchists are idealists and idealists are idiots, but I'm pretty libertarian.

I'm not the anarchist shithead who wants all government regulations to dissapear. I don't like big government or big corporations. Fuck them both. I would prefer to see a decentralized sharing economy in the future where people are still making brouzouf.



Mutualist chummer who knows 5 pounds of soykaf 'bout ancapism jackin' in. You can't into ancaps without Bastiat ("The Law" and "Parable of the Broken Window"). Then, head to Molinari ("The Production of Security"). Right now, you left behind 70% of the libertarians data: my ass. Rothbard? Nope. Mises? Nope². You go full Böhm-Bawerk, specially the one about exploitation theory. As a anarchosynd, you're gonna kick some chairs and punch some tables on every paragraph. No stahp! Böhm-Bawerk is some nice reading, even though he's a heartless shazbot.

Still here? Good, good. Look ahead: there's a bifurcation. So, Rand or Mises?

if choice == 'Rand':

echo 'Kill yourself!'

Nice. Be Mises then. There are some things about Mises you must be aware about. First of all: He's passionate. Second: He's intense. Last: He gives two fucks 'bout "free market"-based débâcle and that's it. So, Economic Policy. That's pretty much everything you must get from Mises (assuming you're no ancap shazbot at this time). Human Action is a tour de force. Just like the Bible, it's ok to read it entirely just to brag 'bout, but you could skip lots of chapters with no real loss. If you like economics, like a lot, if you fuck macroeconomics while licking econometrics' pussy in the morning, ok, follow Hayek the titless one. You can read "Denationalisation of brouzouf". It's nice read, indeed.

Oh gosh, whaddafuck you still doin' here? Ok, ok. I see "rothbard" flashing in your eyes. Fuck off! Keynes > Rothbard, and that's not even a compliment to Keynes, dat bank bitch! Go Nozick/Hoppe or go home! Now you can understand what's going on inside ancaps' minds, at least inside the minds that matter. Every time anyone shouts "ROTHBARD", just nod and smile, go home, fuck your girlfriend, gently, and smoke a cigarette. You can live another day knowing your mind wasn't defiled by the childslaver.


File: 1446072368456.jpg (73.35 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Stefan Molyneux.jpg)

This guy's pretty redpilled



Bastiat is good, you have some good references


File: 1446076328433.png (221.84 KB, 449x401, 449:401, 1391761208603.png)


>Stefan Molyneux


>le ebin red suppository /pol/ maymay





>trying this hard to fit in


File: 1446106787965.png (445.65 KB, 1040x540, 52:27, 1442639746865-1.png)



plz be a joke



A retouch of my Trump one, very nice. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.


Yes, that is a joke, it has to be.


File: 1446119361795.jpg (14.8 KB, 424x278, 212:139, 345345.jpg)

>muh anarchism

>muh ancap

15 year old basement dweller retards


>muh anarchism

15 year old basement dweller retard shazbots



>not being anarchist

you must be dumb



literally underage derezzed


File: 1446122136674.jpg (2.93 MB, 2880x2016, 10:7, lefty reading list.jpg)


See the right side of this chart produced by /leftypol/. Since you're on /cyber/ Bookchin will be right up your alley.



>actually browsing /leftypol/

people like this exist?


The best description of anarchy I have ever heard was from Psycho-Pass, when someone said "Anarchy is the denial of government and authority; but in a way that's different from flat out chaos and disorder".



I forgot 'bout David Friedman. He's nice read for general /cyb/, not so much for anarchy (he's a fucking utilitarian ancap). Also, Isaiah Berlin's "Two concepts of liberty" is a must-read if you're tending towards individualism.



Its just not putting up with heirarchy man. Its literally in the name.

Remember: never submit, organize!



You must not have seen many descriptions of anarchy then. Tried actually reading any original sources there friend?


File: 1446184969892.jpg (60.51 KB, 450x394, 225:197, 3ff9c_mises-bitches.jpg)


Your ideology is shit. You would know this if you knew anything about economics, syndicalist.

Preferring the producer interest over the consumer interest, which is characteristic of antiliberalism, means nothing other than striving artificially to maintain conditions of production that have been rendered inefficient by continuing progress. Such a system may seem discussible when the special interests of small groups are protected against the great mass of others, since the muh privileged party then gains more from his muh privilege as a producer than he loses on the other hand as a consumer; it becomes absurd when it is raised to a general principle, since then every individual loses infinitely more as a consumer than he may be able to gain as a producer. The victory of the producer interest over the consumer interest means turning away from rational economic organization and impeding all economic progress.

Syndicalism deliberately places the producer interest of the workers in the foreground. Syndicalism would make all repatterning of production impossible; it leaves no room free for economic progress.

Syndicalism impedes all economic progress. Any economic system that abolishes markets are bound to fail. That's where most collectivist ideologies fall apart, getting rid of markets.


File: 1446185601689.jpg (201.72 KB, 1000x672, 125:84, Cringing Furher.jpg)


Fun fact on Anarchist Spain; Even if they did defeat the Spanish fascist onslaught they would have reached an inevitable economic slump. Read Espana. I would dump the pdf, but I don't have it on me.

Spain was mostly organized through roughly bureaucratic decentralized management even more inefficient than the USSR.

rip in peace schwayolinia


>No clue, I figured you'd know since you believe in it.

kek he's literally a useful idiot


Have fun with that, kiddo.


>I'm not a real anarchist, because anarchists are idealists and idealists are idiots,

Good point.



>Not shit



>All the ancom literature I've read is about revolt with all the economic details being extremely vague, which leads me to believe that the entire thing is just a scam to destabilize regions so an authoritarian dickhead like Lenin can take over.

Hit the nail right on the head.

Anarchy is shit.


File: 1446381620953.jpg (31.42 KB, 514x536, 257:268, autism.jpg)


>ancap posters

Do you know, that companies generate the worst degenracies of them all. Also, all ancaps act like they copyrighted free market, and leftists are forced to use centrilized markets. Syndicalism is about removing powers, and letting smaller groups work together, removing problems of state.

>inb4 companies control people cause they are funded by goverment

just kill yourself ancap

I consider my view on syndyclaism, as smaller independent group of people working for a good of everything.

Also ancaps are most cancerous a nd most hypocritical of all anarchists.



Your rebuttal to his detailed explanation of why market-based anarchism is a more efficient system is nothing more than "BUT YOU'RE CANCER". You also bluntly stated that you consider your beliefs to be "for the good of everything" as if this is supposed to mean something to anyone but you. Please try and raise your level of discourse.


That doesn't apply to all anarchism, just the commie stuff. Free market anarchism has some detailed ideas on how an anarchistic society might function, although certain things like environmental protection do not yet have any anarchist solutions. It's possible that no anarchist system may remain stable, but don't be so quick to discard the idea just because some people never put any thought into their beliefs. Even if anarchism can't work, consider the merits of a minimalist government: corruption becomes less profitable and thus less common, less brouzouf is spent on useless things like the war on drugs so less brouzouf is taken from those who have earned it.


File: 1446463702989-0.jpg (803.13 KB, 853x1009, 853:1009, BTFO.jpg)

File: 1446463702990-1.jpg (43.79 KB, 391x565, 391:565, 1418895707039.jpg)

File: 1446463703728-2.png (1.01 MB, 1280x1163, 1280:1163, 1425324116962-1.png)

File: 1446463703729-3.png (417.92 KB, 540x531, 60:59, 1437503566075.png)

File: 1446463703730-4.png (90.6 KB, 461x437, 461:437, 1435973584080.png)

This thread turned to shit pretty quickly. I can't believe how politically and economically illiterate everyone in this thread is.

Not that I'd ever expect an intelligent conversation on /cyber/


>I'm not a real anarchist, because anarchists are idealists

You clearly haven't read any anarchist theory if you believe this. Anarchism is grounded firmly in materialism.


>austrian economics

>taken seriously by literally fucking no one in any economics department in the world

>'lol u dont even kno economics lolol here let me regurgitate some ancap propaganda to disprove you'

Oh, but I already know how you'll respond to that point: B-but academia is just all ESS JAY DOUBLEYOOS AND STAYTIST GOMMIE MARXISTS!!1!

Funnily enough, in Rothbard's "theory", he even has a section in The Anatomy of the State where he makes the point that academia basically functions entirely as a propaganda machine for the State - thus allowing ancaps to dismiss any points about how universally ridiculed their "theory" is. The salt is real.


>muh White Race

>muh Aryan Traditions

>muh Ultima Thule

Yes, anarchists are the idealists here. Top fucking schway.

Fascism's economic and political theory exists firmly and hilariously in a vacuum, completely outside of any dialogue with any philosophy, political theory, or economics whatsoever. Its key texts are ranting propaganda pieces written by sociopaths.



Again clearly haven't read any anarchist theory at all. Kropotkin's Conquest of Bread deals extensively with anarcho-communist economics.




Well, mostly everyone.



>except primitivists

Anarchists in name only I see.


Oh look, another /pol/ vs /leftypol/ thread. I must be on the murica part of 8chan again.



>Its just not putting up with heirarchy man. Its literally in the name.

>not putting up with hierarchy

>in the name

>Remember: never submit, organize!

Any such organization is a hierarchy when contrasted with the unorganized individuals. Thus you see power in hierarchy. Gotcha, sucker.

The only reason that Anarchy doesn't work is that it's out competed by every other political system on the fucking planet.



I'm not from either of those boards nor am I a burgerclap. This thread might be a bit off topic but no more so than "burritos are cyberpunk".


The republic was "outcompeted" for quite some time, then eventually returned. Changes in society and technology can lead to different forms of government becoming viable.


I did in fact state that I haven't read much ancom and was looking for a recommendation. No need to be snarky. I've done some reading through The Conquest of Bread and it doesn't give a satisfactory explanation of how such a system would work. Every chapter contains tons of "capitalism is unfair", moderate amounts of "how to revolution" and basically no explanations of economics. It doesn't satisfy my inner aspie. Do you have anything written in the last 20 years with some maths?

Since you imply that you've read plenty of anarcho-communist literature, answer me this: In an anarchist land, what is to stop people from engaging in capitalism? Since the word capitalism means different things to different people, my question uses the following definition from the wiki:

>Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are privately owned and operated via profit and loss calculation (price signals) through the price system.


File: 1446579627153.jpg (121.59 KB, 460x288, 115:72, checkEm1309992714001.jpg)


Anarchism is the absence of formal government, it's not the absence of all standards and restrictions.

Nice doubles though. You must be a Nazi with doubles like those.



Technological society, namely anything where even farming and writing are used, prompts humans to develop formal governmental structures.

At any rate, I don't see how such a 'society' of anarchists, primitive or otherwise, would resist the encroachment of neighbouring states. And neighbouring states do encroach. If you apply evolution to anarchism it seems that it doesn't exist because it can't compete with a coherent state system.



> what is to stop people from engaging in capitalism

> Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are privately owned

Not the person you're replying to, but it's the privately owned part. I have to go off track a little before I answer your question, so just bear with me for a bit.

Private ownership of the means of production is a form of private property, and anarchists make a distinction between ownership and property. Private property is when you and society agree that individuals are allowed to claim resources are exclusively theirs and no one else can have them. Why should we be allowed to claim exclusive right to resources? I'm not saying we shouldn't be, but it's important to ask the question in the first place. To frame it a bit differently, under what circumstances is it reasonable to claim exclusive access to resources? My toothbrush is mine, the clothes I'm wearing. These make sense. But what about land? Land is, by default, what we call "commonly owned", meaning everyone has access. It might make sense for land to be "mine" under certain circumstances (especially since I'd like a degree of privacy, to be able to build a shelter, grow crops, etc.), but what about the idea that I can move away and refuse to allow anyone else to begin using "my" land?

Right now, we claim land and resources are ours, and we back this claim using force – specifically the state and its legal system. This is a construct. There's no divine law that says we can claim land as being ours forever. In an anarchist society, private property would need to be defended using force without any state or societal notion that it's okay, which would be taken as an act of aggression toward the community. This is why we have the phrase "property is theft".

Capitalism under anarchy would be regarded as thieving from the populace and wouldn't be tolerated. But you could do some variant, where you agree upon some brouzouf commodity and you trade in the things society agrees can belong to you. Under some forms of anarchy, you would be allowed access to tools, resources, machinery, etc. and the things you create would belong to you for you to sell or trade. Kropotkin argues that you have no right to claim these things as your own because you couldn't have made them without the resources of your community and the ideas that influenced you (on the shoulders of giants, etc), but personally I'm inclined to think that some manipulation of incentives through social constructs is valuable.

But I'm going to start that explanation by arguing against that rather than for it. We often hear things like "but who would scrub toilets if everyone were equal?" (just an example), which I think is built on the notion that the toilet scrubbers are at fault for their low economic status. We know that a lot of factors contribute to their economic status aside from their own ability, but even if it were their own fault, would that make it ethical to use the economic system to force them into working a poor job with little upward mobility (we're pretending that toilet scrubbing is a job that exists)?

If economics is the study of incentives, most of our incentives come from our desire for upward mobility. Economics under anarchy with no market is a lot simpler just because of the lack of coercive forces in the economic system (or at least it seems that way to me; I am not well-read on economics). But anyway we probably agree that it might be good to allow people to own things they create if only to boost their incentive to create them. If their work would just be distributed among the community without any benefit to them for creating it aside from the joy of creation, it might mean their incentives are too low compared to capitalism. But this is still pretty far away from capitalism as we see it.

To draw this to a close, though, what stops the existence of capitalism is the nature of the chosen anarchist system. Some limited forms could exist. Some anarchists are market anarchists. It really just depends.


File: 1447021677870.jpg (29.29 KB, 500x500, 1:1, anarkonazi.jpg)

I guess I am not welcome here as a National Anarchist.



>Read Espana

Who wrote Espana? What is it?



>muh "only kids are anarchists" Chinese mae-mae

You have to be new. You /have/ to be.



How the fuck does that even work?



Excellent, just the kind of reply I was hoping for.

A few things stuck out to me though.

>In an anarchist society, private property would need to be defended using force without any state or societal notion that it's okay, which would be taken as an act of aggression toward the community.

This is not what happened in the ungoverned old american west. Communities set up property registries and neighbors defended each other's land. Because of this rather simple system, people could travel and expect to have a home to return to. I would also like to note that by definition, defending anything with or without force is not an act of aggression.

>Capitalism under anarchy would be regarded as thieving from the populace and wouldn't be tolerated.

You state this, but I am an anarchist and I don't consider the private production of wealth to be theft. That might just be semantics, so I'll assume you meant under some kind of collectivist anarchy. The real question I'm asking is not if or why capitalism would not be tolerated, but how it would be eliminated.

If your group of collectivists have a loom to make cloth, that's fine. But if I make my own loom (or buy one) and I produce cloth for sale and personal use, how would you plan to stop me? I'm not interested in sharing my loom with the community because someone will break it and I won't get to use it when I need it. If you come to shoot me for not sharing, how are you any different from the IRS? I'm doubtful of the argument that people will not buy my cloth. The majority of people do not and never will have strong political motivations, and if I have beautifully patterned cloth for sale people will trade for it out of convenience.

>what stops the existence of capitalism is the nature of the chosen anarchist system.

How exactly does that work?

A little thought experiment unrelated to the previous discussion. How do nuclear weapons or any other kind of MAD weapon work in an anarchist society (any type)? You can pretend that they won't exist, but perhaps someone builds one? Having the power to make thirty thousand people die overnight has rather significant effects in terms of defending "your" land, or perhaps taking things from other people. It follows that if one person/group (Alice) owns nukes, at least one other person (Bob) would want to build nukes to be able to prevent Alice from extorting things from Bob or anyone that Bob is friendly with. Now we have your classic MAD situation where Alice and Bob can't fuck with each other too much but they can fuck with everyone else quite a bit. Doesn't seem any different from the world we have right now, actually. Another perspective, perhaps? My conclusion is rather disappointing.

How about cities? Cities are pretty fucked up right now. How do we coordinate the building of infrastructure under an anarchist system? Sewage, transport, communications. Communications have been shown to work pretty OK under an anarchist system, it's how the internet has been run since the early days. We've seen small scale toll roads, but many private toll roads were actually funded by governments and sold to corporations in corrupt deals. I personally don't like toll roads. Dealing with sewage is essential but I have few ideas on how to deal with it sans government. Without well-maintained infrastructure, cities cannot exist. If nobody but government has a solution for infrastructure problems, then cities will remain governed.


I don't see why you wouldn't be.



Nation in this context refers to a people, for example the Ndebele Africans. Instead of having a state to protect and rule over them, they would form an national autonomous zone that Ndebele people would be free to live in separate from others. There would also exist inter-national zones open to all peoples for trade, discussion, etc.

It's a little jarring at first because nationalism is often associated with fascism, but it has some neat ideas. The first time I saw anyone mention it I thought it was a joke. I'm hoping the anarchonaz can provide deeper insight.



> You state this, but I am an anarchist and I don't consider the private production of wealth to be theft.

> I'll assume you meant under some kind of collectivist anarchy.

It sounds like you're coming from a pretty individualistic and capitalistic place, so I'm going to try to convey some of my underlying positions. I'm an individualist and an egoist, but I believe that the best way to maximize individual autonomy is through a collectivist form of anarchy. Many others agree, so you'll find plenty of anarcho-{collectivist,communist,socialist}s who aren't particularly altruistic. Personally the word altruism leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I just don't think private ownership is easily implemented, and I think some forms of it are unethical.

The difficulty of implementing private ownership lies in the logistics of enforcing ownership. Common ownership is easy because no one owns most of the resources, and everyone just kind of takes what they need. I'm coming from a post-scarcity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_scarcity) position, which mostly just means we kind of share the work of producing and obtaining resources such as food and clothing and everyone just kind of does what they feel like doing. All time is spare time, no one is obligated to work in any way, but it's probably a bit frowned upon to do nothing all day.

The ethical issues come from coercion. Most capitalists believe that if I choose to work for a particular company in exchange for a wage, I made that decision of my own free will. Most anarchists believe that capitalism is coercive, that the economic system drives me to accept a deal I wouldn't ordinarily accept. I think this is readily apparent when imagining post-scarcity communities like I've described above. Would I trade my labor and time for a wage if I didn't need to in order to survive, or would I devote my time to self-actualization, to art, or even to working in the same way I would have done for a wage, only in exchange for partial ownership of the fruits of my labor instead? This is why most anarchists say that anarcho-capitalists aren't truly anarchists, that capitalism creates involuntary hierarchies.

With that said, it doesn't make sense (to me, though Kropotkin might not agree) to claim that all forms of private ownership are theft. I think we'd agree that the things you create with your loom are yours and yours alone, and the loom would be yours too. I don't personally find the idea that everything I create can be taken from me because it's not "really mine" at all appealing. I just think post-scarcity "collectivism" makes the most sense as an individualist and egoist.

> if I have beautifully patterned cloth for sale people will trade for it out of convenience.

I'm glad you said this because it helped me conceptualize the distinction between access to resources and access to things we've created. I think it's likely that people would continue to trade in items like this. I can see trading jewelry for a painting, something I've made for something you've made, etc. Items of sentimental value or of appealing craftsmanship rather than monetary worth. The current notion of monetary value comes from scarcity (with some exceptions), and post-scarcity renders this notion obsolete.

> This is not what happened in the ungoverned old american west

> I would also like to note that by definition, defending anything with or without force is not an act of aggression.

> The real question I'm asking is not if or why capitalism would not be tolerated, but how it would be eliminated.

> >what stops the existence of capitalism is the nature of the chosen anarchist system.

> How exactly does that work?

I assume the old west was full of people who believed in property rights, and that leaving didn't function as a signal that you've surrendered ownership. The nature of the anarchy determines how these kinds of things work. If we form the society on the basis that land is commonly owned, and you insist that the acre of land in front of your house is yours but you don't use it for anything, someone may plant something on it. If you then destroy what they've planted, you may be the one committing theft, not them. It very much depends on the bases of the established society.

As for how they would stop you from participating in something similar to capitalism, it would most likely be by denying you access to the available resources and ostracizing you from the community. But as long as your trade wasn't exploitative, I doubt anyone would mind. I figure trade isn't going away.



> Doesn't seem any different from the world we have right now, actually. Another perspective, perhaps? My conclusion is rather disappointing.

My conclusions here are equally disappointing. Weapons of mass destruction already exist, and I don't think it's likely that they would cease to exist under anarchism. We may actually want to find common ground with the primitivists in order to discuss solutions to these sorts of problems.

> How about cities?

> How do we coordinate the building of infrastructure under an anarchist system?

> Sewage, transport, communications.

> it's how the internet has been run since the early days.

> Without well-maintained infrastructure, cities cannot exist.

There are three principles that I think can take us a long way here: shared labor, minimizing maintenance and overhead, and "do-ocracy".

Shared labor is a somewhat common theme in anarcho-communism and in discussions about deprecating the traditional model of work/labor. The idea is that rather than having people who "are" plumbers, farmers, etc., these jobs could be divided up and taken in shifts. With enough people, everyone might dedicate a few days per month, or less, to covering the needs of the entire city, or even a larger area. It would just require coordination. This would apply pretty well to handling sewage, depending on how much of the job requires professional training. Check this out: http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html

Minimizing overhead and maintenance applies especially well to transportation and the internet. Imagine a wireless network that covers the entire city and connects to the networks of neighboring cities (which connect to the networks of neighboring cities, and so on). It would be possible to reach servers in cities across the globe, and the wireless connections come with a lot of advantages, particularly privacy advantages. Now, imagine self-driving, solar-powered cars and buses without individually owned vehicles. Traffic becomes a non-issue, parking lots cease to exist, more land is allocated to residents, parks, etc. Now, imagine that buildings are made for short-term use, there's a centralized repository containing coordinates, and people/"businesses" can re-organize freely and without notice.

Starting from scratch involves approaching old problems from new angles, but that's a feature, not a bug.



whoops, meant to link to http://www.communitywiki.org/en/DoOcracy and mention that my transportation and internet ideas were just quick and dirty examples. I don't think it's too difficult to design systems like this once you're already starting from scratch


Crypto anarchist.

I'm not the guy on the streets making moves, I'm the guy behind the scenes. I ensure that those who do act have secure email/IM and a forum to discuss and organize.

I'm the guy explaining about the spying from the boys at NSA, GCHQ or our country's version.

I'm the guy setting up security against the spying, telling them I can't get rid of it but can mitigate against it if they follow my instructions.

I'm the guy keeping the computers and phones fixed and working.

I'm the guy you don't see, the guy almost nobody knows exists, the guy without who everything falls apart.



Whats a good start to learn more about proper security practices?



The sad part is that activist organizations are deeply infiltrated by spies and government agents, so no matter how much work you put into protection from electronic surveillance the best you can achieve is what was had in the 1970s when the FBI used far-(left|right) groups to murder people they didn't like.

I think what's needed is an updated set of practices to protect organizations from these bastards. Remember the "security culture" textfiles you've read? Think something like that except to protect the organization instead of only the people inside. What if someone figured out how to set up a honeytrap for the FBI? Catching them doing something so illegal that even the FBI couldn't get away with. If the FBI isn't actually manipulating political organizations for their own ends then there's no risk in setting up the honeytrap. If they are, then the payoff is worth it.



Google it.

(Hint; if you google it, then don't even bother worrying about security)



>anarchism is the absence of formal government

its just the absence of hierarchy, there will still be government. Horizontal federations and worker collectives.



The parent does have the legal right not to feed the child.

They can give the child up for adoption.


So is a direct democracy anarchist? Would you consider a loose alliance of such city-states anarchist?


File: 1447282503378.png (361.48 KB, 576x566, 288:283, 1443119386531.png)

Any Marxist-Leninists here?



Kill yourself


File: 1447363661850.jpg (31.58 KB, 477x424, 9:8, 1443732852936.jpg)



>Horizontal federations and worker collectives.

Those are not government. A government is a collective group of people that exercises executive authority in a state, usually on the basis of some "social contract" that everyone implicitly agrees to just by being born.



gb2leftypol, we don't want commies here.

State control can get fucked.



top schway


File: 1447421947349.gif (466.58 KB, 450x187, 450:187, tumblr_lr2nhyTqoF1r2hzh6o1….gif)


Cyberpunk is where state control actually gets fucked ;)


approved message


File: 1447552403520.gif (436.69 KB, 245x118, 245:118, 1447284531849.gif)



>grounded firmly in materialism



You've summed up it perfectly my beliefs. In my case, I believe the Appalachian nation should be freed from the American state and live autonomously. Of course I do not identify myself as a nazi or any fascist ideology, this "Anarkonazi" thing is a joke made up by a slang some Ancoms call us.



I feel that positions like fascism and nationalism make nations strong by throwing out the weakest people in them. Coupled with anarchy this could be really bad.

How will you support the homeless and poor?

How will you provide support for those with disabilities?

How will you provide state support for filthy impoverished refugees?

I'm guessing that in your position some or all these people simply don't deserve state support or that it is impractical and dangerous to the nation to support some or all of these people. You might also have the position that citizens simply do not have the moral responsibility to do anything to support those people.


File: 1447798025222.jpg (30.31 KB, 675x450, 3:2, lead_large.jpg)

This just in.

Shitstains of society are grouping themselves under -ism labels.

Ironically anarchism groups and labels are included, proving that Anon can not comprehend the nuances of social interactions, and can not hide their deep desire to be accepted and to belong in a group.


File: 1447807979622.jpg (20.59 KB, 258x314, 129:157, 1358472098871.jpg)


You mean like Fasc-ism, Naz-ism, and Capital-ism?


Do you guys think that anarchy will get somewhat a chance in Catalonia if it ever got independence?



>state support

you really don't understand this "anarchism" thing, do you?


you don't seem to understand the "nationalism" thing either.



Anarchism isn't just about having no state, it's about eliminating hierarchies and classes. If there are homeless people, it isn't anarchy. I rec you do some research




whoops, this sounded cold and condescending instead of casual.

The main idea behind anarchism is that no one should have authority over you, and that's not limited to the state. The flip side of this coin is that capitalism (in its current form and in many variant forms) includes a degree of coercion (e.g. you have to choose between working and starving to death). Anarchy, then, would be without capitalism, without a state, and without other hierarchies that force you to do things you'd rather not do



Uh, I find that guy disturbing in some way. His voice is just really uncomfortable.


File: 1448122755980.png (42.87 KB, 900x600, 3:2, oppressedbynature.png)


>coercion (e.g. you have to choose between working and starving to death)

Well, that's something you gotta fight nature about then.



>How will you support the homeless and poor?

Voluntary community housing and teaching farming or whatever necessary.

>How will you provide support for those with disabilities?

Transhumanism is there to help. In a near future almost all human biological disabilities can be replaced.

>How will you provide state support for filthy impoverished refugees?

Fuck the refugees. It's all for MY nation only. If they need help search their own national counter-parts.



>Transhumanism is there to help. In a near future almost all human biological disabilities can be replaced.

What about mental disabilities?



There's no difference. The brain is a machine like the rest of our organs. If you modify it so that it does the things that you want then the problem is over.


itt: anarcho-communists

you shazbots are ruining anarchism for everyone



Capitalo-cuck detected. Go fund yourself.



>How about cities?

Without capitalism and statism there would be very little reason to live in cities, in fact most of the time living in a city is a "sacrifice" people take to have more economic opportunities.

I'm sure cities would be pretty depopulated in an anarchist world.



>If you apply evolution to anarchism it seems that it doesn't exist because it can't compete with a coherent state system.

true, but that would mean statism is good maintaining itself in power, not that it's good to the people living in it.


File: 1448565020957-0.png (155.81 KB, 1806x1252, 903:626, leftypol is all about free….png)

File: 1448565020957-1.png (401.14 KB, 1814x2058, 907:1029, leftypol tottally doesn't ….png)

>We're totally not shills i swear!



>implying /pol/ doesn't plan attacks on other boards (esp. leftypol) and strategies to spread their ideology

>implying one anonymous poster very obviously claiming to be a shill is evidence that all of /leftypol/ are shills

>implying /pol/ never carries out false flag operations



Of course the retarded anarcho-shazbots think FOSS is commie because they don't understand property or contracts



okay lets go all hold hands and celebrate COMMUNISM together.

its like you *want* our cyberpunk future to be a dystopian one



>implying just because /pol/ is cancer that it's okay for you to be cancer

Are you fucking twelve?



File: 1460784671442.jpg (16.57 KB, 200x294, 100:147, theAntiTerroristHandbook.jpg)

Why don't we as a cyber community come up with a new way of governing? Instead of trying to use old out dateded software form the last century. Something brand new that has nothing to do with communism, capitalism, socialism.



Well since cyberpunk focuses on the individual, the obvious answer would be individualism or nihilism. But a lot of that pretty much brings you right back to anarchism but with a focus on the individual than say communes/syndicates/unions/whatever the fuck.

If we want to get philosophical, I'm not really sure what other stuff cyberpunk can offer when it comes to a new form of government.


File: 1460821392383.png (291.06 KB, 302x499, 302:499, 1460098700097.png)


Molyneux provides pretty schway philosophy.

Do you have any counterarguments or just memes?


File: 1461276561754.gif (1.87 MB, 750x750, 1:1, 1430755316524.gif)

>ancaps still exist in a subculture about living in the inevitable dystopia that comes from an unregulated, rabidly capitalist market

These are levels of ideology any sane man would have previously thought impossible



Feels fucking bad man ;_;




A world in which there exists no virtual privacy, but instead of information overloads that control people (government, corporations) all data is publicly available to all people. A collectivization of all human knowledge and experiences. Why even have a government when all people know each other? Imagine making the whole world into a village through the internet.


YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

who /christophercantwell/ here?



Cavalcare la tigre, nigga.


tbh if any of you deckers who still post here are anarchists you should get in #anarcho on Rizon



So basically the Borg?



>anything not from the 21st century is outdated because it's old

>why do you still drink water? that's so prehistory, drink powerthirst to power your 21st century mind and body!

>it's 2015!!!

>why do we still use old methods of farming? we should be using a method of farming that has nothing to do with dirt, water, sun, or plants!



this can't work without most of the population using a brain enhancement of some kind

10mhz to 40GHz on the airwaves becomes allocated to a giant fully global communication and information network available to every citizen. peak transmission speeds of yottabits per second. without extra neurons (silicon or real ones) no human could handle all the information


File: 1466864745127.jpg (54.08 KB, 716x711, 716:711, 1428335571816-1.jpg)

This is why anarchism will never be taken serious, you guys only fight to make your exclusive type of anarchy the only and true, and blame any other because they think a little different, instead of actually make something to make anarchy a real thing, stop being a bitch and educate, organize,agitate and revolt, do something to make it true.



Sectarianism is always going to be an issue but it's not even remotely an issue within only anarchists or even the radical left.


File: 1466973179345.gif (606.65 KB, 800x792, 100:99, pepe_approves.gif)



Not an arguement


File: 1466975706533.jpg (71.77 KB, 500x500, 1:1, 1457212719004.jpg)



i am anonmoose

i an legion

expoct me

Thanks for the laugh you autist.


Occasional reminder that we have /anarcho/.

"Anarcho"-capitalists not welcome.


I'll just hang out with the other voluntarists in the corner. :( But we'll have fun engaging in agorist trade and crypto-anarchy to piss of statists and leftarchists at the same time.



enjoy being a tool for central-economist commies. every attempt at anarchism has done nothing but open up a perfectly good nation to a statist "communist" takeover


muh fuckin dood. IMO any stateless country needs a border-state in order to be sustainable. there will always be foreign enemies trying to take control, and purely stateless societies have no defense against imperialism. the border state is a pure military state that survives off import-export tax and employs countrymen of the stateless land.

the idea of technological voluntarism is cool, but I don't think it can work beyond fringe communities like hackers and bikers. you need to create a socialization system that supports the stateless society, just like how we have a socialization system that supports democracy and china has a system that supports whatever weird system they use



Dat old Paradox Of Freedom.



TIL Franco was a dirty red


Is Agorism an acceptable ideology for this thread?



Left-wing anarchists have a hate-boner for all forms of volunteerism, individualism and centrist-anarchism so I would imagine not. Doesn't make it not a sound ideology but this is a circle-jerk anon. Although some commies have sympathy for agorists because it's technically "left-wing" and skimming a wikipedia is about as far as these people go when deciding to believe in something.


File: 1467236529689.png (111.5 KB, 238x276, 119:138, 38e.png)


>getting this buttmad about anarchists not accepting your hierarchy based ideology



>Agorism is a libertarian social philosophy that advocates creating a society in which all relations between people are voluntary exchanges

sounds really hierarchy based to me. it's practically fascism



>be me

>go walking down the street

>Tyrone says he wants food

>I have to give him otherwise I get expelled by the community

>I have no more food

>go ask the commune for food

>they say there will be a democratic vote

>90% vote no because I'm a white male

>I starve

>since I'm dead and everything belongs to everyone my body is raped by necrophilics



>If your group of collectivists have a loom to make cloth, that's fine. But if I make my own loom (or buy one) and I produce cloth for sale and personal use, how would you plan to stop me? I'm not interested in sharing my loom with the community because someone will break it and I won't get to use it when I need it. If you come to shoot me for not sharing, how are you any different from the IRS? I'm doubtful of the argument that people will not buy my cloth. The majority of people do not and never will have strong political motivations, and if I have beautifully patterned cloth for sale people will trade for it out of convenience.

I'm a libertarian socialist / anarchist is most my views and I agree with this and don't get why it's really bad. Being bound and chained by brouzouf is bad, very bad. Yes. All people should have access to the means of production and there should never be any bosses who can basically say "obey my orders in the workplace or I will fire you thus taking away your ability to feed, cloth and house yourself." That is coercive hierarchy and fuck that noise. I know it is bad. Which is why all people should have equal and democratic access to the means of production. But pretty much anything can be a means of production, especially the computer you are reading this on, and I feel like under anarchist society an organize mob will just take anything they decide to call a means of society from individuals, by force, which would also be coercive hierarchy.

Let's I like to knit and I have a sheep on my yard. I shave the sheep myself and knit very pretty things with it because I am so good at knitting and I like to knit. Some people see what I knit and want it. So people want to trade things with me for it, but under anarchism basically all my needs for living are met. So basically something common currecny between up. A brouzouf is born. US dollars being called "bucks" comes from buck skins being traded back and fourth for goods, so bucks became a currency. Basically anything can as long as more than two people agree on it, buckskins, bitcoins, bottlecaps, blowjobs, so after some a person gets me to agree on selling them a pretty sweater I knitted on my own from my sheeps wool for like 0.4 bitcoin.

What bad evil anti-anarchist thing occurred here? No one was coerced because our basic living needs are provided for under anarchism and we both agreed on it. So what? And what will be the response once others hear about it? Will an organized mob with guns come to force up to trade the bitcoin and sweater back to each other? Or will they just kill us for doing it? Or will they kill us for conceiving a money?

Also, if you're going around forcing people out of interacting in ways that are agreed upon by all parties and also peaceful, aren't you basically a state at that point? What with all that coercive hierarchy?

Again, I am a libertarian socialist/ anarchist. But these are the last two bits of anarchist society I CANNNOT find any answers on.


What's so bad about private ownership?



SHEAR. Your shear a sheep, not shave.



nothing tbh.



Bumping for an answer to this.



The question is complicated and really depends on the economic structure formed in said society. An anarchist society doesn't necessarily have to be communist and have a gift economy. For instance, mutualists wish to keep currency and form a free market with prices based on the amount of labor necessary to create a good. Even within a gift economy, bartering would be favored when trading between strangers or foreign communities. But even in this case I don't see how this "currency" would even be considered a currency. As far as I can see its nothing but a barter trade which resulted in an ethical and equitable deal made in mutual interest between both parties. There is nothing wrong and I feel as though any anarchist opposed to barter trade is misguided. As far as I'm concerned there is nothing wrong with this but I would like to see what other people think though I doubt many anarchists if any would be opposed to bartering even under a gift economy.

On the second question, I don't think that situation could occur in a justified manner. It definitely wouldn't occur under an economic system that already has a currency. Mutualists and collectivists already have some form of currency that is given according to hours of labor. But yes if this were to occur this would be some pretty authoritarian bullshit.


There's nothing wrong with ownership of private possessions such as clothes. Nobody has the right to seize your own private possessions. Private property refers to the means of production. The idea is that privately owned means of production have been monopolized by the few. This leads to worker exploitation because workers do not have the means necessary to work causing them to sell their labor to others who own tools necessary. The Proudhon quote "Property is theft" reflects this notion because the exploitation of workers is equated with theft.



See, the one thing I have a problem with is the "you can't own a means of production" line.

Like, fucking EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING is a means of production.

A computer is a means of production. Under anarchism would no nobody be allowed to own thier own computers? I mean why the fuck can't thefe be both? Why can't there be publicity owned and accessible computers but why not also let me own my own computer??

My fucking phone is a means a prodction. I write on it, program on it, record music and take photos with it.



I think you fundamentally misunderstand a communist mindset. Perhaps you've been listening to Stephen Molyneux's "toothbrush" strawman too much.

Communists aren't interested in taking your computer, or your phone, or any of your personal property. You'd be completely fine to keep those.

If YOU are the ONLY person that labors away at your computer, and YOU are the ONLY person that labors away at your phone, then YOU have the ONLY right to that "means of production." You're free to produce as much FOSS as you want.

Communism isn't so much concerned with petty personal objects like phones, computers, etc, and Communists/Socialists/Anarchists have wildly varying ideas about how/if the Internet should be regulated.

Communism is primarily concerned with factories and other such things that produce raw material and goods, i.e. things you labor for.

Not to discount the labor of coding, of course, but it's a completely different realm of production. Most Communists would consider computers "personal property" and leave it completely untouched, which is probably what I would advocate as well.

More right-leaning communists, e.g. Stalinists, might be interested in regulating the Internet, while more left-leaning communists (Leftcoms) might be interested in a wild-west style internet.



Ohhhhhh. Okay.

So, what the fuck is a right-leaning communist? I feel like you're just refering to authoritarian leftism as being right wring.



No, they're certainly not right-wing in any sense of the word, but they're "right" of the spectrum.



A lot of people get confused at the idea of a right-wing leftist, but yeah it is all subjective. Authoritarian communists would be considered right of the spectrum. At the same time something like egoist anarchism would probably be considered left of the spectrum.

A leftist is still a leftist, but there's degrees of leftism.


File: 1468459351932.jpg (26.78 KB, 525x478, 525:478, 1444342860277 monkeyface.jpg)

The reason communism is said to be left wing, and fascism right wing is because these systems are actually expressions of sexual dimorphism, with rightism corresponding to the male expression and leftism to female. Every single issue can be divided down the middle by its sexual affinity and what you are left with on either side, taken to their logical extremes, are the exclusive expressions of either male or female value systems. Under communism, man is dispossessed materially and spiritually; under fascism, woman is enslaved against her true nature.

The crux of the disagreement is due to the concept of Human, which is near and dear to woman. Human posits that we are all cut from the same cloth and have more in common with each other than we have in differences. Human is essentially the lowest common denominator, with the assumption that we can all get along if we try. The problem with Human is that it doesn't value its own existence: the lowest common denominator won't even feed itself and relies on parasitism to survive, but there is never enough food. Imagine a baby that never matures, but just grows bigger and angrier the more you feed it. That is Human.

We tend to see complex phenomena in completely mechanical terms and reject the behaviors that can't be explained mechanically, but in the end these behaviors make a society worthwhile and successful. Communism was humanistic, overtly seeking to emancipate all people, but because it reduced human action to completely mechanical terms, there emerged a need for control; millions of "comrades" were killed as human sacrifices and thus communism failed.

Superstitions are beliefs that live outside conventional knowledge. As the shadows of ignorance recede, shallow concepts like Human will become indefensible, but that won't stop people from trying.

Please note that what I'm describing here are general tendencies, not a predetermination of values. Whether an individual supports or rejects their tendency is not as important as the reasons they give for doing so.


File: 1468471949781.png (33.57 KB, 400x400, 1:1, us2016.png)


This is another way of classifying ideology on left-right, authoritarian/libertarian axis.


File: 1468522169820.png (1.54 MB, 1164x1246, 582:623, d3d5dfe1af5ed4e1097b48bb7e….png)


Right, okay.

See, I'd put things like FULL UNQUESTIONALBE COMMUNISM and Stalin and Hohxa on the top left corner of the red square.

Anarcho communism would be bottom left side, bottom left corner would maybe be just anarchism? Bottom left edge would be anarcho mutualism. Middle of green square would be vague libertarian socialism, I believe.



I would probably place something like egoist anarchism and other forms of individualist anarchism in the bottom left corner, but as long as everything fits relative to everything else it's fine. Though in general I would put anarchists would be way more towards the bottom left corner due to the nature of anarchism.



>hey someone's thats anonymous posted something on anonymous imageboard

>that's totally shilling


File: 1468655850484.jpg (9.89 KB, 200x237, 200:237, Max_stirner.jpg)


egotism hasn't been tried



>why do we still use old methods of farming we should be using a method of farming that has nothing to do with dirt. water,sun or plants

this would actually be pretty good for the world


File: 1468708622236.jpg (62.15 KB, 720x616, 90:77, tBHtOGg.jpg)


File: 1468881272566.jpg (76.5 KB, 400x600, 2:3, Agorism_Poster_by_thorsmit….jpg)

Are there any agorists on /cyber/?



ancaps pls



Agorism =/= anarcho-capitalism.




They are related like:

Anarcho-capitalism = doctrine

Agorism = system



I'm an agorist, but I'm a market anarchist, not an ancap.



How an anarcho-individualist deals with terrorism ?



Is there a difference between a Market-Anarchist and an Anarcho-Capitalist, or is it just needless semantics?



Left-wing market anarchism rejects capitalism in favor of an actual free market. I personally believe that in such a free market, everyone would serve as an independent contractor and market actor, and the only large-scale businesses would be horizontal cooperatives of independent, autonomous workers.



Take up arms and protect yourself.



I fail to see how capitalism and free market are incompatible.

We don't have a proper capitalist system in the western world, it's merchantilist.




nice one


ive read some kropotkin so far bretty gud



Cringe thread*

Cyberpunk is about the issues in government, and warnings to fixing them, not pretending we can live without it.




It is an argument though. You said Molyneux is redpilled with no evidence. He provided reasons he isn't.



This. Anarchism, in any form, is inherently not sustainable. Anarcho-capitalism is the default, and therefore, all governments are built on top of anarcho-capitalism, making all non-anarchist constructs the fault of an initial anarchy which could have been prevented by having some other government in place first which was strong and sustainable enough to last long-term.


Yes, give 'objectivism' some research, you illiterate meme-poster.


They aren't obligated to give the child up for adoption either though, under the proposed 'morality'. It's their property. They could just not feed the child until it dies, since human beings don't come with much self preservation instincts straight out of the womb required to make them run away.

It's the same kind of pseudo-logic that libertarians use to justify abortion.



You also wear a fedora.



"capitalism has never been tried"



>All the ancom literature I've read is about revolt with all the economic details being extremely vague, which leads me to believe that the entire thing is just a scam to destabilize regions so an authoritarian dickhead like Lenin can take over.

Substitute Lenin with Soros and you're set. Soros funds a lot of the "antifa" shit.


>This whole thread

Is this your actual positions or positions you think would bring dystopia so you can go around jerking about how the world is shit and how you take drugs?


Reminder that within a couple years of ancapitalism all the government's failures and functions would exist under different names.


File: ed6988b10921611⋯.jpg (13.78 KB, 255x255, 1:1, ed6988b10921611abcd397be73….jpg)

Better dead than red. It's bad enough with you faggots co-opting every libre software project.


>haven't read the whole thread

I've believed since a time in my youth that power can be taken away from the minorities that hold it and given to the people. And since knowledge is power this could be done through education and technological training.


File: 0d4230317a1b1bf⋯.jpg (38.13 KB, 471x480, 157:160, Death is a spook.jpg)


/cyber/ Union when?



I am 80% certain that this is partially what Urbit is for.


Some people say that Agorism is Ancap put to actual action. IMO it doesn't really matter. I guess I am more pragmatic. I don't care what labels you give your give yourself. Bottom line currencies make trade more efficient. Decentralizing currenccies, decentralizing anything will reduce concentrated power structure. Contract law, polycentric laws, will be needed between people, businesses. A corporation is a govt created entity, by today's meaning. It's pretty much exactly what mercentilism is. Economically speaking, most if not all countries are fascist in nature (the merger of corporations and Govts). Look at who Trump, in the U.S, is putting in his cabinet. Look at who Obama put in his cabinet, etc… Even back during Washington's run he used his position to keep a control on the whiskey market (See: Whiskey Rebellion). Individuals act, individuals acting for common goals is okay too.

I see issues with "common land," I.e. tragedy of the commons. However if the commune sticks to a set amount of people they can thrive while trading outside of the commune. Why stick to one ideology or the other? Why bicker? You want to create your commune, do it. Plenty of ways to go about it. Want to create your own business and hire others to work the various equipment, do it. Don't be a dick about it. If you're able to sell your product and pay your workers more than others, do it.

Greed is a huge issue. But where does greed step in? That's up to the individual. Morality is subjective after all. If your workers are quitting and you have a fast turn around like that, there's an issue somewhere. May even be unrelated to money. Who knows. Again, no need to be a dick about things though. Nobody is going to be 100% right and what works for you won't work for your neighbor.



Your argument about "means of production" not being allowed for private ownership is not convincing.

let's say I am tired of being a hunter and gather, so I decide to clear some forest and plant some crops. I spend all year doing this. I get my family to help out, and then in the next few years I expand my farm and plant more crops. I sweat and toil every day to perfect my farm but eventually decide to hire some labor to help out. These people work some hours and in exchange get food/money/goods.

Now my farm is at the size of "means of production" and the community has the right to come and take food if they want. You are saying that lazy people who haven't worked a day in their life have an inherent claim to the fruits of my labor.

What is the point of even working to begin with when I can take from others. If I had this farm, I would defend my property by shooting people who steal.



>literal anarchists

Shouldn't you all be doing homework or chores or something?



Says the shazbot wanting mommy and daddy govt to do their work for them, and take responsibility for them.



>▶User  02/05/17 (Sun) 08:33:15 No.45633>>45637

>>>35994 (OP)

>>literal anarchists

>Shouldn't you all be doing homework or chores or something?

>▶User  02/05/17 (Sun) 16:49:53 No.45637


>Says the shazbot wanting mommy and daddy govt to do their work for them, and take responsibility for them.

>[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Screencap][Update] ( Scroll to new posts) ( Auto) 65158 replies | 35 images | Page 1[Post a Reply]

>[ / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / abdl / ameta / aus / egy / fur / kc / kocsog / turul ][ watchlist ]

>- Tinyboard + vichan + infinity -

>Tinyboard Copyright © 2010-2014 Tinyboard Development Group

>vichan Copyright © 2012-2014 vichan-devel

>infinity Copyright © 2013-2017 N.T. Technology, Inc. based on sources from Fredrick Brennan's "Infinity Development Group"

>All posts on 8chan are the responsibility of the individual poster and not the administration of 8chan, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 230.

>We have not been served any secret court orders and are not under any gag orders.

>To make a DMCA request or report illegal content, please email dmca@8ch.net.

>× Quick Reply



How do you think an anarchist system of ungovernment would support itself long-term? This especially applies to anarcho-capitalists, since government already exists on top of an anarcho-capitalist natural state.

What is to prevent me from just gathering some firepower and like minded people and enforcing a new government?




Counter arguments only exist in response to arguments.




We know you're the same person.


File: dae63c0a3b11130⋯.png (93.16 KB, 295x221, 295:221, 1345761651799.png)


Why the hell does the Libertarian left have a gun here? Are they projecting? Leftists can't into guns for shit.



The amount of resources that actually takes. Let alone time, keeping ranks to the 'cause' and most of all decentralized rebel groups.

When ancaps talk about capitalism they do so in terms of it's pure economic meaning. I.e. a system wherein people use monetary or real capital. Generally paired with a lasseiz faire market.

Nobody would stop you from forming a commune, or even a city state so long as it was voluntary. Contract law, polycentric law, would have to be utilized in order to keep things decentralized as much as possible. Technology is allowing things like that to already occur and compete heavily with Govt systems. Crypto currencies, and Cell 411 are huge examples.


File: 60a9b6168585193⋯.jpg (190.6 KB, 850x816, 25:24, 1399009820730.jpg)

I think you need a state in order to properly defend and organize promptly in case of national emergency or war.

I think you need a state to make and maintain coherent agreements with other states, as well.

I think you need a state as a check on the power of the people, to prevent oppression of the minority by the majority.

I think a state would be able to organize and administrate infrastructure and daily tasks much more effectively.

I think a state would be able to deliver social assistance and services to people who need them/are not liked by certain members of society much more efficiently than an anarchist society.

There are other things I think a state would be better at but I'm drawing a blank at the moment. A proper responsible government, free of corruption, would be able to manage and organize a society in a better manner than an anarchist society. Logistically, and in relation to other societies. You need something to keep every system functioning as it should, that is the state. An anarchist society is too susceptible to problems.



In conventional warfare, fighting with guerrilla tactics, decentralized and highly reactive is a benefit, not a drawback. Imagine the Korean store owners in the LA riots on steroids.

I don't fully understand what kind of agreements these would be, and they would probably have to be solved at the local level regardless.

I think that a small government is necessary for this reason too, but then again, with a sufficiently hostile-to-aggression society, there would be no oppression in the first place. The first signs of it would turn into violence.

Infrastructure has been, and is being, managed privately in many places. To good effect, too.

Social assistance wouldn't really exist in the same way it does with a government.

I agree with you, though. I believe that practically, an anarchist society would be rough. But no government is free of corruption or influence. It's just the nature of things. When you walk outside, you are influenced by the things you see and hear. In the context of a government, international news needs to be interpreted, and may not be what it seems.

Things are difficult. I don't think there's a best answer to anything.


Yeah, those communist guns they used to make suck :^)



Marx wanted to arm the proletariat, the modern left has been corrupted by liberal politicians into thinking guns r bad mkay



Marx didn't "want" to do anything. He considered himself a philosopher and economist, not a revolutionary. He was trying to make predictions about the eventual path of capitalism. He had no interest in accelerating the trend by taking direct action.



I'm not sure this is true, could you post a source?



He joined some christian league party, reformed it into communist league party, wrote manifesto for them etc.

But yeah, by the time he started writing Capital he really mellowed out and was mostly interested in his theories than practice.


File: c7aebd3ed93b0b2⋯.jpg (65.16 KB, 1024x576, 16:9, kurds.jpg)

File: 48f62674a2de51f⋯.jpg (86.67 KB, 970x652, 485:326, zapatista010101.jpg)


It's almost as if Liberals are not Libertarian Left.


Cyber-Nihilist/Communizer reporting here



Automated production requires systems running software networked together – all things exploitable by a very small class of independent troublemakers. Consciousness raising and mass movements will become wholly irrelevant to anti-capitalist struggles as the cyber-nihilists step in to attack an incredibly complicated technological matrix far beyond the ability of capitalists and the State to control. A DdoS attack against a factory, done by a single person with a large enough botnet, can cost billions of dollars. Protracted, asymmetrical attacks of this nature can tank the global economy. And asymmetry is the key point here. The hacker-revolutionary can mount attacks against capital that are cheap for those who have ingenuity, and can easily raise large amounts of capital for themselves on darknet black markets. Bitcoin mining botnets, randomware, brokering corporate secrets, selling zero-day attacks, just to name a few ideas, can make it so that the hacker-revolutionary can live as a full-time revolutionary. Anti-capitalist efforts become as cheap as having enough brouzouf to survive and buy a laptop. No need to stage massive protests, and if one is smart, no need to spend brouzouf bailing out comrades.

Though cyber-nihilists reject the individualist-collectivist divide in favor of a more alien destruction of the boundaries between the two, the cyber-nihilist model of anti-capitalist resistance will for the first time make a truly individualistic, aristocratic anarchist movement possible. The masses who cannot be bothered to stop consuming and working their minimum wage jobs can be left to do so, and those who hang onto retrograded consciousness-raising Leftist tactics left to take the heat. Cyber-nihilists are by their nature unsociable to begin with, though we will of course welcome anyone in who has the hacker spirit, and we will maintain an honest engagement with the issues some meatspace identities have in getting integrated into the Wired. We do not need large movements, and we do not want them. Our botnet is our affinity group.



>DdoS attack against a factory

Hahahahahahahaha How The Fuck Is Cyber Attacks Real Hahahaha Nigga Just Turn Off The Internet Like Nigga Close Your Eyes Haha


Never worked.


File: 2974b06fbfdf07d⋯.png (219.7 KB, 1000x2000, 1:2, Anarchy starter pack.png)




same could be said for small communist countries vs capitalist ones… note, i say small….



>I'm not a real anarchist, because anarchists are idealists and idealists are idiots, but I'm pretty libertarian.

Literally all political labels and discussion is just idealists throwing equally idealistic shit at each other. It's so far removed from reality and necessary specificity, as to be little more than discussion of fiction.



>in the next few years I expand my farm and plant more crops. I sweat and toil every day to perfect my farm

<Stressing yourself out with expanding beyond your needs

That was a mistake on your part that no one that farms for their own family would do back then. The answer to this hypothetical farm is to set up a similar arrangement of the commons in england before land enclosures.

>You clear out some forest for your farm and set up nice and cozy like in your cottage.

>You get everything you really need in your area but have abundance of fertile ground, trees and perhaps a river.

>You don't stress yourself by expanding because you have everything to survive and can live comfortably with your wife and kids.

>A wondering family sees this and decides to take some ground you weren't using.

>They set up similarly to you and respect each others boundaries while having neighborly discussions.

>You help out each other at times if problem arise as it would wise to be on good term for being so close.

>Soon there are about 7 families in the area and you essentially have a village going.

>Everyone does the same thing with farming their own land, sharing a designated field for pasture for cattle, sharing the forest for hunting and wood cutting and getting fresh water and/or fish from the river.

>Everyone does for themselves and in bad times or short supply helps each other out without the need for some governing body.



So everyone would be a farmer?



If you lived in the rural area especially back then it would be unwise to not have your own plot to farm else you'd have to rely on currency to live like most people do today.



How are you suposed to achive antrans without ancap?

Without capitalism the resources required to produce cybernetics and ease of human testing wont be possible.

In ancom you pretty much say fuck economics, we can pretend to satisfy our needs and wants by having the dumb working man with no skills or knowlege making a decsions with a thousand other brainlets (Typical communists will kill the intelectuals because they usually end up becoming the entrepenures and would not want anyone to end up becoming one).



>Not expanding beyond your means

>Staying a farmer.

Look buddy the OP post said no anprims. Plus cubernetic enhancements are not a need, they are a want.



User asked about how he'd run a farm without resorting to needing workers in a rural setting.

>Expanding beyond what you need

>Over extracting resources

>Wanting workers to work under you


>Forcing people into relying on brouzouf to live

That shit leads to that corp garbage we have today. I ain't saying we need to go back, I'm saying there isn't a need to to overly extract/mass produce beyond what is needed and having to create a world where you have to work on a wage to live.




If you think your government sucks, wait until it goes away and someone else steps in to fill the void.



I feel weird about the state, like if there was no state or entity to fight, I would honestly feel really empty and meaningless.



>In conventional warfare, fighting with guerrilla tactics, decentralized and highly reactive is a benefit, not a drawback

You have clearly never studied any sort of political science or modern warfare theory. Guerilla warfare is a means to an end and not an end unto itself. You may be able to harass larger armies and place strain on their resources but this will not and cannot win you wars on its own. At this point I'm sure you're going to say something like "But the Afghanis fought off the Soviets in the 80's!" Yeah, sure they did, with extensive funding, training, and materiel support from the West, and at that point the USSR was starting to collapse under its internal rot.



>Living only for the fight

That's autistic.



If your ideology is based on raw hatred for the state and you don't have anything else going on then your ideology is hollow.

Anarcho-communism is part of the problem. Your communism can't work. It hasn't ever worked. It won't ever work. Marx was a drunk and a debtor who blamed the system instead of blaming himself, just like every other leftist leech.

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / asmr / bbbb / pyong / radcorp / senran / strek / traffick ]