Anarchism - without adjectives

SOUNDING OFFFFFFFFF

Roman architecture is defined by an arch schism from the Grecians.

Yeah, they should cut the crap and just admit they are all anarchists, or communists to be more precise.

I wouldn't support any movement that encourages the abolishment of private property. They say they have no adjectives, but it's still rooted in some form of communism/ collectivism. Anarcho-capitalism is never invited to the anarchist club :(

>>4
I just want to say: FUCK CAPITALISM.
Once and for all. Okay?

why is this not an image board?

>>5
Thank you for saying it.
Now, sit down.
Everyone else, let's resume discussion.

>>5
FUCK CAPITALISM
wow, so that's so shocking in this day and age, go listen to greenday you edgy rebel

Ew, greenday. Try a little Jello, buddy.

>>9
Try a little Jello, buddy.
Thanks, I enjoy jello, I will.

>>5
Yeah, fuck capitalism for ensuring that everyone had the right to purchase private property. I'd much rather be a serf working on a noble's land.

>>8 I love how you think greenday is edgy

>>12
I love how you don't understand sarcasm.

>>12
>>13
hahahaha
really? greenday was the best you could come up with?

>>12
>>13
>>14
I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of pseudo-rebel punk bands, sorry. Would you prefer it if I had said radiohead?

>>11
Thats exactly what you'll be in a capitalistic society too.

>>16
I don't think you understand what feudalism is. And a world without private property would be a lot more ripe for exploitation than one with private property like capitalism. Private property rights are the best way to ensure quasi-slavery never develops.

>>17
There is lots of property in feudalism you dumbass. Only nobles own it.

>>18 That's exactly how it would be in a communistic society. Only instead of nobles owning property, the state does. The party leaders simply become the nobles, while the workers are now the same as serfs, they don't own the land anymore. Private property rights for all, not just nobles or the state. Any form of collectivism is enslavement of the workers.

>>18
Capitalism = everyone is "petite bourgeois", everyone works and owns a piece of the pie

Communism = 95% of people are proletariats, no one owns anything except party members, in theory everything is collectivized and the party members are benevolent dictators but not in practice

Feudalism = 95% of people are serfs, no one owns anything except clergy, lords and barons, in theory everyone is a good christian and the clergy, lords and barons are benevolent dictators but not in practice

>>20
I could compare a beautiful chimpanzee with your mom and show that chimps are prettier than humans if I used your logic.

Comparing the best example of a group with the worst example of another group either suggests that you are absolutely retarded or that you think you are talking to retarded people.

Neither makes you sound very serious.

Try again ?

>>19

You're describing socialism, not communism.  Communism is anarchistic because the state would dissolve.  No private property and no state as well.  Of course humanity could never accomplish such an idealistic society, to suggest so would be foolish.  It's also foolish to suggest that humanity, given complete freedom, will always act benevolently.  Both individualist and collectivist systems have cracks that can be exploited and cause the whole system to fail the people.

>>21
So I should compare capitalism in practice to imaginary theoretical classless stateless communism?

I just admitted the flaws of capitalism, all I'm doing is being skeptical of your precious communism also. The absence of universal private property rights under communism in practice does as much to increase equality as the absence of universal private property rights under feudalism, property rights do not cause inequality, they quantify people's wealth thereby revealing inequality and they help protect what little property the poor have.

A logical humanist is a capitalist.

>>23
>So I should compare capitalism in THEORY to theoretical classless stateless communism?
fify

>>19
>>Only instead of nobles owning property, the state does

That's also why today's communists call that system 'state capitalism'. It failed and nobody denies it. Not even communists.

And you know why it failed? Because the soviets lost control of the state. And instead of the soviets (workers' councils) controlling the state, it was controlled by the elite of the communist party. Same goes for china of course.

>>23
How does capitalism protect the property of the poor? By privatizing the water supply? What about those who are really poor?

Capitalism is very unstable because of its structural problems(like wealth accumulation). Even if communism had never existed and capitalism was the only system we knew, it would still collapse either by the over-accumulation of wealth or by resource depletion. That's because capitalism doesn't take under consideration very important things like to guarantee a stable economic environment (in the long term), social justice or the environment. I have to admit that capitalism when it first came into existence was a great idea. Humans had to break the very long tradition of feudalism and free themselves. I think it's about time we move ahead once more - well, not right now. When the financial crisis becomes so great that only total retards are not convince that this is a structural problem of capitalism.

Just to be clear: By wealth accumulation I don't mean the healthy situation of owning basic things like clothes. I mean the spiraling situation when a tiny percentage of the world population controls the majority of wealth.

>>27
"when a tiny percentage of the world population controls the majority of wealth. "

You mean like right now?

Yes. The general 'now'. It smells of wars and revolutions don't you think? And I'm not talking about iraq type wars. I'm talking about the currency war that has already started, the race for resource monopolization, the collapse of national states and the environmental collapse. Not just shitty old time wars with rockets and jet fighters.

Someone once told me that the world war after the next will be fought with clubs and spears. This might be a bit optimistic.

I mean the spiraling situation when a tiny percentage of the world population controls the majority of wealth.
You talk like it's some new fantastic travesty but, really, that's the way it's been for ages.  Under every previous economic system in the past that I can tick off on my fingers, under every previous political ystem I can tick off under my fingers.  The only exceptions are historical footnotes who assimilated, historical footnotes who were made extinct, or those found ways to coexist but only because of their irrelevance to the juggernaut of modernity.  Even Rome dabbled in this extravagance and they're considered something of a benchmark civilization for some.

Despite reforms and revolutions, attempts at honest change and self-deception, cruel benevolence and magnanimous tyranny, extreme wealth has always been the tools of the relatively few, whether as a numerable substance or as a motivational idea.

>>26
there are no poor in capitalism.

>>27
this happens by government coercion you idiot.

>>31

I don't think we need an example of naivete in this thread but thanks anyways.

>>30
Still, the problems I mentioned like the environmental collapse and resource depletion exist and the rate by which we consume has sped up immensely. It is unrealistic to compare to past practices because this is nothing but an excuse. It doesn't solve any problems.

We're heading towards a wall at light speed. There's no point heading to the direction our ancestor have. We need to change direction or we'll crash. Simple as that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0

>>24
Sure, in theory a communism utopia is a lot better than capitalism.
>>26
How does capitalism protect the property of the poor? By privatizing the water supply? What about those who are really poor?
They would be poorer under communism because then they would have no property. The water supply in Bolivia was messed up in both private and public hands. Capitalism's structural problems occur in every system.

I already explained this, I'm just taking the impossible standards you place on capitalism and placing them on communism as well, in a deeply corrupt and flawed society (the real world) communism has about as much effect as religion on those with power, capitalism on the other hand is a physical policy rather than some mystical beliefs, ambiguous value or distant utopia, you either allow universal property rights including private ownership of the means of production or you don't.

>>33
Except that resource depletion is not specifically a capitalism problem and it's also not a wealth distribution problem.  It's a "people are alive and healthy and clever problem."  If you want to cap resource manipulation, we go back to feudalism where most people were piss-poor uneducated serfs.  Even the economy prior to the American Civil War would be unsustainable if we scaled it for current levels of sophistication, if your nostalgia glasses go back that far.

"Environmental collapse" is a curious term determined to provoke fear.  The worst thing we have to fear is making the environment inhospitable for human life, but actually collapsing?  You'd have to kill the jetstreams, at least as a start ...

>>36
Oh. Just inhospitable for HUMAN life? Oh, well, okay then. Who gives a shit about the humans? Party on!

>>37
Standard liberal argument, how can you take anything else they say serious, when at the same time they WANT the human race(whites) to die out?

>>38
Are you referring to >>37 (the liberal) or talking to >>37 in reference to >>36 (the liberal)?

If you're focusing on the use of "human life," I really didn't know what to go with in that instance because I'm riding on the reality that life on this planet is oddly tenacious.  It's survived massive climate upheavals in the past and there's no evidence that life, in general, is not surviving even despite the destructive tendencies attributed to humans.  It's just not staying the same as the way we humans have known it.  I didn't want to say "carbon life" because most of everything else is just speculative and outside of hypothetical existence all I can say for sure is that humans can push the environment to a state where they won't be around to care about what happens next.

I am not using this as an argument for disregard of environmental management or maintenance.  I am not an ardent supporter of the more eccentric extremities that some people propose in protection of the Earth; but, I am also not some third-rate Captain Planet antagonist of the week who is either just malicious or is just slightly misguided; I am an individual human being and, as such, having physical and psychological requirements that can only be fulfilled by the existence of other human beings, I am compelled to care strongly about their livelihood despite not knowing each of their names or faces.  I merely take issue with your wording.  Environmental collapse is "life is over; Earth is another Mars, just one planet closer to the star" and there's no apparent means of fulfilling that at the moment.  Making a big mess and leaving things in a state that is broken based on past models, yeah, that we can do.  That's also happened before us, without us, and yet there's still something here now to consider that.

I still don't have a good phrase to replace "human life" after saying all.

>>39
Here's the deal: It is not in our best interest to continue on out current trajectory of completely disregarding the planet and environmental issues. It is we who stand to lose in the long run. Earth will keep on going, as you have stated. Humans will most likely die out, or be significantly reduced in number.
From any standpoint, even a "selfish" objectivist one, this is a bad idea.

>>40
Yup. Very well said.

>>41
Thank-you.

ANARCHISM IS INFALLIBLE

>>43
I think America should test out Anarchy.
They should cordon off a few inner cities and tell the people "There is no law enforcement. Have at it".... I wonder what the outcome would be?...

Pretty obvious what the outcome would be, people would form their own form of government and a leader would emerge.

>>45
Yeah....of course they would...../sarcasm

>>44
At a guess, you would select that any other city but your own for that test, correct?

>>46
>>47
So what would happen then.

>>48
So what would happen then.
Whatever thou wilt.

>>48
Rape, mass murder, looting etc..  Those people kill each other for a sideways glance right now, what do you think would happen if you tell them there will be no consequences for their actions?

>>50
Who said that there would not be consequences?  Nobody, that is who.

>>51
No, you're wrong. You have said countless times that there would be no consequences.
You have disgraced your family and ancestors.

>>52
You call me ashamed? I've sucked dick, I've taken cocks thicker than your arm into my poopchute, I live day by day proud of my accomplishments. What have you accomplished?

>>53
I stand corrected.
You , sir, are the greatest sodomite to have ever walked the earth.

>>52
You have disgraced your family and ancestors.
That is easily evaded by giving them the goatfinger.

>>53
Cloan poast.

>>54
You are speaking to a RedCream cloan.

>>40
That's the thing with altruism/egoism. They complement each other.

i came here by googling cloan poast

I went to an anarchist conference last year.  It wasn't very well-organized, didn't really seem like anyone was in charge.