/new/ - News

>>387

>Darwinist

The concept that there are Darwinist ideologies and anti-Darwinist ideologies is retarded, and shows poor or null understanding of Darwinist theory or natural selection.

First off, "social Darwinism" is a complete travesty of Darwin's theories. Darwin wrote about the proliferation of genes that made species fit for survival, and such and adjective is key here: fit.

Being fit for survival doesn't mean you will become strong, fast, or smart under a Darwinist system. This is for two reasons:

1) There are no "Darwinist" systems, if only because Darwinism is a fundamental mechanic of nature, that affects all systems all the same.

2) The characteristics that make a species or a specimen fit for survival is completely define by material conditions. If you were part of an aggressive territorial species, being strong matters. If you are part of a general prey species, being fast matters. If your species is physically inferior, being smart matters.

However, social organization is part of survival fitness too. Mutual Aid and protection does, in effect, make the members of the community more fit for survival. That is Darwinism too.

What does it say about the current system? It says that you will have a better time if you are fit for the system. This doesn't mean that you have to be smart or strong, it simply means that you can use the system to your advantage.
In capitalism, this means that you are fit for survival if you can game the system. It also means that you are fit for survival if you are born into a rich or upper-middle class family. You are also fit for survival if you can take part of the community's wealth for yourself.

That's not even getting on the genetic and memetic effects of this "social Darwinism".
In effect, due to the stratification of social classes, this means that society settles down on genetic and memetic stagnation (this is what certain groups, like nazis, want). They want to stop social progress, and preserve their regressive social norms and systems.

You know what Darwin says about species that fail to adapt to the process of evolution?

They die.

OP you posted this on /pol/ ages ago and it was the exact same thing.
The left-right paradigm doesn't work because it is an oversimplified interpretation of politics and on top of that it holds equality as the basis for the scale.
Left-wing means that they are for equality, right-wing means anything else because they do not concentrate on equality at all. A 1-dimensional scale is useless because the only thing it does is say "you agree more with these guys than those guys", which fosters an us-them mentality.
On top of that you are STILL using it as an appeal to moderacy and STILL using right-X, centre-X, left-X, which defeats the entire fucking purpose of making a scale.
>marxism(and derivatives), anarchism, primitivism
Anarchism is neither exclusive to leftism (is not based on the premise of equality, some derivatives however are) nor is it extreme so placing it in far-left idiotic.Same applies to primitivism which is based on an isolationist perspective, it is not inherently left or right, only derivatives are.
>democratic-socialism, left-liberalism, social-democracy, centre-of-left-liberalism
Two of these are left of X, which in itself is pretty retarded. One of them is socialism + X and then the other is X + socialism. If you're going to make a list then at least make one using either unique names that allow to distinguish between them in a better way than just "oh it's a bit more left than the other one".
>right-libertarianism
Previously this used to be centre-libertarianism. If you have no basic libertarianism then what purpose does adding "right-" serve? Even if you meant liberalism to be just a shortened version of libertarianism, you still have no basic form of it, you only have X-libertarianism.
>centre-of-right-conservatism, neo-conservatism, moderate-islamism, paleo-conservatism, ultra-conservatism
Ignoring the "centre-of-right-" part of it, you are showing very clear signs of appeal to moderacy with the use of moderate-islamism (which is not a religion and not an economic system) and ultra-conservatism. Not being a limp-dicked faggot now makes you somehow an extremist? Compromise is not desirable for the simple reason that incompatible ideas are combined for the sake of "tolerance", thus making both ideas (which could be perfectly viable on their own) not work.
>anarcho-capitalism, radical-islamism, third-positionism(and derivatives), neo-reactionaries
Not only did you put basic anarchism in the far left simply even though it has nothing to do with equality by itself, but you also thought that adding "-capitalism" will all of a sudden cause it to fly over to the extreme opposite of the scale. Yet another appeal to moderacy with radical-islamism by putting it in the extreme right because you don't like it, this also very clearly shows how the right-wing is used to label everything that isn't socialism/communism, with the use of "extreme-" for the sake of showing how much you disagree with them. Adding the small note on the corner clearly shows that the scale is not proper, since there is no clarity between where they proclaim to be on the scale and where they are labelled. If the answer was clear (indicating that it was actually a good scale) then the small note would not be necessary.

On a side-note, the fact that you are trying to "fix" it indicates that it is not a very reliable scale, since otherwise people wouldn't have to constantly redefine what is left-wing and right-wing.

>>422
Good point, last time I saw it there it was a bit different though, the only difference I can remember was that the left was smaller and centre only had "centre-libertarianism".

>>433
>Yes it is. Learn 2 anarchism.
Anarchism, as the name suggests, requires the absence of a government to exist. No matter what definition you take, no matter what perspective you use, the ONLY defining characteristic of anarchism is that there is no government. The reasons as to why it may be a superior/inferior version and how it may evolve is a different story, but that is what anarchism is. Leftism always proclaims equality, the right-wing does not have any defining characteristic other than the fact that it does not share equality.
Anarchism in its basic form is neither left nor right, since it is merely defined by the lack of governance. In order for it to be left-wing it would need to be built on the premise of equality, which it is not, only derivatives thereof are since they incorporate more than just the lack of governance. Whether you think anarchism will CAUSE equality or not does not matter, since that is only you stating a means to an end.
>Are you familiar with anarchist theory, history, and practice?
>faggot denies my statement
>proceeds to say I know nothing
>"educate yourself shitlord, I don't have to tell you anything"
>proclaims superior knowledge
>does not back this up
>"t-trust me, I-I think I know more than you"
Guess why I don't agree with you

>They aren't even anarchists.
narcho-capitalism (also referred to as free-market anarchism,[2] market anarchism,[3] private-property anarchism,[4] libertarian anarchism[5]) is a political philosophy which advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty, private property, and open markets.
>elimination of the state
>not anarchism
>"hurr durr I don't like this type of anarchism, therefore it isn't anarchism, since anarchism is a good thing and anarcho-capitalism isn't"

>"Anarcho"-capitalism shouldn't even be on the spectrum, it isn't a real ideology
I would understand if you said that it isn't viable, but saying that it isn't an ideology? Are you retarded?

>However, the extreme "stateless" capitalism that these people want to impose is indeed far right by any definition of the category.
But you just said it shouldn't be on the spectrum, now you are saying it should be but only on the right? It was just one sentence apart, for fuck's sakes.

>>573
>Whats funny is that /pol/ claims not to think in the left-right paradigm while exclusively thinking in the left-right paradigm.
>Marxism/Communism/Socialism are always considered to be on the left, this is widely-accepted to be true
>right-wing is alleged to contain Nazism, Libertarianism and Conservatism
>Nazists themselves consider themselves to be centrist, as to Libertarians, obviously the ones talking about themselves would know better what they themselves believe
>both are proclaimed by the media to be right-wing, anyone claiming Communists are right-wing is ridiculed for being brain-dead
>Marxists/Communists/Socialists disagree with each other on various aspects but the thing they always agree on is equality
Care to tell me what Nazists, Libertarians, Conservatives and Anarcho-Capitalists have in common philosophically that isn't simply not believing something? In fact, considering we are talking about OP's image, why not just throw Islam into it as well? What do they have in common philosophically? After all, if they are all right-wing then they should have an underlying premise they can all agree on.

You say that I "exclusively think" in the left-right paradigm but how else will you provide criticisms of something without actually fucking discussing it? Should I just talk about something completely unrelated and pretend I actually showed the left-right paradigm to be unreliable?

>>574

>butthurt
ayy

Look, the sole reason that I am inquiring about your knowledge about anarchism is because you show the common misconceptions of a /pol/lack who has only ever met "anarcho"-capitalists. Your comments about leftism confirms it.

The modern left is characterized by a working class character, actually, it is not related to equality (that is exclusively a tradition of liberal schools of thought).

As for the etymological origins of the word anarchism, it requires a two-part analysis. One is the obvious -ism, which denotes inclination or preference for (in this case, anarchy). As for the "anarchy" part itself, it doesn't mean "without government", it literally means "without ruler". The analogy with chaos came later, when rulers of various kinds insisted that without their rule the world would indeed become chaos.
No form of capitalism can be anarchic, as capitalism in itself requires rulers (at the very least, and ignoring the various social implications of capitalism, the capitalist class itself would be the rulers).

But why would the etymological definition be more interesting than the historical definition?
As for history, the first person to declare himself anarchist was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, french socialist of the 19th century.
Space and time (and, to be honest, personal interest in this exchange) preclude the possibility of an extensive analysis of Proudhon's thought and works, but you can start with What is Property?, a book in which Proudhon denies the coherence, validity or desirability of property itself.
You could go on to System of Economical Contradictions, where he describes the evolution and problems of the capitalist system. For his thoughts on political organization, see The Federative Principle.

The political and economical school of anarchism was later developed by philosophers, scientists and revolutionaries such as Mikhail Bakunin, Piotr Kropotkin, Nestor Makhno, Errico Malatesta, and a number of others.
I could list a number of their contributions, but suffice it to say that they are characteristically socialist, and anti-capitalist. As anarchism, in fact, is.

What is "anarcho"-capitalism, then? You can look at the person who modeled the ideology, Murray Rothbard. One thing of note of this man is that he was a pretty big fan of revisionism (ideological and even historical), many of which his claims about anarchism are.
In any case, whatever "anarcho"-capitalists wish to say, Rothbard himself, ironically enough, didn't consider himself an anarchist, and accused people who identified them as such to be "completely ahistorical".

>[2][3][4][5]
I was honestly expecting sources for that, but I guess that's too much to ask.
Let us see:
>free-market anarchism
This term is quite confusing. On the one hand, I get that it is supposed to mean free-market capitalism (neoliberalism) mixed with "anarchism", somehow. As I have (and any anarchist theorist in history has) pointed out, this is oxymoronic.
However, when push comes to shove I'm sure someone (not you, as I know you don't know the first thing about anarchism, but someone else) will point out to various market strategies and models of anarchism, which brings me to:
>market anarchism
Okay, and this is supposed to mean… what exactly? See, the problem is that stupid people make an habit out of reading terms, associating them with their own misconceptions of things, and building further misconceptions from there.
While "market anarchism" is a thing, people who aren't anarchists, and indeed some market anarchists themselves, have a hard time figuring out what it means.
A market anarchist (take an anarcho-mutualist, for instance) seeks to use the workings of markets to empower the working masses, against the bourgeois minority. In mutualism (which really, every form of market anarchism is a derivation of) the strategy is built around having the worker masses collaborate mutually to develop themselves economically and outcompete the capitalist class. Once every worker has control of their own labor and production, you would have socialism, which is the entire goal and purpose of market anarchism. Socialism.

>b-b-b-b-b-b-but muh state s-s-socialism
>socialism is everything the state does
Who would say that socialism actually existed before Lenin, or even Marx, got his hands on it?
Not much to add here, if you want to know more, research the many schools of socialism that existed before marxism, including anarchism.

>private property anarchism
Yeah, this is plain oxymoron, and it is obvious if you read the book that inaugurated the school of anarchism.

>libertarian anarchism
Now, this is pretty funny. Because, anarchists are indeed libertarians. All of them.
The funny thing is that people who use this term have a completely warped idea of libertarianism.
Let us analyze the term in the same way that we did to anarchism a few paragraphs ago, shall we?
There is the -ism part, referring to liberty. The thing here is that the people who use this term within the capitalist framework ignore the lack of freedom of the working class, making capitalism completely antithetical to liberty.
As for the historical origin, well, Proudhon was one of the first people to be called a "libertarian". You can already see that libertarianism and anarchism are deeply intertwined, however, this makes libertarianism essentially socialist, not anarchism capitalist.
The term "libertarianism" only equals neoliberal in the US and politically related countries because their political lingo is intentionally mutilated to prevent discourse that could threaten the status quo (Noam Chomsky, a contemporary anarchist and linguistical scientist and philosopher, has some interesting things to say about this).

The rest of your "argument" is quite disingenuous. I explained the position of "anarcho"-capitalism quite explicitly: it isn't an ideology, it is neoliberal entryism to anarchism.
Now, if you want to take the proposals in a vacuum (apart from any connection to anarchism) and wanted to categorize them in any way (apart from any sort of spectrum chart), they would indeed by very far right. Very far.

I will also mention that gambling your entire argument on the assumption that the person calling you out doesn't know the facts is a stupid strategy and will make you look like an idiot.

>>580

>This is correct. This is how the word is actually used today.
Maybe if you are a burger (as mentioned earlier, your political language is intentionally crippled to prevent significantly dangerous discourse).

>You're playing an etymological game here.
This again. Look, if any anon makes an etymological argument, I am going to make an etymological criticism of the argument. It's called immanent critique.

>The modern understanding of anarchism is the absence of government,
The "modern understanding" of anarchism is widespread chaos (this has been done intentionally as a product of linguistic framing of language as explained before).
Even if some burgermen have taken to call themselves "anarchists", while simultaneously revising the entire theory of actual political and economical anarchism, doesn't change much.
Nor is it the political meaning of anarchism outside of burgerland or other countries that have imported their politics.
This sort of appeal to popularity doesn't even work if you consider worldwide movements, discourse, or hell even if you include the politically illiterate instead of an isolated group of people who specifically subscribe to that particular definition.

>just as the modern understanding of libertarianism is limited or no government.
Similar criticism apply, this is only in countries politically close to the US.

>As you note, anarchism is a form of libertarianism.
Yes, but the point is that the historical and even etymological definitions of the word make both anarchism and libertarianism as socialist, anti-capitalist theories.

>Not true. Hierarchy is not the same as government.
Hierarchy is a system of rulers (literally "rule of the priests"). Etymologically, it does seem like one.
Even putting etymology aside, "anarcho"-capitalists propose essentially a privatized government. One with private courts and private armies.
Also, child markets. Lots of child markets.

>commander of an army
Commander of a voluntary army. Which elected their own commanders. And were subject to recall at any time.

>>581

>I don't think you know Anarcho-Capitalist theory or history as well as you think you do.
I probably don't know as much as an actual "an"cap, but I know enough to know that they have nothing to do with anarchism.
I also find little reason to invest myself heavily on research of such a theory, for reasons that will become obvious below.

>The term Anarcho-Capitalist was coined by Murray Rothbard and it comes from two places.
I did note that in my post, I also noted that Rothbard himself did separate himself from anarchists, and indeed considered himself non-anarchist.

>One place is from 19th century American Individualist Anarchist thinkers, most notably Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker in their characterization of the state, but not in their characterization of value or economic processes. The other place is Austrian Economics, characterized by the work of Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Pre-Mises Austrians, Frederic Bastiat/other classical liberals, and the members of the Economics profession today who consider themselves Austrians.
Yes, I am aware of all of that, I don't see how that invalidates a single thing I've said.
He took the individualist anarchist conception of the state (a rather lacking conception of the state when compared to class struggle anarchists) and then revisioned his way out of all the reasons the state was the way it is (that is, the scientific characterization of the state made by anarchists) and essentially put their conclusion in a vacuum, where he could play with austrian economics to his liking.
If you understand the bases for anarchist theory it doesn't make an ounce of sense. First of all, austrian economics are a system of deduction based on arbitrarily set axioms, which is a completely pre-scientific approach to knowledge. Furthermore, the austrian school doesn't follow any of the philosophical tenets of anarchism (materialism, dialectics, etc). Not even their political and economic conclusions (socialism, mutualism, syndicalism, etc).

What Rothbard did was take some individualist anarchist thinkers (by the way individualists have never even been very popular in any anarchist movement, let alone a revolution) and, in revisionist fashion, stripped all their criticisms of wage labor (slavery) and capitalism, and tucked on his austrian theories to a conclusion that was divorced from them. A complete hack job.
I also can't stress enough the fact that Rothbard himself considered he was divorced and separated from anarchists.

>However, there's a number of issues with just dismissing them as not anarchist. The first being that the colloquially, anarchist means the dissolution of the state military, police, and courts.
>I'm using the word to mean what it means to everyone colloquially, even if the etymology doesn't make sense.
>Similarly anarchist colloquially means the dissolution of state activities such as police, courts, and military,
See posts above, but no, that's wrong. Colloquially, anarchism means widespread chaos. As I pointed out, it means stateless socialism both etymologically and historically. Even inside political circles, the term doesn't even exist outside of the US and related countries.

>and so if someone calls themselves an Anarcho-Capitalist, they mean that they are a capitalist to the point of the dissolution of state activities to be handled on the market.
This is wrong in so many ways.
Firstly, you can dissolve the state and let activities be handled by the market. You can be a market anarchist (as pointed out before, a mutualist). The thing is (and this has also been pointed out before), the function of those markets is to outcompete and collapse the capitalist system, and make instead a socialist system where every worker owns his or her own labor, in which the markets would ensure the continuation of socialism. In other words, market anarchism is a reform strategy in which workers can organize to mutually help each other and economically attack the bourgeoisie and other wage masters. It is a complete antithesis of capitalism.
Secondly, the existence of markets without state is hindered, and may be impossible. For a throughout explanation, see anarchist David Graeber's book Debt: the first 5000 years.
Thirdly, people who call themselves "anarcho"-capitalists aren't, in my experience, concerned with a system of liberty, but more like their own petty bourgeois desires. That, or they are just plain entryists.

>The other thing is that, as mentioned, American Anarchist thinkers, Lysander Spooner especially, are part of the Anarcho-Capitalist tradition, and they borrowed their ideas of Proudhon. So its false to say they're completely removed from the Anarchist tradition.
While Spooner was profoundly individualist, he still saw many flaws of the capitalist system, and never to my knowledge supported any version of capitalism, even a "stateless" one.
Proudhon, on the other hand, was profoundly socialist and proponent of the worker masses, and as pointed out the only saw markets as a tool for class struggle against capitalism and the bourgeoisie. He would have aggressively rejected "anarcho"-capitalism if such a concept existed at the time. He always considered anarchism to be an enemy of capitalism.

>These people by the way are more likely to identify as libertarians
As has also been pointed out, libertarian is also a word for anti-authoritarian socialists.

>Your criticism applies to one type, and not the other. The one to which it applies is a minority of people who call themselves ancaps or identify as anarchists.
I beg to differ, see above. Though I'll agree those other guys don't have anything to do with anarchism either.
Not that either would, in my experience, notice the difference. Most "an"caps that have I encountered (none IRL, btw) don't have an actual grasp of politics or economics, they just feel alienated from the state and want a petty bourgeois accommodation to their rejection of other authorities that aren't themselves. Which is far more erroneous, egocentric, and bourgeois than any (even) individualist anarchist ever was.

>>588

I take issue to you claiming that I "haven't taken my anarchism directly from Proudhon" and then saying things that clearly demonstrate you haven't even read Proudhon yourself.

You say that land can be claimed on the basis of labor and trade. Proudhon, on the very book you wrongly cite, disproves that such activities are a legitimate cause for property (see the relevant chapters of What is Property?).

The type of property Proudhon talks about in his book is any sort of claim to the land (by the state or private bourgeoisie) that prevented a worker from freely exercising his or her labor, without control or conditions by the owner of the land or the factories or any other property.

I will also ask you to clarify further your beef with Chomsky, because everything you just posted boils down to "I don't like him". I've personally never had citation issues with Chomsky's work, maybe you can provide a source on that?

>Fundamentally, there's nothing to stop a guy going out to a rural area and setting up a farm under anarchy defined as an absence of the state and its institutions. And there's nothing stopping him from defending that property. And there's nothing stopping him from hiring a company to protect that property. The property protection comes from his willingness to engage in Pyrrhic fights over it, which makes stealing property expensive and dangerous. Why do people engage in Phyrric fights over property, even if the costs outweigh the benefits? Who knows? Yet its the case nonetheless.
This is neither a part of anarchist theory, or even something I've empirically observed in real life.
Not to mention the various holes in such a theory (for example, it is far more profitable for the defense company to simple expropriate the proprietor instead of protecting the property for a fee).

>Nobody likes the douche who thinks they know all there is to know already, especially if they're a Chomskyite. And its not even that someone is uninformed, its the attitude of, "I already know everything, so its time to stop learning". Despite /pol/'s rants about cuckolding, that's the real degeneracy.
I also take issue with the fact that you put yourself on this sort of moral and intellectual high ground while simultaneously dismissing me, and insinuating I "can't grasp either Rothbard's or Proudhon's ideas". Your understanding of anarchism if far more questionable, as not only do you revise and ignore Proudhon's (or even Spooner's) thought at will, you even ignore the rest of the anarchist school of thought (Bakunin, Kropotkin, Makhno, Malatesta, Goldman, etc).

Maybe instead of revising anarchist theory you should revise your own position where you dismiss people as douches simply because they've read philosophers and scientists you disagree with. As for learning, I am learning, but unfortunately I'm a mortal man like anyone else and I have to pick what I am going to learn about. It's called opportunity cost, something "an"caps are pretty big on while simultaneously attaching a bunch of unrelated crap to the concept.

So in classic douche fashion I will now invite you to actually read Proudhon or any other legitimately anarchist thinker and then come back and tell me where exactly they say anything that could be constructed as a defense of "anarcho"-capitalism.

>>582
>burger

Boy, keeping up on the fast-changing world of image board memes!

>The "modern understanding" of anarchism is widespread chaos

That is one definition of the term anarchy, but we are talking about political philosophy.

>Nor is it the political meaning of anarchism outside of burgerland or other countries that have imported their politics.

Anarchism and anarchy in political philosophy means basically what I and the other anon have said that it means, a political system without government.

For example

>In international relations theory, anarchy is the concept that the world system is leaderless: there is no universal sovereign or worldwide government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_%28international_relations%29

Nobody gives a damn about some anarchist tradition. It's simply a descriptive label.

>Similar criticism apply, this is only in countries politically close to the US.

No, that is true everywhere.

>Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgement.

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

>Yes, but the point is that the historical and even etymological definitions of the word make both anarchism and libertarianism as socialist, anti-capitalist theories.
>Hierarchy is a system of rulers (literally "rule of the priests"). Etymologically, it does seem like one.

Take it to >>>/etymology/

>Commander of a voluntary army. Which elected their own commanders. And were subject to recall at any time.

My only point was that the Black Army was a hierarchy. Democracy is hardly anti-hierarchy.

>Anarchism and anarchy in political philosophy means basically what I and the other anon have said that it means, a political system without government.
Exactly.